Zero Punctuation: Tomb Raider: Underworld

[pernunz]

Another cheap shot at Michael Atkinson Well done Yahtzee

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

Well that was fairly predictable. Also before I go I want to say that I have never bought nor will I buy any Tomb Raider game, so according to Yahtzee's quota I am the one person to make him regain his faith in humanity.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'd like to point out here that I'm not calling this video series bad.

Yes you are. Saying that doesn't cancel out the rest of your rant.

Oy. No he isn't. He's saying it's changed. Just read a bit farther then what you quoted, and you'd see he said that himself.

The point I'm making, and which you've neatly ignored, is that New Classic obviously got ZP wrong in the first instance by mistaking it for a review show with jokes. It's never been that. It's comedy put within the framework of a review. There's an important difference. Saying "it's changed!" is meaningless because of the ambivalent attitude towards change I outlined above, and New Classic got the meaningful part wrong.

It IS a review show with jokes! You said yourself that it's comedy within the framework of a review! You know what that means? That it's comedy WITHIN a review! Well shucks darn, that's what I've been saying. You didn't outline any difference, you merely stated: It's not a review with comedy! It's comedy in a review!

Well you sure showed me.

Yahtzee has mentioned before about 'reviewing' games and his 'reviews'. So if HE calls them reviews, what should we call them? Review frameworks injected with comedy?

But you're right, critics are quick to harp on change. But that's because it's sort of a 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mentality. The original ZPs had the clever humour we enjoy today, but with an actual review in there.
That's what Nuke is looking for (And myself, and others), and that isn't too much to ask, seeing as it was done for so long that way anyways.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

And he probably also enjoys it when other people waste their time by defending him like some brainless idiotic fanboy. You know the kind he hates so passionatly.

 

[sequio]

I went in fully aware Laura's selling point for me was her dirty bum.

 

[SYSTEM-J]

It IS a review show with jokes! You said yourself that it's comedy within the framework of a review! You know what that means? That it's comedy WITHIN a review! Well shucks darn, that's what I've been saying. You didn't outline any difference, you merely stated: It's not a review with comedy! It's comedy in a review!

I'd have thought the difference would be clear, but apparently not. The difference is what the emphasis is on. If it's a review show with jokes, the emphasis is on the review. People should tune in to watch essentially fair, informative pieces of consumer journalism that are intended primarily to help them with their purchasing decisions. Since Yahtzee quite deliberately avoids being fair, informative or even making journalism, this clearly isn't the case.

By contrast, if it's a comedy using the framework of a review, the emphasis is not on any of the criteria a proper review should consider but rather about making people laugh. In the latest episode, Yahtzee references Top Gear and Top Gear is a classic example of a show that uses the review format to generate laughs. In a recent episode, Clarkson did a "proper review" of a car after someone complained (just like you and your chum "Nuke" are) that Top Gear don't do proper reviews anymore. The sequence was broken up into different areas of analysis, but within the conventional motoring purchase criteria were questions like "Will it help me escape from baddies in a shopping centre?" The whole section was a joke, quite deliberately, and whoever wrote in had quite clearly Missed The Point.

That's the difference. If you really need it spelling out so clearly I can only assume two things:

1. You aren't really getting ZP in the first place, which throws into severe scrutiny your criticisms of the show.
2. You have little idea of what constitutes a good review, which undermines any praise you may have for ZP as a review show even if it was one.

 

[Somethingfake]

Snip

TLR

Yeesh, peeved much mate or did you have too much time to kill?

 

[MrBrightside919]

The joke about Lara needing to wipe her ass was the funniest thing of 2009 so far.

 

[Hipsy-Gypsy]

I feel for you. Really I do. Jump + Forward = Get up onto the fucking platform NOT hump the Goddamn wall. >_<'
I never got used to it. Sweet Jeezus.

 

[Sprogus]

Only reason I would play a Tomb Raider game these days is to pretend that I'm a fashion model photographer. But other then that I enjoyed this weeks ZP as I usually do.

 

[Dommyboy]

Everybody loves Michael Atkinson.

 

[Epictank of Wintown]

It IS a review show with jokes! You said yourself that it's comedy within the framework of a review! You know what that means? That it's comedy WITHIN a review! Well shucks darn, that's what I've been saying. You didn't outline any difference, you merely stated: It's not a review with comedy! It's comedy in a review!

I'd have thought the difference would be clear, but apparently not. The difference is what the emphasis is on. If it's a review show with jokes, the emphasis is on the review. People should tune in to watch essentially fair, informative pieces of consumer journalism that are intended primarily to help them with their purchasing decisions. Since Yahtzee quite deliberately avoids being fair, informative or even making journalism, this clearly isn't the case.

By contrast, if it's a comedy using the framework of a review, the emphasis is not on any of the criteria a proper review should consider but rather about making people laugh. In the latest episode, Yahtzee references Top Gear and Top Gear is a classic example of a show that uses the review format to generate laughs. In a recent episode, Clarkson did a "proper review" of a car after someone complained (just like you and your chum "Nuke" are) that Top Gear don't do proper reviews anymore. The sequence was broken up into different areas of analysis, but within the conventional motoring purchase criteria were questions like "Will it help me escape from baddies in a shopping centre?" The whole section was a joke, quite deliberately, and whoever wrote in had quite clearly Missed The Point.

That's the difference. If you really need it spelling out so clearly I can only assume two things:

1. You aren't really getting ZP in the first place, which throws into severe scrutiny your criticisms of the show.
2. You have little idea of what constitutes a good review, which undermines any praise you may have for ZP as a review show even if it was one.

This man, ladies and gentlemen, has it right. Yahtzee isn't out to make a review. He doesn't give scores, he doesn't do the things that EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER on the planet does. No. He uses a video game review as a platform for comedy and that's something he pulls off really well.

Sure, the show's changed. So what? All I've really seen from people complaining about ZP is how it's changed and, paradoxically, is exactly the same as it's always been and getting stale. Which one is it? The 'change' and 'stagnation' are really rather mutually exclusive.

As for NewClassic...that was tastelessly done. You have a problem with Yahtzee's reviews? Make your own thread. Post your review of his review or whatever there and don't leech off the thread made for the review. That's trolling at its finest because you -clearly- posted that here to try and get people worked up. Sure, this wasn't the best review he's made, but it still made me laugh. It did what it was supposed to do. It entertained.

 

[thejaoodmaster]

ZP is fairly entertaining, but I don't understand why everything else on the escapist seems so unbearably unfunny.

EDIT: Are you kidding me up there with that copy-pasted text wall?

You have something you desperately want people to read, and yet you say nothing. You perched like a sniper waiting for the video to be released so you could soapbox in the first few posts on a site that is full of peple who enjoy the videos. The worst part is, you think it's worth reading, and that you're brillant! Thanks for your comments, but next time I want that kind of counter-opinion in my house I'll just invite a Jehova's witness in for coffee.

I do think that he cares about ZP or otherwise he would not have posted in this thread. Also, it was smart of him to have created a post before in order that his ideas could receive the most views; i do not know how criticizing him for that is a valid point.

Admittedly, he does seem to be the OCD and the low-esteem type, covering all of his bases and "portending" other peoples' responses. In truth, if he was doing this out of simple desire to help further this show rather than egotism then 95% of what he said should be thrown out.

P.S. it is quite worth reading and he seems quite loquacious

 

[strizzuth]

What, no "stonking great tits" reference? For shame, Yahtzee!

 

[whyarecarrots]

Ahh at last, a truly moronic post deserving of a ban; something we can be truly and unamobiuosly satisfied with and not bod down the thread with discussions of why he was banned.

Wait are you talking about your own post? I dont see where this statement could be true for anything but. I have to agree that ZP is still entertaining and all just not as much as it was back in the day. So nice job voicing your opinion in a truly idiotic way.

I was merely commenting on the fact that the last few ZP threads have had a discussion on them about why the first few posts were banned; in this thread the first reply was banned for a reason, and thus no reason for a discussion on it.

And please, how have I voiced my opinion in a truly idiotic way; I voiced my opinion of the first reply of this thread in a manner appropriate for the post. In case you missed it it's been hidden by a mod so you have to click to show it, but I promise, it's there.

 

[Ragnarok the Red]

It IS a review show with jokes! You said yourself that it's comedy within the framework of a review! You know what that means? That it's comedy WITHIN a review! Well shucks darn, that's what I've been saying. You didn't outline any difference, you merely stated: It's not a review with comedy! It's comedy in a review!

I'd have thought the difference would be clear, but apparently not. The difference is what the emphasis is on. If it's a review show with jokes, the emphasis is on the review. People should tune in to watch essentially fair, informative pieces of consumer journalism that are intended primarily to help them with their purchasing decisions. Since Yahtzee quite deliberately avoids being fair, informative or even making journalism, this clearly isn't the case.

By contrast, if it's a comedy using the framework of a review, the emphasis is not on any of the criteria a proper review should consider but rather about making people laugh. In the latest episode, Yahtzee references Top Gear and Top Gear is a classic example of a show that uses the review format to generate laughs. In a recent episode, Clarkson did a "proper review" of a car after someone complained (just like you and your chum "Nuke" are) that Top Gear don't do proper reviews anymore. The sequence was broken up into different areas of analysis, but within the conventional motoring purchase criteria were questions like "Will it help me escape from baddies in a shopping centre?" The whole section was a joke, quite deliberately, and whoever wrote in had quite clearly Missed The Point.

That's the difference. If you really need it spelling out so clearly I can only assume two things:

1. You aren't really getting ZP in the first place, which throws into severe scrutiny your criticisms of the show.
2. You have little idea of what constitutes a good review, which undermines any praise you may have for ZP as a review show even if it was one.

This man, ladies and gentlemen, has it right. Yahtzee isn't out to make a review. He doesn't give scores, he doesn't do the things that EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER on the planet does. No. He uses a video game review as a platform for comedy and that's something he pulls off really well.

Sure, the show's changed. So what? All I've really seen from people complaining about ZP is how it's changed and, paradoxically, is exactly the same as it's always been and getting stale. Which one is it? The 'change' and 'stagnation' are really rather mutually exclusive.

System J and Epic Tank make excellent points here. What Yahtzee does aren't game reviews in a traditional sense, they are a topic for him to comment on comedically which he does to good effect. If you want a real, itemized review of a game head over to IGN or something (cue jokes about their lack of integrity here) or bum on over to GameFAQs and see what other gamers think about something following a precise breakdown of graphics, sound, gameplay, etc.

And like has been said before, you can't please everyone all the time. You'll never find a way to do something without pissing off at least a decent minority chunk of your demographic. If Yahtzee stays the same people complain about stagnation and formulaic-ness. If he changes it's "jumping the shark" or "abandoning what made the show so good". Either way you win, and either way you lose. Trying to please everyone is a pointless endeavor.

Hell I myself miss the unique song openings and closings the show had it's first 9 or 10 months, but I realize as time went on and Yahtzee became more and more popular the greater the risk of him getting in trouble for unauthorized copy infringement or just plain old running out of songs to use on a given review. So I understood why he revoked it.

What I think a lot of people don't see about Yahtzee's reviews is that when you tune in to watch them you AREN'T tuning into a G4 program segment reviewing a game or some such, you're tuning into a Comedy Central 4-5 minute standup comedy rant about it.

 

[HuCast]

Liked it much better than the last ones...the hits come much faster and harder-tons of quotable stuff-thanks a lot for this one, still lmao

 

[twilinova07]

another good episode this week. my favorite was the joke about the autistic camera

and thanks for pointing out how evil she kinda is. women role model my ass.

 

[Mexicanbulge]

I agree that i think zero punctuation has been slipping from the episodes of old, but i would put it to you that you are simpley becoming acclimatised to the humour.
Personally i have to say that i found this weeks episode extremely funny and a great return to form for yahtzee.
It included some of his best lines to date and made me watch it twice on the spot which no video has done since the super-smash-bros-brawl mailbag-respondance video.
Also i signed up, which i obviously havent done before.
My only quibble is that some of the time taken up with repeated titty points could have been used to have a longer go at the camera.
I reckon terrible cameras deserve more criticism as they can make and otherwise good game almost unplayable (see ninja gaiden 2).

All in all a great return to form yahtzee! Now don't slide back!

 

[thejaoodmaster]

I would agree with Ragnorak on most of his points. Nonetheless, he shows how some people would spend literally hours defending an online icon( or a real, very funny person) who makes fun of fans like Ragnorak.