Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[maddawg IAJI]

And how is the multiplayer any less of the "actual game"? Why is the single player the "actual game," if the multiplayer is clearly the main attraction?

Because that is the standard for video game reviews. All games are judged like that, with the single player experience (Because that's the bare essential for a person to play a game, they just need themselves and a machine with which to play it.)taking precedent. There are plenty of multiplayer driven games that do manage to create a decent single player experience for the player. Halo 4 for example, has a pretty fun campaign and is arguably as good as Halo 2 was. Any talk of multiplayer normally comes after the critique for the single player, because multiplayer modes are not mandatory for a video game and are therefore an addition to it. An add-on if you will.

As I said before, we should not be giving Blops2 a crutch just because it doesn't do well in the current reviewing standard.

"Can't be reviewed effectively"? What? Look at the metacritic for BO2. All 89 of those critics had zero problems reviewing the multiplayer side of that game. Maybe it's cause it's 1 AM here, but I don't quite get what you're trying to say. It's not any harder to review multiplayer than it is single player. At the least, Yahtzee might've been able to come up with some jokes that were actually funny (personal opinion) if he invested a few hours playing the other 80% of the game; you know, the multiplayer.

Okay, lets take a look at those reviews then shall we?

For all sake and purposes, we'll look at the PC reviews....okay, the first two reviews are originally written in a foreign language, good start.

Ah, the game spot review looks like a good place to start. http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/reviews/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-review-6400226/ If you read it, you'll find that the reviewer has no problem with writing paragraph after paragraph, criticizing or praising the single player experience. But when it comes time to talk about the multiplayer, we see 2 mere paragraphs that don't talk about the actual gameplay of the multiplayer, but of the new way treyarch did the load-out. On the next page, again, we don't see much critique, just a summary of what is new. That is the problem that a lot of reviewers have when trying to emulate their experience playing a multiplayer game. They can't, won't or simply don't know how to critique multiplayer portions of games.

Also: most people buy CoD because of brand loyalty or peer pressure? Seriously? You have any statistics to back that up? Any at all? You are aware that the people hate Activision almost as much as EA, right? In fact, they hated Activision more than EA until EA decided to go all Hitler Stalin full retard[sup]1[/sup].

Well....yeah, its the same reason a lot of MMO players choose to go back to WoW after a few weeks of playing a different one. To sum it up, if you talk to any single WoW player and ask him why he went back to WoW after playing Swotor or Tera or whatever, he'll simply say "Because my friends are all playing WoW." Its the same thing with CoD, when I asked my little cousin, my older cousin and my younger brother if they were going to get Blops2 and why, I got a "Yes and because my friends are all getting it" from the former two and a "No, because none of my friends are getting it and because it sucks now." from my brother.

In a multiplayer heavy game, real world peers play a big role. As for brand loyalty, well, go to any forum or place and go "Battlefield 3 is the best game ever.". You're guranteed a response from someone essentially saying "Battlefield sucks! Call of duty is the best". There is your brand loyalty. They are a large number of gamers who seem to have the idea that you can only play one First Person Shooter and all the other FPS games suck when compared to that one. They are the hardcore fans of that series and they will shell out the 60 dollars for the game, tell all their friends and family members to get the game and will play it religiously until the next installment comes out.

I stand corrected.

But again, for most games, I really wouldn't give a shit if he touched the multiplayer or not, but reviewing BO2 and not playing the multiplayer just strikes me as stupid. It's like going to a Baskin Robbins and ordering only a cone. It may HAVE a single player element, but it's a lot more TF2 than it is Dragon Age; people don't buy it for the single player. The single player is there, and it's fun, but most people don't have enough money, or perhaps just don't want to drop $60 on an 8 hour campaign; most people are buying it for the multiplayer.

Then again, The Escapist isn't MOST people. I think most people who watch ZP are going to jump at every chance they get to bash CoD, so it just struck me how stupid it is to be complaining about this. Oh well--too late.

And come on, I know you're joking, but let's not compare playing an hour of multiplayer to cutting off our hands. It wouldn't be that bad for anyone, not even Yahtzee. Worst case scenario, he doesn't use a mic. I don't think I'm asking for the world here.

[sup]1. I don't like using the word "Retard," but I did enjoy Tropic Thunder.[/sup]

You're not asking for much, but unfortunately, its his one golden rule. He tries to avoid playing multiplayer heavy games, unfortunately, fans of that game tend to harass him day and night until he does review it. That was the case with the Borderlands review. And we all know that would have been the case for Blops 2. This isn't the first time he's reviewed a CoD game and it isn't the first time he completely ignored the multiplayer aspect of a game. Its not his style . Just respect the fact that he doesn't like playing mutliplayer games.

 

[Starker]

I find it interesting that he used a comparison about someone who owns so many nice pants and doesn't know how to enjoy them when yahtzee himself has many problems with so many nice games. Mind you almost all games, all games if we don't count portal, will have problems, but often times his inability to look past them (or his unwillingness to) reminds me of the person who has lost the joy and respect for his many pair of shiny pants.

As Yahtzee himself has said, much like you don't call a sewer technician to decorate your bathroom, you don't come to him to hear how a game is good. I don't know why so many people want him praising games on their qualities when we have tons and tons of reviewers to do that. Why can't we have just one critic that looks at games from a critical point of view?

 

[jpoon]

Great article and perfectly explains my dislike for this whole shit franchise. So very glad I didn't buy this game...

 

[Starker]

As Yahtzee himself has said, much like you don't call a sewer technician to decorate your bathroom, you don't come to him to hear how a game is good. I don't know why so many people want him praising games on their qualities when we have tons and tons of reviewers to do that. Why can't we have just one critic that looks at games from a critical point of view?

Because that's not what "critical" means, at least in context of what a "critic" does. The word you're looking for is "cynical" point of view.

From a dictionary:
Adj. 1. critical - marked by a tendency to find and call attention to errors and flaws; "a critical attitude"

Although, cynical works too.

 

[Mysnomer]

EXCUSE ME! I believe you meant to say, "Like a live-action Transformers movie..." >:|

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

Can I ask why British folk constantly apologize for being one of the most successful Empires in the history of the world?

Because of the manner in which they did so.

And? That is what it takes to build an empire. The Romans never apologized for for building their empire, why should the British.

 

[jmarquiso]

Can I ask why British folk constantly apologize for being one of the most successful Empires in the history of the world?

Because of the manner in which they did so.

And? That is what it takes to build an empire. The Romans never apologized for for building their empire, why should the British.

Because they're polite.

 

[jmarquiso]

I find it interesting that he used a comparison about someone who owns so many nice pants and doesn't know how to enjoy them when yahtzee himself has many problems with so many nice games. Mind you almost all games, all games if we don't count portal, will have problems, but often times his inability to look past them (or his unwillingness to) reminds me of the person who has lost the joy and respect for his many pair of shiny pants.

That's the joke.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Well, let's all agree that the british empire, like most empires in the past, did a lot of pretty terrible things to the 'natives' - the consequences of which are still around us, but there were also positive benefits that we enjoy today - e.g. trade routes and languages at the very least. Same with the spanish and portuguese exploration of the new world. Perhaps the bad outweighed the good - certainly it was messy, but it's a case of 'What have the Romans done ever done for us': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso We should apologise for the bad things, but we can't undo them, just be sensitive about their feelings on the matter.

 

[JimB]

Did anyone else catch that high school drop out part? I'm a bit surprised by that, if it's true.

Yeah. I was surprised at first too, but as I think about it, I decide I could actually believe it for two reasons: The first is I'm reasonably sure Yahtzee is a genius, so I can believe he got bored with school; and the second is, from what very little I know of his psychiatric disorders, it does not strain my credulity to believe he wanted to get out of mandatory public appearance as soon as he legally could.

I could also believe it's a joke because telling jokes is kind of what he does for a living and all, but I'm just saying, yeah, I could buy that he dropped out of high school.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Did Battlefield 3 even have a single player campaign? I can't remember anymore... <.<.

It did, it was terrible, no battlefield fan bought it for the campaign. Battlefield (bar the Bad Company sub-series) has never been about singleplayer. I don't recall 1942 having a singleplayer except for a string of MP maps with AI allies and opponents, much like Star Wars Battlefront 2.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

And how is the multiplayer any less of the "actual game"? Why is the single player the "actual game," if the multiplayer is clearly the main attraction?

Because that is the standard for video game reviews. All games are judged like that, with the single player experience (Because that's the bare essential for a person to play a game, they just need themselves and a machine with which to play it.)taking precedent. There are plenty of multiplayer driven games that do manage to create a decent single player experience for the player. Halo 4 for example, has a pretty fun campaign and is arguably as good as Halo 2 was. Any talk of multiplayer normally comes after the critique for the single player, because multiplayer modes are not mandatory for a video game and are therefore an addition to it. An add-on if you will.

As I said before, we should not be giving Blops2 a crutch just because it doesn't do well in the current reviewing standard.

Except that it DOES do well in the "Current reviewing standard." The PC version has 8 reviews with a metacritic of 78. The 360 version has 66 reviews with a metacritic of 83. Presumably all of those reviews take into account the single player. Again, I don't get what you're going for here. The game's single player is good, but most people don't even buy it for that. If you're gonna review the game, you really should play the multiplayer.

"Can't be reviewed effectively"? What? Look at the metacritic for BO2. All 89 of those critics had zero problems reviewing the multiplayer side of that game. Maybe it's cause it's 1 AM here, but I don't quite get what you're trying to say. It's not any harder to review multiplayer than it is single player. At the least, Yahtzee might've been able to come up with some jokes that were actually funny (personal opinion) if he invested a few hours playing the other 80% of the game; you know, the multiplayer.

Okay, lets take a look at those reviews then shall we?

For all sake and purposes, we'll look at the PC reviews....okay, the first two reviews are originally written in a foreign language, good start.

Ah, the game spot review looks like a good place to start. http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/reviews/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-review-6400226/ If you read it, you'll find that the reviewer has no problem with writing paragraph after paragraph, criticizing or praising the single player experience. But when it comes time to talk about the multiplayer, we see 2 mere paragraphs that don't talk about the actual gameplay of the multiplayer, but of the new way treyarch did the load-out. On the next page, again, we don't see much critique, just a summary of what is new. That is the problem that a lot of reviewers have when trying to emulate their experience playing a multiplayer game. They can't, won't or simply don't know how to critique multiplayer portions of games.

Not to nitpick, or anything, but the 360 version has 58 more reviews than the PC version. Why not start there, instead? Whatever. I'll play along.

Okay. so that's Gamespot's review. Let's try another website. How about this [http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2012/1226671p2.html] one? This one [http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/tdgapq/call-of-duty--black-ops-ii-review] also has no problems breaking down multiplayer (for the 360.) Honestly, you should probably WATCH the review of that last one. Anyway, moving on. This one [http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-review] also no problems talking multiplayer. But wait, here's another! [http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2012/11/13/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-review/] I could go on, but I won't. You can look for yourself if you're that interested. It is no more difficult to review multiplayer than it is single player. If someone has difficulty with it, they are clearly not a good writer.

Also: most people buy CoD because of brand loyalty or peer pressure? Seriously? You have any statistics to back that up? Any at all? You are aware that the people hate Activision almost as much as EA, right? In fact, they hated Activision more than EA until EA decided to go all Hitler Stalin full retard[sup]1[/sup].

Well....yeah, its the same reason a lot of MMO players choose to go back to WoW after a few weeks of playing a different one. To sum it up, if you talk to any single WoW player and ask him why he went back to WoW after playing Swotor or Tera or whatever, he'll simply say "Because my friends are all playing WoW." Its the same thing with CoD, when I asked my little cousin, my older cousin and my younger brother if they were going to get Blops2 and why, I got a "Yes and because my friends are all getting it" from the former two and a "No, because none of my friends are getting it and because it sucks now." from my brother.

In a multiplayer heavy game, real world peers play a big role. As for brand loyalty, well, go to any forum or place and go "Battlefield 3 is the best game ever.". You're guranteed a response from someone essentially saying "Battlefield sucks! Call of duty is the best". There is your brand loyalty. They are a large number of gamers who seem to have the idea that you can only play one First Person Shooter and all the other FPS games suck when compared to that one. They are the hardcore fans of that series and they will shell out the 60 dollars for the game, tell all their friends and family members to get the game and will play it religiously until the next installment comes out.

I guess that could be true. But, you know, that could be said about literally any game. If it has multiplayer, peer pressure. If it has no multiplayer, brand loyalty.

And saying that "BF3/CoD sucks" isn't really brand loyalty. That's just an opinion. If you hate BF3, you're not necessarily any more likely to buy CoD, and vice versa.

I stand corrected.

But again, for most games, I really wouldn't give a shit if he touched the multiplayer or not, but reviewing BO2 and not playing the multiplayer just strikes me as stupid. It's like going to a Baskin Robbins and ordering only a cone. It may HAVE a single player element, but it's a lot more TF2 than it is Dragon Age; people don't buy it for the single player. The single player is there, and it's fun, but most people don't have enough money, or perhaps just don't want to drop $60 on an 8 hour campaign; most people are buying it for the multiplayer.

Then again, The Escapist isn't MOST people. I think most people who watch ZP are going to jump at every chance they get to bash CoD, so it just struck me how stupid it is to be complaining about this. Oh well--too late.

And come on, I know you're joking, but let's not compare playing an hour of multiplayer to cutting off our hands. It wouldn't be that bad for anyone, not even Yahtzee. Worst case scenario, he doesn't use a mic. I don't think I'm asking for the world here.

[sup]1. I don't like using the word "Retard," but I did enjoy Tropic Thunder.[/sup]

You're not asking for much, but unfortunately, its his one golden rule. He tries to avoid playing multiplayer heavy games, unfortunately, fans of that game tend to harass him day and night until he does review it. That was the case with the Borderlands review. And we all know that would have been the case for Blops 2. This isn't the first time he's reviewed a CoD game and it isn't the first time he completely ignored the multiplayer aspect of a game. Its not his style . Just respect the fact that he doesn't like playing mutliplayer games.

If he doesn't like playing multiplayer games, instead of making a half-assed review, he shouldn't play them at all. Am I crazy to think that? And I find it hard to believe that a ton of people just spammed him to review this game, and then he caved. I guess his review of BO2 is purely for comedic purposes. Unfortunately, every time he reviews a game like this, the rabid anti-CoD people jump on the bandwagon and get even MORE fucking preachy (as if that's possible) about how it's destroying the industry, or some other overly dramatic nonsense. In fact, this is a comment on the ZP's review:

Maybe COD:BLOPS games are actually a cunning ploy. Most of the people who want to ban video games are hard right conservatives; well, what if we create a game that mainly appeals to far right neo-con players? Perhaps all these games that are getting banned for violence, are banned because some of the victims of said violence are good, God fearin' white folks. What if these games get into the hands of minorities? Why, it could give 'em all sorts of ideas!

If we make a game that is pro-USA, anti-[everyone else], pro-military and has everything that those who usually speak out against violent games actually loves, in star-spangled high definition, maybe they'll all stop complaining and might actually pick up a controller. Perhaps COD:BLOPS3 should have a level where you have to blow up an abortion clinic and have a tower defence section at the US/Mexico border and this game will be bought in bulk by right-wingers and handed out to the kids at church picnics.

Fuck. Me. Apparently because I play CoD, I am a racist, pro-life, pro-USA, anti-everyone else, pro-military gun nut. I'm actually quite the opposite. You know how many people "Thumbed" that up? 184 as of writing. And I'm not saying that was Yahtzee's fault, but he's just fanning the flames to a fire that's already huge. AND, he did it without even touching the multiplayer. That's just adding insult to injury.

But I digress. Whatever. I guess this is my cross to bear for casually enjoying spunkgargleweewee games. Thank you for that, Yahtzee. You know, you say he doesn't like "Internet assholes" but he'd get along great with them: because he is one.

 

[nexus]

It did, it was terrible, no battlefield fan bought it for the campaign. Battlefield (bar the Bad Company sub-series) has never been about singleplayer. I don't recall 1942 having a singleplayer except for a string of MP maps with AI allies and opponents, much like Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Yup. The Battlefield franchise was born on Multiplayer only. That is what you bought it for... big arena maps, with planes, vehicles.. commander support and more. They also started on, and continued with PC-only up until BF3, 2142 being the last. I think BF2 and 2142 might have been ported after ? I don't know.

When Battlefield 3 rolled out, it was very clear it was geared more towards consoles. The maps were kind of shitty, appearing large but not so at all. You take off in a jet and you're in the enemy base in a mere 5 seconds. It wasn't until Armored Kill rolled around that we got some PC-worthy maps. But by then, people were pretty sick of the game to be honest. The games were before it were always about teamwork too, amazingly so. You still have teamwork in BF3 but it's been filed to a dull nub, favoring solo-play.

So yea, BF was never about single player at all until #3, and on the other side of the fence, Call of Duty was never about multiplayer at all.. I don't even remember when multiplayer was added to the franchise. . . Modern Warfare 1 ?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

snip

Yup. The Battlefield franchise was born on Multiplayer only. That is what you bought it for... big arena maps, with planes, vehicles.. commander support and more. They also started on, and continued with PC-only up until BF3, 2142 being the last. I think BF2 and 2142 might have been ported after ? I don't know.

When Battlefield 3 rolled out, it was very clear it was geared more towards consoles. The maps were kind of shitty, appearing large but not so at all. You take off in a jet and you're in the enemy base in a mere 5 seconds. It wasn't until Armored Kill rolled around that we got some PC-worthy maps. But by then, people were pretty sick of the game to be honest. The games were before it were always about teamwork too, amazingly so. You still have teamwork in BF3 but it's been filed to a dull nub, favoring solo-play.

So yea, BF was never about single player at all until #3, and on the other side of the fence, Call of Duty was never about multiplayer at all.. I don't even remember when multiplayer was added to the franchise. . . Modern Warfare 1 ?

I agree with the poor map sizes. The jets handle really weird as well. I'm pretty good in them but the handling is extremely weird.
With regards to Multiplayer in CoD, it's been there since the first, but it exploded with Modern Warfare 1. I think 1, United Offensive and 2 were PC only, but I'm not certain. 3 was definitely console only.
Also did you ever play Battlefield 2: Modern Combat? The console version of Battlefield 2. From what I remember it was actually really fun (however, I don't remember much). Very different from the actual game.

 

[MagmaMan]

Though Multiplayer shooters should not get off so easily. Back in my day you had at least 15 multiplayer maps to play with at launch or else. These days devs think they can get away with 6 or so, and the consumers mindlessly prove them right.

Actually Black Ops II has 14 maps, 15 if you count Nuketown 2025 for pre-ordering, and Modern Warfare 3 had 16. Although I must say, it SUCKS when you get less then that. The High Moon Transformers games are good examples. One of Fall of Cybertron's biggest problems is that it only has 10 maps. Although in this case the "evil dlc" that alot of people are intent to hate really could benefit, but the thing is the developers actually have no intention to release map packs, which badly hurts the replayability of the game in the long run, especially for a 10 map game. I'd also play Transformers: Dark of the Moon multiplayer (one of the best multiplayers I've ever experienced, surprisingly. It's like War for Cybertron but far more polished and improved.) more often but that only has FIVE maps.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Maybe COD:BLOPS games are actually a cunning ploy. Most of the people who want to ban video games are hard right conservatives; well, what if we create a game that mainly appeals to far right neo-con players? Perhaps all these games that are getting banned for violence, are banned because some of the victims of said violence are good, God fearin' white folks. What if these games get into the hands of minorities? Why, it could give 'em all sorts of ideas!

If we make a game that is pro-USA, anti-[everyone else], pro-military and has everything that those who usually speak out against violent games actually loves, in star-spangled high definition, maybe they'll all stop complaining and might actually pick up a controller. Perhaps COD:BLOPS3 should have a level where you have to blow up an abortion clinic and have a tower defence section at the US/Mexico border and this game will be bought in bulk by right-wingers and handed out to the kids at church picnics.

Fuck. Me. Apparently because I play CoD, I am a racist, pro-life, pro-USA, anti-everyone else, pro-military gun nut. I'm actually quite the opposite. You know how many people "Thumbed" that up? 184 as of writing. And I'm not saying that was Yahtzee's fault, but he's just fanning the flames to a fire that's already huge. AND, he did it without even touching the multiplayer. That's just adding insult to injury.

Um... look, I dunno about the people who play it, but personally I'll stop callng CoD xenophobic right wing gunwank when it stops BEING xenohpobic right wing gunwank. I mean, for christs sake, they got a WAR CRIMINAL to advertise this one! Even EA isn't that stupid/evil!

 

[Arrogancy]

I'll only post to say this: If you pay full price for a game, then you should get a full game. You should not get an updated multiplayer experience with a handful of new maps and minor graphical updates.