http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9153-Extra-Punctuation-Hating-Warhammer-40k-and-Space-Marine

In his "Extra Pronunciation" this week, charismatic stallion Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame talks about Space Marine(s), both the game and the concept as well as 40K in general. And doesn't have a lot of good things to say.

You agree?

Sounds about right.

Was about to read it, unfortunately I have a personal rule against reading anything on the internet written by anyone under 50 with a goatee and wearing a fedora.

plastictrees wrote:Was about to read it, unfortunately I have a personal rule against reading anything on the internet written by anyone under 50 with a goatee and wearing a fedora.

thats a solid rule to apply to the internet

plastictrees wrote:Was about to read it, unfortunately I have a personal rule against reading anything on the internet written by anyone under 50 with a goatee and wearing a fedora.

This can't be said enough.

Interesting... it seems like his entire review was a basic trolling for 40k nerds.

Ignore it and move on.

Grakmar wrote:Interesting... it seems like his entire review was a basic trolling for 40k nerds.

Ignore it and move on.

Some of his remarks were funny, but he doesn't grasp the ideas of the 40k universe. Read the comments section and there's many people pointing this out.

You are correct though. It's basically a troll review to up the hit counter on his page.

A brother has to make ad revenue any way he can!

Check out the review of Darksiders for a 40k reference too.

This dude is pretty funny but one has to put aside their nerd bias. He is obviously trolling with all of his videos.

Well I kinda like Yahtzee's reviews and I knew from the moment I heard he talked about Space Marine, that the review wouldn't be too pretty. Here's why: First of all every game that is nothing really special or just not Yahtzee's style gets ripped to shreds. Secondly, (though I have not played too much of the game) Space Marine seemed like a pretty mediocre game, which is more simple fun to play, especially for fans (which Yahtzee admits he is not) then it is actually a sophisticated game. And finally... Yahtzee rips on every game for comedic value... and this one has Space Marines (I like'em but whoever has seen more then two episodes of Zero Punctuation knows what Yahtzee thinks of anything even related to the name "Space Marine" no matter how deep the story might be).

But though I agree on the "wh40k was made by a generation that doesn't know the horrors of actual war and thus makes up stories of honour, death etc.", I feel that wh40k does it more in a satirical/critical way then most games/movies etc. that do it in moderation. In my humble opinion, the whole Imperium of mankind is built on a ton of references to how humanity has screwd up in the past and present and parodies human emotions, cultur, education, patriotism, belief, science etc. If people want to take the Wh40k background for fun over the top violence, that's cool with me, but people who get smug saying this is too childish and shallow for them (though I don't think Yahtzee actually went for that) are just plain ignorant.

If only the article had been as hilarious as his fedora.

So... he hates 40K, but in a snobbish way without any constructive reasoning.

He also makes an arsey remark about a war game designed by people who have never been to war, as though any war based computer game or film isn't equally as guilty.

I have decided not to like this fellow and not read his blog.

What an (MOD edit), we don't go making fun of his stuff so he should just shut up.

Have a sense of humour kids.

He's right about the game. It is dull. And his opinion about 40K is something we've all heard before and is quite typical of those who know very little of the universe. I've heard the "how can there be 'only' war?" line of reasoning before, and it usually comes from those who take only a cursory glance at 40K.

Furthermore it should be quite clear that his experiences with 40K only relate to the tabletop game and that he is either unaware or hasn't really looked into the various other facets of 40K. He talks about being an AD&D guy... well does he know 40K RPG's exist? Does he know 40K RPGs exist where it isn't [/i]'only war'[/i] all the time?

Probably not, but it doesn't matter. He's basing his experiences on two things:

1. His limited knowledge of the game and setting.
2. The game Space Marine.

If he's never really looked into the former (at least not with enough depth to see beyond the tabletop game) and he finds the latter dull, then who can blame him for holding the opinion he has?

What H.B.M.C. said - Yahtzee just plain doesn't "get" it, and doesn't want to take the time to "get" it. Whatever. The world will go on if he doesn't.

In any case, Yahtzee trolls everything - that's his hallmark, and that's what people enjoy about his reviews.

Yahtzee's generally making fun of stuff. it's the way he works.

I haven't watched this yet, but keep in mind that, in general, he has a strong dislike of the FPS shooter cliche of "You're a big burly sci-fi guy who runs around with a bunch of guns and shoots everything that moves" because this is kind of a cliche going back at least as far as Doom. Off the top of my head, a minor variation of this formula has been used in Doom, Unreal Tournament, TimeSplitters, Marathon, Quake, Gears of War, Aliens vs. Predator, Marathon, Crysis, Halo, and probably a ton of other games I'm not aware of.

Making a Warhammer 40,000 themed game following a Space Marine is, in this environment, kind of like the Lord of the Rings movies: A monumental challenge because it is part of the foundations of the cliches so many other movies have exploited that it needs to be immensely superior to stand out.

I stopped watching Yatzhee's stuff when my work blocked him. When I stopped, I think he liked Portal and... That was about it actually. He "likes" very few games such that being rated "Meh" by him is actually a compliment.

I also admit that it's a bit funny that so many people can't stand him making fun of Space Marines even though I thought making fun of Space Marines was a Dakka Dakka tradition.

As far as what he says about the game, sounds good to me. I'm just not sure what to make of the first paragraph on the second page (where he acts as if he knows what people who have been through combat think about and enjoy). If he is trying to be genuinely insightful and enlightened then the guy can suck my hot dog. If he is intentionally being ironic, well, okay, but he didn't do a great job of making it apparent...

Ssgt Carl wrote:As far as what he says about the game, sounds good to me. I'm just not sure what to make of the first paragraph on the second page (where he acts as if he knows what people who have been through combat think about and enjoy). If he is trying to be genuinely insightful and enlightened then the guy can suck my hot dog. If he is intentionally being ironic, well, okay, but he didn't do a great job of making it apparent...

I think you're expecting too much from pompous "comedy" internet writers.

plastictrees wrote:
I think you're expecting too much from pompous "comedy" internet writers.

Haha! You make an excellent point.

Balance wrote:I also admit that it's a bit funny that so many people can't stand him making fun of Space Marines even though I thought making fun of Space Marines was a Dakka Dakka tradition.

When we make fun of it it's fine. But when an 'other' does, it's offensive!!!

I know. Very silly.


Yahtzee rips on everything, even the things he likes. I mean, he tore into Red Dead Redemption and Just Cause 2, but at the end of that year said they were two of his five fav games for the year (I bought Just Cause 2 because of his review - best twenty bucks I ever spent). If a game is terrible he is merciless. If a game is mediocre he cuts through the hype and asks why this game wasn't better. If a game is good he gives credit where credit's due, but will point out the flaws (although even sometimes he can't do that - his Arkham Asylum review had him admitting that there was so little wrong with the game that he had resorted to nickpicking the box art...).

As I said, he dislikes Warhammer 40,000 because he doesn't understand it. He has a basic grap of 'there is a table top game and in that universe everyone fights all the time', but that's about as deep as his understanding goes. It's a very shallow point of view, but it is where he bases his opinions from so you can hardly blame him for that. He dislikes Space Marine, the game, partly because of his limited understanding of 40K and party because it's a really dull game (I may love 40K, but couldn't disagree with anything he said about Space Marine - right down the bored emotionless voice acting). No need to crucify the guy for it.

I can't say I disagree with anything he said except 'durp hurp 40k's lore sucks'.
The game was pretty boring. I walk around trying to do a finishing move to replace my 10% health on one of about a hundred surrounding Orks, or use incredibly inefficient ranged weapons to kill more Orks, or have to resort to the Thunder Hammer to even bother killing the CSM. And the tons of CSM, might I add, that have really nasty plasma weapons all over.
All the while I play a character that goes "Oh, there's enemies, FORTEHEMPRAandyeahmffmfm...'

I enjoyed the review. I find him funny, and have for years. I don't really care that he happens to not like what I like, perhaps due to his first impression with it being a bad one. Hell, I even like the game "Space Marine."

So what if Yahtzee doesn't like 40k lore? Sure, it is indeed pretty evident he doesn't actually "get it" (My God we sound like fething hipsters), and personally I would say that 40k as a setting is just as capable of holding up interesting stories and is capable of just as much depth as DnD is (As someone who plays and is familiar with both, I'd like to think I am probably right on this), and I would say a few writers like Abnett and McNeil have justified this belief, and hope to eventually play in a campaign of Dark Heresy to test my roleplaying chops in the 41st Millenium.

So yeah, some guy online doesn't like 40k or the game Space Marine, it's not a big deal. It's not like his opinion is somehow threatening to the setting or the game, if people read his review and promptly declare they don't like it simply because of his own opinion, then they probably weren't the type who would care to dig deep enough to find anything worthwhile in the setting anyway.

I don't care for his opinion about it. As long as he spouts out videos that I can chuckle at every several weeks or so, is all that matters.

He doesn't know 40k as well. can't blame him he doesn't understand though the people in the comments they aren't the brightest.

I love how a spanker who spends all his waking hours playing and talking about video games is hating on people who play 40K becaue it is kids stuff...

the only things funnier in that article are his stupid name and that picture of himself in the god-awful "slickster" outfit and the "blue steele" facial expression.

What a douche bag...

Yahtzee is a dice game. This guy is an asshat.

As someone who has been fairly entrenched at one time, 40k lore does suck. What's the issue here? It can be a metaphor, blah blah blah, but yeah, it's a bunch of dudes fighting and magically replenishing their ranks somehow. He kinda nailed it IMO.

I've been watching Zero Punctuation for... jeeze, has it been 4 years now?

Yahtzee's humor is the kind that, well, he just rips on everything. And I mean everything. He has that scathing, sarcastic wit that, so far, I've only ever seen from people who live in Australia. Which, being a soft, squishy American, is something I suppose one needs when you have to deal with a continent where virtually everything is trying to kill you on a daily basis.

After reading the article, well, I laughed. Quite a lot. This is what the 40k universe looks like to someone who's on the outside of the game.

He points out that a large factor in his enjoyment of games is a good story. Plenty of big release games mimic big movies, big budget, lotsa shiny things that explode but very little or no story. Space Marine was crap in that department, crap in general IMO.

Its just a bad article. If he ripped on 40k with tight and competent writing, I could enjoy it. Also, did anyone else find the "no one in the Somme ever (spent time) thinking about something worse" or whatever, kinda funny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRR_Tolkein#World_War_I

Yahtzee's fine when it comes to competant writing, and there was nothing wrong with what he wrote from a technical standpoint.

Where his article falls over is that he is attempting to critique something he has no knowledge of, or, really, something he's already made up his mind about without full grasp of the facts (NB: this is in relation to 40K, not to the Space Marine game - he has played Space Marine, so his opinion on that is separate to his overall opinion of 40K).

I'm reminded of the Nostalgia Critic's review of Last Action Hero, one of my fav Arnie films. The Critic reviews it straight, reviewing it as if Last Action Hero were attempting to be a serious action film (rather than the obvious big-action self-referencing parody that it is). His review fell over because he didn't get the purpose of the thing he was reviewing and because he made a decision that it just another Arnie film.

Yahtzee has done the same thing with his 40K comments. He has displayed only the most truly basic grasp on what 40K is really about, and has filtered what little he knows through the lense of the mediocre and repetitive Space Marine game.

Its just not a very good article. Its not very clever or original in the way it makes fun of 40k (if you want a good example, take a look at the stuff on Cracked, which shows an equally tepid knowledge of the fluff while at the same time being genuinely funny) and the actual analysis of the game doesnt go much farther than "it reminds me of Gears of War." Plus, yeah, the goatee and hat.

Boo-urns.

Yahtzee's fine when it comes to competant writing, and there was nothing wrong with what he wrote from a technical standpoint.

Yahtzees writing is actually fairly poor from a mechanical standpoint. It's front loaded and intentionally obtuse and dense, which while perfectly functional in his videos tends to fall flat when without the support of puppets. It's quick, flows poorly, and is daunting without being rewarding. He also argues from hollow and often times illogical bases. He's made a (faltering) career out of being a troll, but without the funny monsters behind his rants they fall exceptionally short of being entertaining or even thought provoking.

Yahtzees a basement nerd who managed to learn flash and garner some minor internet fame, but he's been getting progressively more bitter for years to the point where he doesn't review things frankly or relevantly any more. He simply complains about them. When he blew past call of duty MW2 and spent five minutes ranting that it was a bad game because he 'doesn't do multiplayer' i lost all remaining respect for him as an internet personality. He makes his money by pretending to be a whiny child and I don't really like kids.

As I said, he dislikes Warhammer 40,000 because he doesn't understand it. He has a basic grap of 'there is a table top game and in that universe everyone fights all the time', but that's about as deep as his understanding goes. It's a very shallow point of view, but it is where he bases his opinions from so you can hardly blame him for that. He dislikes Space Marine, the game, partly because of his limited understanding of 40K and party because it's a really dull game (I may love 40K, but couldn't disagree with anything he said about Space Marine - right down the bored emotionless voice acting). No need to crucify the guy for it.

I read a page and a half of anti 40k rants and repeated insistence on the superiority of storytelling without getting any sort of game review. I didn't continue reading at that point. I think the fact that at most a quarter of his space marine review was a review of space marine is a crime worthy of the crucifix.

To be fair, I had some of the same opinions before I started playing, and it took me years to come around to the lore. Honestly, 40k is a very different kind of setting, and I am not surprised that it turns some people off. Do I think that Yahtzee's review of the 40k universe is necessarily accurate? No. Do I think he gave it a fair shake? Not really, but I understand why he wasn't going to give it more of a chance than he did. Honestly, Napoleon Dynamite might have gotten really funny if I had watched more than fifteen minutes of it, but that fifteen minutes were so miserable I just couldn't sacrifice any more. And again, he is primarily looking at 40k from an outsider's perspective, and I think it is a fair perspective, if skewed by the perception that advertisement gives.

Not really, but I understand why he wasn't going to give it more of a chance than he did.

I think you mischaracterize his dismissive and insulting nature as being born from his experience with the game or genre. His body of work directly implies that he either plays the part of the curmudgeon or is simply a bitter douche. The mans bile filled prattle is what puts bread on the table. If he suddenly turned into an understanding or even logical fellow he would fall off the face of the internet.

The dude doesn't need to play the games he reviews. Often times he doesn't. He just sets up cheap shots and whines about the games fanbase or about his childhood.

You're taking some guy on the internet more seriously than you probably should.

Edit: And frankly when I first heard of 40k, I also had some of the same opinions. I however, chose to dig deeper, and found a great setting I enjoyed.

I also am not sure why you believe he doesn't play the games he reviews.

Damn right Void Dragon.

Yahtzee is a comedic reviewer in the same vein (but certainly not the same style) as the AVGN or everything at That Guy With the Glasses.com. Shummy's ranks above really say more about him than they do Zero Punctuation.

ShumaGorath wrote:The dude doesn't need to play the games he reviews. Often times he doesn't.

I assume you have proof of this yes? I mean, why else would you say such a thing other than being your usual cheerful and not-at-all-misanthropic self?

I never really enjoyed Yahtzee. I mean, I understand his humor, and I don't take it seriously, but I always get the feeling that he takes himself too seriously, and the "funny" element is lost.

I mean, I can rip on something all day, but unless it's actually funny then what's the point? I mean, I understand if you have serious problems with Space Marine, or even 40k, which I can respect, but please dispense with the notion that you're being "funny" in any sense of the word, as it's really not.

I can make overly-sarcastic complaints any day of the week, for free (and as an added bonus, on here too!)

Hate Space Marine and 40k? Cool. How about being funny for once?

AVGN he is not.

Las wrote:AVGN he is not.

Thank christ for that, I don't particularly want to watch yet another reviewer whose only joke is screaming at the camera, while getting angry and swearing.

I disagree with alot of Yahtzees point on this, because his reason for not liking 40k seems based on things that seem illogical.
The people who created it don't know real war and try to glorify it? What? Even basic research would have told him otherwise

The Space Marine game plays like GOW? Seriously? He might not have liked it, but christ I'm questioning if he even played the same game as I did, if he thinks that it plays anything like it other than having chainswords and guns.

I don't care if he likes the setting or not, but the reasoning behind his dislike of it is paper thin

infinite_array wrote:

Yahtzee's humor is the kind that, well, he just rips on everything. And I mean everything. He has that scathing, sarcastic wit that, so far, I've only ever seen from people who live in Australia. Which, being a soft, squishy American, is something I suppose one needs when you have to deal with a continent where virtually everything is trying to kill you on a daily basis.

Wait, you think he's Australian?

no he said lives in Australia, which is stated at the bottom of the pile of dross Yahztee pumps out when he nerd rage reaches overload.

I used to watch Zero Punctuation almost religiously; they were often very amusing exercises in creative abuse with a bit of constructive criticism tacked on. Recently i think the success has gone to his head and he's stopped really trying. It's been a long time since i watched one of his videos and laughed.

KoganStyle wrote:no he said lives in Australia, which is stated at the bottom of the pile of dross Yahztee pumps out when he nerd rage reaches overload.

Sorry, I didn't bother to read it.

infinite_array wrote:

Yahtzee's humor is the kind that, well, he just rips on everything. And I mean everything. He has that scathing, sarcastic wit that, so far,

The term is "Internet Cool Guy".

I don't disagree with anything he said, but he is still a tool...

Heavens, the nerdrage. And he just rips at the game being mediocre (which it, at least according to people who are not blinded by previous immersion in the setting, is) and snipes - lightly - at the surface sillyness of 40k. And 40k is pretty silly, on the surface.

I mean, folks, most fantasy/scifi miniature wargaming universes have pretty of stupidity mixed in. Usually, this is because caricature and larger-than-life settings are easier for people to identify with and because all factions need to have an appeal to large audiences (game world writers, straightjacketed to those demands, tend to fall into every Lowest Common Denominator pitfall they come across). In the case of 40k, we also have some 30 years of confusing crossing out/retconning/changes/mood swings by writers/Space Marine sales-driven Mary Sue-ing/sudden disappearances of large sections of fluff/you know added in, for added detrimental effect.

That will look silly, on the surface. It can look even worse, when you know more about the setting. Be thankful he hasn't bothered to read properly up on it...

The only hole I can really pick is his ignoring the existence of Guardsmen by saying that normal soldiers would be more cost-effective.

Other than that, he's right, 40k basically exists so that repressed nerdlings such as myself can vent the angst and anger we can't anywhere else by periodically yelling BLUD FOR DUH BLUD GAWD.

He also made a mistake about SM's only getting out of their suits to go to the loo, when we all know they can poop and pee in their panties and it gets recycled into acid spit.

Actually what is really funny is people being upset by this yet there has been some pretty nasty stuff on Dakka directed at real life people which goes down well with the punters.
Maybe the guy is even more on the ball than he thinks.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually what is really funny is people being upset by this yet there has been some pretty nasty stuff on Dakka directed at real life people which goes down well with the punters.
Maybe the guy is even more on the ball than he thinks.

Yeah. I'm actually a bit shocked by how much bile and anger is coming out of Dakka for this guy personally (especially when people full of bile and anger accuse him of being full of bile and anger ). I expected we'd get a lot more people laughing and agreeing with him. But it appears that's is not the case. We play with toy soldiers, and someone doesn't like our toy soldiers, and apparently that makes him a bad person.

I don't agree with every opinion he put in that piece, and I don't feel it makes him an internet troll just because we disagree. I do think the thrust of his argument though was pretty near the mark. For all of its posturing about being dark and gritty, Warhammer 40K is a very juvenile game. That doesn't make everyone who plays 40K or even everyone who plays Space Marine(s) juvenile in all facets of their life or even juvenile in this facet. But he's not the first person I've heard comment on the 9ft-tall-super-soldier-who-kicks-ass-all-day-long-and-absolutely-never-talks-to-girls power fantasy inherent in the space marines.

I'm not saying his opinion is right, but if we as a community were really secure in ourselves we wouldn't be freaking out and attacking the man personally just because he said his opinion.

Void__Dragon wrote:You're taking some guy on the internet more seriously than you probably should.

Edit: And frankly when I first heard of 40k, I also had some of the same opinions. I however, chose to dig deeper, and found a great setting I enjoyed.

I also am not sure why you believe he doesn't play the games he reviews.

He has admitted to it on several occasions. In the previously mentioned call of duty review he directly stated that he never touched the multiplayer portion of the game as he doesn't like multiplayer. Call of duty is a multiplayer game. It's where the majority of it's development time and costs were. He no more reviewed it then he did Space Marine. There is a visible pattern of avoidance for competitive or social aspects in the games he plays. Yet he reviews games based in those aspects. They are incomplete and deceiving reviews rife with false justifications for why his lazy ass can't boot up xbox live and lose a few rounds.

This entire discussion is about a review of a game he didn't play. I'm not sure how you can question why I would claim that he doesn't always play the games he reviews.

I assume you have proof of this yes? I mean, why else would you say such a thing other than being your usual cheerful and not-at-all-misanthropic self?

Drift through his archives, he admits to avoiding (due to dislike) portions of games that involve stories he personally doesn't enjoy, play forms he doesn't aprove of, or any sort of competitive element featuring other people. He's reviewing games often without experiencing their intended mode of play. It's his schtick. He's an angry old fsahioned ragenerd and it plays well online. That doesn't make it defensible.

What JOHIRA could have wrote:In his "Extra Pronunciation" this week, charismatic stallion Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame talks about a video game, and doesn't have a lot of good things to say.

I have been watching ZP for years and to be honest he rags on even the very best of games. If something like Bioshock couldn't escape unscathed, then what hope could a middling-to-above-average game like Space Marine have?

Wow, he took up alot of space to rant without saying much. No way that what little content there was deserved 2 pages unless you wanted to read about how much he likes AD&D and storytelling.

He evidently doesn't like the game much, but he really doesn't do a very good review of it.

He obviously doesn't like the 40k setting either, and also doesn't know anything about it's roots as a humorous satirical mix of fantasy and sci-fi with a healthy dose of 80's british culture.

At least he was honest in his title calling it "hating 40k and Space Marine" letting us know ahead of time that it was going to be a rant and not a review.

Ouze wrote:

What JOHIRA could have wrote:In his "Extra Pronunciation" this week, charismatic stallion Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw of Zero Punctuation fame talks about a video game, and doesn't have a lot of good things to say.

I have been watching ZP for years and to be honest he rags on even the very best of games. If something like Bioshock couldn't escape unscathed, then what hope could a middling-to-above-average game like Space Marine have?

Indeed, this is what he does. It is his "thing". People taking him seriously and then nerd-raging about it are missing the point, and getting upset over a non-issue.

But, I have seen at least two favorable reviews from him. Both "Portal" and "Psychonaughts" were excellent games, and even the ever-bitter Yahtzee had to say nice things about them.

ShumaGorath wrote:In the previously mentioned call of duty review he directly stated that he never touched the multiplayer portion of the game as he doesn't like multiplayer.

In Yahtzee's defense, my experience with online multiplayer generally equals "playing a potentially good game with braying donkey-caves". Since no amount of awesome rendering and careful game-craft can surmount having to play with idiots, the experience is pretty much going to be the same no matter what multiplayer game you play (doesn't stop me from trying, but then I'm not an embittered game reviewer). If you have a solid group of friends you play with rather than random strangers, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

All that said, reviewing games isn't really what Yahtzee does. He viscerally tears the game a new one almost without exception. You don't watch his "reviews" to be informed about the game, you watch for the entertaining, and usually painfully pointed deconstruction of the games subject and tropes. And if you don't want to watch that sort of thing, why watch his stuff at all?

As I posted in the other thread:

Melissia wrote:Yahtzee's views are basically tainted by his dislike of 40k, which itself is almost entirely based on the tabletop game. Therefor I really can't help but ignore his views.

His videos are funny, but I take them with a grain of salt because I honestly disagree with him frequently about what games are good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Frankly I've given up on trying to understand how people can claim the game isn't like Gears of War. It is.

Game based around cover based combat (GoW) != game not cover based combat (40k:SM)

It's quite simple really, which is why most people don't get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an aside, I can't post a comment on Escapist because it uses facebook and FETH facebook.

So I'm posting it here instead as I'd typed it up already before finding this out, heh.

"As for the Space Marine game itself, yeah, it's Gears of War."
Right, it's basically Gears of War, if gears of war didn't focus on cover-based combat and had a melee system that didn't suck.

So basically, it's not actually that much like Gears of War, but rather, Yahtzee's somewhat incoherent dislike of Wrhammer 40,000* makes him interpret the game through a highly skewed point of view that immediately makes him dislike it regardless of what is actually there.

* As an aside-- yeah, Warhammer 40,000 is not for everyone, but the tabletop aspect is not the entire thing. In fact, I actually prefer the roleplaying aspect-- coming from a DnD background like Yahtzee did though in my case it was 3 and 3.5. I recommend Yahtzee look at the Dark Heresy roleplay books and expansions. Or if he'd prefer to roleplay a bit more freeform, Rogue Trader has rules for one to essentially play as a roving band of space pirates if you want to. Deathwatch is basically Space Marine in roleplay form, so I doubt he'd like it that much-- it's a bit too hack-and-slash for my tastes. And for that matter, Black Crusade came out recently which dramatically changed the class system to add more variety, so you can play the enemies of the Imperium-- or simply a non-Imperial human. Rogue Trader allows one to play non-humans, as well.

I really recommend Yahtzee look into these excellent PnP rpgs by Fantasy Flight Games if he really prefers roleplaying aspects. Same with FFG's second edition (not the most recent card game/tabletop game style...) Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

IcyCool wrote:In Yahtzee's defense, my experience with online multiplayer generally equals "playing a potentially good game with braying donkey-caves". Since no amount of awesome rendering and careful game-craft can surmount having to play with idiots, the experience is pretty much going to be the same no matter what multiplayer game you play (doesn't stop me from trying, but then I'm not an embittered game reviewer).

Also, presuming he played it on the PC, it doesn't help that the multiplayer is essentially broken by not having the default vox setting be push-to-talk. Up until the "mute all"* button was released, I could enjoy spending literally ever game by, each round, hitting tab and muting Mr. Mouthepanting, Captain Feedback, Sergeant BackgroundTV and other assorted miscreants. That's in addition to the inescapable lot of hooligans that are a fixture of multiplay, such as the squeaky voiced 10 year old, the guy who communicates only in homosexual slurs, and the guy who is so high right now, and wants everyone to know it. They took a cesspool and made sure by default it was funneled right into your ear.

*By the way, Relic, adding a "mute all" button fixes the problem like "giving people buckets" fixes a leaky boat. But that's a whole other thread.

If I wasn't aware this was Extra Punctuation this line would have been the giveaway:

"Which (40k) existed primarily to remove all the money from your bank account and replace it with plastic figurines. But you could paint them! For days on end! That's what we like! It's all the fun of a coloring book without having to be associated with five-year-olds!"

Hi-larious! Let's all laugh together. He certainly does rip every game he plays and to be fair concerning the multiplayer in Australia there is a massive time difference and few players in the timezone/area. Or at least I remember something to that effect in a ZP. I enjoyed CoD but not so much the multiplayer unless I was with 2-4 friends and we made a weekend of it. Then it was more hanging with friends and not the terrible online (vocal) content.

Someone posted above about it not being funny. When I thought about it I had to admit, I did not lol once.
Not so much as a guffawalol, ne'er e'en a titter.

ps colouring in is popular with kids over 5 yo
Five yo are not so good at it and tend to just scrawl colours in the areas

pps I like colouring in minis and grown ups tell me how clever I am!!

mrwhoop wrote:"Which (40k) existed primarily to remove all the money from your bank account and replace it with plastic figurines.

Since he is based in Australia, wouldn't that be a fair assesment? I've seen the Australian prices of GW.

In Yahtzee's defense, my experience with online multiplayer generally equals "playing a potentially good game with braying donkey-caves". Since no amount of awesome rendering and careful game-craft can surmount having to play with idiots, the experience is pretty much going to be the same no matter what multiplayer game you play (doesn't stop me from trying, but then I'm not an embittered game reviewer). If you have a solid group of friends you play with rather than random strangers, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Given the online playercounts in games like call of duty it does not appear to be the rule. If you don't have any friends to play with or you had a bad experience online thats fine, but don't project. I'm polite when I'm online and I rarely run into situations wherein i'm bothered or angered by others. Get thicker skin. People aren't computers, either in the game or real life. Playing against people can give a very different and enjoyable experience then performing the same action against the same scripted computer for thirteen hours like in many single player games. Humans are tricky and they will learn your behavior. I prefer games against humans possibly because I'm good at videogames and tend to 'beat' the computer rather quickly in most titles. Single player story lines are good only once to me generally. Other people can be fun for far longer.

It's hinted that yahzee is either very bad at the games he plays or has very few friends to play them with. Given his persona I can believe it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Given the online playercounts in games like call of duty it does not appear to be the rule.

Sure it is. The multiplayer base isn't a general cesspool because it's small. Online gaming and automated matchmaking in particular is the proverbial steak around the neck of the lowest common denominator which, as you can imagine, only encourages them to flock to it more.

And I made no claims about the quality of any online multiplayer game, merely the quality of the experience with its unpleasant players (who certainly seem to be the majority). It is a testament to the competitive spirit of humanity that player counts are high despite the incredible ratio of ... unpleasant opponents. Also note that I did not, at any point, indicate that the general multiplayer experience is the fault of the game developers. It's simply a fact of online gaming life. That doesn't make it "good" or "acceptable", call a spade a spade my good man and be done with it.

I've long held the opinion that the best thing about online gaming is the ability to play against or with other human players. Unfortunately, that is also the worst thing about online gaming.

ShumaGorath wrote:<snip>some random stuff including personal insults, chest thumping, and the ludicrous suggestion that I'd enjoy the cesspool more if only I had some wading boots.</snip>

Seriously? Try taking a moment to step back and look at what I wrote. I did not attack you in any way, shape, or form. So why did you choose to do so?

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm polite when I'm online

You may want to reconsider your previous post then. Or broadcast hipocrisy, either way, it's no skin off my back.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's hinted that yahzee is either very bad at the games he plays or has very few friends to play them with. Given his persona I can believe it.

How is his skill relevant? I've always found it quite clear that his "reviews" are just entertaining rants that provide very little information. I'd gathered that his "reviews" were just there for entertainment. Is this not a common view of Zero Punctuation?

Worth noting, I haven't kept on his stuff for quite some time now (over a year, at least), so if the quality of his stuff has gone down, or his act has gotten stale, I'm not aware of it. Also, I currently have a copy of Space Marine sitting atop my media cabinet. I found Yahtzee entertaining, but if I based my purchases off of his reviews, I wouldn't own any games.

Edit - I mistook you for someone else earlier in the thread, most of your posts have been polite. Your response to me above where you insinuate that I have no friends, am easily insulted, and am probably bad at videogames is the only rude thing I can spot from you on this page. Edited my post to reflect that. And a final note, relax mate. I've got no beef with you, so I'd appreciate it if you directed no heat at me.

Zero Punctuation is not about producing a 'typical' review. Their stuff is 90% satire, and 10% legitimate criticism of games run through an amplifier. Yahtzee is basically just humor value, I mean, he gave Painkiller an amazing review ffs, and no one I know (other than me) liked that game. This is also not the first time he's taken a dig at wargaming and it's ilk anyway. I seem to recall in one of his reviews somewhere there was a comment about something to do with, "...the level of detail only a Warhammer player would care about."

It's ironic that GW would now sport this many white knights from the same source as so much GW hate. You guys need to grow tougher skin yourselves and quell the 'outrage'. Seriously.

My only discontent is the lack of humour though
Satire usually implies wit

1. The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I didn't lol not because of outrage, just that there was not a lot to lol at imho. There was plenty of derision but sneering is easy, and I know having had plenty of practice.

He needs to work on the humour bit imho


edit:
Also he can sneer away at GW as merrily as he likes as far as I am concerned.
Unfortunately much of the diatribe is directed at the hobbyists. So he is on dodgy ground as I have alluded to above.

Admittedly, it wasn't one of his better pieces. I can't help but chuckle on his videos though.

My point is though, you just can't take people like that seriously. Life's too short.

I agree with all the people who say Yahtzee was completely misinformed and unfair in his criticism of WH40k and video games.

On that note, why does Don Rickles need to be so mean to everyone? Does Metallica have to play so darned loud all the time? Can't Michael Bay stop with the damend explosions already?

daedalus wrote:

It's ironic that GW would now sport this many white knights from the same source as so much GW hate. You guys need to grow tougher skin yourselves and quell the 'outrage'. Seriously.

I haven't read a lot of White Knight reactions in this thread.

The guy is a self-absorbed tool. The fact that he apparently hates GW or wants to get a rise out of those that do is largely irrelevant...

Sure it is. The multiplayer base isn't a general cesspool because it's small. Online gaming and automated matchmaking in particular is the proverbial steak around the neck of the lowest common denominator which, as you can imagine, only encourages them to flock to it more.

Instead of using hyperbole, try explaining why you believe what you do. It'll make you look like less of a troll.

And I made no claims about the quality of any online multiplayer game, merely the quality of the experience with its unpleasant players (who certainly seem to be the majority).

Those are inseparable, you are inherently talking of one when you speak of the other. Mulitplayer implies multiple players.

It is a testament to the competitive spirit of humanity that player counts are high despite the incredible ratio of ... unpleasant opponents. Also note that I did not, at any point, indicate that the general multiplayer experience is the fault of the game developers. It's simply a fact of online gaming life. That doesn't make it "good" or "acceptable", call a spade a spade my good man and be done with it.

For someone who doesn't partake of the experiences he speaks of by his own admission you sure seem quite certain of what you're talking about.

I've long held the opinion that the best thing about online gaming is the ability to play against or with other human players. Unfortunately, that is also the worst thing about online gaming.

Mute them? If it pains you to hear other people speak that much then I'm not sure what you're doing attempting to play such games at all.

Seriously? Try taking a moment to step back and look at what I wrote. I did not attack you in any way, shape, or form. So why did you choose to do so?

Because you did. You have repeatedly insisted that the population that enjoys mutliplayer gaming is the grimy streak at the bottom of the barrel. You'll remember that one, it was your second sentence. Don't be lambastic and derogatory then backpedal, it's bad form. If you want to advocate calling a spade a spade stop making exceptions for the people you're speaking directly to. You've never played me in an online game, presumably you would find the experience pleasant but since you don't know that I'm just going to assume I'm lumped into the majority. How else would you know?

You may want to reconsider your previous post then. Or broadcast hipocrisy, either way, it's no skin off my back.

Online in multiplayer games. This is a discussion forum. I'm going to call you out for being a troll when you act like one.

How is his skill relevant?

If someone is bad in a competitive environment at that competitive environment they will not enjoy it the environment they find themselves in. It follows that people who are bad at video games, who lack good hand eye coordination, or who are inexperienced derive less enjoyment from competition as those who are not so afflicted. It's not as much fun to lose.

I've always found it quite clear that his "reviews" are just entertaining rants that provide very little information. I'd gathered that his "reviews" were just there for entertainment. Is this not a common view of Zero Punctuation?

I've said as much several times now. Thats not in contention.

Worth noting, I haven't kept on his stuff for quite some time now (over a year, at least), so if the quality of his stuff has gone down, or his act has gotten stale, I'm not aware of it. Also, I currently have a copy of Space Marine sitting atop my media cabinet. I found Yahtzee entertaining, but if I based my purchases off of his reviews, I wouldn't own any games.

It's gotten stale. Every once in a while i'll sit for half an hour and catch up. He's whinier and less logical then he used to be and I suspect he's become bitter after his other abortive attempts at internet stardom (his show was god awful).

Edit - I mistook you for someone else earlier in the thread, most of your posts have been polite. Your response to me above where you insinuate that I have no friends, am easily insulted, and am probably bad at videogames is the only rude thing I can spot from you on this page. Edited my post to reflect that. And a final note, relax mate. I've got no beef with you, so I'd appreciate it if you directed no heat at me.

I should of read that before writing all that stuff. Whelp, it's there now and it took a while so it's gettin' posted. I don't think it's too inflammatory so whatever.

ShumaGorath wrote:Instead of using hyperbole, try explaining why you believe what you do. It'll make you look like less of a troll.

And now apparently I'm a troll. You really like to take swipes at anyone who even seems like they disagree with you, don't you?

My belief is based of the experience of both myself and my friends and acquaintances. That may in and of itself not seem like a large sample set, but it certainly seems to mesh with the reported experiences I've read on the internet (not that the Internet is a great source for unbiased information mind you). Hell, it's been lamented and lampooned for a few years at least (for the most recent humorous example I read, check out Penny Arcades "Greater Internet F-wad Theory"). This has all lead me to believe that the general experience you can expect when playing multiplayer with random strangers is as I have depicted it. Is your experience truly different? If so, I envy you. You may want to consider the possibility that your experience has been "out of the norm". It's possible that mine has been uncommon, I'll admit, but from what I've heard, seen, read, and experienced, it does not seem to be.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I made no claims about the quality of any online multiplayer game, merely the quality of the experience with its unpleasant players (who certainly seem to be the majority).

Those are inseparable, you are inherently talking of one when you speak of the other. Mulitplayer implies multiple players.

I find it hard to believe you are unable to separate the game from those who play it. Is this really true or are you trolling me? Or are we having some sort of disconnect here? In the event I wasn't clear, the gameplay controls, graphics, audio, general design, story, etc. are all aspects of the game (I even said as much earlier). So no, I am not "inherently" talking about one when I speak of the other. If you are taking it that way, you should stop and read what I actually wrote. I am not so perfect that you need to invent reasons to argue with me.

ShumaGorath wrote:For someone who doesn't partake of the experiences he speaks of by his own admission you sure seem quite certain of what you're talking about.

I do partake in them (reasonably often), what gave you the impression that I didn't? I even said as much in my first post in this thread. Did you confuse me for someone else?

ShumaGorath wrote:Mute them? If it pains you to hear other people speak that much then I'm not sure what you're doing attempting to play such games at all.

Some days, I'm not really sure why either. Muting/ignoring isn't always an option, depending on the game. For the most part, I try to stick to games against or with people I know, rather than random strangers. Sadly, they aren't always available when I am, and so sometimes I delve into the cesspool. It is rarely pleasant.

I'm also not into punishing developers for the faults of their unpleasant players, especially when I can find a way to enjoy their game despite the flaws of the online community.

ShumaGorath wrote:Because you did. You have repeatedly insisted that the population that enjoys mutliplayer gaming is the grimy streak at the bottom of the barrel. You'll remember that one, it was your second sentence. Don't be lambastic and derogatory then backpedal, it's bad form. If you want to advocate calling a spade a spade stop making exceptions for the people you're speaking directly to. You've never played me in an online game, presumably you would find the experience pleasant but since you don't know that I'm just going to assume I'm lumped into the majority. How else would you know?

Ah, this seems to be the crux of your issue with me. If you are the sort of person whom Ouze describes in his last post in this thread, then yes, I am talking about you. If you are not, and are truly polite, then I am not. I'm not sure how you could take this as a personal attack unless you are in the former group. I made it quite clear as to who I was talking about. If you choose to assume that I wasn't talking about unpleasant players and was instead talking about you specifically, I'm not sure how that's my problem?

Also, it should be plain to anyone who reads my post that I said I felt the majority of the online gaming community, given my experiences, are sadly very unpleasant to play against or with. In case that isn't clear that means there are some players who are pleasant to game with (because that's what I actually said). And presumably members of either group can and do enjoy playing online games (I enjoy playing them too, just not with unpleasant players). So your assertion that I somehow said that just the people who enjoy online gaming are terrible people is an argument you seem to have invented out of thin air.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You may want to reconsider your previous post then. Or broadcast hipocrisy, either way, it's no skin off my back.

Online in multiplayer games. This is a discussion forum. I'm going to call you out for being a troll when you act like one.

Ah, I missed the distinction as you only mentioned online. My apologies for the mistake. Why do you not feel the need to be civil and polite in discussion forums? I'm fairly certain it's rule #1 here, isn't it?

ShumaGorath wrote:

How is his skill relevant?

If someone is bad in a competitive environment at that competitive environment they will not enjoy it the environment they find themselves in. It follows that people who are bad at video games, who lack good hand eye coordination, or who are inexperienced derive less enjoyment from competition as those who are not so afflicted. It's not as much fun to lose.

Which would be relevant if Yahtzee were a reviewer, right? But since you don't contend that point, I ask again why his skill is relevant?

ShumaGorath wrote:It's gotten stale. Every once in a while i'll sit for half an hour and catch up. He's whinier and less logical then he used to be and I suspect he's become bitter after his other abortive attempts at internet stardom (his show was god awful).

That's unfortunate, some of his early rants were inspired.

ShumaGorath wrote:I should of read that before writing all that stuff. Whelp, it's there now and it took a while so it's gettin' posted. I don't think it's too inflammatory so whatever.

That edit was regarding my previous statement about all of your posts in this thread being rude. I saw that I was mistaken, only the post in response to me was particularly heated, so corrected it. Given your post, I'm guessing you missed my edit? You quoted the edited text, so I'm not sure if you read it before my edit and quoted, or what. If this whole thing is some sort of genuine misunderstanding, I'm happy to let it be.

daedalus wrote:Admittedly, it wasn't one of his better pieces. I can't help but chuckle on his videos though.

My point is though, you just can't take people like that seriously. Life's too short.

Just because we say "you're wrong" doesn't mean we're taking it too seriously...

IcyCool wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Instead of using hyperbole, try explaining why you believe what you do. It'll make you look like less of a troll.

And now apparently I'm a troll. You really like to take swipes at anyone who even seems like they disagree with you, don't you?

My belief is based of the experience of both myself and my friends and acquaintances. That may in and of itself not seem like a large sample set, but it certainly seems to mesh with the reported experiences I've read on the internet (not that the Internet is a great source for unbiased information mind you). Hell, it's been lamented and lampooned for a few years at least (for the most recent humorous example I read, check out Penny Arcades "Greater Internet F-wad Theory"). This has all lead me to believe that the general experience you can expect when playing multiplayer with random strangers is as I have depicted it. Is your experience truly different? If so, I envy you. You may want to consider the possibility that your experience has been "out of the norm". It's possible that mine has been uncommon, I'll admit, but from what I've heard, seen, read, and experienced, it does not seem to be.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I made no claims about the quality of any online multiplayer game, merely the quality of the experience with its unpleasant players (who certainly seem to be the majority).

Those are inseparable, you are inherently talking of one when you speak of the other. Mulitplayer implies multiple players.

I find it hard to believe you are unable to separate the game from those who play it. Is this really true or are you trolling me? Or are we having some sort of disconnect here? In the event I wasn't clear, the gameplay controls, graphics, audio, general design, story, etc. are all aspects of the game (I even said as much earlier). So no, I am not "inherently" talking about one when I speak of the other. If you are taking it that way, you should stop and read what I actually wrote. I am not so perfect that you need to invent reasons to argue with me.

ShumaGorath wrote:For someone who doesn't partake of the experiences he speaks of by his own admission you sure seem quite certain of what you're talking about.

I do partake in them (reasonably often), what gave you the impression that I didn't? I even said as much in my first post in this thread. Did you confuse me for someone else?

ShumaGorath wrote:Mute them? If it pains you to hear other people speak that much then I'm not sure what you're doing attempting to play such games at all.

Some days, I'm not really sure why either. Muting/ignoring isn't always an option, depending on the game. For the most part, I try to stick to games against or with people I know, rather than random strangers. Sadly, they aren't always available when I am, and so sometimes I delve into the cesspool. It is rarely pleasant.

I'm also not into punishing developers for the faults of their unpleasant players, especially when I can find a way to enjoy their game despite the flaws of the online community.

ShumaGorath wrote:Because you did. You have repeatedly insisted that the population that enjoys mutliplayer gaming is the grimy streak at the bottom of the barrel. You'll remember that one, it was your second sentence. Don't be lambastic and derogatory then backpedal, it's bad form. If you want to advocate calling a spade a spade stop making exceptions for the people you're speaking directly to. You've never played me in an online game, presumably you would find the experience pleasant but since you don't know that I'm just going to assume I'm lumped into the majority. How else would you know?

Ah, this seems to be the crux of your issue with me. If you are the sort of person whom Ouze describes in his last post in this thread, then yes, I am talking about you. If you are not, and are truly polite, then I am not. I'm not sure how you could take this as a personal attack unless you are in the former group. I made it quite clear as to who I was talking about. If you choose to assume that I wasn't talking about unpleasant players and was instead talking about you specifically, I'm not sure how that's my problem?

Also, it should be plain to anyone who reads my post that I said I felt the majority of the online gaming community, given my experiences, are sadly very unpleasant to play against or with. In case that isn't clear that means there are some players who are pleasant to game with (because that's what I actually said). And presumably members of either group can and do enjoy playing online games (I enjoy playing them too, just not with unpleasant players). So your assertion that I somehow said that just the people who enjoy online gaming are terrible people is an argument you seem to have invented out of thin air.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You may want to reconsider your previous post then. Or broadcast hipocrisy, either way, it's no skin off my back.

Online in multiplayer games. This is a discussion forum. I'm going to call you out for being a troll when you act like one.

Ah, I missed the distinction as you only mentioned online. My apologies for the mistake. Why do you not feel the need to be civil and polite in discussion forums? I'm fairly certain it's rule #1 here, isn't it?

ShumaGorath wrote:

How is his skill relevant?

If someone is bad in a competitive environment at that competitive environment they will not enjoy it the environment they find themselves in. It follows that people who are bad at video games, who lack good hand eye coordination, or who are inexperienced derive less enjoyment from competition as those who are not so afflicted. It's not as much fun to lose.

Which would be relevant if Yahtzee were a reviewer, right? But since you don't contend that point, I ask again why his skill is relevant?

ShumaGorath wrote:It's gotten stale. Every once in a while i'll sit for half an hour and catch up. He's whinier and less logical then he used to be and I suspect he's become bitter after his other abortive attempts at internet stardom (his show was god awful).

That's unfortunate, some of his early rants were inspired.

ShumaGorath wrote:I should of read that before writing all that stuff. Whelp, it's there now and it took a while so it's gettin' posted. I don't think it's too inflammatory so whatever.

That edit was regarding my previous statement about all of your posts in this thread being rude. I saw that I was mistaken, only the post in response to me was particularly heated, so corrected it. Given your post, I'm guessing you missed my edit? You quoted the edited text, so I'm not sure if you read it before my edit and quoted, or what. If this whole thing is some sort of genuine misunderstanding, I'm happy to let it be.

Whats your point here?

Did you really need to continue this cherade?


Simple answer? !@#$ Yatzee. He's still a nub without any idea on what he spouts off at the hole about. He spent more time diming on table top players then he did discussing the game. He didn't even say anything worth reading or going on with cut and paste threds about.
Don't call people out, and then backpeddle, next time. Embrace the hate, and make it part of you.

The whole point of the guy is that he complains. His job is quite literally to be a whiny nitpicker who gaks all over everything that isn't near perfect. That is actually how he makes his living, not liking things and ranting about it.

I like space marine, but am disappointing it got off so easy. I actually enjoy him taking the piss out of games I like.

Grot 6 wrote:Whats your point here?

Did you really need to continue this cherade?

You mean charade? I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think I was very clear in my first post in this thread:

1. Yahtzee isn't a game reviewer, so spewing hate about his rant seems pointless. Or at least spew hate about how you don't find his stuff entertaining, that seems like it would be on the mark.

2. Random strangers in online environments (gaming, in this specific example), are unpleasant most of the time. I didn't think this even qualified as old news as it's been an internet truism for quite some time. I mentioned it as a defense of why someone might not like to delve into that situation.

Grot 6 wrote:Don't call people out, and then backpeddle, next time. Embrace the hate, and make it part of you.

Please, point out where I did that.

And hate is overrated, apathy is nirvana

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:Admittedly, it wasn't one of his better pieces. I can't help but chuckle on his videos though.

My point is though, you just can't take people like that seriously. Life's too short.

Just because we say "you're wrong" doesn't mean we're taking it too seriously...

The way I see it, regardless of where you do it in a place he can see or on a forum he'll never visit, why feed the troll? You don't like a guy who makes a living off being known and getting heard, the last thing you should do is spread his name around.

And now apparently I'm a troll. You really like to take swipes at anyone who even seems like they disagree with you, don't you?

I do when they make blanket and insulting generalizations about large populations that they admit to having little interface with.

My belief is based of the experience of both myself and my friends and acquaintances. That may in and of itself not seem like a large sample set, but it certainly seems to mesh with the reported experiences I've read on the internet (not that the Internet is a great source for unbiased information mind you). Hell, it's been lamented and lampooned for a few years at least (for the most recent humorous example I read, check out Penny Arcades "Greater Internet F-wad Theory"). This has all lead me to believe that the general experience you can expect when playing multiplayer with random strangers is as I have depicted it. Is your experience truly different? If so, I envy you. You may want to consider the possibility that your experience has been "out of the norm". It's possible that mine has been uncommon, I'll admit, but from what I've heard, seen, read, and experienced, it does not seem to be.

No, our experiences are likely nearly identical. What differs is our ability to handle negative stimulus without reacting adversely. Hence my repeated insistence that you 'grow thicker skin'. Being able to look through circumstance to find enjoyment in your surroundings is a key ability in being able to survive the human experience. If you can't handle hearing someone on a microphone from 500 miles away for five minutes what hope have you in life?

I find it hard to believe you are unable to separate the game from those who play it. Is this really true or are you trolling me? Or are we having some sort of disconnect here?

I'm talking about multiplayer. I thought we both were.

In the event I wasn't clear, the gameplay controls, graphics, audio, general design, story, etc. are all aspects of the game (I even said as much earlier). So no, I am not "inherently" talking about one when I speak of the other. If you are taking it that way, you should stop and read what I actually wrote. I am not so perfect that you need to invent reasons to argue with me.

No thanks. You were talking about multiplayer games and the experiences therein. That is the crux of this discussion and has been from the start. You can't backpedal and suddenly start talking about how you like the level design in oblivion because that's got nothing to do with the previous line of conversation. My assumptions are logical and do not conflict with what you've written. They are derived directly from your current postings and previous ones. I think it's you that needs to figure out what you're trying to say if what is on the screen somehow differs from your intended point.

I do partake in them (reasonably often), what gave you the impression that I didn't? I even said as much in my first post in this thread. Did you confuse me for someone else?

In Yahtzee's defense, my experience with online multiplayer generally equals "playing a potentially good game with braying donkey-caves". Since no amount of awesome rendering and careful game-craft can surmount having to play with idiots, the experience is pretty much going to be the same no matter what multiplayer game you play (doesn't stop me from trying, but then I'm not an embittered game reviewer). If you have a solid group of friends you play with rather than random strangers, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I guess I was confused as to the degree of 'trying' going on.

Some days, I'm not really sure why either. Muting/ignoring isn't always an option, depending on the game. For the most part, I try to stick to games against or with people I know, rather than random strangers. Sadly, they aren't always available when I am, and so sometimes I delve into the cesspool. It is rarely pleasant.

I'm also not into punishing developers for the faults of their unpleasant players, especially when I can find a way to enjoy their game despite the flaws of the online community.

What are you playing with a terrible community and no ability to mute them? There are truly few games with those two things at the same time. Nothing on any console at least.

Ah, this seems to be the crux of your issue with me. If you are the sort of person whom Ouze describes in his last post in this thread, then yes, I am talking about you. If you are not, and are truly polite, then I am not. I'm not sure how you could take this as a personal attack unless you are in the former group. I made it quite clear as to who I was talking about. If you choose to assume that I wasn't talking about unpleasant players and was instead talking about you specifically, I'm not sure how that's my problem?

Be more direct about it. If you're going to insult a vast group that you have little contact with full of anonymous people at least do it with some gusto from your ivory tower. It's hard to hear you with all this scum scumming up the scumville where the peons live!

Also, it should be plain to anyone who reads my post that I said I felt the majority of the online gaming community, given my experiences, are sadly very unpleasant to play against or with. In case that isn't clear that means there are some players who are pleasant to game with (because that's what I actually said). And presumably members of either group can and do enjoy playing online games (I enjoy playing them too, just not with unpleasant players). So your assertion that I somehow said that just the people who enjoy online gaming are terrible people is an argument you seem to have invented out of thin air.

Time for some quotes!

Sure it is. The multiplayer base isn't a general cesspool because it's small.

And I made no claims about the quality of any online multiplayer game, merely the quality of the experience with its unpleasant players (who certainly seem to be the majority).

In Yahtzee's defense, my experience with online multiplayer generally equals "playing a potentially good game with braying donkey-caves". Since no amount of awesome rendering and careful game-craft can surmount having to play with idiots

I see that you've thrown in a lot of caveats in your blanket dismissal of the majority. It's very nice. I mean, I haven't been debating the sheer lack of logic in your posts given your badly sourced arguments and the indirectness of your approach (at its peak only one in three people will actually use their mics in xbox live in a day, so who knows how you came to the conclusion more then half were ass holes). I've just been debating how you present your inflammatory opinions in a grand scale while hiding them behind weasel wording. Look at your own opinions, you haven't communicated with likely even a quarter of the people you've played with yet you're claiming the majority is bad. You're opinions are (probably) simply wrong. (note the probably! I can do it to!)

Ah, I missed the distinction as you only mentioned online. My apologies for the mistake. Why do you not feel the need to be civil and polite in discussion forums? I'm fairly certain it's rule #1 here, isn't it?

Says the man blanketly insulting a group of over one hundred million people who he has never met or interacted with.

That's unfortunate, some of his early rants were inspired.

I think they were more novel then good. His shtick has kinda gotten old in my eyes and he's been going to greater lengths to try and keep it edgy.

That edit was regarding my previous statement about all of your posts in this thread being rude. I saw that I was mistaken, only the post in response to me was particularly heated, so corrected it. Given your post, I'm guessing you missed my edit? You quoted the edited text, so I'm not sure if you read it before my edit and quoted, or what. If this whole thing is some sort of genuine misunderstanding, I'm happy to let it be.

I wrote a lot of text. I wasn't just gonna delete it all!

Wow. I'm really surprised that the word "troll" is being thrown about so casually here.

Is it so inconceivable that someone would dislike your toy soldiers game, and the only possible explanation for it that they are a bad person who wants to make you angry?

Remember, it's only ok to make fun of something on the internet if you like it.

When someone else makes fun of what you like, then it's trolling.

Cause the interblag is serious business.

Just ignore Yahtzee.

Zero Punctuation stopped being funny years ago. The jokes have largely stagnated, and since his "reviews" never mattered in the first place and were always kinda crappy, there's no real point to watching him. He was a competent presenter, but that is all he really has now. Plus, his self-righteousness on off-topic issues (And his tendency to troll) started to grate, even when I agreed with him. It's like watching an environmentalist movie, except the environmentalist is an Australian gamer with a goatee and fedora.

Extra Punctuation is literally "Zero Punctuation without the things that made Zero Punctuation good." So there's even less point to reading that crap.

Oh yes, and I haven't read the Space Marine review. Judging from the comments here, Yahtzee made another trolling attempt, which are always very boring for the ones not being trolled. That he misses the appeal of 40k doesn't matter; I just hate reading a person's opinion about something they're not even interested in.

I used to be a fan, but I just stopped liking it and now only feel a sort of "Whatever" feeling towards it.

infinite_array wrote:When someone else makes fun of what you like, then it's trolling.

Yahtzee trolls. He's done it for a very long time. See his Brawl response video. Plenty of internet reviewers (Including the guys behind the Retsupurae videos) do the same thing to get hits.

I almost never read opinion pieces on the internet, especially not of the "use lots of swearing and metaphors in a pathetic attempt to be funny" type that guys like this peddle.

Hawww, look at all the hate going on in this thread, how cute.

Every review he's done (barring maybe one) has been ripped into, for comic effect. I think it's not him who has missed the point . Pity he hates everything, Theres a couple I thought weren't bad, but still laughed at the review.
Besides I got my review from someone who does know 40k, and games. His was "So bad I returned it." Nuff said methinks.

Vermillion wrote:Pity he hates everything,

He doesn't actually hate everything. What Yahtzee does is try to push the status quo of the industry. He's so harsh on games because he wants designers to aspire toward new ideas rather than follow each other sheep-like from one gaming trend to the next. Some people interpret him as being impossible to please or being negative just because it's "cool", but having followed him from the beginning I don't think that's true at all. Much of his negativity is quite tongue-in-cheek, and on more than one video he has commented on his audience's inability to comprehend when he points out things wrong with a game but still likes. And keep in mind, Yahtzee has always seen himself as a critic, not a reviewer. To him these are two very different things.

I do kind of wonder if the response of the 40K fandom to his little article didn't reinforce his claim that the game is juvenile, rather than refute it.

JOHIRA wrote:

Vermillion wrote:Pity he hates everything,

He doesn't actually hate everything. What Yahtzee does is try to push the status quo of the industry. He's so harsh on games because he wants designers to aspire toward new ideas rather than follow each other sheep-like from one gaming trend to the next. Some people interpret him as being impossible to please or being negative just because it's "cool", but having followed him from the beginning I don't think that's true at all. Much of his negativity is quite tongue-in-cheek, and on more than one video he has commented on his audience's inability to comprehend when he points out things wrong with a game but still likes. And keep in mind, Yahtzee has always seen himself as a critic, not a reviewer. To him these are two very different things.

I do kind of wonder if the response of the 40K fandom to his little article didn't reinforce his claim that the game is juvenile, rather than refute it.

. I just go for the laughs it gives me everything else is a bonus. Your point of the response however does highlight the internet perfectly, theres always someone willing to overreact and argue. Usually childishly in an amusing way .

He doesn't actually hate everything. What Yahtzee does is try to push the status quo of the industry. He's so harsh on games because he wants designers to aspire toward new ideas rather than follow each other sheep-like from one gaming trend to the next.

Is that why his favorite genre is the PS1 survival horror and he demands a return of the old style FPS where everyone has a set health counter, health packs, and the ability to hold 15 weapons at the same time? Is that why he wants a return to old, menu driven, turn based combat in RPGs?

The dude doesn't push anything, he wants his childhood back.

And keep in mind, Yahtzee has always seen himself as a critic, not a reviewer. To him these are two very different things.

Except they aren't actually different things, he just doesn't want to have to do the job impartially or with any level of accuracy.

I do kind of wonder if the response of the 40K fandom to his little article didn't reinforce his claim that the game is juvenile, rather than refute it.

He spent a page and a half commenting on the 40k community before giving a one paragraph review. A lot of the response is justified. The man is a career troll of communities that he goes out of his way to avoid.

We can say that Yahtzee was unfair because he hates the universe, but, in all honesty, Space Marine really wouldn't be a very good game if it weren't set in the 40k universe; if we took the same plot, characters and general blandness and pasted them into a new setting, there wouldn't be a game I like.

ShumaGorath, I'm not sure what your beef is with me. You've repeatedly claimed I said things that I didn't, and when I've asked you to prove I said them, you post quotes that prove I didn't, and quickly change tactics to hurling insults and fabricating more things I didn't say to rage against. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't clearly understanding me, which is partially my fault. You claim I've backpedaled repeatedly, but fail to provide any evidence of my having done so.

To address your specific points (at least as I understand them):

1. My assertion is that the majority of online gamers are unpleasant. This is based off my sample size.
* As near as I can tell, you agree with this (please explain what you mean by "our experiences are likely nearly identical" if you do not agree).

2. My discussion of unpleasant online gamers is clearly game-independent.
* So your assertion that I am somehow bad-mouthing the games themselves is incorrect.

3. I can see no point where I "backpedaled" (i.e. said one thing, and then backed away from it to try and say another).
* It is possible that either not fully reading my posts or not fully understanding my posts has led to this claim. If it is the latter, I am more than happy to clear up any misunderstanding you may have.

4. My claim about online gamers is not specific to consoles, and most certainly not specific to one game.
* You've repeatedly talked about consoles and x-box live in particular. I just want to be clear that I am not singling out one particular game here.

5. I'm not sure where you are getting the "has had little interaction with" (it's possible my sample size is too small to make an accurate inference, but I don't believe that it is). I used to spend quite a bit of my time gaming online. And the majority of random players I met were unpleasant. Over the years, I have spent less time gaming with random strangers online, and instead focusing my online gaming with friends as that is more pleasant. I do still venture into gaming with random strangers, and every experience simply reinforces the experiences of my past. And as I stated before, my experiences are very similar to those I know in person who game online. This certainly seems to be the case online as well. I suppose a poll and discussion thread might actually be the right place for this argument to move to, I'll go start that before our discussion drives this thread any further down that path. The new thread is here.

ShumaGorath wrote:I guess I was confused as to the degree of 'trying' going on.

Thank you for that acknowledgement, and my apologies it wasn't more clear to you.

ShumaGorath wrote:

He doesn't actually hate everything. What Yahtzee does is try to push the status quo of the industry. He's so harsh on games because he wants designers to aspire toward new ideas rather than follow each other sheep-like from one gaming trend to the next.

Is that why his favorite genre is the PS1 survival horror and he demands a return of the old style FPS where everyone has a set health counter, health packs, and the ability to hold 15 weapons at the same time? Is that why he wants a return to old, menu driven, turn based combat in RPGs?

His favorite game is actually Magicland Dizzy. But I'm not sure where you're getting that he wants to return to menu-driven, turn-based combat in RPGs. Turn-based combat is one of the aspects of JRPGs he rags on the most. He's even marveled at the rare games he didn't mind it in, like the Paper Mario series.

Now, this brings up an interesting point. You have been misinformed about an ancilliary detail of the person you are criticizing. Following the pattern set in this thread, we should declare you a troll who attacks things he doesn't understand simply because it's cool on the internet to be negative. We should disregard any possibility that you might have an opinion, and simply regard you as a bad person.

But let's rise above that pattern and come up with a better one, shall we?

You're welcome to dislike Yahtzee and more than welcome to disagree with his opinions. But let's not go overboard in the personal attacks, shall we?

And keep in mind, Yahtzee has always seen himself as a critic, not a reviewer. To him these are two very different things.

Except they aren't actually different things, he just doesn't want to have to do the job impartially or with any level of accuracy.

They are different, though people often confuse them. A reviewer's job is to objectively go over a work and evaluate it as good or bad based on the criteria that are most likely to be relevant to their audience. So a restaurant reviewer might conceivably give McDonald's a good review based on for example if their audience wanted to know about fast food. A critic's job is to criticize. They should never accept that the things they review are "good enough", even if the vast majority of their audience is likely to be quite satisfied with them. A critic isn't so much thinking about what their audience wants, but for how things can be improved. So a critic should never let McDonald's escape criticism because no McDonald's product is going to be flawless.

You seem to want Yahtzee to stop criticizing things he dislikes. And yet you clearly dislike Yahtzee, and have spent much of this thread personally attacking him. Doesn't that sound odd to you?

Decent article, it had a few good laughs tucked away in there.

@ all of the people who are hating on Yahtzee: you do realize that his critic/review persona is just an act right?

He's always doom and gloom and hate on everything he reviews for the sake of entertainment.

If he actually hated everything as much as he claims to he just wouldn't bother playing anything.

ShumaGorath wrote:

He doesn't actually hate everything. What Yahtzee does is try to push the status quo of the industry. He's so harsh on games because he wants designers to aspire toward new ideas rather than follow each other sheep-like from one gaming trend to the next.

Is that why his favorite genre is the PS1 survival horror and he demands a return of the old style FPS where everyone has a set health counter, health packs, and the ability to hold 15 weapons at the same time? Is that why he wants a return to old, menu driven, turn based combat in RPGs?

But status quo at the present IS that health bars regenerate and that you can hold two weapons. He wants something different. If this was in the 'golden age' of the FPS back in about 2000-2006, he would be bitching about how tired the health system is then, and how much we need something different, like possibly a regenerating bar. He's complaining about the thing that you're accusing him of; which is a single novel idea that comes out and then it is subsequently raped to death by every last game developer out there. Killing Floor is the last FPS I can think of that didn't actually have Halo-style auto-regenerating health. Admittedly, I don't play many FPS anymore though, there's a reason for that. I'd love for a return to the 'fixed health system'. Even just one game. ESPECIALLY just one game.

I can honestly say, I don't care about this spiel of his.

Hell, I've never even heard of this guy until this thread, so ignoring this one post of his is pretty easy.

More Dakka wrote:Decent article, it had a few good laughs tucked away in there.

@ all of the people who are hating on Yahtzee: you do realize that his critic/review persona is just an act right?

He's always doom and gloom and hate on everything he reviews for the sake of entertainment.

It would help if it was actually entertaining...

Just because the interwebz gives every nub an easy means to blog/podcast/etc. , doesn't mean that everyone should do so...

He reminds me of that guy everybody knows that feel far more clever and informed then they actually are, and who are constantly spouting off even though nobody really gave two s**ts

plastictrees wrote:Was about to read it, unfortunately I have a personal rule against reading anything on the internet written by anyone under 50 with a goatee and wearing a fedora.

or in this case, you still look like a complete tool and a 40 year old virgin:


This dude is an inspiration to foreveraloners all around the world

I love 40k.

I love zero punctuation game reviews.

Lets be honest 40k fiction is very colorful and broad but seldom very intellectually stimulating (40k intellectually really doesn't have anything to 'say').

Space Marine is a very droll game that was essentially fun for an evening, I think the review was spot on. I played it for 2 hours and was basically done. It has about the same concept and depth as quake in a new skin, basically.

The only thing more shallow than the Space Marine game is the Space Marine movie.

... and I liked it mostly, in the right frame of mind.

Lighten up and enjoy all I say!

More Dakka wrote:@ all of the people who are hating on Yahtzee: you do realize that his critic/review persona is just an act right?

He's always doom and gloom and hate on everything he reviews for the sake of entertainment.

If he actually hated everything as much as he claims to he just wouldn't bother playing anything.

It's definitely true that Yahtzee never tried to be a balanced reviewer. His videos are comedy.

However, not liking Yahtzee's show is akin to not liking Stephen Colbert's (Who makes a satirical comedy show instead of serious political commentary). It's perfectly allowable, even if the show persona is not serious.

I personally like the over-the-top negativity, but I hate how he often will go on some ridiculously off-tangent subject for the majority of his review, and his jokes can get very repetitive. I quit watching after one of his episodes was spent talking about the Wii, instead of making fun of the ridiculous game he'd been given (Madworld, a game that you'd expect him to bash the hell out of).

He's still lightyears ahead of most of That Guy with the Glasses, since the majority of them don't even know how to do comedy in the first place.

All I'm gonna say is just because someone uses satire or isn't completely serious doesn't mean they're free from criticism. You can critcize someone for bad satire, in other words you can call them out for being unfunny.

The problem I have is that its going to create a lot misconceptions about the 40k universe and people are going to think space marines and orks are the only things that exist

His review has misinformed quite a few people on the escaptist forum about the 40k universe

I honestly don't think that's really a sizeable amount of people in the grand scheme of things.

If someone was on the fence concerning 40k they would have probably already have skimmed The Lexicanum or something. I don't think a comedic review is going to push potential fans in the other direction.

I have the SM game, and I do not recall Titus and your squad mates being "taken aback" that the current leader was a female. They were just like "You're the leader? Alright, tell us what the hell is going on here, so we can go mess some up".

And besides. Have any of you guys ever heard of sexual discrimination towards females in 40K? Because I have not.

*bursts back into thread*

I said God damn! (/Mia Wallace)


Anyway, the chest thumping from ol' Shummy is almost as humerous as Yahtzee's videos. The guy's a comedy reviewer, not an actual reviewer in the sense of Gamespot or IGN or all the other sites who give most games an 8 and consider 7 games to be bad. I've got a friend who's been playing Gears of War 3 and it, and he watched Yahtzee's review and said "Yep. He's right."

It really doesn't matter that much. He's a funny guy who makes funny videos full of funny (if sometimes vulgar) jokes. He's not always on his A-game (watch his God of War 3 review... I swear he has a cold or something), but most of the time he's hilarious. The only time he (or any critic or comedy critic) gets on my nerves is when they base their opinions on a falsehood or when they get some central fact wrong and then that colours the rest of the review. I dislike what he says about 40K because his point of view is starting from a place of error. I can't fault him from his views on Space Marine, the game, because he played the game (unlike 40K, where he has info that hardly scratches the surface).

As for him not playing the games. What nonsense. Not being all that into multiplayer means he doesn't not 'play the game'. Listen to his last Assassin's Creed review. He explains quite plainly his views on multi-player there. He liked the multiplayer on that game, much to his surprise, but eventually stopped playing it because he didn't want to keep doing the same thing over and over. That's how he sees multiplayer - a sequence of events played out over and over again - and if that's his opinion then so what? Does that offend some of you somehow? And if it does, who cares? Be offended. Nothing happens when you get offended.

And yet I have this suspision that if he had hailed Space Marine as the best game ever concieved, coded and published everyone in this thread would be worshipping him as the second coming and rushing to buy a hat.
So he doesn't like 40k, and he missed the point. I read the first response about how 40k was a warning about war in all its forms and realised the players missed the point too. I am starting to think people here have too.

Vermillion wrote:And yet I have this suspision that if he had hailed Space Marine as the best game ever concieved, coded and published everyone in this thread would be worshipping him as the second coming and rushing to buy a hat.

I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't be. I'm simply disagree with him, like I do on his God of War 3 review and a number of others.

Oddly enough he points this out in his recent Gears review. He says the story is bad, and then says that before everyone attacks him in the comments section and reminds him how 'story' doesn't matter in a Gears game that if he had said the story was great, every fan would be trumpeting the fact that he loves and story and how good the story is.

Vermillion wrote:And yet I have this suspision that if he had hailed Space Marine as the best game ever concieved, coded and published everyone in this thread would be worshipping him as the second coming and rushing to buy a hat.

Yes, Dakka is known for celebrating anyone that loves anything related to 40k. It's often hard to wade through all the threads in Discussions that are just full of people effusing about how amazing GW is.

Exactly, it's simply a case of:



Watch out, they're gonna capslock him next

It's a cover based 3rd Person Shooter with a limited arsenal, where you play a cumbersome gorilla wearing a fridge, who has no personality to speak of and about as much meaningful lines as Silent Bob. And it's mediocre at that. It's the embodiment of everything he hates. What were you going to expect?
Are you going to get mad every time somebody points out how dumb the setting actually is? The quality of Yahtzee's critique aside, the setting was meant to be a parody, got taken serious by mistake and went only downhill from there. The only response to that is to laugh, shrug and say "And I like it regardless."

Korraz wrote:It's a cover based 3rd Person Shooter with a limited arsenal, where you play a cumbersome gorilla wearing a fridge, who has no personality to speak of and about as much meaningful lines as Silent Bob. And it's mediocre at that. It's the embodiment of everything he hates. What were you going to expect?
Are you going to get mad every time somebody points out how dumb the setting actually is? The quality of Yahtzee's critique aside, the setting was meant to be a parody, got taken serious by mistake and went only downhill from there. The only response to that is to laugh, shrug and say "And I like it regardless."

It is I think, the only sane response. Had never considered his reviews serious though may forewarn of flaws in a game. In fact had considered buying space marine until a friend who's opinion does count in the case of game advised against it.
The comments below the review though are... amusing at best. Especially the first. I always disagreed with everything needing to mean something, and I'm fairly certain Warhammer 40,000 was not meant to be a warning of the futility of war...
Can't a story be just that any more

Korraz wrote:It's a cover based 3rd Person Shooter with a limited arsenal, where you play a cumbersome gorilla wearing a fridge, who has no personality to speak of and about as much meaningful lines as Silent Bob. And it's mediocre at that. It's the embodiment of everything he hates. What were you going to expect?

A review that bashed the game more.

It got off far too easy.

plastictrees wrote:

Vermillion wrote:And yet I have this suspision that if he had hailed Space Marine as the best game ever concieved, coded and published everyone in this thread would be worshipping him as the second coming and rushing to buy a hat.

Yes, Dakka is known for celebrating anyone that loves anything related to 40k. It's often hard to wade through all the threads in Discussions that are just full of people effusing about how amazing GW is.

Is this post so sarcastic it's collapsed in on itself or are you somehow serious?

I've never heard of this guy before.

I read the review and it didn't really bother me at all. But I didn't find it funny either. Is something wrong with me?

I'm a little amazed this thread exists Yahtzee isn't a reviewer he is a cirtic in the truest sense of the name.

For the most part he rags on every game he looks at with few exceptions (halflife, silent hill). Chacnes are you'll disagree with him about at leat one of his reviews. As others have stated it more for comic effetct than anything else, i find it hard to imagine basing their purchase choices on anything he says.

When it come to niche area games he rags on the fans as well, this includes sport games I wouldn't take it persoanlly or even think about much.

Vermillion wrote:

Korraz wrote:It's a cover based 3rd Person Shooter with a limited arsenal, where you play a cumbersome gorilla wearing a fridge, who has no personality to speak of and about as much meaningful lines as Silent Bob. And it's mediocre at that. It's the embodiment of everything he hates. What were you going to expect?
Are you going to get mad every time somebody points out how dumb the setting actually is? The quality of Yahtzee's critique aside, the setting was meant to be a parody, got taken serious by mistake and went only downhill from there. The only response to that is to laugh, shrug and say "And I like it regardless."

It is I think, the only sane response. Had never considered his reviews serious though may forewarn of flaws in a game. In fact had considered buying space marine until a friend who's opinion does count in the case of game advised against it.
The comments below the review though are... amusing at best. Especially the first. I always disagreed with everything needing to mean something, and I'm fairly certain Warhammer 40,000 was not meant to be a warning of the futility of war...
Can't a story be just that any more

Yep it would be a good post... if it was a third person shooter based around a cover system.
But its not.

"There can't 'only' be war"

Haha, I can't believe I missed that line the first time around.

I do like how he pokes at the back story. If you take it at direct face value it sounds pretty ludicrous.

Besides, we know he didn't do any REAL research into the deep, iconic lore of 40k. He didn't mention skulls or blood or Bloody-McBloodskulls and the Skull-sword of Blood once.

Korraz wrote:It's a cover based

It was at around this point where I stopped taking your post seriously.

Augustus wrote:I love 40k.

I love zero punctuation game reviews.

Lets be honest 40k fiction is very colorful and broad but seldom very intellectually stimulating (40k intellectually really doesn't have anything to 'say').

Space Marine is a very droll game that was essentially fun for an evening, I think the review was spot on. I played it for 2 hours and was basically done. It has about the same concept and depth as quake in a new skin, basically.

The only thing more shallow than the Space Marine game is the Space Marine movie.

... and I liked it mostly, in the right frame of mind.

Lighten up and enjoy all I say!

Indeed. 40k doesn't generally labor under much in the way of illusions; it's a beer and pretzels universe for a beer and pretzels game.

Thanks buzzsaw!
EDIT:

As another comment, why I think the space marine game is, well dumb...

I was really looking forward to the Avatar generator having millions of combinations, I wanted to make veterans and tac guys and have squads that match and clan grudge matches with themed paint schemes, maybe even play matches with actual tac squads configurations...

Then I found out unlocking most of the skins and items was an achievement system that required level ups and achivement pre requisites...

Which was bad... but...

Then I found out you can get XP and achievements in games you play ALONE hosted privately for just YOURSELF. I got to level 10 in about 20 minutes and unlocked all the base stuff pretty much, and then I realized:

THE ENTIRE GAMES MULTI PLAYER STRUCTURE IS MEANINGLESS, everyone in play has all the Upgrades, and its just random colored people every match. There is no point in achievements and experience if you can earn them alone in un public matches.

Augustus wrote:Thanks buzzsaw!
EDIT:

As another comment, why I think the space marine game is, well dumb...

I was really looking forward to the Avatar generator having millions of combinations, I wanted to make veterans and tac guys and have squads that match and clan grudge matches with themed paint schemes, maybe even play matches with actual tac squads configurations...

Then I found out unlocking most of the skins and items was an achievement system that required level ups and achivement pre requisites...

Which was bad... but...

Then I found out you can get XP and achievements in games you play ALONE hosted privately for just YOURSELF. I got to level 10 in about 20 minutes and unlocked all the base stuff pretty much, and then I realized:

THE ENTIRE GAMES MULTI PLAYER STRUCTURE IS MEANINGLESS, everyone in play has all the Upgrades, and its just random colored people every match. There is no point in achievements and experience if you can earn them alone in un public matches.

So you were disappointed that the game was something that it never, ever claimed to be. And you obviously don't know much about the game if you think you can get all the achievements alone. And how exactly are you getting xp in a game by yourself?

Augustus wrote:Thanks buzzsaw!
EDIT:

As another comment, why I think the space marine game is, well dumb...

I was really looking forward to the Avatar generator having millions of combinations, I wanted to make veterans and tac guys and have squads that match and clan grudge matches with themed paint schemes, maybe even play matches with actual tac squads configurations...

Then I found out unlocking most of the skins and items was an achievement system that required level ups and achivement pre requisites...

Which was bad... but...

Then I found out you can get XP and achievements in games you play ALONE hosted privately for just YOURSELF. I got to level 10 in about 20 minutes and unlocked all the base stuff pretty much, and then I realized:

THE ENTIRE GAMES MULTI PLAYER STRUCTURE IS MEANINGLESS, everyone in play has all the Upgrades, and its just random colored people every match. There is no point in achievements and experience if you can earn them alone in un public matches.

Why.... why would you play the multiplayer by yourself? To unlock the upgrades???

Not only is this impossible as most upgrades are based on how much you use the weapon, but I cannot imagine how mind nummingly boring it must be to play seize ground... by yourself... gaining only, what, 1100 exp per round?

Here's a radical concept, why don't you try actually playing the game, and then you will have fun AND get exp AND get the weapon unlocks.



I just don't get it...

Pretty sure he's just trollin....

I honestly think he isn't. I'm just dumbfounded.