The conventional wisdom said that military first-person shooters avoided World War I because it wasn’t a “fun” war. EA DICE set out to prove the conventional wisdom wrong with Battlefield 1, and the initial wave of reviews suggests they succeeded.
As Polygon’s Arthur Gies noted in his 9 out of 10 review of the game, one of the ways DICE accomplished that was by using its single-player War Stories mode as a way to convey just how horrific the war really was.
“Battlefield 1 navigates the tonal challenges of the awful human cost of WWI well, in part by not ignoring them,” Gies said. “There’s a consistent acknowledgment of the abject terror and hopelessness that sat atop the people involved in the conflict on all sides, in part thanks to a grimly effective prologue. There’s also less explicit demonetization of the ‘enemy’ – something that feels like a real relief in the military shooter space, which seems hell-bent on giving players something they can feel good about shooting at.”
War Stories is a mostly unconnected series of short campaigns that total about six hours of playtime in total. The anthology puts players in the roles of different individuals in different combat zones, each one with their own distinct motivations and skill sets.
“Battlefield 1 feels like a move away from military shooter doctrine in plenty of ways,” Gies said. “But the biggest departure is in how little shooting there can be, at least compared to the game’s contemporaries. From tank pilot to fighter ace, from Italian shock trooper to Bedouin horse-back resistance fighter, I was never bored, because I was never doing the same thing for long.”
The change in setting also impacted the multiplayer portion of the game, which Gies appreciated. While DICE made some changes in player classes that Gies seemed to think unnecessary but “mostly fine,” he was particularly taken with the way the series’ signature physics-driven chaos and destruction felt fresh in a new (old) setting.
“Small issues aside, Battlefield 1 marks an impressive, risk-taking reinvention for the series,” Gies said. “That the multiplayer is as good and distinctive as it is is less surprising than a campaign that takes a difficult setting and navigates it with skill and invention. The end result is a shooter than succeeded far beyond my expectations, and one that exists as the best, most complete Battlefield package since 2010.”
Like Gies, GameSpot’s Miguel Concepcion gave the game a 9 out of 10. Also like Gies, Concepcion labelled the game as the best Battlefield since Bad Company 2, praising the War Stories single-player mode and its novel approach to entertaining while also attempting to inform players as to the horrors of the war.
“Beyond these heartfelt tales of brotherhood and solemn reflection, War Stories gracefully complements the multiplayer scenarios as a glorified yet effective training mode,” Concepcion said. “Along with practice time commanding vehicles and heavy artillery, it provides an opportunity to learn melee combat, as well as how to survive against high concentrations of enemy forces.”
Concepcion was also taken with the audiovisual impact of the game, long a selling point for the Battlefield franchise.
“However accurate or inaccurate Battlefield 1 is–lite J.J. Abrams lens effects notwithstanding–the immersive production values superbly amplify the sights and sounds that have previously existed in other war shooters,” Concepcion said. “Examples include the distinct clatter of empty shells dropping on the metal floor of a tank and the delayed sound of an exploding balloon from far away. The brushed metal on a specific part of a revolver is the kind of eye-catching distraction that can get you killed. Beyond the usual cacophony of a 64-player match, salvos from tanks and artillery guns add bombast and bass to the large map match. And many vistas are accentuated with weather-affected lighting with dramatic results, like the blinding white sunlight that reflects off a lake after a rainstorm.
“With Battlefield 1, EA and DICE have proven the viability of World War 1 as a time period worth revisiting in first-person shooters. It brings into focus countries and nationalities that do not exist today while also shedding light on how the outcome of that war has shaped our lives.”
In giving the game four stars out of five, Games Radar’s David Roberts also lauded the way DICE balanced a fun shooter with the horror of war.
“Even though Battlefield 1 skews toward fun rather than realism whenever it gets the chance, it’s as much about the reflection on the real history of these battles and the people who fought in them as it is about the gleeful embrace of ridiculous virtual combat,” Roberts said.
Like his peers, Roberts was impressed by the game’s War Stories single-player mode, but found the anthology format slightly restricting.
“As much as I enjoyed the narratives these missions tell, I wished each one had a little more time to breathe,” Roberts said. “Each chapter is about an hour long, and just when you get invested, they’re over. Battlefield 1’s War Stories barely skim the surface of the history, but – to be fair – this is in-line with the game’s focus on fun over fastidious accuracy.”
As for the multiplayer, Roberts said its “as good here as it’s ever been” for the Battlefield franchise. Even though the setting meant trading in the modern assault rifles of previous Battlefield games for more antiquated rifles and iron sights, Roberts said the overall impact has been an improvement on the game’s online modes.
He also found the franchise focus on destruction was given new meaning by its fresh context.
“When all’s said and done, when the matches end and the dust settles, you’ll see that large portions of the maps have transformed, their buildings pockmarked by blasts, their fortifications turned into piles of rubble,” Roberts said. “Even though bloody entertainment is at Battlefield 1’s heart, the post-game wasteland is a reminder of the toll that conflict takes on the people it consumes. Whether in single or multiplayer Battlefield 1 absolutely nails the historical sense of adventure and expectation before swiftly giving way to dread as the war takes a physical and mental toll on its participants. And this – as much as the intimate, brutal virtual warfare – is the game’s most impressive feat.”
While EGM’s Nick Plessas gave the game an 8 out of 10, he included slightly more critical comments than some other reviewers doling out equivalent scores. He was generally upbeat about the War Stories approach, but said it “misses the forest for the trees somewhat by not giving any story enough time for effectual investment.” He also identified two other issues that hamper the gameplay segments of the single-player mode.
“First, enemy AI leaves much to be desired, so that even on Hard difficulty your foes’ failure to react, flank, or recognize you as a threat syphons some of the fun out of fights,” Plessas said. “Second, the game adds a focus on stealth with a collection of mechanics like enemy awareness levels and distraction tools. While this isn’t inherently a bad thing, the Battlefield games’ fast pace and stiff controls don’t suit stealth very well, and the enemies’ recurring AI deficiencies makes these sections a slog.”
As for online, Plessas said new features like Behemoth vehicles (zeppelins, trains, and warships) were well-handled, as were “elite” classes like flamethrower troops. The addition of cavalry troops and era-appropriate weapons and planes will also require players to adjust the tactics they might have relied on in previous Battlefield games. However, the adjustment may not be as drastic as one might expect.
“These comparisons are integral because they represent the crux of what is truly new in Battlefield 1,” Plessas said. “A World War I setting is novel indeed, but this installment in the franchise is fundamentally the Battlefield game we have played before-and returning players may fall into a familiar groove quicker than expected. This isn’t necessarily bad for those in love with Battlefield, however, and while the setting may be the most significant shift, those invested in the series will find Battlefield 1 as another terrific reason to load up.”
Those players all participated in Battlefield 1’s beta across ten days, between August 30 and September 8. EA DICE has confirmed that the 13.2 million people make it “the biggest beta in EA’s history,” topping the previous record holder, Star Wars: Battlefront, which attracted more than 9 million players.
As big as Battlefront’s beta was, though, it was surpassed in popularity by Blizzard Entertainment’s Overwatch, which pulled in 9.7 million in May this year. The question surrounding Battlefield I, then, is whether it’s the most popular beta of this generation. While EA hadn’t laid claim to that at the time of writing, based on other publicly available figures it seems likely: Ubisoft’s The Division had 6.4 million players in its beta, while Activision’s Destiny had 4.6 million.
In any case, these will be glad tidings for EA DICE, and EA’s shareholders. As Niko Partners’ Daniel Ahmad pointed out on Twitter, Destiny, The Division, Battlefront and Overwatch all demonstrate a clear trend.
One trend I’ll note is that each of the full games above sold to more people than played the open beta’s within the 3 months from launch.
— Daniel Ahmad (@ZhugeEX) September 15, 2016
Battlefield 1 launches on October 21.
The next installment of first-person shoot-and-crouch game Call of Duty will take place in space, according to reports, and will not be a direct sequel to Ghosts.
Reports from as far and wide as Eurogamer and Shinobi have this as a pretty sure thing, and we do not consider it an unbelievable proposition.
There have been a few Call of Duty games so far and they have all been terrestrial. The canon has strayed into the near future, but has not yet gone the extra mile into the far future.
Going into space opens Call of Duty to aliens and lasers, and could make the game much more like Halo or any other popular punch-space-aliens-in-the-face games.
Call of Duty developer Infinity Ward is mute, and Activision declined to comment when Eurogamer called at its door. The last time we considered Activision was when the firm was expanding his horizons, and its coffers, by acquiring pastel coloured smartphone crack maker King Digital Entertainment, and taking on Candy Crush and mobile gaming to increase its roster.
The internet has taken the space story and run with it. Twitter is the scene of a lot of Buzz Lightyear memes already, while some people just hope that the incoming title has a bit of the charm and playability of earlier titles like Modern Warfare.
Let us all hope that, at the very least, players will not be charged with shooting and securing garish candies in a nightmare pastel world for the sake of the galaxy. Oh, and let’s also hope that Call of Duty retains the dog feature that everyone liked in the last one.
Activision Blizzard Inc has launched a film and TV studio to develop original content based on its popular videogame franchises such as “Call of Duty” and “Hearthstone” in its latest push to expand beyond console-based games.
Activision Blizzard Studios’ first production will be “Skylanders Academy,” an animated TV series based on the company’s toys-to-life videogame “Skylanders”, the company said in a statement.
A “near-term” project for the videogame maker’s film and TV studio will be to develop a movie franchise based on the hugely successful military first-person shooter “Call of Duty”.
The company said it would also consider adapting the franchise for TV.
“Warcraft”, Activision’s other well-known game franchise, is already being made into a film through a partnership between its Blizzard Entertainment unit and Legendary Pictures, and is slated for a 2016 release.
Activision said last month it would start an e-sports division to tap into the fast-growing competitive gaming market, where gamers play against each other for prize money.
Earlier this week, Activision agreed to buy “Candy Crush” creator King Digital Entertainment Plc for $5.9 billion to sharpen its focus on mobile games.
Activision’s highly anticipated “Call of Duty: Black Ops III” game went on sale earlier on Friday.
The service, to be available in the form of an app as well as a website, will focus exclusively on gamers and gaming.
More than 25,000 games will each have their own page on the site, bringing videos and live streams about various titles together in a single space, Google said.
Users will be able to add games to their collection for quick access, subscribe to channels, and receive recommendations on new games based on the games and channels they follow.
“When you want something specific, you can search with confidence, knowing that typing “call” will show you “Call of Duty” and not “Call Me Maybe,” Google said in a blog post.
Amazon bought Twitch Interactive last year for $970 million, beating a rival bid from Google.
“We welcome new entrants into the growing list of competitors since gaming video is obviously a huge market that others have their eye on,” said Matthew DiPietro, Twitch’s vice president of marketing.
Twitch also tweeted a welcome message to its rival, saying, “@YouTubeGaming Welcome Player 2. Add me on Google +. #kappa”
“Kappa” is an emoticon used mostly by Twitch users to convey sarcasm.
YouTube Gaming will available on the web, mobiles and tablets on both Android and iOS operating systems, according to a tweet from its official account.
The service will launch this summer, starting in the United States and UK.
The deal that helped Crytek recover from its recent financial difficulties was Amazon, according to a report from Kotaku.
The online retail giant signed a licensing deal for CryEngine, Crytek’s proprietary game engine. Sources within the company put the deal’s value at between $50 million and $70 million, and suggested that Amazon may be using it as the bedrock for a proprietary engine of its own.
However Amazon uses the technology, though, the importance of the deal for Crytek cannot be overstated. Last year, during the summer, it became apparent that all was not well at the German developer. Employees hadn’t been fully paid in months, leading to an alleged staff walkout in its UK office, where a sequel to Homefront was in development. Koch Media acquired the Homefront IP and its team shortly after.
When the company’s management eventually addressed the rumors, it had already secured the financing necessary to take the company forward. No details of the deal were offered, but it’s very likely that Crytek got the money it needed from Amazon.
We have contacted Crytek to confirm the details, but it certainly fits with the perception that Amazon could emerge as a major creator of game content. It has snapped up some elite talent to do just that, it acquired Twitch for a huge sum of money, and it has been very open about where it plans to fit into the overall market.
Sources are telling us that we should expect new skateboarding titles from both Electronic Arts and Activision in 2015. Word is that Activision is preparing a new Tony Hawk title and Electronic Arts will be bring out a new Skate title as well.
While Activision and Electronic Arts have not made the announcements yet, our sources tell us that we should expect both titles to be announced in the near future for a likely late 2015 release. It is unknown who might be handling the development on both titles, but word is that both titles are already deep in development.
With the release of a new Tony Hawk and Skate titles, it will revive the Skateboarding segment that has been dormant for quite some time. EA has not produced a new title in the Skate franchise since Skate 3 and the late couple of Tony Hawk titles didn’t do so well, but the re-issue of original Pro Skater for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 with DLC made up of levels from 2 & 3 have shown that interest does still exist for this segment.
Our hope is that it will be less like what we saw with the SSX revival that EA tried and then realized that it was not really want the people wanted and more like a new next-generation skateboarding title that puts the fun back into skating. We will have to wait and see.
While Grand Theft Auto may remain the industry’s true juggernaut, pretty much the only single franchise whose launch is capable of spiking software sales figures for an entire year and pushing all rivals out of the field in the process, Call of Duty has become the industry’s banner carrier in a different way. GTA’s extraordinary launches are such enormous events precisely because Rockstar wisely chose to avoid the annual update treadmill with the game; Call of Duty, meanwhile, has managed to continue a steady streak of enormous launches despite the punishing requirements of such a schedule.
It’s hard to overstate just how important this difference in approach is to a game franchise. GTA’s main instalments are all developed by the same studio, Rockstar North, meaning that each subsequent game begins its lengthy gestation after the launch of the previous title. The result is that the ball is rarely if ever dropped in terms of quality; no untested team gets to mess things up in an “off-year”. Each new GTA game follows a clear evolutionary path from the previous game, as the studio learns and develops its approach; a major advantage over the “three steps forward, two steps back” games that result from an annual update cycle with different teams working on different schedules. Finally, GTA’s spaced out launches give each one the sense of being a genuinely enormous event, and the games continue to sell at a solid price point for many months after launch, a feat which is otherwise only achieved in this industry by Nintendo’s key titles.
“The sheer scale of GTA’s success has made it into an unbalancing factor in the publisher’s figures”
Again, this contrasts with the annual update cycle for games like Call of Duty; on a couple of occasions, new CoD games have arguably truncated the sales of their predecessors when they launched. All of these benefits, however, are outweighed by the big problem with such an irregular launch cycle, namely that it plays merry hell with Take Two’s financial performance. The sheer scale of GTA’s success has made it into an unbalancing factor in the publisher’s figures; it means that from the perspective of the markets, everything else Take Two does is relegated to being a “snack between GTAs”. The “snack” quarters in the company’s financials are by no means bad, but they end up being compared, desperately unfairly, to the GTA quarters, and analysts fret endlessly over whether the company is a one-trick pony and how far down the tubes it will go if GTA ever falters. Of course, annual updates also make more money – in the short term, arguably; GTA may be genuinely evergreen due to its slow update cycle, where annually updated games, apart from sports titles, tend inevitably to lose steam). But even if they didn’t, it’s hard to imagine a company like Activision risking a “spiky” set of financial results. Huge companies don’t just want to make more money; they want to make more money in a predictable way, with a nice growth curve and no nasty dips that make shareholders lose confidence.
Thus we end up with the situation now facing the Call of Duty franchise. We’re a long day from the heady days of Infinity Ward’s groundbreaking CoD 4: Modern Warfare. As of this year, there are now three separate studios working on the franchise, with the instalment that launched this week, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (“CODAW”, which is fun to say but not remotely as fun as “CODBLOPS” was a few years back) being the first full game in the franchise from Sledgehammer. This is one interesting approach to keeping the quality of the games high in spite of the annual treadmill; the other key approach being employed by Activision is to throw money at the franchise like confetti at a particularly exuberant wedding, with CODAW’s most eye-opening use of cash being the suitcases full of it which were presumably delivered to Kevin Spacey’s door in order to persuade him to dress up in a motion capture gimp suit and deliver a villainous performance that’s at times delightfully Frank Underwood but all too often disappointingly Lex Luthor.
Keeping the quality bar high is an extraordinarily important task for Activision – be it through giving studios the time they need to genuinely polish their franchise instalments, or hiring famous faces to do their best with the games’ B-movie scripts (seriously, CODAW’s singleplayer campaign was apparently written by a 15 year old off his tits on Mountain Dew and Doritos who had just watched Michael Bay’s Transformers movies back-to-back and emerged with the sole complaint that “there weren’t enough explosions”). Last year’s CoD: Ghosts was judged both critically and commercially as a slip for the series, which may be partially responsible for the lower pre-orders for this year’s instalment which have been tracked by many analysts.
This year’s game has had great critical response thus far, so it represents an important test – given that the quality bar has arguably been returned to a solid level (it’s all subjective, of course, but the overall tenor of the coverage is positive), will sales also get back to an even keel? Or was CoD Ghosts’ weak commercial showing the start of a slide for the series which can only be reversed by a truly radical reinvention? Consumer fatigue, after all, is absolutely a real thing. It’s even tougher for games that for movies; the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies could probably continue for many years to come, since they only ask consumers for a couple of hours of time every few months. CoD players invest dozens upon dozens of hours in each game (in some cases, hundreds), which makes it much more likely that they’ll burn out; that at some point, they’ll reach an annual update that’s just a step too far for them. The best defence against this is keeping the franchise fresh, consistently reinvigorated with new ideas, and of course, keeping the quality bar high; but even that may not halt the slow decline
This year could go either way for COD. Pre-orders are definitely down on the previous year, which does not bode well, but that doesn’t take into account digital pre-orders – and it’s worth noting that on the new-gen consoles there appears to be a very strong trend towards digital pre-orders and first week digital purchases. Activision claims that purchase intent is tracking high, although that’s Schrödinger’s Statistic to a large extent – you don’t know for sure if it’s remotely accurate or not until you open the box with the sales figures inside.
Still, all in all there are some reasons to be There are also reasons to be cautiously pessimistic. One of the biggest problems facing COD this year is, oddly, one of Activision’s own successes – Destiny, which has attracted and continues to enthral a very large number of the core FPS fans who might otherwise be expected to devote themselves to CODAW. It seems plausible that the long gap between Destiny’s launch and the appearance of the first content pack, The Dark Below, is at least partially in order to give players a lull in which investing in COD will seem appealing; it will be interesting to see if that actually works.
The single biggest challenge, however, lies within COD itself. It’s a remarkably successful game and will continue to sell well for years to come, but if this year’s numbers can’t match last year’s (even in spite of much more positive critical reception and consumer word-of-mouth), it will be taken as clear evidence that a peak has been passed. Consumer fatigue, high competition and perhaps a lingering sense of being burned by Ghosts are all potentially damaging factors for the franchise this year; should they conspire to push sales down even by a few percentage points year-on-year, tough questions will have to be asked about the future of Activision’s annual cash- Indeed, in that instance, one might ask some tough questions about Activision itself.
It’s odd, perhaps, to question a company’s prospects when it has just announced record financials, but it’s entirely possible that this is a peak for the publisher. World of Warcraft is far from its peak figures, in spite of occasional bumps when expansions are launched, and Blizzard’s putative replacement, Titan, has been cancelled. Destiny has yet to prove itself as a franchise despite an amazing launch, and as I indicated last year, I’m not sure that Activision and the game’s fanbase see eye-to-eye on how it’s going to develop over the coming years. If Call of Duty also shows itself to be coming off the boil, then only Hearthstone will remain as a truly unblemished bright spot in Activision’s line-up. The markets will, no doubt, have noticed this already; Call of Duty Advanced Warfare’s performance is going to be subjected to intense scrutiny over the coming weeks and months, as analysts and investors attempt to divine Activision’s future from this crucial data point.
Increased violent video game consumption correlates with declines in youth violence, according to a new study. A recent study published in the Journal of Communication by a researcher at Stetson University found that there were no associations between media violence consumption in society and societal violence.
Christopher Ferguson (Stetson University) published his findings in the Journal of Communication after carrying out two studies to see if the incidence of violence in media correlates with actual violence rates in society. The first study looked at movie violence and homicide rates between 1920 and 2005. The second study looked at videogame violence consumption and its relationship to youth violence rates from 1996-2011. He found that societal consumption of media violence is not predictive of increased violence rates in society.
In the first study independent raters evaluated the frequency and graphicness of violence in popular movies from 1920-2005. These were correlated to homicide rates for the same years. During the mid-20th century, movie violence and homicide rates did appear to correlate slightly, which may have led some to believe a larger trend was at play. That correlation reversed after 1990 so that movie violence became correlated with fewer homicides. Before the 1940s, movie violence was similarly related to fewer homicides, not more.
In the second study on video game violence, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) ratings were used to estimate the violent content of the most popular video games for the years 1996-2011. These estimates of societal video game violence consumption were correlated against federal data on youth violence rates during the same years.
Violent video games were correlated with declines in youth violence. However, it was concluded that such a correlation was due to chance and did not indicate video games caused the decline in youth violence. So far studies have focused on laboratory experiments and aggression as a response to movie and videogame violence, and this is the first one which looked at real-life exposure.
The internet has just received the first surge of what will be a raging tide of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare reviews, but several key outlets will be lagging behind the others.
As is tradition by now, Activision chose to restrict press access to a fleet of new generation consoles set up in hotel rooms around the world. This has happened with pretty much every major Call of Duty release since Modern Warfare 2, but it’s only in the last year or two that disclaimers have become a common feature of the subsequent reviews. Polygon went to a review event, for example, but it paid for its writer’s accommodation. Kotaku makes no mention of any event despite having played through the entire campaign (presumably in an Xbox One bedecked hotel room), but it is nevertheless holding off publishing a scored review until it has the opportunity to play the game’s multiplayer in a live setting – “the way it was intended.”
Eurogamer took a third route, attending the review event on Activision’s dime but relaxing its critical trigger-finger until Advanced Warfare was released to the public and its true online mettle could be tested. Which is the right approach? Should a review prioritise accuracy or punctuality? No one person can provide a sensible answer to that question, but it seems that the task of the video game critic becomes thornier and more thankless with every AAA release.
One thing is roundly agreed upon, though: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is definitely better than Call of Duty: Ghosts, and most outlets believe that it’s an improvement on Black Ops II. Indeed, even though Eurogamer’s full review won’t be published until later this week, it was enthusiastic enough to publish a score-free recommendation of what it did have a chance to play in the meantime.
Advanced Warfare, the first full COD title from Sledgehammer Games, is, “the biggest shift for the series since the original Modern Warfare, and…easily the best entry since Modern Warfare’s ceasefire.” Here, Eurogamer argues, the series shrugs off the weighty, pained influence of films like Black Hawk Down and turns instead to science fiction romps like Star Wars and Halo, all exotic cityscapes, flying vehicles and elaborate weaponry – “Advanced Warfare impresses you with just how much fun war can be.”
Polygon is with Eurogamer in spirit, but it’s appraisal – based on a private playthrough of the campaign and closed multiplayer sessions hosted by Activision – has a 9.0 waiting at the end. This is exactly the sort of score that Activision and Sledgehammer have been working towards, and Polygon leaves little room for doubt that, this time out, Call of Duty has really earned whatever accolades it receives.
Key to it all are various “Exosuits,” which imbue the player with a range of abilities that the (more or less) contemporary and (in a manner of speaking) historical settings of previous Call of Duty games didn’t allow. For the most part, that means double-jump and boost mechanics, though there are different contextual uses for the suits throughout the game’s campaign.
“All of this makes moment-to-moment navigation much more interesting in Advanced Warfare than previous entries in the series or its imitators have managed,” Polygon’s review states. “The exo conceit also allows Sledgehammer to vary up the single-player campaign’s format and ideas in some exciting new ways.
“In fact, speaking strictly from level and encounter design and mission variety, Advanced Warfare is the best campaign the series has seen since Infinity Ward re-imagined the franchise with Modern Warfare in 2007. There’s no muddy objectives to get stuck on, and at least on my playthrough on the “hardened” difficulty setting, there were very few cheap-feeling death loops to get stuck in. It balances fairness with enough challenge and sophistication to make success feel worth it, and I never felt like any one part overstayed its welcome.”
Joystiq – which has yet another distinct mix of review conditions to consider – is similarly impressed with the way Advanced Warfare enlivens the core mechanics of the Call of Duty series with its new bag of tricks, awarding the game a commendable four-stars. However, there is also the lingering sense that Sledgehammer didn’t go far enough, assembling a clutch of innovative and empowering ideas but leaving most of them to bit-parts, cameos and walk-ons.
“On the one hand, you have the multi-function tactical grenade, which can either down drones with an EMP blast, stun enemies in a burst of light or paint targets through walls,” Joystiq states. “Selecting the right option is a rewarding decision, and not always easy to do quickly under fire. It’s a meaningful part of your arsenal.
“Less dependable are abilities like cloaking or a sonic pulse that disorients nearby enemies, which only appear for some missions. More exotic still are things like the grappling hook, a thrilling device that is first used in an awkward stealth mission. There’s a brilliant urban level later where these futuristic devices open the game up: You grapple between terraces and a central train track, yank enemies out of their power suits and launch yourself into massive, emplaced turrets to tear things up. It’s exciting, dynamic and as bombastic as any Call of Duty.
“It’s a shame these mechanisms come across as guest stars, because their use feels so fitting with Advanced Warfare’s unabashed science fiction shooting gallery… It just doesn’t have the power to break through the expectations of the brand, often coming across as an expertly played round of Call of Duty Mad Libs.”
This speaks to the concerns voiced by US Gamer, Advanced Warfare’s harshest critic at present with a score of 7 out of 10. There are inventive touches here, the sort that Call of Duty’s last few iterations have lacked, but this is innovation only in context. Advanced Warfare feels original in comparison to the series’ previous entries, but Sledgehammer is only reinventing the bubble in which these games exist. US Gamer acknowledges the delight that will bring to, “those who view gaming through the prism of Call of Duty and little else,” but the creative compromises made in the name of protecting the brand are all too clear.
“In a setting rife with possibilities, Advanced Warfare proves surprisingly short on imagination… In terms of design, there’s little to separate Advanced Warfare’s campaign from previous games in the series; and indeed, it frequently recycles tropes from previous games.
“After all these years of playing Call of Duty, the tweaks in Advanced Warfare just don’t do enough to mix up the formula, which is quietly becoming stale … There was a time not so long ago when ‘No Russian’ was on everyone’s lips, and Call of Duty was lauded for its daring and ambition in bringing RPG elements to multiplayer-a controversial choice back in 2007, when conventional wisdom ruled that XP would dramatically unbalance the action in favour of experienced players.
“There is a danger, however, in striving only to keep your core fans happy. Too often, it is easy for development teams to get lost in the echo chamber created by their game’s most vocal fans, which has the effect of encouraging them to prioritise balance changes over more ambitious endeavours. That is what I feel has happened with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, which tries very hard to capture the essence and the flavour of the series, and is ultimately a little too successful.”
To be more specific, that’s a difference of 3 million units, with Advanced Warfare expected to sell around 17 million. Obviously, that’s still a very healthy number, and the sort of success that most publishers rarely experience, but nevertheless it would be ill news for what remains Activision’s most important franchise.
Ghosts was, in itself, markedly less successful than Black Ops II, and a second year of decline will be enough to cause concern within Activision. When pre-orders for Ghosts were lower than expected, Eric Hirshberg attributed it to the transition to a new generation of consoles. With a minimum of 15 million PlayStation 4s and Xbox Ones now in the wild, that explanation would not stand up quite as well with Advanced Warfare.
In a note given to Cinema Blend, Sterne Agee’s Arvind Bhatia gave several reasons for the possibility of ongoing decline, one of which was the number of people who are still waiting to upgrade to new generation hardware, and may not buy any new software until they do. The others were sharply declining sales of Xbox 360 and PS3 software, and the fact that some Call of Duty fans may have been disappointed with Ghosts.
A significant counter to that is the positioning of Battlefield: Hardline, which slipped to March 2015 release and left Activision’s franchise free of its fiercest competitor.
Given its huge investment in Bungie’s Destiny and the relatively cool critical response that greeted the game, Activision will be hoping that Sterne Agee’s research is not an indicator of Call of Duty’s long-term health.
Finally, Ubisoft has a release date for the Wii U version of Watch Dogs. While we don’t know if that many people are waiting for the Wii U version, when it does release it could very well end up being one of the last M rated titles for the Wii U console.
The release date for the Wii U version of Watch Dogs appears to be November 18th in North America and November 21st in Europe. This ends the original release delay that Ubisoft announced for the Wii U version as resources were moved to prepare the other versions of the game for release.
Ubisoft has been one of the strongest supports of software for the Wii U, but recently it announced that it was done producing titles like Assassins Creed and Watch Dogs for the Wii U because the sales of these M rated titles are just not there on the Wii U platform. It did indicate that it would focus on some of its other Wii U titles that continue to be popular on the console.
The news is good that they are getting Watch Dogs, but it looks like we will not see many more games like this on the Wii U.
In the Far Cry games, fire is a wonderful tool. It spreads dynamically, opening up a wealth of creative and strategic possibilities for players to achieve their goals. However, it also gets out of control in a hurry, potentially coming back to hurt the player in sometimes unpredictable ways.
It’s an appropriate metaphor for the series’ approach to controversial subject matter. Last week, Ubisoft announced the development of Far Cry 4, showing off some key art in the process. The picture depicts a blonde light-skinned man in a shiny pink suit against the backdrop of the Himalayas, smirking as he uses a defaced statue as a throne. His right hand rests on the head of a darker skinned man who is kneeling before him, clutching a grenade with the pin pulled. Though we know very little about the characters depicted, their backgrounds, or their motivations, the art got people talking (and tweeting). Some were concerned about racism. Others were worried about homophobia. Many saw neither. At the same time, details about the game are so scant that it’s entirely possible the problematic elements here are properly addressed within the context of the game itself.
But at the moment, we don’t have that context. It’s promotional art, so to a certain extent, it’s designed to exist out of context, to catch the eye of someone on a store shelf, even if they’ve never heard of the series before. And while we lack the context the actual game would provide, there’s no such thing as “without context.” Here, the context we have is that this is a Far Cry game, the latest entry in a series that has been earning a reputation for boldly storming into narrative territory where other games fear to tread (often with good reason).
Like the fire propagation mechanic, this narrative ambition was introduced to the series with Far Cry 2. What had previously been just another shooter (albeit one in a tropical setting more attractive than most) became a series that embedded its stories within thorny issues. Far Cry 2 cast players as a mercenary in a fictitious African country’s prolonged civil unrest, using blood diamonds, malaria, and Western imperialism as texture in a story emphasizing the moral vacuum of war. Far Cry 3 took things a step further, with players controlling a spoiled rich white kid on a tropical island vacation who suddenly must deal with nefariously swarthy pirates and intentionally stereotypical natives. And just in case that didn’t stir up any controversy, the story also weaves in rape, sex, drugs, and torture. In both cases, some critics and players felt the games offensively trivialized important or tragic subjects.
Given this history, it’s not surprising that Far Cry 4 would not universally receive the benefit of the doubt. Much more surprising (to me, at least) is that Ubisoft is continuing down this path with the franchise. Far Cry 3 sold a staggering 9 million units, putting it in the same class of blockbuster as Assassin’s Creed (last year’s version of which sold 11 million units). However, the publisher’s narrative approach to the two games could not be more different.
Assassin’s Creed is a fascinating case study for dealing with touchy subjects in AAA video games. It wasn’t long after the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq that work on the first Assassin’s Creed started. You know, the one set in the middle of a holy war between Christians and Muslims. Assassin’s Creed II had players attempt to assassinate the pope. Assassin’s Creed III put players in control of a Native American protagonist during the Revolutionary War. Assassin’s Creed IV: Freedom Cry saw the gamification of emancipation.
The Assassin’s Creed franchise draws some criticism from time to time for its handling of these subjects, but the series has rarely found itself at the flashpoint of controversy. Part of the reason for that is the Assassin’s Creed developers research their subjects thoroughly. They understand what the concerns surrounding the sensitive topics are, and by virtue of the games’ historical settings, they can point to factual evidence of certain people’s actions, or common situations of each era.
When it comes to dealing with controversy, Assassin’s Creed is much like its stealthy protagonists are imagined to be: quiet, cautious, and efficient. Far Cry, on the other hand, deals with these topics more like the way Assassin’s Creed protagonists behave when I play them: recklessly uncoordinated and endlessly destructive. Even when it’s clear Far Cry’s developers have put plenty of thought into what they’re saying, it’s not always clear they’ve put much thought into what people will hear them saying through their games.
It speaks volumes about how Ubisoft perceives the long-term value of the two series. Assassin’s Creed is the company’s biggest and most adaptable blockbuster, an annual gaming event based on a premise that can be mined and iterated on endlessly in almost any medium, a recurring revenue stream to be nurtured over time. Far Cry, this key art release suggests, is just another first-person shooter, a brand defined primarily by how hard it works to shock people, perhaps because the company doesn’t have faith that it can sell on its other merits. One of them is the kind of project you make a Michael Fassbender film around. The other might be more of an Uwe Boll joint.
I’m not saying that Far Cry should avoid these subjects. I actually love to see games of all sizes attempting to tackle topics and themes often ignored by the industry. But the right to explore those subjects should come with a responsibility to do so with care. These are legitimately painful subjects for many people. If developers want to force players to confront them, they should have a good reason for it that goes beyond pushing people’s buttons, exploiting tragedy for shock value and an early preorder campaign. In video games, we don’t push buttons for the sake of pushing buttons. We push them to do things.
Ubisoft announced that Watch Dogs is setting pre-order records for the publisher. The company said that it’s the most pre-ordered new IP in Ubisoft’s history, the second-highest pre-ordered Ubisoft game ever, and the most pre-ordered new IP in the industry this year. Moreover, retailer GameStop confirmed that Watch Dogs is the most pre-ordered next-gen game to date.
All that said, Ubisoft actually did not disclose how many units were pre-ordered. GamesIndustry International pinged Ubisoft to ask for a pre-sales figure and we’ll be sure to let you know if we get one.
[Update: On the company’s earnings conference call, executives said that they fully expect Watch Dogs to perform better than the first Assassin’s Creed, meaning it should exceed 6.3 million in lifetime sales. “We expect it to become a major heavyweight of the industry,” said CEO Yves Guillemot.]
“These strong pre-orders are a clear indication of players’ anticipation and excitement for Watch Dogs,” said Geoffroy Sardin, Senior VP Sales and Marketing at Ubisoft. “The teams have worked tirelessly to ensure that players will enjoy a top quality game with enormous scope, and we can’t wait to get the game into their hands.”
“We are seeing tremendous excitement for the new Watch Dogs game… It is on track to be one of the top selling video games across all consoles in 2014,” added Michael van den Berg, vice president of Merchandising at GameStop International.
Watch Dogs development is being led by Ubisoft Montreal, but similar to other massive AAA projects in the industry it’s been a collaborative effort with assistance from teams at Ubisoft Bucharest, Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Quebec and Reflections. The game will release on May 27 for current-gen and next-gen consoles, PC and it’s coming to Wii U “at a later date.”
AMD revealed Mantle to the world at its Hawaii launch event and at the time it promised support for the new API would come to Battlefield 4 sometime in December. In December, AMD said the API would show up in January.
Now though, it appears that the delay may be somewhat longer. Late yesterday Extremetech reported BF4 support would finally land in February. AMD’s Robert Hallock denied the patch is coming in February, but he didn’t say it is coming in January, either. If it is, it’s coming by Thursday. If it is not, that’s very bad news for AMD given the scale of its PR onslaught.
Back at CES the company talked up Mantle in an elaborate demonstration, featuring Oxide Games and DICE products. AMD claimed Mantle would deliver a significant performance boost over DirectX, up to 45 percent in certain scenarios. Since Mantle is not available yet, it is impossible to put these very optimistic claims to the test.
Mantle won’t be a game changer, but if it is embraced by major developers, it could give AMD a competitive edge both in discrete and integrated graphics. Intel has been making headway in the graphics department and it is closing the gap with AMD APUs with its latest Iris series GPUs.
Mantle could be AMD’s trump card, a cheap way of making its APUs more competitive without wasting silicon, but for this to happen Mantle needs to be embraced by developers. It is very promising, but at this point there are quite a few “ifs” associated with Mantle.