Zero Punctuation: Tomb Raider: Underworld

mark_n_b

New member
Mar 24, 2008
729
0
0
danebot said:
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.
Compared to the strategy of doing a quick post to ensure a similarly high spot in the posts and then editing. The Escapist is not really a humour site (I say that because I see more and more pandering to dull witted comedy for traffic).

But for the point. This article is better left to the review section, Classic, especially when it is clear that you had it lying in wait. And because you do know better, the flame baiting is not cool. If this were anything but a ZP thread I'd suggest the mods should put you on probation for stirring up shit. BUt it is a ZP thread (*yuk yuk* he said tittie) so you earn much leeway. I will say that ZP is handled much more skillfully (and humorously) than Unskippable, and ending your review on a site required addition lost you some credibility.
whyarecarrots said:
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.
Your kidding me right? Firstly, It's a fair review article, let's be fair, Yahzee made his "girls with big boobies nerds don't have sex" thing for over half the review, which he has done before. Secondly, with almost 2000 Posts to his name, an escapist contributor, and not being a ZP tard post the chances of banning are nil. Don'tbe dumb, you don't get banned for expressing intelligent (if contrary) opinions on this site. Maybe if he posted something like "ZP is teh suxorz" 30 seconds after the movie was posted then your assesment would make sense.
 

SYSTEM-J

New member
Aug 7, 2008
88
0
0
Baby Tea said:
You know what the problem is with SYSTEM-J's post? It's that he tries to sum up Nuke's post with: 'I no longer find him funny'. Which is wrong.

Did anyone actually read his post, or just the first line and assumed they knew it all?

Nuke is saying that the show has changed. It's not the same as it once was, from the subtle things (like the intro music) to the big things (Like everything else), it's no longer about reviewing games.
What's amusing is you clearly haven't read my post properly, or at least you didn't take any time to consider what I had to say. I know perfectly well what New Classic was saying, and what I did with my post was underline (and undermine) the incorrect assumption his entire post is built on.

ZP has certainly changed to an extent, as does every episodic series in just about every format, ever. I've made this same point before and it seems I will have to make it again: critics will always make the easy snipe about change. If a series alters the formula in any way, it's "jumped the shark", lost the original magic and so on. If a series does the same thing forever, it's gone stale, ran out of ideas, is just repeating itself and so forth.

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.
 

whyarecarrots

New member
Nov 19, 2008
417
0
0
mark_n_b said:
whyarecarrots said:
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.
Your kidding me right? Firstly, It's a fair review article, let's be fair, Yahzee made his "girls with big boobies nerds don't have sex" thing for over half the review, which he has done before. Secondly, with almost 2000 Posts to his name, an escapist contributor, and not being a ZP tard post the chances of banning are nil. Don'tbe dumb, you don't get banned for expressing intelligent (if contrary) opinions on this site. Maybe if he posted something like "ZP is teh suxorz" 30 seconds after the movie was posted then your assesment would make sense
I was talking about the post that someone did get banned for, which simply said 'first'. The rant/article didn't exist when I posted.
 

ZeroRyoko1974

New member
Jan 7, 2009
9
0
0
If Yahtzee interests really do include professional troll, he probably likes it when people waste their lives writing a discertation on why his reviews are bad.
 

KingPiccolOwned

New member
Jan 12, 2009
1,039
0
0
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. :p
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Top Dollar said:
NewClassic said:
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.

SYSTEM-J said:
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

New member
Jan 12, 2009
1,039
0
0
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.
 

SYSTEM-J

New member
Aug 7, 2008
88
0
0
Baby Tea said:
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.
 

Hipsy-Gypsy

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1
0
0
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

The Lord of Dreams
Jan 8, 2009
481
0
0
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.
 

Epictank of Wintown

New member
Jan 8, 2009
138
0
0
SYSTEM-J said:
Baby Tea said:
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

New member
Jan 9, 2009
6
0
0
danebot said:
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