Toy Story 3 reclaims top spot in charts

AFTER BEING briefly usurped by Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty during its launch week, Toy Story 3 has trundled its way back up to number one in the UK games charts. While it’s major rival Starcraft II fumbles down to fourth place.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has also climbed back up the ladder to second place, possibly due to the demo Activision released last week. Aye, a demo. Just in case you’ve never played it or never heard anything about it or never left the box for a year.

Dance on Broadway creeps up to third place while Red Dead Redemption ambles down to fifth. Meanwhile New Super Mario Bros and Just Cause 2 re-enter the top twenty at seventeenth place and nineteenth place respectively.

All in all a lot of fumbling, trundling, ambling and creeping.

Brendan Caldwell

Playing from a Kantian perspective…

So many videogames concern themselves with morality, but how many actually allow for the purest moral compass of them all? Sinan Kubba explores.

WERE HE somehow alive today, I doubt Immanuel Kant would’ve given a jot about No Russian. Despite the controversial Modern Warfare 2 level grabbing all the headlines, the 18th Century philosopher’s concepts of the categorical imperative, morality and duty don’t really accommodate for killing – undercover agent or not. He would have deemed partaking in a brutal terrorist massacre as always morally invalid.

An explanation might be necessary. The categorical imperative was a conceptual universal principle which every person always acted by and was defined by every person’s actions – i.e. every person acted unconditionally by the same moral principles. By Kant’s philosophy, justifying one kill would mean justifying every kill, so he wouldn’t be interested in a morbid game like Modern Warfare 2 in the first place. In fact, he would probably be offended by its titular use of ‘duty’, a word he used to describe the selfless intentions that constitute a truly morally good action.

But if Kant inexplicably gave Modern Warfare 2 a chance, he may have wanted to discuss the moments where you’re explicitly given the choice to kill soldiers or spare them. Occurring during stealth missions, these moments let you choose either to take out a guard unawares and aid your undetected passage through the mission, or to spare him at risk to yourself.

Distilling things to this choice alone, would Kant be forced to accept that sparing this soldier constituted a selfless action, and therefore one of true moral value? Likely, he’d dispute that. Maybe he would highlight the emotions I felt during my playthrough.

I chose to spare each soldier. Was that choice made solely out of duty? No, because in each moment I felt guilt for all the bloodshed I’d already caused up to that point. While my actions were partly – maybe primarily – fuelled by acknowledging that killing these soldiers was unnecessary and therefore evil, they were also unquestionably fuelled by guilt. That disqualifies them from being truly good – by Kant’s standards, anyway.

Let’s put the categorical imperative to one side; taking a world in which everyone acted in a universally, unconditionally morally good way and trying to apply it to videogames would be pointless and dull. After all, it is evil’s presence that places value on being good. Kant himself spoke about the categorical imperative only hypothetically. He never used examples of real-life events to back it up, mainly because he believed there wasn’t any proof in human history of an action fuelled solely by duty.  This was not because he was a cynic but because, he argued, to know this would be to know the impossible: the true inner workings of another’s mind.

Kant was adamant in only providing hypothetical examples for his philosophy. As such, I think he might have appreciated videogames for their ability to distil reality’s complexity into its core parts. Videogames provide the platform for a simplistic, distilled morality because all of reality’s factors cannot be produced in them, or simply don’t need to be.

Kant was only interested in intentions, not actions, and it’s this that interests me most about his philosophy. It’s also what I think is most interesting to consider when applying his philosophy to videogames: acting out of duty – actions based on solely selfless intentions.

That’s not duty at all

Before applying this concept to videogames, it’s pertinent to clarify how we approach them in terms of morality, and which games we’re talking about. While each game involves roleplay by definition – we can never truly be ourselves – I tend to apply my moral principles to them, as do many players. In short, most of us try to act in our games in a way we believe to be good. That doesn’t apply to all players, as some reinvent principles as part of the roleplay. And of course, to follow duty in games requires choice, and not all games feature choices that allow for it – or even choices at all.

But, thanks primarily to the Western roleplaying game movement, there are many games to which we can apply Kant’s concept of duty. However, for my first example I’m not going to use a Western RPG. Instead, I’m going to go back the level I think Kant wouldn’t have actually been interested in: No Russian.

Continues…

‘The End is Nigh’ is a weekly column by Play.tm’s Martin Gaston, pondering the nature of videogame endings and why we do or don’t choose to finish the games we play. This week: how multiplayer turns Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare 2  into the game which keeps on giving.

I finished Modern Warfare 2.

Or did I? Granted, I waded through the single-player campaign (on Veteran, thank you very much) and jumped through all the essential post-game hoops: a couple of tweets about how great it was, a few paragraphs dedicated to my personal interpretation of the airport level and my customary pomp about how doing it on Veteran makes me better than people who didn’t. Usually that means I can pop the game back in its case, slide it into its place on the shelf and write a column about how most games have structurally weak endings.

That’s the problem, though: the whole single-player experience is akin to just nibbling at the bready edges of a delicious meat-filled sandwich. To a large, dedicated chunk of its fifty trillion fans, Modern Warfare 2 is a multiplayer game: the single-player campaign is nothing more than a bombastic sideshow tacked onto the core online feature.

You wouldn’t realise it if you were reading your average review, though. Most of their bulk is devoted to waxing lyrical about the repercussions and impact of some of its more controversial segments, which leaves a couple of paragraphs at the end for the multiplayer afterthought. It seems that critical ire has been exhausted on the infamous airport scene, leaving nothing in the bank to aim at something like the half-baked (intentional word usage) marijuana undercurrent running through the customisable multiplayer titles.

Here at Resolution, the spectacular Sam Giddings distilled his review into two entities – with one devoted to specially tackling the multiplayer. Sam’s unavoidable pickle is that the multiplayer review couldn’t see the light of day until a couple of weeks after the game launched – because he had to actually play it – and in our cyclical world of games journalism everyone was already off frothing at the mouth over the sequels to Left 4 Dead and Assassin’s Creed by this point.

Standing in the queue at a midnight launch event for Modern Warfare 2, I asked a few people what mode they’d be playing when they got the game home. A few people ahead of us in the line joined in on the conversation. A couple of minutes later it felt like everyone within fifty meters had all said the same thing: multiplayer. This wonderful, never-ending, industry-shaping multiplayer mode which has proved so difficult to express critically is the core of the game to many.

But it’s hard to write about. For a start, it goes completely against the grain of the general reviews process. Being sent a copy of a game pre-release means the respective title’s online community is woefully sparse. It’s hard to get a beat of its quirks, tics and rhythms in this inefficient microcosm, and it’s not for a few weeks after launch that it’s possible to understand what it’s like playing Modern Warfare 2 online. And that’s getting repeatedly shot in the face by some guy who is on his first trot through Prestige, which would be annoying if it wasn’t so routinely brilliant.

Even if the mode gets marginalised in reviews, it’s definitely worth remembering its importance to the complete game and its millions of fans. I’ve haven’t been able to invest much more than twelve hours playing it, but whenever I bump into some free time my first thought is always to take the game down off the shelf and get stuck in. It’s a game that doesn’t end. You can’t finish it. Even if you hit the maximum level you’re encouraged to plonk yourself all the way back down at the bottom again. It’s on permanent duty, and will only be relieved when Modern Warfare 3 shows up.

By Sam Giddings

This review and its accompanying score refer solely to the Xbox 360 online component of Modern Warfare 2.  For the single-player review, head on over here.

UPDATE: The score was originally submitted incorrectly, and has as such been updated to a 9/10. This is the score submitted with the writer’s copy, and I can only apologise for inputting the wrong number to begin with. -Ed

With Modern Warfare 2, Infinity Ward has yet again set the bar for competitive and now co-operative shooters everywhere. That’s it.  That’s really all you need to know.

It’s not perfect.  Modern Warfare 2 delivers a refined and understated online package, a considered and deliberate evolution of what came before.  But it’s several steps short of a revolution.  Neither as original as the first Modern Warfare, nor as imitative as World at War, it occupies a conservative middle ground that, while perhaps not pleasing everyone, should nevertheless steal the waking hours of many online gamers.

The requisite game modes all make an appearance: free-for-all, team deathmatch, hardcore, the objectives modes (sabotage, search and destroy, capture the flag), and even a strange new third-person mode.  The central mechanics still work in the same way: killing, completing challenges and meeting objectives all earn experience to drive you up the ranks, and unlock better weapons and perks.  So far, so obvious.  The big changes, though, start to appear when you gaze deeper into the customisation.

//My flexible friend
Infinity Ward understands its behemoth well.  It’s an extremely fine balance to reward persistent players while trying not to exclude the casual online adventurer, especially when there are unlocks and perks thrown into the mix.  The problems with this approach might never be eliminated altogether, but Infinity Ward has learnt from its mistakes on Modern Warfare, and the customisation offers many ways to circumvent the inequality.  The team has worked hard to open other avenues to less regular or less able players, building on the fundamentals of the original.  Modern Warfare 2 allows players to more fully adapt their custom-built classes to their own playing style and preferences.

The exclusion of some previous perks and the inclusion of ingenious new ones are where this particularly shines.  The much-maligned Juggernaut perk has been removed, for example.  Previously, players who equipped Stopping Power to deliver extra bullet damage had it negated by Juggernaut, which gave a health boost to those who selected it.  Now, Stopping Power exists in isolation: your bullets will either have an added effect, or they won’t – no half measures.  While on the surface this seems like a minor tweak, in reality it’s one of many such changes that help deliver subtle but far-reaching reformations to the online side.  Those who are less skilled at aiming, or who prefer the instant twitch-kills of the run-and-gunner, can now select Stopping Power to give them an edge over anyone else without it.

Perhaps the most interesting new perk is the obviously-monikered Bling.  Once unlocked at level 21, you’re able to select two attachments for any one weapon in your custom class.  If you want to be a clandestine master of the swift precision kill, then you can equip a red dot scope and silencer.  If you want to give support fire from the back of the map, then you can add a thermal or ACOG scope for additional range, to be combined for an under-mounted shotgun for anyone sneaking up on you.  Such inclusions are far more extensive than those in any other iteration of the Call of Duty franchise, and combining these perks allows you to mould your class to your playing style more effectively than ever before.

All perks now have “pro” versions, too, offering extended benefits.  Sleight of Hand, for example, improves reload times.  Once you’ve killed a certain amount of people with it equipped, you’ll unlock not only a huge experience bonus for completing a challenge, but also the pro version, which offers a quicker look down the scope when holding the left trigger button.  Small touches like this make a wealth of difference to how the combat handles out on the frenetic and unforgiving battlegrounds of contemporary war.

But the customisation doesn’t end there – killstreaks are another huge area of improvement.  Previously, all players were tied into rewards offered when managing to chain streaks of three, five and seven kills without dying.  In Modern Warfare 2, players can tip the balance away from that arbitrary standard, dependent on their own skill.  Those who’ve struggled to make seven continuous kills and call in an attack helicopter are offered alternatives: counter-UAV, care packages, sentry guns, and a host more.  When combined with the Hardline perk, to reduce the benchmark for each killstreak by one kill, weaker players or those with less time to devote to the game are still given a chance to influence the outcome of the match in a significant manner.  Similarly, for the well-practiced and skilful players, more difficult – but ultimately more devastating – killstreaks can be selected when building a class.  The lure of piloting an AC-130 gunship to rain down fiery death is sure to be a huge draw for many players, but there’s even the chance to obliterate the whole map with a game-ending tactical nuke if the truly nimble-fingered can ascend to an untouched 25 kill streak.

[Continues...]

In our review of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Sam Giddings noted that the game’s already notorious ‘No Russian’ mission wasn’t too successful.  After letting it sink in for a few days, Phill Cameron considers why that might be…

Human empathy is a powerful thing. It’s what makes us allow people to dress up their animals in cute little outfits and pretend they’re Tudor kings. It’s how we can watch a film like Downfall and suddenly feel like maybe Hitler was just a man under too much pressure. It’s how, when we see a pair of planes fly into the Twin Towers, the entire Western world can grind to a halt in sheer horror. Games are, for the most part, an opportunity for developers to mould our empathy, push us into the role of the hero, or force us into a situation where we have to make tough decisions. These are things games do that film and literature can’t, and while we’ve not even coming close to fully tapping into that potential, we’re taking baby steps.

You might have heard that a game was released this week. It’s supposedly the largest release gaming has ever seen. My concern isn’t that high profile; rather, it’s the already infamous level, ‘No Russian’, which – and here be spoilers – has you play the role of an undercover CIA agent working with a group of terrorists as they assault an airport and kill hundreds of unarmed civilians. You’re given a fully automatic machine gun, and while you’re not told to do any shooting, even if you abstain, eventually you’re forced to fight when the police arrive. The level features some of the most convincing animation I’ve ever seen, animation that isn’t present throughout the rest of the game, as men crawl away from the shooters, clutching their stomachs as blood leaks out, before suddenly collapsing and painting a growing puddle on the floor. It’s horrific, and obviously intended to be, but that’s only part of what I’m addressing.

//Front page news
Empathy, then. When you see something comparable in a film, where innocent people are getting gunned down by terrorists, you empathise with the victims. They are those you have the closest relationship with, not the monsters behind the guns. It’s the same with news stories about such atrocities, from which we hear about heroic acts of self sacrifice, where teachers hold the door closed while their students escape from the lone shooter, only to get cut down themselves. Or the son in Mumbai who managed to get an entire hotel room full of people to safety. These are the stories that are publicised, because they’re the ones people can relate to. Put the player behind the gun, and suddenly their crosshairs are fixed on the people they should be empathising with; they’re in the wrong set of shoes.

But shouldn’t such a role-reversal be applauded? Here is a developer placing you in the place of those who are so demonised by the media, and perhaps you can garner some relationship with their cause, see that they’re people too, just driven to extremes due to their situation. If that were the case, I’d be the first to get behind the scene, praising it for taking bold steps and utilising the medium to its full extent. Instead, Inifinty Ward give you firstly no reason for the shooting, then no context for the terrorists, barely having them speak a word before they open fire. They are two-dimensional monsters who seemingly gun down civilians for the fun of it.

Okay. What if the game provides you with the context for the shooting, leading up to the horrific moment with a clever and responsibly handled plot, keeping things subtle and sombre? But here, again, Modern Warfare 2 fails, with ‘No Russian’ seemingly thrown in with little thought for the tone or consistency toward the themes of the game. The level immediately preceding it has you sneaking around an unnamed base in a blizzard, using a ‘heartbeat sensor’ to detect enemies before you steal a pair of snowmobiles and race down a mountain and jump a hundred foot gap. It’s James Bond suddenly usurped by Al Qaeda.

[Continues...]

By Sam Giddings

This review, and its associated score, refers to the single-player component of Modern Warfare 2.  We’ll be looking at the multiplayer separately, later in the week.

In every way, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is a blockbuster of a game.

From the chest-thumping bravura of its protagonists, all the way to its grandiose set-pieces and meaty explosions, this is loud, brash and stupid.  Thankfully, it’s also hugely entertaining.  Modern Warfare 2 sets off at a rollicking pace, and doesn’t let up until its perversely poignant (and deliberately slower) conclusion.

It’s clear that Infinity Ward has, with Modern Warfare 2, tried to do what many sequels do: increase the body count, upstage the previous iteration’s stand-out moments, and in every way fill the screen with spectacle.  Almost without exception, Modern Warfare 2 achieves this, but at a slight cost: the veneer of plausibility that made the original Modern Warfare so compelling has been shattered.  This sequel stretches credibility to the outer limits of what is acceptable, even for a blockbuster, but successfully glosses over it with fun, frenetic and unrelenting action.  This is both Modern Warfare 2’s greatest strength and the source of its minor shortcomings.

Infinity Ward seems to understand what drives the action: the campaign is short, even by the realigned parameters of current gaming.  I finished it on regular difficulty in about five hours or so, although it will take considerably longer on higher difficulties.  This reduction in length allows the plot – such as it is – to bound along and reach a satisfying conclusion, without ever outstaying its welcome. To say that there’s a lot of action jammed into the campaign is to understate things somewhat.  Such recklessly imperative progression is served well by two underlying factors.  Firstly, each level or mission itself is brief and direct, again underscoring the forward momentum.  Secondly, the established Call of Duty tactic of supporting an over-arching plot by switching between characters allows the narrative to launch from one breathtaking event to the next.  In one level alone, I cleared an historical building in America’s capital and saved the Washington monument from destruction by manning a helicopter-mounted machine gun, then got shot down and forced into a last stand at the crash site.

This mechanic also enables us to revisit old faces, new locations, and offers up the requisite – and satisfying – twists and turns.  There are more on-rails moments in this outing, more flashy, gaudy and superfluous bangs, and more moments of sheer pyrotechnic lunacy – but that’s generally a good thing.  Visually, it holds up under such intense technical scrutiny.  There are no framerate hiccups, no graphical glitches or screen tearing.  The explosions are dazzling and terrible in their beauty, and all the particle effects and equipment features work amazingly well.  It hasn’t raised the visual bar in the same way as Call of Duty 4, but to say that is to lavish praise upon the forerunner, not denigrate the efforts on show here.

//Minimum impact
The cost to the central themes, though, is realism.  The antecedent retained some elements of plausibility – while there were inexhaustible supplies of tangos to be downed, Call of Duty 4 had a plot that retained connections to the real world, and some tight, well-scripted fights. Conversely, Modern Warfare 2 features perhaps the most jaw-droppingly implausible terrorist incursion since the film Red Dawn.  The story is woolly at best, it must be said.  Some events seem to have minimal explanation or reason, instead sacrificing narrative for a more primal connection of adrenaline-based interaction.  The missions themselves are more tenuously woven into a whole, and occasionally the risk Infinity Ward has taken falls short.

[Continues...]