Stream below or right-click and download here You can also listen on Stitcher and iTunes. Why not subscribe to us on RSS ?
Introduction
0:00:17 Not Trademark Banter
0:00:37 New Xbox Gets a Name and Photo
0:02:51 Top 10 Games of the 2010's
Feature - Call of Duty
0:03:19 Call of Duty Advance Warfare
0:04:51 Phil's Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019 Experience
0:08:56 Tom's Impressions of Call of Duty WWII
0:12:33 COD WWII Healing Mechanism
0:15:29 Mud and Ground Textures of COD WWII - Tom issues a score!
0:18:08 Tom discusses the Theme of COD WWII
0:19:16 Tom and Phil Play WWII Stereotype Tropes Bingo
0:22:00 Historical Accuracy Outrage
0:28:01 Phil Recommends Pentagon Training Manuals
Mini Film Review: Darkest Hour
0:31:03 Churchill Feature Resumes
Final Impressions
0:38:04 Kevin Spacey's Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
1:01:46 In Summary, Call of Duty Modern Warfare
Transcript
WEBVTT
Phil: Hi everyone, and welcome to episode of The Game Under Podcast.
Phil: I am your host, Phil Fogg, and I'm joined, of course, by our co-host, Mr.
Phil: Tom Towers.
Phil: And we don't have time today to talk about trademark banter, even though I think one of my trademark banter topics I put on the list is quite literary in its nature, but we'll have to get to that in another day.
Phil: It's called The Roof, The Fence, The Bonfire.
Phil: And we also won't be talking about the new Xbox that was announced and how silly its name is.
<v SPEAKER_>It looks good though.
<v SPEAKER_>I'm one of the few people who thinks it looks good.
Phil: I think it looks great.
Phil: Oh, no.
<v SPEAKER_>I don't see the GameCube comparison at all.
<v SPEAKER_>Just because something is cubish does not mean it looks like a GameCube.
Phil: No, it's like it's extruded cube, extruded cube.
Phil: What more could you want?
Phil: In fact, that's probably what they should have called it.
<v SPEAKER_>Extrude cube with a capital X.
Phil: Trude cube, Trude cube.
<v SPEAKER_>X prude cube.
Phil: Like in terms of the naming convention, they're calling it the Xbox Series X.
Phil: I guess in a way they just basically-
<v SPEAKER_>Is that a Siri pun?
Phil: No, I don't think so.
Phil: I think they're just calling it a, they should have called it, yeah, well, but I think in a way, they're just basically saying, well, we're just going to call it the Xbox.
Phil: Because they've announced the Series X and then they'll announce the Series S.
<v SPEAKER_>Can I just add, people seem to be surprised that Microsoft is terrible at naming their consoles, but when the Xbox was released, it came after an era of adding Xs to things to sound cool.
<v SPEAKER_>So, if you begin following that era with naming console an Xbox, that's getting off on the wrong foot to begin with.
Phil: Well, they called it that because it was based on DirectX.
Phil: So, the games division had...
<v SPEAKER_>Well, that's what they claim.
<v SPEAKER_>But I think they called it that because X and Xtreme things had just been all over the place.
Phil: The thing that I never got was people like, oh, they're trying to say sex box.
Phil: They're not, I mean, what sort of sick mind comes up with this stuff?
Phil: Extreme box.
<v SPEAKER_>If they were doing that, it would have been a triple Xbox.
Phil: Okay, I'm putting you on the spot here, but if they came out with the Xbox today, if Microsoft is launching a new console today, what hot thing would they be writing?
Phil: What would they call it?
Phil: They wouldn't call it the iBox.
<v SPEAKER_>They might call it the iBox if they could get away with it, but they probably couldn't get away with it.
Phil: Fortnite box is what they should call it, but hey, we're putting together our top list.
Phil: We're still debating the editorial board, myself, Tom and the others as to what should be included.
Phil: I think we're getting close to detente in terms of what we're going to include and exclude.
Phil: So you look forward to that coming up on the side, but really what we wanted to talk about today was a triumvirate of Call of Duty games, because you've got your new PC.
Phil: You've actually been telling me-
<v SPEAKER_>The previous two episodes or several have been, I think it's two, been devoted to Call of Duty, I believe.
<v SPEAKER_>So we are ending my impressions of Modern Warfare in a way, because throughout my first and final impressions of that, I was wondering if it came out of nowhere, or if there was some lead up to it in the previous Call of Duty games, having only played, I think the most recent one before this was Call of Duty
Phil: And the most hilarious thing about that is, because I'm the Call of Duty expert.
Phil: You asked me, hey, Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, does it have the same level design?
Phil: Is it kind of the same thing as Modern Warfare?
Phil: And you asked me for that advice on the same episode where I told you that I had started playing WWII again and had completely forgotten that I had played and beaten the game.
Phil: And yeah, so I guess probably...
<v SPEAKER_>So what we're saying here is that even though you are the Call of Duty expert, you don't actually remember anything of what you've played of the game.
<v SPEAKER_>So you shouldn't be asked in spite of you having played many, many Call of Duty games.
Phil: No, almost all of them, in fact.
Phil: But the one thing I can tell you about is Call of Duty Modern Warfare because I had the good fortune to pick it up for $at an Amazon Black Friday or Sober Monday sale.
Phil: And so basically I have it now on eBay.
Phil: The auction closes in two hours and it's currently at $
Phil: So I'm up two cents on the transaction.
Phil: So what happened is I got it.
Phil: I excitedly put it into my PlayStation because I knew that we'd be talking about it on the show.
Phil: It told me that it would need an gig update.
Phil: I swallowed my medicine and said, no problem.
Phil: I will do this early in the morning when my internet off-peak hours are so that I don't lose.
<v SPEAKER_>Do you even have gigabytes of bandwidth?
Phil: Yeah, I have gig on my plan and gig of which is between.
<v SPEAKER_>So this would be nearly percent of your entire internet allowance.
Phil: Yep.
Phil: And of those hours are between AM and AM and the other hours are the rest of the day.
Phil: So on the first day, I was able to download gig.
Phil: That was, I woke up, set an alarm at o'clock in the morning, started the download by o'clock, I downloaded gig.
Phil: And I thought, well, that's fine.
Phil: I only have to do this another more times.
Phil: So I paused the update and then turned off my PlayStation went to work, did the same thing the following morning and had to start all over again.
Phil: Apparently, the PlayStation doesn't support this sort of update, this sort of cumulative update.
Phil: At that point, I said, okay, I am going to sell this game on eBay.
Phil: And here we are, days and hours later.
Phil: And there's hours more to go.
Phil: There are watches of the auction.
Phil: And as I said, I'm up cents at this point.
Phil: And they're paying shipping.
Phil: So I count that as a win.
Phil: I then went and...
<v SPEAKER_>And all the bids are likely to come at the end.
Phil: Yeah, that's right.
Phil: And I then found my copy of Call of Duty Black Ops which I had thrown across the room, removed the scuff marks, and I put up a few other games as well.
Phil: So basically, I will never buy an Activision game until I have better internet, or they start releasing these things on cartridges.
<v SPEAKER_>Until you have better internet.
Phil: Yeah, exactly.
Phil: And you were quite prescient.
Phil: I told you, hey man, I screwed Modern Warfare for bucks, and you're like, I look forward to your first impressions of installing an GB patch.
Phil: And I went, yeah, yeah, this time it will be different.
Phil: But honestly, I'm very sad because I really wanted to play the game.
Phil: I bought the game and I'm unable to play it.
Phil: So that aside, you know, you can take the rest of these impressions where you want.
<v SPEAKER_>On the bright side, you are making at least two cents out of the experience.
Phil: Yeah, which is more than what I can say about this podcast.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes.
<v SPEAKER_>So you will have beaten my Call of Duty Modern Warfare deal where it was essentially a free addition to my CPU by making money on Call of Duty Modern Warfare.
Phil: That's right.
Phil: You got it for free and I'm getting paid to buy the game.
Phil: I like it.
Phil: And they got to pay bucks free shipping.
Phil: So I don't think it's going to go up much higher than where it currently is at bucks.
Phil: But I think it's been selling for about
Phil: Anyway, we'll probably find out by the end of this podcast, I'll give you an update.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes, and one of the games we mentioned, because I think you gave it possibly the highest ever Call of Duty score was WWII.
Phil: Yes, sadly.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes, and I think it actually is deserving of a high score.
<v SPEAKER_>It's certainly better than Call of Duty in one way, because one thing the classic Call of Dudes did exceedingly well and better than any other ridiculous over-the-top first-person shooter that I played was the sniping.
<v SPEAKER_>When you are using a sniper rifle, the movement into the scope and out of the scope as you are putting a new bullet in between each shot has such a brilliant rhythm to it, and the animation and sound effects of when you are reloading is excellent.
<v SPEAKER_>And unlike other times where the enemies are very bullet spongy when you are using the sniper rifle, if you shoot them, they actually die.
<v SPEAKER_>So you are actually getting some positive reinforcement when you shoot someone other than the sounds of the gun for the rest of the time.
<v SPEAKER_>And in other games, because they are using more modern sniper rifles that you don't have to reload after every shot, that rhythm is lost and you don't get the satisfaction and fun of popping in and out of the scope as you are killing a number of soldiers in a row.
<v SPEAKER_>So for that alone, in terms of gameplay, it's a vastly superior experience to at least Call of Duty and I imagine many other later Call of Duty's as well.
<v SPEAKER_>So your score is not entirely misplaced.
Phil: Do they call on use of the sniper rifle often or often enough?
Phil: Or is it like an entremont?
Phil: Is it something that just comes here and there?
<v SPEAKER_>Once you have a reasonable amount of time into the game, you come across the more powerful weapons somewhat regularly.
<v SPEAKER_>So there are many occasions where you are given access to a sniper rifle.
<v SPEAKER_>And if you're reasonable at aiming, you can of course use it for closer range as well without using the scope.
<v SPEAKER_>And I have a reasonable amount of experience playing First Person Shooters without a cursor.
<v SPEAKER_>I played Modern Warfare for instance like that.
<v SPEAKER_>And that's just an aside.
<v SPEAKER_>But I think First Person Shooters, when you're using a mouse anyway, the experience is often greatly improved if you're not using a reticle rather, not a cursor, but a reticle.
<v SPEAKER_>Have you had any experience with that?
Phil: No.
Phil: So what you're saying is there's no reticule?
<v SPEAKER_>On the hardest difficulty in Modern Warfare, there is no reticle.
Phil: So how do you even know where you're shooting?
<v SPEAKER_>Well, the center of the screen is where you're shooting, as it is without the reticle.
Phil: That's how much I rely on the reticle.
<v SPEAKER_>Well, some games it isn't directly in the center.
<v SPEAKER_>So it depends on the game, but it's nearish the center.
<v SPEAKER_>So after a few shots and you see where the bullet goes, you will get the hang of it.
<v SPEAKER_>Metro is another game that takes advantage of that as well.
<v SPEAKER_>But other than the sniping, another throwback to Call of Duty of the past is that it's got rid of regenerating health and replaced it with med kits.
Phil: Again, we're talking about World War II.
<v SPEAKER_>Call of Duty WWII, that's right.
<v SPEAKER_>But the quantity of med kits means that essentially there is neither a regenerating health or med kit mechanic, but merely an infinite god mode mechanic as you're playing the game.
<v SPEAKER_>So that's a very weird design decision.
<v SPEAKER_>Because unless you get inundated with enemies, you're essentially never going to die.
<v SPEAKER_>But it does mean that rather than having to sit behind cover for several seconds, you just need to crouch for one second to go through the med kit animation.
<v SPEAKER_>So it is nevertheless an improvement on the regenerating health mechanic in other Call of Duties.
<v SPEAKER_>But it isn't really a med kit mechanic because you get so many.
<v SPEAKER_>It's not like you have to learn where they are in levels and look around for them.
Phil: That's right.
Phil: Yeah, it was never a punitive type thing at all.
Phil: And how did they handle that in Modern Warfare?
<v SPEAKER_>Modern Warfare is a regenerating health mechanic, but it isn't too invasive and annoying.
<v SPEAKER_>As I said, due to the nature of the level design and the speed with which you regenerate health, if you do ever have to stop to recover health, it doesn't take very long.
<v SPEAKER_>And because of the much more complex level design, often you'd naturally regenerate health as you're moving through the level anyway.
<v SPEAKER_>So it's not a big issue in Modern Warfare.
Phil: In a broader sense with first-person shooters, I think probably Halo kind of nailed it with the regenerating health in terms of enjoyment from the player's perspective.
<v SPEAKER_>Without being intrusive, I think is the key.
<v SPEAKER_>Where it isn't forcing you to take cover when you wouldn't normally for long periods of time.
<v SPEAKER_>I think a big part of that is again in Halo, the level design is much more open and complex.
<v SPEAKER_>So you get shot and you can naturally run behind whatever cover there is, come out the other side and attack the enemy from a completely different angle so that it feels like you are changing a strategy rather than just hiding.
<v SPEAKER_>That's the same sort of dynamic going on in Modern Warfare as well.
Phil: And of course, with Halo, it makes narrative sense as well.
Phil: Your suit takes a certain degree of damage.
Phil: If you can avoid damage, it recharges, but if you continue to take damage, then you've got to go find a health pack.
Phil: It's actually quite brilliant, honestly.
Phil: Yeah.
<v SPEAKER_>And the other just outstanding thing about WWII is the mud textures and the geometry of the mud.
<v SPEAKER_>And technically it isn't geometry.
<v SPEAKER_>There's a term for it that I've forgotten, but basically the ground in most games isn't rendered geometrically, but through textures that have a three-dimensional surface that you don't actually interact with.
<v SPEAKER_>So it's sort of an illusion and shouldn't necessarily really be called geometry, but the effect of you looking at it is extraordinary.
<v SPEAKER_>And while being a little bit older than Modern Warfare and other recent games' textures, the resolution isn't that high, so if you really zoom in on it or crouch in the mud and look down, it doesn't look as good, but from the distance that you're observing it throughout most of the game, it really is just absolutely amazing.
<v SPEAKER_>The gradation between the colours from wetter parts of the mud and the earth surrounding the mud and so forth is brilliant.
Phil: So, whereas Lara Croft and Tomb Raider has their Tress effects, you are really focused on the mud effects in this game.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes.
<v SPEAKER_>And that might sound ridiculous, but it is a game set in the Second World War.
<v SPEAKER_>And any total war where you were going through the countryside or towns that have been deserted and half-destroyed are going to be getting rather filthy and dirty.
<v SPEAKER_>So it's a necessary part of the atmosphere of the game.
Phil: Yeah, it's not trivial because, of course, in the modern games, it's all about concrete jungles and some desert, maybe.
Phil: I think we gave The Sand a pretty good score in Spec Ops The Line.
Phil: If you were to score the mud in this game in terms of its, you know, muddiness, how would you give it a score out of ten?
<v SPEAKER_>I think for its era, probably a ten out of ten, taking into account modern texture resolutions, probably a nine out of ten.
Phil: Okay, well, so you get the box quote now for if they want to re-release this, Game Under.NET gives this game a ten out of ten.
<v SPEAKER_>Ten out of ten mud textures.
Phil: Yeah, mud textures.
Phil: We'll have to come up with a good term for this ground texture.
Phil: It's a geological texture type thing.
Phil: We'll come up with something, I'm sure.
<v SPEAKER_>This might be heading in the direction of a very sarcastic or snide conclusion, given the content we've been focusing on, but I thought it was a genuinely enjoyable experience.
<v SPEAKER_>But it's also a very weird one, particularly when you compare it to the classic, at least, Call of Duty to
<v SPEAKER_>I haven't played any WWII Call of Duty since then.
<v SPEAKER_>But this is basically a weirdly nostalgic boys-own adventure where you're out with your mates having a fun time.
<v SPEAKER_>It's essentially WWII recruitment propaganda.
<v SPEAKER_>But this isn't the era of WWII, whereas Call of Duty and while obviously having very pro-military elements in the general tone of the game, did depict WWII as a disturbing and horrific experience for humanity.
<v SPEAKER_>Whereas this is a very fun time with the lads.
Phil: A rollicking good time.
Phil: Now I've got my bingo card here for WWII, so if you could just let me know if I get them.
Phil: Was there an Italian Catholic from New Jersey or New York?
<v SPEAKER_>I can't remember if they were from New Jersey or New York, but I believe there was an Italian.
Phil: Okay, was there a Jewish person who was in charge of some technical thing, like how the, you know, radio or communications?
<v SPEAKER_>If I remember correctly, I'm not sure if he was in charge of anything like that, but he had glasses and was highly educated.
Phil: Excellent, okay.
Phil: And was there a southern boy who was ostentatious but turned out to be more heroic than them all, ultimately sacrificing himself for the team?
<v SPEAKER_>I believe that is the protagonist.
Phil: Oh, okay, hey, bingo!
Phil: And, you know, I don't remember anything about any of these games, so, but that's what you, I mean, how stupid is it?
Phil: Those are the archetypes that you have to have.
Phil: Now, finally, who would be the mean guy?
Phil: You've got to have an officer who's a hard ass, who ultimately...
<v SPEAKER_>He is, of course, your CO.
Phil: Yeah, yeah, he's a hard ass, but ultimately he has a heart of gold and...
<v SPEAKER_>And it's doubling up on the American cliché of the high status person at your job getting in the way of you being able to do your fucking job.
<v SPEAKER_>And if this person wasn't there, the world would be so much easier, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Phil: He's always asking for my badge and my gun.
Phil: Get off my case!
<v SPEAKER_>Exactly, because you see a yo as a dick that's always getting in your way and getting you to do dumb shit.
<v SPEAKER_>But he is also having to deal with higher-ups trying to reel him in.
<v SPEAKER_>So you've got the double cliché going at once to hilarious effect.
Phil: No significant female roles other than we're saving someone or someone's sister, I presume.
<v SPEAKER_>No, there is a token, two token women.
<v SPEAKER_>One is, I believe, a British officer who is on the battlefield at some point walking around giving orders or something.
<v SPEAKER_>No, I think she's intelligent, sorry.
Phil: Okay, and I presume she's wearing Judpus or riding boots or something like that.
<v SPEAKER_>Something like that, I believe.
<v SPEAKER_>And then there is also, of course, a female resistance woman with a personal vendetta against the Nazis.
Phil: I presume she's either French or Italian.
<v SPEAKER_>Yeah, French.
Phil: Yeah, okay, perfect, okay.
Phil: This shit writes itself.
<v SPEAKER_>It does indeed.
<v SPEAKER_>It's as if it has been written many, many times already.
<v SPEAKER_>And on token characters, weirdly, there is also a token black who you have to fight with at some point.
<v SPEAKER_>And if you look up this game, there's lots of outrage at some of the historical content.
<v SPEAKER_>And I find that historical accuracy, sorry, I find that historical accuracy is something of a Rorschach test.
<v SPEAKER_>So anything set in the past is essentially going to have a myriad of historical inaccuracies in it, with a few exceptions here and there, but for the most part, anything set in the past is.
<v SPEAKER_>So there was mass outrage on the internet that there were German, if you played online, you could choose to play as a woman if you played as Germany, and I assume it extended to America, but people were outraged about this in regards to the Germans.
<v SPEAKER_>And of course, there were no German combat soldiers, although there were indeed, sorry, female combat soldiers, although there were indeed women in the German army, though this is usually, the complaint is merely, there were no women in the German army, which is inaccurate.
<v SPEAKER_>But the one that stood out to me was the fact that you have to fight with a black American soldier at some point.
<v SPEAKER_>And it is sort of suggested that this is bizarre, but it is very bizarre because the American army was segregated at this point.
<v SPEAKER_>And not only was the American army segregated at this point, but there was a lot of lynching going on in the American army.
<v SPEAKER_>And for the most part, it depended, of course, what theatre of war it was, but black American soldiers very often were not given live ammo for their weapons.
<v SPEAKER_>So I'm not sure what the justification, logically, because they wanted to skirt the issue of having a black American soldier in this situation.
<v SPEAKER_>So they couldn't go into many details on why he was there, which resulted in this completely surreal and bizarre situation.
Phil: Okay.
Phil: When you said that you were fighting with an African American or a black American, I thought you meant fighting with, but what you meant is fighting as.
<v SPEAKER_>No, no, no, no, fighting with.
<v SPEAKER_>They join you.
Phil: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Phil: Well, there actually was.
Phil: There were several divisions of African Americans.
Phil: There was a Tuskegee Airmen that were pilots.
<v SPEAKER_>No, there were many.
<v SPEAKER_>I'm not suggesting there weren't.
<v SPEAKER_>I'm just saying that the American Army was segregated.
Phil: Oh, yeah, yeah, it was segregated.
Phil: Definitely.
<v SPEAKER_>So the odds of you.
Phil: Fighting with.
<v SPEAKER_>Winding up with one random black American soldier is completely bizarre.
Phil: Yeah, I agree, but at the same time.
<v SPEAKER_>I can imagine you running into a squad of them.
<v SPEAKER_>And fighting with them.
<v SPEAKER_>That would have made perfect sense.
Phil: Fighting alongside them.
Phil: Can we just say that instead?
<v SPEAKER_>Fighting with means the same thing.
<v SPEAKER_>I understand it also means fighting against, but yes, fighting alongside if you want.
Phil: Yeah, well, I just.
<v SPEAKER_>But fighting alongside a squadron of them would have made good sense.
Phil: Yeah, but if like one of the airmen like, you know, fell out.
<v SPEAKER_>If one of the airmen left the thing.
Phil: Fell out of his plane with a parachute.
<v SPEAKER_>The odds are they would have been sent somewhere.
Phil: No, no, no.
Phil: He's up in his plane.
Phil: He gets shot down by a German.
Phil: He puts on his parachute.
Phil: He lands and he's like in the middle of France and then.
<v SPEAKER_>Why would you be fighting with a random airman?
Phil: No, he's up there.
<v SPEAKER_>That's not a soldier.
Phil: Alongside him.
Phil: Like, you know, and he's like in the middle.
<v SPEAKER_>This takes place in an organized operation.
Phil: Okay, so he didn't just drop in.
<v SPEAKER_>Well, he dropped into the general vicinity at some point, I assume, but then was recruited into the operation.
<v SPEAKER_>But rather than him falling out of the sky.
<v SPEAKER_>Well, he wouldn't play.
Phil: Yeah, he shot down.
Phil: He's a hero.
Phil: You know, but the other thing too is Activision said right from the start.
Phil: When this game started coming out and in the previews, they said, hey, look, you know, we're taking some, you know, liberties.
<v SPEAKER_>And just to be clear, I don't have any problem with it.
<v SPEAKER_>I just thought it was of the historical inaccuracies, the weirdest.
<v SPEAKER_>Another weird one, but more esoteric was, if I remember correctly, on D-Day, many of the German soldiers were using Russian weapons.
<v SPEAKER_>So I'm not sure why.
Phil: They could have caught them from, you know, like they...
<v SPEAKER_>And if we are going to be total pedants, it does begin with D-Day.
<v SPEAKER_>And the greatest historical inaccuracy in any war thing, but it's particularly pronounced in D-Day, is basically everyone with a rifle was shooting.
<v SPEAKER_>D-Day was noted for being particularly brutal, I believe.
<v SPEAKER_>So pre-proper combat training, we're going to be getting even below the %.
<v SPEAKER_>And one of the most famous things of D-Day is, in post-D-Day scientific studies by the Army, is that essentially everyone who participated in D-Day got completely fucked up mentally and was essentially useless for a period of time afterwards.
Phil: Well, I find it interesting...
<v SPEAKER_>Whereas you just continue straight on after the D-Day affair.
Phil: Yeah, I find it interesting...
Phil: Well, because you're super ubermensch.
Phil: But what I find interesting is you have this issue, you know, in terms of its historical inaccuracy.
Phil: You don't, but you're pointing it out and that's fair.
Phil: But I just found it odd that when the squad was able to reconcile after D-Day, they went back to their camp and they were drinking Mountain Dew and eating Doritos.
Phil: I mean, you're getting hung up on the wrong things.
<v SPEAKER_>That's what was in the medical kits, I believe.
Phil: Okay, probably.
Phil: Now, the other thing I wanted to tell you, you asked me earlier or in your mind, you didn't verbalize it, what I've been reading lately.
Phil: I found that you can get these training manuals from the Pentagon for virtually free.
Phil: And I've been reading the training manual for the snipers, for guys who snipe.
Phil: It's an enthralling read.
Phil: It's really very interesting.
Phil: And they talk about all the reasons why you'd use a sniper and what benefits they have.
Phil: And it gets into the weapons, it gets into the ammo.
Phil: But more interesting than that, it gets into the psychology and the strategy behind being a sniper.
Phil: So for everyone out there, I just go into Amazon, put in training manual Pentagon, and you'll see a whole slew of them appear.
Phil: And for people that play war games or war video games, I think this stuff is enthralling reading.
Phil: I thoroughly recommend them.
<v SPEAKER_>Can you also buy the Pentagon torture manual?
Phil: Well, the Pentagon and members of the armed services don't torture anyone.
Phil: I think the CIA does enhanced interrogation, but the Army itself cannot torture.
Phil: And that's why they call in the CIA to do the enhanced interrogations.
<v SPEAKER_>Was at Abu Ghraib, wasn't that the Army or was that the CIA?
Phil: Well, now, that was the Army, but that wasn't interrogation, so the purpose behind...
<v SPEAKER_>Indeed, it was not interrogation, but I believe it was torture.
<v SPEAKER_>I said torture manual, not interrogation.
<v SPEAKER_>You brought up interrogation, good sir.
Phil: Torture, and I support the troops, is not endorsed, and that was just a bit of fun that they were doing.
<v SPEAKER_>But that doesn't mean there isn't necessarily a manual on it.
Phil: Well, if it is, it's informal and it's passed down amongst friends, but it's not...
<v SPEAKER_>You're missing the way out, and this was on a recent episode.
Phil: What?
<v SPEAKER_>Again, this came up on a recent episode of the show, I think, a recent...
<v SPEAKER_>in one of the COD episodes, but the way out is to say, no, America had no torture manuals for its torture techniques due to the perfect history of the CIA.
<v SPEAKER_>The CIA had to go to the KGB's torture manual.
<v SPEAKER_>So if you want to buy a Pentagon slash CIA, whatever department you want to call it, torture manual, you have to simply go for the KGB manual that they used.
<v SPEAKER_>It was right there for you, and you fucked it up.
Phil: Well, I support our troops.
Phil: What can I say?
Phil: And after playing a game like Call of Duty WWII...
<v SPEAKER_>He says that with someone holding a water can in the other room, I believe.
Phil: Yep.
Phil: So is that...
Phil: back to the game though.
Phil: So is that pretty much it for Call of Duty WWII?
<v SPEAKER_>Yes and no.
<v SPEAKER_>It is it for the game, but before we move on from WWII, I have to mention Darkest Hour.
<v SPEAKER_>The biopic about Winston Churchill.
<v SPEAKER_>And I bring it up because I mentioned just the sheer insanity of Modern Warfare's story and depiction of world events.
<v SPEAKER_>And I said that that's the sort of thing that you can only really get on that level in a video game.
<v SPEAKER_>You can't get that in other mediums.
<v SPEAKER_>But I did mention there are of course some random exceptions to this.
<v SPEAKER_>And Darkest Hour is.
<v SPEAKER_>And I don't know if you're familiar with Churchill or not.
Phil: Oh, very much, yeah.
<v SPEAKER_>Just an obscure politician.
Phil: Yeah, yeah.
<v SPEAKER_>But he is famous for his exploits in World War II.
<v SPEAKER_>And though he's never mentioned in the context of Australia, he was responsible for the mass slaughter, partially responsible anyway, for the mass slaughter of Australian troops at Gallipoli in our great rugby match against the Turks.
<v SPEAKER_>And this was essentially a massive stain on his military career and kind of stuck in his core because he considered himself to be a military genius and his greatest exploit was a massive, massive cock up at Gallipoli.
<v SPEAKER_>Again, Australia, for instance, an example of this, Australia managed to get massacred by the thousands against Turkish troops who had no ammunition and managed to hold the beach against them until reinforcements with ammunition arrived.
<v SPEAKER_>That is the level of cock up that Churchill had.
<v SPEAKER_>So the dude absolutely, nevertheless, loved war and was rampant for an opportunity to prove himself the military genius that he knew he was.
<v SPEAKER_>This film is about massive internal struggle he went through in, first of all, deciding whether to fight the Nazis or not.
<v SPEAKER_>That is, of course, featuring a long list of bizarre historical problems, one which was probably obviously alluded to.
<v SPEAKER_>The other is that the only political party at the time that was massively pro-war, if I remember correctly, was the Labour Party, whereas everyone else was essentially anti-war, which was the standard position at the time after appeasement.
<v SPEAKER_>But that's not why I bring it up, because that's a pretty standard sort of condensing issue you might run into when you're also trying to find a conflict where there wasn't really much of a conflict to begin with.
Phil: It's quite true.
Phil: Winston was, from a very early age, obsessed with war, as was Theodore Roosevelt, not Franklin D.
Phil: Roosevelt, but Theodore Roosevelt, and would have done anything to get us into a war, absolutely anything at all.
Phil: It's quite interesting, I don't know, psychology or pathology or whatever you want to say about someone like that.
Phil: It would have been different, I think, if instead they decided, oh, well, let them have Poland, you know.
Phil: But of course, who knows where it would have ended and all the rest of it.
<v SPEAKER_>Well, it is worth noting that all genocides, generally, at least massive ones, take place during wartime.
Phil: That's right, yeah.
<v SPEAKER_>That's not to say that all do.
<v SPEAKER_>You get a lot of smaller ones and instances of ethnic cleansing outside of that, but all massive instances of them have generally taken place during wartime.
<v SPEAKER_>Even the Australian one, in the minds of the Tasmanian settlers, they were at war with the Aborigines and also in the minds of many Aborigines as well.
<v SPEAKER_>But I bring up this up not for any of that, but for the hilarious scene, because another important characteristic of Winston Churchill is that he was a tremendous racist.
<v SPEAKER_>And people who like to defend racists from the past like to say, well, everyone was racist in the past, which is not true to begin with, but there are degrees of racism.
<v SPEAKER_>And Winston Churchill was tremendously racist for the era.
<v SPEAKER_>And in the scene that convinces him that he'll have public support for his pro-war effort and gives him the inspiration for his speech.
<v SPEAKER_>He travels on the tube to reach parliament in time to give a speech, but at this time he's still sort of unsure about it.
<v SPEAKER_>But on the train he runs into one of the blacks from the British colonies on the train who has moved to England, as many of them did, non-white immigration to Britain from the colonies is not a new phenomenon.
<v SPEAKER_>But he runs into one of these blacks on the train and is tremendously moved by his Shakespearean soliloquising, which he joins in with.
<v SPEAKER_>And this is his inspiration to go to parliament.
<v SPEAKER_>Now, this level of mind-blowing insanity is the sort of thing you see in games.
<v SPEAKER_>And if it happens in a game, you get the game shat on and denigrated for what is actually a tremendously hilarious and entertaining experience.
<v SPEAKER_>If this happens in a film, because it's aesthetically less jarring, it's Oscar bait.
<v SPEAKER_>So I bring that up for two reasons.
<v SPEAKER_>One, to point out that you do get this level of hilarity outside of games, but when you do, people don't notice how ridiculously stupid it is.
Phil: And that's because there's no active movie forums.
Phil: I mean, there are forums and discussion areas, but like video games, every microcosm is examined and there's an argument for and against.
<v SPEAKER_>I don't think that's the reason at all.
<v SPEAKER_>I think the reason is % film is a well-established aesthetic language.
<v SPEAKER_>So if you follow that, you could get away with mind-blowing stupidity.
<v SPEAKER_>The Last of Us, for instance, is an example of that.
<v SPEAKER_>You can have that giraffe scene, which is one of supposedly the most moving scenes in gaming history, but it's a fucking giraffe.
Phil: Yeah, it's the...
Phil: what did I call it?
<v SPEAKER_>I can't recall, sadly.
Phil: It's the giraffeic park moment of the game.
<v SPEAKER_>Oh yes, yes.
<v SPEAKER_>When I say I couldn't recall, I meant I had been actively blocking it from my memory.
Phil: Thank you.
Phil: Okay, so back to...
<v SPEAKER_>We can now move on.
Phil: Modern Warfare.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes, well, by Modern Warfare we mean Advanced Warfare.
<v SPEAKER_>Yes.
<v SPEAKER_>And this was the one where you suggested there was indeed a move in the direction of Modern Warfare.
<v SPEAKER_>And I'm pleased to say you were correct.
<v SPEAKER_>It is a significantly more complex style of level design than prior Call of Duties that I played.
<v SPEAKER_>And it does it not in the way that Modern Warfare does, but in the way that your general mid-tier, I would call, mid-tier FPS design rather than low-end, which would be Call of Duty, or high-end, which would be something like Stalker, for instance, where you are given relatively open environments, preferably with multiple levels to them.
<v SPEAKER_>That's often diminished in console first-person shooter design so that you're just aiming left to right, which is easier with a thumbstick.
<v SPEAKER_>When you have movement of a mouse or a Wii point, for instance, you can have more vertical aiming, but that's not an issue in PC shooters.
<v SPEAKER_>This is the level of design in Wolfenstein as well.
<v SPEAKER_>There aren't really any levels that reach the peaks of Wolfenstein, but the best level that illustrates the level design is similar to that famous submarine level in Wolfenstein, but it is much more corridor-based.
<v SPEAKER_>So in the Wolfenstein level I've mentioned multiple times, you basically had two rectangular main areas for you to move around in with two levels to them, and within those rectangular passageways, there were center areas that you could move through as well.
<v SPEAKER_>This is sort of an inversion of that, where you are moving through what is basically a corridor hanger area with the center area basically completely open for you to just walk through or run through, and it's surrounded by scaffolding of, I think, two levels, so you can move up and down those areas as well, and the enemies are distributed throughout the entire area, so you can essentially move through the area as you please.
<v SPEAKER_>That's the most dynamic level in the game, and I would arguably argue the most well designed.
<v SPEAKER_>It gives you a lot of room to use your crazy jumping abilities, your fast movement and whatever other abilities you want to take on, that it's copying from Crysis, and elsewhere it kind of does that on a smaller scale, and it also sometimes combines that with cover gameplay as well.
<v SPEAKER_>I think a good example of that, where it is combining with more traditional gameplay, is a level where you have, I think you're running after a recently kidnapped person, and you end up in this intersection with a massive roundabout in the middle of it, and the traffic stops around it.
<v SPEAKER_>Luckily, all the vehicles are mysteriously empty as soon as the shooting starts.
<v SPEAKER_>So this was not a game where Call of Duty was trying for controversial click bait.
<v SPEAKER_>I can tell you that much.
<v SPEAKER_>And you can move around the level as you please.
<v SPEAKER_>It also gives you some interesting environmental interaction where you can shoot a tanker which kills a huge amount of enemies.
<v SPEAKER_>And it also is a good example of where they fuck this design up really badly and ruin it probably % of the time, if not more than that.
<v SPEAKER_>So that there's only one or two instances where you're given the freedom of movement that you need to really take advantage of this style of first person shooter design, where you have open spaces and the fun and creativity of what you're doing comes from freedom of movement.
<v SPEAKER_>If you move to certain areas in this level where you're still perfectly vulnerable to enemy fire, you get a message saying you're leaving the mission area and it then resets to the checkpoint.
Phil: Yeah, that's not great.
<v SPEAKER_>So it's got much more interesting level design in many areas than other Call of Duties, and as much of the time that it does that, half the time that it does that rather, it ruins it because you have no freedom of movement.
<v SPEAKER_>In the rest of the game, it obviously has much more traditional linear shooting sections like other CODs, and it also unfortunately does another thing that WWII did, and basically all Call of Duties that I've played have done, except with the exception of and they did it to a much lesser degree, and Modern Warfare is it has cinematic walking sections.
<v SPEAKER_>Not only does it have cinematic walking sections, it also has sections where they're very much narrative and pacing based and very scripted, and they go on for a really long time period where you're not really doing much and you're just going through the cool stuff happening on screen, and worst of all, it features fucking QTEs.
<v SPEAKER_>So it is absolutely a step in the direction, but it is also not really the same thing.
<v SPEAKER_>And another example of a step in the direction that you can really see where they were going, but they were not really doing it properly is all the crisis influences.
<v SPEAKER_>So for instance, you obviously can't have a proper stealth mechanic through the rest of the game, but there is a stealth level where you're basically doing the crisis stealth suit, but it's through a very carefully controlled environment and things like that.
<v SPEAKER_>Whereas when Modern Warfare is stealing from a specific game for a certain segment rather than for an overall mechanic, it is using the mechanic in a similar way to the actual game that used it, which gives you a completely different smorgasbord experience in the style of Uncharted or The Last of Us or Call of Duty, because it's a smorgasbord where you're actually eating the food that it is showing you from other games rather than it being plastic food that you don't actually consume, but merely look at.
Phil: I found there was one level in that game where you were running through residential rooftops, apartments and that sort of thing that I think culminates in a roundabout shootout with buses and things like that.
Phil: That's probably to me the most memorable level in that whole game.
Phil: Was there another level that jumped out at you?
Phil: Do you remember that particular level?
<v SPEAKER_>The hangar level was, I would say, the highlight of the more traditional COD pacing style where you're much more quickly moving from smaller fight to fight.
<v SPEAKER_>I think the best one was when you are in a, I think it was a Middle Eastern setting and you are planning an assassination of one of the evil people you're fighting against.
<v SPEAKER_>The plan goes wrong, you get discovered and you have to navigate tight city streets through various buildings and it ends with a sort of semi-boss battle against a few armored people.
<v SPEAKER_>I think they had armor or that might have actually been later and a cut scene where you catch up to the terrorist you'd been after for a long time.
<v SPEAKER_>But that's another level actually that was really reminiscent of Modern Warfare in that when you're moving through these houses, it wasn't like close, it was much closer combat than when you go into a building in previous Call of Duties.
<v SPEAKER_>And it was obviously completely scripted, but because of the interaction between enemies outside that were shooting at you and the ones inside and your ability to move through houses or run through the street yourself, there was a dynamic element to it as well as there is in Modern Warfare's close combat.
<v SPEAKER_>So that was another one that was clearly a step in the direction of Modern Warfare.
<v SPEAKER_>That to me in terms of the standard COD design was probably my highlight.
<v SPEAKER_>And I say standard COD design, but it was obviously standard, but doing something a little different as well.
<v SPEAKER_>The other important element, which again was a step in the direction of Modern Warfare and made the combat significantly more interesting, including during the much more traditional and basic levels, was the AI was significantly more aggressive than they usually are in Call of Duty.
<v SPEAKER_>And that applies to WWII as well.
<v SPEAKER_>So if you are just sitting around in the one area doing nothing, eventually one of the enemies will come and try and kill you, and in some levels that may even happen pretty quickly.
<v SPEAKER_>So you have to take into account where enemies are when you're wondering where you should hide to regain your health, which then makes that a slightly interesting experience.
<v SPEAKER_>And it also encourages you to be more aggressive, so that when you do take enough damage to have to hide, you have killed more enemies than you otherwise would have, whereas Call of Duty Standard Design really encourages you to just hide and pop out and hide and pop out and gradually kill enemies one by one.
<v SPEAKER_>So that's another massively important change.
<v SPEAKER_>And the AI not only is it aggressive, it also sometimes moves around, so again, very rarely, and it doesn't do that to a huge degree in Modern Warfare, but much more than this, but sometimes you might be camping, recovering health and get ready to shoot someone.
<v SPEAKER_>They might have moved to a slightly different location.
<v SPEAKER_>So the AI is another massive step in the COD series here as well.
Phil: How did you find the AI in WWII?
Phil: Or just basically, do you think that after the advance that they had turned the page and made that improvement?
<v SPEAKER_>I think the WWII AI was a throwback like the rest of the game to the older style of Call of Duty AI.
<v SPEAKER_>And it's just a completely dynamic thing, except for random occasions where it for some reason isn't, which I assume is not necessarily even intentional.
<v SPEAKER_>So basically the AI just sits around wherever it is waiting to shoot you.
<v SPEAKER_>Sometimes if you move on to another section of the level and you haven't killed everyone, they will actually walk after you and shoot you from behind, which is an interesting thing.
<v SPEAKER_>I don't recall that happening in other Call of Duty games I've played.
<v SPEAKER_>So that was the only difference compared to other Call of Duties that I noticed in WWII.
<v SPEAKER_>The other interesting thing that I have to bring up is bridge levels in First Person Shooters are almost always the worst level in the game.
<v SPEAKER_>This has another example of this, and it's the one occasion where the aggressive AI was a little bit frustrating.
<v SPEAKER_>And the area that First Person Shooters run into with bridge design levels is the checkpointing system, generally speaking.
<v SPEAKER_>The worst one in history is the bridge level in Homefront, but they're generally bad.
<v SPEAKER_>And this level, I think Half-Life also had a terrible bridge level as well.
<v SPEAKER_>And the bridge level in this is no exception.
<v SPEAKER_>Basically, it's a close combat level, like the one where you're moving through the town.
<v SPEAKER_>But unlike the one where you're moving through the town, because there's traffic fucking everywhere, they really minimize the size of the areas you can move through from one area to another.
<v SPEAKER_>And not only that, they're much more limited in the sort of cover you can use.
<v SPEAKER_>On top of that, because you get...
<v SPEAKER_>because the progression is based on checkpoints, you often get checkpoints in really awkward situations, because when you're moving from one area to the next, you're killing a certain number of enemies.
<v SPEAKER_>And you don't know where the checkpoints are, so you don't know what number of enemies you should move before moving to a better point of coverage.
<v SPEAKER_>So let's say you see you've got a okay bit of coverage, and on top of that, once you get to a checkpoint, more enemies spawn, and you think, okay, it's okay, but I see this better point of coverage here and there's only a couple of enemies, and you see where they are, and you proceed there, and you kill those enemies, and you hit the checkpoint, and suddenly a large number of enemies spawn, and they're in areas that your cover is completely useless for, you're then fucked, and you have to go through a annoying period of killing, learning which enemies you need to kill first.
<v SPEAKER_>And this simultaneously, one thing I will add again, is there is a weird satisfaction that comes from this very scripted, bizarre checkpoint first person shooter that Call of Duty epitomises, and the best example is actually from WWII.
<v SPEAKER_>There was a section where you have to repel several waves of enemies with a flamethrower, and there are two choke points directly next to you, one on the left, one on the right, and the enemies all come from the middle distance, and on harder difficulties, they're all bullet sponges, so if you're shooting them from the middle distance, depending on the number that are coming, you can't necessarily do much damage to them, so the best strategy was essentially to just kill maybe one or two, then wait at this spot and kill them with the flamethrower as they run up to you.
<v SPEAKER_>And it required, with the timing of the waves of enemies and playing on harder difficulty, it required actually a pretty complex management of your timing of shooting them from the middle distance, then switching to the flamethrower, and killing them when they come to shoot you at close range.
<v SPEAKER_>It creates these completely weird, ridiculous gameplay scenarios that have nothing to do with what you would expect playing a first-person shooter to be.
<v SPEAKER_>And it's kind of a unique experience in first-person shooters when you're playing Call of Duty on a harder difficulty that you can't get anywhere else because of how weird this cryptic design is when the enemies are bullet sponges and can kill you in one or two hits.
Phil: Yeah, I found the Flamethrower series or level in World War II to be just ridiculous.
Phil: And it took me a long time to kind of figure out exactly what it was that they wanted me to do.
<v SPEAKER_>But back to the bridge level, I pretty much described the basic issues you face in designing a bridge level is the massive constriction of space because your bridge level in a first-person shooter is going to have a massive amount of either traffic or debris or debris and traffic on it.
<v SPEAKER_>And they don't really seem to take that into account, particularly ones that use a checkpointing system.
<v SPEAKER_>But that's the worst level in the game.
<v SPEAKER_>And so, as you can probably tell, it is kind of a mixed experience, but it does deserve, I think, massive praise for being one of the first post-Call of Duty IV first-person shooters that had some traditional and genuine first-person level design and first-person AI in it.
<v SPEAKER_>And if you were playing this, and it was the first Call of Duty game to be doing this since the original II, it would be a mind-blowing experience, I think, in spite of all the issues it has.
<v SPEAKER_>Was it for you?
Phil: To me, like, I'd played Ghosts, and I was impressed with Ghosts, and I was even more impressed with Advanced Warfare.
Phil: And I went into it with low expectations because a lot of people didn't like the wall running and the other things that they did with it.
Phil: But ultimately, it just, you know, reinforced my appreciation for the series.
Phil: I completely enjoyed it.
<v SPEAKER_>And that's the other thing I should add is the...
<v SPEAKER_>because I didn't really talk much about the super power jumps and the upgraded armor and all of that sort of thing.
<v SPEAKER_>That also actually adds a missing element to the very simple Call of Duty gunplay mechanics and basic FPS mechanics is when you add those elements to it, it's obviously not comparable to something like Crysis.
<v SPEAKER_>But it is enough to make the levels a little bit more interesting and in the levels that take advantage of it, the ability to jump onto second story platforms completely changes the way you can approach a level.
<v SPEAKER_>And it really enhances the mechanics and makes for a significantly better Call of Duty experience compared to other games in the series.
<v SPEAKER_>And you can do that just as well as Modern Warfare does by having significantly better than your standard Call of Duty game gunplay as Modern Warfare does.
Phil: The one thing that was interesting to me that was jarring at first was that they take skills away on a level by level basis.
Phil: So it kind of forces you to think a little bit and I certainly appreciated it by the time I was done with the game.
Phil: But it was kind of like, well hang on, this is kind of arbitrary, but what that enabled them to do was to be more creative with their level design rather than restrictive.
<v SPEAKER_>I think it's not that it's not arbitrary, it's just you don't get to choose when to use it so that they can put it into their very strict level design.
Phil: Yeah, which worked out great because if you had everything available to you all the time, it would have made all those levels impossible.
Phil: I actually really appreciated that component of it.
Phil: How did you enjoy the Kevin spaciness of the game?
<v SPEAKER_>Well, we have to bring that up, and again, the Call of Duty series is just a fascinating experience because it's simultaneously aiming to be the most transparently propagandistic interpretation of whatever they think is the most marketable ideas when it comes to the American and to a lesser degree the world's ideas on current geopolitics.
<v SPEAKER_>And the military.
<v SPEAKER_>And yet all of them have just completely inexplicable and bizarre elements to them.
<v SPEAKER_>For instance, when was the last time in the last years you saw anything in America that depicts the UN and the Hague in at all a sympathetic light, or that there could potentially be something even worse than the UN and the Hague in terms of world order?
<v SPEAKER_>Because this is literally the only mainstream American work of popular culture that I can think of that has done this.
Phil: I can't think of a single instance, either fiction or nonfiction.
<v SPEAKER_>And in this, you have the UN and the Hague, yes, to begin with morally ambiguous libertarian Kevin Spacey and the experience of you as a soldier.
<v SPEAKER_>Depicts the UN of course and the Hague as being impotent, but he does kind of come across as a dick when he's at the UN giving his mask off villain speech.
<v SPEAKER_>And it turns out that a libertarian world order rather than a UN and Hague world order would indeed be worse than the UN and the Hague.
<v SPEAKER_>When you have the UN and the Hague in an American thing and they are taken over, sure they can be taken over by villains and potentially they can be worse, but it's always very clear that there's a potentially better world order.
<v SPEAKER_>For instance, Captain America, the world order that might crush the UN and destroys it is bad, but obviously the fucking Captain America and Iron Man shit, which is going to take over after the UN, is a much better fucking world order than the UN in the film.
<v SPEAKER_>This is literally the only American mainstream work of popular fiction featuring the crushing of the world order, that is the UN and the Hague, being replaced by something worse.
<v SPEAKER_>Fucking mind-blowing.
<v SPEAKER_>And it's also a more interesting depiction of libertarianism, because the libertarian Kevin Spacey is, as libertarians are, at least some of the time, and in theory they should be all of the time, he is an anti-imperialist, he is anti-war, and he's getting rid of the UN and taking over from them and from nation state world politics for the sake of world peace, as a good anti-imperial and anti-war libertarian would be.
<v SPEAKER_>And that in and of itself is also kind of an interesting pop culture story where someone is doing a bad thing for a good reason.
Phil: Yes, that's an interesting point that you rose there, and honestly in a lot of video games, when the bad guy is speaking, as was the case in this one, I was like, meh, alright, he makes a good argument.
Phil: I'll go along with that.
Phil: I mean, you know, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
<v SPEAKER_>His one mistake was breaking American eggs.
Phil: That's right.
Phil: No, my watch.
Phil: Okay, so is that it for...
<v SPEAKER_>So I think this should take the place of Bioshock as being the best examination of libertarianism in a game.
Phil: I thought so, and I thought so when I was watching it.
Phil: I think I commented to you at the time.
<v SPEAKER_>So that's pretty much the end of our COD Odyssey.
<v SPEAKER_>So it is absolutely true that the series has been moving in the direction of Modern Warfare, but Modern Warfare is still a pretty shocking experience in that the level design in and of itself and the gunplay is just in a completely different world to the rest of the series, even with the improvements that are apparent in Advanced Warfare.
<v SPEAKER_>But the elements that it takes from other games, it implements in as serious a manner as those games implement them, and to a tremendously competent degree and without much compromise on those mechanics.
<v SPEAKER_>And rather than limiting the mechanics to the level design, it designs the levels around the mechanics.
<v SPEAKER_>And the gimmicks it includes, like random drone flying sections or the sniper rifle section, they're not at all intrusive, like the cinematic walking and the quick time events and all of that malarkey that is going on even in Advanced Warfare as well.
<v SPEAKER_>So it is still nevertheless a completely astounding experience.
<v SPEAKER_>And Modern Warfare did not make the game under top of the decade, but it would certainly make my top games of the decade.
<v SPEAKER_>And I hope it is as influential as Call of Duty was on the coming decade of games.
Phil: Yeah, I'm not quite sure there will be a coming decade of Call of Duty, but it could be wrong.
<v SPEAKER_>I mean gaming in general, Call of Duty was tremendously influential on all AAA titles, essentially.
Phil: And I think the original Call of Duty Modern Warfare didn't fall in this decade, which is why it wasn't available for consideration.
<v SPEAKER_>But it was influential on the games of this decade.
Phil: It certainly was.
Phil: And again, we'll be posting that top story soon.
Phil: Look, in the interest of brevity, I think there's going to be plenty of podcasting this week.
Phil: A Giant Bomb is going to, you know, publish about hours of their Game of the Year deliberation.
Phil: And for the first year, I'm like, I am not sure I need to listen to all of that, you know?
Phil: I'm really not sure I need to listen.
Phil: Actually, I know I don't have to listen to all of that.
<v SPEAKER_>Well, I've never listened to a game, a Giant Bomb Game of the Year podcast and I never will.
Phil: No, yeah, and you'll be better off for it.
<v SPEAKER_>So there's no change for me.
<v SPEAKER_>I don't suddenly feel like I need to listen to it.
Phil: No.
Phil: But just to let you know what I've been playing, I've continued to play the PlayStation games.
<v SPEAKER_>We can't move on.
<v SPEAKER_>We can't move on quite yet.
Phil: Oh, sorry.
<v SPEAKER_>Because we mentioned libertarianism.
<v SPEAKER_>And free speech and libertarianism are two interests of mine.
<v SPEAKER_>And I find modern libertarians absolutely hilarious.
<v SPEAKER_>They are some of the most vocal defenders of free speech, and they're very much anti-hate speech laws.
<v SPEAKER_>But more importantly than their ideas on free speech, they are very much arch conservatives and arch corporatists.
<v SPEAKER_>So I found it very amusing that as America introduces or plans to introduce an executive order to extend their powers to combat BDS and other forms of anti-Israeli protesting, it is monumentally amusing to find libertarians all over the internet and libertarian publications vociferously defending this on the basis of a necessary step to combat anti-Semitic hate speech.
<v SPEAKER_>But I think you had something else to say.
Phil: That being the case, I did want to let you know the other things I've been playing.
Phil: I've been playing the PlayStation game Spy Hunter, Nowhere to Run, starring Dwayne The Rock Johnson.
Phil: And I've also been playing Star Wars, Jedi, The Fallen Order.
Phil: So I will have further impressions of those games at a future podcast.
<v SPEAKER_>And by further impressions you mean impressions?
Phil: I mean final impressions, at least of The Rock Game, because that's the one I've been playing actively.
Phil: I'm about two-thirds of the way through.
Phil: And absolutely loving it.
Phil: It's an incredible game.
<v SPEAKER_>I've watched A Minute Octial on YouTube and it looks amazing.
Phil: Yeah, it is truly amazing and worth playing.
Phil: So with that, I think...
<v SPEAKER_>I, we should also add what I've been playing.
<v SPEAKER_>I've been playing Memories Retold and Forza Horizon
Phil: Okay, you mentioned in the last show.
<v SPEAKER_>I did indeed, but I don't think I had any impressions for it.
Phil: And what do you think?
<v SPEAKER_>Well, I don't have any impressions for it in this show either.
<v SPEAKER_>And I may not in the future.
<v SPEAKER_>It depends on if I write something about it.
<v SPEAKER_>But I should add, you should probably play it at some point as you were a big fan of...
Phil: Valiant.
<v SPEAKER_>Valiant Heroes, I believe it was called.
Phil: Yeah, Valiant Hearts.
<v SPEAKER_>Yeah, Valiant Hearts, sorry.
<v SPEAKER_>Yeah, and this is essentially an aesthetically and narratively but inferior in terms of gameplay version of Valiant Hearts.
Phil: Okay, well I'm all for Imperium.
<v SPEAKER_>By the same director and this time in collaboration with Aardman Animation.
Phil: The people who do Shaun and the Sheep, Wallace and Gromit and the like.
<v SPEAKER_>Indeed.
<v SPEAKER_>Masters of claymation.
<v SPEAKER_>And we may not be having impressions of any of these games in the next episode because the next episode may be devoted to Devil May Cry and potentially Lord of the Rings.
Phil: Are we going to have any guest hosts for…
<v SPEAKER_>We will.
<v SPEAKER_>We will definitely have Arnie on that show and hopefully Gargan Deep Singh as well of the Endless Backlog podcast.
Phil: Now, the Lord of the Rings, what are you talking about, a video game?
<v SPEAKER_>I believe it is a book.
Phil: I'm sorry, I was thinking of Shadow of Mordor.
Phil: So, yeah, definitely count me out of that one.
Phil: But, alright, well with that, we'll close out episode of The Game Under Podcast.
Phil: I've been your host, Phil Fogg, joined by Tom Towers.
Phil: And please do visit us at gameunder.net where we will very soon have our Top Games of the Decade posted along with plenty of other content.
Phil: Thanks, Tom.
<v SPEAKER_>You're welcome, Phil.
Tom: Escape, evade, make a break to raised ground!
Tom: We need to recoup, regroup our resources, source some new paths, plot some new courses.
Tom: No, it's not hopeless!
Tom: Do you need a slap?
Tom: Stop blubbering, keep quiet!
Tom: Take off your damned hat!
Tom: Robotic poachers, tough robots in tweed, not supposed to show emotion but obviously pleased.
Tom: It seems here that humans are usually hunted with mechanical hounds, if I can just find my compass, we might find something to help get us home.
Tom: Just stay low and never leave here alone, this world smells of chrome polish, hatred and brass.
Tom: No, if I'm honest, I hate it, let's grasp the moment.
Tom: There's no need to be like that.
Tom: It's not my fault that we're stuck here.
Tom: Well, no, I suppose it is technically my fault, but still.
Tom: It's moody.
Tom: I'm sorry, we've got a...
Tom: I've got a stitch.
Tom: We're gonna have to stop.