And now I'm really curious what Yahtzee's Game of the Year will be. I mean, The Last of Us and GTA5 were both kinda meh in his opinion, so the only candidate left is Bioshock:Infinite?
ProfessorLayton said:It's interesting how when Yahtzee doesn't want to like a game, he brings up plot points that he doesn't particularly like and focuses on them. He did the same thing with the Last of Us.
Honestly, I miss the days when Zero Punctuation was about criticizing games due to actual issues with the gameplay and mechanics. There was hardly a word here about the gameplay itself. Yeah, the planes handle poorly but that's all that I got from this review. It really just seems lazy to me and an attempt to run against the mainstream. It's like he watched some character footage on YouTube and based the entire video on that.
I can tell you firsthand that Saints Row 4 is absolute garbage and not even accidentally good. It's not even a matter of opinion. It's glitchy, boring, has absolutely no sense of pacing, most of the content is literally copy-pasted from Saints Row 3, the missions are insultingly easy, and the superpowers simply break the game.ImBigBob said:Yeah, I knew you were going to hate it. Further justification for me to not buy it! Plus I still need to get Saints Row 4.
I could go on for hours on why I love this game.Marik Bentusi said:What he describes is pretty much the perspective I got as someone that never played GTA. Aside from a couple hours in GTA2 with a dozen silly cheats enabled 'cause the missions bored the snot out of me.
I expected the whole sandbox thing to make for more organic "Fuck yeah" moments tho. 'cause otherwise the game looks like a collection of games I already have, just not done as in-depth or with the variety in setting.
So I really bet everything on that "organic gameplay" wildcard that, fickle as it is, apparently just didn't resonate with Yahtzee.
Can someone that actually played (and perhaps even liked) the game elaborate with something specific? "It had great characters" or "shooting the gun feels really good" wouldn't tell me a whole lot.
It's funny how you call me a fanboy. First off, this is the first GTA game I've ever purchased. I've never even played any of the other ones for more than half an hour. I liked Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire, but that would hardly make me a fanboy. You won't even go into anything else I say because absolutely nothing I said would have pinned me as a fanboy, you're just looking for a random insult. I also haven't even tried connecting to GTA online yet because I knew it was going to be a mess ever since they announced that there would be an online mode.JamesStone said:Aaaaaahhh, the scout of the fanboy rage finally arrived. Finally gave up on trying to connect to GTA Online mate?
And I won't even bother going into your affirmations (it IS a matter of opinion, a very poorly justified opinion in your case) besides the glitchy part. You do know it's purposefully glitchy? Because they're taking down a simulation? And creating these glitches? Let me guess, it gets glitchier closer to Rift Events [rolls eyes].
The whole idea that Saints row puts "fun above all else" is kind of silly. It's not like games like GTA are not designed to be fun, it's just that it has a story to go with it.IamLEAM1983 said:It's mostly a question of what's being done with the sandbox tools.Sgt. Sykes said:Hmm okay, he didn't like it that much I guess.
One thing I don't understand though, why is Saints Row considered 'fun' and the later GTA aren't? Because you can run around with a dildo and other wacky stuff? That's wacky. Not necessarily fun. I didn't play GTAV of course (having only a PC and stuff), but I definitely had tons more fun with GTA IV then SR2+3 combined and if GTA had the same stupid wacky humor everywhere, I'd like it less.
Saints Row IV is the last milestone in a progressive effort to put fun ahead of any kind of lofty socio-critical or "socio-satirical" goals, so all of the wackiness you feel doesn't really bring much to the table is a reflection of Volition trying to cram in as many individually fun mechanics as possible.
It works, for the most part. You don't *have* to customize the Boss so he looks like Pennywise the Clown, but you can. You don't *have* to pack tentacle dildos and alien rifles, but you can. You don't *have* to meld into the setting's general craziness and you can design a straight-man or woman persona - but you also can choose to simply wing it and follow along. It's a big pile of inclusive mechanics that's just begging to be explored.
As for GTA - the focus is squarely on satire. If that's more up your alley, so be it. It's a horrible and horribly shallow version of America and Western culture as a whole, but that's largely the point. I, for one, don't exactly feel like playing a game that endlessly pokes fun at habits that might not be so bad, if they're used sparingly and responsibly. The LifeInvader functions being the best example of that. Rockstar is implicitly telling us that social networks favor exhibitionism or stalking behaviours, but the fact is that we all *choose* to use that service or not, and we all can choose what to put in our Facebook profiles.
For instance, I use a sock puppet-esque account, myself. Facebook is largely a tool for me to keep up with family photos and the whereabouts of a few travelling friends. I don't obsess over my amount of friends and I'm not about to start running after near-complete strangers from my elementary or high school years so I look like I'm "in" with the social networking crowd.
Considering, the game's parody of Facebook doesn't touch me. It feels contrived, like an annoying and self-deluded would-be funnyman who keeps poking you and going "HEY. HEY. LOOK. I'M BEING META. OR CLEVER. OR POSSIBLY BOTH. HEY."
Again, that's just my opinion, but "clever" writing is of lesser importance to me than the general sense that the game isn't born out of some pool of negativity. GTA V feels like it was written by dissatisfied thirtysomethings on the verge of pulling a Tyler Durden, whereas SRIV feels silly and self-assured enough to be the work of someone who loves the idiosyncrasies of popular culture and life in general.
TurkeyProphet said:Over time as I've gotten immune to Yahtzee's shtick (or either he has just gotten less funny) it has left me wondering whether he is actually reviewing things or whether he is reviewing things as this character Yahtzee would review them.
This was a particularly poor review and I actually agree with a lot of the points. It doesn't seem to have a very strong structure (there's not the usual rise to power arc), the heists felt too linear and tonally it does struggle between being serious, satirical and then just plain silly. However a lot of what he said was either irrelevant, hyper critical{/b] or just false. The characters were genuinely entertaining even if the plot was a mess and I think the reason he doesn't bother to gave any serious explanation for that comment is because he can't come up with one. In a medium where a lot of protagonists don't even speak it seems bizarre to write off some well acted and written characters so dismissively. Some of the other things he said felt like he hadn't even played it properly: the flying training missions were optional side quests so you could learn how to do some tricks not a perquisite for flying a plane.
If you're going to start of a review by comparing the people that like it to brainwashed pigs eating shit you had better bring out your most intelligent stuff.
You realize that this is a staple of the GTA games, right?Lieju said:The thing I've noticed in all the advertisements is that they are all about a blonde chick in a bikini. I don't even know who she is (maybe the daughter of one the the playable characters?), but it seems whoever is behind that decision doesn't think the protagonists are appealing enough to sell the game.
I think his point was that there are criticisms to make but this just came of as lazy.porous_shield said:TurkeyProphet said:Over time as I've gotten immune to Yahtzee's shtick (or either he has just gotten less funny) it has left me wondering whether he is actually reviewing things or whether he is reviewing things as this character Yahtzee would review them.
This was a particularly poor review and I actually agree with a lot of the points. It doesn't seem to have a very strong structure (there's not the usual rise to power arc), the heists felt too linear and tonally it does struggle between being serious, satirical and then just plain silly. However a lot of what he said was either irrelevant, hyper critical{/b] or just false. The characters were genuinely entertaining even if the plot was a mess and I think the reason he doesn't bother to gave any serious explanation for that comment is because he can't come up with one. In a medium where a lot of protagonists don't even speak it seems bizarre to write off some well acted and written characters so dismissively. Some of the other things he said felt like he hadn't even played it properly: the flying training missions were optional side quests so you could learn how to do some tricks not a perquisite for flying a plane.
If you're going to start of a review by comparing the people that like it to brainwashed pigs eating shit you had better bring out your most intelligent stuff.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not but hyper critical is seriously one of your complaints about his review? All the Zero Punctuation videos are like that. Also, they aren't reviews either and more like comedic nitpicking commentary.
Pretty much got it one.Carpenter said:This whole "SR versus GTA" thing is nothing short of silly. It's like pretending that Skyrim and Dark Souls are competing games. A person is perfectly capable of enjoying both, I think I'm living proof of that. This whole idea that you need to knock one game because you like another is just childish.
That's another good point that rarely gets brought up.Sgt. Sykes said:However, the question is - what is 'fun'? For everyone, it's something else.IamLEAM1983 said:Saints Row IV is the last milestone in a progressive effort to put fun ahead of any kind of lofty socio-critical or "socio-satirical" goals
But for some reason, it's taken for granted that fun means stuff like creating a pink fat avatar, beating people up with dildos, shooting a dubstep gun, throwing shit at houses (literally) etc. etc. like you can do in SR.
But why is this supposed to be the default meaning of fun?
Because I'm not having fun in SR.
I'm having fun in GTA IV because the driving mechanics are good, because the game at least resembles a normal story (and the episodes made the story quite great IMO). Because I can ride my bike in the night and it actually feels like a real city (albeit it's a satirical copy).
In real life, I was in a really lovely city a few months ago and some parts of Liberty City reminded me of that. It's pretty much the only way for to see such environments again.
So yea, I'm having fun in GTA IV (and other games) because it's my kind of fun and I'm not having fun in Saints Row because it's not my kind of fun.
So you can call Saints Row wacky, or random, or stupid (in a not-bad way), or whatever. But I object to simply calling it 'fun' just because it's like this. However most reviews do just that - call the mechanics in SR fun and be done with it.
I'd like to have and play GTA V because it feels like it's my kind of fun again, while I'm not interested in SR4 - for me, it's not fun.
See, I used the word fun so many times it literally lost its meaning.
BTW as for the satire in GTA series, I don't even feel it's all that relevant since it's not tied to the game mechanics anyway.
Did you read Tito's review? It wasn't "fanboy rage" and was well justified considering Tito gets paid to review games and he makes a review that does nothing but complain about the story, state things that are demonstrably false (I explained this in the "worst reviews" thread if you care to know what I am talking about) and then ends it by giving it a good score.Andy Shandy said:Sounds like I was right to avoid this, for the moment at least. Also sounds about on the same sort of wavelength as Tito's review too. Interesting to see that it hasn't had the same amount of fanboy rage about it.
That's not even close to anything the video was stating.LordTerminal said:So basically the impression I got from this was this did not deserve that billion dollars in sales it got and was basically just GTA IV minus the escort missions.
Yeah....I'll just stick to Saint's Row from now on. GTA has lost me as a franchise.
I'm getting really tired of this, especially when professionals do it to. What others exactly?ProfessorLayton said:...other open world games...
So comics are a horrible idea?Pink Gregory said:I hooted like a loon at that final joke. I'm a bad person.
Having more than 2-3 people writing a single character's dialogue is a terrible idea. Even then, it's really one writing and two editing.
She's not even a character in the game, unless she's just one of the random NPCs. I guess just showing a pair of breasts will attract people to your game.Lieju said:The thing I've noticed in all the advertisements is that they are all about a blonde chick in a bikini. I don't even know who she is (maybe the daughter of one the the playable characters?), but it seems whoever is behind that decision doesn't think the protagonists are appealing enough to sell the game.