So tomorrow, Spike TV airs their seventh annual Video Game Awards. Man, I remember about 3-4 years writing stuff like this where I was condemning the awards because of petty, but logical, reasons. You can see my ranting tirades of previous Spike VGAs here and here.


For instance, at the 2005 awards, some of the games that got nominated and later won were 50 Cent: Bulletproof, a terrible third-person shooter, and Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie, a licensed title. Both games were not out yet, which gave the implication of marketing dollars triumphing over credibility that year. I believe they kept doing this for subsequent years, nominating games that came out in November like Call of Duty 3 and Gears of War, but I heard they eventually changed this so games that came out in that period would actually be nominated for the following year's awards. That's a step up, at least.


I bet the celebrity talent isn't gonna be that magnificent either. I remember when Samuel L. Jackson was hosting the 2006 awards and talking about "Grand Theft Auto 3: San Andreas." Or even the time when Sarah Silverman decided to waste five minutes of our time insulting our intelligence with overused and stereotyped "gamer nerd" jokes. Yeah, Sarah, go back to fucking Matt Damon and leave us be, ok?


Oh yeah, I can't forget the corporate sponsorship. "Most Addictive Game fueled by Mountain Dew!" "Best Casual Game sponsored by Stride gum!" "Pontiac presents the Best Driving Game!" I have never seen that on any real award show, like Ford crediting an award for "Best Car Chase in a film," why in god's name would there be sponsorship of a certain award in a video game awards show? And since there's Burger King ads this year, I bet there will be an award sponsored by them and presented by some guy in a Burger King costume. I really find this whole thing cheap and incredibly tacky.


Credibility also goes out the window when you had "Best RPG" in one year have three Square-Enix published JRPGs versus The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, or three EA Sports games versus one 2K Sports game. Or even better: "Studio of the Year" 2006 was dedicated to a studio that had just closed as the award show happened (Capcom's Clover Studio) and two of the nominees were dedicated to one designer rather than a development studio, like Cliff Bleszinski of Epic Games and Todd Howard of Bethesda Softworks. Yeah, I wouldn't have objected if it was just Epic and Bethesda being nominated, but you singled out the most important guy there and nominated him as if he did the game all by himself. Real smooth, guys.


I stopped watching around 2006, so I can't tell if they have improved. All I do remember about one year's show is a moment where guys from Gamecock Media actually stormed the stage as Ken Levine (of 2K Boston) was about to give a speech for winning an award for Bioshock. Guess which one is still in the business, Gamecock? Certainly ain't you guys.


This would probably be the point in my rant that I would say "Don't watch this," but it's been on the air for about several years and it's not going away any time soon, so I feel it would be futile to do so. Even having people like Geoff Keighley or Jeff Gerstmann involved couldn't make this show any better. At least it's better than the fate of G-Phoria, which used to be the same type of bombastic award event, but nowadays it's just a 30 minute X-Play special. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I'll wait for the real game awards that will actually be held by credible sites with an air of professionalism and won't involve nude chicks being body painted to resemble the game boxes and have them strut on stage.

Alright, so Modern Warfare 2 -- or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 or whatever the hell you like to call it, offensive or not -- is coming out in eight days as I write this. I feel indifferent. But that's because I never really get hyped for games anymore, as I try to avoid the mega-hype that some games get because all that leads to is utter disappointment.

But over the course of this past few weeks, I've actually been thinking of canceling my preorder. It's for the $80 Hardened Edition -- I'm not buying the Prestige Edition and supporting fourzerotwo's bust fetish -- and I already have $10 put down from back in July when I preordered that game and Uncharted 2 at the same time.


My Call of Duty collection as of July. Just for fun, guess which of these Call of Duty games I haven't played.

Now, I am a Call of Duty veteran. I'm not one of the silly gamers that got into the series with COD4, or started with COD2 when that was the only worthwhile 360 game to play until Tom Clancy's GRAW came out. I started with the original PC game in 2004 or so. I've played the majority of the games of the series. And I hold both COD4 and World at War as fantastic titles in the series. But there's been a multitude of things happening at once that have made me regret plopping a $10 preorder on it. Let's go my reasons, shall we?

1. The PC version is being "consolized" as dedicated servers are nixed, matchmaking is the norm, and no custom content is allowed.

This is the main reason why I regretted my preorder. I own COD, United Offensive and COD2 on PC. The rest have been on other consoles due to what I had heard about the PC version of COD4 -- Client-side statistics and rankings (with the right editing you could be level 55 and have all the gold weapons without even playing the game) and making it seem like the PC version is third-fiddle to the 360/PS3 counterparts -- as well as console exclusive versions like COD3.

But as you noticed, my preorder is for the Hardened Edition. Which is only available to 360 and PS3 owners. Yes, my MW2 preorder is for the 360 version. So now you're probably asking "You're not buying the PC version anyway, so why should you care?" Because I am still a PC gamer, even if I don't play it as often anymore. The only games I play on PC with some frequently is Valve games, and that's because they're a PC developer. Occasionally I pull out older games I didn't check out the first time or reminiscing, but otherwise most my new game purchases are on consoles these days.

Matchmaking isn't a bad thing, Left 4 Dead has it, as well as a simplistic server browser where you can choose your game mode (Campaign/Versus/Survival) and the respective campaign/map you wish to play. Plus there's a quick match setting for those who just wanna jump in and play any game they wish. Games like Sony's Warhawk had quick match and server browsers, so server browsers can be done still, even on consoles. It's the other things that irked me. It's clear they're doing a closed network service to monetize map packs. Except here's one thing you forgot, Activision: PC gamers are not stupid. We've been getting map packs and bonus post-launch content for free for the longest time. We won't pay $10 for four maps, only the ignorant people will. Now, what I think about the high costs of DLC, that's a rant I'll save for another time.

2. The beginning level seems to be relatively unsettling as you kill unarmed civilians as you pose as a terrorist.

I'm gonna be spoiling the first level although judging how the internet works these days it's probably not even spoiler-worthy by now.

This is something I believe that does happen in real life, where operatives join with terrorist factions to get additional intel, but it's clear many gamers are not prepared for this. Thankfully Infinity Ward put in an option to skip that if you wish not to kill, although it's likely possible you can go through the whole stage without killing innocents.

The particular event has been covered since the earliest of trailers, even the announcement referenced this. This may upset many people as they feel this is "wrong" to pose as an enemy threat and kill civilians -- we've been down this road with GTA countless times -- and it's only gonna light fuel to the fire.

I guess I'll have to play it to believe it, but this might be in somewhat bad taste, even if it's to drive the plot forward.

And here's the last one:

3. Word has it that Infinity Ward is full of assholes and pretentious dicks.

So Wii owners are getting COD4 this year under the title "Modern Warfare: Reflex." But there's only been scant screenshots, and they paint it to look as bad as an early PS2 title from 2001. The following might be speculation and you're welcome to take some salt, but a GameSpot forum user gave his theory on why there's no new media for COD:MW Reflex. The summary: Infinity Ward considers COD its baby and feels aggravated when their work is outsourced to other developers beyond their control.

Supposedly they didn't want COD to be ported to the last-gen consoles, so they made Spark Unlimited make a new COD. Then they got peeved when Activision gave Treyarch the greenlight to make COD3 since COD4 wasn't ready yet. They also intervened and made sure World at War wasn't called "COD5." That, coupled with no media for COD:MW Reflex, does hold some water.

This becomes more apparent when Robert Bowling blasted Noah Heller about the accuracy of guns in COD:WAW compared to previous COD titles -- the famous "Super Senior Douche" moment -- as well as Bowling saying that "nothing from World at War" was coming to MW2 -- possibly implying that the "fixes" Treyarch did in WAW would not be added into MW2, or simply no "Afghan Zombies" mode -- makes me shake my head at Infinity Ward.

If this is the case, then it makes me hold IW in contempt. Keep in mind I loved COD, COD2 and COD4, if I found out that the inner office politics make them have that smug "I'm better than all of you" feeling, then I cannot support a developer in that sort of fashion.

For the record, I found COD3 and World at War to be good games. Certainly not as great as COD4, but not anywhere close to the "worst games in the series" that I see on countless message boards. Perhaps these people are just blinded by irrational fanboyism and feel that Infinity Ward is god while everybody else are peons. Thankfully I don't think that way.

Oh, and there's the "Activision being the new EA" sort of thing.

Conclusion

Perhaps my incessant three page rambling means nothing. I'll probably be at my GameStop on November 9th, waiting to play Modern Warfare 2 like millions of other gamers around the country, even the world. But these sort of things make me think that I should cancel my preorder, put that $10 back in my wallet, get MW2 at a later date (or even never) and just wait for Left 4 Dead 2; which comes out a week later, which I've already pre-loaded and have already played the demo and can't wait to play it on the 17th.

What do you guys think? Am I making any sense out of this or am I just being paranoid?

So yeah, I went to PAX. I made this video a week after the event, and I'm posting it at Destructoid one week after that. Hooray for laziness and forgetfulness. And other types of "ness"es.



(Parts Two, Three and Four are also available.)

Oh, and the MAG beta code I mention has already been snatched up by a friend. Sorry! You can't have my copies of Hello Kitty Online or Lord of the Rings Online either!

I'm gonna preface this entry with this: I am not a big Halo fan. I loved the first at the time when I played it on PC in 2003, but Halo 2's plot and constant switching between Arbiter and Master Chief was confusing more than entertaining, and Halo 3 underwhelmed me. H3 was a fun co-op experience, at least.

But when I heard from Major Nelson that there was some fancy Halo 3: ODST promotional truck heading down to Portland, I thought, "Hell yeah, why not?" Except it was at Tanasbourne Town Center, about several miles away from Beaverton and Hillsboro. Not anywhere near Portland, at least what I know of Portland.


A crude Google Maps image of my house (right star) and the Tanasbourne Town Center (left star).

Regardless, I put on some clothes, grabbed my bus tickets and started heading my way up there. Sadly, I knew little of the place, but it wasn't hard to find a bus and get a ride up there. Around 3:00, I finally spotted it:


My apologies for the terrible quality, I have a regular cell phone that takes pictures, not an iPhone or any other silly gadget. Also, I didn't bring my regular camera as it's old and busted.

The picture doesn't completely show it, but there was a line of about 30-40 people waiting to play Firefight mode. I decided to hop in line and after two hours of line-waiting and people asking silly Halo-related questions (including some easter egg in Halo 3 of somebody in their boxers running around? Somebody wanna fill me in on that?), I finally got to sit inside and wait in queue for the previous set of four to finish up their session before I could play it myself.

For those who have been living under a rock, Firefight is a new MP mode in Halo 3: ODST where four ODST soldiers fight off waves and waves of Covenant soldiers. It's similar to Horde Mode in Gears of War 2, Nazi Zombies in Call of Duty: World at War, and... well, Survival Mode in Left 4 Dead. There are mild differences: Each kill gets a score, skulls from regular Halo 3 will occasionally be activated before each wave, and players have a pool of lives to go through (default 7). For the demo, however, they gave us infinite lives but a 10 minute time limit.


A closer look at the truck. Supposedly it's from Korea, was made with loads of kevlar, and that Halo 3 ODST sign kept falling down thanks to the wind. Eventually it got disassembled.

Me and my group, consisting of two kids, a teenage dude and myself; got through all ten minutes just fine. I died about 3-4 times due to my Halo inexperience. I think I got about 4,000 or so points, with the highest around 11,000. One bearded dude who looked like a more ginger-ly Rocco Botte said that apparently there was one guy who got over 30,000 in his 10:00 session, with an additional 10,000 between his co-op partners. The group before us got about 15 minutes between two sessions as their 360s crapped out in the middle of both sessions, getting me the chance to see what a development unit looks like. Also, I think this might've been confirmed elsewhere, but: the brute plasma rifle from Halo 2 is back, but the energy sword is not. At least in campaign and firefight, it will likely still be in your MP so you can still do sword matches on whatever map of your choice.

Afterwards, I left the area and decided to kick around in other places, and the line slowly dissipated, but by 6PM I was in a hurry to get home, and didn't get back in line. Although some said they've tried it at least once or twice before.

Despite my indifference to Halo, I found it to be an interesting game mode, but I don't think it's worth the $60 price tag. That $60 will go towards Uncharted 2, COD: Modern Warfare 2, or Left 4 Dead 2 instead. (That's a lot of 2s, I just noticed) Maybe I'll get it later down the line as a gift or something. But it was a fun game mode, and a slight twist on the popular co-op survival game modes that have been flooding the games market these days.

And before I finish this off, they did give away some license plate borders with "My other car is a Warthog" on it. ("Why 'Warthog'? It doesn't really look like a pig... I think it looks more like a puma") Some dude got two, a big Halo fangirl wearing a "I <3 Master Chief" shirt with the Septagon tattooed on her arm got one, and there was clearly some extras left, but I didn't get one. So thus I took this picture:


I got to play Halo 3: ODST a month in advance and all I got was this lousy promotional card. (Anybody wanna slap in the Destructoid font here and make it a fancy image?)

(On an unrelated note: I played Rock Band 2 on drums for the first time in a Best Buy kiosk nearby the place. I need more practice.)

With Infinity Ward's upcoming Modern Warfare 2 (or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 if you wanna argue semantics) coming out on November 10, I decided to go through the six-year history that is the Call of Duty series. From its humble PC beginnings to the modern successes of COD4 and World at War, to even the console spinoffs you might have played; I intend to play them all and write about them before MW2's forthcoming release. For the record, I intend to play all the major installments, (COD, COD2, COD3, COD4, World at War) the PC expansion, (United Offensive) and the three console-exclusive offshoots (Finest Hour, Big Red One and World at War: Final Fronts). That's nine games. I don't have the PSP Roads to Victory game or either of the Nintendo DS COD games, so I can't talk about those, sadly.

Now, some of these games I haven't played in months, or even years. Others, like Finest Hour, will be my first time through them. However, I suffered an initial snag in this idea: I couldn't play the original Call of Duty or the expansion United Offensive in Windows Vista. For some reason the A.I. would screw up, causing many times where I'd see models in the "T pose" or have the game forget key scripts. Basically the game runs and plays without causing my computer to explode, but the problem is that it doesn't play correctly. And before anybody comments about possible "fixes:" I've tried putting the game in compatibility mode and my copy is the Game of the Year edition, which is already patched to the most recent version, v1.5. So I had to play the original game and expansion on a XP-enabled laptop. Ah well, better than not playing them at all, eh? So let's get started right from the beginning.



The origin of Call of Duty is an interesting story. The developer, Infinity Ward, consisted of several former employees from 2015, a company who made Medal of Honor: Allied Assault for EA in 2001. They came to publisher Activision around 2002 with a modern-day era first-person shooter with semi-tactical elements and whatnot. Yep, that's right: They already had the modern-era idea seen in Call of Duty 4 and the forthcoming Modern Warfare 2 set way back in 2002-03. Except there was a problem: Activision already had its token "modern-day FPS:" Raven Software's Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix had just come out. Realizing the popularity of Medal of Honor (as well as the developer's previous experience thanks to MOH:AA), they suggested to take it to World War II instead. Thus, Call of Duty was born. As for 2015, they made one more game after MOH:AA, and that was Men of Valor in 2003. I assume the developer is now defunct, as they haven't announced a new project in almost six years. But who knows these days?

I remember when I first downloaded the demo of Call of Duty way back in 2003. The demo was the second stage in the game, where one has to charge through Burnville. The stage starts with you having to run past mortar strikes. And I got nailed by one immediately. That disgusted me so much that I quit out of the demo, and promptly uninstalled it thereafter. It annoyed me that much, for some reason. I gave the game a second chance after playing, amusingly, the demo to United Offensive. Despite that sour first impression, I started to seriously love Call of Duty when I first played it on Christmas Day, 2004. I knew I loved it because I kept playing it for a while, taking a break, and then jumping back in a few hours later. Usually if I do that, it means that I really like the game. So I felt like a fool after that demo incident. I gave the game a proper playthrough, and eventually beat it.

Right, for those who started out with Call of Duty 2, or even the most recent installments of Call of Duty 4 or World at War, The first Call of Duty plays much differently than the later games. Here's a quick list of differences:

- You have a health bar and you must find medkits, small metal tins or large bags to regain health. There's no COD2/Halo-esque regenerative health system here. As a result, the game can be brutally difficult at times, especially if you're barely holding on with a sliver of health left and constantly reloading the same checkpoint area.
- You could hold two primary weapons (such as a Karabiner 98k and an MP40), a sidearm (usually a Luger or 1911), and 10 grenades. Later games shrunk this down to two weapons total and four grenades.
- Grenades have no separate key, you have to select them (default key: "4") and throw them manually. In addition, you cannot cook grenades, that wasn't introduced until United Offensive, but oddly removed in COD2, and later reinstated in Big Red One.
- Some weapons have selectable fire-rates. Usually they were a simple switch between semi automatic or full auto, but sometimes weapons like the BAR have a faster-firing full-auto and a slower-firing full-auto for better accuracy.
- No smoke grenades. This made some parts more difficult since you'd likely get mowed down by machine gun fire if you went the wrong way.
- There are many "minefield" areas in several stages. This is so the game doesn't feel like a "corridor shooter," and that the player doesn't venture too far off the beaten path. This is a more visible version of the "waist-high platforms I can't jump over" issue later COD games had.
- You can't sprint. Although that wasn't really introduced until United Offensive, for some reason it was completely absent until COD4 reinstated it years later.

Other than that, most of the COD staples are still here, including frenetic battles, multiple perspectives of the war, and the famous "aiming down the iron sights" that's become very common in many modern first-person shooters.

At times, the original COD plays much more like a spiritual successor to the Medal of Honor games. Most of the American campaign involves the player having to sneak into enemy lines, confiscate documents, rescue two British soldiers, and so forth. The British campaign features one stage where you and Captain Price (who may remember a similarly named character in other COD games) infiltrate the "Tirpitz" boat while disguised as the enemy.

However, the action-packed portions of COD are very prominent in the Russian campaign. The first stage, set in Stalingrad, references the film Enemy at the Gates. During the course of the Russian campaign, the Russians clearly show themselves as cold-hearted bastards who kill their allies, similar to how it was back in Soviet-era Russia. This sort of darkness in a WWII shooter would not be revisited until World at War five years later, which really surprised me.

The following stage, which you charge through Red Square is one of the best damn moments in the entire series. Running with a large group of Russians to Michael Giacchino's music was one of the reasons I loved the first game way back when. Speaking of the game's music, I must comment on how dissonant Giacchino's score is for the game. It's as if it sounds out of tune and very brash, and only a few tracks in the game are enjoyable. One of those enjoyable tracks is the music that plays through the Red Square stage, and that's something he didn't even write! (It's an arrangement of an old Christian hymn called "Ebenezer," if you're wondering.) Hell, even during a British campaign stage, I heard zero music until the end, where it started playing the soft rendition of the theme. Yeah, that fits perfectly while Germans are plinking down at my health, game! Now I'm not bashing Giacchino, he's a really good composer, and I loved his stuff in Medal of Honor and in other games, but his sole contribution to the series ends up sounding obnoxious, even when there's little action on screen.

Now that I've babbled on about singleplayer a lot (I'm a SP kind of guy, what do you expect?), I might as well go on about multiplayer. Most of the COD staples like Free-for-all, Team Deathmatch, and Search & Destroy appear here, as well as a slightly different version of Headquarters, and two exclusive-to-this-game modes: "Retrieval," a 1-flag-CTF mode; and "Behind Enemy Lines," where Allied players gain points by surviving and killing Axis players. Sadly I can't tell you if these modes are any good these days, everybody pretty much plays TDM and S&D now. But it's the same fast and frenetic action you would expect from Call of Duty, it just doesn't have things like grenade launchers and Martyrdom to gnash your teeth while playing.

Before I finish, I want to give two interesting factoids: The last stage in COD has you play as the Russians as you rush through Berlin and storm the Reichstag. Sound familiar? The last two Russian stages in the most recent World at War have you storm the Reichstag. An homage? Coincidence? Treyarch sticking it to Infinity Ward? Who knows, really. Also, one stage in COD has you in the back of a truck fighting off German infantry. This particular concept would be revisited in COD4.

Surprisingly, COD has aged pretty well. I bet if it was given the treatment of the later games and given a next-gen polish, it could probably hold well with the other installments in the series. It's dirt cheap these days, I highly recommend looking into it if you're even remotely a fan of the series.

Next up, I'll be writing about Gray Matter's sole contribution and the only expansion pack to the series, Call of Duty: United Offensive, which adds more elements familiar to COD veterans. Hope you enjoyed reading this retrospective.

(Let's make this second chance a little less insulting and prove that with the right subject I CAN do the research.)

With the recent story about whether game bloggers are "credible game journalists" made me think about game journalism as a whole. Actually, I prefer to call it "games writing," as there are few journalists in the gaming industry. The closest I can think of are the likes of Stephen Totilo and Geoff Keighley, and maybe N'Gai Croal despite the fact that he left Newsweek. You could probably stretch it if you go for people like Matt Casamassina, Jeff Gerstmann or Sam Kennedy.

But when it comes to game bloggers like some of the staff at Dtoid, Joystiq or even Kotaku, I have a slight dislike for them. I don't hate them, but there's a certain attitude in the air with these people, and it brings up issues about games writing in general.

With the advent of the internet, blogging has become widespread. The result is more people can try to make their own offshoot games writing blog that could get them hits if they get something that's "hot scoops" worthy (with apologies to Idle Thumbs). But the main problem of this can be summed up in one word: "Credibility."

I once wrote a blog a few months back in a different place about my disdain for game blogs. They do so many things wrong, and I'll restate them in a short list: They will post rumors without evidence, they will have this air of smugness in their written entries, they will post the obvious after the entire internet has known about it for years, and the most problematic of the bunch: It's for hits, not for credibility.

Really, game bloggers would be more credible if they didn't jump on constant rumors, tried to keep the smarmy attitudes to themselves, and show to themselves that they're competent writers. Basically, "writers who play games," rather than "Gamers who happen to write."

There is a difference. Most "writers who play games" are of the types I've covered earlier: Totilo, Keighley, Croal. Usually writers who play games are types who have degrees in editorial or english, and act more like how a journalist would. Most game bloggers, on the other hand, are "Gamers who happen to write." I haven't read a written Kotaku entry by Michael McWhertor (or others) where there wasn't one spelling or grammatical error. Sometimes facts will get mangled and screwed up even if it's a familiar game franchise. Maybe the one thing these game bloggers need is a copy editor.

I find it funny that Jim Sterling wrote that and said he APPROVES of people getting free swag for top-notch reviews. Hell, even Roger Ebert, a film critic, says never to take freebies unless you're a starving critic who doesn't get paid often. Really, I liked the way it was done back at the good old days of GameSpot, back when Greg Kasavin was Editor-in-Chief: You got swag? Hand it to us. You want it back? Finish the review first. Or shove it into the huge swag pile, we can always give it away during On The Spot or something. Hell, I loved it when Dean Takahashi declined his Halo 3 swag bag and sent it back to Microsoft. Either way, freebies should NEVER be an incentive to give good reviews of something.

The reasons I gave are usually my issues with games writing in general, and there's a distinct reason why many message board posters usually say "lol games journalism." (Maybe that's just NeoGAF who does it.) But either way, there are ways we can learn from this and start making bloggers more credible. Here's a small list I came up with:

1. Rumors should not be covered at all. If you must cover rumors, do it in one encompassing post with a brief vignette about the rumor, and the origin of the rumor.
2. Proofreading. Do more of it. Copy Editors. Hire one or two. It's better to have writing that doesn't look like it came from a school newspaper.
3. Keep the snark at home. Be civil in your writing. After all, you might not have your job in six months, and all it takes is an employer to pop your name into a Google Search, find your snarky material and get you rejected from your next writing job.
4. Always ask questions. Don't sit there and do nothing as a company announces a product you're not too sure about. Even if it's of developers you trust.
5. Only accept the freebies if you're a fledgling blog site. Otherwise decline them, put them up for auction or something else.
6. If you're ever reviewing games: FINISH THEM. Play 'til the credits roll. Dabble in New Game+ if you can. Don't do what Jim Sterling did and do a terrible Zero Punctuation parody and a review of Halo Wars that only covered up to chapter 3 in the campaign. (Of course, this applies to ALL reviews, not just ones from blogs.)

If you have any more suggestions, feel free.