>> ^direpickle:

He has explained manymanymanymanymanymanymanymanymany times that he doesn't review the multiplayer portions of these games and why.


Yeah, and I explain to my boss why I don't wanna show up to work everyday and he loves that too.

P.S. These. Are. Multiplayer. Games.

This review is irrelevant. I hate to say that because I've historically loved this guy, but covering your ears and shouting "Nah nah nah nah" isn't a good strategy to accommodate your target demographic.

Maybe if I don't punctuate this post he'll listen. Upon further review, doh; too late.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Funny story - they didn't "produce" this. It's actual footage from Afghanistan. I seriously doubt those guys in the truck were just doing that to impress kids who play videogames. >> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

fuck G4 for producing this war porn. likely for no other reason but to impress it's "call of duty" audience.

fuck G4 for producing this war porn. likely for no other reason but to impress it's "call of duty" audience.

>> ^Gallowflak:

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.
I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.


That sounds a bit odd since Call of Duty is also heavy on MP emphasis is it not? The problem is that realistically, Battlefield does simply not have the same pull over consumers that CoD does.

That kind of plays into my thinking that what most people want, and indeed buy in their millions, is an explosive, viscerally exciting rollercoaster ride.

Thus I'm not at all surprised that BF3's SP seems to be as shallow as anything Infinity Ward has offered.

Yelling homosexual slurs while abusing someone? Who knew the clergy and 13 year old kids playing Call of Duty could have so much in common.

Upvote, but Ehhhh. I won't say it looks bad - but it looks like Deus Ex meets the idioticness of Call of Duty. Way to fail a perfect franchise opportunity. The original could be remade with the isometric view & all. Funny how everyone wants to make FPS type of games because they think they will sell or that that is what people want... when Blizzard is the company that makes the loot. And Blizzard still basically takes old school games and polishes the shit out of them. The only way Syndicate should be made is with a Bullfrog type of touch.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm starting to feel like Yahtzee is a bad reviewer of games. I haven't played Resistance 3 yet, but all I got from this was that he loves it because its mechanics are old-fashioned.
Maybe all of us gamers are starting to get a bit long in the tooth, but I've not become particularly nostalgic for "the good old days" of gaming. I mean, do most gamers spend a lot of time wishing old game mechanics would come back from the dead? I've played enough remakes of "classic" games I loved to realize that most of them don't hold up in comparison to modern games. Gaming has largely moved on.
I for one love the addition of cover and regenerating health to shooters, and don't really like the idea of going back to health pickups and strafing in and out of cover.
Oh, and maybe I just don't play a lot of shooters, but are any of the top-tier series really still all/mostly brown? The only ones I know of are Gears and Resistance...in their first iteration only. From hearing Yahtzee, you'd think this was some mistake developers are still making, but I can't recall the last game I played that didn't make use of a healthy portion of the color wheel.


I'd like to experience some of the good old days of shooters again not because games were better back then, much of the design has moved on, but now days there is just a flood of games all using the same mechanics as each other with no variety or substance.

Resistance 3 was a breath of fresh air, old school style gameplay mixed with modern mechanics. The health system, however was imbalanced. They could've done more to make it work better, but overall though, i really enjoyed Resistance dispite a few questionable design decisions. The fact that you can carry all the weapons at once nearly made me tear up.

DNF is a good example of totally cocking up the "old school" approach by implementing the WRONG modern features. Firstly the regenerating health. This right away causes a problem; you can regenerate your health, so for some challenge we need to make the enemies do a lot more damage to keep the player from abusing the system. What happens? You are almost always sitting back behind cover while waiting for your health to regen before firing again. That's not Duke Nukem! I heard other ideas were that you needed to kill an enemy to regain health, THAT is Duke.
Then there's the 2 weapon limit. George Broussard in all his game design incompetence said they couldn't find a way to implement a weapon wheel effectively on consoles... Resistance 3 seemed to do it fine. So did HL2 years back. Moron.

Regen health and 2 weapon limit can and do work for some games like Call of Duty, Halo and Gears of War, but FFS let's try something a little different once in a while. But some developers use them as a development crutch; less testing, balancing and design required. Less effort in other words. Or they use it to make the game less complex, which is a bad thing. Ninja Gaiden is a good example. It seems to be going down a path of less and less substance, there's only the combat. This is terrible. The original game's store, upgrades, potions, rewards for exploration, non-linear main world all helped to pace the game better rather than an exhausting trudge through constant unrelenting combat seen in Ninja Gaiden 2 and from the sounds, even more so for the third game.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

Actually, my belief that gaming in general is a waste of time is an opinion. That you don't agree with that is your opinion. I gave my reasons, mainly being my own obsession with games and spending a good deal of my life playing them. Most of the gamers I have ever known also spend most of their life playing video games. The only gamers I know that don't are people like fuantum who are married and their wives won't tolerate it. Gaming addiction is a real problem..a huge problem..people die from it, relationships break down from it..I have a sister who hasn't left her room since world of warcraft came out. A gamers life shouldn't be glorified..it's actually rather pathetic. Just because you can simulate having other people around with multiplayer doesn't make it any better. Yes, gaming has had some cultural impact, but that doesn't prove anything to me. I think 99 percent of what culture produces is a gigantic waste of time..bread and circuses if you will. Matters of significance are never really spoken about because we are all too busy getting our entertainment fix.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
There you go again - the point wasn't that you expressed your opinion, it's that you think that games are a waste of time. Is reading a great novel or going to see a play a waste of time, too? And what makes you think that people who play games don't participate in the world in other ways? You miss the point too in that I wasn't claiming gamer cred, I was suggesting a list of games that are culturally significant to a greater or lesser extent. And, most importantly, you miss the point in that you believe this video endorses gaming "as a lifestyle", rather than being the fun celebration of games that it is.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I miss the point by expressing my opinion? I've played most of those games, and multiplayer gaming is basically all I did for many years. The point isn't that gaming isn't fun, it's that spending all of your time immersed in gaming is missing the point. The Earth is the world that is in trouble, and plenty of things need our help and attention. The real adventure is getting out there and doing something about it. If you want to talk about gamer cred, I have it..I personally contributed to games universally held to be some of the best of all time. I was in the arcade playing pac-man when I was four years old. So, it isn't a lack of experience that I say this. Like anything gaming is great in moderation, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle as this video suggests.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Dammit Shiny, why do you always have to miss the point? This video is awesome, and gaming is awesome, for the reasons the song says and more. Gone are the days when gaming was 'solitary'. Gaming is a shared experience now: you're losing out if you've never played Mario, or Portal, or GTA, or Angry Birds, or Call of Duty, or Sonic, or Monkey Island, or LittleBigPlanet, or Guitar Hero, or Left4Dead, or MineCraft, or even BeJeweled, dammit. And not just because of the multiplayer games on that list that are a literal shared experience, but because these are cultural touchstones, even if you play them by yourself. Everyone knows the Mario theme, and everyone knows the cake is a lie (or is it?). There are games out there that are so good that not playing them is like never seeing a production of Hamlet, reading To Kill a Mockingbird or hearing the White Album.

There you go again - the point wasn't that you expressed your opinion, it's that you think that games are a waste of time. Is reading a great novel or going to see a play a waste of time, too? And what makes you think that people who play games don't participate in the world in other ways? You miss the point too in that I wasn't claiming gamer cred, I was suggesting a list of games that are culturally significant to a greater or lesser extent. And, most importantly, you miss the point in that you believe this video endorses gaming "as a lifestyle", rather than being the fun celebration of games that it is.
>> ^shinyblurry:

How can I miss the point by expressing my opinion? I've played most of those games, and multiplayer gaming is basically all I did for many years. The point isn't that gaming isn't fun, it's that spending all of your time immersed in gaming is missing the point. The Earth is the world that is in trouble, and plenty of things need our help and attention. The real adventure is getting out there and doing something about it. If you want to talk about gamer cred, I have it..I personally contributed to games universally held to be some of the best of all time. I was in the arcade playing pac-man when I was four years old. So, it isn't a lack of experience that I say this. Like anything gaming is great in moderation, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle as this video suggests.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Dammit Shiny, why do you always have to miss the point? This video is awesome, and gaming is awesome, for the reasons the song says and more. Gone are the days when gaming was 'solitary'. Gaming is a shared experience now: you're losing out if you've never played Mario, or Portal, or GTA, or Angry Birds, or Call of Duty, or Sonic, or Monkey Island, or LittleBigPlanet, or Guitar Hero, or Left4Dead, or MineCraft, or even BeJeweled, dammit. And not just because of the multiplayer games on that list that are a literal shared experience, but because these are cultural touchstones, even if you play them by yourself. Everyone knows the Mario theme, and everyone knows the cake is a lie (or is it?). There are games out there that are so good that not playing them is like never seeing a production of Hamlet, reading To Kill a Mockingbird or hearing the White Album.

How can I miss the point by expressing my opinion? I've played most of those games, and multiplayer gaming is basically all I did for many years. The point isn't that gaming isn't fun, it's that spending all of your time immersed in gaming is missing the point. The Earth is the world that is in trouble, and plenty of things need our help and attention. The real adventure is getting out there and doing something about it. If you want to talk about gamer cred, I have it..I personally contributed to games universally held to be some of the best of all time. I was in the arcade playing pac-man when I was four years old. So, it isn't a lack of experience that I say this. Like anything gaming is great in moderation, but it shouldn't be a lifestyle as this video suggests.


>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Dammit Shiny, why do you always have to miss the point? This video is awesome, and gaming is awesome, for the reasons the song says and more. Gone are the days when gaming was 'solitary'. Gaming is a shared experience now: you're losing out if you've never played Mario, or Portal, or GTA, or Angry Birds, or Call of Duty, or Sonic, or Monkey Island, or LittleBigPlanet, or Guitar Hero, or Left4Dead, or MineCraft, or even BeJeweled, dammit. And not just because of the multiplayer games on that list that are a literal shared experience, but because these are cultural touchstones, even if you play them by yourself. Everyone knows the Mario theme, and everyone knows the cake is a lie (or is it?). There are games out there that are so good that not playing them is like never seeing a production of Hamlet, reading To Kill a Mockingbird or hearing the White Album.