Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[jmarquiso]

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.

Ha! Like that's ever stopped him before!

That said, I.... AGREE! actually. That'd be fun and full of popcorn.

 

[Bindal]

its the same as always just reskined.

Well, except it is not. There are some serious changes (mostly how Create-A-Class works now).

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Wait, don't James Bond games basically do the same thing? Giving you gadgets that only have one use over the course of the game?

Come to think of it, doesn't the James Bond film series do the same thing?

They do, which is why I got far more invested in Daniel Craig's Bond than any other, who just came off as pompous assholes with way too much time and money on their hands. I always thought he would be the worst agent because he draws attention to himself and causes massive collateral damage because he takes the most roundabout routes through the plots. At least with Craig, they explained why he was like that while showing him as a vulnerable human.

Back on topic, what he means by a waste is that there are countless uses for several devices in the COD series that are used in a small cutscene and nothing else. Games with a much smaller budget are able to afford more flexibility, such as operating such devices, yet COD refuses to. Why is that? Is the COD community so allergic to change that such diversity would cause them to reject it or has Activision caught on that no one cares? I'd say a bit of both. I also read that it's because it would take too much programming space to do so. Just Cause 2? Hitman? Spiderman? Was it too much then? Was it too hard to put vehicles and parachutes in Battlefield?

Regarding questions as to why he refuses to review online game portions of most FPSs, think about the game itself. Is a COD multiplayer worth reviewing when it'll be gone in a year? The SP is what will remain while the rest shrivels up with only the most ardent of players staying on each game, meaning that newcomers will encounter a huge wall when they have next to no gadgets or skill while everyone else has everything. Besides, the game is $60 and should have SP (which remains long after MP is gone) at least as strong as the (short-lived) MP. DayZ was something he did when he had nothing else to review and it turned out to be an actually good game, something rather unexpected.

You also have to consider that the game states that the SP is also important and will be a draw for those who do not have an internet connection, so when they buy it they will be disappointed (give each game a chance).

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

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

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

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

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

I couldn't agree more with both of you.

I find it incredibly annoying when people whine about "the new Call of Duty is exactly the same as the last one". Well, in terms of fundamental gameplay, yes of course it is. What would anyone expect it to be? And, of course, these complaints never come with a suggested solution of exactly *what* they would like to see the gameplay change to.

It's simple: if you don't like how Call of Duty plays, don't buy it.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

The main flaw in his argument is this right here:

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

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

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

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

Yes, COD should stay as COD and not change dramatically, but as I see it that isnt the point Yahtzee was making. The point is (I think) that the amount of resources poured into making a new COD game is largely a waste. They have largely the same style of play from game to game, same art style, same engine etc, with just a few tweaks and a new story each time. Considering how much money each iteration makes, can you honestly say the company spends that amount making the next title? Of course not, and so maybe they could use some of the huge profit they make every year developing new ideas and franchises, as they are in an almost unique position to play around.

PS. Sorry if there are typos in the last quarter of the comment box, theres an ad here

You mean like Skylanders, perhaps? ;-)

It's very insulting to Treyarch to dismiss the hurculean effort from the hundreds of people involved in the development of this game.

"Largely the same style of play" - of course. What would you expect? A driving game?

"same art style" - why does this mean anything? ALL of the environments have to be created pretty much from scratch, the new characters, new animations, the cut scenes, the mocap, the weapons, the audio, the new gameplay code, and so on. All this takes a lot of people a lot of time. To dismiss it as the same as the last game is naive. I can tell you've never made a game before.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

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?

Very well said. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

You can tell that the programmers and script writers have never read a book between them. I don't believe that they did any research unless they count watching Black Hawk Down twenty times as research. No matter how many bells and whistles they pin to a turd they will forever be trying to fake a approximation of quality. Taste is cultivated and you can't buy class.

I know I sound snobby there, sorry but its true. Nazi zombies looks like fun but if a dead body really rose up and tried to kill you would you really care if he was a fascist?

 

[Ninjamedic]

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.

Could be that the Multi-player of Call of Duty hasn't really changed since COD4. Sure, a couple of things have been thrown in, and some game breakers (Dual Model 1887's, quick-scoping, Commando+Marathon+Tactical Knife) have been eased, but the main issues are still there. Lone Wolfing, lack of true weapon balance, bad level design, and his critique of wasted resources can be easily applied to the multi-player.

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

Can I ask why British folk constantly apologize for being one of the most successful Empires in the history of the world?

 

[BarbaricGoose]

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.

So you're saying that CoD's multiplayer isn't "a major part of the game," even though pretty much everyone who buys the game buys it for the multiplayer?

You know, I wouldn't care if he didn't play the multiplayer in, say, Bioshock 2, Dead Rising 2, Dead Space 2, or Spec Ops, but that's because the multiplayer in those games is just a gimmick to milk online passes or some such. In CoD, if anything, the single player is the gimmick. I still enjoy the single player, but I don't spend $60 for an 8 hour campaign; I spend $60 for the 100-some hours I'll invest over the next few months in the multiplayer. And I'm not saying he has to play it for a long time, but he should play it.

And Yahtzee IS a critic. Like it or not, he is. He is not a critic in the traditional sense of "This game gets a [number score]," but he is very much a critic. All the Extra Punctuation things he does are pretty much proof of this; he critiques games. He tries to be funny (and in my opinion, he's stopped succeeding), but he is still a critic. It even says in his profile that he is a critic, and that's from the man himself.

Also, I'm pretty sure he didn't play the multiplayer in Borderlands, but that didn't stop him from reviewing it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

So you're saying that CoD's multiplayer isn't "a major part of the game," even though pretty much everyone who buys the game buys it for the multiplayer?

Yes, I am. While that may be the franchises main selling point, it should come secondary to the actual game. Unless the game was completely designed around multiplayer in a similar style like TF2, Tribes: Ascend or Shadowrun:The FPS, the game needs to have a single player experience that can stand on its own. There are a lot of people who can and most likely will buy the game without access to the online portion of it due to not having an online account on the consoles or a crappy internet connection on the PC. In short, those people are spending 60 bucks for the single player experience. They should get a detailed idea of what they're buying.

You know, I wouldn't care if he didn't play the multiplayer in, say, Bioshock 2, Dead Rising 2, Dead Space 2, or Spec Ops, but that's because the multiplayer in those games is just a gimmick to milk online passes or some such. In CoD, if anything, the single player is the gimmick. I still enjoy the single player, but I don't spend $60 for an 8 hour campaign; I spend $60 for the 100-some hours I'll invest over the next few months in the multiplayer. And I'm not saying he has to play it for a long time, but he should play it.

Except multiplayer can't be reviewed effectively or at least not in the same mindset as normal reviewers tend to work in. A video game is 50-50, one half gameplay and the other half comprised of all the devices that create the game world (The plot, the level design, the dialogue etc etc.) In multiplayer, much of the latter is gutted out in favor of the former. There have been plenty of lackluster single player games with half decent multiplayers games (Bioshock 2, Deadrising 2, Dead Space 2 all come to mind), but that doesn't save them from the flack. Why should we be giving CoD a handicap? Because a lot of people who buy it mostly due to brand loyalty and peer pressure buy it? Even most of the CoD community agree that the multiplayer has gotten worse with time.

And Yahtzee IS a critic. Like it or not, he is. He is not a critic in the traditional sense of "This game gets a [number score]," but he is very much a critic. All the Extra Punctuation things he does are pretty much proof of this; he critiques games. He tries to be funny (and in my opinion, he's stopped succeeding), but he is still a critic. It even says in his profile that he is a critic, and that's from the man himself.

and I could call myself the queen of finland, that doesn't mean I am one, he doesn't fall under the definition of a critic. He can call himself a critic, because as far as things go, that's what his employers put him as when they hired him, but he's more of a satirical writer since his writing is often intended to be humorous and to shame the target into preforming better. A critic merely points out the facts. You could call Satire a form of criticism if you want, but that definition is arguable as well since Satire often uses misdirection and humor in an attempt to get their argument across rather than present it in a formal manner like say, Robert Ebert.

Also, I'm pretty sure he didn't play the multiplayer in Borderlands, but that didn't stop him from reviewing it.

He did try the multiplayer actually and listed a very brief rant on why he doesn't review multiplayer games. 1) He doesn't enjoy playing with people outside of the same room as him because he doesn't enjoy people being able to get away with breaking the rules of basic social etiquette. 2) He doesn't have enough friends that are able to play split-screen with him all the way through the game and 3) His connection literally timed out after 3 minutes and during those 3 minutes, he saw nothing different from the single player experience outside of tougher monsters and silent players running off to leave him to his fate. and 4) He believes a game should be able to stand on its own. He's been saying that for the last 4 years and every time he's compromised that one rule of his, he has stated that he has usually ended up disappointed.

In closing: The guy doesn't like nor does he play multiplayer games and asking him to review it is like asking me to cut my hand off, I could do it, but I'm not gonna put myself through something I'm not gonna enjoy just so you'll be briefly satisfied.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

You know, I never really thought about the whole modern shooter genre in that way before.

And yeah, it is depressing how absolutely haphazard the focus is. The game feels like it has to do something new every five seconds, like it has a textbook definition of variety and applying it in all of the wrong areas.

And now I just remembered how CoD MW3's story jumped everywhere and I thought it was boring as sin.

 

[Starker]

and the military tech porn isn't helping.

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

COD tech is to real world military tech what porn is to real sex. Not in the sense that it's super accurate, but that it caters to a particular audience. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnologyPorn

COD itself is a lot like porn, as both feature a lot of assholes and wanking.

*sigh* It's really quite depressing how quickly "white people have had a history of abusing other, less-well-off cultures and should really stop glorifying it in games" has become "Yahtzee hates all white people and wants them to be hated and feel guilty all the time".

QFT

 

[xqxm]

.. I thought BlOps 2 was okay.

But Yahtzee's points are mostly valid. Though I don't really appreciate the notion that one should submit to being fettered by cultural guilt.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

So you're saying that CoD's multiplayer isn't "a major part of the game," even though pretty much everyone who buys the game buys it for the multiplayer?

Yes, I am. While that may be the franchises main selling point, it should come secondary to the actual game. Unless the game was completely designed around multiplayer in a similar style like TF2, Tribes: Ascend or Shadowrun:The FPS, the game needs to have a single player experience that can stand on its own. There are a lot of people who can and most likely will buy the game without access to the online portion of it due to not having an online account on the consoles or a crappy internet connection on the PC. In short, those people are spending 60 bucks for the single player experience. They should get a detailed idea of what they're buying.

They have just as detailed an idea of what they're buying as they do with any other game. I don't really get your argument here. They could look up the game if they wanna know more about it, as they'd do with any other game they were gonna buy. If they have no internet, then they're taking a shot in the dark, as they would with any other game.

And how is the multiplayer any less of the "actual game"? Why is the single player the "actual game," if the multiplayer is clearly the main attraction?

You know, I wouldn't care if he didn't play the multiplayer in, say, Bioshock 2, Dead Rising 2, Dead Space 2, or Spec Ops, but that's because the multiplayer in those games is just a gimmick to milk online passes or some such. In CoD, if anything, the single player is the gimmick. I still enjoy the single player, but I don't spend $60 for an 8 hour campaign; I spend $60 for the 100-some hours I'll invest over the next few months in the multiplayer. And I'm not saying he has to play it for a long time, but he should play it.

Except multiplayer can't be reviewed effectively or at least not in the same mindset as normal reviewers tend to work in. A video game is 50-50, one half gameplay and the other half comprised of all the devices that create the game world (The plot, the level design, the dialogue etc etc.) In multiplayer, much of the latter is gutted out in favor of the former. There have been plenty of lackluster single player games with half decent multiplayers games (Bioshock 2, Deadrising 2, Dead Space 2 all come to mind), but that doesn't save them from the flack. Why should we be giving CoD a handicap? Because a lot of people who buy it mostly due to brand loyalty and peer pressure buy it? Even most of the CoD community agree that the multiplayer has gotten worse with time.

"Can't be reviewed effectively"? What? Look at the metacritic for BO2. All 89 of those critics had zero problems reviewing the multiplayer side of that game. Maybe it's cause it's 1 AM here, but I don't quite get what you're trying to say. It's not any harder to review multiplayer than it is single player. At the least, Yahtzee might've been able to come up with some jokes that were actually funny (personal opinion) if he invested a few hours playing the other 80% of the game; you know, the multiplayer.

Also: most people buy CoD because of brand loyalty or peer pressure? Seriously? You have any statistics to back that up? Any at all? You are aware that the people hate Activision almost as much as EA, right? In fact, they hated Activision more than EA until EA decided to go all Hitler Stalin full retard[sup]1[/sup].

And Yahtzee IS a critic. Like it or not, he is. He is not a critic in the traditional sense of "This game gets a [number score]," but he is very much a critic. All the Extra Punctuation things he does are pretty much proof of this; he critiques games. He tries to be funny (and in my opinion, he's stopped succeeding), but he is still a critic. It even says in his profile that he is a critic, and that's from the man himself.

and I could call myself the queen of finland, that doesn't mean I am one, he doesn't fall under the definition of a critic. He can call himself a critic, because as far as things go, that's what his employers put him as when they hired him, but he's more of a satirical writer since his writing is often intended to be humorous and to shame the target into preforming better. A critic merely points out the facts. You could call Satire a form of criticism if you want, but that definition is arguable as well since Satire often uses misdirection and humor in an attempt to get their argument across rather than present it in a formal manner like say, Robert Ebert.

How does he not fit the definition of a critic? Critic:

noun.
1. a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes: a poor critic of men.
3. a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgments; faultfinder.

Yahtzee criticizes the SHIT out of these games. That's why I originally found him so hilarious. Only the bad side of the game; only the faults. The word "Critic" fits Yahtzee like an expensive leather glove. He may not be traditional, but he IS a critic. He is satirical in his reviews, but critics don't have to be completely devoid of a sense of humor. Although, he is getting there.

I don't know what else to say here. If you're not gonna take the man's own word for it, or the definition of "Critic," there's no way I can convince you otherwise.

Also, I'm pretty sure he didn't play the multiplayer in Borderlands, but that didn't stop him from reviewing it.

He did try the multiplayer actually and listed a very brief rant on why he doesn't review multiplayer games. 1) He doesn't enjoy playing with people outside of the same room as him because he doesn't enjoy people being able to get away with breaking the rules of basic social etiquette. 2) He doesn't have enough friends that are able to play split-screen with him all the way through the game and 3) His connection literally timed out after 3 minutes and during those 3 minutes, he saw nothing different from the single player experience outside of tougher monsters and silent players running off to leave him to his fate. and 4) He believes a game should be able to stand on its own. He's been saying that for the last 4 years and every time he's compromised that one rule of his, he has stated that he has usually ended up disappointed.

In closing: The guy doesn't like nor does he play multiplayer games and asking him to review it is like asking me to cut my hand off, I could do it, but I'm not gonna put myself through something I'm not gonna enjoy just so you'll be briefly satisfied.

I stand corrected.

But again, for most games, I really wouldn't give a shit if he touched the multiplayer or not, but reviewing BO2 and not playing the multiplayer just strikes me as stupid. It's like going to a Baskin Robbins and ordering only a cone. It may HAVE a single player element, but it's a lot more TF2 than it is Dragon Age; people don't buy it for the single player. The single player is there, and it's fun, but most people don't have enough money, or perhaps just don't want to drop $60 on an 8 hour campaign; most people are buying it for the multiplayer.

Then again, The Escapist isn't MOST people. I think most people who watch ZP are going to jump at every chance they get to bash CoD, so it just struck me how stupid it is to be complaining about this. Oh well--too late.

And come on, I know you're joking, but let's not compare playing an hour of multiplayer to cutting off our hands. It wouldn't be that bad for anyone, not even Yahtzee. Worst case scenario, he doesn't use a mic. I don't think I'm asking for the world here.

[sup]1. I don't like using the word "Retard," but I did enjoy Tropic Thunder.[/sup]

 

[jmarquiso]

Can I ask why British folk constantly apologize for being one of the most successful Empires in the history of the world?

Because of the manner in which they did so.

 

[purf]

Nah. At first I wanted to write something that would have included the words "sales figures" and "Justinbieber" and then maybe "Whack-A-Mole" but after reading a bit of this thread here, I can't be arsed anymore so I'm just going to type a few more words in order to not get a low-content warning when all I want to express is my amusement by...

PHWOAR!

 

[Russ Parson]

I find it interesting that he used a comparison about someone who owns so many nice pants and doesn't know how to enjoy them when yahtzee himself has many problems with so many nice games. Mind you almost all games, all games if we don't count portal, will have problems, but often times his inability to look past them (or his unwillingness to) reminds me of the person who has lost the joy and respect for his many pair of shiny pants.

 

[Maszynow]

That's very true, but there is one thing that bugs me here. I think that Blops 2 is in the privilaged position because it always WAS and IS, as Yahtzee once said, 'brown'. Gaining this place is rather difficult with imaginative, original design, unless a magical brick hits the public in the head and it suddenly decides, that pursuing a cake is fascinating thus deserves all our money.

Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that usually games succeed in achieving 'power' through being generic.