GameTavern - Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Video Gaming (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - Is Call of Duty an "un-game"? (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21967)

Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

This is something been reading this morning, and I really loathe the argument of trying to deter any game as a "lesser" product, but just found this funny since 3 sites are apparently taking part in the debate.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...single-player/
The original article that started it all

Quote:

Videogames often allow us to live out fantasies, to be who we could never be with our saggy, regular-person frames and lives. A soldier fighting in a near-future war, with access to the finest in military hardware? Maybe I could be the squad leader? Maybe I could be the hero? Maybe I could be the one who’s allowed to open doors? But no, of course not, you are – as ever – the grunt, being barked at throughout, forced to do whatever the game/game characters tell you to, which is usually to sweep up after them and the party they’re having in front.

It fascinates me that this is the successful formula, the secret behind being the biggest FPS series of all time. It turns out people don’t want to be that hero at the forefront, making glorious decisions and bravely leading the way. They want to be the nobody who can only ever do what he’s told, and that’s on the rare occasions when he’s actually able to control himself. This game has the word “follow” on screen almost as often as it doesn’t. It floats above the head of whomever it is you’re with, ensuring you know your place, which is never to be in front, never to pick the direction, never to make a tactical decision. You follow. It says so.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/11/mod...-that-is-okay/
Kotaku/EDGE follow-up

Quote:

We play videogames by participating with them as equals, not by becoming some god-like master over them. We enjoy entering a game, suspending disbelief, and voluntarily giving in to its limitations and restrictions and doing what is asked of us. This is as true of Modern Warfare 3 as it is of Minecraft.

In this vein, you mention how you are baffled that the Modern Warfare 3 player doesn’t want to be the hero or the leader but merely the follower. In your player-centric critique where freedom is seemingly paramount, you are bewildered that people can get any enjoyment out of following orders. That’s because you were too busy trying to master the game when, really, to enjoy Modern Warfare 3 you need to participate with it. You need to do what it asks you to do, when it asks you to do it.

And if you can bring yourself to do this, Modern Warfare 3 is an absolutely breathtaking experience. Each level is so perfectly, carefully paced and scripted so that you always have just enough control over what is happening to forward the events of the plot. And sure, that plot is absurd, but you feel so engaged in it, you feel so present in it that its absurdity hardly matters while you are playing.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...ns-an-un-game/
The follow-up response from original writer

Quote:

If spectacle is what you wanted from MW3, then clearly you would have been delighted with the result. Spectacle, as the name suggests, being something you stare at in a non-participatory way. Which, I would suggest, is the very definition of my newly coined term (that I now fully expect to see appearing in one of those end-of-year Times articles that lists the new words in the parlance), un-game.

My issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with having my freedom restricted. In fact, in a narrative FPS the very last thing I want is abundant freedom. While I express my frustration in my review of not being able to choose where next to go (and I concede the word “where” is ambiguous), I do not mean choose from passage A, B or C, nor want to tramp off over the barren countryside, but merely wish to be able to choose to walk forward. Corridor shooters have been one of gaming’s greatest genres in all its lifetime, from the joy of realising it was a possibility in mazes like Wolf 3D, to the spectacular fixed-rail rollercoaster rides of the Half-Life Episodes. Not having a choice about which direction to go in is never a problem when there’s only one direction you want to go in.

And as far as I know, the final article in the series so far from Destructoid
http://www.destructoid.com/call-of-d...l-216580.phtml

This seems to be more of a critique of his article than a defense though.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

I think this just goes to show that there wasn't enough time to build a proper campaign in Modern Warfare 3. They had to cut corners and do things like have you sitting in a passenger seat shooting a turret for the majority of the campaign. They basically turned it into a rail shooter, from what I hear.

Now, that doesn't make it an "un-game"...rail shooters are still games, but it is different, and not as fun as what we had in the past.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyr (Post 279972)

As far as I know, they've had 2 years.. and something like 3-4 development teams working on the game.

Seems like more than enough time when you consider already have an engine in place.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone (Post 279973)

As far as I know, they've had 2 years.. and something like 3-4 development teams working on the game.

Seems like more than enough time when you consider already have an engine in place.

yeah, I guess they did have longer to work on it than I thought, it doesn't feel like MW2 came out 2 years ago. Maybe it has more to do with the fall out at Infinity Ward. Or maybe they realized most people buy it for the multiplayer anyway, and didn't put as much work into the campaign.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

How is this anything new? Medal of Honor has been pulling this schtick for many years. These rail sequences and "following commands" are all part of war games.

90% of shooters are linear, so any criticisms about linearity are immediately questionable.

I take offense that reviewers are just now noticing this. All things considered, if you wanted to make this criticism, it would have been more valid 4 or 5 years ago when I started complaining about it. :hmm:

Also, that Destructoid response doesn't really argue anything overly substantial.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

I think the big thing about MW3 is that you are in even less control of your character than normal. Evidently you spend the majority of the game sitting behind a turret while the game drives you around.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

Quote:

These rail sequences and "following commands" are all part of war games.

For fucks' sake, following commands is the main part of actual war. :lolz:

I disagree with the tards who wrote those articles for that one reason. If anything, a war game where the playable character is the sole hero of an entire war, (The Medal of Honor games used to be like that. One man vs. Nazi Germany) and it was so unrealistic.

If anything the fact that the playable character isn't ever at the direct forefront and is just following orders the whole time makes it feel more realistic. There are a far greater number of troops receiving orders than giving them. And even when someones giving orders, chances are he was ordered to give those orders; so in essence, he too is only following orders.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

This seems timely. From Reddit's front page:

Destructoid has undoubtedly gone downhill, but yeah. Between this and the Zelda-Gamespot controversy, I think reviewers better start checking their shit. Or maybe do away with the number scores.

This criticism is poor, btw:

Quote:

Walker calls Modern Warfare 3 an "un-game", a designation he is undoubtedly quite proud of. He complains that Modern Warfare 3 does not let him choose how to play and restricts him to tight, unyielding corridors. In his latest article, he attempts to argue that linearity isn't his problem (thus freeing him up to enjoy Half-Life without being hypocritical) but he simply confirms that it was his problem. Because honestly, Modern Warfare 3 is about as "open" as the Half-Life series. More importantly, it's as open as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare which everybody loved before the series became too popular and needed taking down a peg or two.

You can have restrictive linearity, and open linearity.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin (Post 279975)

As far as I know, he doesn't complain about the game being linear. He even tries to explain it in his second article. Not so much about it being linear as it is about you being a spectator in the game. Essentially, you aren't allowed to go or do anything the game doesn't want you to do because the game isn't ready for you to do it.

Its linearity in the strictest sense of the word, but also takes away any real player input into the game.

As Vamp says, at that point it might as well be a rail shooter.

Quote:

I take offense that reviewers are just now noticing this. All things considered, if you wanted to make this criticism, it would have been more valid 4 or 5 years ago when I started complaining about it. :hmm:

Also, that Destructoid response doesn't really argue anything overly substantial.

Why do you take "offense"?
Honestly, perhaps they noticed it then and didn't have a problem with it then. As you said its been 4-5 years, with the same formula (and a formula that has been applied to dozens of games since then). Maybe, they are finally getting tired of it.

The alternative could be that this guy didn't review Modern Warfare and he had issues with it then and never got to discuss it. He mentioned he never finished Modern Warfare 2.

I feel, it was a similar situation to Uncharted 3, which has been getting a lot of negative feedback even though it really doesn't do anything radically different than the first two, but after 3 games, folks notice the kink in the armor more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid (Post 279985)

I've always been of the mind that if realism comes at the expense of an enjoyable experience, it honestly isn't worth it.

While it may be unrealistic to be a one man army, it does make for a more compelling and personal experience instead of being a sidekick in your own adventures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin (Post 279986)

This seems timely. From Reddit's front page:

There's a lot of differences, and honestly I have no idea what the criteria is anymore for "change"

Quote:

You can have restrictive linearity, and open linearity.

Yeah, I think we're seeing a push against restrictive linearity in the industry and everyone is grouping linear games into one pile for some odd reason.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

I konw what the Jimquisition's next topic is going to be.

ROFLMAO, almost literally. :lolz:

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone (Post 279987)

As Vamp says, at that point it might as well be a rail shooter.

I agree with this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone (Post 279987)

Honestly, perhaps they noticed it then and didn't have a problem with it then. As you said its been 4-5 years, with the same formula (and a formula that has been applied to dozens of games since then). Maybe, they are finally getting tired of it.

It may even be longer than 4 or 5 years. Allied Assault came out in 2002. That was 9 fucking years ago! That game set the industry standard for big cinematic war titles. That game was fun...Normandy Beach...World War 2...but the shooter mechanics were basically Quake 2 inserted into a great cinematic vehicle. I enjoyed the game for what it was....which was an entertaining World War 2 game. Hell, a very entertaining one. That game created an epic feel akin to watching Saving Private Ryan. (the game was based on the Quake 3 engine too...but what game wasn't back in the early 2000s)...

Oddly enough, Return to Castle Wolfenstein which was based off a heavily modified Quake 3 engine had incredible multiplayer via Enemy Territory. That game is still played today, and features very complex and integrated teamwork scenarios. Obviously influenced by Tribes and other heavy multiplalyer shooters like Team Fortress (Quake 2 Team Fortress...).

I would guess Call of Duty was the next big step forward for cinematic war shooters...and it had multiplayer. Guess what? Call of Duty was based on the Quake 3 engine. :lolz: :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:

After that though....

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone (Post 279987)

Halo Reach was fucking awesome and it didn't make you a one man army. One man army games seem to be losing favor to the war games....but I always have preferred one man army games for single player.

Half-Life. Quake. Doom. NOLF. Red Faction. FEAR. Far Cry. All one man army games with awesome single player. Games like Halo? I'd rather do co-op than play alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakABone (Post 279987)

Yeah, I think we're seeing a push against restrictive linearity in the industry and everyone is grouping linear games into one pile for some odd reason.

Yeah. Reviewers are dumb.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

I'm gonna go back to my library analogy, because it seems like that's where we are at.

Video games are the new books, and we just happened to see the birth of the phenomenon.

So now instead of reading the next Hardy Boys sequel or the next Redwall...and mind you, all these sequels have similar formulas....we will play the next Modern Warfare title or the next Zelda package.

Everyone has their favorite series because we all have established history's with video games. So reviews are either going to go away...or the industry needs to curb the sequel madness.

Re: Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

I sometimes wonder what the purpose is behind writing these articles. Are these simply people playing devil's advocate because hating on anything overly successful is going to make you a cool kid on the internet? Are they simply looking to stir up discussion and draw traffic? Do they honestly believe what they are saying? This article seems like a cry for attention to me.

It's not really a thoughtful critique, just a rant about COD being a linear game, which isn't exactly a negative thing. Games are about fun, and what that means varies for difficult games. In the case of COD, it's pretty necessary for the game to be linear to create the experience they are going for. If there's any doubt to whether it's fun, look at the sales numbers.