the stetchkov syndicate

The third mission in SWAT 4: The Stetchkov Syndicate is a perfectly clear example what the game is all about: decision making under pressure. The mission puts you in charge of defusing a hostage situation involving a group of armed maniacs that stormed an auditorium intent on ridding the world of devil-worshipping rock stars. I had approached the stage from the rear with Blue Team backing me up, only to see that one of the perpetrators had taken a band member by gunpoint. I had Red Team come through another entrance to gas the backstage area, but this had no effect. On a catwalk above the stage, another gunman who spotted the standoff opened fire on me and my team. Blue Team returned the fire, killing him - this startled the man with the hostage. My team and I urged the man to surrender. Clearly aggravated, he turned to what he felt was his only option: he shot his hostage and ran offstage. An innocent dies, and a mission fails. SWAT 4 puts a lot of power in your hands as the player. The control of two fire teams to assist in neutralizing hostiles and the arsenal of high-powered automatic weapons to do it with; the ability to preserve life and the power to take it.

teaching the value of human life

Once again I'm exploring SWAT 4, a game that is in need of more attention than it ever got in the year since its release. This time it's in the context of one of the most powerful choices the game offers players: do you take the life of a criminal or do you subdue them? Do you run the risk of killing your entire team because you assumed the last gunman would give himself up? It's an essential part of the strategy presented in SWAT 4 and its recent expansion, and this feature is unfortunately drowned out by the game's more marketable contemporaries. This month's article at The Cultural Gutter reveals why some games don't teach killing, but how it can be avoided.

game of the year 2005: SWAT 4

SWAT 4 is a masterpiece of the tactical first-person shooter genre. It is also the best game that was released in 2005.

swat 4: compliance is your only option

SWAT 4 successfully integrates a fluid interface, real time tactics and a completely believable simulation. And like its predecessor, it's a welcome change from the tactical shooters that typically let you shoot first and ask questions later.

The SWAT series has changed form three times since its first release as Daryl F. Gates Police Quest: SWAT, a spin-off of Sierra's recognized adventure brand. Tacking on Gates' name to the title would add credibility, as the former Los Angeles police chief basically invented the whole SWAT (special weapons and tactics) concept and had a hand in the game's design - though it ended up as some kind of one-man FMV adventure. SWAT 2 would take an isometric real-time strategy approach, introducing more of an action element to the game but also allowing you to control an entire squad. Finally, SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle would arrive after Rainbow Six established a new genre: the tactical first person shooter. Sharing similar design elements, SWAT 3 would still hold its own as a fairly realistic interpretation of these elite police units.

I played SWAT 3 shortly after I completed Eagle Watch, the first expansion for Rainbow Six. The inability to completely plan a mission beforehand made me extra cautious in my approach to the gameplay, because in SWAT you were dropped into a mission and had to deal with tactical situations as they happened - you were never informed of how many adversaries you were facing or their last known locations. The situations were often chaotic, and the civilians weren't always being held at gunpoint - they would sometimes be running around just trying to get to safety, creating a highly distracting battlefield.

I liked that you were able communicate directly with the aggressors: yelling such things as "drop your weapon!", "Stay down!" or "hands in the air", sometimes causing them to open fire. Though they would occasionally comply, allowing you or one of your squad mates to approach and restrain them. It was an obvious movie-like interpretation of this kind of police work, but it allowed every mission to unfold in a believable manner, where not every guy with a gun in his hand was necessarily a threatening target.

Along with a new engine adapted from Irrational's Tribes Vengeance, all of these elements are back in SWAT 4. Though where the game really impresses me is the interface. It fosters a completely seamless experience where the novice can issue "default" commands as the situation applies, or the experienced can delve deeper into the on-screen context sensitive drop down menu and issue a particular command to be executed. Moreover, the interface seems to be designed to let you sit back and let your team do all the work, allowing the player to effectively become the leader. The team AI is very adept in this regard - the only time a team member was incapacitated was because of my carelessness, after I asked them to run into a room without using proper breach and clear tactics. The enemy AI is also unpredictable - rarely will they immediately open fire, and this causes you to approach each possible hostile with caution instead of running nonchalantly through the mission, finger poised on the "Fire" button.

Though this is all seen through the eyes of a fan of SWAT 3; I would hardly call the mission selected for the demo exciting. This may be detrimental for prospective newcomers, and that's a damn shame. In SWAT 3 and the first two Rainbow Six games, reconaissance and non-deadly force missions were always part of the package, conveying the message that to "win" doesn't mean putting a bullet in the enemy. Though sound in their presentation of tactics, games like Full Spectrum Warrior and Close Combat: First to Fight are putting less of an emphasis on enemy apprehension or de-armament and instead opt for simple neutralization - adapting the aforementioned mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. It's nice to know SWAT 4 is taking a more civilized approach, even though the game essentially revolves around the same "player versus the bad guy" model. I'm fully aware of what's happening to the Rainbow Six series, so I'm glad that Irrational has taken care in trying to reproduce what made SWAT 3 so enjoyable. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the full version this April.

the regiment

In my haste to name the squad tactical shooters to be released this year, I seem to have overlooked Konami Europe's The Regiment for the PS2 and PC. The Regiment will introduce gamers to the world of Britain's SAS counter-terrorist force, which became world renowned in the televised takedown of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980. Powered by the Unreal engine (and making obvious allowances for the PS2), The Regiment will intermix fictional missions with a re-enactment of the famous operation at the embassy. I'm glad to see a developer examining this subject, as the inspiration for this genre has traditionally been very U.S.-centric.

wargaming: the gateway to military service?

It appears that the official website for Close Combat: First to Fight has re-launched. I remain impressed by what the game has to offer.

Browsing through some of the material confirms my belief that this will be another ultra-realistic war shooter, and like Full Spectrum Warrior has taken great pains to recreate the experiences of modern warfare. But instead of Pandemic's military advisors, developers Destineer have supposedly involved more than 40 active-duty Marines who only a short time before were dodging bullets in Iraq. In fact, your team in the game will be made up of real-life soldiers, the bios of whom are listed on the official site. The boundaries of reality are blurred accordingly.

What I found even more interesting was in the "Making it Real" section of the site. There's an innocent link to the "About the Marines" page, where an additional link to the U.S. Marines official site lies after the brief description, available "for additional information". Conversely, there is a disclaimer on Full Spectrum Warrior official site that reads: "The Full Spectrum Warrior game is not sponsored or endorsed by the United States Army." Clearly the distinction was made on the latter, but the former does nothing less than insinuate that the game is some kind of recruitment tool.

The average FPS gamer may think they know how to fire a gun, but as an article in December's issue of Computer Games notes, I hardly think they have any idea what it's like to be in 40 pounds of equipment in stifling desert heat, or how to correct their aim for recoil on an actual weapon. It's still just fantasy to them, and these aggressive tactics by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps just further reinforce some comments made on my review of Full Spectrum Warrior. These games may be just the push they need to investigate the armed forces in earnest, and perhaps enlist. It may very well end up to be the most effective form of advertising we've seen to date.

Describing the success of the U.S. Army's pet project America's Army, an article in the Globe and Mail compares it against Canada's own policy for drumming up interest in the younger population to join the Canadian Forces. Major Ken Orr, Sr. Staff Officer at the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group Headquarters says that there are CD-ROMs available that provide virtual tours and information about each branch of the military, but nothing as interactive as a game. This perfectly echoes Canada's stance on the military.

Before I firmly plant myself aboard a soapbox, I should divulge that I recently finished reading J.L. Granatstein's Who Killed Canada's Military?, which puts together a compelling argument about Canada's military capabilities, and essentially established the following windy tirade. The number of enlisted soliders currently serving in the Canadian Forces is at an embarassing low: 60,000 soldiers in all ranks, for a population of 32 million. Defense spending is equally low, with most of our purchases being decommissioned or unwanted equipment from our allies. Given the recent accidents that have befallen our military, it's clear we are in no shape to participate in warfare in the 21st century. Granted, we are world renowned for our peacekeeping efforts, but what most people don't realize is that peacekeeping in today's political climate is more like peace enforcement, and without the proper training, equipment and personnel to carry out these activities we aren't much help to the United Nations. Most importantly though, we are in no way fit to defend ourselves from attack, instead always relying on our gung-ho neighbours to the south. I find it ironic that anti-Americanism is so rampant in Canada right now, given that they are technically our last line of defence (and before you start proclaiming the love other countries have for us, note that the Atlantic is pretty fucking wide). I also find it a bit naive of Canada to continue to assume that no one will ever attack or invade us. Call this media influenced alarmist thinking, but I find it sad that the best Canada will be able to do in a time of crisis is call Washington for help. I agree no blood should be shed for oil, but I think we're collectively missing the point: as a country we should be ready and able to stand up and protect our own interests, first and foremost.

all we want from you are the kicks you've given us

lockdown

Rainbow Six 4: Lockdown. This time, it's personal.

Or so the trailer would have you believe. I really have a hard time accepting this latest attempt by UbiSoft to make their critically acclaimed series more accessible. Maybe it's the lack of helmets, and the soldiers sporting non-standard haircuts and different uniforms. Or perhaps it's the selection of America's latest hot-bed of activity, the Middle East, as the setting for the game.

The screens released a couple of months ago showing off the game's new "goggle interface" that "fully immerse[s] you in the game experience" almost had me in conniptions. Fans had a hard enough time with Raven Shield, which for the first time in the series' history actually made the weapon viewable in first-person mode. It was removable in the options, of course, but the reaction is what's important. The graphics are less than inspiring as well, obviously a result of Lockdown being a multi-platform release. And everything about the gameplay preview points to this being a standard first person shooter, removing everything that made its predecessors unique or interesting to play.

I also love how the game features list rag doll physics as if it means something. Ever since Unreal Tournament 2003 started using havok (and in case UbiSoft's PR department has forgotten already, Raven Shield used the new Unreal/havok engines as well) it's been pretty much standard in every FPS on the PC. Then again, this title clearly isn't aimed at fans of the original - it's aimed at gamers who want to kill terrorists and wouldn't know a squad tactical shooter if it kicked them in the balls. This would also explain Lockdown's "unprecedented multiplayer". What, like totally different than the multiplayer that was available from Rainbow Six in 1998?

What seems to be the spiritual successor to Rainbow Six is Close Combat: First to Fight, a training simulator developed by the U.S. Marine Corps. I saw some of the gameplay demos a few weeks ago, and I am absolutely impressed. Following in the footsteps of Full Spectrum Warrior, the tactics of fire and suppress are used again, but with an entirely new approach to interacting with the environment. Vehicles can be used, and you can actually go inside buildings, where room takedowns are similar to those in Rainbow Six. Morale is apparently used as well, making poor or just plain bad orders have an effect on your squad; though this also applies to an overwhelmed enemy that may just retreat after seeing their comrades cut down around them. I'm a little uneasy about the setting, and the graphics aren't exactly top-notch either, which surprises me considering the game is only being developed for the XBox and PC. Military shooters such as these are becoming a double-edged sword. If you want realism, you have to swallow the propaganda; otherwise you succumb to the curse of accessibility, making the game more of an arcade shooter than something actually worth playing.

bottle up and explode