"It's hedgerows."

Last weekend we had a LAN party at Colin's place. It's been almost one and a half years since the last gathering I organized and participated in, which is a strong indicator of the time people have on the weekends to dedicate entirely to gaming. Of course there's the whole "make time for your hobby" defense, but tell that to someone who's married and juggling families and/or care of their kids. It's not easy. It's no wonder MMORPGs and other online-only games are so popular - you can play with others at your leisure, and not have to worry about the hassle of moving your computer (only to find out it won't boot).

The original plan was to play Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2, with SWAT 4 available to those who were interested in experiencing the slow, methodical action within. There was an open challenge in Dawn of War to anyone who dared to confront my deadly Eldar strategy, but that never happened. After about two hours of technical problems - including the wholesale replacement of Tony's computer - we were absorbed by the fast and furious action of Unreal Tournament 2004. That only lasted a couple of hours, though. After everyone had installed Call of Duty 2, it became the one game we would play for the rest of the night.

As I noted in my review, I was disappointed at the lack of any real improvements over its predecessor aside from technical ones. Nevertheless, the one thing I hated most about the single-player experience made multiplayer a much more satisfying experience.

The ability to regenerate health by taking cover seemed like such a mistake in a World War II shooter, and cheapened the whole experience for me. However in multiplayer, the lack of a health bar makes you think differently about how you approach the action. You're no longer fighting against script-controlled bots, you're fighting against humans who can follow you into that hiding space and finish the job. Running headlong into a firefight will always result in death. In fact, I don't remember a single time where I was able to regenerate my health due to the constant barrage of gunfire from all directions (and campers on their comfortable perches). The firefights were often chaotic and only separated by the time it took for people to find you. Call of Duty 2 made me dread being the one holding the enemy flag.

Where UT2004 relied on reflexes, often resulting in a frustrating number of deaths for the inexperienced, Call of Duty 2 was a little more flexible in the way it relies just as much on positioning. The weapons in UT2004 are deadly accurate, and a straight line of sight between you and your opponent was usually enough to score a kill with the right weapon. Call of Duty 2, on the other hand, adopts a more "realistic" approach to gunplay, and there is a noticable drop in accuracy in many of the weapons the farther away you got. This meant that spraying down an area with your Thompson or MP40 might only wound your opponent, whereas the slow-loading rifles would guarantee a shot - if you could set it up properly. Running and shooting a rifle rarely worked. I wouldn't call this implementation of WW2 combat as genuine as Day of Defeat's, but it was pretty close. Kneeling would provide more accuracy, as would using the ironsights instead of the aiming reticle. I learned to loathe the trench-clearing gun, essentially a shotgun to be used by the unskilled.

All of these elements combined made the victories in Call of Duty 2 a lot more gratifying; the matches weren't the tornadoes of rockets and translocators of UT2004. But it wasn't a "thinking" FPS experience, either, because the strategies were still mostly about running and shooting. Perhaps it was not knowing when you'd be dealt the killing shot, by sniper or by sidearm in your quest to retrieve the flag. Coupled with the time delay for respawns, it made player deaths actually mean something in a team-based encounter, knowing that you'd be unavailable for precious seconds instead of immediately dropping back into the arena. The gameplay was tense, riveting and prone to inducing bouts of foul language. It was fucking fun.

Call of Duty 2: Scripting the Battlefields of World War II

As someone who did everything short of rubbing myself with the box for Call of Duty, my opinions about about what the war shooter genre should be aiming for were dramatically changed after playing Brothers in Arms: The Road to Hill 30 last year. With sequels to both games hitting stores at around the same time last Fall, I made a point of checking out Call of Duty 2 to see if Infinity Ward was adding anything to their award-winning formula. Regrettably, I got the distinct feeling that it was a step backwards when contrasted against my experiences with Brothers in Arms. Or perhaps more accurately, Call of Duty 2 is simply running on the spot.

A Just War

What is the allure of the World War 2 shooter, exactly? As someone who's unapologetic about supporting this genre, it's a topic I enjoy exploring. You know, instead of just sitting around and complaining about how many were released last week (and by the way, that joke never gets old). Obviously there's something about them that resonates with gamer culture, though I'm sure with casual gamers to a greater degree as they are only exposed to the ones that get the most hype. And developers still manage to come up with new ideas for interactive war experiences, because they keep selling. An article I wrote over at The Cultural Gutter attempts to coalesce some of these thoughts.

Also, from this point on I'll be supplying material once a month for the video games section at the Gutter. Though I don't expect this to affect anything around here.

Day of Defeat

So I finally got to play Day of Defeat after almost 5 years.

I never really got into the mod scene for Half Life when it was out - Counter Strike was as far as I ventured into that territory, and after experiencing that for a while it was almost enough to turn me off of multiplayer FPS forever. You had to keep playing to maintain your skills; it was impossible to keep up.

The long overdue update to the original Day of Defeat mod came out late last year to very little fanfare. I think the launch of Half Life 2 Deathmatch (a free multiplayer add-on) got more attention because of the ability to use the Gravity Gun. This past weekend, Valve opened up Day of Defeat: Source to try for free. I think this pissed off a lot of veteran DoD players.

"Yay, we lost again."
"Fucking freebies…"
"teh awsum!!!1"
"Stop saying that!"
"noob!"
"omg this sucks."
[Disconnected by user]

Colorful community aside, Day of Defeat: Source offers a well planned selection of maps, including noticeably different tactical options in each. Matches are won by the team who is in possession of all the control points on a map, which are represented by flags. The U.S. Army and Wehrmacht have six classes, each fairly well balanced and serving a necessary role on each team. The Machine-Gunner, for example, would never run around firing their weapon, but instead sets up near control points to act as a defense that does greater amounts of damage. One thing I noticed is Valve's attention to realism on this game: you cannot run around a fire a weapon at the same time and expect to maintain any kind of accuracy. You must kneel, go prone, or run the risk of dying when you run into a room with your Thompson or MP40 blazing. In that sense, Day of Defeat imparts a framework for those willing to develop careful strategies for offense and defense. Though in my 8 hours with the game I never once saw this happen; there was more running after frag counts or stepping into an obvious line of fire, undoubtedly a result of the overbearing ratio of new players to experienced ones.

It's only $19.95 US to buy, but for an online-only game that doesn't offer much else than standard deathmatching - well, deathmatching with the capture of control points - I'm hard pressed to think of any reason why I'd keep playing. Both the original Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2 and of course Battlefield 1942 offer the same type of play - albeit in a lighter, fluffier arcade style - and they all have the lonely option of playing with…yourself. It's something that's sorely lacking from a fast paced game such as this, where practice can make all the difference between fun and unbridled frustration.

another medal

A recent interview at Gamespot shows that EA changed the name of their upcoming console only WWII shooter from the previously advertised "Dogs of War" to "European Assault". The reason for the change is unknown, though one can only guess at EA's logic behind replacing an unoriginal title with something more benign, yet equally bland. Also in this interview with military advisor Captain Dale Dye of the US Marine Corps (Ret.), Gamespot announces his likeness will be in the game as an NPC you fight alongside in one of the missions. Anyone familiar with military movies should recognize Capt. Dye, as he has been involved as a military advisor and actor with Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and as recently as Alexander. Video games are nothing new for him either, as he helped develop the original concept of Medal of Honor shortly after working with Steven Spielberg on Saving Private Ryan.

Even if the intent of this article is to simply develop interest in the title, the release date is awfully close and I still don't know why I should be playing European Assault. It's nice to see that Capt. Dye is being honored with such a treatment after his long involvement with the series, but that's hardly a reason. I've played Brothers in Arms, and I know this formula can be improved. Is Medal of Honor destined to be the next Madden, shoveled out yearly with minimal improvements? I find it funny that Captain Dye says that the series has always been about realism. Allied Assault definitely succeeded in capturing the cinematic feel of Saving Private Ryan, and that's what made it so engrossing. But that selling point is wearing a bit thin, and I still consider Call of Duty a finer game than last year's Pacific Assault. Though my peers assuage this is hardly a genre to worry about, I still believe there is both educational and entertainment value left to be obtained.

a selection of visual treats

The Zelda gamecube trailer that was released during last week's Game Developer's conference made me a believer. This isn't a darkening of the series so much as it is an aging of the series; Link's new adventure does not look like something you have to make excuses for to play. There are no tattoos or trite one-liners here; this is a calculated reframing of an existing, accepted universe. Graveyards no longer have cartoonish ghosts or creatures that you would sooner laugh at; the battles contain a legitamately creepy atmosphere. What actually gave me goosebumps - yes, motherfucking goosebumps - was the brief glimpse of what seemed to be Link's view of Return of the King's Path of the Dead. This new adventure could very well end up falling back to its traditional gameplay elements, but at this point I'm more interested in seeing more of what the game world itself has to offer.

Then there's the Episode III trailer. It furthers my theory that these trailers do an excellent job of building expectations. Then again, fans have been doing that for the last 20 years. I have this sinking feeling that this film will be incredible, and will somehow alleviate the growing pains that were endured over the course of its predecessors in the minds of fans. It almost feels like the entire plot could be summarized into one film, where Anakin's childhood and "romance" with Padme are glossed over in couple of scenes. The Clone Wars and associated galactic conflicts have been developed more by outside materials than Episode II itself, and this is something I hope Episode III corrects with the stunning space battles hinted at in the trailer. The movie is starting to look more like the original trilogy, with familiar looking spacecraft filling out some of the short scenes. The part man, part machine known General Grievous looks like a fascinating character, and even after those split seconds in the trailer it seems like an indignity for him not to be canonized in the official poster. The prequel trilogy's focus on droids is actually something to consider: could it be that the bartender in the Mos Eisley cantina had a hatred that was actually founded in these historical battles? It's this type of thing that allows Star Wars to permanently reside in my sphere of interests.

Somehow German gaming site Gamona has scored a high res feast of the upcoming Call of Duty 2 that was recently previewed in the April issue of PC Gamer. According to dates listed on EB Games and Gamespot, the game is due to be released this August, which I have a very hard time believing. The inevitable sequel announced last month was rumoured to have enlisted the assistance of id software's Doom III engine, but will instead be using a proprietary engine as noted in a portion of the PC gamer article. Though the screens do share similarities to the aging Quake III engine, I have to admit the models and environments look more natural. There will obviously be a campaign in North Africa, and while I do appreciate the added ability to choose which one to play, one of the screens almost looks like we'll be placed into the boots of a German soldier. All joking aside, this could be a big step for WW2FPS single player campaign. It's easy for a developer to motivate players by throwing a bunch of Nazis onto the screen and call them "The Enemy". What would be even more impressive is if Infinity Ward actually used this scenario to their advantage, and explored the other side of the war. Though I doubt the moral quandary that comes with it would be suited to fans of the genre's previously established conventions.

do not hesitate, show no mercy

anxiously awaiting Brothers in Arms

As the release of Brothers in Arms draws closer, the Q&As are beginning to get repetitive. The closest thing to new material is gamespot's playtest of a few multiplayer maps on the Xbox, and I sincerely doubt this will be a deciding factor for the purchase of this game. Call of Duty's intense scripted setpieces in the single player campaign may have satisfied those looking for a cinematic game, but I think Gearbox is more interested in providing a realistic experience, one that will be remembered for its reverence to what actually took place in the chaotic days after the Allied invasion of Normandy. Based on my experience with Pacific Assault, a choice quote from Randy Pitchford in a Q&A with Shacknews stood out:

The idea of "1 health" has always been really stupid to us. What does that mean, to have 1 health? It usually means that someone can kill me by shooting me in the toe. It's just a dumb game concept. Brothers in Arms is trying to create a really immersive and authentic war experience. The idea of magic canteens that heal you and a numerical value for health just don't fit.

So we can expect no health meter in Brothers in Arms. When discussing realism in FPS, it's a non-argument to say that having a health meter at all is ridiculous. All it does is make you push the envelope: how far until the next health pack/healing station/medic? will I be able to make it? This forces you to change your gameplay strategy immediately to preserve what remaining "health" you have left. You could even extend this to ammunition: is it reasonable to assume that soldiers actually kept track of how many shots they fired in the heat of battle? Although Pacific Assault allows you to remove the HUD entirely, this doesn't eliminate the fact that there is an unreasonable number of times you can be shot before dying. Furthermore, the Medic will always heal you to 100%; there's no such thing as wounding or other hinderances that will affect the rest of the mission. The Rainbow Six series (and more recently, Full Spectrum Warrior) did a good job of adhering to the precept of one or two well-placed bullets likely incapacitating you.

I think the most important aspect of gameplay in Brothers in Arms is the commands system. I give Pacific Assault credit for implementing a rudimentary approach to ordering squadmates around, but I find that it feels more like a line in the Feature List on the box than something that actually affects gameplay. Enemies still rush at you, and rarely take cover (though they have suprised on some occasions). During combat you should expect your targets to be under cover, or at least run for cover when under fire. Full Spectrum Warrior taught real fire-and-suppress tactics and flanking maneuvers. You're not going to win by producing endless standoffs, you're going to use both of your fire teams to out flank the enemy or lead them into a vulnerable position. Apparently tanks in Brothers in Arms will be utilized in this manner as well, allowing you to command them like a fire team to suppress an enemy or clear out a fortified position.

Buried in the press release about EA's recent firings of 60 staff at their Los Angeles studio consisted primarily of the teams that worked on Goldeneye: Rogue Agent and the nearly completed Medal of Honor: Dogs of War. I guess it's expected that a press release from October announcing the game was drowned out by everything else that was going on at the time, but I think a more likely explanation is what the game offers. Firstly, it's the console release, much like Rising Sun and Fronline preceded their PC counterparts. But what I find amusing is what Dogs of War will bring to the series: set in the European theatre of 1942, it will apparently present "multiple solutions" to each mission, employing squad tactics with some kind of class based system that will allow you to change between them as the situation requires. Though EA can't be blamed for trying to tap in to the new interest in squad-based maneuverings in war-based FPS, I don't see Dogs of War surpassing the realism and attention to detail that Gearbox has injected into Brothers in Arms.

watch the final parade

the road to Hill 30

Total Video Games recently posted a Q&A with Gearbox's president Randy Pitchford who talks more about the upcoming Brothers in Arms. Since I last visited this game a sub-title has been added: "The Road to Hill 30". I'm sure this is the ultimate objective of the squad, as the game only takes place over the eight days that follow the D-Day invasion of Normandy.

In the interview, Pitchford once again trumpets the lengths Gearbox has gone to make this the most realistic World War 2 shooter to date: "While I’m not sure that realism is the only way forward for all games, it is the only way forward for a game like Brothers in Arms." I remember being incensed at the decision to eliminate friendly fire, as something that basic should be part of any war shooter game that makes such heady claims to realism.

In a forum post he responds to those questioning this decision, stating that in close quarters it will be impossible to shoot your squad mate. However, if you are a fair distance apart, there is a chance you will hit them - but it will never be fatal. Instead, the AI-controlled character will simply react to being shot. This behaviour sounds very similar to the final levels of Half Life 2, where you are in command of a squad of resistance fighters, and a decent compromise, I suppose. But then Pitchford mentions the "Authentic" play mode, which will be much less forgiving, though he never actually implies it will be possible to kill your squad members.

Regarding the squad AI, Pitchford says that they will "engage the enemy as they were trained, dive behind the nearest cover and alternate fire while guys reload or reposition themselves." The more Gearbox talks about the field tactics and command instructions, the more it's starting to sound like what I was introduced to while playing Full Spectrum Warrior. If Gearbox can even partially recreate these AI behaviors, I'll be very impressed. This also leaves room for you to control your character and explore the field instead of having to micromanage your fireteams.

In the Gearbox official forum, Pitchford hints at bullet-based weapons not even having crosshairs drawn on screen. Instead, you will actually have to use the weapon's ironsights, correcting for distance and pulling the trigger as you would a real gun. I read that Col. John Antal, the game's military advisor, took all of the programmers out to a firing range with some of the era's weapons to get a feel for what they were really like. To this end, the weapons will even have a bit of kick to them, adding another dimension to compensate for while firing. I don't think their intention is to create a simulator, but it seems to me firing the weapons in this game will actually take a bit of skill, and not just twitch reflexes.

Probably the biggest question that remains for me is what engine they're using. When I first saw the screens I have to admit I was impressed, but they felt too good to be true - modified, even. And the overall haziness and washed out textures on the blocky looking uniforms made the multi-platform release of the game entirely obvious. Though Pitchford gives us a hint:

Gearbox licensed technology from the best engine developers in the business. Then, we modified the engine with lots of custom technology to allow Gearbox to make the game it had planned to make. The Gearbox graphics technology allows the team to render Normandy as vast and accurate as we could imagine it – to take the player out of the corridor and into the real world. New technology also allows facial expressions and emotions that really help express these characters. And, there are many technology inventions in artificial intelligence that I’ve spoken about above.

My best guess at this point is that they've licensed some technology from our friends at id software. I'll admit that Doom 3 animated facial expressions believably (Bertruger's cutscenes come to mind), though not as eerily accurate as those in Half Life 2. And the outdoor environments in Doom 3, though not as common, were handled quite well. Given the amount of street fighting and battling through hedgerows that will take place in Brothers in Arms, the Doom 3 engine will have a chance to show off something that isn't a confined space.

Gearbox has released another trailer, this one even more Hollywood than the last. I'm not really a fan of when a game trailer takes an overly melodramatic approach, unless it's meant to be the introductory video for the released game. The fact that no real examples of BIA's varied gamplay are shown just make it feel contrived. That being said, most of my reservations have been cleared up at this point and it appears that Gearbox has at least thought about the many options to make Brothers in Arms the new benchmark for realism in World War 2 shooters, while still managing to keep it accessible. And pre-ordering the game will get you a bonus "Making of" DVD, something that I'm extremely interested in knowing the creative process that went into developing this game.

raining from a hapless cloud

More Brothers in Arms

• Gearbox does World War 2
• Brothers in Arms gameplay preview
• Tanks in Brothers in Arms
• more Brothers in Arms details

more Brothers in Arms details

I've been following Brothers in Arms with great interest, spurred primarily by my shameful penchant for World War II shooters. Officially, I was attracted by the bold statements made by the development team about it resuscitating a tired formula. In this age of pre-game hype, and considering Brothers in Arms isn't even out yet, I found it a bit shocking that a sequel was hinted at in an interview with Colonel John Antal, the military advisor for the game. BIA is to take place during the eight days after D-Day, so Gearbox intends to explore Operation Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge in this sequel. In another interview, Stephen Palmer (member of QA and design team) refers to expansion packs as well, no doubt exploring other aspects of the war that were intentionally omitted. It saddens me to think that this new property is already being set up to be milked.

In a Q&A with Col. Antal and Mr. Palmer in Computer and Video Games, additional details about Brothers in Arms caught my attention. Like Pacific Assault, Brothers in Arms is trying to get away from the health packs or canteens strewn about a level. Instead, I think the objective will be to avoid getting shot altogether, as there are some additions to the interface that let you know if bullets are getting close, or if your squad is under a supressing fire. This will allow you to make defensive or offensive maneuvers accordingly, instead of running in guns blazing.

There will also be no friendly fire in the game, and the reason given was "it wasn't good for gameplay". For the sake of realism, this is a terrible decision. Call of Duty had friendly fire, and even though you could be at the mercy of the squad AI that would block your view, it was still better than allowing you to fire off rounds of ammunition with reckless abandon. I've even read of players in Call of Duty who actually kill their AI squadmates, just to recover ammo in particularly heated battles. Obviously not something you would want to do too often, but the risk of killing off your own squadmates is still there.

I was pretty amazed at the squad reaction to the death of a fellow soldier in the gameplay preview, but unless the story dictates a squad member will die, any squad members killed by your actions in a mission will be incapacitated (i.e. unusable) for the following missions. Because each member of your team has their own story, I guess it becomes more of a necessity to keep everyone in the picture to develop a continuous, overall narrative. In Call of Duty, you were accompanied by different soldiers for each mission, and even though they all had names you didn't learn anything about them. As a result they were replacable, as harsh as it sounds. For Brothers in Arms, then, it will be important to keep everyone alive, but I'm not sure if you'll actually have to fight alone when all of your squad mates have fallen.

For multiplayer, there will be a four player limit, with each player getting an AI controlled squad mate to order around. Instead of standard deathmatching or capture the flag, there will be a seperate set of objective-based missions that will pit teams of up to two players against each other. Although Mr. Palmer claims this isn't due to technological limitations, or a streamlined experience for less players, this seems like a decision based on Brothers in Arms being a multi-platform release. I can see this type of multiplayer very easy to implement with a split screen, and still remain accomodating for PC players.

As one would expect, both Palmer and Antal think very highly of Brothers in Arms. But for a game that intends to bring the new definition of realism to World War II shooters, some of these design decisions are questionable. I was impressed at Col. Antal's comments about tanks, because it certainly rang true from past experience. But to turn around and say that friendly fire isn't necessary, or gloss over an incredibly stunted version of multiplayer puts a serious damper on these intentions.

like fire from a busted gun

Call of Duty: United Offensive (PC)

The expansion pack has developed into a quandary for PC gamers over the years. While at first they were made to extend the life of a game, they quickly degenerated into a way for the publisher to capitalize on the original game's success while expending a minimal amount of effort. The expansions for FPS are infamously short, sometimes even adding in features that should have been in the original game. Disappointed in the inconsistent efforts of EA for the Medal of Honor expansions, I expected a lot from Grey Matter for the expansion to the similarly high profile Call of Duty. I'm happy to report that United Offensive delivers a substantial payload.

pacific assault

As much as it burns many gamers to see game publishing behemoth EA succeed, it's not from lack of a solid lineup. The entire EA Sports brand, Need for Speed, The Sims and of course Medal of Honor have all proven to be guaranteed moneymakers, regardless of quality. The cynical might even say that EA's reliance on past successes and hard focus on sequels make it the whore of the industry; in the case of Pacific Assault I'd say that they've at least been paying attention. Not to be outdone by its competitors, EA has incorporated the best aspects of Allied Assault, the squad-like gameplay of Call of Duty and some brand new features all its own.

At half a gig though, the demo is criminally short and barely allows you to get into the game. Needless to say I've played through it around 20 times, intent on gathering as much reconaissance as possible from the meager mission included. The Unreal engine makes this tropical setting visually credible - from the waving palms to the fighters flying overhead. Although objects like towers and aircraft explode more believably this time around, terrain and most objects are static and suffer the same fate as other games using the Unreal engine. I can use oil drums on an airfield for cover, with no need to fear a stray bullet causing my protection to blow up in my face. Vegetation is similarly indestructible. With the Unreal engine comes improved physics, and character models now fall realistically instead of the awkward contortions of Raven Shield and Unreal Tournament 2003/2004.

The frantic and chaotic feeling of battle definitely took a few pointers from the presentation of Call of Duty. You can hear your fellow soldiers yelling "grenade!" when you or the enemy cuts one loose or medics tending to the wounded, gently assuring the fallen that things will be okay. As another realistic touch, when one of your squadmates falls, shouts of "he's gone, forget about him!" are heard above the gunfire and explosions. Assigning character to each of the AI controlled allies is something that we will also see in Brothers in Arms.

Taking damage in this game is quite interesting, as your physical state will deteriorate the more wounds you sustain. You will move slower the less health you have, and your vision will become blurry. You could say this was just an influence of Doom, but it's much more realistic than being able to run around aiming perfectly with next to no health. A great design decision was removing randomly placed medkits; instead, you have a limited number of times you can call a field medic who will come over to fix you up. This process is not instantaneous, and while he is tending your wounds you are essentially incapacitated. As a result there is still a chance you can get hit by nearby fire. This adds a much needed level of realism, and certainly adds a cohesiveness to your squad, because the medic doesn't just magically appear. He's always around, assisting your wounded sqaudmates. As a result you will have to defend your medic, because he is unarmed and will usually be taking fire with the rest of your squad.

There are also no dropped or placed ammo reserves - you can pick up any weapon and use it, and that's pretty much how you're going to replenish your supply. One of the biggest complaints about the Medal of Honor series was your inability to go completely prone, even though the enemy could, providing some extremely imbalanced firefights in low-cover situations. Pacific Assault thankfully allows this. Both were features of Call of Duty's that were wisely integrated.

Probably the most noticable addition, though, is your character's ability to issue basic squad commands such as Attack, Retreat, and Regroup. This can be useful in completing objectives, or if you're in a tough spot and need reinforcements, but the demo didn't really let me use these real-time tactics to their full extent. As part of the larger campaign though, I can definitely see them coming in useful.

I can't really say much about the enemy AI at this point, as the demo takes place in an especially brutal battle at Henderson Field at Guadalcanal. The Japanese use mostly swarming and "banzai" tactics, but they do take cover and launch distance or grenade attacks where the terrain allows it. This could all be simple scripting, but the AI seemed to respond to my playing methods: I played it safe in some instances, firing from a distance; in another play through of the demo I ran full on into the enemy. The latter seemed to prompt close quarters retaliation with bayonets. You can apply the real-life tactics of the Japanese in that sense, because their answer to eliminating US Forces was constant waves of soldiers doing these "banzai" attacks; whether they could actually manage to secure the position was almost happenstance.

Taken as a whole, I can easily see myself purchasing this game strictly as a fan of the genre. Pacific Assault isn't that much of a departure from the tried and true elements of these games: supress the enemy, jump on that stationary gun and eliminate fighters flying overhead - I mean this stuff has been done to death. But I can still see some innovation peeking through: the use of basic squad maneuvers, the field medics you can call for assistance, and for me this is enough to keep play interesting. Most importantly for EA, though, this game will be released before Brothers in Arms, which will be supplying many of the same improvements to further rejuvenate a tired genre. After a number of delays, my anticipation of this title has only dwindled somewhat; as the year comes to a close there are just too many games competing for my attention.

drawn to the ground

tanks in Brothers in Arms

Being the typical PR material, this interview with John Antal at CVG would have usually gone into the "rehash of information released at E3" pile. Antal, a former U.S. Army Colonel and currently Gearbox's consultant for Brothers in Arms, brings up a great point about tanks in WWII shooters to date:

We've done some great things to make the armoured warfare very realistic and much more fun. When you look at tanks in some other games, it's really made me angry because they're horrible. They're just pill-boxes, they don't do anything, they're easy to destroy - they're just a joke. We've made our tanks lethal. In fact, we initially made them so lethal they always won...[You] can use bazookas and demolitions in some cases. It's not like some other games where you have to find the glowing bomb and put it on the glowing thing. That's too simple. Actually, you have to be really courageous to attack a moving tank with TNT - it can be done, but it's difficult. Getting your own tanks to help you is the best way. Infantry against tanks is a lop-sided affair. A tank is a scary thing. Have you ever seen a tank?

Obviously the last question was rhetorical - I doubt most players of WWII shooters that revel in their gritty realism have ever experienced combat first hand. This attitude confirms the reason I'm following the development of this game. If you think about past efforts like the Medal of Honor series and Call of Duty, there were sequences where you would pick up a Panzerfaust and cut loose on oncoming tanks. Predictably, after one or two placed shots the tanks would burst into flame and you could move onto the next target. Naturally, tank combat in Battlefield 1942/Vietnam isn't up for debate - realism wasn't what DICE was aiming for. Viewing the BIA gameplay preview from E3, you witness a sequence where a tank obliterates an entire section of building to eliminate a machine gun emplacement. Tanks - as well as infantry combat - is indeed a scary thing, and BIA will be doing its best to communicate these sentiments.

After the earlier announcement of the game's delay, the interview also confirms a February 2005 release.

Brothers in Arms gameplay preview

I managed to pull myself away from Star Wars Galaxies to view the E3 gameplay presentation for Brothers in Arms. Like seeing friends fall into the bottomless chasms of other MMORPGs, you never think it can happen to you. But Galaxies has me securely, and is currently the reason I game on my PC. But I'll get to that affliction another day.

I stand by my assessment of Call of Duty, however improvements can easily be made in the game's sense of character. There was certainly an identifiable squad in each of the game's campaigns, but as far as characterization, most of the men that fought with you were disposable, and at times irrelevant when combat sequences required you to move ahead and fight alone. Brothers in Arms appears to address this shortcoming by allowing the player to issue heat of battle commands with a very simple context-sensitive interface. You can tell your Fire team to move to a position and set up a base of fire. In the same manner you can command your Assault team to move in for the kill. What's even more interesting is what Gearbox refers to as the "Situational Awareness View", an isometric overhead map that displays what is going on in the battle. Using this map you can see enemy positions and what they are doing, and icons showing their disposition towards the battle - that is, whether they are pinned down, on the assault or merely defending a rally point.

Because there isn't much scripting involved in your squad's tactics, some of your field commands may end up getting your men killed. In the gameplay video, you see the Fire team get mercilessly cut down by a German soldier hiding out on the top floor of a house in an MG42 emplacement. It would be more realistic if the AI was smart enough to take these situations into account, because as it stands a case like that would require your intervention. The enemy AI seemed adaptive - they would adjust their positions as each team closed in.

When a man falls in the midst of a firefight, a squad member shouts that he's down and wounded. The momentum of battle continues, and then you hear the same soldier say that he didn't make it; the wounds were fatal. Humanizing the characters like this will make combat harder to take, and instead of rushing your squad members straight into the fray, you might actually think about it first. I'm not certain this type of gameplay would be suited to those that are used to the typical "run and gun" methods, but I'm sure it would still work. I just think the experience would be less enjoyable.

The graphics engine makes me wonder what I was looking at in Call of Duty and Medal of Honor. All environments are modelled after real-life battlefields and locations, right down to the placement of stone walls and buildings. The eyes of squad mates follow your movement, and facial and body language are modelled as well. Adding to the realism, to be sure, but creepy nonetheless.

For fourteen minutes I was genuinely transfixed. Clearly some valuable design modifications have been made to the standard FPS. United with the game's dedication to a realistic World War II frontline combat experience, I foresee the same reaction to Call of Duty last year.

While in the same state of mind, I read that Axis and Allies would enter the realm of real time strategy with a new game being developed by Timegate Studios. They're the same team that brought us the absolutely stunning Kohan series. I've seen some screens of this incarnation of the beloved boardgame, which predictably follow the trend of taking RTS to three dimensions. I remain largely unimpressed, as it all seems a little too familiar.

Axis and Allies is easily my favorite board game of all time. Looking back there was clearly an age where I graduated from the manic dice rolling of Risk and moved into the territory of high tabletop strategy. Timegate has proven their clout in giving the RTS genre a badly needed injection of originality, but something tells me that a game involving the movement of armies over land, sea and air of entire contintents needs something on larger scale. Why should battle be limited to a single map? Perhaps some ideas can be borrowed from Rise of Nations or Medieval: Total War, where a larger world map allows the movement of troops and materials to war-ravaged countries, and the actual fighting takes place in individual maps. I can't say that I'm looking forward to this game, because it seems to me that Iron Blitz is just as good a representation of the game as any. Once again I feel that a powerful brand is being abused, where no meddling is required.

caught in the maelstrom

review: Call of Duty (PC)

I waited like a slavering, starving dog for the intense WWII action of Call of Duty. I picked it up last Friday night along with a rental copy of the magnificent Soul Calibur II, but I'll leave that for another post. On the way home I listened to the pre-order exclusive soundtrack CD to get myself in the spirit. Being Halloween and all we had to put up with the snotlings that insisted on coming to our door begging for candy, so installation was delayed until Saturday. The install went pretty smoothly - that is, until I actually tried to start the game.

dawnville

At this point it's safe to say I'm as pumped up for Call of Duty as I was in the Spring of 2000 for Diablo II. I spent most of my weekend game time re-playing both demos, which included the exclusive "Dawnville" that I mentioned last week. As always the current issue of PCG doesn't disappoint - well written reviews of BF1942: Secret Weapons of World War II and of course their cover story, Call of Duty (93%!!). The fact that the press got a hold of a release copy of the game is good news indeed - CoD is scheduled to blast its way into my local EB on October 31st. I'm absolutely buzzing with excitement. I played the new demo on Saturday afternoon and I couldn't even put my impressions into words this weekend. Even now I'm having a difficult time - you truly have to experience it for yourself.

The tagline for CoD has always been "No One Fights Alone". As I said in my review of MoHAA:Breakthrough that's essentially what's wrong with the typical War shooter: you're the lone hero versus countless enemies. After playing through the chaotic "Dawnville" demo, seeing my squadmates react to enemy fire and warn about incoming grenades - it was a truly cinematic and immersive experience. And hard. From what I've read the game doesn't get any easier, and these first couple of demos are just the beginning of the game. Both the graphics, textures and player models really get the chance to shine on "Dawnville", because it takes place in the daytime. A lot of care went into all of the weapon models as well, making it seem hard to believe that this is the same Quake III engine that was used to build MOHAA.

My only sneaking suspicion at this point is the lack of a multiplayer demo. With a game like this, squad tactics will be an even bigger part of the game than it was with Medal of Honor, and with less than two weeks to release I'm surprised that Activision hasn't provided us gamers with a small map to try out. Given that multiplayer in Medal of Honor was smooth on LAN and Internet play, and incredibly easy to set up, I can't really see this being a problem with CoD. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. A Q&A with the President of Inifity Ward and two of the designers went up at IGN Action Vault today. I feel dirty for linking to them, but whatever. My appetite for more CoD information at the moment is insatiable.

will the fight for our sanity be the fight of our lives?

review: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault - Breakthrough

While waiting for EB to give me The Call (of Duty), I decided to get MoHAA: Breakthrough to pass the time in a similar WWII fashion. A minor annoyance is that EA released a battlechest earlier this summer with only the first expansion, and they'll probably do the same in couple months with the entire set. As if EA needed any more cash. Don't get me wrong though - I love the series and I'll probably get the new battlechest regardless.

One thing for sure is that it's much longer than Spearhead, so you at least get your money's worth. But judging from some of the initial reviews, I wasn't sure what to expect. After being thrown into a sandstorm in the Battle of Kasserine Pass (the first Tunisian mission) I was ready to partake in some cinematic styled WWII action. And for a second I actually believed this. But after playing through the 12 sub-missions spanning the deserts of North Africa to the heart of Italy, my initial hopes were quickly dashed.

heeding the call

Lucky for us, Activision chose not to piss off the fans and didn't make the Call of Duty single-player demo exclusive, and even opted to release it early. I got it and finished it last night.

As you may or may not know, Inifinity Ward (the developers of Call of Duty)is made up of a bunch of the Medal of Honor team who jumped ship from 2015 some time last year. As expected there are some similarities to the gameplay, despite their many changes to the game interface.

The mission that is packed with the demo is an assault on some AA guns by a squad from Baker Company in the 506th. You're put into the boots of Private Martin, where you are instructed to plant explosives on the AA guns. This is something you would probably be familiar with if you played MoHAA the whole way through. Infinity Ward has successfully captured the cinematic magic that I was so impressed with in the Medal of Honor series. However where they have it beat is the squad AI.

When you are dropped into the mission, you have a platoon of around 10 soldiers fighting with you, that act like they know what they're doing. Usually it takes some action on your part to get them to push forward, but in the interim they lay down a base of fire, covering each other and making sure all threats are taken care of. For those 15 minutes it took for me to finish the demo, I was in an Episode of Band of Brothers. The enemy fire came from every angle, and the low light conditions highlighted with mortar fire and flaming wreckage added to the mood. The ability to crouch or go completely prone was a welcome addition. The objectives within the map were fairly linear, but the scripted events along the way were fantastic.

The visuals were breathtaking and the new weapon and character models are carefully rendered. Basically the engine appears to be a tweaked version of the one used for Allied Assault, but leans towards realism. I was able to shoot the Enemy in different areas, and they would respond accordingly by limping or falling over, and sometimes even getting back up to return fire! The sound was also top notch. The realistic carbine/machine gun fire and explosions were deafening, and only immersed me even more.

Quite simply I believe this game will own, and any fan of the genre should consider pre-ordering. It arrives in stores November 4th, along with about 10,000 other games that I've been patiently waiting for this year.

Is it November yet?

the call of duty

I'm anticipating the release of Call of Duty as much as the next guy, but when the fuckers over at gamespy decide to do something like this to get you to pay for a subscription it's kind of insulting. And we get the point already - it's exclusive. But if memory serves you can probably expect to see that "exclusive" demo on the free fileplanet servers a week from Sunday. I'll be there; Call of Duty looks to kick a lot of ass.

And for those TBS fans out there, remember the Warlords series? The franchise went off into the realm of real-time a few years ago with the excellent Warlords Battlecry games, but now they're back with the first TBS game since 1997 with Warlords IV: Heroes of Etheria. It premiered at E3 this year, but I wasn't too impressed with the visuals. However, Warlords III didn't exactly have breathtaking visuals and still managed to provide hours of solid gameplay. I managed to grab the demo from the aforementioned Planet of Files today, but you can always wait it out and I'm sure it will show up elsewhere.