Log in or sign up to comment
226 Comments Refresh
Posted by Jack_Frost

@AttroPheed: Just in case you've never seen the actual "event":

Fonz is actually in the water, pulled behind a boat on skis and, yes, he's wearing the leather jacket.

Edited by Konanda

Posted this on the thread for the podcast but I thought I would explain why this basic premise (a Cold War over REEs) is still very much in the realm of fantasy.

See the thing is rare earth elements (REE) are not actually super rare nor are they found almost exclusively in China. In fact almost all of them are fairly common with cesium being about as common as copper. What has been happening recently and the news stories that Jeff referred to is that China has in recent years changed their policy on exportation of REEs. Specifically they have reduced export quotas with the reason of environmental and scarcity concerns. See the thing is since the 90s until around now China has been pretty much the sole producer of REEs meaning that there was little incentive to develop and operate mining facilities in other areas of the world because people could just buy it cheaply from China. (specifically Inner Mongolia)

In the past few years China has decided that instead of just being a raw materials exporter (with respect to REEs) it wanted to get into the business of producing goods using the resources. (rare earth magnets, lasers, aerospace parts, batteries, metal alloys, highly refractive glass, etc.) So as a result it's limiting the materials it exports but not the actual goods using those materials. Other nations don't really care for that because it drives up the price of manufacturing those goods due to less supply with the materials.

However, it's not the true gloom and doom Jeff makes it to be seeing as I said earlier most of these elements are actually quite abundant. It will take time to get production back up in the mines that were producing the elements before China became the main supplier and develop new mining sites but it's not some big shock looming on the horizon. It's likely that what will happen is there will be a supply constraint for a couple years in the future while production in other parts of the world (namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, Greenland, United States and South Africa) is developed. Ya it will be pretty tense for a bit but in the long term China's move to limit RRE exports is not truly frightening and is actually a positive as it means that the supply chain for REEs will be diversified and therefore more stable.

It's an interesting premise for a near future war game but it's far from really being the truth and is mostly dependent on the assumption that other non-Chinese mining firms and start-ups won't exploit other sources in various parts of the world or restart production on layed up mines in the face of higher prices for the commodities due to less supply. Frankly that is extremely unlikely, very short sighted and somewhat ignorant.

Posted by Destroyeron

Not even this article can get me excited about COD anymore, at least any COD developed by Treyarch.

Posted by bjorno

america has dickloads of rare earths, it just aint profitable to dig them up in a country with pollution controls. game is WHACK because of that oversight.

Posted by Svenzon

Huh? Might actually give this a try come winter.

Posted by SpaceInsomniac

@Fuga said:

@SpaceInsomniac said:

@Robo said:

Just got an email from GameStop urging me to preorder now for an exclusive MW3 prestige token, a limited edition double-sided poster, and dibs on all 4 waves of preorder bonuses.

The idea of pushing people to preorder a game several months in advance when we've hardly heard or seen anything about it aside, 4 waves of preorder bonuses? I've heard all the reasons behind their wanting to lock up your business as early as possible and pump up those initial sales figures but seriously, one wave is enough.

MW3 is crap, and that's coming from someone who loved Black Ops and bought the hardened edition of MW3. With that said, why the hell would I want a prestige token for a game I hate?

And whatever Game Stop will be announcing, I doubt that their deals will be worth it over Amazon offering up a 20 dollar credit, if Amazon does end up doing that.

MW3 and BLOPS are my fav cowadooty games. vOv

Broken lag compensation, horrible map design, deathstreaks, and revenge spawning completely ruined MW3 for me.

Posted by Fuga

@SpaceInsomniac said:

@Robo said:

Just got an email from GameStop urging me to preorder now for an exclusive MW3 prestige token, a limited edition double-sided poster, and dibs on all 4 waves of preorder bonuses.

The idea of pushing people to preorder a game several months in advance when we've hardly heard or seen anything about it aside, 4 waves of preorder bonuses? I've heard all the reasons behind their wanting to lock up your business as early as possible and pump up those initial sales figures but seriously, one wave is enough.

MW3 is crap, and that's coming from someone who loved Black Ops and bought the hardened edition of MW3. With that said, why the hell would I want a prestige token for a game I hate?

And whatever Game Stop will be announcing, I doubt that their deals will be worth it over Amazon offering up a 20 dollar credit, if Amazon does end up doing that.

MW3 and BLOPS are my fav cowadooty games. vOv

Posted by SpaceInsomniac

@Robo said:

Just got an email from GameStop urging me to preorder now for an exclusive MW3 prestige token, a limited edition double-sided poster, and dibs on all 4 waves of preorder bonuses.

The idea of pushing people to preorder a game several months in advance when we've hardly heard or seen anything about it aside, 4 waves of preorder bonuses? I've heard all the reasons behind their wanting to lock up your business as early as possible and pump up those initial sales figures but seriously, one wave is enough.

MW3 is crap, and that's coming from someone who loved Black Ops and bought the hardened edition of MW3. With that said, why the hell would I want a prestige token for a game I hate?

And whatever Game Stop will be announcing, I doubt that their deals will be worth it over Amazon offering up a 20 dollar credit, if Amazon does end up doing that.

Edited by Gordo789

I wonder whether the rest of the world will ever be as sick of games where you point at dudes and shoot them as I am.

This game will probably be about as "competent" as they've all been. "Solid multiplayer manages to save this game from fun but forgettable single player campaign." That could be a box quote.

Edited by Robo

Just got an email from GameStop urging me to preorder now for an exclusive MW3 prestige token, a limited edition double-sided poster, and dibs on all 4 waves of preorder bonuses.

The idea of pushing people to preorder a game several months in advance when we've hardly heard or seen anything about it aside, 4 waves of preorder bonuses? I've heard all the reasons behind their wanting to lock up your business as early as possible and pump up those initial sales figures but seriously, one wave is enough.

Posted by Root_of_All_Evil

Call me a skeptic but, I won't believe it till I see it.

Posted by InfamousBIG

@nail1080 said:

4 stars

I'm callin' it!

Posted by AttroPheed

At the end the Fonz jumps a shark-tank on his motorcycle.

Posted by ShinjiEx

Shut up and take my money cause I'm a crack addict ^__^

Posted by Obinice
@Ramboknife

@Coolarman said:

first

Great comment!

Oh no... the Internet has found us.
Posted by MarkWahlberg

@Dalai said:

@Jethuty said:

@Cowman said:

@Jethuty said:

@Dalai said:

It would be hilarious if CLOPS unexpectedly pulled a Valve and was delayed until 2025.

Clops?

really?

You know it's not that bad now that I think about it.

I wonder if we can make that name stick.

how the fuck did you get from Blops to Clops?

A horse makes a clopping sound.

They mo-capped a man clapping two coconut shells together for that sequence.

Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock

I'm really going to hate seeing noob reviewers and currupt media crying "innovative" when all they have done is basically stole shit from others games.

The problem with this IMO will be... it will still be super simplistic. It will lack tactical elements. Still spam enemys at you. And be more interested in being a huge scripted sequences. Seems more like a sales gimmick to me than something of real substance like the old Rainbow 6 games before consoles turned them into gears of terrorists. Either way, I wont be picking it up. It's just a big cancer of gaming.

Posted by Tofford

Very happy to see they are making changes before the Next Gen

Posted by Mikemcn

I've wanted a COD RTS for awhile, I honestly think guiding squads of dudes could be cool. This could be interesting, but will CODs main audience approve? That is the question

Posted by Dalai
@Jethuty said:

@Cowman said:

@Jethuty said:

@Dalai said:

It would be hilarious if CLOPS unexpectedly pulled a Valve and was delayed until 2025.

Clops?

really?

You know it's not that bad now that I think about it.

I wonder if we can make that name stick.

how the fuck did you get from Blops to Clops?

A horse makes a clopping sound.
Posted by benspyda

I like where they are going with the story. I'm afraid I'll probably be in for another crazy COD story this year. Another COD MP experience though, I may pass on that.

Posted by KommanderCevin

Look up Planetary Resources. If they're successful, China's hold on those resources may not be the ace in the hole it seems like it will be.

Posted by Clonedzero

not a huge CoD fan myself. but ive enjoyed them in the past. my brother LOVES them though. this looks like an interesting direction, i always said they should do a futuristic CoD. that way you can have cool gadgets and sci-fi stuff like robots and cloaking devices and crap.

Posted by SeriouslyNow

The Most Modern Warfare Yet.

Posted by EDfromRED

I'm a bigger fan of Black Ops than MW3. The storyline and multiplayer of Black Ops just felt more polished, expansive and interesting...I even enjoyed dabbleing in Zombies now and again. Since Infinity Ward Imploded/Exploded, Treyarch has stepped up to the plate big time and shows that they are willing to go the extra step to keep the COD franchise from getting stale.

Posted by Kierkegaard

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Kierkegaard said:

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Kierkegaard said:

I like that breakdown of Treyarch's approach. Although they play around with some rank shit, Treyarch seem like they are having so much more fun with storytelling. IW proper is gone, but the self-seriousness that worked okay in the dramatic COD4 became self-indulgence in MW2.

I haven't played one of these damn games since COD4, so color me impressed that I'm even interested. Still, I don't like the imagery of non-western people in these games. People of color are usually bad guys at the end of a gun. I hope this game changes that and, even as its having future fun, crafts a more equitable interpretation of society. Big bad China and a dude with a Latino-sounding name seem like more of the same jingoism from here....

Still, those gameplay changes and the desire to go on a more meaningful adventure make me intrigued. Good job at least doing that, Treyarch. And good writing, Jeff.

Modern Warfare and BLOPS had kind of interesting takes on jingoism, though. BLOPS was less subtle about it (the final shot is so ironic it borders on satire), although it had a better story, but what made those games so bizarre was the quiet reminders in the background that you're not good, you're just less evil than the guys you're shooting. Woods' line in the trailer about 'we who can do what others cannot' is overtly jingoistic, and in with any other game I'd be put off by it; but he's actually just the continuation of what these games have been doing with Capt. Price and Reznov (and yes I know they're from different creators, it still holds). I don't want to turn this into a big long thing, but if they can continue with that same crazy take on anti-war, anti-patriotism stuff, I'm totally fine with whatever else they do.

They take a shaky line on it, though. For all the oooh the military white guy you're working for is actually evil stuff, there's still Price hanging a dude through a glass ceiling and the continual appearance of "enemies" as dudes of Russian, Middle Eastern, or, now, Chinese appearance. It seems like they're trying to be anti-war while using all the 'hoo-rah I hate foreigners' imagery, too. It seems like a cynical way to win middle America's money rather than have a consistent tone.

When your game becomes "killing is cool!" but, "sometimes it leads to eternal warfare, which is bad, but here's more killing, so yay!" I get skeptical.

That's what I meant by it being bizarre. I wasn't referring to Gen. Shepard, actually, I was talking about Price. I'm not a huge fan of Zero Punctuation, but Yahtzee was spot on in his MW1 review when he described the SAS guys as violent thugs; Price may act as a wartime role model/surrogate father figure for Soap, but he's also wholly absorbed in a violent lifestyle, to the point that he's at least partially insane by the second game. Reznov in BLOPS was sort of a darker version of that. I do agree with you that they're shaky on it, though, especially in MW2 (can't comment on 3, never played it). Where the bad Russians (and Middle Easterners) in the first were a splinter group, and you actually worked with the good ones, in the second they were just all bad guys. And the big reveal about your boss was just stupid. MW2 was much more Bruckheimer/Bay inspired than anything else, so the snarky use of Rumsfeld quotes they put on the deathscreen doesn't really carry the thread they started in 1. The whole point of the first game was that modern warfare tends to be these smaller-scale combats between factions rather than between nations (i.e. nationalities), and so having Russia straight up invade just undercut that. At the same time, if you're going to have a war, you need to have an enemy, and I doubt any publisher would OK a story where you fight other Americans in a Civil War, or go to war against America, so it's kind of inevitable that other foreigners are going to be the bad guys.

Maybe it is just a cynical cop-out to ethically absolve themselves, but I just find it interesting the way they sort of use war to make an anti-war statement, at least in MW1 and BLOPS. That you still are entertaining yourself by killing people does undercut that, but it's still better than them not making any statement at all, I think.

You are putting much clearer and better evidenced thought to this than I, making me glad that we essentially agree. My hope is that with millions sold already Treyarch is using their amazing power in the market for good, casting doubt on blind patriotism and fear of others. My suspicion is that while developers are often wise people, the art they create placates at its base: FPSs need enemies to kill and they need that killing to be cathartic rather than damning. While we may see the deeper messages in these games, the majority by them, at best, to blast their friends away online, and, at worst, to blast away brown people they don't trust, to live out the myth of American exceptionalism.

Glad to have an interlocutor on all this. Keep up the good thought.

Edited by MordeaniisChaos

Why does that XM8 have an M16 front sight and not really a rear sight?

@Kierkegaard said:

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Kierkegaard said:

I like that breakdown of Treyarch's approach. Although they play around with some rank shit, Treyarch seem like they are having so much more fun with storytelling. IW proper is gone, but the self-seriousness that worked okay in the dramatic COD4 became self-indulgence in MW2.

I haven't played one of these damn games since COD4, so color me impressed that I'm even interested. Still, I don't like the imagery of non-western people in these games. People of color are usually bad guys at the end of a gun. I hope this game changes that and, even as its having future fun, crafts a more equitable interpretation of society. Big bad China and a dude with a Latino-sounding name seem like more of the same jingoism from here....

Still, those gameplay changes and the desire to go on a more meaningful adventure make me intrigued. Good job at least doing that, Treyarch. And good writing, Jeff.

Modern Warfare and BLOPS had kind of interesting takes on jingoism, though. BLOPS was less subtle about it (the final shot is so ironic it borders on satire), although it had a better story, but what made those games so bizarre was the quiet reminders in the background that you're not good, you're just less evil than the guys you're shooting. Woods' line in the trailer about 'we who can do what others cannot' is overtly jingoistic, and in with any other game I'd be put off by it; but he's actually just the continuation of what these games have been doing with Capt. Price and Reznov (and yes I know they're from different creators, it still holds). I don't want to turn this into a big long thing, but if they can continue with that same crazy take on anti-war, anti-patriotism stuff, I'm totally fine with whatever else they do.

They take a shaky line on it, though. For all the oooh the military white guy you're working for is actually evil stuff, there's still Price hanging a dude through a glass ceiling and the continual appearance of "enemies" as dudes of Russian, Middle Eastern, or, now, Chinese appearance. It seems like they're trying to be anti-war while using all the 'hoo-rah I hate foreigners' imagery, too. It seems like a cynical way to win middle America's money rather than have a consistent tone.

When your game becomes "killing is cool!" but, "sometimes it leads to eternal warfare, which is bad, but here's more killing, so yay!" I get skeptical.

I'm just gunna quote the whole block because I don't feel lick looking for the original, but I'll say this. Most conflicts right now have Africans killing Africans, Middle Eastern folks killing Middle Eastern and Western folks (which btw are generally pretty diverse, plenty of folks in American branches are of all sorts of origins. Some even joined the Military just to become a citizen. CoD is focusing on looking at real conflicts and potential near future conflicts. Most of the time, the bad guys aren't really westerners, because the west has little reason to start wars, especially with each other.

And I think when you look at the psyche of actual serving soldiers, you'll notice that there is a lot of "Fuck war, but fuck yeah war." They hate it in a lot of ways, they lose people they love, they lose brothers closer than most have every known, they are miserable, in an unusual place. But they still find themselves pulled into it, wanting more, wanting to come back. A lot of guys come back injured, and half the reason they hate their injury is because it prevents them from continuing to serve in the same role they served before. War isn't black and white, especially for the ones actively engaged in it. I don't think anyone really wants constant warfare but there are certainly those that want to "go where the guns are", and there always will be.

Sure, you could make a game that was hard set on saying "Man fuck war" or "fuck yeah lets kill shit", and sure you could make America the bad guys. But it wouldn't have much staying power. Say all you want about America's involvement in foreign conflicts, they are just that, foreign conflicts. It's not like Afghanistan was a peaceful state before American forces entered there, and it's not like there aren't soldiers and Marines and Corpsmen and Airmen out there that have compassion for the people there, who want to help them, but that doesn't mean they don't get a thrill from combat or take some measure of joy in killing the son of a bitch that killed a brother in arms or shot at him. No matter how miserable a war is, there will be those who want to go back. Not because "fuck yeah killing" but because it's what they do, it's who they are. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that the career that requires 4-5 months of pure training, no real outside activity, attracts people like that. It requires an intensity, and that intensity doesn't usually go away because they had a miserable experience in a war.

Posted by nmarchan

Treyarch gets a lot of hate for some reason. I gotta tell you though, as a Wii and then PC gamer, I like Treyarch a lot better than Infinity Ward, because Treyarch treated those platforms with a hell of a lot more respect than IW ever did.

Posted by darkjester74

Ugh, I could have done without the Zombies mode. Otherwise, looks great! Looking forward to learning more!

Posted by Meteora

Definitely sounds exciting, hope it turns out well. I think going into the future might be the right step, you can fit more craziness and not expect backlash if it doesn't take in a modern setting (i.e. realism).

Posted by nail1080

4 stars

Posted by Omnomnivore

Great write-up Jeff, looking forward to the game a little more than I thought I would be.

Posted by jakkblades

Game looks good. I'll be interested to check it out

Posted by MarkWahlberg

@Kierkegaard said:

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Kierkegaard said:

I like that breakdown of Treyarch's approach. Although they play around with some rank shit, Treyarch seem like they are having so much more fun with storytelling. IW proper is gone, but the self-seriousness that worked okay in the dramatic COD4 became self-indulgence in MW2.

I haven't played one of these damn games since COD4, so color me impressed that I'm even interested. Still, I don't like the imagery of non-western people in these games. People of color are usually bad guys at the end of a gun. I hope this game changes that and, even as its having future fun, crafts a more equitable interpretation of society. Big bad China and a dude with a Latino-sounding name seem like more of the same jingoism from here....

Still, those gameplay changes and the desire to go on a more meaningful adventure make me intrigued. Good job at least doing that, Treyarch. And good writing, Jeff.

Modern Warfare and BLOPS had kind of interesting takes on jingoism, though. BLOPS was less subtle about it (the final shot is so ironic it borders on satire), although it had a better story, but what made those games so bizarre was the quiet reminders in the background that you're not good, you're just less evil than the guys you're shooting. Woods' line in the trailer about 'we who can do what others cannot' is overtly jingoistic, and in with any other game I'd be put off by it; but he's actually just the continuation of what these games have been doing with Capt. Price and Reznov (and yes I know they're from different creators, it still holds). I don't want to turn this into a big long thing, but if they can continue with that same crazy take on anti-war, anti-patriotism stuff, I'm totally fine with whatever else they do.

They take a shaky line on it, though. For all the oooh the military white guy you're working for is actually evil stuff, there's still Price hanging a dude through a glass ceiling and the continual appearance of "enemies" as dudes of Russian, Middle Eastern, or, now, Chinese appearance. It seems like they're trying to be anti-war while using all the 'hoo-rah I hate foreigners' imagery, too. It seems like a cynical way to win middle America's money rather than have a consistent tone.

When your game becomes "killing is cool!" but, "sometimes it leads to eternal warfare, which is bad, but here's more killing, so yay!" I get skeptical.

That's what I meant by it being bizarre. I wasn't referring to Gen. Shepard, actually, I was talking about Price. I'm not a huge fan of Zero Punctuation, but Yahtzee was spot on in his MW1 review when he described the SAS guys as violent thugs; Price may act as a wartime role model/surrogate father figure for Soap, but he's also wholly absorbed in a violent lifestyle, to the point that he's at least partially insane by the second game. Reznov in BLOPS was sort of a darker version of that. I do agree with you that they're shaky on it, though, especially in MW2 (can't comment on 3, never played it). Where the bad Russians (and Middle Easterners) in the first were a splinter group, and you actually worked with the good ones, in the second they were just all bad guys. And the big reveal about your boss was just stupid. MW2 was much more Bruckheimer/Bay inspired than anything else, so the snarky use of Rumsfeld quotes they put on the deathscreen doesn't really carry the thread they started in 1. The whole point of the first game was that modern warfare tends to be these smaller-scale combats between factions rather than between nations (i.e. nationalities), and so having Russia straight up invade just undercut that. At the same time, if you're going to have a war, you need to have an enemy, and I doubt any publisher would OK a story where you fight other Americans in a Civil War, or go to war against America, so it's kind of inevitable that other foreigners are going to be the bad guys.

Maybe it is just a cynical cop-out to ethically absolve themselves, but I just find it interesting the way they sort of use war to make an anti-war statement, at least in MW1 and BLOPS. That you still are entertaining yourself by killing people does undercut that, but it's still better than them not making any statement at all, I think.

Posted by VibratingDonkey

@BigChickenDinner said:

@BrianP: Well, I see what you mean. But I'm just flippin on the ridiculousness of the mechanics. I haven't wanted to play, or hoped that a CoD game would be good since 2.

It just boggles my mind. These people don't have a military adviser or something? Maybe they were sick that day.

I don't know how that's the thing you get hung up on when there are ROBOT BEARS.

@BigChickenDinner said:

Instead of going through an on rail scene, your now going to be able to pick WHICH rail scene you go through.

The VTOL and Strikeforce parts to me indicate that they're actively looking to expand the game design beyond your typical shooting gallery. And if they feel like meaningful decisions in terms of how they affect the story and they're integrated well, then well, that's pretty much all you can hope for a branching story to add to the game.

Everyone should play The Walking Dead by the way.

Posted by subyman

I'm surprised Jeff is slightly excited. From what I have read and have seen, it doesn't look that much different. The graphics look the same, dated, the gameplay will surely be the same, and the setting has been done before. An entire robotic army by 2025? I'm sure it will be a decent game, but it isn't the major change I've been looking for.

Posted by downtime58

Here's my prediction - the bad guy in Black Ops 2 turns out to be old Alex Mason.

Posted by Smokey_Earhole

@YukoAsho: Dude or no dude (as it is), you're still cool :)

Posted by YukoAsho

@Yanngc33 said:

@FluxWaveZ said:

@RoxasXIII said:

Maybe I remember incorrectly... But don't you watch Frank Woods get executed in Black Ops?

That's not Frank Woods, that's Bowman:

Woods does die though, he takes out the right hand man of the main bad guy. He jumps out a window with him while the dude blows himself up with a grenade. Woods gets blown up.

Does he? I remember when Mason wakes up after Woods tosses himself and Krevchenko out the window. He sees Woods at first, but then the image changes to that of Reznov. Entirely possible it was actually Woods, who told the CIA to watch out for the rogue agent (remember, they KNEW Mason was there when they were on the island, were even trying to contact him).

Posted by YukoAsho

@Smokey_Earhole said:

@YukoAsho: Insightful post. You're a cool dude.

Insightful, sure. Dude, not so much. :P

Posted by VibratingDonkey

Hirshberg wasn't lying about that meaningful innovation then. May be the first CoD I buy since 4.

And though I didn't play it, I like bits of what I've seen and heard of Black Ops. namely the whole interrogation/terminal/Zork conceit and wrapping it around historical events. That sounds cool. I've got more faith in Treyarch than IW at this point to come up with something interesting.

Appreciate they're making the effort to ground Blops 2 in a similar manner. It can be difficult to care when things get too crazy. But you know, the scenario may be within the realms of plausibility and all scarytrue, but then you see a giant robot bear stomping around, controlled by Raoul Menendez, the mad, power hungry dictator seeking world domination. So that may be a challenge for one's disbeliefsuspension.

Posted by BigChickenDinner

@BrianP: Well, I see what you mean. But I'm just flippin on the ridiculousness of the mechanics. I haven't wanted to play, or hoped that a CoD game would be good since 2.

It just boggles my mind. These people don't have a military adviser or something? Maybe they were sick that day.

Posted by Tupacalypse

Hmm first time it looks like they're really doing something new....we'll see

Posted by BrianP

@BigChickenDinner said:

Holy shit I feel like I'm losing my mind. A charge up shot that uses more ammo ?! WHAT THE FUCK?! FUCK ME!!!

Before I go take a hot bath and slit my throat (wrist cutting just ain't gonna.. cut...it...) I'd just like to point out that this "branching" bull shit they are talking about, well I'm gonna call it right now, Instead of going through an on rail scene, your now going to be able to pick WHICH rail scene you go through.

WHAT THE FUCK?! CHARGE SHOTS?! WHO THE FUCK OKAY'D THAT SHIT?! DO PEOPLE EVEN KNOW HOW GUNS WORK?!?! WHAT THE FUCK?!

I'm glad I stopped giving a shit about these games after CoD2

Not trying to troll you here, but this post is like textbook "giving a shit"

Posted by Kierkegaard

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Kierkegaard said:

I like that breakdown of Treyarch's approach. Although they play around with some rank shit, Treyarch seem like they are having so much more fun with storytelling. IW proper is gone, but the self-seriousness that worked okay in the dramatic COD4 became self-indulgence in MW2.

I haven't played one of these damn games since COD4, so color me impressed that I'm even interested. Still, I don't like the imagery of non-western people in these games. People of color are usually bad guys at the end of a gun. I hope this game changes that and, even as its having future fun, crafts a more equitable interpretation of society. Big bad China and a dude with a Latino-sounding name seem like more of the same jingoism from here....

Still, those gameplay changes and the desire to go on a more meaningful adventure make me intrigued. Good job at least doing that, Treyarch. And good writing, Jeff.

Modern Warfare and BLOPS had kind of interesting takes on jingoism, though. BLOPS was less subtle about it (the final shot is so ironic it borders on satire), although it had a better story, but what made those games so bizarre was the quiet reminders in the background that you're not good, you're just less evil than the guys you're shooting. Woods' line in the trailer about 'we who can do what others cannot' is overtly jingoistic, and in with any other game I'd be put off by it; but he's actually just the continuation of what these games have been doing with Capt. Price and Reznov (and yes I know they're from different creators, it still holds). I don't want to turn this into a big long thing, but if they can continue with that same crazy take on anti-war, anti-patriotism stuff, I'm totally fine with whatever else they do.

They take a shaky line on it, though. For all the oooh the military white guy you're working for is actually evil stuff, there's still Price hanging a dude through a glass ceiling and the continual appearance of "enemies" as dudes of Russian, Middle Eastern, or, now, Chinese appearance. It seems like they're trying to be anti-war while using all the 'hoo-rah I hate foreigners' imagery, too. It seems like a cynical way to win middle America's money rather than have a consistent tone.

When your game becomes "killing is cool!" but, "sometimes it leads to eternal warfare, which is bad, but here's more killing, so yay!" I get skeptical.

Posted by AgnosticJesus

Sounds as if Treyarch has been listening to the complaints of stale, yearly COD installment and are looking to change it up. In my opinion BLOPS was better than MW2 and 3, both campaign and MP. I wonder if it is too late though. I've always been a big COD fan but I'm probably going to hold off on this one. I'm thinking Halo 4 will be my MP game of choice this winter.

Posted by R3DT1D3

Maybe this one will be worth picking up on a sale which is saying a lot since the previous games since CoD4 haven't even been worth the free weekend download.

Posted by allworkandlowpay

@cikame said:

Kind of weird they'd be ok telling everyone that Frank Woods is still alive, considering he exploded in the first game.

Just a flesh wound, sir.

Posted by TheHBK

So have we confirmed Rambo III references?

Posted by Nicked

I played a TON of Call of Duty 2, and a decent amount of Modern Warfare, but nothing in the franchise since then, so it hasn't gotten stale for me yet. The multiple playthroughs thing seems kind of dumb to me though. Linear stories interest me more than branching ones, though I'm probably in the minority on that. (There's a difference between "on rails" and "linear".) Choosing between a sniper rifle and a machine gun sounds like a completely uninteresting decision to make. And like I said, I don't like story decisions because you can just go back and do things the other way if you feel like, and the story gets robbed of its drama.

I hope the campaign changes make the multiplayer feel fresh. Even having only played Modern Warfare, every iteration has seemed like more of the same. And the unfortunate thing is that no matter how fresh it feels, the Call of Duty brand can't escape its audience of racist, homophobic 13-year-olds and frat boys. The game might be great, but those types of people make me less interested in it.

Overall, it sounds like they're making compelling changes, though at the end of the day it's all about the multiplayer, for me.