Green "computer letters" show credits over a geological map of the world, complete with numbers and readouts and suchlike. The kind of over dramatic pseudo-military orchestral score that, judging from games and films at the moment, is associated with the American Army plays, while some faint images from (Presumably) this game's predecessor are shown at the side of the screen.
The music ends with a flourish, and large words pop onto the screen:
"Five Years Later."
Um ... what? Five Years Later than what ...? The Opening Credits!?
Then, a gruff American voice, the kind that you know you're going to grow to hate announces: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
What the Fuck does that mean!?
It is then that I realise the level of bullshit I have decended into.
This is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which I picked up with a mixture of curiousity and trepidation. I wanted to not only see what all the fuss was about, but also to know why those "True Gamers" are so keen to bash this kind of stuff.
What have I learned? Well ... I've certainly found out why these games are worthy of the hate they received from the Hardcore Nerd Crowd, as I will now explain ...
Now, what are the defining qualities of a game? Well, based on my personal experience (so feel free to disagree) truely Awesome Games have Awesome Gameplay and Awesome Narrative. So, it is in these areas I will rate Modern Warfare 2.
*Deep Breath* Here we go. I don't blame you if you turn back now. God knows I almost did.
Gameplay!
The actual nuts and bolts of MW2 are indistinguishable from any other First Person Shooter you've ever picked up on a console. It conforms to all the tropes of Shooters today, one of which considerably vexes me: The lack of a health bar.
When you are shot in MW2, the screen is covered in "blood" (I am using very heavy quotation marks here, as it looks like someone has just poured Strawberry Jam over your TV screen) and, if you take much more damage, you die. If, however, you take cover, the "blood" gradually dissapates.
This is my first gripe with MW2: Realism. Now, I don't know much about Real Life Modern Combat, having never taken part in any, but, it is my understanding that that isn't how being shot in real life works.
"But, Rude!" my easily manuplated theoretical audience shouts, "Since when have you cared about Realism!? Your favourite game is Monkey Island, and in that game you fit a six-foot Banana Picker in your Trousers!"
Well, Dear Hypothetical Readers, normally I wouldn't give a levitating monkey anus, but, Modern Warfare occationally throws out an annoying snag in the player's direction in the name of Realism; examples being:
1) Grenades that are difficult to aim.
B) Enemies that are nigh impossible to see.
iii) Bullet shitstorms taking place from every direction at once.
Four) Allies that are just as, if not, more useless than you.
V) Reload times on many of the weapons that give you an oppertunity to go into the other room and make a cup of tea while you wait.
Examples of Unrealism and Game Logic that totally make you scratch your head and wonder what the game developer was thinking when they put together this hodgepodge of a game:
1) Exploding Barrels EVERYWHERE, including, but not limited to; A Brazillian Ghetto, Washington DC and a Russian Gulag.
2) Commanders continually sending soldiers into situations where "bogeys" (That term still makes me chuckle) approach from every direction, including above, and expect them to get on with their mission, dispite the fact that no real fighting unit could possibly survive.
3) The butt of a gun doing more damage to a man than a bullet.
4) A soldier being sent of alone. Tantamount to Certain Death.
5) Friendly Fire being switched off (I'm sure the US army wishes this one was in the above list)
6) Infinite Lives, rather than, y'know, one.
And, my personal favourite ...
7) Riot shields stopping all ordinance, including focused machine gun fire.
I wish the developer would just take a format and stick to it, rather than randomly switching back and forth between Realism and Videogame Craziness as they see fit.
Another important aspect of Gameplay is difficulty. Now, at the beginning of the game you're sent through an assault course and your speed (rather than accuracy, for whatever reason) determines the difficulty setting for the game. I got medium difficulty, because I shot some civillians (since when does the US armed forces give a shit about civillians?) and took too long trying to figure out where I was supposed to be going. Happy with this, I got on with the game.
Not only did I complete this travesty in an afternoon, there were only a couple of bits that gave me trouble. Now, I might not have cared so much if these diffult parts were challenging or fun, but they were just frustrating. The fun parts were short and unsatifying, while these "throw-the-controller-at-the screen" parts dragged on and on and on and on and (repeat infinitely) ....
For the most part, if I died I could push past the bit that killed me on the second or third attempt.
Perhaps the biggest letdown of MW's Gameplay was the ending. Now, after one particularly throw-myself-out-the-window level, I was expecting a finale that tested my every reflex! A mighty battle of epic proportians!
I got a pretty easy gunfight, a chase down a river on a boat, and an almost-quicktime-event-like knife fight which got less and less action-packed as it went on, winding down into a still screen.
Oh.
Note that two thirds of that finale wasn't actually using the FPS mechanic, and so, really, was nothing to do with the game.
This brings up an interesting occurence in games: When the final level is completely different to the rest of the game and makes you wonder what all that practice you were doing in preperation of it was for. Good examples: Enter the Matrix, when, after a game of action-kungfu-gunfights you have ... a rail shooter ...? And as said before, Assassain's Creed, when, after a gameful of being told "Don't get into fights! Be Stealthy!" you are forced to have a Swordfight.
Ultimately Gameplay was bland, uninspired, inconsistent and ... boring. As I believe I said in the Gears of War rant, Boring is the WORST thing a game can be.
Narrative!
Short Version: What Narrative ...?
Long Version: The most defining aspect of a game is its Hero. What would Super Mario Brothers be without Mario and Luigi? Nothing! Who would want to play Sonic the Hedgehog if they had to play as Tails? No-one! Would Metal Gear Solid be HALF as entertaining if it didn't have Solid Snake growling out wit and cynicism to every giant robo-mech that crossed his path? Well ... I think Metal Gear Solid 2 sort of answers that one ...
So, for Modern Warfare 2 to succeed, its got to have a badass gunman hero ... like Master Chief, but with an AK47 and Combat Knife rather than Plasma Rifle and super cheap oh my god what were they thinking Plasma Sword.
At the beginning of the game you're given a name.
That's it.
Your name.
Have fun.
... honestly, that is the extent of the hero's characterization.
Actually, using the term "hero" is a little misleading, as your initial character dies three missions into the game. Over the course of Modern Warfare 2's "now-I-know-how-my-girlfriend-feels"-short storyline you take the wheel of four seperate men.
Two of these four die.
Only one of them actually has a spoken line, and that's because he starts out as an NPC, barking orders at you over the radio.
Really!? How are we supposed to care about these people if they're just "your face here" cutouts with no personality?
Now, credit where credit's due, the NPC-Turned-PC; "Soap" McTaggart, is pretty cool, and makes up one of the two characters that I actually gave a fuck about over the course of my MW experience. There are a couple of problems even with him, however.
We're never told anything about him. All his background is inferred. He's some kind of SAS/Royal Marine Commando type killer. He's Scottish. He has a pretty sweet mohawk.
What's with the nickname? Some kind of prison thing ...?
We don't have any motivation for him. Why is he in the army? Does he believe in his cause?
When it boils down to it, he's just a slightly-fleshed out version of the three your-face-here heroes. Only, he's British. Which is kinda cool, I guess.
So, we don't have a hero ... but surely we have great motivation! Some horrific evil that must be stopped, or incredably important mission upon which the safety of the free world hinges!
Well, after the whole "Unchanging change" speech and the assault course, you're sent into downtown Kabul. Why? You're not t old. You're just given some meaningless bullshit by the General, Shepard, whose voice you already hate.
Then, after a building gets blown up, a lot of Afgans die and everyone cheers (I must say, if that's how American Soldiers really behave. I am appalled) you're in the mountains, infiltrating a base. Of course, you're not told that, you're fed more crap-which-means-nothing by General Shepard. You find out, through experience, mind you, that you're looking f or a little device with one of those acronames which are so popular these days. Then you escape.
Honestly. I'm not leaving anything out. The player has been left high and dry. I think the game developers assume we'd know Americans = Good. Afgans = Bad. Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself. Where is the justification? I'm going around, killing all these men without ANY morality being discussed. If they were directly threatening some innocent babies or something, I might be okay with all the murder, but, as such, I'm not.
Anyway, inexplicably, you're now in Russia, working undercover for "the Bad Guy," Mikalov (or something like that) killing civillians in an Airport.
Now ... this bit is supposed to indicate how evil Makalov (or whatever) is. He's killing civillians and is a really bad guy.
But, at the time, my thought process was as such: "So, Molotov (and such) kills innocent people for money ... well ... at least he's honest about it! He's not going around blowing people up under the guise of "defending the free world ." He's being forthright, and I respect that."
Cynical, perhaps ... but, really, if your bad guy makes your good guys just look dishonest, you're not off to a good start.
Anyway, things esculate and some more shit happens, culminating in a Russian invasion of the USA, and a subsiquent reta- ...
... wait ... back up ... Russia ...? Russia. Really.
Attention America! The Cold War ended a little while ago! This Red Dawn Bullshit isn't impressing anyone!
I imagine America misses the Cold Wa r, a time when the nation and its allies were united against a common threat, rather than divided because of it. But, frankly, now it's just a little racist.
I mean ... look at this! It just screams of "Look at the Red Menace attacking your suburban street!"
Simply put. It's propaganda. Horrific Pro-American tripe designed to brainwash players into thinking America really is this force-for good in the world, and that going and shooting people really is a great solution to the world's problems.
I hate to become as preachy as MW2, but, frankly, I see no other reason for such a thing to exist. It's honestly frightening.
So, all in all, Narrative gets a -3/10
Conclusion:
If you want a mindless FPS, go play Halo. It's got everything this hasn't.
Now, I haven't played multiplayer, but, I must say, if it uses the same mechanics as the rest of the game, I don't see what it could possibly offer that any other FPS doesn't already.
If I hear "Hooah" one more time, I'm going to vomit,
Rude Rabbit, esq.
PS.
Writing about Assassain's Creed reminds me! I finished Assassain's Creed 2 and it was really good. From start to finish. I thoroughly recommend you pick it up! Unlike a certain other game I might mention.
Oh, and if you do get Assassain's Creed 2, make sure you hunt for all the Glyphs! It's difficult, but rewarding.
Then, a gruff American voice, the kind that you know you're going to grow to hate announces: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
What the Fuck does that mean!?
It is then that I realise the level of bullshit I have decended into.
This is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which I picked up with a mixture of curiousity and trepidation. I wanted to not only see what all the fuss was about, but also to know why those "True Gamers" are so keen to bash this kind of stuff.
What have I learned? Well ... I've certainly found out why these games are worthy of the hate they received from the Hardcore Nerd Crowd, as I will now explain ...
Now, what are the defining qualities of a game? Well, based on my personal experience (so feel free to disagree) truely Awesome Games have Awesome Gameplay and Awesome Narrative. So, it is in these areas I will rate Modern Warfare 2.
*Deep Breath* Here we go. I don't blame you if you turn back now. God knows I almost did.
Gameplay!
The actual nuts and bolts of MW2 are indistinguishable from any other First Person Shooter you've ever picked up on a console. It conforms to all the tropes of Shooters today, one of which considerably vexes me: The lack of a health bar.
When you are shot in MW2, the screen is covered in "blood" (I am using very heavy quotation marks here, as it looks like someone has just poured Strawberry Jam over your TV screen) and, if you take much more damage, you die. If, however, you take cover, the "blood" gradually dissapates.
This is my first gripe with MW2: Realism. Now, I don't know much about Real Life Modern Combat, having never taken part in any, but, it is my understanding that that isn't how being shot in real life works.
"But, Rude!" my easily manuplated theoretical audience shouts, "Since when have you cared about Realism!? Your favourite game is Monkey Island, and in that game you fit a six-foot Banana Picker in your Trousers!"
Well, Dear Hypothetical Readers, normally I wouldn't give a levitating monkey anus, but, Modern Warfare occationally throws out an annoying snag in the player's direction in the name of Realism; examples being:
1) Grenades that are difficult to aim.
B) Enemies that are nigh impossible to see.
iii) Bullet shitstorms taking place from every direction at once.
Four) Allies that are just as, if not, more useless than you.
V) Reload times on many of the weapons that give you an oppertunity to go into the other room and make a cup of tea while you wait.
Examples of Unrealism and Game Logic that totally make you scratch your head and wonder what the game developer was thinking when they put together this hodgepodge of a game:
1) Exploding Barrels EVERYWHERE, including, but not limited to; A Brazillian Ghetto, Washington DC and a Russian Gulag.
2) Commanders continually sending soldiers into situations where "bogeys" (That term still makes me chuckle) approach from every direction, including above, and expect them to get on with their mission, dispite the fact that no real fighting unit could possibly survive.
3) The butt of a gun doing more damage to a man than a bullet.
4) A soldier being sent of alone. Tantamount to Certain Death.
5) Friendly Fire being switched off (I'm sure the US army wishes this one was in the above list)
6) Infinite Lives, rather than, y'know, one.
And, my personal favourite ...
7) Riot shields stopping all ordinance, including focused machine gun fire.
I wish the developer would just take a format and stick to it, rather than randomly switching back and forth between Realism and Videogame Craziness as they see fit.
Another important aspect of Gameplay is difficulty. Now, at the beginning of the game you're sent through an assault course and your speed (rather than accuracy, for whatever reason) determines the difficulty setting for the game. I got medium difficulty, because I shot some civillians (since when does the US armed forces give a shit about civillians?) and took too long trying to figure out where I was supposed to be going. Happy with this, I got on with the game.
Not only did I complete this travesty in an afternoon, there were only a couple of bits that gave me trouble. Now, I might not have cared so much if these diffult parts were challenging or fun, but they were just frustrating. The fun parts were short and unsatifying, while these "throw-the-controller-at-the screen" parts dragged on and on and on and on and (repeat infinitely) ....
For the most part, if I died I could push past the bit that killed me on the second or third attempt.
Perhaps the biggest letdown of MW's Gameplay was the ending. Now, after one particularly throw-myself-out-the-window level, I was expecting a finale that tested my every reflex! A mighty battle of epic proportians!
I got a pretty easy gunfight, a chase down a river on a boat, and an almost-quicktime-event-like knife fight which got less and less action-packed as it went on, winding down into a still screen.
Oh.
Note that two thirds of that finale wasn't actually using the FPS mechanic, and so, really, was nothing to do with the game.
This brings up an interesting occurence in games: When the final level is completely different to the rest of the game and makes you wonder what all that practice you were doing in preperation of it was for. Good examples: Enter the Matrix, when, after a game of action-kungfu-gunfights you have ... a rail shooter ...? And as said before, Assassain's Creed, when, after a gameful of being told "Don't get into fights! Be Stealthy!" you are forced to have a Swordfight.
Ultimately Gameplay was bland, uninspired, inconsistent and ... boring. As I believe I said in the Gears of War rant, Boring is the WORST thing a game can be.
Narrative!
Short Version: What Narrative ...?
Long Version: The most defining aspect of a game is its Hero. What would Super Mario Brothers be without Mario and Luigi? Nothing! Who would want to play Sonic the Hedgehog if they had to play as Tails? No-one! Would Metal Gear Solid be HALF as entertaining if it didn't have Solid Snake growling out wit and cynicism to every giant robo-mech that crossed his path? Well ... I think Metal Gear Solid 2 sort of answers that one ...
So, for Modern Warfare 2 to succeed, its got to have a badass gunman hero ... like Master Chief, but with an AK47 and Combat Knife rather than Plasma Rifle and super cheap oh my god what were they thinking Plasma Sword.
At the beginning of the game you're given a name.
That's it.
Your name.
Have fun.
Actually, using the term "hero" is a little misleading, as your initial character dies three missions into the game. Over the course of Modern Warfare 2's "now-I-know-how-my-girlfriend-feels"-short storyline you take the wheel of four seperate men.
Two of these four die.
Only one of them actually has a spoken line, and that's because he starts out as an NPC, barking orders at you over the radio.
Really!? How are we supposed to care about these people if they're just "your face here" cutouts with no personality?
Now, credit where credit's due, the NPC-Turned-PC; "Soap" McTaggart, is pretty cool, and makes up one of the two characters
We're never told anything about him. All his background is inferred. He's some kind of SAS/Royal Marine Commando type killer. He's Scottish. He has a pretty sweet mohawk.
What's with the nickname? Some kind of prison thing ...?
We don't have any motivation for him. Why is he in the army? Does he believe in his cause?
When it boils down to it, he's just a slightly-fleshed out version of the three your-face-here heroes. Only, he's British. Which is kinda cool, I guess.
So, we don't have a hero ... but surely we have great motivation! Some horrific evil that must be stopped, or incredably important mission upon which the safety of the free world hinges!
Well, after the whole "Unchanging change" speech and the assault course, you're sent into downtown Kabul. Why? You're not t
Then, after a building gets blown up, a lot of Afgans die and everyone cheers (I must say, if that's how American Soldiers really behave. I am appalled) you're in the mountains, infiltrating a base. Of course, you're not told that, you're fed more crap-which-means-nothing by General Shepard. You find out, through experience, mind you, that you're looking f
Honestly. I'm not leaving anything out. The player has been left high and dry. I think the game developers assume we'd know Americans = Good. Afgans = Bad. Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself. Where is the justification? I'm going around, killing all these men without ANY morality being discussed. If they were directly threatening some innocent babies or something, I might be okay with all the murder, but, as such, I'm not.
Anyway, inexplicably, you're now in Russia, working undercover for "the Bad Guy," Mikalov (or something like that) killing civillians in an Airport.
Now ... this bit is supposed to indicate how evil Makalov (or whatever) is. He's killing civillians and is a really bad guy.
But, at the time, my thought process was as such: "So, Molotov (and such) kills innocent people for money ... well ... at least he's honest about it! He's not going around blowing people up under the guise of "defending the free world
Cynical, perhaps ... but, really, if your bad guy makes your good guys just look dishonest, you're not off to a good start.
Anyway, things esculate and some more shit happens, culminating in a Russian invasion of the USA, and a subsiquent reta- ...
... wait ... back up ... Russia ...? Russia. Really.
Attention America! The Cold War ended a little while ago! This Red Dawn Bullshit isn't impressing anyone!
I mean ... look at this! It just screams of "Look at the Red Menace attacking your suburban street!"
Simply put. It's propaganda. Horrific Pro-American tripe designed to brainwash players into thinking America really is this force-for good in the world, and that going and shooting people really is a great solution to the world's problems.
I hate to become as preachy as MW2, but, frankly, I see no other reason for such a thing to exist. It's honestly frightening.
So, all in all, Narrative gets a -3/10
Conclusion:
If you want a mindless FPS, go play Halo. It's got everything this hasn't.
Now, I haven't played multiplayer, but, I must say, if it uses the same mechanics as the rest of the game, I don't see what it could possibly offer that any other FPS doesn't already.
If I hear "Hooah" one more time, I'm going to vomit,
Rude Rabbit, esq.
PS.
Writing about Assassain's Creed reminds me! I finished Assassain's Creed 2 and it was really good. From start to finish. I thoroughly recommend you pick it up! Unlike a certain other game I might mention.
Oh, and if you do get Assassain's Creed 2, make sure you hunt for all the Glyphs! It's difficult, but rewarding.
I can't get the last paragraph to UN-spaz. I don't know why. Live with it.
ReplyDelete