I'm not trying to flame here, but what do you need to know? It's the same mechanics from the single-player, only the NPC's are now controlled by other people[footnote]the majority of whom are annoying frat boys[/footnote]. Multiplayer hasn't really changed since the N64, and ever since Halo 2 made online popular it has changed even less; occasionally we'll get a different mode, like Horde mode, but even that just get's copy and pasted to 15 other games.
Valve pricing their games 30 dollars has nothing to do with it being multiplayer or not e.g. the portal and half life games. it has to do with them being in the uniquely position of owning Steam and being their own publisher.
as for his argument, you and yahtzee can whine n not like all you want about multiplayer, games like LoL, WoW, the brown shooters give more entertainment n joy to more people than any singleplayer game ever did. Wether you think multiplayer is a fun experience is entirely subjective. Maybe, just maybe, its just your opinion? You dont like multiplayer, most people do. deal with it. I like a lot of games people despise. i dont mind. And dont act like multiplayer will kill singleplayer or some stupid bullshit like that. Last time i checked, Skyrim is one of the top selling games of all time now. a completely single player game mind you
Okay first, I want people to stop denying that something's a game just because it's lacking in some way. That's annoying. I don't care if the single player is basically vestigial, it's still technically a game. A crummy game the designers of which put no effort into when it came to the single player, but a game nonetheless.
Second, I want to see someone make a flash game about the Anglo-Zanzibar War. You'd have 38 minutes to get through to the center and bring down the flag. I know it'd be more entertaining and original than endless modern war games with pretensions to realism.
Maybe I don't want realism, game designers. Maybe I want to be able to be as extreme and unrealistic as possible, soaking up thousands of points of damage and frantically grabbing health packs as I go.
Wow. I heard the plot of MW3 wasn't all that great, but... seriously? ALL of Europe?
No, Yahtzee. I don't think Infinity Ward was trying to make the Russians look evil. I think they were aiming for an image that all Russians are STUPID.
Well, Yahtzee hasn't ever been one to just say "fuck it" to reason and have fun, so i was expecting it. It was a funny review, even though i liked MW3.
You could come off your high chair now and again and enter the "big man" world of multiplayer, Yahtzee. You know, like a -REVIEWER- would. Charging 60 euros for a game that is themed around multiplayer might be a scam, but ignoring multiplayer completely as a reviewer just because "you don't like it" isn't too far off.
I bought MW3 the day it came out and ever since then, I've been waiting for this review. I was generally pleased. I don't really expect Yahtzee to enjoy the multiplayer, even though spec-ops and new survival is awesome. And I do kinda believe that this video was meant to throw wood on the fire that is FPS fan-boys. That being said, after playing both games, MW3 was better.
Not trying to defend MW3 (both games sucked), but I thought the beginning of the England level was the half-assed explanation as to how Russia invaded all of Europe, where Makarov's men were already in every country, waiting to strike. It was either that or it was a weak excuse to have a chase in the London Underground.
Yep, they pretty much attack Paris, Hanover and Berlin at the same time, days after being beaten back from the US.
I honestly have no idea how the frontline would look. I mean, how did the invasion fleet get past Norway and Great Britain? And how could they be fighting in Berlin and Paris at the same time? What happened to Poland and Ukraine? Don't even think about supply lines and stuff like that.
And there are a lot more plot holes like that. Why can Russian Cruise Missiles be reprogrammed within seconds to fire at their own ships? How could those medium range missiles even hit targets a few yards next to them?
And Marakov is the biggest plot hole of all times
Not only does he command legions of terrorists, this guy also manages to get lots of armed terrorists into the presidents plane and also arrives faster than the russian army (within minutes) when it crashes somewhere in Russia, he also is able to get his hands on tons of WMDs (chemical bombs, at least 12) and is able to smuggle them into all major European Cities undetected together with hundreds of well armed terrorists to detonate them at the same time. He also owns a whole fortress full of terrorists outside Prague and a Salt Mine in Sibiria.
And somehow he either also controls the force occupying Berlin, including tanks, or the Russians somehow hand over the presidents daughter to him when they find her.
And this, internationally wanted terrorist, sits in the last mission in a high class hotel in Dubai, I think, surrounded by hundreds of armed guards as if he owns that place.
And then there are the smaller plot holes like how are people getting an attack helicopter from somewhere in the middle of Africa to Somalia within days? Too fast for a freighter and there are a many stable countries between those two who don't like foreign attack helicopters inside their borders. How do you even refuel this thing?
Yathzee already asked why the Russian President who wants nothing more than peace would actually order a Invasion of the USA and EU?
Oh and Yuri the new character
Was actually part of Marakovs organization but was against the murder of civilians at the airport so he was shot by Marakov but found alive by the Russians who thought he was a civilian. So he knew who was responsible for the attack and despite hating Marakov he never tips the Russians off to prevent the war.
Also how did he got out of hospital so fast and become one of the best men of the russian who helps you (forgot the name)?
Loved this review, I still need to play Battlefield 3 to get my personal winner. Yahtzee's review was basically summed up as this: and for that, I applaud to you.
From what I've heard, MW3 is not very good in regards to multi-player.
Some also say that Black Ops, as "terrible" as everyone said it to be, was better in terms of multi-player.
I dunno. I liked Black Ops multiplayer, but hated the singleplayer. Should I just stick with what I've got?
Rule of thumb: if the Escapist reviews it, Yahtzee won't.
So we won't be seeing him slam Skyward Sword's controls. You can decide who gets the better end of the stick there.
I kind of like MW3, but there were some glaring plot holes, as in how the bloody fuck was Russia in France, Berlin, New York, London and Prague at the same time? AND WINNING?! This isn't the fucking Soviet Union people, Russia isn't that big anymore.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.