The latest entry in the series, Call of Duty: Black Ops, encapsulates those changes perfectly in a single moment:

This is the last thing you see in Call of Duty: Black Ops. Your embattled hero, having survived countless high-adrenaline firefights and explosive narrow escapes, lands safely in the comforting embrace of the United States military. Battleships and men in fatigues line the horizon as the sun sets against a billowing American flag. Crunchy guitar riffs lend a tempo to the scene, which climaxes when three fighter jets swoop low in formation.

You can practically smell the testosterone.

And then we fade to black. You win! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Look, I’m okay with a game that wants to trumpet some nationalistic bombast every now and then. To be honest, I won’t be rooting along with it, but I wouldn’t let my personal anti-war philosophy dictate other people’s right to expression. Still, orgiastic nationalism in videogames isn’t the problem here.

What makes it troubling is that this is taking place in the Call of Duty series, which built its reputation on realistic, cinematic depictions of real-world conflict. It might very well be signaling the end of something essential in gaming — that is, a painstaking emphasis on creating a real, powerful, and meaningful scenario for players to get immersed in and to take something important away from.

Infinity Ward and the Transition to Sensationalism

I'll never forget the moment in Call of Duty when I stormed Red Square with the Russian forces to push back against the encroaching Nazis. Everything coalesced into a believable and powerful scene. It was unlike anything I'd ever experienced in a game.

The first two Call of Duty games were unflinchingly intense and cinematic in nature, but they had a purity in presentation and a reverence for the veterans of the wars they were recreating. Taking the groundwork laid by the landmark game Medal of Honor, it set a precedent for war games that were more like Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers than Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. Series like Brothers in Arms and Company of Heroes tapped into that narrative of humility and thankfulness for those who fought against the Axis powers, and while they all tended to romanticize events at times, their hearts were in the right place.

But Infinity Ward — that studio composed of breakaways from the original Medal of Honor team that took World War II games to the next level — changed everything with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Rather than fighting in a historical context, players were now thrown into the front lines of a conflict that hits even closer to home. Gone are the massive military offenses, the European and Pacific theaters of operations; instead, players were subjected to the horrors of a guerrilla-style conflict loosely grounded in a contemporary setting.

Yet at its core, Modern Warfare was still a Call of Duty game. That is to say that it took its subject matter seriously, even if a few scenes near the climax of the game were totally unrealistic. There were a few heroes like Captain Price that stood out more as caricatures than real people, but the majority of the game succeeded in making the player feel like a human being stuck in a convincing, deadly conflict, with bullets zinging, buildings crumbling and death or serious injury almost inevitable.

The one thing holding it all together was its strict reliance on the first-person perspective for telling its story. Never once did the game break from the first-person view while events are unfolding. This made for some harrowing and groundbreaking moments, like the introductory sequence that places the player into the role of an ousted leader being led to his execution, and the infamous post-nuclear detonation where you play as a marine suffering through his final moments while a mushroom cloud looms on the horizon. These moments were raw, disturbing and convincing. They were remarkable. They mattered.

That would all change with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. But in 2007, that sequel was still two years out, which meant Activision would be calling upon its other Call of Duty production studio, Treyarch, to deliver the fifth entry in the series for 2008.

Treyarch and the Redefined Call of Duty

Treyarch first took the reins of the Call of Duty franchise with Call of Duty 3. Like its predecessors, Call of Duty 3 took place during World War II. While the consensus was that the campaign wasn’t as strong or meaningful as the ones in Infinity Ward’s games, the competitive multiplayer modes were lauded for their diversity and high replayability.

Arguably, it was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare that made the series a critical and financial powerhouse, and that success was largely driven by the profoundly addictive and impeccably designed competitive multiplayer mode. Bolstered by the millions of copies sold and its dominance in raw numbers of players over Bungie’s Halo 3 (which was released just months before Modern Warfare), Activision and Treyarch were dead-set on having lightning strike twice.

Call of Duty: World at War emerged as the fifth entry in the series. It was Treyarch’s second venture with the franchise, and it brought the series back to its World War II roots. However, this wasn’t the war as we’d seen in the first few games; instead, we had Kiefer Sutherland cursing his mouth off (as he is wont to do) and leading a brutal campaign through the Pacific theater.

The changes were dramatic. Limbs could now be severed with a magnum or shotgun, and the resulting death screams were louder and more excruciating. The story was darker, involving torture, executions and myriad brutal ways to kill the opposition.

Purely from a gameplay standpoint, it was more or less on par with Infinity Ward’s games. But the changes in tone and philosophy were clear: Treyarch was not concerned about taking the high road in presenting a very real conflict. War is brutal, and everything that takes place in World at War probably actually happened in some form during the actual conflict. But there’s no question that Treyarch’s game sensationalized events at almost every turn. Still, it seemed likely that Infinity Ward would maintain its creative control on Modern Warfare 2 and deliver a game that portrayed modern conflict in a serious light.

Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops: The death and rebirth of Call of Duty

When Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty came out, fans weren’t sure how to react. Rather than delivering a straight-up sequel to Metal Gear Solid, series director Hideo Kojima instead released a game that served as a profound commentary on videogames, sequels and violence. It forced players to confront their interest in games and their expectations for sequels by more or less having them play through the exact same game as the first Metal Gear Solid. It was a bold move, but it left a strong message that still reverberates throughout the games industry: there’s more to a proper sequel than “bigger, better and more badass.“

Infinity Ward apparently didn’t agree with Kojima, because Modern Warfare 2 was exactly that. It took the scenario and characters from Modern Warfare and amped up the drama, action and explosions whenever possible. It made for a very well-playing game, but the imitation was so blatant that the experience was significantly compromised by it. Making matters worse was the sheer improbability of the game’s more dramatic moments, which were either ripped straight from Modern Warfare or dramatized to a ridiculous extent.

In Modern Warfare, two of the characters you play as die in surprising, shocking ways.
In Modern Warfare 2, two of the characters you play as are executed unceremoniously and without much meaning.

In Modern Warfare, a single, nerve-wracking shot in slow motion at a moment where all seems lost wins the game.
In Modern Warfare 2, a single, nerve-wracking knife-toss in slow motion into the bad guy’s eyeball results in a spurt of blood and a feeling of déjà vu.

Objectively, Modern Warfare 2 was probably a better game than Modern Warfare. But the core of the series — the heart-wrenching casualties of war, the dramatic moments of escapism where you felt like you were part of something greater — was gone.

It later emerged that there was significant unrest among the leaders of Infinity Ward, including studio figureheads Jason West and Vince Zampella. The details are still unknown as legal proceedings continue, but it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the key talent behind the Call of Duty series vacated Activision just as the series jumped the shark.

With Infinity Ward in need of restructuring, the stage was set for Treyarch to become the vanguard of the series.

Black Ops and the new direction of Call of Duty

Pleased to meet you; won't you guess my name?

Black Ops is the anti-Call of Duty. Or rather, it’s the new face of Call of Duty, eschewing tradition in favor of a new approach.

The story is told through a series of between-level cutscenes, which largely take place from the position of a central character named Alex Mason (not to be confused with this other bald, grunting tough guy with regenerating health), who is being interrogated and forced to relive the events that brought him to the present day.

The introduction of a central character to Call of Duty profoundly alters the tone of the game. Previous games made the statement that war is about more than one person — that it’s about the millions who fought, suffered and died to defend something greater than any of us. Instead, Black Ops makes Mason into a heroic figurehead — a superhuman avatar for the player.

Confounding this shift in tone is a break with the series’ measured, thoughtful emphasis on telling a story purely from the first-person perspective. While insisting on a single point of view may be seen by some as an unnecessary limitation, I would argue it can be the purest form of storytelling in games. By never severing the player’s connection to his or her character, the immersion is unbroken. The Half-Life series is perhaps the best example of using that technique effectively, but Call of Duty has traditionally been just as effective.

Black Ops shifts to the third person frequently in its in-engine cutscenes, and this move never enhances the experience for the player. It has the effect of rote narration, telling rather than strictly showing. It’s belittling to the player because it implies that their ability to control their perspective on the experience isn’t sufficient.

But what’s most damning is the sheer improbability of the story itself. Without spoiling the narrative for anyone who might be interested, it digs deep into the realm of conspiracy theories, complete with despicable secret Nazi experiments, Soviet treachery and Cold-War fanaticism. It might sound interesting on paper, but the result for me was an experience where I was constantly aware that I was just playing a military shooter videogame. Its conclusion, including the final twist in the game’s epilogue, feels tacked-on and improbable.

All this adds up to the first Call of Duty where I walked away feeling like I hadn’t gained anything from the experience.

There’s an important distinction to be made here. Call of Duty: Black Ops is not a bad game. By most accounts, it’s a very good one, albeit with a few major bugs and some inconsistent pacing. But Call of Duty is one of the most revered and well-regarded series in the history of videogames, and its fall from grace can’t be ignored. Rather than depicting war in a meaningful way — in a way that elevated the medium from kill-’em-all monotony to significant, poignant storytelling — it has now become a rough, raw, overly masculine interactive action movie. The Steven Spielberg influence is gone; instead, the games have been given the Michael Bay treatment.

It’s a loss for games as a creative medium, and it’s a loss for players who heralded the Call of Duty brand as a positive force in progressive game design. But on the other hand, the stage is now set for a new series to take the reins and drive the military game into bold new territory. With West and Zampella developing a new game at Respawn Entertainment, and developers like Danger Close and Sledgehammer taking a stab at modern military games, it’s anyone’s guess what the future of modern warfare games will be.

I just hope that, for the medium’s sake, everyone hasn’t forgotten what helped drive these games to prominence and significance in the first place.

I’d like to preface this by saying I have no interest in Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer component. The betrayals of Activision and Infinity Ward have come and gone; the damage is done, and for once I feel like I have nothing to say on the topic.

However, the single player portion continued to intrigue me. I loved the campaign in Call of Duty 4, as well as the previous Infinity Ward-crafted stories of Call of Duty 1 and 2. Procuring a copy of the latest game to continue the Modern Warfare storyline felt like a good idea, like an olive branch offered to a quarrelsome friend.

To the studio’s credit, the single player was certainly an exciting experience. Indeed, it never stopped the excitement. Even when I hoped the game would slow down a bit and let me get my bearings, there was non-stop, full-on action. Too much perhaps, and out of some necessity.

As it turns out, Modern Warfare 2 is a hideous patchwork beast assembled from the successes of its predecessor — stitched together with threads of blasting sound, unrelenting fury and boring cliché. Only a few moments weren’t copies of some pulse-pounding Call of Duty 4 scene. Did you enjoy Modern Warfare’s sniper segment? Now there are two. What about a stunning mid-air leap to a helicopter? Check. Vehicle escapes? Three. First-person reception of an execution-style pistol round? Two. Spectacular character death scenes? One (and a half). Every little facet that made Call of Duty 4 special was copied and plastered all over Modern Warfare 2′s campaign, and unconvincingly so.

Spots that Infinity Ward couldn’t properly put a primer coat over were painted in thick shades of camp. Modern Warfare 2 runs the gauntlet from the popular good-guy-turns-bad betrayal to the Cold War-era Soviet invasion of the United States fantasy, à la Red Dawn, Red Alert 2 and World in Conflict. The only moments where this abomination is remotely reminiscent of classic Call of Duty were the sections from the perspective of the U.S. Army Ranger, which fell victim to the already-mentioned Russian invasion absurdity. Even old videogame clichés were pursued, including the obligatory character voiced by Keith David, and the vaguely-justified motion sensor. No ironic stones, it seems, were left unturned.

I dubbed Call of Duty 4, without hesitation, both my favorite game and the best action movie of 2007. Tragically, Modern Warfare 2 was for me the worst action film of 2009, a year that saw Transformers 2 in theaters. When the dust settled from my straight-through six-hour campaign session, I knew why the pacing had been kept so frantic: Such haste temporarily distracted me from all the sameness; it shifted my attention from the growing feeling that I had experienced all of this content before in previous games and films.

Once the credits stopped rolling, Modern Warfare 2 laid threadbare at my feet. The challenges were somewhat amusing, but easily abandoned, and the graphics hadn’t improved in two years. In all, well… it felt like a Treyarch game.

Thankfully for Treyarch, Modern Warfare 2 has set the bar nice and low. Perhaps the World at War developer can take the crown from Infinity Ward; it seems the old guard has forgotten how to wear it.

What more can be said about the so-called largest entertainment launch in the history of mankind?

It’s tempting to boil down Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to a vaporous obligation, an experience that divides gamers into the haves and have-nots. But that’s putting blind faith in a product based on its advertising blitzkrieg. Aren’t we supposed to be discerning consumers?

The climate around Modern Warfare 2 is now adequate, a month after release, for a steady-handed dissection of gaming’s latest chart-topping champion — far removed from the pre-release hype. This critique won’t convert the detractors or embolden the fanatics, but it will hopefully read as an alternative education on the latest Call of Duty, a game that flirts with failure as much as it tastes success.

War. War never changes.

We’re now at the sixth main entry in the Call of Duty franchise and the second Modern Warfare title. The games have upped the adrenaline in each release (including CoD substitute developer Treyarch’s Call of Duty 3 and CoD: World at War), and at this point the franchise can almost out-Michael Bay the actual Michael Bay. But is this what we want? Yes, according to the numbers and charts. Modern Warfare 2 is exactly what gamers want, and want more of. And that’s precisely what we’ll be getting. Case in point: Electronic Arts has jumped back into the big budget FPS arena, and they’re out for blood with a “me too!” modernized Medal of Honor title set for release in 2010.

To be fair, I’ve never wanted the Call of Duty series to be anything but a set of flawlessly produced cinematic action games. Infinity Ward was founded under that mindset when key members of 2015, Inc., the studio behind Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, split from Electronic Arts to make games their way. From the beginning, Infinity Ward wanted to outdo Medal of Honor, the most movie-like shooter series in the early 2000s.

The most hardcore ride to a paintball match, ever.

There’s no doubt that Modern Warfare 2′s filmic set pieces will stick with me. From outer space to suburban Virginia, to Pacific Ocean oil platforms and the Middle East, this is quite the Carmen Sandiego (or Matt Lauer) treatment. I applaud Infinity Ward and Modern Warfare 1 and 2 writer Jesse Stern for taking such a risk by juggling multiple locales in a brief, six-hour campaign. However, the spastic story makes for forgettable personal interactions amongst the more memorable explosions. I don’t exactly care that Soap is back. I wasn’t floored by the surprise return of a main character from Call of Duty 4. New characters like Ghost are cookie-cutter archetypes seen too many times before. And I certainly can’t forgive recycling the “Let’s shoot this player character in the face to kill him off” plot mechanic. The twists in Modern Warfare 1 worked because of their initial shock value. No one expected the nuke to actually go off and kill Sgt. Paul Jackson. But thanks to Call of Duty 4, the expectation of death appearing at any moment during Modern Warfare 2 dissolves what was once a clever tool. Stern and the other writers might find this life-and-death uncertainty to be “emotionally charged,” but it instead comes off as simplistic and tired.

While I don’t expect deep, philosophical pondering from Call of Duty, I do expect the series to show me things I’ve never seen in a videogame before. And in that regard Modern Warfare 2 more than succeeded. I’d never felt so uneasy playing a game as I did when firing on civilians in “No Russian.” I’ve never dodged a land mine in slow motion before. I also can’t say I’ve pushed through a crowd of enemies with a riot shield. And I certainly haven’t breached and cleared, in slow motion, a room filled with explosive barrels and terrorists guarding hostages. Modern Warfare 2 is simply bursting with numerous classic moments like these.

Then why am I so frustrated at the single player story? Because this is the industry’s future. This is what we encourage; because we’re addicted. We think that as long as the gameplay is tight it doesn’t matter if the story is weak. Infinity Ward can’t be faulted for being good at what they do, and this review is no place to sit in my tower of perceived superiority, but gamers aren’t advancing the medium forward — they’re hindering it. Astronomical sales beget more games like Modern Warfare 2, which sounds absolutely fine in the short term. But when you consider the uneven plot of Modern Warfare 2, and realize this was just a giant action flick, the potential for more of it makes my enthusiasm slip into apathy.

Infinity Ward's next project: a realistic remake of Ice Climbers.

Still, Modern Warfare 2 was fun. Pure can’t-put-it-down-even-though-it’s-3 a.m. fun. I finished the campaign twice, once on Veteran even, and marveled at the visceral gameplay both times. Infinity Ward is at the top of its game with the latest in the franchise. But is this all we want from our sequels? Just because something was “badass” doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile. Games like Modern Warfare 2 — all flash and polish — are brittle, fleeting even. These games do well until the sequel comes along. Because think about it: Will Modern Warfare 2 be a replayable game 10 years from now, a game that will defy age and achieve a Tetris-like status? The recent Call of Duty 1 re-release on Xbox LIVE and PlayStation Network has brought up this question, as reviewers tend to comment that the game, while an impressive feat of development during its time, hasn’t aged well. The original title is still playable, but its impact today is in showing us how far gaming has come in six years. So I’m sure Modern Warfare 2 will play well years from now. But who’s going to care when we’re pre-ordering Call of Duty: Future Warfare 5?

Some gamers might fail to see my point in criticizing Modern Warfare 2, and will likely say I’m overreacting or being hypocritical. I’m aware sequels are what drive the industry, and more of a high-quality series is generally a joyous thing. But that’s why I feel a few jabs at Modern Warfare 2 are warranted: We need to expect more from these $60 blockbusters, so why not start with the current king? Asking little of talented people is ruining a portion of the film industry, where cheap remakes and bare-minimum sequels are encouraged by ignorant audiences.

Then again, a lot of Call of Duty players don’t care what either Infinity Ward or Treyarch do with their stories. It fascinates me that many of Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer gamers haven’t finished the campaign. Try checking random players’ Modern Warfare 2 achievements: some haven’t even progressed past “The Pit.”

Plot is only a back-of-the-box feature to these types, something read but never experienced. They just want the multiplayer.

Looks like someone's finally taking out the Whale Wars crew.

Back in the saddle (on a slightly different horse).

If you loved Call of Duty 4′s genius multiplayer, be thankful: Modern Warfare 2 adds enough to the same experience to feel new again. The riot shield, third-person perspective matches, death streak rewards and customized killstreaks are the most impressive additions, and each helps you feel even more in control of your online soldier.

And despite a recent crop of frustratingly abundant bugs, multiplayer remains a major reason to purchase the game. You still gain experience, you still make your own classes and you still unlock new weapons and perks on your way to the increased level cap of 70. Infinity Ward took a risk and failed with its handling of the single player plot; however, they built upon the strengths of Call of Duty 4′s online portion to improve the original concept.

The pull of Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer is strong at first. Playing with friends every day can encourage an extreme investment in the process of ranking up to keep up; unlocking gear, tweaking perks, testing attachments and completing challenges can melt the hours away. It’s so fast-paced that there’s rarely time to realize you’re trudging through frustration and anger for a small bit of satisfaction via the occasional killstreak or “Oh man, did you see that?” moment.

I only start losing interest once I’ve played the same maps, killed the same classes and defeated the same tactics hundreds of times. So I’d be ignorant if I didn’t recognize how much value Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer mode has when I’ve played it for nearly three days total. It’s expected that the well will run dry after so many return trips.

But Call of Duty multiplayer is frustratingly ironic in its insistence on rewarding the lone wolf player. The gameplay is too fast — too hectic — to provide the sense of camaraderie Infinity Ward wants in its single player campaigns; originally in opposition to Medal of Honor and its invincible soldier defeating battalions of enemies alone. Online players with the most kills in the first two Call of Duty games were those who didn’t work with their teammates — opting instead to hide, camp and snipe. The same mentality applied to Call of Duty 4, and continues to apply to its sequel. While I do believe an organized clan can dominate any battlefield situation online, Call of Duty team games have never felt truly organized.

So to fill the co-op gap in their own Call of Duty titles, Infinity Ward took cues from Treyarch’s Nazi Zombies to create the new Special Ops mode. The result is my absolute favorite part of Modern Warfare 2.

Spring Break 2009: Overdressed at Lake Havasu!

Table for two.

Special Ops is a one to two player co-op mode containing 23 missions split into military alphabet categories, ascending in difficulty from Alpha through Echo. The goal is to collect all 69 stars (I hope someone at Infinity Ward is proud of that), which are rewarded based on the difficulty each mission is completed on — one for Regular, two for Hardened, three for Veteran. Missions pull from locales seen in the single player campaign, meaning there are snowmobile races, stealth missions, blow-up-everything challenges and extremely difficult breach and clear tasks to name a few.

I have a hunch this is the future of Call of Duty, or at least a very important part of its growth. In a way, Special Ops feels like a series of tiny user-created mods for a PC title like Operation Flashpoint or ArmA II. You and your partner actually rely on each other to beat these challenges, and it’s imperative to keep an open line of communication and plan your tactics in advance. All of the current missions are substantial enough to take a week or two to complete at Veteran difficulty.

Cooperative gameplay is extremely popular right now, but Special Ops manages to cement its own place amongst a slew of similar experiences. It isn’t Left 4 Dead, it isn’t horde mode and it certainly isn’t Nazi Zombies. Those examples encourage a sort of long form experience; horde mode and Nazi Zombies have checkpoints within a persistent gameplay session, and the Left 4 Dead games are about working toward an end goal across multiple chapters. As an alternative, Special Ops missions can be finished in anywhere from two to 15 minutes depending on the specific task and your pacing. Each mission is independent from the others within its difficulty class (i.e., don’t expect to see two snowmobile races on Bravo’s list). It’s such a fast mode that I can see doing one or two of these with your pal during a lunch break from work — assuming you work near your home, or have an amazing boss who lets you play your console at work.

Infinity Ward’s unique take on co-op gaming is a welcome surprise considering the studio’s pedigree of making gigantic scenarios to showcase their development skills. Say hello to “micro-op” gameplay.

Soap: fully armed and running late to a Mr. T cosplay convention.

All things considered, Modern Warfare 2 is a behemoth of a game. And while I do believe it will easily be replaced by its eventual sequel, I can’t pretend like it didn’t provide hours of entertainment. Be it my fleeting addiction to the multiplayer or the clever co-op of Special Ops, there’s a lot to like about the latest Call of Duty. Let’s just hope Modern Warfare 3 finds Infinity Ward able to write a story just as impressive as the graphics engine will be.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is available for a suggested retail price of $59.99 on the Xbox 360, PC and PS3. The reviewer reached 100% completion on both the campaign and Special Ops modes, and registered nearly three days worth of time played in multiplayer. He feels slightly embarrassed by that fact. A copy was given to the reviewer as a gift by an independent party.

Recommended for:

• Call of Duty diehards, of course
• Shooter fans
• Multiplayer enthusiasts who like RPG elements
• Activision would want me to say “everyone,” right? Well, practically everyone bought it already.
• Special Ops

Not Recommended for:

• Those who appreciate good writing
• Gamers tired of another batch of bombs, bullets and buddies fighting the good fight
• Anyone who hasn’t cared about Call of Duty up to this point — MW2 isn’t enough to convince you to join the masses

Read our policy on reviews here.

Via Rock-Paper-Shotgun: Why game companies don't take boycotters seriously…

Core gamers have taken up a new pastime as of late: Whining. Early and often.

Starcraft II won’t allow LAN play? Lord almighty! Modern Warfare 2 on PC moves away from dedicated servers and costs $10 more as well? Goodness gracious! Left 4 Dead 2 is coming out sooner than Valve fans want it to? Heavens no! Forza Motorsport 3 has content locked away behind a VIP-only velvet curtain? Oh, the humanity!

These complaints are rather justified. Game publishers and developers are making moves motivated by the bottom line, and as a result they begin to strip content and features away from gamers grown accustomed to these luxuries. Getting consumers to pay more for less is smart business, but bad for public relations. The complaints are fully warranted.

But the problem I see is that it is nothing but complaints as of right now.

The nerd rage is limited to online petitions and napalming messageboards, but nothing more. The Starcraft fans who complained loudly when it was announced (rather murkily) that all multiplayer is going to be routed through Battle.net are still likely going to be the people standing in line or pre-ordering online and playing the game at launch. Exhibit A? See the image at the top of this article (sourced via Rock, Paper, Shotgun) showing many members of a “BOYCOTT MODERN WARFARE 2″ Steam group…playing Modern Warfare 2. The indignation spilt out on all corners of the Internet now will likely be forgotten — or, perhaps, just ignored — in favor of actually playing the damn game at release.

Left 4 Dead fans display their opinion of Valve coming out with an improved sequel of their chosen game.

This is terrible because that is not how to get through to a business. If you have a problem with the moves these game publishers are making, sack up and take a stand — and vote with your wallet.

“B-b-b-b-b-b-but I’ve been looking forward to—“ Stop. It is achingly hypocritical to take such a stance and then cave once the retail copy of the game is waved in front of your face. Gamers — especially the core audience — have an insanely weak will in that regard.

What message does it send to Blizzard regarding LAN play in Starcraft II if they see record Day 1 sales numbers? Does it harm Infinity Ward and Activision to see an uproar on NeoGAF and Kotaku a month ahead of MW2’s release, but then break sales records once the game is out? If these companies succeed in light of feature-stripping, what does it say about gamers?

That we will buy anything, anyway. This is not a good thing. If you want to effect real change, you cannot cave in.

Fight the power.

If you are perfectly fine with what these companies do, shine on, you crazy diamond. I do not blame you; my desire for Forza 3 exceeded my own personal thoughts about changes to multiplayer and, specifically, the VIP program. There is a real danger that Turn 10 will start splitting the fanbase by releasing essential content to only a portion of its fans. Regarding multiplayer, Turn 10 took away the ability to create custom public lobbies, changing Forza 3 to a solely Halo-style hopper system — if you want to do a custom race, you have to find friends yourself. However, despite these changes, I like Turn 10’s games and quite like being inside that walled garden in Forza (it’s already netted me a few free cars in the game), so I paid the extra price.

I know people who will legitimately boycott Starcraft II — because they value LAN play and think Blizzard is overly greedy right now. I respect that. But that list of people “boycotting” Modern Warfare 2 and showing up on Steam as actually playing it? They are not helping — they are hurting the cause.

I don’t think anybody outside of Activision likes that company’s profit-centric business strategy right now, but the only way to affect it is to hurt their bottom line. Whining online (even this article!) is not going to change anything unless it is backed up by a firm stance.

Guitar Hero 5 is coming and it has songs (surprise!), free-to-play MMO Free Realms has racked up quite the player base in its first few weeks of existence, Valve’s sneaky with its surprises as usual, and Mass Effect 2 footage is available for your viewing pleasure.

Not Guitar Hero 5–but close enough

Though the game has been known about for a while now, Activision today tossed out a few official scraps of details on the upcoming Guitar Hero 5. Players will be able to tackle the game’s tracks with any instrument combination they see fit. Want to sing through a song with three other friends all using microphones? Go ahead.

It’s an interesting mechanic to put into a rhythm game–certainly one that isn’t “authentic” as far real bands go (though, yes, these games aren’t meant to be taken literally). And while we’ve been somewhat biased in favor of Harmonix’s Rock Band titles (or, at least Nick and Doug have), I personally find the gameplay freedom Neversoft’s offering to be great. Add-in the beginnings of a solid-looking track list and the new instant difficulty/instrument swapping, and the next Guitar Hero game might turn out to be one actually worthy of the franchise’s name.

You'd certainly be happy too if you were SOE

Free Realms, Sony Online Entertainment’s recently released free-to-play MMO, has already achieved 1,000,000 registered player accounts in under three weeks’ time. The “free” concept might tarnish these numbers a bit considering the zero-cost entry level for gamers to go and be wizards, but it’s still an impressive amount of people willing to try out an American company’s take on the international concept of micro-transaction gameplay. Also, there’s a trading card game within the MMO. I almost feel compelled to try it now.

You are encouraged to fear Mann Co., but that fear comes with the gentle and stern guidance of a near-naked Australian

Though we already mentioned Valve’s impending Team Fortress 2 update, they’re not quite done yet: The next Team Fortress 2 serving of additional content will also be a…gasp…Spy-oriented extravaganza! You have to love the design team’s miniature poster announcements, with their clever wording and immersion into the strange world of TF2′s 1960s super villain culture. Plus, who doesn’t get a kick out of Mann Co.’s CEO (and Australian), Saxton Hale. The name and trouser-shorts simultaneously scream manliness.

And finally, a closing treat for you: BioWare today released a dual-purpose teaser and pre-E3 video for Mass Effect 2. What else can I say but “Wow.”

Enjoy, and have a great weekend. We’ll be posting some great stuff over this weekend and throughout next week, so keep coming back for more!

Also, the two-hour season finale of Lost didn’t help much.

Hurley certainly isn't happy with the lateness of this post

Thankfully, it seems, Wednesday was relatively calm as far as news goes: DICE learned from its console prejudices, Blizzard reaffirmed its next MMO is not World of Warcraft: Part Deux and Microsoft bolstered its Platinum Hits collection.

Expect these explosions to somehow be more "hardcore" in the next console Battlefield title

Veteran Battlefield franchise creative director Lars Gustavsson admits that with Battlefield: Bad Company the team treated console gamers “a bit more gently” in crafting content due to DICE‘s PC background. In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Gustavsson talks about the company’s natural progression with its Battlefield games, moving from basic multiplayer functions in Battlefield 1942 to more advanced matchmaking in Bad Company. Still, Gustavsson emphasizes that although the team created a strong console Battlefield game in Bad Company, they now understand future console versions have to be as complex and tailored to hardcore online players as the PC versions have always been.

It’s certainly an appropriate admission for the studio, as Bad Company–though a superb single-player experience that foreshadowed the quality and attention DICE would put into Mirror’s Edge–just didn’t feel like Battlefield. The online portion was very similar in spirit to Battlefield 2 with class load-outs and various vehicles to utilize, but it was more of the same, albeit less grandiose than the PC games. Admittedly, it’s not that easy to shove 64 players into an Xbox Live multiplayer match.

The question now is if DICE will extend these retrospective revelations to their upcoming sequel to Bad Company–otherwise, it’s all talk.  Furthermore, what do Gustavsson’s comments mean for the anticipated (though only rumored) Battlefield 3? Would a hypothetical BF3 become a multi-platform release, a series first for a direct sequel, or will the next core title follow the past trend of PC release first and a stripped-down console counterpart later?

Sorry classic Blizzard franchises–no MMO for you. Besides, Warcraft, you already had your turn.

Though rumored in the past and even partially confirmed by the company itself, Blizzard Entertainment has officially expressed that their next massively multiplayer online title currently in-development will not be based on any of their established StarCraft, Diablo or Warcraft franchises.

World of Warcraft is popular. We all know that. And despite the wide variance in personal feelings about the game, it would be wise to give the Blizzard crew credit where credit’s due–they honed their franchises to be the blockbusters they are today through their own capability and craftsmanship. The company completely deserves its praise and sales.

Still, it’s not always a guaranteed good move to release a brand new MMO under a fresh intellectual property, even if you’re Blizzard. If this next game won’t be based on neither their space, mythical nor fantasy efforts, then what could it possibly be about? Maybe a modern-day MMO where players level up through working menial labor tasks at minimum wage.

We’ll call it: World of Wagecraft.

Army of Two: This much battle-buddy man-love can now be had for less!

Here’s quite the PSA for budget-conscious gamers: Microsoft has added eight new titles to their Platinum Hits line, including popular titles like Gears of War and Mass Effect. It’s good to see Microsoft is bolstering its $20 to $30 hits line (which, admittedly, is an extremely baffling price difference), but let’s be honest here: Gears of War is a nearly three-year-old title and Mass Effect has been selling at the $20 range for awhile now at Best Buy and other retailers.

However, the Mass Effect repackaging does come with the $5 Bring Down the Sky DLC as a bonus–quite the addition for gamers who’ve yet to add BioWare’s fantastic RPG to their collections.

The full list of the new Platinum Hits games, complete with Metacritic links for the curious,  are as follows:

• Gears of War
• Forza Motorsport 2
• Mass Effect
• Viva Piñata
• Army of Two
• Battlefield: Bad Company
• Burnout Paradise
• Fight Night Round 3

Note: Nick pointed out that GameStop stores are offering used copies of Forza Motorsport 2 in a bundle with Marvel: Ultimate Alliance for under $20. That offer is a bit more cost-effective if you don’t mind pre-played games.

"Awesome!" indeed

So, we want to extend a ginormous gracias to those of you who read Silicon Sasquatch daily and continue to direct your comrades to our corner of the web. We promise to keep bringing you things of a decidedly awesome and videogame-related nature.

Now, it’s time for the real news: Atari gets cold feet, the telenovela that is Midway’s financial woes gets juicier, we get to know Modern Warfare 2 a bit better and Valve’s Team Fortress 2 team takes a “bow.” (You’ll get the pun in a bit.)

Let's hope Atari backing out of E3 doesn't mean advertising for Ghostbusters: The Video Game or Champions Online will suffer

Despite having a very capable line-up of releases coming out this year, Atari has suddenly decided to skip E3 2009, citing a desire to explore “other selling and marketing initiatives.” Joystiq seems to believe the company’s change of heart is due to a lack of sufficient cash flow to pay the Entertainment Software Association‘s fees. That’s possible, but without up-to-date financial analysis available it’s hard to be certain.

Our cursory research implies that Atari has seen significant increases in business-related performance over the last year in comparison to its stock delisting ordeal last May. Things might not be so bad at the company, but without knowing for sure that’s quite the guess.

Maybe Atari is actually going to pursue alternative methods of marketing its Ghostbusters and Champions Online titles as their announcement said. But with E3 2009 supposedly returning to its old tricks of cacophony and neon light insanity–which always made the event a great place to get a game noticed and hyped–this could be the makings of a huge mistake for Atari.

These financial issues are totally getting in the way of a sequel to Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy

Gamasutra has a fantastic post on the developing story of creditors who are suing Midway Games‘ former big-wig board members for running the company into the ground to allegedly benefit themselves.

Sumner Redstone, quite the controversial name as far as Midway’s current situation goes, is singled-out along with daughter Shari Redstone and former investor Mark Thomas, among others.  Two of the suit’s many claims center on the Redstones intentionally investing $90 million into the struggling company to then recoup it under claims of “debt,” and also using Midway’s $700 million in tax losses to later obtain a beneficial refund.

It’s a great if depressing read, and goes to show once again that money is quite the motivator when it comes to personal gain. No one wants to see any development studio go under thanks to fraudulent actions of insensitive businesspeople. But, yes, I suppose it’s “just business.”

Digital war has never been so cover-worthy, until now

Infinity Ward‘s Modern Warfare 2 is getting a blowout piece in the next issue of Game Informer, and multiple websites have posted some of the initial details. What’s known so far sounds both promising and unfortunate at the same time. Taking place years after the last game, “Soap” MacTavish–the main character throughout the British SAS missions in Call of Duty 4–is now a captain who will serve as the new character’s mentor as did Captain Price the last time around. It’ll be interesting to see a former protagonist in a different context.

Unfortunately, Infinity Ward won’t be including a cooperative campaign option, although Treyarch managed to include the feature in Call of Duty: World at War in a very polished manner. Also, MW2 sounds like it might be shorter than CoD4′s already short campaign.

Knowing Infinity Ward’s track record, the title will likely turn out to be superb. It’s just a shame to see the team once again won’t add co-op, an ironically modern gameplay feature, into the so-called Modern Warfare 2.

While this picture isn't related to the Sniper update, I think we can appreciate an engineer in mid-burn

And because they’re just so sweet to their fans, Valve has teased its impending Team Fortress 2 Sniper update with details on one of the new unlockable weapons: The Huntsman–it’s a bow and arrow!

The extremely old school weapon will actually pin its victims to surfaces upon a killing shot; even if the target lives through a direct hit, they’ll still have an arrow protruding from their bodies. Groovy.

Valve has consistently supported Team Fortress 2 with new maps, unlockables and achievements since its 2007 release, all for free, and it’s a real testament to the company’s belief in PC gaming.

Now we eagerly await the inevitable Zelda mod using the new bow and arrow’s physics. Get to work!

Gunnin' for that #1 spot: Sales of Call of Duty: World at War helped Activision post earnings of nearly $1 billion this past year, the company announced today. Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft were also named as leading Activision-Blizzard franchises.

Just a couple of days ago, Electronic Arts announced its quarterly and yearly financial statement; today,  Activision followed that up with its own release, and the returns are very impressive. Activision-Blizzard posted a $981 million net revenue in the first quarter of this year — no, that’s not a yearly figure. That beats the publishing giant’s own projections for the quarter by more than $100 million, and has caused the company to raise its revenue expectations for the 2009 calendar year to $4.3 billion.

“Our better-than-expected first quarter results were driven by strong global consumer response to the Call of Duty and Guitar Hero franchises and Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft, despite challenging economic times,” Activision CEO Robert Kotick said.

Of course, as happens from time to time, some games that were rumored to exist were confirmed in the financial release. Guitar Hero 5, Band Hero, and DJ Hero were all confirmed in the report, and Guitar Hero: Van Halen was made official later in the day. GH5 is a follow up to 2008′s Guitar Hero: World Tour and 2009′s Guitar Hero: Metallica (our review of which is here.) Band Hero is going to be family friendly, and DJ Hero will feature hip-hop, R&B, electronic, techno, and dance music and a turntable peripheral.

In non-music-game-related Activision news, during the earnings conference call, word leaked out (repoted by Kotaku) that details on the next entry in the Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater franchise may be coming at next month’s E3 convention. One of Activision’s older cash cows, THPS went underground (as opposed to Underground) last year as developer Neversoft focused on Guitar Hero games. Looks like EA’s Skate series may have some competition once again.

Nintendo's Wii Fit helped the company sell 26 million Wii systems worldwide last year, rocketing the little white waggle-tastic console to the 50 million units sold mark.

Meanwhile, Nintendo continues to print money. They also released financial numbers today, and they are ludicrous – GameSpot reports $2.8 billion in net revenue and $6 billion in operating profit in the last year, more than $18 billion in total sales worldwide, and a total rise of 8.5 percent over the numbers Nintendo turned over last year.

Even crazier is the amount of consoles sold to fuel those numbers: 26 million Wii consoles sold worldwide, which puts the system above 50 million sold in its lifetime, and 31 million DS units sold, lifting the handheld above the 100-million mark. Even though Nintendo gets the short end of the stick from many jilted hardcore gamers, it’s clear their bottom line is hardly hurting because of that.

We mentioned earlier in the week the anticipation for the newest piece of Fallout 3 DLC, Broken Steel, but it seems that Bethesda’s add-on fell on its face upon launch – Xbox 360 gamers were having problems with the achievements, and PC gamers couldn’t even install the DLC whatsoever. Apparently that has been fixed, with threads in the Fallout 3 forums saying that both issues have been resolved. Hopefully no problems will beset our brave editor Aaron Thayer as he tackles the Fallout 3 DLC suite this weekend.

Despite the title, Daniel Benmergui's Flash game "Today I Die" really isn't all that sad of a game.

Lastly, a little indie gaming to lighten the mood after all that financial talk. “Today I Die,” a simple yet very moving poetic flash game, has been released by creator Daniel Benmurgi, who previously made “I Wish I Were The Moon” and “Storyteller.” We found this game via Kotaku, and will share the same hint that they suggested: Try the jellyfish.

Spider-Man: Friend or Foe and Spider-Man 3 were largely broken and uninteresting, universally considered average to terrible by multiple media outlets. For fans, 2004′s Spider-Man 2 has been the perennial example of how to make a quality game about their favorite web-head.

But true believers may want to shift their praise-gaze to a new entry in the franchise, as Spider-Man: Web of Shadows—last year’s attempt by Treyarch to ensnare a successful Spidey formula in their web—is the best Spider-Man game yet released.

Unfortunately, that’s not saying much, as with even one great improvement comes a great mess of problems. Gamers and fans beware; this is quite the videogame paradox.

Web of Shadows is sort of an underdog considering its predecessors’ erratic review histories, but also because past attempts to translate acrobatic comic book battles into a videogame format have been anemic at best and broken at worst. But Web of Shadows shucks the trend and includes a surprisingly polished and enjoyable combat system—in fact, it’s the game’s strongest feature.

You'll be hearing from Captain Falcon's lawyers soon, Spidey

In a brilliant choice of design, Spidey can now bounce from enemy to enemy, deftly moving from ground, air and even wall combat to take down his opponents. Zipping from one airborne enemy to the next in a stepping-stone fashion is ridiculously fun. Treyarch managed to craft combat that’s simultaneously easy to use and enjoyable to watch. It’s quite addictive, too.

Though quality, Web of Shadows’ brawling is guilty of adhering to action game stereotypes of quick-time events, multiple button presses for combos and encouraging the use of only the strongest attack over and over. Fighting is really nothing special in comparison with other action games, but it is impressive among the crop of Spider-Man videogames. But, as is the case with paradoxes, where there’s one exhilarating aspect to be found there’s always the adverse counterpart in tow.

As fun as fighting is in Web of Shadows, the spotty voice acting for Spider-Man himself almost ruins the entire experience. It’s not to say Mike Vaughn is a bad voice actor, it’s to say he was miscast for the role. Even so, Vaughn’s Spider-Man is one the worst incarnations of the character, ever. Web of Shadows graces players with a whiny, loud, grating and extremely childish superhero to listen to for the approximately eight hours it takes to complete the game. No one can be faulted for wanting to play the entire thing on mute.

Yet (again with the paradoxes) the other voice actors all give solid performances: Luke Cage, Venom and Wolverine especially sound true to the source characters. It helps that Wolverine is voiced by quite the Logan veteran.

Jazz feet!

Visually Web of Shadows is an impressive game with high-resolution character models, but it’s still flawed technically with severe pop-in, lag, audio glitches and even the occasional freeze.

Treyarch’s engine shows its shortcomings especially if players opt to raise Spider-Man’s swinging speed to level nine of the 11 possible. Nothing breaks the flow of a play session more than seeing Spider-Man abruptly pause mid-swing to wait for the rest of Manhattan to load. There’s no point in offering such fast speeds of traveling if the programming can’t keep up. Even installing the game to the Xbox 360′s hard drive didn’t fix the visual lag. In a way, the development team is punishing anyone who wants to go fast.

Spider-Man: Swinging faster than the engine can handle since 2008

Development issues aside, the overall problem with calling Web of Shadows the “best” Spider-Man game is in acknowledging it’s essentially an update of Spider-Man 2, a now five-year-old, last-gen adventure. Web of Shadows is certainly a step above that game with its new fighting element, but the leap from past to present is still evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

The main downfall here is Web of Shadows adheres to the theorem of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” something championed by gamers and game journalists alike. This school of thought encourages developers to continue recycling what works; in the end, what were once great ideas have been run into the ground. For example, ever since Treyarch nailed the feel of traversing a steel and concrete urban jungle as one of the world’s most popular heroes, they’ve done nothing to advance their work.

The result is a stock control scheme that becomes a detriment to Web of Shadows because it’s far too similar to Spider-Man 2. It’s unfortunate to think that just because something works developers can keep shoving the same gameplay down fans’ throats, tweaking small things here and there at each release.

But to be fair, Spider-Man videogames do work best when players can effortlessly traverse their hero’s environment like in the comics. Web swinging has always been a bonus for fans, a major pro for purchasing a new Spider-Man title that’s otherwise full of cons.

Yeah, it's basically Spidey of War

Let’s just hope that the one, significant improvement to combat made by Treyarch and Activision in Web of Shadows indicates a future when Spider-Man games are more than decent rentals.

Maybe it’s the right time for an adaptation of one classic web-head adventure: Italian Spider-Man.

Now that’s combat.

Recommended for:

• Hardcore Spidey fans who really don’t care about pros and cons and just want some web-action
• Those who find web-swinging a relaxing, even cathartic experience; likely those mentioned above
• Action game enthusiasts needing something other than space marines and elves in their gaming diets

Not Recommended for:

• If quality over quantity is your mantra: there’s a lot there but with the numerous glitches and uneven gameplay, Web of Shadows can be arduous
• Those who aren’t hardcore Spidey fans

Read our policy on reviews here.

The Ecstasy of Gold

When the biggest name in music gaming dedicates an entire game to the most popular thrash metal band of all time, there’s not much need for introductions. (After all, we just covered the demo a couple weeks ago!) Just about everyone with a pulse has played one of the billions of Guitar Hero games by now, and Metallica has been an institution in popular music for more than 25 years. Say what you will about the Grammy Awards, but you don’t win nine of them without developing a sizable following.

Remember, this is the second time Neversoft has tapped a musical juggernaut to star in a game. However, Guitar Hero: Metallica comes a year after Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, and it benefits from being built on top of the newer Guitar Hero World Tour engine. While Neversoft demonstrates that it is capable of improving upon past failures — and really, this is the best Guitar Hero game they’ve made yet — this latest Guitar Hero iteration, just like every Neversoft-developed game in the franchise, is packed with ambition but stunted in delivery.

Just like any other creative work, a game should ultimately be judged on its own merits — how it plays, whether it’s any fun, and so on. But before I can begin to offer my personal impressions and opinion on Guitar Hero: Metallica, it’s absolutely essential to recognize the critical and financial success of both Guitar Hero and Metallica. With the Guitar Hero franchise boasting sales at well over $1bn and five of Metallica’s new releases shooting immediately into the #1 Billboard spot, there’s just no denying their success. A hell of a lot of people just eat these brands up.

Give Me Fuel, Give Me Fire

For better or worse, Guitar Hero: Metallica contains the same gameplay elements of its predecessor, Guitar Hero World Tour. Strumming on top of sustain notes, open notes on the bass, the often-infuriating tapping/sliding mechanic — they’re all back, and they’re all functionally identical. Really, the only significant changes reside in the game’s interface and the drum kit.

Full-band gameplay. Image courtesy of Destructoid.

The folks at Neversoft took a couple ideas from series-founder Harmonix in the user interface category, and the results are largely pleasing. In addition to the star power meter and score/note streak counters, Guitar Hero: Metallica features a star counter. Stars offer a general analysis of how well you performed, on a scale of one to five stars. This has been the standard scoring mechanism since the first Guitar Hero, and Rock Band 1 and 2 have both featured a star meter that builds as your score increases as you play a song. It’s a nice indicator of general song performance, and it complements the more hardcore-oriented streak counter — a Neversoft innovation for the series — very nicely.

Those who were giddy beyond expression at the announcement of Guitar Hero: Metallica and rushed out to pre-order the game from Gamestop were rewarded with an additional kick drum pedal and a connector to hook it up to their existing World Tour kit. Yes, double-bass drumming has finally come to rhythm gaming in the form of Expert + difficulty. Basically, it’s the same as Expert, except every single kick pedal note is charted. See all those purple bars in the middle column in the picture above? They indicate bass drum hits. Expert + is definitely not for the faint of heart.

While wholly unnecessary and out of place in most genres of music, having two bass pedals feels right at home in a game that features metal music almost exclusively. Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich is infamous for his swift, thundering beats, which proved too difficult for even the hardest of the hardcore in Rock Band and Guitar Hero. Previously, both games had opted to include a reduced number of bass notes to compensate for their decision to include one foot pedal with their drum kits — and to prevent countless potentially hilarious leg injuries. However, Neversoft saw this game as a chance to offer more authentic drum charting, and it ends up being a cool option for challenge-seekers.

Nothing Else Matters

Since adopting the Guitar Hero series, Neversoft has “hardened” the image of the game. While to some this is an improvement, to me it looks like a pale imitation of its former glory. Clever character designs with subtle real-life inspirations became blatant, hyper-sexualized stereotypes; witty loading screen quips were replaced by smarmy, idiotic would-be rockisms; the user interface went from functional to baffling (six lights are used to represent the four quarters of the star power meter…and only three are initially visible. Really, guys?)

Despite modest improvements over time, the interface still lags significantly behind the sleek, hip and — most importantly — legible Rock Band presentation. The set list is almost as horrendously cluttered and hard-to-read as World Tour’s. Customizing musicians, logos and tattoos just isn’t as inspired or intuitive as in Rock Band, and the whole customization element comes off as tacked-on. It’s true that this entire feature set was copied and pasted from World Tour, but the same criticism applied then as well. In all, the presentation can be described like the majority of the features in Guitar Hero: wide-ranging, but barely passable.

But it’s not all bad. In fact, Neversoft has done a first-rate job of bringing the band members of Metallica to life. The band members participated in motion capture sessions specifically for the game, and the detail is leaps and bounds better than the animations in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. Animations are fluid and convincing, and lead singer James Hetfield’s vocals are punctuated with flecks of spit and accordingly violent or subtle movements depending on the energy of the song. I even laughed when the virtual Hetfield closed one eye and glared menacingly at the camera while singing “sleep with one eye open/clutching your pillow tight.” Hetfield even has an animation for swapping guitars between songs during the game’s introductory sequence, which deserves praise for setting the game’s tone flawlessly by having the band enter the stage to Ennio Morricone’s “The Ecstasy of Gold” from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, and immediately thrusts the player into the role of playing as Metallica right off the bat. For a virtual recreation of a band, Neversoft really did an impressive job bringing Metallica to life.

…And Justice For All

It’s a shame, then, that the multiplayer component seems so stripped of energy. Guitar Hero World Tour was plagued with a host of deficiencies when it comes to playing over the Internet: matchmaking was a grueling, interminable process that often resulted in no games being found, particularly for full band play; song choices were determined by random rotation, rather than the host choosing first; difficulty levels MUST be chosen before matchmaking begins, not during song selection, and picking between guitar and bass is a guessing game at best. All these poor design choices added up to an excruciating online experience that was handled much more gracefully in Rock Band, which came out nearly 12 months prior. Surely Neversoft had enough time between March 2009 and November 2008 to at least create a carbon copy of Rock Band’s online matchmaking, or maybe even create a full band career mode that’s playable online?

Nope. Guitar Hero: Metallica features the exact same multiplayer component, complete with all the same crippling problems as before. Very few of the game’s reviews I’ve read even mention the multiplayer component at all, and none with any real detail, so let me do you a favor and be as blunt as possible: Do not get this game with the expectation of having any fun with its online modes.

Finally, there are a few bonus features that are great in principle but lacking in execution. To be fair, some inclusions are excellent. For instance, every song has viewable lyrics that can be read while listening to the track, and the Metallica songs even include a feature called Metallifacts. If you remember Pop-Up Video from the ’90s, you’ll love this feature…at first. Metallifacts consists of the game playing itself in the background while song-specific factoids pop up every so often. It’s great at first, until you start to see the same fact again…and again. Metallica’s songs are lengthy, sure, but when a band has such a strong following and a quarter of a century of history, this feature sure could have been fleshed out more fully. The included videos shot at live performances give a cool, real-world perspective on the band, but they’re going to appeal to Metallica fans only.

And really, that’s the truth about this game. Unless you’re a hardcore Guitar Hero fan or a hardcore Metallica fan, you’re not going to find much to keep coming back to in Guitar Hero: Metallica. It’s definitely worth a rental for anyone looking for a solid challenge, but with a mostly lacking array of supporting artists (Lynyrd Skynyrd and Queen are real standout additions, however) and very little potential longevity through online play or DLC, this is a game that’s worth $60 to only the most dedicated of fans.

Recommended for:

• Metallica fans
• Rhythm game devotees who crave long, noodling solos, heavy bass lines and hard-hitting drum beats

Not Recommended for:

• Anyone expecting a functional set of multiplayer modes — matchmaking is just as broken as in Guitar Hero World Tour, and many of the design choices are baffling and frustrating
• Gamers in search of a fun, accessible game to have friends over to play
• Consumers who expect budget-conscious features like exportable songs and cross-compatibility of downloadable songs with Guitar Hero World Tour
• Gamers expecting the immense longevity of a game like Rock Band 2 — there’s no new content on the horizon for GH:M

Read our policy on reviews here.