What do you disagree with Yahtzee on?

[negimafan587]

Practically him not liking bioshock 2. Look I know most fan don't like it, but it was imo it was the best game in the series.It had same atmosphere, better gameplay , and a simple short story. The ending was also better than 1, pictures my ass. Also flame shield activate!!!

 

[Guy from the 80's]

I disagree on not needing new consoles.

Yes graphics isnt everything, but it sure affects game atmosphere. After my computer died I started playing Skyrim on xbox, and the visual difference was huge. On the PC you can stand on top of a mountain and admire the draw distance, on xbox not so much and that removes some of the feeling of being in a large open world.

I'm not rich but I would get the money to spend on a new console. Its a part of gaming evolution.

 

[romxxii]

That you could still beat masters at fighting games by just mashing buttons. Believe me, I've tried. It doesn't work when they can pull of 30 hit combos.

Well, it's Yahtzee, so there's bound to be exaggeration in that statement. It's true that you really can't button-mash your way past a tourney-level player. You can, however, be unpredictable enough to throw him off guard. Case in point: One of my friends is far more skilled than me in Street Fighter IV, and yet I've managed to best him more than once.

Why? Because like other arcade junkies and tourneygoers, he's formed strategies and tactics against the best other players of his caliber has to offer. I, on the other hand, haven't really played fighting games since the first Darkstalkers became big, so I'm limited to old-school combos and panic-spamming hadokens. Suffice to say he didn't have my strategy scouted, at least not since 10 years ago. My win streak didn't last long, but hey, you take your victories where you can get them.

 

[FalloutJack]

Of course, one of the things you have to understand about Yahtzee is that it's HIS opinion on the matter based solely on HIS experiences on the matter...and he knows it. If we had a better time than him, then he can't account for it.

For my experience, I like his episodes, but there are some cases where I have no idea where he's coming from or why. His review of Ghostbusters... Apparently, he made a remark about controls, not being able to see what he was doing, and a few other things I couldn't understand why they were happening to him...like say the AI fucking up. That's a problem that HE had, and I doubt he lied about it.

However, my experience playing the game - putting aside the nostalgia curtain here - was that the controls worked, I had no trouble seeing what I was doing, game flowed well enough, AIs got me out of a jam more than once, and I had fun. I can't speak for the aesthetics of his experience there, but the technical ones baffle me. For gameplay mechanics to differ between us, something must've been actually wrong with the copy they gave him.

 

[Nazulu]

Oh look, my thread is revived.

I'm always puzzled why people seem to think that because something is funny it lacks relevance. "Yahtzee is not a reviewer or a critic AT ALL, he's just a funny man who makes jokey jokes." Anybody using this line just comes across as dismissing any criticism he's made, most of which are very grounded, soley because the way he brings it makes you laugh.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I've discovered from some people who can't get out of my life, that they become very dismissive of any criticism towards something they believe to be true, or in this case, really good to them. Such as when you find what you believe to be the perfect girl scenario, refusing to believe anyone who says anything bad against her name. It roughly follows the same formula anyway.

That you could still beat masters at fighting games by just mashing buttons. Believe me, I've tried. It doesn't work when they can pull of 30 hit combos.

Well, it's Yahtzee, so there's bound to be exaggeration in that statement. It's true that you really can't button-mash your way past a tourney-level player. You can, however, be unpredictable enough to throw him off guard. Case in point: One of my friends is far more skilled than me in Street Fighter IV, and yet I've managed to best him more than once.

Why? Because like other arcade junkies and tourneygoers, he's formed strategies and tactics against the best other players of his caliber has to offer. I, on the other hand, haven't really played fighting games since the first Darkstalkers became big, so I'm limited to old-school combos and panic-spamming hadokens. Suffice to say he didn't have my strategy scouted, at least not since 10 years ago. My win streak didn't last long, but hey, you take your victories where you can get them.

I guess it's possible to get so used to your enemy's moves that you can't expect anything else. However, I only know classic combo's myself and it didn't help in any form when taking on these giants because the keep trying to catch you with light but quick punches and kicks that can lead into giant combos. They just clearly had the advantage.

Also Yahtzee mentioned this for SSB Brawl where you could easily jump of the edge if mashing buttons. And in these type of fighter you can easily come from any side. Actually, when I think about it, it really depends what character you use in Brawl, and they're all a bit slower as well, plus they can't combo like they did in Melee. Hmmmm, maybe he's got a point with some fighters.

 

[Annihilist]

I'm always puzzled why people seem to think that because something is funny it lacks relevance. "Yahtzee is not a reviewer or a critic AT ALL, he's just a funny man who makes jokey jokes." Anybody using this line just comes across as dismissing any criticism he's made, most of which are very grounded, soley because the way he brings it makes you laugh.

I think people do this because they get butthurt when Yahtzee rips into their favourite games with valid criticisms, so they try to defend their games by claiming ZP is insincere.

As for the topic, I find myself agreeing with most of his reviews, actually. One thing I noticed is that he treats games in an uncannily similar way to how I treat movies and music, i.e. harshly critical and noticing every flaw. So I think we tend to be on a similar wavelength. I loved the Modern Warfare series, though, especially the first two, so there we differ. I also think Limbo was near perfect. Oh, and the original Halo. That's about it I think.

 

[Annihilist]

I disagree on not needing new consoles.

Yes graphics isnt everything, but it sure affects game atmosphere. After my computer died I started playing Skyrim on xbox, and the visual difference was huge. On the PC you can stand on top of a mountain and admire the draw distance, on xbox not so much and that removes some of the feeling of being in a large open world.

I'm not rich but I would get the money to spend on a new console. Its a part of gaming evolution.

I think the main issue with new consoles is lack of backward compatibility, which the PS3 was rightfully chastised for. Yes, you should upgrade when necessary, but you shouldn't replace your old favourite games with new ones. This is why I intend on buying a PS2 as soon as I can, rather than a PS4, because there are a bunch of old games I want to play, and I can't say I'm particularly excited about any upcoming releases (other than Beyond Good and Evil 2).

Also, graphics are not the most important thing in the world, and I've always been annoyed with fixations with graphics. It's style over substance and purely superficial. It can attract atmosphere, as you say, sure - but it's hardly the most important factor when building atmosphere. And many games don't even rely on atmosphere. Graphics are certainly overrated in my opinion, and more attention needs to be drawn to the actual quality of games.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Calling 2011's GOTY, Portal 2. He was also quite lenient on Bioware.

Other than that, nothing too major. I actually really stand by his arguments on the PS4.

His hatred for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. To be honest, I feel as though he barely gave the former a chance and then wrote of the latter due to his experience with it's predecessor. Then again, I feel that way with most of my friends, the ones who barely gave the games a shot, that is.

Did ever show himself to hate them? I thought he was just frustrated by them, but didn't really call them bad games.

But yeah, shame on him for disregarding Dark Souls.

Generally speaking, I dislike the same thing about him as about the Extra Credits guys, this attitude of theirs like they are looking for the Grand Unified Theory of All Gaming, as if games would have an objective purpose, and a theoretical "optimal game" that we just need to discover.

This just leads to arrogantly dismissing whole genres and styles,(even though they are doing exactly what their established fandom wants them to do) because they have the wrong kind of story/gameplay ratio, or they are more reliant on x value rather than y, and therefore obviously doing it wrong compared to what gaming "ought to be" about.

Hmm, I don't actually get that vibe from him at all. But I know exactly what you're saying on Extra Credits (it's one of the main reason's I don't watch it).

Does Yahtzee basically think that Japanese RPGs are crap?

I think he just can't get into them. Most modern ones are pretty divisive anyway, FXIII has a huge split in the base.

Oh yes and Demon's Souls. He was too lazy to even try and get past the first couple of levels. Granted that 'review' was more comedic because he basically said that the reason he didn't like it was because he was too shit to actually play it.

That's not an excuse. If the game doesn't teach you how to play it before it ramps up the difficulty, it's not difficult. It's being obtuse. Dark/Demon's Souls is a good aesthetic and controls, but it's fans and the touted difficulty are inexcusable.

Can you clarify your argument? Cause I think both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are very straightforward on their main gameplay mechanics. The only stat that ever needed to be explained to me was poise.

I always hate it when he brings up his "a game has to stand a singleplayer alone" argument. I mean, at least if you're going to do that then don't review multiplayer-centric games like Battlefield and then give it a score based on the campaign.

But Battlefield 3 the Modern Warfare games came with campaigns, that opens them up to criticism on that field.

I disagree with allot of things he says but I think the big one is his negative opinion on the Metal Gear Solid games, specifically MGS4, which is still one of my favorite games this console generation. However his criticisms were quite valid more often then not, Hideo Kojima really does need an editor of some description, and the gameplay/cutscene ratio is very skewed to be sure. But that's kinda what I like about Yahtzee, he makes you look at games from a different perspective, helps you find the faults in even some of your favorites, and without acknowledging past mistakes, how can we ever hope to correct them in future games?

And besides, Yahtzee's just one dude, with just one opinion, so naturally you'll disagree with him from time to time.

Not to call you out or anything, but just add my two cents. I am a long time MGS-fan (who dislikes MGS4), and I thought everything he said about MGS4 was valid.

I disagree on not needing new consoles.

Yes graphics isnt everything, but it sure affects game atmosphere. After my computer died I started playing Skyrim on xbox, and the visual difference was huge. On the PC you can stand on top of a mountain and admire the draw distance, on xbox not so much and that removes some of the feeling of being in a large open world.

I'm not rich but I would get the money to spend on a new console. Its a part of gaming evolution.

The price should justify more than just graphics then. Otherwise everyone is better off buying a better PC for an extra 100-200 dollars.

 

[Mikejames]

Though I can't say that I hated everything he's torn apart, I think I do have a fairly similar taste in games.

I found merit in Dark Souls though, after I found enough free time to waste on it. Had fun with The Witcher 2 as well, though I am playing the enhanced edition, and the interface is still pretty bad..

Oh, and I stand by enjoying Oblivion more than Skyrim.

I'm always puzzled why people seem to think that because something is funny it lacks relevance. "Yahtzee is not a reviewer or a critic AT ALL, he's just a funny man who makes jokey jokes." Anybody using this line just comes across as dismissing any criticism he's made, most of which are very grounded, soley because the way he brings it makes you laugh.

He's a self-proclaimed cynical nitpick, but I agree that being comedic about his critique doesn't make them all baseless.

 

[Entitled]

Generally speaking, I dislike the same thing about him as about the Extra Credits guys, this attitude of theirs like they are looking for the Grand Unified Theory of All Gaming, as if games would have an objective purpose, and a theoretical "optimal game" that we just need to discover.

This just leads to arrogantly dismissing whole genres and styles,(even though they are doing exactly what their established fandom wants them to do) because they have the wrong kind of story/gameplay ratio, or they are more reliant on x value rather than y, and therefore obviously doing it wrong compared to what gaming "ought to be" about.

I'm mostly talking about his Extra Punctuation rants, like how Traditional Adventure Games Are Rubbish [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9820-Traditional-Adventure-Games-Are-Rubbish], or about the necessary balance of Context, Challenge and Gratification [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification].

Both of these, and also some other articles, are based entirely around the assumption that games NEED to have a certain amount of gameplay to be called proper games, and if you enjoy one with only a few non-challenging token features wrapped around by an interesting narrative, you are somehow doing it wrong.

 

[Lilani]

IIRC he once mentioned Dear Esther and about how it didn't count as a "game" because it didn't allow for much input from the player. There are many ways Dear Esther could have been done, but I'm fine with the way it plays now. The best thing about games is that there are a bajillion formats and play styles to be explored. Dear Esther may be rather hands-off, but it was definitely something new and it's a formula that can be tried again and improved upon in the future.

But maybe that's just because I'm a soon-to-be computer animation graduate and pretty textures and lighting are enough to get me going.

 

[AITH]

I was looking forward to Yahtzee's review of Bioshock Infinite because while I feel it's an enjoyable above average game, I don't think it nearly deserves the glowing reviews it has been receiving, especially when compared to the intended gameplay as shown in the demo.

Unfortunately, when I tuned in to see Yahtzee rip on BI, he was drinking the kool-aid too and mentioned nothing about the painfully linear story and the deceivingly corridor-like nature of the levels in comparison to both its predacessors and the near-open-world style of the demo.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

think the main issue with new consoles is lack of backward compatibility, which the PS3 was rightfully chastised for. Yes, you should upgrade when necessary, but you shouldn't replace your old favourite games with new ones. This is why I intend on buying a PS2 as soon as I can, rather than a PS4, because there are a bunch of old games I want to play, and I can't say I'm particularly excited about any upcoming releases (other than Beyond Good and Evil 2).

I cant speak for the PS3, but 360 has a pretty fair backward compatibility. You cant get (not sure if you know or not) acheivements and you disconect from live playing them.

Also, graphics are not the most important thing in the world, and I've always been annoyed with fixations with graphics. It's style over substance and purely superficial. It can attract atmosphere, as you say, sure - but it's hardly the most important factor when building atmosphere. And many games don't even rely on atmosphere. Graphics are certainly overrated in my opinion, and more attention needs to be drawn to the actual quality of games.

Graphics are not the most important thing but outdated visuals ruins some of the fun for me and I'm not afraid to say it. There is nothing wrong with wanting better despite a game being good. Halo was unbelievable when it came out and despite the gameplay being superb the graphics sure added a huge bonus to the experience.
I also remember being mighty impressed with Gears when that came out, and seeing previews of the improved lighting for Gears 2 was exiting to say the least. Better visuals adds awe factor and I really look forward to seeing how the next consoles turns out.

And then theres the raising the bar of what a console can pull of. The creators of heavy rain (I think it was them) said they could do amazing things on the PS4, so deeper and more complex games is something I really look forward to.