Christoforge Reviews: Call of Duty WW2

Now that this particular multiplayer centered game has had a proper cycle I feel it's time for me to share my honest views of how I found this experience. Call of Duty WW2 is a hugely important title in the franchise, and possibly the most important, so I feel it's only appropriate to give a full review on a game that took the franchise back into the past for the first time in a number of years. Publishers Activision promised to get player's boots on the ground, meaning none of this jet pack and double jumping bullshit from previous futuristic titles would be anywhere near the game. Also this title would have an added emphasis on historical accuracy, and give players an experience that mirrored titles that put this franchise on the map. The simple question is whether this change in creative direction has payed off? The answer is 'mostly'. Technically this game is yet another solid outing for the boys over at Activision. The colour palette is a rough mix of dull and brutal colours, and this is paired with a harsh soundtrack that aims to put you right into the middle of a war zone. Similarly the graphics and gameplay are nicely done, with no real revolutionary features, but nothing feels noticeably terrible. Unfortunately the game starts to show its failings when we analyse the core game modes:

We'll start with the campaign, which is a tale of two halves. The good news is there seems to have been a lot of effort put into the campaign in this Call of Duty installment. Instead of just a linear experience that can be played at the user's preferred pace, we now have an experience with a number of different mechanics required to master the mode. For instance the player now has to find health packs or use squad abilities to heal themselves instead of just waiting behind some cover for a bit before blitzing their way through the next portion of the mission. In fact there are a number of new squad abilities included in the campaign, and although they aren't the most sophisticated mechanics, they do change player strategies depending on the scenario. They don't get much more advanced than lobbing smoke grenades to rain mortar fire on enemies, but they are good additions to a mode becoming stale in its old age. The next Call of Duty game is rumored not to even bother with a single player campaign, so you can see how revolutionary these features turned out to be.

As this may be the last Call of Duty campaign I'll get to review I feel I must point out that I really did enjoy the squad centered experience for the most part, and I may even be willing to slap the phrase 'authentic' on some of the missions. Not everything blows up for no reason, and some segments show a surprising amount of grace and poignancy, if those are the right words to describe a rather average campaign. Okay the characters aren't the most memorable, but they do feel like a genuine squad facing the perils of war. The campaign is at its best when its focusing on stories of conflict within the world, and not the relationships between its characters. For some reason there's this ridiculous subplot forced into the story about treachery within the squad that makes the writing of soap operas seem classy. This subplot becomes increasingly frustrating when you discover that it eventually becomes the focal point of the whole campaign. When ignoring the betrayals of the squad the player is treated to some great missions, most notably one in which you play as a French Resistance agent aiming to infiltrate a Nazi headquarters in Central Paris. Unfortunately this highlight doesn't have much of a purpose other than a brief diversion from the main campaign, and soon its straight back to the vanilla world of Operation Overlord.

 You look important mate, but that's not a good enough reason for me to give a shit about you.

The campaign really starts to fall apart when you start analysing the jumbled tone of the main storyline. The campaign aims to cover serious topics with historical accuracy, and even at one stage has you liberating a concentration camp, yet this is coupled with a few ridiculous over the top sequences and a narrative that just completely loses its serious atmosphere after a certain tragedy within the squadron. It was relatively tame before then, aside from a train chasing mission that was so stupid it made me turn my whole console off in anger. I don't think I've ever rage quit a Call of Duty game because the story was so shit, but this brief moment of stupidity was enough to infuriate me. Why would you include that foolish sequence? You have a game mode where you're trying to get people to care about these realistic events that define the characters, so why the hell are you putting this farcical nonsense anywhere near this supposedly serious tale?

 You literally dodge a whole fucking derailing train in order to survive. Historical accuracy? Fuck right off.

If you were hoping for a detailed analysis of the updated Nazi zombies mode then I'm afraid you're out of luck. I hate this new update of the much loved game mode, and apart from a brief cameo from David Tennant there's nothing this stupid and lifeless (no pun intended) game mode does to make me want to play it over and over again. They've added a new stupid class system, because perks apparently weren't a good enough level of freedom, and there's also story quests that are so unbelievably pointless you wonder why you're wasting you're evening. Those story missions are how you unlock new maps by the way, although why you would ever bother when the first map is so awful to play on is the ultimate question. Quite simply Nazi zombies has become a tedious grind at best, only serving to suck out any repeatability the original game mode had.

Multiplayer, like the campaign, is a game of two halves. Don't get me wrong it's still a fun game to play, but I feel it may have lost a lot of the charm and passion that made previous editions such powerhouses. There's new stuff lying around, but these small additions cannot hope to patch over the huge problems that plague this game mode. One of the more positive additions was the inclusion of a headquarters, where players can meet before matchmaking, and even play around on a shooting range or competing in a 1 vs 1 before joining a multiplayer match. This is all good fun, but let's not forget this is Call of Duty, and so you know that some of the new features will end up ruining much loved features from previous games. The worst culprit in this scenario is the new final game killcam, which has now been changed to what the game deems is the most impressive kill. That would be a brilliant addition if it weren't for the fact that this decision is always 100% wrong, and I've had insane multikills be binned in favour of some shit hardscope a countless number of times.

Arguably an even bigger sinner is the new division system. Remember in days of yore when you could actually customise your classes to your heart's content? Well Sledgehammer decided to remove this iconic system and replace it with a dull set of preset classes where you're only allowed to change your weapons and a single perk, which I might add are all terribly balanced. There's a common theme arising that all these changes don't really revolutionise anything, and the only thing I can say about them is that they're nice little additions. However these changes are a great way to sum this whole game up. What we have is a tale of developers putting little plasters over huge gaping wounds and expecting the game to be as popular as older editions in the franchise. Not surprisingly this attitude doesn't work, and we have a result where the finished product just feels like it's missing that certain something.

Look at that pathetic level of customisation. They're just glorified preset classes.

A great example of how little effort went into these changes can be found in the map design, which to put it mildly are not up to an acceptable standard. There was a grand total of nine at launch, although this doesn't include the new 'war maps', which are much larger due to the nature of this new mission based gamemode. The core maps however are almost unanimously bland, with the only exception being a fun trip into the trenches of Normandy. The maps are so poorly designed you can't even fit more than twelve people on them now, and some of the balancing on them is quite frankly atrocious. Never has the term 'spawn-kill-die' been more appropriately used, even in game modes that support less players than in previous games. And don't even get me started on the scorestreak system. Scorestreaks are now hopelessly unattainable, especially in objective based modes where kills are worth less. Even when you do get them they're pathetic on the whole, and not in any way worth the toil it takes to eventually acquire them. A spy plane for instance is ten fucking kills in objective modes, so fuck knows how you're supposed to get the 30 plus kills required for the higher end streaks. In previous games you could get streaks that would literally end the game for less kills than a fucking pea shooter in this one. Has Activision addressed this? No, instead they've decided to present their asses to be fucked over by the competitive market, and as such we get about fifteen thousand gun balancing changes that just make guns shitter to use instead of properly balancing the fucking things. How fucked up must your priorities be to bend over to a tiny minority of players whilst completely ignoring the vast majority of casual players that buy your game just to have fun? Total madness.

Three kills for this fucking badboy that has fuck all explosive range. Unless of course you're playing a game mode such as Domination, in which case it's SIX FUCKING KILLS.

We've looked at the good, and we've looked at the bad, so now it's time for the downright ugly. This game contains lootboxes. I don't think anyone wants them, but I must say this particular system really isn't that bad and I've unlocked almost everything in them by just playing the game normally. That doesn't mean I don't feel taken advantage of, and that doesn't mean I want them anywhere near the game, I'm just frustrated that Activision felt the need to divert the game away from the wishes of its longtime players just to make a quick buck.

Then we get to the feature that I find the most insulting. Other flaws listed in this review are mere annoyances, but the following feature just completely ruins the experience in many ways from my personal experience. I don't know what idiot decided this was the way to go forwards, but for whatever reason there is an absence of Nazi imagery in the multiplayer game modes, I suppose with the intention to not glorify Nazi extremists. I will say that whatever fucking moron made that decision is an ignorant shitbag attempting to rewrite history into this idyllic misrepresentation in an attempt to not come across as offensive. Well you've certainly pissed me off, and I find the decision to remove important historical points in a mature rated shooting game, where the aim is to put bullets into your opposing number, a disgraceful decision that insults the memory of real individuals who died under this horrific regime. You happily keep every single other historic nation in the game, because as these idiots believe it was only Nazi Germany that committed war crimes during this brutal conflict. This decision, as well as many others made in the development process, just leaves me confused. You have a campaign that marches to the tune of showing history at its most brutal, with repeated whiffs of historical accuracy carrying the storyline. Yet at the same time you have a multiplayer game mode that fails to acknowledge one major party in a conflict, whilst at the same time allowing players the ability to play as a female ethnic minority soldier for either The Wehrmacht or The Red Army. How can I take a supposedly historically accurate game as a serious piece when its been shat on by idiotic creative decisions?

Aside from angering me the multiplayer mode is overall just quite average. It's simply not unique or novel enough to make me favour it over any other Call of Duty, and that's really the fundamental problem with the whole game. Overall I'm glad that Activision decided a little bit of nostalgia was the correct move going forwards, although I suspect it was the success of Battlefield One that really made that decision for them. When we compare these two shooters I have to give the edge to Battlefield, as whilst this Call of Duty has solid gameplay, there's still a lot of rough edges lying around. That's not to say this is a bad game, and the flaws are rarely frustrating, with the majority of features inviting people to play for extensive periods of time.

Call of Duty WW2 is a good game to pick up and play, but as a Call of Duty title I can't help but feel this is one big missed opportunity. It's such a shame we didn't get a modern classic, as the quality at the core of this game is unfortunately marred by moronic creative decisions and a general lack of passion displayed in vast areas of the game. It's still as action packed as any Call of Duty game, which is really the selling point of the series, and I'm glad we've reached that point without any silly jet pack foolishness, but rather embarrassingly I'm now left waiting for another creative spark to get this series off its backside again. Please take my advice and join me on the COD 4 remaster. That's a proper multiplayer shooter that understands what makes the series great.


Final Score: 6/10

Lessons On The #MeToo Era From Spotted Hyenas

As a zoology I like to think that I keep up to date with the latest goings on around the natural world, So imagine my surprise when I discover that Vox had published an amazing article claiming that spotted hyenas are feminists. Surely this couldn't be a weak attempt at trying to push an agenda, and actually a factual piece that presents amazing scientific insight. Oh wait, this is the sort of shit that feminist based science likes to spew out, and the actual content has no basis in any serious academic sphere. Let's have a look at this monstrosity of an article:
____________________________________________________________________________
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/18/17469196/metoo-spotted-hyena-pseudopenis-matriarchy
____________________________________________________________________________

Get the violins out, I'm balling my eyes out to this tragic tale. This woman's apparent struggle has fuck all to do with hyenas, but thanks for the unnecessary sob story. I was hoping for a serious discussion, not an audition for a low grade talent show. I only wish scientific articles relied on anecdotal tales instead of empirical evidence to create arguments, as this would then become one hell of an article. I'd also bet 100 million pounds that the horrific scenarios described in this introduction are not remotely true, and cannot hope to pass as such a huge generalisation. Surprisingly enough there are no examples of feminism in the natural world other than in human society. That may be because feminism is a political movement, and therefore cannot be comprehended by any other species of animal. This article is off to a promising start.

Holy shit we actually have sources, and scientific ones at that. The studies in question don't actually support the points in some cases, but hey, this is progress in the fucked up world of feminist sciences. The opening source for example clearly states that the size of females compared to males is not even correlated with the presence of a matriarchy, so I have honestly no idea why it's being used to back up a point about the rarity of matriarchies. I'm not quite sure why a social structure where all males are subservient to females is being promoted as inspirational, as I was under the impression feminism was a movement about equality. What's being described here is merely a role reversal rather than a change in attitudes towards sex, so I'm not quite sure what's so inspiring about this system.

There's an interesting paragraph that outlines the barbaric behaviour of the spotted hyena, which is an interesting conclusion in a persuasion piece. Wouldn't a feminist typically claim that tussling for dominance and murdering siblings is a sign of toxic masculinity? I don't think you have to be a feminist to realise that life in matriarchal hyenas in not all fine, and does not resemble the idyllic worlds of fictional characters. You must know you're clutching at straws when you have to start making comparisons to fucking superheroes for your argument on modern society to make any sense. The idea that males are subservient has recently found to be complete bollocks as well, which on the face of things is possibly an even bigger flaw with this argument.

I would also like to add that just because patriarchies may not be inevitable does not make them unnatural. We find male dominated social groups in a vast number of species, as mentioned in this article, so there's no denying that this social system has a presence in nature. Why would matriarchies be seen as all natural and good, but yet patriarchies seen as unnatural and evil?

What the fuck has The Lion King got to do with anything? Are we now suggesting that the negative portrayal of spotted hyenas in The Lion King is some sort of patriarchal plot to dissuade people against a potential matriarchy? I just don't understand this paragraph. What has efficiency in scavenging got to do with smashing patriarchal assumptions? Why does that apply to the sedentary lifestyle in humans?

Surely nobody is going to believe that this picturesque utopia of hyena society you've presented is in anyway genuine. Actually I've just remembered that Vox readers are certified morons, and can't even be described as amateur zoologists, so they'll probably be being sold right into this false message. You only have to watch a single nature documentary to realise that this is not an accurate portrayal of the natural world, and the actions shown in these films should never be emulated by human society. Really all you've done here is describe traits which are often found in socially cooperative animals, so let's stop pretending that promoting women to the top instantly cures the world of all its problems.

Hang on a fucking second. Please tell me that opening point is not a serious argument. Surely as a fucking self proclaimed scientists you would have heard the idea that correlation does not equal causation, and never have I found a more appropriate example of where this phrase could be applied. What you've done here is literally try to imply that matriarchal societies increase intelligence, which is a point that no scientist worth their salt would ever agree with. Quite simply there is no evidence that the huge generalisation you've just made is true. Other 'intelligent' organisms such as dolphins, apes, crows, and octopodes do not live in matriarchal societies, yet display a level of intelligence that would trump any matriarchal organisms. Furthermore there is no evidence presented that matriarchies maintain genetic diversity. All your cited paper shows is that a separate population of spotted hyenas did not dramatically decrease in genetic diversity whilst in a genetic bottleneck. The researchers in this study even point out various other species with differing social structures where this phenomenon can also occur.

You can clearly tell this writer has no background in zoology, as the science used here is simply incorrect. A zoology student at any half decent institution would be beaten within an inch of their life if they made the comment that success can be determined by population number. Firstly this statement doesn't take into account reproductive strategies, and secondly it's completely in denial of the pressures acting on these population sizes. By this logic it would surely make more sense to take advice on society from fruit flies or dung beetles, which exist in far greater numbers than any species of hyena. The IUCN does not share your optimism over their success, and has actually assessed the most successful organism on the African Savannah to be declining in numbers. There is no data on whether this population size has anything to do with the matriarchal society, and seeing as this trend doesn't appear throughout nature we can just ignore this stupid point.

In the final paragraph we find out that merely owning a phallic like structure is alarmingly misogynistic. We never get an explanation why it's misogynistic, or more importantly how a physical trait of a hyena can ever conform to human sociological terms, but I suppose that doesn't matter when you're just throwing buzzwords around with little care. Just a bizarre claim to make. Please stick to the areas of science that you actually know stuff about, and stop making a mockery of my ar.

Strangely there were no spotted hyenas taking part in these women's marches, which I find strange behaviour from such inspirational feminists. It's almost as if they're not feminists at all. I'm not going to go into the arguments surrounding the wage gap, as that's a whole different topic that could be debated over for millennia, as is the fierce debate over sexual misconduct, so I guess my question is why these separate issues are just brushed over in this article, without any explanation as to why they're included. I'll repeat, hyenas do not understand the concept of feminism, so they cannot be seen to contradict it, and they cannot possibly be compared to the feminist movements in previous years. They're fucking hyenas.

Just out of curiosity I get erections to signal dominance rather than submission, but that's a story for another day.

'We're striving for gender equality'. You could have fucking fooled me love, you've spent three quarters of this article brown-nosing every aspect of matriarchal societies that actively subjugate males. I can assure you that as a student of zoology, unlike yourself, I frequently come across systems like the one you've described, and I think you're a fucking idiot to want to copy these systems, and also that this is one of the most stupid articles I've ever read that pretends to be science in order to push an agenda. If we're to believe this writer that spotted hyenas deserve to be on a pedestal with humans in terms of intelligence then we have to accept they can understand morality, ethics, and even the concept of taboo. Quite impressive when you consider there is no evidence these creatures possess these superpowers.

I would also like to add that the gaining of resources is a common method of mate selection in the natural world, most notably in insects and arachnids. Often these mating systems entail the cannibalism of males, so I suppose the question I should be asking is why you would promote these generalised mating systems when they frequently substitute rape and harassment for cannibalism? Are we going to admit that a variety of complex mating systems are prevalent in the natural world that depend on a whole host of stimuli? Or are we going to be repeatedly cherry picking facts to distort the truth? You've previously presented evidence that siblicide is common. Shall we stop pretending that these hyenas live in a feminist utopia, and are actually as barbaric as any species of animal on the face of the Earth. That's all fine by this writer, because hey, at least they're less likely to rape each other. I just can't be assed with this article anymore. The clarity in this argument is just non existent and all over the place. Fucking useless.

Again, I'm lost. Are you moaning at evolution for not installing a natural rape alarm on the human body? Are you proposing a hellish scenario where humans are forcibly implanted? Where's the evidence that this trait evolved to prevent rape from occurring? Surely a more reasonable explanation would be that this mechanism allows females to selectively mate with more attractive males, allowing sperm from unfit males to be simply removed. Nature doesn't bend to your feminist ideology because you claim it does.

You can flip this whole argument on its head with ease, and claim the frequency of patriarchal societies found within nature is evidence that women should be subservient to men, and back this stupid point up by cherry picking positive aspects about the societies of an applicable species. It's a classic naturalistic fallacy where some idiot claims a naturally occurring phenomenon is instantly a positive thing irrespective of the truth. Why that means human society should emulate these natural occurrences is further cause for concern. How pissed off would you be if you spent your whole life fighting for the liberties of women only to discover that some writer in a low grade publication decides that your contributions pale in comparison to fucking hyenas.

As a zoology student this makes me fucking angry. Take your ideological nonsense back to your own area of biology and stop polluting our knowledge of the natural world with this dishonest bullshit. Even the Hyena Society, which was actually sourced in this very piece, was less than pleased with this pathetic article. All this from an author whose literal job description is training young scientists to communicate science. To be fair the message of this one is clear, and the day when spotted hyenas will be chaining themselves to railings and burning their bras is fast approaching.

Morons of the Internet: Rebecca Reid

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have an extract from Metro, which for those that don't know is a shite paper aimed at providing terrible stories for morons who want to feel like commuters. It's of no surprise then that writers such as Rebecca Reid have no problem getting stupid articles published, such as how Father's Day tells us so much about toxic masculinity. Do prepare yourselves for one terrible argument that only seems to serves as peddling a narrative.
_________________________________________________________________________
https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/15/fathers-day-tell-us-toxic-masculinity-7633889/
_________________________________________________________________________

Jesus Christ you must be a depressing person to live with. I'd hate to have the attitude that if I didn't like something then nobody else can, but I think I grew out of that mindset when I was about seven. I hate to break it to you but Father's Day isn't about you, which must come as a shock to such a self centered bitch. It doesn't matter if you don't like a carvery, and would rather go somewhere else to whinge, because it's a celebration for your father, who may well enjoy food that you don't rate. That doesn't give you an excuse to demonise this event you self centered cow. I'm sure your father had to endure the disappointing eating choices you made when you were a kid because he loved you, so show some fucking respect and please him for once. You can at least try and please people with your attitude, as you're clearly never going to please anyone writing this sort of shit.

I want to find out in what universe the themes of beer, slippers, and car accessories are seen as depressing. Add in strong pornography and you have my ideal weekend. Lots of dads like drinking beer, and lots of dads like relaxing with their feet up, and lots of dads like accessories for their cars. Where's the issue here? I could understand your complaint if this event promoted infanticide and child molestation, but it's promoting drinking and relaxing. It's almost as if the event is some sort of holiday. The bigger question is why you would think any of these gifts define the behaviour of fathers across the country, but I guess we're about to find that out.

It's now become an assumption that buying a stereotypical and tacky gift for someone alters their personality for the worse, which is amazing considering you have no evidence that these gifts have anything to do with toxic masculinity. You'll find most souvenirs follow stereotypical trends, so how about we quit this thinly veiled crusade against men. And whilst we're at it let's stop equating presents with behaviour, especially when the presents in question are just cheap tat. I just don't understand how you can make these huge assumptions with such little observation and critical thinking. Buying your father a humorous card doesn't mean you're denying him the right to show emotion, or preventing him from becoming anything other than stereotypically masculine. These are completely separate issues.

I have a radical theory, and this might be hard to follow for some, that these gifts are marketed in this fashion because that's what the majority of middle aged dads want. I'm sorry you haven't been able to find a Father's Day themed butt plug for your dad, but no sensible person is ever going to want to gift one of them. It's just basic supply and demand economics, and apparently that's enough to be called toxic. Of course qualifying this vague buzzword isn't needed to improve the quality of the argument, and just the mere sight of this overused term is enough to instantly convince anyone of the horrors found on Father's Day. Not doing a great job at attempting to be taken seriously are we love?

Thanks for the info that some dads are different from each other. I would have never been able to work that one out without such insightful journalism. I'm not quite sure why you're still claiming these stereotypes are negative traits when you've provided zero evidence to back your arguments up. In all honesty who's going to buy a card for their parents ripping the shit out of them? Well, me probably, but I doubt the card industry would stay afloat if it relied on lazy insults.

I honestly just can't be assed with these ridiculous conclusions anymore. You shouldn't need me to point out that this is a fucking stupid argument of the lowest quality. I will draw attention to the comment that lazy gifts on Father's Day apparently contribute to the male mental health crisis in the West. Now fuck me that is one huge conclusion, which may I add is backed up once again with zero evidence. Funnily enough this weak point doesn't hold up against basic scrutiny, considering the majority of suicide victims suffering from mental health issues are young men, which as you've previously pointed out is not the target market of these stereotypical presents. It's almost as if these two points are completely unconnected, and being as you can't even point out a correlation I think we can chuck this absurd claim in the bin with all your other shit articles.

A quick shout out the box on toxic masculinity, that's written as if the reader is a fucking vegetable, which as this is a Metro article is probably a fair assumption. I don't think I've been patronised like that in a long time, so congratulations on reaching new lows in journalism. It must be said that the description of such a horrid subject does sound rather tame when compared to the appalling traits displayed by this idiotic writer. I'd much rather associate myself with toxic, masculine men than self centered and ignorant whales.

Oh fuck off with these gifts. Have you got anything else to talk about? You're not going to convince me that toxic masculinity is rife in the male population by talking about cheap presents. This is honestly the quality of argument I would expect from a primary school student, not a paid journalist. I'm not quite sure who's the saddest in this scenario. Is it the people that buy shit presents for their dad? Is it the journalist repetitively whining over these insignificant items? Or maybe it's the reader when they've finished reading this pile of manure. I also love the logic that dads shouldn't be reduced to harmful stereotypical behaviour such as binge drinking, so a better solution is to take them out for a pint of beer. Why joke about serious addictions when you can physically contribute to them? Remember, being a dad doesn't define your personality, apart from when you're given a stereotypical gift and then I'll happily define you based on your toxic masculinity.

You would think that a self proclaimed feminist would therefore shun Mother's Day in the spirit of gender equality, as we can easily apply the same arguments in this article to that similar celebration. But no, and in fact this writer wrote an article earlier this year moaning at the pathetic contributions made towards this sacred day, with a noticeable emphasis on men. What a hypocritical bitch. Why the fuck would I ever want advice from this imbecile? I'm sorry love but I think I'll leave my relationship with my dad as it is. Your shit argument is never going to convince anyone that this is credible advice. I still haven't found out what Father's Day tells us about toxic masculinity, but at least I've been given a primary school level lecture about relationships. Thank fucking God Metro is free.