At this point, most gamers know what to expect from a series like Modern Warfare; a competitive, multiplayer-driven experience with an explosive - albeit meteoric - single-player campaign tied in.

This formula hasn't changed with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, what would a holiday season be like without another Call of Duty game? I couldn't fathom it either.

Following the fallout between Infinity Ward's lead designers and Activision, many thought that the departure of most of the studio would bring about the demise of the Modern Warfare brand. Yet, the game you know and love remains intact. Immensely intact. In fact, that's my one issue with the series that touts itself as the "best-selling game of all time"; being afraid of change.

How so?

A word of warning: if you haven't played the previous Modern Warfare games, you'll more than likely have absolutely no idea of what's going on (then again, even if you have you might fall into the same category). Following the events that transpired in Modern Warfare 2, the Russians have invaded America and continue to rain destruction down on the eastern shore. Makarov, the man behind the whole 'destroying the world' thing, is still at large, and you need to kill him so that the US and Russia can make peace. There it is.

Yo, yo, yo! Check out this sentry turret man!

Being candid, the campaign for MW3 is as cinematic as it is disappointing in almost every category. Without giving away major plot points, this game follows exactly the same formula that was given to us with the original Modern Warfare four years ago. Controversial issue arises, a main character dies, scene of extreme violence appears and then you eliminate the main threat (or a notable one). This makes the story extremely predictable and shallow, especially during the cut-scenes, where the whiteboards, post-it notes and other information is basically flung at you from seemingly nowhere. These moments remind me of a standard CSI episode where the team has come to a dead end and then, miraculously, someone finds something and the case is busted wide open. Of course, when it comes down to it, all you need to know is that you need to shoot people. A lot of people.

There are few things that don't blow up as you're climbing your way to the objective in the campaign. Missiles flying overhead, buildings collapsing around you, ordnance being detonated nearby - I can't deny the adrenaline rush that MW3 offers. A quote I recently heard describes it best: "if Modern Warfare 3 were a movie, Michael Bay would have to retire." Sure, in some ways the game makes great use of action and definitely stirs excitement, but Activision and Infinity Ward have been pulling the same strings for a while now. I understand they're trying to recreate the same effect that the original Modern Warfare had on the masses, but by literally utilising the same story-arc again and again, the game just ends up seeming plagued by lazy design. It'd be one thing if the story were at the very least interesting, but sadly this just isn't the case.

You are the Juggernaut.

Multiplayer, on the other hand, offers a much better experience in MW3 than its predecessor. Whilst MW2 gave us the superior co-operative Spec Ops mode along with a slew of new perks, equipment and kill-streaks, MW3 refines it all, creating a nicer overall package. As far as I'm concerned, Spec Ops is once again the star of the show. If you've never played it, Spec Ops is a two-man set of challenges that earn you stars for the difficulty you complete them on. Some missions may be completed alone, but if you're dead set on getting all 48 stars you're going to need a partner in crime. There's also a new Surivival mode, which pits you against waves of enemies, à la Gears of War's Horde.

The original Modern Warfare was where I sunk my teeth deep into the competitive multiplayer. MW2 felt bigger, but it was ruined for me by exploiters, terrible spawns and overpowered weapon sets. MW3 feels better to me, purely due to the fact that you're rewarded for staying loyal to certain weapons. What I mean is that you can actually level up your individual weapons, unlocking additional attachments and bonuses. For instance, leveling up the Riot Shield will give you the option to make it melee quicker or give you a speed boost.

Only novices shoot rockets. I think.

However, my favourite new additions to the multiplayer remain with the playlists and new kill-streak mechanics. MW3 offers the biggest selection of playlists the series has seen yet, including an all new mode called Kill Confirmed. Kill Confirmed's basic premise is that killing people doesn't automatically net your team points; instead, upon death your enemy will drop a dog tag and, if claimed, collection of that tag will net your team points. The cool thing about this mode is that you can grab your own teammate's dog tag, denying them the point. As far as kill-streaks go, they can still be fully customised, but can now be set to either Assault or Support streaks. Assault is your typical streak system which will end if you're killed prematurely. Support, though, allows your streak to persist through death. They aren't quite as devastating as the Assault ones are but it's still a rather nifty change that makes constant death less frustrating.

After that though, MW3 devolves back into its typical 'shoot everything, everywhere' format. It wouldn't be such a bad thing if MW3 were to have better spawns, but, alas, it does not. Couple that with an unbalanced matchmaking system and you have a real issue. The first game I played online pitched me against four people who were all level 80; about midway through the game, I was killed six times in a row without taking more than four steps from my spawn location.

MW3 isn't a bad game, but its lack of imagination and derivative nature will drive away gamers who want just a little bit more. Its nonsensical story doesn't help matters, but at least Spec Ops and a familiar competitive multiplayer element provide enough to keep coming back to. Having said that, this title is nothing more than average, but if you're a Call of Duty fan and shooting dudes is the name of your game, go ahead and add two to the score.

5/10 [?]

Labels: 2012, Activision Blizzard, Andrew Whipple III, Call of Duty, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, PC, PS3, Review, Sledgehammer Games, Xbox 360

For nearly the entire calendar year, the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises have been at war.

Similar to the Sega vs. Nintendo days of yore, it’s a pitch, knock-down battle for supremacy; the two companies have launched ad campaigns taking none-too-subtle jabs at each other, and gamers are digging in and choosing a side, ready to defend their favourite franchise and see the opposition go down in defeat.

This has to stop.

Seriously, folks, I’m all for good, healthy competition, but what’s going on between Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is just plain ridiculous. It goes beyond competitive rivalry and turns into something out of bloody Amadeus. The antagonism on behalf of either franchise is colossally wrong-headed, and it would be in everyone’s best interest if gamers put down their torches and pitchforks, and let both games be.


First of all, this battle doesn’t make our industry look good. Though gaming has slowly risen to a place of prominence in the last five or ten years, it isn't yet quite as ubiquitous as movie-watching or listening to music, and there’s still plenty of room for outsiders to get the wrong idea about gaming culture. I can’t imagine it speaks terribly highly about our industry if its fans are willing to act like jackasses in defence of a multinational corporation, who would just as soon suffocate under their large piles of money than give specific attention to those dedicated to besmirching their competitor’s name. We’re just starting to be seen by the rest of the world as more mature; let’s act like we deserve to be treated that way.

I also can’t think of any other industry that pits its competition head-to-head in such a petty manner. At no point in 2006 did Warner Bros. point at 20th Century Fox and say "Hey! Our movie about magicians in the early 1900s is way better than yours!" Neither do book publishers declare that their new novel is 'better' than an already-established series ("puts James Patterson’s Women’s Murder Club books to shame!"), and whilst it’s hardly unusual for recording artists to enter into disputes, they rarely involve direct album comparisons. These industries appear more confident about their products, and about their ability to coexist with consumers. Fans may argue about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is 'better', but these discussions are most often held between consumers, which is a far cry from having a quarrel perpetuated by the films' own studios.


Besides, if you were to sit down and play both Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you would quickly find them both to be different and complementary experiences. Battlefield’s multiplayer-focussed shooter offers much more in the vein of wide-open spaces and free-form combat options, whilst Call of Duty places a greater emphasis on tight, twitchy action. True, both games are modern military shooters with straightforward, set piece-driven single player modes, but they both accommodate largely different play styles, resulting in two different gameplay experiences.

Which leads me to my main point: it’s okay to like both. How very basic it sounds, but how true it actually is. Getting caught up in EA and Activision’s trumped-up battle of the shooters can be great fun, but it can also result in players missing an important truth: that both games are fun, top-notch experiences, and each is worthy of your time. Personally, I alternate between the two, depending on what I feel like playing. Perhaps you can only afford one game, and need to pick between the two; choosing one over the other is fine, but liking one game doesn’t preclude you from enjoying the other.

Perhaps I’m being a curmudgeonly sod, but the whole 'one versus the other' thing just smells of stupidity. Too much time, energy, and Metacritic User Score credibility has been sacrificed to a conflict that does not matter in the grand spectrum of gaming. Both games are out now. Buy them, or don’t. Like them, or don’t. But dragging out this pissing contest of a sales matchup is unnecessary, not to mention stupid.

Labels: Andrew Testerman, Battlefield, Call of Duty, DICE, Infinity Ward, Opinion

It's over. It's finished, man. It's done - that's it.

Skyrim and Assassin's Creed are out, and with them arrive the bitterly cold winds of change; we stand on the brink of 2012, a brand new year brimming with adventure and intrigue. And another Call of Duty. With Star Wars: The Old Republic and Rocksmith bringing up the rear and probably being too late to be included in most Game Of The Year lists, you can turn your mind back to a year that saw Libya Liberated, Osama Obama-nated, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 single-handedly ruin everything I hold dear.

Unless Postal III pulls a stunner (spoiler: it won't), that's pretty much it for 2011, so we're compiling the most notable games you've played over the past twelve months and shamelessly judging them based on our incredibly poor recollections. Portal 2 is the one about the Italian plumber, right? Good.

Note: if you can't tell by now, the following list isn't to be taken very seriously.

Dead Space 2

It was kind of like Dead Space, except...Nope. I've got nothing. Basically, you ran about and shot zombie-alien things and there was a lot of blood. While it's hardly original, Dead Space 2 was actually a resounding success; the dismemberment was a grotesquely gleeful as ever, the characters were believable and well-rounded, and the story had enough hooks and twists to keep you blasting on. It's going to take a lot longer than a year for us to forget that needle-to-eye scene.

Why it might win GOTY:

A more refined, polished Dead Space that still haunts our dreams, the buckets of atmosphere and flashy set-pieces (complete with severed baby faces) make it a heart-stopping thriller.

Why it might not win GOTY:

The multiplayer was a giant alien sack of balls, and it came out in January. January. I'm pretty sure the British Empire was still intact back then.

Dragon Age II

You were called Hawke. Now, call me biased, but that's basically the best name in the world. If I could come up with a fake name, it would be Hawke. Luckily, I don't have to. I'm one of the lucky ones. The chosen ones.

Oh, the game? I don't know. I think it had something about violence in it, I forget...

Why it might win GOTY:

Building on the success of the original, what could possibly go wrong?

Why it might not win GOTY:

Quite a lot. Fans were perturbed, to use on overly fancy word, at the shoddy control system, the confusing story and general lack of ingenuity or originality. Plus, we have Skyrim now. Dragon Age II can only look on in wonder.

Homefront

Ha! Just kidding.

Crysis 2

Probably the most visually impressive game on this list - so long as you've got a high-end PC. As this PC poster boy shifted onto the consoles, many worried the Nanosuit would be dumbed down; and while the set-pieces were epic, the story exciting, and the graphics one-of-a-kind, the series had lost some of its charm; no longer were we allowed to wreak havoc in a sandbox paradise, but instead tied down in a tightly scripted, linear, shoot-em-up.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's got the looks. When you boil it down, Crysis 2 is basically an entire series based upon being pixel-perfect, and as shallow as that is; cor. Look at them explosions!

Why it might not win GOTY:

The stealth mechanics are to fiddly and slippery to be a long-term strategy, and the straight-up-shooting is just a bit bland. Crysis 2 might be a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

Portal 2

It was actually funny. Which surprised me - the original Portal was so fleeting, experimental and unexpected that it took everyone by surprise and was allowed to be itself. But when shoved on a standalone stage and told to perform for ten hours, there was a worry that GLADoS would lose her charm, the mechanics would become stale, and it would all be a little bit disappointing. But with the excellent Merchant at the helm, Portal 2 managed to be legitimately hilarious (with as little nerd-humour as possible) and keep a strong pace. Wait - did someone say pace?

Why it might win GOTY:

Cute, funny and thought-provoking, with a solid co-op mode and tonnes of little secrets. There's not another game as unique as Portal 2 out there.

Why it might not win GOTY:

If you pushed through the campaign in a matter of days, the endless portal-shooting and gel-jumping do start to wear thin. Also, it might not be the best critique of a game, but...it's just not Portal 1, is it?

L.A. Noire

Hang on - did I say there wasn't a unique game like Portal 2 out there? Excuse me - I must have forgotten about the game where you solve crimes around a perfectly-recreated 1940s Los Angeles. And accuse old ladies of being killers. L.A. Noire made up for what it lacked in freedom with a mature, developed plot, involving some superbly crafted characters, rich dialogue, and a whole lot of picking up cigarette packets. And drawing. And racism.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's a Rockstar game.

Why it might not win GOTY:

It's a Rockstar game shrouded in modern-day slavery court-cases. And did Cole Phelps put on a flamethrower at the end of the game? Like, for real?

Infamous 2

While a lot of games on this list are criticised for the fact they lose the charm of their predecessor, Infamous 2 is the exception. It's messy and repetitive and shoddy and slightly creepy (why the hell is this city so quiet?!), but it's such a beautiful game when it all comes together. The progression, the powers, the freedom of movement and the powerful-as-a-lighting-storm ending; it may not be perfect, but it sure as hell tries.

Why it might win GOTY:

It should win just for this scene only. (Big spoiler)

Why it might not win GOTY:

While they're easy to forgive, you can't quite overlook the plethora of AI issues, graphical slip-ups, and repetitive missions forever.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I never asked for this.

Forza Motorsport 4

Since Gran Turismo 6 won't come out until we all get hovercars and the game becomes outdated before its even released, Forza Motorsport 4 is left to hold high the torch of virtual racing. And fanboyism. It's beautiful, it's fast, and it's flashy.

Why it might win GOTY:

Enough simulation to be realistic, but enough arcade to be masses of fun.

Why it might not win GOTY:

Racing games never win Game Of The Year. Ever.

Battlefield 3

64 players tearing the French Metro to shreds, bombing it across the crisp blue skies of the Caspian Boarder and commanding tanks in the dusty plains of Iran? Forget the rubbish single-player; Battlefield 3 is all about the multiplayer, and with a slew of grand maps, an endless array of weaponry, and a multiplayer shooter that's NOT Call of Duty, Battlefield 3 has a real shout.

Why it might win GOTY:

It's big, loud and a visual stunner. EA's plugged everything they've got into making this a real winner, and they'll be livid if it doesn't come out on top.

Why it might not win GOTY:

The game is certainly not without its problems, with countless issues abound on forums everywhere. These things mount up, y'know.

Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

Serious undertones of paedophilia. That's what I remember most about Uncharted 3; you're a ten-year-old orphan getting chased around by an old man with a moustache. I think there was a lot of other stuff about spiders and adventure and treasure, but I basically zoned out after that and expect Chris Hansen to turn up at my doorstep any minute.

Why it might win GOTY:

As someone who thinks Uncharted 2 was massively overrated, Drake's Deception pumped a lot of my faith back into the series - it's got swagger, ambition and oomph. And when you're reduced to using onomatopoeia to describe a video game, you know you've got something special.

Why it might not win GOTY:

While it's the strongest first two-thirds of any Uncharted yet, it pulls its punches at the end - there's no big revelation or seismic shift for the series, but just another 'sunset and banter' fade-out.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Why it might win GOTY:

It's a brand new Call of Duty!

Why it might not win GOTY:

It's exactly like Call Of Duty 4. Again.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

I'm not even going to talk about the game here. Instead, I'm going to ask you to look at Dead End Thrills. You'll see why.

Driver: San Francisco

Why it might win GOTY:

Best interracial back-and-forth of 2011.

There you have it folks. We'll know soon enough which of these games will come out on top, in the meantime, troll us below with your picks.

Labels: 2011, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Crysis 2, Dead Space 2, Dragon Age II, Driver, Forza Motorsport 4, Game of the year, Homefront, L.A. Noire, Portal 2, Skyrim, Uncharted 3

My vision blurs, and myriad shouts and explosions fill my ears as I come to. I’m sitting in an overturned Humvee, trying to come to grips with the chaos going on around me.

“We gotta move, now!” calls my squadmate, cutting himself free of his seatbelt. I open the door and hoist myself out, as outside light blinds me. My eyes adjust, and I watch a cruise missile collide with a skyscraper, sending debris cascading down to the street around me. The report of gunfire, grenade concussion and screams of terror and pain wells in my ears. Not far up the street, invading troops are bearing down on my position, barking orders and sending a hail of bullets in our direction. My squadmate tosses me a magazine, and I load my weapon, ready to meet the enemy head-on. This is Modern Warfare 3, and this is only the first level.

Many, including myself, wondered if Infinity Ward - now sans numerous key members of its creative team - could pull off the sort of bombastic, thrilling campaign that the Modern Warfare name is known for, whilst retaining the tight, finely-honed gameplay that brought the series popularity in the first place. Fortunately for gamers everywhere (which numbers at least 6.5 million, based on first-day sales alone), Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 meets Infinity Ward’s high standards, with perhaps the best campaign since Call of Duty 4, and even manages to surpass that hallowed game in several respects. Add the series’ already-exceptional multiplayer and several well-designed cooperative modes, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 easily ranks among the year’s top titles.


Modern Warfare 3 picks up immediately after the end of the second game, with Russia invading the United States over a misdirected terrorist attack, orchestrated by Russian ultranationalist, Makarov. Players take control of several characters over the course of the game, but primarily occupy the boots of Sargeant Derek 'Frost' Westbrook of the US Army, and ex-Spetsnaz soldier Yuri. The game largely expects gamers to remember events from the story in the previous two titles, doing little to re-explain who Makarov is, or why Russia is waging war with the United States, except in brief flashbacks. For those willing to pay attention, as well as dig through the rat-a-tat delivery of military speech voiced by nearly every character, the game does a great job of driving the action forward and providing context for each mission. I’ve seen many folk on Twitter crowing about how difficult the story is to follow, but I thought Modern Warfare 3 does very little to deliberately obfuscate its narrative.

The game trots players around the globe, from Sierra Leone, Africa; to a shelled-out Hamburg, Germany; to a frozen diamond mine buried in Siberia. Variety is the order of the day, and in addition to its many explosive setpieces, Modern Warfare 3 does a good job of changing up gameplay styles and including slower, more deliberate moments, such as navigating a mine-strewn harbour to board a submarine, or using stealth to evade guards on the dark, rainy streets of Prague. Modern Warfare 3’s pacing is outstanding, using the calmer sections to build up the heavy ones, sometimes within the course of the same mission. Admittedly, the game does play it a little safe; none of the scenarios push expectations of what the series can do with shooting. Still, each mission is pitch-perfect and wound tight as a drum, with none of the tricks used by similar games to pad the difficulty or create frustration for its own sake (read: no enemy spawn-closets, and no ‘fend off endless enemies until the data downloads’ missions).


I find Modern Warfare 3’s story to be as good as that of any action movie, and was surprised how - for an ostensibly shallow single player game - the campaign drew me in, and even provided a few emotional moments. The title does an excellent job of building on characters (within the context of a military shooter; this isn’t Mass Effect, after all), and I found myself building an attachment to members of my squad in ways that I hadn’t felt during many recent shooters' campaigns. There was also one moment before the end of the first half that elicited an emotional response from me in a way I hadn’t felt since the infamous Aftermath scene from the first Modern Warfare. The narrative is pure action movie fare, but it’s the very best action movie fare, and is a must-play for shooter fans.

Of course, Call of Duty hasn’t achieved its legend status in the gaming industry solely because of its single player mode. Modern Warfare 3 brings back the series’ much-loved multiplayer, letting players battle it out locally or online via Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, with the option to bring one additional guest via split-screen. Changes are light, but not insignificant. Modern Warfare 3 ditches CoD Points from last year’s Black Ops in favour of level-specific unlocks. Perks have been further rebalanced, feeling more like strategic add-ons rather than nearly-mandatory requirements, and gun-specific perks like Iron Lungs or Deep Impact have been reincorporated as weapon bonuses. Weapons also level up in Modern Warfare 3, unlocking goodies like silencers or personalised scopes through general use. Lastly, Infinity Ward has added two new types of killstreaks (called Strike Packages) that differ from the usual 'kill X players without dying for bonus Y'. Support packages summon team-boosting effects, and allow gamers to retain their kills after dying, whilst the Specialist package gives players additional perks for as long as they can keep their kill streak going. Most will stick with the traditional streaks, called Assault in this game, but the added options are definitely appreciated.


New modes are light in Modern Warfare 3, but fortunately, they’re all keepers. The first is Team Defender, an odd mix of Capture the Flag and Team Deathmatch, with players earning double points whilst they possess a flag. The other (and better) mode is Kill Confirmed, a variation on Team Deathmatch that requires players to collect the dogtags of their fallen victims in order for their kill to count, effectively reducing the effectiveness of camping. Both new modes add a small semblance of strategy to the usual Team Deathmatch fare, and stand proudly alongside staples like Domination, Sabotage and Demolition.

Maps in Modern Warfare 3 are fun, though they merely feel ‘pretty good’ rather than ‘great.’ Maps are much more conducive to tight, close-quarters action, though many have enough open spaces to make sniping a valid strategy. As always, learning a map’s chokepoints and alternate routes will help determine players’ success, a problem that Activision’s new social tool , Call of Duty Elite, is supposed to help address. However, at the time of writing, the service was still largely out of commission, and I was unable to dive into the its finer points. Whilst each map is more than sufficient for team play, Modern Warfare 3 lacks any standout maps, like Afghan or Nuke Town. Still; deeper, more rewarding multiplayer games are hard to come by, and Modern Warfare 3’s online modes should be more than enough to satiate those with an itchy trigger finger.


For players uninterested in competitive play, Modern Warfare 3 also includes two flavours of co-operative gaming with the return of Spec Ops. New to Spec Ops is the Horde-esque Survival mode, which pitches increasingly-difficult waves of enemies against players, forcing them to group up, purchase weapons and revive one another in an effort see how long they can last. The Missions mode is similar to Spec Ops’ iteration in Modern Warfare 2, pitting teams of two players against a variety of objective-based situations, from rescuing hostages in an African village to collecting samples of biological weapons in a hulking Juggernaut suit. Best are the scenarios that place gamers in specific roles, such as a mission where one player must utilise a base’s security system to clear the way for another player, who must reach the endpoint before time runs out. Mission mode features sixteen different operations to work through, and finishing each one requires teamwork and constant communication, leading to an incredible sense of satisfaction upon completion. Spec Ops also features a progression system similar to the one found in multiplayer, adding an extra incentive for return sessions.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is absolutely crammed to the gills with worthy content, from its harrowing and thrilling single player campaign, to its deep and addicting multiplayer, to its varied and rewarding co-operative play. It is incredible that a brand like Call of Duty can operate at such a high level, year in and year out, and Modern Warfare 3 toes the line, providing the best franchise experience in years. Perhaps next time, Activision could try to innovate a bit further and push gamers’ expectations with the series. Still, what’s here is absolutely stellar, and shooter fans owe Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 a spot on their shelf this holiday season.

10/10 [?]

Labels: 2011, Activision, Andrew Testerman, Call of Duty, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Review

I don't like this war. I don't like how the Battlefield 3 fans and the Modern Warfare fanatics will go as far as their hate-filled minds find it possible, to dig up as much dirt and sling as much shit at each other as their tiny, bigoted hands allow.

'BF3 sukcs, it just copys MW'. 'MW3 is crap lolol BF3 forever'. It's graffiti that adorns the walls of seemingly every YouTube video out there. It's facile, fruitless and frighteningly feckless. I'll probably stump up the crumbled cash for both, as I imagine a great deal of you will. At the end of the day, we're all adults, and there are - obviously - redeeming and disappointing qualities in each game.

Keep that in mind.

I feel I have to say the above, because you may think I'm nitpicking. This may look, perhaps, like a piece of propaganda which overflows from the legions of froth-faced fanboys around the internet. But do believe me when I say that I have a serious point, despite being a man who's taken several screenshots of a fictitious van. A van which drove a knife through my heart whilst I sat at my computer. A van that may have just killed my faith left in Modern Warfare 3.



That's the Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer trailer. It's exactly what everyone expected: lots of shooting, lots of things blowing up, and a hell of a lot of death. Despite a largely incomprehensible storyline of a sneaky sniper, Modern Warfare 3 looks to embody the reckless chaos which made Modern Warfare 2 a hit; you, a gun, and a confined space with explosives around every corner and a dozen enemies wanting to shoot your face off. But one thing in particular caught my eye.


It's a van. A van which can blow up if put under heavy fire. In fact, the same brand of van, Marley & Griffin, goes up in a ball of flame quite a few times in the trailer. For developers, it's a bog-standard replacement for a red barrel; bigger, more dangerous, less cliché than its iconic counterpart but still a destructible asset in a game which thrives on gratuitous chaos, whilst also providing tactical opportunity for each team. So, why is this important?



The first picture is a Marley & Griffin van, blown up in Modern Warfare 3, a game which released on 8th November, 2011. The second is a Marley & Griffin van, blown up in Modern Warfare 2, which released on 10th November, 2009. There's a two year gap between those two games, yet it's the same van.

Yes, I'm being pedantic. But it's not so much the van that annoys me - there aren't many players who stand and look at the branding of transportation vehicles in video games; those who do are described as 'easy kills'. What bugs me is what the van represents. It represents laziness. It represents copy-and-paste design. It represents a lack of ambition and, perhaps most irritatingly, a lack of pride.

Assets are reused in video games all the time; it saves a bit of money and means developers can focus on other stuff. But Modern Warfare hardly needs to save money; we're talking about possibly the biggest, highest-grossing, most cashed-up videogame series in existence. It would take a designer half a second (exaggeration, but still) to come up with a new logo or brand for a van, or even a whole new van. This is particularly true given that he has two whole years to do so. That van peppers every single multiplayer map numerous times, and players are bound to cast eyes over it on thousands of occasions. So why the hell is it exactly the same as Modern Warfare 2?

And it's not just the van; I reeled off a whole list of exact replicas in this article here. The heavy physics, the boring blood effects, the invisible line triggering the next wave of enemies in single-player, the reload animations, the vehicle controls - all these aged conventions seem just lifted from older games and lumped into Modern Warfare 3. We all know the reason for these similarities is due to the ageing, stumbling and predictable IW Engine that has been used since 2007, and - to an extent - that can be used to justify the physics or the graphics. It's a silly and a lazy choice by the developers, but at least it gives an explanation. The design of a goddamn van, though? Very little excuse. I knocked one out in 30 seconds:


There you go. It's utterly disgusting and I feel sick just looking at bit, but at least it's something new. That's why a tiny, stupid van was the final straw for me. Of all the things they could have done with two years and hundreds of millions of dollars, you would have thought one single bored guy would have noticed one day that: "oh, hang on, these vans are from Modern Warfare 2, and since they're seen so regularly it would probably be a good idea to change them so the game's design doesn't look so blatantly lazy". When Battlefield 3 launches weeks before with an entirely new engine, and Skyrim steals sales just a few days later with its massive scale and unestimatable ambition, Modern Warfare 3 should surely be pulling out all the stops to make sure that as much of the game as possible seems fresh and exciting.

But, alas, no. You'll take your van and you'll like it, say our lords and masters. Screw you, say our lords and masters. I'm having whatever is in your fridge then I'm punching your kids in the eyeballs, say our lords and masters. They don't care.

I'll end up buying Modern Warfare 3. The reality is that it's unavoidable, in the same sort of way that death is unavoidable. And if I must, I'll avert my eyes whenever I see a Marley & Griffin van, in the same way I approached the bits with the spider in Limbo. It is, after all, a van; a very small part of a very big game. But, even still, it's attention to those details which makes the best games. It's that extra will to polish everything, that unbounded passion to make the best experience humanly possible, that desire to go the extra mile and have pride in every aspect of your game which has brought us classics like Half-Life 2, or GTA IV. Or, dare I say it, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare.

Modern Warfare 3 shows none of that ambition. And that's why I've lost faith in the game.

Labels: 2011, Activision, Call of Duty, Chris Hawke, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Sledgehammer Games

Released to critical acclaim in 2007, the original Modern Warfare both redefined the first-person shooter genre, and catapulted its developers to the forefront of industry attention. Almost five years on, however, Chris Hawke explores the difficult dilemma prompted by Activision's cash cow.

I still struggle to remember why I knew almost nothing about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Almost five years ago, I'd read some previews and seen a bit of gameplay, all the trappings and trimmings of a game that just sits in the corner of your eye; you know it's there, but you're not too fussed. In reality, I was hugely unprepared for what hit me in 2007.

Modern Warfare was brilliant. It was hands-down, balls-to-the-wall stunning. It tore the competition apart with realistic, next-gen graphics, a fresh setting, and horrifically brutal gameplay. In a world filled with tired, old Second World War shooters, and clunky sci-fi romps, Modern Warfare boldly strode out onto the playing field and slapped the gaping, wide-eyed industry around the face, proclaiming "This? This is how you make a videogame."

I'm writing this on the 21st June, 2011. I'm watching the E3 demonstration of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. And I don't know what to think.

The Call of Duty series has been in a rather odd decline, at least from my personal perspective. Yes, sales are continually rising uncontrollably, breaking records with the carelessness of a toddler and his toys. Yes, the franchise has more media coverage than anything that had ever gone before it. Yes, it boasts an ever-growing userbase, and has propelled the franchise's two developers - Infinity Ward and Treyarch - into stardom. Yet, whilst a casual onlooker may only glance the surface, storms rage beneath; they may not notice the corporate turmoil as splinter group Respawn broke away in a messy lawsuit, might not have seen the furious mobs' boycotting and badmouthing, and may not get a whiff of the general feeling - amongst those serious about their games - that the magic has slipped away from Activision's baby, like falling sand from Bobby Kotick's clammy hands. Battlefield is enjoying unparalleled reverence left, right and centre, whilst Call of Duty Elite was announced to tepid applause and scathing stares.

The series finds itself with older legs and faster competition.

But how did it come to this?

One commonly cited criticism is the stumbling plotlines. Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare had a rounded, interesting and lovable cast, complete with HOORAH-yelling Marines and quiet, reflective British SAS stormtroopers. It allowed greater scope for a wide variety of characterisation, a concept disgustingly overlooked even now in many shooters. To actually care about a video game character in a first-person shooter - to the extent that the discussion surrounding whether or not Price was dead, and 'that' moment when you succumbed to nuclear radiation, raged for weeks afterwards - was novel; you actually cared for who you fought with and what you fought for. The implications of that on the quiet, grounded and scalpel-sharp story were huge.

Here's a quick recap of its sequel, Modern Warfare 2: BANG, BANG, NO NO, NOT THE CHILDREN, THUD THUD THUD BAM HOORAH KA-BOOOOOM. Or, at least, that's all I could glean. Garish explosions replaced understated floodlights, heavy metal overpowered the once-terrifying echoes of gunfire, and the whole thing was just big and loud and stupid and dumb. Compared to the deftness of the original, with its relatable characters and clever twists, Modern Warfare 2 felt contrived, messy, and incomprehensible. It covered precisely the same ground and the same characters - only, this time, with more swears! - and essentially the same twists, but with a nasty gasoline-meets-match focus and very little development. It could still take you on somewhat of an engrossing journey, and there are some lovely touches when developing the theme of personal sacrifice, but the whole thing just paled in comparison to its older brother.

Competition has also been a major element in the growing distaste for the Call of Duty name. We waited with baited breath for Medal of Honor's return, wanting it to grab the top spot once more, but it could only manage to get a fleeting finger on the prize. Homefront was touted as a possible Call of Duty killer, but the less said about that, the better. If you give an audience the same thing for 4 years, they're going to get bored. People scream out for new stories and new experiences, and after so many failed attempts at delivering that, it's natural that fans become more and more disillusioned. Battlefield 3 seems to be the new centre of attention, and every feature it has that Call of Duty doesn't have (regardless of how minor or unimportant) is touted as another small victory in the war against the Call of Duty name.

These factors are important. The rivals, the ridiculousness; it all chips away at the once-proud, Ozymandian series. But there's one comment that you keep seeing again and again, over and over, which perfectly sums up the reason for this backlash against the beauty that became the beast:

"It looks like the other Call of Duties".

Correct, it does. And it isn't for lack of trying, either. Now you're in England, Germany, even France; there are new guns and new features, new levels and new characters. There are pretty hefty improvements and additions to Modern Warfare 3, so it isn't quite correct to claim that each new game is merely its predecessor "with some new maps". Instead, that effect - of each game seeming the same as the last, and the one before that - is created through one key, tragic flaw: the IW Engine.

"It would be counter-productive to create a new engine from scratch", Infinity Ward claim. Utter bollocks. The engine is the very heart, the core, the beating heart and pulsating soul of the Call of Duty series that once dazzled, but now reeks of dirt and guilt and rust, struggling to keep the game standing on its ever-weakening legs. The engine has aged, and it hasn't aged well. Sure, the actual graphics could stand up to other games in 2011, but that isn't the point. I've played every Call Of Duty multiplayer since 2007, all the single player stories countless times, achieved 100% completion on Spec Ops: I know the games, and I know them well. And thus, even before I've played Modern Warfare 3, I know exactly how it will feel and play.

I know the bodies of enemies will drop to the floor a bit too fast, and won't have enough physics for my liking. I know that it'll take two bullets too many to kill a man. I know that, if I camp in a corner and don't cross an invisible 'line', no more enemies will find me. Even in the E3 demo, I knew how it would feel to control the boat, how long it takes to aim my weapon and reload, and that the only blood splatter will still, disappointingly, come from a headshot. I know pretty much every detail - the good, the bad and the ugly - months before release.

It's beyond stupid: it's depressing.

But, even as I survey Modern Warfare 3, shaking my head and tutting, I can't help but think: y'know what? That's quite good. Setting it in four entirely different locations? That's pretty neat. Sneaking into a nuclear submarine, hijacking the missiles, and then belting away as Manhattan burns? Yep, that's kinda cool. It's a bit redundant to compare every facet of Battlefield and Call of Duty to one another, but whilst EA had a slow E3 demo in which (let's face it) a few tanks had a skirmish, Modern Warfare 3 was a thirteen-year-old's wet dream. Is that what we want from a first-person shooter nowadays? Possibly not, but the fact that it realises its situations so well is honestly awe-inspiring: everything is blown to bits or on fire or dead. It may be childish and unrealistic, but Infinity Ward take the task of setting out a Third World War scenario, and do a bloody admirable job of it.

And that is the dilemma. Modern Warfare 3 is predictable, outdated and stale. But, despite that, it has a raffish charm, like the kid who's muddy, dirty, annoying and loud, but you can't help but admire a little bit. The key question, when it comes down to it, is whether or not you purchase a game you've essentially played for years now, with only some nice little additions in way of development. Or, is this the final nail in the coffin?

Labels: 2011, Activision, Call of Duty, Call of Duty Elite, Chris, Chris Hawke, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Treyarch

Finland is awesome.

Unlike Scandinavia, Finland is a republic, lacking of a regal ruler that would allow it to enter the historical grouping of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Finland doesn't care.

Finland is the the most sparsely populated country in the European Union. Finland doesn't care.

Finland dramatically altered the course of World War II, possibly tipping the tables in the allies' favour, holding back and viciously wounding the looming Russian bear that foolishly and arrogantly tried to take the country for its own in the Winter War. And you know what? Finland doesn't give a shit.

See, that's the beauty of Finland. It's a wonderfully advanced country. It's one of the most economically competitive in the world, has the third-highest graduation rate in the world, and ranks as the best country in the world in the Newsweek survey based on health, economic dynamism, education, political environment and quality of life. That same survey even labelled it the world's "most stable country". But would you really think Finland such a hi-tech, bleeding-edge nation when you surveyed the quiet villages of Rautjärvi, the pale mountains of Lapland, or the picturesque forests of Reposvi? Nope. And that's the true beauty of the country; it has everything going for it, yet it stays quiet and humble, and just gets on with things.

It's the complete opposite of Call of Duty.

Call of Duty, arguably the most well-known game in the market today, has similarly daunting facts regarding its number of sales, revenue, production values, and the like. Except it takes a different route to Finland: it wants everyone to look at it. The lurid explosions painting the screen, threatening to drown out A-list celebrity voices, as stained battlegrounds are torn apart in a hail of bullets and shrapnel - it's like a kid let loose in a crayon shop, high on sugar and filled with unending praise from overly adulatory parents. Always on show, smeared against the TV, is the American flag, with its American ways, American virtues and American freedom. The stars and stripes will always win, because they're the ones God chose, they're the ones with the biggest bombs and the largest guns, they're the ones with cliché-ridden inspirational speeches from cookie-cutter quarterbacks with shovels for chins.

Subtlety is not a buzzword for Call of Duty.

Thing is, Call of Duty needs a rethink. Money might be flowing in faster than the river of Lapuanjoki, but with Infinity Ward splitting, limping on to carry the flame, and millions of disgruntled fans bored of the same game with a slightly different Gary Oldman cameo for the past four years, changes are bound to happen. A new engine is pretty much a given (or, apparently not...), with all the shifts in graphical prowess, physics and gameplay that come along with it. Yet the apparent approach seems to be that new multiplayer modes and something shiny to stamp on the back of the box should do it.

Except... what if fans required more? What if Call of Duty, the entertainment staple of conservative minting-and-milking, went radical?

What if, set for a November 2012 release, Activision presented Call of Duty: Simo Häyhä?

In 1939, Russia invaded Finland. The Soviet forces had three times as many soldiers as the Finns, 30 times as many aircraft, and a hundred times as many tanks. During a −43°c (−45°F) winter, many Finnish troops had to make do with little warm clothing. Yet Finnish morale had never been higher. And, despite being ridiculously outnumbered and outgunned, Finland won, due to a mix of Finnish spirit, guerilla tactics, and one very special man.

Simo Häyhä.


He was a farmer and a hunter, living in a farmhouse near the Russian border. His room was gleaming with trophies for marksmanship. At 17, he joined the militia. And history was made.

Simo Häyhä has the record for the most kills in any war - at least 705. In less than a hundred days, he racked up 505 confirmed sniper skills, and two-hundred close-quarters submachine gun kills. He earned the nickname 'White Death' in both the Finnish and Russian armies. But it wasn't just the sheer number of lives he took that makes him an idol of awe; it was the way he did it.

At five feet and three inches, clad totally in white, he was already a difficult target, blending in seamlessly with the snow. But then he did clever things. He didn't use a telescopic sight, as they meant you had to raise your head higher, so the scope would fog up and reflect the sunlight. Instead, Simo took down targets hundreds of metres away with iron sights. He compacted snow around the rifle so it would not displace when he fired, and kept snow in his mouth to hide his warm breath, both of which become lore, stolen by other snipers and Hollywood alike. Then, at just the right moment, he would pounce with his Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun and blast away the incoming onslaught.

I'm not saying Simo Häyhä was right. Killing people is horrific, and war is a terrible thing, but World Wars are blind spots for morality. Simo, in his own words, "did what I was told to, as well as I could". He was shot in the jaw, yet survived and awoke just as the Winter War ended.

And here's the kicker.

When asked how he could achieve such a stunning statistic, what did he answer? Did he turn his face to the sun, bald eagle flying above, and give a speech about the noble standing proud? Did he recite a nation anthem word for word, spout a tired old motto, or ooze inspirational drivel from his lips? How could he do as well as he did?

"Practice."


Simo Häyhä then returned to his village, hunting and farming, until his death in 2002.

And that's what Call of Duty needs. Not bigger set-pieces or more explosions or louder guns; it needs to be grounded. It needs to take a long look at itself, see the error of its arrogant ways, and work on making a better game - a cleverer game, using personal tactics to gain the edge over the enemy, rather than just doing the same thing every single time.

And when it's done, it needs to take a bow, turn to the future, and carry on. No fanfare. Just doing its job, and doing it well.

Labels: 2011, Black Ops, Call of Duty, Chris, Chris Hawke, Finland

We’ve come a long way in gaming. But not that long.

I don’t want to make another reference to Roger Ebert and his beaten-to-death statement that games will never be art, but I have to. One of the best lines that came from Ebert’s diatribe was actually from a post on his blog about using the word “nigger” in Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. Ebert wrote he would “sacrifice every video game in existence rather than lose Huckleberry Finn”.

That line has stuck with me more than any criticism I’ve heard labeling video games as a pointless past-time. A lot of the backlash Ebert's received from the game community contains the argument that the video game industry and its fans shouldn’t waste their energy trying to please Ebert, who is far from knowledgeable when it comes to video games. That line of thinking burrows itself into a bitter and isolated hole, one that sacrifices the perspective of outsiders for the comfort of navel-gazing. Roger Ebert is not an idiot. His purview over the literary and cinematic worlds stretches farther than most of us will ever have the time to challenge.

I have trouble justifying an intense interest in video games. In video gaming, fun trumps all. It is paramount to story; more important than art design, more valued than communication. Many games will sacrifice logic and instead parade inanity, as long as it serves the gaming community's need for fun above all other things.

Our most celebrated and discussed works in video games are arguably the most irrelevant to regular people, and we’re fooling ourselves when we make arguments otherwise. Call of Duty is not a worthwhile war saga; it’s about shooting people in the face and feeling great afterwards. Bioshock is about creative killing. Mario is a giant playground. It may seem unfair to boil these games down so simply, but at their core gameplay, the distinguishing factor between games and other media, there is simple and crass heart.

Fun in video gaming is usually defined by rewards, which is why so many video games of today employ some sort of progressive reward system like that of Call of Duty’s multiplayer mode: everything you do is rewarded in some way. You shot someone in the head? Excellent! You got a kill from fifty yards? Awesome! You ran thirty feet? Incredible.

There's a parallel here to any artistic medium where there’s a challenge to gain an audience. Creation is all about communication of some idea, whether it be a story, an experience, or even just a feeling. But, at the end of it, if there's nothing to tell, then there's nothing to do. In video games, where gameplay is our conduit to the experience, the communication is usually engineered to make the player feel awesome, and the more awesome you feel, the more successful a game is. This often results in a struggle for the author(s) between including enough to keep people interested while not sacrificing the work's purpose, its communication to the world. In video games, we do so much to keep people interested that we don't even consider the idea of communicating an important theme or idea.

Of course, maybe all we want to communicate is a sense of fun. Playfulness is not something you typically find in other mediums, and video games do it well. But how long can we ride that wave? Ebert wrote of his idea of an “art” film, “They are not mechanical constructions of infinitesimal thrills. They depend on intelligence and empathy to be appreciated.” How many examples do we have in video games that fit that definition? I can think of less than five. Video games are not built on intelligence and empathy but instead reward and empowerment, where very little work is exchanged for maximum payoff. It’s escapism, and there’s nothing wrong with escapism, but if that’s all video games have to offer, how long can they possibly stay relevant?

I don’t really care whether or not Roger Ebert accepts gaming as something adult, much less as a legitimate past time. What sticks in my craw is that I know deep down that I myself would sacrifice every video game I’ve ever played in order to keep my favorite book, Catcher in the Rye. That said, when it comes to my relationship with video games, there’s no turning back - we’re in this together. They’ve been a part of my life for nearly twenty years now. I’ve grown up a lot since first playing Super Mario Bros.. But where are video games?

Technically, video games have grown exponentially. Technology has drastically changed the nature of what you see when you think of “video gaming”. Mario has grown from the simple coding language of an NES platformer to a complex, 3D, directionless world with wireless motion controls and analog sticks. The effort put into fine-tuning our ability to manipulate a virtual world is astounding, and it’s paid off into some of the most engrossing experiences.

Emotionally, video games have remained largely stagnant. For all the effort poured into the minutia of game design, its attention into the spectrum of human experience has remained meager. We’ve spent so much time pressing buttons in the name of fun that it’s hard to believe there’s room for much else. Being a gamer means always sniffing out the next high of excitement, searching for that same sense of empowerment wherever it can be found. It has rarely meant more in any substantial way.

When I fan out the experiences of my life, there’s only so much room for remembering the feeling of constant reward, constant empowerment. Humanity's palette is more diverse than this. Video games have fed us almost nothing but sweets our whole life, skirting the salty, the bitter, the sour and the savory and heading directly for dessert. There are tinges of other flavours sometimes, experiences that deviate from the norm and touch on wider or even universal appetites. But we don’t validate these deviations. They aren’t accepted by the community as “real” games. As a result, that community, and the rest of the world, end up missing something.

Where is our salesman desperately planting his garden? Where is our orgastic green light? Where do we find our mockingbird? Where are our princesses in another castle? We don’t need to please Roger Ebert, but we should be concerned that an increasingly larger number of people find the heart of gaming to be hollow.

We owe it to ourselves to reexamine the way we determine the worth of video games and the role they serve in people's lives. There are questions worth asking. Is it useful, in a larger sense, for us to pursue some constant high? Are we destined to be a derelict corner of escapism from that real world, or is there something more, a broader, cathartically diverse realm of interaction that we haven’t yet explored, just waiting for us? Until we start looking for it, we’re on a collision course for that day when we return from escape, only to find ourselves alone, hollow and unhappy.

Labels: 2011, Art, Bioshock 2, Call of Duty, Feature, Mario, New Features, Parker Scott Mortensen, Roger Ebert

If you look around the industry, you’ll notice that regenerative health remains a favourite mechanic amongst developers, and why shouldn’t it? Continuing your onslaught of chainsawing, bullet-hosing manliness after absorbing sustained amounts of firepower to your sternum is always a win. But haven’t you wondered how our favorite protagonists come out of these predicaments alive? Perhaps you’ve questioned exactly what is preventing those bullets from perpetually penetrating their adventures? The answers lie within.

Many think that Halo was the pioneer of regenerative health. And, in a way, they're right; Bungie did bring the critically-acclaimed mechanic to the forefront of mainstream gaming. The birthing of it, though, is located in another castle completely. Nonetheless, regaining lost health after avoiding damage for a period of time is a smooth, insanely popular feature in contemporary games. It provides players with a reason to utilise cover while still being able to bounce back from mistakes in the midst of battle. How else were you supposed to recover from the prismatic dragon-ninja’s shuriken of dark lightning? It makes sense gameplay-wise, but as far as the games that utilise it - that’s a whole different ball game.

Now this list isn’t just about games that use regenerating health; no siree. That list would be far too lengthy and lacks the focus we’re going for here. Instead, this list is fixing its unending gaze on the games that contain unexplained reasons why your character regenerates. If a dinosaur clawed my spleen from the confines of my body, I probably wouldn't recover very well. In videogames, however, they can do so with no real issue. How is this justice?

Each game in the following list will receive a score based on how believable its form of regeneration is. A score of ten marks the most believable regeneration, whilst one indicates ghastliness. Here we go.

Killzone

The Killzone franchise has been through quite a lot during its lifetime. First it was a muddy, messy, overhyped PS2 game; then it transformed into a visually appealing, constantly-delayed PS3 title. And who could forget that glowing PSP game? Regardless of where you stand with the series, Killzone has done one thing consistently from the very beginning: regeneration.

I don’t get it though. You’re the standard space marine who - like the rest of the flock, apparently - is capable of absorbing countless numbers of bullets. Okay, okay: you’re wearing weird space military gear and all that, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it doesn’t come equipped with quantum-regenerative mind-gear.

Verdict: These guys aren’t Warhammer 40,000 genetically-altered Space Marines of doom. Bullets hurt badly, and I’m not convinced you can bounce back from a Helghast shooting a rocket down your throat. Still, they’ve got some pretty fancy technology, so maybe its possible. Just maybe... [5/10]

Assassin’s Creed

Altaïr, Ezio; whoever your assassin of choice is, it doesn’t matter. Both of these badass dudes regenerate anything, from minor cuts to arrows in their ass. I think my biggest issue with Ubisoft’s star child is that when you’re fighting someone, another comes up and wants a piece. That’s cool, but things escalate rather quickly, and before you know it you’ve got armoured guards wanting to shove their six-foot pike in unwieldy places. The combat makes it a bit touchy to counter blows every single time, so it’s inevitable that you’re going to be hit with some form of weapon.

Let's paint a picture: your screen is flashing red, you’re screaming, you're running, and you suddenly heal back to full. How does this even happen? Do assassins in the Crusades or Renaissance Italy possess the ability to mend wounds with a snap of the fingers? Yes, you’re technically controlling a memory brought forth by the Animus, but the machine doesn’t give you Final Fantasy powers.

Verdict: Sorry: these highly trained, highly skilled assassins may be the cream of the crop when it comes to silent murder, but they’re no mutant. They’re wearing cloth and light armour so as to be weightless enough to run from any pursuer. However, if hit by tangible force, fall like tangible assassin. There’s no Curaga in this time period. I'd say that you should at least have to be hidden to regain health. [3/10]

Mirror’s Edge

You can shoot people in this game, but it sucks. It sucks because you can’t run whilst firing, and running is what this game is all about. And the running isn't short of its own problems, either.

Running! How the hell can you run when you’ve just been roundhouse kicked by a rhinoceros? It’s a fair question: you’re usually being chased by beefy officers or kung-fu masters who, against your delicate feminine frame, could cause some noticeable damage.

Sometimes you actually have to stop and initiate combat manoeuvres, which is fine, but you take the risk of getting injured. I guess the risk isn't too large though, because in the future everyone seems to have regenerative implants.

Verdict: I don’t know about you, but after I get shot I can totally do a double wall jump. [1/10]

Red Dead Redemption

Great as Rockstar’s wild west adventure may have been, did they explain their regeneration system? In short: no. You’d think that, in an environment where greats were born and slain, you’d receive a little more realism when it comes to pain.

Don’t get me wrong, you can kill people in a shot or two (which is just like real life, apparently), but some of the punishment you can take is downright ridiculous. With the amount of shootouts you encounter, you’ll be tucking yourself away to regenerate constantly. After the eightieth bullet, that leg of yours should be the most decrepit thing on the planet.

Verdict: How about that deer you shot? Do you see it running over to the nearest form of cover? That’s right, you didn't. It isn't coming back, because it can’t regenerate. Instead, it died, like in real life. Are you even listening or are you just skinning that deer? [4/10]

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 wasn’t the best game. Questionable AI, dodgy respawning points and horrible stealth mechanics made this gamer cry in dirty corners, but at least the health system was unique.

And gross.

As this video indicates, you can heal manually if you’re at critical health. This form of manual regeneration entails some of the most grotesque animations I’ve ever witnessed. Pulling glass from your wrist, prising bullets free from your kneecaps, wriggling wire out from between your fingers; Far Cry 2 tries its best to make you vomit.

While this mechanic is unquestionably awesome, it makes no friggin’ sense whatsoever. How the hell does pushing a bullet through your arm give health? I’m no medical expert but I’m pretty sure that after you pull a large piece of shrapnel from your arm, it's going to bleed and you probably aren’t going to be using it for a while.

Verdict: Points for disposing of the junk in your body, but deductions for the nonsensical health giving. Also, since the animations are random you could be shot at, and then all-of-a-sudden be pulling a shard of glass from your wrist. Unless the enemy is armed with wine-bottle launchers, that shouldn't happen. [6/10]

GoldenEye 007 (2010 Wii version)

This re-imagining of the famed N64 shooter was high on many gamers’ lists of unbridled anticipation. Then it came out. All I can say here is that Daniel Cr... - er, I mean, James Bond - now regenerates health rather than having to use med kits. Thanks go to Activision, for shattering my nostalgia into lots of tiny unsalvageable pieces with the most contrived game mechanic possible. Why not add laser cannons and giant mechs next time?

Verdict: James Bond is not a space marine. At least, not yet. As good a spy as he is, he's still only a man, and a well-placed bullet ought to puncture his anatomy like a nail through a slab of soft butter. [2/10]

Gears of War

Only the manliest of men can say that this game doesn’t feature enough gore. Gears of War is responsible for doing a lot right, and a whole lot wrong - see Gears of War 2's multiplayer mode, for instance. Regardless, Marcus Fenix and his COG brethren are fighting a war that they must win. And what equipment do they have in order to ensure this victory against a heavily-armed, ruthless enemy? Chainsaws and standard-issue armour.

Just to remind you, these people are fighting against a horde of mutant angries called the Locust, who have a whole arsenal of hurt just waiting to be unleashed. How does a unit that are struggling for any type of technology fight against beasts the size of small buildings with rockets strapped to their back?

They regenerate, of course.

Verdict: There are no shields, no special infusions to make you a God, nothing. That obviously means that when a colossal space laser descends onto the surface of the world, hitting you square in the forehead, so long as you get out of the blast radius within a few seconds everything's good. Where is the sense? [2/10]

Uncharted

This blows my mind. Nathan Drake and company are wearing what appear to be clearance items from JC Penney, and they have no fear of taking on waves of enemies. What happens when Drake gets shot? The obvious of course: he regenerates. But how?! How can you heal gaping shrapnel and bullet wounds, with your half-tucked shirt as your only form of protection?

Verdict: I guess half-tucked shirts are the new Kevlar. [1/10]

Call of Duty

There is nobody in the entire galaxy that would be able to survive a .50 cal straight to the chest at point-blank range. No manner of Void Armor, magical forces or hostage children used as shields could save you from your dire fate. In Call of Duty, however, apparently they can.

I still remember the day I stopped playing Modern Warfare. I was patiently waiting for some camping hobo to return to the window he’d shot me from several times before. When he appeared, I focused and fired a very accurate shot, dead centre in the middle of the poorly-hidden gentleman's chest. And he didn't die. Even despite the fact that my reticle registered the hit, the bastard lived and shot me again.

Verdict: No. [1/10]

Red Faction Guerrilla

Red Faction is known for its ridiculously enticing destruction. The GeoMod is something that hasn’t been embraced throughout the industry, and it’s ridiculous that it hasn’t been utilised more. However, the very mod I was just praising shows why Guerrilla’s regeneration system makes no sense.

First off, Alex Mason is wearing some kind of industrial rain coat that frightens me. Second, you can be decimating a building and have a two-by-four block of solid concrete fall straight on your face, and yet can still get up after the ragdoll physics have stopped, and be good for another round. Is Mason made of rubber or something? Last time I checked, he was still human, and concrete still really, really hurts when thrown on top of you.

Verdict: Even on Mars, a building collapsing on you is still a building collapsing on you. You’re not coming back out. Ever. [1/10]

Labels: 2011, Andrew Whipple III, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Goldeneye, Killzone, Mirrors Edge, Red Dead Redemption, Red Faction Guerrilla, Uncharted

2010 has, for the most part, been a fantastic year for games. Whilst there may not have been as many truly outstanding titles as in previous years, the quality of the top-tier games in 2010 was perhaps greater than any year in memory.

We've been treated to improved and refined sequels, gawped at some great new IPs, used up download quotas on some truly wonderful downloadable games and played to death plenty of great expansions for older games that have kept the likes of Borderlands and Uncharted 2 relevant one year on.

It's been a challenge narrowing down my favourite games of the year, but I've managed it. These are the games I've enjoyed the most and spent the most time playing - these are my Games of 2010.

5: FIFA 11

I'm a huge football fan, so I can definitely appreciate a great football game and EA Sports delivered one of those with FIFA 11. Managing to improve and refine the already brilliant FIFA 10 is no easy feat, but that's just what the folk at EA Sports managed to do. The gameplay is as realistic as any football game to date, there are plenty of modes to play through, and the improvements to the graphics are most welcome. It's one of those rare sports titles that can be enjoyed even if you aren't a huge football fan, which is a fantastic achievement. In terms of hours played, FIFA 11 is probably at the top of list.

4: Call of Duty: Black Ops

Following up on Modern Warfare 2 was never going to be easy, but Treyarch stepped up to the mark and in my opinion crafted the best Call of Duty game yet with Black Ops. The campaign was well-designed with a genuinely intriguing story, and the usual smattering of competitive online modes have seen me sink dozens of hours into the game. The return of Zombies provides us with some great and unpredictable co-op, and it's all wrapped up in one of the best audio and visual presentations this year. If you like shooters, you won't find a better one in 2010.

3: Red Dead Redemption

I wasn't a huge fan of Grand Theft Auto IV, so for Rockstar to suck me in to Red Dead Redemption and for me to enjoy it was something I didn't expect. For a start, the game looks and sounds stunning, with a beautifully realised world that really does feel alive and different every time you pop the disc in. The story is of the highest order, with memorable characters and incredible set pieces. Add to that some inspired and well designed gameplay mechanics, which are far more intuitive and fun than GTA, and you've got the base of a truly great game. What stood out for me though was the multiplayer: the free roaming, the team modes, the co-op and all that came with it were so addicting and so damn fun that it should be experienced by everyone. Oh, and there's that Zombie DLC... brilliant.

2: Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit

This might seem like a crazy choice, but goodness me: this game is just flat out fun. The feeling of playing cops and robbers in the world's most desirable cars, over the roads of a beautiful landscape with a rocking soundtrack blasting in your ears is the stuff of childhood dreams. This core mode is supplemented by standard racing and time trials, but it all works because of the fast paced and action packed gameplay which is a joy to play. The multiplayer will keep you coming back, the innovative Autolog feature makes everything competitive and worth trying, and the game looks stunning. This is like the Top Gear of racing games: crazy, explosive fun... with cars.

1. Mass Effect 2

You only have to read my review to know why I think this game is so damn good, and why I love it so much. I've completed the game three times, each time doing all the missions and side-quests and I've played through all the DLC. This game is huge, with an incredible story in which your decisions do really matter. The way in which your choices from the first game are carried into this one is an incredibly innovative and well done element of the story, and it makes your adventure feel totally personal and unique. The characters are so well written, the set pieces are stunning and there's still plenty of mystery left to answer in the third act of this incredible trilogy. Not only that, the gameplay itself is phenomenal. The shooting can easily stand up against industry juggernauts like Gears of War and Uncharted, whilst the other elements like the conversation system and the vehicle segments are also far enhanced over the first game. It's got incredible voice acting and music, with stunning visuals both technically and artistically to match. Games don't come any better than this; simply stunning, and certainly my game of the year by a long way. PS3 gamers: don't you dare miss out on this when it releases later in the month.

Labels: 2011, Black Ops, Call of Duty, Feature, FIFA 11, Games of 2010, Mass Effect 2, Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, Red Dead Redemption, Tom Acres