Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

Louder, flasher, bigger, but not better, first-person shooter

share this article

It's Call of Duty, in the future, with Kevin Spacey. For many, the biggest and most important game of the year is here. But for the most part, Advanced Warfare is as conservative and reactionary in terms of innovation as it is in terms of the pro-military, ends-justifies-the-means politics it peddles.

For those less than familiar with the Call of Duty franchise, a brief recap – the series specialises in epicly over-the-top first-person shooter action. These games are the Jerry Bruckheimer, the Arnie, of action games. They started out in WWII, but rapidly moved focus to cover Modern Warfare in a spin-off series.

Whether mythologising WWII, Vietnamor current conflicts, Call of Duty games, in single-player, tend to switch between rapid run-and-gun corridor shootouts – narrow, confined and adrenaline-surge fast – and epic and highly-scripted setpieces – blowing up the EiffelTower, setting off nukes in major world cities, the invasion of Washington etc. Think big, then blow it up bigger.

CoD: AW or Call of Duty: Advanced WarfareThere is no change from this formula in Advanced Warfare really, apart from perhaps the budget. Now we get Kevin Spacey playing the bad-guy head of a giant multinational mercenary corporation, setting out to kill off the UN and invade the US.

In Call of Duty, everyone always wants to invade the US and it's always down to the plucky troops on the ground to save the day. And on top of Spacey's fee, the game has ploughed huge resources into visual acuity – it's like being inside a marine's helmet. Except that marine isn't absolutely terrified, and all the messy moral bits of warfare have been replaced with gadgets. CoD, in short, serves as a massive advert for militarism, to such an extent that soldiers and insurgents on all sides routinely describe the horrors they see as being "like something from Call of Duty"!

CoD: AW or Call of Duty: Advanced WarfareIn Advanced Warfare there are more toys than ever before. By leaping into the near future, you get walking "mech" tanks, exoskeletons and active camouflage suits. And even bigger explosions, naturally. But beyond that, nothing – not a jot – has changed about the single-player experience.

The overall result is that while you can see the pores on Spacey's motion-captured face, his eyes are dead and the game will be so utterly familiar to CoD and other first-person shooter players that the innovations will be nigh-on unnoticeable.

The same is not quite true of multi-player – arguably the real draw of the CoD series these days. The fluid and incredibly fast-paced multi-player now includes the ability to jump and grapple up surfaces vertically – for a far more varied battlefield. But underneath even these innovations, the experience is still going to be videogame crack for experienced fans, but tough to access for novices.

Slick in presentation, this is Call of Duty turned up to 12. But at its heart it's still a deeply familiar, conservative approach to the series and the portrayal of warfare in games. And, perhaps crucially for this kind of macho fluff, it's less fun than Titanfall.

Comments

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
While you can see the pores on Spacey's motion-captured face, his eyes are dead...

rating

3

share this article

the future of arts journalism

You can stop theartsdesk.com closing!

We urgently need financing to survive. Our fundraising drive has thus far raised £33,000 but we need to reach £100,000 or we will be forced to close. Please contribute here: https://gofund.me/c3f6033d

And if you can forward this information to anyone who might assist, we’d be grateful.

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 15,000 pieces, we're asking for £5 per month or £40 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take a subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

more gaming

The acclaimed neuroscientist on the world and history of games, in all their variety
Challenge The Authority in this 'Mad Max on mushrooms' renegade romp
Chainsawing the brain-eaters as you battle against the tide of the undead
Few fresh ideas means this movie adaptation treads the same old ground
A rocky start for a new franchise that offers potential and problems in equal measure
Nearly a decade has passed since the last incarnation but little has changed in this stagnant shooter
The veteran series returns for another ambitious tour of duty
An ambitious Wild West odyssey that matches epic scale with benchmark skill
Solo rations have been relegated from this benchmark war series
It looks and plays great, but what’s new?
A comprehensive look at gaming present and future has surprisingly broad appeal