Forums > Off Topic > Zero Punctuation
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/4/2008 3:46 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Surely I'm not the only one who has heard of this guy by now. I don't really read many professional reviews because I find that most of them tell me stuff I already know about a game, but I have to say I literally wait for this guy to post up his reviews because he is hilarious. He calls himself Zero Punctuation because he speaks so quickly its like his sentences have no punctuation. His humor relies a lot on his Anglo-Australian accent, but all other things aside he knows what hes talking about. Also, hes a complete skeptic about modern games, so I figured he'd fit in pretty well here.
My favorite reviews are Oblivion, Crysis, Phantom Hourglass, and Orange Box.
Sorry if this is a repeat topic, I didnt do a preliminary search of the forums yet for a topic.
Edit: Ok well screw me, it looks like you guys have talked about this stuff pretty much through and through already. :-)
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/4/2008 3:55 PM · Permalink · Report
I am not that sure about Zero Punctuation, but this post made me laugh. ;-)
MichaelPalin (1414) on 11/4/2008 4:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Edit: Ok well screw me, it looks like you guys have talked about this stuff pretty much through and through already. :-) [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Oh!, but I do want to discuss about this guy. His last review has being a total disappointment, as he has enjoyed the last game reviewed, something that is very, very rare. And, what game is that, which the unsatisfiable Yatzhee likes? No other than Saints Row 2, and because it's mindless fun (!!). He also compares it to GTA IV, which puts way more effort on the story and realism in general than SR2. Ahem..., something doesn't make too much sense. And the funniest thing of all this is that, dozens upon dozens of posters agree with him without any doubt, nobody (ok, I haven't read the 242 posts) notices any contradiction in Yatzhee's game rhetoric in this review. Am I alone here?
At a more philosophical level, this review also serves me to open a discussion on the recent trend of many game sites that state that games has to be fun or are all about fun, etc. For me, this is a dangerous trend and moves further away games from art. But this may take too long to discuss here. Maybe some day I'll write something...
Incidentally, now I'm way more interested in GTA IV than before watching the review.
MichaelPalin (1414) on 11/5/2008 4:40 PM · Permalink · Report
Thanks for the welcome but, unluckily, taking part in MG means unhappy times in real life. I'm very negative lately, sorry.
vedder (73746) on 11/4/2008 6:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MichaelPalin wrote--]...and because it's mindless fun (!!). He also compares it to GTA IV, which puts way more effort on the story and realism in general than SR2. Ahem..., something doesn't make too much sense.[/Q --end MichaelPalin wrote--]
Where does "Realism and story" equal "Mindless fun"? My own life is quite real and has lots of story, but I can't classify it as mindless fun. (It's not that bad either, before I sound emo)
MichaelPalin (1414) on 11/5/2008 9:16 AM · Permalink · Report
No, no. He praises SR2 for being mindless fun as opposed to GTA IV, which he despises for being realist and be centered around the story.
Slug Camargo (583) on 11/8/2008 5:28 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MichaelPalin wrote--]No, no. He praises SR2 for being mindless fun as opposed to GTA IV, which he despises for being realist and be centered around the story. [/Q --end MichaelPalin wrote--] You're making a very simplistic interpretation here. He doesn't despise GTA IV because it is realistic and centered around the story, he despises the fact that the designers felt they had to neglect its gameplay roots to achieve that realism, what with all that cousin-calling crap and such. At least that's what I understood, and I tie it to something he's talked about several times in other reviews: A game can have a lot of writing, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has good writing. Like he stated in his MGS4 review, the MGS series is badly written for the simple fact that anyone can tell how much it needs an editor. Hell, even I said it in my MGS2 review.
"The world's largest pie cannot be called a good pie, because it's uneconomical and probably wouldn't even fit in an oven" =D
mobiusclimber (235) on 11/4/2008 7:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MichaelPalin wrote--]
At a more philosophical level, this review also serves me to open a discussion on the recent trend of many game sites that state that games has to be fun or are all about fun, etc. For me, this is a dangerous trend and moves further away games from art. But this may take too long to discuss here. Maybe some day I'll write something...
[/Q --end MichaelPalin wrote--]
I think that might be because so many "genius" developers or whatever seem to think games should be totally realistic at the expense of making them fun. You have to understand that if games can ever be an art form, they have to play on their strengths. That includes making them enjoyable to play. A game that is NOT enjoyable to play is hardly a game. It might be an excersize in frustration. It might be incredibly boring. It is not however a game, nor is it art. Why? Because it has failed to live up to the strengths of the medium.
For instance, I recently borrowed Zelda: Twilight Princess from a friend. After less than half an hour playing, I ran into a brick wall. You have to catch two fish in order to advance. But apparently making a fun fishing mini-game was not what anyone working on this game had in mind. Instead, you are expected to sit there for over an hour to catch a fish. Yes, over an hour. Everyone I have talked to have said that this sequence takes an inordinate amount of time. The person I borrowed the game from said it took him two hours or more to catch the two fish needed to progress in the game. This is not fun. It's an attempt at realism, one which is misplaced in a fantasy adventure game.
Another one, Hideo Kojima has stated in the past that if he could make a game that self-destructed when the player died, he would. Is this man insane? ... Yes. He also has no concept of the evolution of video games. It used to be, a game might, if it was feeling generous, give you three lives and nine continues. There were certain titles I had the misfortune of playing in my youth that gave you NO lives and NO continues. If you died ONCE you started over again from the beginning. If Hideo Kojima wants to punish his fans, he can simply take out the save feature. But just how playable would a Metal Gear Solid game be if you couldn't save in it? (How playable would it be if it disintegrated if you died? What an asinine idea!)
Do either of these things equal art, or do they only equal madness? This is why, I think, some reviews (and gamers) are harping on and on about making games fun. THEY'VE STOPPED BEING FUN. So many games nowadays want to strive for realism. I LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD AND IT SUCKS. Why would I play a game that had anything more than a tenuous link to the real world? Do I need to spend an hour trying to catch a fish or have to make a tourniquette every time I get shot? (This is why the first Metal Gear Solid was the best one. No one was striving for realism!)
Sciere (934107) on 11/4/2008 7:23 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start mobiusclimber wrote--] For instance, I recently borrowed Zelda: Twilight Princess from a friend. After less than half an hour playing, I ran into a brick wall. You have to catch two fish in order to advance. But apparently making a fun fishing mini-game was not what anyone working on this game had in mind. Instead, you are expected to sit there for over an hour to catch a fish. Yes, over an hour. Everyone I have talked to have said that this sequence takes an inordinate amount of time. The person I borrowed the game from said it took him two hours or more to catch the two fish needed to progress in the game. This is not fun. It's an attempt at realism, one which is misplaced in a fantasy adventure game.[/Q --end mobiusclimber wrote--]I can relate to that. It was my first Zelda game and I gave up pretty much after that sequence and sold it right away. I don't mind slow sequences if they serve a purpose, but that, combined with the boring puzzle-solving and childish atmosphere, was more than enough. I had my share of favouritism towards certain genres and games, but I don't get the praise for that game at all, certainly not for an average age group.
I've also grown tired of about any game with overly complex game mechanisms or required manual reading. I play games to unwind somewhat, and it better has a good, mature story to offer if it takes things slow.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/4/2008 8:41 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sciere wrote--] I had my share of favouritism towards certain genres and games, but I don't get the praise for that game at all, certainly not for an average age group. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]
This praise has also found me dumbfounded. I stopped playing Twilight Princess after a good third into the game. It was too tedious and predictably childish.
I don't mind "childish" entertainment, I enjoy much of it. But Twilight Princess was bordering on the Teletubbies side of the spectrum and that was just too much.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/4/2008 10:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sciere wrote--] [Q2 --start mobiusclimber wrote--] Everyone I have talked to have said that this sequence takes an inordinate amount of time. The person I borrowed the game from said it took him two hours or more to catch the two fish needed to progress in the game. This is not fun. It's an attempt at realism, one which is misplaced in a fantasy adventure game. [/Q2 --end mobiusclimber wrote--]I can relate to that. It was my first Zelda game and I gave up pretty much after that sequence and sold it right away. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]
Interesting, it took me about 20 minutes to catch the fish, but yeah, that was 20 minutes too long.
Scierce, most Zelda games start out unnecessary slowly, but get much more interesting once you progress a little further and get a couple of items. I think Twilight Princess is particularly bad in this regard (and the wolf sequences suck). For the most part, the individual challenges and puzzles aren't all that amazing in themselves, but they are often combined in very interesting and original ways. This can best be seen inside dungeons. While most games simply present you with a number of separate obstacles, many dungeons in various Zelda games have puzzles that span several rooms and sometimes turn the entire dungeon unto one big puzzle. I also find it much more motivating to search for items that open up new areas and can be used in various interesting ways (that is, rewarding you with more gameplay), than advancing a plot that's usually either pointless, idiotic, trashy, annoyingly pretentious or all of these things combined. The Zelda-formula is getting pretty stale however, and I don't know why Nintendo keeps tuning down the difficulty level.
As for Zelda being childish... of course it's childish, but I think 99% of all games are, at least when it comes to story, setting and characters. I actually prefer an outright childish game like Zelda to one that tries to be mature, but fails miserably.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/4/2008 8:33 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start mobiusclimber wrote--] A game that is NOT enjoyable to play is hardly a game. It might be an excersize in frustration. It might be incredibly boring. It is not however a game, nor is it art. Why? Because it has failed to live up to the strengths of the medium. [/Q --end mobiusclimber wrote--]
I don't think that this statement concerns the video games only. We expect a book, a movie, a song to be enjoyable in every case regardless of its preaching and thought-provoking aspect, don't we?
Sure, this enjoyability (fun) is achieved by means different from those in video games but it's separate from the "art" aspect of them just as it is in games. I guess it has more to do with skill, knowledge and education of the author.
As for "realism". It can be very fun and amusing if done properly. But, of course, none should expect you to do menial and pointless tasks. Fishing, however, is not one of those. ;-)
vedder (73746) on 11/4/2008 9:06 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start mobiusclimber wrote--]A game that is NOT enjoyable to play is hardly a game. It might be an excersize in frustration. It might be incredibly boring. It is not however a game, nor is it art. [/Q --end mobiusclimber wrote--]
Art can be both frustrating and boring (in certain ways). So a game that is both could be art, in spite of not being fun to play. I don't see how the two are related. Fun has nothing to do with art, neither has frustration. Art appeals to the senses (any of them, in any way positive or negative) and a bad game can still do that. If a painting makes me sad, it isn't a bad painting. In fact it's a great painting! A great piece of art even. If a game is deliberately frustrating, that could be artistic value. There are movies that are considered art, that are incredibly boring to look at. But they are still considered art. Art doesn't focus on the strenghts of a medium, but the full scale of possibilities.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/4/2008 9:33 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--] There are movies that are considered art, that are incredibly boring to look at. But they are still considered art. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]
I don't believe those who consider them as such, actually find them to be boring.
A boring movie, painting, music, game cannot be art. Art should excite, thrill, stir emotions inside you, make you cry and laugh, certainly, not to make you bored.
vedder (73746) on 11/5/2008 6:51 PM · Permalink · Report
But boredom is an emotion! Why is it ruled out in your definition of art? And besides that emotions such as that are highly personal, so that person A finds it boring doesn't mean that B, C and D also find it boring. I for one find the painting "Composition with two lines" by Mondriaan incredibly boring, but it's considered a valuable piece of art. And perhaps for very valid reasons.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/5/2008 7:56 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]But boredom is an emotion! Why is it ruled out in your definition of art?
[/Q --end stvedder wrote--]
Alright. ;-) Can you point me in the direction of an artistic piece making a statement of deliberately boring people to death? I'll try to enjoy it and when I fail, should we call it a success?
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]painting "Composition with two lines" by Mondriaan incredibly boring, but it's considered a valuable piece of art[/Q --end stvedder wrote--]
Again. Considered by who? Establishment, art critics, your dog? I am sure if they like it, they won't say it's boring. Or how do you imagine it?
"This is a predictable and boring painting that put as to sleep the moment we saw it. Now that's true art!"
Well, personally, I actually like it. It has a nice dynamism going through, I wouldn't call it boring.
Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 11/5/2008 8:15 PM · Permalink · Report
Can you point me in the direction of an artistic piece making a statement of deliberately boring people to death?
Andy Warhol's movie Empire is close: "It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous real time footage of the Empire State Building in New York City. Abridged showings of the film were never allowed, and supposedly the very unwatchability of the film was an important part of the reason the film was created."
Considered by who? Establishment, art critics, your dog? I am sure if they like it, they won't say it's boring. Or how do you imagine it?
Mondrian's paintings occupy an abstract territory that can be considered more design than art -- visual compositions that comply with certain aesthetic demands and satisfy certain design philosophies which, if you happen to share them, may make it likeable and un-boring... but there is little art that is universally recognized as possessing those qualities (and if there were, a movement would have to arise to reject it 8)
As a child my parents took me to art museums on our travels. I was a big fan of sculpture and paintings on classical themes because they tapped into narratives -- each painting represented something bigger, a freeze frame of a movie in my head, where I could tell you who was who and what was going on. Still lives, on the other hand, bored the piss out of me -- not another bowl of fruit! And yet, an art historian can decode the symbolic and historical significance of every scrap of peel, hunk of cheese and scrap of fabric depicted in one of those. The Mona Lisa is renowned (second only in fame, perhaps, to Rodin's "the Thinker" -- a mere excerpt of his gates of hell in homage to Dante's Inferno) but if you eschew the eternal question of her smile's motivation and Da Vinci's hint of the new Renaissance scientific awakening in background use of perspective and atmospheric blurring, it's just a portrait of some unknown broad -- who cares?
Personally, I'm a big fan of the cheeky so-called "anti-art" of the Dadaists, notably the works of Marcel Duchamp... but looking at a photograph of a urinal won't tell you why it's considered artwork.
Slug Camargo (583) on 11/8/2008 5:31 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Personally, I'm a big fan of the cheeky so-called "anti-art" of the Dadaists, notably the works of Marcel Duchamp... but looking at a photograph of a urinal won't tell you why it's considered artwork. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Heh, I was just about to jump in and say that noone could possibly want the gaming equivalent of dadism... whatever that might be =P
Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 11/9/2008 9:13 AM · Permalink · Report
Oh, I think it's important that developers make dadaist games, even if just to workshop new ideas and get them out of their system. That doesn't mean they're going to be any fun to play, but deliberately masochistic titles like Punishment and Syobon Action seem very kindred spirits to me to artworks like "object to be destroyed" and Cadeau. The next step would be games that actually damage the file system when lost.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/5/2008 9:21 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]Try "The Cure for Insomnia" a film by John Henry Timmis IV :) [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]
Heh. Nice one.
Indra was here (20745) on 11/5/2008 7:07 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] A boring movie, painting, music, game cannot be art. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
I consider modern art boring.
Is it still art? Yes it is. Why? Because someone else thinks differently.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/5/2008 7:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--] I consider modern art boring.
Is it still art? Yes it is. Why? Because someone else thinks differently. [/Q --end Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--]
So?
What are you trying to say? That everything is art as long as there is at least someone thinking so? Sure, I agree to that.
Art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Indra was here (20745) on 11/5/2008 8:28 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] Art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
Which is why the subjectivity of the beholder may also deem the object boring as hell and yet it still be art.
I have trouble comprehending how people can consider attaching a kettle pot and used bicycle chain with super glue as art. But that's modern art to some people. Snore.
[edit] The problem with art, is that many people deem art as an unquestionable value (priceless my ass, everything has a price). When in fact, art is simply an opinon that has value to the beholder. What is art? Monetary value really. If no one even considers in buying it, then its not art...or maybe bad art.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 11/4/2008 10:28 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MichaelPalin wrote--] [Q2 --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Edit: Ok well screw me, it looks like you guys have talked about this stuff pretty much through and through already. :-) [/Q2 --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] And, what game is that, which the unsatisfiable Yatzhee likes? No other than Saints Row 2, and because it's mindless fun (!!). He also compares it to GTA IV, which puts way more effort on the story and realism in general than SR2. Ahem..., something doesn't make too much sense. [/Q --end MichaelPalin wrote--] Indeed, the fact that he obviously has different preferences than you doesn't mean that his argument is illogical.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 11/5/2008 7:03 AM · Permalink · Report
At a more philosophical level, this review also serves me to open a discussion on the recent trend of many game sites that state that games has to be fun or are all about fun, etc. For me, this is a dangerous trend and moves further away games from art.
Palin, not all games need to be super serious. In fact, sometimes doing this ruins many games. They take themselves too seriously to the point where they become cheesy and obvious. I actually see this more often than seeing the "fun" games. Games that have to have the super deep, super dark plot line, and end up suffering from a case of "Indigo Prophecy" syndrome, where they have to incorporate some deep, ancient conspiracy in order to make it seem like the plot line is deep.
Besides, sometime chaos and fun can be an art form. Take one look at Katamari Damacy. A pure acid trip, and its still brilliant.
Indra was here (20745) on 11/5/2008 7:16 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Palin, not all games need to be super serious. In fact, sometimes doing this ruins many games. They take themselves too seriously to the point where they become cheesy and obvious. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--]
Agreed to a certain extent.
My subjective opinion is, games need to achieve what they were supposed to achieve: Entertainment to entertain the audiencE.
Which is something many people tend to forget and focus more on the by-products. This is when we're talking about game mechanics, realism, story, art, stupid bugs, etc. The main and sole purpose of a gaming product is to entertain the masses. If a certain game falls under a certain category (i.e. genre), then it should fulfill the minimal entertainment level expected of that genre (e.g. don't put comedy in a movie that may ruin the mood of the horror film).
Entertainment is the prime directive for games. If realism interrupts the "fun-factor" of a game, then don't use it. If the ability to save games interuppts the fun-factor for some gamers, then don't limit saves games. After all, in the end of the day, we expect the same thing from a game: A big stupid smile on our face. Not frustration.
MichaelPalin (1414) on 11/5/2008 10:11 AM · Permalink · Report
The problem is that he usually despises games with the philosophy of mindless fun like SR2 and praises story in games over any other thing. With Portal, Silent Hill 2 and Sands of Time as his favorite games and with a critical history of trashing 95% of the games reviewed, the last review is really a huge surprise.
mobiusclimber (235) on 11/5/2008 11:12 PM · Permalink · Report
Just speaking about the Saints Row 2 review, he didn't even state that the game was GOOD just that it was enjoyable, whereas a game like GTA IV wasn't. And that it basically boiled down to letting the play play the game the way they want to. I didn't find his review to be a ringing endorsement of SR2, and I doubt if asked he'd say it's on the same level as Silent Hill 2 or Prince of Persia, just that the experience of playing it was largely enjoyable.
MichaelPalin (1414) on 11/6/2008 11:09 AM · Permalink · Report
I guess you guys are right, he has demonstrated many times how much he likes being a dickhead in videogames. Still, it was a surprise, Yahtzee and I have much more different tastes than though.
Slug Camargo (583) on 11/8/2008 5:08 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start MichaelPalin wrote--]The problem is that he usually despises games with the philosophy of mindless fun like SR2 and praises story in games over any other thing. [/Q --end MichaelPalin wrote--] Not exactly, he praises games that are simply fun to play as much as he praises well-written games. Remember his Painkiller review.
And I gotta say I empathize with that a lot. I was gonna say something like "if your game won't rewrite the history of gaming, at least try and make it f'ing entertaining to play", but then I remembered something Old Man Murray's Chet said ten years ago now: "Revolutionary games are not built by guys looking to build revolutionary games, they are made by guys looking to make fun games.... Look at Id, Origin, or Sid Meir."
I think that sums it up quite handsomely.
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/8/2008 9:03 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Dr. Von Katze wrote--] I think that sums it up quite handsomely. [/Q --end Dr. Von Katze wrote--]
I think it all comes down to a much simpler premise: "If you do something, make sure it's good!".
I mean, come on. Personally I can't possibly accept that it's easier to make a traditional game, rather than a revolutionary one. At least it shouldn't be. A good game takes pains to make, requires vision and dedication, regardless of its originality.
And many interesting projects were born out of simple desire to make something new, just take a look at the whole indie scene with its pretentiousness. Sure, some of them are just that, pretentious misguided attempts at revolutionising the medium, but many of them actually succeed.
The bottom line is that there are numerous paths that lead to a great, engaging game. And I don't think we should restrict the developers to just one particular way.
Chris Wright (85) on 11/7/2008 11:36 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
It's sites like Zero Punctuation (and MobyGames) that really justify the Internet's existence.
Love that guy. Brits have the sharpest wits, I have to say.
Foxhack (32137) on 11/8/2008 1:38 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Chris Wright wrote--]It's sites like Zero Punctuation (and MobyGames) that really justify the Internet's existence.
Love that guy. Brits have the sharpest wits, I have to say. [/Q --end Chris Wright wrote--]... I dunno, I kinda feel his humor is more Australian than anything.
Donatello (466) on 11/9/2008 6:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Chris Wright wrote--]Brits have the sharpest wits, I have to say. [/Q --end Chris Wright wrote--]
That's why I hate British humour. I enjoy light-hearted, honest and "cute" jokes, not overly self-aware, witty and sarcastic ones which seem to be so popular these days. :(
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/9/2008 6:28 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, as I have already said. I find Zero Punctuation having more in common with American foul mouthed easy-to-get stand-up comedy rather than being an example of British humour.
Being witty and sarcastic doesn't imply being a mean spirited, acid dripping bloke constantly taking a laugh at someone else's expense. Neither are low-brow pun based images, by the way.
And, no, I really don't want to get into another Yahtzee related debate I so delicately avoided since the start of this thread.
And, of course, Friends are way funnier than ZP.
I currently prefer Fawlty Towers, though. ;-)
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 11/9/2008 7:56 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]constantly taking a laugh at someone else's expense[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] That's the whole f'ing point of criticism in one way or another, and especially here as he reviews mostly stuff he doesn't like. The roots are in TV shows like Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe (UK). Take ZP's format and tell me what you'd make out of it.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]Well, as I have already said. I find Zero Punctuation having more in common with American foul mouthed easy-to-get stand-up comedy[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] That stupid nationality crap aside, yes, you're right. Which is a not a disadvantage in my eyes, as criticism should be easy to get and not a multitude of cryptic nonsense.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]And, of course, Friends are way funnier than ZP. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] So? And what has a 40 min. giggly-giggly lesson in TV group therapy in common with 3-4 min. chunks of internet game criticism, the main point of ZP?
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/9/2008 8:11 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] That's the whole f'ing point of criticism in one way or another [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
"Criticism" is not a comedy genre as far as I am concerned. It's not supposed to be funny. Satire however is, and I personally expect it not to be riddled with jokes about homosexuality, faggotry and motherfuckery of the developers, thank you very much.
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]That stupid nationality crap aside, yes, you're right. Which is a not a disadvantage in my eyes, as criticism should be easy to get and not a multitude of cryptic nonsense. [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
You misunderstood me. I enjoy stand-up comedy and it was in fact developed in USA (nationality crap?? what?) and I was just pointing out that ZP's roots are not in what is considered to be British humour, which is quite often not that obvious.
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] So? And what has a 40 min. giggly-giggly lesson in TV group therapy in common with 3-4 min. chunks of internet game criticism, the main point of ZP? [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
Nothing. Except for the fact that it was mentioned in the previous post and that I do occasionally have a chuckle while watching it, whereas I am usually bored with ZP.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 11/9/2008 9:50 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]"Criticism" is not a comedy genre as far as I am concerned.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] Criticism is a judgement. You can wrap it as you please, for better or worse, intentionally and unintentionally.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] You misunderstood me. I enjoy stand-up comedy and it was in fact developed in USA (nationality crap?? what?) and I was just pointing out that ZP's roots are not in what is considered to be British humour, which is quite often not that obvious.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] Lol wat? Pal, Yahtzee's show inherits the themes of disrespect, innuendo, xenophoby, homophoby, eccentricity with him playing the badass who's everybody's darlin'... all considered essentials in British humour. See also Charlie Brooker and his spiritual ancestors, THE main influence for Yahtzee. The only things that remind me of stand-up are the dead fourth wall and the harsher language. Oh well. Nvm the nationality crap, I simply misunderstood, my fault.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]...Satire however is, and I personally expect it not to be riddled with jokes about homosexuality, faggotry and motherfuckery of the developers, thank you very much.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] [Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]whereas I am usually bored with ZP.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] So you don't like the satirical mix which is Yahtzee. For what are you watching it, then? Snarky scenester bonus points?
St. Martyne (3648) on 11/10/2008 8:41 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] Criticism is a judgement. You can wrap it as you please, for better or worse, intentionally and unintentionally. [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
By all means. One can do whatever he pleases.
For worse in this case.
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] Lol wat? Pal, Yahtzee's show inherits the themes of disrespect, innuendo, xenophoby, homophoby, eccentricity with him playing the badass who's everybody's darlin'... all considered essentials in British humour. [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
Well, for one I was taking about the format of the show, rather then its themes. ZP is basically a one man driven comedic routine based on the rapid succession of joked under the guise of raunchy verbal assault delivered in a direct, frank occasionally confessional manner. Quite similar to stand-up comedy minus the improvisational aspect and interaction with the audience. It's not eccentric in the least, and features no innuendo, if he says cocksuckers, he clearly means that. Not beating around the bush is another characteristic feature of stand-up.
Now to the themes. I obviously not presume to be the know-all of the national humor. However, with no disrespect to young Charlie Booker and whatever his inspirations might be, I think that shows like Not Nine o'Clock News, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, Mr. Bean, Benny Hill and of course Monty Python and well-known authors like Pratchett, Douglas Adams and, say, Lewis Carroll are more representative of what exactly is considered to be British humour around the globe. And even though many of the themes you mentioned are present there, they're not, in fact, essential to any of these acts.
If I were to name the common features between all of them. I would say that it is either the inventive use of the language, heavily relying on allusions and slang and lesser known words and/or being firmly rooted thematically in the British reality, their way of life, social and political peculiarities. Neither of that is characteristic to ZP.
But this is of course only my perception of the issue. Since, the term was pretty vague to begin with.
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] The only things that remind me of stand-up are the dead fourth wall and the harsher language. Oh well. [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
It's not fiction. What has fourth wall to do with anything?
[Q --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] So you don't like the satirical mix which is Yahtzee. For what are you watching it, then? Snarky scenester bonus points? [/Q --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
Another misunderstanding. This time caused by me. I don't watch ZP. What I was trying to say that I was mostly bored with it, expect for a couple of moments, that were really hilarious.
Indra was here (20745) on 11/10/2008 6:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Actually, to a certain extent you're both correct. The only problem is, its a dead-end debate when you're trying to argue "what culture" should be. Culture can be whatever it wants to be, as long as there are people supporting what every hybrid it changes into.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 11/11/2008 9:33 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]Not beating around the bush is another characteristic feature of stand-up.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] That depends on where it's made. I know one stand-up personally, if he'd not beaten around the bush, i.e. talking between the lines, he'd be dead by now. But you're right, it's Yahtzee's m.o., which he shares with many stand-ups of the so-called free world.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]And even though many of the themes you mentioned are present there, they're not, in fact, essential to any of these acts.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]Subtract them and you'll have the same humour as in other countries, except for social oddities at a given time (which influence those themes and vice versa), and not to forget the linguistics of course which can be or in this case are crucial, indeed.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]If I were to name the common features between all of them. I would say that it is either the inventive use of the language, heavily relying on allusions and slang and lesser known words and/or being firmly rooted thematically in the British reality, their way of life, social and political peculiarities. Neither of that is characteristic to ZP.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] Here, as I'm a lazy git, I reworded your own sentence for you: I would say that it is either the inventive use of the language (the fast-talk), heavily relying on allusions (well, duh, ZP is criticism) and slang and lesser known words (gamer's brevity/pop culture/urban/smut) and/or being firmly rooted thematically in the gamer's reality, their way of life, social and political peculiarities. These are characteristic of ZP.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] [Q2 --start FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--] The only things that remind me of stand-up are the dead fourth wall... [/Q2 --end FrakesJoe (NSDSP) wrote--]
It's not fiction. What has fourth wall to do with anything? [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] Dead as in non-existant. Not there. It was also a little pun on what I perceive as a downgrade of his work to a simple comedy/sitcom (fiction) from your part. Confusion everywhere! Will you forgive me? :D
beetle120 (2415) on 11/16/2008 6:52 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I met Yahtzee today (well more I just saw him, wearing his trademark hat) at the eGames expo in Melbourne, Australia. He was a fill in to a mini Goldeneye for the N64 competition. Apparently this was the first time that he has ever played that game (and he sucked too). He didn't win the match but but they offed the winning prize to him anyway due to him been Yahtzee. He ended up refusing the iPod quoting "I already have 6 of these as I am so rich".