Jesus wept.
…I know I said that I’d find another long Bible
verse for this intro, but there’s something that’s been on my mind. I have a question that needs answering.
Is Call of
Duty terrible? I know that
question’s as loaded as a Gatling gun the size of Montana, but let’s work
through it, shall we?
It should be obvious by now that I don’t like Call of Duty. I don’t like Blops3, and I didn’t like Blops2. One would think that in the years and games
since these two bloppy franchise entries, Infinity Ward and Treyarch and
Sledgehammer and whoever’s working on whatever would’ve figured out how to
evolve the franchise. But I couldn’t
tell you the differences between the last CoD
I played (or was forced to play) and this one. Then again, that’s because I’m a layman -- a
biased fool tangled in the fringes of the franchise.
It’d be like expecting people to know the
differences between Street Fighter III,
IV, and V. To the outsider looking in, all that matters
is that they look different. The nuances
between parries, Focus Attacks, and the V-System are completely lost on those
who don’t even know what DP stands for.
That’s fair. On the other
hand? Those who venture in for even an
hour -- even a minute -- could likely feel the difference between games, no
matter how esoteric they may seem.
Changes are made to the franchise to help it evolve. Some features are added, and some are
dropped. Minute changes under the hood
make for a different experience; not everyone will agree with those changes,
but it’s all in the name of progress, and giving the latest a shot at being the greatest.
Obviously, the nuances of Blops3 are lost on me. I
recognize that some changes have been made under the hood, especially with the
added mobility. Here’s the thing,
though: like I said last time, those changes feel less like evolutions for the
sake of progress -- of reaching that zenith -- and more like gimmicks. A stopgap.
A cheap excuse for innovation.
And some of those changes don’t even feel that innovative; Blops3 has jetpacks and wall-running,
but it’s joining the party late…least of all because the game that came before it also had added mobility.
At its best, Blops3
has features -- but none of those features seem to build toward a cohesive
whole. Oh, so you can double-jump
now? Great! Now you can get shot out of the air just like
the stereotypical Halo noob! You can run on walls! Cool!
Now go find a wall that’s worth running on, especially if you get caught
in a firefight. You’ve got classes with
special attacks! What an exciting
concept that hasn’t been done before and completely changes the game -- at
least when you actually have the energy stocked to use it!
Also, what is the point of customizing your
appearance (or even having one) if you’re playing in first-person and at best
will only see it if you’re among the top three scorers on the winning
team? For a game like Overwatch, it WILL matter because
picking your gunner of choice is tantamount to picking between Zangief and
Dhalsim. Even with a breadth of options,
picking my guy (or gal) in Blops3
feels like I’m choosing between ice cubes and crushed ice.
That would be fine if the gameplay was satisfying.
But it isn’t. I’ve spent most of my time with the game
wishing that I was playing Splatoon instead
(or Overwatch, because boy does that game feel good). I don’t feel satisfied when I score a kill,
even when a bunch of points and medals fly across the screen. It wasn’t a hard-fought battle with tactics
and skill; I just got my shots in before my opponent could -- which is true
whether I run into him in close quarters, or gun him down while he’s on the
horizon.
Even if I’m hampering enemy progress and helping
my teammates score a win, it doesn’t feel like I’m accomplishing anything even
remotely substantial. I score, they die,
they revive, they return, they fight back; that’s a complaint you could lob Splatoon’s way, sure, but the objective
is so bold-faced and inherent that you can always work toward that while
dealing with the side-objective of shooting down enemies.
I said it last time, and I’ll say it here: there’s
no intimacy in Blops3, no passion, no
heat in even the most grisly of firefights.
I feel like an idiot whenever I run and gun, especially when it works. I
feel like an asshole whenever I hang back and camp, and deny others the chance
to play the game. Even when I’m being
cautious and not running out into the
open, I get shot in the back (or front) and die…and I don’t understand why. But at times, I also don’t understand how I scored a kill -- how I came on top in a
situation with terrible odds. Sometimes
it only takes me a bullet or two in any part of the body to down a foe. Other times it’s like I need a whole
clip. Sometimes, the same rules apply to
my foes.
It’s bad enough that a skirmish can’t be
controlled, but when there’s absolutely no way to predict when or how or why
something will happen -- least of all because of the missing map -- matches
become an exercise in more than luck or frustration. It’s all futile. Nothing matters whether you win or lose. It’s all just a roll of the dice, capped off
with the gain of some EXP that goes towards junk that’ll be worthless by this
time next year.
People give CoD
a lot of flak for not innovating year after year, and that’s a legitimate
complaint. But does it matter? If the core gameplay is awful, then what’s
the point of innovation? Can the devs even innovate when their idea of new
features are a bunch of gimmicks slapped onto their latest title like a bunch
of glittery magnets on a broken fridge?
Does it really matter?
I ask this because I played Zombies. It was unpleasant
-- and the fact that we’ve reached a point where we have to consider “Zombies”
its own mode makes my soul shrivel up.
I’d seen a couple of reviews that suggested
Zombies (*agonized scream of internal essence*) this time around was the best
yet -- with lots of production values, and/or a story, and/or Jeff
Goldblum. In the latter’s case, I’ll
refer you to the fifth full paragraph of this post; as far as I can tell, who
gets to play as what character comes down to random chance. It led to situations where by luck of the
draw, I played as the character voiced by Jeff Goldblum several times in a row,
much to my brother’s dismay -- likely because I couldn’t have given an eighth
of a shit. Why does it matter if Jeff
Goldblum is in the game if A) you’ll never see him from a first-person
perspective, B) you’re going to be up to your ass in zombies so you can’t
marvel at his dulcet tones, and C) there’s no discernible difference between
playing as Jeff Goldblum or the blonde starlet next to him?
In the third point’s case, I acknowledge that
there could be minor differences between the playable characters. But that sure isn’t obvious from the outset,
AKA what players will probably see the most.
Sure, teammates will get to see who you are, but it doesn’t really seem
to matter. There are voice clips that
could help with characterization, but those get blanketed by pals shouting
about incoming zombies (or the zombies themselves) and barking out orders at
top speed. Same goes for the story; I’m
assuming that the proper context and progression is offered as you progress
through the level -- of which there is a whopping one without resorting to DLC.
Because what better way is there to celebrate a new game and a beloved
mode than with big fat paywalls?
It should go without saying, but zombies aren’t
the most awe-inspiring threat. Under
normal circumstances, they’re stupid and slow, and will willingly march into
your line of fire. They’ll become fast
zombies as the rounds progress, but their primary form of attack is still to
rush you down (and run into your line of fire).
It’s the same old, same old with the standard enemy, albeit with some
frustrating particulars. For one, the
zombies will appear at random spots throughout the map -- which isn’t exactly a
game-breaker, to be fair (if annoying to deal with). But the map isn’t always conducive to anything
resembling a strategy or defense; with so many openings for zombies to appear
from, I have my doubts that a squad of three, four, or even eight could handle
the massive 2nd area for long.
More pressingly, though? It seems like it takes a random number for
zombies to go down, even if you score headshots. Sometimes their heads will pop right off;
other times they’ll march towards you unimpeded. It wouldn’t be as much of a problem if you
could focus on one or two at a time, but there are situations where you have to
waste so much time and ammo on a single enemy when there are half a dozen
rushing at you…or in some instances, a solid dozen running at top speed,
because the RNG frowned upon you. And that wouldn’t be so bad, except that the
one thing you can count on is that
the player characters can only take two or three hits from a single zombie
before going down. Can you see how that
might be a problem?
It’s true that it is possible to hold a position for a little while before getting
overrun, and there are more enemies than just zombies, however sparing their
appearance -- flying parasite creatures, for one, and hulking demons as
well. But Zombies doesn’t feel fun. Again, it feels like an exercise in
repetition and futility -- doing the same thing over and over until you get it
right. The problem is that it’s hard to
really get it right or learn from past mistakes, because “what went wrong” is a
result of random chance. Which points do
you protect? Which areas do you hole up
in? When do you rush to the next
area? All good questions, but there’s no
solid answer. That wouldn’t be a problem
if the gameplay was satisfying, but it’s not.
I’ve been playing Smash Bros. for ages now, and I’d be lying through my teeth if I
said there wasn’t a random element to it.
But having every match be different works to the games’ advantage,
because it creates infinite longevity with mechanics and aesthetics that
satisfy without fail. And yes, you make
even less progress with even fewer goals (besides win the match), but
at least there’s progress on a journey that’s fun. In Zombies, it feels like I’m just banging my
head against a wall to find something that works. When I lose, it’s right back to the start to
do it all over again. When I take a step
forward, it’s for a mission that I could even begin to care about. Chide me all you want for frowning upon
Zombies, but for me? There’s only one
way to describe the experience.
The only thing that could possibly make me
recommend Blops3 -- by which I mean
“which mode you should play if forced to take part” -- is the local
multiplayer. It still has the same
gameplay problems as always, and there’s another one that gets added: several
of the maps are NOT conducive to playing with three or four people by virtue of
their size. With that said, at least when
you’re playing with two or three people next to you, the combat is actually a
little more focused.
It’s possible to actually get something
accomplished, even if there’s a stop-and-go tempo to the proceedings (i.e.
minutes of nothing happening followed by ten seconds of actual gunplay…if that). And of course, playing in a room with friends
is probably preferable to being shouted at by someone hundreds of miles away
with a mic, a bad attitude, and a salty disposition.
So I have to go back to the question I asked at
the start. Is Call of Duty terrible?
There’s no objective, surefire, indisputable answer to that. Speaking personally and subjectively, I think
that CoD -- in any iteration -- is terrible. I won’t hate anyone for liking it, and I
won’t tell them they’re wrong, but I absolutely cannot see the appeal in this
franchise. Is there even any? For some people, sure. But for others, the hate is entirely
justified.
There are so many better options out there, even
within the genre; anyone who wants to gun down foes isn’t spoiled for choice, I
think (even if we’re still early in the console generation). Okay, sure, not every game needs to be a
treatise on the human condition or an attempt to revolutionize the art form --
but even so, do we have to glom onto this franchise? Do we really?
I only ask because I gave the campaign a
shot. And -- surprise, surprise -- that was a mistake.
*sigh* I’m gonna need another Bible excerpt.
No comments:
Post a Comment