Re: It's Hard To Blame Them...

On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:03:15 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 28/10/2024 20:20, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I stuck with the franchise through the "Modern Warfare" trilogy, again
largely because memories of the first game gave me hope that the
franchise would reach such heights again. The gameplay of those games
wasn't too bad, but the ra-ra-America-So-Great! attitude of that
trilogy games (existant even in the original COD but somewhat subdued
by its international mission structure) was a real turn-off. So too
was the heavy-handed reliance on scripting (to the point you sometimes
couldn't even open a door without the AI doing it for you), and the
player character changing from a simple grunt into a super-human
killing machine.

>
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

The original "Call of Duty" was very cinematic too; it was in fact one
of the major complaints about the game. You don't really have much
option of where to go and what to do; it's a corridor-shooter through
and through (even if the 'corridors' are cleverly disguised as outdoor
locations).

But the sequels were increasingly limited in what the player was
allowed. I recall one scene - I think it was the second Modern Warfare
game?- where you had to escort a tank through a battlefield or
something, and the soldiers would just spawn endlessly until you
performed the necessary mission goals. It completely destroyed any
sense of immersion.

But all that was different from the super-soldier problem. In the
first Call of Duty titles, the game gave the illusion that you were
just one grunt amongst many, all working together towards a common
goal. It did this by having AI team-mates who could actually kill
enemies, and by showing friendly NPCs accomplishing goals all on their
own (even if they were just pre-canned animations that only played
once you got close). Momentum in the game was still tied entirely to
the player's progression, but it was much better disguised.

The Modern Warfare games were different. Because much of the action
was focussed solely on your small squad --and because your teammates
were worthless in combat-- you really only moved forward after you
personally killed enough bad guys. Neither were there other squads
doing stuff around you to make it look as if it were all a team
effort. The progress of the battle was entirely tied to your own
superhuman killing ability. That, coupled with the gung-ho
America-can-do-no-wrong attitude that permeated the rest of the game
(something too common in post 9/11 America) completely changed the
tone of the game.

I didn't play much of the original COD's multiplayer (I was more into
Unreal Tournament at the time), but from what little I did, I seem to
remember the game felt a lot more cooperative than did the later
Modern Warfare games. I wonder if that was a reflection of the
gameplay mechanics, or just a change in the audience.