With a poor story, forgettable new characters and the lost of any connection with reality Modern Warfare 3 pleases itself with nothing but a bunch of crazy over top action sequences. Extreme action and extreme violence is not new to Modern Warfare, Nevertheless such shoots of visual adrenaline taste better if supported by a coherent story, good dialogues, strong characters and memorable moments. That is exactly what Call of Duty 4 delivered a few years back giving birth to the Call of Duty phenomenon.
A couple of years after COD4, Modern Warfare 2 took us into "Over the Top" territory. A Michael Bay movie feels slow compared to MW2. Yet again excellent narrative elements, a crazy but engaging story The introduction of likeable strong characters heroes and villains (Makarov, Shepperd, Ghost, Nikolai) and memorable sequences like "No Russian", "Avalanche" "Ghost's dead" "EMP" etc. Made a great context for the extreme unbelievable action sequences Modern Warfare 2 is filled with.
Modern Warfare 3 feels like a game created to make Michael Bay's The Movie TV commercial, The action sequences are related to a poor plot with more logical holes than a Cheddar Swiss, With such context It makes sense you spend a good portion of the game in a on rail shooting sequence designed for no other to take you to next big explosion. It's been mention before but you spend a whole lot of time in a rail sequence, vehicles, aircraft, artillery, air support, submarine you name it.
Said so, this is video games We aren't looking for the next Stanley Kubrick scrip here, It is not just a video game it is a widely successful mass appeal video game. Still If something really bums me down about Modern Warfare 3 is how generic, pointless and forgettable the new characters are.. A bunch of copy paste SAS soldiers, Who the hell is Sandman? Why does he sounds like a Basket Ball trainer ? Why does Yuri looks like a generic bald goon? What about the anti-climatic role of Soap?
Mechanically MW3's sequences are good enough (I guess) Yet nothing new. The obligated Price's stealth sequence feels a bit tedious and predictable this time around, The vehicle sequences are still effective but not necessarily that impressive. Then there are the usual big explosions set pieces that waste no time to scream Fuck Yeah America!
Modern Warfare 3 is not a game particularly fun to play: You run corridors shooting a hella bunch of dudes to get to the next on rail big fat explosions sequence, It might not be a particularly fun game to play but it is still a fun game to look at as long as you whiling to turn off your brain for a while and that is perhaps one of the reason of its success.
Battlefield 3 is an impressive game, an outstanding technical achievement. In no other game you can have 64 dudes interacting in a Multiplayer havoc with vehicles, destructible environments a good amount of gadgets and team objectives across a large sandbox environment, in top of that it does it with cutting edge Graphics. Yet nothing is perfect after solid 60 hours of multiplayer here are my main complains:
-Team Stacking: This have been a major problem IN ALL Battlefield games, supposedly the game can't have auto scramble because that would break the squad system. This flaw remains in BF3 and is personally one of the biggest bummers for me. It is freaking annoying every time I join a new server odds are my team is losing badly and I can't switch teams because (obviously) everyone else in server is trying to do the same, Winning team is always full.
You tell me the studio that can make fully destructible environments, Can't come with a solution for this!? Seriously why don't they scramble squads, I mean a simple equation in the program can fix this or at least make it less awful... They could at least try something for god sake.
-Dual Identity: Seems to me that Battlefield 3 is a 2 head monster, in one side there where the people trying to do a Battlefield game and in the other side there were the Marketing guys pushing for "features" so they can sell the game to the COD crew:
Urban maps are clearly designed with an Arcade shooter flow in mind, Thigh circular corridors full of choke points
Large (Jets) Maps: Have a more classic flavor to it and IMO they are definitely more fun, They have the right scale to host 64 players thou they are dull with smaller teams
This dual identity with the level design makes a chore to pick a server, I definitely think urban maps are no fun with 64 players to others than Nade, Rocket, Mortar point whores spammers. While these maps are fun with smaller teams, The server rotation will eventually get you to a Jet map and you gonna get bored in those with a small team. This leads to the good old 24/7 server syndrome of which Battlefield is King.
Games that try to please EVERY play style more than often fail, Multiplayers like COD, GoW3 and UC3 DO know what they are trying to do, They commit to an idea and fully develop a style.. I can go for hours in the map rotation in any of this, yet in Battlefield you are not just changing map you are changing the whole game style betwen large and small/urban maps... It is tiresome and tedious.
-Weak "Destruction": Long gone are Bad Company 2 maps like Arica Harbor or Oasis with full modeled destructible houses and buildings to get shelter inside, the tactical layer of destruction feels thin in Battlefield 3 compared to Bad Company 2.
-Useless Needless "New features": The existence of Co-Op and Death Match are not bad per se, they still annoy the hell out of me because they are pretty pointless poorly done and no one really ask for them... Again I can imagine a business dude in a keynote doing key points to make a sell. The death match mode is no improvement over Medal of Honor: Spawn points are horrible the spawn rotation sucks, There is no way to know where you are spawning and you constantly do it with a LMG pointing at your ass, Battlefield is designed around classes unlike other death match modes which brings balance issues. Then the CO OP mode is not that bad but feels generic, pointless and unimaginative.
I question, Why don't build on expanding and improving the Battlefield core? That is exactly what both Uncharted 3 and Gears of War 3 did, both currently better more balanced multiplayers. Gears of War did not try to do a Rush Mode or Conquest clone do they? Is Uncharted 3 adopting the damage model of Call of Duty? Not that I know. They are committed to their core idea, they build upon of their previous releases, They've expanded and improved what made Gears 3 and UC2 great multiplayer pleasing fans and newcomers alike.
I think the improvements are clear to everyone, visuals, sound, better gun feeling, better hit points, character animation, movement etc.. BF3 is still a terrific game I just wish EA/DICE were thinking of it for other than a "COD KIller" that's lame (even for corporate/business standards).
Also: The single player can go die for what I care.. Generic, Scripted, Unimaginative and somewhat Pretentious which is pretty damn annoying. Remember they said they were taking Black Hawk Down, Generation Kill and Hurt Locker as an inspiration... well yeah they didn't nail it, not a bit.
Ok apparently this article was a Grammar mess. I just edited it to make it more understandable here it goes.
I used to play Diablo 2 back in high school like there was no tomorrow. The time passed and with no solid alternative I moved on. In recent years there's been more-better alternatives to the point and click action rpg, specially for some indie developers. This is a short review and thoughs about the ones I consider the best 3 picks at the moment and why is any of this 3 getting difficulty right.
1) Alien Swarm: Not a traditional Action-Rpg Alien Swarm is a cool blend between a top view shooter and an action rpg. There is persistence and progression but the combat mechanic is based on a variety of modern guns and weapons.
Aliens swarm was never intend to be easy. It was always advertised as tactical top view shooter.. and it does live to that description. Alien Swarm biggest problem is a very frustrating level of difficulty with no learning curve whatsoever. The game just jump you into it's bitch way right from the beginning. Personally I don't think friendly fire is the problem here, without it the game would be dull. The real issue for me is that the game has no learning level or any sort of introduction, even worst some arguably indispensable abilities don't unlock until you gain some levels.. not cool
2) Magicka: I love to hate Magicka. This little cute buggy game is perhaps by concept my favorite of the 3. It takes the loot factor out of the Action Rpg equation but introduces a innovative spell system. You are able to mix up 8 different "magicks" making it 100% skill based.
The problem with Magicka is not only his endless buggy nature.. It also has a frustrating level of difficulty. Your little cute wizzard moves way to slow, Movement is slower if you are about to cast a spell. Once the spell bean is shoot it is hard to control, the aim movement is slow. Your area of effect attacks will hurt and even one shoot your fellow wizzard partners. Crossing bean or friendly fire is as devastating as it is in Alien Swarm. All this plus a set of fast moving, charging, ranged enemies makes of Magicka a f%^&ing hard game to play.
3)Darkspore: here is our latest mainstream representative for the genre. It has all the rings and bells of a big studio/publisher production. With an arguably a good fiction and a set of "innovative" features. Paradoxically Darkspore feels the more traditional bet of the 3.
You have a set of space Pokemon that look very cool and are split among 3 "classes" (tank, dps, heal). You can pretty much customize everything: squad members, gear and looks for your pokemons.
The problem with Darkspore: combat is not that good. My best toon so far is the Sage a Murloc like healing/dps hybrid that would drop a healing tree arround partners and shoot green balls of magick that heal your buddies. Sounds cool right? Well that's basically rigth click and key 1 spam even in the hardest levels. You might have to change your pokemon in combat if things get to-hot but it rarely does. Darkspore combat feels kind of dull but The progression, customization, good built in social tools and overall quality crafting and production for this game makes me like it.
Make no mistake I like and a lot this 3 guys here, Yet I think the main problem for all of them is DIFFICULTY LEVEL. They either to hard (Magicka, Alien Swarm) or to easy (Darkspore).
Makes me wonder what's going on with this developers? I know there is business stuff they need to take care on. Nevertheless what I see here is lack (and a lot) of polish. Is the Blizzard lesson to hard to learn? All of this 3 titles would be way better with more and better play testing, extended beta and more developing time.. So what do you guys think? How do you "get"difficulty right?
This is my first list in this fine site and I was thinking on doing the "people I admire they so cool" stuff but then I realize there is like a lot of that already, so I'm going with the top 5 evil mind douche bags in the industry, with no more preamble here they are:
5.- David Cage, Mr Pepe le Artsy David Cage has made arguably one good game with Indigo Prophecy I guess... and Heavy Rain which is good if you a middle age single woman, but perhaps Mr Cage it`s not really evil he is just a pretentious mouth loose douche bag who will rant about the current state of video games every chance he gets, among his brilliant quotes we find him asking for the "industry to grow up" I actually though he was asking for adult content you know a la redtube or his latest: "comparing games to film, drive the industry forward".. I'm just going with what Destructoidīs Darren Nakamura said "I used to think David Cage was just a guy who made mediocre videogames. The more he talks though, the more I think he really doesn't know what he's doing."
Deep inside David Cage I think there is a nice guy, but the upper layers are just way to French for my taste.
4.- R. Richard Fontaine, This Tom Selleckīs clon old man and certified douche bag was the Gamestopīs CEO for 6 years, during his reign of evilness second hand selling practices: "Gamestop experienced tremendous growth" according to the board of directors. Gamestop claims he gives power to the players wheter or not you support the second hand market itīs a personal choice I respect.. but in the other hand: give me a f$king brake.. Gamestop gives a shitt about giving power to the players. They seem to be more focus on giving pre orders and having big cuts for re-sell used video games.
3.- EAīs John Riccitiello - This happy handsome looking man is the Deuche bag master mind behind EAīs online pass and "sell the same f"king game every year strategy" highly successful with the FIFA and Madden franchise.. he is also the head of a company obsessed with DLC, Micro transactions and "Pay for your shortcut" in some games.. yea Battlefield Specat and Kit shortcut I'm looking at you.
Outrageous as EA behavior is what piss me the most is Riccitiello current obsession on taking down Call of Duty with Battlefield, give me a f"king brake DICE is perhaps one of the best studios out there IMO par on Bungie an what used to be Infinity Ward.. one of the 3 big names for shooters but fake tan Riccitiello doesnīt give a fuck and keeps proving he has no respect for EAīs best studio.
2.-Bobby Kotick - Donīt get fooled by this funny looking leper gnome, Bobby Kotick Activisionīs CEO and certified money whore douche bag is the evil Master Mind of "Milk out to death your most popular franchise and then fire everyone who made you rich (with brute force and intimidation if posible)" strategy.. Heīs been doing it since Tony Hawk days, for us old enough to remember having good times with Tony a decent soundtrack and crazy skate tricks, we have witness the future already.. where? in the 90s. Get ready COD fan boys your time is close.
1.- John Romero, Okey this is a personal matter: by now John Romer is most likely a industry joke a historic tragic figure, the biggest letdown in the early days I donīt know for whatever it worth heīs pretty much worthless by now, he is not evil he is not even a mind let out master.. he is just a irrelevant douche bag by now.. It doesnīt help that Johan Carmak his early friend and actual video game master mind is still a prominent figure in the industry and the genius behind the Id Tech engine who is on par with Unreal they both make the most trustable graphic technology out there.
So why is Romero in first you might wonder: this is a personal matter because as an Hispanic it baffles me that john ROMERO is wearing a widely popular Hispanic name .. like really? god damm luck so one of the industry biggest jokes is just named after half of my cousins, not niceee at all.
So there it goes people, remember the propose of this article is entertainment, if you looking for fact check scientific corroboration and journalist integrity here is not.. until next Peace!
by the way.. for you hispanic destructoides check my at espaņol blog in www.tokyotown.mx laters
Im a 3rd person shooter sucker but I never played the socom series, the navy-marine stuff don't appeal to me.. My only previous experience with the Socom series it`s confrontation which I bough mainly because of the wireless mic so.. (go figure)
I was kind of expecting a half ass week 3rd person shoter.. yet I have to say this game seems pretty good fast paced thig feel 3rd person shooting, the weapons sound and behave diferent enough to not feel generic, you can see how they shoot different, the ballistic "draw" of the bullets it`s really good as a Bad Company 2 fan I think this one is on par, you can see the draw of the bullet trajectory and its drop, taking in count you die kind of easy gives the game the tactical feel the series is know for (i guess)..
thou the animation in the trailers looks lame, in the game they not as bad I would say COD BLOPS quality like, the 3rd cover mechanic works good enough, sometimes feels a little odd but nothing to worry about.. comparing it to games like uncharted is kind of rudimentary but well yeaa apples and bananas here.
Ther's seem to be a shitload of costumization options but I have no idea how deep is this gona be in the final game, visuals and sounds are pretty much MAG with a overhaul lighting and shadowing are pretty good, the clean a little plastic look of the game it`s well suited for a multiplayer game... I would add it runs pretty smoth and lag free for having 32 dudes online at the same time
No single or co-op in the current beta plus, while I have no much interest in the single player campaign.. I love co-op.. I think they can put something really good here if the mission design it`s good
I have absolutely no idea how this is gonna be rated in the metacritic.. not that it matter much for a niche-comunity oriented game like this.. personally think they allready broke the quality benchmark they need please the comunity, still Im not the most suited to state this..
As far as the comunity goes.. (my opinion as a noob) seems to be quite good and mature, other than the usual COD troll bashing the game for well not being COD.. a lot of people uses the mic and do the usual game talk, so it`s cool.
Any socom fan out there also in the psn plus beta can share it's impressions ? is this gona please socom fans.. myself I def looking forward to play some more and Im giving it a buy once release.
OK - I forgot to talk a bit about the downsides Iīve found (at least for me) here they are:
-Im having problems indentifying team mates, the blue name would pop up late constantly and the models arenīt that distinctive
-Arc granade would be nice
-This is not that important but for a progression system that awards the usual killstreak, be nice, be badass and so on medals.. the graphic for such cyber-awards are pretty bad.
Iīve been questioning more and more whatīs with this "innovation" convulsion that plagues the gaming comunity?
While true innovation itīs something to look forward to achieve progress in any field, Im starting to feel that the concept is moslty used in gaming as a marketing tool by publishers, and a lot of gamers eat it as mindless sheeps.
Look for example at COD while It doesnīt tingle my fancy I can understand while it has become an unoficial national sport, would it be this popular if devs in the holy name of innovation were making core gameplay changes every delivery? would starcraft, Halo or Battlefield be the same.. I donīt think so
Yet perhaps this missunderstanding that games need to "innovate" comes from the good old bad habit of comparing video games with movies or books, while itīs in fact dumb to grab and read over and over again the same book for months ( and i highly doubt someone other than religious fanatics do it ), we are failing to understand that video games are GAMES, and should be related, mesured or comparted whithin the field of GAMES such as Chess, Poker, Dominoes, Puzzle and so on
Seen this way it is just natural that early video games were adaptations of real life board games, puzzles or card games. Said so a game should be rated mostly for its core gameplay thus in it is were itīs longevity value relays, developers that understand it are the one most likely to succed with long lasting game play mechanichs such as Blizzard, Bungie or the COD series.
I fail to understand why is there this missunderstanding notion that playing new games, lots of games, games that "do new stuff" gives you a moral high ground to bash someon that has made of a game itīs personal sport?... I donīt see chess players bashing poker players because "they only play poker.. omg thatīs so dumb you playing the same game every year"
As conclusion personally I have more respect for that gamer that masters that one single game taking it almost into an artform than those always looking for the next big thing in order to disccuss the highly detail and complex story line and drama of seasonīs blockbuster.. which being honest writting in video games mostly sucks ...