Battlefield Warfare 3: Revenge of the Fanboys

I don’t think there are three words in gaming that both make me smile and cringe harder than Call, of and Duty. Initially I wasn’t interested in a realistic war simulator in First Person, I’m still not. But eventually I caved when I realised my friends were always playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

I was converted. It wasn’t the realistic settings, or the large number of real guns, or anything to do with replicating real life war as accurately as possible. COD’s strength came in its pace and fluidness and how easy it was to kill someone.

Previously in shooters it took a full clip to take someone down, that a kill had to be earned and that everyone had a chance to get away and regenerate after an attack. COD changed all that and made it easy to kill opponents and harder to prevent your own death.

Then came the Killstreaks, kill 3 opponents without dying have your enemies appear on a mini map, Kill 5 opponents without dying call in an airstrike and at 7 call in a helicopter, all too keep your Killstreak up. This meant every game became about trying to keep your Killstreak going for as long as possible, as well as the objective.

In 2009 COD4 got a direct sequel in the Form of Modern Warfare 2. MW2 was bigger, bolder, with more customisation options and a lot more killstreaks. Some would argue it went a little too far. The addition of the game breaking Tactical Nuke (which instantly won the game) and having as many harriers on the field are you wanted left most gamers feeling overwhelmed.

Still the game proved to be a hit and I really enjoyed it.

In the first half of 2010 we saw a rival appear in Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Battlefield had already been a successful series on the PC and it was now gathering steam on consoles. I must confess I never got into it. I hated the XBLA game Battlefield 1943 which was a scaled down version of the series.

I’ve always considered it the bastard child of COD and Halo, with the weaknesses of each and very little of the benefits. It was just as hard to work out friend from foe (like in COD), and it took en entire clip to kill someone (like in Halo). The focus was placed on large maps and vehicles. Games became a rush for the vehicles, particularly the planes. Much like in Halo, but unlike Halo they were given realistic handling making them awkward to use.

On top of all this you were limited to squads of 4 and couldn’t communicate in game with the whole team of 12. This really doesn’t make any sense to me and made getting a game in a party of more than 4 a massive ball-ache. Heaven knows how people do this on the PS3 seeing as how there is no Party Chat.

So essentially Battlefield 1943 put me off the series, especially since it got rave reviews. Since then I’ve tried to demo of BC2 and the Beta of Battlefield 3 and neither has won me over. There’s no denying however that BC2 was really popular and was starting to steal fans from COD.

Going back to COD, later in 2010 we saw the release of Call of Duty: Black ops. This scaled back the number of Killstreaks giving a good selection and removed the Tactical Nuke. CODBLOPS found the middle ground between COD4 and MW2. By now though people were realising how similar the games had become.

Now in 2011 we have seen the release of Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3. The war between them is now in full swing and where there is competition there is the dark side of gaming, the Fanboys.

From what I can tell the childishness and hatred seems to come from the Battlefield side. Their argument seems to centre on the major graphical improvements of Battlefield 3 (I will admit it does look stunning). Modern Warfare 3 on the other hand looks just like Modern warfare 2 and CODBLOPS.

Essentially the formula for COD has gotten stale while Battlefield is new and exciting to most. As such those that are fans of Battlefield can’t see why MW3 is still getting all the attention, and believe the series should die out so Battlefield becomes king. Considering Activision are notorious for overpricing their games and content it would help stamp out bad practice from developers, e.g. 3 maps being the price of a full XBLA game.

As well as getting all the attention MW3 is being rated quite highly by critics while Battlefield 3 got slightly worse scores. While MW3 is seeing 8’s and 9’s, Battlefield is seeing 7’s and 8’s. This is largely due to MW3 having a good Single Player campaign as well as good multiplayer content, whereas Battlefield 3 is all about the multiplayer. I would definitely argue that is the correct way to mark a review, multiplayer should never come at the expense of single player.

But then the argument comes that Battlefield 3’s multiplayer is so much better than COD’s stale re-release, with some even dismissing MW3 as nothing more than an expensive map pack. Visually they are correct of course but as we all know there is more to a game than just visuals.

This isn’t the case of course. There are a couple of notable Gameplay change that seem absent from most people’s criticisms of MW3. Firstly the addition of Pointstreaks get overlooked.

Instead of rewards coming purely from kills you now get to chose to get them from points instead. The assault killstreaks are what have traditionally been used and are designed to sabotage the enemy team. The new support pointstreaks are designed to help your team and getting them is very different.

Firstly they don’t reset when you die and secondly you get them from points gained not only by killing but by capturing points, defending points and generally helping your team achieve the match’s objective. What I like about this is that the player that will throw themselves onto a grenade to help their team win the match, is equally likely to get rewards as the player that can suppress the enemy team without putting themselves at risk.

In theory this should lead to more competitive matches in objective game types, but only time will tell if it works in practice.

Another thing these Battlefield Fanboys don’t seem to comment on is the new kill confirmed mode. From what I’ve played this is a lot of fun. When you kill someone they drop dog tags. To score a point you have to collect the dog tags. You can also deny the enemy a point by collecting your own teams dog tags. This means that those that like to stay back and snipe aren’t going to get any points if they don’t collect the tags. They have to either rely on team mates or risk their own lives by running out of their sniping positions.

This is all in an effort to encourage people to stop camping and start taking risks. Each time you have to quickly judge the situation to see if it is safe to collect the dog tags. Get it wrong and not only will your opponent deny you the point they may take one from your death. This element of risk and reward is always welcome in any game.

So in my view there have been a couple of significant changes that will hopefully change the way people play COD for the better. Then again often well meaning changes don’t often get the result you were hoping for.

Take a look at Gears of War. The biggest criticism anyone can give that game is that for a tactical shooter it is far too easy to run up to someone and get an insta-kill with the shotgun. Epic addresses this in Gears 2 by introducing stopping power. By shooting an enemy you slow them down. If they charge straight at you you can keep shooting and they will be slowed down until they can barely move, meaning in theory they will be down before they get anywhere near you. Unfortunately this didn’t work and people still run through all obstacles to get to you and hit you with the one hit kill shotgun.

So what’s the point of all this, well I just wish that those that criticise Modern Warfare 3 would base their criticisms on more than just visuals. That they would take into account significant changes to the Gameplay, researching all the facts before condemning a game. But alas there’s no such thing as a smart reasonable fanboy.

Arkham City

There is an unwritten rule that states any game of a non game franchise is doomed to failure. Similarly any non game media, such as movies, made from games are also doomed to failure.

Sure there are the odd exceptions. The Resident Evil and Tomb Raider movies were passable, The Resident Evil books are worth a read and I’m hearing good things about the Gears of War books (which I’ve just started).

As for games well there is always Goldeneye and my Game of the Year 2009, Batman: Arkham Asylum. Recently the hotly anticipated sequel was released Arkham City and I loved every minute of it.

What Rocksteady have done with the Batman franchise is nothing short of brilliant. With a rich set of characters, a tragic back story full of angst and a hero centred on a notoriously nocturnal animal, the dark world created by Rocksteady seems like the perfect home for the Dark Night.

To get through the twisted world of Arkham asylum you had to be Smart, Quick and adapt to any situation. Gameplay was broken into four parts, Metroid style exploration (where certain paths and items are not available until you obtain an upgrade), Condemned like Detective sections, Brutal Hand to Hand Combat and Stealthy Predator sections.

Not much has changed in Arkham City, but then not much needed to be changed. This is more of the same, but more of brilliance.

As with Asylum the Metroid Style Exploration compliments the Riddler challenges nicely. Scattered around the city are 400 challenges waiting for Batman to solve. Most of them are find hidden trophies or highlighting special parts of the scenery that dip into that rich history.

There may be 400 but collecting them never seems drawn out. Every Riddler secret can be revealed on your map by interrogating highlighted enemies. You do this by eliminating the other nearby enemies and pressing Y when they are the last inmate standing. Everytime you feel like a badass doing it.

Combat is pretty much the same with some slight improvements. There are a couple of new inmate types that require whole new strategies. For example there are now inmates that use car doors as shields. To beat these you have to stun them and double tap A to perform an aerial attack.

Alone these don’t cause much of a threat but towards the end of the game there will be times where mixed in with a large number of normal inmates, are knife inmates, armoured inmates, shield carrying inmates, etc all carrying their own tactics to be them. Winning isn’t so much about inputting complex combos as it is prioritising the most problematic enemy and reacting on the fly to who you’re attacking. I.e. pressing X may hit the majority of inmates but press it when facing a shielded one and you can say goodbye to your combo. It’s a very nice blend of Skill and Strategy.

Sadly one of the flaws on Asylum is still there with City. Like Sonic in 3D it can be difficult to work who exactly Batman will attack next. You can direct Batman in a general direction with the left stick, but you can’t always be specific in who you want to attack. When you press X instead of Y when facing a thug about to hit you, you want to hit the attacking thug, not the one next to him.

Predator combat is where the game really shines and where you really feel like Batman. Entering a room of patrolling armed thugs, you need to stealthily take out each one. No guns, just your gadgets, wits and the environment. When they get down to just one or two, the AI gets scared and starts jumping at the slightest noise, like steam escaping from a pipe.

It’s these moments where you really feel like Batman, the way Batman should feel and this is why these games are so special. The detective sections are the icing on the cake, giving you the perfect package of being Batman. Really all that’s missing is being able to drive the Batmobile.

City also shines over Arkham by being based in a small part of Gotham City (kept separate by a large impenetrable wall). You now have an overworld filled with rooftops and alleyways that you can use to your advantage. The city is filled with Shadows and they are all yours to use as your will.

My only gripe with this is that the city itself is a little small, well compared to the likes of Liberty city in GTA4. Although oddly I kind of want a fast travel feature. That doesn’t make sense, if it’s so small why do I want Fast travel? Maybe I’m just being too picky.

Also the inmates never seem to shut up. They are amusing at first but it gets a bit much after a while. Would’ve been nice to turn that down a bit.

The story follows on from the first game. Joker is dying and he encourages Batman to find the cure. Meanwhile Hugo Strange, the person behind Arkham City, is up to something called Protocol 10. While the ending comes with a big shock, ultimately I’m left wondering what Strange’s goal actually was.

It’s clear that there will be a sequel as some side missions are left unfinished. Where they’re going to go now is anybody’s guess.

Outside of the story mode is a vast array of challenges and extras filled with enough fanservice to keep even the most cynical fan happy. This is the closest anyone is ever going to come to being Batman and a part of his universe.

In another year this could easily be Game of the Year, but with Xenoblade Chronicles and Portal 2 already being strong contenders for the award, and Uncharted 3 and Skyward Sword to come, one thing is for sure picking a winner won’t be easy.

A brilliant sequel to a brilliant game, Arkham City does so much right and so little wrong. Bring on the next instalment

9/10

Sonic Generations (Collectors Edition)

It’s no secret that I love the Sonic series. I’m a regular attendee at the Summer of Sonic convention; I have numerous official soundtracks, lots of DVD’s of the cartoons and an extensive list of games.

This year is Sonic’s 20th Anniversary, a fact I’m sure most gamers are aware of since we don’t stop going on about it. To celebrate SEGA have released Sonic Generations. Unlike Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), which were released for Sonic’s 10th and 15th Anniversaries respectively, Generations focuses on Sonic’s long history.

There are nine levels split over three eras, each one is a level taken from the previous titles, including Green hill from Sonic the Hedgehog (1991), Speed Highway from Sonic Adventure and Planet Wisp from Sonic Colours.

Following on from the groundwork put in place by Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Colours, you race through each of the levels switching between 3D and 2D.

The 3D sections are largely road like, drawing your attention to moving forward rather than exploration. Skill comes from correctly sidestepping obstacles, drifting around sharp bends and maintaining control while boosting at top speed.

2D plays pretty much as you expect. All the techniques Sonic has learned over the years, such as boost, homing attack, stomp and slide all work to open up new paths. So far it is just Daytime unleashed which received a fair bit of praise.

This time however Sonic is joined by, well, Sonic. The gimmick of this game is that Today’s Sonic meets his older self. While Modern Sonic’s Gameplay uses the Hedgehog engine and feels like Unleashed and Colours, Classic Sonic’s Gameplay is more scaled back, 2D only and attempts (not for the first time) to stand up to the classic Mega Drive games.

While SEGA have failed to replicate the classic games exactly the result is a very polished 2D platformer that can hold its own in a very saturated market.

Both styles of play offer multiple routes to the eagle eyed player, with five Red Star Rings hidden in each act. These only unlock artwork but it’s still a nice feature. With the ranking system on top of that there’s plenty to encourage multiple playthroughs of each level.

Unfortunately the game is a little too easy and getting S ranks isn’t too much of a challenge. Providing you get through a stage quickly and without dying you’ll at least get an A. Maximising your score through bonuses and tricks, and holding onto your rings seem to mean nothing. Success in Sonic is generally determined through three elements, Score, Time and Rings, but in Generations Time seems to be the only one that matters.

Ultimately even with a decent number of additional challenges the game isn’t going to last you all that long. But it’s a fun ride while it lasts. There is a lot of fanservice from the highly detailed remakes of classic stages to the large number of unlockable music tracks form various sonic games.

All 9 levels are presented beautifully with very little slowdown. Like always the soundtrack is fantastic offering two variants for each of the classic themes. The bosses also look great but the fights are over far too quickly. Most will only last four hits, half of what they took in earlier titles.

One small thing that bothers me a little is the lack of variation in the levels, 3 of them are cities with another being a city ravaged by flames and 3 of them are plains with plenty of green hills. There selection is a little odd, while each may be considered the favourite of that particular game they don’t work all that well together.

It’s easy to fault the game, especially if you are determined a Sonic game must play like the Mega Drive classics but ultimately SEGA have pulled off a fantastic celebration of the series’ 20 year life. It is well made, looks and sound good and is generally fun to play, however it isn’t going to last all that long and could be more challenging (particularly when it comes to S ranks).

As for the extras that come with the collector’s edition, the statue is massive and looks good, but feels lightweight and like plastic. The Gold Ring is very nice (although I’m pretty sure it isn’t real gold). The CD is a nice selection of tracks from the last 20 years and the art book is pretty cool. the only thing that disappoints is the DVD. Considering this edition isn’t being released in the US it feels very Americanised, and it doesn’t really have anything that hasn’t already been said before.

Sonic has been steadily getting better since the introduction of the Hedgehog engine. Generations is another step closer to producing a game with the same quality and feel as the originals. It is close but not quite there yet. A pretty good game let down by lack of challenge and longevity, although at the moment that isn’t necessarily a bad thing giving the amount of quality releases in such a short amount of time.

8/10