Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[Waffle_Man]

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.

Coming to something for a peripheral reason and getting mad? This sounds familiar. Granted, I don't have the authority to say definitively that Yatzee's insight is peripheral (as it serves his humor incredibly well), so I can't tell you that it's wrong to feel upset when he doesn't deliver, but I'm not going to blame him for your feeling upset in the same way that I can't blame a wal-mart for not carrying graphics cards.

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.

First of all, he has skipped plenty of multiplayer and mini game components in various games. I can't remember him talking about the firefight mode in Halo Reach or the hoard mode in gears of war.

Secondly, BO 1 was probably the exception against the rule. To be honest though, his opinion on zombies probably hasn't changed all that much. Would it have made his video or column any more insightful?

Lastly, if you're looking for far more insightful critiques of games, you're probably looking the wrong place. I'd suggest looking at gamasutra articles or something along the lines of Errant Signal or Shamus Young if you want a well thought out critique of something.

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.

Is his assessment of a franchise's unfortunate implications any less of an opinion? If I were being more specific and a hell of a lot more pretentious, I'd actually call it a conjecture or inference, but that ship has sailed... I'm fully willing-- hell, I would love-- to have a discussion on the idea of unfortunate implications when it comes to media, but I'm not going to casually dismiss Yatzee's opinions as just being wrong because they're wrong.

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.

True, it does only go so far, but his "rightwing gun nut" reference seems unqualified enough to seem a tad bit facetious. If you want to make an argument, I'm fully willing to hear it and discuss it. Until then, it essentially amounts to "nu uh."

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.

Again, I suppose it's worth discussing the such problems, but out right dismissing such charges isn't rhetorically sound. Have you thought of trying to make a thread debunking the various claims of jingoism made towards Call of Duty? Have you read up on any of them (they extend to more than yatzee)? I'm not using this as a way of trying to debunk your claims, but because the subject interests me and II'm always willing to hear well made arguments.

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.

Fair enough, but many people hold opinions. Fewer people are able to argue effectively for them. What makes it wrong?

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.

I must admit that I was using hyperbole when I used the word "force." Still, my point stands. Such an exercise is better suited for a more academic or decidedly less bile driven personality.

 

[the clockmaker]

Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

I think you're taking it to extremes here. Backing off the potential strawman ('all success is bad if there's anyone unsuccessful'), what he's really talking about is imperialism. 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? These games that cast all nonwhite characters as cardboard-cut-out-evil just exacerbate this problem.

Spoilers ahead
Just want to note that this game does not do that to non-white characters. Menendez is evil because the US made him evil, a fact which is hammered home fairly often. Salazar seriously believes that what he is doing is in the best interests of everybody. Farid is the most unambiguously moral person in the game, sacrificing himself for others in both stories. The Pakistanis just want the superpowers to notice how much they are suffering in the floods and the main enemy of the game the cordes die network is shown to be completely global, in one of the endings it has yanks burning down the white house as part of the revolution. The only bad non-white people are the Muj, because to show them as what they were ( a loose coalition of both tribal warriors and foriegn jihadis, one small part of which was the taliban, who, at the conclusion of the Soviet occupation, fell into a civil war with itself, which was then 'won' by the taliban) would take up a whole game.

As to the article I had to stop reading when he mentioned guilt. Nothing annoys me more than the concept of inherited guilt (white guilt is not the only manifestation of this). It is the one of the most profoundly self centered attitudes
that I know of, people who would rather sit there and stew in the old days of what their race did than try and pay attention to the thousand quiet atrocities and genocides that still happen today, ostensibly under the guise of 'anti-imperialism'. 'No no no, we can't pay attention to Papua, that belongs to brown people and it would be imperialist for us to care you bigot'. It plays into the idea that white people are the be all and end all, some how separate from the rest of the world.

 

[jmarquiso]

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?

I'm going from a poor memory, mind you. I just remember the moment being striking.

 

[jmarquiso]

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.

Considering I'm actually talking about reducing COD's attempt at cinematic experiences (sensation to sensation to sensation), I think you should really read the content before going off on it. I'm actually damning both mediums for finding themselves doing the same thing.

And you know what, it's largely due to similar problems with high budget titles. Producers have certain scenes in mind, and they have to get there - somehow.

And yes, I do think games are SUPERIOR when they have a good narrative framing around it. Not necessarily a plausible or logical one, but a good one. Super Mario Bros has a spartan narrative, but uses it well. It's a classic Road Movie / Hero's Journey structure - rescue the princess from a giant lizard creature, there's a ton of obstacles on the way. Whole early romantic stories were written with this very plot. It's the Odyssey with interactive buttons. And it's great because LESS is definitely more in this case.

Doom has an incredibly small plot, but it's a elegantly rendered narrative - mainly because you don't notice it. I'm sort of a minimalist when it comes to narrative.

I agree, gameplay comes first. CoD - in its quest for Michael Bay like sensationalism - has sacrificed gameplay for something inferior to narrative - sensationalism.

 

[jmarquiso]

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?

The James Bond franchise was floundering, and the needed some reinvigoration. Eon Productions - the company behind James Bond - was even dealing with losing sales and interest into their pet franchise. Indeed, they were seriously in trouble, believe it or not. So they made a deeper action movie... out of poker.

Casino Royale was an attempt to deepen and develop James Bond by creating - essentially - a prequel. It took him to Skyfall to become the Bond we all know, but now with a deeper understanding of the character. Audiences are more taken with the Craig Bond for this very reason. They still manage to have the beautiful and amazing setpieces and stunts, but they're grounded in character.

While with film, the addage is show don't tell. With games it's Do, don't say. In games like Call of Duty, they barely let you DO and affect the game in any way. This isn't inherently wrong, it's simply shallow. And while that's what people want from the franchise, it'll continue to sell well for a time.

What Yahtzee was saying - and I obviously agree - is that it seems like a waste of riches. Other games take singular or limited mechanics and develop around them. COD simply uses and discards them. I don't like shallow gameplay beyond saying, "it's fun" in short bursts. But afterwards experiences like this leave me hollow. By contrast, Hotline: Miami has incredibly limited mechanics, but I'm incredibly compelled by that game and its use of level design. Mark of the Ninja was one of the best games I played this year, certainly up there in the Stealth genre. Even Deus Ex: Human Revolution felt like more of a game - which has its share of setpieces - that stuck with me for a long time. Or Portal 2 - an on rails First Person Puzzler - plays with the mechanics just enough to keep things interesting, and cuts off just before it gets repetitive (for me, at least - though I agree with Yahtzee's assessment that it's a sight-seeing tour with puzzles in it). Left 4 Dead is - like Call of Duty - about going from point A to B, but gameplay is expressed in how you treat the rest of your team, and how you play. You aren't guaranteed a certain amount of success or seeing a decent amount of effects. The game just let's you DO.

 

[Kopikatsu]

While with film, the addage is show don't tell. With games it's Do, don't say. In games like Call of Duty, they barely let you DO and affect the game in any way. This isn't inherently wrong, it's simply shallow. And while that's what people want from the franchise, it'll continue to sell well for a time.

Have you played Black Ops 2? This isn't a negative comment directed at you, because Yahtzee didn't even mention it either.

If not, I'd strongly recommend that you look at one of my earlier threads, especially the post by Tippy. I think his was number 4-ish? (You'll understand why when you get there): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.394298-Choices-of-Black-Ops-2

 

[jmarquiso]

and the military tech porn isn't helping.

As a former/recovering military tech addict... no... COD is not military tech porn.

That's like calling Armageddon a film made for NASA fanboys, no, it's got space rockets in it but it's about spaceflight, but it anyone who knows anything about spaceflight cringes watching a film like Armageddon.

COD has a John Woo approach to guns, taking the superficial but utterly screwing with the stats and even chronological existence just to impress frat boys. A G11 assault rife in 1968?!?!? It wasn't even out of prototype in 1991!!! FAMAS and AUG? Not till 1980's.

Things like the heartbeat sensor of MW2 are just a slap in the face, it's just a pop culture rip-off from Aliens and anyone who follows military tech knows that's 100% fantasy, but to some frat guys it seems plausible enough... if they know nothing about military tech.

I mean it's about as profound to have something like a heartbeat sensor as having heat-seeking bullets that can bend around corners.

You're absolutely correct here. Perhaps it's more the military fetishization that Michael Bay has brought to the table (other filmmakers have done this with more respect - from Oliver Stone to John Ford). This sort of interest in military tech is 100% fantasy and 100% superficial. It's looking at a gun and seeing potential to look cool, not dangerous potential to be respected. So yeah, I agree, new tech means a superficial showcase of stuff that - as you say - is complete fantasy, and not that interesting beyond its surface.

It's like watching John Voigt stand during Pearl Harbor, complete and utter fantasy and sensationalism used over any kind of deeper understanding.

So you're right, CoD has as much interest in military tech as Armageddon had with NASA. Let's make it LOOK stunning and interesting, but let's not make it anything more that plot contrivance or convenience.

 

[jmarquiso]

While with film, the addage is show don't tell. With games it's Do, don't say. In games like Call of Duty, they barely let you DO and affect the game in any way. This isn't inherently wrong, it's simply shallow. And while that's what people want from the franchise, it'll continue to sell well for a time.

Have you played Black Ops 2? This isn't a negative comment directed at you, because Yahtzee didn't even mention it either.

If not, I'd strongly recommend that you look at one of my earlier threads (You'll understand why when you get there): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.394298-Choices-of-Black-Ops-2

Wow. That's really fascinating. I guess we didn't expect it from previous experience with COD, so yeah, no, I hadn't played or noticed that. I'm really just trying to explain what I understood from the review. You're right, I may have misjudged it. This is just something about the franchise that has bugged me for awhile. Good on Treyarch.

Now I haven't played Black Ops, so I'm not going to comment directly on it. I'm glad to see that such choices exist.

Spec Ops: The Line did this. It gave you obvious binary choices, and then players managed to find third or fourth choices, and things got built up from there. For example:

Spoiler

There's a point where you could choose to shoot a water thief or your own squadmate, with snipers ready to take you out if you don't do it. Players discovered a third choice - shoot the snipers. Or another spot where you aren't obviously given a choice - in which citizens are around you throwing stones, and the only way through is to shoot forward. Players discovered you can shoot into the air.

When I'm talking about agency though - I'm not simply talking about narrative choice. It's more - is there strategy involved. Is there something deeper than "headshot here". When you're strapped to the back of a jeep, these are standard practices of a shooting gallery type game - a game that hasn't evolved much past the carnival guns showcases of yesteryear. Again - not a BAD thing in any way. Just shallow gameplay so one could have the sensation of being nearly blown to bits.

 

[Hyakunin Isshu]

Ben Croshaw: Believe it or not, I don't really like talking about politics....

Which is why he talks about it, in every chance he gets.

 

[Kopikatsu]

While with film, the addage is show don't tell. With games it's Do, don't say. In games like Call of Duty, they barely let you DO and affect the game in any way. This isn't inherently wrong, it's simply shallow. And while that's what people want from the franchise, it'll continue to sell well for a time.

Have you played Black Ops 2? This isn't a negative comment directed at you, because Yahtzee didn't even mention it either.

If not, I'd strongly recommend that you look at one of my earlier threads (You'll understand why when you get there): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.394298-Choices-of-Black-Ops-2

Wow. That's really fascinating. I guess we didn't expect it from previous experience with COD, so yeah, no, I hadn't played or noticed that. I'm really just trying to explain what I understood from the review. You're right, I may have misjudged it. This is just something about the franchise that has bugged me for awhile. Good on Treyarch.

Now I haven't played Black Ops, so I'm not going to comment directly on it. I'm glad to see that such choices exist.

Spec Ops: The Line did this. It gave you obvious binary choices, and then players managed to find third or fourth choices, and things got built up from there. For example:

Spoiler

There's a point where you could choose to shoot a water thief or your own squadmate, with snipers ready to take you out if you don't do it. Players discovered a third choice - shoot the snipers. Or another spot where you aren't obviously given a choice - in which citizens are around you throwing stones, and the only way through is to shoot forward. Players discovered you can shoot into the air.

When I'm talking about agency though - I'm not simply talking about narrative choice. It's more - is there strategy involved. Is there something deeper than "headshot here". When you're strapped to the back of a jeep, these are standard practices of a shooting gallery type game - a game that hasn't evolved much past the carnival guns showcases of yesteryear. Again - not a BAD thing in any way. Just shallow gameplay so one could have the sensation of being nearly blown to bits.

That's the point I was making earlier, though. It doesn't matter what Call of Duty does by this point, those who have already written off the series will most likely continue to decry it (as Yahtzee has). So why try to pander to those people when they already have a huge, well established market? Treyarch responded to some criticisms of the game and got multiple page fulls of 0's on Metacritic for the effort.

The people who decry Call of Duty from the onset are just as guilty (if not moreso) of the stagnation of the industry than the people who buy into it without a second thought.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought up Spec Ops. Games like Spec Ops have been and are being made. If you want a deep, thought provoking experience on the theme of war, you have those games to satisfy that itch. Call of Duty is made for an entirely different crowd who like to shoot through walls with x-ray scopes and rain death on (monetarily) poor brown people with advanced jets. Do games that are mostly for mindless fun not have a right to exist as well? Must every game about war be either ARMA 2 or Spec Ops: The Line in order to be not universally derided as shit on every gaming forum ever?

 

[jmarquiso]

Maybe his humor was ALWAYS 90% sex jokes, and I just got tired of it somewhere down the line. Maybe it's me. Anyway, thank GOD for Jim Sterling, or I'd have zero reason to visit this site.

Sterling is a populist. The only time he touches on anything remotely controversial, it's usually in dealing with sexism or homophobia in gaming. Otherwise it's always on the consumers side stuff, and it's really very shallow without much investigation into things like DRM and the like that he's crusaded against. Not to say I disagree, but his arguments to straw-men industry people are usually "No, don't buy it, fuck off". I prefer deeper discussion.

Yahtzee's entire shtick is to tear down a game - whether he likes it or not. He tore down Just Cause 2, which made his top game of that year. He tore down Arkham Asylum, and it was his top game THAT year. He'll say whether he liked it in the end, but after tearing it a new one each time. We also know - especially from his Extra Punctuation columns - what his personal preferences are. He hates:

1) Multiplayer

2) Regenerating Health

3) Knee High Walls

4) Linearity

And yet, if those games do those things well, he'll be sure to mention it, as he had done with TF2 and Portal (in the same review!). So yes - he's harsh when those things show up. Sometimes he'll warm up to it if it's done well.

Part of following critics is knowing their biases and whether they match your own. Follow these personalities. I know what Jim Sterling likes and dislikes. I know what Yahtzee likes and dislikes. The same with Susan Arendt, Tom Chick, and Jeff Gerstmann. This would give me a better idea of whether I'd like a game than anything else.

 

[jmarquiso]

That's the point I was making earlier, though. It doesn't matter what Call of Duty does by this point, those who have already written off the series will most likely continue to decry it (as Yahtzee has). So why try to pander to those people when they already have a huge, well established market? Treyarch responded to some criticisms of the game and got multiple page fulls of 0's on Metacritic for the effort.

The people who decry Call of Duty from the onset are just as guilty (if not moreso) of the stagnation of the industry than the people who buy into it without a second thought.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought up Spec Ops. Games like Spec Ops have been and are being made. If you want a deep, thought provoking experience on the theme of war, you have those games to satisfy that itch. Call of Duty is made for an entirely different crowd who like to shoot through walls with x-ray scopes and rain death on (monetarily) poor brown people with advanced jets. Do games that are mostly for mindless fun not have a right to exist as well? Must every game about war be either ARMA 2 or Spec Ops: The Line in order to be not universally derided as shit on every gaming forum ever?

That's certainly a fair point. Up until this review, the reviews I read of Black Ops 2 has been largely positive. Honestly what had me write off this game were the trailers, the plot, my history with the franchise, and hiring Ollie North as a spokesman. This might have been unfair, but every step in their marketing told me that this game is simply not for me.

A quick glance at metacritic show 6 positive reviews, 2 mixed, 0 negative. 78 out of 100, so the positive was at the low end of the positive. As Yahtzee gives no score, he isn't counted among them.

Out of the military shooters this year (Medal of Honor, etc) Spec Ops is the only "deeper" military shooter. The majority will be the thrill-seeking style games that they are.

But let's go to COD4: Modern Warfare. It was a brilliant game (Yahtzee even liked it). But then it grew to become a sensation seeking thrill-seeking game with Modern Warfare 3. Part of this issue is the need to have the game come out every year, gaming innovation is incremental at best. There isn't enough time to come up with greater, deeper gameplay, and really test it. What I got out of the modern warfare games - gameplay wise - was not new ways to frame and vary shooting (and shooting down sites), but rather more shooting (and occasional stabbing) from different corridors. Nothing wrong with it, but not my type of game.

I don't see how my demand for varied gameplay and different settings is stifling innovation. I just don't buy the games that don't appeal to me. I'll give a franchise a fair shot, here and there.

Edit:

And also my desire for these games shouldn't take away from the fact that general audiences obviously LIKE Call of Duty.

However, it should be taken as a warning sign that they're actually downgrading Activision due to Black Ops II's performance.

 

[Kopikatsu]

That's the point I was making earlier, though. It doesn't matter what Call of Duty does by this point, those who have already written off the series will most likely continue to decry it (as Yahtzee has). So why try to pander to those people when they already have a huge, well established market? Treyarch responded to some criticisms of the game and got multiple page fulls of 0's on Metacritic for the effort.

The people who decry Call of Duty from the onset are just as guilty (if not moreso) of the stagnation of the industry than the people who buy into it without a second thought.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought up Spec Ops. Games like Spec Ops have been and are being made. If you want a deep, thought provoking experience on the theme of war, you have those games to satisfy that itch. Call of Duty is made for an entirely different crowd who like to shoot through walls with x-ray scopes and rain death on (monetarily) poor brown people with advanced jets. Do games that are mostly for mindless fun not have a right to exist as well? Must every game about war be either ARMA 2 or Spec Ops: The Line in order to be not universally derided as shit on every gaming forum ever?

That's certainly a fair point. Up until this review, the reviews I read of Black Ops 2 has been largely positive. Honestly what had me write off this game were the trailers, the plot, my history with the franchise, and hiring Ollie North as a spokesman. This might have been unfair, but every step in their marketing told me that this game is simply not for me.

A quick glance at metacritic show 6 positive reviews, 2 mixed, 0 negative. 78 out of 100, so the positive was at the low end of the positive. As Yahtzee gives no score, he isn't counted among them.

Out of the military shooters this year (Medal of Honor, etc) Spec Ops is the only "deeper" military shooter. The majority will be the thrill-seeking style games that they are.

But let's go to COD4: Modern Warfare. It was a brilliant game (Yahtzee even liked it). But then it grew to become a sensation seeking thrill-seeking game with Modern Warfare 3. Part of this issue is the need to have the game come out every year, gaming innovation is incremental at best. There isn't enough time to come up with greater, deeper gameplay, and really test it. What I got out of the modern warfare games - gameplay wise - was not new ways to frame and vary shooting (and shooting down sites), but rather more shooting (and occasional stabbing) from different corridors. Nothing wrong with it, but not my type of game.

I don't see how my demand for varied gameplay and different settings is stifling innovation. I just don't buy the games that don't appeal to me. I'll give a franchise a fair shot, here and there.

Those are the 'professional' reviews, which is why I specifically mentioned it as being universally derided on gaming forums, not by the gaming community as a whole.

I wasn't referring to you when I was talking about people who decry it without giving it a chance though. I meant people like this [http://www.destructoid.com/metacritic-user-reviews-do-the-usual-poop-on-black-ops-ii-238504.phtml]

I've never played COD 4, to be honest. I really only 'started' the series with Black Ops 2, specifically because I was so sick of literally everything being blamed on the series, I had to go see what was so horrible and soul-ruining about the franchise myself.

 

[jmarquiso]

Those are the 'professional' reviews, which is why I specifically mentioned it as being universally derided on gaming forums, not by the gaming community as a whole.

I wasn't referring to you when I was talking about people who decry it without giving it a chance though. I meant people like this [http://www.destructoid.com/metacritic-user-reviews-do-the-usual-poop-on-black-ops-ii-238504.phtml]

I've never played COD 4, to be honest. I really only 'started' the series with Black Ops 2, specifically because I was so sick of literally everything being blamed on the series, I had to go see what was so horrible and soul-ruining about the franchise myself.

Fair point. There's a reason I don't stick to gaming forums or user review scores for if I want to buy a game or not. Spec Ops: The Line I didn't want to get due to its marketing. It was all the praise and stuff afterward that had me give it a second look. As mentioned earlier - I find reviewers, find their biases, and go with that.

COD 4 is a defining game in its genre. Modern Warfare 2 and 3 just basically took that and said "more of more of the same". I only played a little of Black Ops 1 off of my roommates Xbox. It seemed to be a more compelling story to me, but according to him it didn't fulfill on the promise. There's a lot of interesting history with military Black Ops, and it had potential - it just didn't go there. I don't know much about Black Ops 2 as much as what the trailers told me, and it told me not to be interested. Specifically in how they used Ollie North. The Iran Contra affair was a dark point in US history, but there were definite reasons for it, whether you agree with them or not (I'm in the "or not" category, if it weren't obvious). \

I'll probably give it a fair shake on a free weekend on Steam or something.

 

[Treblaine]

And if I may say... why DO you care for him to tell you why so many buy the game? You clearly already have your answer, multiplayer.

Other games have multiplayer, but COD is almost a whole order of magnitude more popular, consistently, every year. But I dislike the multiplayer, I complain about it and yet at the same time am compelled to play it... yet feel so unsatisfied from it.

I value Yahtzees insight, with his humerus take he is often able to find simultaneously why something has such strong appeal yet at the same time why it is so awful.

THAT is my burning question! WHY! Why so popular yet so reviled, so loved yet so hated? But I feel he has - how can I put it - unhelpful focus. Focusing his critical eye on the singleplayer he's over-analysing the trivial part and going off in crazy directions.

I want him to make sense of the phenomenal success yet low opinion of COD's multiplayer, why they are the only ones who can do it. I NEED him to do this. I'd honestly feel betrayed if he said it was just a good multiplayer, because it isn't, it's so frustrating and ungratifying.

Yes but when does Call of Duty treat it as a 'socialist tragedy'? It treats it as a gung-ho 'FUCK YEAH AMERICAAAAA!' situation in which all the soldiers are like superheroes fighting off the evil foreigners. I know what you mean, but the game does not treat it like that, so the analogy still works; the game is from the point of view of a rich jerk, even if in reality the average soldier is nothing like what they are in CoD.

No, it's not "fighting off the evil foreigners". 50% of the time in Multipalyer you are non-Americans killing Americans. MW2 the final acts was killing nothing but Americans with the explicit intent of killing an American General. The player is REPEATEDLY put into the perspective of non-Americans and non-whites. Enough with the racism and xenophobia jibes, they are factually incorrect.

The games does lament the discarded soldier, Woods discarded and forgotten in a retirement home. There is lamenting the lack of recognition for efforts. Hell, the apathy of the American public to soldiers deaths was reason for General Shepard going rogue and is presented as a genuinely sympathetic motivation. It's hackneyed and ineffective, but it's there.

And the game isn't "rich" in gameplay features, COD games are made CHEAPLY. It's not rich to have on rails mechanics, those are far cheaper to develop than smaller games having fully fledged mechanics. The IDEA of a flying suit may be something that other smaller games may long for, but COD doesn't ACTUALLY have that, it has an on the rails mechanic and a character model of a flying suit that is NOT AT ALL an expensively wrought out game mechanic.

You want to know where most of the COD money goes other than to the private bank accounts of the executives of Activision? It goes into marketing.

It's not a rich game, the thoroughbred money-earning horse of rich executives.

 

[Duffeknol]

In other news: Far Cry 3 has a fully functional wingsuit.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

1) He attempts to avoid multiplayer unless it is a major part of the game play. He has said this multiple times that he feels that Multiplayer should not be a deciding factor on whether a game is good or not and it shouldn't be a cruch for bad games. So he avoids them unless their necessary. So unless its Super Smash Brawl, Borderlands or Left 4 Dead or anything similar to that, he is most likely not going to "fire up" the multiplayer and personally, I don't think that his refusal to play the multiplayer means that he hasn't played the game.

2) He's not a critic. He's a satirist and there is a very....VERY...big difference.

 

[Mel Theofficegamergirl]

Maybe his humor was ALWAYS 90% sex jokes, and I just got tired of it somewhere down the line. Maybe it's me. Anyway, thank GOD for Jim Sterling, or I'd have zero reason to visit this site.

Sterling is a populist. The only time he touches on anything remotely controversial, it's usually in dealing with sexism or homophobia in gaming. Otherwise it's always on the consumers side stuff, and it's really very shallow without much investigation into things like DRM and the like that he's crusaded against. Not to say I disagree, but his arguments to straw-men industry people are usually "No, don't buy it, fuck off". I prefer deeper discussion.

Yahtzee's entire shtick is to tear down a game - whether he likes it or not. He tore down Just Cause 2, which made his top game of that year. He tore down Arkham Asylum, and it was his top game THAT year. He'll say whether he liked it in the end, but after tearing it a new one each time. We also know - especially from his Extra Punctuation columns - what his personal preferences are. He hates:

1) Multiplayer

2) Regenerating Health

3) Knee High Walls

4) Linearity

And yet, if those games do those things well, he'll be sure to mention it, as he had done with TF2 and Portal (in the same review!). So yes - he's harsh when those things show up. Sometimes he'll warm up to it if it's done well.

Part of following critics is knowing their biases and whether they match your own. Follow these personalities. I know what Jim Sterling likes and dislikes. I know what Yahtzee likes and dislikes. The same with Susan Arendt, Tom Chick, and Jeff Gerstmann. This would give me a better idea of whether I'd like a game than anything else.

You forgot quick time events.

 

[poiuppx]

And if I may say... why DO you care for him to tell you why so many buy the game? You clearly already have your answer, multiplayer.

Other games have multiplayer, but COD is almost a whole order of magnitude more popular, consistently, every year. But I dislike the multiplayer, I complain about it and yet at the same time am compelled to play it... yet feel so unsatisfied from it.

I value Yahtzees insight, with his humerus take he is often able to find simultaneously why something has such strong appeal yet at the same time why it is so awful.

THAT is my burning question! WHY! Why so popular yet so reviled, so loved yet so hated? But I feel he has - how can I put it - unhelpful focus. Focusing his critical eye on the singleplayer he's over-analysing the trivial part and going off in crazy directions.

I want him to make sense of the phenomenal success yet low opinion of COD's multiplayer, why they are the only ones who can do it. I NEED him to do this. I'd honestly feel betrayed if he said it was just a good multiplayer, because it isn't, it's so frustrating and ungratifying.

Ahh, I think I see your position now. My appologies, but in my defense you had obscured it slightly before. I confess, I wouldn't mind seeing a Yahtzee disection of the MP, why it attracts and repels players, etc. Though I imagine he'd be raked over the coal on a Super Smash Bros. level for doing so. I'd also honestly rather see that as its own seperate video... as I said before, my wonk is single-player. And if there's one thing I love, it's when I get a game he's reviewed to rewatch the old review after playing for a bit, just to add a bit of extra context to the jokes and opinions. A video where he ignored or downplayed the single-player in exchange for the MP would likely be something I myself would be bothered by, unless there was another five-minuter devoted to it. Such is the price of time constraints that to go the road you or I prefer, something must end up on the chopping block.

Still, that would be interesting. Maybe even as its own seperate encapsulating video where he could examine modern FPS MP as a whole. It'd be absurdly biased and insulting, but it'd be interesting to see him line up the current crop and show their faults and foibles.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

And the main flaw in your argument is that sales numbers are the be-all/end-all of legitimization.

Just because something is popular and financially successful doesn't make it classy, respectable, or objectively good. And many things that are classy, respectable, or good are not popular and financially successful.

Is CoD the game people want? Yeah. Is it rediculously financially successful? Of course. But neither of these things instill CoD with deeper value, and I'm confident that that was Yahtzee's point: Acitivision and the CoD teams could use their position ("we know that millions are going to buy this game on day one") to at least bring innovation to the genre (they could even push the boundaries of the medium if they chose) but they don't. And that is a waste of potential. Not potential revenue, but potential for something of deeper value.

But sales are at least a reason to look at why it is successful and it is NOT FROM THE SINGLE PLAYER!

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.

Okay, let's calm down a bit.

I never presumed (and I don't think Yahtzee did either) that CoD fans like the game for its single player or that buying/liking a game for the multiplayer when it has a shit campaign story makes them stupid.

Yahtzee and people with similar gaming tastes (such as myself) judge games primarily based on their single player component because that is what they care about the most.

Millions of people bought Black Ops II for its multiplayer and judge it by its multiplayer because that is what they care about.

Neither group has objectively stronger case. It's all opinion.

The fact that CoD is popular and sells millions? All that means is that the second opinion is the more popular opinion; that is all. It doesn't lend more credence to that opinion and it doesn't mean that Yahtzee, or anyone else, is "missing the point." With CoD, or anything else for that matter, people will judge it for what they care about.