Zero Punctuation: Top 5 of 2012

[Vault101]

Of course it was.. you saw how much advertising ME3 had here and how fervently most of The Escapist contributors were to defend EA and condemn the consumer outcry.

yes...obviously foul play is the only answer....

 

[RJ 17]

All I care about is the fact that Yahtzee mentioned the single reason why I burst out laughing and said "No, seriously, you've GOT to be shitting me!" when I heard they were coming out with Resident Evil 6:

Wesker's Fucking Dead.

How the fuck is the story supposed to continue now that the central villian through the entire series is fucking dead? That's how I knew RE6 was going to be absolute shit from the moment it was announced. And judging by fan reaction, reviewer reaction, and the reaction of friends who were genuinely looking forward to it for love of the series....I was not wrong in my assumption.

 

[Defeated Detective]

I'm surprised he didn't say Half-Life was the best game of 2012, seeing as he reviewed it this year. I forgot about alot of these games, probably for good reason.

It was a retro review, he said games he played that were RELEASED in 2012.

As for people who listed out Journey on their top 5s, PC supremacists don't know that since Journey was only released in PS3.

 

[Balkan]

FINALLY. Some list agrees spec ops is the game of the year, I can die happy.

I'm here, friend. The unpopularity of the line just shows the state of the industry. The game is a mind fuckingly amazing, but people won't buy it, because the reviewers gave it an 8 and not a 9.

 

[Yossarian1507]

Because it's unnecessary, time consuming, money consuming, and stupidly difficult to implement. Do you want a videogame story with carefully put together pacing, structure, and coherent arcs, or do you want one which lets you nihilistically drive a probably shitty story on your own? It's unrealistic to expect both, no game has ever pulled it off and from a business standpoint it's unlikely to be funded in a manner more extreme than Mass Effect. It's one or the other, and the ability to make meaningful choices doesn't trump enjoying a good story just because choice is integrated into the method of delivery in videogames.

When game tells me "choose A or B" I want to see the consequence of choice B instead of "shut up, we're going with A anyway".

Good point of comparison (although executed way, WAY worse) is that godawful quest in act III of Dragon Age II, when you discover a group of Templars and Mages, that try to overthrow Meredith and Orsino, to create "No Prejudice" team. I thought that it was the best idea in the world, and I did everything so they could succeed... Only for Bioware, to tell me "no it won't work this way, for the most ridiculous reasons we can come up with (for example my character "working" with Meredith, despite me being a Mage and telling her to fuck off at every possible opportunity). We don't know why we put option to help them, if you couldn't actually do anything with it, but fuck off, and pick between hating Mages or Templars, no middle ground".

Don't get me wrong, TWD is my #3 on my "Best of 2012" list (after #2 XCOM and #1 Spec Ops, which marks one of those few moments when I totally agree with Yahtzee), because it was still a really powerful experience. It would be no doubt #1 though, if I would know that it would be my experience, and someone else, making different choices would get entirely DIFFERENT powerful experience. I know it's extremely difficult to pull it off, but the game that will actually do it correctly will be my favorite game of all time, because I'm waiting for it ever since I started caring for plot in games (IE since Baldurs Gate).

 

[Triforceformer]

Modern military shooter takes top slot, indie-developed survival horror game is the game Yahtzee considers even worse than Kane and Lynch. The Mayans weren't predicting end times, they were predicting the year the game's industry went snooker loopy.

 

[Existentialistme]

I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

Yes, this is true. What happens in the game is roughly the same no matter what choices you make, BUT, I also kind of think that's the point. The Walking Dead game is extremely existential, in the sense that YOU - and only you - are responsible for your own choices as well as having to deal with the consequences of those choices. You can't make anyone else's choices for them, you can't change how they behave, and you can't change their fates. Whether a character dies in episode 1 or episode 3 -- it doesn't matter, their lives are their lives and you can't help how they turn out.

I think the game is purposely trying to show us that we DON'T have control over everything as we may think, just like in our own lives. We can choose what kind of people we are going to be, but the bottom line is, things are going to happen without our choosing anyway. The Walking Dead understands this, and so as you make Lee's decisions you're not meant to change the entire course of his life, you are only deciding what kind of human being he's going to be; what kind of principles he's going to live by; how he's going to relate to others in a bleak world, etc. And as others have said, these choices come full swing, particularly in episode 5.

It's a wonderful game, not because of the gameplay, which is very minimalistic, or even the story, which is excellent -- it's great because it makes us analyze ourselves and has us question what kind of people we want to be.

Blegh. I did a poor job of explaining that, but I hope it made sense.

 

[Yopaz]

I hate how he's constantly hating on shooters, it's so clear that he doesn't like shooters and I wish he would stop reviewing them if he only does so to complain about them.

Yes, that is sarcasm that comes out of my annoyance from all of those who complain on all his reviews of shooters.

As for the list I have been unable to play most of the games he mentioned (I'm staying away from bottom 5), but I have bought Spec Ops The Line because of his praise for it and I'm looking forward to the day I'll finally have time to play it. X-com was a game I wanted to buy on day 1, but my backlog was too big at the time (still is) so I am putting that on hold for a while.

 

[JoaoJatoba]

I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

Yes, this is true. What happens in the game is roughly the same no matter what choices you make, BUT, I also kind of think that's the point. The Walking Dead game is extremely existential, in the sense that YOU - and only you - are responsible for your own choices as well as having to deal with the consequences of those choices. You can't make anyone else's choices for them, you can't change how they behave, and you can't change their fates. Whether a character dies in episode 1 or episode 3 -- it doesn't matter, their lives are their lives and you can't help how they turn out.

I think the game is purposely trying to show us that we DON'T have control over everything as we may think, just like in our own lives. We can choose what kind of people we are going to be, but the bottom line is, things are going to happen without our choosing anyway. The Walking Dead understands this, and so as you make Lee's decisions you're not meant to change the entire course of his life, you are only deciding what kind of human being he's going to be; what kind of principles he's going to live by; how he's going to relate to others in a bleak world, etc. And as others have said, these choices come full swing, particularly in episode 5.

It's a wonderful game, not because of the gameplay, which is very minimalistic, or even the story, which is excellent -- it's great because it makes us analyze ourselves and has us question what kind of people we want to be.

Blegh. I did a poor job of explaining that, but I hope it made sense.

You did make sense. And I think TWD it's a wonderfull game so far. But there is a big warning at the beginning of each episode that says more or less "This games changes to fit your gameplay" what is just not true. All I'm saying it's a promise that remains unfulfilled this far in the game (I'm on episode 3).

 

[JoaoJatoba]

I'm playing The Walking Dead, and don't get me wrong, the character developing and story are great, but I feel cheated: the game promises me that the game changes to fit my gameplay and that the my choices change the story, and both just don't happen.

My choice seems only to change the relations between the characters and the gameplay just don't seem to change at all.

What I expected was that my choices would change completely the story, but I'm bound to a linear path, at least on the big picture. Sure, the choices can change the characters relations, but it's not up to the promised features.

Bottom line: great game, unfulfilled promises.

they say the story adapts to your choices they never said your actions completely change the story

adapt [əˈdæpt]
vb
1. (often foll by to) to adjust (someone or something, esp oneself) to different conditions, a new environment, etc.
2. (tr) to fit, change, or modify to suit a new or different purpose: to adapt a play for use in schools
[from Latin adaptāre, from ad- to + aptāre to fit, from aptus apt]

 

[JoaoJatoba]

Because it's unnecessary, time consuming, money consuming, and stupidly difficult to implement. Do you want a videogame story with carefully put together pacing, structure, and coherent arcs, or do you want one which lets you nihilistically drive a probably shitty story on your own? It's unrealistic to expect both, no game has ever pulled it off and from a business standpoint it's unlikely to be funded in a manner more extreme than Mass Effect. It's one or the other, and the ability to make meaningful choices doesn't trump enjoying a good story just because choice is integrated into the method of delivery in videogames.

When game tells me "choose A or B" I want to see the consequence of choice B instead of "shut up, we're going with A anyway".

Good point of comparison (although executed way, WAY worse) is that godawful quest in act III of Dragon Age II, when you discover a group of Templars and Mages, that try to overthrow Meredith and Orsino, to create "No Prejudice" team. I thought that it was the best idea in the world, and I did everything so they could succeed... Only for Bioware, to tell me "no it won't work this way, for the most ridiculous reasons we can come up with (for example my character "working" with Meredith, despite me being a Mage and telling her to fuck off at every possible opportunity). We don't know why we put option to help them, if you couldn't actually do anything with it, but fuck off, and pick between hating Mages or Templars, no middle ground".

Don't get me wrong, TWD is my #3 on my "Best of 2012" list (after #2 XCOM and #1 Spec Ops, which marks one of those few moments when I totally agree with Yahtzee), because it was still a really powerful experience. It would be no doubt #1 though, if I would know that it would be my experience, and someone else, making different choices would get entirely DIFFERENT powerful experience. I know it's extremely difficult to pull it off, but the game that will actually do it correctly will be my favorite game of all time, because I'm waiting for it ever since I started caring for plot in games (IE since Baldurs Gate).

There is a seed of this kind of games in the Visual Novel genre (see Katawa Shoujo). If only someone could make it work in a smaller scale in a regular game...

 

[TAdamson]

I've officially become a wanker indie PC gaming hipster and my my top 5 games are all independents, roguelikes, mods and grand strategy games.


1) Hotline Miami. Damn this game's good. A masterful deconstruction of narrative vs. gameplay.

2) FTL. The simple mechanics of this game add together to create something really deep. Although I really wish it was about space trading rather than outrunning an all powerful enemy.

3) Don't Starve. Great rogue like with cutesy graphics. I've yet to survive more than 4 days. Really wish I know how to get manure.

4) Crusader Kings II. A marriage and succession simulator. Seriously. There's combat but you do far more pimping out of yours and other people's offspring and then inviting them over for dinner fighting. Nobody seems to try to marry into your dynasty without you asking though, like you're the only entity in the world with any agency.

5) DayZ. A zombie mod where people are infinitely more terrifying than the undead. The devs really need to turn up the impact of exposure, make the game more about building a zombie proof shelter. Make zombies more problematic, perhaps make slow them down but make them a one hit kill. Get rid of the more ridiculous guns and NGVs. Force people to play at night and use torches. Make food rarer. Add food/water poisoning. Have hunger make you weaker. Currently it's more about wide area team deathmatch than survival.




Games I found disappointing but get honorable mentions are:

Dishonored. Fascinating world with unfortunately no real depth to it. Really needs a DLC prequal that establishes what it is you exacly do for the Empreress Overall really good but just slightly anaemic and thus disappointing. Big hopes for the sequal though.

XCOM. Again really good but the lack of customisation for your squad members felt limiting. If I want to give the sniper a rocket launcher or the support squaddie a heavy machine-gun then why do you want to stop me? At least let me choose which skill tree I want to develop for each team-member. And learn how to procedurally generate maps. It feels likes there's 5 on rotation sometimes. Seriously. Randomised squad classes and set maps? That's a little backwards.

Civ5 Gods & Kings. Really didn't add much. The AI is better I guess but I've played this sort of game so many different ways that I've lost all interest. Somebody need to make a CIV with multiplayer slow realtime play.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

The only thing this list did was to remind me how few games I have acutally played this year. I still have a lot of catching up to do.

Also, spunkgargleweewee is still a really stupid term.

 

[Therumancer]

Thank god for Yathzee remembering Spec-Ops: The Line, most videogame commentators I follow completely forgot about it or didn't think it was deserving enough

Well Spec-Ops: The Line is mostly a left wing anti-war/anti-military wank dressed up as a game. It's really great if you happen to agree with it's message, then you can claim it's profound, needed commentary, on something people try and overlook. If you belong to the other 50% of the population then it's just a mediocre game with a misguided piece of political propaganda sewn in which it insists on constantly bludgeoning you over the head and shoulders with.

As a result, "Spec-Ops: The Line" is something a critic, like Yahtzee can praise on the merits of it's message, if they happen to agree (which you might guess Yahtzee does, given all of his anti-US military rants in various reviews), but something a person with more pretensions of being a reviewer can't in good conscience lionize because really aside from that "message" it has nothing going on, and really it's something not everyone is going to agree with.

It doesn't really surprise me as being on Yahtzee's list, given that I felt 2012 was really short on stand out games. Much like 2011 it seemed like a year in which everything that was supposed to be really huge fell flat, and anything that looks especially good is being pushed up. To be honest with most of the truely huge developments like whatever Blizzards "Project Titan" is planned for the end of 2013 at the earliest, I expect 2013 to largely be a dry year.

It seems like we're looking at a 3-4 year cycle of in terms of bunches of really good games coming out, with the intervening time largely filled by rush projects (no matter how long it's claimed they were in development), quick cash ins, and rubber stamped franchise sequels. Among these there are some relative gems, especially among the new IPs that come out as experiments, but for the most part it's differant variations on bland.

This is just my opinion.

 

[Superior Mind]

For all my pretend sophistication I still laugh at raspberries as much as when I was two years old.

:/

 

[scorptatious]

Kind of disappointed you didn't list Rayman Origins.

Rayman Origins came in 2011.

OT: Glad to see XCOM: Enemy Unknown up there on the top 5 best list.

Although I can't help but wonder what you would have thought of Journey, assuming you even played it.

 

[StashAugustine]

Well Spec-Ops: The Line is mostly a left wing anti-war/anti-military wank dressed up as a game. It's really great if you happen to agree with it's message, then you can claim it's profound, needed commentary, on something people try and overlook. If you belong to the other 50% of the population then it's just a mediocre game with a misguided piece of political propaganda sewn in which it insists on constantly bludgeoning you over the head and shoulders with.

As a result, "Spec-Ops: The Line" is something a critic, like Yahtzee can praise on the merits of it's message, if they happen to agree (which you might guess Yahtzee does, given all of his anti-US military rants in various reviews), but something a person with more pretensions of being a reviewer can't in good conscience lionize because really aside from that "message" it has nothing going on, and really it's something not everyone is going to agree with.

Not trying to be confrontational, but did you play The Line? I was actually very surprised at how understated the explicit anti-war elements were. It's more focused on deconstructing the mindset of a shooter protagonist. There are a few bits where it brings up current events (surprise surprise the CIA is evil) but aside from that it's relatively apolitical. I liked it because it's a fairly convincing portrayal of a man's tragic fall mixed with a deconstruction of shooters.

 

[daxterx2005]

As much as I liked the Resident Evil series, I wish they'd just stop.