I'm using 'we' in the non-royal sense of the word here (meaning everyone else).
Obviously the big budget, Michael Bay/24 style explosive campaign is a big draw and provides plenty of OMG moments. But that's not hugely different from the spills and thrills of Halo or Crysis. Nope. It's the easily accessible setting and familiar photo of a soldier on the front that got this game its place with the big boys. In other words, now that gaming has gone mass-market, it's also gone to the lowest common denominator.
Gaming is still a little bit geeky. In places, it's still really geeky. But while geeks have had games to themselves for the last 30 years, this shift into the mass market probably means we'll be seeing fewer offbeat games characters selling millions (Mega Man? Mario? Sonic?) and more identikit soldiers. They just don't sell as well, primarily because most humans have pretty limited imaginations when you get down to it - it doesn't take a mind reader to think of examples of perfectly bright people who simply don't get fantasy. These are the people who made MW2 the million-seller that it is: potential gamers who like the idea of interactive entertainment but struggle to get to grips with the aliens and wizards that have exemplified the hobby for so long.
It's not that I didn't enjoy #MW2 - it's a very classy, complete package: a modern AAA shooter with a flashy rollercoaster single player campaign, excellent multiplayer and strong, varied co-op. In fact, it's old-school in its commitment to hardcore players through the brutally difficult Special Ops mode than, e.g. Dead Space, which was really modern (i.e. just a load of really good set pieces).
My point is, sure #MW2 is great and varied and blah blah blah but so is Halo 3: ODST. So is Killzone 2. So is Gears of War 2.
So what is it that separates this record-breaking, biggest-game-of-2009-or-probably-ever from the also-rans?
Allegedly, Infinity Ward had a pretty hard time pitching the idea of a modern military shooter to publisher Activision, who were still riding the WWII donkey pretty hard and continue to do so with second-fiddle developers Treyarch on their biannual updates to the franchise. In view of the series' success, it's pretty clear that this would have been a bad thing. Lucky for the game playing public that Zampella et al. stuck to their guns, delivering a hot, meaty slice of ultra-violent shooting action.
Why is this important? Because it's the setting that enabled MW2 to become the next big thing. There's nothing gameplay-wise that hasn't been done at least as well elsewhere, which leaves us with 2 things:
1. Production value$$$$$$$
2. Modern warfare itself
Obviously the big budget, Michael Bay/24 style explosive campaign is a big draw and provides plenty of OMG moments. But that's not hugely different from the spills and thrills of Halo or Crysis. Nope. It's the easily accessible setting and familiar photo of a soldier on the front that got this game its place with the big boys. In other words, now that gaming has gone mass-market, it's also gone to the lowest common denominator.
Gaming is still a little bit geeky. In places, it's still really geeky. But while geeks have had games to themselves for the last 30 years, this shift into the mass market probably means we'll be seeing fewer offbeat games characters selling millions (Mega Man? Mario? Sonic?) and more identikit soldiers. They just don't sell as well, primarily because most humans have pretty limited imaginations when you get down to it - it doesn't take a mind reader to think of examples of perfectly bright people who simply don't get fantasy. These are the people who made MW2 the million-seller that it is: potential gamers who like the idea of interactive entertainment but struggle to get to grips with the aliens and wizards that have exemplified the hobby for so long.
So in other words, the fantastical settings of games past are on the way out so enjoy them while you can. And be thankful this is happening now: at least current gen consoles will make Modern World 2 look nice.
*** Update ***
Following some discussion with @craigmshaw on Twitter and various others, I posted this in the discussion on MItch Krpata's blog, insultswordfighting ...
I'm not sure it's just awareness or established brand (Halo had a huge pre-launch buildup). Two main reasons for me:
1. It's the only AAA shooter that is multi-platform. For something to go fully mass-market like this it needs to have maximum reach so the launch becomes a social event as well as a gaming event. Killzone/Halo maybe never hit critical mass.
2. The setting. I suspect the sci-fi heavy settings of recent big shooters (Halo/Gears/Killzone) may have unwittingly turned off some of the less geeky audience out there who are more comfortable in a present day setting (I'm reluctant to use the word 'realistic' because of that silly bit with the nuke).
*** Update ***
Following some discussion with @craigmshaw on Twitter and various others, I posted this in the discussion on MItch Krpata's blog, insultswordfighting ...
I'm not sure it's just awareness or established brand (Halo had a huge pre-launch buildup). Two main reasons for me:
1. It's the only AAA shooter that is multi-platform. For something to go fully mass-market like this it needs to have maximum reach so the launch becomes a social event as well as a gaming event. Killzone/Halo maybe never hit critical mass.
2. The setting. I suspect the sci-fi heavy settings of recent big shooters (Halo/Gears/Killzone) may have unwittingly turned off some of the less geeky audience out there who are more comfortable in a present day setting (I'm reluctant to use the word 'realistic' because of that silly bit with the nuke).
