Why Can't Call of Duty Devs Make A New IP? - That's Just Me Reviews

I'd be lying if I said I was excited for Call of Duty: Black Ops III. The game to me was just a sad compilation of every other game from recent titles like Titanfall or forgotten titles like The Darkness with a heavy dose of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. Overall, Call of Duty has become a boring franchise.

Before I started writing this, I was watching a video of Seananners of him playing the newest edition of Zombies on Black Ops 3 and thought to myself "this is a really interesting atmosphere for a zombie game" and "the gameplay looks amazing". I decided to finally look at the trailer for the Shadows of Evil Mode and said out loud "that is an awesome concept!".


A story that takes place in a colorful, 1940s/50s noire with unique corrupt characters in a town of zombies. That's awesome! Granted, the zombie scene is getting over crowded and done too much like every annually released game title, but still. This isn't a war game with futuristic exo-suits and super machine guns and explosions galore; it's almost it's own game. Which really begs the question that's been on my mind, in my heart, wants to come out of my mouth and through my fingers to the appropriate keys on my keyboard; why can't they make a new game!?

Call of Duty has so many different companies making games for them to come out once a year; with names like Activision, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer, etc. With that many people behind one franchise, there's no way they can't make an original, independent game, without relying on Call of Duty's sales and namesake. Games like Dishonored, Wolfenstein, Mirrors Edge, Bioshock and Fallout 4 have re-imagined the first person shooter with immersive environments, dimensional characters with backstories and making you earn and work for your kill. Call of Duty, it's just shoot through bunch of people that are just waiting to be killed and killed easily just to get to a checkpoint so you can "Press X" to bring more empty, armed meat targets. I'm not even going to begin on its multiplayer, because we've all heard it. You can make the same argument with Wolfenstein and Dishonored with targets waiting to get killed to advance the plot, but those games at least give you different options on how to approach the target and challenges you on your ammo count; y'know...TACTICAL STRATEGY. Plus, you get to understand the world you're in with different collectibles and overheard dialogue to make the game world seem bigger. It balances the action and adventure with stealth missions to "retrieve intel". That's why I always use these games as examples on good game design. It takes a genre and expands on it.

If you look up the reviews and scores for all the Call of Duty games from Modern Warfare 3 to Black Ops to Ghosts and Advanced Warfare, they all went from 90% or 9/10 to 60% or 6/10. But if you look up games like Fallout 3, Dishonored, or Bioshock, they're up in the 8 and 9%. Call of Duty is becoming a mindless routine that becomes forgettable. Which game do you really think will impact you and be unforgettable; a game about shooting, or a game that gives a cause and a reason to shoot and kill?

It frustrates me when devs with Call of Duty talk about all the new features they put in their latest installments that is only used to enhance your kills to get a rank, when they can put that same amount of work into making new, creative mechanics, story lines, open environments, and characters. If I'm going to be paying $60 for a game, I want that game to stick with me. I want to relate with that character I'm playing as. I want to remember the difference I made in that world. I don't want to pay $60 for enhancements to a game that I played before that didn't make an impact on me in the first place. I don't wanna pay $60 for a time killer that'll leave me angry or frustrated because I'm not as good as the one who shot me.

Now I am no businessman, but I don't think it wouldn't even hurt their business as much, really. Think of an E3 announcement trailer and the first thing you see in text is "From the team behind Call of Duty", you already know it's going to be something epic and different. It's like when Bloodborne was announced. When the words "From Software" shows up and "Created by Hidetaka Miyazaki" comes on the screen, you know from his past work it's gonna be a hit. They have enough people that can either make their own company and Kickstart it, or a team branches off within either Activision or Treyarch, get a small funding to make this game. If works, that's more property under their roof that's making money. If not, that team just goes back to work on the next CoD.

I'm not saying Call of Duty should be stopped or discontinued. If there's an audience for it and it's making money, good for them. I'm saying you guys at Team Call of Duty are smart enough and capable enough to make something new and memorable. I enjoy a few rounds of Call of Duty every once in awhile, but if that's all you're going to be remember for is Call of Duty 1 through 17, you're not gaining anything, experience wise. Dali didn't just draw melting clocks.


But Then Again,
That's Just Me...

NEW Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice Trailer Response - Marvel v. DC: Dawn of Comic Book Movies

As some of you may know, I've talked before that when it comes to movies and animated movies, DC does great with its animated movies and Marvel succeeds in its films...by Disney...  For awhile, I've had ups and downs about BvS. Ben Affleck playing Batman, the roster of characters being too much, worrying it will fall in the same fate as "Batman and Robin", rushing to compete with Marvel. Some of those thoughts have changed over time in favor of DC and Warner Bros., but after watching Man of Steel three separate times since its theatrical release, I realized that it had a lot more flaws that I hadn't noticed before. It didn't completely ruin the movie for me, but they were undeniable; rendering my opinion of DC movies staying the same, where they couldn't compete with Marvel Studios films...until now.

When SDCC (San Diego Comic Con) showed the first official trailer for BvS, I remember screaming in palm with excitement when I first saw it. It was intense, it was action packed, we got to see Batfleck in motion, we saw hero on hero brutalities, it was awesome. Later on, however, I still had some doubts that it wouldn't live up to its own hype. The NEW trailer that aired on Jimmy Kimmel, though, has made me hypothesizing something bold that I never thought I would say....DC may actually do better than Marvel. More on that later. Let's discuss what we saw in this new trailer

In the trailer, we see Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent meet for the first time as their public alter egos at a party, where we already get the idea that they don't see eye to eye on things. Maybe they already know each others secret identities, but don't want to cause a scene to jeopardize either. We also see that Lex Luthor is at this party to; either hosting or a guest; either way he's an annoying little weasel of a man. Throughout most of the trailer, we see shots we've seen before from the SDCC released trailer edited differently or extended some, while also seeing some new battle scenes between Batman and Superman, and even a little confrontation between Lois and Lex...then it gets interesting. We get introduced to a character we've been hearing rumors about forever that brings something more to this action movie buffet plater that's already full and yet we haven't gone back for dessert. We finally see Superman's greatest enemy of all time...DOOMSDAY!! They break for comedy and then from left to right, Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman line up to take down Doomsday aaaand scene! Title, 2016, credits, done, where's my towel!?

So that right there is the trailer summed up in a paragraph. I like how they introduced the characters to get a more in depth look at them, and even the action was pretty good. I also have to admit, I like the direction they're taking Lex this time. We've seen him before being the serious, evil scientist, business man. This time, he's the little guy with the big guns. It's like if Eddie Haskle and Jim Carrey's Riddler were fused together. We visually see he's a small man compared to Batman and Superman, but he has the mind and ability to take them down without throwing any fists of his own. Overall, I had the same reaction to this trailer as I did the first one back in the summer; screaming in my hand with joy. This time, no more doubts. I am convinced this movie is going to be awesome, no matter what Spoiled Squash Rotten Tomatoes says! This is where I've come to the conclusion that this film might do better than Captain America: Civil War. It pains me to say that, to be honest. 

I also have to admit, I wasn't blown away by Civil War's trailer like I was with BvS. I liked it, it had an interesting twist, it some emotional scenes, I thought Black Panther looked freakin' amazing, but nothing that made me "yeeeee!!". It was more unexpected than surprising. There was no set up or preparation for us to see this trailer. I, like some others, found out about this trailer from Jeremy Jahns' reaction video of the trailer instead finding the trailer first. Sadly, I have a feeling that this may be Marvel's downfall; here's why. 

After Avengers: Age of Ultron, I didn't feel like it was consistent with what we've seen before. It didn't feel like a Joss Wheadon film, either. You could tell with the different plot holes, the pacing, parts that didn't add up, and even the fact that Wheadon said he quit after Ultron. Now with Captain American Civil War, we're seeing the Avengers assemble again in a non-Avengers movie with them against each other, bringing in new characters, all in one movie before Infinity War, which is also a two parter, PLUS, Thor: Ragnarok is suppose to have Hulk to be a sidekick along side Thor. Cameos are one thing, but now it looks like phase three is relying on the action and Avengerness to hide the fact that the stories are lacking.

One big thing I noticed between these movie franchises is that Marvel is more of a "comic book movie" and DC is playing up the "superhero movie". Marvel has these stories of these unfortunate characters that have these new gifts that they use to ward off evil and how they react to the situations; it has more of a campiness to it as well. DC, on the other hand, plays up the super hero story type, where these are people who have these amazing abilities who are basically born that way and....they're just superheroes! Marvel explains through science, technology and training with how their heroes got their powers and abilities, where DC is just "bing bang boom superheroes". Marvel tried to base their characters more in reality, within the willing suspension of disbelief of course, where DC is just "oh crap superheroes, cool!" DC doesn't need a lot of explaining on how or why they got their powers and abilities, they just do. And that's where I think DC may have the upper hand this time. We've seen superhero movies before where it's just the hero, an origin story, an antagonist, a battle, hero wins, that's it! Man of Steel basically did that, but tried to be a little more complex with it; which wasn't a bad idea, it just suffered in some areas. 

Plus, this is DC's first time doing the cinematic universe. We've had Marvel doing that since 2008 with Iron Man and building up from there. DC decided to take a short cut and just go straight for the crossover just to get the audience and fans used to the idea of these characters together on the big screen before building up the Justice League. The whole cinematic universe idea had already been done with Marvel, so in DC's defense, why reintroduce it? Marvel already showed us what it's like to have a movie with an ensemble of heroes, why reintroduce it? I feel like this is one of the many ways that DC is trying to separate itself from Marvel. DC is darker, Marvel is more light hearted. Marvel took it's time to build up to The Avengers, DC is going straight for a crossover. Granted, it's obvious they're trying to catch up with Marvel, but at least they're not starting their cinematic universe with the Justice League fighting Darkseid...sorta. The Justice League movie will come out after BvS, and it will be a 2-parter, however between part 1 and 2, they're giving the League members their own solo films. So whatever event ends part 1 will cause the members to train up for a battle to arise in part 2; which would make sense, but that's just me guessing.

For now, time will tell as to which franchise rises in the end. All I care about right now is that don't screw up Captain Marvel/Shazam by doing the storyline from New 52 Shazam!

But Then Again,

That's Just Me.

OPEN LETTER TO: Call of Duty

Dear Call of Duty (and all associated members);

When we first met, I hated you. My brother was a huge WWII geek; so of course when he got Call of Duty for PC, he got the original WWII version. As I got older, I started appreciating that genre of games. First person shooters was one thing, but a WWII themed game added more fun to it. Compared to today's shooters, the weaponry was limited but effective, the atmosphere was bloodstained art with classic foreign architecture, and above all the music. The game that made me understand this was Medal of Honor: Frontline. In one mission, you have to infiltrate a castle swarming with Germans and you have a fake ID. When you walk into the castle, you show them your identification and they immediately notice that you're American and, what else do you do, shoot the place up. The reason why that mission still sticks with me is because of the above reasons (mostly the music; "Manor House Rally," look it up). Through that whole mission I felt like Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade helping Sean Connery escape.

You're probably wondering what the hell does any of this mean? What I'm trying to say is there is no shame in bringing back the WWII genre. I understand that making war games based in the future is easier to do because it's open game. The future can't always be predicted and it's fun to add whatever when it comes to technology and weaponry. BUT, there's a specific way to do it. If someone comes out with a game, not to name names, about a futuristic war where soldiers use giant mechs called TITANS that FALL from the sky and fight each other either man on man, man on mech or mech on mech, you let them have their fun. Your new series Advanced Warfare you signed up to do with Sledgehammer was an interesting approach. It was different from the rest of your games, and from the looks of it, it seemed fun. Now let's look at your latest, soon to be released title in the Black Ops line up Black Ops 3. Futuristic, robots, you can run on the side of walls; seriously what gives? I have to be honest, this has to be your worst attempt at a new game. At this point, you've gone so far into the future, you tore a hole in the fabric of time and wound up in Titanfall. But it's not just Black Ops 3 that's made me disappointed, it's what you've done to the genre.

Remember what you called the original Call of Duty? You code named it "MOH Killer". Well guess what. You succeeded. Before you came around Medal of Honor was the first and leader of the war shooters. Yeah Battlefield was around, but Medal of Honor kicked serious ass in that field. Then you came around. Giving credit where credit is due, you did change the genre. You took what was good and made it better. Big Red One, outstanding. CoD2, fans loved it. CoD3...I liked it. World at War, masterpiece; you even introduced the now default zombie game that come with every CoD game since then. But then you did something different, you brought the games into the modern age of warfare. It was new, yet familiar. Take what we already knew how to play and update it. Harmless to some, but eventually progressed and got better at it. Then what happened? You got greedy; too big for your britches. You were  the #1 selling FPS war based shooter. Remember MOH? Because of you, they now had to live up to your standards because you took their fans away. So what did they do? They followed with "Medal of Honor", a reboot. It did okay, but in the midst of following they stumbled and fell and made MoH: Warfighter. Didn't do so well. Now you're on top. But where are you going to go from there? What's gonna happen when we finally realize that you're no longer bringing anything new and just rehash every Modern Warfare Black Ops title and give it a new name and number and tell some other company to do it? What's next, go so far out you're now in Halo territory? "It's not just mechs, but aliens on another planet, but still plays like every CoD before. Oh, and let's add Shaq to it! Yeah, Snoop and Jason Vorhees was dumb, but who cares they'll still buy it." Do you know what you've become? You're the Michael Bay of video games. You feed us the same stuff every year and you thrive on the fact that we're dumb enough to keep buying it. You know it's the same game and uses other gimmicks from other successful  games that are not by you. But because you want to stay on top you'll do anything.

But you say, "Well we've done WWII, it's in the past, it's been done." Well then have you ever heard of another game franchise called Wolfenstein? Specifically, Wolfenstein (2009), Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: The New Order? You know what they did? They took WWII and added something unique and fun. What if the Nazi's won? What if you had access to the Nazi scientists' discoveries of Dark Magic? That's fun! It's something we're familiar with with classic shooters in WWII that we grew up with, but it turns it on it's head and makes it new again and adds something we've never thought about; Alternate story lines. Refresh WWII. Go completely crazy with it and add your time travel concept from Zombies and have Sgt. Moody fighting a Nazi with an exoskeleton. Take a page from Bioshock Infinite and go through "tears" or time portals between classic Normandy and wind up in the future, or the events of Advance Warfare, and your actions in Germany effect the outcome of WWIII, or IV! There is so much you could do with that genre.
And if making a new WWII, or any old war, game isn't your thing, then for crying out loud, HD REMAKE!! Technology in video games are advancing so quick that a lot of stuff you couldn't do, make or see in Call of Duty 1  through World at War can be done now. Right now, everyone loves seeing HD remakes. Fans get to see their favorite childhood game come back to life for this generation to witness for the first time and for the kid who played after middle school gets to play it again as a young adult with the new standards of games now.

Bottom line is; we want to go back to Normandy, France, Britain. We want to go back to a time where, because of us; the player, we helped America win one of the biggest wars in our history. We were able to bring freedom to many countries overseas. We stopped the Nazi regime. We didn't care what our KDR was, we didn't care what design we got on our over-powered gun with lazy sights, neon tiger stripes, and passenger side airbags. I'm not saying stop making the games you've become famous to this generation of gamers, where that's all they care about. I'm just saying if you going to expand operations and include more studios to make games and broaden your horizons, take a step back and think about how you got there in the first place and who put in that position. Was it really that bad back then?

Sincerely and still hoping,
Dirk Sholar

That's Just Me Reviews: An Open Letter

Late Night Thoughts #1 - Bioshock Follow Up

Like everyone else, on many occasions, I have these random blasts of ideas for stories for movies, video games, or just ideas in general. So I decided I'd make a segment for those ideas on here. These would be a little less edited and proof read, and more rant-ish. Like Tumblr After Midnight, but less political and creepy and more exciting for the hope of the future! And now...ON WITH THE RANDOMOCITY!!

So a few days back, 2K released a website for this urban living thing called Advent Future and once you visited the website it had a lot of easter eggs and terms used in it's other titles. Long story short it was a teaser for XCOM 2. A lot of people speculated that it was a follow up to Bioshock. And it made me think of a concept for "Bioshock Revolution" (personal title idea).

   (SPOILER ALERT)   (SPOILER ALERT)   (SPOILER ALERT)   (SPOILER ALERT) 

The game takes place in the future/alternate modern world, where modern medicine and technology are working together with a new discovery called Plasmids. And as we all know from the series, Plasmids, Adam and Eves and everything combined became the demise of Andrew Ryan's underwater utopia Rapture. So likely with plasmids in our world with rapidly advancing technology, are world goes to hell. And it's up to the player to survive in this distopia of New Rapture and all the junctions similar to it.

The game can be an open world where you discover these different places, including the original underwater city Rapture and a crash landed Columbia. Picture Fallout and maybe, some futuristic games (Syndicate, Crysis, etc.) with a Bioshock theme. It's linear in some places and open world in others.
Plus the story kind of makes sense since (SPOILER ALERT) one of the endings of Bioshock 1 has you either leaving Rapture and bringing the Splicers with you above water.

So we (Bioshock fans) know that Bioshock and Infinite are the two main games since they were made by Irrational Games and 2K while Bioshock 2 was just 2K by themselves. Sadly, Irrational Games closed their doors and branched to work on other projects that went to Kickstarter, which some unfortunately failed (Google "The Black Glove" and "Perception" on Kickstarter). Since 2K help expand the world of Rapture in Bioshock 2, they can do the same with a new story for the franchise. It's like if WB Montreal made another Batman Arkham game after Arkham Knight, since it's supposedly the last in the series for Rocksteady. It doesn't mean WB Montreal can't make Batman games; so why can't 2K?

I don't know man, it's late...

Summer Movie Trailers - IS IT JUST ME?

Is it just me or...

Is anyone else getting annoyed with the recent release of all these trailers for summer blockbusters? Everyday there seems to be another big release for a trailer for a film we've been curious, excited, or worried about. "Star Wars VII", "Batman v. Superman", and recently "Fantastic Four" are big films we've been waiting to see some info on. On one hand, yeah it's great that we're getting some updates and new footage. But on the other, dominant hand, San Diego Comic Con! For years, we've learned to wait and anticipate for SDCC because that was the event that all the big names would come to and give out more info besides a trailer. But now that they've released all their trailers early, their press events are going to be very boring. The trailers are what get us excited and pumped and on our seat's edge.

These trailers are showing a lot for only three minutes; even revealing spoilers and telling the entire storyline in their trailer (*cough cough* Terminator *cough cough*). The movies have shot themselves in the foot. Now fans are going to expect another trailer at SDCC and either they don't show a trailer, they make an extended one showing off a lot of important details that could potentially spoil the movie. Yeah I'm happy to know Han Solo and Chewy are home. Yes, Batman does look more menacing in his original black and grey suit. And yes, I may change my mind about not seeing "Fantastic Four" because it looks promising. But we all could've waited. These trailers show up before we are even prepared and we get caught off guard. It loses its magic for being a highly anticipated movie.


But then again,
That's Just Me...