Another year, another Call of Duty, another surprisingly good game

Although the campaign begins with Activision’s usual “hey, we’re going to get super edgy and we might offend you!” disclaimer, Black Ops II is an almost entirely harmless war story, except for a few grim burn victims. Okay, so a skyscraper collapses. But it’s free of any civilian massacres or conspicuously killed children. Pretty much everyone who gets killed deserves it.

After the jump, world conquest, undead mass transit, and bronze leagues

The plot is a mostly typical supervillain-gets-revenge-on-teh-world yarn. Like the original Black Ops, it alternates between the past and present. Well, in this case, the past and near future. By bopping between the 80s and 2025, the boyishly yee-haw action maintains a peppy half Rambo, half Clancy schizophrenia with a splash of Crysisesque chrome. The futuristic stuff snaps the towel just enough to keep it from feeling like a rehash. It even connects to the first Black Ops, just in case you actually remember any of that story.

Sam Worthington’s voice is back, again hilariously miscast as an American. Michael Rooker and Tony Todd lend their faces and voices to the game, and they’re both a welcome presence. Tony Todd has to be the goofiest admiral this side of Alan Hale. I kept waiting on him to chest bump me after a mission. I know he wanted to. And Michael Rooker is exactly the guy I want by my side if I have to shoot a few hundred bad guys. Late in the game, he lets loose with a hearty, “Fuck yeah!” It is the greatest B-list celebrity encouragement since David Cross’ “Seriously, sir, that was awesome” in Halo 2. In a surprising advance for equal opportunity, there are more than twice the usual number of women in this Call of Duty, which features a pilot who will need you to cover her shift, a nagging wife you hear inside a house, an 80s hacker chick who accidentally finds her way into the 2025 storyline, and a McGuffin. Also the President, who is Hillary Clinton in everything but name, is a chick.

Although the shooting and spectacle are familiar, many of the levels have a welcome amount of openness, or at least left or right wiggle room. The concept of using a slot to equip an “access kit” lets Treyarch play with optional doo-dads and gimmicks. Now that Call of Duty no longer relies on cheap tricks like infinite spawns and pushing you into enemy fire to hit a trigger point, the cinematic presentation is as relaxed as ever in the pursuit of easy thrills. Unfortunately, occasional optional strategy levels, called Strike Force missions, are mostly awful. These AI players are far too braindead to pretend at RTSing.

But the best thing about this Call of Duty campaign is how Treyarch designs around the traditional once-and-done structure. Previously, replay value relied on you being a masochist willing to eat facefuls of grenades on the harder difficulty levels. As a replayable game with scoring, challenges, and unlocks, Black Ops 2 is on the right track to keep the single player relevant after a first playthrough. If you want a better score, or if you intend to finish certain challenges, you’re going to have to play Black Ops II like a game instead of an interactive movie. I particularly like how the scoring is clearly explained after each level. This makes it all the more galling that you can’t check the challenges while you’re playing the game. And it’s also annoying that you can’t skip the long stretches of cinematic hoo-ha that have no bearing on the gameplay. I don’t want to have to hang out in the backyard and have a manly beer with the guys every time I want to beat my friend’s score in the Panamanian invasion mission.

Because you get to pick your loadout before a mission, much like when you play multiplayer, you can bring different toys into missions, particularly when you’re replaying them after having unlocked more goodies. Okay, so the gameplay is a bit too loosey-goosey to make many of the more nuanced toys matter. It’s kind of cute how Treyarch pretends that the same detail that drives the multiplayer might conceivably make a difference in their single-player Hollywoodized hoedown. It’s the thought that counts. But the real difference comes from the advanced scopes and explosives. A folding stock? A suppressor? Whatever. Now I have a grenade launcher ho ho ho.

And if you care one iota about the plot — there are actually a few things in here worth caring about — the branching storylines will leave you wondering “what if?”. These “what if’s?” are drawn with the same broad strokes that gave Alpha Protocol its replayability. I’m not sure what ending you’ll get, but I felt my ending was well worth the playthrough (at least until the post-ending ending, at which point I have to wonder if Treyarch is just laughing at us all the way to the bank).

Although I really miss Modern Warfare 3′s dedicated co-op multiplayer, which included the superlative horde mode and some spectacular reinterpretations of the single-player game (“Fall back to the Burger Town!”), Black Ops II’s more developed zombie mode is a fine consolation prize. The familiar zombie killing spreads out admirably in “tranzit” mode, with a bus running a route among four maps scattered with inventory puzzle pieces. Over successive DLC packs, the previous zombie modes got increasingly complex (i.e. inscrutable) and tranzit brings focus to the sprawl. The new grief mode, which supports up to eight players divided into two teams, is a welcome bit of new chaos and competition. Also, I couldn’t be happier that those infernal dogs are turned off by default. I’m happy to see zombie mode can be always and only about actual zombies. And the occasional laser gun.

You mostly know what to expect from the competitive multiplayer by now. A lot of running around, with an emphasis on getting quickly to the shooting bits. It’s traditional run-and-gun at its carefully calculated more-actions-per-minute adrenaline-fueled best. Some modes and game types excepted. As you’d expect, the integration with Elite is much smoother than it was this time last year. The new loadouts that limit players to ten doo-dads force hard choices and flexibility, which is a much better way to reward progression than the previous system of leveling up your favorite perks. You still have to grind your favorite guns to earn the accessories, but since accessories count against your ten slots, gun grinding doesn’t subvert the new system so much as play neatly into it.

And bravo to Activision for their willingness to divorce Call of Duty from the RPG unlockable system that arguably made it so successful. Previously, you could set up custom matches, which let you use everything in the game. Black Ops II goes further with this concept by introducing leagues. Because you have access to every single doo-dad in league matches — the ten-item limit on loadouts comes into play very prominently here — the idea is that the multiplayer is more about skill than unlockables, more about getting better than grinding, more about practicing than persisting. And since you’re playing against similarly ranked players, the idea is that you’re going to be fairly matched. Ideally, as with the league play in Starcraft II, this should mean that you win half the matches. I think. We’ll see how that goes. After losing four of my five placement matches in the 4v4 series because teammates dropped out (at least that’s what I’m telling myself), I’ll be playing that season in the bronze division. It’s as bad as it sounds, but that’s absolutely where I belong. However, for some strange reason, I was put in the gold division for the 6v6 series. Is there some way to appeal the decision? I think someone has made a terrible mistake. But however it turns out, Activision has the right idea. There are enough of us playing Call of Duty that the little kids who don’t play so rough should get our own side of the playground.

And speaking of us little kids, I really miss the old killstreak rewards that didn’t reset your killstreak when you died. The new system, called scorestreak, rewards you for quotidian activities like capturing flags, occupying headquarters, planting bombs, and other things that actually win matches. But it reverts to the old ways of taking away all your progress when you die! As someone who dies a lot, this means I won’t get to fly quad drones, call in superjet bombing runs, set up that pulse turret thing, or summon a stealth helicopter very often, if at all. In theory, this should balance out when I’m playing my fellow bronze leaguers. But like the emphasis on a player’s kill/death ratio (don’t ask), Black Ops II still subtly pushes everyone into a deathmatch mentality. I suppose you’re just going to have to play Battlefield 3 if you want to take the “me” out of “team”.

But minor objections about design decisions aside, Black Ops II is another great shooter in a year of great shooters. It’s a competent, confident, generous package, true to its core values, but with enough new to carve out its own identity, enough variety to appeal to a wide range of players, and enough content to belong on your shelf for more than just a quick playthrough. This is the way to do a yearly installment without just phoning it in.

4 stars
Xbox 360

  • mygaffer

    Way to go Tom, bringing down the metacritic score with your 80%. You know that is pretty much a C+, I can’t believe you give this game such a low score.

    /i keed

  • http://twitter.com/jdhas jdhas

    Cue the angry vitriol from all 5 of the players who remember being offended by the Halo 4 review .

  • Cam

    Halo 4 is better…

  • http://www.facebook.com/AndrewDNG Andrew Dng Gomes

    This is worth 4 out of 5 despite being basically a revamped (good) game for several years (nothing wrong with that, i love the series) and halo 4 is worth 1 out of 5 for being basically a revamped (good) game for several years.
    That’s what i call consistency :)

  • Tim James

    Haha, unskippable cutscenes.

  • Jack

    Lol this shit got 4/5
    but halo 4 got 1/5
    What a joke

  • RedHerb

    I was really impressed with the strike force missions until it became apparent that the AI was useless and control scheme was clunks-ville. I like that it was at least an attempt to mix up the usually formula of corridor explod-o-gami + the “follow my lead” level. “Hello my name is Micheal Rooker and I’ll be your level guide for this mission: – stay, duck, run, snipe the dude on the left”

    Another game which this reminded me of is the recent Ghost recon:future something something. That game is a dry stale example of how not to do exactly with BlOps2 is doing. With one exception, if you press tab in Ghost recon, it comes up with your challenge progress and when you complete a challenge it pops up and tells you. BlOps2 keeps it all hidden away till you reach the end, where upon you have dig through the menu to find out how you did. I like that stuff BlOps2 don’t be ashamed of it please.

  • ForReal

    I know, this site seems to be eating lots of drugs and hate good games and love bad games.

  • CB

    Sometimes this site eats a lot of games and loves bad drugs and hates good drugs.

    Pretty crazy, I know.

  • Jigglez777

    Wow your a horrible critic. You said Halo 4 was just the same exact thing as previous games,,and that was the main premise of your argument, and you give this a 4, really, I mean really. Do you even play any of the games you “critic”.

  • Barac Wiley

    But if you take the “me” out of “team” you just get “ta”. :(

  • pharmassist

    this is just ridiculous.
    halo 4 1 star and this recycle piece of media- 4 stars??

  • KIRBYdaDOG

    HAHA COD fanboy predictably eats up recycled crap because hes a COD FPS noob and thinks this game that is 10 years outdated is fresh and cool. He just wants to be one of the cool kids and explosions and swear words appeal to taste less 12 year olds.

    ohh no surprise that you didnt mention drivable vehicles in your halo “review” yet you go on and on in this one about how you cant wait to call in vehicles that kill stuff for you. If they added a gun where the bullets tracked and automatically killed people even if you shoot at the ground then people would give this a 10 and call it innovation and accessibility.

    AHAHHAHA noob predictably eats the crap they shovel right up. YUM YUM YUM< give me more of that cutting edge modified quake 3 engine gaming bliss.

  • this site sux

    wow. now i knew why you gave halo 1 star you just looking for attention. gg reviewers gg

  • Srsly4real

    This is mindblowing, Halo 4 a solid shooter with great story for the fans and it’s own unique gamestyle which actually makes a difference inbetween all the mainstream modern shooters nowaydays. I didnt bother comment on the last review because I sincerly thought that you might be one of those gamers who really dont enjoy shooters, but now I just think that your score was a personal detest against the Halo franchise… That metacritic actually takes this site serious enough to add your scores amazes me, this is the second time I’v been here and there will be no third visit. And the nerve to link your review of Halo 4 at the end to compare as a halfbaked quick cash from 343 is pretty insulting considering they probably used twice the time making the game and considerations of what to implement in the game… Seriously, it makes me sick just thinking what kind of guy you are behind that screen watching these comments.

  • a fat mess

    You give Halo 4 one star and you give this turd four stars? Either you are retarded or you are doing this to get traffic on your stupid site. No credibility whatsoever.

  • tomchick

    Dry and stale? You’re making me not want to try the new Ghost Recon. I have it here and keep meaning to spend some time with it. Do you think there’s anything worthwhile about it, or would you recommend just skipping it?

  • tomchick

    Well, an 80% on the 7-9 scale is like a 5, which is a 50% on the 1-10 scale, which rounds up to 3 stars on a 1-5 star scale, which means, uh, I must have been paid off by Sony. Or is it Nintendo? I forget.

  • tomchick

    Rawr, angry Halo fans are still here! I thought you guys would leave. Welcome back. Please read and comment on my iOS reviews, too. And support Qt3 by doing your Christmas shopping through our Amazon.com search box. Kthnxbye!

  • thebigJ_A

    *ahem*

    “you’re” not “your”
    “critique” not “critic”

    You also seem to have no idea when to end one sentence and begin another. You can’t just string a series of thoughts between commas like that.

  • thebigJ_A

    If you’d just stop putting scores, the infants would stop infecting this site. You’d also stop contributing to the blight on the gaming industry that is Metacritic.

    It wouldn’t hurt those of us who actually read the text, since the number is pretty irrelevant at that point.

    The value of putting a score on a review is debatable even in the best circumstances. With the way things stand (at least with the non-indie games) it actively harms.

    Just sayin’.

  • thebigJ_A

    oh, the irony.

    Here’s a hint, when you use “retarded” as an insult, you destroy your own credibility. Thus, the irony in your passing judgement on the credibility of others.

    “Turd” doesn’t quite destroy your cred the same way “retarded” did, but it does confirm certain suspicions about the sort of gamer you are.

  • RedHerb

    There’s a neat little tactical/puzzle element. You sneak, fly a little drone around, scout and tag enemies you can pick off Splinter cell conviction “mark and execute” style.

    It’s not really a robust enough of tactical challenge though, in the end it feels a bit like Jenga. :) You pick off of enemy groups and hope it doesn’t collapsing in the chaos of a firefight.

    I think I was wanting more Rainbow 6 tactical combat, especially coming from developer Red storm and also as I was just coming off playing a ton XCom.

  • Joseph Shaffer

    That’s what I call an opinion…

  • http://twitter.com/StevenBeargal Jarenth

    Huh. So it’s actually somewhat good? Colour me surprised. I’ll keep an eye out for a lull in my gaming schedule, then.

    Third paragraph typo warning: ” Late in the game, he’s lets loose…

  • Raam

    This guy shouldn’t review games, its as simple as that. I don’t mind black ops 2 getting 4 stars, despite it basically being a map pack with a new campaign, it is a well made game with sound mechanics. Halo 4 gets 1 star though and the main criticism of the game was that it was that it was similar to previous games, it had next to no bugs in the game a good story and good mechanics as well as sound. Assasins Creed 3 you gave 5 stars and it is filled to the brim with bugs. This has to be a desperate cry out for traffic because you should not be reviewing games and metacritic should not be using your trash website.

  • Joseph Shaffer

    I’m betting more than half (and I’m being gentle) of the people who whine about reviews in general don’t even read them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AndrewDNG Andrew Dng Gomes

    I’m ok with opinions. I’m even ok with completely biased opinions, as long as they don’t appear on sites like metacritic and gamerankings that people use to help them buy their games.
    A review should be fair and above all (in my opinion) have some common sense.
    Many of the reviews on this “site” lack those 2 qualities.

  • http://larsenb.tumblr.com Larsen B

    If you don’t use Metacritic to give you buying advice, then why do you care?

    People on the Internet always go mad at reviews they don’t agree with “on behalf” of other people. Those other people actually couldn’t care less.

  • http://larsenb.tumblr.com Larsen B

    Who knew the fanbases between Halo and Call of Duty were embroiled in some bizarre war and are both as childish and immature as each other?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-McMaster/607680289 Jason McMaster

    Every year I tell myself I’m not going to buy the new COD and then I always do. It’s a step in the right direction and it’s a very generous package of a game with a ton of content.

  • Robotlazer

    Given that I read reviews of games more out of a sense of curiosity towards someone else’s opinion, and not as a validation of whether or not I should purchase a game, I am genuinely curious as to why you loved BLOPS2 and not Halo 4. I’ve been reading QT3 for a long time, mostly because I find your opinions and they way you write interesting. My reaction is usually “Huh, I never thought of it like that, but I agree.” or “Tom Chick is completely insane.” Either way, it’s good reading. And I enjoy the snark.

    But the two separate reviews read remarkably similar, with a weary feeling to the prose. And yet, one ended with the conclusion that similarity led to boredom, while the other led to the conclusion that similarity led to fun despite itself. Is it a simple matter of “Hey, I just like the COD style of FPS more?” Was Halo 4 approached with a more critical eye due to it’s pedigree and 343? I even went back and reread the Halo 4 review to compare it to this one, and was left scratching my head about how similar the two reviews are, and yet they are opposite sides of the coin. Reviews from you have always been largely about the feel of a game, the experience of experiencing it rather than the technicalities – maybe that’s the simple answer? One experience was positive and the other was negative, no other explanation necessary. But a greater explanation would certainly be interesting. Always nice to get inside the mind of a good critic.

    If you deign to reply, then great! If not, I’ll just keep playing my games and carrying on.

  • Robotlazer

    Addendum: Perhaps it’s the scoring. That’s one of the noticeable differences in the reviews. BLOPS2 has points, Halo 4 does not.

  • tomchick

    Mr. Lazer, I can’t really explain it much beyond what I’ve written in the two reviews. They’re certainly similar in that they’re written by the same person, but I can assure you he holds differing opinions about each game. :)

    To recap, I’d say Halo 4 lost a lot of what I liked about the previous games, and didn’t offer anything better in its place. It felt like an unimaginative reiteration, whereas the campaign in Black Ops II did some cool new things in terms of gameplay, setting, storytelling, and overall design. It even tried something slightly risky (the RTS missions). In terms of multiplayer, I felt that Halo sacrificed a good deal of its identity by catering to the Call of Duty metality, while the multiplayer in Black Ops II basically refined its identity, and furthermore opened itself up to a new approach with the league system (which, ironically, it similar to how Halo used to work!). Halo 4 lost it’s main co-op feature (firefight), whereas Black Ops II fleshed out its main co-op feature (zombies).

    Overall, I’d say Halo 4 felt lazy and half-hearted, but Black Ops 2 still has a healthy amount of creative energy.

  • tomchick

    That’s one of a few examples of how the Black Ops II campaign has advanced, and the Halo 4 campaign is a step backwards.

  • tomchick

    Cheers for the typo correction, Jarenth!

  • tomchick

    I like scores! But I’m not clear what you mean when you say “it actively harms”. Harms what? And how does it harm it?

    Metacritic, like any aggregate, is only as good as the data fed into it. I’d rather opt in to an aggregate to make it a better tool.

  • Quarter To Pee

    This site needs to be taken off of the “Trusted” critics list on Metacritic. I’m so sick of this poor excuse of a critic. BlOps 2 is basically the same call of duty we’ve seen for the past few years. They added incremental updates to this game and then release it with a 60$ price tag AND it still gets a 4/5? Really? Halo 4 actually innovated and changed a lot from Halo: Reach (create loadouts, perks, ect.) and it gets a 1/5? I’m sorry but this is just fanboyism at it’s finest. This site alone is the only one to really give Halo 4 a bad review. (Note that I know it’s his opinion, but his opinion alone shouldn’t have to be so irrational and bring down Halo 4′s Metacritic score.)

  • Broooski

    Could someone write an article or talk in a podcast about what “the Call of Duty mentality” is? Just like talking about League of Legends without explaining “jungling” is going to confuse people who are not familiar with awesomeness, talking about how Halo and CoD are fundamentally different is going to confuse ME. What is the difference in play styles? Heck, what kind of shooters are there, period? Is there another style of shooter that is different than these two? What are the currently known/discovered shooter genres? What kind are yet to be invented?

    Like I said, someone needs to write an article.

  • tomchick

    Qt3 is listed as a “Trusted” critic? Cool!

  • Nik

    I may of course be incorrect, but I believe what Tom’s referring to as the “Call of Duty mentality” isn’t as much about the actual gameplay but the system that’s become ubiquitous since Modern Warfare (Call of Duty 4) of having a persistent identity and unlocking guns, perks, attachments, etc. as you gain experience (via killing, completing objectives) while playing. Halo never had that system before, but introduced it in Halo 4; that system is still in Black Ops 2 (like every CoD game since Modern Warfare), but as I understand it in “League Play” everything is unlocked from the get-go.

    On a side-note, in terms of moment-to-moment gameplay, the Call of Duty games are generally considered “twitchier” than Halo games. You die very quickly if someone shoots you (and recoil is very low compared to say, Counter-Strike). In Halo soldiers can absorb more damage. I did read some things that also suggested that Halo 4 moved things a little more in the direction of Call of Duty in this respect as well (basically that bullets do more damage).

    The other BIG difference that comes to mind in terms of gameplay is vehicles. Halo has pilotable vehicles (aircraft, hovering things, tanks) and vehicle warfare is a very big part of the game, Call of Duty is very infantry-focused.

    Anyway this is hardly an article but hopefully it gave you a bit of a better idea. Frankly I’m not a big fan of either series. I should probably stop reading so much about them.

  • CB

    I don’t get how you can say something innovated (create loadouts, perks, etc.) when its doing the exact same thing that every other mass market shooter has been doing for the last five or six years.

    I’m not saying Halo 4 didn’t innovate (haven’t played it yet) but having its “innovation” credentials be things that are already widely done isn’t looking too promising for it.

  • Inverarity

    It’s all the halo-fanboy babysitting you’ve been doing lately. It’s built up a lot of trust.

    Speaking of which, I have a rabid pitbull and teething 14-year old cat I need someone to watch. Can you take care of them, give the cat its steroid pills and daily enema, while I go out for a bit? Thanks! (No fair making Jason do it)

  • Robotlazer

    I always describe it to my friends like this: In a COD type game, if you shoot someone they die. In a Halo type game you get into a fight with someone, even you take the first bullet.

    Plus everything that Nik said below.

  • Robotlazer

    Thanks for the succinct explanation. Much appreciated. I was fortunate enough that they kept all my favorite bits in, so I’ve been able to enjoy it greatly. And I think they very much made this game for people that consume Halo lore, and to establish a business model with a monetary tail for the franchise which makes the exclusion of firefight unsurprising.

    Looking forward to the next scandalous review so I can watch the comments blow up.

  • Shiranui

    This game is terrible. The campaign was alright up until I got to the Strike force missions, but those are such garbage that I gave up wanting to play through the campaign. Constantly spawning enemies is a relic of the past. The worst part is if you fail, your story gets fucked up. Played multiplayer up to level 22, it doesn’t feel like Black Ops. It feels almost exactly like Modern Warfare which I hated. For some reason Treyarch decided to bring quickscoping into their game, which didn’t take long for people to start abusing. I’d give this game a 2.5/5 at best. I’ll be trading it in soon.

  • CowCookie

    This isn’t an argument against Halo or in favor of Call of Duty. I haven’t played either, nor do I intend to; I’m more of an RPG guy. But I get so frustrated seeing the same uninformed arguments about what a review should or shouldn’t be. So here goes:

    1) Reviews are always biased: Any work that involves casting judgment on another work will necessarily involve bias. Complaining that a review is biased is like complaining about nudity in a strip club: Well, yeah, it’s there, but isn’t that sort of the point?

    There are two types of declarative statements: fact statements and opinion statements. Fact statements make an assertion about an objective truth. This assertion may or may not be testable as a practical matter (ie. “There is a god.”), but the statement has an objective truth (or untruth) that exists outside an individual’s perceptions.

    An opinion statement does not have an objective truth. It is one person’s view of the world. It may be backed up by facts or logic (and countered with the same), but there is not an ultimate reality that can be said to be true. Consequently, an unbiased review would simply be a list of game
    features.

    I harp on this because it’s not just a problem on video game comment threads. It’s a larger failing of civic discourse. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen newspaper pieces clearly labeled as “opinion” or “editorial” attacked for being biased. Schools have failed to teach their students how to examine text for rhetorical purpose.

    2) It’s not the intent of the creator that matters: I’m not
    saying the creator’s intent doesn’t matter at all; I’m saying that’s not what
    matters in judging the quality of a review. What matters is how well the
    review’s audience is served by the review. Reviews that serve different audiences should be different. We should expect a wargaming audience to have different standards than a general gaming audience—who will, in turn, have different standards than casual gamers.

    The key is not expecting a review to be the arbiter of Truth with a capital “T.” If you’re looking for help making a purchasing decision, calibrate a reviewer’s preferences to your own and find a reviewer who is evaluating games according to your same values. If you’re looking for greater insight into game mechanics or narrative, find a reviewer who puts a premium on those. Even reading reviews that come to different conclusions can offer a glimpse of why those games have an audience.

    3) Fan service doesn’t trump all: Not everyone is a fan of your favorite game. Even with the most popular games, die-hard fans are probably the exception, not the rule. You may love the lore, the setting and the characters, but many gamers will play the game and then simply move on to the next blockbuster. Reviews that don’t cater to a specific fan base should take this into account and not simply give a pass to a game that serves diehard fans well but has less resonance among the broader audience.

    This shouldn’t be that surprising. In movie reviews, it’s common to note the contrast between fan appeal and mass audience appeal.

    The Twilight films, for example, have arguably served fans well. Diehards
    flocked to theaters to see the fourth installment. It’s raking in money. And it’s
    likely fulfilling every ambition of its creators. Yet the movies languish in
    the 24 percent to 49 percent range on Rotten Tomatoes because they don’t serve the broader audience so well.

    It’s long past time for gamers to start recognizing these dual audiences.

    4) Diversity is healthy: Go to the reference section of your local library and pull out a volume of Contemporary Literary Criticism. Inside, you’ll find criticism of works that have stood the test of time far better than any modern video game is likely to do. A spectrum of opinion is the sign of a healthy, mature community. If there is criticism of literary classics worthy of being collected and considered, surely critiques of even the best video games have a place.

  • Anonymous

    You’re asking for textual analysis from FPS players? N00b.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sören-Höglund/799188495 Sören Höglund

    It might not be fair, but wouldn’t you rather a Rear Master like Jason handle your cat’s enemas?

  • CowCookie

    Not a textual analysis. But knowing that something labeled a “review,” “editorial” or “opinion” will be arguing from a point of view is pretty basic. Like I said, it’s not just FPS players. Go check out a newspaper website, and you’ll find the same thing. It’s a widespread failing of civics education.