XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012)

[keith.lamothe]

If I take a primarily single player game for its limited multiplayer approach, and base my review soley on what I feel my philospophy is, does that make me entertaining?

It depends on the precise mode and nuance of how you demonstrate the game's utility in the role of bathroom tissue.

[Lancefighter]

Maybe I should put it slightly differently - What he says is entirely his opinion, and he makes his bias very well known.

In your example, its perfectly relevant to ignore your argument if I so choose. Your bias is such that you dont like games without good multiplayer. So if because of this bias is why you did not like bioshock, it is my job as a reader/consumer to recognize that bias and treat it accordingly.

But like - He has incredibly huge bias on things. He doesnt really hide that at all. Hes not attempting to be 'fair' and 'balanced', hes attempting to tell you if he liked the game or not based on HIS criteria. Also, selling ads.

That he has this bias is not really why he has to dress up his opinion.. Its .. I dont even understand what this argument is.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Yeah, I'm not even sure where the problem is either. You can't review an entire game in a 5min review and do it completely. And he's not what I would consider a game reviewer anyway. Granted, I don't tend to pay attention to "fair" reviews as strictly as I used to. I get a wide range of impressions from friends/people online, combine them together and that tells me how good/bad the game is. Let me tell you, that makes for some fun interpretations of games. And then I'll test the game out to see how much I like it. This seems to work best for me.

[chemical_art]

Maybe I should put it slightly differently - What he says is entirely his opinion, and he makes his bias very well known.

In your example, its perfectly relevant to ignore your argument if I so choose. Your bias is such that you dont like games without good multiplayer. So if because of this bias is why you did not like bioshock, it is my job as a reader/consumer to recognize that bias and treat it accordingly.

But like - He has incredibly huge bias on things. He doesnt really hide that at all. Hes not attempting to be 'fair' and 'balanced', hes attempting to tell you if he liked the game or not based on HIS criteria. Also, selling ads.

That he has this bias is not really why he has to dress up his opinion.. Its .. I dont even understand what this argument is.

I guess my arguement is that in the end, you can depend on no one but yourself for opinions.

I thought before he gave a hilarious but semi credulous reviews of games. Now I see he gives just lazy reviews on a very narrow criteria (which I can get from my 14 year old nephew for the same intellectual value, and he is not an asshat).

[Mánagarmr]

Try to listen to the game reviewer without animation sometime. He's nothing but an asshat.

What part of "entertainer" did you miss in my previous post? I'm sorry, but he's not a reviewer. He's ACTING like a reviewer, while being an arse even towards games he loves. (See the recent XCOM review for one. He LOVED that game, but he still ridicules it to hell)

If you don't appreciate that kind of humor, that's just fine by me Heck, there's plenty of things I can't stand as well. It's down to taste. But seeing him as a serious reviewer is just completely missing the point of the show.

[chemical_art]

Yeah, I'm not even sure where the problem is either. You can't review an entire game in a 5min review and do it completely. And he's not what I would consider a game reviewer anyway. Granted, I don't tend to pay attention to "fair" reviews as strictly as I used to. I get a wide range of impressions from friends/people online, combine them together and that tells me how good/bad the game is. Let me tell you, that makes for some fun interpretations of games. And then I'll test the game out to see how much I like it. This seems to work best for me.

No, you can't review a game completely. But if you reviewed AVWW based on solely its multiplayer experience...you are kinda missing the point. If you give 95% of your time to a mode the developers and fans will admit are nothing more then a graphics demo...you miss the point. If you played LoL or DotA2 based on the bots alone...you missed the point.

When you review a game, whether it be entertainment or serious, play the damn main mode, please.

[Mánagarmr]

When you review a game, whether it be entertainment or serious, play the damn main mode, please.

I agree, absolutely, if we're talking about a serious review. He certainly isn't, and shouldn't be taken as such either.

[chemical_art]

Try to listen to the game reviewer without animation sometime. He's nothing but an asshat.

What part of "entertainer" did you miss in my previous post? I'm sorry, but he's not a reviewer. He's ACTING like a reviewer, while being an arse even towards games he loves. (See the recent XCOM review for one. He LOVED that game, but he still ridicules it to hell)

If you don't appreciate that kind of humor, that's just fine by me Heck, there's plenty of things I can't stand as well. It's down to taste. But seeing him as a serious reviewer is just completely missing the point of the show.

But that's my whole point. He would raise legitimate points about games in an entertaining way. If you take the majority of any game and say flatly "couldn't bother to play it" I feel like its just not complete.


I see, using your example, XCOM has a multiplayer mode. What if he reviewed only that mode, and said the game was poo because of said mode. Would that be nearly as entertaining?

[keith.lamothe]

I see, using your example, XCOM has a multiplayer mode. What if he reviewed only that mode, and said the game was poo because of said mode. Would that be nearly as entertaining?

It would depend on how it was done.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I see, using your example, XCOM has a multiplayer mode. What if he reviewed only that mode, and said the game was poo because of said mode. Would that be nearly as entertaining?

It would depend on how it was done.

What Keith said.

[chemical_art]

I see, using your example, XCOM has a multiplayer mode. What if he reviewed only that mode, and said the game was poo because of said mode. Would that be nearly as entertaining?

It would depend on how it was done.

"Game is poo from my standard (wordplay to drag it out), doesn't stand any reasonable standards for today.

I hear it has a better single player mode, but who plays that?"

That's the gist I got from him regarding any multiplayer ended game.

[relmz32]

I'm pretty sure thats what he does - He takes a game. He plays it. Then he makes fun of it in a cartoon.
If he actually enjoyed the game, its usually pretty evident..

So, if I played the original Bioshock for its multiplayer (because my philosophy is that any good game has great multiplayer) and I say its a steaming pile of doo, then its ok solely based on its multiplayer?

I'm asking this honestly. Even the reviewer in question had the decency to review a primarily a single player game for its primary mode. I'm taking the opposite approach. If I take a primarily single player game for its limited multiplayer approach, and base my review soley on what I feel my philospophy is, does that make me entertaining? Or does that just make me biased and I have to dress my opinion with animation?

Try to listen to the game reviewer without animation sometime. He's nothing but an asshat.

Obviously, you should be able to voice your opinions regarding games.

If your value of games revolves around multiplayer and you don't really care about single player, it would not bother me if you reamed Bioshock for its terrible mp. That is something that would be quickly picked up on by people who watch your reviews.

*aside* (Although if you like video games solely for their MP appeal, I think you might want to review your buying strategy in this case, as it seems to cause you to buy games that you do not like.)

Yahtzee primarily reviews games based on their entertainment, he is harsh, often unfair, but he always tries to entertain.

personally,
I value good entertaining single player, Strategy as a gameplay element, interesting Stories (or the ability to create good stories ala AI Wars, df),  Fun Multiplayer, Fun RPG elements, Puzzle-solving, and Complexity.

[Mánagarmr]

"Game is poo from my standard (wordplay to drag it out), doesn't stand any reasonable standards for today.

I hear it has a better single player mode, but who plays that?"

That's the gist I got from him regarding any multiplayer ended game.

Your point. It completely misses to be made. If it's done with enough entertainment, yes, absolutely! I would never even try to take him seriously. Ergo, what he says is irrelevant, it's HOW it's said.

[chemical_art]

"Game is poo from my standard (wordplay to drag it out), doesn't stand any reasonable standards for today.

I hear it has a better single player mode, but who plays that?"

That's the gist I got from him regarding any multiplayer ended game.

Your point. It completely misses to be made. If it's done with enough entertainment, yes, absolutely! I would never even try to take him seriously. Ergo, what he says is irrelevant, it's HOW it's said.

I see.

I take value in what is said, not how it is said.

Fair enough.

[Mánagarmr]

Yahtzee primarily reviews games based on their entertainment, he is harsh, often unfair, but he always tries to entertain.

To be frank, he doesn't try to review at all.