Nothing pains me more than actually liking the Call of Duty. The franchise has become so recycled over the past four years that it's almost as unforgivable as my insatiable thirst for the game's addictive, deep, multi-dimensional multiplayer offerings, albeit my insipid run 'n gun play-style preference (despite the common consensus, CoD offers many playstyles variations, most relying on teamwork coordination, which nobody bothers with thanks to the one of CoD's inherit design flaws---READ: regenerating health).

Activision has been releasing CoD on a yearly basis since the series inception (2003), but I jumped into CoD in 2009, not with MW2, but World at War (the awful Wii-port, mind you). And despite being the weakest CoD game since the world-changing CoD 4 (and being on the Wii), I loved it. The franchise speaks to me; it massages my oft-neglected id in ways that few games can, offering me a slew of highly satisfying intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that fail to disappoint.

Activision's insidious gloating with CoD is detrimental not solely to the franchise, but the gaming industry as a whole, pushing the message that more of the same trumps innovation and risk taking. This in turn has led us to this current massive over-saturation of shooters on the market, which further dampens my prospective hopes for future triple-A releases to lead innovation concerning video games as as art form (though there are exceptions, like the upcoming Bioshock: Infinite).

But, who am I kidding; I shouldn't be looking for artistic progress from the mainstream. The real momentum will probably come from the independent scene; much like cinema did in its beginnings (most early noteworthy attempts at artistic cinema came no thanks to the multi-million dollar studio system, with notable exceptions like 1927's Metropolis).

In fact, video games seem to be mirroring cinema in terms of evolution and progress: start out as a small entertainment diversion, become recognized as a worth-while commercial avenue, and transform this avenue into a delectably-soulless enterprise invested on serving the appetites of those eagerly seeking lowbrow entertainment that does little to meet intellectual criteria essential for said property to be classified as 'art', i.e. anything that aims to bring a topic into the limelight for civil discourse, anything that is meant to state a body of ideals and presents them to be analyzed by its audience, or anything that presents an emotional response in hopes of having the viewer analyze it's properties due to it's norm-shattering nature (basically, anything that aims to make you think about the external world around you).

(FYI the criteria listed above is My definition of what makes art. It my opinion. Ergo, I struggle to accept that a games like Shadow of the Colossus could be considered as art, for SotC appears to offer little outside of an expertly crafted, though ultimately pointless, tale of isolation and struggle, filled with highly emotive set-pieces aided with a strong sense of expectancy violation).

So, my artistic demands rule the CoD franchise as both a failure and a success. MW2's No Russian mission stressed the value of human life, the cost of war, and then went back to simple FPS gameplay that place violence and war was the fulcrum of the games entertainment value. This would be hypocritical, had it not been for the constantly recurring quotes from denoting the horrors of war and the stupidity of it's existence. These elements of self-awareness gave me an excuse to enjoy the game on artistic grounds, knowing that all this virtual violence was justified thanks to Infinity Ward's transparency towards it's own positions regarding MW2's subject matter (I'd like to point out that Black Ops adopted 0% of these elements. Saddening, really).

But, I find myself in a hypocritical position. I'm here for the online. As is 90% of people that buy these games. There is no narrative, no point. It's a virtual playground complete with virtual paintball guns, all running at 60 frames per second.

It's a total time waster. It offers little that's new. It looks dated (though, I recall MW2 being gorgeous back in 2009. Times have changed). The campaign looks to be as impersonal to violence, war, and its impact than any CoD before it. The new game modes, class configurations, loadouts, and strike-packages may not be enough to encourage the fan base to work together. Mw3 looks to change nothing (I'd love to be proven wrong, mind you).

And yet I still want to own it.

Liking CoD is like loving a person who cheated on you 6 months ago. The love is strong, but the pain has yet to stop swelling. Screw you CoD, I love you.

P.S.

And at least your campaign looks to entertain me more that Battlefield 3's did.

The thing is just too damn expensive! That's the bottom line! Why should the average consumer bother with this thing if they can just go to their iPhones for games that are actually quite good (there are quality cell-phone games out there). The hardcore gamers (myself included) will love the 3DS,but I doubt that it will funnel out to the casual consumers very well. My reason for that is the price: I don't know what games will sell for, but they are bound to be rather expensive.

The 3DS is also a victim of it's own sophistication: it's actually quite powerful. Which means it's now a slave to the graphics race. Now appeal will diminish if graphics suffer. I can't help but feel that the future for the 3DS is quite gloomy. Sadly.