Author Topic: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?  (Read 2094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vidmaster

  • 211
  • Inventor of FS2 bullettime ;-)
Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Answer: Oh, yeah its Call of Duty, that shooting-dudes game coming out every year :snipe:

TLDR; The game is pretty good, go buy. Vidmaster likes it.

I have absolutely no idea  :doubt: why the most recent title named Infinite Warfare is getting so much hate  :mad: :hopping: :no: everywhere, half of the reviews I have read are just plain wrong in places. So, I present my review of CoD: Infinite Warfare tailored to the FS2 community:

Disclaimer first, I like the CoD games a lot but do not religiously: I buy like every third game, I play the campaign (and regularly replay when the mood strikes) and I play a bit of online multiplayer. I never bought any Map DLC or Season Pass. And I think Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of the very best interactive experiences ever made, playing it back then was a revelation. But again, I am not a zealot and I play many more games including shooters, old ones like DOS-Doom or Marathon, arena-shooters like Unreal Tournament or semi-simulation games like original Ghost Recon, and story-driven ones like the reimagined Wolfenstein, Riddick or Half-Life.

Infinite Warfare is a military sci-fi shooter, which lets you play an Alpha 1-type of solider who is both marine and pilot, similar to the setup in Space: Above and Beyond. Your job is to defend Earth when the almost comically evil and obviously fascist colonials decide to attack. That character has a name, a voice, a best pal and unwavering loyaltiy and commitment to what the game perceives as military duty, that is it. Let's discuss plot, presentation and gameplay:

Plot-wise, this is a basic war story about operations, combat in the sense of actions and reactions and not a complex epic or mystery story full of twists. Think Freespace instead of Blue Planet. The script is serviceable material but do not expect anything special. The remarkable thing about the experience is how unified it feels, in contrast to many modern games there is a sense of continuity in what happens on screen. There are no real time jumps, no protagonist switches (outside the prolog) or "in the meantime" cutscenes. This makes the plot pretty gripping :nod: since you are never taken out of it, whatever the quality of the script may be. Instead of the usual "appearing somewhere in the level and action ensuses" you actually reach that level in some way, usually by flying there. This is an extreme contrast to how CoD worked in the past, especially the more recent games and it is pretty brilliant. Even the briefings are now sensibly integrated, no bodiless more voices. It is also toned down a lot in the blockbuster department, there are less absurd set-pieces and what is there makes more sense. Plot-wise, this game is definitely new material. Less clever than some predecessors but much more coherent. Some logic holes of course, but it is still CoD :rolleyes:.

Graphics are modern and good looking, the Sound is pretty awesome and voice acting is mostly spectacular (where the script permits ;) ). Music is surprisingly tame, way less aggressive than previous CoDs. I wished for a little more impact sometimes. Art design is stellar, especially inside your Carrier Vessel. In short, not much to discuss here.

Gameplay is an interesting mix indeed ;7. To the uninitiated, CoD's standard gameplay involves your FPS-character getting escorted through a series of combat encounters against numerically superior forces by pretty much useless friendly AI. The battlespace is pretty deadly  :nervous: for both you and any enemy and there is a ****load of different guns, tools, devices and grenades. Its basically military-porn.
When Titanfall came out a while back, I hailed it as the first real innovative shooter in years as it mixed CoD-style gunplay with Mechs, Parcour and an old-school double jump and I stand by that. Its movement mechanics have been incorporated into CoD since then, though never on the same level. Compared to previous games, I would actually argue that the game's speed has been reduced and time to kill has actually increased. It still plays fast but not as fast as earlier titles, which was pretty surprising but not negatively so. The level design consists mostly of the usual corridors and there is little chance to effectively use the parcour and jetpack stuff in the campaign  :( . This stuff has been designed for Multiplayer first and you notice. Plus it could have used a better tutorial, the game pretty much assumes you are a veteran CoD player.
Aside from the standard gunplay, there are zero-g sections and fighter combat levels and both are excellent and not mere gimmicks, contrary to what most of the reviews say out there. The Zero-G stuff is comparable to Shattered Horizon (a now defunct but awesome astronaut shooter) and the only issue here is that they still have that stupid auto-leveling that you cannot disable completely  :hopping:.  The figher combat on the other hand is probably the thing getting the most hate for no apparent :nono: reason, again undeserved. It is not on rails, it is not a one-time affair and its also not automatic. What we are looking at is the CoD version of a space-shooter, aka drilled down to the essentials of shooting and not getting shot in an extremely dense and fast environment. Make no mistake, this is no flight sim and little situational awareness is required: As long as you do not die you will win eventually  :cool:. No escort-list, to cargo containers to scan, no wingmen to order around. You either shoot down enemy planes or you attack larger ships which comes down to destroying their turrets or engines. The closed game here is actually Ace Combat: Assault Horizon, which sports a similar lock-on feature as this game where chasing the enemy is semi-automated if necessary. Space combat is fine, fast and light on mechanics but it does not outstay its welcome. And most of all, it feels integrated both plot- and gameplay-wise  :yes:.


Ever since CoD became big and anual, people started hating it, complaining about the lack of innovation in the industry and that the game was ****, and Activision was evil and the whatnot. But this thread should really not devolve into that discussion. Bottom line is, if you like military sci-fi and shooters, you should get this game. And since this is a Freespace Community, there might be people like that here. And I urge those people to give this game a chance and post their own opinions here if what I wrote above seemed appealing.

EDIT: By the way, my Steam says 10 hours for my initial playthrough through the single-player campaign on VETERAN, the hard but not hardest difficulty, which me being a CoD regular (or veteran  :D). Considering that I got probably 9 hours of real campaign experience (toilet breaks, pausing to talk to someone, ...) I can only conclude that the 5 hour campaign comments are once again senseless hating and skipping all the side-missions (I did all).
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 06:38:53 am by Vidmaster »
Devoted member of the Official Karajorma Fan Club (Founded and Led by Mobius).

Does crazy Software Engineering for a living, until he finally musters the courage to start building games for real. Might never happen.

 
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
I plan to play it. Somewhere in the future. But not now.  I'd rather spare the cash for a PC upgrade and incoming Mass Effect.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Yeah all the trailers seemed fun and I was also surprised by the sheer negativity I've seen on social media about it. I haven't played CoD for years, perhaps a decade now, so it's not as if I'm missing something here, but all I've seen seems very okay-ish to me, from gameplay to set pieces, etc.

 

Offline Nyctaeus

  • Betrayal is his middle name
  • 211
  • Your local priest of cheeki breeki!
    • Minecraft
    • Exile
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
The best weapon against game you hate is just not buying it. And so, I don't get what's going on with milions of dislikes, and the whole anti-CoD hate cruside thing on YT, FB and everywhere else. Maybe these guys are just frustrated? Oh well... Wait! Are there THAT many frustrated people in the world o___O [NVM I know there are much more :P]

It's CoD. You get for what you pay for and you exactly know what's inside. Same story goes for Assasin's Creed and Fallouts from Bethesda.
I want to buy it for a six months maybe, when the price go down a little. I hope Infinity Ward made something cool this time to show flaming community that they are wrong.

What I really hate in CoD series is their publisher. Activision really sucks with their ignorance and pride. They used to say "you may hate CoD, but you will buy it anyway. We exactly know that". Seriously, someone should change their PR-related team.
Exile | Shadow Genesis | DA Profile | P3D Profile

Proud owner of NyctiShipyards. Remember - Nyx will fix it!

All of my assets including models, textures, skyboxes, effects may be used under standard CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Played the game. Didn't like it much.

Quote
The remarkable thing about the experience is how unified it feels, in contrast to many modern games there is a sense of continuity in what happens on screen. There are no real time jumps, no protagonist switches (outside the prolog) or "in the meantime" cutscenes. This makes the plot pretty gripping :nod: since you are never taken out of it, whatever the quality of the script may be. Instead of the usual "appearing somewhere in the level and action ensuses" you actually reach that level in some way, usually by flying there. This is an extreme contrast to how CoD worked in the past, especially the more recent games and it is pretty brilliant. Even the briefings are now sensibly integrated, no bodiless more voices. It is also toned down a lot in the blockbuster department, there are less absurd set-pieces and what is there makes more sense. Plot-wise, this game is definitely new material. Less clever than some predecessors but much more coherent. Some logic holes of course, but it is still CoD.

I kinda have to disagree here. The fact that there are no narrative breaks was a major downside for me: If we accept the game as presented as reality, then we have to conclude that the entire plot happens over the course of less than a day, with Awesome McHeroface never once stopping being awesome to sleep, or eat, or do normal human being stuff. While on some level, this falls into "Acceptable breaks from reality" territory, I found it to be rather immersion breaking. I do like the seamless briefings, and the way the whole "choose mission, choose loadout, hear briefing, do mission, do aftermath" works though.

Yes, plot-wise, this is at least coherent. But I do think the script is unbelievably clumsy in places: Out of the blue, we are at one point told of the existence of a MacGuffin. Said MacGuffin, if it stops doing its thing, will call down the might of the colonial fleet onto Geneva. In the final act of the campaign, a plan is hatched to stop said macguffin, and bring down the enemy fleet into the firing envelope of Earth's air defence systems.
This is bull**** on so many levels.
1. Why are we unable to jam the signal to achieve the same effect?
2. Why is it necessary to transport this thing across a warzone in order to deactivate it?
3. Why, when the inevitable happens and the convoy transporting the MacGuffin is attacked, does noone take steps to deactivate it?
4. Why is the backdoor the bad guys wanted to use in the campaign's opening to destroy the AA defences still open?
5. Why are our forces able to evacuate Geneva prior to the expected fleet assault, but not able to get the important people out of the Pentagon-equivalent?

Yes, the campaign does interesting things and bring you to interesting places to shoot boring people. But this sort of stupidity, in what is one of the main setpiece missions of the campaign, is unforgiveable to me.
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Black Ops 3 has superb multiplayer whereas this game's multi is a grey-washed laggy ****show. Thus the hate.

 

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
    • Minecraft
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Quote
1. Why are we unable to jam the signal to achieve the same effect?
2. Why is it necessary to transport this thing across a warzone in order to deactivate it?
3. Why, when the inevitable happens and the convoy transporting the MacGuffin is attacked, does noone take steps to deactivate it?
4. Why is the backdoor the bad guys wanted to use in the campaign's opening to destroy the AA defences still open?
5. Why are our forces able to evacuate Geneva prior to the expected fleet assault, but not able to get the important people out of the Pentagon-equivalent?

Seems pretty standard in terms of previous CoD games as far as weird plot devices go
I don't expect to be immersed in the world of CoD, let alone to have a plot that entirely makes sense. In the words of a few people, CoD strives to never let narrative be told without the presence of things exploding

That being said, Infinite Warfare is actually enticing to me because spaaaaaaaace
"No"

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Seems pretty standard in terms of previous CoD games as far as weird plot devices go
I don't expect to be immersed in the world of CoD, let alone to have a plot that entirely makes sense. In the words of a few people, CoD strives to never let narrative be told without the presence of things exploding

That being said, Infinite Warfare is actually enticing to me because spaaaaaaaace

My main objection here is that that particular sequence only works if we assume that people are really bad at their jobs. Which is a dramatic crutch that a good storyteller (and there is evidence of at least one of those being involved in the middle part of the campaign) should not need to employ in order to make the story work.
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis

 

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
    • Minecraft
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Can't really disagree with you there
Was it at least a fun ride?

*Price not considered in regards to fun. It's not worth 80 Cad, that I already know
"No"

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
I get the distinct feeling that the Good Writer was doing things like character dialogue and interactions, and the actual nitty gritty of "this is how military personnel act", and the more overarching plot was handled by somebody not nearly as good.

Because the characters and their interactions are fan-****ing-tastic, and my only, smallest, tiniest nitpick is that I wish Reyes/Salter were called by their Callsigns more often.

 
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
10 hours sounds good for a CoD campaign but it's definitely not worth 60€ for the campaign alone and I have 0 interest in CoD MP. Though if they really did make a somewhat decent SP campaign I might but it for 25 or less once I can.

Also congratulations to Infinity ward for managing to release a space dogfight and FPS SP campaign in 2 years, certain developers would like to know your secret :^)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 03:34:52 pm by FrikgFeek »
[19:31] <MatthTheGeek> you all high up on your mointain looking down at everyone who doesn't beam everything on insane blindfolded

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Also congratulations to Infinity ward for managing to release a space dogfight and FPS SP campaign in 2 years, certain developers would like to know your secret :^)
The people at Infinity Ward don't understand game development.

I'm going to buy this when it's cheaper.  I'm in the same boat: no interest in CoD MP, and SP alone isn't worth the asking price.


 

Offline MikeRoz

  • 26
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
I own this but I've been playing MW Remastered more (and CS:GO more than that, to be honest). Is there a multiplayer mode where you can fly a space fighter or was Derek Smart blowing hot air as usual? The ground multiplayer seemed really clunky to me, and I haven't had a chance to try the campaign yet.

Reddit can't stop smugly slapping themselves on the back about the low player counts in the multiplayer. I haven't bought a COD game at release since MW3, but this one seemed like it was something different so I thought I'd give it a try. Seems like everyone else had the opposite idea...
Rave reviews of my previous posts:
"Wow.  Just wow.  Well, just about the whole post is devoid of reasonable technical merit and accuracy." -Enki
"Wow, he just wasted about an hour of his life." -MachManX
"There are 5 million things wrong with your post, of which many have already been pointed out..." -blackhole
"Grrr. Someone please monkey mike...He's causing more problems than he's solving" -terran_emperor
"You're not very bright, are you." - General Battuta

 

Offline Vidmaster

  • 211
  • Inventor of FS2 bullettime ;-)
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
I kinda have to disagree here. The fact that there are no narrative breaks was a major downside for me: If we accept the game as presented as reality, then we have to conclude that the entire plot happens over the course of less than a day, with Awesome McHeroface never once stopping being awesome to sleep, or eat, or do normal human being stuff. While on some level, this falls into "Acceptable breaks from reality" territory, I found it to be rather immersion breaking. I do like the seamless briefings, and the way the whole "choose mission, choose loadout, hear briefing, do mission, do aftermath" works though.

Again, for me its a strong point. And yes, it is actually basically one day, various characters state that on multiple occasions. Of course, this is somewhat ridiculous considering your character is constantly being shot at and has other painful and unhealthy things happen to him but that is video game logic. They were going for a "33" from Battlestar Galactica here and I quite like it. It also helps credibility of the SDF's operations somewhat, as their reactions to the player's operations are mostly not-existent. For most of the campaign, your enemy only reacts while you act.

Yes, plot-wise, this is at least coherent. But I do think the script is unbelievably clumsy in places: Out of the blue, we are at one point told of the existence of a MacGuffin. Said MacGuffin, if it stops doing its thing, will call down the might of the colonial fleet onto Geneva. In the final act of the campaign, a plan is hatched to stop said macguffin, and bring down the enemy fleet into the firing envelope of Earth's air defence systems.
This is bull**** on so many levels.

Yep, that is the most clumsiest aspect of the plot, especially considering that the enemy fleet partially remains over Geneva after the protagonist does his thing unless we assume they retreat when said thing gets hot and the player is behind the big guns. Remember what I said it still being CoD? But until you people release the next Blue Planet, my Sci-Fi Military needs must be satisfied elsewhere.


By the way, I really like the idea of this rapid exhaustion of military resources. Its pretty much how I would envision a large-scale naval conflict in modern times to occur. All this terribly expensive and theoretically dangerous hardware being pulverized in a matter of hours.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 07:42:35 am by Vidmaster »
Devoted member of the Official Karajorma Fan Club (Founded and Led by Mobius).

Does crazy Software Engineering for a living, until he finally musters the courage to start building games for real. Might never happen.

 
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
10 hours sounds good for a CoD campaign but it's definitely not worth 60€ for the campaign alone and I have 0 interest in CoD MP. Though if they really did make a somewhat decent SP campaign I might but it for 25 or less once I can.

Also congratulations to Infinity ward for managing to release a space dogfight and FPS SP campaign in 2 years, certain developers would like to know your secret :^)
As a side note, CoD operates on a three year cycle now.

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Is Admiral Kotch a tribute / inspiration of Admiral Koth?
Is Admiral Kotch a tribute / inspiration of Admiral Koth?

The name is very similar, he has the same rank, and he is fighting for a force somewhat similar to the NTF, and he
Spoiler:
Has much the same mindset and fanaticism as Koth and at the end tries to do a suicide attack with his ship.

Any thoughts?

 
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Black Ops 3 has superb multiplayer whereas this game's multi is a grey-washed laggy ****show. Thus the hate.
This, plus them locking the MW Remastered version to only be available with certain special editions of IW probably soured a lot of people who didn't want "space bull****" in their manshoots.

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
Re: Why is no one talking about 'Infinite Warfare'?
Played the game. Didn't like it much.

Quote
The remarkable thing about the experience is how unified it feels, in contrast to many modern games there is a sense of continuity in what happens on screen. There are no real time jumps, no protagonist switches (outside the prolog) or "in the meantime" cutscenes. This makes the plot pretty gripping :nod: since you are never taken out of it, whatever the quality of the script may be. Instead of the usual "appearing somewhere in the level and action ensuses" you actually reach that level in some way, usually by flying there. This is an extreme contrast to how CoD worked in the past, especially the more recent games and it is pretty brilliant. Even the briefings are now sensibly integrated, no bodiless more voices. It is also toned down a lot in the blockbuster department, there are less absurd set-pieces and what is there makes more sense. Plot-wise, this game is definitely new material. Less clever than some predecessors but much more coherent. Some logic holes of course, but it is still CoD.

I kinda have to disagree here. The fact that there are no narrative breaks was a major downside for me: If we accept the game as presented as reality, then we have to conclude that the entire plot happens over the course of less than a day, with Awesome McHeroface never once stopping being awesome to sleep, or eat, or do normal human being stuff. While on some level, this falls into "Acceptable breaks from reality" territory, I found it to be rather immersion breaking. I do like the seamless briefings, and the way the whole "choose mission, choose loadout, hear briefing, do mission, do aftermath" works though.

Yes, plot-wise, this is at least coherent. But I do think the script is unbelievably clumsy in places: Out of the blue, we are at one point told of the existence of a MacGuffin. Said MacGuffin, if it stops doing its thing, will call down the might of the colonial fleet onto Geneva. In the final act of the campaign, a plan is hatched to stop said macguffin, and bring down the enemy fleet into the firing envelope of Earth's air defence systems.
This is bull**** on so many levels.
1. Why are we unable to jam the signal to achieve the same effect?
2. Why is it necessary to transport this thing across a warzone in order to deactivate it?
3. Why, when the inevitable happens and the convoy transporting the MacGuffin is attacked, does noone take steps to deactivate it?
4. Why is the backdoor the bad guys wanted to use in the campaign's opening to destroy the AA defences still open?
5. Why are our forces able to evacuate Geneva prior to the expected fleet assault, but not able to get the important people out of the Pentagon-equivalent?

Yes, the campaign does interesting things and bring you to interesting places to shoot boring people. But this sort of stupidity, in what is one of the main setpiece missions of the campaign, is unforgiveable to me.

You sound kinda like I did after watching the first Star Trek remake, as I was unable to get over the idiotic black hole sequence thing and bashed the entire movie because of it. ;-)

Now, years later ... I'd agree it was a fun ride, despite the flaws in logic.

After having finished the COD campaign, I'd say it's the same here, except it's a f****** d***** fantastic awesome ride and scratches long neglected SciFi itches exactly the right way, or at least it did for me. That is, if you can ignore some flaws in logic. Arguably tho, none of them are as bad as the gigantic flaws in the latest Star Trek movies. ;-)