There's a couple jungle levels in BC2 actually. Actually at least 1/3 of the single player game takes place in a jungle.Bek359 said:My response to "realistic" (non-stealth) shooters:
1. Games aren't really supposed to be realistic. IT'S WHY YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME.
2. Having incredibly low health in a non-stealth game that is supposedly all about multiplayer just encourages too much cheap tactics and people working their level best to find game breakers, of which there are usually many, becausethedevelopersdon'tcareaboutbalanceImeandoubleshotguns,really-(long, increasingly unhinged tirade)
3. All the brown, utterly soulless levels/maps, I have no interest in. Let's see a shooter where you fight in the jungle or on the coastline (AND NOT D-DAY! THERE ARE ENOUGH WWII SHOOTERS ALREADY!) or somewhere colorful and different, for a change.
I too made an account after many months of coming to this site, just to reply to this video. I've been watching Zero Punctuation reviews for the past six months. It's nice when he gets things right, because I love it when reviewers actually call games out for their flaws. But it's gotten to the point where he seems to be exaggerating for dramatic effect, or blatantly making things up just to find some stuff to complain about.Xanthon said:While I think Yahtzee's great, I really had to make an account to respond to this one. This review was a big waste for me. I don't have a problem with the fact that Yahtzee refuses to review a game's multiplayer aspect, but then why even bother to review games where the singleplayer is an afterthought and 90% of the playerbase bought it for the multiplayer. Frankly I was surprised this game had any single player at all as the last BF game I played (2142) had no single player campaign at all. The only reason I even played the campaign at all was to get acquainted with the game before throwing myself into multiplayer (not to mention the servers were a mess on opening day). I was so disinterested in a BF singleplayer component that I skipped through every cutscene and I NEVER do that.
Another thing that's annoying me is the "this is just a MW2 ripoff, although I haven't played the multiplayer or even the game itself, so really I have no clue" mentality. If you played the multiplayer at all you'd see how vastly different the game is. If you want to criticize certain aspects of the game, be my guest, but at least be informed about it.
It feels good not being alone in this sentiment.Etek said:This guy calls himself a reviewer and only plays the single player part of what is known to be a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. Epic fail Yahtzee.
Bingo. RPG, Adventure, Action is for SP. Shooter, Fighter, Sports is for MP.Anti Nudist Cupcake said:If he is so hateful to multiplayer then he should stop buying multiplayer games, I know he said that every game SHOULD stand on its own with the single player but that doesn't necessarily mean they WOULD do that.
Good point, but i bought Halo and Gears of war for the story in first hand and the multiplayer for some boring day when i have nothing else to play. If I am going to buy a game it got to have a awesome single player experience. I only play games like Counter strike on LANs when i have got tired of all other games or when every one else is playing (Cause then it can be a hell lot of fun)F8L Fool said:See for me I don't purchase a game unless it has stellar multiplayer. The reason being that a game without it just lacks the replayability that I am looking for. The gameplay is what matters most to me in a shooter, sports, and fighter. I play RPG's and Adventure games for story first, and gameplay mechanics second. I play MMO's for gameplay and social aspects, and not the story in any way. I could give a damn what the lore behind a dungeon I'm exploring has, or a boss I'm killing.addeB said:"depth"? A very few multiplayer modes have a story, and with out a story, a game doesn't add depth to the game for me. For me multiplayer is just a little bonus that i can use if i get bored.
If a game doesn't have multiplayer it must have at least 80-100 hours of single player content for me to even think of purchasing it. Because frankly 80-100 hours is nothing compared to the 500+ hours I could easily invest in an amazing shooter.
The reason that shooters sell so well is because of the multiplayer experience, and not the story. It's not a coincidence that MW2 sold so damn well. It's not because it had some unbelievable single player campaign. It's because dozens of millions of people are addicts for the MP, just like they are for Halo, Gears of War, Counter Strike, Unreal, Quake, and all those other shooters that are MULTIPLAYER DRIVEN GAMES.
If the aforementioned games didn't have MP, guaranteed they wouldn't have sold even half as well. Maybe not even a quarter as well.
Guess you don't play on PC. It's the exact opposite, FEW people online are jerks and served with an instant kick the moment they start talking trash.Pibe000 said:well I liked it, but he didn't really say if he liked it he just went on about the lack of sighting ability. He's already established that he doesn't play online mode, and that might be a good thing. People online are USUALLY jerks (including me).
I guess you didn't notice the jungle maps, or the pacific island maps, or the snowy mountain/forest maps when you played then? BC2 has its fair share of dusty hellholes, but to say the entire game is brown and grey is just plain untrue.seamusotorain said:Derp de derp herp multiplayer derp. I enjoyed the multiplayer demo, and I'd heard the story was pretty weak. If you want a FPS not made out of a grey and brown colour palette, Duke Nukem just hit the XBL Marketplace, and you can always go and play Serious Sam again.
Interesting analogy. I'd say that BC2 is probably more like a bacon cheeseburger, with the multiplayer being the cheeseburger and the singleplayer being the bacon. Now, I don't like bacon, but I acknowledge that for most people, bacon is a lovely addition to a perfectly good cheeseburger. I can happily order a bacon cheeseburger without the bacon and still have a satisfying meal, but if I ordered a bacon cheeseburger without the cheeseburger, I would probably feel a bit let down. A couple of slices of bacon on a plate, while nice, does not constitute a meal. It would be foolish to write a review of a restaurant that said 'I ordered a bacon cheeseburger without the cheeseburger and all I got was a slice of bacon, that restaurant was rubbish'.Not G. Ivingname said:For sake of argument that the multiplayer of BFBC2 is a grilled cheese and the single player is a pile of cow dung. Would you eat the grilled cheese if the cow present is on the same plate? The grilled cheese in theory would be just as good if it was not touching. But you wouldn't because the smell and sight is just going to make you gag. Serve the Grilled Cheese by it self if you must, or give us another kind of sandwich instead of the cow dung to please people of different tastes, but don't give us a pile of %$#& and let it get away with it.