LOL
Ending line got a big belly laugh!

Seems like Yatzhee still has difficulty playing FPS' ^_^
I remember him finding BF:BC2 too hard, too. (and another FPS which I can't remember)

Yahtzee didn't like BF3, my jaw has practically hit the ground in surprise, I hope that he will certainly enjoy MW3, there is no reason for him to not...(Sarcasm)

Co-op has one flight mission. One guy gets in the gunner seat, the other one flies the heli.

But I did the exact same thing as Yahtzee; spun around in circles to catch the blurry textures before they filled in. XD

I'm just hoping for a Timesplitters sequel. Good single player (in Future Perfect, at least) and awesome multiplayer. I don't mind multiplayer in games like Battlefield and such, but they really only entertain me for a while and then I get sick of the hooting morons and go play something else.

ReiverCorrupter:
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll set the next CoD in South America so we can fight in a tropical rainforest. But don't say that people are ONLY making brown military shooters. The brown military shooters are just the most popular and well polished.

Umm....

World at War was half set in the Pacific(rather Tropical).
MW2 had two missions in South America(Not in the rainforest, mind you).
Black Ops had some Vietnam Jungle missions.
MW3 has a tropical mission in Sierra Leone.

That's 4 CoD games with tropical or South America.

And I'll count Bad Company 2, because it obviously wanted to be MW2 so badly, and was set in South America.

lol, EA. We all know you don't care about singleplayer when multiplayer brings the money.

Modern Combat had SP before bad company kiddies.

Oh, and I've been saying the debate is pointless since '10, so now you all come around when Ben says it?

'Zomg cod is so crap lol!'
'Uhh yeah BF3 has terrible animations, slanders other games for publicity, is horribly unoptimised completely disregarding anyone without a $1000 computer every 4 years, is the same reiteration of the same formula like CoD, uses online passes commonly known as DRM, can't balance for crap, has severe rubberbanding issues even playing in my own country, has a ridiculously addicted fanbase who make the game unenjoyable for anyone who plays less than 3 hours a week. Right. Because CoD is totally the greater evil.'

How do I protest this? I don't buy the damn thing, nor pirate.

uberhippy:
Why must we have the next in the streek of brown-Grey shooters,,,

We should have a technicolour, fantasical shooter, you know,, one thats fun?? :)

Fun is subjective you know. :P

shrekfan246:
Hopefully this thread won't devolve into people comparing BF3 and Modern Warfare 3 and asking over and over why Yahtzee only talked about the single-player in a multi-player focused game.

You realise you are on the Escapist...Right? :P

OT: I'll probably pick this up at chrimbo, Battlefield is challenging, which i like...plus it seems to have more colour in it than most shooters, the game is fucking gorgeous <3

Although Halo doe have ALOT more colour, but that is a "go crazy" shooter, not realistic...Well, until we get invaded...THEN it will be realistic xD

Sadly shooters have gone down. Yes they are very preatty to look at but so is an action movie. Which is cheaper then getting a shitty game that is just a waste of money.

why bother with single player if the focus of the game is meant to be multiplayer. seems like a waste of development time?

L4D, Counter Strike and Team Fortress seem fine without it

Well its nice that the season is about to be over. Once its over he may try something Indie like The Binding Of Isaac to vent off some STEAM (pun :D)

Actually i am hoping that Bastion + Minecraft + The Binding Of Isaac + Driver San Fransisco to be in the list of best of 2011. Not sure about Minecraft because its a beta and its supposed to be released this November 19 to full version and not sure if he will judge from what he saw in the beta or full version

karloss01:
I wish Dice would stop pissing around with single player. none of their battlefield games have had a good story to validate a single player inclusion. 1942 was simply a tutorial and thats all what this game needs. no one buys it for single player.

Actually Battlefield Bad Company 1's singleplayer wasn't too bad. It took place on big open areas so you had multiple ways to approach an objective. Plus it had great charecters and some really funny moments. Like flying around in a gold plated helicopter. Haggard singlehandidly invading a neutral country. Driving tanks on a golf course. It actually taught you how to play the multiplayer. They should have expanded on this in Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 instead of going the whole generic linear corridor shooter route that every other fps does.

C'mon, I know I'm not imagining the pattern of D&D references all over the site as of late! My fragile budget will not give into to your mind-trick advertising Escapist! D:<

I'm happy Yahtzee bases his reviews on the single player personally. EA quote aside, if they really want to gear it as a multiplayer game then they should sell it as such. If we're arguing the single player isn't important enough to be reviewed or be seen as reflective of the game, then you have to agree Yahtzee's review is no more misleading than the game itself. (Remember the game is selling as having a single player experience to it)

Personally, I don't play online multiplayer either, so if the game doesn't have a memorable enough single player story (or offline co-op) then I'm not interested.

"Realism". PFFFFFT! -stiffled girlish giggle-

Ahem! Anyways, while I am not an avid fan of FPS, B3 seemed to be taking a whole lot of the pages of the common modern FPS handbook and run with it naked and screaming, "WHEE! LOOK AT ME! I'M A UNIQUE FLOWER AMIDST A FIELD OF GREYISH BROWN!", inviting sighs from onlooker as they shake their heads in resignation. Multiplayer might bring in the money, EA, but a lot can be said for not giving us lonely gaming nerds the finger when we just wanted to blow up heads all by our lonesome with a machine gun after a stressful day at work. That's just a dick-move of Eiffel Tower proportion.

I'll be taking my money to THQ and sucking on Saints Row the Third's cock, thank you very much.

Me55enger:
Forgive me for reducing this to popular culture definitions, but isn't the expression ofopinion and cirticising rewviewing in its purest form?

or have I found irony in what you suggest?

No, opinion and criticism do not make a review, because a review has to have positive views in it as well as negative (you know, trying to be objective, or at least truthful), and Yahtzee tends to just focus on the negative aspect and exaggerate everything to make funny videos.

OhJohnNo:
The facebook comments on this video are funny. So many people think they're clever for agreeing with Yahtzee.

I agree with Yahtzee because everything he said is true.

But only because TotalBiscuit got there first. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnn4bG1tj-E

Tom Templeton:
Oh, and I was expecting dark souls.

Ah well, cant wait MW3

If you want a Dark Souls review just watch the Demon's Souls review while banging your head against the wall.

I kid.

In my opinion, kind of a waste of time. Whatever. I'm hoping for Dark Souls next week.

Oh you fellows here are so critical. He gave you his reasons, if they wanted to hype up the SP then you know Yahtz will be there with a fine-tooth comb. The point is he slammed the campaign, and acknowledges that it was a game for MP.

You would have all cried anyways if you saw he didn't review B3 anyways. The guy can't win.

he forgot to mention about origin. but well, he is a console guy.
origin is a reason why i dint get my self this game. was curious about how the MP is but well, no spyware on my pc.
got my self COD and after few hours of playing the MP, it is actually fun. i enjoy it even more then black ops.
well, lets see how he will take MW3 apart. lol

Same thing happened to me (referring to the ending).

Black Ops uses an interrogation to frame a story. Why do people get fixated on this? Alpha Protocol did it a year earlier, and In Cold Blood did it in 2001 and did it best of all.

Does not reviewing the multiplayer mean Yahtzee thinks the single player is more important?

Hell, in this age of FPSs, it is ONLY the multiplayer that is important, so why should Yahtzee be so surprised when the single-player is often shit for these games?

Hey, I loved Battlefield Bad Company 2, I still love that game. But I have only played like two levels of the campaign, and they were pretty uninteresting. The greatness of the game comes from the multiplayer, not the singleplayer, and I will expect the same from Battlefield 3.

ph0b0s123:
As I predicted here some weeks ago, no mention of the multi player game which is the main point of the Battlefield series. The justification for this by Yahtzee was pretty laughable.

Yahtzee should just recuse himself from reviewing battlefield games if he is only capable of reviewing at most half the game. I have an excuse for not reviewing it as well. Blame the spyware you would have had to have loaded to play the best version on the PC. That could have been quite funny....

Lmao, someone has butthurt.

Having played BF3 I can honestly say this is one of Yahtzee's more fair reviews, he normally blows faults out of perspective for comedic value, but BF3 did all of that for him. All of his complaints and nitpicking were completely legitimized, it's almost as if EA are trying to make his review easier for him, it reminds me of when South Park did Scientology.

Best ending to a ZP ever. I feel all the better now not caring about this game.

cdstephens:
It doesn't seem fair to only review a multiplayer based game's single player campaign.....you're basically picking out only the weakest part of the game and then ranting on about it while ignoring all the other parts. It'd be like only reviewing an MMO's level grinding while ignoring the raids or the PvP.

It just seems like Yahtzee is a noob when it comes to multiplayer imo. Just because you don't like a part of the game doesn't mean you shouldn't ignore it when you're talking about whether the game is good or not, otherwise, you come off as a biased prick.

Yahtzee's justification for only doing single-player is twofold: there are too many dicks online, and after the servers shut down, you won't be able to play it anyway. Also, EA said the campaign was just as important as the multiplayer and Yahtzee replied, "Challenge accepted." And yes, it seems that they were just as important. Read: neither is very good.

Shamanic Rhythm:
Ah yes. As he himself pointed out in the Gears of War review: if you trash the singleplayer, everyone defends the game by saying "no one plays it for the singleplayer."

This is an argument that never ceases to become less retarded the more times its put out there.

JonnWood:
I've heard BF fanboys say the series was never about the SP, and thus it doesn't matter if it's mediocre to poor.

Considering that up until only recently, single player did not exist at all in the Battlefield games, like literally... there was no campaign period. I'd say it's a pretty fucking valid point that anyone who has been following the franchise doesn't give two shits about the campaign that EA slapped on recently.

If Team Fortress 3 suddenly came out with a single player campaign in the next entry, you can bet your ass that none of the fans going to care and it would be stupid for a reviewer to emphasize that particular aspect while ignoring the online considering that Team Fortress 1 & 2 had no single player campaign.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The Gears of War comparison isn't even relevant considering it's been a campaign+multiplayer combo experience since day one, along with many other games like Halo, etc. I could care less which part of those games he reviews.

However, exclusively reviewing a campaign that randomly popped up in a multiplayer-only franchise is quite useless information to the vast majority of people. (Or vice versa, reviewing the multiplayer specifically in a single player franchise. For example, if they put in versus modes in Mass Effect 3 and someone reviewed only that, you can bet people would be justifiably annoyed.)

Zachary Amaranth:

Madara XIII:
Everyone wants to focus solely on the multiplayer that the campaign itself falls short of Anemic.

Kind of a shame it sells so well

Very Shameful. I mean it's not all that hard to make a campaign just as fun as the multiplayer.

Prime Example:

METAL GEAR SOLID 4

That was a game that had a heavy and hearty campaign, coupled with it's ever endearing online segment known as Metal Gear Online.

Both the single and multiplayer segments were deep and compelling. The Multiplayer had a system that punished mediocrity and would make you level down if you didn't meant your levels quota.

It proved itself to be clever. It MADE you work as a team and it MADE you realize that running and gunning is indeed VERY VERY VERY STUPID, because you will get eliminated.

Metal Gear Online is a SMART ONLINE SHOOTER!

Team Fortress 2 is as well

Regardless though, maybe if developers balanced campaign and multiplayer more often then we wouldn't have half-assed attempts at an incomplete game that fanboys would jump in front of a Bus for