Back when "I Hit It With My Axe" was on the Escapist, there were two reasons to go there.

That is a good point. I don't care to play most of these games, because they seem shitty and lack save-anywhere.

I realize that video games are sort of moving past caring about people like me. I'm trying to accept it. **spends another $7 on Steam to be disappointed within 20 minutes**

How much of this is due to having to churn one of these out per week, do you think?

However the issue with Fable 3 is that it just strayed too far from the first game, which were fun good/evil romps. It took out RPGs elements and turned your character completely one dimensional. Then toward the end it tried to bring back choices by making neither one desirable.

The exact thing happened to me as happened to ZP. I was going to sit and gain all the money by leaving the system on, but I went a day too far forward and the entire end sequence started. So I quit.

Somehow I think something a guy is getting paid for should be more than just an explanation of his play experience with some THIS IS INSIGHT(tm) BRAND INSIGHT mixed in.

He talks a lot but he doesn't say anything. Saying the shitty last part of the game was only shitty because it used the words good and evil is such a fucking bullshit sophomoric piece of new gaming journalism caca. Plenty of games did good/evil fine. Certainly Jedi Knight 2 wasn't a bad game because it used a good/evil dichotomy, neither was Fable 1.

The videos are fine if you haven't or never will play the game, but once you play the game you kind of realize his inability to produce meaningful critique. I can't remember if it was him not liking Prototype or thinking that Ninja Gaiden II(2008) wasn't shitty, but a secret game for those hardcore enough to enjoy it; but, there was some critical moment where I realized he just didn't have anything intelligent to say.

I guess he's good as a video game cliffnotes, but he's really strayed from properly calling bullshit on things.

[quote="Worm"]The Fable 3 review is almost all the jokes and tropes that anyone would touch upon in a drunk/pill fueled rant about the game. Though you always run into something like how he thinks Ninja Gaiden 2 was really great because it was a reload-fest and that's what a true hardcore gamer wants, that just makes you question his taste.[/quote]

I think the Fable 3 review did a good job explaining why nobody should take that game seriously, and why it is hard to take the franchise seriously. "Good" and "evil" are childish concepts, but waaaay too complicated for the commercial game industry to handle.

If you murder a man because he was in your way, and then save another man's farm (or whatever it is that specifically happens in Fable) you aren't some complex blend of "good" and "evil," you are a psychopath. It would take years to design a system that didn't quickly result in players being dumped into the psychopath bin.

And OK, Molyneux has [i]had[/i] years to refine his good and evil epic. He was interested in it for Black and White. He's now done 3 Fable games. That's four games and 10 years and he seems no closer to getting a complex, yet meaningful system of ethics in his game than when he started.

He was 41 when he released Black and White. He's 51 now. I find myself at 36 and able to see, with a much clearer eye, some problems in the text game I have spent the last 5 years designing. (As well as the problems with plot and antagonist motivations in the ones I created by myself since 1999.) Whatever I generate from years 37 and beyond will be much stronger pieces in that manner, but it took a lot of time reading about design, plot and story structure to get there. I had to let go of the idea that I couldn't gleam anything from a (say) blog post on plot if I wasn't familiar with works from the author.

You shouldn't be able to get to the end of Fable [i][b]3[/i][/b] and come to the conclusions that Croshaw did. I mean, for the first Fable, sure, but come on, this is ten years later, and B&W was probably in development for 3 years, so... over 13 years and the end game decisions are still awkward and poorly implemented.

The games are making a ton of cash, so why should anyone bother trying to lay down a proper design that invokes the lessons presumably learned?

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]I absolutely don't get the mindset that demands a reviewer finish an 80 hour game, when he's able to tell relatively quickly that:

1) The game sucks
2) The game is not the reviewer's cup of tea[/quote]

I agree with you 100%. I have always thought my job as a reviewer was to (A) give you my impression of the product and (B) help you (the reader) decide if you would like the product. I don't need to play New Super Mario Bros for two weeks to perform that function. It's a 2D platform game with 3D rendered sprites and 4-player functionality. I don't need to beat the game to convey that point to readers.

You know it's funny. I really liked ZP and then I think he got screechy about how much games cost him in Australia (long after he was SPONSORED and it was HIS JOB). After that I kind of got tired of his videos. Where he's trying too hard to impart insight than comedy. Like, awesome, I agree with you, BE FUNNIER.

The Fable 3 review is almost all the jokes and tropes that anyone would touch upon in a drunk/pill fueled rant about the game. Though you always run into something like how he thinks Ninja Gaiden 2 was really great because it was a reload-fest and that's what a true hardcore gamer wants, that just makes you question his taste.

Thank you for bumping this thread! I couldn't find this anywhere and lack the memory skills to remember the name of it. Bookmarked now for future generations to enjoy.


THE
JOHNNY
UN- MNEMONIC
AARDVARK

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2652-Fable-3

Zero Punctuation can be found on the website escapistmagazine.com. Now, nobody would ever go to the Escapist if it wern't for ZP. Nobody. Ever. For any reason. Maybe the website owner's mom.

This puts them in a sad spot, [i]I guess[/i] but nobody cares. Just let us watch ZP, assholes.

Well, I went back tonight to watch a few. And they are great. But the Escapist runs a five-second "look at me!!!" bit before each one, and they have a very annoying person yell "HA!" before the proper video starts.

It is sad and pathetic, literally a cry for attention. Nobody cares about their stupid website. They just need to keep paying Yahtzee and that's it.

Sure! Basically when someone on talk radio blurts out something his base will agree with him, anyone who disagrees and calls in will have the odds hopelessly stacked against them, and replies that aren't aired on the person's show are non-existent. No matter what a guy says on talk radio, ultimately nothing can occur about it unless it is something that other talk radio guys will go on about(see: Imus).

It's kind of like you need to reply within the media-steam or you can't really reach that little alternate plane. Video blogs, talk radio, TV, unless they trigger some national outrage you can't really reply directly to it. Like that guy who doesn't know that Steam has offline mode, I can try to reply to him, but it's ultimately fruitless unless I make it a video reply.

That's what makes Yahtzee's review of The Witcher so perfect. No one can directly respond with varied and idiotic complaints, so it sort of stands apart. Since it's vague and more of an impression people can't go on and on about the things he should do to enjoy the game more.

How would you define, "talk radio immunity"?

(Forget that we have already talked about this on IM, this is for everyone else's benefit.)

You seriously will get people discounting a review where the reviewer doesn't do that shit. I won't be surprised if they start bawking that a reviewer who doesn't uncensor the game's bik files has no right saying a word on it. I know it's becoming a bit cliche, but let me say again, maggots all.

The Witcher is an odd thing, and I really think the only accurate review of it was done by Yahtzee. His reviews have a kind of talk radio immunity, which is something you need to start with before you give a computer RPG a negative review.

I see way too much punctuation in this, the ZOMGWTFBBQJC Zero Punctuation thread.

Shitwits.

I thought this was a good time to actually go watch the video for the Witcher -- unfair! When I saw it end, and saw that there were two minutes left on the Flash counter, I almost turned it off. It was only because I wanted to see the Escapist desperately put a dumb trailer there (and cackle about it in this thread) that I stuck around.

But what was there was hilarious! It was the best thing the guy has done in this gig.

(And only [i]after[/i] that bit, the systems analyst thing, the Escapist started spamming movie trailers at me.)

[quote="hygraed"]A ton of people over at Something Awful are bitching and moaning about how he gave a poor review to a game he enjoyed and how he didn't put enough time into playing the game to be able to give it a proper review.

Fuck those people.
[/quote]

With you on this. Aside from the fact that the average "goon" is a groupthinking shithead, I absolutely don't get the mindset that demands a reviewer finish an 80 hour game, when he's able to tell relatively quickly that:

1) The game sucks
2) The game is not the reviewer's cup of tea

Reviewing video games are a completely new thing, so why try to shoehorn them into old media? I haven't seen the thread you are referring to, hygraed, but I would imagine that if it gets long enough someone is going to say, "Would you trust a movie reviewer if he walked out in the first fifteen minutes???" You hardly need me to say that there is a bit of difference between an interactive game that could take up to two work weeks to complete, and a 90 minute movie that is going to keep advancing forward while you just sit back in your chair slugging down gumm-worms.

Every game should absolutely bring its best shit in the first few scenes. Consistently, games fail to do that. Worm told me, for the thing I am working on, that, "Maybe surviving a bear attack is not the best way to start things off." This was great advice, because in the real world you're going to lose your audience if the stuff at the beginning isn't great. If the Witcher isn't entertaining to the ZP Guy after a week of playing it, then fuck The Witcher.

(Though I still plan on getting The Witcher - if I let the opinion of game revwiewers in general determine whether or not I get a game, I'd never get any games.)


[quote]Right on the title screen it says "FIRST IMPRESSIONS" and he even alluded to that fact later in the review, explicitly stating that this review was based on the couple hours of the game he played before he got bored. If he had presented it as a full review of a game he was able to more or less fully experience when in fact he had not, the complainers might have a case. As it is, though, he lays all of his cards on the table and says "I got bored two hours in so here's what I thought of the first two hours of the game."[/quote]

The other thing that separates him from the average game journalist is that he has some actual work to get done when he's finished with the game in order to get that review up. It's not just a matter of consulting the old standard PC Game Writing Manual, which has you start off with a shitty pun based on the game's title, a horrible anecdote that would not be funny under any circumstances, followed by a poor re-telling of the game's plot, the theft of all the game's good jokes and a number ranging from 7 to 9. The ZP Guy has to get animating.

I'm surprised he doesn't get hate from not only fanboys of whatever game he's rightfully slamming that week but game reviewers in general, seeing how he's one of the few that can actually fucking DO something.

A ton of people over at Something Awful are bitching and moaning about how he gave a poor review to a game he enjoyed and how he didn't put enough time into playing the game to be able to give it a proper review.

Fuck those people. Right on the title screen it says "FIRST IMPRESSIONS" and he even alluded to that fact later in the review, explicitly stating that this review was based on the couple hours of the game he played before he got bored. If he had presented it as a full review of a game he was able to more or less fully experience when in fact he had not, the complainers might have a case. As it is, though, he lays all of his cards on the table and says "I got bored two hours in so here's what I thought of the first two hours of the game."

Also, maybe it's because Psychonauts is the only game he's reviewed that I've actually played, but I couldn't give less of a shit what his actual opinion of the game is. The reviews are consistently funny, and that's why I watch them. If I wanted a comprehensive review of a game I would go to 1UP or Eurogamer; I wouldn't watch a video review produced first and foremost for comedic value.

"WASH THE GIMP!"



Catchphrase for a new generation


THE
SILL AMUSED
AARDVARK

[url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2831-Zero-Punctuation-The-Witcher]The Witcher[/url], a game I am considering getting, is this week's.

As fun as the ZP stuff is, seeing the Ecapist become more and more desperate with the embedded advertising is a nice second thing to enjoy as well. This week, not only is the ad that obliterates the bottom third of the screen there (until you hit the "x" and it helpfully goes to the side - but not off completely, you know, in case you get bored in three minutes and want to catch that ad again) but the Escapist also decided to spam some stupid "GET THE CODE!!!" thing which caused the thing to fail to load until I refreshed the screen 3 times.

I guess they got two extra hits out of me, so I suppose they are overjoyed.

By the end of the year, I am certain they will be inserting an ad at the front of the ZP stuff, without the ability to hit an "x" and get rid of it. That is my prediction.

I don't think anyone wants actual toy instrument music! GH 1 and 2 were super fun for me until they weren't, so was Top Skater, or any game where you have a neat peripheral and you're doing something you're a fan of. I really can't imagine it going anywhere beyond the "one instrument -> band" transition.

I'd just like to see more good arcade game clones, and more global highscore boards. I'd like to get into Space Giraffe but I can't play a game that looks like barf.

One of the guys who worked on GH1 and 2 and then Rock Band is Dan Schmidt, who also did the IF game "For a Change." He also worked on a bunch of cool Looking Glass games. It's kind of funny to see that the game he went to work on (Rock Band) is hands-down better than the one taken over by the newcomers... [i]and[/i] it's funny to see that Activision is so strenuously objecting to that compatibility patch, would would render all GH3 guitars as the bass guitars in a Rock Band game. Dan's one of those people that surrounds himself with quality output.

I would guess that after Rock Band 2 and an expansion pack, Harmonix will make a game that is more than reading notes on a screen - I see them letting four people make some kind of new music over Xbox Live.

Yeah, that pretty much describes my issue with it. There's a bunch of walls, and if you want to break through them, it's great. If you'd rather just score ONE MILLION FUCKING POINTS in Geometry Wars then do that.