The Shrine

bovine wrote:zero punctuation on Guitar hero 3? Oh, let's take his opinion as law.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... r-Hero-III

Why not? Everything else has been dead on.

Surprisingly, I agree with Sine--Zero Punctuation is possibly one of the best video game reviewers I've ever heard.

SineSwiper wrote:

bovine wrote:zero punctuation on Guitar hero 3? Oh, let's take his opinion as law.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... r-Hero-III

Why not? Everything else has been dead on.

While his reviews are hilarious... he hasn't been dead on with everything else... I want to go back and watch other reviews, but his review on Halo 3 was just whiny and wrong. It came off more as a "I want to be different and give Halo 3 a bad review just cause" than anything else.

Tessian wrote:While his reviews are hilarious... he hasn't been dead on with everything else... I want to go back and watch other reviews, but his review on Halo 3 was just whiny and wrong. It came off more as a "I want to be different and give Halo 3 a bad review just cause" than anything else.

He specializes in pointing out the bad things in games to prove a point: If a game deserves a 10/10 rating, it should have FUCKING NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! After all, you're calling a game "perfect", ergo it should be "perfect".

He didn't give Halo 3 a bad review. He gave it an average review from the POV of a reviewer that hadn't played the last two games and was only interested in the single player mode. He said that it wasn't as good as Bioshock, which is probably a fair assessment. He also gave reasons for all of his arguments, which is a shitload better than what you did in your reply.

I'm not bitching, but what was wrong with the review that you didn't like, besides "He's saying bad shit about a game I like"? (Hell, he does that to every game.)

Zero Punctuation is a joke site dude. It's meant to make you laugh.

SineSwiper wrote:

Tessian wrote:While his reviews are hilarious... he hasn't been dead on with everything else... I want to go back and watch other reviews, but his review on Halo 3 was just whiny and wrong. It came off more as a "I want to be different and give Halo 3 a bad review just cause" than anything else.

He specializes in pointing out the bad things in games to prove a point: If a game deserves a 10/10 rating, it should have FUCKING NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! After all, you're calling a game "perfect", ergo it should be "perfect".

He didn't give Halo 3 a bad review. He gave it an average review from the POV of a reviewer that hadn't played the last two games and was only interested in the single player mode. He said that it wasn't as good as Bioshock, which is probably a fair assessment. He also gave reasons for all of his arguments, which is a shitload better than what you did in your reply.

I'm not bitching, but what was wrong with the review that you didn't like, besides "He's saying bad shit about a game I like"? (Hell, he does that to every game.)

I actually went back last night and listened to all of his reviews since Halo 3 and they're funny... mostly fair too. But, his Halo 3 review wasn't fair compared to these others. It's like watching the third Lord of the Rings muted and complaining there's no good dialogue or music. You can't complain you don't understand the story when it's the last part of a trilogy you haven't paid attention and then also ignore 80% of the game which is the multiplayer aspect.

I'm not bitching either, but it's an ignorant review like that that doesn't let me take him seriously as a reviewer.

I can't say it's a particularly fair review, but I can't say it's an ignorant one either.

Truth be told, Halo is NOT SPECIAL. It is NOT UNIQUE.

It is GOLDENEYE with TWO GUNS and JEEPS. Ok?

OK!? Can we PLEASE just acknowledge that the mindless fun that is Halo was once the mindless fun that was Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark, with enough tweaks to keep them different. Besides the often-times finicky vehicles and the far-refined AI, there isn't much difference between the two.

Oh, and Halo 1 has one level that's like TWO HOURS LONG and is FUCKING HARD ALL THE TIME AND TOTALLY RETARDED.

I love Halo to a great deal, don't get me wrong, but It's not perfect and it's not even particularly UNIQUE.

Gears of War, now that's fairly UNIQUE.

Halo is NOT.

It is, as Zero Punctuation quite adequately pointed out, perfectly and wonderfully AVERAGE.

And y'know what? That's ok.

SineSwiper wrote:If a game deserves a 10/10 rating, it should have FUCKING NOTHING WRONG WITH IT! After all, you're calling a game "perfect", ergo it should be "perfect".

Wrong. Wrong, wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Seriously. We've been over this many times. A score of 10/10 does not mean perfect. It means "best there is." Getting an A in a class does not mean you did it perfectly. A movie with five stars is not perfect. Getting a Nobel prize does not mean your work was perfect. It's just the best around.

When other works are subjected to criticism, no one has a problem with this concept. I don't know why gamers do.

Kupek wrote:When other works are subjected to criticism, no one has a problem with this concept.

I, of course, agree with everything you've said; except this. I don't think this kind of fixation on evaluative procedures is unique to our subculture. One of my old teachers wouldn't give A pluses for anything other than perfect works. He was as mental as Sine.

Kupek wrote:Getting an A in a class does not mean you did it perfectly.

Bad analogy. These reviewers are using a number system. If someone got a A score of 100/100 on their test, then they did do it perfectly. If they want wiggle room, they shouldnt use numbers.

I've had plenty of teachers who used a number system on tests that were not objectively graded.

Kupek wrote:I've had plenty of teachers who used a number system on tests that were not objectively graded.

Right... but then if you got a 100% it meant that the teacher had decided you answered the questions perfectly. Objective just means that there's only 1 answer: 2+2=4. Non objective questions do not mean that you can't still be 100% correct; it just means that if you gave that same answer to 5 different teachers you'd get different scores. But if any gave you a 100% their perception was that your answer was 100% correct aka perfect.

OH JESUS CHRIST CAN WE PLEASE STOP

NO WAY-- FAN THE FLAMES

Kupek, nobody who gives out Nobel prizes calls their work perfect. However, game reviewers seem to toss that term all the time when they are talking about their "10/10" games. Or when they list their Cons, they say "Nothing". This is wrong. These "perfect" games have their flaws, and some of them are annoying. It's just that the fun far outweighs those flaws.

But, please, let's get a handle on the terminology. Perfect is a precise word, so don't throw it around haphazardly. Also, I agree with Tessian: If you use a number system or some sort of percentage, then the highest rating is "perfect". Something like X-Play's five star rating is a lot more generalistic (which they take pride in), so a five out of five stars is an "excellent game", but not exactly perfect. If you're measuring a game as "95.4%" or whatever, you're trying to illustrate a more "finite" definition of a review (as absurd as it is to measure that way).

Anyway, back to ZP, I like his ability to point out these flaws, because sometimes they are annoying, and even the greatest games need to be knocked off their high horse so that they still learn from what little mistakes they made. (Bioware really needs to listen to something like that, because they love to repeat the SAME mistakes over and over again.)

And, even still, as a Reviewer, Yahtzee isn't perfect. He quibbles over base things.

But, he's a TRUE critic in the sense that he sets out to NOT enjoy something and is surprised if he manages to do so, thus allowing a positive--or fairly positive--review. And he's interminably fair. He really is. Half of what he says is purely for laughs, and half is serious, and above all, he at least makes his own games, so that he puts his own neck out for the chopping block if you get really upset at what he says.

SineSwiper wrote:If you use a number system or some sort of percentage, then the highest rating is "perfect". Something like X-Play's five star rating is a lot more generalistic...

A rating system that has a scale of five is still a "number system"! In your world of objectivity a 5/5 is exactly the same as a 10/10, an A+, a 100/100 or a fuckin' pi out of pi. FUCK THIS TOPIC DRIVES ME INSANE

A review system means exactly, and only, what its reviewer wants it to mean. A 10/10 means what the person assigning it wants it to mean. There is no platonic ideal of every game that a reviewer finds a universally true and correct rating for.

honestly......I think his review of Assasins Creeed is the best one on the interwebs......


seriously...I do.....people either sucked it's cock or hammered it. he gave it a shut the fuck up and play it for yourself kinda review. because yeah....the game is repetitive. and year the little missions are retarded....but damn....there is some awesome as hell crazy shit you can do with that bitch taco

He doesn't go into the multiplayer aspects of games and I do not like that. Other than that, I enjoy his reviews and certainly take them into consideration, but I enjoy games that some people do not. I love Star Wars: Republic Commando and no one is ever going to change that.

bovine wrote:He doesn't go into the multiplayer aspects of games and I do not like that. Other than that, I enjoy his reviews and certainly take them into consideration, but I enjoy games that some people do not. I love Star Wars: Republic Commando and no one is ever going to change that.

You like that!!?!?!?!?!? Loser for life! Mwahahaha!!!!!!! Blahrg!!!! You suck. Whats your opinion now, fag breath?

Flip wrote:

bovine wrote:He doesn't go into the multiplayer aspects of games and I do not like that. Other than that, I enjoy his reviews and certainly take them into consideration, but I enjoy games that some people do not. I love Star Wars: Republic Commando and no one is ever going to change that.

You like that!!?!?!?!?!? Loser for life! Mwahahaha!!!!!!! Blahrg!!!! You suck. Whats your opinion now, fag breath?

Oh snap, Flip on the offensive!

I hope to see some real Nerd Rage before it's over.

bovine wrote:I love Star Wars: Republic Commando and no one is ever going to change that.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought that game was pretty damn fun. I've still yet to see a squad based FPS do a better job and that game is how old now?

Most websites are terrible at scoring games. I have found that only IGN, Famitsu, and Gamespot have really been good at scoring games; even they slip up, so I generally utilize all three sources. No other review source I have found to be worth the time for consideration. I watch ZP purely for entertainment value, and it's pointless to really give any weight to a guy whose goal is not objective reviews; his goal is rather to make people laugh due to huge exaggerations and a poor grammatical speaking form.

Tessian wrote:Right... but then if you got a 100% it meant that the teacher had decided you answered the questions perfectly. Objective just means that there's only 1 answer: 2+2=4. Non objective questions do not mean that you can't still be 100% correct; it just means that if you gave that same answer to 5 different teachers you'd get different scores. But if any gave you a 100% their perception was that your answer was 100% correct aka perfect.

No. I separated tests and work into ones with objective metrics and subjective metrics. An objective test is a a multiple choice test: you have discrete options and your score is a function of what questions you got right. It's possible to have a perfect test on an objective test because it has discrete options and an objective metric.

A subjective test is free form, and the teacher assigns numbers to work using their own judgment. In this case, a 100% does not mean you had a perfect test. It's always possible to perform a little better, even if it's something like a physics test and you got the right answer. But once you pass a certain threshold - determined by the teacher's own judgment - they decide you've gotten full credit for that course.

Sineswiper wrote:However, game reviewers seem to toss that term all the time when they are talking about their "10/10" games.

Strawman. I've never seen anyone do that in recent memory.

I agree that number based systems are not appropriate for games, but we're stuck with them. Read the review itself, that's where the meat of the judgment is.

Sine, your review system seems to imply whatever a max score game is has to be best in every category. Even the best game ever needs not to be the best in every single category.

For example, many people consider Diablo 2 a great game. It certainly has the player base and consistency to be one of the most played game ever. There are some horrendously balance issue with the game. For that matter this applies to Starcraft as well. But in general the game's strong points is able to overcome its shortcomings.

I think the greatist merit to ZP is that he'll speak ill of games other reviewers are afraid to--Halo being a prime example, but Bioshock being just as good, and he absolutely tears Fable to pieces.

Ultimately, I like Yahtzee--as we should really call him by his name, not the name of his SHOW--because he's harsh, but not inherently unfairly. He just demands high standards. If all reviewers were like him, most developers would be afraid of putting out bad products. We ought to encourage, not alienate, his method of reviewing--skewed as it is, it's terribly FAIR.

Kupek wrote:Strawman. I've never seen anyone do that in recent memory.

One example, though he's careful to put at least one con in after he says it

I've seen it tossed around before as well as "Cons = none", etc. But, really, I'm just tired of arguing this damned pointless conversation. I've stated my reasons on why I like ZP's reviews, and I shouldn't have to defend myself.

RentCavalier wrote:I think the greatist merit to ZP is that he'll speak ill of games other reviewers are afraid to--Halo being a prime example, but Bioshock being just as good, and he absolutely tears Fable to pieces.

Ultimately, I like Yahtzee--as we should really call him by his name, not the name of his SHOW--because he's harsh, but not inherently unfairly. He just demands high standards. If all reviewers were like him, most developers would be afraid of putting out bad products. We ought to encourage, not alienate, his method of reviewing--skewed as it is, it's terribly FAIR.

It's fair to completely dismiss the multiplayer aspect of a game?

In a manner of speaking--it's true that a lot of gamers actually DON'T play multiplayer. I usually don't because I usually can't get online or play games online anyway, and so I entertain myself with the single-player aspect--which ultimately should be the focus of games, I think, unless you are making a game almost solely FOR multiplayer, I.E. Unreal Tournament.

SineSwiper wrote:I shouldn't have to defend myself.

Haha, I don't think you quite understand how public internet message boards work, dude.

RentCavalier wrote:I entertain myself with the single-player aspect--which ultimately should be the focus of games...

This is a whole 'nother discussion. But, you're wrong.

RentCavalier wrote:I entertain myself with the single-player aspect--which ultimately should be the focus of games...

Says you, woman.

Wow...this is a surprisingly hot-button topic...

RentCavalier wrote:Wow...this is a surprisingly hot-button topic...

Can o' worms!

RentCavalier wrote:In a manner of speaking--it's true that a lot of gamers actually DON'T play multiplayer.

Just because there are plenty of gamers (my dad and my ex being 2) that don't play multiplayer doesn't give a reviewer ANY excuse to ignore it during their review of the game. It's like building a desk from ikea and only using half the parts... then bitching that it is a sucky desk. Multiplayer is as much, sometimes more, of a portion of a game than the Single player. Halo 3 is a perfect example of that. I'd say it's 30/70 for SP/MP. Bioshock is 100/0 as is Mass Effect, and UT as you pointed out would be like 5/95. You can't ignore half the game and then penalize it for having done so.

Well, I think what Yahtzee was basically saying was that he's not PENALIZING Halo 3 for Multiplayer--he just doesn't care. He's reviewing it based solely on opinion, for what is mostly hilarity's sake. In the end, it's HIS OPINION and he explains himself well enough to justify his rationale. He points out that multiplayer doesn't matter to him, and that based on what he played, the game is simply average.

True, it's not the GREATEST way of doing reviews. But it's different, and Yahtzee is, if nothing else, a different sort of reviewer, who reviews games differently. Like it or hate it, it's what he does, and people will love him or hate him for it. It's really that simple, it all boils down to opinion.

Starcraft would be a pretty boring game if you don't play it multiplayer.

he does mass effect today if you want to argue about that and crap.

Don Wang wrote:Starcraft would be a pretty boring game if you don't play it multiplayer.

I liked the single player campaigns in Starcraft, actually.

Warcraft III though, now THAT'S a game which is boring on single player, and I never really got into multiplayer so I can't compare. I mean, the first one was fairly cool, but the expansion kept putting me to sleep.

Actually, StarCraft's single-player was pretty damn good, even if it was tough to beat. The story was enjoyable, too.

EDIT: The Mass Effect review is also awesome! After playing this thing on Hardcore, I've come to the conclusion that your teammates are fucking useless unless they are overpowered and overarmored enough to not die from standing around in the middle of a firefight while ten bad guys shoot them with machine guns that rain down thousands of weapons of mass destruction every two seconds.

Very often, I find myself being the only person in the game killing off every other bad guy, because I'm the only one fucking smart enough to duck and cover properly.

Don Wang wrote:Starcraft would be a pretty boring game if you don't play it multiplayer.

Take out the last six words and I agree

His Mass Effect review seemed kind of pointless, really, but I haven't played it so I really can't judge, but I have a feeling he kinda felt pressured to review Mass Effect, despite not liking RPGs.

I agree, his Mass Effect review kind of sucked. I also didn't find his Guitar Hero 3 review very good for the exact same reason, it felt forced. Maybe he's just having a bad month =P

Haha another funny review... but god damnit he then once again admits he didn't play most of the game. I wouldn't expect he do every damned side quest but he coulda done a fair portion of them.

I'm surprised he doesn't bitch about the elevators, or make fun of the dialog choices.

He clearly didn't want to play Mass Effect, and he has, like, just a week to play the game AND make a video review. Give him a little slack, he doesn't have the whole month-long early copy that folks like EGM get.

RentCavalier wrote:He clearly didn't want to play Mass Effect, and he has, like, just a week to play the game AND make a video review. Give him a little slack, he doesn't have the whole month-long early copy that folks like EGM get.

Boy I wish I could make that excuse at work! "You see boss, I didn't really want to do the project and I gave myself too little time to do it... so that's why it's overbudget, late, and currently burning in the parking lot"

cry me an f'ing river-- he doesn't get to do a crappy job because he didn't want to do it. A week's time would be PLENTY to play the game with some sidequesting and write a review... and where'd you pull that magical time line out of?

Ok, maybe not a month, but I do know that most reviewers get more than a week to get through a game.

In Yahtzee's case, even if he DID do some sidequests, what would it have mattered? He didn't like the core mechanics of the game, and teh sidequests would have just yielded MORE of the dialogue that he hated so much.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that he has to actually BEAT the game, which may be kind of difficult for some people, and then write a review and THEN make a movie of the review, which is likely a lot harder than it looks, not to mention make it funny and read coherently, which likely includes a lot of going back and editing.

I mean, seriously, you guys seem to just exist now to criticize the poor man. It's not like anyone here is saying that his opinion is infallibly correct and that he has the voice of God, he's just an interesting and entertaining reviewer and the lot of you could do some good getting off your preverbial high horses and give the man a fucking break and just DROP THIS STUPID 45 POST THREAD ALREADY FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING MORE FUCKING IMPORTANT!

Wow... you're being quite fanboyish about this guy. You also forget he's the topic of the damned thread too

You just keep making excuses about how hard a game reviewer's job is... and I'm not going to give any sympathy for him. It's his job and he's most likely paid pretty well for it. I mean seriously you're sounding like the gay guy who became popular throw his "LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE" video. You might want to just cut out the middle man and go ask him if you can suck his dick directly.... geez.

Admit it. The guy was right on with a lot of the gameplay elements: item management, fucking stupid character AI, and while it's an impressive amount of good voice acting and dialogue, it -IS- probably a good 75% of the game. Some people like us like that, some people don't. Hell, he already admits that he's not a huge fan of RPGs, likely because he lends towards good gameplay first.

Tessian wrote:Wow... you're being quite fanboyish about this guy. You also forget he's the topic of the damned thread too

You just keep making excuses about how hard a game reviewer's job is... and I'm not going to give any sympathy for him. It's his job and he's most likely paid pretty well for it. I mean seriously you're sounding like the gay guy who became popular throw his "LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE" video. You might want to just cut out the middle man and go ask him if you can suck his dick directly.... geez.

I don't see myself being fanboyish at all--I'm only rallying to his defense because Sine is hardly ever really taken particularly seriously around here (sorry Sine.) and somebody ought to speak up for the guy. I've said time and again that he's not a perfect reviewer, but he's funny and he makes good points. I don't see how that's fanboyish.

You are the one who is getting more and more riled up over something as incredibly pointless as all this. I mean, basically, you've got your knickers in a knot because he didn't particularly like Halo.

Hey! You're getting upset at him for giving a bad review to a game you like!

Now, that sounds an awful lot like something...um...what was it now...

Oh yeah!

That sounds an awful lot like something a fanboy would do.

I'm sorry... did you mistake me for someone who cared about what an australian with a funny accent and intermediate flash skills thought?

I couldn't care less of his review of Halo; I only used it to point out that he purposely ignores portions of games (in this case a large portion) and then penalizes the game for doing so. That is not the mark of a good reviewer. He makes good points in a funny way but he still fails to be fair or complete in his reviews. YOU are the one getting your panties twisted up because omg someone doesn't like him! You keep railing about how TOUGH he has it and we should feel sorry for him and cut him some slack. All I hear at that point is you crying hard enough to make your eye liner run screaming "LEAVE ZERO ALONE!!"

He's an entertainer; not someone who should be taken seriously as a reviewer. That's all I was saying. I enjoy his reviews, but I know better than to take what he says for much value because he's admitted to being unfair and incomplete in his reviews.