I don't even keep up with games anymore
i know about them via you guys
I used to read Giantbomb, and occasionally still do if i am actually interested in something and want to buy it maybe
I can't remember where I first read/heard this notion, but, putting aside the schtick, Yahtzee is the closest thing the industry has to a games critic. There aren't a lot of individual voices that really stand out. As I'm sure we all know, most sites employ a number of reviewers that stick to their genres, and a lot of what they do are reaffirm the things we already know about the genre and/or franchise.
Certainly, not many people will note a specific reviewer or develop a taste for their sensibilities, like we might do for, say, Roger Ebert or Alan Sepinwall.
Speaking of Giantbomb, I feel like I should explore more of its content (I pretty much only visit the podcast page), but every time I try to ... read it, I'm not really sure where or what to click. The range of content on the site is confusing.
I have opinions about him but I've voiced them so many times that I'd rather just have someone else bitch about him so I can agree with them rather than repeating myself
yo, elaborate on dis
alright, so, first of all, he gained prominence because of his theatricality
which is great, I think some zazz and vigour and what have you were definitely missing in game coverage, G4 not withstanding, and it's also neat that he was literally just some dude with Flash and opinions who managed to basically have an entire website built around him
but on the other hand, that theatricality pretty much totally impedes anything he does as a critic or intellectual. he has flat-out said on multiple occasions that he will not be objective or even particularly fair to games because it wouldn't be as funny, which, again, is fine, but the idea of 'reviews' that basically aren't reviews at all because they focus so much on entertainment rather than criticism just really bothers me, particularly when you have such a fanbase and a unique voice there
also, and this point to me is much more important, he is not a journalist. he is some guy who likes what he likes and makes videos, and while he may have some familiarity with design with the whole adventure game series he did, he should not, to me, be in such a position of influence and power. yet here he is on the Escapist writing a weekly column about whatever bullshit is bothering him and railing against casual games and online multiplayer and trying to be an idealist about gamer culture.
I guess my essential issue with Yahtzee is that he's this vaudeville entertainer who is suddenly one of the leading voices in game journalism without having any of the real knowledge or awareness needed to back it up, and having such a person in such a role is not going to advance the medium in the same way that something like Extra Credits or even Checkpoint can do
e: I know Extra Credit has its issues too but I'd rather not get into that, I think they're being informative about elements of the industry that the average consumer could do well to learn more about, regardless of their rhetoric and tactics
I think if there were a point I wanted to make or if I took videogames even slightly more seriously I'd find the shorts really useful, and I appreciate what they do and understand that they do it rather skillfully
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I have opinions about him but I've voiced them so many times that I'd rather just have someone else bitch about him so I can agree with them rather than repeating myself
yo, elaborate on dis
alright, so, first of all, he gained prominence because of his theatricality
which is great, I think some zazz and vigour and what have you were definitely missing in game coverage, G4 not withstanding, and it's also neat that he was literally just some dude with Flash and opinions who managed to basically have an entire website built around him
but on the other hand, that theatricality pretty much totally impedes anything he does as a critic or intellectual. he has flat-out said on multiple occasions that he will not be objective or even particularly fair to games because it wouldn't be as funny, which, again, is fine, but the idea of 'reviews' that basically aren't reviews at all because they focus so much on entertainment rather than criticism just really bothers me, particularly when you have such a fanbase and a unique voice there
also, and this point to me is much more important, he is not a journalist. he is some guy who likes what he likes and makes videos, and while he may have some familiarity with design with the whole adventure game series he did, he should not, to me, be in such a position of influence and power. yet here he is on the Escapist writing a weekly column about whatever bullshit is bothering him and railing against casual games and online multiplayer and trying to be an idealist about gamer culture.
I guess my essential issue with Yahtzee is that he's this vaudeville entertainer who is suddenly one of the leading voices in game journalism without having any of the real knowledge or awareness needed to back it up, and having such a person in such a role is not going to advance the medium in the same way that something like Extra Credits or even Checkpoint can do
e: I know Extra Credit has its issues too but I'd rather not get into that, I think they're being informative about elements of the industry that the average consumer could do well to learn more about, regardless of their rhetoric and tactics
Yeah he's waaaay more of an entertainer than an informer, I would never base my interest in a game around any of his reviews
I used to get free Game Developer Magazines around a decade ago and I liked them at the time I think. Don't really remember much about them nowadays to be honest.
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
what are your thoughts?
my thoughts are that the team of extra credits could use some extra development credits to give them some legitimacy in their quest to co-opt the voice of 'what should be done in the industry'
one thing to critique something, quite another to set yourself up as a mouthpiece and appeal to development experience that is quite limited in reality
Lately for reviews on stuff I dont read anything. Too many words. I just watch a half hour of someone playing whatever I'm interested in and make up my mind that way on Justin tv
thedude_frombaywatch on
xbl tag: Dynamis King
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
what are your thoughts?
my thoughts are that the team of extra credits could use some extra development credits to give them some legitimacy in their quest to co-opt the voice of 'what should be done in the industry'
one thing to critique something, quite another to set yourself up as a mouthpiece and appeal to development experience that is quite limited in reality
Yep, this is the other thing I have a problem with ... the voice of the show seems to be a single designer who, well, um.
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
what are your thoughts?
my thoughts are that the team of extra credits could use some extra development credits to give them some legitimacy in their quest to co-opt the voice of 'what should be done in the industry'
one thing to critique something, quite another to set yourself up as a mouthpiece and appeal to development experience that is quite limited in reality
Yep, this is the other thing I have a problem with ... the voice of the show seems to be a single designer who, well, um.
call of duty modern warfare and 2 iOS games, one of which is 'here is an inkblot, guess what your friends will see'
his current games company is actually a consultancy agency
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
I get game informer because of my gamestop rewards thingy, good bathroom material. I flipped through the reviews and noticed that the highest rated game, GOW3, wasn't one of their monthly awarded things, which I found odd. Most of the award winners were sports titles (not that I'm against sports games, just found it odd).
But I really don't even bother with games journalism too much. Just wanna know when the game is coming out.
I'm James Gournalism, I heard you guys were talking about me
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Yahtzee is not really a reviewer, ya shouldn't categorize (or criticize) him as such. On the other hand, the rare occasions he does praise a game, I know it's totally worth looking into.
And Extra Credits is great. You guys don't like em as if they were the ambassadors of all that is game or something. They're just a dude voicing his opinions in an engaging way, you don't have to take it any more seriously than that.
i don't agree with your edit, yaya - saying 'i like the message, even if i don't like the way they make their points' is tantamount to 'ends justify the means' for me
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
what are your thoughts?
my thoughts are that the team of extra credits could use some extra development credits to give them some legitimacy in their quest to co-opt the voice of 'what should be done in the industry'
one thing to critique something, quite another to set yourself up as a mouthpiece and appeal to development experience that is quite limited in reality
Yep, this is the other thing I have a problem with ... the voice of the show seems to be a single designer who, well, um.
call of duty modern warfare and 2 iOS games, one of which is 'here is an inkblot, guess what your friends will see'
his current games company is actually a consultancy agency
oh
wow
really?
uh
hmm
e: Dark Raven
every single title page on his videos
every single one
says 'Yahtzee reviews such and such'
he is also paid for his services
so
yeah
also you're toooottallly missing the point about Extra Credits but that's okay I guess
Yahtzee is not really a reviewer, ya shouldn't categorize (or criticize) him as such. On the other hand, the rare occasions he does praise a game, I know it's totally worth looking into.
Basically. I fully expect him to tear apart the games I love for the sake of entertainment, but the games that he does like are pretty much rock solid, and his specific reasons for liking them fall in line with what I want from games. So when he does seem to like a game, it's normally something I'll look into.
And Extra Credits is great. You guys don't like em as if they were the ambassadors of all that is game or something. They're just a dude voicing his opinions in an engaging way, you don't have to take it any more seriously than that.
In the few episodes I've seen, that's not how it comes across.
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited October 2011
I don't tend to read video game journalism unless there is a specific article that has been recommended to me by others as being interesting.
My reason for this is that no matter what website I go to, the writing is often sloppy, unapologetic in its bias, and most importantly, it doesn't add any value to my enjoyment or interest in the game. I tend to put more stock in the insights and recommendations of friends (and people on here) if I were to check out a game I hadn't previously heard of or had interest in.
I watch Yahtzee purely for the entertainment factor. His opinions are not always helpful, but there's usually some degree of truth in them and I find him hilarious when I am familiar with the game he is using as a subject. But that's because he's telling me things I already know, just in a way that I find funny. I do NOT go to him for game reviews. I go to him to laugh. He CAN fall flat when there are actually very few criticisms of a game and he tries to nitpick and find something tiny to target and turn into a rant, but more often than not I enjoy his stuff purely for entertainment's sake. It is, in a way, why I like reading the comics on Penny Arcade.
In fact, that's a pretty good generalisation to make: I read articles about games I already own, am playing, or have played, usually to see what other people have taken away from the experience. As mentioned above, I don't go LOOKING for these articles, they are often linked or shared with me by others, and these are articles that offer something a simple game review or preview does not. Insight, usually. I don't really care about graphics (or, at least, not so much that it would impact on me buying or not buying the game) and everyone's gameplay preferences are different. But I DO care and am extremely interested in how the story experience and style and game environment speak to the player, perhaps offering an alternate interpretation or understanding of the game from what I got.
Not necessarily because it stirs the pot or anything, but because it actually served to encourage ME to rethink how I looked at being female, and I think there is great value in that, and it DEFINITELY added to my in-game experience.
I've been wondering what the proper term for it would be. And I don't mean as a joke, I know you said bullshit, but I mean seriously what is it supposed to be called since it isn't journalism at all? There's entertainment-journalism, so maybe 'video game journalism' is just as valid a term as that, if only for a lack of better phrasing existing.
Posts
i know about them via you guys
I used to read Giantbomb, and occasionally still do if i am actually interested in something and want to buy it maybe
why/why not
Certainly, not many people will note a specific reviewer or develop a taste for their sensibilities, like we might do for, say, Roger Ebert or Alan Sepinwall.
I don't. I find it a little preachy and matter-of-fact about topics that are anything but.
Edit: That said, I'm okay with anyone trying to deconstruct the medium for a wider audience, so I appreciate its intentions.
yeah basically
Yeah, yup.
alright, so, first of all, he gained prominence because of his theatricality
which is great, I think some zazz and vigour and what have you were definitely missing in game coverage, G4 not withstanding, and it's also neat that he was literally just some dude with Flash and opinions who managed to basically have an entire website built around him
but on the other hand, that theatricality pretty much totally impedes anything he does as a critic or intellectual. he has flat-out said on multiple occasions that he will not be objective or even particularly fair to games because it wouldn't be as funny, which, again, is fine, but the idea of 'reviews' that basically aren't reviews at all because they focus so much on entertainment rather than criticism just really bothers me, particularly when you have such a fanbase and a unique voice there
also, and this point to me is much more important, he is not a journalist. he is some guy who likes what he likes and makes videos, and while he may have some familiarity with design with the whole adventure game series he did, he should not, to me, be in such a position of influence and power. yet here he is on the Escapist writing a weekly column about whatever bullshit is bothering him and railing against casual games and online multiplayer and trying to be an idealist about gamer culture.
I guess my essential issue with Yahtzee is that he's this vaudeville entertainer who is suddenly one of the leading voices in game journalism without having any of the real knowledge or awareness needed to back it up, and having such a person in such a role is not going to advance the medium in the same way that something like Extra Credits or even Checkpoint can do
e: I know Extra Credit has its issues too but I'd rather not get into that, I think they're being informative about elements of the industry that the average consumer could do well to learn more about, regardless of their rhetoric and tactics
It doesn't really entertain me at all, personally
I think if there were a point I wanted to make or if I took videogames even slightly more seriously I'd find the shorts really useful, and I appreciate what they do and understand that they do it rather skillfully
But its not ~for me
Yeah he's waaaay more of an entertainer than an informer, I would never base my interest in a game around any of his reviews
I used to get free Game Developer Magazines around a decade ago and I liked them at the time I think. Don't really remember much about them nowadays to be honest.
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
I didn't say I didn't like the way they make their points! I guess what I meant was their rhetoric might bother some people but it doesn't bother me
I guess the key thing is that some people might see them acting as the word of god, but I can't think of any time where they have flatout said 'this is how it is, deal w/ it'
but I do understand why some people might be turned off by them
what are your thoughts?
Someone dooeet
In particular, their Digital Foundry platform comparisons (if you have a technical interest at all in game engines and such) are fascinating.
I do. A lot of what they have to say makes sense, and even if their opinion can be contested, they're very well spoken.
my thoughts are that the team of extra credits could use some extra development credits to give them some legitimacy in their quest to co-opt the voice of 'what should be done in the industry'
one thing to critique something, quite another to set yourself up as a mouthpiece and appeal to development experience that is quite limited in reality
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
Yep, this is the other thing I have a problem with ... the voice of the show seems to be a single designer who, well, um.
his current games company is actually a consultancy agency
But I really don't even bother with games journalism too much. Just wanna know when the game is coming out.
And Extra Credits is great. You guys don't like em as if they were the ambassadors of all that is game or something. They're just a dude voicing his opinions in an engaging way, you don't have to take it any more seriously than that.
oh
wow
really?
uh
hmm
e: Dark Raven
every single title page on his videos
every single one
says 'Yahtzee reviews such and such'
he is also paid for his services
so
yeah
also you're toooottallly missing the point about Extra Credits but that's okay I guess
Basically. I fully expect him to tear apart the games I love for the sake of entertainment, but the games that he does like are pretty much rock solid, and his specific reasons for liking them fall in line with what I want from games. So when he does seem to like a game, it's normally something I'll look into.
In the few episodes I've seen, that's not how it comes across.
My reason for this is that no matter what website I go to, the writing is often sloppy, unapologetic in its bias, and most importantly, it doesn't add any value to my enjoyment or interest in the game. I tend to put more stock in the insights and recommendations of friends (and people on here) if I were to check out a game I hadn't previously heard of or had interest in.
I watch Yahtzee purely for the entertainment factor. His opinions are not always helpful, but there's usually some degree of truth in them and I find him hilarious when I am familiar with the game he is using as a subject. But that's because he's telling me things I already know, just in a way that I find funny. I do NOT go to him for game reviews. I go to him to laugh. He CAN fall flat when there are actually very few criticisms of a game and he tries to nitpick and find something tiny to target and turn into a rant, but more often than not I enjoy his stuff purely for entertainment's sake. It is, in a way, why I like reading the comics on Penny Arcade.
In fact, that's a pretty good generalisation to make: I read articles about games I already own, am playing, or have played, usually to see what other people have taken away from the experience. As mentioned above, I don't go LOOKING for these articles, they are often linked or shared with me by others, and these are articles that offer something a simple game review or preview does not. Insight, usually. I don't really care about graphics (or, at least, not so much that it would impact on me buying or not buying the game) and everyone's gameplay preferences are different. But I DO care and am extremely interested in how the story experience and style and game environment speak to the player, perhaps offering an alternate interpretation or understanding of the game from what I got.
A great example of one such article is this one: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/213466/bayonetta-empowering-or-exploitative/
Not necessarily because it stirs the pot or anything, but because it actually served to encourage ME to rethink how I looked at being female, and I think there is great value in that, and it DEFINITELY added to my in-game experience.
It's also probably too serious.
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
I've been wondering what the proper term for it would be. And I don't mean as a joke, I know you said bullshit, but I mean seriously what is it supposed to be called since it isn't journalism at all? There's entertainment-journalism, so maybe 'video game journalism' is just as valid a term as that, if only for a lack of better phrasing existing.