ThatDarnCoyote:

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.

You do realize that Somali pirates took up that "job" because that's the only way they get to eat right?

They are not intrinsically dicks, they are desperate because they live under the thumbprint of few warlords that brutally opress the population. So yeh, the game is still trivializing real-life horror and death.

51gunner:

Farther than stars:
I'm pretty sure we have a word for 'warfighter'. They're called soldiers. -.-

Warfighter is a generic term applying to soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, etc. Don't call a marine a soldier unless you want to piss them off, and vice versa. It's a slightly more professional word than "troops" and shorter than writing all of the above. It's more that the title is using a somewhat obscure term than anything.

Might not bother with this game if he put it down after an hour and a half though. Normally he at least finishes a game, no matter how iffy.

Actually I didn't mean soldier as in rank, but more soldier in a general term.

lacktheknack:

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.

Fair play... I still need to play ME3.

leet_x1337:

PunkRex:
what have EA released again that wasn't complete doodie?

While Mirror's Edge was far from being a perfect game, it's still actually pretty good. And it was a risk. Taken by EA. Then there was all their older stuff - the original Most Wanted was awesome, for instance. [/fanboy]

Well my bro did sort of enjoy Mirrors Edge.

Should I be worried that Yahtzee likes yet another game, or vindicated that he likes yet another old game from my childhood?

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:

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.

"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."
-Yopaz
That hardly looks like I am putting words into your mouth when you say I was looking for a positive review. Unless that wasn't an attempt at sarcasm I will confidently say that it looked like you thought that I wanted a positive review.

WaitWHAT:

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?

I could lecture you on how painfully naive your line of thinking is, but I'll make a simple request instead:

Take your message of ethical combat to someplace like South Africa, or maybe the Cartel states in Central America. Or perhaps even Serbia where the majority of their population has served in the military.

Ask them how "ethical" real war is, and why neither them nor the other guys "play fair".

The best way to prevent the horrors of war from happening again is to recognize them as horrors, and NOT to undersell them or lump them in with this "police action" bullshit as so many first world countries do today.

In real war, there are no laws but those of physics and nature.

Still feeling so smart?

Leave the pretentious jabs out.
You aren't cowing anyone here.

AHH so this is why I come to this site, I remember now, Grade A review Yahtzee!

Grach:

ThatDarnCoyote:

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.

You do realize that Somali pirates took up that "job" because that's the only way they get to eat right?

They are not intrinsically dicks, they are desperate because they live under the thumbprint of few warlords that brutally opress the population. So yeh, the game is still trivializing real-life horror and death.

Thank you, he needed to hear that.

link68759:
I'm late to this party, but

I don't always agree with Yahtzee, but I agree with every sentiment expressed in this episode.

I couldn't agree more. I never got far into Doom 3, but the flashlight mechanic - while a plot hole, in terms of how it works in the story - was scary as hell, and worked well for keeping tension high (just like how Jim Sterling talked about the jump scare in previous weeks). Still, Doom 3 was competently done in setting tone and making the player feel a sense of agency in the world.

Most of the Spunkgargleweewee genre tends towards being deployed into a region and following orders. While tactical shooting is fun (as paintball's popularity can attest to), in a game it's less thrilling when it becomes so repetitive.

Also, I personally vote the line "Stick your balls up your arse and clench yourself castrated" as one of the funniest lines I've heard on ZP (and indeed, in any form of media) in the past week-and-a-bit. Glorious return to form, Mr Crowshaw!

head desk tricycle:
Actually that's a good name for the genre, "First Person Ordersfollower."

Tell Yahtzee, he'll agree.

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

Excuse me? How exactly is Doom 3 even remotely similar to System Shock 2? Because it has audio logs?

You don't develop your character, your decisions have no impact on the game (because the game doesn't allow you to make any), you never feel threatened or in any kind of real danger, your only real objective is to shoot everything that pops up in front of you... worst of all, it's just uninteresting. All you do is shoot the same enemies in hallways for 20 hours. If it wasn't really 20 hours, it sure as hell felt like 20 hours.

I first played SS2 in 2005 and found it to be a completely terrifying experience because Looking Glass Studios were masters of using sound in their games... something I wish modern developers would do more of. The sounds of what *might* be around the corner is what terrifies you (the Thief games were the same way). In my case, the babbling many with shotguns and telekinetic monkeys. You might laugh... but those monkeys fuck you up. If you don't build your character right, you could start off with really low health and one hit from those bastards will do you in. I got as far as the second area of the first level and couldn't play any more. It was just too stressful. I eventually did go back and play it again and again and again... and relished it completely. Oh, and unlike the shooters and spunkgargleweewees of today, the hard mode on SS2 is actually hard... like nearly impossible, if you don't play it exactly right.

System Shock 2 was and still is a masterpiece... if any game is like SS2, it's Deus Ex. And thank goodness for that! With Bioshock fucking up the "shock" legacy, at least one series is getting it right...

This is one of his best I think. One of the best ZP reviews I've seen in a while.

Anyone else up for making Modern Military Shooter a legit phrase, and spread it around?

CrunkParty:
Possibly his worst review. Usually if he's not funny his opinions are fascinating or if his review is flawed and biased he makes up for it with humor. This was a failure in both aspects. It was made desperately unfunny by Yahtzee's rage being out of character. He should be exasperated at best, you shouldn't be able to see the smoke coming out of his ears. His insights into the state of shooters came right from the playbook of the contrarian "true gamer" manifesto (which would explain why so many people on this thread seem to like it). Most critics try to obscure or distract from their biases. Yahtzee holds it up and screams at the top of his lungs.

It's hard to convince people that Yahtzee really is worth watching when he makes episodes like this. Seriously? For shame.

You haven't watched this show very long, have you? Screaming his biases is kind of Yahtzee's shtick.
Also humour is in the eye of the beholder.
Also what's in this 'contrarian "true gamer" manifesto', and what does it have to do with Yahtzee's frustrations with the constant popularity of kill-the-brownies shooters?

CrunkParty:
Possibly his worst review. Usually if he's not funny his opinions are fascinating or if his review is flawed and biased he makes up for it with humor. This was a failure in both aspects. It was made desperately unfunny by Yahtzee's rage being out of character. He should be exasperated at best, you shouldn't be able to see the smoke coming out of his ears. His insights into the state of shooters came right from the playbook of the contrarian "true gamer" manifesto (which would explain why so many people on this thread seem to like it). Most critics try to obscure or distract from their biases. Yahtzee holds it up and screams at the top of his lungs.

It's hard to convince people that Yahtzee really is worth watching when he makes episodes like this. Seriously? For shame.

He made it clear awhile ago of what he is sick of seeing in modern shooters, what makes the experience bland, and why he generalises them and splits them into it's own category. He's simply sick of having to play them or even see them so he takes the piss out of them, same with so many other people. He's not biased, he know what he wants and he gives us hints during nearly every one of his vids, even though he has changed his mind some times.

Yahtzees been controversial from the beginning and no one I know can agree with every thing he says, just enjoy how he blows of steam. You should of seen how much smoke he released during the Sonic Unleashed and Halo RTS game review.

Grach:

You do realize that Somali pirates took up that "job" because that's the only way they get to eat right?

They are not intrinsically dicks, they are desperate because they live under the thumbprint of few warlords that brutally opress the population. So yeh, the game is still trivializing real-life horror and death.

Yes, I do. But I also realize that the Somali pirates and the oppressive Somali warlords are not so easily distinguished from one another. I also realize that one of the reasons that Somalia is starving is because international food aid shipments keep getting attacked. By pirates.

Anyway, a murderous dick with a sob story is still a murderous dick.

I understand your point about "trivializing real-life horror and death", but can't that charge be levied at just about any game with a realistic or semi-realistic setting? Is Max Payne 3 morally objectionable because it references real-life violence in Sao Paulo? Violence in America's cities is tragic and ugly - are games like GTA and Saint's Row reprehensible for "trivializing" that?

The game is stupid and childish and should give more background and humane characterization to the pirates.

However, it's still disgusting to see here how so many people partially excuse the acts of piracy because most pirates have had little to no choice.
I'm also offended by the assumption that all Somali pirates have had no choice, that is an insult to those many Somalis who lead honest lives despite their hardships.

ThatDarnCoyote:

Yes, I do. But I also realize that the Somali pirates and the oppressive Somali warlords are not so easily distinguished from one another. I also realize that one of the reasons that Somalia is starving is because international food aid shipments keep getting attacked. By pirates.

Anyway, a murderous dick with a sob story is still a murderous dick.

I understand your point about "trivializing real-life horror and death", but can't that charge be levied at just about any game with a realistic or semi-realistic setting? Is Max Payne 3 morally objectionable because it references real-life violence in Sao Paulo? Violence in America's cities is tragic and ugly - are games like GTA and Saint's Row reprehensible for "trivializing" that?

First off, a "murderous dick with a sob story" is called a victim. I doubt Somalia would even have pirates if it had the development level of say, Mexico. Why bother ransacking boats when you can learn a profession and get money that way? Besides, it's not like they could do something, the ones that do tend to die horribly. Again, the only way they can eat. Besides, the head assholes get the lion's share of the loot.

And by the way, it may be true that GTA or Saints Row trivialize real life pain, but at least they have the decency to actually be good games. Saint Row's a pretty weird example, since it takes refuge in audacity so much that I don't know why you bother to bring it up (peaople ragdolize instantly and seem to be made out of rubber, old ladies will pummel you to death if you punch them, side missions include doing cartoonish damage to yourself, etc). For Max Payne 3, yeah, I do agree on that one. That's why I don't play it (acompanied by a very big scoop of indiference towards the franchise in general).

Yopaz:

Warped_Ghost:

Yopaz:

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.

"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."
-Yopaz
That hardly looks like I am putting words into your mouth when you say I was looking for a positive review. Unless that wasn't an attempt at sarcasm I will confidently say that it looked like you thought that I wanted a positive review.

So you're taking a sarcastic sentence to prove your point?

Now what happened to not changing the subject here? What happened to:

Warped_Ghost:

The problem is he doesn't play multiplayer.

Are we supposed to just ignore the sentence that started this pointless discussion now that we've established that he does occasionally enjoy multiplayer so we have to assume he plays multiplayer? You're changing the subject and you wont even admit that you're changing the subject. I am done discussing this so there's no need to reply.

Just a heads up if you want to be a far more respectable debater try not to end every post with an obvious insult to your opponent. It degrades the entire post.

Grach:

First off, a "murderous dick with a sob story" is called a victim. I doubt Somalia would even have pirates if it had the development level of say, Mexico. Why bother ransacking boats when you can learn a profession and get money that way? Besides, it's not like they could do something, the ones that do tend to die horribly. Again, the only way they can eat. Besides, the head assholes get the lion's share of the loot.

Thing is, if you ask any bloodletting sonofabitch anywhere in the world or throughout history, they'll have a sob story to tell you. Every last one. The Nazis will tell you about the privations of the Treaty of Versailles. The Zeta cartel will have grinding tales of poverty. Right-wing death squads in South America will grieve for colleagues, friends and family members killed by leftist guerillas or criminal gangs, and rage against a government too impotent or corrupt to do anything about it. Palestinian suicide bombers will speak of checkpoints and air strikes. Hard-line Zionist vigilantes will weep as they tell of a three-year-old baby murdered in her bed.

Does this justify whatever they do? Does this mean they should never be held accountable? Do we just shrug at their plunder, kidnapping, and murder because, hey, they have a rough time of it?

It's even more egregious in the case of Somalia. It's a place of great suffering, but the pirates are the guys, or at least the gunmen and enforcers of the guys, who are making it such an awful place to begin with! On that basis alone, they forfeit any claim to be sentimentalized. They're slitting throats, threatening aid workers, holding hapless sailors hostage for years, and starving whole families, and I'm supposed to shed tears because they're getting pretend-shot by a Navy SEAL robot in a video game?

I agree that Somalia wouldn't be so bad if it were more like Mexico (although Mexico has its own problems with militarized criminal gangs). Somalia wasn't always like this. Once upon a time, it had a central government and something approaching a civil society. And when efforts to help and feed Somalia fail because of pirates, it doesn't help their case. It rings a little hollow to say, "Our country is starving and we have no choice" when you're the guy making sure your country is starving. It's like the old joke about the guy who murders his parents, then begs mercy from the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.

Grach:

And by the way, it may be true that GTA or Saints Row trivialize real life pain, but at least they have the decency to actually be good games. Saint Row's a pretty weird example, since it takes refuge in audacity so much that I don't know why you bother to bring it up (peaople ragdolize instantly and seem to be made out of rubber, old ladies will pummel you to death if you punch them, side missions include doing cartoonish damage to yourself, etc). For Max Payne 3, yeah, I do agree on that one. That's why I don't play it (acompanied by a very big scoop of indiference towards the franchise in general).

The quality of a game has little bearing on its moral agency. And I'm not quite getting the lines you're drawing here. Max Payne 3 is an excellent game. May not be your cup of tea, and that's fine. As for Saints' Row, I don't understand how a straight-ahead, authentic portrayal of a real-life situation is awful and trivializing, but suddenly becomes okay if you transform death and horror into a hilarious cartoon full of ethnic stereotypes and dildo-bats? Doesn't that actually make it worse?

Maybe not held unnacountable, but it sure as hell makes it way more morally ambiguous. After all, its way easier to shoot a bad guy because he is a bad guy, rather than shooting a guy who was either forced to loot to survive and feed his family or become a refugee. I will avoid talking about the real-life Somalia, mainly because I don't have a good grip on it's history, but I doubt something like shooting them for the sake of shooting isn't right in any way.

I think that the fact that good games can somehow influence the perception of their morally objectionable because developers who make good games tend to think of this kind of thing (not universally, as with the Max Payne 3 example you put forward, I've heard it's very tasteless in its handling). Besides, Max Payne, Saints Row aren't really as committed to realism as Medal of Honor making them a lot harder to look morally reprehensible.

What I'm basically saying is that they're still human being who were pushed to doing wrong because there is nothing else. In Afghanistan, the talibans are actually a sectarian minority that tarnish the name of a religion because they're inmune to irony. Don't get even started on the arab-israeli conflict, I'll just say the warring sides are massive assholes and the world and their countries would be better off without them. There is ALWAYS another side of the coin. Somalia's case is more critical since it has completly collapsed in humanitarian terms.

Also, the fact that you're fighting vastly underpowered and undersupplied enemies doesn't make them seem like a credible threat. It would be like playing a WW2 where you counter-attack the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. This impacts the gameplay, making it look way less frantic and challenging in the end.

Jesus, it's like you haven't played Spec Ops: The Line or something.

Funny thing. The captcha for this "high horse".

JPArbiter:
can I PLEASE get a transcript for everything from "you just do not like shooters." onward?

Well, let me have a shot...

"Oh you ignorant little bastards!
Shove your balls up your ass and clench yourself castrated.
I was into shooters while you were still sucking on Wii-motes, you cover-loving, health-regenerating, murder come-latelys.
You don't even know what a shooter is!
A shooter is fast paced, circle strafing, wits about you, rocket jumping, last crap of health, toodly fuck pies organic excitement in a fancy hat.
It is NOT lying on a conveyor belt to the next chest high wall and then resting your head on it until you get lulled into a lovely little sleep by other people's gunfire.

Perhaps this calls for greater clarity of language:
Doom 3, Painkiller and Resistance 3 we'll call 'shooters.' And we'll come up with a new name for Modern Warfare style games like 'spunkgargleweewee.'
I'm perfectly fine with people telling me I just don't like spunkgargleweewee. And Warfighter is bad even for spunkgargleweewee so gargle something else."

I have no idea if you were serious at all but I wanted to challenge my memory and hearing. So here you go. Did decent for the first part of the first paragraph. Then I had to rewatch the video over and over again.

Grach:
Maybe not held unnacountable, but it sure as hell makes it way more morally ambiguous. After all, its way easier to shoot a bad guy because he is a bad guy, rather than shooting a guy who was either forced to loot to survive and feed his family or become a refugee. I will avoid talking about the real-life Somalia, mainly because I don't have a good grip on it's history, but I doubt something like shooting them for the sake of shooting isn't right in any way.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but I guess I just have a different view. You see the pirates primarily as victims, and I see them primarily as victimizers, and both of us are pretty much right. I believe that in a more just world, they would be held accountable, for their crimes against the crews of passing ships, and for their role in the brutal oppression of the population of Somalia. And I just don't think that saying, "Hey guys, knock it off," is going to accomplish that accountability. I base this primarily on the fact that the international community HAS told them to knock it off, at least long enough to let the food shipments through, and it didn't do any good.

And since I have no objection to anti-piracy operations in real life, I have no objection to shooting pirates in a video game.

Grach:
Jesus, it's like you haven't played Spec Ops: The Line or something.

Only the demo so far, which I liked quite a bit. I've heard great things about it, and the story seems deep and really interesting. I love the idea of a modern-day adaptation of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. I'm planning to pick it up later this month.

Grach:

Also, the fact that you're fighting vastly underpowered and undersupplied enemies doesn't make them seem like a credible threat. It would be like playing a WW2 where you counter-attack the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. This impacts the gameplay, making it look way less frantic and challenging in the end.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't played that mission. You play as part of a small team attacking a major pirate outpost on the Somali coast. While their weapons aren't as sophisticated as yours, they outnumber you by a significant margin. They have automatic weapons, RPGs, and LMG emplacements. They are dug in defensive positions and you are on the move. I got killed a number of times playing through that level. The "threat" felt as credible as it does in any other game.

If you take a "big-picture" view, yes, they are dwarfed by the theoretical might of the US military, but in the particular tactical situation, that's irrelevant. It's like saying the enemies in Arkham Asylum aren't a credible threat because they're just muscled-up inmates and you're the goddam Batman.

Grach:

Funny thing. The captcha for this "high horse".

Ha ha, that is awesome. I think captcha is trying to tell us something. :)

By the way, PC Gamer UK latest mag gave warfighter (rolls eyes) 35/100 with the verdict being "A boring, unoriginal, morally bankrupt, ethically dubious glorification of war, that's not worth your time or money".

Atmos Duality:

Still feeling so smart?

Leave the pretentious jabs out.
You aren't cowing anyone here.

Says the guy who took 3 days to respond.

I could lecture you on how painfully naive your line of thinking is, but I'll make a simple request instead:

Take your message of ethical combat to someplace like South Africa, or maybe the Cartel states in Central America. Or perhaps even Serbia where the majority of their population has served in the military.

Ask them how "ethical" real war is, and why neither them nor the other guys "play fair".

The best way to prevent the horrors of war from happening again is to recognize them as horrors, and NOT to undersell them or lump them in with this "police action" bullshit as so many first world countries do today.

In real war, there are no laws but those of physics and nature.

Your so-called "argument" is nothing short of ridiculous. "War is always going to be bad, so why bother to try and civilize it at all?" Wut? O.K. then, I guess since people die anyway, let's not bother with doctors! Since there are always going to be poor people, why bother with charity?

Once you look at this whole "X can never be perfect, so why bother trying to improve it?" argument, if becomes clear just how weak, lazy and, frankly, ridiculous it is. Atrocities of war always happen and people always die (that's part of the package of war) but that doesn't mean it has to be all brutal to all people all the time. Yeah, it would be as naive as fuck to ask all soldiers in the world to line up neat lines, shake hands and then settle it over a tea party, but how many lives, especially civillian lives, do you think have been improved or even saved by the banning the indiscriminate of carpet bombing, napalm and gas? How much more stable and prosperous is the world today for strictly limiting when you can and can't invade a country? Think how much worse life would be in the Middle East if the U.S. had nuked Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 instead of invading.

No system will ever be perfect, least of all war, but if we stop trying to improve things, what's the point? Giving up because things can't be 100% how we want is the attitude I expect from a stroppy teenager, and not the kind we should approach serious matters like war from.

Neiloken:

Oh ya, and to put the whole xbox vs ps3 on graphics thing to rest. All u PS fanboys, organize an HDTV, Xbox 360 Slim, and Halo 4... it is honestly prettier than anything I've ever seen on a screen in my entire life...

Peace x 3

That argument was put to rest 4 years ago when the specs came out O.o though if you like the ones for Halo 4 then fine? I can't really see this being much of an argument thanks to statistics (though again, I'm kind of in the who cares camp, the same way I don't have the argument about PS3 not having games; if you think Halo 4 is the best graphics game in the world then thats awesome, glad you like it, I just disagree)

OT: Its nice to know I can now express why I like Bioshock and Serious Sam but CoD can suck a bag of dicks, thanks one again ZP.