Extra Punctuation: Battlefield 3 Is Scary

[mjc0961]

Watching blips on your radar representing someone's son or husband disappear with a plop as someone in your earpiece congratulates you and laughingly points out the remaining ones who are running for their lives.

I guess why I don't have any problems like that is because they aren't someone's son or husband. They're some polygonal models and code at best, and literally just the blip at worst. I guess I'm unable to always shake the fact that it is just a game and immerse myself that far into it. To me, they're just random enemies in a game. I suppose I can see how taking the game that seriously would make these situations creepy, though.

 

[Clonekiller]

Thinking about the lives of those that you kill in war will drive you mad. That's a fact. Just talk to a WWII vet about the subject, and they'll be happy to tell you all about it. In a real war, you cant view your enemies as human. You have to view them as evil, and believe that your cause is just. If you don't, you will either go mad or die. That's why we give our enemies nick names like "crout" or "diaper head", so that we don't think of them as human. This has been true throughout history, and it is doubtful that it will ever change. War in general is creepy. The only reason modern war games creep people out more than fantasy / historical war games is because there is a greater sense of disconnect between us and the game. Obviously, I will probably never see a large force of armor-clad orcs marching on my house. An army of infantry & helicopters? Still unlikely, but much easier to imagine.

On another note, wouldn't it be cool if a war game touched on the concept of dehumanization? Maybe in a WWII game you strike up a conversation with a German captive, who it turns out moved to Germany from your home town. (Band of Brothers reference)

 

[Le_Lisra]

For once, I second his points and find them not just entertaining.

 

[Animyr]

Stories loose tension when there's no doubt about the moral and militaristic perfection of the good guys? No way!

 

[Doopliss64]

The best thing about Call of Duty 4 (the game that started all this nonsense) was that it was supposed to be scary. Everything in it, AC-130 level in particular, was cold, clinical and alien. The U.S. was portrayed as it actually is, an overzealous warmongering force that has bitten off more than it can chew. Meanwhile, as Yahtzee has pointed out, the British troops come off as borderline psychotic. Almost every setpiece was special because, until that point, wargames were about putting you face-first into the horrors of war, while COD4 put you in situations where YOU were the one killing off enemy troops like plastic army men, totally desensitized to their plight. So when the tables finally turned, and players were presented with a nuke right in their face, it was one of the most shocking video game moments ever. The bloody spectacle was memorable because it contrasted with our modern clean, detached perspective on warfare that the game also portrayed.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Not to shunt the discussion into politics, but I think this dichotomy is also represented in the current evolution of American patriotism: We at once celebrate the overwhelming power of our military and the ability it gives us to dictate to other nations, and at the same time perceive ourselves as the misunderstood underdogs, struggling to guide a world that just doesn't see how right we are.

It's some bizarre mental contortion when you really think about it, and I can certainly see why many of those outside (and within) this nation don't understand it.

And within? May I ask where?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

@Yahtzee

On the off-chance that you read these comments, I just wanted to say that I'm surprised to see you say this:

It's still another triple-A shooter that succumbs to what I'm starting to call "sightseeing tour syndrome" - where every slightest movement on the part of the player is rigidly predetermined in order to show off the spectacular set pieces. Where every now and again an attempt is made to break up the monotony by locking you into a vehicle or turret section which you are permitted to enjoy for an allotted fun period before being kicked out for the next predetermined point.

This is something I hate in games, and have hated ever since I first saw it used extensively... in Half-Life 2. Valve (the company that you are so openly enamoured with) are IMO almost solely responsible for the popularisation of this sort of gameplay.

 

[freakonaleash]

Well you can't blame murica for this one...this game was made by SWEDES!

 

[Koroviev]

You mean people actually expect the single player in a shooting game to have a decent story or to try and justify war? I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I like the Battlefield series (1942 and BF2) is the large, open maps and the ability to use the vehicles. Get tired of killing each other? Have a jeep race, or try and to stupid aerial maneuvers in the planes.

This is what I was thinking. The reason I want to play Battlefield 3 is because the multiplayer looks genuinely fun, not because I want to experience a good story. If I wanted to do that, I'd put down the controller and pick up a book.

 

[Neo Kojiro]

You know, between two Mana Bars, two Escapist paychecks, and his book dealings, Yahtzee probably has a fair chunk of change kicking around. If he really wanted to, he could probably give an indie game developer or two a fair jumpstart of funding. Might not add to much considering what they could get with modern game distribution, though.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

You know what I find scary?

The fact that there are so many games that are glorifying war and how the people who win it are always the righteous and true ones and how it's always great to fight for your fellow man and country and whatnot.

Yes, I know that these games try to go out of their way to show the horrors of war, and how not ALL games are saying that war is awesome, but when you get right down to it, the ending scene of Blops goes on about how the military is awesome and how we'll always win, and I've heard a lot of people talk about how war is awesome and whatnot.

:/ It's actually kinda scary. Maybe I'm just being paranoid or stupid or drawing some hasty conclusions, but I feel that an oversaturation of games like CoD and Battlefield might drill into our next generation's minds that the only way this could possibly get any better is if they had real AK-47s and were shooting at real-life, breathing people in a real war.



... I'm not trying to sound like I'm criticizing the game industry or saying that video games are promoting violence or whatnot, like those idiots at Fox. Just my own opinions.

 

[Aeonknight]

@Yahtzee

On the off-chance that you read these comments, I just wanted to say that I'm surprised to see you say this:

It's still another triple-A shooter that succumbs to what I'm starting to call "sightseeing tour syndrome" - where every slightest movement on the part of the player is rigidly predetermined in order to show off the spectacular set pieces. Where every now and again an attempt is made to break up the monotony by locking you into a vehicle or turret section which you are permitted to enjoy for an allotted fun period before being kicked out for the next predetermined point.

This is something I hate in games, and have hated ever since I first saw it used extensively... in Half-Life 2. Valve (the company that you are so openly enamoured with) are IMO almost solely responsible for the popularisation of this sort of gameplay.

Agreed. personally I don't mind some scripted events if it helps to further the gameplay experience or plot in some way. But stuff like BF3 where it was nothing but QTE's for fight scenes and such... and even in MW3's campaign where you were literally knocked on your ass every 5 minutes by a bomb... it breaks up the game play too much.

Done right, it's great imo. Done wrong, and it starts feeling like a Micheal Bay movie.

Also, can't help but notice the shameless plug for Binding of Isaac. Indie game... get off steam... seems like a kind of cliche move to appeal to the anti-fanboys. I expected better of you Yahtzee.

 

[mattaui]

At the very least, a lot of Modern Warfare 3 isn't about anyone being an underdog, but about a superpower and a resurgent superpower fighting it out on the streets of western cities. As was also noted, CoDBlOps was full on Cold War military paranoia and cynicism.

I see a lot of people trying to tell me what patriotism means, and then therefore why I shouldn't be patriotic. It simply means a love of country and your fellow citizens, which of course no one is required to have (at least not in most Western nations, elsewhere YMMV) and you're just required not to want to be involved in active, armed overthrow of it and you're good.

The problem is when people equate patriotism with military action, as opposed to just equating it with appreciating the service of the troops (and everyone else who makes the wheels of government function). I see it as patriotic to want my fellow citizens to be successful, to pay my taxes to make sure that we benefit as a society, to obey the laws (or to properly challenge unconstitutional laws in court) and to try and generally create what I believe to be a society that I want to live in.

What else do you call it when you're involved and engaged in the country and the world you live in, and not just drinking beer and playing video games and hoping someone else is paying attention so you don't have to be bothered with all that boring important stuff out there? I call it the very definition of patriotism.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Great to see you gave Binding of Isaac some love. God knows that game deserves it. Hopefully it'll boost sales a little... (psst everyone go buy it on Steam pssst)

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I wonder how he feels about MW2/3's enemies, which was the equally strong and technologically powerful Russian Army

Cover systems and regenerating health? Probably not much, but he might not despise it so much either.

 

[Vault101]

sorry double post

 

[Vault101]

I like how you quickly mini-review some games (like Space Marine a few weeks ago) in these EPs.

"Sightseeing tour", huh? That's what you called Portal 2, and it makes sense when you think about it. As Portal 2 goes on, more and more in-game scenes happen (such as two spliced chambers being smashed together), and the mere spectacle adds nothing to the gameplay by instead focusing on presentation. The masses (myself included) tend to love these displays, but as another of my favored reviewers (acornfilms on Youtube) has said, "[The core would be] PLAY over disPLAY".

"Sightseeing tour", huh? That's what you called Portal 2, and it makes sense when you think about it. As Portal 2 goes on, more and more in-game scenes happen (such as two spliced chambers being smashed together), and the mere spectacle adds nothing to the gameplay by instead focusing on presentation. The masses (myself included) tend to love these displays, but as another of my favored reviewers (acornfilms on Youtube) has said, "[The core would be] PLAY over disPLAY".

I loved that bit too, and if I remember correctly (probably not. Haven't played Portal 2 in months :/) that bit is when

Spoiler

Wheatly has taken control and doesn't know what he's doing.

That would have been designed to show how little control he has.

Also, weren't there also differences in the puzzles? Literally cannot remember.

I dont know...I alays saw the in game set peices as "in-between" the puzzles...you still do puzzles just like the original portal

I sort of see where he's coming from in that specitcle takes over game play..I supose set peices are becoming the new "cutscene"

still I love me some setpeices

 

[Alexnader]

snip

Yahtzee said in his BF3 sketch "Battlefield 3 was built on the Frostbite 2 engine. I know this for a fact because it can't go 5 minutes without banging on about it."

If you play the MP it never even shows you a Frostbite 2 logo at all. So yeah, to me it seems like we have different versions of the game.
Or like one of us didn't really pay much attention to the game.

Or you didn't pay attention to that ZP episode. Each time a wall is taken down, a building collapses, etc it's the developers hinting at how powerful the engine is.

MP is full of "Look at Frostbite 2!!!" moments because honestly it is what you are looking at.

Yeah, or it's just the developers making a really damn good game? The cynical few may call the way buildings groan and slowly shatter in multiplayer fetishistic and designed to market the engine, however I call it really really cool. Especially when you just manage to leap out of a building as it crumbles around you.

Essentially, you could say every game is marketing the engine it's built on because what the player sees constantly is what the engine renders.


Anyway, assuming Yachtzee is totally serious and sincere in his reviews (that's a big assumption to make) I'd say he doesn't get Battlefield 3. He decries linearity, repetition and lack of player agency in games and then just ignores the multiplayer which has everything he's looking for.

 

[-|-]

Talk about over-thinking things - sheesh. Games like MW and BF are supposed to be mindless fun and for many they are - and more importantly they aren't real ffs!!!

 

[zoomyetti4890]

While the air bombing in the MW series is questionable, I'm not sure how far removed it is from tower defense levels that have been ubiquitous long before it. e.g. mowing down waves of cartoony soldiers in Armed & Dangerous (which is ridiculously easy on Normal)

Yahtzee raises complaints about militarism of the recent AAA-shooters, yet he seems looks past/ enjoys nearly equally disturbing aspects of Condemned and Blood etc (not that they aren't fun games) ... though even his original reaction to MW1 overlooked the jingoism to enjoy, um, how engaging the rollercoaster is, or something like that.

Maybe a future EP could look at classism in games?