Near the start of Call of Duty 4, we get a unique angle on an assassination. It's a popcorn-worthy piece of semi-interactive cinema, steeped in the perfectly captured atmosphere of a hot country's dusty streets, and gleaming with Hollywood polish. But we never find out who this man really was, what he stood for, or why it starts a war.
This is CoD4: a beautifully crafted first-person shooter, but without a compelling context. How much does that matter? To me, a little. Not a lot, but it nags.
You fight your way through CoD4's streets and country lanes with a small squad of fellow SAS agents, or sometimes fellow marines, who are controlled by the game. Two or three of these are critical characters who give you orders, play a role in the story, and can't die. With them, you battle across rural Russia, the toxic Ukraine and the urban, er, 'MIDDLE EAST'.
It's almost funny how much has stayed the same from the WWII-based CoDs, given how much real war has changed in the last 60 years.
As ever, you spend most of your time ducking behind crates, barrels and pillars while shots thwack into the scenery around you, your CO screams orders and the grenade icon pops up to inform you that your cover is about to be covered in Soap. Your name is Soap, by the way, except when it's Jackson.
"Soap! Get that Javelin and take out those tanks!"
"Jackson! Take out that AA gun so we can call in air support!"
Jackson is a US marine, and Soap is a British SAS soldier under the command of the exuberantly moustachioed Captain Price, who is inexplicably alive, the same age and the same rank as he was 60 years earlier in the first two CoD games.
There's actually a third playable character, but for the sake of those who haven't already watched the trailer that gives it away, I won't spoil who it is.
Working for a hairy old man slightly spoils the cool-factor of your new high-tech equipment: flashbangs, nightvision and silencers. But these things do mark CoD4 as a stealthier, more predatory game.
You're usually in control of the situation, rather than drowning in the chaos, and that feels good. Even better when you hit the melee button: instead of inelegantly bonking foes with your gun, you now draw a knife, lunge forward and fatally stab them in one swift, quiet stroke.
The covert theme doesn't prevail throughout - most of the game is still shooting, screaming and explosions - but these sections do escalate. The climax is an extraordinary pair of missions playing as a sniper in Chernobyl, under the careful instruction of Scot-in-a-bush Captain MacMillan.
You're both wearing ghillie suits, you see - camouflage that essentially involves gluing a shrubbery to your head.
In the game, as in real life, it's virtually impossible to see a ghillied-up sniper like MacMillan in the right cover - even when you're about to step on him. This enables the two of you to race through an incredible sort of extreme-stealth assault course, dashing and ducking thrillingly close to ridiculous numbers of heavily armed hostiles without being detected.
Lying in the tall grass and watching as a few men, then a squadron, then an army with tanks crest the hill towards you and nearly step on your fingers - it's just magnificent.
If the whole game had been like this, or even just this inventive throughout, you'd find a frankly silly score at the end of this review. Instead it's a more restrained one, because CoD4 spends too much of its seven-hour campaign mimicking the series' former drama and glory in a context that doesn't suit it.
The setup for CoD4 amounts to: "There's some kind of conflict in a Middle-Eastern country LET'S GO!" It's no less than we've come to expect from games, but it's a little less than we've come to expect from Call of Duty, and it's hard to get emotional about a conflict this vague.
Your enemies are referred to as 'Ultranationalists' but for a country that's never even named. Hilariously, your pre-mission briefing screen keeps telling you you're heading out to 'THE MIDDLE EAST', while news reportage yaks about fighting in 'the capital'. The capital of THE MIDDLE EAST?
You know, I think I might go on holiday to THE WEST next summer - I hear it's nice in THE MIDDLE YEAR. There's something cheap and cynical about this kind of non-specific design: as if we'll be happy to blast away at a generic Arab-looking country. Is that what we're like?
Any time the World War II incarnations of CoD made you think "What are we doing here, why are we fighting?" it was a profound reflection on the madness of war.
Because that war happened. When you're wondering the same in CoD4, they're not rhetorical questions. No really, guys, what am I doing here? What's my beef with the 900 people I've killed so far? In fact, where am I?
There's one mission in particular that's truly chilling, and would have made an indelible anti-war statement if the game were set in a real conflict. You've seen that video on the news, in black and white nightvision, of the people trying to scramble away as silent explosions fling them around like ragdolls, while servicemen laugh at them from behind the camera? This is the game of that.
You just click, and a second or two later a billowing cloud of white-hot death engulfs the target area, killing dozens of people and hurling them gracelessly across the ground. The slurred, grainy visual filter used to mimic a nightvision camera is perfect, as is the jargon text decorating the view and the dispassionate, cruel comments of your spotter. "Ka-boom," he deadpans after you kill four more people.
"That's a good kill - I'm seeing little pieces down there." And as one man scrambles in terror from the site of an explosion: "Heheh, looks like we got a runner."
Intentionally or not, it's a chilling condemnation of war gaming. We're quite literally making fun of humanity's darkest moments, when good men have become so warped by the atrocities they've committed that they can laugh at the cold-blooded massacre of people trying to defend their homeland from an invading force.
And the truth is it is fun - it's fun to have this power, to predict where these tiny guys will run for their lives, and place your next shot precisely there. An experienced gamer, like an experienced soldier, relishes the chance to kill a great many people who have no chance to defend themselves.
It's only because it so perfectly captures the look and feel of that harrowing video from the news that I even stopped to think "My God, this is horrible."
It'd be all the more harrowing if it didn't take place in the context of a plot straight out of 24. I don't mean 'a bit like something from 24'. I mean it is the plot of one particular season - though it would spoil the game to say which.
Not only is it about the same kind of character supplying weapons from the same country to the same other country, but that character is the same nationality, a similar personality, and even loses the same arm.
He loses the same arm! It's so ludicrously mirrored that I'm forced to believe they genuinely didn't copy it, because no one in their right minds would dare make such an obvious replica.
If you don't much care about plot or context - and that's a perfectly valid mindset - CoD4 is a thrilling and dramatic ride. Every other mission features a magnificent setpiece or iconic sight.
A fleet of helicopters cruising in over the coast of THE MIDDLE EAST. A lattice of infra-red beams cutting up the green sky when you flick your nightvision on in a city skirmish.
And the bloody sniper massacre beneath the rusting ferris wheel at Pripyat - firmly CoD4's Pegasus Bridge moment. A few other moments are just as special, but don't bear spoiling. Suffice it to say that one of the character's journeys has a very dark twist to it.
But between these there's still an awful lot of popping out from behind a crate to shoot someone when they pop out from behind theirs. It's a fine mechanic, but the game sometimes rubs your face in its staged nature. Since you're unable to open even unlocked doors, you're always waiting for your AI comrades to let you progress. That's silly enough in itself, but sometimes the only way to make them do this is to 'clear' an area - keep killing enemies until new ones stop replacing them. Other times there's a never-ending stream, and the only way to progress is to sprint past them to some invisible trigger that tells the AI you're done here.
Trying to work out which the game wants forces you to think of it in these artificial terms, and breaks the immersion.
It's one of those games where you come away from the trailer thinking "Wow, what a brilliant game," then come away from the game thinking "Wow, what a brilliant trailer." It is a brilliant game, but the brilliant bits are brief. If you cut out everything in between, you'd have something briefer still but extraordinary.
So CoD4's singleplayer campaign has a hefty dose of excellence in it, but it falls slightly flat compared to the original for being too arbitrarily made-up. The team-based multiplayer needs no such qualification, and more than makes up for the typically brief running time of the singleplayer. CoD's Death-Cam - where players see a replay of their demise from their killer's perspective - was a monumental masterstroke.
Team Fortress 2 has since aped it enough to show players how they died - "Oh, a sniper" - but CoD's is still the only one to demonstrate in technicolour why you died - "Ah, I wasn't quite hidden behind that wall."
The transplant to modernity has been embraced much better here, too. Kill-streaks earn you the right to call in support: radar coverage, airstrikes and even AI-controlled helicopters to hunt down the enemy team. And all kills, damage, and objectives completed inch you closer to your next promotion, permanently unlocking new weapons and Perks.
You use these to design your own custom classes: I favoured a semi-auto sniper rifle, smoke grenades and the Juggernaut and Dead Silence perks. I'd developed a fondness for stabbing people, you see, so I needed to be tough and quiet, conceal myself and pick off the few people too far away to shiv.
This character progression is persistent across all servers - they don't need to be special 'ranked' ones that report to a central database. Infinity Ward figure any system will be hacked eventually, so they're just trusting players to realise that it's more fun if you progress fairly. It is: the ranks come thick and fast, there are lots, and you unlock special challenges as you go.
The action is ridiculously fast and bloody - even more than before. Every weapon is a more efficient killing machine than its WWII counterpart, and the frantic pace has the side-effect that you never feel pinned down, or hopeless. Everyone goes down so easily that even the best player is killable, and respawn times are so fast that dying is never particularly frustrating.
The previous games' modes are all here, along with newcomer Domination, in which both teams try to hold three control points at once. Like the other modes, it draws everyone together into a messy melee, but is open enough to let you find ways around the usual chokepoints.
The two halves of CoD4 don't have much to do with each other, but together they make a ripe bunch of gaming fruit to munch on. If you have no interest in multiplayer whatsoever, the seven-hour singleplayer campaign here is good fun but a little lightweight, at least at full price.
For everyone else, the singleplayer provides a torrent of wow-moments while the multiplayer has lasting appeal. In a spectacularly good winter for games, it's saying something that I still recommend splurging precious cash on this. Just don't go in expecting an experience quite as potent as the original.
I've played this already. I think the reviews a bit odd! So do you lot like the graphics or sound?
What about the amazing intro level, the atmosphere?
I think you're being pretty obtuse, when a president is overthrown by a dicatator is pretty bloody obvious its bad news.
I'm not sure how you claim this to be a 'step back' when you also said it doesn't change the formula, in fact it keeps what makes COD so amazing and improves itself on many fronts.
What about the amazing intro level, the atmosphere?
My whole opening paragraph is about the intro level and the atmosphere. Look, you can even see it from here!
I think you're being pretty obtuse, when a president is overthrown by a dicatator is pretty bloody obvious its bad news.
That's just it: 'bad news'. It's hopelessly vague, we're just told there's a revolution of some kind and we have to kill the 'ultranationalists' of an unnamed country. We never find out why they overthrew their government, or what we're fighting for. Which makes the gruelling hide-behind-a-crate fighting much less compelling than it was in CoD, when we knew why we were doing it.
I'm not sure how you claim this to be a 'step back' when you also said it doesn't change the formula, in fact it keeps what makes COD so amazing and improves itself on many fronts.
I didn't say it keeps what makes CoD amazing. In fact, I spend quite a lot of time saying precisely the opposite.
An experienced gamer, like an experienced soldier, relishes the chance to kill a great many people who have no chance to defend themselves.
Mmm, yes, I really enjoyed watching those films for a living. Sure, I laughed it off at the time, just like everyone else does, but that doesn't mean it's actually funny, or you relish the killing of unarmed people.
Yes, it was hilarious when a building was getting nailed by an AC-130, watching the unarmed residents legging it out of all the doors (about 150+ personnel altogether). I almost wet myself with laughter as 4-5 of them hid behind a car, which seconds later was chewed to bits by a 40mm.
I also remember analysing a video of a Spoon Rest (look it up if you're not a f**king expert) as an AGM-65 closed in for the kill. It was a few metres short but did the job. Funniest part was working out why the image looked slighly odd. After some discussion, we realised it was some poor sod standing at an access panel using a screwdriver. Thank god (or Allah in his case) that he never knew what hit him.
Tell you another hilarious one. 4 'insurgents' trying to hide from the 20mm's on an AC-130. As most of these vids are in black and white (IR in this case, the hotter the object, the whiter it is) and this one was IR, the cheeky devils had nowhere to hide. Look at the little fella hide under a hedge, sparks fly as the 20mm rounds vapourise the soil where they hit and watch a human shaped body disintegrate into lots of small chunks. We laughed for hours about that down the pub afterwards. Although we did feel a bit sorry for the horse that got mangled by the 20mm as one of the unlucky chaps ran past it. I'll never forget that image.
Oh, how we howled with laughter when deciding whether to drop a EPWII on an SA-3 Launcher sitting in a school yard...
Yes, it's great fun to kill people in games, especially online, even better if they're you're friends.
As an experienced soldier, it's not quite so fun (and I have 200+ pages of psychiatric reports to confirm that) and in fact, is utterly terrifying. The experiences will stick with you for life.
As will losing friends in a rocket attack whilst they sleep (unarmed) in their basher, or having a pilot and WSO not return (they got killed) and then spending all your apare time wondering whether you'd made a mistake in your briefing, or didn't check all your reports 100% because you had so many reports, so little time and the media might be in the area, ready to ask questions as soon as you f**k up.
How about listening to a close friend come under SAM attack whilst in a GR4. Listening to him and his WSO on the comms whilst they try and break radar lock. Failed once, failed twice, and now they're running out of altitude, if they don't break lock on the next manoeuvre, they won't be able to try again as the ground is in the way. You can feel the stress in their voices, the stress of someone trying to concentrate whilst their life and the life of their WSO hangs in the balance. On the third manoeuvre, he breaks lock, we cheer, we cry and we weren't even in danger. If we were so overjoyed at his survival, imagine how he and his WSO felt. Of course, he couldn't continue with his mission now he was flying so low (it was a H-H-H mission). Unfortunately, that bought him into range of MANPADS and SMARMS.
Now lets get to the root of this.
As a gamer, it's fun to shoot things in games.
As a serviceman, having to experience some of the above is far from fun. Sure, there's a rush of pure joy as you scrape through something alive, or have your friends (and sometimes relatives) return in one piece.
But lets take a look at the reality. I'm not the only person who often wishes themselves dead as it seems like a far better option than living with certain memories. The number of servicemen and women who commit suicide after taking part in a conflict often outnumber the actual fatalities is said conflict. Vietnam, Korea, Falkands and soon to be Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
I've worked with people who are no longer with us after comitting suicide just from the pressures they're under when several thousand miles away from the front line. I've also met a great many people who's minds are so shattered from serving in theatre that they will never contribute to society again.
Games are fun. War is not. What was the point of that paragraph in the review? What has it got to do with the game?
It reminds me of the Paintball episode of Spaced...
On the video I'm talking about, real soldiers are laughing at the carnage they're causing. In the sentence you quote, I'm referring specifically to these people, in this case.
The remarkable thing about that video is that it illustrates the capacity for presumably good people to detach themselves momentarily from the reality of what they're doing, and in that case even enjoy it. They may be the very same people who suffer serious trauma for years afterwards, or even commit suicide.
The point of that paragraph was that, intentionally or not, the game evokes this incredibly disturbing idea. The game features good soldiers laughing at the death they cause, and it's really disturbing to play.
Air-cool you have just written the best post ever I read.
Anyway without having played COD4, I can still understand the reviewer's opinion about the amazing set piece moments then the repetitive shoot whilst behind boxes moments. But surely this is what the whole COD series has done in the past, some really cool set pieces then it's back to blasting germans...or ultranationalists/russias over and over again till the next amazing set piece comes along.
On the video I'm talking about, real soldiers are laughing at the carnage they're causing. In the sentence you quote, I'm referring specifically to these people, in this case.
The remarkable thing about that video is that it illustrates the capacity for presumably good people to detach themselves momentarily from the reality of what they're doing, and in that case even enjoy it. They may be the very same people who suffer serious trauma for years afterwards, or even commit suicide.
The point of that paragraph was that, intentionally or not, the game evokes this incredibly disturbing idea. The game features good soldiers laughing at the death they cause, and it's really disturbing to play.
I've just been watching the preview DVD of CoD4 that dropped through my letterbox this morning. Was the section you were talking about the AC-130 attack on a church?
The DVD conatains a good chunk of gameplay footage, both singleplayer and multiplayer.
I find it odd that the AC-130 section (if that is what you're talking about and is based on a real incidence, although not the one mentioned in my post) seems to evoke such 'realism' whilst the rest of the game contains as much 'realism' as a Hollywood action movie that's been based on the sort of biased reportage that would make Rageh Omar look like a serious and objective journalist.
There's one scene where a squadron of Blackhawks are attacking at town (which is obviously based on Mogadishu and the 'Black Hawk Down' incident) and fly slap bang into the middle of a SAMBUSH (white smoke trail with corkscrew - SA7 or SA14, dead giveaway) yet I saw no MAWS reaction or flares, nor did I see any of those HELO's take a hit. It's a great bit of footage, but so far removed from reality (for so many reasons) that there could (or maybe should) be no mistaking that we're watching a video game.
The game evokes nothing more than a typical, cynical CNN broadcast and is far removed from the realities of conflict, and therefore, should not be compared as such.
As for the comment you made, I can see your point behind it, although I think you'd have to experience the pressures involved before you can pass judgement on the people involved - as that appeared to be the implication; that we all like to have a jolly good laugh at Mohammed Raghead getting a severe case of lead poisoning.
It does raise some interesting points though, I'm sure you'll agree. A game that tries to evoke a disturbing reality whilst at the same time being so far detatched from it (ie weapons & troops behaving nothing at all like their real life counterparts) leaves me somewhat confused as to what to think about it; it's neither one thing or the other.
If they'd gone purely for the arcade like shmup experience as seen in past CoD games it would be great fun.
If they'd taken the alternative route and wanted to inject some real emotion into the game (like the part you mentioned), they should have gone for it 100%. The result would have been a fantastic, and truly adult, themed game. However, for that to happen they would have to inject a lot more realism and a real, almost primal urge to survive.
I think in trying to avoid nailing the game down to a specific conflict (unlike the original CoD which had parts loosely based on real events, or more accurately, movie interpretations of those events) they've made a game which is somewhat confused by its direction. You make that point in your review and I agree that it would detract from the game. It simultaneously dumbs down the reality of warfare whilst trying to evoke a feeling of being part of a conflict. Very confusing.
I'm still somewhat stumped by your quote about real experienced soldiers. It seems like a very strong thing to say, but with such a throwaway attitude. I'm still not sure whether to take offence or not.
I guess it doesn't help that the game is being released as close to Rememberance Sunday as is possible. Particularly this year as the British Legion is attempting to raise the profile of those who made (what I call), the penultimate sacrifice; having to live with the horrors and injuries (both physical and mental) of conflict whilst being treated as second class citizens by the 'general' population; as if it's our fault that we're responsible for the trouble in the Middle East and elsewhere, when in fact the last thing a serviceman or woman wants to do is actually go to war.
I guess that the timing of the release is intentional. Perhaps if it was marketing directors getting mowed down by a 20mm gatling gun, I might see the funny side.
I really appreciate the fact that there is someone out there reviewing games with a modicum of intelligence and a willingness to express a unique point of view. I could read ten reviews for this game elsewhere and they would all seem exactly the same. Not only did you correctly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the CoD series, you treated the game as if it were deserving of serious, adult, even ethical discussion. Too many reviewers write about games as if they were played in a vacuum, as if they had no connection to anything else the reviewer might have seen or experienced. Film reviewers don't do that--they critique films as if they were actually connected to the rest of their lives. Too many game reviews, on the other hand, boil down to: "Stuff blowed up real good! I had fun playing this game and you will too!"
I really appreciate the fact that there is someone out there reviewing games with a modicum of intelligence and a willingness to express a unique point of view. I could read ten reviews for this game elsewhere and they would all seem exactly the same. Not only did you correctly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the CoD series, you treated the game as if it were deserving of serious, adult, even ethical discussion. Too many reviewers write about games as if they were played in a vacuum, as if they had no connection to anything else the reviewer might have seen or experienced. Film reviewers don't do that--they critique films as if they were actually connected to the rest of their lives. Too many game reviews, on the other hand, boil down to: "Stuff blowed up real good! I had fun playing this game and you will too!"
Thanks for your excellent work.
Nice first post blinky It's nice to see a review make someone join the forum to add their comment. We could do with some more ... members.
You seem to think that the author is able to draw on personal experience and make an emotional connection to events in the game. I'd be interested in some amplification on this; I guess everyone has been affected by events in the middle east to one degree or another.
I also think it's a good review; It did it's job and I don't think I'll be buying the game. Whilst I've enjoyed the CoD series, each iteration seems to be more 'dumbed down' gameplay-wise to cater for the console controller. Mind you, the only footage I've seen is from the 360 version, so maybe the PC will cater for the finer dexterity afforded by a mouse. Although, I doubt it somehow as CoD2 was far more forgiving with it's weapons.
In fact, your comments on the review are so well thought out and written, I'm thinking that you should maybe try your hand at reviewing games yourself.
Ooh, I've just remembered a serious question I was going to ask.
Normally, things like the ghillie suit are a bit pointless in FPS's as the draw distance of the foilage never covers you up at an appropriate distance, or people just turn off the 'grass' option rendering them utterly pointless. Does this happen in CoD4? Or does the grass render as far as the eye can see.
You know what I mean. In most games you hide in the grass and can hardly see s**t, but someone 100 metres away can see you lying down in an open area 'cos the the grass doesn't render that far for them.
You seem to think that the author is able to draw on personal experience and make an emotional connection to events in the game. I'd be interested in some amplification on this; I guess everyone has been affected by events in the middle east to one degree or another.
Well, that last sentence is closer to what I was getting at. I didn't mean to imply that the reviewer had some personal experience with combat, just that he was willing to point out that part of the game reminded him in an uncomfortable way of actual war footage that he'd seen ... I remember that, particularly during the first Gulf War, the TV networks presented images of the conflict almost as if they were a video game. Now we're starting to come full circle, with games copying some of the televised images ... I feel pretty removed from games set during WWII because that war ended such a long time ago ... but with real people still fighting and dying in Iraq and elsewhere, it's kind of strange to sit down and play a game that invokes ongoing carnage, even if it is very vague about where in the "Middle East" the action is taking place. I'm not suggesting I'll refuse to play CoD 4 or any other game because of this--I'll definitely play it, but I will also be aware of the real world implications while I do ...
In fact, your comments on the review are so well thought out and written, I'm thinking that you should maybe try your hand at reviewing games yourself.
Thanks! I'm flattered you think so. I have been a staff writer at a daily newspaper, and have contributed film reviews, but I've never written about games before. Most of the game coverage I see is pretty abysmal, so when I read this review I really wanted to give praise where praise was due. PC Gamer is usually pretty good overall.
Aircool - As well as your first hand insight, which, for what it's worth, I thank you for sharing with us, and many other interesting thoughts there is one particular observation of yours which came to my mind as well.
To be specific, this is the basis of the COD genre on filmic interpretations. I think the debate that is developing here is in part based upon a new and uneasy mix of styles and influences. Firstly there is the signature COD style which retains the cinematics of the previous games, founded on the very familiar cultural signifier, the WWII movie. We know it will depict the "heroics" and "horrors" of war, this is what we automatically recognise in this genre, but for the majority, this is not reality - it is our polarization of it through a fictional medium.
So we have the bombast of this cinematic style but now depicting immediate, contemporary events recognizable to many of us in the realities of the media and for some as first hand experience.
I think it is an uneasy combination for us to reconcile these two influences within a computer game, which is primarily for entertainment. I suppose this is compounded as the game ducks a moral bullet by removing the conflict from any real context to justify the use of modern weaponry and settings in a war-based fps. Is this itself perhaps cynically avoiding the issues for a marketable concept?
I dunno, I may just be stating the bleeding obvious.
I really appreciate the fact that there is someone out there reviewing games with a modicum of intelligence and a willingness to express a unique point of view. I could read ten reviews for this game elsewhere and they would all seem exactly the same. Not only did you correctly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the CoD series, you treated the game as if it were deserving of serious, adult, even ethical discussion. Too many reviewers write about games as if they were played in a vacuum, as if they had no connection to anything else the reviewer might have seen or experienced. Film reviewers don't do that--they critique films as if they were actually connected to the rest of their lives. Too many game reviews, on the other hand, boil down to: "Stuff blowed up real good! I had fun playing this game and you will too!"
Thanks for your excellent work.
I agree with Blinky. There are so many 'Reviewers' spouting utter crap these days, PCG is obviously not one of these.
I saw some of these comments on my rounds on IGN etc:
COD4: '... its too hard to tell who the enemy are, they should be marked out as enemys'
-Ok, I think you should just go and sit in the corner..
TimeShift '...The reticle of the main gun is far too large..'
-Try pressing the E button to zoom then you muppet, doh!!
I know if I was the dev and my game was being marked down because people couldnt even RTFM i'd be very p**sed off.
I think it's all quite interesting. It goes to show that there is the potential for very adult themed games that don't rely on masses of blood or unnaturally proportioned women to get that 'adult' rating.
CoD4 seems to have headed in that direction. However, it doesn't seem to sit well with the fast paced shooting that is typical (and an important part of) the CoD series.
I guess I can see what they're trying to do. After all, if you make a tennis or football game, you tend to present it from the viewpoint of someone watching TV, as this is what most people are familiar with. The same thing can be said about CoD4. It's gone for the 'war as seen on TV' viewpoint as that's what most people are familiar with. I remember that Gears of War had a similar aspect to it; when you ran, the camera angle dropped down low and shook about. It's as if you were being followed by a war reporter trying to keep his head down.
From a personal point of view, I'm not sure I like this trend as it is somewhat detatched from the reality. Ok, it's only a game. However, if you want to make a game that pushes those emotional buttons, then you should really go for the accuracy as well.
Perhaps playing a game as a war reporting team could do that, and it would be an adult themed game despite you not firing a single shot. You have to balance survival with getting good footage (and footage that has drama as todays news programmes are more shock entertainment than fact). Then there would be the issue of censorship, media blackouts, seeing things that the military certainly won't want you to see and seeing things that you wouldn't want to see.
Not forgetting of course the moral implications. Do you keep that footage that will cause the public to be outraged at the actions of their military, or do you destroy it after deciding that whatever 'event' you witnessed was necessary to the mission and releasing the footage would destroy what little morale remains amongst the armed forces?
You may be recording and reporting on some evacuated casualties. Suddenly, in the back of the Chinook, the Air Loadmaster threatens to shove the camera up your bottom and throw you out if you don't turn it off and give him the tape. Why? Because he wants the wounded troops to retain some sort of dignity and the last thing a parent or family want to see is their son/daughter/mother/father/spouse half dead on a stretcher on the 10 O'clock News before their informed by the correct authorities.
You see, the way you feel about such things on TV is more to do with how it's passed through the media lens than what actually happens.
A hospital has been bombed, many people are dead and injured. You've got 10 minutes to get some footage and a report together.
Who do you go for?
A general shot of all the carnage? Interview some angry or upset people who lost family in the bombing? Talk to some of the survivors who have only superficial injuries? The Military Press Officer on how and why the Hospital was bombed? Or are your ratings slipping and it's time to whip out the battered teddy bear and put it next to a dead child, or in the hands of an injured child?
What option would give the most accurate account of what happened and which would give the ratings needed so you can keep your job?
Just to return to the somewhat controversial theme, I think - like Blinky - that Tom's drawing our attention to moral-ethical issues is A Good Thing, and demnstrates a depth not often seen in games journalism. I do not believe that he can be criticised for this, or that he was necessarily drawing on 'personal experience' in the manner you suggest, Aircool. Surely you don't have to actually experience every single situation in the world to express an opinion on it? Yes, that opinion will always be less valid in the minds of those who HAVE experienced that situation, and is inevitably warped by the media and other means through which public knowledge of said events can be gained, but it is not indvalidated wholly. When discussing such a universal issue as the (perceived) perversion of humanity through conflict - not, for the record and in case you take offence, necessarily the fault of the combattants - I think any human with an ethical toolset can, and indeed should, express their opinion.
For example, we hear or learn of numerous genocides that have happened (or are happening) in the world, but we don't have to be there and see the events unfold in order to believe that they are wrong, or to question (or despair) the nature of humanity. It is important to attempt to empathise with what are termed 'perpatrators,' although sympathising is often beyond our power, and to understand the darkest recesses of the human mind. Of course, the 'victims' must also be considered, and may even include the 'perpatrators' depending on your point-of-view.
I do not seek to undermine your opinion, and especially not to devalue your experiences; I'm just saying that I don't think Tom's point was intended (whether actively or passively) to offend or annoy anyone.
In your first comment, you said: 'Games are fun. War is not. What was the point of that paragraph in the review? '
As I see it, the point of that paragraph was to demonstrate exactly that: the impression imprinted upon the gamer by the sequence Tom described makes them feel uneasy, thus removing an element of fun. It also made it look like the combattants in this war were having fun, when it shouldn't be doing this because war is unequivocally not fun; Tom's arguing that this demonstrates the complete inversion of how things should be, an inversion also exemplified by news items too, thus creating a conception of people apparently enjoying war rather than hating it, and causing us to question why this is the case.
There's nothing wrong with Toms review at all. It told me all I needed to know (as based on the CoD2 engine, I know how well it would perform etc..), provoked a reaction, which provoked further though, which provoked a reaction which ended up with me being carted to hospital on a friday night. Actually, my PC's PSU chose to go BNAG! last night. However, I'd been awake until 0530 with the CoD4 issues churning in my head and the PSU going BNAG! was enough to bring on a bad episode of PTSD.
Anyway, enough about me and more about the game. I can't believe I'm saying this as I'm all for depth and adult themes in games, but that certain section in CoD4 is a bit too close to the bone for me.
Instead of a game being a piece of entertainment in the same way a film or book might be, I'm suddenly unsure of the way that particular bit of the game is portrayed.
Whilst it may be similar to things seen on the news or even youtube it's so very out of context.
Yes, there's a certain detatchment of the attackers from the action, but in the same way that a Doctor detatches themselves from the reality of say, a car crash victim. And there's a reason for that. Without that detatchment, you (or the doctor) can't do their job. To replay such footage in the news causes the viewer to become even more detatched from the reality, and this is what worries me.
Anyone familiar with Jane's Addictions - Ted, Just Admit It... from the album Nothings Shocking should know where I'm coming from.
The bottom line (again) is that the moral issues are skewed and don't take into account the whole picture.
For a start, who are these people and why are you shooting them? Are they armed? - now that's a very leading set of questions which provokes an anti-war response. Yet without the big picture, a true moral conclusion cannot drawn.
For a start, taking the lives of those targets could potentially save hundreds of lives of your troops. So what if they're unarmed, they may have been responsible for multiple deaths and casualties already. The safest way to eliminate an enemy threat is from a greater distance as possible. Even so, the crew of an AC-130 are by no means invulnerable. Any flight mission in theatre is highly dangerous.
A Ł250 MANPADS could easily down a Ł25 million aircraft. Several MANPADS gunners would have an even greater chance. Want to see how serious the threat is? Go to your nearest large airport, stand near the runway with a 4 foot length of drainpipe painted green and wait for the armed response to turn up.
If you're going to make something so close to reality, then don't do a half bottomd effort, and don't mix it with the totally unreal aspect that is the rest of the call of duty games. This isn't an issue about blood, guts or semi nakes women or a few profanities. This is a recreation of something similar that actually happened, but from a totally blinkered point of view.
You'll never create the realism of conflict in a game because in a game, when you die, you just respawm and restart. You could make a game where dying has severe consequences (game over, dumped to desktop etc) but you'll still be getting of lightly.
Die and the game won't work again plus it screws your PC and blows the CPU, mobo and GPU and you're still not close.
The daily threat of death alters your mind somewhat and 'the training takes over'. Also like the doctor at the motor accident, the training takes over. But once it's all over, there's more than a few military personnel (and doctors) hitting the bottle for a dose of self medication followed by the inevitable nightmares. You might get used to the blood and guts after a while, but watching someone's life drain away is disturbing and will have a lasting impact.
I'm not sure whether Infinity Ward were trying to make any statement at all, either anti or pro war. However, for me, and I admit I'm not exactly in a 'normal' position to react, it's a part of the game that sits uncomfortably with the rest of the game and the series.
If they want to get deeper into the emotional side of things, they need to include the sort of things that can drive a person to become detached from reality in order to survive.
I guess though, if I was still in the military, I'd look at that section, make a hrumph! or two and point out all the errors that make it unreal, then nail as many bad guys as possible. This time however, it's not the gameplay that has affected me, it's the implications of a particular scene that is not in its correct context.
Even hardcore military flight sims are still an exercise in fun, dexterity and skill, but they won't force a moral issue down your throat, especially one that can be highly misprepresentative.
Funny. I never thought a game would disturb me in such a way. And in a petty way, it annoys me that recreate some CNN style footage to a reasonable degree, but don't have the balls (or chuztpah, as it's a great word) to make the ground sections realistic. With its dumb, innacurate enemies, cartoon weapons, unrealistic movement and comedy action.
On a different note. I like the look of the hardcore online mode, although the lack of a crosshair shouldn't be a problem. In my old CoD clan we had a saying for our members who could pull off amazingly accurate shots...
"Maybe he's born with it?"
"Maybe it's Maybelline!"
We didn't become second best in the European CoD ladder without having a small blob of the wife's mascara on the dead centre of the sights
To summarise. I really don't think that the media (news etc...) should be used as a source for this sort of game. For tennis, football etc... it fine, but for conflicts, especially ones based on current or recent events shouldn't rely on such a shallow source.
Look at the Burmese situation and the international intake of breath when we found out via the media what was happening. Now, I'm being totally objective here and not favouring one faction over the other.
On the one hand we have a military who will not entertain the media on bit. You're left to draw your own conclusions. However, due to their attitude you're unlikely to be sympathetic. Secondly, the next issue will steer you into being unsympathetic towards the Burmese Government & Military.
Someone manages to get some disturbing footage of abused monks onto the internet; instant outrage. The press, like a pack of wolves devour the only source they have. They make contacts willing to produce more 'outrageous' footage as that is all the press can access as they're banned from the country.
The result is that we're all shocked at the treatment of the Burmese monks.
At no point however is it mentioned that the only material the media have access to is from sources sympathetic to the Burmese monks. Secondly, this s**t has been going on in Burma for well over 15 years. If you really gave a s**t about those monks (who are of course seen as heroes or agitators by differing factions amongst the population) you'd already know about it.
Heh, it's like Greenpeace & CND. They'll quite happily protest outside one of the US airbases in the UK with their B-52's, but you never see them off to hassle the Indians, ****stani's, Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, Iranians or Syrians. And why not? Because in this country, disturbing the peace will probably get you no more than 24 hours bed and breakfast with the local constabulary.
lol, one last thing. I've been wanting to get this off my chest for years...
Gatling guns (not chainguns, they're different), but gatling guns, y'know, the guns with spinny barrels...THEY DO NOT HAVE SPIN UP AND SPIN DOWN TIMES...you pull the trigger and they shoot at your chosen rate of fire straight away. You let go of the trigger and it stops! Where did this bizzare notion start? If you're going for gameplay, fair enough, make up your own rules. However, you want to get real, at least get it right - hrumph!!!
I posted this on the COD4 thread on the forum, I think its as relevant here as it was there (and hadnt read AirCool's excellent post)
I love the multiplayer, love the ability to now shoot through walls, I think it adds a whole new dimension and evens up trying to kill the ruddy snipers, Id have preferred some bigger maps a'la United Offensive, but think most of them (bar the ship one) are great, especially the urban ones.
In regards to the Single player, I love FPS, I love CoD for making it feel quite real (that breakout with Warpig is immensely intense) however I found the first level with the killing of the sailors in their beds, really distasteful and disturbing. Anyone else? or just me?
The bit in the AC-130 was great, but again removes you from the fact that its people your killing (I know its a computer game, I know its pixels but still) it sort of reinforces the whole "remove reality from warfare" that we have at the moment, then it goes back to some visceral face to face fight, like the SAS assault on the village searching the houses, and shows the humanity/horror/intensity/"terror" of modern conflict
Review was spot on, I enjoyed single player, but like the reviewer many moments, particulalry that "death from above" bit really grated with me, I thought it was pretty disgusting the mimmicking of the comments from these guys...CoD4 could have taken a different path with the dialogue here.
I bought this game for multiplayer, which I enjoy immensely on hardcore mode, it's great in clan matches, best CoD yet.
CoD4s single player does not live up to the previous titles though, somehow the game mechanic doesn't work as well in a modern setting, I keep trying to do vegas like moves: why can't I peak under the door?), why can't we setup tactics? Why do my enemies keep miraculously appearing from that small room!?
It's interesting to note that the gunship section isn't part of an attack sequence, you're assisting an escape by some of your allies. I don't think the dialogue was that bad, given that as gamers we're guilty of detaching ourselves from the atrocities we inflict on digital characters. As Aircool says, it's not even like being a soldier is just like paintballing for real.
Personally, I thought the vague setting was OK - if I wanted an in-depth analysis of world politics I'd read The Economist or whatever. Current events in the world are enough to extrapolate some kind of sense out of the storyline, and I'd rather stories imply backstory (like HL2) rather than pile on unnecessary backstory - the idea of Star Wars novels strikes me as supremely pointless, for example.
get a grip you n00bs if you're so sensitive about the dialogue used in the game then go hug some teddy bears - welcome to reality. Pathetic. there are much worse things that happen in real life, if you don't like it cover your ears whilst you're playing it and listen to some whale music or something.
as for the game, it was a roller coaster of set pieces and it didn't involve me or make me think i was doing anything other than following orders, either by my superior, or by the game itself. granted the action sequences were great, but then I might as well be watching a good film.
so uninvolving is the gameplay that you might as well watch someone do a walkthrough on youtube and watch the action sequences instead. half life 1 forever.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
It's nice to see a review make someone join the forum to add their comment. We could do with some more ... members.
online mode, although the lack of a crosshair shouldn't be a problem. In my old CoD clan we had a saying for our members who could pull off amazingly accurate shots...
