Yarr. I owe you guys a post or two. Let's see what I can do about that, shall we? Cause I've been playing the Massive Action Game (MAG) Beta on PS3, and it is quite interesting indeed. I likes it, but it's a very strange beast.
First off, the game allows you to pick from three factions- Valor, Raven, and S.V.E.R. (pronounced "Sever"). Each faction has a different feel to it, and I don't have any census numbers or anything, but it seems like Raven and Valor severely outnumber S.V.E.R. This is probably due to their core concepts. Valor is meant to seem like the US military (even though they're all mercenary groups)- skilled, experienced, and packing hardware that is tried and true, but still fresh and modern. Like the M4. Not cutting edge, but by the same token, weapons that have already proven themselves. The group itself has the same kind of feel. Unity, strength, honor. Valor.
Then there's Raven- the one I'm in. They're the high tech European guys. I would imagine they're supposed to remind you of the SAS or GIGN- their gear is slick as SHIT. I'm currently wielding a FN F2000 with reflex sight, verticle handgrip and suppresser. I can't do suppressive or wild fire because my gun is too accurate even on full auto. It's terrifying and awesome. Blastin' people in the head with a five round burst from a hundred yards was never so satisfying. Anyway. So they are arrogant, superior, and super high tech. Lots of blues, greys, and blacks. One of my favorite mission briefings from the beta is for when Raven is defending itself from a Valor attack- the briefer makes a very snide remark about being able to defend itself from "any cowboy incursion". It's awesome. Stereotyped European elitist- fun for the whole family.
Then there's S.V.E.R. At first, looking at their weapons- AKs and the like- I figured it would a Spetnaz-alike group- out of date weapons, but rugged, vicious, and with such incredible battle experience that they stood toe-to-toe with the others. Instead, they're pitched as being "like a gang." They graffiti, they vandalize, they improvise. ...Seriously? Why would ANYONE hire these retards? If you have a choice between the SAS and some bangers with AKs, how nuts would you have to be to pick the gang members? Gangs work for what they are- barely organized crime. They do not stand a chance against a professional military organization. It's illogical and frankly pretty insulting to the other two groups. I like AKs, I'm glad they're in the game. But can we get a less lametarded faction for them?
Speaking of weapons, we need to talk about weapon balance. I'm fairly certain the faction weapons have the same stats comparitively, there's no question there. Especially because my state of the art Raven light machine gun (not the F2000, a different gun I've played around with a little) is astonishingly inaccurate. My concern is more about the customizable weapon loadouts. Take my aforementioned weapon- my FN F2000 with reflex sight, suppressor, and verticle handgrip. The reflex sight gives me incredible accuracy and line of sight, the suppressor makes me not show up on radar when I fire, and the handgrip controls recoil. The gun itself is already extremely accurate, fully automatic, and has a 30 round clip. I've also upgraded my character's skill with reloading and stablizing assault rifles. So basically, this gun is like a point and click adventure- point and click, and you solved the puzzle, baddy is dead.
It's ridiculous. I'm not even that skilled of a player, but I'm kicking ass with this terrifying weapon. But, of course, I must have made major sacrifices to have this loadout, right? My other equipment must be suffering? Not in the least. I still have a pistol sidearm, a welding torch for repairing mission objectives, medium body armor, and a freaking ROCKET LAUNCHER. Oh, and I'm about to unlock an underbarrel grenade launcher, and will probably switch my handgrip for that. I may have to get rid of the welding torch for that, I'm not sure. But does that sound even REMOTELY like a logical sacrifice? The weapon loadouts BEG to be exploited and broken. I just want a sexy looking gun. I'm as surprised as anyone about what a terror it turned out to be.
The level design, too, seems pretty spotty. There are two maps in the beta- they are so huge, though, and you deploy in different areas each time, so it took me quite a while to figure that out. Considering this, I suppose they've done a pretty excellent job. However, the brown map (there's a more brown one and a more grey one) has some questionable areas, and one of the deployments (there's left, middle, and right, I'm not sure which this is) is just plain pisspoor. The attackers are expected to rush down a gigantic boardwalk killzone to reach their objective, covered by no less than four bunkers with top-mounted gatling guns and rocket launchers. They do this with no vehicle support, and the whole front line is MADE of chokepoints. It's a defender's dream come true, it's a bloody shooting gallery. Perhaps in the final version they can add a minefield just to add insult to injury. The second time I played that part of the map, I nearly walked away from my console when the match started, and as it turned out, that wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match. It's insane.
And speaking of affecting the outcome of the map... this isn't a design flaw, per say, just a problem inherent with the game. These matches are 256 people- two teams of 128. That's a terrifying, staggering, mind-blowing number. It is a technical marvel that it works, and when you're caught in the thick of a final assault or last stand, the rush is incredible. The problem is... when your teammates don't work with you, don't work together, or if you just get stranded, you count for NOTHING. There are isolated instances where you feel like you made a major difference in the battle, but many firefights will come and go, and you will wonder if you are making any kind of a difference at all. After all, if you were to just quit, it would then be 127 on 128- hardly overwhelming odds. On the one hand, I think it helps people get some perspective on how they really aren't as important as they think they are... but when you can pull off a thirteen kill streak, plant three charges at strategic locations, and jack an enemy APC, and the battle does not change at ALL because of that... it's incredibly discouraging.
I've clocked maybe five hours in the game, and I'm enjoying myself quite a bit. The beta is only up at set times every day- a strange setup- so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to play again, but I am looking forward to doing so. It's a very rough game... its potential is vast, I suppose, but in the short term, that just means it has more problems to work out.
October 15, 2009
October 12, 2009
Premium is a Good Word
It's been a few posts since I talked about WoW... but guess what! I actually don't have anything to talk about there. I haven't played much recently (comparatively), and though there's some cool stuff going down with Tier 10 on the PTR, there's just not enough information out there for me to make an intelligent assessment. So far, I like it. That's really all I can say.
So instead, I'm going to talk about downloadable content. Believe it or not, I only this weekend bought my first piece of premium downloadable content. The Fortune Pack, for Far Cry 2, if you're interested. That's setting aside digitally distributed games, by the way- I've bought plenty of those. No, I'm talking specifically about addons to games. Oh wait! Map packs for Halo and Call of Duty. I am an idiot, nevermind. That's not the point anyway.
There is a discussion to be had- or rather, that has been had within the community, and will continue for quite some time, about whether developers are omitting content so that they can sell it later. I think I can safely say that at least in some situations, Capcom is. And that's bullshit. We should indeed be angry about that. But you know? That's a very hot topic, the lines are drawn, and frankly no one will give a shit what I have to say. Everyone has made up their minds on the subject, and there's no progress being made. So let's leave that alone, and talk about something a little less scary- how DLC actually works, should be implemented, and whatnot.
First off, we need to note a difference between multiplayer and singleplayer DLC. Multiplayer DLC is veeeery restrictive. Not everyone is going to get this DLC, and you don't wanna just eff it up for everyone who doesn't, cause then you get lots of pissed customers. The tradition is map packs, and given how well that works I imagine it will remain the tradition for quite some time. I'll be honest, maps are not a huge deal for me. I love good maps, I hate bad ones, but the map doesn't really invade my experience that much for me. Personally, I like to see additions to my arsenal or to the game world. And this is difficult.
Obviously, adding new weapons, moves, etc. without giving them to non-DLC players is just plain unbalanced. You really can't put the two in the same room, it's not fair. So then you end up in the bizzare situation of keeping them from playing together, and it all just becomes a mess. I love new weapons, but there's really no good way to do them in a multiplayer situation unless you give them to everyone. Expanding the world, though, is an option I feel like hasn't been properly explored. For example, imagine if you were to add a new mode of gameplay as DLC that only people who'd downloaded it could play. You could have it be in a different matchmaking queue than the regular modes, and there would be no problem! It seems like a good way to expand the scope of your game without compromising the owners that aren't interested.
...This post is pretty long already, actually. Well, I'm getting this up fairly early in the day, so I'll do an extra post today or tomorrow about single player DLC, where your options are far more varied.
So instead, I'm going to talk about downloadable content. Believe it or not, I only this weekend bought my first piece of premium downloadable content. The Fortune Pack, for Far Cry 2, if you're interested. That's setting aside digitally distributed games, by the way- I've bought plenty of those. No, I'm talking specifically about addons to games. Oh wait! Map packs for Halo and Call of Duty. I am an idiot, nevermind. That's not the point anyway.
There is a discussion to be had- or rather, that has been had within the community, and will continue for quite some time, about whether developers are omitting content so that they can sell it later. I think I can safely say that at least in some situations, Capcom is. And that's bullshit. We should indeed be angry about that. But you know? That's a very hot topic, the lines are drawn, and frankly no one will give a shit what I have to say. Everyone has made up their minds on the subject, and there's no progress being made. So let's leave that alone, and talk about something a little less scary- how DLC actually works, should be implemented, and whatnot.
First off, we need to note a difference between multiplayer and singleplayer DLC. Multiplayer DLC is veeeery restrictive. Not everyone is going to get this DLC, and you don't wanna just eff it up for everyone who doesn't, cause then you get lots of pissed customers. The tradition is map packs, and given how well that works I imagine it will remain the tradition for quite some time. I'll be honest, maps are not a huge deal for me. I love good maps, I hate bad ones, but the map doesn't really invade my experience that much for me. Personally, I like to see additions to my arsenal or to the game world. And this is difficult.
Obviously, adding new weapons, moves, etc. without giving them to non-DLC players is just plain unbalanced. You really can't put the two in the same room, it's not fair. So then you end up in the bizzare situation of keeping them from playing together, and it all just becomes a mess. I love new weapons, but there's really no good way to do them in a multiplayer situation unless you give them to everyone. Expanding the world, though, is an option I feel like hasn't been properly explored. For example, imagine if you were to add a new mode of gameplay as DLC that only people who'd downloaded it could play. You could have it be in a different matchmaking queue than the regular modes, and there would be no problem! It seems like a good way to expand the scope of your game without compromising the owners that aren't interested.
...This post is pretty long already, actually. Well, I'm getting this up fairly early in the day, so I'll do an extra post today or tomorrow about single player DLC, where your options are far more varied.
October 9, 2009
Angel May Cry
So, I'm a fan of Hideki Kamiya's work. Devil May Cry, Viewtiful Joe, Okami, I loved it all. Thus, when I heard that the Japanese PSN had a Bayonetta demo up on it... I promptly registered a Japanese PSN account just to snag the demo. I've played through the demo... seven times now? So obviously, I liked it. But I wanted to discuss... oh, what I liked and didn't like, and what Bayonetta seems to owe to the more recent entries in the stylish action genre... if that is a genre. Whatever.
So, first off... if you think about it? It's actually been a long time since we've gotten an entry in the stylish action genre from Mr. Kamiya. I mean, all he's actually ever done is the first Devil May Cry, and Viewtiful Joe. Since then, we've had Ninja Gaiden, God of War, further entries in the Devil May Cry series... I could name others, but those are the real innovators. And it's pretty clear that Kamiya respects the innovation they've brought to the table... because boy does Bayonetta show signs of their influence. Beyond the obvious context sensitive moves from God of War, because really, EVERYONE uses those now, there are more subtle signs. The quick swap of Devil May Cry 3- sure, a fair few games have quick swap, but look at the implementation- even the UI- and tell me that's not the obvious inspiration. The boss battle at the end of the demo, too, feels very distinctly Devil May Cry, bringing back memories of the Virgil fights in 3 or the Dante fights in 4 (which, it could be argued, were inspired by the Nero Angelo fight in the first, but I think their feel is quite different).
I can't pull up a quote for this one, but I seem to recall Kamiya saying that he made Bayonetta because he couldn't make another DMC, because he didn't have the rights... and in many ways, Bayonetta feels like a response to Devil May Cry, the good and the bad. Devil May Cry had you going to Hell to fight demons, Bayonetta has you going to Paradise to fight angels. DMC's Dante had a distinct cockiness and arrogance as well as a flair for style... and Bayonetta feels quite similar, just... well, sexier, frankly (as in, trying to BE sexier. And succeeding, but that's not the point.). DMC was notable for its on the fly mix of gunplay and swordplay... Bayonetta, you can actually shoot WHILE you slash, thanks to ankle weaponry. And of course, there are even some move mappings that are identical... a taunt button, or R1+Back+Slash (a rising slash in both games) and R1+Forward+Slash (a charging stab in both... Dante's famous Stinger). Bayonetta does a lot better, but it owes more to Devil May Cry 3 than I've seen Kamiya admit.
What's the point of all this? Not much, I suppose... just... well, okay. So I saw a brief interview with Kamiya the other day. It was an enjoyable interview, in no small part due to the man's personality. He's got a playful cockiness to himself as well, but he still is polite and respectful. It's an interesting contrast with (former) genre rival Tomonobu Itagaki, who was cocky to the point of being a total asshole and dickhead. Really, his arrogance did him and his games no favor. Any time a rival was brought up, he had nothing but scorn for them. And frankly... what I would like? I would like Kamiya to acknowledge DMC3 as a source of inspiration for Bayonetta, and a solid game. Even when the game first came out, and got rave reviews, it languished in Kamiya's shadow. In the shadow of the series's brilliant creator. As good as it was, a vocal minority declared that it would have been way better if Kamiya had been onboard, that his absence made it less of a game.
And this leads to a larger point... the problem of changing teams for a sequel. No matter how good of a job the new team does, if the original was beloved, the new team can NEVER please the original fans. They will always scorn it out of some twisted loyalty. And I sympathize with that. I think, groundbreaking and amazing as it was, DMC1 was NOT as good as DMC3. And I'd like to hear a creator, for once, show respect for the work of his successors.
And give them a little shit over 4 while you're at it- that was an embarassment.
So, first off... if you think about it? It's actually been a long time since we've gotten an entry in the stylish action genre from Mr. Kamiya. I mean, all he's actually ever done is the first Devil May Cry, and Viewtiful Joe. Since then, we've had Ninja Gaiden, God of War, further entries in the Devil May Cry series... I could name others, but those are the real innovators. And it's pretty clear that Kamiya respects the innovation they've brought to the table... because boy does Bayonetta show signs of their influence. Beyond the obvious context sensitive moves from God of War, because really, EVERYONE uses those now, there are more subtle signs. The quick swap of Devil May Cry 3- sure, a fair few games have quick swap, but look at the implementation- even the UI- and tell me that's not the obvious inspiration. The boss battle at the end of the demo, too, feels very distinctly Devil May Cry, bringing back memories of the Virgil fights in 3 or the Dante fights in 4 (which, it could be argued, were inspired by the Nero Angelo fight in the first, but I think their feel is quite different).
I can't pull up a quote for this one, but I seem to recall Kamiya saying that he made Bayonetta because he couldn't make another DMC, because he didn't have the rights... and in many ways, Bayonetta feels like a response to Devil May Cry, the good and the bad. Devil May Cry had you going to Hell to fight demons, Bayonetta has you going to Paradise to fight angels. DMC's Dante had a distinct cockiness and arrogance as well as a flair for style... and Bayonetta feels quite similar, just... well, sexier, frankly (as in, trying to BE sexier. And succeeding, but that's not the point.). DMC was notable for its on the fly mix of gunplay and swordplay... Bayonetta, you can actually shoot WHILE you slash, thanks to ankle weaponry. And of course, there are even some move mappings that are identical... a taunt button, or R1+Back+Slash (a rising slash in both games) and R1+Forward+Slash (a charging stab in both... Dante's famous Stinger). Bayonetta does a lot better, but it owes more to Devil May Cry 3 than I've seen Kamiya admit.
What's the point of all this? Not much, I suppose... just... well, okay. So I saw a brief interview with Kamiya the other day. It was an enjoyable interview, in no small part due to the man's personality. He's got a playful cockiness to himself as well, but he still is polite and respectful. It's an interesting contrast with (former) genre rival Tomonobu Itagaki, who was cocky to the point of being a total asshole and dickhead. Really, his arrogance did him and his games no favor. Any time a rival was brought up, he had nothing but scorn for them. And frankly... what I would like? I would like Kamiya to acknowledge DMC3 as a source of inspiration for Bayonetta, and a solid game. Even when the game first came out, and got rave reviews, it languished in Kamiya's shadow. In the shadow of the series's brilliant creator. As good as it was, a vocal minority declared that it would have been way better if Kamiya had been onboard, that his absence made it less of a game.
And this leads to a larger point... the problem of changing teams for a sequel. No matter how good of a job the new team does, if the original was beloved, the new team can NEVER please the original fans. They will always scorn it out of some twisted loyalty. And I sympathize with that. I think, groundbreaking and amazing as it was, DMC1 was NOT as good as DMC3. And I'd like to hear a creator, for once, show respect for the work of his successors.
And give them a little shit over 4 while you're at it- that was an embarassment.
October 6, 2009
Aztec Gold
Another one of my "I finally got around to"s, here... this time, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I'd known it was supposed to be quite good, but a game with no real innovations, no multiplayer, and an eight hour campaign with little reason to replay I will NOT pay fifty or sixty bucks for. Sorry, you gotta have more than that. So I finally picked it up now that it's a Greatest Hit, and the sequel looks like something I am willing to pay fifty to sixty bucks for. And though it doesn't melt my face with awesome... I am extremely pleased with the game thus far.
It's an extremely derative title, mixing a Prince of Persia-style gameplay of acrobatics and puzzles with a Gears of War inspired combat system and the backdrop of an Indiana Jones move. All of this is good, but it's not one of those titles that you know is going to rock just from the concept. If the team that made it weren't established already, I imagine they would have had a rough time getting the game off the ground. The concept is solid, but it's not very special. It's the execution that makes it so great.
First off, Naughty Dog tells a good story here, though the story is fairly light and typical. It's not the plot that is appealing, it's the well-acted, well-written characters, particularly Drake. He's one of my favorite protagonists I've played in quite some time... certainly in this generation of consoles. He's fun and charming without actually being suave- women hardly fall at his feet; he's very expressive, letting out whoops of success and managing some very delightful "oh no"s- he comes across as a character that is able to make light of any situation while still seeming realistic. As things are happening to him, he's always taking it seriously, but he doesn't stress about what is done. When it's all over, he wants to have a good laugh about it all. It's a great integration of a coping mechanism, and it makes Drake seem very, very human, and all the more likable for it.
Another point worth noting... I very, very rarely note graphics. Really, pretty graphics are nice, but that is not at all a priority to me. But Uncharted... it really astonished me. The first time I came out of a lake, and realized that not only were Drake's clothes actually wet, but they were actually wrinkling in response to his actions... I was just blown away. It's not poly count here, though the poly count is really something... it's cleverly applied physics and, not exaggerating, perhaps the best animations I have ever seen. Any action you do, there are multiple animations for. For some very basic actions, there are seemingly a dozen or more. It's staggering, and it really makes the game feel like a movie, feel great to watch.
The gunplay is simple but fun, the puzzles are challenging enough to make you think, but not hard enough to break the follow and momentum, and the acrobatics are delightful. Cutscenes, too, are wonderful, if only to experience more of Nolan North's awesome Nathan Drake. Seriously, if anyone but this man lands the role for Drake in the Uncharted movie (unless it's Nathan Fillion, that would rock too) I really don't think I'll see it, despite what a natural fit Uncharted and a movie are. There are no amazing new ideas for the industry, no moments of mind-blowing art design- the level designers set up some very beautiful vistas over and over, but they are not going to change the industry (no offense, they really are very gorgeous!). It's not a game that is going (or did, I suppose) to really advance game design. What it succeeds at is being a technically excellent, fun to watch, delightful to play, relentless single player game with excellent mechanics and characters, and some truly remarkable animation.
I was watching a Gametrailers.com review of the second, actually, and they summed it up quite nicely- the Uncharted games are a perfect condensation of the best ideas to come out of gaming in recent years, basically. And you know... that's not a bad way to spend sixty bucks. I suppose I would have paid full price for this game after all.
It's an extremely derative title, mixing a Prince of Persia-style gameplay of acrobatics and puzzles with a Gears of War inspired combat system and the backdrop of an Indiana Jones move. All of this is good, but it's not one of those titles that you know is going to rock just from the concept. If the team that made it weren't established already, I imagine they would have had a rough time getting the game off the ground. The concept is solid, but it's not very special. It's the execution that makes it so great.
First off, Naughty Dog tells a good story here, though the story is fairly light and typical. It's not the plot that is appealing, it's the well-acted, well-written characters, particularly Drake. He's one of my favorite protagonists I've played in quite some time... certainly in this generation of consoles. He's fun and charming without actually being suave- women hardly fall at his feet; he's very expressive, letting out whoops of success and managing some very delightful "oh no"s- he comes across as a character that is able to make light of any situation while still seeming realistic. As things are happening to him, he's always taking it seriously, but he doesn't stress about what is done. When it's all over, he wants to have a good laugh about it all. It's a great integration of a coping mechanism, and it makes Drake seem very, very human, and all the more likable for it.
Another point worth noting... I very, very rarely note graphics. Really, pretty graphics are nice, but that is not at all a priority to me. But Uncharted... it really astonished me. The first time I came out of a lake, and realized that not only were Drake's clothes actually wet, but they were actually wrinkling in response to his actions... I was just blown away. It's not poly count here, though the poly count is really something... it's cleverly applied physics and, not exaggerating, perhaps the best animations I have ever seen. Any action you do, there are multiple animations for. For some very basic actions, there are seemingly a dozen or more. It's staggering, and it really makes the game feel like a movie, feel great to watch.
The gunplay is simple but fun, the puzzles are challenging enough to make you think, but not hard enough to break the follow and momentum, and the acrobatics are delightful. Cutscenes, too, are wonderful, if only to experience more of Nolan North's awesome Nathan Drake. Seriously, if anyone but this man lands the role for Drake in the Uncharted movie (unless it's Nathan Fillion, that would rock too) I really don't think I'll see it, despite what a natural fit Uncharted and a movie are. There are no amazing new ideas for the industry, no moments of mind-blowing art design- the level designers set up some very beautiful vistas over and over, but they are not going to change the industry (no offense, they really are very gorgeous!). It's not a game that is going (or did, I suppose) to really advance game design. What it succeeds at is being a technically excellent, fun to watch, delightful to play, relentless single player game with excellent mechanics and characters, and some truly remarkable animation.
I was watching a Gametrailers.com review of the second, actually, and they summed it up quite nicely- the Uncharted games are a perfect condensation of the best ideas to come out of gaming in recent years, basically. And you know... that's not a bad way to spend sixty bucks. I suppose I would have paid full price for this game after all.
October 5, 2009
Troublesome Tidings
So, over the past few weeks, I've written and scrapped several posts about how Modern Warfare 2 looks a lot better than I gave it credit for, about how the multiplayer looks like a significant evolution of the first, and all around, looks like a stellar product. As it turns out, I'm happy I never posted any of those. Because Infinity Ward just posted a new trailer for the single player, and oh ye gawds.
Okay. Multiplayer still looks effing amazing. I'm sure the mechanics of the game are going to be rock solid, and it is absolutely a first day buy for me. I really doubt anything's gonna change that. But that trailer... was painful. Okay. Well produced, well shot, well acted. I ain't arguing that. But set aside the flash and awe, and look at the part that has military enthusiasts groaning and rolling their eyes. Washington DC being occupied.
Foreign army, terrorists, military coup? We don't know. They haven't told us. But, I'm sorry, that is just retarded. The first had a good action movie feel, while still feeling believable. But the idea of a military force occupying Washington is just stupid. Okay. So first off... they would not MAKE it to DC. Our intelligence network has its flaws, but any major military gathering on any part of the globe, we know about. Period. You could not get the numbers together without us knowing before you left your county, let alone crossed the Atlantic. We have satelites. A lot of them. We have the CIA, the NSA, the DHS, intelligence within the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines, and we have Israel, the United Kingdom, and a dozen other foreign agencies watching our backs. I literally do not think it is possible to militarily catch us with our pants down. A few guys with AKs is one thing. An actual military deployment is QUITE another.
And let's say, by some godly planning, intelligence failure, and incredible freaking luck, you landed a military force on our shore. ...Washington DC is not undefended. It's probably the most defended city in the world. I don't know that for a FACT, obviously, but we have a lot of military and security there. And you know what? We have the best military in the world. We have some of the best trained, if not the best trained (give Spetnaz and SAS their due), we absolutely have the best equipped, and we have a significantly manned, military. On our size, yes, China outnumbers us. But that's why we created the Mark 19 automatic grenade launcher. I'm being quite literal, by the way- the Chinese are seriously why we created that weapon. As a wave tactics counter.
And the final bit is the footage of some military force holed up in the White House, gunning down American troops with a turret. Not to be rude... but as well as the White House is designed, our SEALs could take it back like THAT. Or Rangers, or Green Beret, or whatever. Our special forces are GOOD. They can take one building. I promise you that.
It's being pushed by Infinity Ward as this big shocker plot reveal, and it certainly is shocking, if only to learn they would be that stupid. I'll wait til I've actually played the game to dismiss the whole single player plot as dumb, but... they better have some serious aces up their sleeves. There is not a single scenario (that isn't completely ridiculous and absurd, like all of Europe declaring war on us or something) where a military force that actually exists on this earth could take DC from us.
Okay. Multiplayer still looks effing amazing. I'm sure the mechanics of the game are going to be rock solid, and it is absolutely a first day buy for me. I really doubt anything's gonna change that. But that trailer... was painful. Okay. Well produced, well shot, well acted. I ain't arguing that. But set aside the flash and awe, and look at the part that has military enthusiasts groaning and rolling their eyes. Washington DC being occupied.
Foreign army, terrorists, military coup? We don't know. They haven't told us. But, I'm sorry, that is just retarded. The first had a good action movie feel, while still feeling believable. But the idea of a military force occupying Washington is just stupid. Okay. So first off... they would not MAKE it to DC. Our intelligence network has its flaws, but any major military gathering on any part of the globe, we know about. Period. You could not get the numbers together without us knowing before you left your county, let alone crossed the Atlantic. We have satelites. A lot of them. We have the CIA, the NSA, the DHS, intelligence within the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines, and we have Israel, the United Kingdom, and a dozen other foreign agencies watching our backs. I literally do not think it is possible to militarily catch us with our pants down. A few guys with AKs is one thing. An actual military deployment is QUITE another.
And let's say, by some godly planning, intelligence failure, and incredible freaking luck, you landed a military force on our shore. ...Washington DC is not undefended. It's probably the most defended city in the world. I don't know that for a FACT, obviously, but we have a lot of military and security there. And you know what? We have the best military in the world. We have some of the best trained, if not the best trained (give Spetnaz and SAS their due), we absolutely have the best equipped, and we have a significantly manned, military. On our size, yes, China outnumbers us. But that's why we created the Mark 19 automatic grenade launcher. I'm being quite literal, by the way- the Chinese are seriously why we created that weapon. As a wave tactics counter.
And the final bit is the footage of some military force holed up in the White House, gunning down American troops with a turret. Not to be rude... but as well as the White House is designed, our SEALs could take it back like THAT. Or Rangers, or Green Beret, or whatever. Our special forces are GOOD. They can take one building. I promise you that.
It's being pushed by Infinity Ward as this big shocker plot reveal, and it certainly is shocking, if only to learn they would be that stupid. I'll wait til I've actually played the game to dismiss the whole single player plot as dumb, but... they better have some serious aces up their sleeves. There is not a single scenario (that isn't completely ridiculous and absurd, like all of Europe declaring war on us or something) where a military force that actually exists on this earth could take DC from us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)