The post The perils of innovation, and why Bloodborne is more like CoD than you think appeared first on Game News.
]]>And you know what? We’re wrong. Not just in our mad faith in the ability of collective snark to alter the very fabric of reality, but in our conviction that samey CoD sequels are stupid. Are they out of sync with our refined, artistically-minded definition of what our storied medium of digital explodey men should aspire to? Yes. They’re slick, production-line gratification toys for a very mainstream audience. The Big Mac of FPS.

But you know what else Call of Duty sequels and Big Macs have in common, aside from limited nutritional value? They both make a terrifying amount of money by making a lot of people happy. Because while individuals – with their agendas, and personalities, and predilections, and identities, and viewpoints – will very often, with total justification, identify radical reinvention and creative exploration as being important in both art and entertainment, people, collectively, like reassuring familiarity.
That’s why films with recognisable stars are more successful than perhaps better films without them. As Nathan points out in his excellent discussion (opens in new tab) of the matter, stars forge a comforting meta-relationship between audience and entertainment. They exist in our minds as hybrids of their work and real lives, immediately ingratiating us to their new projects via those projects’ association with that imagined persona.
But it isn’t just about people. If you’ll excuse me a rather disgusting, but alas unavoidable, transgression into corporate twat-speak, it’s about ‘brand values’ (sorry). That imaginary portmanteau of actor and career isn’t enticing simply because of the perceived human connection it lends to a product. It’s enticing because the particular shape of its persona will instill an abstract sense of a project’s identity long before there’s anything tangible to show. Vin Diesel signing to a film makes a very different statement than the hiring of Russell Crowe. Immediately that first film appeals to a very different – and much cooler, sexier – audience.

And brand values (sorry again) take many forms. And gameplay, particularly in long-running series, is certainly one. While sequels do need to evolve and grow in order to remain gratifying and relevant, they absolutely need to do that within a warm, reassuring framework of familiarity. Call of Duty is smart in that respect. Because whatever the cynical web forum perception, Call of Duty has evolved immensely. And the precise reason that those who disparage the series haven’t noticed is that Call of Duty really understands how this stuff works.
If you need proof, play Call of Duty 4. Then play Advanced Warfare (opens in new tab). You’ll find that the two games are radically different experiences, sharing the same, tight core shooting mechanics but using them to underpin completely different styles of pacing, game-flow, presentation and interaction in both campaign and multiplayer. The reason that many didn’t notice the transition over the eight years between the two games is that CoD has delivered it as a gradual drip-feed, drastically shifting the focus of the series, while ensuring that no single entry alienated its audience with radical reinvention. That’s why it has maintained and grown its monumental success.
If you need further convincing, let’s move away from the mainstream and into the more reassuring, left-field, hardcore area that we’re all more comfortable discussing (and yes, I’m using an abstracted form of brand values to make this segue work). Let’s talk about Hotline Miami 2 (opens in new tab). Not a bad game, but good Lord, is it ever one that misses the boat in terms of delivering a satisfying sequel. Hotline 2, you see, does the opposite of what CoD has been doing. It delivers its evolutions with too much enthusiasm, throwing in three or four games worth of new gameplay spins with a wild disregard for player comfort.

With its ruthlessly prescribed procession of gimmicks, set-pieces, and radical shifts in focus, it forces its many changes from the original game’s experience down the player’s throat. It’s bad enough that so many of its new ideas are so out of step with the essence of what makes its precursor work, but what’s worse on an experiential level is that its misfires are delivered in a way that constantly forces the player out of their comfort zone, making it impossible to comfortably acclimatise.
Conversely, Bloodborne (opens in new tab), for all of its fundamental changes from Dark Souls (opens in new tab), pulls off the transition flawlessly. The game’s core combat – ie. the key means by which players interact with their surroundings in both games – could not be more different on a surface level. While both demand puristic, focused care, Bloodborne is a fast, flowing carnival of aggression, where Dark Souls is a slow, plodding, methodical exercise in defence. It should be an utterly jarring change, but it isn’t. The reason for this is that Bloodborne, like Call of Duty, embeds the new in a comfortable structure of familiarity.
The arcane, inexplicit way it delivers discovery of its mechanics – both immediate and in terms of its overall framework – is exactly the same as the way Dark Souls forces the player to slowly, gradually explore its possibilities. The skeleton of stats, character development, weapon levelling, and – most crucially – rinse and repeat gameplay loops is immediately familiar, even if what the player does within those loops is very different.

Any Souls player instantly understands how to tackle this new world and new set of interactions, the in-road being exactly the same, even as the scenery and destination are unfamiliar. It’s a fresh, invigorating, surprising journey taken in a tried and trusted vehicle.
And you know what? A lot of the same people who lambaste Call of Duty for trading on the familiar are currently transitioning from Dark Souls to Bloodborne with a ferociously giddy enthusiasm. And while they’re praising the freshness, the excitement, the new things to do, and the seemingly radical reinventions that they’ll be laughing at CoD for not having in eight months time, they’re very possibly not realising that the reason they can enjoy all of those brilliant things is that Grand Overlord Miyazaki has – from Demon’s Souls, to Dark Souls, to Bloodborne – been working not so differently from Activision all along.
The post The perils of innovation, and why Bloodborne is more like CoD than you think appeared first on Game News.
]]>The post 15 of the best Call of Duty moments in the history of the series appeared first on Game News.
]]>Starting with the original Call of Duty, this is a game that’s been putting us in the boots of larger-than-life soldiers in some of the most intense combat moments you could imagine for a long time. Let’s reflect on some of the most memorable moments that have defined the series.
SPOILERS AHEAD, read at your own risk!

Very rarely do you get to know the exact motivations behind a psychopathic villain, but in Call of Duty: Black Ops II, you get to witness Raul Menendez’s plight from his own eyes–bloodshot, rage-filled eyes. In a CIA raid to capture Menendez, his sister Josefina is taken from him, sending the antagonist into a murderous frenzy. With nothing but a shotgun, machete, and blind rage, you rampage through the nearby town, slaughtering every soldier that stands in your way. Bullets can’t hurt you, you shrug off grenades, and you attack your victims like a man possessed. What a rush.

Mission 2 of Advanced Warfare is a bit of whirlwind. One minute you’re meeting your slain best friend’s father at a funeral, the next you’re rescuing the Commander-in-Chief from a hostage situation at Camp David. What’s going on? When your shiny new prosthetic arm malfunctions and a colleague shoots the POTUS in the head, it suddenly becomes clear – this overblown, oh-so-CoD mission is just a VR simulation. It’s a miniature twist, and a nice introduction to AW’s future-tech. Also, Kevin Spacey’s all over it, which is always fun.

To kick off the new setting for Call of Duty: Ghosts, Infinity Ward brought out the biggest guns they could get: a weaponized space station orbiting right above the United States. As the astronaut Baker, you and your partner witness the Federation hijack the station, gun down its crew, and launch nuclear missiles towards southern California. But what you have to do gets even more insane. As in, get-blown-out-into-space, shoot-any-bad-guys-you-see, then commit-suicide-to-save-the-world kind of insane.

Black Ops II did something that no other Call of Duty campaign had done before: it let you make choices. But one of those choices might’ve passed without you even knowing it happened. The young Mason and Woods have tracked down the murderous extremist, Raul Menendez, who was betrayed by his allies. With a blinding cloth draped over his head, Menendez is displayed in front of Woods, who has a sniper rifle in hand, ready to gun the madman down. You’re given control. You take the shot. But as you inspect the body, you discover that you shot Alex Mason instead! Dun dun dun. Guess you should’ve shot him in the leg, a subtle choice which gives you a completely different ending.

CoD fans have spent years campaigning for a return to the battlefields of the past – in cheeky fashion, Black Ops 3 gave them what they wanted. Entering the mind of the dying Sarah Hall (don’t ask), you’re thrust into 1944’s Siege of Bastogne, taking down Nazi threats with tech a century ahead of theirs. Quickly, things get weird(er), as the world starts folding in on itself, Inception-style, gravity begins to turn off, and zombies and direwolves start popping up. It’s all very meaningful, I’m sure.

And there we were thinking Modern Warfares breathless airplane-based bonus mission Mile High Club was pretty special. But then MW3s Turbulence comes along and takes in-flight combat to the next level – protecting the Russian president from hijackers in the claustrophobic space of a jet is high-stakes stuff on its own. Then, the engines stall out and the dive sends you into a sequence of zero gravity shooting and a crash landing that rips the aircraft fuselage in two. True action film fare.

A wonderfully paced, rising crescendo of a level. At first requiring a softly-softly snipey-snipey approach, with the relative peacefulness of the forest creating an edgy atmosphere, the player never quite knowing where the next Nazis going to spring from. Then it kicks things up a notch, with the battle intensifying as it moves between tight burrow-like trenches and wide-open spaces. Finally and a complete contrast to the cautious way the mission starts youre given a mortar to play with, allowing you to merrily blow apart any of Hitlers helmeted hobgoblins unfortunate enough to still be lurking in the forest.

“Best” is perhaps not quite the right word for this entry, but it’s undoubtedly one of the series’ most effective, affecting missions. No Russian places you in the shoes of an undercover agent in a terrorist cell. Quickly, you understand just what that asks of you. You enter an airport and are told to mow down everyone you see, regardless of who they are. It’s a video game mission that’s sparked protest, academic study and genuine soul-searching. There’s very little else like it in the medium.

Starts with a fellow soldier in the landing craft having a fear-induced puke. BLEEUURGH. This is quickly followed by the sound of bullets whizzing through the air. Then clouds of red mist as those bullets thud into flesh. Soldiers fall to the ground. Spray from a near-miss explosion obscures your view. Then the ramp is down and youre running on to the beach. MORTAR BOOM. Down you go. Cue semi-deafened shell-shocked horror of war moment as you survey the scene around you. When you regain your senses the metaphorical implications of the vertical cliff face ahead of you become apparent. Your role to this point is one of spectator, but its still a breathless couple of minutes.
Current page:
Page 1
The post 15 of the best Call of Duty moments in the history of the series appeared first on Game News.
]]>