next »

[Curseman]

I don't think Yahtzee's reviews are really any better than anyone else's.

If a game is in a genre he doesn't like, like an rpg or a fighting game, he'll give it a bad review regardless of the game's actual quality of the game, just because he doesn't like that type of playstyle.

Also, a lot of his reviews have him complaining about a game being unfair and cheap when it's really obvious that he's just bad at it.

[Corpus]

I know, right? And how about disabled people? No ramp access? Whatever, man. You're just bad at walking up stairs.

[AMAZON]

jackrabbit- the story mode being the same thing repeated, it being a button masher. Honestly, that's like saying mario is a button masher. I can understand with some games like soul calibur or GG and SF (to a stretch) but smash is a platform fighter. You really can't button mash.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

jackrabbit- the story mode being the same thing repeated, it being a button masher. Honestly, that's like saying mario is a button masher. I can understand with some games like soul calibur or GG and SF (to a stretch) but smash is a platform fighter. You really can't button mash.

...yes, yes you can. You keep pressing the button and you keep attacking. That's a button-masher in my books. Yes, jumping in-between requires a different button, and sometimes you get a chance to move, but most of the time you're mashing buttons. Or at least I am. And every single good player I met is.

Even Soul Calibur has far less button mashing than Smash Bros. No, Mario cannot be called a button masher because if you keep hitting the button (I guess jump would be the only one) you're not gonna beat the game. You're probably going to fall into a pit and die.

I don't think Yahtzee's reviews are really any better than anyone else's.

If a game is in a genre he doesn't like, like an rpg or a fighting game, he'll give it a bad review regardless of the game's actual quality of the game, just because he doesn't like that type of playstyle.

Also, a lot of his reviews have him complaining about a game being unfair and cheap when it's really obvious that he's just bad at it.

Yeah, but at least he isn't giving scores, and his word isn't treated like some sort of godsent law. The problem arises when sites like IGN get their reviews treated as some sort of final judgement, while his reviews are treated like some angry guy on the internet. Yes, he is an angry guy on the internet. He's very smug and often rather pretentious. To use your words though, he's no better than anyone else on the internet. He offers an opinion which is treated as such, rather than an opinion which is treated as some sort of testament from the powers above. The latter is wrong, because there is never a review that is objective.

And also, if a player is bad at a game, shouldn't there be some way for him to play it anyways? Handicaps and all that? If the designer can't be arsed to give the player a chance to beat it anyways (or at least, I dunno, improve his skills) then he's being a lazy designer. And as for being unfair or cheap... yeah, a lot of games are unfair. Whether the player has a problem with that or not is the real question.

[NathanielEdwards]

I'm split on Yahtzee. I think that he comes up with flaws to make more enjoyable reviews a bit more often than I'd like, but he still is better than the mainstream reviews in that he is more like a movie critic: give an opinion, no scores to act like it's objective, especially no adding up scores for different categories (that's terrible). But, his stuff is still more for entertainment than criticism exactly, so he doesn't even really attempt to say "You might like this if..." which is sometimes good.

[Super Joe]

he tries to make funny joke. but hes bad at it. also an insufferable nerd. also got the spergs? also Game Damage??? Eat Turds Gay Hat Man

[Shade Jackrabbit]

he tries to make funny joke. but hes bad at it. also an insufferable nerd. also got the spergs? also Game Damage??? Eat Turds Gay Hat Man

Yeah Game Damage was complete tripe. I mean, camera angles were terrible, humour fell flat, incorrect focus, terrible discussions...

I mean, it's like they were trying to do The View except for games, yet they sorta forgot the big round table. You know, the one that everyone sits at so they can talk to eachother while the camera still sees them, and they're not always creepily looking at you.

Yahtzee's jokes aren't really... "funny" in a traditional sense. It's a very acquired taste. As for being a nerd, he's not really any less of a nerd than most other people in his business.

Also, you may be right about him being gay... I don't see how that factors into your argument though... 

P.S. Also, the hat is fucking awesome. Don't dis the hat.

[William Laub]

The way I see it, Yahtzee and Super Joe are roughly the same. I enjoy both of them for the same reasons.

[moi]

What yahtzee still exists? oh man, it's like I was in 2007 again 

[Alec S.]

The way I see it, Yahtzee and Super Joe are roughly the same.

Careful, this is how rumors get started.

I think Yatzee is effective because he points out a lot of the things which have been considered natural in games.  From his reviews, he prizes uniqueness over technical quality, and will therefore give solid, but rather generic, games worse reviews than flawed but interesting games.  Also he talks very fast in a British accent.  He doesn't really give a full view of a game, he mostly just points out the flaws, and, in some cases, some particularly redeeming qualities(like guns that shoot shurikens and lightning), and other than that focuses on entertainment value rather than reviewing.  I mean, I've played some games that he's reviewed and quite enjoyed them, but still agree with his criticisms and agree that the game could be better.

[Curseman]

I know, right? And how about disabled people? No ramp access? Whatever, man. You're just bad at walking up stairs.

Are you serious?

Yes, if a disabled person says that stairs are a bad invention because they personally are not good at using them, they're being idiots.

...yes, yes you can. You keep pressing the button and you keep attacking. That's a button-masher in my books. Yes, jumping in-between requires a different button, and sometimes you get a chance to move, but most of the time you're mashing buttons. Or at least I am. And every single good player I met is.

Button mashing doesn't work against a halfway competent player.  You *can* button mash in just about any game, but it shouldn't be (and isn't in the case of Smash) anywhere near as effective as when you actually know what you're doing.

And also, if a player is bad at a game, shouldn't there be some way for him to play it anyways? Handicaps and all that? If the designer can't be arsed to give the player a chance to beat it anyways (or at least, I dunno, improve his skills) then he's being a lazy designer. And as for being unfair or cheap... yeah, a lot of games are unfair. Whether the player has a problem with that or not is the real question.

Some games are hard.  Some people like them that way.

Anyway, from Yahtzee's reviews, he strikes me as the kind of person who's only having fun when he's winning.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

-snip about button mashing in smash bros-

Button mashing doesn't work against a halfway competent player.  You *can* button mash in just about any game, but it shouldn't be (and isn't in the case of Smash) anywhere near as effective as when you actually know what you're doing.

I thought we were talking about the storyline campaign. Yeah, against a competent player it's not that useful. Unless you're all competent in which case it gets so frantic and fast that it's almost indistinguishable from button mashing.

Anyway, from Yahtzee's reviews, he strikes me as the kind of person who's only having fun when he's winning.

I think that's a pretty normal human response. If you're not winning in ANY way, you're not gonna have fun. Winning a match doesn't necessarily count as winning though, it's not really a win if it was effortless. And that being said, if you have no chance of defeating your oponent, there's no fun there either. And even if you lose the match, if you succeed in any way (say, take out an opponent's life a few times) and notice that your skill is improving, that's like winning as well.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying it's wrong for someone to feel bad about losing at something they had no chance at.

[Curseman]

I thought we were talking about the storyline campaign. Yeah, against a competent player it's not that useful. Unless you're all competent in which case it gets so frantic and fast that it's almost indistinguishable from button mashing.

It may look indistinguishable from button mashing to the viewer, but I assure you that it's very different for those involved.

I think that's a pretty normal human response. If you're not winning in ANY way, you're not gonna have fun. Winning a match doesn't necessarily count as winning though, it's not really a win if it was effortless. And that being said, if you have no chance of defeating your oponent, there's no fun there either. And even if you lose the match, if you succeed in any way (say, take out an opponent's life a few times) and notice that your skill is improving, that's like winning as well.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying it's wrong for someone to feel bad about losing at something they had no chance at.

No, what I'm saying is that I think he would rather have victory handed to him than be challenged.

I personally like it when a single player game kills me off for a while before I make it through.  It doesn't happen that often anymore.

But watch his reviews.  Listen to how he enjoys it when there's some overpowered element in his favor, or how he says a game is bad because he made some obvious incompetent mistake and got killed for it.

Basically unless it's easy and/or a genre he likes like an fps, he's going to give it a bad review.  It's fine if he doesn't like this or that genre, but it's kind of silly to say that it's a bad game because of it.

[Don Andy]

I personally like it when a single player game kills me off for a while before I make it through.  It doesn't happen that often anymore.

You know, come to think of it, I did hear people say how Dead Space got really gruesome death scenes for the protagonist and when I thought about that for a second it dawned to me that except for a boss or the environment (that spinning thingmajig on that one asteroid you need to place a beacon on) I never actually got killed by an enemy.

On the one hand I probably could argue that they just don't make games anymore like they used to, but on the other hand I've been playing games for a pretty long time now, so what seems to be games getting progressively easier could just be us getting progressively better.

Another factor could of course be that games are often very similar. To stay on the example of Dead Space, it does have these huge tentacle thingies that suddenly charge at you from around a corner and grab you. They are supposed to catch you off guard, but I could see every single of these things coming. There were always certain cues that told me "This is a typical something is going to jump you area". Same for Cryostasis (this Russian game). It had plenty of guys who hid behind corners and then charged at you with a hammer, and most of the times I could see these coming too.

Or to use a more common example: If you've been trodding through tight hallways, mazes and closed spaces for a while and suddenly come to a big, open room that has cover and powerups placed quite conveniently, you can be pretty certain that a boss fight will be up ahead.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

I thought we were talking about the storyline campaign. Yeah, against a competent player it's not that useful. Unless you're all competent in which case it gets so frantic and fast that it's almost indistinguishable from button mashing.

It may look indistinguishable from button mashing to the viewer, but I assure you that it's very different for those involved.

Yes, but to get back to the topic at hand: Yahtzee was talking about playing with people who weren't competent. Therefor I think he has a very valid point.

I think that's a pretty normal human response. If you're not winning in ANY way, you're not gonna have fun. Winning a match doesn't necessarily count as winning though, it's not really a win if it was effortless. And that being said, if you have no chance of defeating your oponent, there's no fun there either. And even if you lose the match, if you succeed in any way (say, take out an opponent's life a few times) and notice that your skill is improving, that's like winning as well.

Basically, it sounds like you're saying it's wrong for someone to feel bad about losing at something they had no chance at.

No, what I'm saying is that I think he would rather have victory handed to him than be challenged.

...

But watch his reviews.  Listen to how he enjoys it when there's some overpowered element in his favor, or how he says a game is bad because he made some obvious incompetent mistake and got killed for it.

Basically unless it's easy and/or a genre he likes like an fps, he's going to give it a bad review.  It's fine if he doesn't like this or that genre, but it's kind of silly to say that it's a bad game because of it.

Not any sillier than it is for IGN to give Broken Sword DX a 7.5 because they don't like classic point-and-click adventure games. And he still isn't assigning a point value, throwing it in the realms of an opinion. That doesn't make him a bad reviewer. It makes him one of the best, simply because you can't confuse him for god-all-mighty or whatever. I'm not saying he's always right, he's just more right in proclaiming something is bad because he's Yahtzee the Internet Bastard than he would be claiming that he is somehow "objective".

Now I know, in his mailbag showdown video he did claim to be objective. He's not infallible, in fact that was a really stupid claim for him to make. But that being said, because of his style it's pretty obvious that it's an opinion, and therefor it doesn't really change anything.

I personally like it when a single player game kills me off for a while before I make it through.  It doesn't happen that often anymore.

I don't mind as long as the game is leaving me openings to try again, or try in a different style. When it comes down to luck, that's just bullshit game design. And most of the time its luck, or we run into the "oh noes yur dead, go start over fucker" flaw. This flaw is simple: "Oh silly you, you did something stupid. But instead of just letting you jump back to where you were and try something different, we're gonna bog you down with annoying cutscenes¹/minigames²/levels³/gameplay⁴ which will waste more of your time!"

Look, I know the counterargument. "If you're not a hardcore gamer, then don't play hardcore games!" Well thanks, that's great. How the hell am I supposed to explore creepy underwater cities full of monstrous people, or fight Jedi and Sith, without playing a hardcore game? It's just not possible, and I'm saying that a high level of difficulty is a legitimate concern.

This next segment is aimed towards ANYONE who thinks an "easy" or "handicap" mode is a bad idea:

And how does an "extra-easy" mode hurt you anyways? "Oh noes! Suddenly my hardcore gaming is being infiltrated by people who don't love yelling drunken profanities over Xbox live! Oh the humanity!" Oh, maybe it will slow down development times? Uh, no, it shouldn't, not if the game is designed properly from the outset. I believe Valve did some damage ratio changes for the difficulties, and all that involves is shifting some variables. It's not too hard, so including it should be no trouble.

¹ Kingdom Hearts did this.
² Those fucking annoying chariot races in Prince of Persia: Rival Swords
³ Max Payne was so painful because of this.
⁴ Pretty much every single FPS out there.

[Inane]

On the one hand I probably could argue that they just don't make games anymore like they used to, but on the other hand I've been playing games for a pretty long time now, so what seems to be games getting progressively easier could just be us getting progressively better.

Played any old games lately? They're usually pretty brutally hard.

[NathanielEdwards]

Yes, games are getting easier. It's not just you getting better. There are more tutorials now, with easier levels, and much easier gameplay, presumably because our now-expanded gaming audience doesn't want to die so much. The hardest new games I've played in the last year were Mega Man 9 and Gradius Rebirth, which were both nearly remakes of good old, difficult games.

[AMAZON]

Yeah, I'm definitely getting sick of the easiness. I love figuring out the controls and how to use them but the I always get it outlined five minutes later. Of course its nice to get it explained with more confusing game mechanics (what the hell does the a button do in bomb jack?) unless it's designed for figuring it out. I especially hate it when they familiarize you with a well developed tutorial character then drop said likable character off the face of the planet.

[Zest]

On the one hand I probably could argue that they just don't make games anymore like they used to, but on the other hand I've been playing games for a pretty long time now, so what seems to be games getting progressively easier could just be us getting progressively better.

Played any old games lately? They're usually pretty brutally hard.

I personally think it's a little bit of both; yeah, old-school arcade games are harder, in that they require better reflexes, but today's games are way more mechanically complicated. Just look at something like Halo; you've got two different control schemes, each using 12 buttons and two analog sticks, multiple human opponents and weapons, and you have to somehow co-ordinate your efforts as a team to win (on certain games, at least).

[fish]

im really enjoying inFAMOUS as a sandbox game.
the story sucks, and some of the missions are ridiculously hard.
but i played through the first third of the game real quick to get all the powers, after that it's all awesome.

it fixes a lot of the problems i had with crackdown's navigation. the character is super mobile, and can easily get to any point in space in a few seconds. the wire grinding + gliding is incredibly satisfying. the powers are cool and incredibly destructive. and the best part is that the engine is SOLID. i often have dozens and dozens of grenades go on all at once, with cars after cars flying into the air in a cloud of sparks without a framedrop. it's really quite impressive.

if you like being an overpowered badass running and gliding all over a beautifully constructed city, im sure you can bypass the horrible storyline and acting.

and yeah, empire city is fast become one of my favorite open game city. it's obviously an old industrial town that say it's heydays about a hundred years ago. the city has real character. real nice texture to it. it feels more real than liberty city to me. even with all the surreal bullshit going on in there. i love industrial decays, and sucker punch does industrial decays real good.

i've never played a sly cooper game.