Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Did you play Multiplayer?
Did you play Zombies?
If not, then why not? Isn't that like buying a whole game and only playing a 1/3 of it. Probably less than 1/3 of the effort went into the campaign.
If you did, then why didn't you mention any aspect of them in your review or your followup?!?
I wouldn't mind if you ripped on it, but rip on it for what it is ACTUALLY PROSPEROUS FOR!!
EDIT: Yahtzee reviewed DayZ (an online-only multiplayer-only zombie game) only in September so don't tell me he "just doesn't review that".
Hey! Your commanding office is a black guy! LOL. All joking aside, I can see that point. The CoD series plays into xenophobia a bit heavy [I don't really buy the "brown hate" stereotype, because the CoD series has historically had it in for the Russians and Germans as well], but I don't think it's fair to call out CoD for this like they're the ONLY ones perpetuating it. Let's face it, American media/entertainment is pretty xenophobic all-around. Not excusing the behavior; merely pointing out that CoD may be playing a bit of a scapegoat here.JarinArenos said:
Oh, I'm pretty sure he calls out the rest of the games in the genre as well. CoD is just a stronger offender because of the way they structure their single player campaign. Did Battlefield 3 even have a single player campaign? I can't remember anymore... <.<AnarchistAbe said:
Point being, CoD is the biggest and most common example, especially since all the sub-series make it the most prolific modern shooter out there.
He's not regarding people as shit because they have imperial "jerk offs" for ancestors Honey-Bunch (see, we can all be condescending too), but because they act like the imperial jerk offs that are their ancestors.GunsmithKitten said:
That's because you're swallowing the shit-sandwich that's fed to you by everyone with a bit of money. "Oh, they're just jealous because I'm richer." Well, no, people don't like you because you're obnoxious with your money and do your best to avoid paying for things the rest of us do - and you'll cheat and lie until you're blue in the face to do so.AnarchistAbe said:
It's not about how much money you have, it's about how you conduct yourself with the money you have. The uber-rich aren't bemoaned, the uber-rich pricks are bemoaned. Just so happens there's quite a few of them to choose from.
And that's what the article's about: showing off and being obnoxious as if that's supposed to impress anybody.
OT: One of your best pieces to date, and a perfect summary of why it's such an increasingly vulgar series. No sense of fucking class or finesse.
But sales are at least a reason to look at why it is successful and it is NOT FROM THE SINGLE PLAYER!remnant_phoenix said:
Why are critics of COD so afraid of considering COD's multiplayer? Are they just so ideologically opposed to the idea of a game being about multiplayer rather than a structured linear single-player campaign they will indulge in the delusion that COD is popular for it's laughably shit singleplayer rather than its multiplayer.
There are so many sites on the internet completely dedicated to breaking down and analysing every aspect of the multiplayer, the total weapons stats of the weapons in multiplayer are uploaded... but not the same for the single-player.
What makes sense, tens of millions of players are wrong for loving COD's singleplayer, or a couple dozen internet critics are making a wrong assumption of the root of COD's popularity.
It might be traced back to COD4 that had a rather good single-player campaign (it only touched on trends that would be later overused and hated for the smallest mention) and was very popular in sales. They make the false correlation that millions bought it for the campaign, but no, it was the multiplayer. And when MW2 came along with a pants singleplayer and a compelling if unbalanced multiplayer then the critics were just too damn proud to admit they were wrong linking their assessment of COD4's singleplayer as key to it's success, and basically called millions of fans as idiots for liking the single player... which is hardly much of a selling point to them.
Wait, don't James Bond games basically do the same thing? Giving you gadgets that only have one use over the course of the game?
Come to think of it, doesn't the James Bond film series do the same thing?
Come to think of it, doesn't the James Bond film series do the same thing?
I don't see why I, as a white British man, should feel any sort of guilt for the acts of those generations before me. I never partook in the atrocities (not to mention the numerous forgotten services done) by those men to the peoples of other lands. The entire concept of this modern-day original sin is absurd; and the continued efforts of many to force not just the guilt of colonialism, but the entire concept of such guilt stemming from living in a part of the world our forefathers worked hard to create, is absolutely abhorrent.
This entire privilege idea usually is an excuse for reverse racism (South Africa), sexism (divorce settlements), and cultural destruction (go to an art gallery).
This entire privilege idea usually is an excuse for reverse racism (South Africa), sexism (divorce settlements), and cultural destruction (go to an art gallery).
This, right here - I can't take anything in any form serious from Yathzee if he plainly refuses to mention more than half the game. Yes, I know his usual "I hate to interact with other people"-stuff. But guess what? THERE ARE BOTS FOR MP AND SOLO MODE FOR ZOMBIES!Treblaine said:
This is especially annoying after DayZ, which is a PURE Multiplayer Zombie game... you know, exactly those two things combined he refused to look at in this case.
Also, complaining about mechanics only being used in ONE ONCE and then acting as if it would be something new? Well... may I point your attention to a little game called "Super Mario Bros. 3"? There were a few levels, which did just that: Have a mechanic in ONE Level. All leading the Kuribo shoe in World 4. Then there was the Sun in World 2, which also had just one level it existed. The red, flying beetles? Once again, just one level. Ability to change the size of enemies? Again, only used once.
That is NOTHING NEW to the industry.
Well it's a war game, they have to fight someone. Just randomly selecting a country chances are they won't be fighting other Americans. Is it really fair to say an American game can only be about fighting Americans?JarinArenos said:
MW2 you spent the last act fighting and killing Americans where the main villain was a US general.
What more do you want? It's rather selective to look at "ooh, they just showing Russians as the bad guy" while ignoring how the main bad guy is an Actively Serving US Army General. MW series took the time to make clear that not all Russians were bad with Nicoli and again with Yuri and saving the Russian President as of paramount importance. Black Ops again had a Russian hero protagonist in Viktor Reznov and a heroic uprising by Russian political prisoners against their captors as well as re-living the life of a Russian soldier fighting the Nazis and show how he was betrayed by the SYSTEM not that "all Russians are bad".
COD single-player campaigns are poorly written and poorly placed but they aren't racist or xenophobic.
If they were, then why would they have all these elements that a xenophobe would be instantly turned off by.
The crime of COD is bad gameplay design and hackneyed storytelling.
While true in some cases, it doesnt hurt to try something new every once in a while, and COD did need something new. Thankfully, Blops 2 did try something new, in both MP and SP. Im loving it. I do hope that, since its already a fact MW4 is coming out, that they do the same in its campiagn (with multiple endings and branching paths) as Blops 2 did.AnarchistAbe said:
Modern Warfare? Trying something new?WanderingFool said:
Are we talking about the same Modern Warfare games? Because the MW games I know REFUSE to change. I think, TotalBiscuit described it best. "Infinity Wards have stuck to the rail so frigging hard you would think the rail was magnetised. And glued. And then glued again."
So, expect the biggest change to be a new name for the Nuke.
All very true but most of the people who buy cod play it for the multiplayer most of them don?t even look at the single player.
That makes it even worse though, not only is it wasted potential but it's wasted potential into which the playerbase only sinks ~5% of their total time into, the rest being multiplayer.themilo504 said:
I know some who didn't even play the campaign, just jumped straight into MP.
I know that's what I did with BF3, about ~30 minutes into the campaign I brain suddenly realized "holy fuck this is boring". I then launched multiplayer, wriggled into the nearest jet and nose-dived it into an unsuspecting sniper. Aah, now I'm having fun ^_^
Alright. Herein is my capsule review of the 'important' part of COD: The Multiplayer.Treblaine said:
The narrative is non-existant. Consistent character arcs seem to be completely eschewed in favor of the constant din of runny-gunny shooty gameplay. Voice acting is in dire need of several more passes as I am certain a few actors had their voices pitched five times higher than normal to sound like children. There is no motivation or plot, on the level of the individual character or overall for the run of the game only unreasonable conflict without reason. To misquote the Bard, the game is a poor player, that struts and frets it's hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Does that answer why the story is critiqued, instead of the multiplayer?
Not really. You're judging it based on what it was never meant to (or claimed to) be. It's like saying that Operation Raccoon City is a terrible survival horror game when Slant Six specifically said it would be a full on action game where the zombies are little more than environmental hazards in their very first Q&A about the game.N-Vee said:
Same dealie with Call of Duty. It never, EVER claimed to be a deep, intellectual experience. It's meant to be Michael Bay: The Film: The Game and that's how it should be judged.
It has shooting, it has explosions, and everything is very pretty. So it succeeded at what it was trying to do and should be rated accordingly.
This is why I want Yahtzee to review Black Ops 2's multipalyer and not Mr "First post since joining 3 years ago".N-Vee said:
Because you aren't even "reviewing" it as a multiplayer game if you are rabbiting on about narrative, plot and voice acting which are not integral features of good multiplayer.
What you say dismisses almost EVERY MULTIPLAYER GAME EVER MADE!!!
And you are critiquing it more in the terms of the qualities of a Motion Picture or Theatre Play, not as a game, which is what it IS. You don't say anything of the gameplay except that it's got running and shooting, well that's obvious, it's a First Person Shooter!!
Different things deserve a different critique.
Where is the Narrative, voice acting or plot in Pablo Picasso's "Guernica"? You have such blatantly narrow and conveniently blinkered perspective.