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

Following on from last year's ridiculously huge hit, Modern Warfare 2, was never going to be easy. That difficulty is only accentuated when Treyarch, the developer behind Black Ops, doesn't have a great deal of popularity within the Call of Duty fanbase. Many see the company as the second-fiddle developer; the guys playing the bit part role, a mere elf to Infinity Ward's Santa (to use a festive metaphor). Yet, critically and commercially, both Call of Duty 3 and World at War from Treyarch have done commendably well.

Despite all that, Treyarch found themselves in a familiar position leading up to the release of Black Ops. Fans cried foul. "Oh, it hasn't got 'modern' in the title! Oh, it hasn't got Spec Ops! There's no Soap or Price!" Well shame on you impatient, judgemental fans, because Call of Duty: Black Ops doesn't just live up to series expectations; it exceeds them, and then some.

Let's start off with Black Ops' campaign, which - in terms of its story and how it's told - is remarkably different from what's come before. The story is intriguing, which is a nice change; it's full of twists, mysteries and is far more clever than the rather brain-dead summer-blockbuster-style yarn in last year's Modern Warfare 2. Rather than criss-cross through the viewpoints of stupid numbers of characters, Black Ops sees you step into the shoes of Alex Mason (not to be confused with Red Faction Guerilla's Alec Mason), apart from a few select missions.

Mason isn't the most fascinating character in the world but his backstory is rather interesting. The whole story is told in flashbacks whilst Mason is interrogated by unknown dudes with gruff scary voices in a torture chamber in a place that we don't know. Of course, eventually everything becomes clear but for obvious reasons I won't be spoiling it. What I will say is the way in which you get to the ending and uncover various mysteries is done really well, with locations varying from Cuba to Russia, and plenty of cool characters including the return of Gary Oldman's superb Victor Reznov. The story is most definitely not the standard Cold War premise you might have been expecting; it's far more than that and is pretty damn good.

Whilst the story is different and a nice change of pace, the way you play through the campaign is quite familiar in that it's full of linear pathways with frenetic gunfights leading you from one set-piece to another. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it's not fun and exciting, because it most certainly is, but like Halo: Reach the Call of Duty formula might need a bit of a tweak next year to keep it relevant and fresh. For the time being though, Black Ops' campaign is an awesome ride with some truly memorable sequences. The highlights include taking direct control of an attack helicopter, sneaking through a Soviet base in the snow and making your way through a sinking ship in the game's epic finale. Available to help you fight your way through these encounters is a wide array of weaponry and gadgets, including the M16, FAMAS, AK47 and Skorpion machine pistol. Treyarch has also delved into the Cold War archives to find some fascinating contemporary guns, however, including the powerful but slow H510 shotgun. There aren't any P90's to be found, but this is still a varied and powerful arsenal.

Black Ops' campaign is a really fun, well paced ride, but like its predecessors you shouldn't expect more than eight or so hours of action on the standard difficulty settings. Play through it on Veteran like I did and you could probably spend upwards of 10 hours playing, and that's not including the incessant screaming, controller-throwing, jumping up and down, running downstairs, and plentiful declarations of "I'm never playing this piece of shit again!" that I went through. I don't mean it of course, but crikey, it's tough.

Of course, everyone knows by now that you don't really come to the Call of Duty party to play through the campaign and then get rid of it; you come to shoot annoying 11-year-old Americans in the face. Not literally of course - that would be bad - but in the famous online campaign. As you'd expect, all the classic modes are here with much the same mechanics, such as perks, kill-streaks and custom classes. The way in which you rank up has changed a bit: you still earn XP to gain levels, but you also earn 'CoD Points' which are used to buy the aforementioned weapons, perks and kill-streaks. This is a somewhat neat addition since you don't have to waste time unlocking guns you're never going to use, but at the same time the sense of accomplishment disappears a bit quicker than you may expect since you might end up with your weapon of choice fairly early on, meaning that gaining the rest of the ranks becomes a bit irrelevant. Despite that, people were still prestiging left, right and centre within hours of release, so clearly there's still something to be said for having a cool little badge next to your name.

Amid the collection of classic game types, the new 'wager matches' - which let you use the aforementioned 'CoD Points' to bet on the outcome matches - are the stars of the show. These matches are exclusive to four new modes: 'Gun Game' and 'Sharp Shooter' are both gripping variations on an entertaining theme, where you get players to use as many different weapons as possible within a single match. In the former, you're given a better gun after each kill, and the action ends when one player succeeds with all 20; in the latter, each player is given the same weapon type, and this is swapped randomly every 45 seconds. The result, especially when a bunch of players find themselves in an enclosed space just as the weapon type changes to rocket launcher, can be both hilarious and downright exciting. The other modes, 'One In The Chamber' and 'Sticks and Stones', are proving to be the most popular. The first gives you a pistol with one bullet and a knife, and the only way to reload is by getting a kill. The latter gives you a crossbow, tomahawk and a ballistic knife and is particularly frantic and devilish. All are no doubt fun, but probably won't usurp the old favourites as the modes of choice for most players. They are good to play with friends though, no doubt about that.

Rounding off Black Ops' impressive multitude of features is the welcome return of the Zombies from World at War. Not much has changed: it's still just as addicting, memorable and unpredictable as ever. There are only two maps, but they're both excellently designed with multiple tiers and plenty of excellent new weapons exclusive to the mode. One of the maps is especially entertaining, allowing you to take on the role of the likes of JFK and Castro as they fight off the undead horde in the White House. It's awesome fun.

Perhaps what sums up Black Ops' superb value for money offerings more than anything else is the Dead Ops Arcade. This surprisingly brilliant top-down, dual-stick shooter is basically Zombies in the style of Geometry Wars. It's as addicting as anything else in the game, and could easily be sold as a £10 XBLA or PSN title, but it's a mere extra in Black Ops. Don't be surprised if you lose hours to this mode alone.

All of this awesomeness is wrapped up in a stunning audio-visual package. The sound effects are plucked straight from the era, with hit songs from the time period used at key points (which feels both contrived and brilliant at the same time). The epic military score doesn't hit the heights of Hans Zimmer's majestic score for Modern Warfare 2, but it does the job. The voice acting from Sam Worthington in the lead role is quite terrible, but by his exceedingly low standards I guess it could be classed as reasonable. As mentioned earlier, Gary Oldman is superb as Reznov and the rest of the cast is great as well. Also, whoever it is playing JFK is clearly hamming it up and having a blast: he is awesome.

The graphics are great too, with the exceptional lighting and animation we've come to expect. The new motion-capture technology is used to fantastic effect, with facial features and movements being eerily realistic. Explosions are plentiful, blood and gore effects are brilliantly brutal, and overall this is up there with the best looking games of the year. It's also worth noting that the game can be played in 3D, and whilst it can look stunning at points, the 60fps framerate that the series is known for takes a serious hit when played in this way. It might be worth looking at to show off your 3DTV to your mates, but you really don't want to take the fight online when playing in 3D.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is not going to change your mind if you simply don't like Call of Duty, but anyone else who has become a fan of the refined, fast-paced gameplay, the authentic weaponry, the superb online modes and the incredible visuals of this franchise will no doubt be impressed. As an overall package, this is probably the best shooter of the year.

9/10 [?]

Labels: 360, Activision, Black Ops, Call of Duty, CoD7, PC, PS3, Review, Tom Acres, Treyarch, Xbox 360

A new teaser for a Treyach game, Call Of Duty 7, appeared on the internet recently, and we recorded everything we've seen and heard. Here's what is hidden within the teaser.

Please note: Many say this is a Fallout: New Vegas teaser. Bethesda were contacted, and said the teaser was 'cool', but 'didn't have anything do to with [our] games'.

Video: By twisting the dial at the top right of the TV, you can tune into an old 60s TV picture. This video shows these events: A radioactive nucleus emitting either alpha or beta radiation, which then splits other radioactive nuclei, and so on, until they all explode. This is what happens in the A or H-Bomb as ionization. The video then cuts to a baseball stadium, which suddenly seems to explode, with a small nuclear cloud coming out of the field. Suddenly, the video buts back to the baseball field, and zooms into a baseball, which morphs into a globe, which becomes increasingly misshapen.

The video again cuts to an Atom bomb, showing the workings of it inside, before showing a diagram of radioactive material Uranium 238 being converted to Uranium 235. Again, the video cuts to a map labeled 'Plan', with diagrams of battleships and infantry appearing round it. The final shot is of Kennedy announcing the 500-mile Naval Blockade of Cuba on live TV, on the 22th October, 1963.

From this, it's clear that Call Of Duty 7 will take place during the Cold War, with most of those shots looking like 50s and 60s American Propaganda, explaining the A/H-Bomb and Arms Race. The final shot of Kennedy is a dead givaway - either the Bay of Pigs, or Cuban Missile Crisis, will be included.


Audio: A man and woman continually spell out NOVA SIX intermittently. A little sound effect plays - we don't know if it is from something relevant, like a 60s computer. Sometimes, you can hear a man say something like 'Hell Is Horrible/Purple', very slowly. The man also says 'Man is starting to make a world of their own conception, and profit from their own mind all the material which they employ.' Sounds pretty Capitalist to us.

All you can tell from this is... well, nothing really. We don't know what NOVA 6 is, what the little electronic ditty is, or what the man says. However, the 'Man is starting to make a world...' bit sounds like 60s capitalist ideology.

We'll keep updating this with anything that happens to the site. Found something else? Add it to the comments!

Chris

Labels: Activision, Analysis, Call of Duty, Chris Hawke, CoD7, Trailer, Treyarch, Video

Wii gamers, never fear - the games industry hasn't forgotten about you just yet. In fact, quite the opposite, as Activision has very kindly proven with the announcement that their biggest selling game of all-time will be coming to Wii this winter.

The Infinity Ward development has been ported to Wii by rival Call of Duty dev Treyarch, and will hit store shelves on 10th November, the same release date as CoD4's big brother, Modern Warfare 2.

It's no real surprise, considering that Treyarch have faithfully ported Call of Duty 3 and World at War to Wii in the past. Hopefully it'll stay true to the original, though, and won't suffer from issues due to the Wii's slightly different control mechanic.

We'll keep you posted.

Linford

Labels: Activision, Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2, Treyarch, Wii

 

So, while everyone’s eyes are firmly secured on Infinity Ward’s upcoming sequel to the bestselling Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare 2, it turns out that Call of Duty 7 is currently being worked on by Infinity Ward’s arch-rival, Treyarch (the people responsible for the Spiderman games and that other little title – what was it called? – Call of Duty: World at War).

It doesn’t seem as though Treyarch are letting Infinity Ward have all the limelight. David Kim, one of Treyarch’s Senior Animators, revealed that he is currently working on Call of Duty 7 via his online CV. Kim states “I am currently on my second title as a senior animator in the games industry with Activision / Treyarch on Call Of Duty 7.”

This is no surprise, the alternating dev cycle has been going on for quite a while now. With Modern Warfare 2 enjoying the limelight at the minute, and due for release this coming November, it’s likely that Call of Duty 7 will be hitting shelves at around the same time in 2010.

As for Modern Warfare 2, MTV Multiplayer managed to grab a quick interview with Robert Bowling, community manager over at Infinity Ward about the omission of the ‘Call of Duty’ prefix from the game’s title. The reason for the name change is because, “this is just not another one in the Call of Duty franchise. This is a direct sequel to Modern Warfare. This has never happened in Call of Duty before. They’re typically all their own campaigns, totally unrelated to the previous one.”

So, there you have it. Modern Warfare 2 will be a direct continuation of the story in Call of Duty 4. I’m looking forward to playing through some more intense SAS-based missions. Oh, and just in case you’re wondering, we also know where Call of Duty 7 will be set. Vietnam and Cuba, anyone?

Linford

Labels: Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2, Treyarch

Go to Berlin today, and you'll find a relatively pleasant city with a large population. Take a trip there this November, however, and you'll find a war-torn city filled with ruins and bomb sites. Because Treyarch's latest masterpiece is set to catapult us back into the midst of the Second World War.

Call of Duty: World at War follows two different campaigns, and there looks to be enough difference between the two to make it worthwhile. One follows the struggle between the US Marine Corps and the Japanese Imperial Army in the Pacific, and the other playing out the story of the Soviet Red Army's push on the Eastern Front towards the end of the war.

Based on an enhanced version of the CoD4 engine, the latest in the Call of Duty series allows players to experience the final climatic days of the Second World War. You play as either an American or Russian soldier, attempting to prevent the advance of Axis forces on multiple different fronts, which should give the game a real sense of intensity.

So far, three levels have been revealed, and they look to be shaping up nicely. One level, entitled Makin Raid, pictures an Allied prisoner of war being tortured and then murdered by the Japanese - while the player's character witnesses the whole grisly proceedings. Two other levels include machine-gunning on a PBY Catalina and attack against German troops under cover of a bombing raid.

Treyarch don't seem to be lacking in the multiplayer department either, with co-op play and online multiplayer packed into the same disk as the single-player campaign.

The latest gaming tour of WW2 features 2 player split-screen and up to 4 player online co-op modes, so you needn't play the game through feeling lonely. Players can complete unique challenges with their teammates, as well as playing the game through normally. The co-op also utilises the CoD4 perks system, so it should give an immersive experience.

Online is where it's all happening, though. World at War takes the CoD4 multiplayer engine and adds vehicles, which should make for some very exciting ranked matches. Of course, the classes, perks and player rankings are still there, so changeover from CoD4 should be easy for even the most die-hard Modern Warfare gamer.

The latest in this massively successful franchise looks like it's going to be one of the highlights of the gaming year. The revert back to WW2 may be sneered at by some, but I reckon that it could redefine the Second World War genre. I'll have to wait and see. November isn't long away.

Linford

Labels: Activision, Call of Duty, Hype Train, Preview, Treyarch, World at War

After the huge amount of Bond games being thrown at us around the millennium, there hasn't been much going on in the double-0 department recently. However, that's about to change big-time, with Treyarch developing the latest game to star the famous spy - Quantum of Solace.

Quantum of Solace follows the storylines of both Casino Royale and the title movie, and release of the game is set to coincide with the release of the upcoming movie. The developers had access to the scripters and actors from the film to try and make this latest Bond experience as genuine and well-done as it can be – and so far they seem to be making a decent job of it.

The game is based on an adapted version of the Call of Duty 4 engine, and that much is obvious just by looking at it – same sort of weapons, same targeting system, same basic controls. But that isn’t to say it’s a bad thing – if anything the basis on such a brilliantly developed engine will just add to the whole experience.

The graphics look very good indeed, although they’re still lacking a certain something to give them that real ‘wow’ factor – they’re still up there with some of the best though. The locations look fantastic - all soft lighting and grand décor – and really give the exotic feel that anything Bond-related should have.

The gameplay does look excellent. The weapons look like fun to fire, and nice little touches like firing at unknowing enemies around corners will make it that much more satisfying. The hand-to-hand combat looks brilliant too – Bond can sneak up on an unsuspecting guard and promptly throw them off a building, break their neck or smack ‘em round the face, and all with wince-inducing sound effects.

The best feature by far has to be the dual-cameras. The majority of the game plays out in classic first-person view, but at key points of the game the camera will switch to third-person to really make you think ‘oh yeah, I’m Bond’. This third-person camera will be used when Bond is taking cover – you can clearly see Daniel Craig’s rugged appearance as he shelters from oncoming bullets. Fantastic.

Activision have also confirmed that there will be a multiplayer mode of some sort for up to 12 players – but to be honest, I’d be content with just the single player. Quantum of Solace looks like it’s going to leave you shaken, not stirred.

Linford

Labels: 007, Activision, Bond, Call of Duty, Hype Train, Preview, PS3, Quantum of Solace, Treyarch