• 7Nov 09

  Tour of duty number five.

  It would be hard to immediately identify something as a World War II game with the absence of Nazis. In fact, the absence of Nazis is what potentially could have led Treyarch's latest iteration of the Call of Duty franchise from feeling like just another World War II game.
  
  Call of Duty: World at War consists of two main components: an American campaign that retells the invasion of Okinawa, and yep, you guessed it: a Russian campaign that deals with the Russians pushing the Nazis out of the motherland and all the way back to Berlin; the same story we've played through countless times before.
  
  The Battle for Okinawa is immediately the most interesting aspect of World at War. The Pacific War is something that is often rarely chronicled in game form, and thereby enables it to completely outshine the Russian campaign of World at War. The main issue with the single-player is that it's not actually separated into two separate campaigns. The American and Russian campaigns are intertwined with one another and switch back and forth every few levels. The reason why this is a problem is because of how different they are from one another and how much more entertaining the American campaign is over the Russian one.
  
  The Russian campaign follows a very predictable formula. You have the same enemies, weapons, and types of levels you've fought through countless times before in numerous other World War II games. That's not to say the combat isn't solid, because it is, but the American campaign is so different and unique in comparison that it effectively makes the Russian levels boring every time you have to play them. It seems that due to how different they are, whenever I found myself playing through the Russian levels my main motivation for getting through them was so I could get back to the American ones.
  
  The American campaign is significantly different from other shooters based on history. The Japanese soldiers used significantly different tactics from the western world, and this is the reason why it's so thrilling. It's not often you find yourself wandering through grassy areas only to be ambushed and rushed at by crazed banzai soldiers trying to impale you with bayonets. They also hide in trees, tunnels, and floor traps which makes fighting them extremely unpredictable. That's why there's such a stark contrast between the two campaigns because due to how crazy the combat tactics of the Japanese are, it makes the Germans seem meek in comparison. They actually use cover and traditional battle tactics, rather than suicidally running at you screaming like maniacs.
  
  As always, the guns control nicely - this is a Call of Duty game after all. The weaponry consists of your standard assortment of World War II-era rifles and pistols, but you will also have access to some new Japanese weapons too, as well as a shotgun and a flamethrower, all of which are exclusive to the American campaign. An oddity I found with the weapon loadout in World at War is that you are only capable of carrying two weapons at a time, which isn't that big of a deal but I found it strange considering you generally begin each level with either a rifle or a sub-machine gun, and then a pistol as your secondary weapon. The problem is that you can immediately switch your pistol out for a much bigger and meaner weapon, making the pistols all but useless. Don't get me wrong, I know you can do that in Halo, but the difference here is that the pistol in Halo 1 is actually useful. The pistols in Call of Duty generally have crap accuracy, range, and have significantly lower clips. It just seems a bit odd to even bother giving people pistols when they are such throwaway weaponry compared to the rest of the guns in the game. They would function much better as some sort of emergency weapon to rely on when you run out of ammo in your main weapons and don't have time to reload - similar to how pistols operated in Killzone 2.
  
  Many of World at War's weapons feature bayonets which can be used to impale enemies, but more importantly, the enemies will try to impale you. There will be several instances in the American campaign where crazed banzai soldiers will attempt to impale you and you will have to pull off a spontaneous quick time event in order to fight them off, or else you will be instantly killed. You also have a standard melee attack at your disposal in World at War but it operates unlike most other first person shooters. Rather than having a means to quickly bat an enemy over the head with your rifle stock, or having to switch out your main weapon for a knife, you simply have to press a button and you will immediately swipe a nearby opponent. This is a cool feature because it allows you to quickly melee nearby opponents in styIe but realistically speaking it doesn't really make much sense to be able to pull out a knife that quickly from nowhere. It functions almost as if the guy is holding the knife at all times, which wouldn't be feasible if he wanted to fire his gun properly. A minor complaint to be sure, but it would have been nice to maybe have a more realistic option, such as when you want to use the knife there will be a slight delay as the soldier grabs the knife with his left hand. He could then hold it at the ready to impale someone, while his main weapon is held off to the side with his right hand.
  
  The biggest issue I had with World at War was the grenades. The on-screen indicator that warns you of nearby grenades is not very reliable and difficult to notice when you are busy concentrating down the iron sights of your rifle. Not to mention the fact that most of the time there is so much stuff going on that you won't even actually be able to hear or even see the grenades coming and will find yourself blowing up spontaneously. I don't have an issue with enemy soldiers using grenades, but it seems like the enemy AI in World at War is significantly grenade happy and they have no problem using them very frequently to the point where it will probably become rather irritating on your behalf. I experienced my fair share of incredibly frustrating repeat grenade deaths, as well as numerous instances where I had to continually leave a cover spot and return as the AI kept endlessly lobbing grenades at my position. In fact, I rarely recall actually dying from gunfire, yet can recall more deaths than I care to remember caused by unseen grenades. Grenades are fair game in any first person shooter, but it becomes an issue when it starts to take actual enjoyment out of the game due to mere frustration. Realistically speaking, how many first person shooters out there actually have grenade indicators? Not many. So if a game actually needs a grenade indicator in the first place it's obvious that the grenades are not very easy to notice and will be used frequently by the AI. It essentially becomes the most irritating and least enjoyable aspect of playing through World at War.
  
  The level design in World at War is solid. The Okinawa-based levels are unique and a refreshing change of pace coming from a World War II game, full of lush greenery and tropical environments. The levels featured in the Russian campaign are pretty much what you would expect from your standard World War II shooter, war-torn Europe featuring numerous drab, dark, and grey environments. They are well-designed however, and provide some epic and memorable shoot outs. Treyarch actually did do an excellent job of portraying the menace that was Nazi Germany, with an incredibly evil and imposing introduction to the Russian campaign. The biggest issue that could be taken up with World at War is that the levels are extremely linear, and there are a lot of blatantly blocked off inaccessible areas that match with the game's linearity.
  
  The sound design in World at War is actually quite good, with an appropriately booming soundtrack, that actually features some pretty badass battle tunes that totally get your blood pumping and your adrenaline flowing in all the right ways. The sound effects are solid, but definitely have that "Call of Duty" familiarity. Voice acting is relatively good, featuring the likes of Kiefer Sutherland narrating the American campaign, with Gary Oldman providing the main voice work for the Russian side of things.
  
  The presentation is a bit lacking though. Sure, they get the job done by showing some old war footage and mixing it with modern day graphics, but it doesn't really quite do much for the viewer. None of the characters are really very well developed either, outside of Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman's characters; and you once again play as nameless mutes in both campaigns, so it's hard to really care about any of the characters or feel any sort of attachment to the storyline despite their efforts to try and make you care. Treyarch also portray a very brutal depiction of World War II, and for that it's commendable. World at War has the most blood and gore out of any Call of Duty to date, which help's give Treyarch's Call of Duty a bit of it's own flair. Treyarch also attempt to summarize the whole experience by portraying how atrocious World War II really was, which I suppose gives it a fitting ending considering how brutal the game is itself.

  There's a huge multiplayer component to World at War which is essentially a World War II take on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's muliplayer. If you're into Call of Duty's multiplayer already and want to experience it back in World War II again with Call of Duty 4's changes then you'll probably like it, but if you haven't been convinced by Call of Duty's multiplayer in the past then there is absolutely nothing different here to change your mind. The console versions of World at War are probably significantly different online, but unless you're into the highly competitive PC crowd of Call of Duty you probably won't find the multiplayer very entertaining anyway, especially considering that a large portion of the servers simply consist of one shot kill settings which in my humble opinion is quite lame. There is an unlockable Nazi Zombies mode, and while it can be entertaining as a brief distraction, it absolutely pales in comparison to the Horde mode found in Gears of War 2.
  
  Call of Duty: World at War aside from its unique American campaign isn't really anything too terribly unique or interesting. The campaign is solid, but it's short at only about six hours long. There's a token tank level, aircraft bombing level, and so on, these have all been done before so they aren't really anything unique or special on their own and feel more like they were simply thrown in to try and change the pace of the game a little bit. They do make for a relatively entertaining game, but the vast majority of World at War can essentially be described as big culmination of almost every thing that has been done before in a Call of Duty or World War II game. While World at War does have its own personality through the American levels and a short, yet solid single-player campaign, it still really just has that whole "been there, done that" vibe.
  
  When it comes down to it, if you love Call of Duty then you will find more of the same of what you enjoy about the franchise in World at War. It's a solid game with an enjoyable, if forgettable single-player component, and a solid multiplayer mode for those that are already into that kind of thing. If you aren't really that big of a fan of the series already then this isn't really something you need to play. Treyarch did do an excellent job of doing what they could with the already extremely stale genre of World War II shooters, and as it stands Call of Duty: World at War serves as a fitting swansong to what will hopefully be the last World War II-era Call of Duty game, or first person shooter for that matter for an incredibly long time.

  Score.

  I'm not trying to sound negative because I did enjoy World at War for what it was, but I seriously hope this is the last Call of Duty game that takes place during World War II. In fact, I'm kind of getting sick of World War II in general. It wasn't my own lack of interest in playing through another World War II game that made me feel this way, it's the fact that there are only so many ways you can retell the same events over and over again. World War II games themselves are what is making people like me get sick of them, because they just keep doing the same thing over and over again. I mean realistically Call of Duty has been making us play through a lot of the same events in various incantations for several years and has blatantly refused to evolve in any meaningful way since its inception. It's time to give World War II a rest people, let us all move on to greener pastures, yes?

  • Posted Nov 7, 2009 6:02 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 8 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 5Nov 09

  Free Your Mind.

  Mirror's Edge is an incredibly unique experience that is extremely important in the age of an extremely over-saturate game market. We're constantly being flooded by the same types of games and an endless stream of sequels that rarely do anything new. That's not to say any of these games are bad, but they drown out innovation by constantly playing it safe - as well as wearing out their welcome. Games like Mirror's Edge don't come around very often, and when they do we'd be best not to ignore them, lest we want games that take a chance and break the mold to fade into obscurity.
  
  By now most people are probably already at least somewhat familiar with what Mirror's Edge is - it's a first person action game with heavy emphasis on platforming. You'll take control of Faith, a young woman who is a part of a group known as runners, who spread information the old fashioned way, rather than electronically due to an overbearing government in a totalitarian society which heavily monitors all forms of communication. In order to achieve these goals you will find yourself soaring through the air, vaulting over objects, and doing things you'd have never thought possible.
  
  Well, that's great, but why should I care about Mirror's Edge you ask? Because Mirror's Edge is such a one-of-a-kind experience that simply just does not exist in any other game form. Sure, platforming in the vein of Mirror's Edge has been done before, but this is the first time we've ever been able to experience it from such a personal first person perspective. When you play Mirror's Edge you truly become one with Faith which creates a very immersive atmosphere. Mirror's Edge provides the player with full-body awareness. When you look down Faith can see herself, when you lean against a wall Faith will place her hands against it to hold herself up, when you get a huge sprint going Faith's breathing can be heard, and you can see her arms swinging back and forth. It might not sound like a big deal but first person games were brought up thinking it was alright to just forget that the player's body actually exists, and we've entered a new age of gaming where we're finally starting to become the characters we are playing from a first person perspective, rather than just being floating eyeballs. The experience of full-body awareness in Mirror's Edge is incredibly well realized and is extremely similar to that of Crysis, so if you've played one of them, then you know what to expect from the other.
  
  The parkour aspect of Mirror's Edge is obviously its main attraction and the extreme importance placed in immersing the player in the character is a huge reason why it's so exciting. As Faith you will do a variety of things, from climbing rooftops, leaping over impossibly huge gaps, running across walls, scaling construction sites, and so on. You won't be spending all of your time outdoors however, a significant portion of Mirror's Edge will be spent indoors, and while the outdoor areas are perhaps the most notable areas of the game, the indoor sections have some really awesome, lonely almost Portal-esque environments.
  
  Mirror's Edge is an oddly abandoned game world, and while it would be easy to fault it for this, it's actually a part of what makes it feel so special and immersive, if that even makes any sense. Mirror's Edge is a very lonely game and you will spend a lot of time in abandoned industrial environments, but the sense of atmosphere evoked can only be described as breathtaking. Outdoors is still quite desolate but you will see the odd pedestrian here and there, vehicles driving around, and even airplanes flying overhead way up in the sky. In fact, aside from the animated cutscenes, the vast majority of your human contact in Mirror's Edge will be spent running from the law.
  
  This is where one of Mirror's Edge's most widely criticized aspects come in - the combat. For a game that puts so much emphasis on platforming and running, there are numerous situations in Mirror's Edge where you are literally forced into fighting. Faith is no slouch as she has quite a few moves at her disposal, as well as numerous types of disarm attacks, but these are highly situational and not entirely easy to pull off either. In fact, the sole reason why combat can be so frustrating is simply due to how little punishment Faith can take. A couple hits is all you need for a swift game over. It's especially frustrating when you are confined in an area and need to escape but are being shot at by a battalion of riot police with assault rifles. Thus, you will most likely experience quite a few frustrating deaths during these sections, and will have to replay them several times until you get it just right - or at least figure out where you're supposed to run to. In fact, most of the time once you figure out where you need to go you're better off not fighting at all and simply just running away. You will occasionally need to take out a few guys but the combat system as well as the various guns at your disposal are competent enough to get the job done, so long as you stay out of your enemy's sights.
  
  The audio-visual department of Mirror's Edge is absolutely astounding in every sense of the word. The city in Mirror's Edge is full of lush over-saturated whiteness, with red hues that define Faith's 'runner vision' which highlights important objects in red as you close in on them. This is designed as a hint to keep the flow of movement going and to allow players to quickly adapt to their ever changing environment. You can actually turn off the runner vision, and I actually personally preferred this method of play my second time around, but you'll want to keep it enabled for your first time through the game. On top of looking amazing though, the level design in Mirror's Edge is superb, and while some may be slightly disappointed at the linearity of the game, the levels are expertly crafted and look incredible.
  
  The only real issue with Mirror's Edge are the computer animated cutscenes which have a striking resemblance to a certain auto insurance company's commercials, and they really feel out of place. They simply just don't match the visual flair that the game went for, and they really take you out of the experience. There are a few very rare instances of first person in-game cutscenes and they feel much more natural and do a significantly better job of conveying the story. It would have been preferable to have the entirety of the game's cutscenes told through this method, and hopefully they will ditch the computer animated cutscenes for the sequel. It must be stated that the cutscenes aren't really specifically awful or anything, they just don't fit in with the strikingly realistic vibe the rest of the game is going for, and for that they take you out of an otherwise incredible experience from a visual perspective.
  
  On the audio side of things Mirror's Edge is mind-blowing. The soundtrack was composed by Swedish electronic musician Magnus Birgersson, and was performed under his Solar Fields alias. The soundtrack contains a significant variety of different types of electronic numbers, ranging from ethereal ambient tunes, to fast-paced beat-driven combat numbers, to soothing downtempo goodness. The Mirror's Edge soundtrack is so good that I actually obtained the official soundtrack, and have since become a relatively big fan of Solar Field's material. I could go as far as saying that Mirror's Edge has one of the best video game soundtracks I have ever heard, Magnus Birgersson is simply that good. There's also an actual theme song, performed by Swedish singer-songwriter Lisa Miskovsky, and while it may not be everyone's cup of tea it's a commendable effort on her behalf that fits incredibly well with the game thanks to its electronic arrangement by Solar Fields himself. The voice acting in Mirror's Edge is also extremely solid, the most notable of which obviously being Faith's voice actor Jules de Jongh who delivers a very convincing performance, and is easily the biggest reason why playing as Faith is so enjoyable. The sound design is also expertly done, and everything in the game world sounds just like it should.
  
  Mirror's Edge is not perfect, and while it does stumble occasionally due to frustrations caused by what seems like trial and error gameplay, or a minor irritation due to game design, Mirror's Edge is a truly remarkable game that I whole-heartily welcome and embrace in a video game industry that is filled to the brim with publishers that are content with regurgitating the exact same thing on an disgustingly frequent basis. Props must be given to DICE for trying something new, and they've succeeded in creating a remarkable game experience. Not everyone will enjoy Mirror's Edge to the same degree, but when Mirror's Edge finds the right people they will be blown away by it's breathtaking visuals, chilling ambience, and utterly remarkable soundtrack, not to mention its unique gameplay experience that when combined with all of its other qualities simply cannot be found anywhere else.

  Score.

  I've been away for about a week, so I know I haven't been keeping up with your guys' blog posts. I'm going to a concert tonight (my first one, woot!) so I'll get back on track this weekend. Remember WAY back two months ago when I asked you guys to help me figure out which game to review next? Well IIRC Mirror's Edge and Portal were both tied with 3 votes each, so I decided to go with Mirror's Edge. This has been a game that I've wanted to review for months, but I was having an unfortunate case of writers block this last little while, but I'm glad that I finally managed to kick that to the curb and get this out there.

  As always, thanks for taking the time to read and comment, without you guys I'd have no reason to even post this stuff.

  -Knights

  • Posted Nov 5, 2009 4:09 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 11 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 26Oct 09

  Activision Continues Their Inexcusable Bull****

  It seems like I don't talk much about the gaming industry these days, but there's no company that irks me more than Activision. Just saying that name makes the vomit rise a little in my throat. So what type of ridiculous BS is Activision up to these days?

  No - I am not even going to MENTION that crap about IWNET... ok well, that's a lie because I just did (and whether or not Activision actually has anything to due with that is arguable but I wouldn't put it past them), but this is something completely different.

  It's about Activision's absolutely inexcusable behaviour when it comes to the pricing of their video games.

  

  To anyone who doesn't follow PC games very closely you may not understand what the issue is with this image. Modern Warfare 2 is $59.99 USD for the PC. Traditionally PC games are $49.99. Console games - the Xbox 360 and PS3 - retail for the price of $59.99 USD, not PC games. Wii games are the rare exception, also being $49.99 USD in most cases. Now why is this such a big deal? Because it's a completely pointless price hike that has been initiated for one sole reason: greed. Activision is easily the greediest and most shameless video game company in the existence of video game culture and I utterly despise them for it. Don't you dare even start on this "EA is worse" bull**** either if you're thinking it - because I'll get to that later.

  These next few images I'm about to show you (also from the Steam store) are here to further exemplify my point.

  

  Here we have Left 4 Dead 2 up for pre-order on Steam. Notice something about the price? It's $49.99 USD. Actually, no; it's $44.99, since Valve is allowing customers to save $5 by pre-ordering the game, a pretty good deal if you consider it's a new release. This is generally a tradition of the steam store and while not necessary of the developer/publisher's behalf to apply to their games, I think it shows a lot about their character. Now with the fact that Activision is not only PRICE hiking their latest game by $10 but also just blatantly refuses to offer a measely $5 pre-order savings, well, it's bull**** really. Here are a few more samples to drive my point home.

  

  Here we have Borderlands. Sure, we aren't getting any little fancy pre-order item bonus, but we're still getting the $5 savings offer. This goes to show you that it doesn't have to be a Valve game on the Steam store, in order to have a discount. Developers/publishers can clearly negotiate with Valve on what type of offer they give to their potential buyers.

  Activision's not off the hook yet though, so far we've covered three games.

  Modern Warfare 2 - release date: November 10th, 2009, $59.99 USD

  Left 4 Dead 2 - release date: November 17th, 2009. $44.99 USD (w/ pre-order)

  Borderlands - release date: October 26th, 2009, $44.99 USD (w/ pre-order)

  So why am I listing this useless information? Guess what else is on the Steam store:

  

  Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - release date: November 5th, 2007, $39.99 USD

  Wait, what? $39.99 USD? 2007?

  That's a $5.00 USD difference between two brand new games and a game that has been out for two years.

  Oh but, wait guys. It's Call of Duty - of course it should never drop in price like every other normal game as it ages. That would be sacriledge.

  Oh and remember that EA thing I said I'd be covering later? Here's some examples of how much EA has changed recently.

  

  Dead Space - release date: October 20th, 2008, $29.99 USD

  That's a release date of nearly one year after Call of Duty 4 and it's still $10.00 USD cheaper.

  

  Mirror's Edge - release date: January 12th, 2009, $19.99 USD

  Yes, I am aware of the fact that the console versions of Mirror's Edge were released in 2008. That being said, Mirror's Edge of the PC is less than a year old and is half the price of Call of Duty 4. Sure, it didn't sell nearly half the amount of copies as Call of Duty 4 did, (neither did Dead Space), but it also possesses a much longer single-player campaign, as well a significantly more interesting premise and concept, not to mention the fact that the idea and setting surrounding the entirety of Call of Duty 4 has been done countless times before. Yes, I am aware that Call of Duty 4 has "teh best muiltepleyer evar!11" but keep in mind that not everyone on this earth is so easily amused as to do the exact same thing on the exact same maps with the exact same weapons repeatedly until they are blue in the face and their Xbox 360 RRODs or their harddrive fails. Not to mention the fact that Dead Space and Mirror's Edge are two brand new, unique and interesting IPs that have developed new gaming concepts that don't have 5000 different iterations that have been released incessantly since 2003.

  So here I am, giving Activision the proverbial middle finger. I won't deny that I would like to try Call of Duty 4's single-player at some point in time. I've played the multiplayer before, I didn't find it too terribly interesting to justify a then $49.99 USD purchase for a largely uninteresting multiplayer mode and a 5 hours or less single-player campaign. (PC version).

  I have no doubt in my mind that Modern Warfare 2 will be nothing short of a massive success, will achieve glorious reviews the world over, and will have millions of players in its first week post-launch. So does one individual boycotting this game out of mere principal accomplish anything? No, not in the slighest. I still get satisfaction out of the fact that I'm not buying into complete and utter inexcusable bull**** though. I'd advise anyone else who has any sense of dignity to do the same unless they would like to inform Activision that they enjoy taking it up the rear by large conglomerate of corporations.

  Warning: This blog may or may have not contained a dangerously high amount of italicized writing. (PROTIP: Most likely the former and not the latter).

  • Posted Oct 26, 2009 3:59 am PT
  • Category: Games
  • 19 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »