Or CoDfish and chips! Or CoDswallop! (I can do this all day)
I hope you're sitting down, because this is easily one of the longest episodes of A Step Behind that I've done. This week we take a look at two entries in (whether you like it or not) what is possibly the biggest franchise in gaming right now, Call of Duty. I absolutely LOVED CoD 4, and sunk endless hours into both the single player campaign and multiplayer. It's successors, however, well, check out my review for Modern Warfare 2, and this week's entry. I bring up a few points later on that I'd like to hear from you, the reader about, so please, feel free to leave a comment here or on Facebook.
I hope you're sitting down, because this is easily one of the longest episodes of A Step Behind that I've done. This week we take a look at two entries in (whether you like it or not) what is possibly the biggest franchise in gaming right now, Call of Duty. I absolutely LOVED CoD 4, and sunk endless hours into both the single player campaign and multiplayer. It's successors, however, well, check out my review for Modern Warfare 2, and this week's entry. I bring up a few points later on that I'd like to hear from you, the reader about, so please, feel free to leave a comment here or on Facebook.
Call of Duty: World At War
- Platform: 360
- Release Date: 11/11/08 (2 years behind!)
- Achievements: 1000/1500
- 2+ playthoughs @ 40+ hours
- I compare it to: It's Call of Duty, in World War 2! Again!
I really didn't want to play this game. Really. Modern Warfare was my first Call of Duty game; this was due to having played a lot of Medal of Honor back in the day, I was pretty burned out on WW2 as a game genre and setting as a result. So, after finding out that not only would the next Call of Duty not be developed by Infinity Ward, and on top of that would go BACK to the WW2 setting, I immediately set this entry to ignore.
A big part of that did have to do with the developer and the politics surrounding this franchise. If you follow gaming news like I do, feel free to skip to the next section. Sometime after Call of Duty 2, Activision (publisher) decided that to maximize the franchise's earning potential (at the time, CoD 2 was the best selling 360 launch game) they needed to maneuver it into a position that could facilitate yearly releases. The only real way to do this was concurrent development, split between Infinity Ward, the creator of the game's phenomenal engine, and Treyarch, who would use that engine and assets as they so chose. Infinity Ward has never been ok with this, and for a long time I was mad on their behalf.
So, I totally ignored World at War for about a year and a half after it released. The only reason it wound up in my queue was the fact that I enjoyed CoD2, and figured one more WW2 game couldn't hurt. And I wanted to see for myself what Treyarch did with the Modern Warfare engine. I'll just come right out and say it, I was pleasantly surprised. World at War is a great game. However, there are changes in the formula, that while I can understand the reasoning behind them, just don't sit well with me. And one change that I love and that will probably never die.
World at War re-adopts the multiple campaign model from the older CoDs, but limits it to 2. The first takes place during some of the most intense battles of the Pacific Theater, such as Makin Atoll, Peleliu, and Okinawa. You follow Sergeant Roebuck (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland) through banzai ambushes, seemingly impossible assaults against hardened Japanese positions, and the terror of fighting an iron-willed foe who does not fear death.
Treyarch really ratchets up the story element for the Russian campaign however. You wake up, lying in a pile of dead, staying as still as you possibly can so the Nazi soldier finishing your friends off will pass you by. Once he's gone, you find you're not alone. This is where you meet Sgt. Reznov (the one and only Gary Oldman), the merciless, battle-hardened, nigh-insane survivor of the Nazi invasions. Starting by hunting down and assassinating a German general, Reznov leads you on a journey of pure revenge into the heart of the Reich itself.
The Russian campaign is much more powerful story-wise, but both are very strong in terms of gameplay, especially the breakout sequences. The tank level is great, but the Black Cat sequence is AWESOME. *SPOILER AHEAD* One great detail I have to mention: The end of most WW2 games I've played usually take place at the end of an advance, or particular part of the campaign, then have a short history lesson about how the war in Europe ended. Not World at War. The last two levels take place during the Russian assault on the Reichstag itself. No other game has given me the sense that I was fighting in the “final battle” of World War II, and it felt appropriately epic. This particular level was incredibly difficult on Normal, and took me a month's worth of attempts on Veteran. Not since Mile High Club in CoD4 have I been so happy to finally get past something. *END SPOILER*
The action and visuals in WaW are top notch, which is to be expected from this franchise. The trademark Call of Duty cinematic-style intensity is in place, supported by an excellent score by Sean Murray. The score, as exciting and booming as it is, does have its anachronistic moments, namely with some metal riffs, some electronic beats, and much darker orchestral movements. (as compared to Graeme Revell's seemingly period-appropriate score for Call of Duty 2) This got to me a bit on an intellectual level, however, while it doesn't fit the aesthetics of the period, it does fit the tone of the story, and I understand that it was created to heighten the drama and be relevant to contemporary audiences. Tiger Wife, however, would have a lot to say about it.
If there was anything I didn't like about WaW (other than the ridiculous tendency of every enemy onscreen to throw grenades at your exact position at once), it's certain little details that I feel compromise some of the “values” that the series has held. For instance, in previous games, the first of your bullets that goes astray and hits a friendly NPC forces a checkpoint restart, with the unambiguous declaration, “Friendly fire will NOT be tolerated!” Apparently, in WaW, it is tolerated, and your squadmates react to being shot as if you'd just given them dead-leg. I know, its a video game, and having to restart a checkpoint because the AI took a dive into your line of fire sucks, but there's just something about being able to plink your teammates with impunity that doesn't sit well with me. Another addition that Treyarch made to the engine seems like a natural element for a war game, but somehow misses the mark for me. Graphic dismemberment makes its series debut in WaW, with limbs flying through the air after a powerful enough explosive or big enough round. I'm well aware that this is part of war, but in this case, I'm not sure that it feels anything other than gratuitous. While I do understand that this could seem hypocritical coming from me, being a lifelong fan of gory franchises like Mortal Kombat and God of War, the real difference here is tone. MK and GoW are crazy, over the top experiences that couldn't ever be mistaken for reality. This boils down to a matter of personal opinion, but I think that the dismemberment in WaW still feels somewhat frivolous and unnecessary, and works against the respect for the soldier that I feel Infinity Ward was so good with. I'd love to hear some opinions on this, especially from service members.
One more note about World at War, aside from the main campaign and multiplayer (which actually includes campaign co-op), there is a mode that I have to recommend as a must play, and if you aren't thrilled just by hearing the name, then you're not a gamer. Nazi Zombies! Trapped in a house, killing a flood of the combination of the two things gamers love to kill. That is all.
Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Platform: 360
- Release Date: 11/09/10 (Not behind! Thanks, TigerWife!)
- Achievements: 890/1000
- Playthroughs: 2+ @ 35+ hours
- I compare it to: The CoD franchise's application for membership in the SCA.
Call of Duty: Black Ops is the series's largest grosser so far. Of course, with CoD, thats like saying its the first one since the last one. Huge sales numbers don't surprise me anymore for this franchise, but a decent story does, and I'm glad to say that Black Ops actually has a fairly long and enjoyable campaign.
Black Ops is pretty much what you'd expect from the title, namely focusing on the shady activities we're pretty sure the CIA undertook in Cuba, Vietnam, and Russia in the 60's, during the height of the Cold War. Centering on Alec Mason, or is it Mason Briggs, or Nick Mason? Ah, ok, ALEX Mason. Note to video game industry: Time to retire the name Mason. (10 bucks to anyone who can tell me which games the others are from without using the Internet) You play as Alex Mason (Sam Worthington, thoroughly enjoying his best year ever), a CIA operative who is captured by the Soviets after a botched (but action packed!) assassination misson. After being held captive for three years, he manages to escape the gulag in which he's imprisoned with the help of a familiar face, WWII veteran Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman, again), and returns to the CIA, which puts him right back to work alongside handler Jason Hudson (Ed Harris), despite the fact that Mason is still under the influence of Soviet brainwashing.
While Treyarch doesn't have the same flair for over-the-top set pieces as the late Infinity Ward, Black Ops makes up for it with an actual story with plot and character development, some neat twists, and a real ending. It's also nice that Mason isn't the standard issue silent protagonist, and while he's not the most compelling of characters, it does help to forge an stronger connection with the player. (Also, Treyarch doesn't seem to hate its player characters as much as Infinity Ward.) Black Ops also does a pretty good job of capturing the paranoia of this particular era, with its motifs of brainwashing, espionage, and the threat of WMDs, even if by the end it resembles a James Bond movie more than anything else.
Black Ops is a hotbed of anachronism, even more so than World at War. Some really good period classic rock tracks (Sympathy the Devil makes for a nice touch) occupy the soundtrack, along with returning composer Sean Murray's cinematic-style score. The testosterone milking metal chords are back, along with a heavy electronic bass beat running through one level. While it doesn't fit with the period aesthetics, like WaW, it works for the game. (the bass beat level gets particularly exciting) Murray also revisits some of his best motifs from World at War for a key character, and that really gets things going.
Black Ops takes a few liberties with the history of this period, besides not being based on real events, and I get why they do that. That doesn't bother me. (Besides, I've always said that playing Call of Duty to learn about history is like watching porn to learn anatomy, but I digress.) What does bother me is the blatant and constant weapon anachronisms that run throughout the entire game. I understand Treyarchs reluctance to downgrade the arsenal from Modern Warfare 2, which would have been fine if it was limited to multiplayer, but seeing weapons which are obviously not from the era they're portraying pulls me right out. For instance, not everyone knows that the G11 automatic long range rifle wasn't prototyped until 1992, but seeing an AKS-74 (made in, you guessed it, 1974) during a sequence that takes place in 1965 is just insulting to my intelligence. It's like seeing an AK-47 in a World War II game. (thankfully, the historical advisors for WaW didn't let that happen.)
After all that, one thing that I really have to give to Black Ops is that it's a LOT of content for the price of admission. In addition to the satisfyingly long campaign (which most welcome after the 4 ½ hour Modern Warfare 2,) there's several other game modes and a ton of easter eggs.
I'm sure you've heard plenty about multiplayer already, so I'll limit my thoughts to a few words: Yes, it's fun. No, I don't play it a lot. Why? Because I suck at it. Moving on.
The undead return in Black Ops in the form of the now sadly generic sounding Zombies mode. (I was very disappointed to find out that it would just be called Zombies. Commie Zombies would have given my heart nigh-eternal joy.) It's been expanded, with larger maps, objectives, etc. The problem is that the objectives (turning on the power) are practically impossible to find, requiring looking up online or playing with someone who's done it before. By the time you've killed enough zombies to afford some exploration, the zombies start coming with enough force to make sure you don't get far. This doesn't mean it's not a blast though, and playing with a group of friends is a perfectly acceptable way to kill an evening.
Another feature that I hope isn't getting overlooked by too many people is the ludicrously fun (and ludicrous) easter egg game, Dead Ops Arcade. This top down, Smash TV style dual stick shooter is retro to its core, the graphics engine notwithstanding. It hearkens back to the colorful arcade cabinets of the 80's, with their flashy concept art that may or may not have had anything to do with the game inside, if indeed that cabinet housed its original game.
It should be no surprise by now that Black Ops is easily one of the most polished games I've played. There is so much money behind this brand that it can't help but drip production value. With top notch voice actors (Gary Oldman, Ed Harris, Ice Cube, and others), and one of the most highly refined game engines on the market, Black Ops has been genetically engineered to be as successful as it is. We keep buying them, they keep making them. If you're sick of Call of Duty, you've only got yourself (and about 50 million other gamers) to blame.
Next time! Feel the wrath of MoHGoW!
Next time! Feel the wrath of MoHGoW!
