Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[AlwaysPractical]

I was raised to spend my whole life walking around under a faint background hum of cultural guilt and embarrassment for having once been the biggest twats on Earth who got up to a whole lot of shady shit in other people's countries, and then comes Coddling Ploppy Plops wanting to fucking crow about it.

As a German, I fully understand where you're coming from. The game starts by you massacaring black people that run at you with machetes, then goes on to slaughter arabs on horse back, all the while the admiral sits in base going "yeaaahhhh, that was textbook!" I haven't been this disgusted by a CoD game in a while. At least the NPCs in MW 1, 2 and 3 kept their neutrality. The first Black Ops' campaign was almost as bad as this one. Treyarch, how can you be worse than infinity ward?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Very well put. People can ***** about it all they want, but it sells and it hasn't really deviated from what it has ALWAYS been. Don't like it? I can't really get behind your arguments, because you should have KNOWN what you were buying.

I beg to differ. I absolutely loved CoD4 and World at War, as well as thoroughly enjoying Modern Warfare 2, but when I look at Black Ops 2, I can think of quite a lot of things that have changed. With each iteration the franchise has become more and more afraid to go more than 5 minutes without a huge set piece that regards player interaction with barely concealed disdain, and it's got to the point now where even people who love the basic formula of CoD, such as myself, are utterly sick to the teeth with it.

Hear is roughly my train of thought when I was watching a Let's Play of Blops 2 to see if it was worth my time (I'd been thoroughly disappointed by Blops 1 and MW3, but some things I'd heard about Blops 2 had sparked my interest again).

"Oh boy, this wing-suit/fighter jet/shoot-through-everything sniper rifle looks really cool, this might just be worth a purchase after a-oh it's over. What was that... about 5 minutes long? Oh well, maybe they'll be other chances to use them later on..."

*later on*

"Well, that was disappointing."

This game is that spoiled friend you used to have when you were a kid. The one who got over 50 presents for Christmas and couldn't wait to show (emphasis on the 'show') you all the cool new toys he had. However, because he has so many cool new toys, and so little understanding of how lucky he was, he got bored with them all one by one. Does he let *you* play with any of the toys after he gets bored with them though? No, because this kid is a ****, and the only role you play from his perspective is to sit there and admire all the cool new toys he's got.

If over 10 million people still think that's enough for them to spend $60 every year, then all power to them, but maybe, just maybe, if more of a big deal was made of games like Dishonored, enough to make the people who only really play CoD aware of its existence, then those sales figures might not look so rosy.

Either way, while the basic formula remains largely intact, Blops 2 is not the same as CoD4.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Sometimes, a game will try to do a lot of things in order to break up the monotony of going 'pew pew' at the bad guys who wear different hats from you, and depending on the pacing, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. The entire Call of Duty franchise is like that; it's like some kind of hyper-active child that just can't sit still and doesn't give you enough time to get bored with or even enjoy the things it throws at you.

One of the recent games I played that did this sort of thing well is Transformers: Fall of Cybertron. Each level was unique to the character you played as and was structured very differently. Various levels and challenges are thrown at you pretty often but you don't get bored of them, nor are they snatched away from you before you can finish enjoying them.

More games need better pacing, especially shooters. It's not a problem limited to Call of Duty, but as Yahtzee points out, this particular franchise has the kind of resources most developers could only dream of, and it always seems like such a waste. Each year a minimum effort is put into cranking out a mediocre product that is wearing an only slightly different hat from last year's product, but no one cares because they just play the multiplayer anyway.

 

[N-Vee]

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.

You're right. I was giving the game too much credit in my capsule review.

The point was, the one that seems to have sailed over heads, that while the multiplayer is 'what everyone buys it for' there's no point in critiquing it. "Same shit different day" does not fill out a word count nor make for interesting reading/viewing.

 

[xptn40S]

Why are critics of COD so afraid of considering COD's multiplayer?

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!
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.

Perhaps you two would like some insight into why Yahtzee doesn't like this particular kind of multiplayer.

He explained it in one of his other Extra Punctuation columns, namely one from almost two years ago:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8560-On-Multiplayer

Now, for something else...

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.

Maybe, but the thing about SM3's ideas for level-specific mechanics was that they all served the platforming of the game, it's hard to imagine an entire game based around running from an angry sun without having a different mechanic to actually get away from it.

Now some of the once-used mechanics in Black Ops 2 on the other hand (like the mentioned Wingsuit) could very well be used to make an entire game on their own (heck, with some imagination you could probably make some sort of racing-game based around it), what Yahtzee was trying to get across was that Black Ops 2 instead chooses to use this to wipe it's own ass with it and throw it in a bin (metaphorically speaking of course) for the sake of getting you to the next group of enemies for you to kill.

Also, I would like to mention that the "Ability to change the size of enemies" wasn't present in SMB3, you're probably thinking of that one level in Super mario 64.
What was in SMB3 however, was an entire world where every enemy was giant.

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.

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.

This got me thinking: If it really is the case that the majority of players buy the games for the multiplayer (which I wouldn't doubt for a second), then wouldn't it make more sense to scrap the single-player campaigns and instead use the extra development-time to polish up the multiplayer?
Because let's face it, if we see people complaining about tacked-on multiplayer modes for singleplayer-focused games, then surely it wouldn't be too absurd of a thought to think that the opposite could be just as bad?

 

[jmarquiso]

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Edit: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has sold about as much as Skyrim as of last week. Since I doubt Skyrim will be getting too many new sales and Christmas is coming up...it's going to beat Skyrim for sure. Just a small sidenote.

COD is actually going down in sales, causing concern for its owners.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/29/analyst-black-ops-2-sales-a-cause-for-concern-downgrades-act/

However, something selling like hotcakes says more about its marketing campaign and brand recognition than it does gameplay. I think there's a point to be made about introducing mechanics for setpieces and throwing them away. Also by only getting to the good bits, one can (I'm not saying this about Blops 2, just talking about a problem of design) get fatigued. Not in a good way. In a struggling way.

Now, COD seems to be a shooting gallery game - while doing something else. Shoot while in the back of a Jeep! On a plane! Jumping from a plane in a wingsuit!

Never changing the shooting at things as they pass by formula, but just changing the thing that your camera is attatched to! Mainly so we can see the spectacle and only that!

The thing about storytelling, and games, is that they're best when you feel that there was something to overcome, to beat. Something insurmountable. A WAR could easily be that thing. But CoD games aren't about that. They're one off action movies not about the little guy against a huge machine, but a huge machine attatched to wingsuits against several smaller machines.

Best stealth title of the year is easily Mark of the Ninja.

 

[Kopikatsu]

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

the privilege of being in a position to make a triple-A game with cutting edge technology, some of the greatest talent in the world, and under one of the highest-profile titles in the industry. A privilege which is utterly squandered.

Here's the thing: It has the talent assigned to it, it sells like hotcakes, and it's possibly the most well known name in gaming because it is what it is. It didn't start out as an indie stealth/platformer. If they changed the formula significantly, then a lot of people who do buy it probably wouldn't and the people who wanted the change wouldn't buy it either because they'd still decry it as long as it has the name 'Call of Duty' attached.

Dishonored is considered the best stealth title of this year, for instance, and it barely broke a million as of last week. No recent COD has sold under 10 million within the first month or two. CoD is the game that people want. No more, no less. It's pretentious to claim otherwise.

Edit: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has sold about as much as Skyrim as of last week. Since I doubt Skyrim will be getting too many new sales and Christmas is coming up...it's going to beat Skyrim for sure. Just a small sidenote.

COD is actually going down in sales, causing concern for its owners.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/29/analyst-black-ops-2-sales-a-cause-for-concern-downgrades-act/

However, something selling like hotcakes says more about its marketing campaign and brand recognition than it does gameplay. I think there's a point to be made about introducing mechanics for setpieces and throwing them away. Also by only getting to the good bits, one can (I'm not saying this about Blops 2, just talking about a problem of design) get fatigued. Not in a good way. In a struggling way.

Now, COD seems to be a shooting gallery game - while doing something else. Shoot while in the back of a Jeep! On a plane! Jumping from a plane in a wingsuit!

Never changing the shooting at things as they pass by formula, but just changing the thing that your camera is attatched to! Mainly so we can see the spectacle and only that!

The thing about storytelling, and games, is that they're best when you feel that there was something to overcome, to beat. Something insurmountable. A WAR could easily be that thing. But CoD games aren't about that. They're one off action movies not about the little guy against a huge machine, but a huge machine attatched to wingsuits against several smaller machines.

Best stealth title of the year is easily Mark of the Ninja.

That's just the genre, though. First person shooters will inevitably be about shooting things (Unless you're running around being a knife Commando, I guess)

If you take away the shooting stuff, then it's no longer an FPS. Unless you have a way for an FPS to remain an FPS without shooting somehow?

I could make the same criticism of Super Mario Bros. Jumping! First you're jumping on some blocks and then off a pipe! Exciting! Holy shit, we're jumping clouds now! And just jumped back down into some water! Fuck yeah! Mario is far stronger than any of the enemies that he faces, too. Even Bowser seems like a degraded version of Fire Mario.

 

[jmarquiso]

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!!

I believe Yahtzee's talked about his views on multiplayer in general at length. In short he doesn't review it. You shouldn't view him if you're interested in his views on multiplayer. Rarely does it even come up.

 

[Treblaine]

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.
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 ^_^

WHY?!?!

That's just dismissive of multiplayer. What of Team Fortress 2? Or Left 4 Dead?

Did you stop to think that Multiplayer is THE REASON for it's potential.

You seem to be automatically assuming that the single-player story mode is THE GAME, and that muliplayer is and always will be an ancillary extra. This is again this film-critic approach to games criticism, if it cannot fit into the mould of film criticism then it must be worthless from consideration, but what the heck do you think games ARE!!!? Just expensive live-rendered animated films where you just get to play out the stunt scenes yourself??!?

I mean they are clearly trying with the single-player, the problem is they:
#1 are not good at it
#2 don't have enough time anyway

It takes a LOT of time to make a good story, not enough time with a 24 month turnaround cycle. Hollywood film stories take AGES! Scripts are written years before they get shot and there is a long process of elimination looking for a good one that can actually work, and longer after than to make amendments and figure out the right way to shoot the movie and longer after that to edit it. And it's EASY to tell a good story with a movie compared to a video game.

 

[jmarquiso]

That's just the genre, though. First person shooters will inevitably be about shooting things (Unless you're running around being a knife Commando, I guess)

If you take away the shooting stuff, then it's no longer an FPS. Unless you have a way for an FPS to remain an FPS without shooting somehow?

Ah - I wasn't clear -

COD Single Player seems to be about shooting while being tethered to something else. The back of a jeep, on a wingsuit from a plane, while climbing a mountain, etc. Mainly so it could show off setpiece after setpiece. Not all FPS's do this.

Half Life 2 is about shooting and physics puzzles - but it's spaced.

Doom is about shooting while finding appropriate keycards and avoiding closet demons.

 

[Bindal]

The shoe appears in 3 levels
The sun appears in 4
The beetles appear in 2

Just saying.

You're wrong.

Just saying.

Unless we talk about two different "Super Mario Bros. 3" games, then no, none of these things made more than one appearance. I played the game about 50 minimum already, in 100%-runs, speed runs, mix of both, on the NES, SNES and GBA. Even got the official strategy guide (about 120 pages) and read that thing a good bunch of times.
And no, those things only made an appearance in ONE level each. And considering that this was a game with about 100 levels instead of 10 like CoD, that is actually EVEN WORSE than CoD. Heck, even if they were all in 5 levels, that would be relatively seen less than CoD had.


And yes - just because it's the same as usual doesn't mean he should plainly ignore it. I would be already fine with having one or two sentences. Just aknowledge that the MP is THERE is enough. But to simply ignore it as if doesn't exists? No, that's wrong, period.
Same for Zombies, which IS offering even new things. Again, he didn't even bother to mention that it EXISTED. He did so with BO1 (and indirectly WaW in the BO1-Video as well). It were just a few lines back then - but that's still more than nothing.

As a German, I fully understand where you're coming from. The game starts by you massacaring black people that run at you with machetes, then goes on to slaughter arabs on horse back, all the while the admiral sits in base going "yeaaahhhh, that was textbook!" I haven't been this disgusted by a CoD game in a while. At least the NPCs in MW 1, 2 and 3 kept their neutrality. The first Black Ops' campaign was almost as bad as this one. Treyarch, how can you be worse than infinity ward?

If you took THAT out of the game, you didn't pay any attention, did you? The two mentioned events (Mission 1 and 3, respectively) take play in the 1980s and are actual black operations on regards of the CIA. The "That was textbook"-lines is from a successful Strike Force Mission in 2025. One that is NOT black but green and official. AGAINST AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE!
But hey - if you don't want to be taken serious anymore, keep on talking like that.

 

[jmarquiso]

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.

Actually the first Call of Duties were closer to classic WWII movies - more Band of Brothers than Michael Bay: The Game. Modern Warfare definitely has those very tropes. Frankly, Michael Bay: The Game sounds not just terrible, but exhausting. I mean, I loved Bad Boys, but after The Rock he just got more and more ridiculous, and the military tech porn isn't helping.

Why can't there be a Ridley Scott: The Game?

Oh wait - that's Max Payne 3.

 

[Kopikatsu]

That's just the genre, though. First person shooters will inevitably be about shooting things (Unless you're running around being a knife Commando, I guess)

If you take away the shooting stuff, then it's no longer an FPS. Unless you have a way for an FPS to remain an FPS without shooting somehow?

Ah - I wasn't clear -

COD Single Player seems to be about shooting while being tethered to something else. The back of a jeep, on a wingsuit from a plane, while climbing a mountain, etc. Mainly so it could show off setpiece after setpiece. Not all FPS's do this.

Half Life 2 is about shooting and physics puzzles - but it's spaced.

Doom is about shooting while finding appropriate keycards and avoiding closet demons.

That happens very infrequently. Like seriously less than one rail shooter segment per mission.

I guess I just never understood the complaint about setpieces. I will grant that set pieces can hurt replay value if they're static, but I play games like CoD and Uncharted specifically for the set pieces because it's boring otherwise. I'll give an example of what I mean:

Dynasty Warriors. Your combos are the same no matter what you do. An 'epic' fight with an enemy general basically devolves into you mashing square, square, square, triangle, triangle x 50 times until their health is depleted, at which point they fall over and die. To me, that's incredibly anti-climactic and boring (Although I still love the DW games)

Using the same 3-5 hit combo over and over again until the game arbitrarily decides that you've hit them enough to progress just seems...terrible to me. Compare it to something like Force Unleashed, where when you get their health down, you do something like Force Choke to lift them into the air, spear them with your lightsaber, then knock them up and Force Crush them to death. That's a lot more satisfying than just hitting them with my neon glowstick until they suddenly fall over.

Edit: Just realized I was talking more about QTE than set pieces. Oh well.

 

[Treblaine]

I believe Yahtzee's talked about his views on multiplayer in general at length. In short he doesn't review it. You shouldn't view him if you're interested in his views on multiplayer. Rarely does it even come up.

Perhaps you two would like some insight into why Yahtzee doesn't like this particular kind of multiplayer.

He explained it in one of his other Extra Punctuation columns, namely one from almost two years ago:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8560-On-Multiplayer

That source cites his dislike for the particulars of World Of Warcraft and doesn't get into anything inherent. There is one general dismissal of multiplayer

"I who have dismissed multiplayer as a mere dalliance on the edge of gaming's true potential"

Posted this review on 12th of September 2012.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6276-DayZ

Multiplayer online-only zombie game.

He reviewed it barley 2 months ago. HE commented on interacting with other players.

Yet he doesn't have anything to say about Black Ops 2's multiplayer OR Zombies games.

At the very least he could have played the combat training which was against bots but frankly he's being churlish to object to any possibility of human interaction with online multiplayer, it's not like there is much awkward broken teamwork or trust, it's mainly a way of getting player intelligence to be an effective and natural AI opponent.

It's an utter myth that Yahtzee "doesn't do multiplayer" he does, for reviews as well.

And even if was so adamant about not reviewing multiplayer games, then that is grounds for him NOT REVIEWING BLACK OPS 2 AT ALL! As he should recognise that's what Black Ops 2 mainly is.

Because if there was a critic who only reviewed multiplayer games, then he shouldn't call System Shock 2 a shit game because it has a tacked on co-op mode that isn't well balanced.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I believe Yahtzee's talked about his views on multiplayer in general at length. In short he doesn't review it. You shouldn't view him if you're interested in his views on multiplayer. Rarely does it even come up.

Perhaps you two would like some insight into why Yahtzee doesn't like this particular kind of multiplayer.

He explained it in one of his other Extra Punctuation columns, namely one from almost two years ago:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8560-On-Multiplayer

That source cites his dislike for the particulars of World Of Warcraft and doesn't get into anything inherent. There is one general dismissal of multiplayer

"I who have dismissed multiplayer as a mere dalliance on the edge of gaming's true potential"

Posted this review on 12th of September 2012.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6276-DayZ

Multiplayer online-only zombie game.

He reviewed it barley 2 months ago. HE commented on interacting with other players.

Yet he doesn't have anything to say about Black Ops 2's multiplayer OR Zombies games.

At the very least he could have played the combat training which was against bots but frankly he's being churlish to object to any possibility of human interaction with online multiplayer, it's not like there is much awkward broken teamwork or trust, it's mainly a way of getting player intelligence to be an effective and natural AI opponent.

It's an utter myth that Yahtzee "doesn't do multiplayer" he does, for reviews as well.

And even if was so adamant about not reviewing multiplayer games, then that is grounds for him NOT REVIEWING BLACK OPS 2 AT ALL! As he should recognise that's what Black Ops 2 mainly is.

Because if there was a critic who only reviewed multiplayer games, then he shouldn't call System Shock 2 a shit game because it has a tacked on co-op mode that isn't well balanced.

In Yahtzee's defense, he doesn't choose the games he reviews. He mentioned that he does get some say, but big name games like Black Ops 2 can't get a pass from him.

 

[jmarquiso]

That happens very infrequently. Like seriously less than one rail shooter segment per mission.

I guess I just never understood the complaint about setpieces. I will grant that set pieces can hurt replay value if they're static, but I play games like CoD and Uncharted specifically for the set pieces because it's boring otherwise. I'll give an example of what I mean:

Dynasty Warriors. Your combos are the same no matter what you do. An 'epic' fight with an enemy general basically devolves into you mashing square, square, square, triangle, triangle x 50 times until their health is depleted, at which point they fall over and die. To me, that's incredibly anti-climactic and boring (Although I still love the DW games)

Using the same 3-5 hit combo over and over again until the game arbitrarily decides that you've hit them enough to progress just seems...terrible to me. Compare it to something like Force Unleashed, where when you get their health down, you do something like Force Choke to lift them into the air, spear them with your lightsaber, then knock them up and Force Crush them to death. That's a lot more satisfying than just hitting them with my neon glowstick until they suddenly fall over.

Granted. Honestly it seems to be what I hear about when talking about CoD games from a design perspective. In this case the design complaint is *NEW TOY* *SETPIECE* *NEW NEW TOY* *SETPIECE* so we should probably stick to that. Setpieces aren't inherently bad.

Some games do setpieces rather well. Half Life 2 - for example - sort of invented that on rails shooter style, but rarely gets called out as much as CoD. The reason is pacing, largely. You're given breaks between shooting segments, you're being led around on a roller coaster ride, but in a way where you're meant to anticipate and prepare rather than let it happen. Further, they give you interesting tools (everyone mentions the Gravity Gun) which lead to interesting ludological solutions. While you're still being led on the nose, you actually feel like you're struggling against overwhelming odds. As such the "setpieces" it uses are actually in such a character arc.

Doom had quite a few of them. Introducing the Cyberdemon is one that immediately comes to mind. But it leads up to it. You spend some time fighting zombies than imps, then pinkies and eventually this hulking minotaur is introduced on an elevator ride. It's dark, you can't see, and then - there he is - in shadow. it isn't easy to get away. \

There's a difference between this and the sort of explosion/explosion/explosion spectacle that CoD can be.

My background is largely in film, and I find setpieces tiring for that very reason. A lot of writing lately has moved from careful character development to be about moving characters from setpiece to setpiece without regard to motivation. Just go from A to B and let the explosions happen. It's entertaining in the moment, but it really loses a lot. In a game, you're subjected to many more hours of it. And it really just fatigues the eyes, and oversaturates the senses. You can't appreciate the quiet moments. Because there aren't any.

 

[xptn40S]

That source cites his dislike for the particulars of World Of Warcraft and doesn't get into anything inherent. There is one general dismissal of multiplayer

"I who have dismissed multiplayer as a mere dalliance on the edge of gaming's true potential"

Posted this review on 12th of September 2012.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6276-DayZ

Multiplayer online-only zombie game.

He reviewed it barley 2 months ago. HE commented on interacting with other players.

Yet he doesn't have anything to say about Black Ops 2's multiplayer OR Zombies games.

At the very least he could have played the combat training which was against bots but frankly he's being churlish to object to any possibility of human interaction with online multiplayer, it's not like there is much awkward broken teamwork or trust, it's mainly a way of getting player intelligence to be an effective and natural AI opponent.

It's an utter myth that Yahtzee "doesn't do multiplayer" he does, for reviews as well.

And even if was so adamant about not reviewing multiplayer games, then that is grounds for him NOT REVIEWING BLACK OPS 2 AT ALL! As he should recognise that's what Black Ops 2 mainly is.

Because if there was a critic who only reviewed multiplayer games, then he shouldn't call System Shock 2 a shit game because it has a tacked on co-op mode that isn't well balanced.

Right, so now either you didn't read it all the way through or you didn't catch on to what really was the reason, so I'll just put it in this spoiler-box:

Spoiler

"There was a common thread here that made me realize something about myself, and it caused a lot of things to fall into place. I can't possibly hate multiplayer blanketly because that's the kind of thing that would characterise a total saddo with no friends, which I'm clearly not. I've enjoyed playing games like Left 4 Dead and Little Big Planet and System Shock 2 with the co-op patch, which sparked an enjoyable evening of yelling instructions to my partner in the next room. But I rarely play the competitive games available in the Mana Bar, getting exhausted by them very fast and preferring to stand by the bar glowering at everyone else's fun. I liked the jib of the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multiplayer but could only tolerate actually playing it for short bursts. And I hate watching or participating in team sports, which dates back to being forced to play high school rugby in my shorts in weather so cold you'd have to run your hands under the hot tap in the changing room afterwards because your fingers were too numb to do your shirt buttons up.

And this all paints a picture of one thing: that I don't hate multiplayer in itself, I just hate competitive multiplayer. I'm fine until I'm expected to pit my skills against those of another and then I just get edgy. And I think I have a good grasp on why. It's because I have half of a competitive streak. When I say "half" I mean that a full competitive streak means that you love winning and hate losing, whereas I just hate losing and aren't particularly fussed about winning. So on the whole, from an accounting standpoint, it makes more sense just to not play at all. I play games to escape from the misery of daily life, not to feel all pressured from having to prove I'm better at some small meaningless task than some **** in Illinois."

Did you even read the column's second page?