I don't personally believe that a review should give a score, should cover all possible areas of analysis and even should be in depth. I've written concept reviews in my time. I'm talking more about the underlying journalistic principles of the reviewer. Journalism has its own code of ethics and standards and videogames journalism is no different, with special categories of ethics and standards unique to the medium. Yahtzee takes a sledgehammer to them. In fact, he quite deliberately goes against certain standards (and even makes light of that in some reviews) for comic effect, which is possibly why he calls himself a "professional troll". I'm not simply talking about him being a bad journalist, I'm talking about him deliberately and conscious going against journalism to generate laughs.Baby Tea said:Well, I would disagree ("Of course!" They say).
A review doesn't have to be an in depth, all bases covering, ending in a 'score' type of format. Some (many) are, but those things aren't mandatory for a review. Two of you mentioned either IGN or G4 as the review example (Admittedly, the IGN mention wasn't entirely 'serious'), which leads me to believe that a review is only a review, for you, if it falls into that format.
I stand by the Yahtzee is reviewing with comedy. You can state that I've missed the 'point' (As you already have), but the change from the earlier episodes to the current ones is undeniable. You call it the changing, or the 'evolution' (if you will) of his 'style'. I call it Yahtzee veering away from what he was supposed to deliver: A comedic review.
Also, I don't think Yahtzee give his viewers the credit to catch on that it isn't a review, must comedy in the guise of a review (And after reading some of the comments on the various ZP, I don't blame him). So I wouldn't give him the credit that's he'd do something like that.
First of all, where the criky fuck do you get off calling an obviously well-versed and well respected member of this community that you've never even met before that he's a "pathetic human being".Silveth said:My point was that this show is made by Yahtzee, and no one else, and it's his job to make us laugh and write a good review. How is it fair for us to bash him when he can't do that? What right to we have to expect him to make us laugh? None at all, and that was my point. That, and that NC is pathetic human being for premaking that diatribe.
Anyway, why do you defend him so? If you apparently don't like ZP anymore then get off this site and stop trying to prove you're right to everyone. Oh wait, this is the internet, nevermind, let's argue for eternity then.
Just because he goes against certain practices and standards, doesn't mean it's any less of a review. It might be, when seen from a writer's perspective, a piss poor actual 'review', but a review it still is. So whether he's reviewing for laughs or for trolling purposes (Or both), he's still reviewing.SYSTEM-J said:I don't personally believe that a review should give a score, should cover all possible areas of analysis and even should be in depth. I've written concept reviews in my time. I'm talking more about the underlying journalistic principles of the reviewer. Journalism has its own code of ethics and standards and videogames journalism is no different, with special categories of ethics and standards unique to the medium. Yahtzee takes a sledgehammer to them. In fact, he quite deliberately goes against certain standards (and even makes light of that in some reviews) for comic effect, which is possibly why he calls himself a "professional troll". I'm not simply talking about him being a bad journalist, I'm talking about him deliberately and conscious going against journalism to generate laughs.
I'd say the fact that he didn't say that only solidifies my point that these videos are, indeed, reviews. He calls them reviews himself! And whether or not they are done 'properly' is irrelevant. Whether poor or stellar, they are still reviews.SYSTEM-J said:I didn't really understand your last paragraph, so I'll have to guess what it's supposed to say. I don't think Yahtzee is the type to dumb down for the masses and make apparent what he's doing. This is the guy who referenced Proust's "À la Recherche du Temps Perdu" as a throwaway gag, a reference that would probably have a lot of gamers reaching for Wikipedia. Again, the "professional troll" line indicates he knows he's going to wind up a lot of people by turning what is ostensibly a review into a hilarious diatribe that abuses the format, and by having mailbag showdowns (incidentally, his review of SSB: Brawl was a classic example of How Not To Review A Game) he basks in the ire he creates, rather than clarifying "These aren't proper reviews you know, so don't get angry on account of me".
Then don't review it! If it's SO beneath him, review something else! I agree that wading through the mundane can suck, but even in his year-end show he said there were plenty of popular games he glanced over. Review those, then! Review one that's interesting! If he is indeed a 'professional troll', you think he'd do the games that actually had a solid fanbase (Gears of War, perhaps), rather then one we all figured would suck (TR) just so he could waste 3 minutes on boob jokes.SYSTEM-J said:Believe me, as a reviewer the scourge of your existence is the generic, mediocre product that is a nightmare to write a review about because there's nothing to say. Jeremy Clarkson actually quit the old, serious Top Gear for exactly this reason. Finding something to say each week about something utterly unexceptional and unoriginal is a nightmare.
Well I don't think you've given 'plenty of justification'. While your responses have been far better written and thought out then many of the other nay-sayers, I don't consider the 'assumption' that ZP is actually a review of sorts (However unorthodox) to be false.SYSTEM-J said:The only real difference with New Classic's post (apart from the cat picture) is that he bases it on what I consider a completely false assumption, and I think I've given plenty of justification for calling it false in the last few posts. If you don't agree after reading this post, I don't think you're going to agree at all.
I think you're speaking on behalf of New Classic a little too much here, and deviating from the point he was making. All of these replies are stating the same thing: ZP is, in some respect, a review show. Which I was never denying and was never the issue. As I've said, the issue is that of emphasis. New Classic says this:Baby Tea said:Just because he goes against certain practices and standards, doesn't mean it's any less of a review. It might be, when seen from a writer's perspective, a piss poor actual 'review', but a review it still is. So whether he's reviewing for laughs or for trolling purposes (Or both), he's still reviewing...
I'd say the fact that he didn't say that only solidifies my point that these videos are, indeed, reviews. He calls them reviews himself! And whether or not they are done 'properly' is irrelevant. Whether poor or stellar, they are still reviews...
...Well I don't think you've given 'plenty of justification'. While your responses have been far better written and thought out then many of the other nay-sayers, I don't consider the 'assumption' that ZP is actually a review of sorts (However unorthodox) to be false.
It appears we'll have to agree to disagree.
The point he's making is that the emphasis of ZP has shifted away from the reviews and towards the humour. The point I'm making is that ZP always emphasised the comedy over the review. In short, New Classic's mistaken assumption is not that ZP is a review show of some form, but that ZP was (and should still be) about the review first and foremost.For the most part, Zero Punctuation is no longer about game reviews, and is now about gaming-related humor.
It's not about it being beneath him, but rather about it being boring to talk about. And what makes you think a game being popular makes it any more interesting to talk about? One of his closing credits captions said that every time he began to review Far Cry 2, something more interesting came along. It's hardly as though Tomb Raider is an unsuccessful franchise- it wouldn't be up to eight sequels if people weren't buying them in large numbers.Then don't review it! If it's SO beneath him, review something else! I agree that wading through the mundane can suck, but even in his year-end show he said there were plenty of popular games he glanced over. Review those, then! Review one that's interesting! If he is indeed a 'professional troll', you think he'd do the games that actually had a solid fanbase (Gears of War, perhaps), rather then one we all figured would suck (TR) just so he could waste 3 minutes on boob jokes.
Funny, if he was on an actual comedy show, he wouldn't last 5 episodes.Hamster at Dawn said:Loved the lactose intolerant hindu and the autistic kid hooked up to an IV of sherbet. That's pure comedy gold right there.
Great start to 2009!
I didn't know there were any Tomb Raider fans devout enough to be annoyed at someone saying the series sucked. Most Tomb Raider fans are like the saner Sonic fans, they acknowledge that the series is basically dead and play the new games purely for the sake of brand loyalty and nostalgia.antipunt said:This review is gonna piss of a lot of TR fans lol
but it's so true. Lara's boobs are like giant pink elephant boobs flaoting around in everyone's mind
I completely agree, this review lacked the finesse of his usual reviews and a new take on it would have been refreshing and has a lot of potential to be funny. Still, you can't win 'em all eh? I decided not to quote the whole thing though so as not to clog up the page.Taranaich said:I guess it's kind of predictable Yahtzee would devolve into one big cavalcade of breast & bottom jokes...
...Thus Tomb Raider always has a special place in my heart.