Zero Punctuation: Top 5 of 2011

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Aeonknight:
Ok, so you want to bring up reviews he made years ago as evidence to contradict my assumption. "I didn't say he always hated them, must be a recent development." There, satisfied?

Refer to my list above for this year alone. I could go looking into prior years for FPS games he disliked, but I already wasted enough time on the post above, I'm not about go digging through every single review he's ever done to find more evidence to support my notion about him. Feel free to consider this a "raising the white flag" on my part.

It's not a recent development because he has nothing against FPS'. There's just a LOT of FPS these days, and a lot of them are the same bland style of military shooter, so you're going to see them criticized a lot because that's what's available for review.

But the reason he hates BF3 and MW3 doesn't actually have to do with that. Like he said, what he hates about MW3/BF3 is the xenophobia, and missions where all you're doing is raining death down on helpless people from an airplane. It's disturbing to him that the biggest, blockbuster, recordbreaking games are ones where all you do is kill foreigners. It isn't a bias against FPS at all.

Naeras:
If all you care about is the single player, then yes, MW3 and BF3 were shit. Whether or not they're worth "worst game of the year" is, of course, open for debate, but I agree with that it's nice to see someone say that gunwank-rereleases with tacked-on single player modes that get rereleased every year isn't something people should copy.

That description only completely fits Modern Warfare 3, which is just the same game as before but with a new coat of paint. Yes, there was a Battlefield game released in 2010 (Battlefield: Bad Company 2), but Battlefield 3 is still a pretty different game from that one.

Yes, Battlefield 3's singleplayer was indeed tacked-on (not to mention bad and extremely disappointing), but that's not why I love the game. I love it because of the - you guessed it - multiplayer. It truly is amazing. Not perfect, but amazing nonetheless. It really is epic. (I know that is an extremely overused word, but it really is.) If you ask me, Battlefield 3 shouldn't even have had a singleplayer. Battlefield 2 didn't have one, and neither did most of the games in the series.

I don't agree with Yahtzee that developers should stop making realistic military shooters (because that would mean no more Battlefield games). I think that they should keep doing it until they get really great, including the singleplayer.

It's actually kind of stupid that Yahtzee doesn't want a subgenre of games to be made anymore because it doesn't cater to his taste. If he doesn't like them, he doesn't have to play them (except for review purposes, of course). Can't he just let people enjoy them?

surg3n:

Joccaren:

Magic is the exact same at the start and end game, except that you have a different spell that you continually cast until you're out of mana, then drink a mana potion or run round like a retard until your mana fills up.
Archery is very similar at the start and end game too. What do the perks do? Allow you to zoom in? Slow time whilst you're zoomed in, that's the big one. Its still the same motions as it was early on, with nothing much changed.

I'm not sure what you were expecting, maybe flossing teeth with the bow before firing?. The perks can be useful, personally I've concentrated mostly on archery, so now I can take down pretty much anything, I always play these games as a hunter. Anyway, theres a perk to speed up draw speed, drawn movement speed, increases critical, stun etc etc.

What I was expecting was something different.
For destruction, either a form of Dual casting that allowed you to mix two spells into a different sort of spell - what I'd originally thought the perk was for - or more variety would have been nice. The wall spells are basically the first spells you get with the added bonus that they will stay where you cast them for a while, and cost you 500 times the mana. Fire Bolt and Fire Ball are the exact same thing, just one is bigger splash and more damage. Same thing for Ice Spike and Lightning Bolt. The runes were something different, and spells like Ice Storm were refreshing, but it would have been nice to get some more interesting spells rather than a rehash of a previous one. Aaand balance the mana so you can actually cast your new spells well - who knew 500 mana could disappear in 14 seconds?
Sword fighting needed to be more than just mash attack. Look at games like Dark souls. Rolling, parrying, seperate attack types, stamina being of more use than 'Can I one hit it yet?', poise - aspects that make combat more interesting than standing in front of each other clicking until the other dies.
Archery, unlock more tactical options. Rather than only perks that will help with your current tactics, include ones that unlock new ones. Piercing arrows, so that when enemies are lined up you can hit them all. Shooting multiple arrows at once in a spreadshot - so that when a group of enemies come at you you can deal some damage to them all. Look at the tactical RPG style combat systems, where abilities usually upgrade for things like that to unlock more opportunities when fighting, 'cause simply giving the bow more damage or accuracy is done in stats and you gotta have something to level up in it in. Hell, I didn't try it, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but a bow bash. Strike out with a melee attack from your bow. Low damage, very short stun, but will allow you to get out of a tight spot and change weapons if need be.
Conjuration not a lot can be done for, but something like a Dominate skill - letting you take control of the conjured being - would have been a nice addition.
Alteration could have done with something like levitate or Icarian flight - for use on both you and the enemy. I realise there is telekinesis, but tell me it wouldn't be fun to jump over a mountain, or up into a dragon. Then you've got your landing spells too. Add to that spells that do things other than paralyse an enemy - say, it poisons them or something - and the class would be more interesting to play.
Illusion spells really had not much to do with illusion at all. Add in spells that cause an ethereal clone of you to appear, that make you look like something else (Appear Bear, Appear Troll, Appear Dragon or something of the likes), spells that make enemies attack thin air - that sort of thing would be interesting.

Joccaren:

Exploring would be interesting if they focused more on making each area look different to the other areas. Get me a screenshot and I'll get one of an extremely similar looking area. There are a few uniquish areas, but most of them are the same thing in a slightly different order. Hardly exiting.

That can be said of real life mate, take a castle, or even just a tower, and compare it to another tower, you'll find they look pretty similar. There is only so much they can do, they really have no choice but to re-use furniture and meshes, otherwise we'd have longer loading times, and that usual degredation in media quality as the game progresses. I mean, what game out there is as big as Skyrim, yet has more detail?

But Skyrim isn't real life is it? I get it has to follow a theme, so you're not going to get magical flying ponies (Thank the maker) or anything, but some more variety would be nice. Awe inspiring sights should be common in Skyrim, not rare. Looking at Solitude up on the Arch from the docks - that was nice. Heading into the main cavern of Blackreach and finding this massive underground area bigger than what I had ever seen before was nice. The differences in Architecture between most of the holds was great too. I realise they cannot create hundreds or thousands of new textures so that their primary audience won't have long loading times or FPS issues, but you don't even need to make more than 20 new models and textures. That cave with the bones stuck in gears - that section was something different, and utilising the assets already there. That Dwemer ruin that started off lateral but then took a vertical plunge so that you were walking on the walls - or falling down them - that was interesting, and utilising assets already there. More things like that that utilise current assets, but are somewhat different to the norm, would be nice. Add in a few more assets and do some areas up extra nicely, and I'd be happy. There is only so many times turning stones to get snake to match snake is fun, only once that you can have that revelation that the code to the door is on the claw itself, only a few times where that unexpected trap will scare the hell out of you. You go to one dungeon in Skyrim, you've visited pretty much all of them, with a few exceptions. Think of some new puzzles - not that hard, that sort of thing is everywhere on the Internet - play with our perceptions of the environment, add in a couple of new assets to use in maybe 1 in 10 of the dungeons for each, so that each dungeon has some semi-unique feature as opposed to each having the exact same features as the previous ones, and only storyline dungeons with anything different. That sort of thing would be possible, and would add a lot of life to Skyrim.
Hell, one thing I'd really like to see is a castle with a different design. I swear, every castle I have gone to has been pretty much the exact same layout of its interior. I'll grant a few exceptions, but when I can walk into a castle and know its whole floorplan without having ever been there before - something's wrong.

I mentioned something in another thread relating to Skyrim, and got shot down, so here is my underbelly...but...

PC gamers tend to ruin games for themselves sometimes. It's too easy to say, ''Sod it, I'm off to spawn this or that, or mess with this, or I'm too impatient to wait on that levelling up.'' Then the cheats set in. Everyone I know with the PC version of Skyrim has made the game pointless for themselves. I don't need anyone saying 'not me!', because I don't know any of you personally, I'm only going by my experience. I am playing it on XBox, I haven't cheated... except maybe looking up a youtube video of a treasure map location. Anyway, I trully think that I play Skyrim very differently than my PC-gaming friends. I can't cheat, so it doesn't bother me, I know that levelling up takes time and effort, and that's the whole point. The minute that you don't necesserily have to spend an hour crafting and enchanting to boost skills, you can just cheat, and a lot of you do, don't you?

Play Skyrim once more, play by the rules, ban yourself from cheating, and I guarantee you'll enjoy the game a lot more. I struggled with some quests early on, had to backtrack out of dungeons a couple of times (mostly due to powerful mages), but now I'm bad ass, I can snipe any human enemy with 1 shot - but I earned that, I spent the time levelling up so that I would be fairly bow-epic. Console gamers don't have the option of cheating or modding, and in the case of Skyrim I'd say that makes it a better game. I've put in over 200 hours too, and for me Skyrim is hands down GOTY.

I never, EVER, play with cheats on my first run through of anything. I enjoy a challenge more than I enjoy blitzing everything - unless that challenge is just a grind and blitzing everything is in some crazy way that is extremely entertaining. The only times I used console commands in Skyrim was to fix a glitch, like the one I mentioned in my previous post where you cannot continue with a quest if you collect the book before you get the quest, or if you clear out a dungeon before you're sent there. That sort of stuff isn't even cheating - its fixing what Bethesda couldn't be bothered, and it is more aggravating when it is unfixable - such as the Thane of Riften glitch.
Skyrim held no challenge for me. At current state, I one hit all dragons up to Elder with a dual Daedric power attack. Most other creatures the same. Magic will take at most one minute to kill something, and Archery is a joke with how powerful the sneak attacks get. I could keep levelling, but there is no point. I could travel to that tree icon I haven't been to before on my compass, but I'll already have seen what is there in at least 5 other places. I could quests, but all the quests available are the same ones I've already done.
Alternatively, my second playthrough was more entertaining.
Modded dragons to be far more difficult. I'm talking 300% health increase and 300% damage increase difficult, with higher resistances and my own innate resistances lowered, and extra types of dragons with different abilities.
I've started using the commands to make Skyrim more immersion, considering it did a rather poor job of portraying a living world beforehand.
I'll now set some alarms for times during the day that, since I play at different times and lose track of time whilst playing, I'll spawn some Stormcloak and Imperial soldiers who will fight it out for me.
When I come across a random NPC who gives a radiant quest, I disable them until I reach a certain criteria - aka: Become a member of the College of Winterhold, or the companions, or the thieves guild, or the dark Brotherhood, or Thane of that hold.
When I come across an area that feels dead, I'll add in some wandering giants and mammoths, and I'll host bandit raids on towns.
I can't yet fix the problems with the samey dungeons, but modders - when given the creation kit - will likely do that for me.

Now, don't get me wrong, Skyrim is not a bad game. What it is is slightly above average. A large world is its greatest attribute, but the denizens of the world lack any sort of feeling of being alive, whilst the greatest foes in that world die to my sword in one hit. The world is also dead, waiting for the player to do something to spark a portion of it into life, and then only temporarily.
Add to that broken balance, a game that doesn't work on a number of PS3s, removal of fun parts of the game likely in the name of balance - a pointless venture if ever there was one -, quest ruining and at times game breaking bugs (Esbern will go through his speach he does when you hunt him down in 1/2 a second and not open the door, at least on PC), short storylines and the reliance on the player making their own fun rather than the game providing fun, and Skyrim does not sit at GOTY for me. Top ten of all time? I'd have to replace Morrowind with it, and Morrowind is better than Skyrim IMO, for all of the issues it itself has.
Skyrim was a breathe of fresh air out of the shooter season this year and all the other sequel junk that came out, that we'd already played 90% of in previous titles, but I see nothing extraordinary about it.

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.

Joccaren:

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.

Games like BF3 and CoD likely aren't fun to him not because he sucks at multiplayer, but because all you do in them is point a samey gun at a samey enemy and pull the samey trigger for the samey death animation. A shooter I'd wager he would like would have a large set of different looking enemies that had different weaknesses, and different guns that were well suited to each of those weaknesses so that there was some challenge in the game other than 'Point that way and quickly press trigger'. That sort of thing is, in Yahtzee's words, 'Pure unadulterated fun'.
Which sounds like more fun, pointing a military looking weapon at a Middle Eastern/Russian enemy and hearing a muffled 'bang' before watching them just fall over, or pointing a flaming crossbow that shoots exploding cows at a rampaging purple Stegosaurus and hearing a massive explosion and watching the stegosaurus blow itself into a million pieces.

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.

Also, he does have a point that games should be able to stand on their single player experience. Not everyone enjoys multiplayer, the inherent cost of multiplayer from Internet Providers and things like Xbox live, the screaming of little kids in your ear and the constant grind for no real purpose. If a game includes a single player, that single player should be good, and worthy of the game to stand on. If its got a crap single player - don't include it and drop the price some.

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.

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.

dehawaiiansupaman:
Great video and all that. All I have to say is I agree with the final point on MW3 and BF3; can we please get back to the insane fun of old school shooters.

Well, you could technically still have old school shooters and shooters like Battlefield 3. If you don't like the latter, you just don't have to play it. Like I said earlier, there are millions of people who love the Battlefield games' multiplayer, and you have to respect that.

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.

Joccaren:

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.

Games like BF3 and CoD likely aren't fun to him not because he sucks at multiplayer, but because all you do in them is point a samey gun at a samey enemy and pull the samey trigger for the samey death animation. A shooter I'd wager he would like would have a large set of different looking enemies that had different weaknesses, and different guns that were well suited to each of those weaknesses so that there was some challenge in the game other than 'Point that way and quickly press trigger'. That sort of thing is, in Yahtzee's words, 'Pure unadulterated fun'.
Which sounds like more fun, pointing a military looking weapon at a Middle Eastern/Russian enemy and hearing a muffled 'bang' before watching them just fall over, or pointing a flaming crossbow that shoots exploding cows at a rampaging purple Stegosaurus and hearing a massive explosion and watching the stegosaurus blow itself into a million pieces.

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.

Also, he does have a point that games should be able to stand on their single player experience. Not everyone enjoys multiplayer, the inherent cost of multiplayer from Internet Providers and things like Xbox live, the screaming of little kids in your ear and the constant grind for no real purpose. If a game includes a single player, that single player should be good, and worthy of the game to stand on. If its got a crap single player - don't include it and drop the price some.

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.

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.

dehawaiiansupaman:
Great video and all that. All I have to say is I agree with the final point on MW3 and BF3; can we please get back to the insane fun of old school shooters.

Well, you could technically still have old school shooters and shooters like Battlefield 3. If you don't like the latter, you just don't have to play it. Like I said earlier, there are millions of people who love the Battlefield games' multiplayer, and you have to respect that.

Markunator:

Naeras:
If all you care about is the single player, then yes, MW3 and BF3 were shit. Whether or not they're worth "worst game of the year" is, of course, open for debate, but I agree with that it's nice to see someone say that gunwank-rereleases with tacked-on single player modes that get rereleased every year isn't something people should copy.

That description only completely fits Modern Warfare 3, which is just the same game as before but with a new coat of paint. Yes, there was a Battlefield game released in 2010 (Battlefield: Bad Company 2), but Battlefield 3 is still a pretty different game from that one.

Yes, Battlefield 3's singleplayer was indeed tacked-on (not to mention bad and extremely disappointing), but that's not why I love the game. I love it because of the - you guessed it - multiplayer. It truly is amazing. Not perfect, but amazing nonetheless. It really is epic. (I know that is an extremely overused word, but it really is.) If you ask me, Battlefield 3 shouldn't even have had a singleplayer. Battlefield 2 didn't have one, and neither did most of the games in the series.

I don't agree with Yahtzee that developers should stop making realistic military shooters (because that would mean no more Battlefield games). I think that they should keep doing it until they get really great, including the singleplayer.

It's actually kind of stupid that Yahtzee doesn't want a subgenre of games to be made anymore because it doesn't cater to his taste. If he doesn't like them, he doesn't have to play them (except for review purposes, of course). Can't he just let people enjoy them?

I've heard people say something along these lines of that last paragraph in defense of both the Transformers-movies and Twilight(yes I went there). People are enjoying them, and that's fine, but I honestly don't want more of either. Yet it keeps happening because it brings in loads and loads of money.

Realistic military shooters wouldn't be a problem if they were good. The single players of these games are.. well, anything from "boring" to "horrible". I still consider several of the old BF games to be pretty brilliant, and CoD 1, 2 and 4 are also really good games, including(possibly especially) the single player mode. I wouldn't mind seeing more of those, but sadly those aren't part of the winning formula anymore. Modern Warfare 1 was a prime example of how to get a genuinely good single player out of militaristic shooters, but now the games are formulaic and boring cash-ins with no wish to innovate or even polish their new content. And since this stuff sells so well, it sort of screws over innovation because everyone is copying it. So yeah, I don't really mind him trying to send a message. It's not like it's going to change much, because catering to the 12 year old teabaggers who think they're awesome because of killstreaks still gets Activision loads and loads of money.

And for the record: CoD games after MW1 had shitty single player modes and badly designed and horribly balanced(though not necessarily boring) multiplayer modes, and it sells for millions every damn time. BF3s single player was.. well, a pile of shit, though if the multiplayer is anywhere close to BF2 it's still worth the purchase. That is, if it wasn't for Origin it would be worth it for my part. I also hate FPSes on consoles so I won't get it for that reason.

I was a bit surprised by the list. Nice choices overall, with one exception I take. Still, I'm amazed at all the loathing DNF has received. I purchased the game for $10 new and had a blast playing it.

My only in-game complaints were basic nit-picking affair, tired of FPSs only having 2 firearms and such. Outside of that the only bit of darkness on it was the ridiculous between-stage load times, however after a lengthy study with the roomie over his copy of Skyrim we did scientifically prove DNF had better load times and as people can't stop wanking over that one, I suppose it's forgivable. Graphics were solid, as was the sound. The humor was raunchy and juvenile. It was nice to be playing an FPS with some level of personality for a change, besides "faceless amerikan super-soldier" or "space marine YET AGAIN". An all-around fun game.

As for it being offensive... Jeezus Christ... I've come to the conclusion this is basically the moral pretension bandwagon people like to get on. "Duke ogles strippers" "he's so misogynist" "It's so childish" Oh-fucking-please... I've been a stripper for years and I can honestly say that is one of the biggest loads. Men don't demean us, WE demean THEM. They pay us money to just look at us for Crissakes. NO-body ever forced me to get onstage, big grown-up and everything...

Anyways... S'my only real disagreement with the Yah-man this year around. Let's have a good larf and all look forward to what 2012 brings. Hopefully no more Final Fantasy...

I'm torn here. On one hand, he gave well deserved credit to portal 2, a game so well designed that the sheer brilliance of it brought me te tears like an astronomer pondering the vastness of the universe, and that was woefully under appreciated for it come years end. On the other hand he predictably pulled out the kneejerk, cliche criticism of 2 well designed games that don't match his tastes, and pulled out the ""theres too many military shooters"argument on the game that has been doing this since forever, and the game that started the trend. Might as well blame tolkien for writing yet another high fantasy novel. Yeah, I don't take yahtzee seriously, but all that does is fuel the kneejerkers without adding anything to the conversation. If its a roast, fine, differing opinions are interesting, but to frame it as an objective analysis Of quality is tantamount to yelling at people, "stop having fun with something I don't like."

Wow, he agreed with my best and worst game! Well, I would've placed MW3 in the second best for fast paced gameplay that's not slow as fuck and not so fast holy shit I ran into a wall and exploded, a good story that while cliched, gave me the ability to go in and rip shit up in the most unrealistic way possible. Then there's the ever amazing multiplayer with needed gameplay fixes and balancing issues, but hey, at least I didn't like battlefail!
To be honest, I don't know why they're compared. Call of Duty focuses on lone wolf/small squad gameplay with small maps and no vehicles, while battleshit focuses on snipers dominating the entire game and ragequitting when they lose because their entire class is useless. Don't forget the frustrating vehicle sections, the abysmal singleplayer, the medics and guys who drop health doing fuck all.

I really liked inFamous 2, but he keeps saying that it had a great ending.
I thought the ending was the most disappointing ending that has ever happened in a game (I've only seen the 'hero' one).
There's no resolution of the world that Cole has saved the Earth from, at leats some comic picutres of what happened to the Beast, or nix and Kuo or the enemies.
Also while I'm on it, I thought that Nix was seriously annoying and stereotypical while Kuo was much more likeable, which was a shame because you have to fight her in the end.
The combat alone would put it in my top 5.

icaritos:

GonzoGamer:

icaritos:

Can't fix what is fundamentally a hardware issue. Unless they send someone in your house to shove more RAM into your PS3 it is quite likely that there won't be any massive improvement.

Is that even possible. If you were to somehow install more memory on your ps3, would the machine even recognize it?
I think I know what I'm going to do the next time I have one of my Frankenstein moments.

I don't think that would be possible unfortunately. The mobo is far too old, the likehood that it would support more RAM is small.

Still.
I bet after the next completely worthless firmware update I will be fed up enough to give it a shot.
I do most of my gaming on the pc now anyway.

Yes, the worst game of 2011 was a game where you can fly up 10000 feet, bail out of your jet, SHOOT THE ENEMY JET WITH A BAZOOKA, and then get back in your jet and the 5th best was a buggy, poorly ported, consolized, fetch quest fest with poor scripting that had tons of assets and ideas reused from Fallout New Vegas.

Well, it's not like these are supposed to make sense. Other than the above complaint I liked this episode.

Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 share the worst?
Appropriate, and quite possibly the first bit of satire I agree with more than I'd care to admit.

These are two franchises that collectively have the LEAST POTENTIAL (aside from shovelware) of all AAA games released last year. They are so formulaic that they cannot go anywhere.
(I question why people don't just play last year's iteration instead.)

And yet, they make the most money; ergo, they're always touted as "the best".

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for "celebrity games" who put on the same act year after year, just to induce a little stability into the market, but when you're running on your 3rd or 4th year of this shit, and you HAVEN'T CHANGED OR IMPROVED A SINGLE FUCKING THING, it's more than somewhat disheartening.

Fortunately, there were more than a few good indie titles that actually showed some sort of initiative; enough to assuage my wrath. So perhaps I won't summon the apocalypse this year, and teabag this shamelessly stagnant industry with my massive dragon balls as I had originally planned.

(but goddamn was the Skyrim hype pushing me to do so)

Xanadu84:
On the other hand he predictably pulled out the kneejerk, cliche criticism of 2 well designed games that don't match his tastes, and pulled out the ""theres too many military shooters"argument on the game that has been doing this since forever, and the game that started the trend.

How can it be kneejerk if he's been doing it forever?

Also, he liked MW 1.

The Gentleman:
Nice festive end to that video. *pulls trigger*

Skyrim definitely gets more praise then it deserves (especially in the graphics department), so putting it anywhere below the top is warrented.

I was so excited about playing Skyrim and, so far, its like Oatbran. I'm sure it is good for me, but I'm really not having much fun with it. My GOTY goes to Saints Row 3.

Rossmallo:
Dear god the lag you create, Yhatzee.

You actually go through? I had to watch the videos via Facebook in order to actually see them on the same day -.-

That said I'm laughing at all of you, and there will be a lot of you, who think Yahtzees list is wrong when he blatantly said it was his subjective opinion

Use_Imagination_here:
It's missing the music from the last one. It wouldn't even bother me if the last one didn't have music but now it does.

Really? That music got on my tits and was even quite confusing. The first time it played, I had to spend 5 minutes checking that I didn't have an ad open somewhere.

ph0b0s123:
I cannot +1 hard enough at the game trailers without game play sentiment. Just why bother. I don't care about you amazing story line if I cannot see that you have gameplay to back it up.

Yeah. It's idiotic. It's like giving you a bit of a film's script or telling you what key a new music album will be in. It gives no idea of the finished product.

Dexter111:

Worst:

3) Dungeon Defenders

Seconded on dungeon defenders. I think I quite nicely put my views on it in my steam reccomendation. Here, let me just fetch it....

My steam review:

First impressions: This would be a fun and charming tower defence were it not for the achingly slow movement speed. Combining this with the gimmick that you can only build/upgrade towers when you're near them, setting up towers becomes 10 parts slog to 1 part strategy. You can upgrade this speed, but what the developers call "balance for multiplayer" I call "badly-implemented RPG elements fucking a game over again". Seriously, let me set up towers in less time than it takes for me to get bored and nod off.

I didn't play any further than first impressions, because I felt my brain screaming in protest.

Final verdict: slow paced to the degree of awfulness. A dreadful slog that only slightly improves with multiplayer. Might be quite fun if the pace increased or your brain has been damaged enough to only work at half the usual speed.

But that's just me. What was your problem with it?

Freaky Lou:

Aeonknight:
Ok, so you want to bring up reviews he made years ago as evidence to contradict my assumption. "I didn't say he always hated them, must be a recent development." There, satisfied?

Refer to my list above for this year alone. I could go looking into prior years for FPS games he disliked, but I already wasted enough time on the post above, I'm not about go digging through every single review he's ever done to find more evidence to support my notion about him. Feel free to consider this a "raising the white flag" on my part.

It's not a recent development because he has nothing against FPS'. There's just a LOT of FPS these days, and a lot of them are the same bland style of military shooter, so you're going to see them criticized a lot because that's what's available for review.

But the reason he hates BF3 and MW3 doesn't actually have to do with that. Like he said, what he hates about MW3/BF3 is the xenophobia, and missions where all you're doing is raining death down on helpless people from an airplane. It's disturbing to him that the biggest, blockbuster, recordbreaking games are ones where all you do is kill foreigners. It isn't a bias against FPS at all.

Now we're actually getting somewhere.

So Yahtzee's issue with these 2 games is that they attached a nationality to the soldiers on the "other side"? And that somehow gets percieved as xenophobia?

Ok I guess. I think he's reading a little too far into this personally, but at least you've supplied context for his opinion. But here's the thing... It's not like these 2 games are Cold War era propaganda about fighting off "Big Red". I would hope we've moved beyond that. If he has such an issue with this, where was this spite back when every FPS was about storming Omaha beach?

I won't say Russians are a "new enemy" since battlefield has been doing it since BF2, but it's more a matter of consistancy than just "who's the flavor of the week this time?" Also, it just makes more sense in putting the multiplayer in context. Is a rag tag terrorist group going to have state of the art tanks, weapons, and aircraft to go toe to toe with NATO forces? My guess is no. It makes more sense in the fictional world of Battlefield to be fighting a country. But if he wants to take that as xenophobia, that's up to him.

disclaimer: this is more a defense of BF3 than anything, MW3's choice of enemy is up to those fans to justify.

DragonLord Seth:
Wow, he agreed with my best and worst game! Well, I would've placed MW3 in the second best for fast paced gameplay that's not slow as fuck and not so fast holy shit I ran into a wall and exploded, a good story that while cliched, gave me the ability to go in and rip shit up in the most unrealistic way possible. Then there's the ever amazing multiplayer with needed gameplay fixes and balancing issues, but hey, at least I didn't like battlefail!
To be honest, I don't know why they're compared. Call of Duty focuses on lone wolf/small squad gameplay with small maps and no vehicles, while battleshit focuses on snipers dominating the entire game and ragequitting when they lose because their entire class is useless. Don't forget the frustrating vehicle sections, the abysmal singleplayer, the medics and guys who drop health doing fuck all.

As much "fun" as it would be to talk shit about MW3's worst aspects in order to try and make my game of choice seem "better" (and there's plenty to talk about), I'm not gonna be the one to turn this into a BF3 vs MW3 debate, and prove BrownGaijin right. He can have fun with his exaggerated opinion, but I won't be the one to justify it.

Aeonknight:
Now we're actually getting somewhere.

So Yahtzee's issue with these 2 games is that they attached a nationality to the soldiers on the "other side"? And that somehow gets percieved as xenophobia?

Ok I guess. I think he's reading a little too far into this personally, but at least you've supplied context for his opinion. But here's the thing... It's not like these 2 games are Cold War era propaganda about fighting off "Big Red". I would hope we've moved beyond that. If he has such an issue with this, where was this spite back when every FPS was about storming Omaha beach?

I won't say Russians are a "new enemy" since battlefield has been doing it since BF2, but it's more a matter of consistancy than just "who's the flavor of the week this time?" Also, it just makes more sense in putting the multiplayer in context. Is a rag tag terrorist group going to have state of the art tanks, weapons, and aircraft to go toe to toe with NATO forces? My guess is no. It makes more sense in the fictional world of Battlefield to be fighting a country. But if he wants to take that as xenophobia, that's up to him.

disclaimer: this is more a defense of BF3 than anything, MW3's choice of enemy is up to those fans to justify.

It's not so much that they've got a nationality attached as 1. insufficient justification for why they're the bad guys, and 2. the fact that it can be hard to sympathize with your character when they've got the might of the US military on their side, and they're unofficial guerrilla fighters, ostensibly defending their homeland. (I realize that this may not be the case, and I haven't played BF3 or MW3, so I'm genuinely asking for information when I say: How often do we look at WHY we're shooting these people? How do we know our cause is justified?) To Yahtzee, these games feel like propaganda.

It's different with WWII shooters 'cause the enemies there are Nazis: an equal if not greater force, and a worthy if not dwarfing foe to your allied troops. We also know that our fight is justified because Holocaust, taking over vast tracts of Europe, etc. Granted, a lot of those games are just as immature as your modern shooters, but it feels less like you're taking the role of a global bully.

As for Russia, the problem actually is that we're past the Cold War/Red Scare era and there's no REASON to be casting them in the role of evil villains. And again, though this is back into the area where I admittedly don't really have much to go on, another issue may be insufficient justification. So we're fighting the Russians. What are our reasons for doing so? What started this war? Are we looking at Russia as a nation of real people with real, human motivations, or are we just making them villains 'cause they're Russia and they scare us?

good

show

old

sport

Alexnader:

erttheking:
Call of Duty and Battlefield were worse than Duke Nukem Forever...I think Yahtzee is letting his hatred of military shooters get the better of him.

Maybe their campaigns were, or at least Battlefield 3's. That was pretty average. However if Yachtzee's allowed to say that a game can be subjectively judged on one small facet of the overall package then I can do the same.

Battlefield 3's multiplayer is amazing. It's so epic my friends and I have actually inadvertently re-enacted set pieces from the various Modern Warfare campaigns. Sniping out of a chopper as jets run airstrikes, while dodging enemy anti air fire? Done that. Guiding a heavily outnumbered squad as they infiltrated the enemy position from an aerial vehicle, using thermal vision to help get the job done? Done that. Intense urban firefights as helicopter parts fall from the sky? Done that. Knifing an enemy before jumping off a cliff? Done that. Breached a building with C4 and killing the enemies inside? Done that.

I tell you as soon as I get a decent graphics card I'm recording this crap.

Also MW3's multiplayer is good if you're into ADD hyperactive quickscope stuff.

Ergo by Yachtzee's rule both games are good and BF3 is in fact GOTY (in my opinion)

True, Battlefield's multiplayer is fun, but as someone who isn't that good at it I have to say that it can also be frustrating, but then again that just makes me want to get better at it, so it works.

There seems to be a serious problem here.

Yahtzee reviewed Dragon Age 2, and it's not on the worst list.

What planet is this?

DA2 is seriously worse than any of the games mentioned here. Especially MW3/BF3, which aren't really that bad, at least you know what you're expecting and you don't really buy a military FPS shooter and get surprised that it's not innovative or unique.

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of someone buying MW3 and going "WTF I was sure this was going to live up to the COD name and have drastically revised play and an award-winning plot!"

Atmos Duality:
These are two franchises that collectively have the LEAST POTENTIAL (aside from shovelware) of all AAA games released last year. They are so formulaic that they cannot go anywhere.
(I question why people don't just play last year's iteration instead.)

And yet, they make the most money; ergo, they're always touted as "the best".

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for "celebrity games" who put on the same act year after year, just to induce a little stability into the market, but when you're running on your 3rd or 4th year of this shit, and you HAVEN'T CHANGED OR IMPROVED A SINGLE FUCKING THING, it's more than somewhat disheartening.

Fortunately, there were more than a few good indie titles that actually showed some sort of initiative; enough to assuage my wrath. So perhaps I won't summon the apocalypse this year, and teabag this shamelessly stagnant industry with my massive dragon balls as I had originally planned.

(but goddamn was the Skyrim hype pushing me to do so)

Uhm, what you say rings true for Call of Duty, but Battlefield doesn't come out every year and the differences between the games are usually pretty huge, especially Battlefield 3 with it's all new/improved engine, enhanced destructibility, animation system, lighting engine etc.

The people that pile on Battlefield with Call of Duty are usually the people that either haven't played it or have some sort of deep ingrained issue with Multiplayer games.

trollpwner:
But that's just me. What was your problem with it?

Rounds took too long, the "RPG" Level-Up system didn't particularly seem to work and was unbalanced as crap, I had people several Levels above me join my games or similar and it ruined all the fun of Tower Defense games, those high level chars also seemed to be able to put down some sort of imba tower somewhere and be able to stand there idling until the final Wave, also the places where you could put down your towers seemed very limited, you also couldn't really build those amazing maces the most awesome TD games were famous for, and to top it all off there's also some arbitrary number of "max. towers" you can put down and "mana requirement" which just ruins it all as usually the char with the highest level hogs it all and puts down a few towers and the rest just stand there and watch.

Dexter111:

Uhm, what you say rings true for Call of Duty, but Battlefield doesn't come out every year and the differences between the games are usually pretty huge, especially Battlefield 3 with it's all new/improved engine, enhanced destructibility, animation system, lighting engine etc.

The people that pile on Battlefield with Call of Duty are usually the people that either haven't played it or have some sort of deep ingrained issue with Multiplayer games.

I've played both, and it could just be me, but appeared as though Battlefield 3 inched ever closer to Call of Duty's formula this year, at least in comparison to my experiences with the previous Bad Company titles (I rather liked Bad Company too...)

EA has made it no big secret that they covet Activision's Golden Goose, and I have no doubts they will continue to "adjust" Battlefield until they think it'll pleases their fanbase enough to switch.

In the interim, I will say that I do prefer Battlefield 3's destructible buildings to the usual "Stare down this scope and aim for the center-chest/neck. Knife when you're 5 feet away".
But that's just on account that I always loved demolition games.

So in the interest of fairness, I'll remove Battlefield 3 from that argument...but I won't forgive EA for attaching it to Origin (I don't want to play it on console if I can help it, but that's my only realistic option if I want to avoid Origin).

Zing:

DA2 is seriously worse than any of the games mentioned here.

No, Mindjack has it beat hands down.
The game crashes at random intervals (a problem, as I discovered, that wasn't unique to my rental copy), the plot is retarded, the gameplay is bland at best, head-bashingly retarded at worst (ever wanted to fight a boss that does nothing but SHOOTS THE FLOOR FOUR FEET IN FRONT OF HIM? Mindjack is only too happy to oblige!).

So, the Escapist nominate Dead Island as one of the best games of the year, and Yahtzee thinks it's one of the outright worst (an opinion I share)? Something might not be right here. Bastion, again? Jesus, I really need to play that.

Motakikurushi:
So, the Escapist nominate Dead Island as one of the best games of the year, and Yahtzee thinks it's one of the outright worst (an opinion I share)? Something might not be right here.

Well, people have different opinions over things. I figured that was kinda the core idea behind the judgement of media.

Sometimes those disagreements are extreme, but it's really nothing unusual.

Joccaren:
You seem to think I spent only ten minutes in game. I have sunk 200+ hours into it, hoping it would get better. It didn't.

Magic is the exact same at the start and end game, except that you have a different spell that you continually cast until you're out of mana, then drink a mana potion or run round like a retard until your mana fills up.
Archery is very similar at the start and end game too. What do the perks do? Allow you to zoom in? Slow time whilst you're zoomed in, that's the big one. Its still the same motions as it was early on, with nothing much changed.

Exploring would be interesting if they focused more on making each area look different to the other areas. Get me a screenshot and I'll get one of an extremely similar looking area. There are a few uniquish areas, but most of them are the same thing in a slightly different order. Hardly exiting.

The same deal goes for quests. Outside of the questline ones (Dark Brotherhood, Thieves Guild, Companions, College of Winterhold, Main Quest About three Daedric quests (Sanguine, Molag Bal and one other I can't quite remember), they were all the exact same quest, just with a different location.

Now, for your 'You couldn't have experienced it in ten minutes'. My first ten minutes of Skyrim went something like this:
-Finish intro
-Ignore everything, head to that cool looking dungeon over there
-Complete first of many samey dungeons, this one feeling unique because it was the first one.
-Use all main styles of combat, to get a feel for which one I liked best (Single Handed Warrior, Single Handed Assassin, Single Handed shield warrior, Stealth archer, Warrior Archer, Destruction magic [Admittedly the other magics were not available at that time. After that time, I found out for the most part that conjuration is the most boring way to play the game, illusionist and alterationist can be interesting, but turns into a repetitive grind once you get a good style])
-Go to riverwood and get dumped with misc quests and a storyline quest.

Now, did I fight a dragon? No.
Does it matter? No. Dragons are some of the least interesting fights in Skyrim. A bear can kill one. Solo. No joke. I saw it happen. Dragon fights consist of waiting for it to land/stay still so I can stab/shoot it with my sword/bow/magic repeatedly until it dies.

The main problem with dragons, like everything in Skyrim, is that they are far too easy to kill. Short of a Chuck Norris topless hand to hand style battle, there is no challenge to them. Even with that, just chug 1 potion of resist fire and punch away. You'll eventually kill it.
The problem here isn't so much that they are too easy in and of itself - in Morrowind after a short while everything was piss easy and you could accidentally a god. The problem is that the fun things like hovering, scroll of Icarian flight or W/E, custom spell making, ect. were taken out to give the game some challenge and a form of balance, whilst the game itself presents no challenge and I'll be damned if its balanced.

The most redeeming feature of Skyrim is its mods - yet they are not the game itself, and Bethesda actively tried to stop you from using too many with their removal of Large Address Awareness from the PC version.

Skyrim contained a brief breath of fresh air from most titles of the day, but it was hardly remarkable or amazing in its own right. I had much the same experience all my friends had.

First day "Skyrim is so intense I play BF3 when I need to calm down"
End of week: No-one playing Skyrim, all on BF3. Except me, the ever hopeful it-might-get-better that played DN:F almost through to the end because the first 20 minutes were refreshing and I had hoped it would get back to that sort of thing.

Other than the surface of the world being mostly open and without loading screens, what was so amazing about Skyrim that makes it better than any other game this year? One feature doesn't redeem an entire game, especially when the only thing different about that feature is 'mostly no loading screens'.

Now, all that said, I'm off to play Skyrim. Not for the game, but to see just how many NPCs my PC can handle at once. I'll see if I can get a good 300 v 300 battle going somewhere...

Dear god, I love Skyrim but I haven't even played it for 200 hours. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I mean, you obviously just don't like the game. I would've just stopped.

Now I'm not sure if this fits you, but I've heard it before so I'll address it anyway. Skyrim is a video game; it has a plot, it has visuals. If you can't feel any difference between spells other than you spam it until you run out of mana, learn a new one and do the same, rinse and repeat, then, well, I don't know. I take personal pleasure in shooting lightning at people as opposed to fire, I take pleasure in exploring a dungeon very similair to many previous ones because there is an interesting little plot attached, I take pleasure in doing different side quest-lines because they involve different plots and characters even if I'm doing the same basic gameplay in each. What I'll call the "flavor" of a game, the stuff that's on top of damage numbers and your magicka and stamina pools, is just as important as that underlying stuff. That's why I, personally, and why a lot of people, think 10 minutes is nowhere near enough to experience everything.

Now, Maybe this description isn't accurate of how you think of games, and if so I apologize, but I have seen it before (something along the lines of, "Dragons could be giant cubes for all I care, it's just an avatar on top of the numbers").

But I find your complaints odd because they aren't untrue, it's just that people who like Skyrim don't actually see them as problems. They like using the same combat continuously because they enjoy the combat. They like doing the same basic system of dungeon diving because they like dungeon diving. And yeah a lot of the world looks the same (kind of like any real world location of the same size) but its filled with interesting things. I guess you just wanted more variety out of it. For a game that's supposed to last over a hundred hours, a huge amount of variety seems like an unrealistic expectation.

Zing:
There seems to be a serious problem here.

Yahtzee reviewed Dragon Age 2, and it's not on the worst list.

What planet is this?

DA2 is seriously worse than any of the games mentioned here. Especially MW3/BF3, which aren't really that bad, at least you know what you're expecting and you don't really buy a military FPS shooter and get surprised that it's not innovative or unique.

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of someone buying MW3 and going "WTF I was sure this was going to live up to the COD name and have drastically revised play and an award-winning plot!"

For all of Yahtzee's other criticisms of the game, it did have one advantage over all five and a half games on his list: one or more characters he actually gave a crap about.

doggy go 7:
I KNEW you really liked portal 2, you coy son of a bitch. People got the impression that you didn't like the game, you've missled literally 10s of people down the wrong path, and now you're putting it right ;)

.......What? I find this really confusing, do these people even exist? Because every time someone asks what his opinion was often I find myself facepalming because he makes it so damn clear especially when he summarizes his feelings at the end of each video......

"Modern Borefare and Twattlefield". I must admit giggles escaped from my mouth like a little girl. And I am delighted to know Yhatzee also feels that games should have demos, not beautiful trailers.

One day I just might buy a present for him. Provided I know the address.

Joccaren:

jawakiller:

Okay, I is all done with muy rant.

-snip-

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.

jawakiller:

Joccaren:

jawakiller:

Okay, I is all done with muy rant.

-snip-

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.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6832-On-Multiplayer

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/8560-On-Multiplayer

These two articles elaborate on his stance on multiplayer. One of the arguments he makes is that everybody is bad at multiplayer when you first get into it, and he doesn't want to put in the time to get to the point where it becomes fun rather than an endless succession of deaths. It's the Final Fantasy 13 argument again.

He has expressed positive opinions towards multiplayer-centric games, though. The second article elaborates on his positive experiences in world of Warcraft, he gave a genuinely positive review to Left 4 Dead, and he's mentioned enjoying Team Fortress 2. He enjoys multiplayer that tends towards cooperation rather than free-for-alls.

Markunator:

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:

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:
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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
Register for a free account here