Zero Punctuation: Medal of Honor Warfighter & Doom 3 BFG Edition

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Doom 3 is underrated. It's not a classic, but it's a nice mix of original Doom and System Shock 2.

oh my god, i was laughing hard with this video. glorious.

warf... i mean doorfighter dint appeal anyway to me since its just a boring shooter so i pass. the remastered version of doom 3 on the other hand sounds actually more interesting. maybe i will get if its cheaper.

and yes, the real shooters are still HL, painkiller, serious sam and of course the doom series. so as quake. good old times.

Stormtroopers attacking the Ewoks? Hot damn, sign me up!
But to get back on topic, I think the problems with modern military FPS's are that they put most of the focus on multiplayer and treat single player mode as an after-thought, taking away the player's actions as the means of moving the story along, and by calling themselves "realistc", they fail to live up to that name with over-the-top set pieces and hackneyed premises. As for all the gun-wank, Team-America FUCKYEAH talks; I thought the Modern Warfare subgenre of shooters was criticizing that mind-set by having you die in a few hit, decrying violence yet making it the only to progress through the game at all, which is kind of disingenuous.

Therumancer:

LazyAza:
Spec Ops is the first game ever to make people (myself included) feel guilty about killing things in a game. No other game in history has accomplished that as far as I'm aware, this alone is reason enough for people to play it.

Actually that's old hat. Bioshock with it's dillema about the little sisters is an example of a fairly recent take on the whole "guilt" thing. You can go back further to things like some of the revelations in Silent Hill 3, or even perhaps games like "Dreamweb" for those who have heard of it. Games like Dishonorered are largely based around the evil of killing and pretty much punish you for doing it.

"Special Ops. The Line" is more like the video game version of say "Apocolypse Now" or even "Rambo" (the actual movies are hardly about the glory of War) as opposed to other gun toting action flicks which have a rather straightforward set up. It's a differant take of things motivated by a political perception.

Okay now for a long explanation of something many people might not have realized or put much thought into, but might have heard of (which has little to do with politics). Action movies are a lot like comic books. In comic books you have regular "default" comics with the good guys who are GOOD on one side, and do all the super hero stuff as you'd expect, and BAD guys on the other side who do all the super villain stuff as you'd expect. Then you've got the "deconstructionist" comics which tend to bill themselves as being "super heroes meet the real world" this is the kind of thing where noone wears costumes, everyone including the protaganists is generally a bad guy in the big picture, and everything is murky shades of gray. Then you've got the "reconstructionist" comics which are pretty much the hardest ones to do but tend to be comics for adults as opposed for a younger audience or emo teenagers/young adults and the ones that actually "get it right". The reconstructionist movement is one where the deconstructionist movement's points about realism are acknowleged, but it's demonstrated that everything eventually goes back to the original status quo. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, it's just their motives are xplained in more realistic terms. People wear costumes because simply put to do anything heroic and stop these guys you need to be able to avoid accountability, as opposed to the classic reasons of not wanting to be attacked by your enemies. This is a very basic run down on it.

Action movies, and to an extent games, tend to do the same basic thing accross generes. You've got your typical straightforward goods vs. bad shooters like say "Doom" where everything is straightforward (humans good, demons bad because they are demons, and that's pretty self evident), then you've got your deconstructionist shooters like "Special Ops. The Line" and "Bioshock" where there are strong elements of analyzing these kinds of events and portraying everything as being bad pretty much (in Bioshock your literally a complete tool), and you've got the reconstructionist games like a lot of the modern warfare games which acknowlege war sucks, and that shades of gray exist (the "No Russian" mission) but ultimatly come down to the good guys still being the good guys and the bad guys still being the bad guys. Both have more understandbale motives than simply demons are bad just because, or Doctor Doom is an insane megalomaniac which justifies any stupid thing he wants to do as opposed to just sticking to his own country where he's actually well liked and has the technological resources of a super power due to him... but it all ends in the same place where your heroically wading through a bunch of generally inferior opponents (because it makes for a cool game) for the right reasons.

Being regular, deconstructionist, or reconstructionist doesn't nessicarly equate with quality or always follow the pattern. Bioshock for example is a deconstructionist game, a movement mostly aimed at the disenfranchised youth, but is actually superior to a lot of reconstructionst games and has probably has drawn in a more mature crowd. Likewise most military FPS games are utter crap and despite being from a more mature style, tend to get more of the kids, despite the general pattern.

Incidently a lot of this can be tracked by looking at the generations that grew up with their escapist media, as opposed to simply putting it away like generations before. Comics having evolved with the last couple of generations for example. The whole 1990s era of comics for example had pretty much everything turned into a totally emo deconstructionst work, half the heroes were murdering sleazebags, couldn't turn around without doing something bad to torment themselves, and might not even be able to use their powers 90% of the time due to being too powerful and unable to control it if nothing else, this being compared to say the more straightforward comics of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. In the late 1990s and the beginning of the last decade you started seeing reconstructionism as those people became older and gained a differant perspective. Things like Warren Ellis' run on "The Authority" more or less defined the movement, where the super heroes were pretty super, they actually did things, had them turn out well for them (though this changed after he left) but acted within the context of real world motives. "The Authority" for example took the whole "evil goverment" schtick from the 1990s that was built up, and then had a team roughly analogous to "The Justice League" pretty much blitz the living hell out of it in a straightforward Good Vs. Bad way with the sides simply being explained. With FPS it's pretty much the same thing, the reconstuctionists pretty much acknowleging the moral ambigiouty of pounding the crap out of the 3rd world and what it might mean to civilians, but realizing that it's still nessicary, and the people on the receiving end are the bad guys even if it's for cultural reasons rather than more direct ones.

A long rant, but I think understanding that trinity of design (which applies to a lot of things) let's you evaluate where works are coming from and their intent.

Geezus christ dood write a fucking book why don't you. All you had to say was "I disagree" and leave it at that.

PunkRex:
This was a really freaking good video and although im not at all happy that the bombing Warfighter may have done to EA's profit margin, which will proberly cause people to lose their jobs, im glad they may have realised its all pointless and get back to making good games like... erm... what have EA released again that wasn't complete doodie?

Their entire retro library. Mirror's Edge. The Sims. Dragon Age. Mass Effect. Etc.

"a robot vagina queefing transmission fluid"

That is a bit of imagery that will, I fear, stick with me for a long time.

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:
It's funny how people accuse him of not liking shooter when some of the games he give the most praise (Half-Life and Painkiller) are shooters.

I'm going to accuse him of not liking survival horror games for the bad review he gave Resident Evil 5.

I guess none of the titles he reviewed seems appealing to me. I guess I like modern shooters a tad more than he does, but only because he really, really hates them. Hilarious as always though.

The problem is he doesn't play multiplayer. Which is what those spark gunkle wee wee games focus on. I would hate all modern shooter if I only played the single player as well because FFS they are all hopelessly boring and identical.

Yeah, it's not like he recently played a multiplayer game which he enjoyed. Let's just ignore the facts that collide with our opinions.

Towards the end of the credits, I was sort of expecting the log the imp was holding to regenerate.

Boy was I wrong. XD

The sad thing is "Warfighter" is an actual term. I'd say it's militarese but it's also used by the companies that manufacture weapons and munitions. Every time I hear it at work I have an overwhelming urge to yell "just call them soldiers you idiot!". An even better example where I work is how they refer to an assault rifle as an "infantry lethality system" - I'm not kidding, that's their actual word for a rifle.

Yeah, I love shooters...

spunkgargleweewees can go die in a bush....

Back to my Cc Farming in Borderlands2!~ (REAL SHOOTER GAME)

Sylveria:

erttheking:
Funny review I admit that, but I am getting a little tired of people who like games like COD being accused of not being "real" shooter fans.

They're not real shooter fans. They're wall-hugging simulator fans and wouldn't survive a single level in a game where they didn't have a barricade of sand to hide behind while waiting for their health to regenerate.

What about people like me who play and enjoy the likes of Painkiller, Spec Ops: The Line and all the CODs? Is it even possible to be so paradoxical without witnessing the universe implo-ARRRGH!!!!

"We are Imperial Stormtroopers massacring the fucking Ewoks"

He says that like it's a bad thing!

Because I saw the Painkiller in the video, now I want to see a review about the new Painkiller remake.
We must live the most epic moment of Yahtzee once again.

Shurikens and lightning and tits on fire!!!!!

Geth Reich:

Sylveria:

erttheking:
Funny review I admit that, but I am getting a little tired of people who like games like COD being accused of not being "real" shooter fans.

They're not real shooter fans. They're wall-hugging simulator fans and wouldn't survive a single level in a game where they didn't have a barricade of sand to hide behind while waiting for their health to regenerate.

What about people like me who play and enjoy the likes of Painkiller, Spec Ops: The Line and all the CODs? Is it even possible to be so paradoxical without witnessing the universe implo-ARRRGH!!!!

"We are Imperial Stormtroopers massacring the fucking Ewoks"

He says that like it's a bad thing!

It isn't bad as such, its just due to over-saturation of the market and the lack of any real quality in most spunkgargleweewees is getting really old.

Warfighter's sequels will be named "Gunshooter," "Bunksleeper," and "Ordersfollower." Actually that's a good name for the genre, "First Person Ordersfollower."

erttheking:
Funny review I admit that, but I am getting a little tired of people who like games like COD being accused of not being "real" shooter fans.

I think he considers COD 4 as a 'real' shooter since he believes it deserves the praise, as well some of the COD's before. He's just generalising the latest 'realtistic' war games.

Geth Reich:

What about people like me who play and enjoy the likes of Painkiller, Spec Ops: The Line and all the CODs? Is it even possible to be so paradoxical without witnessing the universe implo-ARRRGH!!!!

Oh, no, it doesn't cause a universe implosion, you simply cease to exist. Everyone knows there is one and precisely one type of shooter that someone is allowed to enjoy. It's like, science and math and such.

MacNille:

Sylveria:

They're not real shooter fans. They're wall-hugging simulator fans and wouldn't survive a single level in a game where they didn't have a barricade of sand to hide behind while waiting for their health to regenerate.

How nice of you.I admit that I like Call Of Duty and I like Half Life 2, Stalker and other "shooters" who are not, as you call them Dudebro shooters. So what does that make me then?

It makes you a reasonable person who doesn't have a stick up their ass about what other people like. Who let you in here?? ;)

StashAugustine:

I'm actually all for US intervention abroad, but that moment with the robot (as described) still creeped me out. If you're going to do something like that, you'd better do a good job of establishing the bad guys as a) obviously evil b) morally neutral but regrettably in the way of obviously evil people c) not deserving of human rights (e.g. zombies). While applying movie logic to real life is stupid, Warfighter is a video game that has to play by dramatic rules.

The enemies in that mission with the robot are Somali pirates. It's explained in the prologue bit before the mission, and they start shooting at you the second you show up. If "they're demons, and demons are dicks" is enough story context for Yahtzee in Doom 3, then "Somali pirates are real-world dicks and duck, cause they're trying to kill you" is likely enough for someone else.

It's pretty explicitly stated what the scenario is, and the levels in Warfighter (tee hee) are based on actual Special Operations missions. So Yahtzee either wasn't paying attention, or is just saying he didn't know what was going on as a way of explaining that the story didn't engage him. Which is fine - we come here for his opinions after all, so he's certainly entitled to them.

I actually liked Warfighter (snicker), and the multiplayer isn't bad. I really like Contemporary Present-Day Military Gun-Fetish Spunkgargle Shooters, and have since CoD4. And before anyone goes all shooter-snob on me, I'm a bit older than Yahtzee, and cut my shooter teeth on Wolfenstein, Doom, and Duke Nukem 3D back when they first came out, so talk to the hand.

I do agree, however, that the genre is getting a bit shopworn, and should probably be given a rest.

The definition of a Shooter and Spunkgargleweewee

Make those into t-shirts and I will buy one for everyone I know and I know I'm not the only one who would make that decision. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that this review would be the next People's Choice if Yahtzee ever decided to do another of those contest things.

Mr_Terrific:
Wonder why he hates Borderlands if he's not into sgww?? Borderlands in the anti-Modern Opsfielder.

I was wondering the same thing. It's almost the exact same premise as Painkiller, crappy story and as he put it, "Nothing between you and the objective except the entire population of murdertown and a fuck ton of guns". May have paraphrased there but the point still stands.

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:
It's funny how people accuse him of not liking shooter when some of the games he give the most praise (Half-Life and Painkiller) are shooters.

I'm going to accuse him of not liking survival horror games for the bad review he gave Resident Evil 5.

I guess none of the titles he reviewed seems appealing to me. I guess I like modern shooters a tad more than he does, but only because he really, really hates them. Hilarious as always though.

The problem is he doesn't play multiplayer. Which is what those spark gunkle wee wee games focus on. I would hate all modern shooter if I only played the single player as well because FFS they are all hopelessly boring and identical.

Yeah, it's not like he recently played a multiplayer game which he enjoyed. Let's just ignore the facts that collide with our opinions.

That would be a point in my favour if he actually played the multiplayer in a game and enjoyed it. I'm not trying to bash ZP here. I am just wondering why he even bothers to review modern shooter games anymore.

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

The problem is he doesn't play multiplayer. Which is what those spark gunkle wee wee games focus on. I would hate all modern shooter if I only played the single player as well because FFS they are all hopelessly boring and identical.

Yeah, it's not like he recently played a multiplayer game which he enjoyed. Let's just ignore the facts that collide with our opinions.

That would be a point in my favour if he actually played the multiplayer in a game and enjoyed it. I'm not trying to bash ZP here. I am just wondering why he even bothers to review modern shooter games anymore.

Yeah, it's horrible that people who review games sometimes don't like them. They shouldn't be allowed to say negative things about games simply because that's how they feel, it's outrageous how some critics have integrity rather than giving high scores to any big release.

Edit: Also it's not a point in your favour. You basically just did the "He hates shooters" except with multiplayer. Ignore the things that doesn't fit into your theory, but don't get upset when someone calls you out on your bullshit.

You know, Yahtzee, some people will call you a contrarian but that's because they're right. You hated Doom 3 when it was being hyped through the roof but now it turns out that everyone agrees with you, you decide to like it. I played Doom 3 and I clearly remember it boring me into a brief coma. Sure you could carry all the guns and it didn't hold your hand every step of the way but it was still really really shit.

I'm expecting a re-assessment of the COD series in five to six years.

disappointed:
You know, Yahtzee, some people will call you a contrarian but that's because they're right. You hated Doom 3 when it was being hyped through the roof but now it turns out that everyone agrees with you, you decide to like it. I played Doom 3 and I clearly remember it boring me into a brief coma. Sure you could carry all the guns and it didn't hold your hand every step of the way but it was still really really shit.

I'm expecting a re-assessment of the COD series in five to six years.

But he like the first Modern Warfare. Over-saturation of the market isn't helping but issues he brings up (the set-pieces, sightseeing, pacing) aren't going to age well or go away. Unless of course shooters degenerate into something that makes 'spunkgargleweewee' look good.

Atmos Duality:

It never fails to make me laugh when people try to civilize war.
The words "Illegal Invasion" in particular make me giggle.

You're right! War is, by definition, uncivil! Let's end these bullshit, I mean it's just getting in the way of soldiers. Let's just tell them to get in there and do the right thing! I mean, it's for the protection of all, right? Land mines, gas and flamethrowers for all! Women and children? Fuck that, they knew what they were getting into! That definitely makes us the good guys, right? After all they're killing all the people we want dead, right? What's could possibly be wrong with that?

Still feeling so smart?

Little2Raph:
The sad thing is "Warfighter" is an actual term. I'd say it's militarese but it's also used by the companies that manufacture weapons and munitions. Every time I hear it at work I have an overwhelming urge to yell "just call them soldiers you idiot!". An even better example where I work is how they refer to an assault rifle as an "infantry lethality system" - I'm not kidding, that's their actual word for a rifle.

I don't know exactly where you work, but I've done some contract work for a weapons developer in FL, and there are some minor reasons for the "infantry lethality system" designation. Primarily because rifles fill so many roles now (and it is growing in numbers with the new modular designs). I think it really started anti-material rifles (anti-material and anti-personnel are still the main terms where I did my work at). The designation is to differentiate between the types of targets they are meant for. On the other hand, rifle is much easier to say, and generally when you are talking to a co-worker about the rifle test, you both know exactly which rifle you mean. Unless of course you are testing rounds, then the line becomes a bit more blurry.

OT?: I think the whole issue with nationality to be a moot point. I do agree that there are too many SGWW games out there than have you generically shooting the "other people" and that may not be a good thing, considering it is predominantly white people making the games (this is actually an assumption, I don't have any hard evidence of the cultural divide when it comes to making modern shooters). As long as the lines drawn in the video game are quite clear about the nature of the battle, I don't see a major issue. Then again I grew up in a multicultural household.

WaitWHAT:

Atmos Duality:

It never fails to make me laugh when people try to civilize war.
The words "Illegal Invasion" in particular make me giggle.

You're right! War is, by definition, uncivil! Let's end these bullshit, I mean it's just getting in the way of soldiers. Let's just tell them to get in there and do the right thing! I mean, it's for the protection of all, right? Land mines, gas and flamethrowers for all! Women and children? Fuck that, they knew what they were getting into! That definitely makes us the good guys, right? After all they're killing all the people we want dead, right? What's could possibly be wrong with that?

Still feeling so smart?

I hold the same view as he does about trying to call any kind of war civil being a moot point. However, you may want to take a step back and calm down. I also agree with you at the same time. I think calling war civil is a fallacy, because as long as we are killing our fellow man (even if he is the "bad" guy) is a very uncivil action. There is no way to hold a civilized war, unless you want to just have the two government leaders go out there and play chess with each other.

Looking forward to his Halo 4 review. Honestly the Halos he has reviewed are all the worst ones in term of single-player campaign while I feel Halo 4 has once again gone the Halo 1 and 2 route of having the campaign actually be the game's biggest strong point.

barbzilla:

I hold the same view as he does about trying to call any kind of war civil being a moot point. However, you may want to take a step back and calm down. I also agree with you at the same time. I think calling war civil is a fallacy, because as long as we are killing our fellow man (even if he is the "bad" guy) is a very uncivil action. There is no way to hold a civilized war, unless you want to just have the two government leaders go out there and play chess with each other.

Saying "war is inevitable uncivil, so unrestricted options for all" is just stupid. It's like saying "people inevitable die, so why bother with doctors?" Just because a situation is bad doesn't mean you should write it off and not try to improve it. It's a silly and poorly-thought out argument that doesn't focus on the bigger picture.

EDIT: double post -_-

WaitWHAT:

barbzilla:

I hold the same view as he does about trying to call any kind of war civil being a moot point. However, you may want to take a step back and calm down. I also agree with you at the same time. I think calling war civil is a fallacy, because as long as we are killing our fellow man (even if he is the "bad" guy) is a very uncivil action. There is no way to hold a civilized war, unless you want to just have the two government leaders go out there and play chess with each other.

Saying "war is inevitable uncivil, so unrestricted options for all" is just stupid. It's like saying "people inevitable die, so why bother with doctors?" Just because a situation is bad doesn't mean you should write it off and not try to improve it. It's a silly and poorly-thought out argument that doesn't focus on the bigger picture.

You're making a logic jump that doesn't exist. Nowhere did I advocate using any and all means necessary to wage a war. In fact I did the exact opposite. I think you are trying to put words into people's mouths. The only thing we are saying, is that war is not civil. War is brutal and if the world was "CIVIL" it would not be needed. War is an aging tool used to gain land and resources.

barbzilla:

You're making a logic jump that doesn't exist. Nowhere did I advocate using any and all means necessary to wage a war. In fact I did the exact opposite. I think you are trying to put words into people's mouths. The only thing we are saying, is that war is not civil. War is brutal and if the world was "CIVIL" it would not be needed. War is an aging tool used to gain land and resources.

Fair 'nough. I was more aguing against the first guy than anything.

Admittedly war isn't civil, but that doesn't mean it has to be 10,000% brutal at all times. I mean, most combat sports aren't very civil, but we still manage that to a degree. And while, OK, you can't hand out boxing gloves in a war zone, you can still control it so that it doesn't become too bad.

WaitWHAT:
snip our verbosity was eating the page up

No worries, I understand that war is a very "violent" subject for many people (especially those experiencing it first hand). I just wanted to make sure my point was understood. War will never be civil, once we become truly civil, there will be no need for war. The two terms are mutually exclusive. I agree with you on toning down the violence of war, and that is what the geneva convention was supposed to do. The reason (I think) we see so many violations in this war, is one side has vehemently disregarded the convention. So through escalation both sides are now committing atrocious acts (though I consider killing another human being an atrocious act in the first place). That coupled with the issue that people are some people get out there and become warped (either through an unstable mind, or previous alignment) and go on power trips, has lead us to a lot of unnecessary civilian life lost.

In short I find all war regrettable, not to say it doesn't serve a function, I just wish there was another way. I say all the nations of the world soldiers (warfighters) throw down their arms and let the politicians/bureaucrats do the fighting for themselves. Maybe then we would have less war (or more brutal leaders, one of the two).

barbzilla:

No worries, I understand that war is a very "violent" subject for many people (especially those experiencing it first hand). I just wanted to make sure my point was understood. War will never be civil, once we become truly civil, there will be no need for war. The two terms are mutually exclusive. I agree with you on toning down the violence of war, and that is what the geneva convention was supposed to do. The reason (I think) we see so many violations in this war, is one side has vehemently disregarded the convention. So through escalation both sides are now committing atrocious acts (though I consider killing another human being an atrocious act in the first place). That coupled with the issue that people are some people get out there and become warped (either through an unstable mind, or previous alignment) and go on power trips, has lead us to a lot of unnecessary civilian life lost.

In short I find all war regrettable, not to say it doesn't serve a function, I just wish there was another way. I say all the nations of the world soldiers (warfighters) throw down their arms and let the politicians/bureaucrats do the fighting for themselves. Maybe then we would have less war (or more brutal leaders, one of the two).

Well, glad we got that sorted. Sorry 'bout the confusion, btw.

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:

Yeah, it's not like he recently played a multiplayer game which he enjoyed. Let's just ignore the facts that collide with our opinions.

That would be a point in my favour if he actually played the multiplayer in a game and enjoyed it. I'm not trying to bash ZP here. I am just wondering why he even bothers to review modern shooter games anymore.

Yeah, it's horrible that people who review games sometimes don't like them. They shouldn't be allowed to say negative things about games simply because that's how they feel, it's outrageous how some critics have integrity rather than giving high scores to any big release.

Edit: Also it's not a point in your favour. You basically just did the "He hates shooters" except with multiplayer. Ignore the things that doesn't fit into your theory, but don't get upset when someone calls you out on your bullshit.

I am not commenting on whether he likes the game or not but rather that he only reviews the single player aspect of game.

And you act like I watch ZP for positive reviews... or that I care that MOH: War Fighter got a low review. I can say after playing the last MOH my assumptions about war fighter coincide with ZP's disdain for the game.

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

That would be a point in my favour if he actually played the multiplayer in a game and enjoyed it. I'm not trying to bash ZP here. I am just wondering why he even bothers to review modern shooter games anymore.

Yeah, it's horrible that people who review games sometimes don't like them. They shouldn't be allowed to say negative things about games simply because that's how they feel, it's outrageous how some critics have integrity rather than giving high scores to any big release.

Edit: Also it's not a point in your favour. You basically just did the "He hates shooters" except with multiplayer. Ignore the things that doesn't fit into your theory, but don't get upset when someone calls you out on your bullshit.

I am not commenting on whether he likes the game or not but rather that he only reviews the single player aspect of game.

And you act like I watch ZP for positive reviews... or that I care that MOH: War Fighter got a low review. I can say after playing the last MOH my assumptions about war fighter coincide with ZP's disdain for the game.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think you're looking for a positive review.

I have merely stated two statements. He does give praise to some shooters and he does sometimes give praise to multiplayer. Don't change the subject, put words into my mouth and ignore your previous posts.

 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
Registered for a free account here