Follow us on Twitter: @ggtl
Join our friendly community!
Latest news
25.1.12
Late to the party, you say? 2011 may be dead and buried old news, but forgive me; I've only just built up the courage to say what I'm going to say.
You see, I'm not a man with splitting opinions, a vicious tongue or a mind for devil's advocacy. I like what I like, and generally that tends to be what everyone else likes. You'll find no 'Homefront was the bestest game evar!' antics from me. But in a year that granted me the gift of Batman: Arkham Asylum, the cherished delight of Portal 2 and the unforgettable, unconquerable, unbelievable Skyrim, amongst a glittering sea of celebrated gems, it was a coma-fuelled carmageddon that gave me the greatest joy.
Driver: San Francisco is a throwback in pretty much every way possible. The story itself harks back to the vibrant, garish and funky, beat-heavy 1970s, where everyone was either pushing coke or doing dope or being a dirty cop or doing something illegal and slightly hilarious. There's also the gameplay, which doesn't burden the player with muddy motion control, sloppy shooting mechanics or faulty free-roam. You drive, and occasionally you'll press a button, move the camera over another car, and press a button. Then you drive again. It's pure, clean and fresh. Whilst most modern titles cram the back of their game boxes with trademarked UltraCrap™ features ("now with 50% more green-brown textures!"), Driver had you, a car and a beautiful city. To top it all off, this is Ubisoft Reflections' last attempt at reviving the lifeless and much spat-on corpse of the Driver series; from the golden age of the ultimate PS1 cop-chase emulator, Driver has fallen hard, shooting itself in the foot with the awkwardly-titled Driv3r and then proceeding to maul its own limbs off in desperation with Parallel Lines and 76. When it was announced that the latest Driver would be a retro throwback to San Fran's heyday, all coddled up in the mind of coma patient John Tanner, eyebrows raised. When the game released, jaws dropped.
Well, mine did at least. See, 2011 was a wonderful year. Not if you were a dictator, or a Middle Eastern rebel, or near an earthquake hotspot, or Amy Winehouse, or pretty much anyone else in this sickening world slowly trudging to your inevitable anti-climactic demise. But, for videogames at least, it was damn exciting. Needles plunged into eyes in Dead Space 2, robots plunged into fiery pits in Portal 2, elbow-daggers plunged into cyborg motherboards in Deus Ex, and Skyrim plunged the world into a fury of 'Fus Ro Dah'-ing and wishing their cats could dual-wield. There was fierce competition, no doubt about it. But Driver: San Fransisco stole my heart and drifted across the Golden Gate bridge with it. And I'll tell you why.
You knew what Dead Space 2 was all about. If you had hands, or even eyes, well before your clammy palms had caressed your controller of choice you knew Dead Space 2 was about kicking alien ass and taking alien names. Maybe you'd completed Dead Space (2008), or just played the demo, or even caught a fleeting glance of a trailer, but any semblance of surprise had been squandered long before you ever played it. You knew how it would feel to decapitate an otherworldly head, and fly about in zero-gravity, and what Issac would say, do, think, whisper, murmur, smell like; the corpse of Dead Space 2 was examined and pored over long before its release into the big wide world. All the grand games of 2011 had the same issue: hyped beyond excess, with endless trailers, walkthroughs and interviews to feast upon, your appetite was spoiled before the main meal. I'm a huge Skyrim fan, and the game itself is unconquerable colossus of scale, and yet killing my first dragon didn't feel all that special. Because only a few months ago, I'd watched Todd Howard do the very same.
Driver: San Fransisco didn't have that problem. I'll choose my words carefully so I don't offend any hardworking Ubisoft employees, but... how do I put this? The game was shoved into a grimy corner to die a lonely death. Advertising was basic; no grand statements spilled from Martin Edmondson's - creative director - mouth; there wasn't a new trailer every thirty seconds. I knew a bit about the game, but I certainly hadn't followed it with the same wide-eyed vigour as I had with the better-endowed releases that came before it. It was brilliant.
When I got the game, seamlessly swinging sideways around San Francisco's sunbathed streets was an absolute thrill. Leaping from car to car in comatic fury was a real joy, whilst the good-cop/bad-cop (or in this case, white-coma-cop/black-sassy-cop) relationship - filled with sharp one-liners and just enough homoerotic tension to emulate all those 70s buddy movies - was riotous fun. With no expectation or preconceived notions, Driver: San Fransisco had an empty stage on which to wow the player, and it did so with all the tricks it could stuff up its sleeve.
The crux of the game had to be the side-missions. The main plot was tongue-in-cheek, bizarre, over-the-top brilliance, with interweaving threads of stolen ammonia and hospital beds. But to keep you interested, there had to be stuff to do, and I'll happily hold my hands in the air and claim that Driver: San Fransisco had the best side missions of any game I've played for a long, long time. Whilst Skyrim had you traversing endless load screens as you fast travel, enter a building, talk for a bit, leave a building, fast travel, find some treasure, fast travel, speak to a guy, and so on and so forth, Driver makes every side mission an attention-grabbing, emotionally-involving rollercoster. Who could forget Jun and Ayumu, clumsy Korean kids who accidentally get themselves embroiled in vicious street-races? An ageing truck driver nearing retirement who is caught up in a Speed-style bomb threat? An unfortunate husband unwittingly driving an adulterous wife to a lesion with her lover?
They each had spirit. They each had flair. They each had soul. Every single one of them felt crafted, sculpted and born out of love, and you find yourself becoming more and more involved in these characters with every lightning-fast second. I shouldn't care about these people! Whole games devote themselves to creating sympathy with a block of pixels, yet fail with a fizzle; Driver: San Fransisco, with a sharp script and colourful characters, grabs you and doesn't let go.
That's without retracing the fleet-footed main plotline, that's so brilliantly tongue-in-cheek yet straight-faced that you can't help but admire Ubisoft's gumption. Going from the meandering countryside roads of automobile shifting fun, through narrow back-alleys of genuinely disturbing plot twists ("Christ - he's everywhere!"), hurtling down the open highway of one of the most thrilling climaxes of the year - Driver was an utter joy to behold.
There are hundreds of honestly superb games out there. Games with blockbuster budgets, Spartan-sized teams and the community's eyes focussed dead on their every move; these types of games are wonderful to play and technically proficient. But when was the last time a game rocketed out of the blue and knocked your socks off? When was the last time you were properly, genuinely excited by the game you were playing, full of wonder and possibility and brimming with the unknown? Nowadays, those games are harder to come by. And all the more incredible for it.
Labels: Chris Hawke, Driver, Driver: San Francisco, Feature, Opinion, Ubisoft
- Chris Hawke
Dead Island
Developer
Naughty DogPublisher
Deep SilverPlatforms
Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3Reviewed on
PlayStation 3Genre
Horror, action-adventure, open-worldCertificate
PEGI 18+, ESRB MOn the flip side of things, you do occasionally get the rare indie game that can engender communal childish commotion over a charming idea or unique style. But with Dead Island? A single trailer was enough to propel it into stardom.
A Polish developer with a chequered past. A publisher that juggles the superb S.T.A.K.E.R. with the likes of Russell Grant's Astrology. A setting and plot reeking of cliché and originality. Yet, once that announcement trailer hit, everyone looked past all those details. That single trailer was able to cause such a massive fuss because it promised us a mature game; a game with strong emotional connections and heartbreaking violence, not just the usual blood and guts which make up countless shoddy copycats. Dead Island was so, so exciting.
The actual game is a totally different beast. It is a mature game, yes. But only because you can slice off zombie limbs in glistening HD.
Dead Island puts you in the shoes of one of four survivors, and tasks you with finding some escape from a beautiful paradise which has turned into a baneful bloodbath. Sounds familiar? That's because it is familiar. Truth be told, there is nothing in Dead Island's set-up that is remotely new or fresh; much like the zombies it portrays, Dead Island is simply a rotting, abhorrent husk of the original material it feeds off. There's nothing wrong with being unoriginal - after all, Left 4 Dead is still one of the finest zombie experiences out there - but Dead Island seems determined to shoot itself in the foot. The four survivors have surprisingly complex and sympathetic back-stories - it was exceptionally difficult to choose between a fallen football idol and an ambitious policewoman. Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter; you'll never get anything more, in terms of characterisation, than an 'eat that!' remark as you crack skulls. It's sourly disappointing to see Dead Island squander its potential.
However, once you jump into the game, you might just be able to forget about all that. The opening scene, where you wake up to an abandoned hotel, is startlingly well done, especially having to charge down corridors to escape a hungry horde; and once you get used to the slightly bulky controls - think the heaviness of Killzone 2 bumped up to eleven, and you have Dead Island's lumbering sensitivity - it's really all a bit fun. Stupid, needlessly violent, cliché and vapid, but fun nonetheless.
The zombies all have excellent physics, meaning that swipes with a baseball bat and slashes of a machete will provoke different and appropriate reactions from your enemies, making combat that much more fulfilling. Likewise (and regardless of your weapon of choice), there is an undeniable and honourific guilty pleasure in maiming a bikini-clad member of the rich and famous, whilst the appearance of a special infected swings the doors of strategies tactics wide open for you. You'll find your favourite weapons, upgrade them, possibly even modify them, all for the glorious and goreious (I made that word up, kids) buckets of red that stream from leg stumps. Dead Island is built on a foundation of smacking around the undead, and it's a brilliant foundation.
Of course, one can only aimlessly set fire to parasitic prisoners for so long; it's the game's job to make you feel like you're actually accomplishing something with all that maiming and decapitation, and for a while the missions in the game seem quite promising. Finding tired and aimless camps of survivors is initially thrilling, with a strong and logical string of main quests. Whether it's fixing up cars to drive over zombies with ease, or picking up the last scraps of food from beach bars, it really keeps you going through all the killing. In particular, you're told of a monsoon coming, and thunderous roars from the clear-blue heavens above make you feel under incredible pressure. Unfortunately, after a while it all goes downhill. Missions that start out with clear initial objectives soon becomes tarnished, with characters saying, "hang on, just get me a bit more petrol", or "before we get going, I just need an extra stick of chewing gum". At this rate, missions quickly become tedious, and as you venture into the city, the sewers, and later the jungle, everything becomes more linear and corridoric. Oh, and that monsoon? It's nothing more than a light bit of rain that clouds the game from time to time, and messes up the graphics. Speaking of graphics, the Chrome Engine which the game runs on boasts an odd mix of delightfully angelic and downright disfigured graphics, with more bugs and glitches than you can shake a hundred day-one patches at. What begins with promise quickly becomes a game stalling for time as it realises it needs to deliver fifteen hours worth of gameplay.
The problems don't end with bugs. There are scandalous difficulty spikes; particularly gruesome zombies known as Floaters, in particular, can spit furious venom at you, yet take a good dozen blows to finally surrender their crimson insides. The 'Infected', zombies who can sprint at you, seem to have a nasty habit of getting into unbreakable animations - despite endless kicking and even some slicing, they'll continue to pick away at your health with all disregard, until ending their little attack animation and suddenly dropping dead. It really isn't as fun as it sounds. And don't expect to find the emotional depth the game promised in other characters, as there seem to be only a handful of NPCs; one of the only emotional points in the game comes when a daughter is forced away by her slowly dying father, but two minutes later I'm talking to survivors with exactly the same beard and hat as him. Unless criminals are reduced to stealing facial hair in the zombie apocalypse, the only thing to blame is lazy design.
What isn't as lazy is the online co-op. Four friends can take the role of each survivor and have some good, old-fashioned fun. It really changes the mood of the game - in single-player, Dead Island can often be quite tense and thrilling, bordering on terrifying, yet with three mates it just becomes an unholy massacre. It's far too easy and distracts from any mood the developers were trying to create, but in its place comes the simple joy of friends having fun - not even Left 4 Dead can match the joy of having each player cut a limb off a lumbering Thug all at once. Personally, I much preferred the lonely, solitary experience, but it's nice to know that when that gets boring, you can turn Dead Island into Light-hearted Trigger Happy Island.
All in all, Dead Island is brainless. Sluggish, obtuse, dazed and ludicrous, it shuffles along half-heartedly, trampling all the potential it once commanded. But, when you take up arms and start sawing arms off, Dead Island is mindless merriment. It's big and dumb, but for all its faults and squandered potential, there's nothing quite as satisfying as a no-holds-barred zombie massacre.
9/10 [?]
Labels: 2011, Chris Hawke, Dead Island, Deep Silver, Review, Techland
- Chris Hawke
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
- Chris Hawke
Competition closed, and winners announced here. Thanks to all who entered!
Almost a week ago, we gave you the chance to win one of six Skyrim plushy helmets. The competition was a resounding success, and we thank each and every one of you who joined in. But those hats were snapped up, winners were told, and that was that.
But we at Gamer's Guide to Life.com like to surprise. And, alongside our beautiful new design, we're giving you the chance to win a Skyrim plushy hat all over again, courtesy of the lovely people at Bethesda. And it may just be your last ever chance.
You probably know the drill; you enter for the chance to win one of the two remaining Skyrim pushy helmets we have - and, as far as we know, the last ones Bethesda had in stock. This is your final opportunity to be a part of history, a part of something special. Since we've had time to discover more about these helmets and their magical powers of awesomeness, here is a new list of their incredible powers:
Put a helmet on a cat, and it'll turn into a Khajiit. Put it on a kitten, it turns into the cutest Khajiit you've ever seen. Ever.
Put the helmet on a tree at sundown, and there's a chance a wild Bosmer will appear. And then shoot you with an arrow.
Put a helmet on a nerd, he'll become a Nord.
Put a helmet on a dork, he'll become an Orc.
Put the helmet on at midnight and say 'Candyman' three times, and myth has it that Todd Howard will appear, and will lull you to sleep with his warm, cosy voice.
Put the helmet on in public, and become Dragonborn.
Put the helmet on a tree at sundown, and there's a chance a wild Bosmer will appear. And then shoot you with an arrow.
Put a helmet on a nerd, he'll become a Nord.
Put a helmet on a dork, he'll become an Orc.
Put the helmet on at midnight and say 'Candyman' three times, and myth has it that Todd Howard will appear, and will lull you to sleep with his warm, cosy voice.
Put the helmet on in public, and become Dragonborn.
Want to see what it looks like on a half-person, half-glitter-zombie? It's a good thing that we have just the image for you, then.
Note: we have no idea what is happening in this picture. You'll get the awesome hat, but we won't smear you in dirt and put glitter in your mouth. We have some dignity.
So, how do you get your hands on the last of these rare artefacts?
To enter, all you need do is tweet the following message using an unprotected, personal Twitter account, and follow our sister site's Twitter account at @systemlinkblog:
RT and follow @systemlinkblog to win 1 of the last 2 Skyrim plush helmets, courtesy of Bethesda! Details and terms: http://bit.ly/sl-skyrim
You asked, and we listened. Since some of you seem to have an acute fear of social networking, we've decided to open the competition to permit e-mail entries, as well. Whilst Twitter is by far the faster, easier and arguably better way of entering, we never leave a man behind. If you must, send us an e-mail at competitions@gamersguidetolife.com, with the subject line as Skyrim plush helmet competition entry. You will be treated to exactly the same random chance as those who enter via Twitter, and that's a promise. Please note: only one entry option is allowed. If you enter via Twitter and E-mail, we will only count one form of entry.
And, finally, we've taken the big choice to make this competition worldwide. Whilst it'll undoubtedly cost us a bomb to ship out to the furthest reaches of Antarctica, we can't put a price on a fan's happiness*.
There you have it. This is the last Skyrim competition we'll ever do, so make sure you're part of it. The competition will close at 11:59pm GMT on Wednesday 9th November, with winners chosen on Thursday 10th.
* We can, and it's anything upwards of £14.99
FUS-DO-RAH!
Terms and conditions:
- Entrants must submit their entries by no later than 11:59pm GMT on Wednesday, 9th November, 2011.
- Winners will be chosen at random on Thursday, 10th November, 2011.
- There will be two chosen winners, and each winner will receive one Skyrim plush helmet.
- The prize consists of one Skyrim plush helmet.
- There is no alternative prize and the prize may not be exchanged for any other item, nor any monetary amount.
- Entrants must follow both the SystemLink Twitter account (http://twitter.com/systemlinkblog) and retweet the given message in order for their entry to be valid.
- The Gamer's Guide to Life Network reserves the right to withhold prizes for any reason it sees fit.
- The immediate families of Gamer's Guide to Life Network staff are prohibited from entering, as are past and present members of the Network.
- The prize will be shipped to directly from the Gamer's Guide to Life Network, and thus winners will need to contact us to provide shipping details.
- Entrants must enter the competition using a regularly-updated, non-spam personal Twitter account, which is not set up merely for competition entries and/or promotional purposes.
- Following the competition, the winner will be required to contact a given Gamer's Guide to Life Network representative in order to provide the details we need to have the helmets dispatched.
- The prize cannot be redeemed in any other form than the prize designated.
- The Gamer's Guide to Life Network reserves the right to refuse entry to winners if they see fit.
- The Gamer's Guide to Life Network redeems the right to change, edit or otherwise add to or modify these Terms and Conditions at any time.
Labels: 2011, Bethesda, Chris Hawke, Competition, Exclusive, Skyrim, The Elder Scrolls, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Chris Hawke
COMPETITION CLOSED: You can see who won on this tweet here. However - don't lose heart. With our new site coming any day now, we'll have a few more competitions to run - and who knows, maybe it will be your last chance to grab something Skyrim-based?...
Ladies and Gentlemen, Nords and Orcs, Khajiit and Dunmer, we have a special treat for you all. With The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim fast approaching, ready to swoop into your living room and tear the beating heart out of your social life, Bethesda want you to start getting into the mind of Dovahkiin. And how can you possibly feel like the Dragonborn? You can wear his helmet.
Bethesda have been kind enough to send Gamer's Guide to Life.com six glorious, wonderful and mesmerising Skyrim plush helmets to give away to you, our lovely readers. These fuzzy-yet-intimidating pieces of headgear not only keep you warm on cold winter nights in Whiterun, but also grant you the power to take down world-eating dragons.
Here's a full list of the perks it grants you:
+1 softness
+5 charm
+3 bartering skill
+10 hand-to-hand
3% chance to do a critical hit when shouting 'Strun-Bah-QO!' in a public place
-15 flame resistance
+100 social awesomeness
100% chance to attract opposite sex all the time
+5 charm
+3 bartering skill
+10 hand-to-hand
3% chance to do a critical hit when shouting 'Strun-Bah-QO!' in a public place
-15 flame resistance
+100 social awesomeness
100% chance to attract opposite sex all the time
These might just be the last Skyrim helmets left for you to snap up without stumping up almost $100 on eBay. It's your chance to be a part of history, to be the coolest of the cool, to wear a plush hat with pride and scream "I. AM. DRAGONBORN!".
To enter, all you need do is tweet the following message using an unprotected, personal Twitter account, and make sure to follow our Twitter account at @ggtl:
RT and follow @ggtl to win 1 of 6 Skyrim plush helmets, courtesy of Bethesda! Details and terms: http://bit.ly/ggtl-skyrim
Entrants must be in the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, or Europe.
And whilst you're at it, feel free to follow @systemlinkblog for all the latest breaking and exclusive news. They're our sister-site, and if Mum finds out that we're getting more attention then them, we'll be grounded (again).
If you want a sneak preview of what the hat looks like, take a gander below:
Note: we have no idea what is happening in this picture. You'll get the awesome hat, but we won't smear you in dirt and put glitter in your mouth. We have some dignity...
Just follow @ggtl and retweet us, and we'll pick the six winners at random when the competition closes on Thursday 3rd November, 11:59pm (GMT).
However, heed this, young warrior. Word has come from Mournhold that more helmets have been found in the wilderness of Elsweyr, and are making their way to Skyrim. Keep an eye on Gamer's Guide to Life.com, and you may just discover the truth very soon...
UPDATE: And if that wasn't quite explicit enough - all you people with an odd hatred of Twitter or living somewhere outside of the competition? Keep your eyes peeled - all is not lost.
Terms and Conditions:
- Entrants must submit their entries by no later than 11:59am GMT on Thursday, 3rd November, 2011.
- Winners will be chosen at random at midday, Greenwich Mean Time, on Friday, 4th November, 2011.
- There will be six chosen winners, and each winner will receive one Skyrim plush helmet.
- The prize consists of one Skyrim plush helmet.
- There is no alternative prize and the prize may not be exchanged for any other item, nor any monetary amount.
- Entrants must follow both the Gamer's Guide to Life.com Twitter account (http://twitter.com/ggtl) and retweet the message in order for their entry to be valid.
- The Gamer's Guide to Life Network reserves the right to withold prizes for any reason it sees fit.
- The immediate families of Gamer's Guide to Life Network staff are prohibited from entering.
- Prize will be shipped to you by Gamer's Guide to Life - thus, we will need to get in contact with you via your Twitter.
- Entrants must enter the competition using a reguarly-updated, non-spam personal Twitter account, which is not set up merely for competition entries and/or promotional purposes.
- Following the competition, the winner will be required to contact a given Gamer's Guide to Life Network representative in order to provide the details we need to have the helmets dispatched.
- The prize cannot be redeemed in any other form than the prize designated. Gamer's Guide to Life reserves the right to refuse entry to winners if they see fit.
- The Gamer's Guide to Life Network redeems the right to change, edit or otherwise add to or modify these Terms and Conditions at any time. Entrants must be located within the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, or any European country.
Labels: 2011, Bethesda, Chris Hawke, Competition, Skyrim, The Elder Scrolls, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Chris Hawke
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad has the best pistols of any game I've ever played. And for me, that's a big thing. When you're stuck with a bolt-action rifle, and a swarm of Nazis are bearing down, you need a Plan B. Usually, in games, pistols are next to useless; peashooters that dribble pellets of soft cheese at your enemies. They're weak, boring and might as well not be there. But in Red Orchestra 2? Sidearms are king.
Whipping out a Luger P08 never felt so good, nor contained so much sexual innuendo. You bring the iron sights up to your eyes, able to see the whole battlefield at a glance; as you slowly tread around a corner, some feckless Russian storms right into your line of fire. You plug three sharp, curt, quick bullets into his stomach. But one would have been enough. He slumps to the floor, draped in a fitting shade of red.
And that's just the pistol.
Red Orchestra 2 is the fully-fledged sequel to Tripwire's Unreal Engine 2.5-powered Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45, which came out in 2006. With the limited resources it had, the game was wildly ambitious, pitting 64 plays in the most authentic Second World War action around. Despite the shoddy graphics and clumsy UI, it was a powerfully realistic, immersive experience, but only for those PC gamers willing to put in a great deal of time. This time round, Tripwire have taken unprecedented care with Heroes of Stalingrad. And it shows.
The graphics are nothing short of stunning. Textures are as crisp as they are hauntingly brutal, character models so close to the uncanny valley that they almost fall in, and it boasts all the extra trimmings, like light shafts and excellent bloom and blur effects. I'm happy to go on record and say that the sun-kissed Grain Elevator map is more beautiful than anything Modern Warfare 3 will be able to muster, and it at times borders on Battlefield 3 levels of beauty. Static screenshots simply don't do it justice. When in motion, Red Orchestra 2 is something else; words cannot describe in enough detail. It'll push your PC a bit, so be willing to drop down if you get a choppy framerate, but even on the more conservative settings, you'll be in awe.
Of course, the graphics mean nothing. Why? Because there is no game so thrilling passionate about putting you in the boots of a solider. 'Immersive' and 'realistic' are words I'm bound to throw around a great deal, but they have never carried more gravitas than with Red Orchestra 2. There is no HUD to speak of - a tiny mini-map to help you find you way is all that will occasionally lure your attention away, and even that can be switched off in certain servers. When you shoot a player, there is no hit marker; you have to hold your breath for a few seconds, watch to see if they're dead, and - if you're lucky - a message will pop up only a few moments later to give you confirmation of a kill. This is such a small detail, but one that has a huge effect; you have to take care with your shots, and the extra delay gives rise to exhilarating seconds of watching, waiting for any movement. There is no red 'Shoot Me!' text over enemies, as it's up to you to discern between the grey-brown uniforms of the Nazis and the brown-grey coats of the Soviets. This is not a game that holds you by the hand; you're out on your own, and it's up to you to win or lose. It's a hugely liberating feeling, if a tad daunting, but with a bit a perseverance and a few team-kills, you'll get used to it.
This creativity and uniqueness stretches even into the game modes and maps you'll be playing. Each map I've played have all been well-crafted, from the close quarters of Barracks, to the epic war of attrition in Red October Factory. There are natural choke points, deadly sniper holes and, in the larger maps, wide open plains in which you'll cower at the might of opposition storming your positions. There's a choice of three modes, but the mode that's all the rage, Territory, has the Nazis and Allies competing to capture as many of the five or so 'control points' as possible. Every twenty seconds, dead players respawn, which gives the impression of enemy reinforcements. It really does make a difference - instead of players constantly drip-feeding in, you can experience game-altering surges of Soviets in a sudden swell of success, and there's nothing more terrifying than twenty Nazis streaming past your sniper nest.
Each class only has a limited number of people in them; only two marksmen are allowed, only six Assault Riflemen, only six squad leaders, and so on until the remaining few have to plump for a bog-standard rifle. It speaks volumes about where Red Orchestra 2's true passions lie: not in getting you the pink MP40 you've always wanted and letting you raising hell, but rather focussing on teamwork and tactical play. If you find yourself with a machine gun, you have to take it upon yourself to find a good hiding spot and mow enemies down, whilst as a sniper you'll have to hold back and pick people off at distance. Amazingly, it works; people really do adapt to their roles, and on a good server with good players it all fits together so perfectly.
The game also has a single-player campaign, but since I sprang straight in to the multiplayer element of the game, it gives you a good idea as to where Tripwire's attention was focussed. The campaign is split into 'Axis' and 'Allies', yet - whilst having a commander in the Reich rouse you to Lebensraum is a surprisingly fresh and novel experience - Tripwire hardly pull any heartstrings or shock you with twists and turns. In fact, it could be argued that the single player is totally devoid of emotion. You learn the ropes easily, but then you're thrown into all the multiplayer maps successively, with objectives for you and your AI buddies to storm towards. There are cutscenes which tie these objectives together with some very appreciated editing and war footage, but there's little to no story to speak of, and no emotional connection with the characters. Some might be disappointed with this, and whilst it certainly means you should look towards other games for your plot-heavy single-player, Red Orchestra 2 knows that it's more fun when shared. The AI is just about capable, and there's a very neat little feature where you can respawn directly into another class upon death. It means you can hone skills for multiplayer, while also giving you a different feel to the gameplay; one minute you're rushing ahead as an elite rifleman, while other times you'll hang back with a sniper rifle. Certainly, when you and a friend take on the computer in co-op, it provides a playground of sorts to test skills and create strategies. Single-player simply acts as respite between online bouts; a quicker-to-complete, more simple experience that allows you some alone time.
The game is not without fault. Occasionally, you'll spawn without a weapon in your hand, or character animation will freeze during a reload animation, rendering you useless. These are but waves in a small ocean of clipping issues, broken physics, and being-able-to-see-through-walls-if-you-look-at-them-at-the-right-angle. There was a very real chance that these could be horrible smears on otherwise polished and shining game, but honestly, you'll forgive and forget quickly. There's just too much to like for those small things to get in the way.
There's so much to love in Red Orchestra 2. Weapons are not fixed to the centreof the screen, and are fully 3D models which exist and react organically within the world: you can take cover, push your rifle to the edges of a window frame and easily pepper an enemy location, all whilst the camera remains static. Not only is it massively advantageous in gameplay, it also looks incredibly cinematic. On every weapon, you can adjust the sights to help hit targets at distance, whilst on sniper rifles, you can switch between a scope and iron sights, making it a viable close-quaters option too. Nowhere else can you stumble across two players discussing the historical authenticities of a PPSh-41. Red Orchestra 2 is simply one of a kind.
Battlfield 3 will bring us shooting. Beautiful shooting on an epic scale, yes, but shooting none the less. Modern Warfare 3 will bring us chaos on a disc. Both those titles are distinctly different, yet still go through the same old routines. But Red Orchestra 2 is unexpected; it's unpredictable and totally unique, taking a refreshingly mature approach to game design. If you're getting tired of the same old FPSs, Tripwire's latest is a masterpiece and nothing less. And whilst everybody places their bets on Battlefield 3 to trump Call of Duty, spare a thought for Red Orchestra 2. It just might surprise you.
9/10 [?]
Labels: 2011, Chris Hawke, PC, Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad, Review, Tripwire Interactive
- Chris Hawke
Remember when you went on holiday to a remote yet stunning tropical island with Mum, Dad, your brother and his best mate who smelt worryingly of extremely strong cigarettes? Wasn't the sand betwixt your toes a golden warmth; the piercing blue ocean an inviting oasis from a beating, glimmering sun? And remember when everyone got infected with virus and you had to man up and start cracking zombie skulls?
No? Well, Techland certainly had the most violent and haunting childhood getaways, and their upcoming game Dead Island looks set to tug at your heartstrings. As you tug open some undead flesh.
We have an exclusive interview with the Dead Island team, and since we asked all of our readers to contribute to our Resistance 3 interview, we thought that those who prefer the rotting corpses of loved ones to the slimy scales of invading aliens might feel left out if we didn't let you take part in this one, too. Just follow the steps below; you should be used to them by now.
Pop it in the comments section
The fastest way to ask your question is via the comments system on this page. You can login using your Disqus, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo or OpenID account, or just comment as a guest. It's quick and amazingly simple.
Get in touch via Twitter
Have a Twitter account? Tweet your question to us. All you need to do is send us a message via @ggtl. Also, you'll need to be using Twitter on a non-protected account, so we can recieve your tweets. If you use a protected account, use one of the other options to submit your question.
Send us an e-mail
If you're not a fan of comments systems or social networking, but fancy something a bit more personal, you can send any questions over to chrishawke@gamersguidetolife.com and we'll do our best to include them.
Ask questions that are as in-depth as you want, on any aspect of the game, development or the future of the series. We'll throw as many as practically possible into our interviewee's earholes. It couldn't be easier.
Bookmark us so you never miss a beat, or follow our Twitter to get our latest articles and crazy ramblings.
Labels: 2011, Ask Your Questions, Chris Hawke, Community Interview, Dead Island, Deep Silver, Exclusive, Interview, Techland
- Chris Hawke
Man has fallen. The world lies shaken, shattered, and smouldering. There is no hope left for our kind.
Except everything's awesome now, because there's a planet full of aliens to shoot at! Insomniac Games' vision of an Earth owned by extra-terrestrials may seem bleak on the outside, but pick up a Bullseye and you may just have the time of your short, puny and meaningless life. Resistance 3 isn't exactly a happy game, but it's going to be one hell of a ride.
We have an exclusive interview with the tireless homo sapiens at Insomniac, and it's only fair that you, the loving and adoring fans, get to ask the questions. So long as you're not a Chimera.
Just follow the steps below to submit your intelligent questions.
Pop it in the comments section
The fastest way to ask your question is via the comments system on this page. You can login using your Disqus, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo or OpenID account, or just comment as a guest. It's quick and amazingly simple.
Get in touch via Twitter
Have a Twitter account? Tweet your question to us. All you need to do is send us a message via @ggtl. Also, you'll need to be using Twitter on a non-protected account, so we can recieve your tweets. If you use a protected account, use one of the other options to submit your question.
Send us an e-mail
If you're not a fan of comments systems or social networking, but fancy something a bit more personal, you can send any questions over to chrishawke@gamersguidetolife.com and we'll do our best to include them.
Ask questions that are as in-depth as you want, on any aspect of the game, development or the future of the series. We'll throw as many as practically possible into our interviewee's eardrums. It couldn't be easier.
Check back regularly to see what we've cooked up for you, or follow our Twitter account to hear about new articles as soon as they arrive.
Labels: 2011, Ask Your Questions, Chris Hawke, Community Interview, Exclusive, Insomniac Games, Interview, Resistance 3
- Chris Hawke
The industry is full of sequels, but which franchises aren't getting their due for follow-ups? Chris Hawke looks at seven titles in need of new iterations.
Despite what you might have been led to believe, people like change. Change is new and fresh, fun and exciting; it brings out your inner-child and lets it romp through unique experiences and original delights. Move past the façade of peripheral details, and you'll see people are getting bored of Call of Duty, because it's been the same since 2007, whilst Battlefield 3 is bringing something sparklingly virginal to our eyes. Every now and again, a developer likes to take a dive into the crisp waters of innovation and swim with the dolphins of vicissitude; out of this comes stunning games that blow away the cobwebs with unseasoned ideas and exploratory themes.
But, for some reason, many of these IPs (intellectual properties) never get fully used. Perhaps people forgot about them. Perhaps they were too before-their-time. Perhaps one of the developers pissed in the pool, and the pool turned an odd and wholly-unappealing colour, and everyone got disgusted and left, and the dolphins swam away.
Or something.
Whatever the reason, these are a handful of unique and original IPs that are simply collecting dust.
Mirror's Edge
Listen; it wasn't great. EA finally shrugged off the title of 'Evilcorp' in 2008 by taking risks and trying newfangled concepts with Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, rather than just milking the same old sports titles. They still do that, of course, but at least those sports titles are now awesome. Mirror's Edge was cutting-edge, intriguing and exotic, but that doesn't mean it was any good. The horribly facile story did disgusting things to the original theme - a silently oppressive city with a dark cop at its centre - and the game became full of piano concertos and flying doves. Mirror's Edge had problems, and one central fault; it was unformed. It was full of brilliant ideas and motifs, hurriedly scrunched together and chucked onto a disc. Mirror's Edge, as a series, needs a bit of time and practice to mature, and a second game is vital to that. We'll just have to hope that Dice understand the goldmine they're sitting on.
The Chronicles of Riddick
Stealth is dead. Thief 4, Hitman: Absolution, the new Splinter Cell; these might just be able to revive the limp, lank and lifeless corpse of my favourite genre. But for now, there hasn't been a good stealth game in ages; one that really focusses on staying hidden, slipping between shadows and silencing some unfortunate soul before sneaking back to secrecy. Riddick was at the forefront of that. It may not have been as flashy as the Splinter Cell series, but it was stealth in its purest form; you, two Ulak blades, and a spaceship full of bad guys. Nothing else is so immersive and enjoyable as The Chronicles of Riddick for silent violence, with visceral combat and a truly dark tone to the plot. Whatever Starbreeze have planned next, I hope Vin Diesel is ready.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Yep, another article from me where I fawn over Eastern European games. By now, you should get the point; all those Ukrainian developers like 4a Games, or GSC Game World? They're brilliant. And S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is the most haunting, stunning, surprisingly dazzling and preposterously magnificent thing you can play on your PC. A multitude of problems are swept away by the sheer single-minded passion for post-apocalyptic beauty. So why the hell haven't we had a proper sequel?!
Even in 2007, Shadow Of Chernobyl looked old and tired, yet the same engine had to bear the brunt of two 'expansions'. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 has been confirmed, but nothing's been seen of it thus far. Before it's too late, GSC - before someone else steals your essence - make the most of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Tom Clancy's EndWar
Whether or not you think EndWar's key distinguishing feature - the ability to control units with your voice - was a gimmick or a revolution, at its core the game was rock solid. The basic gameplay features were well-implemented, the story did enough to drive you forward, and it was just good fun to play. Then, factor in the voice commands, and EndWar becomes something special. Yes, it's only because of those childish fantasies that come bubbling up to the surface, but speaking into a mic and have the units on screen react? Hell yeah.
It's more SingStar than Company of Heroes; you can feign panic in your trembling voice when under pressure, or triumphantly order everyone to move up. It's as much fun coldly telling troops to "leave no survivors" in monotone as it is to scream, "Hoorah! Great hit, Bravo Two!", imagining that, somehow, those little specks you survey are real and carrying out your every command with loving duty. EndWar gave you a God Complex, and it felt great. The sooner Ubisoft can pull EndWar 2 out of limbo, the better. My people need me.
Brothers in Arms
Yes, there's a Furious 4. And all the insipid bile that spilt from my mouth splatted on the keyboard and managed to turn into words. The long and short of it; Furious 4 isn't a true Brothers in Arms. No, BIA is a lot more than just mowing down cannon-fodder. Second World War may hardly be an original setting, but Gearbox's tactical first/third-person shooter hybrid gave an exhausted, weary and drab setting some much-needed life. The puzzle-like gameplay perfectly complemented a thrillingly mature, grown-up story - two things you won't find anywhere else on the market today. BIA is the very antithesis of cookie-cutter combat, and I can only hope it gets better soon.
SimCity
The idea of building, maintaining, sustaining and advancing a city may seem mundane in 2011; in the saturated world of Cities XL and Cities in Motion, SimCity is surely just another endless pit of time-waiting, fruitless architectural escapism, right?
Shut your mouth and rinse it with razor blades. SimCity is the original; the daddy of all your micro-managing desires. There's something oddly addictive about a birds-eye view of your whole creation, and SimCity nailed that element of ownership. Your city was your city, a Genesis and Revelations all rolled into one, starting with a single plot of land and unstoppably expanding to the all of the four corners of the Earth. I only hope that when SimCity makes its jubilant return, it moves with the times; better graphics, more choice, and maybe a bit of politics thrown in.
Road Rash
"You get to hit people, on bikes". Those were probably the only words spoken at the proposal meeting back in 1991, followed by a slow nod and a growing smile from EA then-boss Trip Hawkins. There are games that let your crash a bit, sure; Burnout even makes it the central focus of the gameplay. But, even with such violent racers drifting about the place, Road Rash still has that unique, resolute desire for speed and brutality. Instead of constant corners and backtracking, it's just one long stretch of road. The other racers aren't forced near you by an invisible elastic band - you progress, you see them, and you chain-whip them into oblivion. EA say they're trying to get Road Rash into the next generation, and with concepts like this, I can't see why they've taken seven years to reboot the franchise.
I can only hope all seven of these underused IPs get back onto our platforms soon. In the meantime, what series would you like to see return? Tell us in the comments below.
Labels: 2011, Brothers in Arms, Chris Hawke, Mirror's Edge, Road Rash, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., SimCity, The Chronicles of Riddick, Tom Clancy's EndWar
- Chris Hawke
This is Part 2 of our interview with Adam Parsons. Make sure not to miss the first part.
We conclude our interview with the ex-Codemasters man by asking him about his personal experiences, the life of a developer, and his thoughts on the future of gaming consoles.
Adam Parsons was Executive Producer at Codemasters' Action Studio for over twelve years. Before leaving the company at the beginning of August for new horizons, Adam was kind enough to give Gamer's Guide to Life.com an exclusive interview about everything gaming; the industry as a whole, his personal challenges, and some tantalising hints about his next project.
If there were one thing, process, person, or trend you could remove from games development altogether, what would that be, and for what reason?
Actually, that is very difficult. I’m torn between inaccurate estimates, excessive crunch, and test. If everything worked and there were never any bugs, ever, I’d probably remove test (on the basis that it all worked). If everyone estimated with 100% accuracy, that would make my job much easier.The reality though is I would remove excessive crunch. There is no reason for excessive crunch. Some crunch, yes, in moderation, as we all want to improve and iterate, and this can take longer than estimated. After all, estimates are just that! Planning a project in a non-realistic time scale, with a similarly unrealistic quality expectation, is just ludicrous.
Developers are the talent; they produce the goods. It is not just one man or woman leading any discipline; it is the whole team that delivers a successful title. Of course, I’m aware that budgets have to be met, but we should all be treated fairly for the work we do, and if something needs to be improved beyond expectation, adequate time should be given to it, or realistic reward for crunch time. My heart goes out to developers such as Kaos Studios who endured crunch, and who were rewarded with closure of the studio.
Is the current climate encouraging or discouraging developers from taking risks?
For the indies and start-ups that don’t often have that much to lose, that results in some great titles. Joe Danger, for instance; four talented guys, just focussed on a fun game without interference. And it shows.For bigger publisher/developers, the title has to be turned into a franchise, and not become a one-hit wonder, so the pressure to take risks is immense. Relying on tried and tested formulas can result in franchise fatigue and ultimately the demise of a developer/publisher. Look at Black Rock Studio and Bizarre Creations; two established and experienced studios producing some outstanding games. Both took a risk on refreshing the racing genre, and both closed.
But our industry is all about high-risk and high-reward, and we'll will continue to invest in new IPs even though it’s a challenge; consumer appetite for new stories and experiences needs to be satisfied.
When could we see a 'PlayStation 4' or 'Xbox 720' announcement? What sort of innovations will they bring?
The consoles are feeling their age now, so late 2012 or early 2013 feels about the right time for the industry to prepare for the transition.I have a wish list more than inside information regarding innovations. They’ll be two parts; innovation and catch-up.
For the catch-up, built-in Kinect and or controller motion support, and all the relevant network services, such as cloud storage, social connection and platform connectivity.
Scalability to adopt new services and social integration will be key, but far simpler to retroactively fit via software/firmware, so I don’t see that as much of an innovation, more as forward planning.
Other innovation will take the form of access anywhere, any time. Apple is already starting to lead the way with iCloud and Wi-Fi syncing, but what I would like to see is a totally connected game. Eve Online has ambitions with Dust 514, but to be able to be part of a Call of Duty campaign on your iPhone, commanding units strategically, and then to be able to take part of the campaign in another way via a PC browser, with alerts being sent through social channels on your progress is something I haven’t seen accomplished on a large scale yet. With the obvious move towards digital distribution, it’s fairly safe to assume that larger storage, 3D features, faster processors, lower power consumption, the integration of entertainment services and streaming and any new interfaces will all be almost certain additions.
I’m just waiting for the iHolo so I can play the Minority Report on my iPad 3.
What is the daily life of a developer like? Is it a relaxed and creative environment, or a tense and panicked slog?
It’s mixed depending on the phase of the project, and each phase itself has its stressful points. The closing phase of the project is the most stressful, but never panicked, and often the most exciting with hundreds of issues to solve on a daily basis which really tests your endurance and mettle.With monthly milestones, there’s always the pressure of delivering something playable to assess and appease the great gaming gods above, but that’s half the fun, and it’s definitely a creative environment to work in.
What sort of game would you love to make?
That old chestnut. I’ve always loved comic books and novels, and I often finish a novel and think 'now, that would make an awesome game'. 2000 AD has had some great stories, such as Flesh and ABC Warriors. The IPs are owned by Rebellion, so I hope they can do those some justice one day.I do have a game concept that is probably only fundable by the largest publisher for the next Xbox or PlayStation, together with planned advances in wireless technology. It's one I would love to talk about, and it certainly hasn’t been done yet because of its complexity and reliance on technology. I would love to think it’s a game-changer, but at the same time it's hugely risky.
Oh, and I’d want enough time to make it without being driven to killing people.
How did you start in the industry, and if you were doing it again, would you take a different route?
I left a company in a senior position to join the games industry, and had also managed production teams in the design and print business before going into games. Of course, in games, this means squat. So I started as a production artist. After six months, Codemasters offered me a Lead Artist role on my first PlayStation 1 game, TOCA World Touring Cars; it was a baptism of fire, but I thoroughly enjoyed the pressure and scale of delivering the art for the game.After many years and projects, I really wanted to positively affect more than just the art vision for a game. I moved into production so I could work with all disciplines and produce the full experience. I love art and photography, but being part of a much broader picture is more appealing, and I wouldn't go back on that. Moving into production, most producers seem to have Quality Assurance or engineering backgrounds. Very few artists I know have moved into production, mainly - I guess - because the attraction of producing stunning visuals is too much to give up.
Having been part of the main dev team, I can clearly remember the issues the team went through, so I try to avoid the issues that plagued me as an artist and support the team as much as possible during the making of a game.
In hindsight, I would have moved into games earlier, as the industry I was in before was stagnant and it was more of a case of creating a portfolio faster than one of gaining more relevant skills.
Do you think there is a certain market or genre which is being over-saturated?
There’s a danger of lack of innovation in every genre which truly offers players more. I see a long list of game mechanics, and designers using it as a pick-'n'-mix of game features. There’s a game I know that very clearly and unashamedly ‘borrowed’ a mechanic from another game, and didn’t really cover it up. That's not a problem, but it isn't helping the industry to break new ground. You could argue that some shooters are using formulas from other games to help support their sales and appeal. But if gamers continue to buy them, why stop?Personally, I want to see designers pushing the envelope a bit more. Portal is a great example of off-the-wall thinking, and it’s become pretty popular too. That’s something I love about Valve and their design process, and why others should take a page out of their book.
In terms of saturation, the shooter market is a pretty tough place to be in right now, and as a learned friend of mine once quoted, we "let them duke it out". There’s still a place for the right games in niche markets, but it has to have that mass market appeal as well as something truly fresh and relevant. Innovation is ridiculously hard to deliver.
What sort of games would you like to see more of?
Classic platform games. You know, I loved Manic Miner and Monty Mole from the 8-bit days. Gamers have been spoilt today with checkpoint saves, infinite lives, and magic healing after 30 seconds. In Manic Miner, you had three lives, and gained more after 10,000 points. And, you had to be exact on when to jump, or lose a precious life. That’s why I love Limbo, it's a great example of less being more; innovative in its execution and great fun to play. This is why I love hearing from players who've finished Red River on hardcore, as it’s that unforgiving, without any safety measures.Would you rather make a million-selling game that doesn't take the industry anywhere new, or develop a niche, but revolutionary, game?
I’d develop a niche, but revolutionary, game......that sold millions.
Our immense thanks goes to Adam Parsons for taking the time out of his busy schedule to speak to us. For more interviews and all the latest, make sure to follow our Twitter account for all our updates.
Labels: 2011, Adam Parsons, Chris Hawke, Codemasters, Exclusive, Industry, Interview
- Chris Hawke
Adam Parsons was Executive Producer at Codemasters' Action Studio for over twelve years. Before leaving the company at the beginning of August for new horizons, Adam was kind enough to give Gamer's Guide to Life.com an exclusive interview about everything gaming; the industry as a whole, his personal challenges, and some tantalising hints about his next project.
What, in your view, is the best way to get into the industry? Getting degrees and qualifications, or the home-made mod/indie route?
That really depends on what you want to create and how much control you want over your project. For me, I spent about twelve years in various industries after completing University with a degree in three-dimensional design (product design). Then I moved into graphic design, then web design, and finally multimedia. Towards the end of that phase it was leading teams and then joining Codemasters.I wouldn’t have done anything differently, as the variety of experience in different trades removes the blinkered and cynical view of the games industry today that those who have grown tired or spent their life only in games have. I still wake up each morning excited about what the day will bring, and what I’ll help create or deliver.
My advice to those who have less financial burden and plenty of talent and creativity is to do what was done in the 8-bit days, and what is being repeated again now: self-publish on iOS/Android or PC (Steam). There’s discussion that the world can only take so many four-man dev teams pushing out indie titles, but I disagree. These fledgling teams are doing some very cool work, and help to keep the games industry on its toes, being agile whilst bigger companies act like oil tankers, trying to keep turning swiftly but lumbering, or snapping up those that do pioneer new, interesting concepts. This approach is, however, more risky, as there are counter arguments that only one-in-twenty iOS games ever reach the dizzy heights of success.
Of course, for those with less experience yet keen to learn from the seasoned professionals, having a great portfolio or demo straight from University helps to secure a position in a successful dev team. We certainly had some superstars on Red River who had just graduated, and had bags of energy and enthusiasm to deliver the game.
What is your favourite game ever, and why? What game are you looking forward to most?
Oooh, that's so difficult. It was always a toss up between Battlefield 1942 and Aliens vs. Predator on PC. 1942 was so much damn fun and so well balanced; I lost many hours online and at work during lunch to that game. AvP gets a honourable mention because it was the first game (now only perhaps superseded by Dead Space) that actually scared the crap out of me with its incredible atmosphere.The game I'm looking forward to most is equally difficult. I’m a massive shooter fan, so it’s a battle between Battlefield 3 and Uncharted 3, but Bioshock Infinite gets a look in too.
What are your thoughts on the Wii U? Do you think it could be a revolution, or is it a misstep for Nintendo?
I’m not sure if it’s the Emperor’s new clothes or not. As game makers we’re fighting for consumers' leisure time, and whilst there’ll be a segment of the market that will welcome it, the price, the quality of launch games and the new experience it brings will be the tipping point. Guessing the consumer is a tricky business, but Apple seems to have done very well with its products and targeting what engages consumers. Their games and apps have enabled people to experiment at low cost, whilst their catalogue grows daily, and the infrastructure is already in place. I was quite disappointed at having to wait for a 3DS web browser (although it's pretty hard to read on a 3DS screen); if Nintendo are aiming to make the Wii U a success, they'd better be in a position to fully support it from launch with keen pricing.I do know that Nintendo will push its classics out with bespoke mechanics for the new controller, but I’m not sure this is going to be enough to move a large percentage of people from their current-gen console.
You're leaving Codemasters after more than twelve years. What do you think the future holds for the company?
I’ve spent twelve-and-a-half years of my life at Codemasters, and it’s a fantastic company, driven by very talented developers with a passion for making games within a high-pressure environment. I’ve made some very good friends there, who I’ll be watching out for. In terms of the future, I can only speculate of course, but I’m sure their key brands will go from strength to strength and I’m especially interested in what the next game will be from the Action Studio.When can we hear about your next project?
I’m starting at my new company pretty soon, which I’m stoked about. I wanted to work for three or four developers before I die, and this is one of them. The next project is, of course, confidential, so all I can say is watch this space.Codemasters recently suffered a hacking attack on their website, a growing trend in the industry. Could hacking pose a real threat to developers and companies, or is it a passing fad?
Any security breach is a worrying experience, from someone breaking into your house to identity theft. The justification for Sony, for example, was theorised as having been an act of vigilante justice resulting directly or indirectly from Sony's lawsuit against George Hotz. Either way, you can’t condone it; perhaps they were pissed at Sony for removing the Other-OS function that consumers thought they were entitled to (waits for the comments to explode).The damage could be huge to developers and companies alike, and this won’t go away like some fad. Hackers have been around for years, but with such pervasive networking through social media and the web, these stories just become more glorified to attract attention. With more movement towards digital distribution, there’s a likelihood that hackers will see these services as a challenge to hack. Certainly, there’s been mixed reaction to EA’s Origin, with some viewing that as EA having a monopoly on being able to charge whatever they like for an EA product distributed solely through their own outlet. I’m sure hackers will attempt to circumvent the system to 'protect the people', so it’s obvious that greater effort is required to stop these modern day Robin Hoods.
What can we expect from the next Operation Flashpoint; a 'milsim' or the 'tactical' approach used in Red River?
Well, this is going to be speculation, as I’m under NDA. At a personal level, I’d like to see another Flashpoint focussed towards the tactical side of gameplay. We had such a short development cycle for Red River that we were proud of what we’d done, but aware of the shortcomings once it had been out there for a while. Certainly, there was an opportunity to fix some of the issues via updates, but as I’m not part of the organisation I don’t know what their support plans are. One thing is for sure, we never wanted or claimed to be a milsim; we left that to other developers.Do you think that the current trend for 'online passes' and the like is actually going to positively benefit development teams, or is it just a greedy ploy by publishers spurred on by shareholders and investors to make a quick buck?
Personally I like online passes, and hate the idea of used games being sold without the orginators seeing any royalties.It’s pretty simple; developers spend large budgets on making games. If the sales don’t add up, they lose money. If they lose money, they cut staff, release fewer games and so on. There’s the counter argument, what with games being of a lower quality, that once bought - to recoup your losses - you sell it used because you feel you’ve been cheated. Again, this is why there are many online games sites reviewing games, demos on the various console stores, and our beloved Metacritic to protect those from games that don’t meet their expectations.
Without digging into the legalities of software licensing, selling a used game via Gamestop or HMV means the retailer profits and not the consumer, so actually it’s the retailer that can appear greedy, cutting out the developer who bust their balls making the game in the first place.
That’s what I’m opposed to, but it’s such a complex issue and there are arguments supporting both sides. I’d like to see more of the free-to-play model or freemium, so that consumers can try the game in depth without having to spend $60 on a gamble. An alternative idea is a lower-cost launch platform, with modes and episodes being bought ad hoc.
In your time in the games industry, what has been your single biggest challenge of all?
Every game is a big challenge from a quality and delivery perspective, knowing what to focus on and how best to spend your time, and keeping the team happy. I spent some time with MercurySteam (of Jericho and Castlevania fame), and with most of their team only able to speak Spanish that was a real challenge, as we co-ordinated between Clive Barker and the dev team. Given the amount of development time we had for Red River, that was my biggest challenge; to make a great game in such a compressed timeframe. But, with a totally committed and dedicated team, we made it possible.The second part of our interview with Adam Parsons will find its way onto your computer screens over the next week - to ensure that you don't miss it, be certain to follow our Twitter account for all our updates.
Labels: 2011, Adam Parsons, Chris Hawke, Codemasters, Exclusive, Industry, Interview, Operation Flashpoint: Red River
- Chris Hawke
Codemasters, being the lovely sort of people they are, have invited Gamer's Guide to Life.com to an exclusive, illusive and hopefully conclusive Bodycount event in the heart of London this Wednesday, and we're opening the floor to your fan questions. How do they make stuff blow up like that?
We've secured an exclusive interview with art director Max Cant, and we're giving our readers - that's you - the opportunity to quiz him on anything you like about Codemasters' latest FPS.
Just follow the steps below to submit your question.
Pop it in the comments section
Possibly the easiest way to ask your question is via the comments system on this page. You can login using your Disqus, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo or OpenID account, or just comment as a guest - it's quick and simple.
Get in touch via Twitter
Have a Twitter account? Tweet your question. All you need to do is hit the button below in order to tweet us over a question. You'll need to be logged in to Twitter already, or log in when you hit the button, in order to tweet your question. Also, you'll need to be using Twitter on a non-protected account for us to recieve your tweets - if you use a protected account, use one of the other options to submit your question.
Tweet your question to us
Send us an e-mail
If you're not a fan of comments systems or social networking, but fancy something a bit more personal, you can send any questions over via email to chrishawke@gamersguidetolife.com and we'll do our best to include them.
Ask questions that are as in-depth as you want, on any aspect of the game, development, or the future of the series. We'll throw as many as physically possible at Max until he can bear no more. It couldn't be easier.
We'll also be hauling back lumps of smoking hot gameplay straight from the event, so if you want to see anything in particular, just ask.
Check back regularly to see what we've cooked up for you, or follow our Twitter account to hear about new articles as soon as they arrive.
Labels: 2011, Ask Your Questions, Bodycount, Chris Hawke, Codemasters, Community Interview, Interview
- Chris Hawke
I'm still not quite sure how the rest of the world feels about Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. Maybe I'm just too afraid to ask, terrified of my blushing face sounding the alarm to others that I have poor taste in games, as they rip into Gearbox Software's 2008 shooter like a bullet through flesh. To many, I suspect, they were put off by overly-bright graphics; the hybrid first/thrid-person shooting mechanics; the tired old World War II setting. People don't hate the game, it's just one of those things that's passed them by without a care, and maybe they'll pick it up in the Steam sale for £3 then never really get into it. Maybe Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway isn't very good.
But I love it. I love it so much. I've completed it countless times, with gold medals on every level, on both console and PC. I adore the contrast between Eindhoven's watercolour scenery and the tossed, lank limbs of Nazi officers that drench the fields. I cherish the superbly-written dialogue between Sgt. Baker's squad; just on the right side of cliché to make you feel comfortable, but with some brilliant lines. I revere the emotional connection I have with the characters; the gameplay that's more like a puzzle than an FPS; the dark mood, creepy in the latter half of the game; the sublime, stunning, and surprisingly astounding twist as Baker descends into madness before your very eyes. In short, the shooting was great, the story was great, and the multiplayer was more pathetic than apathetic. But let's forget all about that.
That was 2008. Ever since the sly hint at the end of Hell's Highway that we'd be seeing a snowy sequel, we've waited with baited breath. In 2011, with the WWII scene deserted and the 'modern combat' scene becoming ever more crowded, could a new Brother's in Arms game pump new life into our favourite setting? Would the 1940s become the new heaven for gamers, and oasis of skillful shooting mechanics and a paramount emphasis on gripping story?
No. Instead, Gearbox laughed in my face, and punched me in the balls.
I could just imagine the Gearbox meeting now: "What are we going to do with our new BIA game? What new route could we take with such a stellar series?" And then Billy, all cloudy-eyed and smugly smiling, holds up a picture of Inglorious Basterds in one hand and a Left 4 Dead disc in the other, and wildly beats them together, like a demented child pushing two hamsters together to try and get them to do 'it'[1]. Out of the broken, crunchy mess slithered Furious 4, born from evil.
Oh, look! He throws a tomahawk into a guy's face! That's new and exciting... Aren't those Nazis lovably incompetent? Ha! He shouted "Don't mess with Texas"! THAT'S PURE COMICAL GOLD BECAUSE IT SORT OF RHYMES!
...or not. Nothing in the trailer looks original or interesting. It looks like a tired and unapologetic scramble for attention; a once serious string of games now forced to wear a thong and prance about to hear those sweet sounds of applause again. Except, this time, people are clapping out of pity.
I'm being harsh, of course. I still love Gearbox; I can't forget the fun I had with Hell's Highway or Borderlands, and I know the team is a school of talented, intelligent developers who aim for the highest quality. Which is what makes the existence of Furious 4 even more disturbing and confusing. Furious 4 will not please anyone.
The hardcore fans - the ones who have followed the Brothers in Arms series through thick and thin - aren't happy. Having waited three long years for a squeak from Gearbox, they're met with a co-op spin-off that many feel shouldn't be using the Brothers in Arms name at all. The people who Gearbox are trying to appeal to, those who've been wary of the BIA name in the past and want more casual fun, see right through the marketing trick. They'd rather stick with the tried-and-tested Call of Duty-s, Battlefields, or might even jump ship to quieter titles like Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad. Even those who are roped in by this new breed of BIA romp will suddenly find the fun times they had with three Nazi-scalping friends abruptly cut short, as Gearbox return to Baker's story.
Fans annoyed and betrayed, mass market uninterested, and even those who might enjoy Furious 4 when it hits in March 2012 won't see a follow up for a very, very long time, as Gearbox take on new projects and return to the good, old, proper Brothers in Arms. At the recent Gearbox Community Day, Creative Director Mikey Neumann promised that fans would still see the final chapter in Matt Baker's story. So why delay what could be a genre-leading game from seeing daylight, and instead let childish fantasies take centre-stage?
Footnotes
[1] Whatever 'it' is. We don't claim to know. [BACK]Labels: 2011, Brothers in Arms, Brothers in Arms: Furious 4, Chris Hawke, Feature, Gearbox, Opinon
- Chris Hawke
Maybe I've played too much inFamous 2. Feel free to put my complaints down to that. Zipping around New Marais at a mile a minute, slicing through the dank air with thrusters or punching upwards on a shard of ice... it melts your mind, so that anything other than constant movement feels slow and irritating. That's why it was such an abrupt jolt when I leapt into the Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception beta: everything felt awkward and lazy. Well, I've spent a number of days with Drake and pals now, and I can safely say that the problem persists. In fact, the Uncharted 3 beta seems rife with little concerns, that build up to create a palpable air of disappointment.
You'll load up the beta, and you immediately get to customise your avatar. Great. It's something we've come to expect from all multiplayer games, and while the bits and bobs you can glue onto the gear is kept at a minimum for this beta, with clothes, badges, and guns to turn pink and draw a penis on, Uncharted 3 looks to have an impressive range of variation. There is the certain, unavoidable issue that absolutely everyone will almost always play as Drake, but hey - Naughty Dog are never going to stop that from happening.
There's also the inclusion of kickbacks and medals, Uncharted's answer to killstreaks. Get fourteen medals through killing or finding treasure, for example, and a brand new RPG appears in your hands. With only two rockets, it's overpowered enough to give you a reward but too fleeting to unbalance the flow of the game. You won't find any helicopters tearing down buildings or nukes wiping out humanity; the kickbacks are subtle and suitably weak for Uncharted 3, giving that extra goal to aim for but never giving anyone a major and unbalanced advantage.
You might be wondering why I've started with two quite low-key features. "Why, Chris, dost thou dance around the elephant in the room?" I hear your cry. Truth is, I don't want to talk about it. Because I know what I say won't be popular. Yet there's no denying it.
Uncharted 3's multiplayer isn't very good.
Whilst being able to put Drake in a funny hat or raining fire with an RPG for a few seconds is all nice and well, it does nothing to dampen the sudden realisation that smacks you in the teeth as soon as you attempt to kill an enemy: the game is just lethargic. Movement is excruciatingly slow, whilst two players trying to jump onto the same object or wall results in both bouncing off like dim flies. This might seem a minor grievance, but it'll reduce you to screams and tears on Airstrip. When aiming, Uncharted 3 isn't a 'twitch shooter' - in fact, it's not even a 'deliberate, forceful movement shooter'; swinging your gun around to face an enemy takes half an afternoon, by which time they've buggered off somewhere else.
But the main thing that attracts all my loathing of Uncharted 3's beta is the fact it takes so long to kill anyone. Nine shots with the G-MAL; yeah, I counted, and that's simply preposterous. Whilst other multiplayer games are fast-paced and exciting, with rewarding kills that require a bit of skill and cunning, Uncharted 3 is nothing short of a slog. You see an enemy. You shoot at him. He shoots at you. This will continue for a good number of seconds, as you wrestle with your gun's recoil and desperately hope that your headshots have some effect. Then, one of you will run away. It's just ridiculous. Any time there's a firefight, one player can just roll away, into a building, and no one gets a kill. In fact, this happens so often that it seems ninety per cent of your deaths are from two other players: the one that you're trying to fight, and someone else who's run up behind you and pumped half a clip into your back. Great.
Why not use mêlée, to stop them in their tracks? Well, as you move into position to punch someone, the enemy will be shooting at you. Since it takes two punches to kill a man in Uncharted, after you punch them, they will punch you, and thanks to those fresh new bulletholes he made in your face whilst you were lamping him, he'll very easily be able to merely knock your lights out. I've never seen the instigator of a fist fight in Uncharted 3 emerge the victor. Unless you get lucky, and happen to sneak up on them and crack their neck, don't bother throwing a punch.
I'll accept that this could just be me. Maybe I only like multiplayer games in which it takes one or two bullets to kill someone. If you want to call me names and denounce me as 'weird', or 'different', go ahead. There could be some odd joy in trying to shoot a player for a solid five seconds as he rolls and ducks away that I just don't 'get'. But any game that requires two full-blown sniper shots to end a life? That's not for me.
For all that, Uncharted 3 does hide a few surprises up its damp, dirt-ridden sleeves. The opening airplane battle on Airstrip is inventive and a superb taster with which to have some unique fun with, and dynamic maps - such as Chataeu slowly burning down - are a lovely touch.
The biggest surprise was co-op; it's by far the best part of the beta. The oncoming waves of enemies are easier to kill than human counterparts, it lasts a solid 15 minutes, so you become really involved, and the different game modes forcing teamwork perfectly emphasises how to do co-op well. With a focus on the co-operative.
It looks pretty. It does some new, fresh and exciting things. It's great fun with two friends. But Uncharted 3 has some huge competition in November, not only from the multiplayer components of Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3, but also from single player timehogs like Skyrim. With such weak, dull, apathetic and slow combat, Drake won't hold your attention for long.
Labels: 2011, Beta, Beta Impressions, Chris Hawke, Feature, Multiplayer, Naughty Dog, Uncharted 3, Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
- Chris Hawke
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
- Chris Hawke
Subscribe to our content
and never miss a single thing
subscribe to our monthly newsletter:
Our most recent writing
Our most recent reviews
Recent comments
All comments are subject to our commenting policy
Latest videos
Subscribe on YouTube
GGTL Classics
Some of the very best articles dug out from deep in the GGTL archives, written by some of our past and present wordsmiths alike.
Your continued use of this website and/or any others owned by Gamer's Guide to Life.com represents your acceptance and indicates your full understanding of all of our legal policies and terms. Our legal policies and terms are legally binding. If you in any way disagree with or refuse to be bound by any part of said legal policies and terms, you are advised to leave this website immediately.