Looking Back at War Front: Turning Point

What if World War II happened ... this way?

There is a lot to be said about War Front: Turning Point, as I have discovered it after marching through its twenty-two missions. It is a real-time strategy game from 2007, made by the Hungarian studio Digital Reality. Its premise is a knockoff of Command and Conquer: Red Alert and its gameplay is ultimately a knockoff of Command and Conquer: Generals; I kept thinking about the latter during those missions as Generals was my first RTS and as such it has a place in my heart, for all its silliness.

I fear that that beginning paragraph sounds rather harsh. I enjoyed the game, mostly because I enjoy the primal experience of building an army of tanks and artillery and using it to just wreck shit, which this game provides in spades. I will say I really enjoyed the Eurogamer review of the game, from the year of the latter’s release, and it makes a lot of good points.

As I said, this game draws a lot from Generals, gameplay wise; there’s a version of the battle plans available at the American strategy center from the former game in all three factions of the latter. The resource gathering feels like the halfway point between Red Alert 3 and StarCraft. Base defenses feel closer to CNC than StarCraft, being formidable on their own and not so easily mobbed with basic units. The building is a clone of Generals, down to one faction having the builder be an infantry unit rather than a vehicle. That same faction has a black market, like the GLA, but it is involved with stealing units rather than generating cash (buildings can be built to do such a thing). You have CNC-style oil derricks.

What makes the game frustrating, at first, is the realization that most units are glass cannons, especially tanks. This makes any given mission prone to devolving into a war of attrition, based around economy and sheer patience, veering on resilience, on the part of the player. At least, it did for me until I remembered that upgrades exist, which then breaks the stalemate and turns the gameplay into the sort of tank mob I am fond of (I know it is monotonous, sometimes, but it scratches my animal urge to just wreck shit, when I’m in the right mood). Large formations of tier-two tanks and tier-one artillery, with some anti-air thrown in, will win you campaigns. That tendency towards glass cannons also makes artillery far more important than in comparable games in my experience.

All the glass cannon issues are tripled when concerning aircraft. When playing CNC games, I would often make flying units (comanches, helices, hammerheads, venoms, chopper-VXs, twinblades, harbingers, battle angels) and rip apart enemy bases, but was always careful enough to veer away from anti-air guns whenever possible. StarCraft games on the other hand never really had this issue as the base defenses were comparatively weaker; Terran battleships or Protoss carriers never had the issue. This game takes the CNC balancing and tilts it comically in favor of the anti-air guns; this renders plane-based support powers (another thing lifted from Generals) absolutely useless most of the time as one or two emplacements can cut them into paper. Like, I wanted to drop an atomic bomb, but it was cut down so quickly! Imagine if the Japanese had these guns in 1945! If I had to fix this, I would double if not triple the speed of the aircraft, as they are very slow: the EA CNC games did this well and added real uncertainty to air strikes, which this game should have had.

The tier-two tanks and tier-one artillery I mentioned previously tends to be weapons that historically existed in World War II, and it is telling that most missions can be won with only historical units and not the crazy science fictional units available later on. The most useful of these is an Allied tank that projects a large shield for aforementioned tank mobs. The Germans get a sonic tank and a small mecha of sorts (called an exo-skeleton, reminiscent of the human walkers in the Avatar movies, although this game predates them - and is prominently displayed on the cover art), as well as jetpack troopers (who likewise get mauled by anti-air to a comical degree). The Soviets have even bigger tanks than historically, a giant artillery gun that calls to mind the Schwerer Gustav more than anything else, and lots of cold-based weaponry (a bit stereotypical, but can be really annoying in the field).

In all these fancy doohickeys being easily beaten by historical weaponry, the game ends up reproducing a real dynamic of the actual Second World War in a way that cannot have been deliberate. Rather, the wonky balancing serves historical accuracy; what are ice tanks and exoskeletons and sonic tanks more than wunderwaffen, the overengineered monstrosities made by the Germans in our world in a desperate attempt to win the war when it was obviously lost to anyone actually paying attention. Most didn’t work; the war was won by the dependable Sherman in the West and by the equally dependable T-34 in the East. The Americans, in particular, were a massive economic engine that kept out-producing the Germans. Likewise, the zeppelins you can make as the Germans are sitting ducks for anti-air, which is why zeppelins were phased out as weapons of war in reality. In the game, focusing on the economy to mass produce Shermans (as an Allied player) will win you the battle. It’s not to the level of The Campaign for North Africa by any means, and it wasn’t even intentional, but it was a fun thing to notice.

The more interesting and clever things come in terms of the story, subverting a lot of expected plot beats of World War II alternate history, as well as RTS game stories. When looking at the campaigns, there are only two available: the Allies and the Germans. Starting the game, I thought that the Allied campaign would include both the Western Allies and the Soviets, but I turned out to be wrong; the Soviets are the ultimate villains. The two campaigns are ultimately two sides of a coalition defending Europe from a Soviet invasion after a peace agreement, which itself came after German rebels overthrew the Nazis.

In the menu you will see the Allied campaign first, and then the German campaign. This appears to encourage the player to go the Allied route, and then the German route, as I did. The Allied route is the more generic of the two, obligatorily fighting Nazis, and then fighting Soviets with German allies. The German campaign, on the other hand, only has you a loyal servant of the Nazi regime for at most two missions, when your commanding officer reveals to you he is trying to overthrow the Chancellor and ropes you in. In an eleven mission campaign, the German player only fights the Western Allies twice. Three of the remaining missions are fighting other Germans (one with Allied support), and the rest are fighting the Soviets. In other words, you are fighting a civil war as much as a world war, to the point of backing a military coup, something I’ve only seen in Tiberian Twilight with the New Adana insurrection. In my opinion more games should have military coups. There is storytelling potential there.

If you play the Allied campaign first, and then the German campaign second, you see the former colored by the latter in interesting ways. There are three missions that are played from different perspectives in each campaign, the other army being represented by an AI that is not particularly smart (there is a mission set in Poland where you, the Germans, have to defend an Allied base from the Soviets, and you practically have to babysit them). Unlike Red Alert 3 a year later, which did a multiplayer version of this, each mission told from different perspectives is subtly different in terms of the respective objectives, particularly the penultimate level, which feels like a proper massive battle with different flanks with different objectives. Unfortunately, the final battle, a gruelling siege of Moscow, plays almost identically for each army.

I find the lack of a Soviet campaign both narratively disappointing and somewhat problematic. The Soviets are the most ‘Eastern’ of the nations at play, as Russia and its empire have so often been considered, not entirely unreasonably, as more Asian than points west. This is often racialized unpleasantly; the Nazis considered Slavs to be subhuman and subsequently treated Eastern Europe far more brutally than Western Europe; in the latter, razing a village was a unique atrocity (see Oradour-sur-Glane or Lidice), while in the former it was de rigueur. Perhaps more chillingly, one recalls that Hitler originally wanted to ally with the British and the Americans to destroy the Soviets; in a game and a world where Hitler is killed early on, he ironically gets his wish.

I have complicated thoughts on that last bit. I think it is very telling that the studio that created this game is Hungarian, a country whose government (led by an Admiral without a Navy) allied with the Nazis, engaged in its own territorial irredentism, helped the Germans invade the Soviet Union, and then was invaded in turn by the Soviets who turned it into a puppet state that lasted until 1991. I cannot help but think that 1956, year the Soviet Army violently crushed a reform movement in that country (and grippingly retold in James Michener’s book The Bridge at Andau), hangs heavily over this game’s story. Having been released in 2007, the developers would likely have been born under Communist rule, known people who lived through 1956, and may well have seen the Soviets as the century’s great enemy more so than the Nazis (a not uncommon sentiment among certain segments of Eastern Europe; see the memorials to Nazi collaborators in Canada, put up by Eastern Europeans who hated the Soviets, or see also the neofascist groups in these countries that often feel similar, such as the Ukrainian Azov Battalion).

On the one hand, there’s a part of me that feels like this is whitewashing the Nazis a bit. On the other hand, I don’t want to minimize the very real suffering that the Soviets unleashed in much of Eastern Europe. But more concretely I think the story told, minus the fantastic weapons, is scarily plausible inasmuch I can imagine a world where this particular alignment of forces happened; indeed, after World War II the British had drawn up plans to invade the Soviet Union as a contingency. In this regard, I think the story succeeds the most, by doing what all great alternate history does: making it very obvious to you that the world we live in exists due to a great multiplicity of contingencies, any one of which going differently leading to a totally different result. But on a more visceral level, you are seeing recognizably Nazi tanks and troops and planes participate in what is cast as a somewhat heroic effort - but that dissonance is what makes that sense of contingency really work. It is a truly different world, not beholden to our aesthetic sensibilities, and where a stahlhelm may not conjure images of genocide.

As expected for games of this period set in World War II, the Holocaust and the other Nazi atrocities are not really dwelt upon (one of the only games I can think of in this ecosystem that does is Company of Heroes 2, which puts the player in charge of the liberation of Majdanek). These may be butterflied away by the assassination of Hitler, but the absence does give the plot an eerie quality (using ‘eerie’ as Mark Fisher did, as the absence of something that you feel should be there).

The game’s cutscenes are really, really good. Each campaign focuses on a few commandos and officers, so there is a good degree of character development. They bicker and complain and wish for things they get to do on leave or after the war, and you can get some affection for them. These cutscenes are obviously done in the game’s engine, but they are done with a certain cinematic verve that really escalates it (the crowning glory being the ending cutscene for a certain mission in France). Some of the personal drama, though, is a bit hackneyed, with each side getting a female commando who inevitably falls for a respective male commando. A detail, but a jarring one; the male commandos keep talking about their desire for ‘babes,’ a word that I don’t think had its modern slang meaning back then, and I can’t remember it being used in any period media, or even works from the sixties. I admit to being pulled out of the story by that a bit.

War Front: Turning Point is ultimately a curiosity, never really becoming a classic of its genres. But it is an enjoyable experience that does some interesting things narratively and gives your monkey brain plenty of opportunities to just break things in the way only RTS games can. There was potential, though, for something deeper, something more epic, and part of me is sad we won’t really get that. But, all in all, I enjoyed the experience.

--

POSTED BY: Alex Wallace, alternate history buff who reads more than is healthy.

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Multiplayer

[Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Sledgehammer Games, Activision, 2014]

Wow, that's a long name! 

No wonder people turn to acronyms when talking about most games these days. The names are getting ridiculously long. CoD:AW, tES:S, WoW:WtoLK, FH2, etc. We've even gotten so lazy, or game type titles have gotten so long, that we use acronyms to describe game types like FPS, MMORPG, TPS, and whatever else you can think of. None of this really has much to do with the game itself, it's just an observation I made when I realized it took five seconds every time I typed or spoke the name of this game. It's the same way with movies. The Avengers: Age of Ultron? Seriously? Is that necessary? Wouldn't Avengers 2 suffice? I guess I'm showing my age here by complaining about acronyms, aren't I? I sound like my Grandpa. 

What are you, like forty?

I guess I'm also a hypocrite because I love GRRM's SoIaF:aSoS. Fortunately for me, gaming keeps me young. Without it I'm afraid I'd just be sitting at home, listening to old grunge and indie rock albums from the 90s, complaining about how much better things used to be. Instead, I've managed to retain my sense of childlike wonder as each new generation of console steps up the graphics game and polishes titles to a shiny, impressive state of jaw-dropping wonder. While I've turned into something of a music snob, video games continue to amaze me, and Advanced Warfare is no exception.

Are you ever going to talk about the actual game? 

Yes, eventually. I started writing this week before I had tried out all the multiplayer game types, so that's the place from which those loosely-related opening paragraphs came. I guess I should get to the actual title at some point, though, shouldn't I? Let's start out with the graphics. While Titanfall, Forza Horizon 2, and Destiny have impressive graphics, this is the first game I've played on a next-gen console that really felt like it was starting to maximize the abilities of the console. Take a look at a side-by-side comparison of CoD: Ghosts vs. Advanced Warfare. Even though they're both from an Xbox One, the improvements are starkly evident. 

While the first is an impressive facial re-creation, the second could easily be mistaken for a scene from House of Cards. That's probably due to the programmers using the same facial re-creation technology that James Cameron is using in the second Avatar film. In fact, when I first started the campaign I literally thought that they were using video for the cutscene instead of computer-generated imagery. The facial creases, shadowing, hair, and eyes are the closest thing to actual high definition video that I have ever seen in a game. That fact made the multiplayer take a while to get used to when I first started. Game mechanics aside, and they are deep, the visuals made it so I often found myself so engrossed in the environment that my character ended up suffering the consequences by paying for it with his or her life because I was busy just staring in amazement at the detail in the surrounding area. 

Graphic distractions

The gameplay is some of the most fast-paced I've ever encountered. Some games cause a frantic panic response by simply overwhelming you with an unbeatable number of enemies. While Advanced Warfare has Exo Survival, a style of game that is reminiscent of Gears of War's Horde mode where wave after wave of increasingly large and difficult enemies assault your four-man team, it doesn't rely on such tactics to ratchet up your stress level in the normal multiplayer modes. Instead, it uses a brand-new type of maneuvering to take the game's speed up a notch (or three) over previous iterations of Call of Duty and other similar titles. It takes quite a bit of getting used to, and although I'm not some sort of special forces killing machine, I have played every Call of Duty title since 2, Halos 2-Reach, Titanfall, and (I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit) well over 100 hours of Crucible in Destiny, so I know my way around a multiplayer controller scheme. It's rare that I have to go into an options menu and check out the button scheme in order to figure out how to manipulate a game's protagonist. I can do that on my own 99% of the time. However, I've found myself returning to the Options menu repeatedly because there are so many facets to the character controls that keeping them straight requires more instant recall than any other game I've come across. 

Much of this difficulty is due to the addition of two gameplay mechanics: Exo Abilities and Boost/Dodge jumps. These abilities are both thanks to your Exoskelaton, a sort of super-soldier suit that allows not only special powers like cloaking and extremely fast movement, but also mid-air directional changes that would make Superman jealous. Boost jumps have been oft-maligned as a simple copy of the mechanic in the wildly successful Titanfall title of earlier this year. Although they're probably a bit too similar for me to completely chalk it up to coincidence and ignore the likelihood that Sledgehammer Games didn't, at the very least, have the nearly 1 billion units that the previous blockbuster title's release had cleared in under a month at the forefront of their consciousness when making some of their gameplay mechanic decisions. However, there are some distinct differences between the two. 

First and foremost, Titanfall's boost is about three times more powerful. The boost in Advanced Warfare only adds about six feet to your original jump, whereas the one in Titanfall takes you nearly thirty feet into the air. The other main difference is that there's a secondary boost (called a "dodge") in Call of Duty. It won't add to your altitude, but you can change direction in mid-air. It offers a shorter trajectory correction that pushes you forward, backward, right, or left. This little option has saved my bacon a bunch of times already, not to mention that the two boosts have sped up the overall gameplay in CoD multiplayer considerably. Call of Duty's multiplayers were already a bit above my head in terms of the number of people playing who seem to not only have no need of sleep, but no need of a job, family, or any of the other normal life obligations that should keep any average person from playing the game 24/7. I may not be the best gamer in the world, but my 44,095-point Xbox Live gamer score belies the fact that I'm, at the bare minimum, a competent player. And yet these guys just annihilate me like I'm a blind, deaf, and dumb 2-year-old with no thumbs. It's embarrassing, to be entirely honest. 

The Exo Abilities are basically just bonus effects that slightly aid your character in several different ways. The shield has been pretty useless for me so far. You have to have it aimed directly at an opponent for it to stop their fire, and I have enough trouble just pointing my laser-sighter machine gun at people. I can't be bothered to move a riot shield around 120 degrees to try in vain to save my worthless life. By the time I get it anywhere near the path of the bullets, I'm already dead. Overclock allows you to run at a heightened rate of speed. It's somewhat useful except for the fact that a simple jump and secondary boost does a better job of moving you along and it is more effective at moving you out of the firing line in the process. Exo Stim is supposed to give your character extra health points, but if it does they aren't enough to keep me from inevitable massacre. I'd need at least two or three of these at a time to make a noticeable difference in my kill/death ratio. The cloak is actually fairly useful at distance, but if an enemy is anywhere near you, you just look like translucent rainbow jelly. Exo Mute silences your movements, thereby making you harder to spot on enemy radar. I have yet to open up the Hover, Ping, or Trophy System Exo Abilities, but it's pretty obvious that Hover allows you to remain in the air for a longer period. Ping shows enemy Exo movement like Stim and Hover. The Trophy System is a passive aid that destroys up to two enemy projectiles when they come in close proximity to your character. 

I can't emphasize enough the speed of this game. I've probably been dying every 5-10 seconds on average. That's a bit much, even for an older gentleman like myself. The leaders who come in first place are still posting 10-15 deaths per five-minute match. Everything happens so fast compared to even the quickest of online multiplayers. On the one hand, it's a bit aggravating. On the other, it keeps you on your toes and you certainly don't get bored easily. The addition of the Boost/Dodge abilities can keep you alive when you would have easily been dogmeat in previous iterations of CoD, when used correctly. The Exo Abilities, while not the overpowering advantage that a Titan gives you over a Pilot, add just enough of an edge to help you eek out an extra kill here and there. They did a fantastic job of adding a plethora of new mechanics without completely changing up the basic way the game is played. While Titanfall and Destiny felt like totally new ways to go about the online multiplayer experience, there's something familiar about Advanced Warfare. It's like they just gave Modern Warfare 3 a healthy dose of steroids and some technological doo-dads and sent it on its way. It is certainly quicker and more stressful than any of the previous Modern Warfare games, but it isn't a complete deviation from the formula that has proven so successful over the years. I guess what I'm trying to say is they did just enough tinkering to make it feel fresh without going overboard and turning it into a completely different game. I, for one, am pleased with the outcome. 

Multiplayer Modes

First, let me get my complaints out of the way so we can get to the good stuff. I only have one strong one, and that is the elimination of Squad Modes. I was so glad when Ghosts came up with this co-operative multiplayer mode that allowed you to take on artificial intelligence with your fellow gamers rather than always facing down enemies that seemed to have been trained by R. Lee Ermey himself. I enjoyed being more evenly matched against my foes rather than feeling like I did when I was 12 and that dude who always played as Guile in Street Fighter 2 showed up at the arcade because I knew I wouldn't be winning any more matches after that. Without Squad Mode, it seems like there's always a "Ranger98" or "Seal85" who is obviously current or recently retired special forces member there to take me out from some ridiculously long distance with a shot I couldn't make by accident if I had 100 tries at it. 

Okay, enough complaining. The ability to customize your characters for your specific style of play is unprecedented. You have 13 points to spend on various perks any way you see fit. You can choose to go the Rennaissance Man route like I did and try to get a little of everything, or you can focus solely on your weapons or Exo powers and really max them out. This really is a multiplayer gamer's dream year's cap of perfection so I'll stop ruining it by acting like a baby because I suck at the stuff. Here are the offerings in Advanced Warfare. 

Same old, same old

Many a CoD veteran will be glad to see that lots of their old favorites have returned to the multiplayer mode list. Standards like Team Deathmatch, Domination, Kill Confirmed, Search and Rescue, and Capture the Flag are back and better than ever. For the uninitiated, Domination requires you to capture and hold one of three points around the map for as long as you can. The team that holds the most points the longest wins. Kill confirmed requires you to pick up a pair of dog tags that appears where a recently dispatched enemy met his or her untimely end. Grab the tags and you will get the full 100 points of XP gained from a normal kill in other games. Allow a member from the other team to beat you to the tags and you only get half the points a kill would normally bring. Search and Rescue is similar except for the not-so-minor detail that if you happen to be the unlucky chump that gets dispatched, you'd better pray one of your teammates gets to your tags first or you'll be watching the rest of the round from the sidelines. I didn't especially care for this game mode because, as I'm sure you've guessed, I spent a LOT of time in "Spectator Mode," watching other gamers run around the map while my sad ghost was powerless to do a thing. Capture the Flag and Team Deathmatch are pretty self-explanatory. If you don't know what they are by now, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you except hope your mom lets you out of the basement sometime this decade. 

New and unique

Although Advanced Warfare contained a majority of game modes that have been tried and true in everything from Halo 2 to the first Modern Warfare, it was some new twists on old modes and other never-before-seen game types that make this Call of Duty look and feel like something you haven't seen a dozen times before. 

Hardpoint

Although Hardpoint isn't a new game mode, the way it's handled is somewhat of a change from the traditional multiplayer game. As in Domination, your team is required to capture and hold a specific spot or "hardpoint" on the map. However, instead of three there is only a single spot and it is constantly moving. In my short experience with the game, I'd say the hardpoint makes at least five moves throughout the 5-7 minute long game. You can have your entire team strategically placed around a solidly held hardpoint, only to have it disappear and return somewhere completely across the map. This manages to keep complete dominance from occurring as can often happen with 2 of the 3 zones of control in Domination. This seemingly small and obvious shift in the pattern of play makes all the difference in this being just another retread and it being a new and exciting way to approach the game's multiplayer. 

Uplink

This is where the game really shines, in this writer's humble opinion. Among the new types of multiplayer mode is a highly enjoyable game titled Uplink. It's essentially Capture the Flag with some futuristic and sport-like twists in the game mechanic. One of your team members has to grab a module and carry it across the map to a satellite uplink module. It's kind of like a cross between rugby and football with lots of bullets thrown in for good measure. This was clearly the biggest change in the multiplayer game modes and felt at times like more of a sports game than an FPS competition. Of course, the other team is constantly trying to take out your ball carrier with heavy machine guns and energy weapons, but other than that it had all the makings of some sort of future-ball sport match.  

Momentum

I'll be honest. I didn't enjoy this game mode as much as many of the others. It is also similar to Capture the Flag, but in it there are multiple flags and your team gains momentum (and XP) the more flags you carry to their final destination. The problem that I had with it was that I seemed to die with more frequency in this mode than any other, for some reason. I'm guessing it was the close proximity of both teams to the flag points that made that happen, but that's a regular component in most of the games where something needs to be captured and held or delivered. It also could have been that this was the final game mode I attempted and it was after midnight, so all of the kids had gone to bed and the only players that were left online were the hardcores who spend 40-50 hours per week at one online multiplayer title or another. Whatever the reason, I had trouble lasting more than five seconds with any given life and the constancy of my demise was rather frustrating. That said, the idea behind Momentum is a good one and I will definitely be giving it another chance during the light of day when the overall player skill level dips a bit more with a higher population of average FPS gamers like myself online. 

Maps

So far, Advanced Warfare is limited to four maps in its multiplayer modes, but what maps! They're large, contain a plethora of unique elements like sniping spots and close quarters combat areas, and they had sometimes as many as four or five levels on which battle takes place. With the addition of the Exoskelaton suits and their aid in three-dimensional movement, this felt every bit as widely traversable an environment as Titanfall and its parkour-like wall-running warriors. While none of the maps were quite as big as the ones in that other jet-pack toting multiplayer hit, they never felt small or confined due to the wide array of vertically varied areas that you were able to traverse. As I learn the maps more closely, as is inevitable in all multiplayers, they could begin to feel a bit more confining and limited, but in my first few days with the game I never felt like I'd run out of places to go. As a matter of fact, I only ran into the "end" of a map on a few occasions, and even then there were always at least two or three choices of where to head next so I never felt cornered in by limitations in the environment. 

 A brief summation for the gamer nation

I'll admit, I was skeptical about this game when I picked it up. I was actually planning to review Shadow of Mordor this week but it turned out to be too long to finish (as many RPGs do), so I made the decision on-the-fly to cover the multiplayer aspects of the latest in this, the most popular war simulating FPS in history. Looking back on that decision, I have no regrets. I had enough time to give each game mode its due without selling any of them short on time and I enjoyed the heck out of the experience, to boot! This isn't just the next Call of Duty game. It's a radical shift in how the franchise looks at its most popular of offerings, the multiplayer modes, and Sledgehammer's first foray into the CoD universe has most definitely thrown down the gauntlet to Treyarch and Infiniti Ward, the other two companies in Activision's new three-year development cycle for the series. I look forward to many more hours enjoying this title's unique game modes, including its fascinating take on the not-so-traditional war multiplayer.

The Math

Objective Score: 9/10

Bonuses: +1 for taking some real chances in the way they approached what has become a somewhat formulaic and predictable gaming format with only cosmetic changes being made to what was essentially the same game. Now let's hope they've taken the same approach to the campaign!

Penalties: -1 for all the dying. I mean, come on, every 5-10 seconds? I know I'm not a multiplayer super-hero who spent time in the special forces and uses actual military tactics in the game, but that's still a pretty excessive rate of frequency of death, and I'm not exactly a noob at this sort of thing, either. 

Nerd Coefficient: 9/10. Very high quality. A standout in its category. 

See our scoring system here.  

Valiant Hearts - The Great War

Valiant Hearts - The Great War [Ubisoft Montpellier, Ubisoft, 2014]

Valiant Hearts - The Great Game

This game was a truly unique experience. At what is usually a down time for games as developers and distributors gear up for Christmas, Ubisoft dropped this wonderful gaming experience in our laps. Available on Xbox Live, the Xbox One, and the Playstation Network, it is downloadable only at a well-worth-it cost of $14.99. On its face, this is an old-school platformer with puzzle elements. However, it turned out to be much more than that when played. Set during World War I, it is a heartwarming story about four characters from different backgrounds whose paths are wholly intertwined. 

The Actors

Karl

Karl is a German living in France. He is married to Emily and they have just had a son, Victor, when the war breaks out after the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. As Germany and France declare war against one another, many German citizens are deported from France, including Karl. Like so many others, he is drafted into the German army against his will. Throughout the game, his greatest wish is to return home to his wife and young child. 

Emile

Emile is Karl's father-in-law. More importantly, he's a Frenchman. Even though he is fairly old, he is also drafted into the army, but on the French side. During the war, he sharers Karl's worries about Emily and Victor. Both he and Karl are able to share their experiences with their daughter/wife through letters. It was one of the only ways to communicate during the Great War. 

Freddie

Freddie is an American soldier that has enlisted in the French army. He is out to kill the infamous German military commander, Baron Von Dorf. Von Dorf led a bombing campaign that killed Freddie's wife and he is out for revenge, no matter the cost. He befriends Emile in the process as they both share the same target, since Karl has become Baron Von Dorf's zeppelin pilot. They are both joined by a dog who is used to solve many of the game's puzzles. 

Anna

From Belgium, Anna joins the war effort as a nurse in the Red Cross. Her starry-eyed optimism is soon dashed as the horrors of war take their toll on her dreams of healing and helpfulness. Even though the massive death toll is overwhelming, Anna does her best to help all the soldiers she can, one injury at a time. In her travels, she saves Karl, Emile, and Freddie at various points throughout the game. 

Historical Facts

Not only does the game have a heartwarming story, it is full of facts about World War I. For example:

The Debacle of 1914

In the early fighting the German army made swift progress. After invading Belgium, they marched on Paris in late August. French troops retreated en masse and units were outflanked and repelled, taken prisoner, or killed. The months of August to September 1914 marked the bloodiest period of the war with over 180,000 French casualties alone. The French authorities described the debacle as an organized retreat; the war to win over public opinion had begun. 

These facts were paired with real pictures from the period, giving them particular depth of meaning. The "War to End All Wars" was one of, if not the most, pointless and bloody protracted stalemates in modern times. Trench warfare paired with technology to kill more humans for less ground than at any other time in recorded human history. 

Music

The soundtrack is by a group of composers that were unknown to me. Most of it is classical with the majority being played on a piano, although a few contained full orchestration. All of it was amazing. I've never played a game and immediately gone to iTunes to buy they soundtrack before, but I'm listening to it as I type this even now. I've never played a game before in which the music was so good as to almost be another character. Even if you don't buy the game, take a listen to the soundtrack. 

While this game isn't as long or as graphically stunning as many of the RPGs available today, it is just as touching. Experientially, it was like playing a graphic novel with the depth of feeling of Maus. I cannot recommend this game enough. You won't be disappointed. As many of our regular readers will know, I like a story-driven game more than one with mind-blowing graphics, which is probably the reason this game hit me so hard. Not only is it fun to play without being overly difficult, as some platformers can be, the plot is second-to-none. If you give this game a chance, I suspect you will be as taken in by it as I was, falling for the character development and enjoying a quality history lesson at the same time. If you're just sitting around playing another round of Titanfall, give yourself a break and try Valiant Hearts. It may not be in the same league graphically, but what it lacks in pixels per square inch, it more than makes up for in emotion.

Baseline Assessment: 9/10

Penalties: -1 for being slightly repetitive in the puzzles. It never became truly annoying, but some of the puzzles were a bit overused, particularly Anna's.

Bonuses: +1 for the best story line I've played on the Xbox One, bar none.

Nerd Coefficient: 9/10. Very high quality/Standout in its category.

POSTED BY: Brad Epperley--Video game addict who recognizes that the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem, Nerds of a Feather contributor since 2012.

Desert Fox by Shenandoah Games for iOS

New Wrinkles to a Winning Formula

I missed out on the 1970s/1980s heyday of board wargaming, but I was big into the 1990s video game translations--Panzer General II being my personal favorite. Sadly, these and other turn-based strategy games faded with the rise of the RTS. But though I appreciate the frenetic action of Starcraft and C&C, I never stopped loving this slower, more genteel breed of strategy game.

As with isometric RPGs and point-and-click adventure games, iOS has stimulated a resurgence of interest in the faded genres of yesterday. In 2012, specialist studio Shenandoah Games released Battle of the Bulge, a small-scale but deep wargame set on a classic board divided into pieces (though not hexagonal, as in the classic model). The game let you play out several scenarios related to the historical battle, and even choose the general you would face (the A.I. for which would then pursue a strategy in line with their historical predilections). Games were relatively short, but never seemed to play out the same way. And it came chock full of history lessons! It was, in a word, awesome.

Desert Fox: The Battle of El Alamein is the third installment in the Crisis in Command series, after The Battle of the Bulge and 2013's Drive on Moscow: War in the Snow--and it may be the best one yet. The game puts you in the midst of the Western Desert Campaign of 1942, in which Axis forces (under the command of the eponymous "Desert Fox," General Erwin Rommel) attempted to drive the Commonwealth forces out of Egypt to clear a path to Persia and its oil fields. Historically speaking, the campaign featured a whole bunch of German advances until the stalemate at the First Battle of El Alamein (July 1-27, 1942) slowed Rommel down. Then new British commander Lt. General Bernard Montgomery ended Hitler's oil dreams permanently at the Second Battle of El Alamein (October 23 - November 11, 1942). It was the first major victory for the Allies since the start of the war. 

Desert Fox is built on the same engine and features the same general gameplay dynamics as earlier entries in the series. You take the role of Axis or Allied commander, and either face off against a historical opponent or a friend. Each side has a limited number of days, divided into a discrete number of turns, to achieve specific goals, most of which involve either capturing a set number of vital points on the board or getting units past the enemy defenses (while maintaining supply lines). Each player moves units on one hexagon per turn--a departure from the normal way of things in a lot of wargames (where players move all available units in each turn), but which lends the battles a gratifying chess-like feeling. There are different units--infantry, armor, APC, etc.--all with different advantages and disadvantages. And there are serious terrain effects, ranging from armor bonuses gained while defending cities to roads that facilitate breakouts. The elegance of this formula is what made The Battle of the Bulge such an inviting and addictive experience.

Though the core gameplay returns in tact, Desert Fox nevertheless adds a few new wrinkles that keep things fresh. Now you have to contend with--or receive protection from--landmines and barbed wire. Even if you wipe out enemy units on a given space, you won't be able to advance until you clear the mines and wire, and only certain units (i.e. infantry or mechanized infantry) can do that.

There are also significantly altered supply dynamics. In the first two entries in the series, units were supplied as long as they sat on an unbroken chain of friendly territories. But now any unit can go out of supply after taking action (or retreating after being attacked). Each side has a limited amount of supply they can airdrop in, and unsurprisingly, the Axis has less supply to go around, while also having to contend with bombing runs on supply lines. But the Axis get a more complex array of units, allowing for tactical approaches not available to the Commonwealth. There are the standard armor and infantry, plus mechanized infantry, super fast recon and flak, which can negate Commonwealth air power and help keep units in supply.

Desert Fox gives you three different scenarios of progressive complexity: Ruweisat Ridge, a fast-paced battle where the Axis attempt to seize strategic sites (which garner victory points); Second Alamein, where the Commonwealth tries to shove the Axis back into Libya; and The Campaign, a massive, longer-term and more open-ended scenario than the others. It's advisable, after completing the tutorials, to learn each one well before progressing to the next. (Here are some additional tips if you need them.)

Finally, Shenandoah made some neat decisions with the menu system that really top off the experience nicely. Keeping track of things is super easy, and you always have access to historical information on the events portrayed in the game. Everything is nicely presented and intuitive, and the tutorials are among the best I've ever encountered in a strategy game. My only real complaint is that it would be fun to have an additional mode where each side has to deploy its units at the start.

In the end, Desert Fox presents a balanced, challenging and deep strategy experience. And it manages to present something that can appeal to both hardened wargamers and genre neophytes. While I'd still recommend the latter to check out The Battle of the Bulge first, it's not necessary to enjoy Desert Fox.


The Math

Baseline Assessment: 8/10

Bonuses: +1 for managing to make a wargame that is simultaneously deep and accessible; +1 for the supreme elegance of the game design. 

Penalties: -1 for where's that deploy-ever-unit-myself mode?

Nerd Coefficient: 9/10. "Very high quality/standout in its category."


***

POSTED BY: The G--purveyor of nerdliness, genre fanatic and Nerds of a
Feather founder/administrator (2012).