the_importer:

Seriously, I sometime wonder if he likes anything. He calls people console tards, but then later on turns around and call people who play PC games to be nerds who get boners by pimping out the required hardware for being able to play PC games.

You weren't paying any attention during the whole "my fear and disgust of other human beings" segment, were you?

This episode reminded me how many "fanfiction circle jerk" games there are around these days: SSBB, Kindom Hearts, Super Robot Wars (alas, I belong to the fanbase of this franchise), **** Vs Capcom games, that-one-PSP-Final-Fantasy-fighting game, etc.

This episode was pretty amusing and the reaction even more so. Can this topic be proclaimed the Great Fanboy Flame War II of The Escapist forums?

the_importer:

Indigo_Dingo:

the_importer:

The Gil-Monster:

FuckYouDad:
I can honestly say I had no idea people took a game about Nintendo characters kicking the shit out of each other this seriously.

Agreed.

Yahtzee once offended me in one of his reviews. Me. Not a game. He once called people like me "console 'tards."

Then I made lunch.

(....)

...All right, all right; you got me. I muttered "Jerk!" under my breath first, and THEN I made lunch.

Seriously, I sometime wonder if he likes anything. He calls people console tards, but then later on turns around and call people who play PC games to be nerds who get boners by pimping out the required hardware for being able to play PC games.

He's a socially maladjusted misanthrope. He reviews games, what did you think he would be like?

Sane?

I didn't say gamer, I saidreviewr. If you had to trudge through every completely shit game each week as it came out, would you be feeling jolly? (Referring to him at Hyper, not here)

the_importer:

Indigo_Dingo:

the_importer:

The Gil-Monster:

FuckYouDad:
I can honestly say I had no idea people took a game about Nintendo characters kicking the shit out of each other this seriously.

Agreed.

Yahtzee once offended me in one of his reviews. Me. Not a game. He once called people like me "console 'tards."

Then I made lunch.

(....)

...All right, all right; you got me. I muttered "Jerk!" under my breath first, and THEN I made lunch.

Seriously, I sometime wonder if he likes anything. He calls people console tards, but then later on turns around and call people who play PC games to be nerds who get boners by pimping out the required hardware for being able to play PC games.

He's a socially maladjusted misanthrope. He reviews games, what did you think he would be like?

Sane?

Oh, Yahtzee's perfectly sane, what's insane is taking his reviews seriously. The guy's basically a stand-up comedian who plays games and kind of tells you what he thought of them, with jokes.

While I would argue that he's no less qualified and a good deal more talented than the average game reviewer, I can't believe some people apparently come away from the Zero Punctuation videos with the impression that a serious opinion has been expressed that must be refuted.

If you're looking for an actual review of SSBB or any other game there's no shortage of them, though most of them won't be nearly so entertaining.

I wonder if people take the Angry Video Game Nerd this seriously?

Is it Ok to say I don't know who Marth is either?

Or that I didn't know Mother 3 existed till a few months ago?

Jesus Christ. 19 pages of a text version of the teachers from Charlie Brown.

Daxelman:
Is it Ok to say I don't know who Marth is either?

Or that I didn't know Mother 3 existed till a few months ago?

No, of course not! You should be ashamed, how dare you?

Seriously, though? Yes. Who cares?

Crushed:

Uszi:
I find it VERY interesting that Yahtzee called from the get-go that there would be accusations that it would be said of him, "He is not a real reviewer."

(looks through thread)

Nobody has accused him of not being a real reviewer.

I'm pretty sure if you thumb back through page 10ish, you'll see two or three people saying, "Yeah well, he isn't a REAL reviewer anyway," and in response several other people try to define what a reviewer is/does. I wasn't really saying it myself.

Then again, I think it would be inhumane of me to ask anyone to search through the 19 FUCKING PAGES of this thread to try and find two or three individual posts, so in the interests of your own health/sanity I'll just say that maybe no one has accused him of this and you win.

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NOTE:
"IMO made of awesome epic win, Good Sir" is competing strongly with my current avatar.
Regardless of what any of you say, I laughed harder than I have in a long while, and I think that some of Yahtzee's brilliance did shine through his combined hatred of Nintendo/Fighting Games/The Japanese.

Gollon:
Muah muah muah, Muah, muah. Muah muahmuahmuah.

CHARLIE BROWN: No Ma'am, I don't have my homework today.

donmilliken:

Daxelman:
Is it Ok to say I don't know who Marth is either?

Or that I didn't know Mother 3 existed till a few months ago?

No, of course not! You should be ashamed, how dare you?

Seriously, though? Yes. Who cares?

Ok, good. I thought it was like, something serious or something.

But Mother 3 was a little shock to me a few months ago, I was WTF'n all over the place.

All of what you said was right Yahtzee, but you missed out on possibley your biggest piece of ammo, the fact that the final smashes basically turn the game into DBZ, from Lucaruio's blue beam of death (Kamehameha!, no seriously thats basically what he does) to sonic turning gold and flying around the screen for 45 seconds (Yes, I know that's super sonic but still). Also you missed out on the chance to say "and all it really comes down to is who can hit the most balls"
As you can tell I have the game and enjoy playing it with my friend, even if all of your points were valid its still at least a decent party game.
Can't wait for next weeks review, your the greatest Yahtzee

donmilliken:
I wonder if people take the Angry Video Game Nerd this seriously?

Personally I don't think you can equate the two; AVGN is more of a rant, with emphasis on humor over review, whereas ZP is a review filled with humorous side comments and commentary. They're similar, but the purpose of each feels distinctly different. Of course, this is purely my take on it, and if people think both are just made to entertain, then fine by me.

But I'm sure some people like myself actually trust Yahtzee's opinions as a reviewer. That's not to say that I'm going to buy/reject a game based on what he says, but that I trust him to be brutally honest and not give the "traditional" reviews that you find elsewhere online.

It's like being fed up with both Conservative and Liberal media, and wanting something somewhat neutral. I think the latest escapade was more of a tilt in one of these directions, flaming the game on an initial perception instead of giving it a chance (like he does for many games, such as Phantom Hourglass, which was a great review, and even though he didn't complete the game he said he attempted to do so).

Crushed:

bob_bob0:
sonic and snake should have been made easier to get

Sonic? Yeah, that's stupid. You COULD technically just beat Classic Mode 10 times really fast on Very Easy mode though.

Snake? He's technically very easy to unlock.

Play 5 brawls on Shadow Moses: Unlock Ness (5 brawls to unlock, or 10 deflected projectiles in one match)
Play 5 more Brawls on Shadow Moses: Unlock Marth (10 brawls, or beating Classic once)
Play 5 more brawls on Shadow Moses: Unlock Snake (needs 15 brawls on Shadow Moses).

Considering that you can make matches last for literally 1 second by playing a Stamina Flower Brawl with Stamina set to 1, that means you can unlock 3 characters in under five minutes.

Then just play Classic without having to use a continue (piece of cake) to unlock Luigi, and if you do it on Normal Mode or higher within 12 minutes, you also get Captain Falcon. If you haven't already unlocked Marth, then you'll get him for clearing Classic.

In around half an hour, you've unlocked 5 hidden characters. To break up the monotony a bit, take 10 minutes AT THE VERY MOST to clear 100-Man Brawl (which you can do with a friend!), and you'll have Falco.

Then, play Classic on Very Easy-Normal with 7 more characters (to familiarize yourself with the controls). Then play it on Hard with Link or Zelda, and you unlock Ganondorf. Guess what, you've played Classic Mode with 10 characters, you've unlocked Sonic.

Congratulations, you have more than half of the hidden characters unlocked in less than three hours of gameplay.

And you've had the most boring three grinding hours of your life. I hate grinding in World of Warcraft and I should grind in a damn party game?

First of all: A funny review as usual, good one.
Second: Shut up all you fanboys, this game isn't damned perfect. Yathzee isn't even a "real" reviewer, he's just entertaining us!

Ok, on with the content now. I'de like to bring up some points of discussion about this.
First of all, he's simply wrong about the controls. If ány fighting game is known for nót having those insanely long Soul Calibur-ish lists of combo's, it's the Super Smash series. One of thé strong points about this fighting game, is that you can still preform cool feats with your character without spending hours upon hours of thumping combo's in your head, SS's strenght lies in the fact that you can do so much things with only a few things you have to master.
Although I can clearly say I to-ta-ly loved the previous Super Smash (Brothers), wich means I played it for 4 years without finding it boring, I do agree on some things Yathzee comes up with.
Number 1: the frenzic battles.
Although I was very fond of Super Smash, 9/10 times I played it, it was just against my brother (e.a 1 vs 1) so we didn't get that camara problems. I can remember that I was playing with some mates, and I just couldn't find my char anymore. That sucks, indeed. Ofcourse that doesn't mean it can't be fun, this isn't a serious fighting game, it's a party game (same with Mario Kart) so this should never be reviewed like a serious fighting game. Such a mindless frenzy can be lots of fun, just smashing away.
Number 2: The unlockables.
At first I didn't really care about those odd characters wich I could unlock, I didn't know Falco, Captain Falcon or Marth. That's not really the problem, what ís a problem is that some are just to damn the same. Just take that blond haired Ness-clone in Brawl, it's 1 thing that an unknown character is in the game, but thát guy isn't even a real main character in an original game and is almost the same as Ness himself. Nintendo really made a mistake with that one.
Also, I can also agree on how to unlock them. Take Mewtwo in Brothers, that was áwfull to unlock, a punishment! It's a shame to see Nintendo did nothing about that. The situation Yathzee depicts about bringing the game to a party and finding out that craploads of the content isn't there, happend to me and it is indeed very painfull. And to unlock it all agáin...arg. Some things were nearly impossible (especially game stages) to unlock. Really, that's simply retarted.
All in all, I think I can have craploads of fun with this game. It has a certain amount of comedy value to totally smash that tough Snake's head into oblivion with a little pink ball named Kirby, especially when you're sitting next to 1 of your best friends. The downside indeed is what you need to do to gét there, because so many things need to be unlocked, wich can be very irritating. What game is supposed to do, it's doing absolutly wonderfull.

PS:

to sonic turning gold and flying around the screen for 45 seconds.

Really nothing wrong about that, that's 1 of the things Sonic can do as well in his original games.

I decided to read the entirety of this epic monster thread, and its like we keep going through the same cycle of 3 stages over and over, every 3 or four pages...

now thats human nature for you, that said, i hate SSB, because my favorite character link (in my hands) can never beat any of my uber-fanatic friends, they are ALL 'That Guy'

so i play them at Dawn Of War and beat them 2 on one (me the one)

Maybe GAMETRADERS ROBINA has Mother 3.

ElArabDeMagnifico:

Uszi:
I find it VERY interesting that Yahtzee called from the get-go that there would be accusations that it would be said of him, "He is not a real reviewer."

He is a real reviewer, just not a serious one, he's got some good points, and he uses humor to prove them, but he's not here to "review" games, just to make us laugh.

WRONG

What he does can be classified as satire. And satire dosen't exisist just to make you laugh, but also to say things that traditional reviewers don't have the courage or freedom to say. And Y is brilliant in doing that.

I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

I think the reason it was so popular on the game rankings was solely from the hype it got. The game is not good and the only reason it is so well loved is the nostalgic remeberence to the ancient games that fan boys and fan girls cling to for hopes that they still think they're cool. It's games like smash bros. that make it so hard for actual good games like Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne (Lucifer's Call in Europe) to become popular.

neonworms:
I think the reason it was so popular on the game rankings was solely from the hype it got. The game is not good and the only reason it is so well loved is the nostalgic remeberence to the ancient games that fan boys and fan girls cling to for hopes that they still think they're cool. It's games like smash bros. that make it so hard for actual good games like Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne (Lucifer's Call in Europe) to become popular.

In theory hype should influence the gaming crowd but not seroious professional reviewers...

shred_lord:
A smashing review there. Well Done.

That was fucking hilarious dude.

Regardless it was a decent review. Certainly not his funniest but up to par with the majority of his reviews. Nice to see this admittedly over hyped game be given some justice and I cant think of anyone better to do it then Yahtzee.

This is fucking great! XD I love you Yahtzee!

I didn't think there would be so much nerd rage being thrown around like flaming poo from the circle jerking fanboys and the uninterested crowds who grew out of Nintendo's childish gaming, but I think that's to be expected if you disrespect a Nintendo product.

Yeah, I played a demo at a GameStop for about 10 minutes and quickly got bored as I found out it was exactly the same game as I played it before on the N64 almost 10 years ago. [Main strategy: Do enough damage, then throw everyones ass off the platform. Instant win.]

I might as well put in my opinion, even though I might be crucified for it: Super Smash Bros Brawl is equal to Halo 3 in it's disillusioned zealous fanboys, over hyped media, mediocre game play, and the "same as the last game with only a touch few upgrades" bait-n-switch routine. [Yeah, it's not gonna be the big change like how Resident Evil 4 changed its own franchise.]

first comment on a thread that i dont think Yahtzee will ever read but anyway great review. I like how yahtzee points out the flaws and splashes glow in the dark food coloring all over the shit in a game and even sets it on fire so a rescue team can find it, despite the smell. Like many other reviews of his i agree with this one along with Halo 3, i cant believe that game got 10/10 so much, the witcher, god that game was confusing and stupid and degrading towards women, and other numerous titles whos shittiness i cant type in this tiny text box.

gigirizzi:

I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

I have an explanation. Because normal people hate things, and internet people super hate things. Because reviewers have more than two modes (i.e. opinions outside of F'ing awesome and F'ing awful) and internet people do not. Or maybe the people who like the game are too busy having a good time playing it to post something on here to try to persuade all the haters that it's fun. Take your pick.

In theory hype should influence the gaming crowd but not seroious professional reviewers...[/quote]

Your very right. Too bad it next to never works that way, i suppose thats why i agree with most of Yahtzees reviews, they`re not media driven.

I bought the console almost specifically for Brawl, but after a week of playing it I just didn't like it at all, and eventually sold my Wii all together.

Now I has the money for the MGS4 bundle coming in june : )

So much hate packed into so little time. Nice review, Yahtzee.

Good review, made me chuckle.

Re: nineteen pages of drama...

OK, Yahtzee's not a conventional reviewer. OK, this review wasn't as great as the other thirty odd fantastic ones he's put out. OK, he might seem to have a go at everything. But the stuff he comes out with is usually pretty damn insightful. Sure, he finds faults in most things, but I constantly find myself listening to his criticisms and then thinking, "Oh, yeah... That's a very good point, I hadn't thought about that."

We have the internet, it's 2008 - there are enough sources for opinions on games, music or anything else. Look around - don't take one view as gospel and then get your knickers in a twist when you disagree with that one source once in a while. Take Yahtzee's reviews for what they are - almost universally negative, insightful and funny commentaries on games and gaming.

Is dis some flamewar/e-penis showdown/console wars? in MY yathzee?

wow!

What I enjoyed about this review was the fact that it didn't just review the game and all its annoyances but pointed out flaws within the general game communnity. It's very similar to the Turok review, which I think (and still think) to be his best.

Being a frequent player of Brawl on weekends, I can see the gripes and acknowledge them. But in the end, I still want to play it regardless.

I wish you the best of luck for next week's review Yahtz. :O

gigirizzi:

ElArabDeMagnifico:

Uszi:
I find it VERY interesting that Yahtzee called from the get-go that there would be accusations that it would be said of him, "He is not a real reviewer."

He is a real reviewer, just not a serious one, he's got some good points, and he uses humor to prove them, but he's not here to "review" games, just to make us laugh.

WRONG

What he does can be classified as satire. And satire dosen't exisist just to make you laugh, but also to say things that traditional reviewers don't have the courage or freedom to say. And Y is brilliant in doing that.

Bingo. And being tied to a gaming "review" site that isn't owned by video game stores helps.

gigirizzi:
I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

Payola and advert coin, if I had to guess. I mean, there was a reason that Jeff Gerstmann got shitcanned from Gamespot after saying that Kane & Lynch was mediocre.

Like most media, piss off the advertisers and it's time to kiss your sorry ass bye bye.

m_jim:
I have an explanation. Because normal people hate things, and internet people super hate things. Because reviewers have more than two modes (i.e. opinions outside of F'ing awesome and F'ing awful) and internet people do not. Or maybe the people who like the game are too busy having a good time playing it to post something on here to try to persuade all the haters that it's fun. Take your pick.

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

heh heh awsome as always there Yahtzee...i must say tho the amount of comments here doubled here upon this great release of yer review on SSBB. Struck quite the chord.

can't wait for yer next addition to the Zero puntuation series~

chewbacca1010:

gigirizzi:

WRONG

What he does can be classified as satire. And satire dosen't exisist just to make you laugh, but also to say things that traditional reviewers don't have the courage or freedom to say. And Y is brilliant in doing that.

Bingo. And being tied to a gaming "review" site that isn't owned by video game stores helps.

I think the argument is of the form: Yes, but in this particular review he let his personal attack on Nintendo and Fighting games in genre interfere with any possible satire/criticism of the specific game itself, which is what we really tune in for.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you gentlemen.

chewbacca1010:

gigirizzi:
I read trough all the comments and I see that almost everybody agrees on the fact that this game has some (for many people a lot) major flaws. This game has an average of 94% on Gamerankings, can I ask you why?

Payola and advert coin, if I had to guess. I mean, there was a reason that Jeff Gerstmann got shitcanned from Gamespot after saying that Kane & Lynch was mediocre.

Like most media, piss off the advertisers and it's time to kiss your sorry ass bye bye.

TheEscapist is pretty damn cool, I must say. Though as someone who posts here regularly, and subscribes to the newsletter and reads the articles, I wonder if my opinion is objective or not.

I think Yahtzee's style of satire tends to make him immune to the, "You gave our game a bad review so we're pulling your funding," schtick... and I mean even on the level of the Escapist itself. I feel like if the Escapist was getting money to push a game, and Yahtzee dismantled it, then there would be little repercussion. TheEscapist can just say, "He does what he does! We can't control it!"

Take for instance Peggle and Pop-Cap games. Have you all noticed that TheEscapist has Pop Cap game banner ads on the site? I'm sure it's not because the admins are Peggle fans, rather they are getting a stipend for pushing it.

If anything the negative press was GOOD for Pop-Cap games, as I'm sure none of us had heard of it before the review.

chewbacca1010:

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

Well, how about Assassin's Creed or Kane & Lynch? Both from big studios, both got lukewarm receptions from most review sites (please don't say Gerstman-gate, or we are going to go round and round). It seems to me that a good number of internet people have a bias against "popular" or "hyped" games. They want to see these games fail for some reason, I don't claim to know why. If they don't fail, the obviously it's a conspiracy. My question to you is this: can you accept that maybe Madden, Call of Duty: WW2 Again, or Spider Man 27 might be pretty good, or at least not horrible? Shouldn't truly bad scores be saved for rubbish such as Ninjabread Man and things for the NGage?
I'm not saying that money can't buy some reviews, but look at EGM's Dan Hsu; the man fought the law (Ubisoft dollars) and he won.

m_jim:

chewbacca1010:

Yeah, not quite. While your assessment of "Internet people" holds some water, let me assure you that most big "review" sites/magazines have the same two modes.

If you're from a large studio who has a lot of clout (i.e. money), then the game is "F'ing awesome".

If not, it's probably going to be "F'ing awful".

Well, how about Assassin's Creed or Kane & Lynch? Both from big studios, both got lukewarm receptions from most review sites (please don't say Gerstman-gate, or we are going to go round and round). It seems to me that a good number of internet people have a bias against "popular" or "hyped" games. They want to see these games fail for some reason, I don't claim to know why. If they don't fail, the obviously it's a conspiracy. My question to you is this: can you accept that maybe Madden, Call of Duty: WW2 Again, or Spider Man 27 might be pretty good, or at least not horrible? Shouldn't truly bad scores be saved for rubbish such as Ninjabread Man and things for the NGage?
I'm not saying that money can't buy some reviews, but look at EGM's Dan Hsu; the man fought the law (Ubisoft dollars) and he won.

Bad scores should be saved for games that deserve them, and as I recall Assassin's Creed got a combined score of 81 at Metacritic (for both systems), which means the majority of the reviews said it was good, and it was average, at best. Saving up the vitriol for crap like the N-Gage is not even a question. If a game is bad, reviewers should feel free to call them on it and not many seem to, for whatever reason.

And I don't doubt there are people that hope overhyped games will fail and complain accordingly. We should still demand higher quality reviews from the gaming journalist sector, since it is well needed at this point. Some games are going to pass, no matter how good or bad they actually are, just because they were released from a big studio.

I guess I don't have as much faith in journalistic integrity these days, especially when advertising is introduced. It has happened in virtually every other niche media review journalism world, and it certainly happens here too. The lines between actual journalism and out and out advertising are being blurred, more and more.

Uszi:
I think the argument is of the form: Yes, but in this particular review he let his personal attack on Nintendo and Fighting games in genre interfere with any possible satire/criticism of the specific game itself, which is what we really tune in for.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you gentlemen.

I will concede that this week was a touch weak when it came down to actually discussing the game, as much as the points about fanboys he brought up needed to be addressed. Next week will be better, I figure.

Uszi:
TheEscapist is pretty damn cool, I must say. Though as someone who posts here regularly, and subscribes to the newsletter and reads the articles, I wonder if my opinion is objective or not.

I think Yahtzee's style of satire tends to make him immune to the, "You gave our game a bad review so we're pulling your funding," schtick... and I mean even on the level of the Escapist itself. I feel like if the Escapist was getting money to push a game, and Yahtzee dismantled it, then there would be little repercussion. TheEscapist can just say, "He does what he does! We can't control it!"

Take for instance Peggle and Pop-Cap games. Have you all noticed that TheEscapist has Pop Cap game banner ads on the site? I'm sure it's not because the admins are Peggle fans, rather they are getting a stipend for pushing it.

If anything the negative press was GOOD for Pop-Cap games, as I'm sure none of us had heard of it before the review.

Well, as a games reviewer, he has his shtick like you said, and I'm sure the high level of cynicism turns some off of it. Personally, this is why I like it. As much as he tends to overlook the good elements of a game, it's good to be very critical of it's faults, especially if we want to see less filler and more quality, something the industry seems to be lacking these days.

The Escapist is in a good position since publishing digitally generally means the cost to produce the reviews and info is cheaper and so as much as they are dependant on advert revenue, it is (I think) to a much lesser extent then say a magazine or television show. And at this point, Yahtzee has brought the Escapist so many extra pageviews, to censor him would be certain death. After all, he could just post the reviews elsewhere. So I guess the freedom he has is good, provided he keeps it simple and sticks to attacking bad games.

And this is true, negative press can sometimes work in favour of those being attacked.