Zero Punctuation: Mailbag Showdown
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I need only look at the forums in reply to the reviews to hear fanboys popping aneurysms from here 'til Japan. Not even when Yahtzee took a jab at Halo 3 did it generate the storm that slaughtering the Holy Cow that is SSBB did. It's completely out of proportion.Kaos Incarnate said:
/S
There's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. It's hard to convince people that this this rule has changed, though, since it was drilled into their heads by their third grade teachers.
Wow... over 1100 posts on the SSBB review and this mailbag video is already half way there... and its only Thursday. Maybe I just find it mildly entertaining when a bunch of strongly opinionated critics and players get into one room and beat the crap out of each other. Its amazing how bent out of shape people can get over a simple video game, both the lovers and haters. However, like Yahtzee said, it drives traffic, which must be quite satisfying 
I'm a web developer myself, so I can understand his joy in seeing traffic line graphs go up
Although, I can't say I agree with Yahtzee's philosophy in how he approaches games, that they're crap till proven otherwise. I try to give it the benefit of the doubt. However, I can't blame him for being like this either. Admit it guys. There are a lot of crappy games out there. With all the concentration on graphics and licensing, its hard to find a solid game that produces excellent gameplay. And then when you finally find one worth the $50-60 that you shelled out to buy it, either everyone agrees with you (Killer 7) or your forced to defend it whenever the subject presents itself (Smash Brawl).
Anywho, I found this weeks video quite entertaining. Loved the Gamespot reference too Keep up the great work Yahtzee. Give them hell
I'm a web developer myself, so I can understand his joy in seeing traffic line graphs go up Although, I can't say I agree with Yahtzee's philosophy in how he approaches games, that they're crap till proven otherwise. I try to give it the benefit of the doubt. However, I can't blame him for being like this either. Admit it guys. There are a lot of crappy games out there. With all the concentration on graphics and licensing, its hard to find a solid game that produces excellent gameplay. And then when you finally find one worth the $50-60 that you shelled out to buy it, either everyone agrees with you (Killer 7) or your forced to defend it whenever the subject presents itself (Smash Brawl).
Anywho, I found this weeks video quite entertaining. Loved the Gamespot reference too
Keep up the great work Yahtzee. Give them hell What I find funny is that anyone who critisises Yahtzee is immediately called a Nintendo fanboy. Apparently, when it comes to Yahtzee, you either like him, or you're a Nintendo fanboy, all while they argue that people have different opinions on games.Sylocat said:
Anyways, Yahtzee reacted in the same way when someone said his reviews weren't supposed to be taken serious. With childish respons and insults. The guy can't take criticism and this further proves it, which I find strange seeing as he spends most of his time criticizing other peoples work.
The best thing he could have done would be to ignore these guys, instead he decides to show how much "better" he is by telling momma jokes...
you mister Yahtzee is a god amongst men! or a demi god
now i can finaly laft at my wii-crusaders nintendo fansluts and express my POINT that even if a game got samus araan and solid snake in it well it's not metroid or metal gear!
therefore it's not obligatoooorl-yyyy GOOD!
thanks Yahtzee you awesome godhood-man you
now i can finaly laft at my wii-crusaders nintendo fansluts and express my POINT that even if a game got samus araan and solid snake in it well it's not metroid or metal gear!
therefore it's not obligatoooorl-yyyy GOOD!
thanks Yahtzee you awesome godhood-man you
I want to begin by thanking everyone here for making my research possible. Without you, I would be an unemployed academic. Forums such as these have provided me with a veritable treasure trove of linguistic data for my research, and I don't even have to go looking for obscure information in a lab or library. Don't worry, however. If any posts are published in my results, you won't be mentioned by name... because you're all anonymous to begin with. Also, since this is "academic" research, no one will be demeaned with a "HUR HUR! Ignorance!" label, just a "self-identified gamer A" or "self-identified gamer B" label. And even then, I have to decide on whether or not I will actually write up a paper on all this...
Now, if I may, I have a few questions about all this controversy. Honesty in answering would be appreciated. And pay no attention to me with my tiny spectacles and notepad, and my sudden lapse into using an Austrian accent... Und tell me about your muzzer...
(1). For those of you who "did not like the review", do you believe, at some level, that you felt it was a personal attack?
Often the motivations for "aggressive speech responses" is the feeling of personal invalidation. One of the first steps in critical reading/listening analysis after isolating the thesis is to determine the intended audience of an article. So, who is the intended audience? Then, after determining that, one should find out the writer's intent. Was Y truly trying to insult "fanboys", or is he more "preaching to the choir", and thus merely entertaining his intended audience?
I would argue the latter. Many an editorial writer is simply entertaining the intended audience rather than proving some argument or another. It's easy to notice such things when there's an "us-against-them" style used. So, that brings me to the next question:
(2). If Y is simply preaching to the choir, and you were one of the ones who responded negatively to this piece, why did you feel the need to respond?
No, this isn't a "if you knew this was crap, why did you waste your time in typing up hate mail?" question. I truly want to know why you were compelled to type up a response. Most of the responses here often employ logical fallacies and poor arguments that do not make any point whatsoever if you take a minute and look at them. Many are emotional appeals, such as ad hominem attacks ("You don't know what you're talking about, you've obviously not played the game!"), ad populanum attacks ("Y fanboys outnumber us Nintendo fanboys 4:1!"), followed up by some poor establishment of ethos ("My 1000+ posts make me more valid than you!"). Are people really arguing here, or are they simply trying to shore up emotional support for their feelings one way or another? I think we know the answer to that.
With those questions aside, I know want to get at the heart of this whole "controversy", so I have a few more questions:
1. How does one's admittedly-biased opinion really affect the opinion of a game? If entertainment is truly subjective, how can we fault someone for coming up with a negative review?
2. Why is cherry-picking e-mail responses for the purpose of entertainment "wrong"? He's entertaining his intended audience. That's his job. Nintendo's job is to profit from entertainment, and thus will do what they can to appeal to their intended audience, so would they not be guilty of the same practice? Is Nintendo going to intentionally put in bad things in their game that would alienate their audience?
Again, thank you all for the data, and thank you in advance to those who answer my questions. I have many more, but I figure I'll see what kind of responses happen from here on out before posting the next ones.
Now, if I may, I have a few questions about all this controversy. Honesty in answering would be appreciated. And pay no attention to me with my tiny spectacles and notepad, and my sudden lapse into using an Austrian accent... Und tell me about your muzzer...
(1). For those of you who "did not like the review", do you believe, at some level, that you felt it was a personal attack?
Often the motivations for "aggressive speech responses" is the feeling of personal invalidation. One of the first steps in critical reading/listening analysis after isolating the thesis is to determine the intended audience of an article. So, who is the intended audience? Then, after determining that, one should find out the writer's intent. Was Y truly trying to insult "fanboys", or is he more "preaching to the choir", and thus merely entertaining his intended audience?
I would argue the latter. Many an editorial writer is simply entertaining the intended audience rather than proving some argument or another. It's easy to notice such things when there's an "us-against-them" style used. So, that brings me to the next question:
(2). If Y is simply preaching to the choir, and you were one of the ones who responded negatively to this piece, why did you feel the need to respond?
No, this isn't a "if you knew this was crap, why did you waste your time in typing up hate mail?" question. I truly want to know why you were compelled to type up a response. Most of the responses here often employ logical fallacies and poor arguments that do not make any point whatsoever if you take a minute and look at them. Many are emotional appeals, such as ad hominem attacks ("You don't know what you're talking about, you've obviously not played the game!"), ad populanum attacks ("Y fanboys outnumber us Nintendo fanboys 4:1!"), followed up by some poor establishment of ethos ("My 1000+ posts make me more valid than you!"). Are people really arguing here, or are they simply trying to shore up emotional support for their feelings one way or another? I think we know the answer to that.
With those questions aside, I know want to get at the heart of this whole "controversy", so I have a few more questions:
1. How does one's admittedly-biased opinion really affect the opinion of a game? If entertainment is truly subjective, how can we fault someone for coming up with a negative review?
2. Why is cherry-picking e-mail responses for the purpose of entertainment "wrong"? He's entertaining his intended audience. That's his job. Nintendo's job is to profit from entertainment, and thus will do what they can to appeal to their intended audience, so would they not be guilty of the same practice? Is Nintendo going to intentionally put in bad things in their game that would alienate their audience?
Again, thank you all for the data, and thank you in advance to those who answer my questions. I have many more, but I figure I'll see what kind of responses happen from here on out before posting the next ones.
I also saw people posting "Brawl still shit" and other stuff like that so in other words they are as bad as those that are defending Brawl, because they just want to see hysterics. I myself found the review of Brawl funny, even though the problems he listed didn't seem to be true problems. Everyone who played Melee knew unlockables will be in it, there is a co-op mode in Brawl so you don't have to unlock stuff alone. Even then playing enough matches in Multiplayer will also unlock stuff. Even the zooming out camera was in Melee so I have no problem with it.Sayvara said:
woah is this going to get more replies than the smash bros review itself
heh bring in the page views!
just one thing: starting a line with 'And' is a style issue. Don't mark that one as false. In a lot of cases, it just reads nice ^^
heh bring in the page views!
just one thing: starting a line with 'And' is a style issue. Don't mark that one as false. In a lot of cases, it just reads nice ^^
