After Call of Duty: Ghosts, I stopped playing the series. The whole futuristic thing turned me off. In the last six years, WWII is the only one I've gotten into and it's nice to see Activision lay off on the future. That's why the Modern Warfare reboot impresses me a lot more and I'm looking to get into when it comes out at the end of October.
It's nice to see single player come back. Being set in the present day or equivalency of it is a breath of fresh air. What I'm curious about is the 64 player online thing and the attempt at being a more tactical game. While I'm betting this sells better than Battlefield games, the idea of it going towards an objective based online leaves me with a lot of questions. A lot more than you realize. On the other hand there is the Spec Ops mode, which is something I loved about Modern Warfare 2. And I hear the new engine is going to be fantastic.
Getting back to modern basics is not a bad thing. If WWII can be refreshing despite not doing anything new, so can this Modern Warfare reboot. Hopefully it steers Call of Duty back in the right direction.
Showing posts with label call of duty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label call of duty. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Call of Prison: Modern Swatting
Swatting has become a lot more common than what some realize. What happened at the end of 2017 has finally seen justice get dispensed. Tyler Barriss is set to serve a 20 year sentence for an incident of swatting that led to the death of a man in Wichita, Kansas.
For a quick synopsis, two guys were arguing over a 1.50 bet in Call of Duty and Barriss decided to do some swatting and gave an address. Unfortunately, police shot and killed Andrew Finch, the victim of the prank who had no involvement with the game or the people involved. Just a bad situation that turned deadly. Combined with previous incidents and this, it's a surprise Barriss didn't get more time. Considering his past, this should hopefully set a precedent.
I read something that the Finch family was trying to get justice on the cops. I feel sorry for them, but these swattings typically involve saying that the person has done something very bad. As much as some would want to see cops have some restraint, when you hear about a man killing his father and looking to set his house on fire, what are they supposed to do? There are real life situations where that does occur. They can't take these false reports lightly because what if it was true? Honestly, cops are in lose lose situations, and this is one of those times where that was the case.
As far as the punishment fitting the crime, it is. I would hope it scares people, but I put serious doubt into that. Until then, it could go either way.
For a quick synopsis, two guys were arguing over a 1.50 bet in Call of Duty and Barriss decided to do some swatting and gave an address. Unfortunately, police shot and killed Andrew Finch, the victim of the prank who had no involvement with the game or the people involved. Just a bad situation that turned deadly. Combined with previous incidents and this, it's a surprise Barriss didn't get more time. Considering his past, this should hopefully set a precedent.
I read something that the Finch family was trying to get justice on the cops. I feel sorry for them, but these swattings typically involve saying that the person has done something very bad. As much as some would want to see cops have some restraint, when you hear about a man killing his father and looking to set his house on fire, what are they supposed to do? There are real life situations where that does occur. They can't take these false reports lightly because what if it was true? Honestly, cops are in lose lose situations, and this is one of those times where that was the case.
As far as the punishment fitting the crime, it is. I would hope it scares people, but I put serious doubt into that. Until then, it could go either way.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Call of Duty WWII Review
The last time I really was into Call of Duty was with Modern Warfare 3 and being on and off with Black Ops II. After that, it stopped intriguing me and became meh. With last year's WWII, it was back to basics. No futuristic stuff. Just getting to its roots once again. It works well and is a phenomenal way to be a very strong shooter.
You got the same American and German weaponry. Stuff like M1 Garands and Panzershrecks will do a lot of damage if you know what you are doing. The controls are like other games in the series. It includes the prone, jumping, and crawling combined with the aiming and firing of weapons and grenades. It actually has a decent story in itself. As Red Daniels, you try to show your worth as a Private to a unit that bonds together in even the toughest of situations during the waning stages of World War II. There's a bit of heart to it despite feeling a bit cliched.
It's a great looking game. The attention to detail in the environment of war is excellent. You feel like you are in the shoes of the Allies going through the snow and grass combined with the destruction of villages and cities. It's very clean and gritty at the same time. Combined with the audio and sound effects, it comes off like a war movie. It's not exactly Saving Private Ryan, but it's close.
For a series that strays from being like Medal of Honor and Battlefield, WWII plays like an old school game. You got health. One of the things that's unique is doing your part in battle and killing enough enemies gets you help from your unit like more ammo or finding out the locations of enemies. There's only 12 levels, but there is enough length and unique playability to not feel like it was another Call of Duty game. With some stealth and plane gameplay in it, they went all out.
There is some difficult moments, but never frustrating unless on the hardest difficulty. The online aspect for the most part is strong. It's like most of the series with the same games and matches. Some glitches here and there along with some poor respawning locations at times, but newcomers should not be upset about not doing well their first time. It'll take time to unlock stuff, but you'll get comfortable. There's still Nazi Zombies and offline split screen multiplayer, giving you the same options. Overall, a complete package that should satisfy a lot of people.
I would definitely try to get into Call of Duty WWII while you still can. As I said, it was back to basics. They succeeded on that, and I hope they try again to do more of this style.
Score: 8 out of 10
You got the same American and German weaponry. Stuff like M1 Garands and Panzershrecks will do a lot of damage if you know what you are doing. The controls are like other games in the series. It includes the prone, jumping, and crawling combined with the aiming and firing of weapons and grenades. It actually has a decent story in itself. As Red Daniels, you try to show your worth as a Private to a unit that bonds together in even the toughest of situations during the waning stages of World War II. There's a bit of heart to it despite feeling a bit cliched.
It's a great looking game. The attention to detail in the environment of war is excellent. You feel like you are in the shoes of the Allies going through the snow and grass combined with the destruction of villages and cities. It's very clean and gritty at the same time. Combined with the audio and sound effects, it comes off like a war movie. It's not exactly Saving Private Ryan, but it's close.
For a series that strays from being like Medal of Honor and Battlefield, WWII plays like an old school game. You got health. One of the things that's unique is doing your part in battle and killing enough enemies gets you help from your unit like more ammo or finding out the locations of enemies. There's only 12 levels, but there is enough length and unique playability to not feel like it was another Call of Duty game. With some stealth and plane gameplay in it, they went all out.
There is some difficult moments, but never frustrating unless on the hardest difficulty. The online aspect for the most part is strong. It's like most of the series with the same games and matches. Some glitches here and there along with some poor respawning locations at times, but newcomers should not be upset about not doing well their first time. It'll take time to unlock stuff, but you'll get comfortable. There's still Nazi Zombies and offline split screen multiplayer, giving you the same options. Overall, a complete package that should satisfy a lot of people.
I would definitely try to get into Call of Duty WWII while you still can. As I said, it was back to basics. They succeeded on that, and I hope they try again to do more of this style.
Score: 8 out of 10
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Why Id Software Had Balanced Hard Difficulty
If you have played a first person shooter that was released between 2004 and today, you will know of the choices in difficulty. Call of Duty is probably the most famous with veteran, the hardest single player difficulty. When some people say it is next to impossible, they don't exaggerate. About two to three shots and you're dead. Some games try to cheapen the experience by adding more damage required to kill an enemy like Duke Nukem Forever. If there is one game that did hard difficulty justice, it was Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.
Id Software knew how to deal with making a game worthy of picking up and playing, as well as making it a challenge without ruining the experience. What helped them with their early efforts was that there was no need to double an enemy's health or require more shots put into them. Taking down an imp with one shot from a shotgun will always be one shot. Or two depending on how far you are. There was always a strategy on how to defeat them and find a way to get through it unscathed. There was no cheap shots to them and you know what you were getting into.
It's a philosophy that has been largely ignored for a long time in favor of going the Call of Duty and Halo route of a couple shots and you're gone. Even Goldeneye, which came out long before those two, had that kind of cheap difficulty combined with a few other cheap factors. The closest to what Doom did was the early Medal of Honor games up until Frontline, Duke Nukem 3D, and maybe Half Life. At least that's what I can think of. Third person games kind of have that same mentality of Halo and Call of Duty, but they are not as bad as those two. And I say that as someone that has beaten a handful of the Call of Duty games on Veteran, and those have a lot of very cheap moments.
If developers want to know how to be pleasing to all audiences, Id's early games are a good indicator. There's a reason Wolfenstein 3D and Doom are considered some of the greatest games ever.
Id Software knew how to deal with making a game worthy of picking up and playing, as well as making it a challenge without ruining the experience. What helped them with their early efforts was that there was no need to double an enemy's health or require more shots put into them. Taking down an imp with one shot from a shotgun will always be one shot. Or two depending on how far you are. There was always a strategy on how to defeat them and find a way to get through it unscathed. There was no cheap shots to them and you know what you were getting into.
It's a philosophy that has been largely ignored for a long time in favor of going the Call of Duty and Halo route of a couple shots and you're gone. Even Goldeneye, which came out long before those two, had that kind of cheap difficulty combined with a few other cheap factors. The closest to what Doom did was the early Medal of Honor games up until Frontline, Duke Nukem 3D, and maybe Half Life. At least that's what I can think of. Third person games kind of have that same mentality of Halo and Call of Duty, but they are not as bad as those two. And I say that as someone that has beaten a handful of the Call of Duty games on Veteran, and those have a lot of very cheap moments.
If developers want to know how to be pleasing to all audiences, Id's early games are a good indicator. There's a reason Wolfenstein 3D and Doom are considered some of the greatest games ever.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Call of Duty: WW2 Switch Speculation
When Call of Duty debuted in 2003, it was an alternative to the Medal of Honor games. Both were set in World War II and featured different approaches the series started. Of course, it has changed routes over the years beginning with Modern Warfare in 2007 and the series is going back to where it started for them. For WW2, it's a change that might be refreshing to some. As far as releases go, it's obvious it will make it to the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and computers. However, rumors are coming of another version.
How true this could be, I don't know. Supposedly, there is a Nintendo Switch version being developed by Beenox Games. They have made a number of games for Activision, which includes some Call of Duty games. If the rumors are true, it will be a nice addition for the Switch library, especially to have a third party game. The series has been on other Nintendo systems going back to the GameCube era with Finest Hour. The Wii got five games in the series, and the DS handheld got four. No game made it to the 3DS and the Wii U only got two games, with Ghosts being the last one overall for any Nintendo system.
While I wouldn't expect it to be a seller like the other systems and computers, it could definitely do well on the Switch if it is developed. It's been a long time since we've seen a World War II game come out of a big name company or franchise. Medal of Honor's last WWII games were in 2007. Call of Duty's was World at War in 2008. I think going back to its roots somewhat will get people back on board with the series. It's not a huge guarantee on the Switch, but it might be that way for the other systems.
I would hope it's true, because the Switch still needs to show it can be more than a first party/Mario box after this Christmas season in six, seven months. Nintendo has some heavy hitters beginning in July. They need to keep the momentum going to get third party companies on board and have them stay with them. A Call of Duty game could be a big help.
How true this could be, I don't know. Supposedly, there is a Nintendo Switch version being developed by Beenox Games. They have made a number of games for Activision, which includes some Call of Duty games. If the rumors are true, it will be a nice addition for the Switch library, especially to have a third party game. The series has been on other Nintendo systems going back to the GameCube era with Finest Hour. The Wii got five games in the series, and the DS handheld got four. No game made it to the 3DS and the Wii U only got two games, with Ghosts being the last one overall for any Nintendo system.
While I wouldn't expect it to be a seller like the other systems and computers, it could definitely do well on the Switch if it is developed. It's been a long time since we've seen a World War II game come out of a big name company or franchise. Medal of Honor's last WWII games were in 2007. Call of Duty's was World at War in 2008. I think going back to its roots somewhat will get people back on board with the series. It's not a huge guarantee on the Switch, but it might be that way for the other systems.
I would hope it's true, because the Switch still needs to show it can be more than a first party/Mario box after this Christmas season in six, seven months. Nintendo has some heavy hitters beginning in July. They need to keep the momentum going to get third party companies on board and have them stay with them. A Call of Duty game could be a big help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)