Zero Punctuation: Yakuza 4

[Ithos]

I would buy and play Constable Blimey Chips =^_^=

 

[emusega]

Again, another game series I never played. Am I wrong or were there surprisingly many positive points mentioned in favour of the game (aka like 10 %).

Oh and were the three predecessors good?

..if you want my advice, pick up Yakuza 3, look at the recap for Y1&2 that they've hidden in the game's intro. And then.. skip Yakuza 4 if you like it. The fighting in Y4 is better, and more advanced. A bit easier to control in some ways. But it's not as rewarding, and the amount of situational scripted events are fewer. The story in Y4 also is.. it's exactly like Yahtzee says. It starts out in an interesting way, has several very well-written segments once in a while. But it's strung together in curious ways that doesn't really do the game any favours. While the sidequests - apart from the Hostess club segments - isn't part of the story, not even indirectly. And don't, like the sub-quests in Y3, tell anything interesting about the city, or what's going on there.

That was my biggest problem with y4. In Y3, you had quests like these: a fishmonger was going to sell a rare fish to a customer. They'd placed the order, etc. But before they can pick it up and pay for it, another customer comes along and wants to pay twice the amount. So the fish-monger sells the fish for twice the sum. And then gets in trouble when the first customer comes along. So when you arrive, they're arguing. Then you can listen to the story, and decide to get involved in some way.

Then there are a few different ways to solve the quest. You can just pay for the fish-monger's mistake yourself (now he owes you and the mafia). You can try to get a new fish for the first customer (but they will want something on top of that as an apology). Maybe get the fish back from the first guy (they didn't want that fish specifically, but just something exotic - and they won't need you to beg - but it's going to be expensive). Etc. This kind of thing reminds you of the hostess-segment in y4, because it fits into the city and tells a story. But that's.. almost the only quest like that in y4. In y3, there are masses of quests like that around Okinawa and Kamuro-cho..

Y3 also has all the unbelievable quick-time events that they hide into the player-controlled segments. All of the boss-fights in y3 were completely insane. Not so much in y4.

One thing that.. kind of explains this is that Y4 is about as long as Y3 if you rush through it. But Y3 only features Kiryu for the entire game, while Y4 has four separate side-stories.. There are honest attempts here to make the sidequests universal, and so on. That you see them from different points of view, for example. But there were too few of those to justify making the effort.. they could have made separate intros to the events, and it would have taken about exactly as much writing..

So.. y4: graphics, fighting mechanics, combos, animation.
y3: story, screenplay, pacing, setting.

Wow, thanks for this thorough and well structured summary. I'm a little low on time, so I'm glad I can skip Y1 & 2. But Y3 sounds very interesting now. I'll see for myself if Y4 will work out for me afterwards.
This is why I appreciate the escapist community.
So, thanks to you good sir

 

[ckam]

Well, at least Yahtzee made better jokes than Beck, which is the reason why I'm not offended. And also the jokes aren't about the recent tragedy. That helps too.

 

[duchaked]

hahaha this was funny, nice intro too
waiting for someone to do a remix using the sound bits Yahtzee provided and suggested, cuz I sure ain't(can't)

 

[BluesHadal]

I liked the first one. I saw it as more of a brawler than anything. I saw an old american movie where this guy accidentally dates a girl from this type of club where the girls hung out with a guy for a certain amount of time ect, just like a hostess club(he dumped her when he found out). So I think something similar was around in the U.S but sort of fell out.

 

[JdaS]

I loved this game. Didn't stop me from laughing my face off at this review though. It's actually been a while since I've bought a game and seen it reviewed by Yahtzee.

 

[ZeroKaiser]

"Nani?"

 

[SinisterGehe]

does anyone get a "God hand" vibe from this game.

PS what is a hostess club?

Cute.
It is a club in to which you go in, pay yourself broke in order to get a girl to sit next to you, drink with you, sing karaoke or what ever you consider as entertainment. Rules are simple, youa re not allowed to touch the girls, they just sit next to you, flirt with you and so on. And they get paid well! Specially if they fit to the clients desires.

that sounds Kinda stupid.

SO does 22 people running after a ball and trying to kick it inside a net and getting paid millions for it. Or people who talk to a imaginary friends what is just like they want and appreciate exactly the values they do and is supposed to be in control of everything in this world... But what can you do... Somethings are stupid.

 

[A1]

Spoiler

Heh, solid jokes overall. Weren't looking into this game, so the review haven't moved me either way though.

That's quite frankly getting borderline racist.

Japanese isn't a race, it's a nationality. Calm down it's just a joke, bro.

Fair enough. A more precise word to use would be prejudiced. So let's instead use "borderline prejudiced". And I know that it's a joke. But even so it's still a joke that could easily offend someone. Even if a person doesn't actually mean any harm that doesn't excuse the use of offensive language. It's like if a non-African American person used a certain N word in a humorous and off-handed manner without meaning any harm. I think it's safe to say that any self respecting African American would still take offense, and understandably so.

I guess it's all a matter of respect and good manners. Which are arguably things that Yahtzee arguably often lacks. But even when your purpose is to be ill-mannered in a humorous and sarcastic way there are still certain lines that are best left alone.

How on earth would humorously stating that the Japanese are into some weird stuff - i.e. roughly the equivalent of "those cheeky Japanese" - be anywhere near crossing the exceedingly far off line for what satire and sarcasm can bear?

It's not like there aren't unusual offerings [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95937-This-Is-the-Best-Trailer-for-a-Japanese-Porn-Game-Ever] coming out of Japan (and into the West; I'm so getting that one for the sheer hilarity when it's released here) to warrant poking a bit of good-natured fun at, and there aren't any real malice behind it, nor hardly an exceedingly foolish assumption that this is what most Japanese people actually like.

Anyone offended by something behind which there is no malice need to toughen up anyway. Trying to censor or persecuting others based on one's own offence, when there's no actual discernible harm to what they say or do, is a far greater problem than entirely harmless jokes of varying taste.

It isn't about being harmful. It's about being offensive. And while a joke may be intended to be non-offensive that doesn't necessarily make it so. I think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to be careful about such things.

And yes, perhaps people who could plausibly be described as overly sensitive would do well to "toughen up". But I also think that's something that would probably best be done by going to therapy, or reading books about the subject, or even talking about it with friends and family and not by actually being offended.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right to free speech and I don't believe in taking away or infringing upon that right just because someone uses it in a questionable way. I believe the right way to respond would be to use that same right to free speech to respond in a defensive way. But even so as I said I also think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to do everything they can to avoid starting such an exchange in the first place.

Still a long way from poor manners - to the extent a harmless joke regarding the more preposterous offerings from Japan even qualify as such - to prejudice.

You certainly have every right to be defensive in regard to such things, but anyone who disagree with taking such stance similarly have every right to criticise you for de facto condemning others for harmless words by doing so as well.

Guess it's ultimately a disagreement over what warrant condemnation ("discernible harm" is my absolute requirement), and what "well-meaning" people should endeavour to do; Not every sensibility should be grovelled before, lest society become intolerable for anyone but those knowing how to weigh their words on gold scales.

Well, I never actually said prejudice, just borderline prejudice, as in something getting close to and/or starting to resemble prejudice. That's what I meant. And poor manners can involve many things, including prejudice or borderline prejudice. People can voice their prejudice without acting on it, and that would be very poor manners. But this is beside the point.

And I think that words like "condemnation", "condemning", and condemn are too strong in this case. I think better and more accurate words in this case would be "reprove", "reproving", and reproval. And of course you're right. People do have the right to criticize me. They don't even have to be correct or on the winning side of an argument because that too falls under free speech. Then again I also have the right to respond to that criticism and they have the right to respond and I have the right to respond again and so on. But this is also really beside the point.

But I see what you mean. Perhaps it does come down to a disagreement over what warrants reproval. You seem to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of the opinion that it's okay to be offensive as long as no real or serious harm is being done. And I can understand that. That does make sense, especially from a civil rights standpoint. I also think I understand what you mean when you say not every sensibility should be "groveled before". People may simply need or want to do or say something that may unintentionally offend someone. And that can't really be helped. And of course people aren't perfect, they make mistakes and unintentionally offend others. That's why apologies and forgiveness are important, and they too are a part of good manners.

But by all accounts offensive stuff does seem to be an inevitable result of free speech. That's why I think it's important to know when to simply ignore and/or avoid the offending stuff and walk away so to speak which as I indicated previously is another way to properly respond to offending stuff. Good manners are not mandatory and probably shouldn't be. But while offensive stuff perhaps can't always be helped, I think that whenever it can be helped it probably should be. And in the case of Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation video of Yakuza 4 I think the offensive (or at least potentially offensive) stuff was unnecessary. He was within his rights of course but I think it was still unnecessary and to me that was unfortunate.

But as you indicated it seems to come down to a difference of what warrants reproval. I understand your position although I can't really say that it is identical to my own. Similar perhaps, but not identical. So it seems that we are at a stalemate. So in light of this may I suggest that we simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways?

 

[Gigano]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Heh, solid jokes overall. Weren't looking into this game, so the review haven't moved me either way though.

That's quite frankly getting borderline racist.

Japanese isn't a race, it's a nationality. Calm down it's just a joke, bro.

Fair enough. A more precise word to use would be prejudiced. So let's instead use "borderline prejudiced". And I know that it's a joke. But even so it's still a joke that could easily offend someone. Even if a person doesn't actually mean any harm that doesn't excuse the use of offensive language. It's like if a non-African American person used a certain N word in a humorous and off-handed manner without meaning any harm. I think it's safe to say that any self respecting African American would still take offense, and understandably so.

I guess it's all a matter of respect and good manners. Which are arguably things that Yahtzee arguably often lacks. But even when your purpose is to be ill-mannered in a humorous and sarcastic way there are still certain lines that are best left alone.

How on earth would humorously stating that the Japanese are into some weird stuff - i.e. roughly the equivalent of "those cheeky Japanese" - be anywhere near crossing the exceedingly far off line for what satire and sarcasm can bear?

It's not like there aren't unusual offerings [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95937-This-Is-the-Best-Trailer-for-a-Japanese-Porn-Game-Ever] coming out of Japan (and into the West; I'm so getting that one for the sheer hilarity when it's released here) to warrant poking a bit of good-natured fun at, and there aren't any real malice behind it, nor hardly an exceedingly foolish assumption that this is what most Japanese people actually like.

Anyone offended by something behind which there is no malice need to toughen up anyway. Trying to censor or persecuting others based on one's own offence, when there's no actual discernible harm to what they say or do, is a far greater problem than entirely harmless jokes of varying taste.

It isn't about being harmful. It's about being offensive. And while a joke may be intended to be non-offensive that doesn't necessarily make it so. I think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to be careful about such things.

And yes, perhaps people who could plausibly be described as overly sensitive would do well to "toughen up". But I also think that's something that would probably best be done by going to therapy, or reading books about the subject, or even talking about it with friends and family and not by actually being offended.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right to free speech and I don't believe in taking away or infringing upon that right just because someone uses it in a questionable way. I believe the right way to respond would be to use that same right to free speech to respond in a defensive way. But even so as I said I also think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to do everything they can to avoid starting such an exchange in the first place.

Still a long way from poor manners - to the extent a harmless joke regarding the more preposterous offerings from Japan even qualify as such - to prejudice.

You certainly have every right to be defensive in regard to such things, but anyone who disagree with taking such stance similarly have every right to criticise you for de facto condemning others for harmless words by doing so as well.

Guess it's ultimately a disagreement over what warrant condemnation ("discernible harm" is my absolute requirement), and what "well-meaning" people should endeavour to do; Not every sensibility should be grovelled before, lest society become intolerable for anyone but those knowing how to weigh their words on gold scales.

Well, I never actually said prejudice, just borderline prejudice, as in something getting close to and/or starting to resemble prejudice. That's what I meant. And poor manners can involve many things, including prejudice or borderline prejudice. People can voice their prejudice without acting on it, and that would be very poor manners. But this is beside the point.

And I think that words like "condemnation", "condemning", and condemn are too strong in this case. I think better and more accurate words in this case would be "reprove", "reproving", and reproval. And of course you're right. People do have the right to criticize me. They don't even have to be correct or on the winning side of an argument because that too falls under free speech. Then again I also have the right to respond to that criticism and they have the right to respond and I have the right to respond again and so on. But this is also really beside the point.

But I see what you mean. Perhaps it does come down to a disagreement over what warrants reproval. You seem to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of the opinion that it's okay to be offensive as long as no real or serious harm is being done. And I can understand that. That does make sense, especially from a civil rights standpoint. I also think I understand what you mean when you say not every sensibility should be "groveled before". People may simply need or want to do or say something that may unintentionally offend someone. And that can't really be helped. And of course people aren't perfect, they make mistakes and unintentionally offend others. That's why apologies and forgiveness are important, and they too are a part of good manners.

But by all accounts offensive stuff does seem to be an inevitable result of free speech. That's why I think it's important to know when to simply ignore and/or avoid the offending stuff and walk away so to speak which as I indicated previously is another way to properly respond to offending stuff. Good manners are not mandatory and probably shouldn't be. But while offensive stuff perhaps can't always be helped, I think that whenever it can be helped it probably should be. And in the case of Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation video of Yakuza 4 I think the offensive (or at least potentially offensive) stuff was unnecessary. He was within his rights of course but I think it was still unnecessary and to me that was unfortunate.

But as you indicated it seems to come down to a difference of what warrants reproval. I understand your position although I can't really say that it is identical to my own. Similar perhaps, but not identical. So it seems that we are at a stalemate. So in light of this may I suggest that we simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways?

Yeah, considering I view it to be part of the point of ZP to provide harsh irreverent gallows humour, there doesn't seem to be much further to achieve in terms of coming to any mutual agreement. You've voiced your reproval, and I've voiced mine of it, so lets call it quits.

"Nani?"

It means "What?" in Japanese.

 

[ZeroKaiser]

"Nani?"

It means "What?" in Japanese.

I knew that. o_o

 

[CptShiv]

I must say the humor was in top form this week.

 

[Futurenerd]

Now taking bets! How long before someone makes a NuhDuhNani remix!?

 

[xscoot]

Actual Yakuza members have played Yakuza games. They say the gameplay is fun and makes sense (the commented on how different real world drinks in the game give effects that they would expect and the like), but say that no Yakuza would actually act like that before getting killed by his own group within a day for being so stupid and causing so much trouble.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

does anyone get a "God hand" vibe from this game.

PS what is a hostess club?

Yahtzee described it pretty well. It's like a whorehouse without the sex. You pretty much show up and pay for time with a companion to talk to or whatever. Think of it like what an escort service is in it's official capacity, except you go to them, instead of having them go somewhere with you to be seen.
Snip

He was joking about the detective being 14, he just looks really young:

He's actually 29.


But, hey, you were spot on about the game, Yahtzee.

 

[A1]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Heh, solid jokes overall. Weren't looking into this game, so the review haven't moved me either way though.

That's quite frankly getting borderline racist.

Japanese isn't a race, it's a nationality. Calm down it's just a joke, bro.

Fair enough. A more precise word to use would be prejudiced. So let's instead use "borderline prejudiced". And I know that it's a joke. But even so it's still a joke that could easily offend someone. Even if a person doesn't actually mean any harm that doesn't excuse the use of offensive language. It's like if a non-African American person used a certain N word in a humorous and off-handed manner without meaning any harm. I think it's safe to say that any self respecting African American would still take offense, and understandably so.

I guess it's all a matter of respect and good manners. Which are arguably things that Yahtzee arguably often lacks. But even when your purpose is to be ill-mannered in a humorous and sarcastic way there are still certain lines that are best left alone.

How on earth would humorously stating that the Japanese are into some weird stuff - i.e. roughly the equivalent of "those cheeky Japanese" - be anywhere near crossing the exceedingly far off line for what satire and sarcasm can bear?

It's not like there aren't unusual offerings [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95937-This-Is-the-Best-Trailer-for-a-Japanese-Porn-Game-Ever] coming out of Japan (and into the West; I'm so getting that one for the sheer hilarity when it's released here) to warrant poking a bit of good-natured fun at, and there aren't any real malice behind it, nor hardly an exceedingly foolish assumption that this is what most Japanese people actually like.

Anyone offended by something behind which there is no malice need to toughen up anyway. Trying to censor or persecuting others based on one's own offence, when there's no actual discernible harm to what they say or do, is a far greater problem than entirely harmless jokes of varying taste.

It isn't about being harmful. It's about being offensive. And while a joke may be intended to be non-offensive that doesn't necessarily make it so. I think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to be careful about such things.

And yes, perhaps people who could plausibly be described as overly sensitive would do well to "toughen up". But I also think that's something that would probably best be done by going to therapy, or reading books about the subject, or even talking about it with friends and family and not by actually being offended.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right to free speech and I don't believe in taking away or infringing upon that right just because someone uses it in a questionable way. I believe the right way to respond would be to use that same right to free speech to respond in a defensive way. But even so as I said I also think that well-meaning people have a responsibility to do everything they can to avoid starting such an exchange in the first place.

Still a long way from poor manners - to the extent a harmless joke regarding the more preposterous offerings from Japan even qualify as such - to prejudice.

You certainly have every right to be defensive in regard to such things, but anyone who disagree with taking such stance similarly have every right to criticise you for de facto condemning others for harmless words by doing so as well.

Guess it's ultimately a disagreement over what warrant condemnation ("discernible harm" is my absolute requirement), and what "well-meaning" people should endeavour to do; Not every sensibility should be grovelled before, lest society become intolerable for anyone but those knowing how to weigh their words on gold scales.

Well, I never actually said prejudice, just borderline prejudice, as in something getting close to and/or starting to resemble prejudice. That's what I meant. And poor manners can involve many things, including prejudice or borderline prejudice. People can voice their prejudice without acting on it, and that would be very poor manners. But this is beside the point.

And I think that words like "condemnation", "condemning", and condemn are too strong in this case. I think better and more accurate words in this case would be "reprove", "reproving", and reproval. And of course you're right. People do have the right to criticize me. They don't even have to be correct or on the winning side of an argument because that too falls under free speech. Then again I also have the right to respond to that criticism and they have the right to respond and I have the right to respond again and so on. But this is also really beside the point.

But I see what you mean. Perhaps it does come down to a disagreement over what warrants reproval. You seem to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) of the opinion that it's okay to be offensive as long as no real or serious harm is being done. And I can understand that. That does make sense, especially from a civil rights standpoint. I also think I understand what you mean when you say not every sensibility should be "groveled before". People may simply need or want to do or say something that may unintentionally offend someone. And that can't really be helped. And of course people aren't perfect, they make mistakes and unintentionally offend others. That's why apologies and forgiveness are important, and they too are a part of good manners.

But by all accounts offensive stuff does seem to be an inevitable result of free speech. That's why I think it's important to know when to simply ignore and/or avoid the offending stuff and walk away so to speak which as I indicated previously is another way to properly respond to offending stuff. Good manners are not mandatory and probably shouldn't be. But while offensive stuff perhaps can't always be helped, I think that whenever it can be helped it probably should be. And in the case of Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation video of Yakuza 4 I think the offensive (or at least potentially offensive) stuff was unnecessary. He was within his rights of course but I think it was still unnecessary and to me that was unfortunate.

But as you indicated it seems to come down to a difference of what warrants reproval. I understand your position although I can't really say that it is identical to my own. Similar perhaps, but not identical. So it seems that we are at a stalemate. So in light of this may I suggest that we simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways?

Yeah, considering I view it to be part of the point of ZP to provide harsh irreverent gallows humour, there doesn't seem to be much further to achieve in terms of coming to any mutual agreement. You've voiced your reproval, and I've voiced mine of it, so lets call it quits.

"Nani?"

It means "What?" in Japanese.

As I indicated previously even in the case of harsh humor I believe that there are certain boundaries that are best left alone, especially when it's not necessary to overstep them. But I believe that we've already covered all of that stuff, so let's not start this whole thing all over again.

I'm very glad that we are in agreement. Just to be clear as you may know reprove does have more than one possible meaning and in the case of my original response to LCP he (or she) did acknowledge his (or her) mistake and correct himself (or herself) so the meaning of "to correct" applies in that case. But with regard to your voicing your reproval I'm assuming that the meaning in play at that point was "to criticize" as that meaning would seem to be the best fit in that particular case.

But enough about all that. As I said I'm very glad that we've come to an agreement.

It was good to meet you Imperator_DK.

Take care of yourself and I wish you well.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I reckon this game must be quite popular with the weeaboo's, what with all the Japanese pop culture. ^_^

Kidding kidding. Actually I am quite interested in japanese culture myself, or any culture for that matter, so maybe this game can santisfy my cravings!

 

[Captain Booyah]

Announcement: I would completely and utterly play the hell out of a game called Constable Blimey Chips and I have no shame whatsoever admitting that.

Anyway, good review. This is another series I never really got round to.

EDIT:

Now taking bets! How long before someone makes a NuhDuhNani remix!?

Two days, maximum.

 

[civver]

Plenty of good jokes in this one.