[QUOTE=simkas;38629415]It's still pretty much a "hey you finished the game pick an ending" and the Black Ops 2 ending actually depends on choices you do trough the whole game.[/QUOTE]
and that is honestly not something Black Ops II invented. Games have been doing that for ages now. Silent Hill, like I said is one example.
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38629398]I've been a fan of Mass Effect since Mass Effect was nothing more than previews and trailers, and I can honestly say the Extended cut endings fixed everything I could want. It wasn't overly happy, people still died, and I thought the endings were actually pretty cool little metaphors for each leaders philosophies. Control was Cerberus, Destroy was the Alliance, Synthesis was the Reapers.
It was a neat ending.[/QUOTE]
i could argue with you about it and tell you that the new endings actually make less sense because of all the stuff they decided to add, and i could give you the low-down in terms of story writing about how the endings are still fanfiction.net-level trash, but you can read all that shit in the other past mass effect threads.
it doesnt really matter in the end because black ops ii is still a shit game and he's comparing it to "mass effect's ending" which is really dumb
[QUOTE=TheJoey;38629458]i could argue with you about it and tell you that the new endings actually make less sense because of all the stuff they decided to add, and i could give you the low-down in terms of story writing about how the endings are still fanfiction.net-level trash, but you can read all that shit in the other past mass effect threads.
it doesnt really matter in the end because black ops ii is still a shit game and he's comparing it to "mass effect's ending" which is really dumb[/QUOTE]
I'm sure we could, but we'd be derailing it :v
I'm willing to admit the original endings were a fucking backseat abortion in terms of quality, but I was happy with the fix.
Anyway yeah the other guy defending black ops 2
come on man
why
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38629476]
Anyway yeah the other guy defending black ops 2
come on man
why[/QUOTE]
Maybe you could play the game before running your mouth off about things you know nothing about
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
But oh no CoD is for privileged retarded white 12 year olds I'd NEVER touch that game!!
[QUOTE=Jund;38629657]Maybe you could play the game before running your mouth off about things you know nothing about
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
But oh no CoD is for privileged retarded white 12 year olds I'd NEVER touch that game!![/QUOTE]
actually i played it and still thought it was shit. also currently playing the multiplayer with a friend but i'm not really sure why, will probably stop. crappy unlock system that is nothing but the rich getting richer, you get run over by everyone using the "overpowered" and just downright better guns with better attachments, better perks, better wild cards, because they played the game longer. i can play for just as long as them and never get what they have because i will be losing far more often due to being way behind everyone else.
you also die very quickly which is just like all the other call of duty games, which is just not what i like in a multiplayer shooter.
dont get me started on how horrible the lag compensation is as i watch kill cams of dudes shooting circles and figure eights around my character and somehow landing every single bullet.
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38629398][B]Synthesis was the Reapers.[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, Synthesis seemed to be more like Saren's philosophy; didn't he say that merging organics and synthetics would benefit the galaxy back in ME1? My guess is that if Saren was remembered more, like if ME2 happened before ME1 and Saren was your ally in that scenario before he got indoctrinated by Sovereign, making us more attached to that particular villain, then I guess that Shepard would remember what Saren said over the course of ME3.
Maybe in those crazy dream-sequences, Shepard would imagine a ghostly "mentor" Saren talking to him in that dark forest, a merger of his "trusted ally" phase and his "vanguard of the Reapers" phase, talking about the concepts of Synthesis like how the Alliance advocates Destruction and Cerberus recommends Control, making that particular option seem less of an ass-pull in an ending sequence that was essentially a string of large multicoloured beads being yanked out of Starkid's butt.
Erm, don't take that last bit out of context please.
Oh golly, my little brother bought this game for his box of x two weeks ago, and I can personally confirm that everything he says in that video is right on the money.
Nothing fucking makes sense, I had to read the plot from the wiki to get any idea what it was all about.
[QUOTE=Jund;38629657]Maybe you could play the game before running your mouth off about things you know nothing about
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
But oh no CoD is for privileged retarded white 12 year olds I'd NEVER touch that game!![/QUOTE]
Never said that last point, you feeling insecure about yourself there?
I'd never touch it cause it's kind of a shitty game
it's boring
Modern shooters are flat out boring linear sight-seeing experiences with pop up cover to shoot at all those pesky darkies! >:(
I prefer my games to be you know, fun, and not just crazy paranoid gun wanking
I heard Far Cry 3 is the polar opposite of Plops 2; some berk called Far Cry 3 "Skyr1m with gunz *d3rp*", but it seems more like Skyrim but GOOD. Regardless, the Far Cry games seem to be a bit loopy as a franchise; the second was seemingly unrelated to the first, and the third seems to carry on the trend of being totally disconnected plotwise from the first and second, though the emphasis of being crazy to survive in a crazy world is a cool concept.
[QUOTE=ironman17;38630524]I heard Far Cry 3 is the polar opposite of Plops 2; some berk called it "Skyr1m with gunz *d3rp*", but it seems more like Skyrim but GOOD.[/QUOTE]
Very interested in Far Cry 3. Seems what a shooter should be. Fast paced genocidal fun, with lots of exploration and hunting, none of that being hand held down a hallway.
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38630535]Very interested in Far Cry 3. Seems what a shooter should be. Fast paced genocidal fun, with lots of exploration and hunting, none of that being hand held down a hallway.[/QUOTE]
I must agree Farcry 3 looks pretty good, although I didn't particularly enjoy Farcry 2 (not at all saying it's a bad game), I really wish they make another game linking from the first game, the predator shit was fucking great (For both single player and multiplayer)
I was wondering when he was going to get to the multiplayer, then I remembered he doesn't review CoD for the entire reason CoD exists. Oops.
Yeah the singleplayer isn't as bad as he says, but it's not particularly good either. It starts off well then tanks after you go into literal Berzerker Mendez mode, making a believable, relateable antagonist into nothing more than a cartoon character.
The Strike Force missions aren't amazing but they did add multiple ending choices and the ability to take in whatever guns you want, so it's a little more freeform, but the basic gameplay is the same: rush through a firing range shooting pop up targets and watch setpieces explode.
It did take me 6 hours to beat and I'll probably run through it again for a better ending but at this point I'm sure everyone knows the games exist for their multiplayer component.
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38629278]
I will, however say Spec Ops the line really showed everyone what's what when it comes to modern shooters[/QUOTE]
No it didn't. The story was an okay, incredibly overhyped riff on Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now and the writing was good but compared to CoD/BF/MoH any writing would seem great. But the gameplay was just as barebones, scripted, boring and trivial as any other modern day military shooter. Gunplay did absolutely nothing interesting, enemy types had nearly no variety, squad commands were boring, movement was slow and jerky.
Uncharted as the poster child for what a third person shooter should be? I have no problems with that, Uncharted is a legitimately great series. But Spec Ops The Line has garnered far too much credit, getting away with wholly generic gameplay because it has story and writing that's slightly higher on the rung than "absolutely nonexistant" as compared to most of the genre.
I loved the campaign in BLOPS ll :(
Call of Duty, more like Call of [B]DOODY[/B]. [sp]i'll be here all week[/sp]
"...I honestly can't be arsed to speculate what level of irony we may or may not be operating on..."
~5:02
That had me in stitches.. :v:
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38631020]
No it didn't. The story was an okay, incredibly overhyped riff on Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now and the writing was good but compared to CoD/BF/MoH any writing would seem great. But the gameplay was just as barebones, scripted, boring and trivial as any other modern day military shooter. Gunplay did absolutely nothing interesting, enemy types had nearly no variety, squad commands were boring, movement was slow and jerky.
Uncharted as the poster child for what a third person shooter should be? I have no problems with that, Uncharted is a legitimately great series. But Spec Ops The Line has garnered far too much credit, getting away with wholly generic gameplay because it has story and writing that's slightly higher on the rung than "absolutely nonexistant" as compared to most of the genre.[/QUOTE]
If you think that the point of The Line was purely to be "Apocalypse Now, but in a videogame" you've missed the point. The game's main point is to bring to light the moral issues inherent in the shooter genre, both for the protagonists we play as and the players themselves. If you note the slow descent into madness that Captain Walker goes on during the progression of the game, you'll also note at the start of the game, when he is at his most composed and sane, he the most unlike a typical shooter protagonist, it's only when he's really reached the bottom of the barrel at the end, after committing numerous atrocities, that he becomes a more familiar protagonist, reminiscent of the trash-talking, machismo-riddled characters of Gears of War.
Also the generic gameplay is completely on purpose, its used as a sucker punch, to lure players into a false sense of security, before the game pulls the rug out from underneath them. The gameplay reflects the mental state of Captain Walker, if you notice the animations for actions change over the course of the game, becoming more and more animalistic and vulgar.
It's a much deeper game than you give it credit for and [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8]it's[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJZIhcCA2lk]not[/url] [url=http://stolenprojects.com/]only[/url] me that has taken away this deeper meaning from the game, heck even Yahtzee picked up on this message.
[QUOTE=The Stills;38631341]If you think that the point of The Line was purely to be "Apocalypse Now, but in a videogame" you've missed the point. The game's main point is to bring to light the moral issues inherent in the shooter genre, both for the protagonists we play as and the players themselves. If you note the slow descent into madness that Captain Walker goes on during the progression of the game, you'll also note at the start of the game, when he is at his most composed and sane, he the most unlike a typical shooter protagonist, it's only when he's really reached the bottom of the barrel at the end, after committing numerous atrocities, that he becomes a more familiar protagonist, reminiscent of the trash-talking, machismo-riddled characters of Gears of War.
Also the generic gameplay is completely on purpose, its used as a sucker punch, to lure players into a false sense of security, before the game pulls the rug out from underneath them. The gameplay reflects the mental state of Captain Walker, if you notice the animations for actions change over the course of the game, becoming more and more animalistic and vulgar.
It's a much deeper game than you give it credit for and [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjaBsuXWJJ8"]it's[/URL] [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJZIhcCA2lk"]not[/URL] [URL="http://stolenprojects.com/"]only[/URL] me that has taken away this deeper meaning from the game, heck even Yahtzee picked up on this message.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've missed the point at all, I'm just not buying into theory that it's actually an incredibly clever riff on other modern military shooters. I genuinely believe that they got a decent story, and some comparatively good writing together than fit it to the cheapest, easiest to make third person shooter mechanics that they could get.
If the argument is that it showed what the genre could do as far as storytelling, writing, and characters? Yeah, okay, I can get on board with that. Even as a Heart of Darkness spinoff (the devs have said numerous times that this was their intention, so I have missed no points with that analysis) it was far more interesting than "Small squad of Americans/British save the day by killing untold amounts of Russians or Arabs". But the gameplay did nothing to further the shooter genre, literally nothing. The gameplay of Spec Ops had absolutely nothing that we haven't seen done, or even done better, in any other third person shooter. It wasn't terrible, it wasn't even worse than CoD or Battlefield, games which vastly outsold Spec Ops. It just wasn't noteworthy.
So when someone puts the game on a pedestal and says that should be how modern military shooters are made, I disagree.
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
Also your theory falls apart when you realize that even after all the shit goes down the gameplay doesn't actually change. You are still taking cover, shooting people with M4s, throwing grenades, having rail shooting sections, and doing everything every other FPS/TPS has done for the last 10 years.
The change in character personality is neat, I genuinely like that, but that isn't gameplay.
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
Finished part 1 of the EC video and I don't understand why you can't devaluate it as a bad Call of Duty game. Why are we allowed to tear apart of the gameplay of literally every game ever but as soon as The Line delivers a story worth writing about we suddenly assume that the mediocre gameplay is on purpose to point out the flaws in other shooters? Why can't it just be mediocre gameplay? Is it not enough to say that the game is a by the numbers third person shooter that happens to touch on a lot of themes most games don't? I'm not making the connection that lets it go criticized.
I think The Line is actually far from being the best modern military shooter, in the sense that's not really trying to be one in the same way that Call of Duty or Battlefield is.
It's like saying that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is the best example of an old school John Wayne style western, yeah it's a damn good movie, but you've put it in the wrong category and actually missed the point of the movie. The comparison between The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (i.e. Spaghetti Westerns) and old John Wayne westerns is actually quite similar to the distinction between the aims of The Line and typical modern military shooters. Both The Line and Spaghetti Westerns came as a kind of contemplation on the ethics behind their respective predecessors and contemporaries.
But to actually want The Line to have "better mechanics", I feel would lessen the impact of its message, as having gameplay that's actually interesting would go more to glorify the shooter genre rather than cast in a introspective, critical light.
I wouldn't say The Line is an excellent game (by the metrics that a shooter typically judged by, its kind of dull) but I would say its an interesting and important game, one that the shooter genre needs. And that would be why its one of my favourite games of this year.
[editline]28th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE]Finished part 1 of the EC video and I don't understand why you can't devaluate it as a bad Call of Duty game. Why are we allowed to tear apart of the gameplay of literally every game ever but as soon as The Line delivers a story worth writing about we suddenly assume that the mediocre gameplay is on purpose to point out the flaws in other shooters? Why can't it just be mediocre gameplay? Is it not enough to say that the game is a by the numbers third person shooter that happens to touch on a lot of themes most games don't? I'm not making the connection that lets it go criticized.[/QUOTE]
When analysing a game, you have to see how the gameplay and the narrative work together to create a cohesive whole, I don't necessarily agree with how much emphasis Extra Credits put on the way the two interplay (a lot of their videos actually do seem to focus on it) but I do recognise it is an important factor consider when analysing a game.
To me, it wasn't so much that the bland gameplay forces some kind of uncanny valley effect like they assume in the Extra Credit analysis, it was so to serve as the typical, almost archetypal example of a shooter. By doing so the game can then set up the whole big twist that it reveals at the White Phosphorus event in the game and finally explains after many more arduous and demoralising sequences in the final cutscene with Konrad. I think this also explains the generic advertising and presentation of the game, it was to entice those familiar with the genre and enamoured with it, to come to this game expecting something that they'd enjoy with typical enthusiasm, when they actually get the game pointing the mirror at them and saying "This is what these games make you do, are you okay with that?"
Interesting, yes, important? Eh. I still haven't been convinced that the gunplay is mediocre on purpose to cast light on other military shooters. It's not a bad game by any means and considering the budget the game was presumably made on they made a pretty damn comparable game to ones like BF3 and CoD which have hugely more resources backing them. That part of EC I agree with. And I certainly wouldn't be sad to see a The Line sequel.
I made fun of Spec Ops when I first saw trailers for it, I said "Oh great, another realistic shooter set in the middle east. COOL STUFF"
and then after playing it I had to sit in the shower for an hour
[QUOTE=The Stills;38631553]
When analysing a game, you have to see how the gameplay and the narrative work together to create a cohesive whole, I don't necessarily agree with how much emphasis Extra Credits put on the way the two interplay (a lot of their videos actually do seem to focus on it) but I do recognise it is an important factor consider when analysing a game.
To me, it wasn't so much that the bland gameplay forces some kind of uncanny valley effect like they assume in the Extra Credit analysis, it was so to serve as the typical, almost archetypal example of a shooter. By doing so the game can then set up the whole big twist that it reveals at the White Phosphorus event in the game and finally explains after many more arduous and demoralising sequences in the final cutscene with Konrad. I think this also explains the generic advertising and presentation of the game, it was to entice those familiar with the genre and enamoured with it, to come to this game expecting something that they'd enjoy with typical enthusiasm, when they actually get the game pointing the mirror at them and saying "This is what these games make you do, are you okay with that?"[/QUOTE]
Alright, this convinced me. I'm going to replay the game with this in mind. Thanks for the links and insight.
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38630428]Never said that last point, you feeling insecure about yourself there?
[/quote]Seeing as how I'm none of those things, no I am not
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38630428]I'd never touch it cause it's kind of a shitty game
it's boring[/quote]
I applaud your gift of supernatural insight
Schrodinger's cat has nothing on you
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38630428]Modern shooters are flat out boring linear sight-seeing experiences with pop up cover to shoot at all those pesky darkies! >:([/quote]
It must be mindblowing how people can enjoy linear sightseeing experiences with pop up cover to shoot at all those pesky [del]space[/del] terrorists
[QUOTE=Sardonus;38630428]I prefer my games to be you know, fun, and not just crazy paranoid gun wanking[/QUOTE]
Gun wank is a meaningless term coined a guy who makes comedy video game critiques
Chivalry is a decapitation wank
Skyrim is a beard wank
etc
[editline]29th November 2012[/editline]
Blops 2 has a lot of faults and is far from being a masterpiece
Doesn't mean you should talk out of your ass though
I still don't get why we argue about this, it's fun and great when you are in need for a trigger happy game
I agree with some points of this video but to round it all up, it's fun, and you have to choice to purchase it or not
At least congratulate treyarch on their efforts with the PC version though
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38634904]The game forced you to use white phosphorous and then punished and insulted you for it.
It's not neither innovative nor good game design. It's a half-assed attempt at trying to blame the player for actually playing the game the way devs wanted it to be played. If there were any choices in the matter, it would have been wholesomely acceptable, but it's a linear corridor shooter that berates you for playing it exactly as the devs intended you to.[/QUOTE]
The developers supposedly did that on purpose, so you'd be angry with them for not giving you a choice in much the same way that Walker is angry with Konrad for forcing him into that situation. Make of that what you will.
Also, a couple of theories explain the lack of choice. For one, it's implied that Walker was already kind of crazy before he got to Willie Pete due to the incident in Kabul, and he, being the axe-crazy bastard that he is, doesn't see any solution other than bombing the fuck out of the 33rd with the white phosphorous. This, of course, leads to the civilians dying horribly, which totally shatters his protagonist-centered morality.
It's also possible that Walker's has been dead since the helicopter crash in the prologue and is either reliving the events in his head or is stuck in some kind of limbo, in which case you wouldn't be able to choose anything other than using the mortar as that wouldn't lead to his breakdown and death. None of the choices you make in the game affect the overall story, so this one is backed up a bit and is the one that the developers themselves subscribe to.
Again, make of that what you will.
[QUOTE=BlkDucky;38627911]They're more like first impressions than actual reviews. They're not reviews either, he's just making jokes.
Generally though, he knows what he's talking about. It's not like they're without basis, his points are all valid.[/QUOTE]The "tower defense" bit is as far from tower defense as you get.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38634904]The game forced you to use white phosphorous and then punished and insulted you for it.
It's not neither innovative nor good game design. [b]It's a half-assed attempt at trying to blame the player for actually playing the game the way devs wanted it to be played.[/b] If there were any choices in the matter, it would have been wholesomely acceptable, but it's a linear corridor shooter that berates you for playing it exactly as the devs intended you to.[/QUOTE]
Good job pointing out the exact point the devs were trying to make. They're saying that it is not only the devs fault or the players or the protagonists fault for what actions happen in the game, it is a collaborative effort. The Line does not chastise anyone for the way shooters are today, in fact that would be highly hypocritical seeing that it is a shooter itself. It merely wishes to expose and explain the workings behind what actions are actually involved in the plots and mechanics of shooters, and the ethical and moral problems that follow. After explaining all of this, it asks the player "Are you sure these are the types of games you want to play? Can't you see that Captain Walker is a broken man? Do you really want to play as him (or any other shooter protagonist?)?"
Also the player does have a choice, he has a choice the whole time. To not play the game.
[QUOTE=The Stills;38635690]Also the player does have a choice, he has a choice the whole time. To not play the game.[/QUOTE]
I paid good money for this shit you bet your fucking ass I'm going to play this game
I stopped watching when the video became Yahtzee telling me to check my privilege
holy shit, did anita sarkeesian visit his home or something
[QUOTE=Marbalo;38634904]The game forced you to use white phosphorous and then punished and insulted you for it.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to games that force you to use the proverbial white phosphorous (gunships, drones), then praise and award you for killing dozens of people at once who couldn't retaliate even if they knew where you were.
That entire scene had me sighing up until it came time to walk through the aftermath of what I'd done because it was one of those ridiculous missions where you're commanding or supported by the most sophisticated, deadly technology in conventional warfare while fighting against a rabble of peasants with AKs and RPGs. You stop being vulnerable in a way that was already beggaring belief and become this omnipotent camera in the sky which can click on white blobs below and make them disappear. It's just another checkbox on the list of essential shooter components, along with rail shooting and killing player characters for emotional torque. Then you have to stroll over the burned, dismembered bodies of the people you killed.
Probably helps that I didn't know anything about it other than being "the white phosphorous scene" before playing it.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;38639634]I just don't like the COD games because I find them to be extremely boring.
Funny how that a fast-paced action game can be called "boring" by me when a slower game like "The Walking Dead" could be called my favorite game of the year. It's not how fast-paced it is. It's how much the player actually gives a shit.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the singleplayer or the multiplayer?
Because the singleplayer yeah I'd agree (though blops 2 does break new ground in making me care a little bit more than not at all) but the games are kinda based around the multiplayer with the campaigns being tutorials and setting setup.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
