Reviews WebAnimation / Zero Punctuation

As a Zero Punctuation fan, I agree completely.

Wow, these are my thoughts, except way more articulate. Yeah, ZP the comedian I love, ZP the critic blows.

The thing that I like about ZP is that it's a step in the right direction for gaming culture. It used to be that gaming humor took up a couple of pages of poorly drawn cartoons at the back of Dragon Magazine once a month, but now we have fairly competantly done animated videos on a popular website once a week (and that's just counting Zero, not all the other funny stuff on The Escapist).

We've come a long way, baby.

EDIT: BIG NOTE HERE FROM THE REVIEWS AUTHOR: SUBSTITUTE CRITIC FOR REVIEWER IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE DISTINCTION. I DO NOT, AND I ONLY USED THE TERM REVIEWER BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPACE IN THE ACTUAL REVIEW TO TYPE REVIEWER/CRITIC AND WRITE A DISCLAIMER ABOUT HOW I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERMS, AND AM MERELY TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT I DISLIKE YAHTZEE BECAUSE OF THE FACT HE DOES NOT PRESENT AN ACCURATE VIEW OF THE GAMES HE CRITICIZES/REVIEWS/INSERT YOUR TERM HERE WHILE STILL ACTING AS IF HIS VIEWS ON THE GAME ARE ACCURATE

How are the views of somebody with all of the issues I presented above being taken as fact by the populace a step forward for gaming culture? That's like saying that if the Onion got its own channel and half the viewers thought it was fact, it would be a step forward for the news culture. It would just mean that a bunch of people were getting misinformed views while more people got to listen to comedy.

ZP is nothing but a step backward for gaming culture. Does it add humor? Sure, for some people. Does that make up for the fact Yahtzee makes his videos as if he is a reviewer, leading to (admittedly not the brightest) people following his opinion as if it's fact just because he can call features shit and mentions cockdonkeys and makes all the features in a game sound like you're shooting/collecting/defending somebodies genitals? No, it really doesn't.

This pretty much sums it up for me, along with the other review that pointed out how essentially, inconsistently unpleasable the man is. He dislikes sandboxes, linear stories, choices, lack of choices, action-heavy plotless games, story-heavy games with little action - and the "he only likes it when it's done well" defense doesn't fly, because he's reviewed plenty of games that couldn't possibly be called poorly done except for the sake of sheer negativity.

And that's my problem with the whole phenomenon. The whole "bashing something is cool and funny, praising something is for wusses" mentality that's become so prevalent in gaming culture as of late does nothing for us. Yes, it might cause people to avoid buying bad games, but it also makes them miss out on good games, because Reviews Are The Gospel - now more than ever - and it doesn't look as though Accentuate The Negative is going to fall out of fashion anytime soon.

I Accentuate The Negative works when its played for laughs, and just for laughs. I believe Spoony finds a good balance, but Yahtzee might be too good at putting on a serious persona, if it is a persona, in fact I'm curious. Does Yahtzee actually hate life and the living? Or is he just an extreme method actor?

Milskidasith: "How are the views of somebody with all of the issues I presented above being taken as fact by the populace a step forward for gaming culture? That's like saying that if the Onion got its own channel and half the viewers thought it was fact, it would be a step forward for the news culture."

Er, that's not really an apt analogy, because very few Onion articles could ever be mistaken for fact, even by idiots. A more apt analogy would be The Daily Show, which, er, wait, that's actually not a good analogy either, because it's comedy that's actually better news than real news.

Anyway, you're panning Yahtzee's comedy because some idiots parrot him like he was a real reviewer. Would it be fine if only the humor-enabled segment of the population ever watched it? Is Its Popular Now It Sucks really a valid justification here?

And he's not really completely unpleasable. He usually points out a couple things in each game that he kinda likes sorta. And some games, like Batman Arkham Asylum, he really liked.

First off: People do take Onion articles seriously. Why? I dunno, the same reason people take ZP seriously, although, and it's my next point, Yahtzee does nothing to dissuade them from the fact.

I'm not criticizing him because idiots parrot him as a real reviewer, I'm criticizing him because he acts like he's a real reviewer (or critic, if you prefer that word, because I know somebody will call me out on that). With the sheer amount of research he doesn't do and facts he gets wrong about the games, it's bad. Is it humorous? Sure. Does it provide accurate info about the games? No. Take, for example, his most recent video on Red Dead Redemption. Guess what? He didn't just make a humorous video pointing out... a few glitches, mostly, he actually gave the game an overall "should I buy this?" statement at the end. Combine that with his usually low accuracy in regards to the games he makes videos on (for instance: Money in RDR is sort of useless, in that you can make too much, but you only get crap guns and no other consumables/spare horse/maps if you just do missions), and you get, as I said, a funny guy who thinks his opinions should be taken seriously when they really shouldn't.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. While I could forgive his hatred for FFXIII - the best thing people said in its defense was "Yes, all you do is run down linear hallways, but after 25 hours it gets good" - that's reason enough in my book for someone to call bullshit, even if you do play it for only 5 hours, if people tell you that it doesn't improve for a long time, I think you can draw the line. But what made me actually stoü watching the show was the Monster Hunter Tri review. Rant about the Wii, rant about JRP Gs and literally hundreds of comments of people declaring "Wow this game really sucks I'm not going to play it now", combined with the fact that he barely finished the tutorial. Everything that is wrong with ZP in one review.

He's not a reviewer, and he doesn't believe he is one. He's a critic. He attacks games on their weak points, systems on their weak points and series on their weak points. It's what he's always done. In fact, he has an entire review opening where he says that he doesn't give scores because he doesn't think that's necessary. He also has another section where he claims to be a reviewer "by exclusion." That which he does not cover is either fine or not funny enough to bother with.

What you're doing is sticking the peg into the hole and pointing out that it doesn't fit- and the peg is a tiny square thing and the hole is big and round. An equivalent would be claiming that the Bible fails as a legal document or that Pablo Picasso's human paintings tend to be pretty bad at capturing actual people. It's true, but it's also wrong because that's not the point. As Ebert said, "it's not what the movie's about, it's how it's about it," and as a critic, Yahtzee is excellent- he carefully picks out flaws that he would have liked them to fix even in the middle of quite good games, never letting a game's overall positive impression dull his strange duty to pick apart its problems. As a reviewer, he sucks. But he's not a reviewer.

EDIT: I put up a giant ass disclaimer on my first comment explaining the reviewer/critic situation. In short: I don't care about the distinction, I'm merely commenting on the fact Yahtzee doesn't present an accurate view of the game, which is bad for either a reviewer or a critic, and I didn't have space to put a disclaimer in my actual review while still making my point; as you can see from the length of my comments, I may just be a terrible writer who can't cut material effectively, but I had to edit a good amount from my original review just to get it to fit.

Again, anonymous IP address that misses my point, I don't care if you label him a critic or a reviewer. I've stated in every comment, and only didn't state in the review due to character limits, that the distinction is unimportant to me because he thinks he is one of the two, and does not qualify.

He sucks as a critic. Why? Because he presents an inaccurate view of the game. Ebert is a good critic, even if you don't agree with him, because he actually presents his overall feelings about the movie and gives his impressions. Yahtzee does not do that. Even if it isn't a video where he spends most of the time console/Japan bashing (any review of a Wii game), and he doesn't blatently misrepresent facts (Halo Wars to a lesser degree, Red Dead Redemption, Monster Hunter Tri, any review of fighting games he says you can just button mash, especially brawl where he claimed all you had to do was mash buttons and that it was hard in the same review), he still sacrifices clarity of criticism for humor, yet, as evidenced by his "Should I get this" finish of Red Dead Redemption, he clearly thinks that he is presenting an accurate opinion.

Does he pick out flaws? Sure, in the same way that your (or now our) analogies can be said to make sense, or that a guy who makes his standardized multiple choice test spell out "FAG" over and over gets questions right; it doesn't change that, in all the situations, it's done incredibly poorly and incidentally while the person is attempting a different goal (Humor and console bashing, using analogies because it makes you sound smarter/as a foil and [un]stealthy parody of said analogies, and because you're a homophobic moron, respectively).

In short: His criticism isn't real criticism. He sacrifices clarity for humor, and is far too obviously prejudiced to make a good critic (prejudice and subjectivity are expected; spending more of your video bashing the system than the game is not), and, again citing Monster Hunter, doesn't even respect his viewers enough to be honest about his gaming experience when it's going to get more views if he just sums up his experiences from the box art and opening cinematic. It's not good criticism simply to point out flaws; for it to be good criticism, it has to point out flaws with clarity, without inaccurate information, and as a part of the whole, rather than pointing out flaws drowned in inaccuracy, humor, and hyperbole without mentioning any aspects of the game besides the flaws. Yes, I know he (occasionally) gives a sentence or two of credit to the game, but that doesn't diminish the fact the flaws he points out are frequently... you know the drill.

All in all, I wouldn't even care if Yahtzee didn't think he was a critic/reviewer, whatever you want to call him. If he was doing it purely for the humor, he'd be fine... but he's clearly got a Small Name Big Ego complex going to the point he thinks his reviews do make legitimate points, and his Lickspittle is so rabid about taking his videos as fact, that there is no excuse for the horrible inaccuracies in his videos.

You do realize that there's a difference between not liking the things you like and being a bad critic, right?

He's funny, and it's just a show.

Can we please keep the irrelevant arguments about Ebert out of these comments? My example about him being a good critic was merely that he actually comments on the show as a whole along including its flaws, rather than talking about the flaws and presenting the flaws as the entire game. Ebert is also much less prone to author tracts against one thing, (video games aside, but he's not a video game critic) especially not in the middle of reviews, and he doesn't present things inaccurately.

Anyway, I can't even tell if the "He's funny, and it's just a show" comment is about Ebert or Yahtzee; if its about Yahtzee, then I'd like to point out I explicitly said this wasn't about whether he's funny or not, and the MST 3 K mantra is usually applied to fridge logic, not a lack of journalistic integrity.

It's about Yahtzee, and where did Yahtzee call himself a journalist with journalistic integrity?

He reports on games... and lies about them? OK, maybe journalistic integrity was the wrong term, but still, he's presenting the games incorrectly and failing to do the research yet making it sound like he's correct and has actually played the games, and I'm only talking about him as a critic/reviewer/whatever term you prefer, not as a humorist. My proof for the fact he does think he's giving people accurate views on the game, and not just being funny, is that he's made game recommendations before, including in the Red Dead Redemption video.

In short, you're simply using the Red Herring fallacy; my point had nothing to do with his humor, so bringing it up is just an attempt to confuse the issue. I'd appreciate if you either comment on the actual subject of my review, or do not comment at all.

Milskidasith, Maybe he's a follower of Andy Kaufman, and an extreme method actor that's pranking everybody who takes him seriously.

And you're using the red herring fallacy by calling him a reviewer/critic/whatever-the-fuck-he-is he's not, he's made very little pretension of being one, it's like calling our the pope for being a crappy jew, I don't think that's what he's trying to be.

Er... you mean he's not trying to be a critic? Then what about all those videos he made, you know, the reviews?

I think very few Catholics think the Pope is Jewish... it's just not a good analogy. And I don't believe he's ever claimed not to be a critic. If you make videos in the vein of Zero Punctuation, that you label yourself a critic or something to that general effect is the default assumption, and if you make no claims either way it is the same as representing that you are in fact a critic.

And now you're using the red herring fallacy in an attempt to distract people by claiming that the person who pointed out that you were using the red herring fallacy is using the red herring fallacy, while you simultaneously use the red herring fallacy with your bad Pope analogy... cut it out, I'm getting dizzy.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, he isn't a critic, he's a satire of the Caustic Critic, who hates everything, like...AVGN, Nostalgia Critic, and Spoony, they don't really hate whatever they review, if you took everything they said seriously you're missing the point, they are comedians, and nothing is to sacred for them not to joke about.

And very few people think Yahtzee is a critic, cause he isn't, see above.

Yes, but that red herring was a red herring for the other red herring that was herring the other red...

I dunno, he's not putting on a persona. He's supposedly like that in real life when provoked, and stays the same in his blog entries and writing.

• thumbs up for the review*

He actually does make a lot of good points (In sonic he criticised the break neck speeds, asinine quick time events, and boring hub jumping). He also points out if a story is stupid

The flaws he picks out are only accurate about half the time.

I still think it's possible he's like Andy Kaufman, a comedian Troll.

You exagarreting some of his views. I don't agree with everything he says but he's one of the most insightful critics in the industry. He actually very interesting points that I think a lot of developers should follow. I don't mean all his views though. I don't think the japanese indusstry should make jrpgs the way he wants them or there shouldn't be a fighting games.

I also find his views on sequels extreme but I think he has a lot of good points. Sequels shoudln't be completely similar to the previeous entry with a few minor additions or changes , they need to make real changes. The battle system of pokemon is a good example. The objectives are the same and it follows a formula in the plot but it makes additions to the battle systen that revamps the way the games are played in the competive scene.

He doesn't hate sandboxes, he justs hate badly done gta clones or games attempted to be part sandbox when it isn't neccessary.

So....he still isn't a critic, he's a Video Game Pundit.

Why is that frighteningly more accurate.

In this review, people criticize Yahtzee for failing to be something that he isn't and doesn't claim to be. Here's what he claims to be: "Yahtzee is a British-born, currently Australian-based writer and gamer with a sweet hat and a chip on his shoulder."

People who take him seriously as a reviewer are guilty of the exact thing they are deriding others for: assuming he is a reviewer. He's good for comedy and pointing out the little nitpicky things that bother him.

EDIT: I put up a giant ass disclaimer on my first comment explaining the reviewer/critic situation. In short: I don't care about the distinction, I'm merely commenting on the fact Yahtzee doesn't present an accurate view of the game, which is bad for either a reviewer or a critic, and I didn't have space to put a disclaimer in my actual review while still making my point; as you can see from the length of my comments, I may just be a terrible writer who can't cut material effectively, but I had to edit a good amount from my original review just to get it to fit.

Of course he doesn't present an accurate view of the games, because it's the bleedin' Internet. You can read stories and hype all you want. ZP's main point is to point out what's bad about them. He is a critic, and critics are allowed to have biased descriptions, especially if their contract relies heavily upon the funny.

However, it just sounds like you're a little butthurt about the Monster Hunter Tri review. Lots of people were. You're not alone.

I do think ZP is more of a comedian than a reviewer, and not a very funny one at that. But oftentimes I find his complaints are accurate, if blown out of scale. To his credit, he has actually said that people don't like it when he's positive and he warns viewers that he will skew things. That's the message I came away with, anyway.

This entire thread is proof that many people do not even get Zero Punctuation the slightest. And I'm not talking about the jokes either. People do not get what it is, what it stands for, and what it aims to do.

^Care to explain then?

To be honest, I don't take Zero Punctation seriously, but I wouldn't go as far to say that Yahtzee's opinions are invalid...

You see, while his five minutes of fame on Zero Punctuation are brief and questionable, he does actually try and back up his views (usually quite well IMO) on his articles called Extra Punctation, allowing for much more clarity on the subject matter.

Whether you agree with him or not, his opinions can still be considered valid if something genuine backs him up e.g.: With Red Dead Redemption, he feels there was no motivation for commiting any crimes, since he didn't feel any sense of desperation in the game.

Zero Punctuation is made generally to be funny and get the basic views out. He clarifies these views in Extra Punctuation.

Does anyone rember an ancinet game magazine called Sega Power?

They were extremtly funny, they took the piss out of anything strange or wrong about the game, and yet they were very through, they listed all that was good and bad about the game, described a game in depth and showed they had played even bad games enough to a give a formal review. They would NEVER pick up a game with a 45 minute tutoiral, spend the review bashing japan and wii owners, claim the tutorial was 10 hours long, then claim they had actually played the game when they wern't even off the tutorial.

It IS possible to be funny and informative, dammit. Its possible to describe the merits and weaknesses of a product, while cracking jokes and making fun of the abusrdities of a game, while still being fair.

You'll notice I add the monster hunter thing to the main page, just bugs me and after i type this, I'll find the Dethroning moments of suck page. As a reviewer Yazhette absoutly fails, and falls behind any decent gamefaqs reviewer or magazine.

Hes not a bad humorist (his Duke Nukem F Orever review is hillarous), but if you want informed reviews that will help your purchase decisons, look elsewhere.

And no, I'm not a monster hunter fan. Never played it and looked at the review wondering if i should start. At first i thought "10 hour tutorial... good god" then I saw he simply hadn't done his job.

You're not going to comment on whether or not it's funny or entertaining, even if you think the jokes have gotten worse. Good job.

I'm with D Minor here. Stating you are not going to comment on it while still commenting on it is more than hypocritical, it is, in fact, bad form. To go further, a reviewer, good or bad, does not necessarily need to be objective - a review is subjective in the extreme! For instance, your own very review is listed on the review page and is caustic, misrepresents facts, and is far from objective itself. Should we remove your review?

There's subjectivity, and there's giving completely inaccurate information. Frankly, you're a complete moron if you base your decisions off of his reviews, because his goal is to be funny rather than to give anything that remotely resembles an accurate review. And no, he doesn't succeed at doing both.

I don't base my decisions off of his reviews, though I take them into account. The commentary that someone is a complete moron is not helping a civilized discussion nor does it help your argument. Funny, in itself, is subjective. Yahtzee is often hilarious from my point of view, though, yes, he does make mistakes. Most humans do. This review, from my certainly biased opinion, falls prey to all of the problems it assigns Yahtzee, to some extent, and some more than others.

Subjectivity is the problem. I frankly don't give a damn whether or not he's good or bad at this stuff. The problem is with his butthurt fans.

Being funny is irrelevant. It's an objective observation that he purposely exaggerates games and sacrifices informativity for the sake of comedy. And he makes enough mistakes that you really should check another source first before taking the things he says as fact. Taking him literally and seriously would be like taking everything E. Dramatica says literally and seriously. Which a lot of morons happen to do all the time anyways.

Taking him literally and seriously would be like taking everything E. Dramatica says literally and seriously. Which a lot of morons happen to do all the time anyways.

HEY! Encyclopedia Dramatica is totally accurate! They do research! One of the people on 4Chan told me!

I honestly just watch him for the lolz, since he pretty much bashes every game except Silent Hill, Thief, Prince of Persia, and Saints row (really? Seriously? Come on).

This is fair enough criticism of ZP.

I could post a justification about how his whole schtick is It Just Bugs Me style pointing-out-things-he-dislikes and how the viewer is meant to expect him to Accentuate The Negative for Rule Of Funny and blah blah blah, but whatever, you are entitled to your opinion and it is not unfair to criticize Yahtzee on the points you have raised.

The problem is that people take his reviews as genuine reviews, not the fact that his videos are poor as reviews.

Failing as a reviewer isn't a bad thing if you weren't trying to be one. The fact that people are butthurt over this is a clear demonstration of the problem.

The thing is, when he makes statements about how much he dislikes the game, or how you shouldn't buy it, it's hard to say "Oh, he isn't trying to be a reviewer." I can see in some videos, it doesn't seem like he really presents a "you should get this/you shouldn't get this" point, but in a lot of videos, he does. Even if he doesn't do it in every video, the fact he does in quite a few of them makes the videos seem less like pure comedy and more like they're supposed to be funny and informative, when he generally fails at the latter.

The main point that people are trying to make, though, Milskidasith, is that you're criticizing him not based on whether or not his work is good quality or funny or blah blah whatever... you're saying the videos are worthless because they don't fit your definition of a review.

Yeah, he doesn't do a ton of serious research. Yeah, he gets things wrong sometimes. And yes, sometimes he'll make decisions based on what he things is a gameplay flaw, while you may not consider it so. But he does do a good job at what he's basically admitted he's setting out to do - have a good time making fun of games, regardless of what his personal opinion is.

I get what you're saying about how people shouldn't take things so serious, and how he doesn't follow what you think a reviewer should do. Sure, that's fine. I totally understand. But that itself isn't much of a review about the show. Remember, you talked about how he didn't mention much about "actually hunting the monsters," well, isn't that the same as "reviewing" his show and not talking about the humor? Seems just a tad hypocritical to me.

At any rate, problems you have with the fanbase taking him too seriously are understandable. But the fanbase doesn't make the show. Even if other people consider him to be what you think a reviewer should be, that has nothing to do with what the creator's intentions are.

Also, just a couple side notes: -Reviews are, by nature, opinions. Yahtzee hates some genres, devices, and the Wii. That's his opinion, it's not "bad reviewing" to bring it up. Just like it technically isn't "bad reviewing" for you to write this out, and it isn't "bad reviewing" for us to jab holes in your logic. -He doesn't do a ton of research, and this is a major flaw, sure. But Yahtzee makes one video a week, manages an entire other site, and develops some pretty damn fun games of his own. Talking about a lack of research is a legitimate complaint to make (and you totally could have brought that up more rather than talking about how he's "not a reviewer") but to be fair, he has a lot of stuff going on, and some of these games are reaaaaaally long.

^Hi strawman

Gatekeeper, uhh... what? You're saying that I can't complain it isn't a review because that isn't reviwing the show in its entirety? Isn't your whole message "A review can be different things?" I'm not sure what the point is here. I'm reviewing a part of it: The fact that, even though he makes game recommendations (to the point of actually saying "should you buy this or not?" in some videos) and acts as if his opinion is an honest take on the game, he blatently misrepresents the games and has huge biases that color his videos. I'm not saying he can't be biased, but since he has started making actual recommendations and ignoring the actual games just to make jabs at the console, or the series, or even semantics issues, it's starting to negatively affect everything about the videos. Also, I'm pretty sure I did bring up the lack of research; I'd have gone more in depth if I had more space (why do the reviews have such stringent character limit), but suffice to say there are frequently errors; at the time of posting, the Monster Hunter video was the worst of them, so I used it as an example.

EDIT: Also, don't edit other people's comments, no matter how much of a sick burn you think you're making by sinking to his level.

Yes. That's my point. And by making your own review doing the exact same things he does, you really can't make that claim. I mean, you can, if you want to be a hypocrite... which, hey, I guess doesn't bother you. If his videos aren't reviews, then neither is this. There, have I shrunk my point down enough for you not to be a smartass?

I don't find lies particularly funny.

Milskidasith is right, making untruthful statements about a game just to get people to laugh isn't funny, it's just spiteful and stupid.

Protip for Gatekeeper: Attacking other people doesn't help you defend yourself or Yahtzee. Quit being a moron.

Okay, let's get one thing straight. Your review sucked. Your review was reviewing something that not many people take as actual reviews but because some people who, which you point out yourself, aren't exactly the brightest in the world do take as actual reviews in a manner that made the fact that you yourself made out as if the videos that are intended solely for comedic effect were legitimate reviews.

To cut that huge sentence short, you're being hypocritical. Don't be hating ZP just because of the occasional person who takes it seriously, that means that you yourself take it seriously. Yahtzee is a comedian who's subject is video games and rarely is this kind of comedian actually funny to more than a few people. His stuff is meant to be extremely negative because that's the kind of comedy that works at the moment. Just because his subject game shifts every week, it doesn't mean that he's an actual reviewer.

Your sole objection to ZP is that you believe that it disguises itself as a legitimate review. My advice is as follows:

1) Calm down

2) Don't fret over people who you clearly thin are morons.

3) Watch his "review" of Duke Nukem Forever.

4) (Only take this step if step 3 didn't make you realise that his "reviews" are intended for solely comedic purposes.) I dunno... Sear your face of with lava MK style or something. Or something less excruciatingly painful and lethal. Like eating jelly babies, but not real babies. Basically, just leave it. You're feeding trolls.

PS: I love Monster Hunter Tri and I laughed my arse off with his "review". I don't give a shit if what he says isn't of the utmost truth. It's done for laughs. If you're not laughing maybe you're too uptight about games you like or maybe you're just falling out of the target audience.

• ahem*

People are throwing around the word "critic" without knowing what it means. Being a critic does not mean being negative. Being factually accurate regarding the work is, in fact, much more important to criticism than finding a way to bash the work with a crude metaphor.

The difference between a review and a criticism is that a review assumes that the reader has not played the game, and is trying to inform then on whether or not they should, while a criticism assumes that they have played the game, and is engaging in the intellectual exercise of analyzing it's content.

Yahtzee's videos are reviews, although not ones that should be taken seriously. It's painfully apparently in a lot of his reviews that he decided to do a negative review ahead of time and had to fill the video with general ranting and bashing when he couldn't come up with any actual complaints.

a review assumes that the reader has not played the game,

Tell that to most of the reviewers here.

I could have sworn that's what I was doing...

A fair and balanced Yahtzee is no Yahtzee. It would be like making Batman emotionally well adjusted and happy with life. If Yahtzee stops being myopic and completely unfair then that which we came to love will have been lost.

Also if people want to use Yahtzee as an excuss to be a jackass, well then they are just jackasses.

BTW I agree that "Video Game Pundit" fits Yahtzee perfectly.

Nonesense. Yahtzee specifically claims that he gives evey game he reviews a fair chance to shine (even if he hated previous games in the same franchise or genre). Yes, he accentuates the negatative for comedic value (even on games he likes), but when it comes to ultimately weighing up the good and bad, Yahtzee will give an honest answer. Though he won't spend time discussing the good parts, he'll still acknowlege the positives in his conclusion.

And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

^How much and what bridge?

@Pata Hikari: What makes you think he's lying?

You mean aside from the several games that he's quit playing after about an hour? Or all of the things that he gets factually wrong about them, indicating that he hasn't actually played them very much? Or all of the times his complaints contradict each other (Particularly his "Sequels should change things, except that I hate any game that deviates from my favourites from 10 years ago" shtick)? Or how about just plain 'ol having trouble with taking a lot of his complaints that he uses as the basis for bashing a game seriously?

Yes he quits some games early. That isn't lying. That is finding the game too horrible to keep playing.

Yes he gets some things factually wrong (or so the butthurt fans say). But he based his claims on what he saw.

I don't even follow your complaint about contradicting statements. It is possible for a human to simultaniously dislike sequels that are too different, and those that too similar. Even then, I don't recall him being bothered by the former.

It's your privilege to take his comments seriously or not. In my personal experience, I tend to have similar experiences to the ones he describes in his reviews, so I do take his criticisms on board.

Yes he quits some games early. That isn't lying. That is finding the game too horrible to keep playing.

You're the one who suggested he may have been lying. Quit putting words into other peoples' mouths.

No I wasn't. You may have mistaken someone else's comment for my own.

Isn't there a trope for this situation?

Yahtzee Croshaw is not a reviewer of games, as he has often stated. He is a critic, and as such, it is his job to find flaws in things. You also complain about a lack of objectivity, while Yahtzee himself also states that his videos are entirely subjective. In addition, you claim his factual accuracy is less than stellar, which he has blah blah blah MAYBE YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE A PATTERN HERE. Everything you've complained about are things he acknowledges and are in fact the point of the show. You're basically complaining that his show is exactly what it is, which is sort of like complaining that Star Trek is in space. Do I need to make a snippy comment with the link, or can you just look up Critical Research Failure on your own?

This review was made because of how many take what Yatzee says as legitimate reviews, not snide criticism, so they parade what he says at fact, and it gets on people's nerves.

No I wasn't. You may have mistaken someone else's comment for my own.

Fun fact: Not knowing =/= Lying.

You claim that Yahtzee stylizes himself as an actual reviewer but bring little evidence to prove it. The fact is, Yahtzee doesn\'t expect anyone to take his \"reviews\" seriously as that would mean him being more objective on his videos thus losing most of the comedic value of Zero Punctuation. He doesn\'t need to spell it out that his videos shouldn\'t be taken as gospel as the content speaks for itself.

\"You claim that Yahtzee stylizes himself as an actual reviewer but bring little evidence to prove it.\"

Excuse me for literally 4 seconds while I open a tab and look up a Zero Punctuation video on YouTube. Any Zero Punctuation video. First to come up was Yakuza 0. Let\'s look at the video description.

\"This week, Zero Punctuation REVIEWS Yakuza 0!\"

I do actually kind of agree with you that Yahtzee is of the belief that his views shouldn\'t be taken as gospel, but that doesn\'t mean they won\'t be. It\'s incredible how many times I\'ve seen people repeat plain old lies that are traced back to reviews he wrote that they assumed were correct. I like the guy overall but the dedicated, diehard ZP fandom is one of the worst on the internet.

Boy howdy do people take internet shows way too seriously. I like watching ZP, sometimes I disagree with Yahtzee\'s stance on games I like or dislike, and that\'s the end of that between me and it. It\'s entirely possible to let differing opinions on something stand and just hold your own without exploding, y\'know.