NationStates Jolt Archive

So, yeah, we all know him. If you don't, you haven't been watching X-Play enough :p. So yeah, everyone likes him, even those he criticizes. (See: Peter Molyneux, Nerds) What do you like about Yahtzee most?

WHO?

Can you provide a link.

WHO?

Can you provide a link.

Like This one? (http://fullyramblomatic.com/)

So, yeah, we all know him. If you don't, you haven't been watching X-Play enough :p. So yeah, everyone likes him, even those he criticizes. (See: Peter Molyneux, Nerds) What do you like about Yahtzee most?

Why would I watch X-Play? I just watch his reviews and read his PCG column.

Why would I watch X-Play? I just watch his reviews and read his PCG column.
Yeah, but X-play has revealed him to a bunch of people who DON'T wander the internet looking for egotistical maniacs who have cool hats.:p

I LOVE YAHTZEE. haha.
that dude is hilarious.

Heh, I learned about ZP when someone mistook me for Yahtzee on another board. I posted this big long rant about one of the maps in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars and some guy (well okay he was probably joking) linked to it and said "You're not a British born, currently Austrailian-based writer with a sweet hat and a chip on his shoulder, are you?"

It was a mother of a rant kinda like one of his reviews, I could see why he thought of ZP except that mine wasn'ta s funny (though probably wouldv'e been good with a liberal application of MS Paint).

I'll give him this, he's funny. Though I'm not sure what a pillock is.

Also his Portal review was dead on. Great game. Though I'll admit I'm puzzled by the companion cube following.

Zero Punctuation is funny, however in my opinion Yahtzee's best work is his blog Fully Ramblomatic and his Chzo Mythos games.

I can honestly say the Chzo series is a great games quadrilogy, and I would highly recommend anyone who loves horror and/or adventure games to download them and play them (they're free!).

The only works of his that I have any experience with are his game reviews, and while they are occasionally funny I just don't like the guy. Him being funny at times isn't enough when he loves to talk about what is wrong with the game, and what the game should have been like to be better, and not be insightful in the least. His tips on how to make a good FPS was particularly dumb.

I choose the "I dislike the guy" option, even if it wasn't in the poll.

I thought this was about the game. :(

Granted, I've never played the game or heard of this guy, so my answer to both is pretty much the same.

The only works of his that I have any experience with are his game reviews, and while they are occasionally funny I just don't like the guy. Him being funny at times isn't enough when he loves to talk about what is wrong with the game, and what the game should have been like to be better, and not be insightful in the least. His tips on how to make a good FPS was particularly dumb.

I choose the "I dislike the guy" option, even if it wasn't in the poll.
The man hits it right on the nail! Yahtzee points out what's wrong with a game, and then talks about how to improve it! It's constructive (Albeit harsh) criticism. If you only drool over the good points of a game, why review?

The only works of his that I have any experience with are his game reviews, and while they are occasionally funny I just don't like the guy. Him being funny at times isn't enough when he loves to talk about what is wrong with the game, and what the game should have been like to be better, and not be insightful in the least. His tips on how to make a good FPS was particularly dumb.

I choose the "I dislike the guy" option, even if it wasn't in the poll.

1) Use console controls responsibly.
2) Bring back health meters
3) Give grenades decent splash damage
4) Stop ripping off Aliens
5) Stop zooming into the back of people's heads
6) Stop spending on big name actors who do a bad job.


So, which one is stupid again? Ok #5 is a rather petty quibble, but the rest is pretty solid.

So, which one is stupid again? Ok #5 is a rather petty quibble, but the rest is pretty solid.

First he implies that Halo is about as bad as Turok. This does not surprise me, as the review of Halo 3 makes it very clear that the man rushed through the game, probably on easy mode, without any attempt to understand the inner workings of the game and what sets it apart from other games in the genre. If he did, he didn't mention any of it in the review. Take a look at his review of the demo of The Darkness to see another shining example of just how seriously he takes his reviewing - that is, not at all. As long as he can find something to whine about, that's good enough. No need to put in any effort into playing the game, or demo in this case, or even finish the game.

Him wanting recharging health gone is a great example of him just not getting it. He says that it makes games easy. Actually, what he says is that "is very accommodating towards players who happen to be the three-year-old children of syphilitic lepers." The dumb and unskilled console players, in his mind, need something that removes all challenge. What he fails to understand is that this is only one part of the equation; sure it makes a game easier if the health system is all you change, but if you were at the same time to double the amount of enemies in every encounter, there would still be great challenge in the game. You only need to crank up the difficulty one notch in Halo to see that it's very challenging indeed.

There are a bunch of benefits of recharging health. For example, simple mistakes aren't overly punished; the player can retreat and not have to consider loading a savegame or backtrack in search for a medkit for every mistake he makes. More enemies and challenge in general can be added since the designers will know that the player will be at 100% health before every fight, and that there's no need to drop health pickups of the appropriate amount all over the level to compensate for health loss. And of course, the player isn't forced to backtrack in search for these health pickups instead of doing what he wants to do, and what he really should be doing, namely to continue playing the damn game. That's not to say that you can't make great FPS games with traditional health bars and health pickups, but Yahtzee is plainly saying that this is the only way to make a good game, and this is very, very dumb.

As for the rest, I can agree with grenades and splash damage, but is it such a huge issue that it deserves to be on a list of things wrong with the FPS genre consisting only of five points? Likewise, is zooming in on a character's neck to show that you are taking control of him one of the really big failings of the FPS genre this generation? Really?

And obviously it's all Halo's fault, despite Halo being a much, much better game than Turok. It's also Halo's fault that everything is dogshit brown, never mind that Halo is one of the most colorful FPS games on the market. I don't mean to come across as a Halo fan, but Jesus, if you can't see how Halo is a million times better than fucking Turok, you are a hack. Or possibly a great troll who doesn't mind looking like an idiot as long as it gets people riled up.

First he implies that Halo is about as bad as Turok. This does not surprise me, as the review of Halo 3 makes it very clear that the man rushed through the game, probably on easy mode, without any attempt to understand the inner workings of the game and what sets it apart from other games in the genre. If he did, he didn't mention any of it in the review. Take a look at his review of the demo of The Darkness to see another shining example of just how seriously he takes his reviewing - that is, not at all. As long as he can find something to whine about, that's good enough. No need to put in any effort into playing the game, or demo in this case, or even finish the game.

Him wanting recharging health gone is a great example of him just not getting it. He says that it makes games easy. Actually, what he says is that "is very accomodating towards players who happen to be the three-year-old children of syphilitic lepers." The dumb and unskilled console players, in his mind, need something that removes all challenge. What he fails to understand is that this is only one part of the equation; sure it makes a game easier if the health system is all you change, but if you were at the same time to double the amount of enemies in every encounter, there would still be great challenge in the game. You only need to crank up the difficulty one notch in Halo to see that it's very challenging indeed.

There are a bunch of benefits of recharging health. For example, simple mistakes aren't overly punished; the player can retreat and not have to consider loading a savegame or backtrack in search for a medkit for every mistake he makes. More enemies and challenge in general can be added since the designers will know that the player will be at 100% health before every fight, and that there's no need to drop health pickups of the appropriate amount all over the level to compensate for health loss. And of course, the player isn't forced to backtrack in search for these health pickups instead of doing what he wants to do, and what he really should be doing, namely to continue playing the damn game. That's not to say that you can't make great FPS games with traditional health bars and health pickups, but Yahtzee is plainly saying that this is the only way to make a good game, and this is very, very dumb.

As for the rest, I can agree with grenades and splash damage, but is it such a huge issue that it deserves to be on a list of things wrong with the FPS genre consisting only of five points? Likewise, is zooming in on a character's neck to show that you are taking control of him one of the really big failings of the FPS genre this generation? Really?

And obviously it's all Halo's fault, despite Halo being a much, much better game than Turok. It's also Halo's fault that everything is dogshit brown, never mind that Halo is one of the most colorful FPS games on the market. I don't mean to come across as a Halo fan, but Jesus, if you can't see how Halo is a million times better than fucking Turok, you are a hack. Or possibly a great troll who doesn't mind looking like an idiot as long as it gets people riled up.

Listen, all of your points are, quite simply, wrong, or possibly you're just a fan boy, desperately trying to make up for Halo's many faults. I played (For almost an entire day) Halo 3 at my friends house, switching off whenever one of us died, playing the campaign on Legendary. We switched off a Grand total of five times. FIVE TIMES! It's incredibly easy! I personally am no FPS fan, but I know when a FPS game is good, or just mediocre. He never said Halo was worse then Turok, but merely said that Halo 3 was all hype, and little out of the ordinary gameplay!

He never said "Well, the only way you can make a great FPS is by including..." NO! He said that was one of the bad points of the FPS genre recently! Just because you point out several bad points doesn't mean it automaticly goes into the bargain bin!

Having to reload each checkpoint was much better then having recharging health. With recharging health, you can run out, get shot eight times, then sit in a corner until your health comes back. Checkpoints made you look at things from a tactical standpoint.

There is NOTHING that sets apart Halo from other games in the genre, because every F****** recent one I've played to see if I could renew my FPS spirit, has copied it, with only minor variations at best!

I actually agree with him on health meters - and frankly, I'm not that good at FPS games.

A better solution than "regen" systems would be to actually make the EASY setting on these games easy! Seriously, half the games seem to think "easy" just means "dial back the accuracy of the bad guys two notches". So they only headshot you one in five times rather than one in three.

Of course, there are some games where "regen" systems make sense. In both HALO and Crysis the protagonist can heal quickly due to his "super suit", and that's perfectly cool. But in most cases a health bar would be better.

Having just seen two of his reviews for the first time (namely for Lego Indiana Jones and for Metal Gear Solid 4), I have only the one thing to say.


Lol.

I thought this was about the game. :(

This

I thought this was going to be about the game and then you ltalk about some nobody.

*Leaves thread*

Benjamin Yahtzee Sebastian Godzilla Croshaw just jumped the shark with his most recent review. While he was spot on about the LEGO Indy game and the 4th installment of the Indy films he stopped using copywritten music in intro and end credits in favor of some god awful generic shit from the Escapist ads now tacked onto the end of all the vids. It gives me a terrible feeling that the content of the vids will eventually become equally dull and repetative.

Benjamin Yahtzee Sebastian Godzilla Croshaw just jumped the shark with his most recent review.You're only saying that because it says so in the credits.

I think he's getting tired of ZP, to be honest. He didn't jump the shark with the last review, don't be stupid. He wasn't trying to prove anything, or do anything radically different.

What is a shame is that the whole thing's got a bit tired, and I reckon that after his Webcomics 'review', it's all downhill, especially since we're coming to the part of the year where nothing decent gets released, and getting vitriolic about older titles seems sort of pointless.

First he implies that Halo is about as bad as Turok. This does not surprise me, as the review of Halo 3 makes it very clear that the man rushed through the game,
<snip>
if you can't see how Halo is a million times better than fucking Turok, you are a hack. Or possibly a great troll who doesn't mind looking like an idiot as long as it gets people riled up.

I think you may have missed the point here. I think the review was spot on because of this line: "Halo 3 is by no means bad, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before only better." That is the theme of the review.

Halo is fun as hell but at the end of the day it's at a point now where it's running on momentum. Everybody went berserk over the releases of Halo 2 and 3 as if these games were the Second Coming, and they were fun but really not any different. Frankly, my favorite of the series is the first Halo because back then the concept was fresh and new and interesting.

CoD4 is way more fun than Halo3 IMHO, and I enjoyed DOOM3 better than any of the Halo series.

Listen, all of your points are, quite simply, wrong, or possibly you're just a fan boy, desperately trying to make up for Halo's many faults.
Maybe you could elaborate as to why they are all wrong?

He never said "Well, the only way you can make a great FPS is by including..." NO! He said that was one of the bad points of the FPS genre recently! Just because you point out several bad points doesn't mean it automaticly goes into the bargain bin!

Here's what he said: "there are a lot of problems with first-person shooters these days, and Turok plays like an itemized list of them. [...] let's instead use Turok as an example to go through a few of the mistakes first-person shooters keep persistently making". You'd expect that when he sets out to educate us all on what makes a bad FPS, he'd pick the worst he could think of.

Having to reload each checkpoint was much better then having recharging health. With recharging health, you can run out, get shot eight times, then sit in a corner until your health comes back. Checkpoints made you look at things from a tactical standpoint.
You either didn't read my post, or you decided to ignore it. You told me that you played Halo, so you should know that Halo would be completely unplayable with a traditional health system. There are too many enemies and you get shot too much for that to ever be possible. If Halo were to get a normal health system, you'd have to cut down on the number of enemies and let them deal only a fraction of the damage. The gameplay flow would drastically change as well; currently Halo consists of a constant back and forth and stepping in and out of cover. You have to approach a situation with a route of escape in mind, and points of cover on the way. It's no Operation Flashpoint, but it's definitely more strategic than Half-Life 2, proving that the health system has little to nothing to do with the strategy required. I mean, really, FPS games and strategy? It's almost unheard of. Some guys are scripted to jump out and shoot and you point and click on them. That's it.

There is NOTHING that sets apart Halo from other games in the genre, because every F****** recent one I've played to see if I could renew my FPS spirit, has copied it, with only minor variations at best!
If there's nothing that sets it apart from the rest, how can everyone copy it and be worse off for it? Face it, Halo was pretty unique when it first came out, and it still is. In Halo, aiming is pretty much secondary to movement. A friend once called it a first person dancer, and I find this to be rather accurate. You dance in and out of cover, zigzag incoming fire, attack and retreat. In many ways, it plays more like FPS games of old such as Doom, that also relied far more on movement than aiming, than it plays like a modern PC FPS. Not to your liking? That's fine. I think that Bungie jumped the shark with Halo 2, and refuse to play any of the sequels. But their games are still rather different from the rest.

I think you may have missed the point here. I think the review was spot on because of this line: "Halo 3 is by no means bad, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before only better." That is the theme of the review.

Halo is fun as hell but at the end of the day it's at a point now where it's running on momentum. Everybody went berserk over the releases of Halo 2 and 3 as if these games were the Second Coming, and they were fun but really not any different. Frankly, my favorite of the series is the first Halo because back then the concept was fresh and new and interesting.

CoD4 is way more fun than Halo3 IMHO, and I enjoyed DOOM3 better than any of the Halo series.

CoD4 got a good review from him. Also Doom 3 was horrible. Way too much reliance on monsters spawning or coming out of locked closets after you've cleared a room.

The developers did it to add cheap scares, realizing that players would clear rooms quickly and professionally and thus negating any threat from behind. So they added these closets in every god damned room that zombies jump out of after you've cleared the place just to get a cheap scare before you shotgun them to death.

Health and ammo on the floor, back up to it and shotgun the zombie that comes out of the door that was meant to be behind you.

I think you may have missed the point here. I think the review was spot on because of this line: "Halo 3 is by no means bad, it just doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before only better." That is the theme of the review.

He gives it a C-. That's pretty bad. He also talk about how similar games like Turok and Haze is to Halo and never say that they are any worse than Halo. If he didn't want people to get the impression that these are similar games that are similarly good, it would be a good idea to do so.

I know, I'm getting trolled by him...

I love his reviews, and watch them every week. I don't agree with him all the time, but I do find a lot of his points to make a lot of sense. And I definitely agree with pretty much all of his comments regarding Half Life 2 and Portal.

I thought that Halo was a pretty good game. I don't play it regularly, since I no longer live in a house with a 360, but it's still fun.

He gives it a C-. That's pretty bad. He also talk about how similar games like Turok and Haze is to Halo and never say that they are any worse than Halo. If he didn't want people to get the impression that these are similar games that are similarly good, it would be a good idea to do so.

I know, I'm getting trolled by him...

He doesn't give games a letter grade, or even a ranking at all. The C- you're referring to is a throwaway joke in another review.

He doesn't give games a letter grade, or even a ranking at all. The C- you're referring to is a throwaway joke in another review.

Maybe if he didn't want people to get the impression that he thinks Halo 3 is in C- territory, he wouldn't say that it is.

I thought, up until recently, that Yahtzee was just a board game or something. There's an actual person named Yahtzee then?:confused:

CoD4 got a good review from him. Also Doom 3 was horrible. Way too much reliance on monsters spawning or coming out of locked closets after you've cleared a room.

The developers did it to add cheap scares, realizing that players would clear rooms quickly and professionally and thus negating any threat from behind. So they added these closets in every god damned room that zombies jump out of after you've cleared the place just to get a cheap scare before you shotgun them to death.

Health and ammo on the floor, back up to it and shotgun the zombie that comes out of the door that was meant to be behind you.

That is exactly why I liked it ;) It was different.

Admittedly I also always had a fondness for the original DOOM.

He gives it a C-. That's pretty bad. He also talk about how similar games like Turok and Haze is to Halo and never say that they are any worse than Halo. If he didn't want people to get the impression that these are similar games that are similarly good, it would be a good idea to do so.

I know, I'm getting trolled by him...

But see, that's the problem I think you're having. Halo 3 isn't some kind of benchmark by which all other FPS games can be evaluated as being either 'better than' or 'worse than.' It's just another F-FPS and I think that's what Yahtzee is getting at. He comes down hard on games that aren't original so Halo 3 had it coming, IMHO.

But see, that's the problem I think you're having. Halo 3 isn't some kind of benchmark by which all other FPS games can be evaluated as being either 'better than' or 'worse than.' It's just another F-FPS and I think that's what Yahtzee is getting at. He comes down hard on games that aren't original so Halo 3 had it coming, IMHO.

I never said it was a benchmark of any kind. I've said that it is different and that it's a much better game than Haze and Turok. Even if you think HL2 is twice the game Halo 3 is, you'd have to be blind to not see that Halo 3 is twice the game Haze and especially Turok is. Yahtzee shows no signs of understanding this, or even that Halo plays a bit differently from most other titles. He tosses them all into the same bucket, says they're mediocre or poor and takes a shit on them. It makes for good humor at times, but it definitely isn't insightful.

Edit: I'm curious, if you liked Doom 3, what did you think about Resurrection of Evil?

I never said it was a benchmark of any kind. I've said that it is different and that it's a much better game than Haze and Turok. Even if you think HL2 is twice the game Halo 3 is, you'd have to be blind to not see that Halo 3 is twice the game Haze and especially Turok is. Yahtzee shows no signs of understanding this, or even that Halo plays a bit differently from most other titles. He tosses them all into the same bucket, says they're mediocre or poor and takes a shit on them. It makes for good humor at times, but it definitely isn't insightful.

To be honest I don't think he looks that closely at any of them unless they really stand out and get his attention, like CoD4 did.


Edit: I'm curious, if you liked Doom 3, what did you think about Resurrection of Evil?

I dunno I haven't played it. Is it any good? What does it play on?

I dunno I haven't played it. Is it any good? What does it play on?

Play on? PC I guess. I'm very split when it comes to Doom 3; I like the atmosphere, overall design of graphics and sound, but I hated many of the scripted attacks and the quick to fire enemy soldiers. I thought Resurrection of Evil did a lot to fix the game, simply by doing more of what Doom 3 did well, and less of what it did poorly. There are many more fireball tossing demons, far fewer soldiers, and some very large fights every now and then. You also get a gravity gun ripoff to play with, but it's mostly used to catch fireballs and toss them back at your enemies. Sadly, it's also less scary than Doom 3 was.

Of course, every review I've seen says it's just "more of the same", so what do I know. That's why I like to ask fans of the game what they think.

I thought that Halo was a pretty good game.

must... resist... meme...

I loved Halo 1 and 2, but that may be because they were the FPSes I was raised on. I have to agree with Yahtzee on Halo 3 tbh.

must... resist... meme...

I loved Halo 1 and 2, but that may be because they were the FPSes I was raised on. I have to agree with Yahtzee on Halo 3 tbh.

Gawd I feel old... I was already a gamer when the original DOOM came out and that was my first FPS.

Gawd I feel old... I was already a gamer when the original DOOM came out and that was my first FPS.

Wolf 3D was mine. Doom was the first FPS I played against others on. Quake II was my last real FPS game, as far as multiplayer.

Wolf 3D was mine. Doom was the first FPS I played against others on. Quake II was my last real FPS game, as far as multiplayer.

This is why I get owned by my 12 year old son in Halo. He likes to jump around and catch air while I, having cut my teeth on DOOM, jump as little as possible and stay earthbound.

But when we play Call of Duty4, where there ARE no gravity settings I own him back...

So I guess equilibrium is preserved.

This is why I get owned by my 12 year old son in Halo. He likes to jump around and catch air while I, having cut my teeth on DOOM, jump as little as possible and stay earthbound.

But when we play Call of Duty4, where there ARE no gravity settings I own him back...

So I guess equilibrium is preserved.
My first FPS was Doom! My grandfather raised me on it. Well, that and Wolfenstein 3D.:D

My first FPS was Doom! My grandfather raised me on it. Well, that and Wolfenstein 3D.:D

What I like best is looking back and remembering playing that game with the lights off... It seemed so scary at the time...

This is why I get owned by my 12 year old son in Halo. He likes to jump around and catch air while I, having cut my teeth on DOOM, jump as little as possible and stay earthbound.

But when we play Call of Duty4, where there ARE no gravity settings I own him back...

So I guess equilibrium is preserved.

Yeah played Portal through yesterday, flinging really unnerved me. I'm used to more landbound FPS games. Though it's not really an FPS. The whole hurtling yourself through the air and falling massive distances really bothered me.

What I like best is looking back and remembering playing that game with the lights off... It seemed so scary at the time...
I'm still scared of it. *Sits in corner, sucks thumb and remembers grandfather playing the first resident evil, right before moving on to doom on the computer*

I'm still scared of it. *Sits in corner, sucks thumb and remembers grandfather playing the first resident evil, right before moving on to doom on the computer*

I love games that are scary.

DOOM3 has some really wicked stuff going on in the later levels. Imagine hallways washed in blood with bits and debris scattered everywhere... fluorescent lights flickering off and on and every once in a while, for an instant when they flicker on, you see a big dude up ahead with a chainsaw... then he's gone...

I love games that are scary.

DOOM3 has some really wicked stuff going on in the later levels. Imagine hallways washed in blood with bits and debris scattered everywhere... fluorescent lights flickering off and on and every once in a while, for an instant when they flicker on, you see a big dude up ahead with a chainsaw... then he's gone...

Four letters: F.E.A.R.

Four letters: F.E.A.R.

buh?

I love games that are scary.

DOOM3 has some really wicked stuff going on in the later levels. Imagine hallways washed in blood with bits and debris scattered everywhere... fluorescent lights flickering off and on and every once in a while, for an instant when they flicker on, you see a big dude up ahead with a chainsaw... then he's gone...

Thing that got me was the med lab. Not sure why but the constant heart beat sound in the background really bugged me.

buh?
You've never seen that game? *Sigh*
This... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6MpV1rMIAfw)

Thing that got me was the med lab. Not sure why but the constant heart beat sound in the background really bugged me.

Flashbacks to when you killed that old man and hid him under the floorboards?

Flashbacks to when you killed that old man and hid him under the floorboards?

Oh how cliche`. I walled him up in the basement after luring him down with promises of booze.

Oh how cliche`. I walled him up in the basement after luring him down with promises of booze.
:p

My first FPS was Doom! My grandfather raised me on it. Well, that and Wolfenstein 3D.:D

:?

I was a Goldeneye kid...Perhaps I missed something.

:?

I was a Goldeneye kid...Perhaps I missed something.
My grandfather had a taste for the older games. It was passed down to me.:D

You've never seen that game? *Sigh*
This... (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6MpV1rMIAfw)

Wow...

I like when i get Five 6s

Wow...

Now I'm afraid of Gothic looking little girls. *Shivers*

I never said it was a benchmark of any kind. I've said that it is different and that it's a much better game than Haze and Turok. Even if you think HL2 is twice the game Halo 3 is, you'd have to be blind to not see that Halo 3 is twice the game Haze and especially Turok is. Yahtzee shows no signs of understanding this, or even that Halo plays a bit differently from most other titles.

You know, every defense of Halo said the same thing, it is different. But you know what? I keep hearing it, but I don't see it. Halo 3 was a good game, it was certainly pretty, but I fail to see how it was different.

It was a straightforward, linear FPS with very little suprises or shocks. The scenery changed between forest and canyon and urban area occasionally spliced with a forest within a canyon that contained an urban area. And no matter where you are or where you want to go, there's exactly one path from A to B, and following that path is occassionally complicated by requiring you to figure out certain complicated methods such as "jump over rock" or every now and then "jump off ledge"

And at least while Halo 1 had that somewhat innovative idea of switching the enemy on you half way through the game leaving you wondering what the hell was going on, by the time we got to Halo 3 that little gimmic had worn thin. No longer "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING? OH GOD IT JUST EXPLODED! WHAT THE FUCK ARE THOSE THINGS?" it became "oh look, the flood...again"

Sure on the higher difficulty levels it got excessivly more interesting, requiring you to develop a level of twitch akin to a tweaked out 12 year old with a 5 a day redbull habit just to avoid getting your head blown off by snipers every 3rd step. But that's not innovative. That's not different.

At its core Halo 3 was just pick up gun, move target over enemy, pull trigger until dead, hide behind rock until shields come back. And there's nothing WRONG with that, it's certainly fun. But it's certainly not different.

I think he's one of the most overrated reviewers I've ever seen. Why? For one thing he isn't a reviewer, he makes videos for humour, not for informative reasons, you shouldn't watch his video for reliable opinions on the quality of games. Many of the reviews I have seen are admittedly based on barely even on one hour of gameplay, often making his reviews horribly uninformed. But he doesn't need to see much to review, only enough 'brown' or 'bloom' to justify is repetitive rants about the state of gaming today.

I think he's one of the most overrated reviewers I've ever seen. Why? For one thing he isn't a reviewer, he makes videos for humour, not for informative reasons, you shouldn't watch his video for reliable opinions on the quality of games. Many of the reviews I have seen are admittedly based on barely even on one hour of gameplay, often making his reviews horribly uninformed. But he doesn't need to see much to review, only enough 'brown' or 'bloom' to justify is repetitive rants about the state of gaming today.

Yahtzee is to game reviews what Jon Stewart is to news. Sure his articles might hav ea veneer of legitimate review, but the goal is humor, and taking it as anything other than that is foolish.

I think he's one of the most overrated reviewers I've ever seen. Why? For one thing he isn't a reviewer, he makes videos for humour, not for informative reasons, you shouldn't watch his video for reliable opinions on the quality of games. Many of the reviews I have seen are admittedly based on barely even on one hour of gameplay, often making his reviews horribly uninformed. But he doesn't need to see much to review, only enough 'brown' or 'bloom' to justify is repetitive rants about the state of gaming today.
...

Have you actually seen his reviews? Most of them he plays through, unless all he had was a demo. Some exceptions being LOZ: Phantom Hourglass (Can't say I blame him) The Witcher (Wouldn't know), and probably one or two others. He points out good games today, but often claims about how the larger games are over hyped. I've only disagreed with four of his reviews to date, and mostly on small reasons. He makes criticizing a game humorous, yet still manages to make a good point about the bad parts of a game.

Yahtzee is to game reviews what Jon Stewart is to news. Sure his articles might hav ea veneer of legitimate review, but the goal is humor, and taking it as anything other than that is foolish.

Yet a lot of gamers today annoyingly see him as somewhat of a prophet, where his opinion is the ultimate verdict on the quality of games.

I think he's one of the most overrated reviewers I've ever seen. Why? For one thing he isn't a reviewer, he makes videos for humour, not for informative reasons, you shouldn't watch his video for reliable opinions on the quality of games. Many of the reviews I have seen are admittedly based on barely even on one hour of gameplay, often making his reviews horribly uninformed. But he doesn't need to see much to review, only enough 'brown' or 'bloom' to justify is repetitive rants about the state of gaming today.

This sums up my feeling pretty well. The first time I saw one of his rants, it was funny. Every one after that was repetitive. Yes, I get it, he is angsty and occasionally points out some valid problems with games (occasionally) and, even better, he does it with a silly, cracked out British accent! Whooooo.....but, more often than not, I'd have to say he doesn't know what he's talking about. *shrug*

I also think the fact that people hump his leg like he has god damned pheromone-laced pants or something makes me hate him even more.

...

Have you actually seen his reviews?

Actually, I haven't seen any recently. He may be a little better now for all I know.

yet still manages to make a good point about the bad parts of a game.

I call that being pedantic, which he very much is.

I also think the fact that people hump his leg like he has god damned pheromone-laced pants or something makes me hate him even more.
Jealousy?

Jealousy?

Nah, I just dislike sheep-like adulation of anyone. If I had the same kind of sycophantic following he has, I'd probably slit my own wrists.

Nah, I just dislike sheep-like adulation of anyone. If I had the same kind of sycophantic following he has, I'd probably slit my own wrists.

I'm sure you would.:rolleyes:

Yahtzee is what he is. Just another gamer with an opinion. It's his style of humor that got him attention.

Having said that, I do think his gripes are legitimate more often than not and what makes his opinions mean something useful is that fact that he's a gamer, and so the stuff that annoys him is usually the same stuff that annoys the rest of us.

His opinion isn't going to make or break my decision whether or not to buy a particular game, and frankly the reviews of his I enjoy most are of games I already own.

Just take his opinion as you would from any random friend or gamer and you'll do fine.

You know, every defense of Halo said the same thing, it is different. But you know what? I keep hearing it, but I don't see it. Halo 3 was a good game, it was certainly pretty, but I fail to see how it was different.

It was a straightforward, linear FPS with very little suprises or shocks. The scenery changed between forest and canyon and urban area occasionally spliced with a forest within a canyon that contained an urban area. And no matter where you are or where you want to go, there's exactly one path from A to B, and following that path is occassionally complicated by requiring you to figure out certain complicated methods such as "jump over rock" or every now and then "jump off ledge"

And at least while Halo 1 had that somewhat innovative idea of switching the enemy on you half way through the game leaving you wondering what the hell was going on, by the time we got to Halo 3 that little gimmic had worn thin. No longer "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING? OH GOD IT JUST EXPLODED! WHAT THE FUCK ARE THOSE THINGS?" it became "oh look, the flood...again"

Sure on the higher difficulty levels it got excessivly more interesting, requiring you to develop a level of twitch akin to a tweaked out 12 year old with a 5 a day redbull habit just to avoid getting your head blown off by snipers every 3rd step. But that's not innovative. That's not different.

At its core Halo 3 was just pick up gun, move target over enemy, pull trigger until dead, hide behind rock until shields come back. And there's nothing WRONG with that, it's certainly fun. But it's certainly not different.

It was a mistake to mention Halo, because when you do there is no possibility of having a rational discussion anymore. You'd think I'd finally learn.

I know Halo has faults. I'm not really a fan of the series. I liked Halo 1, but as I already said, I hated Halo 2 and I have no intention of ever playing Halo 3. I say Halo is different. You say you disagree, but you also talk about attacking, retreating behind a rock and repeat as if it was something every FPS title had. They don't. Halo made your surroundings play a key part of the gameplay, and whether or not you think this is good game design or not, it's something we don't see in many games.

How about if you think Halo's gameplay mechanics are so much like every other game, you actually try to prove this?

Yahtzee is what he is. Just another gamer with an opinion. It's his style of humor that got him attention.

Having said that, I do think his gripes are legitimate more often than not and what makes his opinions mean something useful is that fact that he's a gamer, and so the stuff that annoys him is usually the same stuff that annoys the rest of us.

His opinion isn't going to make or break my decision whether or not to buy a particular game, and frankly the reviews of his I enjoy most are of games I already own.

Just take his opinion as you would from any random friend or gamer and you'll do fine.
/Threadwin.

I'm sure you would.:rolleyes:

Well, to be fair, I'd probably just try and not have anything to do with them. Some of us enjoy disagreement because it's fun to test opinions through debate rather than blind agreement. *shrug*

Though I have to wonder, would you really like the kind of cultish adoration that people like Yahtzee get? Don't you have any kind of higher intellectual aims or do you just take it for granted that your opinions are unquestionable?

It was a mistake to mention Halo, because when you do there is no possibility of having a rational discussion anymore. You'd think I'd finally learn.

I know Halo has faults. I'm not really a fan of the series. I liked Halo 1, but as I already said, I hated Halo 2 and I have no intention of ever playing Halo 3. I say Halo is different. You say you disagree, but you also talk about attacking, retreating behind a rock and repeat as if it was something every FPS title had. They don't. Halo made your surroundings play a key part of the gameplay, and whether or not you think this is good game design or not, it's something we don't see in many games.

How about if you think Halo's gameplay mechanics are so much like every other game, you actually try to prove this?


Attacking, retreating, reattacking IS something every FPS has. Unless you play on beginner settings where you literally can run into a room and blaze away coming out alive.

I can't really think of a single element in Halo that I hadn't seen before. The one thing that was sorta different were the semi interactive NPCs who would drive/shoot in your vehicles, but the AI was so horrendously buggy that you were better off not utilizing it at all.

Well, to be fair, I'd probably just try and not have anything to do with them. Some of us enjoy disagreement because it's fun to test opinions through debate rather than blind agreement. *shrug*

Though I have to wonder, would you really like the kind of cultish adoration that people like Yahtzee get? Don't you have any kind of higher intellectual aims or do you just take it for granted that your opinions are unquestionable?
My opinions are questionable, but I accept them. If anyone else wants to disagree or agree with them, let them.

Attacking, retreating, reattacking IS something every FPS has. Unless you play on beginner settings where you literally can run into a room and blaze away coming out alive.

I can't really think of a single element in Halo that I hadn't seen before. The one thing that was sorta different were the semi interactive NPCs who would drive/shoot in your vehicles, but the AI was so horrendously buggy that you were better off not utilizing it at all.

There is no such thing as an entirely new idea. Everything is based on something else. Halo may have been the first FPS with recharging health, but recharging health, shields, mana and such of course existed in many other games before. What I'm arguing is that the gameplay elements that make up Halo together make it something that stands out from the rest.

Sure every game will require you to be a bit careful, and try to avoid incoming fire. But Halo took it not only one step further, but many. You spend far more time on this than you do in any other game I've ever played, on any difficulty setting.

Halo was also the very few, if not the only, game with fun, easy to use and mostly optional vehicles. Fuck, it still is. You weren't forced to drive like in other games, it was merely there for you if you wanted to. But why wouldn't you, because it was fun. The NPCs may not have been able to drive to save their lives, but they were very helpful when they manned the cannon on the warthog, and the warthog wasn't exactly the only vehicle in the game.

And the rest? How about how Halo treated every single encounter as "the game"? The smallest standalone unit in the game wasn't the level, or even the checkpoint, but a fight, and you were encouraged (required on Heroic and up) to go all out and use up all your ammo. If you made it, you could go on to the next challenge, always with full shields and with new fresh weapons picked up. There was no penalty for playing worse than perfect; as long as you did it, that was enough. You always felt accomplishment, and never that you should probably load a savegame, like you might if you finish a large fight in HL2, only have 47% health left and see no medkits nearby.

Another small thing is how the game didn't make you play the interface by giving the player sound queues for low shields and recharging shields. When you played the game you would always "just know" in what state you were, and you had to since 2-3 hits was enough to kill you.

How about how when you played a single battle over and over, how it would always end up differently each time? The enemies would end up in different positions, and you would too since you had to react to what they did. You never quite knew how a situation would play out.

Not many games have a useful melee attack available at all times, but Halo has.

Dude... for someone who is trying not to sound like a fanboy, you're really sounding like a fanboy. I mean no offense... It's clear that you really love Halo and there's nothing wrong with that, but we've all played it too. We know what we're saying.

There is no such thing as an entirely new idea. Everything is based on something else. Halo may have been the first FPS with recharging health*, but recharging health, shields, mana and such of course existed in many other games before. What I'm arguing is that the gameplay elements that make up Halo together make it something that stands out from the rest.

*Note: Halo1 did not have recharging health, only recharging shields. You still needed medkits to fix health. Halo 2 dispensed with health entirely and relied solely on shields.


Sure every game will require you to be a bit careful, and try to avoid incoming fire. But Halo took it not only one step further, but many. You spend far more time on this than you do in any other game I've ever played, on any difficulty setting.


Dude... I don't see how. I found myself taking cover from incoming fire far more in Mass Effect than in any Halo incarnation. Same with DOOM3, because it had neither shields nor recharging health/armor.


Halo was also the very few, if not the only, game with fun, easy to use and mostly optional vehicles. Fuck, it still is. You weren't forced to drive like in other games, it was merely there for you if you wanted to. But why wouldn't you, because it was fun. The NPCs may not have been able to drive to save their lives, but they were very helpful when they manned the cannon on the warthog, and the warthog wasn't exactly the only vehicle in the game.


Oh yeah? try and beat that last level in Halo without the warthog...


And the rest? How about how Halo treated every single encounter as "the game"? The smallest standalone unit in the game wasn't the level, or even the checkpoint, but a fight, and you were encouraged (required on Heroic and up) to go all out and use up all your ammo. If you made it, you could go on to the next challenge, always with full shields and with new fresh weapons picked up. There was no penalty for playing worse than perfect; as long as you did it, that was enough. You always felt accomplishment, and never that you should probably load a savegame, like you might if you finish a large fight in HL2, only have 47% health left and see no medkits nearby.


Not really unique either. Medal of Honor and COD always did that too.


Another small thing is how the game didn't make you play the interface by giving the player sound queues for low shields and recharging shields. When you played the game you would always "just know" in what state you were, and you had to since 2-3 hits was enough to kill you.


That's kinda subjective, isn't it?


How about how when you played a single battle over and over, how it would always end up differently each time? The enemies would end up in different positions, and you would too since you had to react to what they did. You never quite knew how a situation would play out.


The AI was pretty good in Halo, but again, not a unique feature.


Not many games have a useful melee attack available at all times, but Halo has.

I would dispute that.

*Note: Halo1 did not have recharging health, only recharging shields. You still needed medkits to fix health. Halo 2 dispensed with health entirely and relied solely on shields.
I know, but the amount of health you had was pretty much irrelevant. It's close enough, and I was hoping that people would understand that.

Dude... I don't see how. I found myself taking cover from incoming fire far more in Mass Effect than in any Halo incarnation. Same with DOOM3, because it had neither shields nor recharging health/armor.
Then you did not play Halo on anything higher than Normal. The Halo series is rightfully mocked for making the player spend more time hiding than anything else. I've played through Doom 3 on Veteran, and Mass Effect using every class and on every difficulty setting, and it doesn't come close. Actually, when you "get" Mass Effect, you rarely have to take cover at all. Not even on insanity.

Oh yeah? try and beat that last level in Halo without the warthog...
I wish that you had found and bolded the first sentence of that paragraph as well. You know, the one saying "mostly optional vehicles".

Not really unique either. Medal of Honor and COD always did that too.
I'm glad you found some other games that did something like Halo. I'm afraid I haven't played the two first MoH games on the PlayStation 1, but I'll take your word for it. However you very much miss my point, which is that not every feature has to be completely unique, invented out of nothingness, for the game to look/feel/play differently. If it was, no game ever would be any different from any other game.

That's kinda subjective, isn't it?
No, it isn't. When you have sound warning you that you are low on shields, you don't have to keep an eye on the interface. Likewise, you don't have to look at your interface to see when you can safely pop out your nose, because the game lets you know by other means.

The AI was pretty good in Halo, but again, not a unique feature.
Never said it was. Never said ANYTHING was unique.

I would dispute that.
Maybe you could dispute this with examples? Note that since I said "not many", you would have to show me just that: many games with an always available and very useful melee attack. I'll be waiting.

Maybe you could dispute this with examples? Note that since I said "not many", you would have to show me just that: many games with an always available and very useful melee attack. I'll be waiting.

Ignoring games where the main character is a sword wielder or something, right? and, like, fighting games and stuff.

Ignoring games where the main character is a sword wielder or something, right? and, like, fighting games and stuff.

Well, we are talking first person shooters here. Are there any first person sword swingers out there, where you only use a sword? Are there MANY of them?

I know, but the amount of health you had was pretty much irrelevant. It's close enough, and I was hoping that people would understand that.


Oh gotcha.


Then you did not play Halo on anything higher than Normal. The Halo series is rightfully mocked for making the player spend more time hiding than anything else. I've played through Doom 3 on Veteran, and Mass Effect using every class and on every difficulty setting, and it doesn't come close. Actually, when you "get" Mass Effect, you rarely have to take cover at all. Not even on insanity.


I guess, but it seems to me that prettymuch any FPS will have a massive volume of incoming fire to be dodged/covered from.


I wish that you had found and bolded the first sentence of that paragraph as well. You know, the one saying "mostly optional vehicles".


It just seemed contradictory with the other sentence.


I'm glad you found some other games that did something like Halo. I'm afraid I haven't played the two first MoH games on the PlayStation 1, but I'll take your word for it. However you very much miss my point, which is that not every feature has to be completely unique, invented out of nothingness, for the game to look/feel/play differently. If it was, no game ever would be any different from any other game.


Very true, and I think you've just made Yahtzee's point, which is why he generally dislikes FPS.


No, it isn't. When you have sound warning you that you are low on shields, you don't have to keep an eye on the interface. Likewise, you don't have to look at your interface to see when you can safely pop out your nose, because the game lets you know by other means.


I misunderstood what you meant before.


Never said it was. Never said ANYTHING was unique.

k.


Maybe you could dispute this with examples? Note that since I said "not many", you would have to show me just that: many games with an always available and very useful melee attack. I'll be waiting.

I don't know what constitutes many, I mean, COD2 uses a weapon smash like in Halo while COD4 slashes out with a combat knife. Mass Effect automatically goes melee at close range. With all the FPS games out there 'many' winds up being kinda arbitrary.

Well, we are talking first person shooters here. Are there any first person sword swingers out there, where you only use a sword? Are there MANY of them?

Does being awesome count as a sort of usefulness?

Very true, and I think you've just made Yahtzee's point, which is why he generally dislikes FPS.
Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as an entirely new idea anywhere. What little of our own that we can bring to the table is dwarfed by what we borrow from the already the existing concepts that make up our shared culture. We can only hope that what we steal, we steal well enough to make it stand on its own. But I can certainly agree that there isn't a whole lot exciting going on in the genre these days. I sure would like the brown, the gray and the bloom go away and never come back. But Halo 1 is a 2001 game, and the brown and bloom wasn't invented back then.

I don't know what constitutes many, I mean, COD2 uses a weapon smash like in Halo while COD4 slashes out with a combat knife. Mass Effect automatically goes melee at close range. With all the FPS games out there 'many' winds up being kinda arbitrary.
I think it's rather unfair to compare Halo not only with the games of its time, but also games that were released years after. I mean it's a bit like saying that Super Mario Bros. was nothing special because Super Metroid was so much better and more advanced in every way.

But if we're still talking about only Halo 3 (I really have no idea anymore, this thread is seriously giving me a headache), you could perhaps rightly fault it for not improving enough on the Halo formula. I haven't played the game, so I don't know.

Does being awesome count as a sort of usefulness?
I have no idea what you're getting at, but DEFINITELY!

I have no idea what you're getting at, but DEFINITELY!

It's just that I don't play many FPS, so I can't judge actual usefulness, but, e.g. Gears of War Chainsaw gun thing. It's a frickin' chainsaw.

It's just that I don't play many FPS, so I can't judge actual usefulness, but, e.g. Gears of War Chainsaw gun thing. It's a frickin' chainsaw.

It did, and it was awesome. A bit on the difficult side to use, but that just made it all the sweeter when you pulled it off. I may disagree with a lot of the design decisions of that game, but the chainsaw gun really was great.

Well, we are talking first person shooters here. Are there any first person sword swingers out there, where you only use a sword? Are there MANY of them?
Elder scrolls.

Are there any first person sword swingers out there?
Witchaven, Hexen...

Umm, Shadow Warrior also had a useful sword :p


Of course the sword bash to win all sword bashes is Die By The Sword (especially arena/MP games, most fun you can have with a sword, club or weird blade in your virtual hand)...Though it was 3rd person.

Witchaven, Hexen...

Umm, Shadow Warrior also had a useful sword :p


Of course the sword bash to win all sword bashes is Die By The Sword (especially arena/MP games, most fun you can have with a sword, club or weird blade in your virtual hand)...Though it was 3rd person.

OH!OH! Red Steel!

Elder scrolls.

... is not a shooter, and doesn't have an always available melee attack. Unless you can punch someone with a bow? Anyhow, we're sidetracked. There are games today with this feature (Gears of War is as mentioned one of them), but it's still not all that common, and it's something that Halo did first. Not the idea of a melee attack, but to make it easy to use and always there for you.

They did the same with grenades, and that's something I wish every game featuring grenades would steal.

... is not a shooter, and doesn't have an always available melee attack. Unless you can punch someone with a bow? Anyhow, we're sidetracked. There are games today with this feature (Gears of War is as mentioned one of them), but it's still not all that common, and it's something that Halo did first. Not the idea of a melee attack, but to make it easy to use and always there for you.

They did the same with grenades, and that's something I wish every game featuring grenades would steal.

*Ahem*

OH!OH! Red Steel!

*Ahem*
All right. I haven't played Red Steel, but I'm sure you're right. So that's one. One out of many.

I mean if the melee attack doesn't make Halo stand out from the crowd, the crowd has gotta have this feature, right?

All right. I haven't played Red Steel, but I'm sure you're right. So that's one. One out of many.

I mean if the melee attack doesn't make Halo stand out from the crowd, the crowd has gotta have this feature, right?
Star Wars:Republic Commando. I'll tell you more when I remember them.

Elder scrolls.
I played then as a bow and magic type character. Not necessarily a first-person swinger.

I played then as a bow and magic type character. Not necessarily a first-person swinger.

True, true...

... is not a shooter, and doesn't have an always available melee attack. Unless you can punch someone with a bow? Anyhow, we're sidetracked. There are games today with this feature (Gears of War is as mentioned one of them), but it's still not all that common, and it's something that Halo did first.

Halo 1 perhaps, not halo 3.

Which is sort of the point. You may be able to argue that there were a few innovative things about the original Halo, but that was about it, Halo 2 and 3 didn't really bring anything new to the table.

Halo 1 perhaps, not halo 3.

Which is sort of the point. You may be able to argue that there were a few innovative things about the original Halo, but that was about it, Halo 2 and 3 didn't really bring anything new to the table.

Does it need to though? It's doing its own thing.

But what made you reply in the first place was me calling it different, not innovative. I was trying to put into words the most obvious things that in my mind made it feel different to play, but this has all turned into an argument over the words rather than the feeling. Can't you feel it?

If you were to replace all models, textures and sound effects in Halo with those from Half-Life, would you think you were playing Half-Life? Don't you think you would recognize the Halo gameplay beneath that?

If you say that you can't then I guess that's that. There's no way I could convince you.

Does it need to though? It's doing its own thing.

But what made you reply in the first place was me calling it different, not innovative. I was trying to put into words the most obvious things that in my mind made it feel different to play, but this has all turned into an argument over the words rather than the feeling. Can't you feel it?

If you were to replace all models, textures and sound effects in Halo with those from Half-Life, would you think you were playing Half-Life? Don't you think you would recognize the Halo gameplay beneath that?

If you say that you can't then I guess that's that. There's no way I could convince you.

Half-Life is one of the few unique FPS's out there. I might not buy too many FPS's these days, but I'm a sucker for Demos and trying out friends games. Very simply put: Replace all models textures, etc, from Halo with those in Republic Commando, or (From what I've played of it) Haze, would you notice the Halo gameplay beneath that? Not if you've already played those games beforehand.

Half-Life is one of the few unique FPS's out there. I might not buy too many FPS's these days, but I'm a sucker for Demos and trying out friends games. Very simply put: Replace all models textures, etc, from Halo with those in Republic Commando, or (From what I've played of it) Haze, would you notice the Halo gameplay beneath that? Not if you've already played those games beforehand.

I don't think there's anything more for me to say in this thread. I hope everyone can see what you just said for the silliness that it is, especially that not only you, but nobody at all would be able to recognize the Halo gameplay beneath that.

I don't think there's anything more for me to say in this thread. I hope everyone can see what you just said for the silliness that it is, especially that not only you, but nobody at all would be able to recognize the Halo gameplay beneath that.

Actually, they're both total Halo clones. I might be wrong on Haze, I didn't have much time with that, but I wouldn't be able to tell it was Halo beneath RC and Haze, if my first impressions were correct.

... is not a shooter, and doesn't have an always available melee attack. Unless you can punch someone with a bow? Anyhow, we're sidetracked. There are games today with this feature (Gears of War is as mentioned one of them), but it's still not all that common, and it's something that Halo did first. Not the idea of a melee attack, but to make it easy to use and always there for you.
HEXEN (http://acidglow.planetavp.gamespy.com/gamestpics/hexen64.jpg) :p

And of course, who can forget Doom II & Chainsaw?