Duty Calls

Apparently, the Call of Duty franchise has been around for quite a while.  This latest addition, Black Ops, is a grand testament to the series’ strength and the knowledge gained through years of experience developing First Person Shooters.  I’ve only played one other Call of Duty and that was years ago.  It’s not much to say that this game is a marked improvement over my previous experience.  Although, this is a beast of a game.  There were times when my laptop slowed because it couldn’t take all the action.  This is the only game for which that’s ever happened.  To be fair, I don’t exactly have the highest end, gaming laptop.  I own a Dell.

Anyway, Call of Duty: Black Ops tells the story of “Mason,” a CIA covert agent who gets assigned to kill people – in order to protect America, of course – throughout the world and its various wars.  As you probably have heard, there is a little hiccup over someone famous getting shot during the game.  I don’t care about it and, I think the level headed will agree with me when I say, people need to understand it’s just a game.  There are worse things, more gruesome kills at least, that happen to a number of other individuals.  The gameplay actually occurs when Mason is recalling his past actions to a group of silhouetted men who are torturing him to get answers.  You’ll have to play through the game to find out what exactly those answers are and how they lead Mason to his current situation.  I say the gameplay “occurs” because I couldn’t help but feel as if I was watching a movie during most of the game.  There are in game “cinematics” that involve you in some way, but never more than slowly approach this person and take him out from behind.  Most often, it’s a simple one button press and the game then takes over.  It’s less than a quick-time event, but the game is clearly not trying to make them challenging, rather, I’m sure the purpose is to make it all feel like one is in the middle of a Hollywood Blockbuster.  For my own part, I appreciated the effort to make the game more than a common FPS.  The cinematic feel of the game lasts through its entirety and it’s enough to separate the game from other, dime a dozen shooters.

This f**king guy...

As I implied earlier, the visuals are incredible.  I was impressed every time I looked at the sky, saw countless bullets flying by, or watched as I blew up what looked like an experimental rocket ship.  Any sound other than explosions or gunfire was a little hard to hear and, to be honest, I didn’t even pay attention to it sometimes because all I wanted to do was find cover and kill more Russians.  This game is intense.  I died so many times just while playing it on “regular” difficulty that the option to “lower difficulty” on the menu screen just seemed to taunt me.  I don’t know if that’s a theme with other Call of Duty games or if I just wasn’t used to the way the game plays out, but I was very happy with the game’s take on such arduous tasks.  Mason isn’t a super hero or some cybernetically enhanced marine and you can tell you’ll need to find cover every step of the way if you’re not a hardcore FPS fan.  It makes the game less appealing and harder to approach for the general population of the gamer community, but I’m sure most gamers know what to expect from a game like this long before they ever pick it up.

In the end, for the gamers who don’t feel the need to own a dozen different shooters, Black Ops isn’t too different from previous games of this type.  Mason’s story of a forgetful CIA killer is a nice touch and I’m happy to have this game as an addition to a genre which isn’t known for its cerebral qualities. Also, as expected, the game supports online multiplayer, which I don’t feel the need to discuss because Modern Warfare 2 set the bar pretty high and Black Ops does much in the same way.  There is also a mode simply dubbed, “Zombies,” which has you doing what you can to survive a wave of, you guessed it, Zombies.  This is not a mode that’s needed to make the game better, but it is a lot of fun and a welcome extra.  You won’t get anything too new with this game, but you will have a great time trying to figure out what’s exactly going on and trying to kill a seemingly endless hoard of enemies.

4.5/5 Near Perfect Score! Almost Super Dope!

Non-Violent Does Not Mean Non-Good

For those of you who don't know, which I'm sure is not many of you, the Supreme Court -- like really, the Supreme Court -- has been hearing arguments on violent video games.  Strangely, this case started in California, one of the most liberal, free-thinking states out there.  Think about it.  Where do you go if you want to escape being persecuted for your crazy-ass lifestyle?  California.  More specifically, maybe San Francisco.  That's the reputation we have at least.  Anyway, I am more than confident this case will come out with gaming on top.  The courts have always sided with free speech, so if they started censorship with videogames, it wouldn't make much (any) sense.  With that being said, I am not here to talk about violence in videogames.  That's been done.  I am here to talk about games that don't have violence at all.  Games that have a protagonist, in some form to be sure since someone must be controlling something, but do not seem to have any antagonist.

Now, truthfully, an argument can be made for a protagonist and antagonist in every game.  Tetris: the player vs. whoever sends you down blocks; Flower: nature vs. pollution/industrialization; Sim City: the city vs. the world.  There are games that are more directly concerned with the hero defeating the villain, but, as you can see, there are also games that feature conceptual enemies.  Games where you may even hesitate to call them enemies.  Would it be a bad idea to have more games like these?  These games are more than one person defeating several armies worth of minions; they force you to attempt to understand something more complex than "bullet goes into head, I win."  Ok, maybe not Tetris.  That one is in a whole other genre with games that are more puzzles than anything else, like Peggle or Monopoly.  I would venture to say that these are all great games.  You may balk at Monopoly, but how many times have you played it?  How many years has it been around?  The answer to both of those question is "a sh*tload."

This is so exciting! I LOVE games without any action!

I would like to see more of these games.  Games like World of Goo, Braid, or flOw should fill the stores, both real and online.  I've gotten tired of games where I can mindlessly defeat mindless hordes of poor-operating AI.  Sure they can still be fun, but less often intriguing and rarely original.  Maybe that's because I am not an FPS gamer.  I prefer games like Mario or Zelda to Halo or Call of Duty.  "Adventure" just has a much nicer ring to it than "First Person Shooter."  I own a Wii, but I do not own The Conduit and I will not own Conduit 2.  There is no appeal for me in these games.  Surely, those shooters are the only kinds of games that would be under scrutiny if videogames lose the aforementioned case.  I guess my gaming tastes would still be satisfied if this happens, despite my moral outrage.  Good-ish news for me then.

Everyone else who has different views than me, however, will still be at a loss, right?  Not necessarily.  Perhaps this would give them the perfect chance to broaden their gaming experiences.  I know two people who live together and both have Xbox360s; between them, there is not one non-FPS title.  This disgusts me.  I cannot go to their house and watch them play anything because it's all the same, whether they're shooting aliens or terrorists.  If you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that these games are too similar, think about the controller set-up.  Is the right trigger always shoot?  Is A always action and B always melee attack?  It's the standard control scheme now in place for most shooters.  One could seamlessly switch between several games and not lose a step.  But to go from Flower to Sim City or from Peggle to Minecraft?  Who will see any connection between those games?  As a side note, Minecraft can be switched to "peaceful" if you just want to build without any annoying enemies sneaking up on you in the dark.  Maybe it's not possible anymore to have such variation in FPS games.

Oh Man! This game is WAY better than that other, generic shooter we just beat!

The point here, if you haven't picked up on it already, is that you don't need violence to make a game good.  You don't even need to have a strong antagonist.  If the title has innovative gameplay, addicting mechanics, and/or a fascinating experience, that's more than enough to make an enjoyable game.  People who can't get enough of gunning down endless enemies should be aware that there are other games, most of which are rare gems in the gaming universe.  It's not often one will find something like Flower or Minecraft, but it seems games like Halo have become a dime a dozen.  Whether that's something that needs to change in game developers or something in the gaming community, I cannot say.