godgravity said:
MysticSlayer said:
I think he was complaining just for the sake of it. In other words, he was being Yahtzee.
I think he was complaining *because he's a critic.* I think that's what I like most about Yahtzee. Even if he enjoys a title overall, he's going to criticize. I think he fundamentally still understands that glorifying a great game is failing to criticize it.
He's not a critic. He's an entertainer.
While Yahtzee does have some critical chops, they're more often seen in "Extra Punctuation" than in ZP. In ZP, he has repeatedly felt very comfortable making jokes about a part of the game that, if you've played it in more depth than he has, is visibly untrue, which would torpedo his entire critical perspective if he were a critic. At best, ZP criticizes narrow areas of a given game's design and does so in a manner that prioritizes humor over accuracy.
For example, as was noted upthread, he makes a whole point over the introduction of magical resurrections in MKX's plot. Yes, MK has made a series-long habit out of the life-death revolving door, but within this game, which he is criticizing, as Uncle_Brainhorn says upthread, it is a major story beat that the resurrections that did occur were a happy accident that now cannot be replicated. People say as much point-blank to Scorpion several times over the course of his chapter. Yahtzee has thus based a heavy portion of his "review" of the game's narrative design on something which is provably false.
This is not to say you shouldn't enjoy ZP. I often do. It is not a useful critical analysis of anything it covers, however, and is useful only as humor. If this is what you think is a criticism, your perspective on the subject is desperately flawed.
