Modern Warfare 3 DLC on the Horizon

Originally published as Modern Warfare 3 DLC on the horizon on Technorati

A friend of mine sent me a link from Joystiq.com about the latest news from Activision concerning Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

Care to hazard a guess?  I'll wait...

Yes!  It's a DLC announcement to the great joy of throngs of COD fans!

In a nutshell, starting January 24th for the Xbox is the first of 20 planned DLC releases for Call of Duty MW3 on the Xbox console.  What that means for PC gamers is unclear but we're likely to see a few DLC packs available between now and the September cutoff.

Of course most of the first DLC packs will be aimed at multiplayer but there are other treats in store according to this quote...

"The first pack is traditional multiplayer maps, but we want to do Spec Ops missions, missions, Spec-Ops Survival, new game types, new game modes, and really look at adding things that we've never done before,"

Extending the playability of a good game is generally a positive but it seems that lately we've ended up with either an attempt to milk a franchise or paying for content that should have been in the original release.

Don't get me wrong, MW3 was a great single player experience and the cooperative (SPEC OPS) play mode at least as good as Modern Warfare 2. So good that I'm of the opinion that it forced EA to include a cooperative mode in Battlefield 3. 

Multiplayer, well, it's entertaining and it looks very good considering the age of the engine it runs on.  New locales to chase your online buddies around is fun but it's still the run and gun type of experience.  With little choice in your online play choices thanks to limited options, you can end up in a dissatisfying multiplayer experience a bit too often.

I can get that same experience for free with Team Fortress 2.  If you haven't guessed it yet,  this is where my enthusiasm sours a bit.

Modern Warfare 3 seemed a bit shorter than Modern Warfare 2 in both Single Player and Spec Ops.  Now Activision announces plans to offer additional missions for spec ops and what I can only interpret as single player as well.  I don't know how that would work unless COD has finally turned into a full fledged RPG with side quests (objectives) unrelated to the main storyline. 

My question is, why would anyone want to pay more for content that really should have already been there? This game cost is $60 US and hasn't really dropped since launch.  Even Steam and Amazon didn't have any price breaks till Christmas day and they weren't well publicized and didn't last for long. 

Do I enjoy the game? Yes.  Is it worth it to spend another $10 to $15 each time new DLC becomes available, I can't say so.  Instead of a compliment it seems DLC is becoming a required accessory to get the full experience. 

It's kind of like buying a new car and having to wait for it to be painted before you can drive it home and then get charged extra for it.

I bought DLC content for Call of Duty: Black Ops which was a mistake since all I got were more multiplayer maps I didn't bother with.  It did come with additional cooperative maps but they were just rehashed versions of the same maps from Call of Duty: World at War.

I have to agree with my friend who wrote...." They can kiss my a--. I felt okay paying $35 for the game on sale, but DLC for MW3 ain't gonna happen for me. Least not till they change out that engine."

It's hard to argue with that.  MW3 is a good game but felt more like DLC for MW2 than anything new.   Part of that was the brevity of the single player storyline and the similar look and function of the IW5 gaming engine.  MW3's IW5 engine is really just a tweak of the 3 year old IW4 engine used in MW2. 

If you're a diehard COD fan then this is great news and by all means sign up for Elite and/or breathlessly await the release of each DLC pack between now and September.  I won't be joining you and I'm confident I won't regret the decision.

(Anti) Social gaming

Originally posted as (Anti) Social Gaming on Technorati

I was rooting around YouTube the other night looking for old Tech TV clips and somehow I ended up looking at a video captured by an unfortunate female Call of Duty Player. 

What was unfortunate wasn't her performance in the game.  No, what made this video unique had nothing to do with capturing a spectacular moment of victory.  Rather, it was a disturbing example of social harassment. 

I've included a link to the video here.  Be warned that the content is offensive in spots.

With the advent of VOIP functionality as a core feature of PC and console games over the past few years it's no surprise to hear the occasional blizzard of off-color commentary over your headset.  As the experience moves ever closer to reality it's understandable to get caught up in the intensity.

What I'm talking about here, however, has nothing to do with gaming.  If you haven't viewed the video the short of it is that it's full of multiple examples of male players harassing a female player with actions that ranged from rude commentary to outright sexual harassment. 

All because the player on the receiving end of this barrage of vulgarity happened to be female and used a feminine player name. 

Some may argue it's all in good fun and nothing is really meant by it.  It's obvious from the voices captured that most of the offenders were likely minors  Neither condition is an excuse, in fact there's nothing about this kind of behavior that's acceptable in any context.

It's likely this is an extension of the sense of anonymity and lack of inhibition that the Internet allows.  You can be sure that if these players were in the same room with the female player they wouldn't dare behave this way.

Whether it's a case of raging hormones or an attempt to preserve the "all boys club" the result is the same.  A ruined experience for another player.   The Red Cross was concerned about violent depictions of human suffering possibly creating a generation of war criminals.  I'm far more concerned that this kind of behavior unchecked could create a generation of sexual predators.

I'm staunchly against the Nanny State but I'm strongly for personal responsibility.  It seems gaming platforms don't share my view when they allow this kind of abuse to go unchecked.

I've written before that the way I deal with offensive behavior is to ignore it or move on to another server if it's intolerable.  That's not really possible in this case, however, since the only recourse is to either stop playing the game or give no indication of one's gender or orientation.  Hiding one's gender can be difficult if you enjoy the VOIP features of a game. 

But why should anyone have to?  How is such an environment healthy for anyone involved in it?

What I'm not sure of is whether anything was done to punish the other players after the offenses depicted in the video sample. 

This kind of vulgarity shouldn't be tolerated on any gaming platform.  I'd hope there was some mechanism for recourse but it's likely there isn't.

 I'd suggest anyone suffering such an assault should do as the author of the video has done and collect video evidence as well as the usernames of the offenders when possible.  That information should then be passed on to the platform provider for action.  If no action is taken, the next logical step is to leverage the power of Internet activism.

 Enough negative PR can force the hand of a reluctant provider if their revenue stream is threatened. 

I would hope that at the least the offending players would have their accounts suspended indefinitely.  If a company like Microsoft, for example, will suspend an account just on the suspicion of cheating then  this kind of activity should at least rise to the same level.

While the video's author has seemingly shrugged off the abuse even starting a youtube video series with more examples, it's still a sad commentary.  Nobody should have to take up the banner of an activist just to play a game.