To all the people that got with the 1 day thing. Okay I get it, I still don't know how games in Australia go but often (and this also happen to reviewers in web pages such as Polygon) they receive an early access copy of the game (nowadays I find it hard not to have access to say ... a Steam Early copy of the game for a reviewer to be provided with) so they can write the review and yada yada yada, so it's not like is necessary to have a physical copy of the game at release date per-se nowadays when reviewers do get that kind of access before release (how much time before release is left to debate, but at least 4 or 5 days before release so reviewers can write up the summary, like Jim Sterling who had a write up and a video review of the game at release date).
Zachary Amaranth said:
I thought the point of Zero Punctuation was to take the piss out of games and very very occasionally praise them.
To the point of Wolfensteain and indie games, Yahtzee has addressed both of these rather recently. Even assuming Wolfenstein came out on time in Australia (ha!), you're not going to see him write, animate and record a review within a DAY. It came out Yesterday. And Indie games on Steam? He made his stance on that clear a week or two ago.
Maybe you don't like his reasons (though that would be baffling with Wolfenstein), but they are what they are.
Here I'm not expecting for him to praise it (though doing so would encourage me more to buy it), but rather see his views on it to see if it's worth the effort. I guess I got more used to his videos over the YT page with Gabriel, which they get to a bit of in-depth conversations about some games and characters. Still, I did forget the comedic value that ZP has vs it's actual reviewing content, but I can't ignore some of the points that come across the puns (given his appreciation for the Beatles and appreciation for killing Nazis, it wouldn't be to hard to come with ... something interesting, since Wolfenstein is basically toying with an alternative future with Nazi's 60s rock versions and all that).
I tend to watch ZP for sometimes for it's reviewing value and because I can "identify" more with Yathzee rather than generic IGN reviewer, since he basically runs down his experience from the game rather than a fucking checklist of the game's features (as is often the case). I know Jim Sterling got that covered but I think (and this a personal opinion, not a statement) he didn't liked the game because of how the premise toyed with the core concept, and that is something that people who have different kind of tendencies over different aspects of narrative clash with each other as of not having a consensus in the overall experience because of these contradicting views (not to say that his Wolfenstein review was bad, or that he reviewed the game bad or anything, but rather than is just not a view I could accept as definitive about the game, well after the Polygon review).
It shouldn't be down to critics to determine what I should or should not buy, but they do summarize what a game as a whole is, I watch different reviews from different sources just to get a glimpse of what could be interesting for me, only to find that is all a mess of conflicting views, ideas, concepts, bribery and so on, hence why I ended up relaying more on articles and stuff to give me a view of the game as it is, and how the experience plays out.
