Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[Treblaine]

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.

Yeah, which begs the question WHY DIDN'T HE REVIEW THE MULTIPLAYER!?!?! He could have just said he couldn't review DayZ because he refused to go online and then done a joke review looking at some small indie games or his list of favourite mods.

He clearly has no actual problem with going online or with zombie modes.

He could at least have mentioned BO2's multiplayer, rather than act indignantly that the singleplayer was the entire selling point of the game and multiplayer is too insignificant to give any amount of attention.

Instead he clings to this arbitrary notion that "games must stand on their single-player alone" which the vast audience obviously does not ascribe to, yet he assumes they DO ascribe to and that they must like and approve of Black Ops 2's singleplayer, and chastises them for it. That's working backward from a false assumption.

I mean wasn't it enough having Russian playable characters in the story mode, a sympathetic Russian President and a US Army General as the bad guy enough? No. Still the allegations of racism and xenophobia. IT'S A WAR SHOOTER! Some people are going to get shot, the end of MW2 you were a pair of rogue Brits killing Americans, somehow still the entire COD series is jingoistic American propaganda?

No. It's a shooter. It's not obsessed with militarism, people who ARE obsessed with militarism HATE CALL OF DUTY!!! every gun video on youtube of a weapon that is named in call of duty, there's a top rated comment of a snide attack on the COD player-base for how inaccurately the guns are depicted and other minutia. It's not militaristic, it's trickshooting and throwing knives craziness. It's beyond even Michael Bay, it's well into John Woo territory with dual wielding and quick scoping lone wolf frenetic gunfights.

The COD playerbase aren't xenophobic, racist, republicans. They are frat boys who wouldn't see the sinking of a ship called the USS Barack Obama as an attack on his presidency, but prideful that he's such a significant president would get an Aircraft Carrier named after him.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

While I do understand that point of view (Wanting more out of media than superficial action), I think the subject is a bit...weird.

James Bond, for instance. I don't expect there to be any character development in a James Bond film- not because he's mostly about explosions, sex, and gadgets; but because...there are probably like a hundred different books/films/video games about James Bond's whole shtick. Why would his character develop any from doing something that he's done a million times previously?

Conan is another one. Even within the native narrative, Conan has done it all and seen it all. There just isn't much room for his character to be fleshed out any more than it has been.

Which leads to my next point! New IP's are less risky for films than for video games, but they're still usually not looked highly upon. James Bond XXX (30, not porn. But also porn.) will probably sell better than, I don't know, that movie about Benjamen Button. But after so many adventures, there comes a point where a character bottoms out and becomes static. Basically, I'm saying that franchises and playing it safe is what led to the proliferation of mindless action movies.

However, that's not to say the solution is to produce a new IP. It's all been done before and everyone has seen it already. I'm not a big movie person, so I can't come up with a huge list of similar characters/plots, but even 'new' ideas are something people have seen before. Why spend time developing a movie based on the Hero's Journey or Journey to the West when it will be interchangeable with the thousands of other IP's following that set up that have come before it?

...If that makes sense. I'm not great at explaining things.

 

[Treblaine]

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?

No, I didn't read the second page of the post. The new page layout since I was last on this site I didn't recognise the page-2 button being where it usually was.

I suppose that makes me the worst person in the world. Or maybe it was a relatable mistake.

But there were no buttons to click to read MY POST. Did you just get to the first sentence of mine, find an inconsistency and think "AH HA! I now can formulate a gotcha response and be snide about it rather than have a respectful discussion"? Well?

I'd like to know WHY you have ignored all I've said since then, particularly this part that is very pertinent:

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.

Anyway, now I've read it this just shows that yahtzee doesn't LIKE playing multiplayer... well I'm sorry that a small part of his job may involve doing something he doesn't like, but it's not like he has the worst job in the world. That is still not any sort of excuse for his poor journalism of reviewing Black Ops 2 as if it only consisted of the single-player campaign and drawing conclusions of the industry and playerbase from the success of the game on that assertion it was mainly singleplayer.

And Zombies as well. He skipped that as well even though it's such a major feature it can be a default launch option.

He says he doesn't want to be political, no I think he want to be political, he just doesn't want to deal with the consequences of being political. Kind of like wanting to eat a cake yet still have the cake after he's eaten it... so to speak.

 

[Darth_Payn]

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?

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.

Modern Warfare? Trying something new?
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.

You both hit the nail on the head with what's wrong with CoD & the other spunkgargleweewee games. The lack of change to the core of CoD's SP mode has caused it to stagnate and take wildly insane directions and not care about narrative logic or allow the player to do much to drive the story, often snatching control away for a set-piece cutscene. A waste of resources is what it is! OK, that's the end of my old man rant.

 

[DataSnake]

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. \

I don't remember an elevator ride leading up to the big Cybie encounter in Doom 1. Are you talking about Doom 3 or something?

 

[hermes]

Honestly, the whole "OHH, The enemies are Black/Asians/Muslim, this game is so racist!!" argument is getting really old. He uses it in almost every single game at this point... I get it, you play as an American, and the other characters are not. That is not racism (although it might be jingoism depending of the context); and playing the racist card doesn't automatically makes any other point that you make (or don't) more valid.

The worst offender is still Uncharted. Its funny how he keeps attacking every game in the franchise with the same joke, and by the time he reaches 3, he says "the enemies are white, rich British, this game is so racist!"

Also, I agree with the people that says complaining about the quality of a game and never touching the very reason those games are made and sold is retarded. Its like buying X-Com and never playing anything but the multiplayer.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

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.

That's apples and bananas if you ask me. It's two different genres with different target audiences, goals and design philosophies; one focuses on multiplayer and the other doesn't have multiplayer at all, and one is part of a brand whereas the other is a new upstart. If you want to talk numbers, you may also want to take into consideration the CoD games have brought in less and less money recently. BLOPS2 is estimated to bring in 15% less than MW3, which in turn brought in 5% less than BLOPS1. Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/29/analyst-black-ops-2-sales-a-cause-for-concern-downgrades-act/
Meanwhile Dishonored did better than expected: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2012/11/28/dishonored-sales-exceed-expectations-could-become-new-franchise/

CoD's popularity stems from multiple sources. Especially as a multiplayer title: I'm fairly certain a good portion of purchases were made out of habit, to keep up with the latest trends, or in order not to lag behind your friends. Were this pull, that has nothing to do with BLOPS2's actual content, to be given to Dishonored, we'd probably looking at very different results.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

Know what? you should have gone with that rant for the Blops review over the one you used. I'd have actually enjoyed it.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Anyway, now I've read it this just shows that yahtzee doesn't LIKE playing multiplayer...

An opinion, something he is paid to express.

well I'm sorry that a small part of his job may involve doing something he doesn't like, but it's not like he has the worst job in the world. That is still not any sort of excuse for his poor journalism of reviewing Black Ops 2 as if it only consisted of the single-player campaign and drawing conclusions of the industry and playerbase from the success of the game on that assertion it was mainly singleplayer.

Yatzee isn't a journalist. He's a pundit, and one that is only obligated to be thoughtful in one of his two features. After all, when was the last time you saw him reporting news? Never, because that isn't his job. His job is to make cynical jokes in rapid fire fashion every week by wednesday, and deliver a frank discussion of what he thinks about something by tuesday. If you're looking for something more, you're not going to find it.

And Zombies as well. He skipped that as well even though it's such a major feature it can be a default launch option.

Would you be any happier if he had simply played zombies and said that it was boring? It wouldn't make his videos any funnier, nor would it make his columns any more thoughtful. Hell, it would become annoying by the third review. Going by what he has said, the reason he plays primarily single player games isn't because he thinks that there is anything wrong with competitive multiplayer, but because it simply doesn't interest him. I can give detailed critiques of all sorts of art, but I'd stare at someone blankly if I was asked about my opinion on fashion trends. It isn't because I think that the idea of fashion is worthless, but because I don't care about it enough to form an arguable opinion.

Yatzee can talk about single player and come up with criticisms because the single player is something he has a vested interest in. It would be interesting to see Yatzee play multiplayer and try to figure out why people like it (which he has done to some extent, but that really isn't his style and I don't think forcing him to do so would make him better at what people watch him for.

He says he doesn't want to be political, no I think he want to be political, he just doesn't want to deal with the consequences of being political. Kind of like wanting to eat a cake yet still have the cake after he's eaten it... so to speak.

So what? He didn't say that he doesn't like to think about politics, but that he doesn't like to talk about politics. I like to think about the future of computing and physics all the time, but won't I ever find myself saying my stupid opinion in a conference in front of people who know way more about it than me. I like to think about politics all of the time, but I'll be damned if I become the punching bag of an idiot spouting off rhetoric thought up by a think tank thousands of miles away that neither of us can verify first hand.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Wasn't there a whole jimquisition episode dedicated to reiterating the self-evident fact that games are NOT film, and if you try to treat games like film then they will ALWAYS be inferior to film.

It's a GAME first.

Now COD singleplayer mostly fails at being a game, but to damn it for it's narrative paints with a broad brush in damning so many other great games that have a spartan or contrived plot. But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, because games are games, a gameplay storyline can be profound in its gameplay progression.

COD's singleplayer CANNOT be fixed with either more plot or more carefully written plot, that is NOT the problem at all, the problem is akin to a film having hours of narration where they explain what is going on in the very film you are watching. No. No, god no. Show, don't tell for film, DO don't show for games. And quick time events is a "show", it's not agency in deciding the outcome, it's about as involved as having to turn the pages on a book.

COD gameplay fails because it's quite clear all the weapon balancing is done for multi-player.

 

[Treblaine]

Anyway, now I've read it this just shows that yahtzee doesn't LIKE playing multiplayer...

An opinion, something he is paid to express.

I just wish he'd express his opinion on the 2/3rds of the game that he did more than ignore, he acted like everyone else ignored it.

 

[jmesch04]

Only a few points. Firstly, well done article.

I don't understand all the people who want him to review multi-player. Has it changed in any way from CoD4? My brother and I have played all the games since CoD4 and he really enjoys them never touched single-player but they only reason we update is because everyone else does. They just re-skin it.

Third, Big Ben is a game critic, what would he be able to say about multiplayer? I hate people and this part of the game has finally been perfected after 5 iterations of the same game? Oh but I still hat multiplayer. Nothing anything he said would have no value.

Singleplayer is the realm where the game flourishes, it's the part of the game where the creator can make the game interact with you as they designed. CoD doesn't do that as a series anymore. They were innovate in CoD4 MWn and yatzee seemed intrigued by that game, but they haven't changed yet. Do you find Donald Trump to be classy? That's where CoD has landed.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Anyway, now I've read it this just shows that yahtzee doesn't LIKE playing multiplayer...

An opinion, something he is paid to express.

I just wish he'd express his opinion on the 2/3rds of the game that he did more than ignore, he acted like everyone else ignored it.

Would you be any happier if he had simply played zombies and said that it was boring? It wouldn't make his videos any funnier, nor would it make his columns any more thoughtful. Hell, it would become annoying by the third review. Going by what he has said, the reason he plays primarily single player games isn't because he thinks that there is anything wrong with competitive multiplayer, but because it simply doesn't interest him. I can give detailed critiques of all sorts of art, but I'd stare at someone blankly if I was asked about my opinion on fashion trends. It isn't because I think that the idea of fashion is worthless, but because I don't care about it enough to form an arguable opinion.

Yatzee can talk about single player and come up with criticisms because the single player is something he has a vested interest in. It would be interesting to see Yatzee play multiplayer and try to figure out why people like it (which he has done to some extent, but that really isn't his style and I don't think forcing him to do so would make him better at what people watch him for.

 

[The Funslinger]

I think this whole article is really his way of hinting at what clothing related item he wants for Christmas.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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?

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.

Modern Warfare? Trying something new?
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.

You both hit the nail on the head with what's wrong with CoD & the other spunkgargleweewee games. The lack of change to the core of CoD's SP mode has caused it to stagnate and take wildly insane directions and not care about narrative logic or allow the player to do much to drive the story, often snatching control away for a set-piece cutscene. A waste of resources is what it is! OK, that's the end of my old man rant.

...AKA 'I haven't played Black Ops 2 and am just complaining 'cause it's cool'. Which is basically what Yahtzee did, considering that he didn't mention the fact that the game does allow the player to change the conflict, among other things which are minor but nice touches regardless (Such as flying too close to burning wreckage in one level will cause Harper's face to be scarred for the rest of the game) and only passed over the Strike Force missions in passing. Which you can fail, and failing them will change the narrative.

 

[TAdamson]

Wait- he doesn't vote? In Australia? Isn't it mandatory?

Only if you're a citizen. Permanent residents don't.

 

[N-Vee]

Wasn't there a whole jimquisition episode dedicated to reiterating the self-evident fact that games are NOT film, and if you try to treat games like film then they will ALWAYS be inferior to film.

True of the moment (for the most part), but 'always'? Not necessarily. Telling a compelling story is not media dependent and can be done in a multitude of forms. What changes is the author's skill at using the medium to support the narrative, instead of fighting with their chosen medium. If it's a struggle, perhaps it's just the wrong way to tell that particular story.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Yahtzee reviewing CoD is comical. Not because he's funny anymore, but because his reactions are so played out. You know, Yahtz (is it okay if I call you "Yahtz"?) you are a shitty critic if you refuse to play more than half the game. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. You could be forgiven if the game was some 100 hour long JRPG and you hated everything about it from minute 1, but this ain't that. I get why you didn't finish the latest Final Fantasy--neither did I. But it's not exactly difficult to load up zombies or mutliplayer and play a few matches. It would've taken you all of 1 hour to do both of those things, and you didn't.

I didn't expect Yahtzee to like BOII, nor do I care that I couldn't have been more right, but it does bother me that with each video he seems to be getting progressively more lazy. And significantly less funny, I might add. Some of his reviews are pretty interchangeable. You could swap the audio on two of his videos and you probably wouldn't notice a difference unless he mentions the name of the game.

Oh well. No skin off my back.