A Holiday of Gaming: Entry 2
By SteveCall of Duty 4
It’s hard for me to gauge my feelings on this game because I played it in its entirety after I’d started Crysis (but hadn’t reached its sucking bits). Its linear, heavily scripted gameplay—even when implemented with as much skill as Infinity Ward delivers here—feels tired and dull compared to the open-endedness of Crysis. Yeah, all of those in-engine scripted scenes are amazing. But we all get the same amazing scenes, and we all play it the same way. (I didn’t try multiplayer, and I’m told it’s fantastic. I also played it on the 360 instead of the PC, only because I borrowed it rather than bought it.)
Still, a few segments stood out. The sniper mission is brilliant, beautifully capturing a feeling of dread and panic that you’ll be detected. (The fact that you and your companion look like Treebeard is a bonus.) The only goofy part is crawling under a parade of cars in the open; in a “real” scenario, you’d probably just go around the soldiers.
The second is an airborne attack, where sit in a plane high above the action coldly launching bombs, rockets, and various other implements of death at little white dots that scurry about. That those dots are people—and the fact your fellow soldiers in the plane are constantly offering accolades when you score a good hit—probably says more about modern war than any Hollywood polemic. And it was so obvious that there’d be collateral damage, though that’s never discussed.
Whether or not Infinity Ward designed it to be unsettling or not (and in the context of a game that’s mostly “rah rah, soldiers are fucking badass!” I’m going to go with “no”), it disturbed me. While the game makes it clear you’re fighting against “very bad people,” it made modern war seem horribly unfair, particularly when contrasted against most games being forced to “balance” the US versus its enemies for gameplay purposes.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
This game was a fun run and gun style game. But I hated the feeling in certain parts that I had to correctly solve the puzzle. I also hated the respawn chambers. I would get to a good tactical position and wipe out the enemy only to have them respawn. I would have to leave my good cover and expose myself to run to the tripline.
I did really enjoy the airborne attack as well. The feeling of power was well implemented and loved the low fidelity imagery to give you that removed feeling. Then I think it was a comment from a spotter on the plane or such about that’s a kill that made me realize what was happening.
Here, I am killing these enemies from such a removed position with such low connection to the death and no chance that they could respond. While in a game, this may be okay, the fact that this is actual capability today is brought home. Don’t know if they meant anything by it either, or if they even meant for it to be noticeable, but it can’t help but make someone realize and question today’s army and war. Is it better for us now that we can deliver such death to the enemy with such little chance for injury to our soldiers or does this make it more likely for us to jump to our weapons knowing we can take them out with little damage against us. Does raise some good political issues inside the game.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
The sniper mission is brilliant, beautifully capturing a feeling of dread and panic that you’ll be detected.
You’ve sold me completely. As you know, (damn that was a long post over there - sorry) I’m a sucker for sniper stuff, especially when legitimate stealth is involved. (or tangible feelings of stealth - whatever works)
But I hated the feeling in certain parts that I had to correctly solve the puzzle. I also hated the respawn chambers. I would get to a good tactical position and wipe out the enemy only to have them respawn.
I’ve been told that this works the same way as in Call of Duty 2. While I loved many sections of that game, making enemies infinitely respawn was a terrible design decision. It was as if you had to go through the exact motions planned for you to not break the scripting. You had a script to follow too. That broke immersion very quickly whenever you noticed it, which was often. Eventually the U.S. sections overwhelmed that with sheer amplitude in multiple ways, but the game had already given you a mixed impression.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Steve,
Not negating your thoughtful comments on Crysis and CoD4, but I’m hoping you get time to return to STALKER in your week-long vacation. Or, rather, I’m hoping you’ll post some more of your thoughts on that game.
Briefly - I, too, have beaten both Crysis and CoD4, and pretty much agree with your (and other) comments.
Couple of CoD4 moments that floored me were the intro car ride through the streets to the inevitable Al-Fulani execution. Quite disturbing. Then the post-nuclear explosion where you can essentially wander around dazed until the kind release of death. Even more disturbing that there was indeed nothing glorious about your death, just a “KIA” reminder, and it moves on to the next level as if nothing happened. What a bad way for Paul Jackson to go out…
December 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The car ride didn’t move me much, but yeah… I should’ve mentioned the post-nuke moment, which was pretty amazing for its matter-of-factness and, as you say, how the game just continued without pause; pretty ballsy move there.