Call of Duty

[Tzar]

I don't know how many of you play first-person shooters once in a while, but I do :) It makes for a nice break after 3 or 4 hours of strategic and tactical hard thinking at your favorite wargame.

I prefer realistic shooters. Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon are my favorites. But I do like others such as Medal of Honor or Battlefield 1942.

In the WWII theme, another one is now out: Call of Duty. It features 3 campaigns: an American one (you're a private in the Normandy campaign), a British one (you're a member of a commando executing special assignements) and a Soviet one (you're a Russian grunt).

I just played the demo which features a battle in a French village between your squad of GIs and Germans infantry and tanks.

It is quite impressive. It is definetely the WWII shooter that is the closest to a cinematographic experience, thanks to its wonderful and deep sound, scripted events that blend harmoniously with continuous gameplay, and richly detailed environments (the rubble of the French village of the demo reminded me of Saving Private Ryan).

The AI is also behaving quite well: your comrades take cover when fired upon, and everytime you decide to sprint across an alley or empty ground, they lay down suppressive fire effectively. The enemy can be wise: I ran behind a knocked out tank stuck in a dead-end to prepare a bazooka attack on a German panzer in the next street. However, when I ran across the street into that deadend, I could see 2 or 3 German soldiers watching on the other side. Well, these guys spotted me and decided to silently follow me into the dead-end. I almost had a heart attack when they came up behind the tank, all weapons blazing on me (play this game with headphones and 5.1 sound enabled. It's amazing and makes your heartbeat faster).

One thing I had difficulty with was to figure out which people were Germans and which people were my guys. When you're close, it's not a problem, but when there is a big firefight going on over a couple of streetblocks, you have to watch it twice to make sure you are firing on the right people.

Apparently, the missions you do as a Soviet soldier in the Stalingrad meat grinder are frigthening. When the mission starts, you don't have a gun. You are being told to follow a comrade that has a gun, and to pick it up from him when he's gonna get killed...

Another potential difficulty will be with the system requirements. To be able to be played at max resolution, you will need a beefy PC with the latest video cards. My system is new so it isn't a problem but it will be for a lot of people.

In any case the critics have been very good for this game and I tend to agree with them. It will probably make it on my Xmas wish list :)

[Deltapooh]

Well, the system specs is not as horrible as that for Max Payne 2. :eek:

I'll give the game a whirl. I really don't like these WWII-era games. However, since that seems to be where realism reside these days I have little choice, but to like, or be stuck. I will say this WWII stuff is really ticking me off. It's like there is a conspiracy in the Wargame and now FPS divisions that forces creative thinking to go WWII games first, then, maybe everything else. :mad:

Overall, I am becoming increasingly discontent with first person shooters. SWAT 3, Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, and games for that era were filled with realistic ingenuity. Today, it seems quality has gone right out the window. Ghost Recon is a great game only because it's engine allows for excellent modding, which people have exploited. I pre-ordered Rainbow Six: Raven Shield. When I got it, the darn thing didn't work right. The patches seem to create new problems, and none fix what I see as outdated intelligence. The eye candy hinds the developers lack of respect for realism, and commitment to ingenuity.

Worse, most of the FPS coming out today are so focused on multiplayer, it makes me sick. It's as though they believe everyone is a teenager with 4 or 5 hours to kill playing with a bunch other teenagers who think reactive shooting techniques falls into the category of spray and pray. A number of teams exit that do focus on realism, but more often than not, it still requires a level of commitment most adults with careers and families don't have.

[Cheetah772]

Hello Deltapooh,

I agree with you. My favorite was Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, however, the most glaring weakness had always been AI, either it cheats or is just plain dumb. That's why most of FPS out there are multiplayer shooters. Very few FPS are really good in AI department. However, the only games I can really recall that had great AI was Half-Life and System Shock 2, the BEST sci-fi roleplaying in FPS style game of all. That's why I am eagerly awaiting for Half Life 2.

There are very few games I find worthy to play with, because I demand a good AI system as I don't really play multi-player a lot. So I'm stuck with mostly strategy and wargames. There is ONE multiplayer that's really good, and it's WWII Online. It has a realistic gaming system, but you have to pay a monthly subscription, I do that because I like it a lot. Unfortunately that kind of multiplayer games require a lot of time, which most of us don't really have.

Dan

[Tzar]

Overall, I am becoming increasingly discontent with first person shooters. SWAT 3, Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, and games for that era were filled with realistic ingenuity. Today, it seems quality has gone right out the window. Ghost Recon is a great game only because it's engine allows for excellent modding, which people have exploited. I pre-ordered Rainbow Six: Raven Shield. When I got it, the darn thing didn't work right. The patches seem to create new problems, and none fix what I see as outdated intelligence. The eye candy hinds the developers lack of respect for realism, and commitment to ingenuity.


I am surprised you did not like Raven Shield. The AI in Rogue Spear or Black Thorn was worse than the Raven Shield one, so if you liked Rogue Spear, I don’t understand you don’t find Raven Shield an improvement.

Now, I may not be very objective here, because I personally know the producer and the developers behind Raven Shield since they are my colleagues: I work for the Montreal Ubisoft Studio, and Raven Shield was created here :D.

The only thing with Rainbow 6 is that it gets somewhat repetitive in terms of missions: it’s either you are rescuing hostages, prevent a bomb from detonating or kill all terrorists around. Ghost Recon has a wider variety of environments and missions, unfortunately the interface to give orders is pretty simplistic compared to R6. Put a sophisticated interface behind Ghost Recon (and I believe that’s what is in store for the next release of Ghost Recon), and it would be a blast.

[Cheetah772]

Hello Tzar,

I'm surprised you were working with the developers of Raven Shield, I seriously thought you were just an airhead behind a computer. :D

The problem isn't with missions (not just FPS), it's with the AI. Most of times, the developers tend to put in what is considered a gamey system. For example, if you want a tough mission or game, they just turn up the notch on AI's accuracy and bots. The AI's capability to call out orders and run behind covers wasn't bothered with. That's what got many of us annoyed. AI's shots were so deadly as it make humanely impossible avoid them or really sneak past them as AI can on tougher levels will quickly detect the players.

This kind of problem is a recurring issue through many different games. Sometimes I really long for simple games of 80s and early 90s, I believe it was the GOLDEN age of computer games. Many classics were created in that simply because of one thing -- they had good or best AI, period. Today as of 2003, I can walk through a computer store and point out maybe 2/3 are craps. Then that the remaining 1/3 is okay, but not really classic. Maybe I'm baised because I grew up where there were already classics floating around. The 70s and early 80s didn't produce a lot of good games.

A lot of developers are focusing not on QUALITY but on quantity or how many expansion packs they can chunk out. I would rather to have ONE truly classic than a good game with three or four or six expansion packs. Granted, it's really impossible to create that kind of thing, but I think it's worth an effort. Maybe the competition is cutting in the quality of games, what do you think?

Dan

[Deltapooh]

I am surprised you did not like Raven Shield. The AI in Rogue Spear or Black Thorn was worse than the Raven Shield one, so if you liked Rogue Spear, I don’t understand you don’t find Raven Shield an improvement.

There were some improvements. The enemy AI's are not always the expert shooters, as was the case in Rogue Spear, for example. However, overall, the AI's don't clear rooms properly, engage to, and not through targets, and fail to use sound doctrine. Is it really that difficult to tell the AI to recognize which position he occupies, and secure points of domination, or better yet, just avoid the center of the room, where enemy fire is almost as deadly as the fatal funnel.

Then again, I have alot of knowledge on CQC and hostage rescue. So I might be too critical. Rogue Spear was the first game I got for my first PC. My little brother bought it as a Christmas Present. I remember bowing before him, before racing off to install and play the hell out of it. That didn't happen with Raven Shield. When I installed it, I played around, but there wasn't all that excitement. I just felt it didn't live up to the hype. Yet, my final verdict might need to be withheld until SDKs are released, to see what else can be done. I would like to see insertion/extraction on some missions.

Now, I may not be very objective here, because I personally know the producer and the developers behind Raven Shield since they are my colleagues: I work for the Montreal Ubisoft Studio, and Raven Shield was created here :D.

WOW! Then why are sticking with Tom Clancy? He's a nice guy, but somewhat overrated as well rounded national security analysts. You'll do a better job at coming up with more realistic scenarios.

The only thing with Rainbow 6 is that it gets somewhat repetitive in terms of missions: it’s either you are rescuing hostages, prevent a bomb from detonating or kill all terrorists around. Ghost Recon has a wider variety of environments and missions, unfortunately the interface to give orders is pretty simplistic compared to R6. Put a sophisticated interface behind Ghost Recon (and I believe that’s what is in store for the next release of Ghost Recon), and it would be a blast.

I agree Rainbow Six is too narrow. Hopefully, GR2, will build off of GR1 the same way Rogue Spear built off of Rainbow Six.

[Tzar]

Hello Tzar,

I'm surprised you were working with the developers of Raven Shield, I seriously thought you were just an airhead behind a computer. :D
I am not a developer myself, I am a project coordinator, working with the producer and project leads in managing the projects. I did not work directly on the Raven Shield title but I know the guys behind it. Still, I have the chance to play a lot of games at work (when I was hired by Ubi, I found it wonderful to be able to play video games at work without being frowned upon :) )


The problem isn't with missions (not just FPS), it's with the AI. Most of times, the developers tend to put in what is considered a gamey system. For example, if you want a tough mission or game, they just turn up the notch on AI's accuracy and bots. The AI's capability to call out orders and run behind covers wasn't bothered with. That's what got many of us annoyed. AI's shots were so deadly as it make humanely impossible avoid them or really sneak past them as AI can on tougher levels will quickly detect the players.

Programming a good AI in today's complex games is no small feat. Although I do not code myself, I do have first-hand experience of this. It is not as easy as you would think. The biggest problem is to make an AI behave consistently and intelligently in all situations. Most video games on the market (including ours) use some scripting philosophy, ie. the enemy guard will go around that block in this pattern, and react to any threat in his vicinity in this fashion. As technology evolves, we will start seeing less of this and more programming that allows an AI to react not according to a defined script, but rather to a set of behaviours that can change with the situation, consequently making it unpredictable and more "human-like". It's already happening, and it will happen more and more. The development of technology, stronger chips for PC and stronger console systems will in the long run make the continuous improvement of AI a reality.

This kind of problem is a recurring issue through many different games. Sometimes I really long for simple games of 80s and early 90s, I believe it was the GOLDEN age of computer games. Many classics were created in that simply because of one thing -- they had good or best AI, period.
The AI of these games were much more simplistic and stupid than today, but it fitted perfectly with the rest of the game, so you still had a whole lot of fun. I think what you are referring here is not the AI, but the quality of the gameplay. Gameplay is a schmoozy concept in the videogame industry that tries to rate the "gaming pleasure" that is derived from a game. A truly good gameplay will only be revealed when all ingredients of a game, whether it's AI, graphics, level design, game mechanics or story, all fit together in one wonderful package that brings hours of excitement. It's a very difficult thing to do and it is somewhat akin to an art.

So yes, in the 80s and 90s, a lot of good games had excellent gameplay. The continuous acceleration of technology makes it now somewhat difficult to continue to balance the ingredients correctly. For example, one game may have great graphics, but poor game mechanics. Another one has a damn good story, but overscripted game flow that restrains the player. And so on.

A lot of developers are focusing not on QUALITY but on quantity or how many expansion packs they can chunk out. I would rather to have ONE truly classic than a good game with three or four or six expansion packs.
It happens. Video game companies do have shareholders to please like any industry, and expansion packs are a cheap way to extend the life of a product or license. But when it's done to the detriment of quality, then it's bad.

Granted, it's really impossible to create that kind of thing, but I think it's worth an effort. Maybe the competition is cutting in the quality of games, what do you think? It's quite the reverse actually. The competition is increasingly fierce in terms of quality. Now, I should emphasize here I am talking only about triple-A (AAA) games (A triple AAA game is defined as this: over one million copies sold and a rating of over 90% in web sites and game magazines, as compiled through industry analysts such as gamerankings.com. In short, a AAA game usually defines a genre and enjoys widespread recognition of excellency).

To be able to churn out a triple AAA game today, millions of budget are required, teams of 40 to 60 people can be working 2 to 3 years full time on the project, reknown artists are hired for voice-acting and soundtracks (ex: we have hired Peter Gabriel for the next sequel to Myst). It's a huge undertaking, and if you are not coming out with a quality product, you will get burned rapidly.

Now, there is always those double-A games that are of lower quality and made for a quick profit. Those will continue to exist since not everybody is ready to pay 50$ to 70$ dollars for a video game.

[Tzar]

Then again, I have alot of knowledge on CQC and hostage rescue. So I might be too critical.
You summed it up pretty well here :) Although the player himself is encouraged to use CQC and counter-terrorism unit tactics, having the enemy AI performed as you say might increase the difficulty level too high for most players. We still keep in mind the need to reach to a large audience. That being said, the Tom Clancy titles are probably the most realistic first person shooters on the market: these games are not kill-fest like Doom 3 or Duke Nukem. Stealth and carefully planned tactics will be more rewarding than blazing around like Rambo. One bullet you're dead, and no saves are allowed in your missions.
WOW! Then why are sticking with Tom Clancy? He's a nice guy, but somewhat overrated as well rounded national security analysts. You'll do a better job at coming up with more realistic scenarios.
Well, whatever national security experts might think of Tom Clancy ;), the Tom Clancy license is highly valued on the market. It's one of the jewels of Ubisoft. Splinter Cell, another game that came out of the Montreal Studio under the Clancy license, has been a huge success. For the general public, Tom Clancy is a respectable name.

Now, being a political science graduate like you, I do admit that some scenarios sound too simplistic :D

[Cheetah772]

Hello Deltapooh,

Oh, why not use Russian style -- toss a grenade into the room and let it blow to kingdom come. That will leave a lot of dead bodies, including hostages, around. That's really an easy way to start a major international crisis. :D

Most of time when I play Rainbow Six games, I usually toss a flashbag or a real grenade into room before I enter anyway. Actually, I almost never use a flashbag as I feel it is too short for enemy to be distracted.

Dan

[KG_Norad]

While I have heard great things about Half Life I have no experience with the game so I can't comment. I have played Rogue Spear & Ghost Recon and I liked details of the environments and Sound Effects very much. I liked the way that the enemy AI would actually start serching you out if you stared making a racket and also liked building my own kit from scratch in Rogue Spear.

But I found both titles to be VERY restrictive however in terms of players options. From GR's Kits, to the artificial boundaries even on outdoor maps, that make you feel like your still in the Doom Maze. Also don't like the fact that you can't pick up ammo or weapons. Game play was better going solo rather then having you sqad bumbling around shooting off their weapons and giving you away to the "Tangos." I found the loosly joined story lines to be no more compelling then a disk of stand alone scenarios. Finally I may not be proud of it, but I run on Win ME since it came with my pc plus I might add I have it running very smoothly; but NONE of the UBI titles I have, play well on it. They either run too slow or patches don't work right, some jittery mouse movement in the Menu screens...etc.

I also played Delta Force which had So So graphics but VERY spacious environments even if they did not look that great and was easy and fun to run around blasting things in a gamey way of course. Not a realistic game the outdoor environments made multiplayer mode very fun. Delta Force excels in this department but again is not so hot as a single player due to scripted AI and very loose story. But like all of the titles it has its moments.

My favorite Shooter as I have said before in other threads is Operation Flashpoint. I have not played this multiplayer so I can't comment on that.Hands down as a single player game compared to the above mentioned titles it had the most immersive story and gameplay elements. While your choice of weapons during mission set up is a bit limited you can drop your weapon and pick up another off the battle field. You can hop into vehicles, You can also pick up ammo off of the dead and at supply points. Most of the infantry missions were totally open about how you accomplished them, and there was a great variety to the missions. I used an in game compass to get around an keep my bearings, I used an in game watch to make my objective on time, I even got to navigate by the stars.

I will be the first to admit the game was not perfect and the tank portion of the game was down right excruciating. But when all was said and done I actually played the game all the way to the end and had a challenging time doing it, and found it to be the most rewarding. Don reviewed this game and is in the reveiws section off of the home page.

[Tzar]

Hello Deltapooh,

Oh, why not use Russian style -- toss a grenade into the room and let it blow to kingdom come. That will leave a lot of dead bodies, including hostages, around. That's really an easy way to start a major international crisis. :D

LOL Yeah, to make sure these terrorists die, be on the safe side and crank up the level of poison in your gas :)


Most of time when I play Rainbow Six games, I usually toss a flashbag or a real grenade into room before I enter anyway. Actually, I almost never use a flashbag as I feel it is too short for enemy to be distracted.

Dan

I'll give you an insider's trick here :D: use TWO flashbangs, one after the other. The software is coded so that the effect is multiplied if you use two in a row (like operatives do in real life anyway). In Raven Shield, you just crack the door open a bit (with the mouse wheel), launch your 2 flashbangs, close the door and wait for the bangs, and then open wide and fire quick bursts at those more than stunned tangos. Easy to say, more difficult to execute though :laugh:

[Cheetah772]

Tzar,

Two flashbags? No wonder why I really hated opening the doors...I knew that there was some grinning tango with his ugly ski mask on waiting to blast me away...

Personally between you and me, I usually sent in my "expendable" teammate, though, I doubt he would be happy to hear that, to clear out the rooms, then let me kill the remaining tangos. :D

Dan

[MikeJ]

I usually sent in my "expendable" teammate, though

Send the libs in first, eh? ;)

[Cheetah772]

Send the libs in first, eh? ;)

Yup. Be sure don't tell my cybersoldiers about my disdain for libs. ;)

Dan