Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

[Markunator]

"Battlefield 3" is nothing like "Modern Warfare 3", at least not in the multiplayer portion. BF3 actually emphasizes teamwork. MW3 doesn't even know the meaning of the word. I suggest you don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. Stop hating just for the sake of hating.

Hmm, no...I don't think I will. After all, I'm not about to stop voicing my opinion on a subject just because some random person on the internet says so.

If my dislike is really so unjustified, and you are secure in the knowledge that something you like is indeed "good" then the airing of my displeasure about it shouldn't bother you in the least. Unless of course, you really do have doubts as to the quality of the game you are playing. That back in the darkest corners of your mind there's a niggling little voice that screams out in fear when someone says they don't like it. It fears that by just one person saying they dislike it, the game will become unpopular. That all it takes is for one person to invalidate the entire construct of your personal preferences. A person whom you've never met, who hides behind an alias on a gaming forum. That everything you thought was good is in fact crap, and that the opinion of one person is somehow gospel law which decrees you to be the owner of poor taste in games. That the decree of this poor taste in games calls into question the level of your intelligence as well. After all, to like something another dislikes automatically marks you with the label of "stupid".

Such paranoia and insecurity would lead me to question your mental stability. Of course, we all know you're not like that and are quite sane. You're just trying to protect the pillars of intellectual discussion for civil debates on the internet, and are actually quite secure in the knowledge that opinions are simply opinions. That they in no way affect the validity of yours and that a single person who holds a differing opinion has zero power to change that.

To each their own, as is said, let the haters hate because it will have zero affect on your entertainment and belief that said entertainment is of a high quality. Unless, of course, you don't really believe that.

Quoting Yahtzee, I see. Yeah, that doesn't exactly make you original. Or clever. And I don't understand what exactly about my posts it was that made you think that I was raging in the same way that those people in that Yahtzee video were. I was just pointing out how I was disagreeing with people and thought they were wrong to say that Battlefield 3 was a bad game just because it's singleplayer was lacking, when its multiplayer is as awesome as it is.

And no, I am not in doubt of whether or not I actually like the game, thank you very much. If I didn't really like it, then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have poured over 30 hours into it.

Oh, let's see: "Battlefield 3" has far better graphics and sound designs, it has environmental destruction, enormous multiplayer maps, 64-player multiplayer, jeeps, tanks, choppers, jets, a class system, teamwork, realism (just enough of it) ... Should I go on?

No need, we all get it. You love Battlefield 3 and God forbid anyone should dare to criticize it.

However, others may not like it, and they're just as entitled to their opinions as you are. So chill out.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was just pointing out how fucking absurd it is to think that Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are the same game. That's it. I don't mind you criticizing a game that I like, just as long as the criticisms themselves make some damn sense. Otherwise, you just come across as a troll.

Do you really think I was disrespecting other people's opinions, when all I was doing was pointing out that they were wrong on a certain point? Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are not the same thing.

Oh, let's see: "Battlefield 3" has far better graphics and sound designs, it has environmental destruction, enormous multiplayer maps, 64-player multiplayer, jeeps, tanks, choppers, jets, a class system, teamwork, realism (just enough of it) ... Should I go on?

CoD is, like, actually fun, though.

And it has co-operative modes.

And a single player campaign that isn't shit.

Depends what you think is is worth your $60.

Well, if you think it's fun to run around on tiny maps with no destructible buildings or cover and get shotgunned every 20 seconds, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have no reliance on teamplay or tactics at all, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have guns with no recoil or bullet drop and shitty sound effects, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have no (or at least barely any) driveable vehicles, then sure, it's fun.

Battlefield 3 has a co-operative mode.

And the singleplayer campaign is shit, at least when looking at the story. The story is unsalvageable after the incoherent, plothole-ridden mess that was Modern Warfare 2's plot. Battlefield 3's plot may not be good, but at least it makes some sense. I at least bought that story.

I think Battlefield 3 is definitely worth my $60, or rather, my 500 kronor.

It seems to me that most people criticizing Battlefield 3 on this board don't know quite as much about the game that they think they do. And when I point it out, I just get told to respect their opinion. Yeah, having an opinion on this board is fine, just as long as you agree with Yahtzee.

 

[Raioken18]

Meh, we are all used to Yahtzee not caring for multiplayer by now.

Meanwhile I play BF3 with 27 friends, and I don't think any of them have bothered with the singleplayer. I tried a friends MW3, he was trying to "convert" me back to CoD, lol. After switching from MW2 to BC2, I'm never switching back.

However that is not to say BF3 is perfect. Origin and Battlelog are worthless and poorly designed, so is the ingame squad management, it is obvious that the join squad button had been added at the last second, it's not even in the same font as the other text.

But once you actually start playing, it just CoD away.

Oh and also the Co-op needs some work, it seemed to have the same faults as the single player, well at least according to this review.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Well, if you think it's fun to run around on tiny maps with no destructible buildings or cover and get shotgunned every 20 seconds, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have no reliance on teamplay or tactics at all, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have guns with no recoil or bullet drop and shitty sound effects, then sure, it's fun. If you think it's fun to have no (or at least barely any) driveable vehicles, then sure, it's fun.

Yes, it is fun!

 

[Markunator]

But once you actually start playing, it just CoD away.

BZZT! WRONG!

 

[jpoon]

Hah, nice. We'll said ZP. Both are fun but are shit, gotta love duality.

 

[GeorgW]

I like these sort of comparisons, but would have wanted more. Also, why has Team Hollywood started posting all vids?

 

[Vicarious Reality]

What an odd thing to say, about the foreign movies

 

[Adultism]

Can someone tell me who team Hollywood is?

 

[Origin64]

Despite the fact that I totally agree and both games are horrible, I still bought them both. I need to have something to waste my time on once I've finished Skyrim...

 

[Markunator]

Despite the fact that I totally agree and both games are horrible, I still bought them both. I need to have something to waste my time on once I've finished Skyrim...

I disagree that Battlefield 3 is horrible. If you like multiplayer, it's a must-buy.

ah... these games make me miss Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

setting up dynamite on a sniper's head... oh the memories.

that was when men were MEN! none of this pseudo-realism nonsense. none of these pansies could handle a Venom nowadays.

boosting the breach with a panzerfaust... medflying to the top of the hill on assault... sniping through the grate on sub... holding the hallways on base with random grenades... granted those were all douchebag things to do but they were there to be done, damnit! none of this 'parabolic sniper rounds' stupidity.

v57.

Ah....I know what you mean: Painkiller and Serious Sam.

None of this "realism" bollocks and regenerating health. A bunch of developers sitting around a table going "hey, how can we make this more fun?"

Bunnyhopping around, making 8-foot skeletons tremble with miniguns, shooting rockets indiscriminately into an advancing horde of Kleers, doing a beautiful ballet of death with a shotgun and werebulls, pinning enemies to walls with wood, cutting them into lovely squidgy bits with some hugely over-compensatory melee weapon (not just some pussy gunbutt), running around getting a good look at the beautiful levels and monsters, charging directly into the action to cut your opponents to bits....

The list goes on. Good times man, good times.

Having any of those things would be counterproductive to the kind of game that Battlefield 3 is trying to be. It can't possibly have those things in it and still be a true sequel to Battlefield 2. Judge a game for what it is, not for what it never intended to be. It's supposed to be a fairly realistic game, mind you.

 

[Amaror]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

...

Oh come on, you can't be serious. As much as i like Yathzee, watching his reviews to see if a game is worth buying or not is just stupid.
And don't show me your definitions of the two words again, ok?
In a review, the reviewer wants to show the various aspects of the game (Or Movie or whatever). He (Or she) has to give an impression of what the game is like, so you know if you would like a game or not.
He has to talk about good and bad aspects of the game.
Yathzee just talks about the bad stuff.
You know, that is fine! We have enough normal reviews on the internet. But Yathzee's reviews are not there to inform the people about the game. They're there to entertain, to be funny.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

...

Oh come on, you can't be serious. As much as i like Yathzee, watching his reviews to see if a game is worth buying or not is just stupid.
And don't show me your definitions of the two words again, ok?
In a review, the reviewer wants to show the various aspects of the game (Or Movie or whatever). He (Or she) has to give an impression of what the game is like, so you know if you would like a game or not.
He has to talk about good and bad aspects of the game.
Yathzee just talks about the bad stuff.
You know, that is fine! We have enough normal reviews on the internet. But Yathzee's reviews are not there to inform the people about the game. They're there to entertain, to be funny.

Hahaha. "Don't come around here with your meaning and accuracy, young sir."

Seriously, I'm not here to argue whether or not you should take advice from Yahtzee. That's an individual choice - it's better to gauge someone's tastes as a reviewer and decide if you would probably like the same things as them. There is, however, no law anywhere that says a reviewer can't be mostly negative in his or her appraisal.

Also, that's another cop out argument I love. "He's not a reviewer, he's a comedian." You do know the old idiom "It's funny because it's true," right?

 

[Kopikatsu]

I've been fallowing yahtzee's stuff for a while now anyone feel he's burning a little? He seemed to have more fun with his position in he past. Maybe it's just the holidays.

He probably dies a little more on the inside every time he's forced to play a FPS that attempts to take itself seriously. (And he is forced. The Escapist picks the games he has to do a ZP on most of the time.)

At least Shooter Season 20-11 is over. Maybe he'll recover.

Also, that's another cop out argument I love. "He's not a reviewer, he's a comedian." You do know the old idiom "It's funny because it's true," right?

Well...it's true. While most of the complaints he has about the game in question are valid, he normally blows them out of proportion and ignores the good parts of the game. Which is fine, because that's his shtick. You have to take what he says with a grain of salt, though.

 

[Amaror]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

...

...

...

Also, that's another cop out argument I love. "He's not a reviewer, he's a comedian." You do know the old idiom "It's funny because it's true," right?

Ok i understood you a little wrong there. But i did not say that Yathzee wasn't a reviewer. But he most certainly isn't an objective one and not one to get a valid impression on how the game really is.
Maybe he can help with decissions if you completely know his style of reviewing and know that you have a really similar taste in games, but otherwise you should just watch the videos for the fun they are.

 

[Biodeamon]

it's seems to me these days that you fight only three of things in games: either russians, nazis, euphimisms of nazis, terrorists, zombies, aliens, or weird aliens that are somehow zombies

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

And remember guys, our dear Croshaw doesn't review games, he criticizes them. He points out the flaws while talking about it and giving his opinion.

You want a review? Go to the hundreds of game review websites there are.

...

...

...

Also, that's another cop out argument I love. "He's not a reviewer, he's a comedian." You do know the old idiom "It's funny because it's true," right?

Ok i understood you a little wrong there. But i did not say that Yathzee wasn't a reviewer. But he most certainly isn't an objective one and not one to get a valid impression on how the game really is.
Maybe he can help with decissions if you completely know his style of reviewing and know that you have a really similar taste in games, but otherwise you should just watch the videos for the fun they are.

You're right, he's not objective. As a matter of fact, no good reviewers can possibly be objective. Because to do so would simply mean that they can only state facts about the game, and have no opinions in their evaluation

For instance, it is a fact that MW3 includes a variety of guns. It is an opinion that these guns either do or don't provide enough of a varied experience to the gameplay. It is a fact that MW3 continues the story of the fictional war between NATO and Russia. It is an opinion that this story is either very captivating or makes absolutely no sense. It is a fact that the game has multiplayer. It is an opinion that the multiplayer is either really thrilling or a derivative camp fest filled with profanity spewing juveniles.

If you want someone to make an objective analysis of a game, they can't use any opinions in doing so, because the instant they do so it enters the realm of subjectivity, unless there's some kind of magical system of principles for game design and audience response that everyone on the planet has signed up to. And without having opinions of how various facets of the game work, they can't possibly evaluate it properly.