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)
