[The following opinions are those of the writer and maybe not the general consensus of the game. Any concerns around the writer's opinion of games should be kept to one's self or through a nice, calm medium.]
War is a primary factor in videogames nowadays, whereas in the past videogames relied on old fashioned stories such as the traditional damsel-in-distress technique, or good ol' fashioned vengeance. But when it comes to war, developer's can choose between adapting an actual historic war, or creating a fictatious war which, more often than not, revolves around the communists. Other times a fictitious war is conveyed through demons or aliens, should the game be set in an alternate reality. But this is a blog denoting the true-to-form war genre, the historical shooter.
Obviously this blog is inspired by the news of Call of Duty returning to form, which I am ecstatic over, given my mediocre reception of Modern Warfare. The fifth game, World at War, will return to WW2, only with a twist, venturing into the Pacific Theatre, which has been left untapped since Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, as well as the Eastern Front, extending on the Call of Duty 2 campaign in the USSR. Below is a list of the games covered in this (first of a duology) War in Games blog:
Call of Duty 2 (X360), Call of Duty 3 (X360), To End All Wars (Upc. X360), Medal of Honor: Airborne (X360), Hour of Victory (X360) and Battle for the Pacific (X360).
First, Call of Duty. The series has featured prominently on 6th and 7th generation consoles, as well as the PC and Mac OS, with 2,3 and 4 so far out on the 360, with 5 on the way. Call of Duty is among the most immersive of the shooters on the 360, beating Medal of Honor: Airborne due to it's sometimes clumsy control... and lack of the ability to go prone of course. With the fifth Call of Duty returning to WW2, it marks a welcome change from the wave of all-too-similar modern shooters in this day and age. Of course with the new COD, comes some new features, just like COD3 brought in the (hardly groundbreaking) close quarters combat. Nothing has been made clear as of yet, but alot of people seem to think that swords make their way into the game, and it seems all but likely. To End All Wars will be the first (if not, first noticeable) game to be set in WW1 (The Darkness doesn't count as it's not all WW1, and when it is it's some freaky, distorted version of the conflict) and so far, the game seems to have fallen into obscurity, with many people ignoring it's existence. But in my sexy opinion, I think a WW1 shooter would add an extra degree of antiquity, with outdated weapons and stuff, but it may also feel to constricting, in that most of WW1 was fought from the trenches.
Medal of Honor: Airborne I found to be very good, despite it's numerous shortcomings, but it did deliver a very true-to-form WW2 experience, if not made slightly over-the-top by the Flakturm mission, although it outlines just how far Nazi Germany was prepared to go. The less said about the latter two titles, the better. Both are horrible and have no historic significance whatsoever. Hour of Victory is totally moronic, it features no reference to WW2 except for it's setting and design. None of the battles are real, the game lasts hardly over 2-3 hours, and everything else about the game is broken. Whoever says it's like a "poor man's Call of Duty" is himself a sinful liar, as the two have next to nothing in common. I haven't played Battle for the Pacific, and here is why.
In the darkest time's of war, the enemy can become so tired that they just decide to nap in front of you. Although it hardly makes a difference, you would have disposed of all six of them in 2 bullets anyway.
As far as naming is concerned, Call of Duty runs rings around the opposition, with Medal of Honor coming in second. When someone came up with the name of Hour of Victory, all they did was downsize and synonym-ise the title to Day of Defeat. To End All Wars is a much more cinematic title, further conveying the drama. And Battle for the Pacific just comes straight from a History Channel documentary, as did the game.
Although all of the above games (with the obvious exception of the latter two titles in the list, aswell as To End All Wars) convey the Second World War as a brutal conflict in which the simple task of capping a Nazi is turned into an all-out struggle for survival, they do not come close to capturing the true harshness of war, not eve with a 52" LCD HD TV with Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound can you come close to understanding the trauma of the war, no-one save for the brave souls who gave their lives for the freedom of Europe and the world know the true horror of the war, and the survivor's know all to well how it changes a man. But despite this, total immersion in a WW2 shooter is not a bad thing. It pays respects to those who died, aswell as those who fought long and hard and where lucky enough to survive the 6 years of hell, without giving you the same excruciating pain. Sure completing COD on Veteran requires time and a new controller, but did the soldier's of the war get more than one life? If they did then the war would never have stopped.
Thank you for reading.
Star Fox Command on DS.
Log in to comment