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.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Pandemic returns to the fictional country of Zekistan with Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers. Sequel to last year’s Full Spectrum Warrior, the game visits the region of Tien Hamir, where rebel soldiers have taken up position around a bridge, a key strategic point for the surrounding city. While I have subjected myself to some poorly written previews, the consensus appears to be that Ten Hammers is shaping up to be an excellent sequel, with every shortcoming of its predecessor ostensibly addressed.

I considered Full Spectrum Warrior an experiment to see how gamers would adjust to a new playing style that implemented real combat tactics in an unconventional format. Though there was something almost clinical about the gameplay that may have been too hands-off for those typically interested in the war-themed shooter that puts the player in the boots of the lone gun-toting hero. Furthermore, the formulaic approach to every encounter – move Alpha team, provide covering fire, move Bravo team, provide covering fire – also contributed to the game’s lukewarm reception. I enjoyed my time with the game, but there were too many gaps in the experience that made me reluctant to pay it full tribute. However I think the wargame genre is fortunate that Full Spectrum Warrior was made available at all. Once separated from the inadequate story, it successfully adapted real-world tactics that may not be exciting, but are essential for survival in modern urban warfare. I’d also like to think it established an audience for more games of its type.

In Ten Hammers, you are now able to control up to four squads made up of U.S. and “coalition” forces, including a team of snipers. Similar to Brothers in Arms, a tank will also be at your disposal, providing moving cover where necessary. A two-man sniper team was only made available at the end of Full Spectrum Warrior, but they could have easily been used for the entire game. Complementing this addition, Ten Hammers will allow you to control a single squad member – a feature that was sorely lacking in the original – to take out a particular target. The trade-off will be a momentary complete loss of cover, putting the soldier at risk. This would be indispensable in situations where an enemy has taken root behind some cover that is not easily flankable, and in Full Spectrum Warrior required a massive expenditure of bullets before launching an M203 grenade into the general area.

Once two squad members were killed in Full Spectrum Warrior, the mission ended in failure. A roster of 50 soldiers is available in Ten Hammers, insinuating that most of your squads can be killed in a mission and still be able to continue. I’d like to see the game follow the same formula as Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, though, by providing several specialized soldiers that are worth keeping alive.

Full Spectrum Warrior’s multiplayer component consisted of a co-operative replay of the game’s levels. The difficulty was the same, and if you’ve already played the game provides little in the way of a challenge. Ten Hammers now offers adversarial multiplayer combat, with some interesting balances put into place. For example, the U.S. and coalition team will possess greater firepower, but only the insurgent forces will be allowed to respawn. Though I’m not sure if this is an attempt at “added realism”, or a commentary on the nature of the adversaries faced by troops in the Middle East.

The battlefield itself has also been vastly improved. Adding some stairs or the ability to scale a roof seemed like such a simple request for the original game; now you will be tasked with securing multi-level buildings. The tactical advantage is clear, but I am anxious to see this new implementation of urban combat. The enemy AI has also been improved, including random spawn points for each map. Like SWAT 4, easily one of my selections for Game of the Year, this makes each attempt of a mission challenging instead of an exercise in memorizing enemy positions.

Of note is the sequel’s official trailer, which oddly uses live action recreation of a patrol in a generic looking middle-eastern town for the first two minutes, only to drift into actual game content for the last 30 seconds. It could have easily passed as a commercial for Over There, and I am once again drawn to the comparison with ongoing events in the Middle East. As someone who actively pursues the genre, I often find myself detaching the underlying commentary or weight of historical events from what is actually being offered by the game. It may sound like desensitization, but the truth of the matter is I believe the act of war is indefensible. That these games are still being made is a reflection of what our society deems as entertainment, and for now I am content to observe the evolution of the genre as it embeds itself in the gaming oeuvre.

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