[Draco2.5]

Does Yahtzee intentionally focus on the bad for laughs? Yes. After he reviewed Psychonauts he said something along the lines of, "if that review taught me anything it's that nobody likes when I am being nice to a game."
I don't always agree with what he says, I think his review of The Witcher is complete pants. He sometimes will dislike a game simple because it has too steep a difficulty curve. This is something that the Angry Video Game nerd does as well.

Is he perfect? No. But he's got great taste as far as I am concerned, and probably more love for classic adventure games than you or me. I don't think that you should write off his reviews as just humorous jokes meant to poke fun at all games, even the good. He just focuses on the negative aspects more than the positive. But if a game is still brilliant Yahtzee will say so. What's not to like?
Someone once said, "there are two kinds of people that will hate you if you succeed, the stupid and the jealous; you can eventually win over the stupid but you can never win over the jealous."

[orient]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

What alternative? This is exactly the "adventure games are dead and gone" mentality.

I don't think so. There's a distinction between "adventure games have been dead since the early 90's" and "adventure games have lived on through other genres".

Those ex-LucasArts employees may work on new types of adventure games or cross-genre titles that encorporate aspects of the adventure game, but I doubt any of them would like to make games as frustrating and as convoluted as they were back then.

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by DeadWolf

It's so much easier to bash something you hate than express admiration for something you love. Apparently, the former has proven to be far more popular on the web.

I disagree. Watch his recent review for one of his favourite games Silent Hill 2. He is very quick to point out the obvious flaws.

I also find it ironic what you say on a site that rates TLJ and Runaway 9/10 despite having serious flaws deeming them nowhere near perfect, merely because the genre was starved of any innovative and original titles or because the reviewer has a personal favouritism to the said game.

Admittedly as this forum is often used to exercise celebrating a genre stale of originality; many relying on age old franchises to keep them momentarily alive, it doesn't come as a surprise to see some expressing passionate hatred towards this review. However I was hoping and am happy to see more than I thought agree with his views if only to some degree.

I think Yahtzee is, and always will be, a fan of classic adventure games. The fact that he even quotes the original two MI as "timelessly imaginative, sparkley and very, very funny" is evidence of that. But he rightly favours originality and progression over simple minded nostalgia that blinds one's ability to accept that some franchises should remain dead to good reason.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Terramax

I also find it ironic what you say on a site that rates TLJ and Runaway 9/10 despite having serious flaws deeming them nowhere near perfect [...]

Excuse me, are you talking about this site? Because, last time we checked we still scored the game based on a five-stars based. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

merely because the genre was starved of any innovative and original titles or because the reviewer has a personal favouritism to the said game.

It seems to me that you are the one condemning TLJ because of a personal favoritism or lack thereof. Both reviews are well supported by fair criticism: you may agree or disagree, but they do not show a reviewer's personal favoritism. Rather, a reviewer's personal but supported-by-the-facts opinion. And, as for the TLJ, Marek was the first one to admit that

Since this review was originally published I have lowered the score from five stars to four and a half. In hindsight, given the poor state of the adventure genre in 1999 and 2000 and without anything else to measure The Longest Journey against, it might have seemed even better than it was. I still consider the game to be a classic, but it's not quite perfect. — Marek, January 2005

Admittedly as this forum is often used to exercise celebrating a genre stale of originality; many relying on age old franchises to keep them momentarily alive, it doesn't come as a surprise to see some expressing passionate hatred towards this review.

The forum is used to discuss about the genre, not celebrating it, as there are many threads that clearly proves the contrary, showing that adventure fans are more often than not, and rightfully, asking for innovation and so.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Terramax

Admittedly as this forum is often used to exercise celebrating a genre stale of originality; many relying on age old franchises to keep them momentarily alive, it doesn't come as a surprise to see some expressing passionate hatred towards this review. However I was hoping and am happy to see more than I thought agree with his views if only to some degree.

Where did you see "some expressing passionate hatred towards this review"? There are barely any mentions of this particular review in this thread and none of them evaluate it in a hateful manner. Personally, I just expressed doubt in the honesty of Yahtzee's opinions in general.

Originally Posted by Terramax

I think Yahtzee is, and always will be, a fan of classic adventure games. The fact that he even quotes the original two MI as "timelessly imaginative, sparkley and very, very funny" is evidence of that. But he rightly favours originality and progression over simple minded nostalgia that blinds one's ability to accept that some franchises should remain dead to good reason.

Could you tell me how you interpret him saying that LucasArts classics like the original MI games and Day of The Tentacle have terrible gameplay (in that vid I brought in from another thread)? This is actually what put me off.

[3rdFloor]

Originally Posted by DeadWolf

It's so much easier to bash something you hate than express admiration for something you love. Apparently, the former has proven to be far more popular on the web.

Originally Posted by Terramax

I disagree. Watch his recent review for one of his favourite games Silent Hill 2. He is very quick to point out the obvious flaws.

I apologize for quoting myself, but perhaps I wasn't clear. This is precisely my point; bashing is much more popular and easy to do than loving. I hate Yahtzee for that reason. In fact, a website editor will never get my respect for bashing things in the public, taking the labors of others and exposing them as ridiculous efforts. Seriously, making fun of such things is stupendously easy, and cashing in the visitors and gaining mainstream popularity in the process couldn't be more disrespectful and mean.

He doesn't like a game? Fine, then why not just say so? Why does he feel compelled to ridicule them for everyone to see? I know a lot of people find his little "show" entertaining, but personally, I have no interest at all in hearing what he has to say.

[After a brisk nap]

Why do you feel the need to bash Yahtzee just for making video reviews you don't enjoy?

[3rdFloor]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Why do you feel the need to bash Yahtzee just for making video reviews you don't enjoy?

Because Yahtzee doesn't make me laugh and I think he's rude, that's why. Besides, I've expressed my opinion already. Going into any further details about my feelings would border on irrelevance.

That said, I have nothing against the man himself, for I do not know him personally.

[Linque]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Excuse me, are you talking about this site? Because, last time we checked we still scored the game based on a five-stars based. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

I'm sorry, but if you have a five star rating that has half-stars, then it's a 1-10 scale and saying 9/10 is justified.

I hate numeric scales that don't represent anything substantial. If you have ratings, every single rating should have a description of what kind of a game it is. Also, having more than 5 different ratings (1-5) is hardly ever necessary. You can very well categorize game quality with five choices. The more leverage you have, the more whimsical and less meaningful the ratings become.

Sorry for being so off-topic, but you commented on the ratings first and it's an issue that bothers me every time I see sites implementing such systems. It's a necessary evil I guess.

[Linque]

Originally Posted by DeadWolf

He doesn't like a game? Fine, then why not just say so? Why does he feel compelled to ridicule them for everyone to see?

Originally Posted by DeadWolf

I hate Yahtzee for that reason.

To entertain and to spark discussion. Most of the points he ridicules are completely valid. I have a tough time understanding you going as far as to hating the man for doing his work. Feels like you have some sort of a grudge against him. After all, he's not being rude to a single person and taking offense from his reviews is missing the point. Entertainment in general and games especially deserve scrutiny to be able to improve, be it in this form or another.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Linque

I hate numeric scales that don't represent anything substantial.

I brought up the issue because we have a clear scoring system, which can be seen here. Each star represent a very precise concept, way more detailed than a simple numerical score, and that's way I'm against to say that 4 stars roughly translates to 8.5 or 9 out of 10. As I view it, 4 stars only translate to:

A game of very high quality. Although some aspects might have been executed better, we would recommend this game to any adventure gamer without hesitation.

[3rdFloor]

Originally Posted by Linque

Entertainment in general and games especially deserve scrutiny to be able to improve, be it in this form or another.

I must say you bring a very fine point here. And seeing as most of you seem to enjoy his reviews, then perhaps I am misunderstanding his particular style and his overall goal as well. The thing is, I have a problem with columnists and editors that often go on a bitching rampage. Because no matter how hard they try to offer ideas for improvement, it all boils down as useless whining to me.

For instance, last year Yahtzee wrote the "Back Page" column in PC Gamer and, really, all he ever did there was moaning and whining about aspects of games he didn't like. It felt totally out of place, especially within an enthusiast magazine. It was like buying a subscription to a gardening magazine where the last articles basically claim "Hey you know what? Gardening sucks. So don't bother."

Maybe I love games and their creators too much, maybe I'm easily irritated, or maybe I just don't get it. Either way, I find myself preferring a more classical style of reviews; the pros and cons, wrapped in "punctuated" grammar.

[Linque]

There's nothing wrong in not liking his style or the jokes. But there are a lot of people who are a lot worse than Mr. Croshaw doing the critic's job, in my opinion.


Andrea - ah I forgot this site has descriptions about the ratings, I had read them some years ago indeed. I must apologize for the comments. However, I don't see the point of having half-stars, as they don't really represent anything. On a good day you might give a full star to some game that you give a half star on a different occasion, just because they essentially mean the same thing. Especially when in my mind 4 and 4½ equal the same, while in your system 4½ and 5 equal the same - thus I receive the wrong message from a rating of 4½. Anyways, sorry. And sorry for being off-topic.

[Tramboi]

Considering this guy has made some quite good amateur classic point'n'click adventure games, I'd expect gourmet adventuregamers.com forumers to take his provocations with a pinch of salt

I quite like Zero Punctuation, because I enjoy dismemberment of overhyped crap.

[3rdFloor]

Originally Posted by Linque

there are a lot of people who are a lot worse than Mr. Croshaw doing the critic's job, in my opinion.

Yes, you're probably right. But I still won't visit Yahtzee's site. I'm stubborn!

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Tramboi

Considering this guy has made some quite good amateur classic point'n'click adventure games, I'd expect gourmet adventuregamers.com forumers to take his provocations with a pinch of salt

People change. He stopped making adventure games for now. I don't think one can easily say what is a honest opinion and what is a provocation in his case.

[Terramax]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Excuse me, are you talking about this site? Because, last time we checked we still scored the game based on a five-stars based. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

I guess it's a matter of opinion but I see it in the same way as Linque does - 3.5 stars as exactly the same as 7/10, etc. I don't have a problem either way.

It seems to me that you are the one condemning TLJ because of a personal favoritism or lack thereof. Both reviews are well supported by fair criticism.

Not at all. 4.5/5 is the equivalent as near perfect. Yes, TLJ is represented stylishly, has a deep story, a lead many find relateble - signs of much care, love and attention. I won't deny it's incredibly ambitious. However, it clearly has a great many faults. Static backgrounds, ropey voice acting, long dialog, un-even pacing, arbitrary, nonsensical, filler puzzles, a lead character that you either love or hate, none of which have been explained in near enough depth. In fact despite receiving 4.5/5 the review isn't that deep at all.

And what about Runaway? I've no personal gripe against that game. I on the whole quite enjoyed it. But I'm still very certain the game is nowhere near perfect. Some of the hardest pixel hunting, dialog, voice acting and humour that falls flat on its face, 80% of the game is set in desolate, bland locations, poor lip-synching during cut-scenes.

Comparing them to more polished adventures I'm certain they're not a "must have in every adventure gamer's library" as your rating system implies for 4.5 stars.

So why do I consider it favouritism? Because I've seen countless games to be downrated for having the same problems, to a lesser extent, whilst these games have been spared and are being hailed as undisputed, instant classics.

The forum is used to discuss about the genre, not celebrating it.

The site is dedicated to adventure games, old and new. In my eyes that is the same as celebrating the genre.

there are many threads that clearly proves the contrary, showing that adventure fans are more often than not, and rightfully, asking for innovation and so.

I beg to differ. I've only plenty of times been shot down when asking for original franchises rather than uninspired sequels, direct control than point and click, integration of other genres that compliment and provoke originality, bringing a fresh new stance on adventure games as well as making them more accessible to non-AG fans.

I’m not denying there are those that push for innovation, but I'm pretty certain more have stated they're perfectly happy sticking to collecting random items of high number, arbitrary puzzles, point and click interfaces, and even requesting graphics not advancing further as they've not the P.C.s to handle them.

He doesn't like a game? Fine, then why not just say so? Why does he feel compelled to ridicule them for everyone to see?

As a professional reviewer he has to, as he puts it, "judge a game by its own merits", weighing out the pros and cons, which I think he does a fine job of doing. He also goes to great lengths to compare similar titles, encouraging gamers to pick the most suitable for their own tastes.

It's fair to say he dwells more on negatives. Personally I find this compensates for the numerous sites that self-indulge on all the positives i.e. IGN who you'd be forgiven for thinking rate hyped games like Halo 3 9/10 before even playing them seeing how they often fail to emphasis or completely ignore negative factors that can seriously deteriorate the experience for some gamers (or so outcries from other forums tell me).

In other words, if anything, unlike your past comment where (I think) you state it's become the norm to focus on the negatives, IMO it's actually the other way round. This is one reviewer that won't shy away from constructive criticism in fear of backlash from fanboys i.e. long-time MI fans, or being penalised for being too critical as one Gamespot reviewer found out a while ago.

Even with his most loved games such as Silent Hill 2 he isn't overwhelmed by its strong points to ignore its faults, which I find rare and admirable.

Where did you see "some expressing passionate hatred towards this review"? There are barely any mentions of this particular review in this thread and none of them evaluate it in a hateful manner.

"He's a pompous over-rated tosser."

"Anyway, I'm not sure if there is much point in listening to Yahtzee's views on adventure games anymore. At least in taking them seriously."

"Personally, I can't stand Yahtzee... I understand his take on reviews is a humorous one, but somehow I end up not laughing at all. So meaningless to me."

Forgive me, I was wrong, they express more hatred towards Yahtzee, but I can't help but feel they've attacked him merely for criticising a genre that's failed to rectify ongoing, glaring problems (controls, non-simplified ways of combining items, islands badly thought out, not being of the same writing calibre as previous entries) instead of the blind faith I often find on these forums whenever Telltale revive an old franchise.

I wonder, had he been very positive about 'Tales of...', would the above comments have appeared? I doubt it.

Finally, I would like to emphasis I was surprised of the great number that respected his comments.

*Straps on crash helment.*

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Terramax

I wonder, had he been very positive about 'Tales of...', would the above comments have appeared? I doubt it.

*Straps on crash helment.*

Well, in my eyes those comments were referring to Yahtzee's whole body of work, it just so happens this review seemed rather consistent with other Zero Punctuation reviews. Personally, I didn't feel Yahtzee was particularly disappointed or criticizing Tales a lot, he seemed just bored and devoid of enthusiasm for it.

Originally Posted by Terramax

Forgive me, I was wrong, they express more hatred towards Yahtzee, but I can't help but feel they've attacked him merely for criticising a genre that's failed to rectify ongoing, glaring problems (controls, non-simplified ways of combining items, islands badly thought out, not being of the same writing calibre as previous entries) instead of the blind faith I often find on these forums whenever Telltale revive an old franchise.

Hatred? Lack of fondness more like it. I don't understand your dramatic take on the whole situation. What did Telltale do to you exactly? Do you think they're somehow stopping adventure gaming from becoming better? Also, why do you think biting comments about games are so important to the gaming world? You talk about this sort of game bashing as if it was some heroic activity.

[Origami]

Again....Yahtzee exagerates and only focuses on the flws of a game. I am sure that there are a lot of games among the ones he reviewed that he really liked.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Origami

Again....Yahtzee exagerates and only focuses on the flws of a game. I am sure that there are a lot of games among the ones he reviewed that he really liked.

That's possible, but we will never know. While some (like you) see Yahtzee's reviews as just him having fun, many people take the negativity very seriously, and some of those are praising it, others are offended by it. And lets be honest Yahtzee's popularity benefits from all of those stances. He might have been considered much less interesting overall if he wasn't able to provoke strong reactions.