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

[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.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

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.

 

[barbzilla]

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.

 

[barbzilla]

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.

 

[MagmaMan]

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.

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]

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).

 

[Warped_Ghost]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Grach]

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.

 

[Link Satonaka]

I'm late to this party, but

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Mortamus]

"A warfighter is sappin my door!"

Every shooter is better with TF2 dialogue. Jump to it, EA.