(BTW, there is a tl;dr version at the bottom if you don't care to read everything).
A lot of what we heard about the newly unveiled Call of Duty Elite service is actually going to be free (here is the list http://www.gamespot.com/new...
Originally, many expected all those to be charged for. And, if those were indeed part of the charged service, I'd be upset myself.
Thing is, Activision is actually doing something good! They are giving us fan service! They are finally offering an official community hotspot, with a ton of features that any self-respecting high title multiplayer game ought to have-- oodles of stats and community features that a social multiplayer like Call of Duty needs.
First, I want to explain why I think people hate Activision and Call of Duty-- I wont cover all reasons, so bear with me a bit because I think it leads to a point about Elite:
There are many who immediately panic and rage at Activision charging for a service, but I really do think Elite is blown way out of proportion. I generally see a lot of misinformation about Activision and its moral principles in the industry. Take the $15 map packs for example. I'm sure some of you have read my defence for those, and I do think it's a justifiable price.
In short: Call of Duty map packs cost $3/map, same as many other shooters' DLC.
The real problem with Activision and Call of Duty is, of course, annual milking. It's not so much that the game fails to evolve-- I think Call of Duty's evolution is up to pace with any other game releasing a sequel. The problem of course, is the fact that each annual title only does so much before overwhelming the market with yet another title. The gameplay evolution is minimal when you consider the fact that Treyarch practically mimics Infinity Ward. However, the jump from MW1 to MW2 is what one would ordinarily expect from a sequel, and I expect MW3 to be a significant change too (for the better remains to be seen but that's besides the point)
If just the Modern Warfare line existed, I don't think there would be much reason to complain, honestly. Granted, the titles have gotten worse year after year. Call of Duty 4 was great, World at War was too, -- and Modern Warfare 2 was terribly flawed, and Black Ops was a technical mess. It seems to me that while Infinity Ward adds new gameplay mechanics, Treyarch simply adds supporting features to what IW has laid down.
If anything, Activision deserves harsher criticism for they are at the top of the hierarchy and ought not to be making these amateur grievances-- it's about high time we get dedicated servers on consoles as well as a technically mastered game on all platforms. There is no excuse for that, and to me, that's the biggest issue with Call of Duty.
Call of Duty's true crime then, is the unacceptable stumbles that comes with each yearly release (that and the fact that they churn titles left and right each year)
Then of course, there is Call of Duty's undeniable influence over your favorite shooters as well as the fact that it can sell with brand power (something that makes people very upset and works hand in hand with the former point about COD's influence). They are two faults that I do not hold Activision accountable for at all. That fault falls not on COD fans or Activision but on developers of other games (I'm looking at you, Zipper, Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog, and in some circles, Bungie even)
I'm tired of developers taking undeniable mechanics from Call of Duty as much as anyone else, but I think people wrongly blame Activision/COD for what has happened to their favorite games when in fact its publishers who bend to the culture.
Then of course there is the fact that Call of Duty really is an average built shooter with an unprecedented fanbase-- something that seems morally wrong to the more dedicated gamer.
All this helps monument to the hysteria surrounding Elite, Call of Duty's future, and the faith people are putting in Battlefield 3. With all the attention Call of Duty has on its shoulders, people immediately assume the worst: That Activision, being the evil cancer that they are, will do something that will impact everything else we love.
But is it really that bad? I don't think so.
Let's take a quick look at Bungie Pro, Bungie's paid subscription service for Halo:
"Bungie Pro is an add-on service that enhances your gaming experience:
Expand your Fileshare
Upgrade your File Share from 6 to 24 total slots! Share more of your screenshots, maps, films, and gametypes. Stand out from the community crowd with a Bungie Pro background for all your files.
Bungie Pro Video Browse through our most popular clips
Share your gameplay film clips in high quality (360p example) or high definition (720p example) formats. You'll get five render minutes per month!
How much does it cost?
Six months of Bungie Pro is 320 Microsoft Points. Additional minute packs (50 render minutes each) can be purchased right on Bungie.net for $5 USD"
Would you pay for this? Probably not. But there are those who do.
And this is exactly what I expect Elite to be. But I'll go a step further and throw caution to the wind and say that Elite is actually looking to be an even better service than Bungie Pro. Entering tournaments and winning actual prizes, for one, is a great little incentive, as well as simply entering in-game tournies with friends to see how far one can go. Call of Duty, in these ways, is a highly competitive social game and it's great to see these sort of features in a title.
There is a lot we still don't know about Elite, but I do not expect it to be vastly different than Bungie Pro. In the end, there is no major issue with what Call of Duty Elite is doing. There seems to be though, a looming fear that Elite is a disguise for Activision to do more sinister things, but this is a slippery slope argument.
I think the problem Activision faces is coming up with things to make a larger portion of its people WANT to pay for it. But if it manages to keep the basics free without giving us disadvantages on the playing field, then I don't honestly see the big deal. Elite sounds like it will have a minimal impact much like Bungie Pro.
In reality, they aren't doing anything evil. I know people are quick to trash Activision out of distaste, but the fact is that they have revealed that a lot of what ought to be free is indeed going to be. So, that is actually a good thing and I'm glad to see a popular game like COD getting the long awaited community features and in-depth stats that Bungie has for Halo.
Now, if there is any concern to be had, it's over Modern Warfare 3's gameplay. Infinity Ward is 1-1 when it comes to the Modern Warfare franchise. There is a lot of reason to expect MW3 to be terrible, but to me, a lot hinges on three very big things MW2 got wrong:
-Sensible gameplay balance
-Dedicated servers
-Moderation
It's probably important to note that MW3 will use Treyarch's technology when it comes to Moderating, meaning hacking wont be like it was in MW2. That only leaves the need for dedicated servers and gameplay rooted closer to the first Modern Warfare and farther away from the second. It's shameful that Call of Duty was so gutted of these things, and I don't blame people for shunning MW3 based on MW2's issues, but I for one will remain neutral on Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer until I see something more substantial.
No comments:
Post a Comment