Markunator said:
I do agree that Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 got what they deserved, mainly because they wave around 'realism' while not being realistic in the slightest.
Modern Warfare 3 isn't realistic in the slightest, no. But
Battlefield 3 has at least a little bit of realism in it, but not so much that it stops being fun. The guns, the vehicles, the sound effects and to a certain degree even the teamplay is actually quite realistic.
Anyone who says BF3 isn't at all realistic is factually wrong. The sounds are actually recorded from real firearms and such at military bases, so at the most basic level BF3 is at least somewhat realistic, whilst CoD is a Mattel shooter.
Joccaren said:
Actually, he loves shooters. Look at his review of Painkiller. Its a shooter. Bulletstorm, while he hated some things about it, he didn't hate because it was a shooter. What he hates is the modern style shooter where there is more emphasis on competitive online play rather than on the game being FUN.
There is actually an
immense amount of fun to be had in
Battlefield 3 - just not in the singleplayer portion, which, I will admit, sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of fun in multiplayer. When you get onto multiplayer though, the competitive aspect can take away from the fun. Getting spawn camped because you joined the wrong team isn't fun, being the only person on your team who isn't a sniper isn't fun - unless you're on metro - playing in a match full of enemy snipers in an open map isn't fun. It can be fun when you get a good match, but its focus on being competitive allows only that sort of fun, and the rare 'over the top' bit of fun like driving a Jihad Jeep off the cliff at Damavand peak, or having an ally line your jeep with C4, ram it into a tank then have them detonate it and you not get hurt 'cause Friendly fire's off. That sort of over the top fun is rarely possible though with the competitive style of the game meaning that players who want to drive in the jeep and use it as it was meant to be used will be taking it 90% of the time, and won't let you C4 it or anything. When you do get a jeep too there is usually only a 20% chance you'll get close to that tank, or any enemy, seeing the number of players that go engineer. There is a certain satisfaction in sitting in a jeep while your friend lines it with C4, then having some random ally come up, look at the C4, then hop in the gun turret before you drive it crying bloody murder into the enemy's main defensive line and blow them sky high, leaving you unharmed.
That depends on what you want out of a shooter. If you don't like more realistic shooters, don't get Battlefield 3, simple as that. There are millions of people who love the Battlefield franchise and have done so ever since 2002. Should they not be able to have it just because people want to have crazy, Painkiller-style shooters instead? I don't think so, that hardly seems fair.
The Battlefield series has always had a real-world setting, so having a flaming crossbow that shoots exploding cows wouldn't exactly fit into it, if you know what I'm saying. Judge a game for what it is, not for what it isn't.
A real world setting isn't the problem. Give people a Halo CE style health system and their normal weapons in a real world setting with gore animations when they die and I'm sure Yahtzee would have a ball. Its the over-the-top-I-can't-help-but-be-entertained style that he'd find fun. Two second kills have little satisfaction to them. Pulling off something with luck and skill and getting given a 'nice' sight to show that you accomplished something fills the gratification and challenge boxes entirely. Context is all that's left, and you're in a war - there's your context.
I also don't think he'd have minded as much if BF3 were more like BF2 - an AI offline mode and slower combat that relied less on ironsights than all modern shooters love to. BF3 is following the modern shooter style of:
-Ironsights if you want to hit something more than 1 meter from you
-You die in 3 or 4 bullets from anything - and these guns shoot 600 rounds per minute as one of the slowest non-sniper/pistols.
-90% of the world is some variation of brown.
BF3 ruined single player for the series [I refuse to acknowledge BC 1 & 2] by adding a tacked-on campaign in and taking out AI matches, and it follows the 'You must be somewhat competitive to enjoy this' formula.
I see what you mean, but if you buy a Battlefield game, you should know that it's not the type of game that you buy for the singleplayer. Just look at Battlefield 1942, Battlefield: Vietnam, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 1943. None of them had a singleplayer campaign. People bought them because they wanted to shoot friends and strangers online.
I have looked at and played most of them them. Thing is, those of them that did have single player at all had the AI bot matches. They focused on the fun part of the game being in single player, instead of some tacked on story 'Military drama 99900998259'.
It also comes up that why include the single player at all if you don't buy the game for that? Take it out and put more money into multiplayer, and Yahtzee would respect that. He probably wouldn't review it, but having a single player campaign is having a single player section that is there to play. If its there to play, it should be good. If its not good, it reflects poorly on the whole game - especially if there are no bot matches to back it up. If a game includes single player, it must stand on its single player alone, or not include a single player and have only the multiplayer that it can be judged by.
If you buy a game without knowing anything at all about it, then quite frankly, I think you deserve to have your money be wasted. Oh, and a quick sidenote: you mentioned Xbox Live, but Battlefield 3 is actually far better on the PC.
I never buy a game without knowing a lot about it - exception Skyrim [I have now learnt my lesson]. I don't ever waste my money [Exception Skyrim]. And I know it is better on PC, I play it on PC with Ultra settings with over 80 FPS. I've been a battlefield fan for years, and I'll be damned if I'm getting the latest and greatest title on a console. I'm just pointing out that I can see where Yahtzee is coming from, and that whilst IMO unfair to put them at the bottom, its nothing to get worked up over. I understand and to an extent agree with his reasons. Hell, he even states that he doesn't hate them as games - only what they represent.
jawakiller said:
Yeah, I can see your point. It's just that the arguments he uses against multiplayer sound exactly like someone who is bad at it. I don't know if that's a coincidence or maybe he really is bad.
He does like shooters, just nothing that even closely resembles reality. He's like a 40 year old woman. He plays games to escape reality. Sure he'll play painkiller but anything that's even close to remotely possible? Maybe I'm getting a little defensive but he really doesn't like anything with multiplayer and I think he should just stop reviewing them all together.
I really don't think he'd have reviewed it as badly if it hadn't have had a single player. You can say 'You don't buy BF/CoD for single player' all you like but if the game has single player, its intended to be played. If its intended to be played, its going to be reviewed. If it sucks turds, its going to be reviewed badly, and a non-multiplayer reviewer will have nothing else to review the game on and thus it sucks. Take out the crappy single player section, or better yet - bring back the damn AI matches BF instead of the damn campaign - and he would have nothing to review it on other than how the multiplayer works. If it works well and is fun and interesting - congratulations, you only got a mildly scathing review. A game with single player will have to stand on its single player alone if it includes it. If it isn't expected to - don't include the single player. Put that money into making a better multiplayer, or making the game cheaper.
