Extra Punctuation: Battlefield 3 Is Scary

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Battlefield 3 Is Scary

The whole modern warfare genre creeps Yahtzee out.

Read Full Article

I totally get the point about how it doesn't really feel like you are the underdog whatsoever in Black Ops or BF3 campaign (The prison escape in BO is one exception). There are so many parts where the protagonist is completely outnumbered to give us a sense of a challenge and I'm wondering why the US Air Force doesn't just show up and bomb the ever living out of the enemy. It kind of reduces the emotional impact my character's actions have when I know that even if I fail there are like a million more soldiers who are backing me up.

Indie games ftw! Bastion is still a great game, even though I haven't managed to beat it yet...

I think you hit the nail on the head there without being cynical.

I applaud that.

Skyrim is the only triple A im interested in at the moment, and I like the fact that it never shoves anything down your throat, its nice and open

I've never really been into most of the war shooters, Modern, WWII or whatever. I think this touches on why, to some extent. That and xbox live is a nest of evil.

So many of Yahtzee's articles are like this. He starts by making interesting observations on game design and then can't be fucked finishing them; becoming either really tangental or just going somewhere completely unrelated. It's like he's got ADD or something.

your right, binding of isaac is awesome!!!

i have spend a lot of time playing that game

I've often played "realistic" shooters and wondered about the lives of my enemies as I killed them, I mean almost all the enemies and npcs look like they are about 30 or older in the games. So I have to wonder just how many years of life I removed in a single level, but it also strikes me as weird that almost all the npcs look about 30, I mean most solders are around 20 or so, but you never see waves and waves of really young looking men getting mowed down.

Hmmm, I like the idea of having this huge military behind you but it can seem rather one sided when you've got bomber support that probably cost more then the country your in has ever seen, I wonder how a realistic war game would go if you had to actually worry about your foreign image and how your solders were seen in the country you were in. Like in the first desert storm there was a highway full of Iraq vehicles that we just blew the fuck out of so much so that the military decided it was best if we limited media coverage of it since we managed to take out so much of the Iraq army there that it started to look rather war crimie. I think it might be interesting to see a game where you still had to eliminate your enemies but you also had to be careful about your actions and not destroy too much or make your enemy start to appear sympathetic since that would sway international opinion and influence more people to fight you.

I think Yahtzee just really wanted to talk about Binding of Isaac :p

Wow this is crazy- I only just posted this in another thread-

That said, people theorising that expanded content = less interesting story is also true. But this is not the fault of the genre, or even the mechanics of the game. It is purely a conceptual mistake, with dev teams thinking that maximum freedom with a large range of toys is enough work done, without giving us meaningful things to do with them.

A perfect example from another Genre is Battlefield 3- it's got jets, and choppers and tanks and jeeps, but how many singleplayer missions took place entirely within any of those vehicles? Battlefield has all the tools and kit at it's disposal to create the most varied, wide reaching kind of singleplayer gameplay this side of ARMA II- and they utterly blew it because their creative team are, like many creative teams, just programmers at heart. This is why Crysis games always look so good but utterly waste the potential of any plot they have, as do most other games that shoot for cutting edge graphics above all else.

Oh and by the way:

Cues, and a restriction of choice, often lead to the player's greatest enjoyment of a videogame

I find the complete opposite is true. Walking into a courtyard in Call of Duty and seeing a skyscraper fall over or whatever doesn't interest me at all, because I know it's scripted, and will happen that way every single time. Sometimes the game even forces your view towards it. Getting lost in the wilderness in GTA and finally stumbling across a road, and seeing a dirt bike pull up at some lights only to have a 4WD brake too late and shunt the rider right off his bike? Unscripted? Completely random?

Now that's enjoyment

See, from the very start I've always thought Battlefield had this enormous potential for varied singleplayer missions with all it's weapons and vehicles. Just one look at the insane variety of Battlefield's grand-daddy Codename Eagle shows what can be done. Operation Flashpoint, Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction and later the ARMA series are really showing how you can have a true open world warfare game with emergent gameplay- and this fits right up Battlefield's alley.

It just makes it all the more crushing a disappointment to see battlefield tossing out it's wide expanses for exploration, to instead go with narrow channeled scripted corridor sections- just like COD.

What a complete and utter waste of potential.

Yeah, I've got Isaac from the latest Humble Bundle sale, and while it's like a lot of things I've played/seen, it's also unlike anything. It's like Zelda on crack and with Mega Man as the protagonist (...a naked Mega Man). Pretty weird but I love it so far. Couldn't beat it yet though.

Realistically if they gave the developers of The Binding Isaac creative control and funding, you'd find them making the same game over and over because, in all honesty, that's what makes money these days.

I buy many games, but still there have been none that matched the queues and sell outs I had to face for MW3.

It's a shame but indie games will never garner the same brand respect and recognition.

The single player mode of the BF3 game simply takes the media "war" that most Americans have been experiencing for the last 10 years and churns it out into a "game". Most of what I "experienced" with the game that related to what Yahtzee said, seemed to be copy pasted from "wiki leaks".

What does it say about the industry? I am not sure it says anything meaningful, but I "do" think it says a lot about EA. Let's keep in mind BF3 is brought to us by the same distinguished company that brought us 2142. An excellent game, without a story, but one that allows the player to "generate" a story considering the situation. Arguably, 2142 is in every way, except visual fidelity, better than BF3.

Now if I were to take the M rating of BF3 at face value, and say that 18 year old's were purchasing it, they were "8" when these wars started. What I want to really hit home here, is that the middle east conflicts are becoming a "right of passage" for American youth. Another thing to consider is that America is a rather ultra violent culture within the youth set.

As far as "what it is" to be "American" or how "Americans" see things? I would simply point to Dennis Prager on the topic. Most American's couldn't tell you much of anything about America, not with any consistency. What this game does, is speak to a lower middle class/ upper poverty class perception of the middle eastern conflicts and sells it hard through the EA fist pump and dump.

The real question will be what will be the retention of DICE player base after BF3, considering the dramatic departure of what the series has done in the past.

I absolutely despise modern military shooters, and patriotism. Bertrand Russell said: "Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."

I wonder how he feels about MW2/3's enemies, which was the equally strong and technologically powerful Russian Army

This reminds me of how freaked out I was by the laughing and joking in Modern Warfare's AC130 level. I think back then they might have been trying to make a point with it, but that point got lost when MW2 came out.

Patriotism, though, is not to be confused with nationalism or fascism. Being a patriot means you're proud of your nationality and you want what's best for your country. It has very little to do with war (and nothing to do with hating other nations, by the way).

BF3 spoiler below.


But maybe I'm just totally not seeing the same things as Yahtzee. For example Yahtzee said in his BF3 sketch "Battlefield 3 was built on the Frostbite 2 engine. I know this for a fact because it can't go 5 minutes without banging on about it."
Now we must have different games because to me it only shows a Frostbite 2 logo at the very start of the game and once in the credits(dur)... Apart from that no mention of it what-so-ever. If you play the MP it never even shows you a Frostbite 2 logo at all. So yeah, to me it seems like we have different versions of the game.
Or like one of us didn't really pay much attention to the game.

Not to shunt the discussion into politics, but I think this dichotomy is also represented in the current evolution of American patriotism: We at once celebrate the overwhelming power of our military and the ability it gives us to dictate to other nations, and at the same time perceive ourselves as the misunderstood underdogs, struggling to guide a world that just doesn't see how right we are.

It's some bizarre mental contortion when you really think about it, and I can certainly see why many of those outside (and within) this nation don't understand it.

Spot on Yathzee, spot on. I'm not going to totally discount modern shooters based on the American military might because there are people who genuinely enjoy gunning down waves of ill equipped foreigners, but this form of gameplay holds no appeal for me because it does not give me any grand sense of challenge--there are only arbitrary, circumstantial challenges. I think Half-Life is a good a example: a nerdy physics researches is forced to defend mankind against hordes of aliens with nothing but a crow bar in his hand.

Similarly, in strategy games, I'd rather be the doomed defenders of a fortress against an unending sea of infantry and siege weapons. Sure, sometimes it's fun to just be a part of the horde, but that experience feeling is just as fleeting as its origin.

The Gentleman:
I wonder how he feels about MW2/3's enemies, which was the equally strong and technologically powerful Russian Army

in mw2 yeah kinda to a degree but in mw3 it pretty much full russian getting owned by the US miltray more to the point i stil wouldn't mind these if they brothered to fleshed out the villians and most importently give resaon for the conflict besides russian/arabs suck US is god. Or to put it another way explain to me the entire motvations for Bf3 villian and war for that matter.

I like how you quickly mini-review some games (like Space Marine a few weeks ago) in these EPs.

"Sightseeing tour", huh? That's what you called Portal 2, and it makes sense when you think about it. As Portal 2 goes on, more and more in-game scenes happen (such as two spliced chambers being smashed together), and the mere spectacle adds nothing to the gameplay by instead focusing on presentation. The masses (myself included) tend to love these displays, but as another of my favored reviewers (acornfilms on Youtube) has said, "[The core would be] PLAY over disPLAY".

Putting together modern shooters is one thing, but releasing them just before Armistice Day/Remembrance Day is in really bad taste.

I absolutely agree eith you on this issue, actually it's been a recurrent conversation with a friend of mine. These games that surround around the basic concept of "killing brown people" also sicken me with all it's militaristic erections, the display of heavy machinery with pride is almost like a reaction to a pathological small penis complex.

I really don't like military shooters, those levels that revolve around air bombing (like in CoD4) are particularly bothersome when it comes to masturbating your cock with power fantasy.

I say, add some more civilians in the game, just make the bombing a little more realistic, maybe players will not react the same. Or maybe they'll think it's more fun, "look at those towelheads exploding, looool, let me kiss my american flag".

Bidning of Isaac is freaking amazing! It cost me 3-ish and Ive had dozens of hours of enjoyment in it. Competed with housemates and friends to see who could kill Mom first.

Also, theres a subtle Christianity vibe (read: bleeding obvious from items and enemies) which I quite like. It's not a positive look at it, but even someone who is Christian would find interest in all the different references.

Hell yeah, Binding of Isaac is awesome. And Technology isn't even the most overpowered powerup. Wait until you get Brimstone. It turned the final boss into a quick time event.

Don't quit reviewing big AAA games, Yahtzee. Someone needs to tell them they're wrong.

I too find it hard to sympathise with people who have all the might of the modern western military behind them going up against (usually invading) those with tech that was outdated even at the end of the cold war or even less resources than that.

The governments of the western world do not wage wars any more. A war is a conflict you could actually lose.

You know, give me a chance to take this back after the year's Christmas release schedule has dried up, but sometimes I seriously consider putting my money where my mouth is, retiring from reviewing triple-A big-commerce games altogether and concentrating entirely on indie releases, because that seems to be the only avenue where anything interesting happens

Would that we had a system that allowed people to follow their dreams instead of being sucked into following the unobtainable one built from the backs of dirty underdog foreigners.

Keep dreaming high Yahtzee.

"I'd prefer a game to just set up its physics and let awesome set pieces occur naturally," Battlefield 3 has that. It's in the multiplayer. The part of the game that people actually bought the game for, instead of the tacked on, ridiculously short single-player campaign.

i feel there's space for sightseeing tours and the other type of more open natural game. Space for Skyrim and Arkhum Asylum [yes this is a jibe at your saying City could have been more linear and focussed whilst saying this this week]

Yahtzee, bait fanboys occasionally by reviewing some indie game, for instance, I'd like to see you review a couple indies you actually liked tomorrow just to piss off the MW3 crowd. You could have done the same thing with BF3 since I already knew how you were going to review it since the single player sucked balls.

Xman490:

"Sightseeing tour", huh? That's what you called Portal 2, and it makes sense when you think about it. As Portal 2 goes on, more and more in-game scenes happen (such as two spliced chambers being smashed together), and the mere spectacle adds nothing to the gameplay by instead focusing on presentation. The masses (myself included) tend to love these displays, but as another of my favored reviewers (acornfilms on Youtube) has said, "[The core would be] PLAY over disPLAY".

I loved that bit too, and if I remember correctly (probably not. Haven't played Portal 2 in months :/) that bit is when

That would have been designed to show how little control he has.

Also, weren't there also differences in the puzzles? Literally cannot remember.

"But imagine what the developers of The Binding Of Isaac might come up with if someone took a risk and gave them creative control, funding and a team to make something on a cutting edge level. You probably wouldn't even get through the opening scroll without throwing up."

I would like to see this so MUCH.

Worgen:
Hmmm, I like the idea of having this huge military behind you but it can seem rather one sided when you've got bomber support that probably cost more then the country your in has ever seen, I wonder how a realistic war game would go if you had to actually worry about your foreign image and how your solders were seen in the country you were in. Like in the first desert storm there was a highway full of Iraq vehicles that we just blew the fuck out of so much so that the military decided it was best if we limited media coverage of it since we managed to take out so much of the Iraq army there that it started to look rather war crimie. I think it might be interesting to see a game where you still had to eliminate your enemies but you also had to be careful about your actions and not destroy too much or make your enemy start to appear sympathetic since that would sway international opinion and influence more people to fight you.

Also this, interesting idea mate.

It scares me to.

Worgen:
I've often played "realistic" shooters and wondered about the lives of my enemies as I killed them, I mean almost all the enemies and npcs look like they are about 30 or older in the games. So I have to wonder just how many years of life I removed in a single level, but it also strikes me as weird that almost all the npcs look about 30, I mean most solders are around 20 or so, but you never see waves and waves of really young looking men getting mowed down.

Hmmm, I like the idea of having this huge military behind you but it can seem rather one sided when you've got bomber support that probably cost more then the country your in has ever seen, I wonder how a realistic war game would go if you had to actually worry about your foreign image and how your solders were seen in the country you were in. Like in the first desert storm there was a highway full of Iraq vehicles that we just blew the fuck out of so much so that the military decided it was best if we limited media coverage of it since we managed to take out so much of the Iraq army there that it started to look rather war crimie. I think it might be interesting to see a game where you still had to eliminate your enemies but you also had to be careful about your actions and not destroy too much or make your enemy start to appear sympathetic since that would sway international opinion and influence more people to fight you.

I can see how that would be entertaining for people that look to breathe more into it. Not all games appeal to everyone and the modern military shooters appeal to what most would equate as the antithesis of the gamer that wants a challenge and interesting mechanics.

Would still be cool to have to watch where you land that drone missile or suffer in some manner or another.

Jzcaesar:
I totally get the point about how it doesn't really feel like you are the underdog whatsoever in Black Ops or BF3 campaign (The prison escape in BO is one exception). There are so many parts where the protagonist is completely outnumbered to give us a sense of a challenge and I'm wondering why the US Air Force doesn't just show up and bomb the ever living out of the enemy. It kind of reduces the emotional impact my character's actions have when I know that even if I fail there are like a million more soldiers who are backing me up.

Modern Warfare 2 averted this trope by having the US Navy bombing the crap out of the Gulag where TF141 operators were "operating".

But they wouldn't bomb a oil rig because of a dozen of hostages. Eh.

MonkeyPunch:
Yahtzee said in his BF3 sketch "Battlefield 3 was built on the Frostbite 2 engine. I know this for a fact because it can't go 5 minutes without banging on about it."

If you play the MP it never even shows you a Frostbite 2 logo at all. So yeah, to me it seems like we have different versions of the game.
Or like one of us didn't really pay much attention to the game.

Or you didn't pay attention to that ZP episode. Each time a wall is taken down, a building collapses, etc it's the developers hinting at how powerful the engine is.

MP is full of "Look at Frostbite 2!!!" moments because honestly it is what you are looking at.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here