Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
scienceguy8 said:
Kinda surprised. I was expecting Yahtzee to praise the game for doing something a little different for a change (the ability to change the outcome based on actions taken) then completely ripping it for not going far enough (as there are only really 3 or 4 key missions that determine how your game ends).
You expected Yahtzee to praise a spunkgargleweewee game? More specifically, you expected him to give a shit about a Call of Duty game? Sorry, you must be new to around these parts.
 
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
DJjaffacake said:
Citation needed.

Catalyst made a claim, backed it up with evidence. You said, "Nuh uh, you're wrong and racist," while providing absolutely no evidence to back your claims up. So unless you have proof that, "institutionalised racism is still inherent in the Western system," then Catalyst has a superior argument.
You are implying that all sources are equal and all arguments using a source are "better" no matter the usefulness or bias of the source, and both are fallacies in and of it themselves. But that isn't what you want to discuss right?

Fine, I'll humor you:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/06/missouri_traffic_stops_disparity_blacks_higher.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study

I have two sources, apparently my argument is superior.

EDIT: Stupid quote pyramids...
 

Roman Monaghan

New member
Nov 20, 2010
101
0
0
Arren Kae said:
Yahtzee has imbibed white guilt so strongly he complains when a story doesn't punish whites for imagined evils or portrays non-whites as anything but righteous and pure.
How about portraying white people the same as everyone else?
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Reptiloid said:
Aah that was beautiful, just... beautiful. I get the feeling Yahtzee is starting to get tired of these yearly copy-pastes by now, and the people who keep buying them, causing the industry to release another one next year.

"Why all the hate on CoD? It's a decent game, and the multiplayer is fun! Also, did I mention I have no standards for quality whatsoever?"
"But I don't like challenge, it's so much easier to have the game hold my hand every step of the way instead of actually being expected to overcome obstacles!"
"Oops, my brain fell out again!"

Seriously, PLEASE stop buying these fucking things, you guys have got like 5 of the same game now... it's enough. We've all had enough. The game industry is not to blame anymore, YOU are. You, the consumer. Complaining ain't gonna do shit if you keep buying them anyway. Vote with your wallet people, please.
Funny thing, Black Ops 2's SP is nothing like previous COD's, like others have mentioned the writing is actually quite good (outside Briggs) and gives you a really good choice system without giving you a moral bar and some choices are less obvious then others (It's like Spec Ops the Line at parts where some choices aren't given outright but are there), it lets you pick your load out at the start of the mission so you can play your own way. Also lots of the levels have multiple paths to flank enemies and some area's are quite big and have multiple paths in general to get to the same objective.

Also as for the whole race thing... Two major good characters are Hispanic and the other is Middle Eastern, one of the major villains is white, if you play your cards right you get the Chinese on your side, and in general in various missions you fight alongside the Chinese.

It also pushes that the reason that Mendez is the villain is really the CIA's fault, and so the game is dealing with the consequences of the CIA for giving Mendez some justification for rising up.

But yeah, fuck Black Ops 2, let's just use all the previous COD's to judge Black Ops 2 blindly and listen to Yahtzee's review which leaves out so much so that his jokes make sense because otherwise they wouldn't if he actually went indepth.
 

Jakub324

New member
Jan 23, 2011
1,339
0
0
Gearhead mk2 said:
Man, I was waiting for WEEKS for him to rip this game to shreds, and it did not dissapoint. A message to the game industry: STOP MAKING MODERN MILITARY SHOOTERS! Spec Ops: The Line has allready pointed out everything wrong about the genre, you don't need to keep making shitty war games to prove it's point!
Companies like Activision exist to make money. As long as CoD sells, they'll keep wheeling it out. I played Spec Ops, and shit knows I share everyone elses' opinion of it, but Call of Duty has a right to exist, no matter what Yager says. Eleven million sales prove that.
Anyway, I played Black Ops 2 and I really liked it. The situation Menendez puts the world in is unnervingly plausible, and it was nice to see China as something other than the villain.
Anyway, you said "stop making modern military shooters". Surely if there's any kind of shooter that should stop being made, it's WW2 shooters? They make a profit by portraying the conflict that killed millions.
Honestly, people that oppose the continued production of games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, not on perceived lack of merit, but on their subject matter worry me. A lot. What gives you the right to do this?
 

Akytalusia

New member
Nov 11, 2010
1,374
0
0
is it just me or did he seem much more spiteful than usual today? he seems to really really hate this game. o.o
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Treblaine said:
He argued this exactly:

A game like CoD or Battlefield that supposedly only emphasizes multiplayer shouldn't have a single player campaign at all, and only cost half price, like what TF2 did. If you are going to claim that the single player is every bit as important (which Activision does), then expect it to be reviewed as such.

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price, and using a flimsy single player campaign to justify it.
So price is the problem?

The multiplayer-only ARMA II sold for £25 at launch then the necessary Operation Arrowhead needed to play the DayZ Mod costs ANOTHER £25 by launch price. And HE REVIEWED DAYZ'S MULTIPLAYER!!!

He has nothing against online only games, he has something against Multiplayer focused games charging full price
£50 for the complete ARMA II set for DayZ!! That's $80!!! Probably something ridiculous like $150 Australian!

Activision obviously doesn't think singleplayer is as important as multiplayer, otherwise they wouldn't have their main TV ad totally focus on the multiplayer aspect of the game. Their social-media gurus are dedicated entirely to dealing with multiplayer balance rumours and patch details. Not plot reveals and DLC side missions. Hell, they have separate installs for Singleplayer and Multiplayer.

And console games just do not sell for less than the "standard rate" of $60 or around about £40 in UK for being single-player only (Skyrim, Dishonored) nor do they sell for even close to half the price when multiplayer-only as for Starhawk, MAG or DC Universe Online.

And PC games don't sell for less when multiplayer only, as in Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor.

Even ignoring the campaign, Black Ops 2's Zombies mode is not completely worthless, if it was a stand-alone game on XBLA it would be a $20 game for sure. And it wouldn't be an XBLA game as the download size would be too high.

NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Maybe because over the last century, no country is responsible for more civilian deaths across the globe as the United States. In fact, it isn't even close.
Keep it in the politics section... that's going way off topic and such statements are blatantly baiting.

If you want to start a thread like "why America in 20th century was worse than Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Khymer Rouge" and link to it, then please do so. But you went off on a long rant.
 

Zeldias

New member
Oct 5, 2011
282
0
0
Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you; it's about institutions, stereotypes, and culture seeking to bring people who look like you down or keep you as less than. It's about privileging the history of one dominant ethnic group over all others. It's about erasure and faulty assumptions, even the ones that sound good ("I don't see color, I see people," for example, becomes a method of blaming victims of, say, residential segregation or white gentrification, on people of color or ignoring the fact that it happens entirely).

White privilege is about not having to notice or think about this or be affected by it. It's about having an entire history and culture of a nation dedicated to raising you and people who look like you up. White privilege is when a white kid in my class complains to me that s/he can't write about her/his culture be s/he is white (as if whites have no culture; it's American culture! It's the culture of western Europe!). Racism is about normalizing whiteness so that everyone thinks white people are the standard.

In summary, racism isn't just a character trait or something; it's participation in certain systems of power that privilege ethnic groups (or folks who resemble the dominant ethnic group) over others. That's as far as I'm willing to go, because I'm not on the clock and there's so many books that have been written about systems of power (Foucault), the damages of racism (bell hooks, Frantz Fanon, Audre Lorde, and so on) that it doesn't make sense for me to do a dissertation on it in an internet forum when a library is a car ride away.

People who think it's possible to be racist against whites, particularly in America or Western Europe, are hilarious to me.

And to be on-topic, military shooters are so boring and stock it gives me metaphorical gamer blue balls. And I used to enjoy shooters on the PC, too (though I was awful at them). I'd love to see this fad/genre die so we could get some fun in the shooters again. More Perfect Dark/Goldeney/Unreal Tournament 2004/TF2!
 

Jakub324

New member
Jan 23, 2011
1,339
0
0
Why does ___'s skin colour matter so much? The way I see it, his betrayal is proof that we're finally moving beyond this shit. If ___ can be a traitor, it means we're one valuable step closer to Yahtzee's own vision of the tolerant society: where anyone can make a joke about anyone and everyone laughs.
There's a small part of me that thinks Yahtzee only panned CoD because he dislikes the series, and fuck changing that, right?
I don't think that's likely, but it'd be a lie to say the thought wasn't in my head.
 

NAdducci

New member
Oct 21, 2009
8
0
0
PainInTheAssInternet said:
NAdducci said:
Man I am getting tired of this shit... /long comment/
I've always had an issue with the notion that one cannot be criticized for liking something. If that object has unfortunate implications, low quality in innovation or especially troubling aspects in its online community, what does that say about the individual who chooses to enjoy it?

There is a definite link between what the game is and what the community is; look towards attitudes online if you want any proof of concept. Also, most of the online community is white because they are the ones buying consoles. Why do they do that? Because they have the money. It's not "white guilt," it's fact.

I'm a born-into-wealth white guy and I reject the notion that I am responsible for the past. I am, however, responsible for the present and the future. Don't use the fact that people point out our ancestor's actions as an excuse to disengage.
So crusades to "correct" those communities by bashing them fits into your "responsibility for the present and future"? Because that never has consequences.

You have a funny way of "not being responsible for the past" but still taking responsibility for it. I'll just tell you, it doesn't help and it won't ever be enough. Do good where you are, people will actually appreciate that.


This isn't an "opinions are sacred and you have no right be against mine" argument. You can say: I like the starwars prequels just fine, Michael Bay can be a good director, I don't like Christopher Nolans movies, Yahtzee isn't funny to me, yahtzee is very funny to me, you have bad taste, whatever.

Stick up for your preferences and pay to have them. That's fine. But you don't get the right to bully other people just because a bunch of people might agree with you. And you CERTAINLY don't get the moral high ground for it. Especially when your facts are wrong.

- Online community is pretty international these days, but still mostly male and western. It's just that way and that's fine. It'll change on it's own.
- just because people have money doesn't make them evil. Or their ancestors.
- Racism and nationalism is usually more pronounced just about everywhere except America. America is just the one getting the lions share of the scorn from Intellectual Elitists generally because they have the most means to do something about it.

And I'm engaging just fine. I want people be free to like what they want and have judgements of character be made by people who actually know them before they're punished for it. This "White guilt" nonsense is just the current bullshit that casts aspersions on trumped up charges that I'm not fond of.
 

Zeldias

New member
Oct 5, 2011
282
0
0
Father Time said:
Zeldias said:
Just popping in to say racism is about more than people hurting/being mean to you. It's also about the systems of oppression that operate throughout our (in my case, American) culture. White people can't be victims of racism because racism is about more than people hurting you;
Don't bother us with that bullshit 'privilege + power' definition, your side made up so you can say racism against whites is impossible.

Zeldias said:
People who think it's possible to be racist against whites, particularly in America or Western Europe, are hilarious to me.
And that's because you're operating under a definition of racism that is bullshit.
This isn't sides; that's the sociological definition. If you don't like it, go write a fucking book and make arguments and get peer reviewed and shit. Unless you're gonna tell me that the entirety of academia is secretly trying to hurt white people's feelings.
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
Connor Lonske said:
i like how zero punctuation for a big game like Call of Duty or Halo comes out about a week or two so after the game in question comes out, hence meaning his opinion and critique on the game falls on ether deaf ears because they already played the game or never were going to anyways.

i also wonder why that is and who's causing it. both it being the work of yahtzee or the escapist seem equally likely, although i'm pretty sure if it's yahtzee who causes these games to be reviewed so late after release it's likely for him having a fucked up crazy schedule and nothing else.

and obviously i have nothing to say about the escapist staff at all nor am i implying anything. those guys sure are great. totally not sold ou-*is shot by an assassin before i can finish my sentence*
Because we're in Australia mate, and the original white people still don't like the ancestors of crims, so we get everything later and pay twice as much for them. Ironically enough I import all my games from the UK because its cheaper.
 

Jakub324

New member
Jan 23, 2011
1,339
0
0
finalizer said:
Connor Lonske said:
i like how zero punctuation for a big game like Call of Duty or Halo comes out about a week or two so after the game in question comes out, hence meaning his opinion and critique on the game falls on ether deaf ears because they already played the game or never were going to anyways.
From what I understand, unlike the other big names in game reviews, Yahtzee doesn't get advance copies of games from the publishers (unsurprisingly, since you basically have to be giving them journalist fellatio to get in on that), so he has to wait until copies of the game arrive to stores near him, personally buy them, and then sit down and play them for a week before he can churn out his own review.
'Scuse me, but I like CoD. I don't like Medal of Honor or Battlefield, because they're just CoD with worse plots, more xenophobia and shorter campaigns, but CoD is one of the few triple-A games that;
- Doesn't incorporate some kind of online pass/DRM system.
- Continues to include split-screen modes for people like me and my brother.
- Actually makes an effort in the story department

As far as I can tell, the only other franchise to offer those things is Halo, which you probably don't like either.
And before you say it, I played Spec Ops. Liked it, too, although I wasn't playing it to feel like a hero. I bought it after I found out what its message was. I bought it for the plot, and in the hope that it was a moral-choices-done-right kind of game.
I've said this before, on this very thread, but people like you worry me. A lot. What gives you the right to demand an end to a franchise that millions play and enjoy?
What gives you the right to try to take that from them?
What makes you think you're more of an authority on the matter of what games deserve to exist than me, or the stereotypical foamy-mouthed CoD player who calls you a ****** for using mines?