Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.