Playing War

Children Playing War - Marc Awoday

I finally got around to play Modern Warfare 2 last week, about an eternity later than everyone else on the planet, and I can now make an informed critique about it. I didn’t touch the multiplayer for two reasons; the first is that I rarely play online games on Xbox or any other consoles for that matter (blame the kids) and the second is my fear of catching on of those crazy bug/glitch/hack that are spreading around like a bad flu.

The single player campaign took me a few hours to complete, one or two of those hours due to my bad habit of dying, and I can resume the plot with one word: ridiculous. Of course, was I to expect some Shakespearian storytelling and deep meaningful talk about the nature of war and humankind? No. But I wasn’t expecting snowmobiles and boat chases either.

Right now I must be beating a record by spending two paragraphs not talking about the now infamous “No Russians” mission. I will fulfil my duty as a blogger and give my opinion about it. Actually, let me resume my opinion first with one more single word: Bullshit.

Apart from the ridiculous setting-up to the mission where you go from being a soldier shooting rebels in Afghanistan to an undercover agent who is strangely the new best friend of a Russian terrorist (and you go from A to B in a day, can you smell the trap), what really kills me about that mission is the amazingly awkward tonal shift between it and the previous and following missions.

Seriously, five minutes before that mission you are jumping ravines on a snowmobile, something straight out of a James Bond movie, and five minutes after said mission you are gunning your way through small Brazilian streets and rooftops. And stuck in the middle of those two scenes that could come from a Michael Bay movie you are asked to “sacrifice a part of your soul” to arrest a crazy Russian (news flash, the cold war’s long over) terrorist.

The scene by itself, and with a good story around it, could have been a very poignant moment of interactivity where you are tasked to do something you would normally never do. Something that goes directly against the notion of the war-game FPS where you most avoid civilian casualties at all cost, something that goes against your very cognitive response. You could have dropped the controller afterward and ask yourself “What can bring human beings to do such a thing in the real life?” But no, it didn’t happen.

Badly handled, it became a shock tactic. Sure, it sets up the remaining of the story but at what cost? You just spent five minutes slowly walking through hell only to get killed at the end in a mildly ironic way. Great, IW took a page from Bioshock and made you feel like a puppet. What now? I’m supposed to go back into the game like nothing happened, back to some kind of high adrenaline military shooter where I shoot evil Russian soldiers and mercenaries. Oh and some Americans at the end for good measure.

This is one of the worst tonal shifts I’ve seen in a long time in any kind of medium.

That being said, if you listen to the word around the blogs and some less than scientific surveys, two out of three MW2 players will never touch the single player campaign, preferring the competitive side of the multiplayer. Fine by me. Not everyone’s into games for the same reasons.

I’ll make a quick mention of the defensive arguments some fans of the game gave to some criticisms like mine. The goldmine probably is the comments section on Tom Chick’s brilliant take on the issue at Fidgit.

I can detect three kinds of defense, the first being the now infamous “it’s just a game” defense and any of its multiple variation. I won’t go back on why this argument is completely bogus; a bunch of more intelligent people than me already did it a bunch of times already. The second is “It’s rated M so stop whining”. Being rated M is not a license to be dumb and shocking for shock’s sake. If anything, it undermines the idea of M for “Mature”.

At the last one is the beautiful “If you don’t like it don’t play it and stop talking about it”. A whole three pages post could be dedicated just to that single argument but I’ll cut it short. People can have opinion and express them. I don’t know why some gamers have that insane fear of talking about games in a mature and critical way. Maybe they are just afraid that they couldn’t keep up.

I've got a plan.

My plan is simple. Each week until IGF 2010, that's about 16 weeks if my calculations are alright, I will make a review of one of the 306 entries for this year's IGF. And I may even try to get the GW community to get interested in indie gaming by making them participate in some way.

I guess I'm putting this together pretty quickly but I needed to get a post out here to at least force me to actually make it. I'll iron out the details this week but I have a name: The Road to IGF 2010.

Critic vs. review

From Destructoid:

"However, I'd suggest that all contributors to the specialist games media should err on the side of criticism - they are, after all, writing for gamers, not casual onlookers who happened to have glanced a game review while looking through a newspaper."

I totally agree on that point. The issue here is that most gamers don't make the difference between a review and a critic. A review is simply pointing out the pros and the cons of a game in order to give an idea if I should or not buy the game. A critic may give a quick overview of those points but will rather look at the themes of the game's story, the different gameplay methods used and if it's relevant to the media as an whole, especially to such a young media as gaming. Games like Mirror's Edge needs reviews and critics to look at both side of the issue. One to look at "if gamers are gonna like it" and the other to look if it will leave a mark in the history of the medium which will interest more the academics than the gamers.

It's also a matter of where you're looking. If I want a deep critic of a game, I'll go to the escapist, not Destructoid.

Also @ Cyberxion
"Why does Wario get slammed almost entirely for its lack of innovation, whereas a game like Megaman 9 gets a pass? "

It's because Wario as the pretencion of being a new game but does little to actually do anything new. From a reviewers standpoint, it may not be a bad thing ; don't fix what isn't broken, but from a critic point of view that game isn't really relevant. Megaman 9 on the other was made to be some kind of window to an older era. It gives a glimpse to younger gamer of how it was back in the days. It's like making a movie in black and white in 2008. The style (and gameplay in the case of a game) is the same but they rely on modern technology. You may argue that gameplay evolved since then and you are right but gameplay is also a very important aspect of the medium and had to be the same for the main goal of the game from a critic standpoint "opening a window to the early NES era" to succeed.