14 replies to this topic

[theoddone33]

I picked up Call of Duty 4 tonight based on some recommendations on a private forum. It's been getting very good reviews and selling very well, but I've had a stigma about war games for a while, and I've avoided all the other Call of Duty (and Medal of Honor, and Enemy Territory, and etc etc etc) games as a result.

But the gushing about it I was reading made me think that it might be worth picking up. I've played through I'm guessing about 80% of the single player now and I have to say that I'm very impressed. It's not as cinematic as Gears of War, but there's definitely an epic feel to the whole thing. The environments are beautiful and some of the missions are very very well put together. Spoilers would abound if I mentioned some of my favorite moments so far, but I'd almost call it jaw-dropping on multiple occasions.

The subtitle for COD4 is "Modern Warfare", which... as I understand it... is in contrast to the previous games in the series which have all been based on World War II. This game follows SAS and USMC special ops teams as they try to end a war started by a generic middle-eastern coup. Each mission is prefaced by an introductory video, zooming in on a map of the world right to your squad's position. I've got no idea what the previous games are like, but squads are kind of important in this. Not that they're a large tactical part of the gameplay like in Rainbow Six or other Tom Clancy games, but the squads and radio chatter are a sort of the vehicle for delivering the majority of the game's plot.

I've heard very nice things about the multiplayer as well, but I haven't been able to try it out yet. One thing some people see as a downside is that it is a bit short. I'm told 5-6 hours of gameplay. For the price, that's pretty steep if you don't plan to play the multiplayer, but shorter games are becoming more and more convenient for me, so I find it almost ideal.

Disclaimer: I'll be working for Activision in a few weeks... but I did not work on COD4, so my comments are hopefully without bias.

Edited by theoddone33, 01 January 2008 - 01:36 AM.

[Jason Panella]

I played the first Call of Duty and enjoyed it.

Some slightly spoilerish comments follow!

Like what you experienced, most of the story is delivered through squadmate conversation or radio chatter. It's broken into three short campaigns: American airborne operations on the eve of D-Day, British operations that stem from that landing, and the Russian defense of Stalingrad. Each draw heavily from film, often to the point that it seemed like that game designers just took frames from films and used them for level design. For instance, some of the 82nd Airborne stuff was straight out of the first few episodes of Band of Brothers, especially the assault on the artillery emplacement. The British SAS mission is all over the map, but a few parts scream "The Longest Day!" And the Russian bit really took a hint from Enemy at the Gates, which is why I probably enjoyed it the least.

There are some really jaw-dropping sequences in the game, but a few mind-numbing ones as well (the few points where you have to man an anti-aircraft gun or mounted anti-tank weapon are very....arcade-ish, to put it lightly). But it's worth playing. In fact, I might try to pick it up one of these days...I see it at bargain prices at various stores.

Edited by Jason Panella, 01 January 2008 - 10:03 AM.

[Jason Panella]

As a tangent, I really think the Halo franchise is sufficiently overrated. Maybe it's because I latched on to the Half-Life series since day one and felt I like I was defending my "team," but I yawned when I heard Halo 3 was coming out.

[Jason Panella]

I've been reading up on the game, and it's making me want to play it. (And numbers two and three, for that matter.) Some reviewers are saying the single-player campaign is too short, though. I'm guessing you can't answer that just yet, Alan, but anyone else (or Alan when he wraps it up)...is this true?

[theoddone33]

I believe I'm a couple of missions past Alan. I also am pretty sure that I'm not very far from the end, as things are starting to build up (even moreso than before). Just at a guess, I'd say the 5-6 hours time I'd heard before is about right. Multiplayer, though, is supposed to be very very good... and I've heard a few people say that they've been playing through the single player campaign a second time on the hardest difficulty level.

How do the earlier games in the series compare to COD4?

[theoddone33]

Keeping in mind that I'm not unbiased because I have an interest in good things happening to the developer of this game... I have to say that I haven't played Call of Duty: World at War (aka COD5) yet, but this preview and others like it are starting to get me excited about it.

[theoddone33]

Call of Duty: World at War came out this week. Reviews are tracking around 90%, and online buzz is pretty encouraging. Most people agreed that this game had a tough task filling COD4's shoes, but from what I'm reading around the net, people are quite happy with it so far.

I'm going to limit what I say because I work for the studio that made this game, but I got the opportunity to play through it a couple of weeks ago and it definitely has some memorable moments. Cooperative play is added this time around for the story campaigns, as well as a co-op survival mode for online play called "Nacht der Untoten" (Night of the Undead). It's probably worth a look if you were a fan of COD4, though the WWII setting necessitates a different form of storytelling.

[theoddone33]

Modern Warfare 2 is scheduled for a November release, I believe, and press is starting to gear up for it. I believe the first significant trailer for the game is scheduled to debut during the Eastern Conference Finals this Sunday.

The game takes place in the COD4 universe, with the protagonist from that game leading the player's squad against a new terrorist threat. Released information so far is that there will be a level set in Rio, with the O Cristo Redentor prominently displayed, as well as snow levels and apparently some underwater action. Infinity Ward has made statements indicating that they intend to address the issues raised with COD4 about infinitely spawning enemy sections and the overall short length of the story mode. Also, they're planning to include a 2 player cooperative mode where they can feature one-off missions, but there's no word yet on if this will be online coop only or if it will feature split screen.

[Jason Panella]

Steam had a ridiculous sale over the weekend on Call of Duty games: the original Call of Duty, its expansion packed United Offense, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Call of Duty: World at War for $29.99. (Which is close to what one of final two games in that list retail for by itself!)

Even though the original Call of Duty was my only experience with the franchise, I played through it quickly this weekend (as in, it took me a few hours to beat.) Got stuck in a glitch in the expansion, so played a little of Call of Duty 2 (which was good, from what I saw). Then I started playing World at War.

While the other WWII set Call of Duty games are fairly mild in how they depict war (sure, people die, but there's triumphant music playing, and there's not much blood!), World at War is completely different. I guess it helps that the graphics are significantly more realistic. The two stories — the American, set in the Pacific theater, and the Russian, set on the Soviets' surge into Germany — show war to be violent and bloody, sure, but also chaotic, senseless and dehumanizing. Enemy soldiers cry and search for lost limbs as they bleed to death. Japanese soldiers try to bayonet you as they run out of ammunition. Bullets do terrible things to bodies. Friends and commanders die suddenly.

There's also some impressive moral questions the developers raise. I'm only a short way through the game, but there are points where your character is presented with some 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations. The Russian campaign is especially rough — your character is tutored on how to snipe by a grizzled sergeant (voiced very well by Gary Oldman), and his quest for vengeance takes priority over any sense of decency, even to unarmed enemy soldiers.

But it's impressive, and the gameplay is spectacular. And I'm glad they made it dark, which is waaaay different than the previous WWII-set Call of Duty games. It's also worth noting that the voice acting is fantastic in this; in addition to Oldman, Kiefer Sutherland has a big role (he has a lot of dialogue) as well as a few other good voice actors.

EDIT: Also adding that while this game got fairly excellent critical reviews, the 'game community' didn't like it as much. There might be some good reasons for it, but so far all of the arguments against it are because "LOL WW2 is dumb" or "dis game sux," which don't seem like good arguments. (Maybe it's because a huge chunk of the 'game community' is made up of drooling teens that just want stuff to blow up good and ways to humiliate people in multiplayer mode?)

Edited by Jason Panella, 28 June 2010 - 10:15 AM.

[David Smedberg]

Quote

There's also some impressive moral questions the developers raise. I'm only a short way through the game, but there are points where your character is presented with some 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations. The Russian campaign is especially rough — your character is tutored on how to snipe by a grizzled sergeant (voiced very well by Gary Oldman), and his quest for vengeance takes priority over any sense of decency, even to unarmed enemy soldiers.

I really struggle with games that have situations like this.

If the game puts me, as a gamer, into a position where I have to carry out some authority's evil agenda -- whether it be the G-Man, a gangster boss, or the military brass -- I'm out the door. Since games' uniqueness is that the gamer has choices, then I don't want to be carried along in a situation where I (or my character) act evilly... even though it's "only a game". The more realistic the gaming environment is, the more problematic this becomes.

[Jason Panella]

David Smedberg, on 28 June 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

If the game puts me, as a gamer, into a position where I have to carry out some authority's evil agenda -- whether it be the G-Man, a gangster boss, or the military brass -- I'm out the door. Since games' uniqueness is that the gamer has choices, then I don't want to be carried along in a situation where I (or my character) act evilly... even though it's "only a game". The more realistic the gaming environment is, the more problematic this becomes.

I understand that and empathize. I haven't come across this part yet, though — at this point — the Russian sergeant has told my character to shoot the wounded Germans to "put them out of their misery." Have I? No. I'm wondering how the 'shooting German prisoner' part is handled, and if there's actually a choice.

Also worth mentioning is the controversial mission from the most recent Call of Duty game, Modern Warfare 2. Again, I haven't played this one, but I've seen the videos on YouTube: your American commando is under deep cover in a Russian terrorist organization, and the mission has the terrorist (along with the character you're playing) walking through a Russian airport, gunning down civilians. The developers did something interesting with the mission: you don't have to play it to advance the game. You can skip it outright, with no penalties, or you can play and not actual shoot yourself (though you're allowing the others to shoot). I don't know how I feel about it (and some of the negative things I've heard about the game in general make me not want to play it in general), but at the very least someone making popular media at least recognizes the terrible stuff soldiers/spys/etc. (of any nationality) do in their line of work. Ack.

And for what it's worth, David, your qualms are also the reason why I don't play games like Grand Theft Auto, etc.

[David Smedberg]

Jason Panella, on 28 June 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

I haven't come across this part yet, though — at this point — the Russian sergeant has told my character to shoot the wounded Germans to "put them out of their misery." Have I? No. I'm wondering how the 'shooting German prisoner' part is handled, and if there's actually a choice.

There's an interesting scene in the first Deus Ex, specifically surrounding shooting a prisoner, that changed how I think about games in general. I really liked how the whole game that I had played up that point got instantly turned on its head, when I was faced with the choice... and how although I couldn't "lose the game" then, there is a definite right choice, and wrong choice.

[Jason Panella]

David Smedberg, on 29 June 2010 - 08:12 AM, said:

There's an interesting scene in the first Deus Ex, specifically surrounding shooting a prisoner, that changed how I think about games in general. I really liked how the whole game that I had played up that point got instantly turned on its head, when I was faced with the choice... and how although I couldn't "lose the game" then, there is a definite right choice, and wrong choice.

I know the scene you're talking about in Deus Ex — honestly, there are countless parts of that game that make made me re-think video games.

I came across the part in Call of Duty: World at War yesterday, and it's rough stuff. But I feel like they handled it well. Your character is amongst hundreds of other Russian soldiers as they attack Berlin. There's a group of German soldiers gathered at the bottom of a set of stairs leading to the metro; the Russians surrounding them are about to tossing Molotov cocktails on them. The particularly blood-thirty sergeant tells you to lead the rest of the men and throw the first cocktail (with the rest of the Russians following suit). I think if you don't do anything, the soldiers burn the Germans regardless. The other option: quickly shoot the Germans as a sort of 'mercy killing.' I was glad when the game switched back to the American perspective after that (including a mission aboard a seaplane trying to survivors from a Zero attack...tense beyond belief).

[theoddone33]

I might as well point out the next installment, Call of Duty: Black Ops, as I've spent the last ~2 years working on it. Here's our reveal trailer:



I can't say too much about it, but the reaction to our press so far has been encouraging.

[Jason Panella]

theoddone33, on 19 July 2010 - 03:36 AM, said:

I can't say too much about it, but the reaction to our press so far has been encouraging.

I saw the trailer a few weeks ago, and was impressed. Love the setting, too — not too many games go with that time period. Nice work, oddone!)