I think this is just proof to the concept really. The more vitriolic you are about something popular, the more people attempt to relate or claim you have some sort of 'insight' or maybe this is just the community depicted by the appeal of yahtzee at hyperbole value. Honestly, as far as it goes your review doesn't really clarify anything. Seriously. Yet here everyone is claiming that you have exposed the conspiracy of the year. Honestly, I am genuinely curious to how 'gratuitous' your claims are; such as dedicating nearly half of the review and the video on the pentagon scene to essentially state 'omg the graphics, omg' because honestly:
I'm not seeing it.
Furthermore, I feel as if I should question the overall integrity of this review, being that every other credible source of reviews have given the game story it's appraisal. Yet here, it seems as if you have missed the point entirely. And this entire thing seems like an extreme catch-22 to me. considering a game as you so put it where you simply get to 'shoot things', would be deemed as lacking in any immersion value; while the opposite would be considered lacking in gameplay. And I know, the Call of Duty series has never been the best source of logical story. And I also know that majority of their player base doesn't give a flying fuck about any conceivable story. In all truthfulness, I enjoyed the fact that Treyarch attempted to change the formula, in a way to scrutinize themselves accordingly from the Infinity Ward layout. Yet Treyarch would be getting the boot from pundits either way; if abiding by the Infinity Ward formula, they would be called lazy and unoriginal and when attempting to mix it up a little, they are considered to be 'ruining' the COD series. But I feel it foolish to try involve the player more because really, look where its gotten them.
The story is ridiculous and poorly implemented, the levels are a mishmash and the gameplay feels like the worst elements of Modern Warfare were tossed into a bag then dumped out on the carpet without any of the heart that glued them all together into a good game the last time around.
Really? Really, really... really. Considering that Modern Warfare 2 was given the award for 'best shooter' on this site. Although I do suppose none of these rewards actually
mean anything -- to the other writers opinions either way. And anyway I don't think there isn't a Call of Duty game where, if I can quote my own review a second: 'the standard Call of Duty, world of implausibility and inexplicability' could not be considered and to use another quote from my own review(cwidt): 'inconvertible, incomprehensible and incorrigible descension into a conspiracy theory nightmare'. So anyway, lets see what some other reviewers thoughts on this are.
Jim Sterling said:
From its genuinely intriguing plot, full of dark twists and historical cameos, to the endless set pieces that throw the player from one ludicrously action-packed scenario to the next, Call of Duty: Black Ops is the game with which Treyarch has finally put its definitive stamp on the series, and even eclipsed Infinity Ward in terms of in-game narrative and memorable moments.
Keith Stuart said:
this is easily the most cogent and well-constructed story we've seen from this franchise in a number of years. Although it's not quite the time-travelling psychedelic drug orgy some were expecting, there are several well-handled plot twists that make Modern Warfare's narrative battering ram look even more brutish and incoherent.
And if I was lastly to key upon some points made in this review. This time an example of writer dissuasion. Or at least the extent of a flawed or 'self-opinionated' rating system in operation here.
Russ Pits said:
Recommendation: Playing Call of Duty Black Ops is an exercise in futility and frustration punctuated by brief moments of genuine fun. I can't recommend the game to anyone who doesn't hate themselves and want to inflict pain on their own psyche.
While -
John Funk said:
With its brilliantly-designed credits system that encourages players to try new things, some great maps and some hilariously creative game types, though, it's safe to say that the multiplayer in Treyarch's Black Ops is easily as fun as the series has ever been - perhaps even more so.
But I suppose this was Treyarch's original downfall, by generally hoping that people would adequate enough and actually enjoy a bit more emphasis on complexity in single player story. And in addition to well-made multiplayer. They have pretty much signed the contract to become the essential snide/snobbery remark target for the pseudo-gaming community. If only this attempt at story telling was pulled off in a different series. Then it might of been considered an intellectual attempt at creating a good story. But due to this being a mainstream game it is born with the stamp of both disinterest and the tard fanbase.
---
Now, my problem with this isn't the clear avoidance John Funk had with mentioning anything residing with single player content. No. Although the rating could be changed in addition to his review to level out the score of a complete review, not just the score of the first person to review it. But what I am against - is bad reviews. With plenty of problems residing within Black Ops, there is so much more that could be used to criticise the game. And avoiding the process of coming across as forced and inessential. Most of which have been within the Call of Duty series since they started going modern. But sorry russ, this twinned with a few of your other reviews - can easily be discredited by anyone with even a smidgen of individual thought; as result they do not hold water, hell they barely hold air. Either you are lacking a solid 'insight' or you are simply caught up in the meaning of 'awesome' to see the real faults behind the thing considered prominent.
And I can already see how this will pan out.
