Betrayal

[The Heik]

Extra Punctuation: Betrayal

This tired plot twist has long since betrayed writing standards.

Read Full Article

Yeah I haven't seen many good betrayals in a while. The only exception for me is Dawn of War 2 and its expansion Chaos Rising. There's a character known as Martellus, who in the first installment dies to protect you and your squads. In the second installment there's evidently a traitor in your midst who is giving your sides secrets to the enemy. Halfway through the game you find Martellus in the wilderness of the jungle planet where you won in the last game. He rejoins your squad, repairs some special armor, an even helps figure out who the traitor is. Turns out that Martellus is the traitor, but by the time you find out he's the one who betrayed your side and its secrets, he's bugged out to the other side. Its really one of those "WHAT!?" moments since none of the factors pointed to him until the last second.

 

[C_Topher]

On the topic of Multi-player games, what about MAG? That IS a game where multi-player is the focus. And let's not forget TF2, which Yahtzee did like at one point.

 

[Toasted Nuts]

Ok article but at the end, your comment about Bad Company 2

"Games should be judged by the single player, because the multiplayer mechanics will be similar anyway, and saying that a game only becomes good when played with other people is not praise for the game's content"

Yer yer.. we get it u dont like multiplayer but if u re watch your review, i think you'll see all you do is moan about NPC characers being "DICKS" or other words for "DICKS"... oh and dust. Multiplayer is erm with other people... fail.

 

[EmmerikXXII]

Spoiler: Bioshock (one) spoilers

No mention of Bioshock? That was the first game that came to mind when Yahtzee mentioned NPC betrayals.

This is what I was thinking during the entire article, but it seems Bioshock is immune to such harsh criticism. Bioshock was a god-send apparently. It can do no wrong. It walks on (or under) water. Pardon my sarcasm, but this is really what the gaming community seems to believe.

I wanted to write this article, with Bioshock as the centerpiece. Yahtzee beat me to it. Kudos.

 

[Jonny49]

Hooray! Someone else remembers Second Sight!!

 

[Phil Wesson]

I'd like to see someone actually track down where all the betrayal crap started. There must've been some game that did it so well that everyone decided to copy it, and it sure as hell wasn't KotOR II.

I think it started with Judas.

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

Some tropes get used and re-used for good reasons, others because they're easy and convenient. The betrayal twist falls into the latter category more often than not, and I'm glad this week's XP talks about that.

As far as multi-player is concerned, I too am less and less interested in playing games with people who aren't in the same room with me. I picked up a second X-Box controller so my wife and I can play Perfect Dark together, so I'm not adverse to multi-player in general.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Funny he mentioned second sight actually, I was just getting my girlfriend to play that a few days ago (as part of the introduce them with classics stage) but she panniced when more than one enemy was on the screen, so I won't be able to show her the full story, which is the whole reason I did so. Gameplay wise, it's really good, though hardly spectacular, level design can be seriously iffy at times (particularly in the um, I guess "not the past missions" is the best way to refer to them) but it was the story which wowed me most; almost cliché free (Amnesiac opening adide) and the final twist was brilliant, yet obvious in retrospect. Good old foreshadowing.

 

[grimlockfly]

and of course, Bad Company 2

Gee thanks Yahtzee, not like I haven't finished the campaign yet.

dude's the most shifty looking blacks ops guy ever. hell, you're characters regularly say, 'let's not trust'em."

 

[DaxStrife]

[Blanket Spoiler Warning]

Betrayal is definitely an overused plot device. The worst time I remember it happening was in the original "Farcry" in the last half hour of the game. Right after you kill the big main baddy (and the entire population of the island), your support character decides that's the perfect moment to dick you over. Of course, he's shocked, shocked when you blast through his measly bodyguards and put a bullet in his head.

The only thing worse than a predictable betrayal is a predictable villain. "Dragon Age: Origins" had this problem in spades. There's was no surprise when the king's general Loghain, with his dark eyes, perpetual scowl and greasy black Severus Snape hairdo, pulls out and leaves the blond-haired blue-eyed jolly king to die. No surprise at all. That and having Tim Curry voice his weasel-y sidekick didn't help his cover any.

 

[Baradiel]

Yes, most games need a decent singleplayer before they're classed as good. A Battlefield game is NOT ONE OF THEM!

Here's the thing. Many people who buy games expect good Single-player experiences.

Let me put it to you this way. Imagine you go order a bouquet and you pay someone $60 to make it. The bouquet contains tulips and roses. You don't particularly care for tulips, but many other people do, and it makes a nice addition to the roses. When the flowers are delivered, the roses are perfectly fine, but the tulips are covered with piles of crap. You can try and cover up the crap and ignore it, but you can't quite remove it from the tulips. Now if you tried to show this to someone who liked tulips, they probably wouldn't care for it.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 may be multiplayer focused, but there are still plenty of people who want a good single player experience first in their military shooters. I am included in that group, and I probably won't be getting BC2 any time soon because of that reason, especially since I don't get military shooters all that often. For them, its a good campaign first, then the multiplayer makes a nice addition on the side. Having a great multiplayer is not an excuse for a poor singleplayer.

Edit: And another thing: by including a single player campaign that is 8 hours long, (or however long the campaign is) the developers are implying, "Hey we included something that requires some commitment by the player, so it must be very good. You should try it." If the campaign is nothing more than training for the multiplayer, and it isn't particularly good, then how about reducing the campaign to about 1 or 2 hours, (however long it takes to show all the multiplayer components) call it a tutorial, then take 20 or 30 dollars off the price tag. There is much less confusion, and the players who like the multiplayer can still enjoy it.

I like the analogy, but there is so getting away from the fact it is a multiplayer-focused game. Multiplayer-focused games tend to have a less-than-perfect singleplayer. Same with Singleplayer-focused games.

My point is that if you review a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2, you can't JUST play the singleplayer. The singleplayer is less than half of the game, and isn't even the best part. I like good singleplayer, and if a game lacks that it usually lowers my opinion of the game. However, I bought Bad Company 2 knowing full well that the main aspect of it was the multiplayer. I expected the campaign to be a lower standard tack-on.

 

[Toeys]

Even Portal had betrayal

 

[soren7550]

Being the slow twit I am, I tend to not see betrayals coming. (Modern Warfare 2, BioShock, etc.)

A bit off topic, but is there any chance of seeing a Perfect Dark XBLA review Mr. Croshaw?

 

[geldonyetich]

Yes, the old "betrayal" aspect of plots is fairly overplayed. Still, they don't seem to have a whole lot of tools in the ol' "plot twist" box to pull out and apply, so I can forgive them if I see it in that ratio of games.

While it's true that the single player aspect of the game will have a lot of the same elements and gameplay experience as the multiplayer mode, the bottom line in Bad Company 2 (and probalby Modern Warfare 2 for that matter) is that a substantial number (perhaps the majority) of players didn't buy it for the single player.

Even Portal had betrayal

Meh, not really. You knew the moment you started the game that you were trapped against your will, and as soon as you encounter the first test that involves a possibility of death you know GLADOS is out to kill you. Heck, that GLADOS was out to kill its test subjects was so overt that it was more like Chell betrayed GLADOS by finding a way to survive.

 

[VGFreak1225]

Yes, most games need a decent singleplayer before they're classed as good. A Battlefield game is NOT ONE OF THEM!

Here's the thing. Many people who buy games expect good Single-player experiences.

Let me put it to you this way. Imagine you go order a bouquet and you pay someone $60 to make it. The bouquet contains tulips and roses. You don't particularly care for tulips, but many other people do, and it makes a nice addition to the roses. When the flowers are delivered, the roses are perfectly fine, but the tulips are covered with piles of crap. You can try and cover up the crap and ignore it, but you can't quite remove it from the tulips. Now if you tried to show this to someone who liked tulips, they probably wouldn't care for it.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 may be multiplayer focused, but there are still plenty of people who want a good single player experience first in their military shooters. I am included in that group, and I probably won't be getting BC2 any time soon because of that reason, especially since I don't get military shooters all that often. For them, its a good campaign first, then the multiplayer makes a nice addition on the side. Having a great multiplayer is not an excuse for a poor singleplayer.

Edit: And another thing: by including a single player campaign that is 8 hours long, (or however long the campaign is) the developers are implying, "Hey we included something that requires some commitment by the player, so it must be very good. You should try it." If the campaign is nothing more than training for the multiplayer, and it isn't particularly good, then how about reducing the campaign to about 1 or 2 hours, (however long it takes to show all the multiplayer components) call it a tutorial, then take 20 or 30 dollars off the price tag. There is much less confusion, and the players who like the multiplayer can still enjoy it.

I like the analogy, but there is no getting away from the fact it is a multiplayer-focused game. Multiplayer-focused games tend to have a less-than-perfect singleplayer. Same with Singleplayer-focused games.

My point is that if you review a game like Battlefield Bad Company 2, you can't JUST play the singleplayer. The singleplayer is less than half of the game, and isn't even the best part. I like good singleplayer, and if a game lacks that it usually lowers my opinion of the game. However, I bought Bad Company 2 knowing full well that the main aspect of it was the multiplayer. I expected the campaign to be a lower standard tack-on.

But here's the thing: If people are playing it for the multiplayer only, then why include a single-player in the first place? As I said, get rid of the single player campaign, and take some money off the price tag. Then everyone's happy.

 

[uberDoward]

I'd put forth the suggestion that Yahtzee doesn't like online MP for similar reasons as myself:

I remember when games were fun. There was even friendly competition, with people sitting right next to you, elevating the experience.

Say I sit down with my wife to play a game of Mario Party on the Wii - we have fun, we razz each other, it's fun. The controls are easily picked up by a non-gamer, and can be enjoyed. Games are supposed to be fun, right?

Now say I sit down with my wife and jump on Live for some MW2 enjoyment. The controls are more difficult for her, which can be overcome with time and practice. What can't be overcome, is the tendency to find yourself in a game with prepubescent morons screaming about how 1337 they are for no-scoping someone that's simply not as good at the game as they seem to think they are. Inevitably, the trash talking starts, and pretty much any non-gamer is just going to put the controller down and walk away. In a more localized setting, a stiff jab to the upper nose bridge would solve this issue, but we've yet to figure out how to transfer physical movement over TCP/IP.

So what do we do? We break out the Wii, and we enjoy Mario Party without having to deal with the online megalomaniacs.

Yes, that is what multiplayer gaming has become. Used to be, even if you had NO IDEA how to play a game, you were easily involved into a game. Now, these 'Multiplayer-centric' games are just more of the same, for a specialized community that seems to get off in some strange online masturbatory circle jerk.

Heh, most likely going to get TL;DR to this...

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

If you're buying games for the multiplayer and you only play FPS, do everyone a favour by buying only one game that year then shutting up about it...all I EVER see on my friends list is Modern Warfare 2/Bad Company 2/Halo 3 online multiplayer. FPS devs should just not make singleplayer anymore, no one plays them anyway and it's annoying. On multiplayer, all you can review is the features making it different and the community that plays it and when the gameplay and community is exactly the same as the last big FPS...what's the damn point. Yes there may be small differences but nothing that changes the core gameplay. It's like only writing reviews for Mario Party games, the first one will describe the gameplay and then you pretty much just copy and paste the same paragraph 8 different times and comment on how the graphics and minigames are different. You want a multiplayer review? (insert popular console FPS here) has nice open maps and is fast paced. The controls are tried and tested and it has (insert singular new feature here), this (does/doesn't) work because (reason) but that doesn't matter because the community is mostly either 12 or have realised that given total anonimity makes people assholes and it's not as good as TF2 gameplay wise.

 

[Mr Snuffles]

I do hate betrayal in games, it just seems like, meh, I'll get over it...

 

[ClockworkDC]

"A slightly shoddy" single-player game because THE EMPHASIS IS ON MULTIPLAYER? Jesus, Yahtzee, I usually agree with what you say, but at least listen to what you are saying yourself. I've played the first ten minutes of the single player (an experience I admittedly do not care to repeat), and it sucks. But you know what? Its nothing next to the multiplayer experience. And you know what else? I didn't buy it for the single player. That's right - I bought it to shoot some strangers over the internet, preferably with some friends.

Of course, knowing as you do that you hate multiplayer and don't beleive games should be judged on that aspect (even if such an aspect is a part of the game and should, arguably, be included when making that judgement), you are naturally not going to enjoy a game that doesn't stand up well as single player.

In any case, your logic is flawed. Similar mechanics do not equal similar gameplay experience. Games are not the same medium as film, and shouldn't be judged by the same standards. Etc, etc.