The Not Quite Best Games of 2011

[Yopaz]

Now don't feel bad for shitting on the rather awful shooter industry, they are rather rubbish nowadays. They probably will continue with this for some time too, which is sad. There's a serious lack of innovation and creative thoughts in the success formula, and me for one have just ended up so sick of shooting terrorist after terrorist that I basicly stopped playing them around October, when Battlefield 3 just turned out as a dull gasp. I'd rather like them to make games relying on stealth and non-violence, a bit more difficult than Deus Ex Human Revolution's easy sneaking. Hopefully upcoming stealth games like Dishonored and Thi4f will prove a better experience for the coward I am, letting me huddle together like a little ball in the shadows hoping the guard didn't see me. And hopefully it will cure its stupid number-in-title disease.

There's no real need for creativity or innovation in the success formula. Modern Warfare 3 is one of the best selling titles despite the lack of both those 2 qualities and a proper campaign. I suspect that changing too much would alienate the crowd that instantly buys the games and though we might end up with better games they might lose a few sales from it. It's sad...

 

[The Funslinger]

Yeah... I was a bit surprised to not see Call of Juarez: The Cartel on the list. Everyone I know (me included) disliked that game. But Yahtzee has a point. I don't hate the game, I just get depressed whenever I think about it. Is that hatred? ... It's entirely possible.

I never played it, but if Extra Credits is to be believed (about the game twisting how the Cartel worked and passing it off as fact) then it's certainly one game I don't need to play to know I hate it. Even if the gameplay wasn't purportedly mediocre, it's still offensive.

 

[Woodsey]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Still not really seeing the issue with Arkham City. When I got Arkham Asylum for almost full retail price, I felt I had made a terrible decision after I finished it. For the same price, if not more, I don't regret Arkham City a bit.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Bluecho]

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

 

[draythefingerless]

im surprised he dislikes arkham city more than asylum, despite arkham citys overall story arc is superior(and im sorry, but that ending in arkham city alone is better than the whole arkham asylum game).

 

[Erttheking]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

I never read the comments on the worst game of the year because I guessed there would probably be a shit-storm about them. (Also I called in advance that Yahtzee's worst game of the year would be either MW3 or BF3) Gold star for me.

I guess though one reason why people are "upset" about the fact is that Yahtzee just refuses to acknowledge the multiplayer aspect of those games which is arguably the bigger portion of those titles. Some people will buy those games exclusively for the multiplayer.
So I guess some people feel hard done by, because Yahtzee never really reviewed those games in their entirety and his view of them is ill-informed because he plain refuses to play or acknowledge the existence of 70% of the game.

Heck, BF3 didn't have a single player until this most recent iteration. It used to be Multiplayer only, with the option to practice offline against bots.
So I understand where a lot of people are coming from I guess. It's like saying WoW is crap because the singleplayer just doesn't do much. At all.

On the other hand based on previous statements I doubt Yahtzee would like those games more if he did play the multiplayer anyway.

Though I wonder why so many people are so intent on having some "random" dude like the game they like...

 

[Woodsey]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

 

[Erttheking]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

You can't say Arkham Asylum is "in fact" better than Arkham City because that's not a goddamn fact, it's an opinion. Yahtzee's been utterly dismissive of other opinions lately.

 

[Woodsey]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

"but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry."

Right, so even though you recognised that you still got 'angry' yourself?

 

[Erttheking]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

"but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry."

Right, so even though you recognised that you still got 'angry' yourself?

Kindly point out how I got "angry" my original post was calm, I only got angry when you came around throwing accusations at me and telling me to "stop crying" which I found to be insulting, and you did it for a completely misguided reason. Also that is completely off topic. The point is you think Yahtzee would have seen this particular landslide coming.

 

[Something Amyss]

I just love the fact that Yahtzee is now biased against shooters.

 

[Coldster]

I like the mention of L.A. Noire even if it was exactly what he said it was: "a representative of something encouraging in the games industry today". There is also no denying that I like both MW3 and Battlefield 3 (though, quite frankly, MW3's campaign was a horrible ending to what could have been an amazing trilogy and Battlefield 3's multiplayer is the only reason it is worth playing which means Yahtzee didn't play it anyway), I agree fully on the points he made on those games.

 

[Absimilliard]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

I think there's a pretty big difference between bias against two specific games/franchises (and games that attempt to emulate them), and being biased against all first-person shooters...

 

[Bobic]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

 

[Erttheking]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Mainly that he's got an extreme hatred for these games, a kinda irrational hatred too if I can get away with that.

 

[Bobic]

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by bias in this situation?

Mainly that he's got an extreme hatred for these games, a kinda irrational hatred too if I can get away with that.

Well, yes, he does have a hatred for them, that's why they get the number one spot. That's kinda what woodsey was getting at. It's a list of the 5 (well, technically 6) games he hates the most. So if hatred counts as bias, then yeah, the number one spot will always be biased, by definition. If we're counting it as an opinion, however, then it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Realitycrash]

You can't say Arkham Asylum is "in fact" better than Arkham City because that's not a goddamn fact, it's an opinion. Yahtzee's been utterly dismissive of other opinions lately.

He's always been dismissive of other peoples opinions? The whole Anti-Wii thing, for instance.

And yes, he can say that MW3/BF3 is shit, because he only plays the singleplayer. So you people feel that the multiplayer is "70% of the content"? Fine, but he isn't reviewing that content, now is he? So every time he starts a review, imagine a big neon sign flashing before your eyes saying "THIS REVIEW IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SINGLEPLAYER EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME", and then maybe you could stop complaining about it?