There are very sadly two game series in the industry that could make a sequel about their main character farting and it would sell more than any game out there with a decent amount of writing talent.
Those two series? Halo and Call of Duty.
Oh well. I agree with Yahtzee on about every point present.
Finally a reviewer who is actually aware of what makes up a good game, im sick of hearing how good Call of Duty is and the whole Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2, bugs the christ out of me, people calling it and Halo THE BEST MULTIPLAYAR GAMES EVAR! I can think of other games that are real multilayer, like Left 4 Dead, or Borderlands, or Super Mario Kart 64 for gods sake.
Besides they barely changed a freaking thing from the original game and was that the campaign or a teaser trailer for something that can actually be called a campaign?
I was slightly interested before I saw that.
I enjoyed the one player in campaign in the first one, but that at least took me a day to finish.
When multiplayer's the main selling point of an overhyped game, that really shits me.
Not to mention I've played MW2 at a friend's house and apart from the maps being infintely more decently put together, it's not that different to Cod4.
I say get it when it's cheap (like what I did with Mirror's Edge, which I enjoyed alot but wasn't going to pay $100 for a 3 hour game thank you very much).
It was indeed all realistic (a crazy story, but possible) apart from that enormous snowmobile jump which no-one could ever survive. I quite liked the singleplayer actually, although it was short and easy, even though I played it on the hardest difficulty.
How come people don't make games like Half-Life anymore?
Edit: PLEASE tell me that no one has bought this for the multiplayer, since it's going to be exactly the same as MW1...
Edit 2: I'd never pay for this game (or even the first to be honest), I played it for free
I'm not sure but it sounded like you were talking faster than usual, that or I am in slow motion today.
I was quiet surprised to hear the story mode wasn't realistic but I don't play games for it's story or how realistic it is anyway. Still refuse to get the game, Good show Yahtzee.
yeah... I think ZP threads have more bans, probations, and what have you than any other threads. I'm amazed people still post on these things. Just goes to show how popular Yahtzee is...
or human nature and how each of us will cut each other's throats for our 3 seconds of fame as Yahtzee features our post on Extra Punctuation and then shoots us down mercilessly.
Anyway, this one was pretty good. Yahtzee has been in a bit of a slump for some of his past episodes? Shows? Whatever. Anyway, this is getting back to the humor and cruel reviewing that first hooked me on to ZP.
And now we see how truly necessary Yahtzee is. Critics had jumped on the bandwagon and practically universally proclaimed "the wonder" that is, supposedly, this game. Yet there are some clear flaws apparently, the first one being it is tiny. I remember reading a review that tried to get away from this, "no no, it is actually quite long, I asssure thee, I love the party, don't put me through the blender" but Yahtzee is honest. A tea's duration game of war.
Maybe the developers could have added a tea-drinking part of the game to lengthen it out. Just sitting here, enjoying a cuppa.
While I do agree that the plot was kinda sucky and the campaign was to short, you have to look at it in a certain way. This just seems to be the bridge to set up MW3, the ending just screams 3rd and (Hopefully) final installment. So to fill the time, they just made about a dozen missions filled to the brim with "Oh...shit" moments such as
The nuke that was meant to destroy D.C., but was rigged to become a giant EMP at the last second, causing it to rain helicopters on your Army Ranger ass.
Or the final climax where Shepard beats the crap out of Captain Price while Soap pulls the knife lodged inside him out and give one perfect toss straight into Shepard's eye.
Yeah me too, the funny thing was the comment wasnt even to funny he just delivered it perfectly.
I personally thought the campaign was a little to short, but it was still fun. It seemed like a Micheal Bay movie, except that a video game actually works out well for an Micheal Bay movie. Not like his crappy films.
I don't plan on reading all of these posts prior to my own, I'm just special like that. The only point I have to point out to Yahtzee is that not reviewing the multiplayer component is doing us a disservice. How could you review a game without taking into account all of its components? Regardless of how ridiculous your reviews may be, and entertaining, its disappointing to see you disregarding a part of the game, especially for some nonsensical reason. I don't take any of your reviews seriously or with any merit, but for the poor saps that do, you should at the very least review all portions. Either that or you did play the multiplayer and since you found nothing to talk shit about, you opted not to mention it.
Fantastic game. Short (but fun) campaign, spec ops was great and amazing multiplayer.
Definitely worth buying.
And if I may.... why does everyone keep saying the story isn't realistic... it's a video game. It doesn't have to be. But it's fun. Isn't that what matters? Just sayin'
Agreed. While some parts throw realism out of the roof, others use it very well to the point even I in the United States AFJROTC program was taken off guard by some of the detail. Campaign sure was short, but all the "OMG YOU SEE THAT?" moments makes up for it. Spec Ops is fun (except Echo's on Veteran, you'll cry), and multiplayer is a lot of fun. C-17s, choppers, stealth bombers, harriers, AC-130, and even nukes... in the multiplayer.
So Yahtzee was surprised by the character deaths...Well, there are three. Whereas in MW1, there were, um...Essentially also three.
The Arab president executed during the intro credits, the Marine, and for all we knew Price was dead after being playable [though since he'd already died on the Tirpitz sixty years previous the old school CoD players knew he'd be back]. This is as compared to the Marine / CIA guy [which, granted, seemed entirely pointless], the astronaut, and one of the SAS guys.
A good review, same he left out the multiplayer but I didn't expect him to include it so no big loss.
Kuliani said:
Lord Frunkamunch said:
So wait, does ANYONE who posts within the first five minutes get banned, or is it only the ones who claim to have watched the video/yell "first"? This has been bugging me for a while.
I'm saying I want a game where you are the good guy, not the bad one, and you and all the other good guys die, and the baddies win. It would certainly be a new thing in games and quite possibly looked upon badly for it's end, but it'd be original, and that's what we need.
Sometimes original ideas have not been attempted because everyone can see they're bad ideas. If you're told you might as well have been shot dead by the first enemy for all the difference you actually ended up making, the player will naturally conclude that the entire plot was a gargantuan waste of time and effort on their part.
Prizing innovation over common sense is not what we need. Games are about escapism, not about pretending to be totally useless.
Baconmonster723 said:
While it may seem far-fetched for a game that seems to want to be realistic, do you really find it that unrealistic?
Let's see, we have a full-scale airborne invasion of a major power with no apparent naval component which would have to fly over other NATO countries to get there and apparently flew Havoc attack helos [range 640 miles] across Europe and the Atlantic. We have Russian soldiers using Israeli Tavors, American Vector SMGs and Belgian FALs, and snipers with $80,000 WA2000 rifles of which less than two hundred examples exist, all chambered for rounds the Russians don't manufacture. We have US soldiers using Desert Eagles, a fullauto M1014 and a Winchester 1887 loaded by putting shells in the barrel instead of the magazine tube. We have a Stryker being fielded like it's a Bradley. We have a nuclear launch with no counter-launch, for the second time in the series.
The whole thing is pretexted on the rather silly idea that Russia would actually invade America over a terrorist attack based solely on the alleged presence of an American. Yeah, we get that it's supposed to be a war on terror analogy, it's just a really stupid one.
Baconmonster723 said:
should you rag on what you don't understand. No, ignorance is not an excuse.
A story that confuses most of the audience is a problem with the writing, not the audience. Also, the author of the linked article's suggestion that
Shepard was operating with Makarov rather than using him
shows he doesn't understand the plot either. Not good from someone trying to claim it makes sense, particularly given the ad-hoc nature of the rest of his explainations.
I lol'd on several occasions. Lots of memorable one liners, more so than any yahtzee review I've watched. Not sure about the game as I am yet to play it (played for about half an hour multiplayer at my mates place though).
actually, the first one wasnt launched, it was detonated from the ground. and the second one was, i dont know, too high? or maybe it shorted out the counter nuke weaponry when it went up
A good review, same he left out the multiplayer but I didn't expect him to include it so no big loss.
Kuliani said:
Lord Frunkamunch said:
So wait, does ANYONE who posts within the first five minutes get banned, or is it only the ones who claim to have watched the video/yell "first"? This has been bugging me for a while.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
