Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

[Trippeh]

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

 

[DanHibiki]

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

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

 

[Frostbite3789]

Team Fortress 2: $20 new on release day
Unreal Tournament 2004: $30 new on release day

That's why. If your game is built entirely for the multiplayer, and "no one plays the campaign anyway", why charge full price?

So based on that I overpaid for any TES game and the Half Life games? I mean, can't have double standards where single player only games can charge full price, can we?

Half-Life 2 was $30 as well. Just saying.

The amount of work a game takes should be reflected in its price. MW3 Multiplayer uses almost the same things that MW2 did. But Skyrim required work on a lot of new things. More work you have to do on it, more its worth.

MW3 is a Toyota Camry, mass-produced, easy to find, easy to use, made year after year. Skyrim is a Ferrari. Made by hand, difficult to find, and usually specially made. Should both of them be $15,000?

Besides the fact that Half Life 2 was in fact $50 on release, which was the price of any game at the time I still have to disagree.

Your last point is completely opinion. I'm no MW3 fan, in fact I'd go so far as to say I despise the game, but you can't say MP only games should only be charging half price, while SP only games can charge as much as a full priced game these days.

When you get away with charging full price for something that takes half the effort, you're encouraging others to do it that way as well. No other industry works like that.

So, like I said, with your logic, SP only games shouldn't cost $50-$60 either.

 

[Trippeh]

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.

 

[DanHibiki]

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.

"Parabolic sniper rounds" are so 1998

 

[Belbe]

Ah, the poor guy has his hands full this season. Games releases every other day!

 

[daxterx2005]

Can't wait until fps madness is over.
I wonder if we'll ever get a second wave of platform love.

 

[Geisterkarle]

Yeah, bash two for one! I like it!
Where is the popcorn?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

All the more my point. I wouldn't have such an issue if these games weren't smashing sales records all over the goddamn place. How can these dull grey shooters that change less from game-to-game than the EA Sports series be the most popular thing on the fucking planet??

Oh and piece of advice, don't post multiple times in a row in the same thread if you can help it. You can quote more than one post in a single post y'know.

Sorry about that; I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.

Anyway, you really shouldn't lump "Battlefield 3" together with "Modern Warfare 3" when talking about "changing less from game to game than the EA Sports series". That is very true of "Modern Warfare 3", but not true at all of "Battlefield 3". It's pretty obvious from you saying that that you don't know a whole lot about that game.

Just look at the difference in graphics between "Bad Company 2" (released in March 2010) and "Battlefield 3" (released last month). They look vastly different, and they also play quite differently, especially when compared to the CoD series.

Furthermore, "Battlefield 3" is actually a quite colourful game. Just take a look at the multiplayer map "Caspian Border". Absolutely gorgeous.

Sorry, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. It's just these games don't appeal to me in any way shape or form. Normally I wouldn't have an issue with them if they weren't so bloody popular and possibly edging out everything else.

 

[Erttheking]

Ok what does he still have to do...Skyrim, Dark Souls, Saints Row 3, Super Mario 3D Skyward Sword Assassin's creed, Halo CEA (he may skip that one though) he still hasn't done Space Marine...the guy has his hands full.

 

[Erttheking]

Say Yahtzee, speaking of humiliating tie breakers, what could more humiliating than the fact that these games are what pass for entertainment these days?

Once again: It's not about the singleplayer; that is not the reason these games "pass for entertainment these days". Everyone loves these games because of their multiplayer. True, I couldn't really care less about MW3, but I think BF3's multiplayer is out of this world. Campaign isn't very good, though.

All the more my point. I wouldn't have such an issue if these games weren't smashing sales records all over the goddamn place. How can these dull grey shooters that change less from game-to-game than the EA Sports series be the most popular thing on the fucking planet??

Oh and piece of advice, don't post multiple times in a row in the same thread if you can help it. You can quote more than one post in a single post y'know.

Sorry about that; I'll try to keep that in mind from now on.

Anyway, you really shouldn't lump "Battlefield 3" together with "Modern Warfare 3" when talking about "changing less from game to game than the EA Sports series". That is very true of "Modern Warfare 3", but not true at all of "Battlefield 3". It's pretty obvious from you saying that that you don't know a whole lot about that game.

Just look at the difference in graphics between "Bad Company 2" (released in March 2010) and "Battlefield 3" (released last month). They look vastly different, and they also play quite differently, especially when compared to the CoD series.

Furthermore, "Battlefield 3" is actually a quite colourful game. Just take a look at the multiplayer map "Caspian Border". Absolutely gorgeous.

Sorry, you'll have to forgive my ignorance. It's just these games don't appeal to me in any way shape or form. Normally I wouldn't have an issue with them if they weren't so bloody popular and possibly edging out everything else.

If that's your problem, then I wouldn't worry, they may be the most played games but no other game company is going out of business, and fresh new games are on the way. I can understand why some people are frustrated that the most popular games are kind of generic shooters, but I never understood why so many people are convinced that is all what modern games are about.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Same goes for Assassin's Creed when it got multiplayer in "Brotherhood". Doesn't matter if it was good or not,

Yes it does.

it is out of place.

It wasn't.

 

[Uncompetative]

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?

MW3's multiplayer is much more better, and the single player's better than BlOps. I say that as a person who likes the CoD series AND Battlefield. you're money is well invested

I respectfully disagree. Black Ops is superior to MW3 and BF3, so if you prefer that game buy some map packs for it.

Kill Confirmed is 'okay', but hardly all that original - Crysis 2 had dog-tag collection and didn't make the game look like Mario Kart.

MW3 is a good rental for the Campaign. BF3 is not.

BF3 is trying to be ARMA 2 on a console, but nobody is sufficiently organised and dedicated to it for this to work. Halo 3 is still the best.

If you are looking for a new shooter (Campaign only), I recommend you download Crysis from the Xbox LIVE Marketplace.

By the way, they've made Halo Anniversary look ugly compared to the original and even if you just get the Multiplayer Map Pack for Reach as a separate download you won't find the BR in it - even though some of the maps are taken from Halo 2. Given that they've fucked up the physics of the vehicles in that game they have some nerve even selling it.

Actually, Homefront is a better game than BF3, but unfortunately it looks like a dog's toilet. Medal of Honor's multiplayer is satisfyingly solid, yet practically no one plays the excellent Hardcore Clean Sweep gametype (no radar or respawns), and few own the Hot Zone download.

I hope that helps.

 

[Sylocat]

I'd just like to mention that the closing-credits animation here was the best one he's ever done.

 

[LordXel]

HAH! Who needs multiplayer? Modern Warfare 3 has a single player campaign that lasts 5 hours, isn't that enough for people? Ah well I liked this episode a lot, cannot wait to hear critism for Skyrim, he already critised Oblivion so next week should be fun.

I'm guessing he might get around to talking about Skyward Sword on Christmas. The perfect Christmas present for me, and I'm someone who loves Skyward Sword and is hyped to hear Yahtzee rip it apart!

Oh yeah and there was a Sonic game recently that Skyrim overshadowed. I loved Sonic Generations, which means Yahtzee won't. XD

 

[KeyMaster45]

"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.

 

[Swifteye]

I don't really understand what people here don't seem to get. Yathzee doesn't like multiplayer. So he's not going to give it a fair shake. That's just how it is you don't see me complaining about all the games he didn't like for reasons I liked them. If you didn't find it funny just don't watch the video anymore.
Does he really have to be fair and balanced, cause he was never that guy.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Wow. I heard the plot of MW3 wasn't all that great, but... seriously? ALL of Europe?

Yep, they pretty much attack Paris, Hanover and Berlin at the same time, days after being beaten back from the US.

Just a slight nitpick, but no they don't. The New York and India levels at the beginning of the game during the Russian invasion of the US take place in the summer, and the later levels during the European invasion take place in the fall. Three months or so pass between them, actually. You can see the dates right at the bottom of the screen at the start of each mission.

But Yahtzee got this wrong too, though.

 

[Ariseishirou]

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.