In the aftermath of last weeks shock 'announcement' regarding Modern Warfare 2 and its lack of 'multi player-love' for PC Gamers, things are starting to calm down and people are starting to gain perspective.
Initially, when I first heard about the changes to the PC version, my reaction was to never ever buy this game and rip Infinity Ward a new one. I unearthed several petitions and videos and signatures trying to instigate an undoing of what some have dubbed, the worst PC failure since Frontlines: Fuel of War. However, since the start of the week, the outrage seems to have lessened and it got me thinking about the changes and what difference they would actually make to the game itself.
I've always been an avid Call of Duty gamer and have every single PC release of the franchise since the original Call of Duty, so I would like to think I have a pretty good idea of what the formula for a successful addition to the franchise is and what features work and don't work.
What first attracted me to the franchise was the multi player of Call of Duty and it's expansion, United Offensive. It had decent sized maps (Foy being around the size of Karkand for BF2 Players) combined with vehicles and artillery which made for interesting gameplay. Call of Duty 2 removed the vehicles as well as some of the game modes and was the first game in the series where the single player began to stand out. The graphics also looked polished and the performance on even the most mundane of rigs was still pretty efficient.
Call of Duty 4 was definitely the franchise-definer. It took a decent FPS series and made it epic. The single player experience was amped up and became one of the most immersive and awe inspiring that perhaps I've ever played and dare I say it, will ever play? The multi player was also on top form with perks and unlockables which in this day and age, increase the game’s replay value, and make the game an instant classic. Anyone seeking proof of the games success need only go on Xfire or check their friends lists on Xbox Live or PSN. Someone on there will be playing Call of Duty.
I don't know why but World at War wasn't really the same sort of game. Whether it was because of a different developer or my own personal bias toward Infinity Ward, it always felt like the overlooked stepping stone between COD4 and the next instalment by IW. So like everyone else, when you killed Zakhaev on that bridge and watched the credits roll, you knew you were in for a near-unbearable wait for at least 20 months.
Initial press releases and trailers for the next installment didn't give much, if anything, away, save a release date away. These advertisments did, however, engenderthe first debate about the game: the name. An initial plan to drop Call of Duty from the name was dropped because of the fear that consumers might not be wise enough to see that it is by the same makers and company.
Fast forward to last week. We're all waiting for the release date which was finally almost here when the penny doesn't just drop but falls with an all mighty cataclysm. No dedicated servers. No mods. Steam Integration. We've never had this before; it's new territory and most people, when they are onto a good thing, do not like change. Its that old saying, 'If it ain’t broke, don't fix it'. But, they've tried to fix it and, in a lot of peoples minds, broke it.
Tuesday, I priced the game up, looked through some of the trailers and footage that had been released. I even went back and played past COD games and I came to this conclusion. No matter how many people petition and cry about the changes, they won't be undone. That would be a worse business practice than announcing a whole bunch of drastic changes over a fan made podcast.
To quote the Borg, resistance is futile. You are only depriving yourselves with that kind of attitude. It's okay to be mad and upset, but you have to remember that these guys have delivered before, and not just once. There is no reason why they can't pull out another ace this time around.
Written for Total Gaming Network by community member Torchwood
Initially, when I first heard about the changes to the PC version, my reaction was to never ever buy this game and rip Infinity Ward a new one. I unearthed several petitions and videos and signatures trying to instigate an undoing of what some have dubbed, the worst PC failure since Frontlines: Fuel of War. However, since the start of the week, the outrage seems to have lessened and it got me thinking about the changes and what difference they would actually make to the game itself.
I've always been an avid Call of Duty gamer and have every single PC release of the franchise since the original Call of Duty, so I would like to think I have a pretty good idea of what the formula for a successful addition to the franchise is and what features work and don't work.
What first attracted me to the franchise was the multi player of Call of Duty and it's expansion, United Offensive. It had decent sized maps (Foy being around the size of Karkand for BF2 Players) combined with vehicles and artillery which made for interesting gameplay. Call of Duty 2 removed the vehicles as well as some of the game modes and was the first game in the series where the single player began to stand out. The graphics also looked polished and the performance on even the most mundane of rigs was still pretty efficient.
Call of Duty 4 was definitely the franchise-definer. It took a decent FPS series and made it epic. The single player experience was amped up and became one of the most immersive and awe inspiring that perhaps I've ever played and dare I say it, will ever play? The multi player was also on top form with perks and unlockables which in this day and age, increase the game’s replay value, and make the game an instant classic. Anyone seeking proof of the games success need only go on Xfire or check their friends lists on Xbox Live or PSN. Someone on there will be playing Call of Duty.
I don't know why but World at War wasn't really the same sort of game. Whether it was because of a different developer or my own personal bias toward Infinity Ward, it always felt like the overlooked stepping stone between COD4 and the next instalment by IW. So like everyone else, when you killed Zakhaev on that bridge and watched the credits roll, you knew you were in for a near-unbearable wait for at least 20 months.
Initial press releases and trailers for the next installment didn't give much, if anything, away, save a release date away. These advertisments did, however, engenderthe first debate about the game: the name. An initial plan to drop Call of Duty from the name was dropped because of the fear that consumers might not be wise enough to see that it is by the same makers and company.
Fast forward to last week. We're all waiting for the release date which was finally almost here when the penny doesn't just drop but falls with an all mighty cataclysm. No dedicated servers. No mods. Steam Integration. We've never had this before; it's new territory and most people, when they are onto a good thing, do not like change. Its that old saying, 'If it ain’t broke, don't fix it'. But, they've tried to fix it and, in a lot of peoples minds, broke it.
Tuesday, I priced the game up, looked through some of the trailers and footage that had been released. I even went back and played past COD games and I came to this conclusion. No matter how many people petition and cry about the changes, they won't be undone. That would be a worse business practice than announcing a whole bunch of drastic changes over a fan made podcast.
To quote the Borg, resistance is futile. You are only depriving yourselves with that kind of attitude. It's okay to be mad and upset, but you have to remember that these guys have delivered before, and not just once. There is no reason why they can't pull out another ace this time around.
Written for Total Gaming Network by community member Torchwood
Comment