Reviewed on Xbox 360 and PC. Also on PS3. Developed by Infinity Ward. Published by Activision
Call of Duty’s beginnings as more or less a straight copy of Medal of Honor Allied Assault (which was more or less made by most of IW when they were at 2015) don’t really set the scene for this latest game. Call of Duty was never a popular franchise with the hardcore player who were more interested in Counterstrike, Quake III, Battlefield and Unreal games. It was a hit, but with the people who enjoyed Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers- a more casual type of PC gamer. It was a mainstream hit, but always looked down on by people who were in clans or lugged their 21 inch CRT monitors to LAN parties, fragfests and virginal circle-jerks. All that changed with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare which ditched the WWII setting of the previous CoD games and sold more copies than a street vendor in Moscow selling genuine Rolex watches.
CoD4 was a surprise hit with the hardcore and even the Treyarch WWII-based World at War sold well. So MW2 was so big that almost every publisher put back a large number of their biggest titles to early 2010 just to get out of MW2’s way. But how does it play?
SINGLE PLAYER (may contains traces of nuts and spoilers)
The single player story had a lot to live up to. The WWII CoD games had a basic story to get you into a mission but the overall theme was “defeat the Axis powers before the end of 1945.” CoD4, not being based on anything in particular (parallel to the current wars around the world), need a more defined story. MW2 takes that, runs with it, amps up to 11, char-grills it, over-inflates the bouncy castle and just generally makes the stakes higher. Before we had a nuke going off in an unnamed Middle Eastern country of GAFghanistan, a main character dieing and a race to stop things getting worse. In MW2, it gets worse. An undercover American operative being implicated in a terrorist massacre of civilians in Moscow causes an all-out war. The story is told in two parts with half of the game played from the perspective of SAS operatives and the other half as a US army Private attempting to de-red dawnify the Continental United States. The scale of the story is rather undersold since most of the set-up is done in the form of rather dry voice overs during the loading screens that lack the punch of the similar screens during WaW’s load screens. And it’s way too tempting to just skip these as soon as possible.
The actual game itself is great even though it’s the same as the original MW. Just different settings and perhaps a tad more over the top in its scale. The game is intense for most of the time you’re playing, which isn’t all that long. IW have thrown in a lot of things to mix things up constantly, from snow mobiles to rafting. But mainly, there are lots of levels that make you think “Hmm, I did this on CoD4.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Graphics are crisp and clear with a constant 60fps on 360 and since it’s an enhanced version of the engine used on CoD4, it will run well on most medium spec computers. Sound is the usual fantastic mix of effects and voice, now with added Hans Zimmer music. Even though the game on consoles runs at technically a sub HD resolution, there is very little to indicate low resolution. It looks crisp and runs smoother than peanut butter at a gigolo convention. The only major gripe is the jam gun the enemies fire at you. This is the new blood effect that splatters across the screen to let you know you’ve been injured. Fall from a reasonable height and you will tear a major artery in your eyes.
MULTIPLAYER
Well, since a large number of people skipped the single player of CoD4 entirely and have been playing the multiplayer fairly solidly for two years, you’d think IW would just make new maps and be done (after all, that’s more or less what Treyarch did for WaW). But no. IW have ramped it up to the nth degree. CoD 4: MW’s ranking and perks system helped extend the appeal of the multiplayer modes in this post WoW/ achievement whore world we live. MW2 takes that, jolts it 50, 000 volts up each leg and give it a raise. Now you have a far bigger combination of perks and weapon options, customization kill streaks, emblems (though I’ve yet to see anyone not use the pot leaf), tags and so forth. So not only can you select which killstreak rewards you receive, you can also have a deathstreak, which helps you out if you get spawn-raped by a camping sniper noob who’s been playing for 17 hours and hates the game. This thing will have legs since the number of combinations means it will be a while before everyone just uses the same three or four combos as they did in CoD4.
The netcode is probably a bit better than CoD4 and WaW, but the matchmaking still is a pain since it will routinely hook you up to a game where everyone else in another country- something that doesn’t make the game all that much fun. They could learn a thing for two from Bungie when making peer-to-peer networked games work. Of course, MW2 also brings the PC player into a realm they don’t normally visit: p2p networking without the latest episode of Lost to show for it. In my brief playthough on PC game online, I had no issues, but I did only play two rounds. The problem is you can’t play on a dedicated server as you can for most other PC games, nor can you choose what server you are on- It’s all Matchmaking with one player as the host (whether they like it or not). So far the main issue is listening to the whingeing of the master race (though they have a point- the best online console experiences -Halo 3 aside- have been those with the dedicated server model). My CoD4-playing colleagues at work have been entertaining me with their attempts at playing the game together at lunch. They don’t want to play private games since they won’t get XP. Oh well. Infinity Ward! You got some ’splaining to do!
There’s also a third mode called Spec Ops which can either be played solo or coop (either splitscreen or online). I haven’t tried it since I can’t see any reason to play this with so much crap in Multiplayer to unlock.
So there you have it. Game of the Year? Well, it’s certainly the shooter of the year and the multiplayer game of the year, for me at least. It’s knocked down on PC simply there’s no reason for the basic server stuff to have been stripped out unless Activision want to start charging for maps on PC as well. Which is likely.
Controller1.com rating 3/3 on console (2/3 on PC)
So like everyone else on the planet with a 360, a PS3 or a reasonable PC, I’ve been playing Modern Warfare 2 on 360. It’s definitely a game where you could tell there was a legacy to live up to and even surpass. And that IW are using their immense power and goodwill to force some unpopular features on PC users.
I reckon I’m about 2/3 of the way through the single player and like MW2 it’s split between an SAS group and standard US army troops. Whereas CoD4: MW was in a more believable milieu that built to a climax that wasn’t totally far fetched, the sequel just goes nuts straight off the bat. Though the story is just an excuse to hang the set pieces on (as always) but instead of those real time cutscenes you would often get at the start and end of the level, we have the briefing screens where the story unfolds as a narration over computer screens. Unlike World at War, which used a similar device to explain the jumps in its barely there story, MW2 puts it all in these scenes and nine times out of ten, I’m just skipping these to get to the action. Note to IW: I WANT TO SHOOT THINGS. CUT THE BULLSHIT AND LET ME, LIKE, SHOOT STUFF DOOD!
SPOILER WARNING, SPOILER WARNING, SPOILER WARNING…
There is a level fairly on, called No Russian. This is the controversial level you may have heard of. It is so controversial that IW give you the option of skipping it altogether. If you don’t want the game spoiler, skip to the next paragraph. You are an undercover US soldier trying to get to the game’s antagonist by infiltrating his group of terrorists. It’s all there to make a story point, but it is one of the most powerful gaming sequences you will ever experience as you are part of a massacre. Now there are two parts and you can choose not to shoot the civilians, but once your group is attacked by the SWAT teams, you have no choice but to shoot them if you want the game to continue. Of course, how many people will also just shoot the civvies in the first half of the level also makes an interesting moral dilemma but I think many of the people who play this might not get the subtlety.
END SPOILERS
The multiplayer is also great and once I started that, I had a hard time going back to the campaign but I wound up alternating between the two. It’s fun but i can’t help thinking they’ve turned this game even more into WoW with the infinite variations and complexity the game now requires in order to do well in an online match. The jump in and play ethos Activision and IW use to justify their decisions on the PC version don’t really gel with the game which really appeals to hardcore users. If I hadn’t played CoF4 for two years, I would find the options bewildering instead I merely see them as overkill since most people will work out what the best combos are, and what the most hated ones will be and stick to those.
Haven’t tried Spec Ops but that doesn’t sound all that appealing to me. Maybe when I have friends over. I also have the PC version on it’s way so I should be able to see if it’s at all redeemable.
The PC master race is up in arms with Infinity Ward over certain specs of the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. These basically bring the PC in-line with the console versions in terms of networking much to the consternation of the tweak everything crowd.
So if you run the PC version you now have:
a maximum multiplayer game of 9 on 9 (same as 360 and PS3)
no ability to lean in MP (same as 360 and PS3)
having to connect to a master server to authenticate (same as 360 and PS3)
no dedicated servers, but peer to peer networking (same as 360 and PS3)
matchmaking rather than server browser (same as 360 and PS3)
I am not rabidly going to rant about these changes, but by the same token I am not particularly pleased. The thing that made me buy the PC versions of WaW and CoD4 was the fact the P2P networking of the 360 versions was just not up to scratch compared to Halo 3. There was almost always a very noticeable lag between firing a weapon and the hit being registered on the 360 version of both CoD games. Yes, Valve’s p2p code is far worse but there was one reason why I was looking forward to the PC version. Also, where I live, we have pretty low internet quotas from ISP’s mitigated by the fact that if I play on servers hosted by my ISP- that is ‘free’ bandwidth. So, poo.
On the other hand, there seem to be many issues with CoD games of people ‘hacking’ the game. Though most calls of hacking are against people using ordinary in-game perk combos that the 1337 players are apparently above using (unless they’re losing). Oh dear. So you will connect to IWnet and then the matchmaking will begin. This is what I dread most as the thing that made WaW particularly bad in this regard was the fact that I would end up playing in games with a host who was in another country, leading to a frustrating time playing a game I knew could be good with good pings.
Some developers will see the reaction and make concessions. IW seem loathe to do this based on the time it has taken them to patch their games in the past. Do I think there’s a chance there will be something in the future? Yes and no. After all, PC players made such a small proportion of the overall CoD4 and WaW population that I think IW may just ignore them. Thing is, the thing that I used to love about CoD1 and CoD2 was that the ‘hardcore’ PC players stayed away from the game in favour of CS, Unreal and Battlefield, meaning it was pretty easy to get into. CoD4 becoming a hardcore as well as mainstream hit kinda killed the fun for anyone not in a clan.
John Carmack has also hinted at Rage not supported dedicated servers as well. DICE, however are using this as a wedge to drive PC players to Bad Company 2, which is not a bad thing since for everyone since BC was a really great game and would be great on PC.
So do you listen to your player base or do you use your extraordinary power to enforce your will? Let’s see how this plays out this week when the game is released
Reviewed on Xbox 360. Also on PC, PS3, PS3, Wii, DS. Developed by Treyarch. Published by Activision
Mock if you must but for the next few days at least I’m going to party like it’s 2008. I saw a couple of cheap games that I’d been interesting in playing during a lull SO LONG AS THEY WERE CHEAP. The other week I saw Quantum of Solace and 50 cent Blood on the Sand for cheap (AU $30 ea) and I thought “why the fuck not?”
I needed something relatively simple to cleanse my gaming palette after the majesty that was Uncharted 2 and before Modern Warfare 2. Something cheap, short and can’t be looked down as anything other than dumb fun. Quantum of Solace fits that bill quite well. I like James Bond films but I still don’t really know what to make of Quantum of Solace the movie. The title comes from an Ian Fleming short story where Bond is told a story by some stuffy diplomat-type over a cognac, a story about some couple who grew to hate each other. And it’s really quite dull. If I was Bond in the story I would have shot the guy telling the story for being boring. So the movie QoS followed on from 2006’s excellent Casino Royale movie. And then proceeded to ignore all of the lessons of Casino Royale. People didn’t want far fetched Bond plots in 2008.
Why is this important? Well, this game is actually two thirds a Casino Royale game and one third a Quantum of Solace game. A bit of context doesn’t hurt. So you take the Call o Duty 4 engine, give it to Treyarch who were making the better-than-everyone-was-expecting Call of Duty World at War at the same time as this and what do you get? Something that’ s okay rather than great.
As so many games from movies do, any location that appears in the movie is fair game for a full on corridor shooter fest that takes 20-30 minutes to complete. The final scene from Casino Royale is turned into the intro level to this game. Move through level, kill enemies, pick up cell phone’s convenient dotted around the map for intelligence useful (but by no means vital) to your mission. So despite this using the CoD4 engine, it doesn’t necessarily play just like Call of Duty. You run and gun in much the same way but you don’t have melee in the same way. If you get close to an enemy, you can click on the right stick and to trigger a quick time event where you have to press a face button (a different one each time) to takedown an enemy in a nicely animated unarmed
attack.
It feels as though this game took a lot of cues from the first Uncharted game, especially with 3rd person cover and action scenes. You can balance on beams (looking like Treyarch re-purposed some manual meter code from one of their Tony Hawk ports) jump over things and make leaps of faith just because the game says you can press ‘Y’ to jump. You have some hacking minigames which aren’t anything special but then this is a game designed for a very casual audience. That’s code for saying Normal is actually pretty easy.
So how does it actually play? Well it’s fun for a bit and it is thankfully fairly short. In so many ways you think you are playing a game from five years ago in terms of design and quite often the visuals. It also doesn’t run at Call of Duty 4’s standard 60fps frame rate, so it’s hard to see where the extra fidelity is going.
Presentation is fine for a licensed game but it isn’t going to wow anyone in this day and age. We have many of the cast members from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, including a bored Dame Judi and Dame Daniel. Gunfire sounds are somewhat lacking, however, but at least the James Bond theme is used in a more restrained way than some of the EA games on PS2.
So overall- cheap filler when you want something quick to snack on in between the ‘great’ games but there’s no reason to go out of your way to play it.
Controller1.com rating 1/3
Reviewed on Xbox 360. Also on PS3, PC. Developed by id, Raven, Endrant, Threewave Software. Published by Activision (ORLY?)
Wolfenstein is your virtual grandpa’s axe when it comes to the first person genre. A sequel of sorts for 2000’s well received Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the latest game is just Wolfenstein (“It’s pronounced WOLFENSTEEN!) and was released to consoles and PC’s in a wave of silent apathy. You’ll hear a lot of “I heard that was crap,” from people who haven’t played it but that’s par for the course. Look at the number of different developers and you’ll see why this game has a split personality. Firstly single player…
So you know it’s a WWII-set first person shooter, right? You still play as BJ Blaskowitz, an American agent behind enemy lines, kicking ass and taking names. In past games, the Nazi’s have been secretly developing supernatural and occult weapons. Here, the results of those experiments are walking around town in clear view, sipping cappuccinos in the sidewalk cafe’s. As well as the usual assortment of WWII-era weapons and a few SF additions, you also have four ‘Veil’ powers which grant you a shield, bullet-time, super powered bullets and the ability to see secret areas. Fortunately, the game doesn’t expect you to rely on either conventional weapons or Veil powers throughout, though it’s rare you will ever be far from a place to recharge your Veil power meter. Of course, that’s if you’re not in an area with a Veil Inhibitor active…
There is a somewhat ‘open world” vibe to the hub area, but one that hasn’t been fully developed so there is still some loading between areas of the city. There are also three factions of ‘resistance’ operatives where you can buy upgrades and be given missions (GTA-style). However, the town is almost completely devoid of life apart from resistance fighters and Nazi troops. On the up side, there’s an impressive amount of destructibility in the world. Not Red Faction: Guerrilla levels but enough to make things interesting. You can’t fight City Hall but you can blow the shit out of anything not nailed down.
It plays well. Very well. It’s a lot of fun to run and gun, use your veil powers and cause havoc in the heart of the Third Reich. The difficulty level is mostly well-balanced, apart from the odd checkpoint that’s just a little further away than would be ideal. The shooter part is quite solid, if slightly old-skool feeling but it’s the addition of the Veil powers that mixes things up a bit. Since the game is designed around you needing the powers to conquer certain areas, it fits in well.
I would call it surprise of the year, even more so than Red Faction: Guerrilla which at least had some marketing behind it. When Activision cock-blocks somethings- they go go all out. If you do manage to find Activision’s marketing for this title (at the bottom of locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with the a sign on the door saying “beware of the leopard”), expect about eight hours of single-player goodness unless you’re either expecting to hunt down the collectibles (which will take longer) or you have superhuman reflexes (in which case, why are you playing games when you could be out there saving lives? Haven’t you seen Heroes: Season One?).
You are able to upgrade your weapons and Veil powers with the money you collect during the game by adding better barrels, scopes, reducing recoil etc, but the game makes you choose by not making not possible to buy everything. The more SF weapons are particularly satisfying to use on some of the harder enemies but the Veil powers coupled with a standard assault rifle are not to be underestimated.
And then there’s the multiplayer- the videogaming equivalent of Back to the Future part 2: You’re looking at something that looks like an early XBox1 game but has one or two new things bolted on but ultimately is just a confusing dated mess. It has three modes but is worth avoiding altogether if you have any affinity for the original MP for RtCW or ET. It’s a pity because it could have been great but will cause so many older Wolfenstein fans to denounce the game as without any value. Multiplayer is without any value in this title.
The graphics and sound are a mixed mag. The graphics are eye-bleedingly bad in MP but in SP they vary between adequately nice and very nice. Some areas look a little plain while others are very ‘whoa.’ It’s not until you get the veil powers you realise why some environments don’t ‘pop.’ Activate the Veil and the visuals change quite markedly with different lighting effects, howling winds, floating spectral creatures called Geists and more- including lots of secret areas. The sound is mostly very good though there’s just something about the character speech of the resistance fighters that bothers me. They mostly have convincing German accents though the acting is a little too stilted- something you can get if you use actors rather than actors who do lots of video gaming voice-overs. Also, the lines repeat waaaaaaaaaay too much and much too soon.
Overall this is a solid title that should give you a fun single player experience with a dip your toe in MP experience (though I would just stick with BF1943 if you want WWII multiplayer). I do feel that there are some underused elements- such as the hub world which could have offered many more missions than the game ultimately did (I guess we’ll have to wait for Saboteur for an open-world WWII game). The game is generally quite polished and runs well on consoles. Wolfenstein doesn’t go on for two long nor does it feel insanely easy or too hard. Recommended
Controller1.com rating 2/3 (for singleplayer only. Multiplayer is shittier than a dirty nappy)
My recent DLC binge netted me the Lost and the Damned and the CoD World at War Map Pack 2. I had intended to skip the GTA DLC since I had not come close to finishing GTA IV before getting sick of it and moving on to fresh gaming pastures. I think the reason I got it was some need to use up my Internet Bandwidth quota since 25GB a month goes a long way if you aren’t into Bit Torrent. Infamous also made me feel that going back to the slower moving GTA IV engine might be a step backwards but I tried it anyway.
I like it so far. I’m only a few missions in but it seems to be a nice take on Liberty City without feeling like a simple retread of IV.
The storyline with the bikers seems a lot easier to get into, less introspective than Niko and Roman, played less for laughs and more for drama. The guys of the Lost MC are fucking assholes of the first order but they make great videogame characters. Of course as a member of a motorcycle gang, you will be riding around on a hog for most of the time and unless you preferred these in GTA IV, they take a while to get used to riding these and firing a shotgun at the same time. Its also got that custom GTA difficulty about it but then I’m finding I’m enjoying it in this post-infamous world.
Johnny Klebitz, your hero for want of a better word, is a little more obviously fucked up thank Niko. He’s a biker and he just wants to keep to business. The leader of the gang, Billy, has just come out of rehab after being busted and is aching for action, such as starting turf wars with rival gangs etc. This being a GTA game, there ares no tea parties, group hugs and wondering if this is what its like When Doves Cry.
Also, despite me saying I’d had enough of WaW with a PC playthough, a 360 playthough and months of multi on both systems, I got the extra maps anyway. And because I’d been away from the multiplayer for so long, I immediately sucked more than a Wii game called Let’s Tidy Up After Ourselves in the NPD top 10. But after relearning not to suck, I’ve started to enjoy the new maps and not just stick to the three zombie maps. We have Corrosion, which seems to be some sort of refinery level where its Soviets v Nazis; Banzai, aan outdoor jungle level with a wooden bridge, waterfalls, tunnels and bamboo huts; and my favourite, Sub Pen, a really nice US verses Japan level that’s small and intimate but large enough for small or medium size groups.
Its interesting to note how in both of the map packs released for WaW so far, Treyarch have shied away from the larger tank based levels which were the more popular ones in CoD3. The tanks in WaW are just irritating since they dominate the levels and the anti-tank options are limited. The jury is still out on dogs but they are preferable to fucking helicopters, which is what I dread most about the upcoming Modern Warfare 2.
Just as a site update: The site has had fewer updates due to my work moving offices this last week. My studio is in disarray so there’s nowhere for us to record a podcast yet. Hopefully we can have something for you by next week. The first one might be a tad echo-ey.
Activision have started the PR for what looks to be Infinity Ward’s next Call of Duty game. Whilst other companies seem to have learnt their lesson about yearly updates, Activision obviously haven’t. EA seemed to have stopped the annual release of Medal of Honor games, id aren’t churning out yearly updates to Quake and Doom. Halo, Gears, Resistance and Killzones aren’t being squeezed out every year. But Activision seem content to have a Call of Duty every year, as well as multiple versions of Guitar Hero annually. But curiously enough WoW is still the original with only two expansions in nearly four and a half years.
Iterating till doomsday has seen a lot of game series being ruined, but you can predict when this going happen very easily- People start referring to it as a franchise as if its a frozen yogurt stand in a mall. The more often you make the same game with only minor upgrades, the more likely you are to suffer from boredom and deja vu. With games like Madden, there’s evidence to suggest that many football fans buy the game every couple of years, rather than every installment. With Madden, there’s also no other choice if you want an NFL game.
With shooters, its perhaps more perilous because there is so much more choice. Call of Duty has to compete with Resistance and Killzone on PS3; Gears and Halo on 360; Tom Clancy shooters on all systems; Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress on PC as well as the ancient juggernauts of Counterstrike, Battlefield and Unreal games. Valve didn’t release TF3 a year after TF2, they added new content (free or not) but Activision took the success of Call of Duty 4 and threw it away by release the almost as successful Call of Duty World at War a year after. If there’s a new CoD game every year, how long before people get sick of it? You can argue that they sold a large number of CoD4 boxes and then a year later sold a large number of CoD WaW boxes. But they also had to devote two of their best teams to making a new title in two years, rather than smaller teams making expansions or DLC.
You can tell the tide of the Guitar Hero Rock Band style games has turned a little bit. People seem a little less enthusiastic about those games these days. Perhaps the lure of being a Rock Star fades after a while? Or the sight of fat geeks rocking out gets old after a while? You know how everyone groans about “another WWII game?” That’s because there was a time when you had Medal of Honor, Commandos, Brothers in Arms Wolfenstein, DoD, CoD, plus dozens of strategy titles and smaller PC games set in the same settings. There are dozens of SF or fantasy based games but the difference is they have freedom to make up new worlds whereas games based on actual events or settings (such as WWII or Modern Combat games) have to adhere to a certain aesthetic and conform to real world experience and expectations. You couldn’t have Gaz pull out a BFG and keep a straight face.
Look at Battlefield. First there was a WWII game and some expansions. Then there was Battlefield Vietnam a few years later, the Battlefield 2 with its mini expansions and console versions and then Battlefield 2142. The SF sequel fizzled pretty much and now the series is drifting backwards in time like some kind of ass-backwards Buck Rogers. Bad Company is back in current times and Battlefield Heroes and the new downloadable games are in WWII (ish) times. EA tried to iterate by innovating but really what they needed was space in between releases.
We’ve already mentioned Blizzard and WoW. But look at Starcraft. It was a huge hit in the late 90′ s but here we are, a decade and change later and we’re still waiting for the sequel (Just suppose EA had bought Blizzard in the past. We’ve have had Starcraft 2-5, Diablo 3, 4 and Origins and Warcraft 4-6 before EA shut them down). Of course, they are releasing SCII in three different versions. Kotick, you magnificent bastard! The clamouring for new SC is such that people will buy the three versions and not bitch too much about triple charged. WHy? Because Blizzard let the demand for a sequel build organically over time. Maybe 11-12 years is overkill, but its worked.
Personally, I am happy to have a new CoD game each year. But I know the series probably won’t be what it is if it starts fatiguing gamers to the point Activision mandate harmful changes in order to fix the malaise. “Have you guys considered adding giant robots?”
Reviewed on PC (Single Player), Xbox 360 (multiplayer). Also on PS3, PS2, Wii, DS, PSP. Developed by Treyarch. Published by Activision.
So, despite the dire predictions of Call of Duty World at War being a total disappointment compared to Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat, Treyarch have surprised us all and delivered a worthy successor to the most popular CoD game of all time.
CoD WaW follows a US soldier in the Pacific being led by the hand by 24’s Keifer Sutherland interspersed with playing a Russian soldier in the final assault on Berlin. It doesn’t try to out do CoD4’s sniper mission or the Gunship level. It has its own slants to those CoD4 signatures and adds a tank level and flying boat level. The shooting is EXACTLY the same as that in CoD4, which is what everyone who loved CoD4 but wanted more asked for.
Keifer’s gravelly tones tell you to shoot that. You shoot it. He tells you to shoot that, you shoot. “Those Jap bastards,” he says and you aim and open fire. Flames are a big part of this game. You wield a deadly flame thrower in some levels, including one level where it subs for the machine gun on a Russian tank. The flame thrower is a really nice weapon- much more usable than the one in Gears 2. The weapons are typical WWII fare with KAR98, M1 Garand, Thompson SMG, etc but they handle very nicely. There are a few large battles where progress is a little more difficult since Treyarch love their “infinitely re-spawning enemies until you cross a threshold” trick but overall the level designs are solid and fun to play. You may not have been to these locales, but if you’ve played previous CoD4 games, you have played them.
You can play the campaign either by yourself or in coop mode and once you’ve beaten it you get the Zombie mode “Nacht der Untoten,” which is basically a short version of Left 4 Dead. It is awesomely fun and highly recommended to give it a go. Pity there aren’t more levels but I guarantee this will be expanded upon at some stage. I’ve found that I’m unable to get online in the PC version so I’ve been playing a few rounds of this before I boot up CoD4 every night. I love it.
Multiplayer offers the usual modes, Search and Destroy (CS), Capture the Flag and Deathmatch modes. I mainly play Team Deathmatch but it compares quite favorably with CoD 4 and CoD3 multiplayer (CoD3, also by Treyarch did feature excellent Multiplayer modes). If you’ve played CoD4 MP, then you know what to expect. Just substitute Recon plane for UAV, Artillery for Airstrike and Dogs for choppers. That’s right, get to 7 kills without dieing and you can unleash the dogs. So long as you have no problems shooting digital dogs in the head, you’ll have a blast. Think of it as retribution for all the times in Nintendogs when your Alsatian took a crap when you were walking it. One thing that makes me think of CoD3 is the fact you can drive tanks in multiplayer. Overall, highly enjoyable. They even used Keifer to announce “Team Deathmatch” when you play as an American.
Graphics are excellent. I mean, they are jaw droppingly gorgeous on PC and console versions. Even in multiplayer, the 360 version ran at a smooth as butter 60 frames per second. Sound is also excellent though the weapon are a bit weedier sounding than CoD4 (but at least the sounds are different). The Flash cutscenes opening each level are also interesting and different from what you’d expect in a WWII-set game.
Since FPS WWII games set in the Pacific are pretty thin on the ground, the only competition is really the two rather poor EA Medal of Honor games (Pacific Assault and Rising Sun) and this game just wipes away all memories of those travesties. So, no it isn’t better than CoD4. It is close in many respects and doesn’t fail in any one particular area. That said, its an entertaining game in its own right
controller1.com rating 2/3 (or 3/3 if you love Call of Duty games and can’t face any more CoD4 MW) As Keifer says when the Marines win a multiplayer game “Out-fucking-standing!”
Reviewed on Xbox 360. Also on PS3, PS2, Wii
Well, Guitar Hero for rock fans who only like Aerosmith. That should cut down the need for things like advertising, sales, etc.
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock developed by former Tony Hawk developers Neversoft, puts paid to the rumour that the Guitar Hero series would be milked into the ground. They managed to keep the series humming along quite nicely. But then Guitar Hero Aerosmith comes out as a full price game, completely screwing up the first sentence
So really, it’s just Guitar Hero III with Aerosmith models on stage whenever you play an Aerosmith song. And do you want to know why I like GH Aerosmith compared to III? Its purely down to musical taste. I’m not a huge Aerosmith fan, but I love the type of rock they play.
GH III was weighed down by too much modern crap and indie bands which are like modern crap but not as popular.
It could have just been a downloadable pack, there’s really little reason for this not to have been the case, apart from money. It its first month, this game did not appear very highly in the NPD sales figures for NA, but considering the only costs in this game are a bit of licensing of Aerosmith’s tunes, I can’t see Activision stopping anytime soon.
Why should you play this? If you like hard rock, ’70s rock or if you just like Aerosmith. Or if you love GH and want more of the same. Now since the next iteration of Guitar Hero adds bass, drums and a mike, this is the last time the guy with the axe is the star of the show.
C1 Rating: 1/3 (Aerosmith fans should make this a 3/3 however)
