Good question.uberDoward said:Amen to that. Whatever happened to enjoying an FPS?The Cake Is Annoying said:Coincidentally I decided earlier this week I'd get Duke Nukem 3D from GOG. I want strippers, jetpacks and weapons that kill in amusing and farcical ways.
I said you pay for a video game once. You pay large amounts of money to play Nerf at an arena, not to mention buy the guns, replacement darts, etc. And you need to do that each time, except for the gun, and unless you...hell, rent it, I guess, if it's anything like paintball.sooperman said:Actually, no. You usually end up only paying the cost of a video game every time you want to play Nerf guns to replace the darts you lost.
I can actually hear the whistle as the actual content of my post whizzed over your head.sooperman said:Unless, or course, you are playing indoors, in which case you might as well be playing laser tag or, let's not forget, video games.
I see. So you've got both poor reading comprehension *and* a holier-than-thou douchey attitude. You're a real winner.sooperman said:Play Nerf guns if you want, I'm not going to bash them or flame you. I just hope you have the cash for that.
If you don't like the format that Yahtzee presents HIS internet videos than don't watch them. Simple as that, when I dont like whats on the radio I put a CD on and when I go down town on a Friday night I stick to Irish Pubs instead of Dance Clubs. Why? Because I don't subject myself to something that I'll spend the next fortnight complaining about.Abedeus said:He's not a reviewer. How can you call it a review, where you forget to talk about 95% of the game?Thibaut said:Thank you Yahtzee, thank you for still being the best reviewer in the world by pointing out what's truly wrong with a game.
I, personally, fail to see any major difference.Abedeus said:Try watching an actual review instead of a parody (ZP), with video footage of the gameplay. Then watch a MW2 video. Of multiplayer, of course.
Then dare to say they are the same.
Since you love gross oversimplifications, I'll use a real-world parallel: if you can cook an amazing steak dinner, there's no logical reason you should be compelled to take a dump on a plate and serve it as an appetizer. It will only hurt your reputation, no matter how amazing a cook you are otherwise, and people are well within their rights to call that 'meal' the piece of shite that it is.Abedeus said:So your argument is that "if SP is bad, don't put it in at all"? Quit while you're ahead?Char-Nobyl said:Boo-hoo. I guess asking for games that bother to put in a single player mode not to half-ass them is too much for them to handle. I mean, it's not like they could release a game that's only based on multiplayer and focus solely on making that good.Abedeus said:God... what next, you will review WoW without mentioning the multiplayer? You will review it based on your experience at the login screen and game's options?
THIS IS BATTLEFIELD. MULTIPLAYER IS 95% OF THE GAME.
Ah, wait a second. They already did that. It starts with a 'C' and ends in 'ounterstrike.'
Except that Team Fortress 2 doesn't try and pretend that it offers an amazing single-player experience. It knows what it is, and has no illusions to the contrary. Unlike Battlefield, apparently.Abedeus said:Battlefield has been a multiplayer-focused game since the beginning. Not reviewing the multiplayer part is like saying "Oh, Team Fortress 2? Crappy game, bots are stupid and it's very hard to play on your own!!! And no tutorials!!"
No, not I. You're the one making a federal case out of this.Abedeus said:That's you. Yahtzee is not really a serious reviewer. He's an entertainer.canadamus_prime said:*sniff sniff* I smell a fanboy.Abedeus said:Try watching an actual review instead of a parody (ZP), with video footage of the gameplay. Then watch a MW2 video. Of multiplayer, of course.canadamus_prime said:So it's just MW2... again. ...joy. /sarcasm
Oh yeah and Yahtzee, that bit at the end of the credits was more information than I needed, thanks.
Then dare to say they are the same.
Also, you didn't bother to respond to the "no multiplayer review" argument.
at what point does BC2 "pretend to offer an amazing single-player experience"? Have you even read the box? Did you read the reviews? Did you read the previews and first impressions? This game has been billed as a multiplayer ticket since the beginning. It's a multiplayer game where the single player serves to introduce you to various weapons and mechanics that you'll be using regularly in multi, such as mortar strikes, vehicle combat, destructible cover, and sniping/spotting. Personally, I'm glad they included a way to familiarize yourself with the mechanics in a way that includes a plot and occassionally amusing NPCs so that when you hit multi, you do it at a brisk stride instead of a crawl. It's better than nothing, to be certain; just ask anyone who's hopped into their first CS game.Char-Nobyl said:Since you love gross oversimplifications, I'll use a real-world parallel: if you can cook an amazing steak dinner, there's no logical reason you should be compelled to take a dump on a plate and serve it as an appetizer. It will only hurt your reputation, no matter how amazing a cook you are otherwise, and people are well within their rights to call that 'meal' the piece of shite that it is.Abedeus said:So your argument is that "if SP is bad, don't put it in at all"? Quit while you're ahead?Char-Nobyl said:Boo-hoo. I guess asking for games that bother to put in a single player mode not to half-ass them is too much for them to handle. I mean, it's not like they could release a game that's only based on multiplayer and focus solely on making that good.Abedeus said:God... what next, you will review WoW without mentioning the multiplayer? You will review it based on your experience at the login screen and game's options?
THIS IS BATTLEFIELD. MULTIPLAYER IS 95% OF THE GAME.
Ah, wait a second. They already did that. It starts with a 'C' and ends in 'ounterstrike.'
Except that Team Fortress 2 doesn't try and pretend that it offers an amazing single-player experience. It knows what it is, and has no illusions to the contrary. Unlike Battlefield, apparently.Abedeus said:Battlefield has been a multiplayer-focused game since the beginning. Not reviewing the multiplayer part is like saying "Oh, Team Fortress 2? Crappy game, bots are stupid and it's very hard to play on your own!!! And no tutorials!!"
If you call your friends "gigantic FPS thickies", I question whether you've played enough FPSes to distinguish the difference between MW2 and BC2. MW2 features fast, frenetic combat in tight areas, while BC2 features much greater implementation of tactical approaches and teamwork. Everyone has a job in BC2, and you will lose if most of your team isn't doing their job correctly. Recons spot and mortar, medics fix you up, engies handle vehicles, and assaults handle ground troops. If you took out all of the vehicles, cut the maps by a quarter of their size, and removed all of the kits but assault, only then would BC2 be the same as MW2. And none of this is mentioning that the destructible cover brings a great deal of tactical consideration to attacking objectives. Simply protecting an enclosed objective isn't enough when a rival team can use tank artillery to simply bring the building down on top of it, and mortar strikes/air support can turn an entrenched force's cover into a clearing if properly used. Those simply aren't options in MW2.Anticitizen_Two said:Thank God someone else dislikes this game. Admittedly, Yahtzee hates almost everything, but still. My friends are gigantic FPS thickies to the point where they play no other genres, and they think that the multiplayer is amazing. I look at it and I fail to see what makes it different from any other damn shooter.
I, personally, fail to see any major difference.Abedeus said:Try watching an actual review instead of a parody (ZP), with video footage of the gameplay. Then watch a MW2 video. Of multiplayer, of course.
Then dare to say they are the same.
So, but this time I've got to say that you're absolutely WRONG, Yahtzee. Sure, there are many similarities with Modern Warfare 2, but there are much more difference in it that makes it a so much more better game overall. For example, why give a player many, many explosives if you cannot use them because you enemy is hiding in a house behind a wall that you cannot reach; with BFBC2, all one has to do is grenade, C4, or whatever else to blow that wall up and then the enemy is a sitting duck.Yahtzee Croshaw said:Battlefield: Bad Company 2
This week, Zero Punctuation reviews Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
Watch Video
I like his videos. I just don't treat them seriously. Like pretty much anyone who has been here for a longer time, I know that his "reviews" aren't worth a diddly.awatkins said:If you don't like the format that Yahtzee presents HIS internet videos than don't watch them. Simple as that, when I dont like whats on the radio I put a CD on and when I go down town on a Friday night I stick to Irish Pubs instead of Dance Clubs. Why? Because I don't subject myself to something that I'll spend the next fortnight complaining about.Abedeus said:He's not a reviewer. How can you call it a review, where you forget to talk about 95% of the game?Thibaut said:Thank you Yahtzee, thank you for still being the best reviewer in the world by pointing out what's truly wrong with a game.
Yes, Battlefield, the multiplayer-focused series should be only reviewed by looking at its single player. You are absolutely right.Char-Nobyl said:Except that Team Fortress 2 doesn't try and pretend that it offers an amazing single-player experience. It knows what it is, and has no illusions to the contrary. Unlike Battlefield, apparently.
Maybe because you only look at it. Try playing a sniper after 10 years of multiplayer gaming, but forgetting that any Engineer, Assault or any of the vehicles can not just destroy the wall you are hiding behind, but also collapse the entire building on you.Anticitizen_Two said:Thank God someone else dislikes this game. Admittedly, Yahtzee hates almost everything, but still. My friends are gigantic FPS thickies to the point where they play no other genres, and they think that the multiplayer is amazing. I look at it and I fail to see what makes it different from any other damn shooter.
I've found the kits in Bad Company 2 to be incredibly ineffective as a system. All of them are quite capable of killing people, which really detracts from them each having their own specific job. It starts to get a lot closer to simply choosing your primary weapon, which is exactly how the class system in MW2 works. Also, the fact that you can pick up kits completely ruins the entire system for me. For an example of a good class system, I would point to the Team Fortress series, although primarily TF2. I've never been a fan of how the Battlefield series operated its kits. And while it's true that the maps are larger than the ones in MW2, my experiences have led me to conclude that there's not much more strategy to be had. People do travel in packs a bit more, but there's no coherent sense of teamwork that is so prevalent in, say, Counter-Strike. Sure, it appears to be there; there are medics and ammo packs, but when it comes down to it they're not necessary. Health regenerates and you very rarely find yourself low on ammo (at least from my experience). The core gameplay of the two games is incredibly similar: in both of them one man is able to rack up kill after kill after kill if they're skilled enough. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there's not enough of a focus on the collective team to truthfully label BC2 as being that much more focused on the collective.Iamjacksego said:snip
Well, I worded that poorly. I have played the game. For my exact complaints about the game you can read my above response.Abedeus said:Maybe because you only look at it. Try playing a sniper after 10 years of multiplayer gaming, but forgetting that any Engineer, Assault or any of the vehicles can not just destroy the wall you are hiding behind, but also collapse the entire building on you.