Monday, November 24, 2008

Poll Results - Game Anticipation

So here are the results from my last poll:

What game are you anticipating the most?

Gears of War 2 = 7 votes
Call of Duty: World at War = 5 votes
Other = 1 vote

I voted for Gears of War 2 because honestly that is the game I was most anticipating based on the poll. If I had had a poll like this a couple of months ago than Fable II would have been top on my list.

Neither game stands out as a knock out killer sequel. Gears is just too much of the same thing and well, Call of Duty: World at War is too, although done by a different developer than the last one. Yes, they add new maps, but that's a given on any shooter sequel. And yes, they add new weapons. Gears adds a couple of grenades and weapons and Call of Duty adds a lot of "new" weapons but keeping the gun play realistic to the time period. And yes, there are some new game play features. Gears now has the ability to stick grenades on the wall, chainsaw your opponent from the bottom up and several different finishing moves for after knocking the enemy down. The fact that that enemy can now crawl out of harm's way is also a new feature. Call of Duty has attack dogs instead of a helicopter and tanks to drive around and blow things up with.

Nothing too innovative in either one of the sequels. We've seen tanks before in Star Wars Battlefront. Along with mines (stinking grenades). We've seen finishing moves too. There's more to games than just the game play though. There's graphic!

While both games show an improvement in the graphics departments I'm not sure it's all a good thing. At least with my eyes. When I was trying to describe the maps to my brother kai while playing the beta of Call of Duty I had one word for them: MESSY. There was stuff everywhere. Places to hide, which can be a good thing, but then again that makes a lot of places to get snipped from. It seems there is a lot more snipping going on the the latest Call of Duty than I ever saw in the last one. And while the "flashback" maps in Gears of War 2 look impressive they also look flat. At least to me. The look of grass and weeds overrunning everything looks more than a splash of green paint than anything realistic. There was something stark, realistic and eerie looking about the mangled areas of Gridlock that just looks abandoned with the new version. And while the new lighting inside the Mansion looks impressive it makes game play tricky sometimes when facing enemies.

Love 'em or hate 'em these two games feel like more of the same thing while playing them. While I enjoyed playing the previous versions and I'm enjoying playing the latest installments I'm not sure how much I would enjoy them if the next ones come out just the same. It's like buying a novel one chapter at a time. Eventually you have to ask yourself if it's worth it to shell out $60 a chapter. So far I think it is, but that might not last much longer.


metallicorphan said...

for call of duty i think this is the best way to do sequels,not have it in the same time period as the last one

for the next COD i would like to see yet another time period,i dont think it would benefit going back to COD4 time,and CODW@W timeframe is WWII which has been done to death

WWI would prolly be too much like CODW@W....any recent war would be in the same vein as cod4

and it cant go future,becuase then it would lose all credibility,and prolly become a Halo clone

Vietnam is still a war i would liek to see get done on next gen,think of the soundtrack in the single player..Vietnam did get done on the last gen(purple haze,shellshock '67 and battlefield:vietnam)...i thought they were great

all i am waiting for is like star wars battlefront..a current gen version

metallicorphan said...

vietnam being slap bang in the middle you see of COD4 and COD:W@W