I thought I may as well get an obligatory Call of Duty game
out of the way for a review on its own terms now that the hype has faded. This will be done in two parts, one with Single Player and one with Multiplayer. Anyway, the
series as a whole can range from universally praised, to a hated test of
‘MURICA!!', to ….an experiment that maybe now looks like it didn’t work. Some love it, some hate it, but its one of the few series to really be a mainstream hit with the masses.
I decided to go with Modern Warfare 2, mainly because it
felt like the game that aimed the highest, being the direct sequel to the
universally loved Call of Duty 4. It also had enough technical polish to make
it stand out from most games at the time, before people started complaining
that it was just more of the same every year. And lest we forget that it was by
far the game with the most media attention, with the ‘No Russian’ mission
setting a new watermark for violence in gaming.
But does it really deserve to be credited with being the
ultimate multiplayer shooter by many fans? Does the story have more to it than
one infamously controversial mission? What is IN here that keeps players coming
back to this game instead of other titles in the series?
Also note, that THIS IS SPOILER TERRITORY! You have been
warned, although it has been over 5 years now.
NOW WE'RE SPOILING!
Beginning with the single player, we need to see how the
missions and story are structured. The game shares a lot with a few other of
the latter half of Call of Duty titles in that the story can be boiled down to
“America gets invaded and must fight back”. However, this can be done in a
variety of ways. Black Ops II executed the story in such a way that you
question whether the player’s actions are truly right, while fighting a
groundroots movement with somewhat legitimate grievances. Ghosts meanwhile made
it painfully apparent that America just got attacked by South America simply
because the nations wanted to take over the place…not much context in game lads.
Modern Warfare 2 goes with a situation where the Russians
get tricked into war by blaming an American soldier for a terrorist attack, and
the game revolves around sorting out the conflict from that point on. This is
not a bad setup, and ultimately there are twists and turns from the various
characters you encounter. Makarov is an obvious bad guy, and the soldiers you
are accompanied by are willing to do anything to complete the missions. The missions
are played out either from the US Army Rangers perspective of defending against
Russian forces in the east coast of the U.S, or from Task Force 141 as they
covertly track down Makarov’s ultimate whereabouts.
Time to save the world
When this was released I enjoyed everything about the story,
mainly for the intensity of the scenarios and striking impact, but after a
playthrough this week, all I can think of the story is this: Awesome Silliness.
The first mission in Afghanistan is what
to expect for a game styled as modern warfare, but the Cliffhanger mission sets
the tone for the majority of the story once you get into a snowmobile escape
chase. Its intense! The Hanz Zimmer score is pumping, you end up jumping over a
gorge to complete the mission. Absolute silliness, and not exactly what you
think of for a semblance of realism, but at that point you check the brain at
the door for context and just go with it and enjoy all the Hollywood
blockbuster style the missions provide.
As you play, you get a real sense of the production values
and the star power of the story. The aforementioned Hanz Zimmer score is the
best for any Call of Duty game, and really is what I remember most with
hindsight. The missions simply wouldn’t be the same without it at times. The
aesthetic design of the missions are more colourful than Call of Duty 4’s, with
more emphasis on red for the American front and the 141 missions tend to veer
more for the arctic conditions in Russian territory. The set pieces could still
work well in today’s market (heck, ghosts DID reuse one for its intro) and you
do still feel relatively in control. More recent CoD games tend to have the
player lower their gun to indicate a scripted sequence of characters talking
and such, so having none of that sorts gives the player a sense that they can
shoot up the place at any time. The action peaks and valleys work superbly, with
a tendency for one mission to be bombastic while another involves smaller
skirmishes and specialty. This in particular is something MW3 got wrong with
its campaign, too bombastic is a bad thing.
Perhaps its greatest asset is that behind the perfected
technical standpoint lies a game where the creators actually had a passion to
make this game. Modern Warfare 2 and
Battlefield 3 were sold as technical masterpieces for the genre, but it must be
said that the little things MW2 features transcend it from being merely a
technical showcase. The death screens have the usual features such as death by
grenades, but did you know that there is one for getting blown up by a jet
engine?
The game’s single player is filled with tidbits and easter
eggs that makes it fun to play through. The Terminator’s Model 1887, the Aliens
Heartbeat sensor, the James Bond esque escape on snowmobiles, the Wolverines! Mission,
all are thrown in and more to enjoyable effect. Even at the end credits there
is a photograph of the main cast looking set for a mission. The Museum epilogue
is a great idea of showing the dev’s animations and art assets in an
interactive way (and if you REALLY must, you can press the red button…if you
dare)
And the impact of the set pieces is well done to complete
things. Shepherds Betrayal, Escaping the Favela, Retaking the White House, the
Final Speedboat chase. Even the Final Boss is enjoyable, despite being nothing
but Quicktime events. Such highs are so good that it barely registers that
Makarov’s presence really fizzles out at the end and you forget about him.
While there is a lot of praise to be said about the overall
campaign, there are issues, especially when analysing through the lens of time.
And this brings things to No Russian…
No retrospective review of MW2 is complete without an
opinion on ‘No Russian’. Is it Encouraging terrorists? Is it just a shock for
the sake of shock? Is it a chance for Infinity Ward to push the envelope of an
interactive narrative in gaming? Well, In my opinion there is no doubt that
while it’s the most well-known part of the campaign, it’s also the most
gratuitous. Perhaps its not as gratuitous as MW3’s killing of a child, that felt
very poor in taste for feeling that it was done for the sake of having
controversy. Of course, we have something that definitely shocks. Everything feels
very real, right down to the forced movement speed to show a deliberate side to
Makarov’s spree. While you have the option of not killing until the FSB show
up, it is very hard to act out such a role without firing at least a few shots
in the air. And it’s not all that surprising that you get killed at the end of
the mission, since acting this casually controversial in gaming is a good way to
get negative karma. Your body is the plot point at the end of the day as well.
Overall, this mission could have been skipped (heck, the game tells you you
can!) and little would change if a cutscene replaced it.
On the other side of the coin, this does feel like a successor
mission to drive the story, similar to Call of Duty 4’s Nuclear explosion. That
game challenged the notion of player character immunity, and this feels like an
attempt to show the horrors of this sort of violence in an all too familiar
setting. While you can challenge MW3 for poor taste and non-existent context,
this mission seems different, like its following through with its point. No
Russian has enough context to justify its inclusion in the game, and the end
scene does feel like a gutpunch for all the murdering you have committed.
And while No Russian is infamous, it is not the only part of
the campaign that has issues. While it felt cutting edge for military shooters
at the time, the story is very cliché at points and requires checking your
brain at the door when viewed with today’s standards. Makarov starts out as a
very hate-able villain, but his presence really downgrades as the story goes on
in favour of Commander Shepherd. The blatant sequel bait is another issue that
hurts the game, since Call of Duty 4 was very much self-contained. This sequel
feels like it is missing the U.S counteroffensive in Russia, and a proper
Makarov showdown, both of which get resolved in Modern Warfare 3. The graphics
are still impressive and the more colourful aesthetic give it a better art
style than its sequel, but it still has aged over time, especially after games
like Advanced Warfare and Battlefield 3 have shown considerable advancements in
facial features and the Frostbite engines capabilities respectively. The
overarching story also feels looser than it should with some scenarios, with
the oil rig mission in particular feeling like a mission that could have been
removed from the game with minimal detriment to the story. Another issue with the story is some loose plot points. The player never really finds out how the V.I.P in the suburbs was killed by one of Makarov's Henchmen, or why just one A.C.S module was enough to disrupt the Eastern seaboard conveniently for an invasion.
Again, awesome silliness
That said, the campaign has held its own over time and is
still an enjoyable thrill ride from beginning to end. The silliness had taken
over from the relatively grounded CoD4, but not to the point of disrupting the
tone of the story, like MW3. Its what the second instalment of a trilogy should
be, an improvement in many ways over the original, adding its own flair, and
expanding concepts. Sure, some don’t work, and its not going to be considered
among the best military storylines but it does its job with brilliance
nonetheless.
Join me in Part 2 when I cover the Multiplayer and Special Ops
