The Not Quite Best Games of 2011

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

The Not Quite Best Games of 2011

Yahtzee rounds out the honorable mentions for his Top 5 and Bottom 5 lists.

Read Full Article

I'm surprised Hunted: The demon's force ("A shit game for twats") didn't get a mention...

I'm glad you gave Resistance 3 a honorable mention in this article its nice to see others who like that game besides me

I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

I can understand why you put the Two Shooters at the top of your hate list. They're both shitty single-player games.

I can also understand why people accuse you of an anti-shooter bias because of it. You don't have an anti-shooter bias, you have an anti-multiplayer bias. You make no effort to hide it, it's something that's well-known to your regulars, and it's entirely your prerogative, so it's not the problem per se.

The problem is that Battlefield 3 (I can't speak for MW3 as I haven't played it for more than a few minutes on my step-son's XBox) is a superb multiplayer FPS that encourages fantastic teamwork, allows genuine tactical freedom and is hilarious fun if you want it to be, especially if you have a whole bunch of friends to play it with.

I've barely played an FPS online since I got a life about 8 years ago, but I've put almost 100 hours into BF3. It really is that good a multiplayer game.

So the problem, and you should really understand this without me or anyone else having to spell it out for you, is that you've judged a game with a 90% focus on multiplayer on its single-player experience. Perhaps if you'd given the award to the "BF3 and MW3 Single Player Campaigns" instead of the games as a whole, people would understand.

Consciously or not, you've deliberately courted controversy with this one. I don't buy your ignorance one bit :)

P.S. I really enjoyed Dead Island for the same reasons: in co-op with friends it was hilarious!

I recall Yahtzee's main criticism against Arkham City was that he got too distracted by all the sidequests and question marks.
If you're not suffering from ADD, you will notice not only the bossfights are better, but the overal encounter design in the second half of the game is also much improved. No longer can you get away with just pressing block when the signs appear and stunning the occasional armed villain with the batcloak. The game still starts out that way for players to learn to game, but later mixed groups of armored and shielded baddies with guns and stunbatons lying around, force the player to use more varied moves and consider tactical positioning.

It's simply a better game than the original, for the combat alone.

Side quests and puzzles can even be completed after doing the main storyline, if you care about the pacing of the story or about roleplaying the batman. The transition from the end game to the aftergame works pretty well and is worth seeing.

Richard Beer:
So the problem, and you should really understand this without me or anyone else having to spell it out for you, is that you've judged a game with a 90% focus on multiplayer on its single-player experience. Perhaps if you'd given the award to the "BF3 and MW3 Single Player Campaigns" instead of the games as a whole, people would understand.

Take a look at this.

Xenominim:
I wonder if we could ever get a worst games of all time list. You see best games of all time lists with things like X-Com and Super Mario Bros. always near the top. But what games are so wretchedly bad as to be remembered years later as having caused pain to so many?

They're out there. You always get E.T. and Custer's Revenge on these lists, and usually a collection of a) bad ports, b) movie tie-ins, c) low-quality imitators of much more successful games and d) the out-and-out offensive.

Richard Beer:
So the problem, and you should really understand this without me or anyone else having to spell it out for you, is that you've judged a game with a 90% focus on multiplayer on its single-player experience. Perhaps if you'd given the award to the "BF3 and MW3 Single Player Campaigns" instead of the games as a whole, people would understand.

So why aren't these games just released as multiplayer online arenas, and they don't even have to bother with their linear, set piece to set piece, badly-written single-player campaigns?

Arkham City is a strange one for me too - I do think it's better than the first game, but I remember having more fun with Arkham Asylum, which doesn't really make sense to me. City just seems to be lacking that unquantifiable magic that Asylum had.

Ah well, both are great games anyway and that's all that matters to me!

You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. What did you expect?

Just mentioning: it's not like Yahtzee is going to change his own personal opinion about any of these games (nor online multiplayer) due to any arguments about how other people have different preferences.

I can see where he's coming from in regards to Deus Ex.

I loved it, favourite game of the year, but damn if they didn't try their best to screw it up. The boss finds didn't bother me overmuch, but the ending buttons were pretty hard to forgive.

And I'm just a little bit dubious about showering accolade on a game that's not as good as its daddy just for old time's sake. Because the moment you do that, you enable it.

Says the guy who named portal 2 his number 1 game of the year after stating it was good, yet not as good as portal one, whilst stating that one of his reasons was penance for not giving portal one an award of some sort.

Hehe, only kidding, Portal 2 was easily my game of the year too (though I preferred it to its prequel).

I'm not defending their single-player games, False Prophet (as I said, they were poor). I'm explaining why people are hatin' on Yahtzee's decision to name them his worst games, and expressing surprise that he's surprised.

DeadlyYellow, that's basically a non-sequitur (and isn't posting links to dictionary definitions a bit... last decade?). I haven't said there's anything wrong with Yahtzee expressing his subjective opinion. In fact I explicitly said that was fine. I said that he has judged the whole game, including the multiplayer component, on his single-player experience, and that's what people who get angry on the Internet have a problem with.

Now don't feel bad for shitting on the rather awful shooter industry, they are rather rubbish nowadays. They probably will continue with this for some time too, which is sad. There's a serious lack of innovation and creative thoughts in the success formula, and me for one have just ended up so sick of shooting terrorist after terrorist that I basicly stopped playing them around October, when Battlefield 3 just turned out as a dull gasp. I'd rather like them to make games relying on stealth and non-violence, a bit more difficult than Deus Ex Human Revolution's easy sneaking. Hopefully upcoming stealth games like Dishonored and Thi4f will prove a better experience for the coward I am, letting me huddle together like a little ball in the shadows hoping the guard didn't see me. And hopefully it will cure its stupid number-in-title disease.

Richard Beer:
DeadlyYellow, that's basically a non-sequitur (and isn't posting links to dictionary definitions a bit... last decade?). I haven't said there's anything wrong with Yahtzee expressing his subjective opinion. In fact I explicitly said that was fine. I said that he has judged the whole game, including the multiplayer component, on his single-player experience, and that's what people who get angry on the Internet have a problem with.

Yahtzee's disdain for online multiplayer is well established (for regular viewers). He probably didn't feel it was necessary to repeat it...

Check out Sentient, Obitus, Ubik and Unlimited Saga. These games gives me a headache just thinking about them. Sentient and ubik (based on a philip k. dick novel of all things) is practically unplayable.

Btw personally i would probably put Shadows of the damned on some sort of list featuring the best games of 2011. Might not have been perfect but i just loved the stupid humour and the unpredictability of the game, it seemed to have a bit more heart than most other game i played from 2011.

Yeah... I was a bit surprised to not see Call of Juarez: The Cartel on the list. Everyone I know (me included) disliked that game. But Yahtzee has a point. I don't hate the game, I just get depressed whenever I think about it. Is that hatred? ... It's entirely possible.

Gaute Eiterjord:
Now don't feel bad for shitting on the rather awful shooter industry, they are rather rubbish nowadays. They probably will continue with this for some time too, which is sad. There's a serious lack of innovation and creative thoughts in the success formula, and me for one have just ended up so sick of shooting terrorist after terrorist that I basicly stopped playing them around October, when Battlefield 3 just turned out as a dull gasp. I'd rather like them to make games relying on stealth and non-violence, a bit more difficult than Deus Ex Human Revolution's easy sneaking. Hopefully upcoming stealth games like Dishonored and Thi4f will prove a better experience for the coward I am, letting me huddle together like a little ball in the shadows hoping the guard didn't see me. And hopefully it will cure its stupid number-in-title disease.

There's no real need for creativity or innovation in the success formula. Modern Warfare 3 is one of the best selling titles despite the lack of both those 2 qualities and a proper campaign. I suspect that changing too much would alienate the crowd that instantly buys the games and though we might end up with better games they might lose a few sales from it. It's sad...

The Crazy Legs:
Yeah... I was a bit surprised to not see Call of Juarez: The Cartel on the list. Everyone I know (me included) disliked that game. But Yahtzee has a point. I don't hate the game, I just get depressed whenever I think about it. Is that hatred? ... It's entirely possible.

I never played it, but if Extra Credits is to be believed (about the game twisting how the Cartel worked and passing it off as fact) then it's certainly one game I don't need to play to know I hate it. Even if the gameplay wasn't purportedly mediocre, it's still offensive.

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

Still not really seeing the issue with Arkham City. When I got Arkham Asylum for almost full retail price, I felt I had made a terrible decision after I finished it. For the same price, if not more, I don't regret Arkham City a bit.

Different strokes, I guess.

The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

im surprised he dislikes arkham city more than asylum, despite arkham citys overall story arc is superior(and im sorry, but that ending in arkham city alone is better than the whole arkham asylum game).

Woodsey:

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

I never read the comments on the worst game of the year because I guessed there would probably be a shit-storm about them. (Also I called in advance that Yahtzee's worst game of the year would be either MW3 or BF3) Gold star for me.

I guess though one reason why people are "upset" about the fact is that Yahtzee just refuses to acknowledge the multiplayer aspect of those games which is arguably the bigger portion of those titles. Some people will buy those games exclusively for the multiplayer.
So I guess some people feel hard done by, because Yahtzee never really reviewed those games in their entirety and his view of them is ill-informed because he plain refuses to play or acknowledge the existence of 70% of the game.

Heck, BF3 didn't have a single player until this most recent iteration. It used to be Multiplayer only, with the option to practice offline against bots.
So I understand where a lot of people are coming from I guess. It's like saying WoW is crap because the singleplayer just doesn't do much. At all.

On the other hand based on previous statements I doubt Yahtzee would like those games more if he did play the multiplayer anyway.

Though I wonder why so many people are so intent on having some "random" dude like the game they like...

erttheking:

Woodsey:

erttheking:
You know Yahtzee, people are calling bullshit this time because you put COD and BF ABOVE Duke Nukem Forever, ten years of buildup and a disapointing payoff and you say battlefield and call of duty are worse. If that's not being biased in some way shape or form I don't know what is.

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

Bluecho:
The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Woodsey:

erttheking:

Woodsey:

He has an opinion, stop crying. The list is entirely fucking subjective, of course its biased (and it doesn't mean anything at all anyway). Perhaps he preferred DNF because it elicited an emotional response (probably not a good one, mind). "14 years and then THIS?!"

OT: I'll have to disagree on Human Revolution. Ignoring the ending (which was inelegant, but still good. It served its purpose to a tee.), I don't think the four boss fights (which can be over and done with in about 5 seconds each) come anywhere close to outweighing what they did with the game.

If I did a top 5, it'd be in there. (As would The Witcher 2, which seems to have been overlooked quite a lot.)

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

Bluecho:
The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

You can't say Arkham Asylum is "in fact" better than Arkham City because that's not a goddamn fact, it's an opinion. Yahtzee's been utterly dismissive of other opinions lately.

erttheking:

Woodsey:

erttheking:

"Stop crying" you know I'm getting real tired of being called out every time I criticize Yahtzee no matter in what way. I'm just pointing out that if you take a phenomenal let down like Duke Nukem and say that COD was worse, then of course people are gonna call bullshit. You know if it IS biased, then why the Hell does the guy deny it? Who the Hell does he think he's kidding?

Also, kindly reread my post, where do I criticize his opinion? I explain why people are calling bullshit and that he his being biased in his judgement, which you agree upon, but he flat-out denies. Kindly point out how I'm in the fucking wrong here.

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

Bluecho:
The problem with "Best-of" and "Worst-of" lists is that they're inevitably based on the subjective values and biases of the one compiling the list. For Yahtzee, he valued games that really stood out and made him love them, while others would value being pretty or how much hype they got or how fun they are.

Conversely, which makes a game or work worse? That it makes the player or audience angry, or that it be so dull and banal as to be utterly forgettable?

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

"but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry."

Right, so even though you recognised that you still got 'angry' yourself?

Woodsey:

erttheking:

Woodsey:

It rather depends on what form of "bias" you take it: normally, you'd apply it to when someone skewers something which is objective (statistics). Stating that an opinion piece is biased (what you have done) is completely and utterly inane because yes, it will be biased in the sense of him having tastes, but you're coming at it from the angle that he's falsifying something that's quantifiable.

That problem lies with the readership, not the author of whatever list people read.

Well here's the thing buddy, he said in the very first paragraph that he "being accused of being automatically biased against shooters" Accused meaning being charged with something, and from that wording, he was saying that he wasn't biased against shooters but you just said that he was biased, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little confused by the mixed messages that I'm getting. Also I was more or less saying that he was biased in a way that isn't incorrect, but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry.

"but in a way that he has no right to be surprised when it get's people angry."

Right, so even though you recognised that you still got 'angry' yourself?

Kindly point out how I got "angry" my original post was calm, I only got angry when you came around throwing accusations at me and telling me to "stop crying" which I found to be insulting, and you did it for a completely misguided reason. Also that is completely off topic. The point is you think Yahtzee would have seen this particular landslide coming.

I just love the fact that Yahtzee is now biased against shooters.

I like the mention of L.A. Noire even if it was exactly what he said it was: "a representative of something encouraging in the games industry today". There is also no denying that I like both MW3 and Battlefield 3 (though, quite frankly, MW3's campaign was a horrible ending to what could have been an amazing trilogy and Battlefield 3's multiplayer is the only reason it is worth playing which means Yahtzee didn't play it anyway), I agree fully on the points he made on those games.

 Pages 1 2 3 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