Is Call of Duty an "un-game"?

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I think this just goes to show that there wasn't enough time to build a proper campaign in Modern Warfare 3. They had to cut corners and do things like have you sitting in a passenger seat shooting a turret for the majority of the campaign. They basically turned it into a rail shooter, from what I hear.

Now, that doesn't make it an "un-game"...rail shooters are still games, but it is different, and not as fun as what we had in the past.

As far as I know, they've had 2 years.. and something like 3-4 development teams working on the game.

Seems like more than enough time when you consider already have an engine in place.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

As far as I know, they've had 2 years.. and something like 3-4 development teams working on the game.

Seems like more than enough time when you consider already have an engine in place.

yeah, I guess they did have longer to work on it than I thought, it doesn't feel like MW2 came out 2 years ago. Maybe it has more to do with the fall out at Infinity Ward. Or maybe they realized most people buy it for the multiplayer anyway, and didn't put as much work into the campaign.

[KillerGremlin]

How is this anything new? Medal of Honor has been pulling this schtick for many years. These rail sequences and "following commands" are all part of war games.

90% of shooters are linear, so any criticisms about linearity are immediately questionable.

I take offense that reviewers are just now noticing this. All things considered, if you wanted to make this criticism, it would have been more valid 4 or 5 years ago when I started complaining about it.

Also, that Destructoid response doesn't really argue anything overly substantial.

[Vampyr]

I think the big thing about MW3 is that you are in even less control of your character than normal. Evidently you spend the majority of the game sitting behind a turret while the game drives you around.

[Typhoid]

These rail sequences and "following commands" are all part of war games.

For fucks' sake, following commands is the main part of actual war.


I disagree with the tards who wrote those articles for that one reason. If anything, a war game where the playable character is the sole hero of an entire war, (The Medal of Honor games used to be like that. One man vs. Nazi Germany) and it was so unrealistic.


If anything the fact that the playable character isn't ever at the direct forefront and is just following orders the whole time makes it feel more realistic. There are a far greater number of troops receiving orders than giving them. And even when someones giving orders, chances are he was ordered to give those orders; so in essence, he too is only following orders.

[KillerGremlin]

This seems timely. From Reddit's front page:



Destructoid has undoubtedly gone downhill, but yeah. Between this and the Zelda-Gamespot controversy, I think reviewers better start checking their shit. Or maybe do away with the number scores.

This criticism is poor, btw:

Walker calls Modern Warfare 3 an "un-game", a designation he is undoubtedly quite proud of. He complains that Modern Warfare 3 does not let him choose how to play and restricts him to tight, unyielding corridors. In his latest article, he attempts to argue that linearity isn't his problem (thus freeing him up to enjoy Half-Life without being hypocritical) but he simply confirms that it was his problem. Because honestly, Modern Warfare 3 is about as "open" as the Half-Life series. More importantly, it's as open as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare which everybody loved before the series became too popular and needed taking down a peg or two.

You can have restrictive linearity, and open linearity.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

How is this anything new? Medal of Honor has been pulling this schtick for many years. These rail sequences and "following commands" are all part of war games.

90% of shooters are linear, so any criticisms about linearity are immediately questionable.

As far as I know, he doesn't complain about the game being linear. He even tries to explain it in his second article. Not so much about it being linear as it is about you being a spectator in the game. Essentially, you aren't allowed to go or do anything the game doesn't want you to do because the game isn't ready for you to do it.

Its linearity in the strictest sense of the word, but also takes away any real player input into the game.

As Vamp says, at that point it might as well be a rail shooter.

I take offense that reviewers are just now noticing this. All things considered, if you wanted to make this criticism, it would have been more valid 4 or 5 years ago when I started complaining about it.

Also, that Destructoid response doesn't really argue anything overly substantial.

Why do you take "offense"?
Honestly, perhaps they noticed it then and didn't have a problem with it then. As you said its been 4-5 years, with the same formula (and a formula that has been applied to dozens of games since then). Maybe, they are finally getting tired of it.

The alternative could be that this guy didn't review Modern Warfare and he had issues with it then and never got to discuss it. He mentioned he never finished Modern Warfare 2.

I feel, it was a similar situation to Uncharted 3, which has been getting a lot of negative feedback even though it really doesn't do anything radically different than the first two, but after 3 games, folks notice the kink in the armor more.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

For fucks' sake, following commands is the main part of actual war.


I disagree with the tards who wrote those articles for that one reason. If anything, a war game where the playable character is the sole hero of an entire war, (The Medal of Honor games used to be like that. One man vs. Nazi Germany) and it was so unrealistic.


If anything the fact that the playable character isn't ever at the direct forefront and is just following orders the whole time makes it feel more realistic. There are a far greater number of troops receiving orders than giving them. And even when someones giving orders, chances are he was ordered to give those orders; so in essence, he too is only following orders.

I've always been of the mind that if realism comes at the expense of an enjoyable experience, it honestly isn't worth it.

While it may be unrealistic to be a one man army, it does make for a more compelling and personal experience instead of being a sidekick in your own adventures.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

This seems timely. From Reddit's front page:

There's a lot of differences, and honestly I have no idea what the criteria is anymore for "change"

You can have restrictive linearity, and open linearity.

Yeah, I think we're seeing a push against restrictive linearity in the industry and everyone is grouping linear games into one pile for some odd reason.

[Blix]

I konw what the Jimquisition's next topic is going to be.

ROFLMAO, almost literally.