Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[Thunderous Cacophony]

SNIP

I was just reading through your conversation with jmarquiso. I really liked it, but I have to disagree with you.

"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."

But that's not an excuse for being bad at what it is (or at least, not being the best). Modern CoD is built around setpieces, gun battles, and one-off varied sections. They had them well balanced in CoD 4, where you could be watching a building blow up at one point, fight through the ruins the next, and provide air support the one after. However, the developers have become so enamored with the possibilities of set-pieces and special sections that a lot of the actual first-person shooting takes a back seat. It's not the thought that CoD isn't scratching the same itch as Shadow of the Colossus that bugs me (and apparently Yahtzee), it's the schizophrenia that detracts from the actual game.

"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?"

James Bond does change and evolve-while some (like Brosnan) stay relatively flat, you can watch the change in On Her Majesty's Secret Service to Diamonds are Forever and see how the character develops when Blofeld kills his wife. They didn't need to do that, but they did because they wanted to add depth and nuance where there was none before, and make the movies more fun to watch as a result. The explosions, sex, and gadgets aren't going away, but they are having a comfortable frame built around them so that, if they can't quite hold up, they can still survive. That metaphor got kinda strange, but you can see what I'm saying, right? Give your audience the best that you can, not trying to stick to what you think they expect, and you'll come out with a better product.

 

[TheRussian]

-snip-

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.

Let me counteract your opinion with one I share with the late Gene Siskel:

"A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target."
-Gene Siskel

The critic is referring to films in his statement, but video games should be subject to the same standards, perhaps even more so, due to the fact that games are longer than movies, and will be more thoroughly explored by the audience.
The way you judge bad games should not be any different from the way you judge good games.

Spoiler: Personal Quote

Having an opinion does not prevent you from being wrong. But that's just my opinion.
-me

 

[Treblaine]

Where was I uncivil? Please point it out so I can apologise for such error in character.

And when did incivility become licence to be uncivil yourself? This isn't self defence, snideness is no counter to snideness.

The tone of all your posts plus from what I've seen blantantly ignoring certain things. Dont take this as anything but a comment. I meant no insult in this just wanted to point out something

It's written, there is no tone to it, what do you mean? The tone of it all, come on, what's that supposed to mean?

What specifically have I blatantly ignored? Other than inflammatory comments that aren't worth replying to. That's not incivility, that's restraint.

"I meant no insult"

Doesn't mean you weren't. Now you have me worried I've been offensive and you won't even tell me where... what the hell, man?!?

 

[kenu12345]

Where was I uncivil? Please point it out so I can apologise for such error in character.

And when did incivility become licence to be uncivil yourself? This isn't self defence, snideness is no counter to snideness.

The tone of all your posts plus from what I've seen blantantly ignoring certain things. Dont take this as anything but a comment. I meant no insult in this just wanted to point out something

It's written, there is no tone to it, what do you mean? The tone of it all, come on, what's that supposed to mean?

What specifically have I blatantly ignored? Other than inflammatory comments that aren't worth replying to. That's not incivility, that's restraint.

"I meant no insult"

Doesn't mean you weren't. Now you have me worried I've been offensive and you won't even tell me where... what the hell, man?!?

Ha dont worry about it. Just the way you phrased somethings nothing to worry bout

 

[In Search of Username]

Dat trouser analogy

Very good article, it perfectly describes the problems with spunkgargleweewees; it's the fact they just try to pack everything in without consideration, rather than gradually building you up like a good game does. And the whole 'rich jerk' analogy works perfectly for the game's attitude towards politics too, when you think about it.

And guys, he's not going to review the multiplayer. He doesn't do that. Accept it. The game has singleplayer, it should be able to stand up on its own even if it's not the main attraction. If CoD wants to avoid being criticised for its terrible campaigns, it should just stop including them.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

Look, I don't come to his videos just for the humour, because he isn't that funny. I appreciate his humorous insight into games that can be quite revealing in the way humour can be, but not sacrificing everything for everything else at the expense of gags.

Covering zombies and multiplayer would be part of the bohemian insight that I expect from all the insight he give into other game he reviews, he doesn't skip out on huge proportions of other games that were the main selling points. He did look at Zombies for Black Ops 1, but not for BO2.

I never said his assessment of the singleplayer was wrong, it's his own ridiculous opinion, it's the conclusion he draws from the false assumption of how others view the singleplayer that I disagree with as irresponsible.

I can also tell when he is being facetious, just because he was obviously being facetious when he said "And Hitler was right" isn't licence to dismiss any other sustained attack he makes against larger groups of people.

COD gamers are hardly noble laureates, but their vice is apathy and ignorance, not jingoistic racial hatred as he alleges. He can say all he likes about the singleplayer, but he then said a lot about the type of people who would buy such a game, making an unfair link between the single-player and he game sales as if the singleplayer - including his stated perception of racism - as reason for it's success.

Lies or truly believing it, joking or not, I don't think it's right for him to say that. And that's my opinion on that.

Now don't say anything about "force", because I think someone is unethical in saying something is NOT the same as advocating or actually forcing anything on anyone.

 

[Shocksplicer]

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

If he's not a citizen, then no.
If he is, well it's only a $20 fine. Besides, I leave the ballot blank each year rather than vote for any of the bastards, and I qualify that as not voting.

 

[Ninjafire72]

As Yatzhee said on one of his videos- "A game that costs so much to buy should be able to stand up on its single player campaign alone, because the MP has inherent issues that its developers can't forsee like it's servers becoming tumbleweed ghost-towns 2 months down the line"

I don't know about the rest of you, but I completely agree with this sentiment. It's not that he doesn't inherently hate MP, rather he believes that paying $88 AU for a game SHOULD guarantee a varied, interesting or at least a competent SP campaign. I love the MP on BlOps 1 but I'm pretty sure server traffic will be down now that a sequel is out, and when I realise I paid money for a service that will become non-existent within the year... well, that annoys me to say the least.

And besides, if CoD is all about the MP then why does it even need a SP campaign? Why can't they just advertise the thing as a CS competitor and sell the package for $60 or less, without any half-baked Michael Bay story tacked on to begin with?

EDIT:

And guys, he's not going to review the multiplayer. He doesn't do that. Accept it. The game has singleplayer, it should be able to stand up on its own even if it's not the main attraction. If CoD wants to avoid being criticised for its terrible campaigns, it should just stop including them.

Damn ninjas XD

 

[poiuppx]

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.

For whatever pittance it is worth, I hate multiplayer, especially competitive multiplayer*. Such elements are not selling points for me, never will be. Several of my friends fall into the same category. For us, the 2/3rds of the game you mention being so vital to your approval of his review are utterly irrelevant. Then again, we watch for humor first and opinion second, and I'll likely end up picking it up once cheaper because I honestly really enjoyed the single-player campaigns of MW 1-3 & BO1.

It's also worth noting that the format of his reviews doesn't really allow for in-depth multiplayer experiences. He's got a week tops to play a game and has to stay as current and relevant as Australia will allow for. It's the same reason his sandbox gameplay experiences tend to be truncated a bit, or why when he talks MMOs he often can only really toss in his first impressions rather than a full review. Any opinion he'd have to offer would be at best rushed and biased, and at worst blatantly hostile and indignant. Would that really be better than him 'ignoring the core' of an experience that, for him and gamers like him, isn't core?

And also for whatever value this carries, consider this thought from him in ages past; that the multiplayer is subject to countless things the developers simply can't control, like player behavior or server shut-down. Single-player, however, is around for as long as the game is playable in any fashion, and remains relatively constant from player to player. I've yet to encounter an enemy in Black Ops 1 who spawn-camps or uses wall hacks... as much as that might have fit in to that game's crazier moments. As such, it is a far more logical and reasonable centerpiece on which to hang a review, at least from my own admittedly somewhat biased perspective.

I can understand your frustration with his neglect of multiplayer, as you've made it clear such elements matter to you, but given his own admitted biases and review-style, perhaps the fault lies less in the reviewer than in the audience. His neglect of 2/3rds of the game will be the same neglect you'll see in the next CoD game, and the next, and the next. It's like reading RPG reviews from someone who hates JRPGs and then getting angry when they 'don't give JRPGs a fair shake'. Of course they won't. You know they won't. So look elsewhere if you want a fair and complete review of the subject material you are interested in. It'll likely be good for the blood pressure, and can free up time to play the games you love, as oppossed to arguing with stubborn long-winded fools like myself on the internet.

*Exception made for Worms, because in those games it is utterly glorious regardless of success or failure. Even then, however, I only play it with friends. Random games with total strangers are not my forte; getting self-exploded and hurled into a mine because I misread the wind indicator? Totally my forte. I'm aces at that.

 

[Treblaine]

Dat trouser analogy

Very good article, it perfectly describes the problems with spunkgargleweewees; it's the fact they just try to pack everything in without consideration, rather than gradually building you up like a good game does. And the whole 'rich jerk' analogy works perfectly for the game's attitude towards politics too, when you think about it.

I'd say it's making too much of a point of where the trousers came from than of the trousers themselves.

Calling a soldier "rich" because they use expensive military equipment is rather ignorant of the reality of soldiers lives where they are little more than workers, it never was their equipment, it was always government property and they only used it under orders to kill and to die.

What, you think soldiers get to keep that equipment after the war? They aren't rich, have you any idea how many of the homeless and destitute were handling multi-million dollar pieces of equipment when they served their country, but when their country was done with them they struggle to re-adapt.

That's not a "rich jerk", that's a socialist tragedy of the exploited labourer.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

Yeah, I know its not likely. Im planning on sticking to Blops 2 even when MW4 comes out. Blops 2 may be just as great as Blops 1 when MW3 came out, all the cheap ass players having moved onwards.

 

[EvilRoy]

The bit where he rants about politics then backtracks from the backlash. It's not any hidden will, it's obvious, he just isn't being entirely honest when he says he doesn't want to be political. I mean instead of editing his text, he goes "oops, mustn't say that" as if he was live on the radio.

I've never really understood why Americans get so snippy about this.

I mean, yeah it involves politics, but its just a stereotype joke. Canadians don't get mad and defensive everytime an American starts making maple syrup and no military jokes, French don't get instantly offended when someone makes surrender and bad cheese jokes, English don't get snarky when people pop out with a greasy food/unarmed police joke.

 

[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.

For whatever pittance it is worth, I hate multiplayer, especially competitive multiplayer*. Such elements are not selling points for me, never will be. Several of my friends fall into the same category. For us, the 2/3rds of the game you mention being so vital to your approval of his review are utterly irrelevant. Then again, we watch for humor first and opinion second, and I'll likely end up picking it up once cheaper because I honestly really enjoyed the single-player campaigns of MW 1-3 & BO1.

It's also worth noting that the format of his reviews doesn't really allow for in-depth multiplayer experiences. He's got a week tops to play a game and has to stay as current and relevant as Australia will allow for. It's the same reason his sandbox gameplay experiences tend to be truncated a bit, or why when he talks MMOs he often can only really toss in his first impressions rather than a full review. Any opinion he'd have to offer would be at best rushed and biased, and at worst blatantly hostile and indignant. Would that really be better than him 'ignoring the core' of an experience that, for him and gamers like him, isn't core?

And also for whatever value this carries, consider this thought from him in ages past; that the multiplayer is subject to countless things the developers simply can't control, like player behavior or server shut-down. Single-player, however, is around for as long as the game is playable in any fashion, and remains relatively constant from player to player. I've yet to encounter an enemy in Black Ops 1 who spawn-camps or uses wall hacks... as much as that might have fit in to that game's crazier moments. As such, it is a far more logical and reasonable centerpiece on which to hang a review, at least from my own admittedly somewhat biased perspective.

I can understand your frustration with his neglect of multiplayer, as you've made it clear such elements matter to you, but given his own admitted biases and review-style, perhaps the fault lies less in the reviewer than in the audience. His neglect of 2/3rds of the game will be the same neglect you'll see in the next CoD game, and the next, and the next. It's like reading RPG reviews from someone who hates JRPGs and then getting angry when they 'don't give JRPGs a fair shake'. Of course they won't. You know they won't. So look elsewhere if you want a fair and complete review of the subject material you are interested in. It'll likely be good for the blood pressure, and can free up time to play the games you love, as oppossed to arguing with stubborn long-winded fools like myself on the internet.

*Exception made for Worms, because in those games it is utterly glorious regardless of success or failure. Even then, however, I only play it with friends. Random games with total strangers are not my forte; getting self-exploded and hurled into a mine because I misread the wind indicator? Totally my forte. I'm aces at that.

My point was how he related the singleplayer to the game's popularity, making a link between perceived themes of militarism, racism and jingoism and the tastes of the tens of millions who bought the game.

I've said it often enough, my problem is his making that link.

I don't want approval. I never did. I wanted critique. Good or bad, most likely bad. Silence is deafening on a game that is so popular FOR IT'S MULTIPLAYER!

sandbox gameplay experiences tend to be truncated a bit, or why when he talks MMOs he often can only really toss in his first impressions rather than a full review.

Could have done that here.

The persistence argument doesn't explain why he did a full review of DayZ. Inconsistency, you are all making up rules for him to get out of what he's done here, not from past trends.

as you've made it clear such elements matter to you

*rolls eyes*

Always have to make this personal... the point is ABUNDANTLY clear that it is the BROADER millions of this multi-million selling series that it is TO THEM that the multiplayer matters. I want HIM to tell ME why 20 MILLION people buy the game for it's multiplayer, by giving us insight on it's multiplayer... but instead he focuses all on the shitty ancillary single-player plot.

People who don't like JRPGs shouldn't review them. So why is yahtzee reviewing a game whose success is built on it's online competitive multiplayer? But even if someone who didn't like JRPGs did review of such games, they would at least give a few reasons why they were so bad, according to them. But Yahtzee doesn't do that. He doggedly ignores the part that I'D LOVE TO SEE HIM RIP ON!!

Do you REALLY think I'm one of those people who want Yahtzee to review Black Ops 2's multiplayer... to give it a positive review!?!?


Video related to my response.

I want him to show all those COD fans who love the multiplayer what is wrong with it and the REAL reason why they all play it. And not some BS like they have a military fetish, that obviously doesn't fit or ARMA II would have sold 5x more.

 

[beastro]

Look at the British Empire at its height, and how it treated its colonies. Now look at the many third-world countries that the US has interests in. See a parallel?

Britain treated it colonies fairly decently on average and it noted as being the most humane of Europe's empires. There's a reason why it created the most stable and prosperous democratic daughter nations among them. That isn't to say it wasn't without it's flaws, but at the end of the day it did more good than harm, certainly not

There are little to no parallels between the old European empires and America. America is tame in comparison and revolves around "Freely trade with us and don't do anything we consider grossly offensive, and we'll be fine.".

Games like this one only distracts from what is the heart and soul of America's Empire: McDonald's and Coca Cola. Modern military involvement has sprung up thanks to groups of people who threw a hissy fit that the Western world is better off than they are while ignoring the fact that many facets of the culture are the reason why that disparity exists.

 

[Treblaine]

The bit where he rants about politics then backtracks from the backlash. It's not any hidden will, it's obvious, he just isn't being entirely honest when he says he doesn't want to be political. I mean instead of editing his text, he goes "oops, mustn't say that" as if he was live on the radio.

I've never really understood why Americans get so snippy about this.

I mean, yeah it involves politics, but its just a stereotype joke. Canadians don't get mad and defensive everytime an American starts making maple syrup and no military jokes, French don't get instantly offended when someone makes surrender and bad cheese jokes, English don't get snarky when people pop out with a greasy food/unarmed police joke.

I'm not American, none of my family are American, I've never been to America and I don't know any Americans.

I have nothing to do with America.

So why do you reply to my comment going on about "why Americans get so snippy about this"? hmm?!

And actually French do get pretty fucking pissed off when you make jokes belittling how much they suffered in WWII, for your information before you think it's okay to go tease some French people about that, you probably should... not... do that.

I've found any comment on British food made by an American without fail a Brit will fire back with an attack on American fast food industry and it'll go anywhere from there. Let thee who is innocent cast the first stone, eh?

My point about politics was his non-committal approach that only served to dodge any kind of challenge to his position yet he was still able to get his views across by obfuscating it. He is doing things that let him get it both ways, sorry, that's underhanded.

 

[EvilRoy]

The bit where he rants about politics then backtracks from the backlash. It's not any hidden will, it's obvious, he just isn't being entirely honest when he says he doesn't want to be political. I mean instead of editing his text, he goes "oops, mustn't say that" as if he was live on the radio.

I've never really understood why Americans get so snippy about this.

I mean, yeah it involves politics, but its just a stereotype joke. Canadians don't get mad and defensive everytime an American starts making maple syrup and no military jokes, French don't get instantly offended when someone makes surrender and bad cheese jokes, English don't get snarky when people pop out with a greasy food/unarmed police joke.

I'm not American, none of my family are American, I've never been to America and I don't know any Americans.

I have nothing to do with America.

So why do you reply to my comment going on about "why Americans get so snippy about this"? hmm?!

And actually French do get pretty fucking pissed off when you make jokes belittling how much they suffered in WWII, for your information before you think it's okay to go tease some French people about that, you probably should... not... do that.

I've found any comment on British food made by an American without fail a Brit will fire back with an attack on American fast food industry and it'll go anywhere from there. Let thee who is innocent cast the first stone, eh?

My point about politics was his non-committal approach that only served to dodge any kind of challenge to his position yet he was still able to get his views across by obfuscating it. He is doing things that let him get it both ways, sorry, that's underhanded.

I know, that's sort of why I made the point in the way I did.

Nobody likes these jokes, but everyone makes them. You can choose to get angry and/or overreact every time you're faced by them, or you can choose to accept that portions of the world will always be viewed in light of a preconceived notion about them, regardless of who's talking.

You're welcome to feel that he is purposefully shoehorning his own political views into a game article, then muddying the waters to make himself immune to attack, or you could accept that, like most people who aren't American, he probably doesn't care in the least what their deal is as far as politics go, but is rather just tired of how the games he has to review consistently use the same approach to good guys and bad guys in these games.

Think of it this way, even though no sane person would ever do this:
Take a look at these games, and try to decide what the American foreign policy is like assuming you know nothing else about them.

Makes them look kind of psycho doesn't it?