Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

[Toy Master Typhus]

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release day
Unreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

So based on that I overpaid for any TES game and the Half Life games? I mean, can't have double standards where single player only games can charge full price, can we?

Half-Life 2 was $30 as well. Just saying.

The amount of work a game takes should be reflected in its price. MW3 Multiplayer uses almost the same things that MW2 did. But Skyrim required work on a lot of new things. More work you have to do on it, more its worth.

MW3 is a Toyota Camry, mass-produced, easy to find, easy to use, made year after year. Skyrim is a Ferrari. Made by hand, difficult to find, and usually specially made. Should both of them be $15,000?

Besides the fact that Half Life 2 was in fact $50 on release, which was the price of any game at the time I still have to disagree.

Your last point is completely opinion. I'm no MW3 fan, in fact I'd go so far as to say I despise the game, but you can't say MP only games should only be charging half price, while SP only games can charge as much as a full priced game these days.

When you get away with charging full price for something that takes half the effort, you're encouraging others to do it that way as well. No other industry works like that.

What about Ipods, or movie remakes, or cover albums, or school textbooks?

 

[Jegsimmons]

will yahtzee actually reasearch games for gods sake? saying BF3 ripped off MW3 is like saying the simpsons ripped off family guys formula.

though that ending was clever.
but on the other hand i disagree, its not modern shooters that are bad, its lazy exploitation thats ruins it. Hell if they made a game that had a similar plot to the thin red line with great characters, beautiful and colorful enviorments ect. it would be a different ball game.

And in all honesty, BF3 is closer to that than any other modern shooter (though they should have made the plot better, maby just use the bad company guys or something.)

 

[Couch Radish]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

I get sick of seeing this supposed distinction being flung around with regards to every single video he puts out. This isn't addressed entirely to you, but more generally to the collective that keeps on bringing this up every time.

Let's break it down. Here's the relevant entry for 'criticise' as taken from the OED:
2. a. trans. To discuss critically; to offer judgement upon with respect to merits or faults; to animadvert upon.

Now, here's the relevant entry for 'review'.
6. a. trans. To write a critical appraisal of (a book or, in later use, a play, film, etc.), typically for publication in a newspaper or magazine; to appraise (a writer, artist, or the like) in this way. Also in extended use: to assess, appraise critically (a service, product) for the information of consumers.

Notice how the entry for review basically just uses the word 'critical'? In other words, they are synonymous. The only distinction made here is that one is typically done for the purpose of publication. Oh, and what happens to these videos of Yahtzee's? They're published by escapistmagazine.com.

This implied distinction between 'critic' and 'reviewer' is an absolute load of trash. They mean the same thing. But in spite of four hundred years of use in common English, people who comment on these websites continually imply that a review is some kind of impersonal objective analysis and a critique is designed to hurl bile and nit pick; which in turn becomes a carte blanche to ignore any points they may disagree with by asserting that people with a more 'objective' outlook wouldn't care about them, only a critic who is deliberately looking for things to hate would pick up upon.

Again, this distinction is not lexical, it's purely semantic. The only way you can tell whether a particular critic/reviewer prefers to focus on the flaws, or come to some overall value judgement, or even to just focus on what they find best about it, is in what they themselves state to be their objectives. Yahtzee himself has admitted in some videos that focusing on the negative aspects gives him the most material for gags. But that alone does not make him a 'critic' as opposed to a 'reviewer'.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Laughing at the multiplayer components, that was the best bit.

So what exactly do this games add that couldn't be bundled in to DLC or an expansion pack?

 

[42]

From what I've heard, MW3 is not very good in regards to multi-player.
Some also say that Black Ops, as "terrible" as everyone said it to be, was better in terms of multi-player.

I dunno. I liked Black Ops multiplayer, but hated the singleplayer. Should I just stick with what I've got?

MW3's multiplayer is much more better, and the single player's better than BlOps. I say that as a person who likes the CoD series AND Battlefield. you're money is well invested

 

[Markunator]

I can't help but notice that during that entire review I was unable to differentiate which game he was talking about at any given time. I think that speaks volumes for how terrible and identical both franchises are. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to say that since one of them apparently made more money than god, buddha, and george lucas combined. Because as we all know, sales = quality. /sarcasm

God damn it I can't wait for that whole genre of shooters to just freaking die, or at least be relegated to the same level of importance that is afforded to horror movies.

"Battlefield 3" is nothing like "Modern Warfare 3", at least not in the multiplayer portion. BF3 actually emphasizes teamwork. MW3 doesn't even know the meaning of the word. I suggest you don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. Stop hating just for the sake of hating.

 

[Markunator]

As for those who assert that MW3 and BF3 are completely different genres and thus any comparison is terribly unfair: I haven't played either of them and thus, from my perspective, both games are realistic-ish military-themed first-person shooters. Perhaps you'd care to summarize where lies the distinction.

Oh, let's see: "Battlefield 3" has far better graphics and sound designs, it has environmental destruction, enormous multiplayer maps, 64-player multiplayer, jeeps, tanks, choppers, jets, a class system, teamwork, realism (just enough of it) ... Should I go on?

 

[Markunator]

Getting really fed up with Yahtzee repeatidly neglecting multiplayer when it seems games such as COD and Battlefield are based around multiplayer.

Even if Yahtzee does not like it, A VERY large portion of the gamer base do and therefore I feel he should mention it.

"A $60 game should be able to stand up on its single player alone"
Ben Croshaw

If they want to make a game based around multiplayer, then take Valve's example and make it $30.

"Battlefield" games used to be multiplayer only. The singleplayer is only in BF3 because every game is pretty much required by law to have singleplayer nowadays. It doesn't change the fact that no one who wants BF3 wants it for it singleplayer.

 

[Markunator]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

 

[Markunator]

Okay first, I want people to stop denying that something's a game just because it's lacking in some way. That's annoying. I don't care if the single player is basically vestigial, it's still technically a game. A crummy game the designers of which put no effort into when it came to the single player, but a game nonetheless.

Second, I want to see someone make a flash game about the Anglo-Zanzibar War. You'd have 38 minutes to get through to the center and bring down the flag. I know it'd be more entertaining and original than endless modern war games with pretensions to realism.

Maybe I don't want realism, game designers. Maybe I want to be able to be as extreme and unrealistic as possible, soaking up thousands of points of damage and frantically grabbing health packs as I go.

Which would be completely counterproductive to the type of game that "Battlefield 3" is trying to be. Hell, the type of game that EVERY "Battlefield" game has tried to be. If you want an unrealistic shooter, play an unrealistic shooter and leave us "Battlefield" fans to enjoy our somewhat simulator-like game in peace.

 

[Markunator]

BF3 is nothing more then mixing MoH and BadCo 2 together and upgrading the enginen to be all shiney.

That is so not true. Neither one of those games had suppressive fire. Neither one of those games had as many unlockable weapons, gadgets etc. Neither one of those games had a class system as strong as "Battlefield 3"'s. Neither one of those games had jets. I could go on ...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

All the more my point. I wouldn't have such an issue if these games weren't smashing sales records all over the goddamn place. How can these dull grey shooters that change less from game-to-game than the EA Sports series be the most popular thing on the fucking planet??

Oh and piece of advice, don't post multiple times in a row in the same thread if you can help it. You can quote more than one post in a single post y'know.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Wow. I heard the plot of MW3 wasn't all that great, but... seriously? ALL of Europe?

Yep, they pretty much attack Paris, Hanover and Berlin at the same time, days after being beaten back from the US.
I honestly have no idea how the frontline would look. I mean, how did the invasion fleet get past Norway and Great Britain? And how could they be fighting in Berlin and Paris at the same time? What happened to Poland and Ukraine? Don't even think about supply lines and stuff like that.

And there are a lot more plot holes like that. Why can Russian Cruise Missiles be reprogrammed within seconds to fire at their own ships? How could those medium range missiles even hit targets a few yards next to them?

And Marakov is the biggest plot hole of all times

Spoiler

Not only does he command legions of terrorists, this guy also manages to get lots of armed terrorists into the presidents plane and also arrives faster than the russian army (within minutes) when it crashes somewhere in Russia, he also is able to get his hands on tons of WMDs (chemical bombs, at least 12) and is able to smuggle them into all major European Cities undetected together with hundreds of well armed terrorists to detonate them at the same time. He also owns a whole fortress full of terrorists outside Prague and a Salt Mine in Sibiria.
And somehow he either also controls the force occupying Berlin, including tanks, or the Russians somehow hand over the presidents daughter to him when they find her.
And this, internationally wanted terrorist, sits in the last mission in a high class hotel in Dubai, I think, surrounded by hundreds of armed guards as if he owns that place.

And then there are the smaller plot holes like how are people getting an attack helicopter from somewhere in the middle of Africa to Somalia within days? Too fast for a freighter and there are a many stable countries between those two who don't like foreign attack helicopters inside their borders. How do you even refuel this thing?

Yathzee already asked why the Russian President who wants nothing more than peace would actually order a Invasion of the USA and EU?

Oh and Yuri the new character

Spoiler

Was actually part of Marakovs organization but was against the murder of civilians at the airport so he was shot by Marakov but found alive by the Russians who thought he was a civilian. So he knew who was responsible for the attack and despite hating Marakov he never tips the Russians off to prevent the war.
Also how did he got out of hospital so fast and become one of the best men of the russian who helps you (forgot the name)?

Remember, this is an alternate reality where the Soviet Union still exists, Russia controls Poland and Ukraine. And in Ukraine there is obviously a big resistance movement that I believe they actually showed in the game (I admit, they portrayed the resistance as utterly stupid, running face to face with tanks or running in a straight line away from the tanks to make sure they could get hit)

 

[Markunator]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

All the more my point. I wouldn't have such an issue if these games weren't smashing sales records all over the goddamn place. How can these dull grey shooters that change less from game-to-game than the EA Sports series be the most popular thing on the fucking planet??

Oh and piece of advice, don't post multiple times in a row in the same thread if you can help it. You can quote more than one post in a single post y'know.

Sorry about that; I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.

Anyway, you really shouldn't lump "Battlefield 3" together with "Modern Warfare 3" when talking about "changing less from game to game than the EA Sports series". That is very true of "Modern Warfare 3", but not true at all of "Battlefield 3". It's pretty obvious from you saying that that you don't know a whole lot about that game.

Just look at the difference in graphics between "Bad Company 2" (released in March 2010) and "Battlefield 3" (released last month). They look vastly different, and they also play quite differently, especially when compared to the CoD series.

Furthermore, "Battlefield 3" is actually a quite colourful game. Just take a look at the multiplayer map "Caspian Border". Absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Markunator]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

All the more my point. I wouldn't have such an issue if these games weren't smashing sales records all over the goddamn place. How can these dull grey shooters that change less from game-to-game than the EA Sports series be the most popular thing on the fucking planet??

Oh and piece of advice, don't post multiple times in a row in the same thread if you can help it. You can quote more than one post in a single post y'know.

Sorry about that; I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.

Anyway, you really shouldn't lump "Battlefield 3" together with "Modern Warfare 3" when talking about "changing less from game to game than the EA Sports series". That is very true of "Modern Warfare 3", but not true at all of "Battlefield 3". It's pretty obvious from you saying that that you don't know a whole lot about that game.

Just look at the difference in graphics between "Bad Company 2" (released in March 2010) and "Battlefield 3" (released last month). They look vastly different, and they also play quite differently, especially when compared to the CoD series.

Furthermore, "Battlefield 3" is actually a quite colourful game. Just take a look at the multiplayer map "Caspian Border". Absolutely gorgeous.

 

[kingmob]

The irrelevance continues. Here's a thought, if you don't like multiplayer, don't review multiplayer games. I suspect it is done anyway for 'laughs' and possible some trolling of fanboys, but personally I don't find that very funny...

 

[A Gray Phantom]

Until now I thought that Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 were the same game. No, seriously, I really did think they were the same game.

...

And I still can't tell the difference! D:

 

[Markunator]

Until now I thought that Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 were the same game. No, seriously, I really did think they were the same game.

...

And I still can't tell the difference! D:

Well, congratulations, you're an idiot. If you can't tell the difference between them, you obviously don't know much about either of them. At all.