Zero Punctuations review

[Ausdoerrt]

This is ludicrous. How can an intentionally one-sided take ever be "more reliable" than an attempt to look at both sides, no matter how inept?

Just to chime in, I think it can occasionally. Kind of like The Onion can occasionally be more on the point than, say, Fox News, even though the former is satire and the latter considers itself "serious news".

That said, that's def. not the case in this specific instance.

 

[Brother None]

A bad example, Ausdoerrt, fox-news is intentionally one-sided as well, it is what their whole media model is based on.

The problem with calling it "more reliable" is specific to the concept of what is "reliable". Can I watch only a Yahtzee bit and get a good idea on the game's strong and weak points? No, because he highlights the weak points for comedic value. I can not reliably base a purchasing decision on a Yahtzee review, nor get a good, full look at the game, both of which are function of reviews. Is it "more reliable" in offering negative insights? Sure, I guess. Doesn't make it a particularly good reviewer.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Sad thing is that his intentionally one-sided takes are often more reliable than "professional" reviews from mainstream gaming media.

This is ludicrous. How can an intentionally one-sided take ever be "more reliable" than an attempt to look at both sides, no matter how inept?

Oh let us watch a bit mathematic toward this.
Formular of the Inept one:
x + y = z; whearas y lies between -infinity to infinity and x stands for the real score and y is a failure term.
He says z = 20; please tell me what x was?

Formular for 'Yahtzee'
x - 20 = z ; whereas x is the real score and 20 is the normal failure term.
He says z = 20; please tell me what x was?

So it's mathematical speaking quite easy to rely on someone aiming for one site, when his deviation toward the real score is known.

But on another note, Yahtzee mentiones more weaknesses while saying (at the site) "well yeah you could play it, and even thought here were dumb things it made somewhat fun", wheras your typicall "professional" gaming reviewer seems to say things like: "whoa the lightning and graphic is perfect, and it's really imersive and brilliant and epic" while only mentioning at some site-line that there were some 'minor bugs' (like being unable to finish a game).

But i wouldn't really judge a game by Yahtzees comments - but than again i also don't judge games by major reviews on some gaming sites...

 

[Kindo]

I love Yahtzee, and even though you can argue back and forth whether he's a true "game reviewer" or not, he's at least one of the few known people who does not turn a blind eye to a game's flaws. Sure, he exploits the bad in order to make it comical, but at least I'm being informed of things I normally am never told in any conventional game magazine or website. Things of interest that may or may not be a deal-breaker for me as a gamer. For this reason, he's the "game reviewer" - known to the public eye - that I value the most. As for his New Vegas review, it's good ol' Yahtzee, and by his track record, mediocre to good. We definitely go about the game in different ways, though, but I appreciate his take on things.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I never take him seriously, more of something to watch for a laugh, entertainment if you will. Although in recent times he has really started to wear thin and I am not that entertained anymore. I put ZP along the same lines of the Angry Video Game Nerd although I find The Nerd infinitely more enjoyable.

 

[agiel7]

Some of his stuff makes me laugh, some of his stuff are merely "meh." I still take issue with the fact that he doesn't factor in multiplayer stuff on his opinion (he even said he played WoW as a single-player game, which is as "completely missing the point" as anyone in this world is ever going to get).

Frankly, I think there's a lot of people on the internet who take a sycophantic attitude towards him, which is something I'll bet you any money Yahtzee would be the first to discourage. He's someone who thrives on discourse after all, the gaming world's ultimate troll, and I wouldn't have him any other way.

 

[Brother None]

Frankly, I think there's a lot of people on the internet who take a sycophantic attitude towards him, which is something I'll bet you any money Yahtzee would be the first to discourage. He's someone who thrives on discourse after all, the gaming world's ultimate troll, and I wouldn't have him any other way.

Hello kettle.

 

[agiel7]

Frankly, I think there's a lot of people on the internet who take a sycophantic attitude towards him, which is something I'll bet you any money Yahtzee would be the first to discourage. He's someone who thrives on discourse after all, the gaming world's ultimate troll, and I wouldn't have him any other way.

Hello kettle.

Errr... sorry, don't get the reference here. Care to enlighten me?

 

[Brother None]

You're displaying a sycophantic attitude while complaining about sycophants. Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[agiel7]

When I say sycophantic, I mean people who'll immediately say his opinions are law. I agree with him on some stuff, but massively disagree with others. For example, I thought the Silent Hill games were shit and STALKER did the horror atmosphere ten times better and the tortured fucking logic behind all the puzzles in a Monkey Island or Tim Schaefer point-and-click adventure game overwhelms how good the writing is.