The game itself is a little sketchy when it comes to coherency in plot, and I don't mean that the plot is confusing. There's just something off about everything. There is a huge effort to place the game in the real world, despite having a Bond approach to things. That's not to say that the scenario couldn't in fact happen, but the bad guy in the game is really a MacGuffin case to get across the real point. If you're seen the trailers, you already know that the "war" gets brought to the home turf of America. There is no theft of Fallout 3 here whatsoever, in case you were one of the few that worried about that, and you'll be happy to know that the developers know how to keep the player as unsettled as the nuke did in the first. There is one particular scene in the game that is absolutely phenomenal that reveals the war-zone that is D.C., and your jaw will drop.
What's missing is a few bits and pieces that would string along the plot a little better. There are a few random news clips thrown in here and there for effect, but the full impact of the war isn't really felt until you're actually in it. I'm not saying that there should have been more pointless fillers, but the plot is a little disjointed, which is saying something from a series that prides itself on letting the player experience war from the perspective of several soldiers during the course of a game. In World War II, this makes sense, as the background is already there, but in this game something falls short. Nonetheless, that's a cherry pick criticism and I will admit it.
The game, however, bears an improvement over Modern Warfare on almost every level. I am absolutely astounded by how much work Infinity Ward went into to take care of the little things. Even in multiplayer, motion captures were perfectly done. Except for the enemies' "grunt" personality that just goes along with the job, there aren't any hiccups in the animation. You won't find a character looking like several cinder blocks chained together, and stringing together actions looks natural and smooth. The AI is...
OK, about the AI. I can't tell. I'm sure its good, and I have reason to believe that it is good, but if you truly care to find out, play the game on easy. Why not later difficulties?
I played the game on normal difficulty, because I like to play how the developers meant for the game to be played. There was an experience here to be had, and I didn't want to ruin it by wandering into the most frustrating version of the game and having that be my first impression. The first go around is always for the fun, enjoyment, and experience. After that, if I desire a challenge, I turn it up. I'm midway through veteran right now, and my criticism stems from that.
Just as in every Call of Duty game before it, regardless of developer, the game is a cheating bastard. If you play on the harder settings, and even sometimes on normal, expect to get bent over in the worst way. There is one part of the game that sums this up perfectly. Three members of your squad go ahead of you into the entrance of a building to deal with a firefight. I tactically peeked into the building from behind them, and my face get shot by everyone at the end of the main hallway within a tenth of a second. They are only gunning for you, they are only gunning for your face, and they will hit with an obscene amount of accuracy. Going on, I saw the edge of a guy's gun pointing at my sarge, who was standing ten feet in front of me on the other side of the door frame. I peeked around the corner to pop a shot off at the gunner, and the AI twitch-spun and put three rounds into my skull before I knew what was happening. Further up on a staircase, by sarge emptied a clip at an enemy five feet in front of him, and naturally he missed every shot. Mid clip, the enemy had decided that the sarge unleashing his rifle within slapping distance was not a threat and decided that I was clearly the top priority. Once at the top of the staircase, once again three soldiers were in front of me to clear out an RPG nest. Two enemies were looking out a window, and I picked off one of them. The other managed to switch weapons, stop camping, turn around and put three pistol rounds into my head the second I pulled my trigger.
This can be demonstrated later in the game as well, as you will inevitably get sniped with a pistol from a kilometer away the second you peek your head out from a crate despite the fact that twelve of your fellow soldiers are firing on his position.
This isn't the only issue. The "God grenade" is back, at least on veteran difficulty. For those who don't know, the game will decide that occasionally you need to get a grenade chucked at you. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't for the fact that the grenade literally comes out of nowhere. In the infamous civilian massacre stage, I had mopped up the enemies in an area, looked around and saw no enemies, yet I turn back around at a runway filled with zero enemies and a grenade is at my feet. If my teammates did it, then they still threw it at me despite the fact that the previous engagement was well over. So either my team was trying to kill me for no reason (which is funny, actually...), or "God" decided I needed to start dancing.
Also, I actually have to complain about multiplayer for looking too good. Infinity Ward made the game run so smoothly online that you actually can't tell how bad you might be lagging at any given time. What you see as three shots to the head that connected might not actually BE hits at all, and there's actually a chance you didn't really fire your weapon. How do you tell if you did or not? The post-death "kill cam", and that's it. Beyond that, there are no signs to tell you if you're the lag-monster because the game still looks (on a decent connection, anyway) as if you're playing the single-player game. Animations are all great, movements are all perfect, but firing shots is sometimes guess-work. Your ping may say hat you're full-green, but that doesn't mean all those headshots you got actually made it out of the barrel. Now this is what some people expect from their FPS's, but most games give you a little, however slight it may be, nudge within the game to let you know that you're a little behind the curve. So when I say the game is over-polished in the multiplayer front, I mean that it makes a little lag LOOK good, but it will be frustrating to some gamers who aren't used to it. You'll die AFTER you shoot your amazing headshot rather than before. It can be a huge buzzkill at times.
Apart from that, everything is excellent. Even the enemy spawn points feel natural, though I didn't play the first title much on the single-player side to compare how the improvement is. All I know is that in most CoD games, you had a wall of enemies that never went away, and you had to take each individual spawn point bit by bit to keep pushing forward. In Modern Warfare 2, there is the sense that the spawn points are used to fill in gaps and reinforce the front line rather than being the front line that never dies.
As for political statements, the game makes plenty, and this paragraph will be dedicated to <<<<
Yes, I give away the plot here for the most part, but mainly because the political statements made in the game are pretty valid ones. I'm actually sort of impressed how the immersion within games can get people to think in a different way than a movie would. Being in the eyes of a front-line soldier and experiencing everything rather than just watching it is a whole different beast when it comes to social commentary, and they did a tremendous job.
Several stages in the game do indeed take place in America, though I'm a little confused about the why and how when it comes to Russia invading the country from the east coast. Strategically, it makes sense in some ways, but how the hell did they get there in the first place? That, I don't understand. The fight being on American turf, however, means everything. The premise in itself, even though I called the terrorist a MacGuffin earlier, is realistic. A surprisingly high number of conflicts have begun following third party action, and in todays political climate, it makes perfect sense. Given recent Russian military actions, the prospect of a conflict between our countries was at least on the table at one point regardless of how far or close it was to actually happening. Today's political climate is one of paranoia, and it's also extremely complicated. All it takes is for a suicide bomber to blow himself up in the right place, and it doesn't matter what countries are involved. It could be New Zealand and the Philippines going to war over a soccer match in Spain, and it really would have nothing to do with us, but Americans could be on the front lines.
In the game, all the enemies are tangos, and it really is the foundation of the game that the general enemy is a neutral, unnamed one. No racial or derogatory terms are thrown into the game at all. That may just be a politically correct thing, but considering that you mow down civvies in the game, I'm not really buying it. The soldiers never cross the line in conversation about objectifying anything, which makes more sense when you consider who the bad guys really end up being in the game. Your own General ends up being the bad guy, and that's something to really think about when you match it up with everything else in the game. The Americans in the game are out fighting a war that reflects our own current "war" on foreign soil, which just starts things off, and then we're constantly reminded that just as in real life, we're the ones who put a lot of terrorists into power to begin with through training and funding. It ends up being the American general that basically causes the invasion of his own country through these underhanded tactics. Being in the eyes of a soldier used as a pawn, which is literally the name of one of the achievements, sort of makes you scratch your head and wonder "why?".
In one scene, probably the strongest "I hate the enemy" remark in the game is a soldier that says that he wants to do the same thing to Moscow that happened to D.C.. The sarge seems satisfied, but shows patience with his action by replying that it will happen when "the time is right". It's refreshing to see that the pawns in the game are the ones doing their jobs with high regard for civilian life without condemning or demonizing their enemies, showing that even Washington D.C. being invaded can't even be taken at face value these days. It's hard to even know who the good guys are on our own turf, so judging another country or group of people is the last thing that's done in the game. It's extremely satisfying to take down the real villain in the game, especially after a few moments where you feel like he might actually get away with everything he's done.
It's not high-philosophy, but the game succeeds at putting the complicated matters of politics and war into a simple viewpoint that you can relate to. The view is also an exceptionally good one, too, and even with all of the complications going around in the plot-line, the simple "fight for your country" one is done perfectly as well. At D.C., the Air Force has been authorized to flatten the city, soldiers included, unless the remaining soldiers can signal that there is actually a force last to fight the enemy with. After fighting what you're sure (after the nuke from the first Modern Warfare) is a futile battle to announce yourself from the rooftops, the fighters acknowledge that they recognize your flair and call off the strike. That was a "whew" moment in itself, but then you're allowed to look at D.C. from high ground, and you see several other flares as well. At that point, you were pretty sure that you were the last complete squad left, and the scene is so well done that you really get a sense of pride and that lifting of the hopeless mood. Props to ya, Infinity Ward.
<<<<
Onto the consumers. Look, I'm not buying Modern Warfare 2 for the PC, nor will I play it. I wanted it on PS3, and that's a personal choice for me and not a statement on the PC state of things. What I don't believe, however, is that the PC version could possibly be a broken, unplayable, unenjoyable, POS, 1.6/10 rated game, because as of 11/11, IGN.com lists the reader average as 1.6. I understand that the dedicated server thing got everybody on their high horse, but honestly, are you kidding me? From my understanding, this game is practically a clone of the console versions and if you were to hide the rig behind a wall with an X-Box controller sticking out, no one would even really know the difference. All of the features are there, with nothing missing, and yet the community still complains? I'm all for complaining when things are wrong, but the PC gamers are getting the same thing everyone else is getting and they are bitching about it.
My second complaint is that when I got online to play the multiplayer segment, there were players already leveled in the 30's and 40's. Today I saw 50's. The game was just released, and I know that I'm in Alaska, but come on. For the people that absolutely had to get the game early from the mom and pop stores, that's douchebaggery and you know it. GameStop, thank you for fueling this. No, really. Even worse, though, is that while I call them douchebags and move on, equally talented douchebags are flaming message boards with impunity to complain about it. At some point, the "it's only a game" line was crossed, which sort of makes you wonder how serious you can get about gaming before it becomes crazy. It's not as if there's money on the line for reaching a certain level first.
Finally, Infinity Ward is catching a lot of praise and a lot of flak for this game right now, and I'm starting to understand that "fans" are becoming more and more of a problem to developers that are actually good. It's one thing to bash UbiSoft for Assassin's Creed because the game is far from perfect, but the expectations were so impossibly high for this game. Realistically, they met all of those expectations, yet are taking some of the biggest criticisms I've ever seen for a good game.
When I bought Fallout 3 on its release, I came home to find out that the game was probably had the worst compatibility for an A-list title I've ever seen in recent years. I ran XP, and switching to Vista solved everything, but after installing the game I found so many bugs and crashes that the game was truly unplayable. They also included SecuROM with no announcement whatsoever, and I was furious. The game was truly broken on the compatibility end of things, was buggy as hell, and contained software that has been rightfully denounced as a piece of software that would have been written by the Nazis if they were still around....that's reason to be angry at a developer. One patch later and jumping to Vista, and the game itself was amazing, though still a little glitchy. Even then, I never asked for someone to go lob the heads off of Bethesda's staff.
Modern Warfare 2 is about as complete a shooter and overall experience that you're going to get for quite some time. All versions of the game are pretty much the same quality game. If Infinity Ward wants the experience to be consistent and structured a certain way on all platforms, that's fine with me. If the game were crappy, that would be one thing, but the game is excellent and they are getting hammered for every little mistake that they make. It's time to start wondering if some people are really taking this gaming thing a little too seriously. A company releases a great game on the PC and the fans hate them for it. Dedicated servers or not, that makes no sense.
I'm going to go shoot things now. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
No comments:
Post a Comment