“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the
LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.”
--Jeremiah 29:11-12
--Jeremiah 29:11-12
All right.
One for the road.
Don’t worry.
We’ll get through the campaign together. Or...part of it at least. So let's go ahead and get bloppy one last time.
This would normally be the part where I give a
quick summary of the plot, but in this case, I’m at a loss. Like…was I not paying attention? Is my memory failing me? Am I that
biased? Or did I just tap out before
I could even understand the plot? The
latter question probably holds water most, because I quit the game at maybe the hour-and-a-half mark -- in the
middle of someone’s sentence, no less, but I’ll get to that.
The important thing is that I kind of understand some of the things, if not all of
them. You start off as a soldier-man out
to rescue a captured and tortured prime minister in Africa. But then the mission goes awry, and you end
up getting your limbs torn off by robots.
And then you get the cyborg treatment so you can…uh…go after terrorists? I assume so, because who else would it
be? (Well, one of the earlier games made
all of South America the enemy, so
it’s not like there isn’t a historical precedent of insane premises.) Oh, and all of this is taking place about
fifty years in the future, so you know.
SUPERIOR TECH.
Probably the first thing that’ll jump out to most
people is that you can choose between playing as a male soldier or a female
soldier. Apparently, the CoD masterminds have thrown players a
bone. But there’s a caveat; for
starters, the male and female options aren’t exactly diverse. The hairstyles, such as they are, come in a
couple of variations before breaking out the palette swaps. I guess it doesn’t matter in the long run, because
you’re playing a first-person game -- and while your character will talk on
occasion, it’s not nearly enough to suggest he/she actually has a character.
The more pressing issue is that of the selectable
choices, all of the characters are white.
I mean sure, some of them have a bit of a tan so you could maybe say they’re a different ethnicity,
but apparently making a straight-up black guy was too much to ask. I wouldn’t normally be a stickler about this
-- I picked a guy with the bushiest beard of the bunch -- but this is another
installment in a franchise that’s long since established itself as a chance for
virtual burly white dudes to shoot all the brown dudes they can. It’s…unfortunate, to say the least.
But let’s set that aside for now. I’ve been mulling it over, and I think I know
what the problem with Blops3 is -- because
it’s not only a problem Yahtzee of Zero
Punctuation fame has had over the years, but also a problem I had with Blops2: the campaign is in such a hurry
to go nowhere fast. The first thing you
see are a bunch of images and blather about how the world has changed in this
future timeline -- but by the time you even begin to process that it’s a
sort-of-but-not-really post-apocalypse, it’s time for you to start your
mission. And then you’re crashing a
plane into an enemy base for some reason, and then you’re shooting a bunch of
(mostly) non-white dudes, and then the prime minister and his friend are
shooting alongside you, and your squad mates show up throughout the mission,
and Christ I need to take a breath.
What is the point of going so fast? What are they trying to get to? More half-hearted shooting at distant targets
while being surrounded by partner AI that’s too dumb to shoot at people ten
feet in front of them? I sure hope it’s
not the spectacle, because there’s a sequence where you ride around in an
armored vehicle and shoot at stuff -- and I swear to God, I have never seen
more explosions per second in anything, ever…and I was still bored out of my mind.
I have no anchor for this story. I don’t know what the world is like. I don’t know what the countries, allied or
enemy, are like. I don’t know who Taylor
is, or who Hendricks is, or who Hall is.
I don’t know what the objective is.
Blops3 is always in a rush to
the next big moment, the next big firefight, the next setpiece, but it’s not
willing to do the work to make those moments matter. There’s not nearly enough context for
anything that happens, which is kind of important when you’re dealing with geopolitical
issues in a world so far-removed from ours.
I at least managed to parse out the line “He is a
terrorist, after all”, so I guess that’s all that matters. Find the terrorist and kill him. Or capture him, or stop him, or whatever;
either way, it’s nice to know that the only thing that’s advanced from Blops2 to Blops3 -- in-universe or out of it -- is the technology. Lord knows it’s not the plot. Speaking of which, the technology level in
this game opens up a LOT of questions that the devs probably weren’t prepared
to answer.
Okay, so you bring down a plane on an enemy base
-- at least I hope it’s an enemy base
-- and then start your rescue mission.
So I guess the idea is to use the plane as a distraction so you can go
on the offensive, while the baddies stay busy with cleanup. But then it turns out that you’ve got guys on
your team that can turn invisible via cloaking technology -- and I just sat
there asking, “Wait, you can turn invisible?
Why aren’t we using that all the
time?!” The ability to turn
invisible would’ve probably worked wonders for the mission, but I guess we had
to do the running-and-gunning from straight out of the CoD playbook.
I’d say there’s a disparity in the enemy’s
technology and the player team’s, but then it turns out they’ve got a robot
army on tap. So I’m like, “Wait, you
guys have a robot army? Then why are you
bothering with soldiers?” I mean, the
robots still go down hard and fast to your standard bullets, despite what your
squad implies. Soooooooooooo…I guess
they’re just there for a dramatic reveal as they march through smoke? And their menace is diminished minutes later
when I mow through them en masse in a turret section?
Also, I’m confused. If Blops3
is supposed to be willing (if not eager) to toss out cyborg soldiers, then
why doesn’t the player start as one? Why
does he have to go into a mission with the usual suite of guns, grenades, and
flesh if he or anyone else can become a cyborg that can run on walls,
double-jump, see through walls, and hack enemy technology to either control it
at whim or destroy it outright? The only
drawback I can think of (besides costs and resources, which don’t get
established at all because of course they
don’t) is that it means he’d be implanted with the DNI system, which --
thanks to a glitch that I suspect only exists to inject “drama” into the plot
-- can force users to have PTSD flashbacks, only even more intense.
That opens up more questions than I’m willing to
tackle, so let’s focus on something else.
There’s a negative consequence to Blops3
in making its player-character a non-character, even more so than usual. The question that the game needs to answer
immediately is “Why is this soldier such an integral part of the mission?” Obviously, they wanted to make sure their
fallen friend got help. Fine. But from then on they act like he’s the
missing link to the puzzle -- like he’s the one who’ll stop terrorism forever. But he’s a rookie, if not with DNI
shenanigans, then on the battlefield.
So why, when time is of the essence and the world
is in danger, are trained soldiers who know cybernetics and the DNI inside out
bothering to train a rookie who almost bit it in the game’s inaugural
mission? Wat makes him so special,
especially since -- in typical CoD fashion
-- you’re just following the orders, suggestions, and even motions of an AI
partner? Why bother with the player if
Hendricks is the true MVP of the team?
The answer to that is simple. Terrible, but simple. Big boss Taylor approaches the player and
tells him that “he’s turning into a badass motherfucker”. And that’s when I turned the game off.
It’s indulgent design all over again. It’s not about imparting themes or informing
the player. It’s not about telling a
good story, or even providing some genuine thrills. It’s all about making the player feel like
the coolest guy in the room -- pandering with cheap spectacle and a story less
interested in having any substance, and more interested in coddling the player. Except Blops3
can’t even manage that; you’re tethered to an AI partner telling you what
to do and when to do it, and congratulates you when you do it like a master
giving his dog a treat. So basically, CoD can’t even get that right; it’s
feeding you candy, but it’s candy made from the refuse of the average
trough. And that’s not even the worst
part.
So. Let’s
get real for a second.
You know, a blog that talks at length about video
games and such probably isn’t the best place to bring up politics. But here we are again with another CoD that has soldiers clawing at the
concept of nobility taking on a nebulous threat -- terrorists, foreign powers,
whatever -- for reasons that aren’t readily immediate. I’ve
talked at length about how
there’s something VERY unsettling about the fact that these games (and
others like them) would glorify warfare and the life of a soldier, and I stand
by that. If anything, I stand by it more
than ever because of the reminders we’ve received from the real world.
France has seen a major tragedy recently. People have died. There’s been panic and confusion. And even if some of the attackers have been
taken care of, that doesn’t wash away the fact that said attackers found some
semblance of victory. If they wanted to
cause terror, then they did it. We may
not be able to fully understand their reasoning for it, but those responsible
are real people with real grievances, and were so steadfast in their beliefs
that they would hurt innocent people.
They’re monstrous, but they’re still human. That shouldn’t be forgotten, no matter how
much justice wants -- or needs -- to be served. But it IS forgotten, all for the sake of "fun".
It’s true that this and future conflicts will be
resolved by brave men and women stepping up to fight for their ideals. That’s appreciable. But it won’t be simple, and it won’t be
clean. I thought that the U.S. learned
that over the past decade-and-a-half; whether you’re dealing with terrorists,
countries, or anyone dissenting, the moment you pull out a gun, the
conversation changes. Drastically.
War is hell.
No amount of idealization -- or defanging -- is going to change
that. So if you’re going to talk about
it with fiction, you’d damn well better know what you’re doing. If you’re serious, be serious. If you’re parodic, be parodic. It’s not a forbidden topic, but it requires
tact to even begin to approach -- because talking about war can get almost as
messy as the wars themselves.
Call of
Duty doesn’t have that tact. As far
as I can tell, it doesn’t care. Either
the people behind it are incapable of moving their beloved breadwinner even an
inch toward something tolerable, or they know that they only have to do the
bare minimum to “succeed”. They think
that evolution of the franchise comes down to adding in more female characters,
but that doesn’t mean jack shit of they don’t have even a fragment of a
personality.
Really, they act like they’re more concerned with
showing off new technology for the player to screw around with, or at least
engage with passively. Look at
this! Look at that! Here’s a cool thing! There’s a cool thing happening! Don’t worry, stop thinking! No need to worry about who, what, where,
when, why, or how! Just let us lull you
into a deep sleep! There’s a treat in it
for you! You’re such a cool guy for
doing exactly what we expect of you! Now
enjoy our terrible game!
It’s easy to assume the worst of the devs (and I have), whoever has CoD duty for the year. But it’s worth remembering that they’re people too; they have wants and needs, opinions and reasoning that absolutely have to be respected. With that said, there’s no reason to respect their product when their product can’t or won’t respect players. Each new game provides opportunities to evolve. To have substance. To lay the naysayers to rest. But that hasn’t happened yet, and I’m starting to doubt that it ever will happen. “Why challenge when you can indulge?” the game asks as it lounges on its chair and munches on grapes.
Why, indeed.
I mean, it’s not like gamers like good things. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of options
for good games, shallow, deep, or anything in between. Gamers just want to play the same game they
played year after year with no perceivable changes to the formula -- a formula
in dire need of repair. They’ve got no
problem with random, unsatisfying combat that has no sense of progress beyond
the cheap thrill of a downed foe. They
revel in the chance to repeat the same modes over and over again as long as
there’s something to shoot.
And story?
Themes? Ideas? Quality?
There’s no time for that. Gamers
just need someone to stroke their
egos and tell them how cool they are, even if it’s not earned. Especially
if it’s not earned. They just want
slop from the trough, year after year after year -- and they hope you continue
to provide. They hope that in a changing
world full of complexity and uncertainty, you pare everything down to “shoot
this thing because it’s fun”.
Oh, wait. I
lied. None of that is true.
So that’s another triple-A production that I can
say “screw you” to. The list is getting
shorter all the time…so maybe I’ll do myself a favor and dive back into my
wheelhouse.
Come on. What’s
the worst that could happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment