3: Zero Punctation: Assassin's Creed Origins

3: Zero Punctation: Assassin's Creed Origins

The following is a comment I have left on the Video "Assassin's Creed: Origins Zero Punctuation Review" by the Escapist

"As a longtime fan of Yahtzee, I now feel that this video is an excellent summation of everything wrong with Zero Punctuation. Namely : arbitrary and inconsistent complaints and points, misrepresentation of the game itself,  and repeated bits of "humour" that's really just his rants with the odd joke thrown in.

Firstly, I do agree when Yahtzee complains about games that let their microtransactions overshadow the game itself. However AC Origins Is not as guilty as the game doesn't front load or push them in the players faces (ideally they probably shouldn't be present but this isn't as bad as it could be).

Now onto my points at the start of the comment.

Throughout the video, Yahtzee has criticized stuff like quantifying gameplay elements,  enemy levels,  and requirements to do side quests etc. It seems his main problem here is that the game is an Assassin's Creed RPG made by Ubisoft. Recall that many of those "complaints" he has listed are core features of games like Borderlands, Witcher and Horizon Zero Dawn. (All games Yahtzee hasn't really enjoyed but are loved by gamers). Since AC Origins was inspired by Witcher and Horizon,  is it not reasonable to expect More RPG elements in the game?  Yahtzee isn't criticizing the application or execution of these elements,  he's complaining that they exist at all (imagine someone complaining that Borderlands and Witcher are open world RPGs).

The main place Yahtzee misrepresents the game is the combat. Recall in prior titles such as 3-Rogue players could chain counter kills together with little effort. Here, players actually have to worry about positioning, number, and types of enemies and what kind of equipment they have etc. In other words, more skill required here (and there are higher difficulties). 

Finally, count how much and how long Yahtzee hates on Ubisoft and the game. It's basically hammering the same point over and over again. Yes, Yahtzee we know you hate the company,  can you give us a decent or at least enjoyable review?  This vitriol adds nothing to review but to seemingly pad it out.

(also remember how he praised Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas for giving him lots of freedom while criticizing the notion of freedom in Fallout 4?)

In conclusion, this video is a failure on multiple levels. It doesn't work as a review because of Yahtzee errors in describing the product. It doesn't work as parody or satire or comedy because it's "humour" mainly involves rants with no substance. Did Yahtzee make this in 3 days or something?  I enjoy the irony of Yahtzee criticizing Ubisoft for lying about their works or making them boring.

But I guess "this is what it feels when a work is made by an accountant rather than an artist with a vision".

2: Assassin's Creed: Syndicate Comments

2: Assassin's Creed: Syndicate Comments

The context here is my response to a Facebook comment towards a guy who loved the game AC Syndicate. I recommend having completed the game before reading this:

"While I haven’t played the DLC, I enjoyed my time with Syndicate the base game.

I loved the world, the details, the designs, some of the characters, the premise and the city.

Ubi has put the kind of effort into building their city that few companies can come close to (several tens of millions and thousands of employees can do that)

The gadgets and equipment (especially the poison blade and grappling hook). Many missions were particularly cool (especially the main assassinations)

Sadly, I feel that the game was a bit of a step back overall compared to Unity and Rogue:

Firstly the tone and approach:

Syndicate is channeling AC 2 and Brotherhood more than any recent titles. The thing is, after AC3, the series took a turn for grander things: the games had a more layered, complex and morally grey story and world that was better explored.

For example, 3, Rogue and Unity were quite poignant as they didn’t hold back in their critique of the time period. 3 showed the racism and flaws inherent at the time, Rogue showed the stretch of the 7 years war, and Unity was quite brutal with its depiction of the French Revolution. These added weight to the worlds.

Syndicate by comparison, by going for a more black and white world, sacrifices a lot of those nuances that prior titles had.

We don’t see the the extent of the brutality that the working class suffered, or the crimes they did, we don’t see the scope of industrialization of the time, or the prostites. Syndicates London looks better than what it actually was.

In other words, Unity and 3 felt like a brutal documentary of the Time, Syndicate feels like a high school history textbook in how the material is covered.

I feel that the lighter tone robs AC of a lot more than it gains.

Onto the story: I felt it was decent but nothing as poignant as prior titles.

The quest regarding the shroud and the quest regarding the Rooks don’t expand or feel extravagant.

For example, we don’t get much time with Jacob chilling with, Exploring and personally expanding his crew. No moments of relaxation, barley any heist or team sections. With no management features like in Revelations to 4, the gang feels more like a last minute addition than an integral part of the experience. (By contrast AC3 adds a lot of “relax” quests with the homestead. This really made the place feel alive).

Recall the story ends with Jacob and Evie just racing off to their hideout with not a care in the world (I thought this was an AC game, not a Marvel movie). This highlights the lack of stakes or real tension in the plot.

The final fight with Starrick was a joke. By hopping back in forth when one character gets unconscious it feels quite ridiculous when it happens. Plus, compare that to GTA V, the final mission with all 3 characters are intense and brings all the characters together in interesting ways and methods. Syndicate somehow felt strapped for time there.

The Assassinations were quite fun if a little less open than Unity’s. I really liked the one at the opera for how Joker esque the target was.

Regarding Starrick, I felt he and many of his crew were pretty one dimensional as we don’t see much of their humanizing traits and motives beyond be evil and get artifacts (again, the black and white tone at work here).

That’s why that Joker like target was so great, he stood out, was complex and even surprised Jacob at the end.

Gameplay:

Generally good.

While climbing and running are pretty good, combat has been degraded.

Gone is the Arkham Like 3-Rogue or Unity’s more finesse based style. Instead, a button mashing and counter style gets old really fast. I would have liked a Unity or Arkham like combat to be present to make fighting less tedious. (Though the multi combat takedowns are amazing).

We also get fewer creative Assassinations in the side quests:

We get fewer of those “optional: poison one target to kill another target” and more “optional: hidden blade use it”.

Not to mention that some of these areas for side Assassinations were not as open as I would have liked. 

The arrest missions were great. Those involved a lot of good thought and options to stealthy kidnap a target.

The soundtrack was fitting but not as creative or memory as prior titles but that’s subjective.

So Yeah: that’s my take on Syndicate. 

A really good game that plays it too safe by sticking to a good vs evil plot and tone"

A critique on Zero Punctuation and CinemaSins (from 2018)

 Originally posted on January 2018

As a wee lad who grew up watching  YouTube, I entertained myself with all kinds of channels. I watched a small company called Rooster Teeth record dialogue over Halo multiplayer maps, I watched Extra Credits talk about game design, I listened to Hank Green discuss science topics. I’m glad to say these creators are still around in some form today and still make content I enjoy. But there are 2 creators whose content I did used to watch a lot of, that are still around that I now really see the flaws of: CinemaSins and Zero Punctuation.

These 2 need no introduction, with millions of subscribers they aren’t lacking success and have inspired many imitators. Let’s start with CinemaSins, CinemaSins operate by “sinning movies”, a process in which the host goes through a movie and nitpicks it. The nitpicks range from pointing out continuity issues, plot holes, lack of or too much exposition as well recurring gags like saying “Role Credits” whenever the name of the movie is mentioned. Each of these nitpicks is considered a “sin” and is then added to a running total.

So what’s the issue? Well Bobvids goes into much greater depth than me and easily makes my point better than I ever could. 

 https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I

But in short, CinemaSins is flawed because they use the defense of "satire" to excuse any inaccuracies or issues with their videos, claiming it's all a joke, despite then also featuring their legitimate criticisms and thoughts on movies into the videos with no clear distinction on what's a "real Sin" and what's a "Joke Sin" to the point where their own audience can't tell them apart. And the fact that Jeremy of CinemaSins has often stated they are a "review channel" and he "made the channel  to criticize movies" which puts a hole into the idea that they are just joking. Imagine if the Onion sometimes mixed in actual news stories with their satirical articles with no clear distinction on what's the joke. That's in addition to the fact that they frequently make up "sins" which ignore other aspects of the film.

I once wrote the following Reddit Comment on the topic to someone that just said "They are just overanalyzing:

"It's not even overanalyzing. A lot of the times they just make up sins (like complaining a scene isn't explaining something when it did explain it, and then cut that scene and present that as a sin for "exposition"). Plus, how's stuff like "Hermione isn't old enough to be hot yet", "this scene contains a lap dance", "roll credits" analysis?

 
The problem with CinemaSins is that they try to have it both ways. They are normally criticism/analysis, except when you point out an issue with their approach, then all of a sudden it's a joke/satire. Except that's not how it works. You can't pretend to be the Onion sometimes during your review and switch between "serious mode" and "satire mode" on a dime.

 
Like, I'd be fine if they just picked an approach. Either be over analyzers that nitpick minor and major issues with films like MovieMistakes, or be a review channel that seriously or humorously looks at the issues of a film like countless channels. Or be the Onion and just make up nonsense about movies as you watch them. Don't try to be all 3 at once and switch between them so your own audience doesn't even know when something is a joke sin or "real" sin."

Aside from making lacklustre content, a consequence of this style of video is that it has made a lot of people think film criticism is just pointing out plotholes or nitpicking without substance.

Onto Zero Punctuation, who I see less critical pieces on. These are animated videos made by "Yahtzee" who feature fast paced and often foul mouthed and comedic reviews on video games. These videos do often have more effort put into them than CinemaSins and tend to highlight actual problems. But it does often suffer from the issue of ambiguity in what is a joke and what is serious criticism.

Consider the following: In his review on Deus Ex Human Revolution, a game that's about the conflict between augmented (people with cybernetic additions) and non-augmented people, Yahtzee comments the non-augs do not have a good point against being enhanced. Pointing out how he's "already enhanced" since he wears glasses and uses a phone. But Yahtzee ignores that in the world of Deus Ex, Firstly, Augs have to keep buying an expensive drug called Neuropozine that prevents immunorejection of any augmentations and that those drugs can get very expensive. It's a major plot point in the game. The protagonist, Adam, is unique in that he doesn't need the drug. There are many side quests where you have to deal with people unable to afford the drug. And Secondly, antagonist groups frequently hack or hijack augmentations to control or damage the people using. Again, there are many quests involving this. This isn't something you can miss, this is a major aspect of the story. So the question is: Is Yathzee's comment a serious criticism or a joke? Because either answer is unsatisfying. It doesn't work as serious criticism because as shown above, it's factually wrong. And it doesn't work as a joke because it's so far removed from the game's story that there's no fact to twist or make fun off.

Consider this: In the sequel to Human Revolution, Mankind Divided, there's a mechanic where Adam can overclock his augs to gain new powers at the risk of overheating. If I made a joke to describe this as "Adam learns he can overclock his rig but for some reason he can't water cool it". Yeah, it's not a very original or creative joke but it gets the point across - it makes fun of the mechanic, but it also tells the audience that Adam has a new overclock feature that comes at a cost of overheating that can't just be quickly addressed. A better writer could probably make that line funnier or have more information behind but the premsie remains the same, it's a joke that's grounded in the world of the game and informs it. Many of Yahtzee's points do not do that. And if he wants to remain as a reviewer who offers some some serious criticism rather than joking all the time, it's something that's paramount

Although funnily, there's a place where Yahtzee's current style shines perfectly. When he's roasting bad games. His Mindjack review highlights this as since the game isn't of high quality and neither Yahtzee nor the audience consider it such, it doesn't matter if Yahtzee's criticisms are jokes, exaggerations or not even accurate since nobody is there to learn about the game seriously. If Yahtzee only reviewed games like this (like AVGN does) there wouldn't be an issue. But this seamless mix of serious and satire undermines much of his content.