Zero Punctuation: Enemy Front & Valiant Hearts: The Great War
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The light noise in the background was really distracting. I'm not sure if it was Yahtzee not caring to record at some other time, or if it's a metaphor for war games in general. They're just white noise, and such is this review. I don't remember anything from the second half, besides something about Valiant Hearts using Guitar-Hero-esque QTE segments galore.
So I guess there's no hope for a ZP of Mario Kart 8? I mean, it would be more interesting and fun to Yahtzee than these war games, even without multiplayer. And yet he still ignores it, like he did with Pokemon.
So I guess there's no hope for a ZP of Mario Kart 8? I mean, it would be more interesting and fun to Yahtzee than these war games, even without multiplayer. And yet he still ignores it, like he did with Pokemon.
Yeah, I'm just running on autopilot by this point to see if anyone has come up with a new argument in the last five years.Steve the Pocket said:
I liked the idea of Valiant Hearts much better before I heard the words "Published by Ubisoft" and "Uplay".
Valiant Hearts looks like it has so much potential. The gameplay looks a bit disappointing though. As such I'm going to wait until it's on sale.
I don't think I want to talk too much about gun violence. If a majority of the people want guns, society should expect the logical consequences. It might simply be to late for gun restrictions after so many years of free distribution in the US. And since I don't live in the USA its not my prerogative to judge whatever national gun policies they deem acceptable.
But personally, I'm quite happy with the extremely restrictive system we have in the Netherlands.
I don't think I want to talk too much about gun violence. If a majority of the people want guns, society should expect the logical consequences. It might simply be to late for gun restrictions after so many years of free distribution in the US. And since I don't live in the USA its not my prerogative to judge whatever national gun policies they deem acceptable.
But personally, I'm quite happy with the extremely restrictive system we have in the Netherlands.
And if they can't do that they can just make their own guns [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916]Thanatos2k said:
I think I heard a pig fainting.otakon17 said:
Are you sure they aren't ravens?Darth_Payn said:
That's disappointing that Valiant Hearts is through U-Play.
Step 3) Wait for U-Play to load up pointless things.
Step 3) Wait for U-Play to load up pointless things.
Well, most people would assume that no one would use the phrase "First World War" until there was another one to compare it with. It's not *quite* as illogical as it sounds, but it does require a change of meaning from 'the first of the two world wars' to 'the first war that involved the whole world'. Except that it's a misnomer, since it was pretty much a European war, really.Aardvaarkman said:
Then why do gun control advocates try gun control and then claim that it works when it clearly doesn't? (see: gun-free schools)Thanatos2k said:
Why does gun violence fall when conceal-carry laws are passed?
Why is it claimed that the problem is we don't have enough gun control, when passing gun control just makes the situation worse, as you admit?
And - perhaps most importantly - why are we ignoring the very real problem of gun confiscation AFTER it's been tried in at least one state (Connecticut)?!
Why would people assume that? When you buy your first house, you're very much aware that you've bought your first house. Buying a second house is not necessary to that awareness.Flatfrog said:
Due to the amount of guns already in the US, the only way to get rid of them all is to go all totalitarian, and that doesn't appeal to me. The argument of "If everyone has guns, nobody shoots each other" is also false because yes, some people aren't that stable. Not allowing guns is, in many ways, an open invitation to your establishment saying "We won't fight back." Call the cops? I wouldn't be surprised if they are trained not to go into situations like that when the gunmen have access to hostages like that. And after the robbers (if you're lucky) or gunmen (if you are unlucky) leave, you are out of money and/or employees. Security? Great, one more person to pay.An Ceannaire said:
And then there's the illegal angle. Having a gun is illegal? Criminals don't care. If guns were made illegal, then two people would have guns: police, and criminals.
"Well, if you want a gun, you're mentally ill and a threat to society. So no gun for you!"MrFalconfly said:
That said, if someone is very unstable as to be a threat to society, no, I don't think they should have a gun. But should someone decide to change the definition of mentally ill to "Does not agree with my ideals," then we have a problem.
Contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't hand out guns to anyone who wants them. All legal guns have serial IDs or some other identifying factor to make tracking it easier.
Because trench warfare isn't that fun to play. You want to go out of the trench and gun the opposing team? They'll shred you to ribbons.thejboy88 said:
addendum:
World War 1 was originally called The Great War or The War to End All Wars. This obviously didn't happen.Aardvaarkman said:
Re: Gun safe. I can see why they don't want to do it: it's one more thing to buy, and if it is required to own one, companies and stores can price-gouge the living daylight out of any legal gun owner. This is happening with Verizon and Comcast in the USA because of their stranglehold on most of US's internet.Brian Tams said:
Re: assault rifles: IIRC, they are trying to ban them based on looks, which is really stupid. The way to get around it: change how it looks.
World War One would make a decent game to have an RTS in, but on the topic of setting an FPS in it most people don't quite realize WWII was a much, much wider conflict than the French front - there was fighting almost literally in every corner of the globe save for the Americas offhand, and covering fronts often overlooked (like Africa or the the Middle East) that would work for a first person shooter. Heck, there are a fair amount of flying games set during World War I that came out a LONG time ago - Red Ace Squadron anyone?
I think Valiant Hearts sets a good precedent by being the first "big" World War I game and making it about the people involved in it, even if they aren't soldiers.
I think Valiant Hearts sets a good precedent by being the first "big" World War I game and making it about the people involved in it, even if they aren't soldiers.
I do love that instead of talking about games made after the World Wars, we instead focus on school shootings. Listen: The truth is that none of us know if they would still happen if gun licensing had stricter criteria thanks to the black market. So stop dwelling on it.
To get on topic, anyone here think Yahtzee might put this on his Top 5 list for its uniqueness in the stagnation that is the Call of Duty-reigned bloodsport of killing immigrants and their zombie cousins?
To get on topic, anyone here think Yahtzee might put this on his Top 5 list for its uniqueness in the stagnation that is the Call of Duty-reigned bloodsport of killing immigrants and their zombie cousins?
Do I hear music or seagulls when he's talking about Valiant Hearts?
So, 2 war games and the better one has less emphasis on gunning. Interesting.
So, 2 war games and the better one has less emphasis on gunning. Interesting.
No, I think most see the problem being a lack of it.bobdole1979 said:
But let's stay on topic...
Two games, one takes a well used setting and gameplay style and produces a mediocre result.
The other takes a lesser used war, focuses something other than the "shoot shoot bang bang" and squeezes out a favourable review from Mr. Croshaw... I think there is a lesson in there.
I wondered when they were going to get around to making a World War One game, coming up on the centenary.
Nothing the US has done in either the Middle East or Vietnam has ever brought stability to the region. In Vietnam, they supported a completely unnecessary partition of the country because they didn't want the communists to control everything. Then they propped up a dictatorial regime which increased the profile of the Vietcong, then committed troops to escalate the conflict, and then sold out their South Vietnamese allies for the sake of two election-year peace deals and left them to be overrun.
As for Iraq, they invaded a country with a history of violent sectarian conflict and planned to establish a secular democracy. Then they established a precedent of military action in the event of a popular uprising being met by war crimes from the regime (Libya) and failed to act on it the next time it became a problem (Syria), allowing a sectarian guerrilla army to hijack the resistance movement and start taking apart the Iraqi army.
Hahaha. Oh wait, you're serious?HalfTangible said:
Nothing the US has done in either the Middle East or Vietnam has ever brought stability to the region. In Vietnam, they supported a completely unnecessary partition of the country because they didn't want the communists to control everything. Then they propped up a dictatorial regime which increased the profile of the Vietcong, then committed troops to escalate the conflict, and then sold out their South Vietnamese allies for the sake of two election-year peace deals and left them to be overrun.
As for Iraq, they invaded a country with a history of violent sectarian conflict and planned to establish a secular democracy. Then they established a precedent of military action in the event of a popular uprising being met by war crimes from the regime (Libya) and failed to act on it the next time it became a problem (Syria), allowing a sectarian guerrilla army to hijack the resistance movement and start taking apart the Iraqi army.