This week on VGS....
Andy, Dave and the Tech Editor from Canada.com Patrick O’Rourke, reveal some of their own misconduct in the world of gaming. Were you ever those wide-eyed racist children playing COD that as a bearded adult you love to hate?
Andy and Patrick take it one step further, after working in the industry for a while, they reveal the sometimes tenuous relationship games journalists have with the sometimes loved (often dreaded) PR reps!
The difficult dance between representing the economic interests of your product and trying to determine who the most proficient are at delivering the message YOU want to send!
MW 2019 is five years old at this point and on previous gen hardware, but it is still the best looking Call of Duty game to date.
MW was an excellent videogame. They messed up Spec Ops big time, but aside from this it was a huge step in the right direction initially. Most notably, at launch it seemed to come from a very cohesive creative vision that was felt across gameplay, to story to art style/visual direction. It was also very notably written by prominent ex-Naughty Dog guys that quit almost immediately before release.
That COMPLETELY dissolved through post-launch content and the full pivot to a "cross-mode" narrative that completely obliterated the cohesion in overall story direction. Warzone then "became" the new face of Call of Duty and the franchise completely removed itself from anything remotely creatively "good". It is a pure money machine, so I kinda get why they're doing it....but I personally completely lost interest.
I would love to see Infinity Ward move off CoD and get to make their own product with full control. They clearly have some massive talent in their ranks but it's perverted by Activision's corporate interests.
Call Of Duty is back with its yearly instalment, but is Modern Warfare 3 breaking new ground, or just a lazy cash grab? The answer may not surprise you in today's review from JDR.
The original Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 games have been drawing players back in
I really hope we get other activision games on GP soon. My dream would be Scarface but I know the license probably expired
Love me some Scarface! I even bought the comics. Yeah, licensing would probably be an impasse.
I played through Scarface again last year and it still holds up. Such a fun game. I would love for Xbox to get the rights back to remaster Scarface and make a sequel. It sold well and they had plans for Scarface 2, 3, and 4. With how long it takes Rockstar to make games the market is wide open.
That game was so much fun. Expected a cheap GTA clone but it was a good drug empire building game.
They didn't just have plans but there's actual gameplay out there for scarface 2
Seriously man we need games like
True crime
Sleeping dogs
Watch dogs( more like original not legion)
And proper saints row
GTA can’t be the only option we need other games
None of those games had dedicated servers on console in the first place? Were always player hosted. Did something change?
Jur nal lis tic in teg grit tee?
They speak of Anita Sarkeesian being an "intellectual".
Anyone who has completed a decent degree would realise that Sarkeesian is guilty of confirmation bias. She takes a gendercentric approach to criticise games which are created for the majority of the market, who are of a different gender, and who also take a perfectly natural gendercentric view.
And these commenters also call the outrage "prepubescent", and strawman the entire opposition to Sarkeesian by pointing out those few radicals who sent the woman death threats. Which I feel is a pretty arrogant view to take.
And then they call for more strong female characters by simply stating it's "awesome" without evidence to back it up.
No stats to back any assertions up, combined with a flagrant disregard for the personal views of other people who have different personal opinions on the way they like to consume entertainment in their own homes.
The null hypothesis is the foundation of the scientific method: I am incorrect, but if I can't prove this is true, I must be correct. Sarkeesian cannot be called "academic" for this very reason, and these commenters lose validity for not even trying to understand where other people are coming from.
(not to mention use of the word "progressive", which is an incredibly arrogant term to assign to a specific viewset which is not intrinsically better than the status quo, or other types of change).
TL;DR: Not worth listening to.