Playing Against Bots in Warzone
Warzone added a new “casual mode” to its Battle Royale at the start of Season 4. This reduced the number of real players in-game and substituted them with AI bots. The ratio is approximately one fifth real players, four fifths bots. This new mode for Battle Royale solos, duos and quads was well received, especially among the mainstream players who are more focused on fun than progression. Veteran players who still wanted the challenge of playing against real players were free to continue playing the traditional BR modes. Hence all parties were pleased as they were both being catered for. However, and there is always a “however” when it comes to Call of Duty, the developers saw fit to remove the standard solo Battle Royale mode, leaving just the Battle Royale Casual mode with AI bots. Subsequently, a lot of players were perplexed and annoyed, as taking away choice is seldom good customer service. As a result of subsequent backlash, the mode was added back to the game mid-season.
Warzone added a new “casual mode” to its Battle Royale at the start of Season 4. This reduced the number of real players in-game and substituted them with AI bots. The ratio is approximately one fifth real players, four fifths bots. This new mode for Battle Royale solos, duos and quads was well received, especially among the mainstream players who are more focused on fun than progression. Veteran players who still wanted the challenge of playing against real players were free to continue playing the traditional BR modes. Hence all parties were pleased as they were both being catered for. However, and there is always a “however” when it comes to Call of Duty, the developers saw fit to remove the standard solo Battle Royale mode, leaving just the Battle Royale Casual mode with AI bots. Subsequently, a lot of players were perplexed and annoyed, as taking away choice is seldom good customer service. As a result of subsequent backlash, the mode was added back to the game mid-season.
After several months of consistently playing the new casual mode, I wanted to share my thoughts on replacing players with bots. It is in many respects both a boon and a bane. The principle is sound enough, replacing veteran players with less skilled bots ensures that new or less skilled players (IE the majority of the playerbase) don’t get repeatedly stomped on and thus driven from the game. However, the way the bots behave in-game is inconsistent, resulting in some rather anomalous behaviour. As there is no data publicly available regarding how the bots “work”, all I can provide are my own observations. Overall the bots mimic player behavior. If a bot sees you, it will engage. It will also pursue you but it can be lost. They will use skills such as air strikes and mortar attacks to flush players out. However, they also use some unique abilities to keep the game play “engaging”.
I play Warzone cautiously. I often go to specific locations on the map which are easier to defend or can be used for cover. I will often wait in elevated positions observing and not directly engaging in firefights happening around me. Theoretically, such a strategy should leave me unassailed except by the occasional and genuinely random incursion by a bot. But this is not the case. After a while of what the game probably classifies as inactivity, bots often appear close by. I suspect that they simply spawn near me. Similarly, the moment I collect my loadout of choice from a drop, this will often trigger a bot attack, irrespective of whether I’m in an “active area” or not. It would also appear that as your kill count against the bots goes up, the bots themselves become harder to kill. That is not to say that they become more skillful but they seem to increase their ability to be “bullet sponges”.
Another matter worth considering is that of server tick rate. Warzone has a tick rate of 20Hz, meaning the game server updates player actions and the overall game state 20 times per second. This is lower than many other popular first-person shooters, which then contributes to issues such as hit registration and perceived lag. Simply put, I can start shooting at a bot (or a real player if need be) who then returns fire but I lose the exchange. The killcam then shows the opposite of what happened with the bot firing first. Even when you take into account the type of weapons being used and their respective quality, this seems to happen a little too often. You can engage a bot who has demonstrably inferior weapons and still get “short changed”. As a player, you instinctively know when you’ve encountered this problem and the fact that it’s a known issue that persists due to infrastructure costs, makes it more annoying.
Overall, playing in a casual manner against bots and a handful of players works quite well. From time to time you’ll find a skilled real player who plays this mode to effectively troll the other players. So far I have not found that to be a common experience. Personally, I would like it if we had the option of playing a private Warzone game, exclusively against bots that you could vary the skill settings. It would finally dispense with the risk of anyone abusing voice or text chat, which is still an issue. As it stands at the moment, the casual mode is acceptable and fun, as long as you’re aware of the concessions the developer’s have made to make the game feel like a regular Warzone game. Hence you will get bots behaving as described and don’t get to play exclusively on your own terms. If you embrace this trade off then you can enjoy casual mode.
Warzone: Verdansk Spoilt in Less Than a Month
When the Battle Royale Call of Duty: Warzone launched on March 10th 2020, the Verdansk map was one of the key elements of the game’s success. The subsequent lockdown due to the global pandemic was also a major shot in the arm for the game, with so many gamers being home. The Verdansk map along with the gameplay mechanics of the game at the time were a perfect combination and so Warzone was “just so”. It allowed both skilled and unskilled players to play together, without one group dominating the other. Gunfights could be intense but there were periods of downtime when traversing the map. Players also couldn’t continuously respawn if defeated, so there was a requirement to play with a degree of caution and strategy. I enjoyed the game immensely despite not being the biggest fan of PVP based gaming. It was a broadly equitable experience but sadly it didn’t remain that way.
When the Battle Royale Call of Duty: Warzone launched on March 10th 2020, the Verdansk map was one of the key elements of the game’s success. The subsequent lockdown due to the global pandemic was also a major shot in the arm for the game, with so many gamers being home. The Verdansk map along with the gameplay mechanics of the game at the time were a perfect combination and so Warzone was “just so”. It allowed both skilled and unskilled players to play together, without one group dominating the other. Gunfights could be intense but there were periods of downtime when traversing the map. Players also couldn’t continuously respawn if defeated, so there was a requirement to play with a degree of caution and strategy. I enjoyed the game immensely despite not being the biggest fan of PVP based gaming. It was a broadly equitable experience but sadly it didn’t remain that way.
I won’t cover old ground. Warzone has been a dog’s dinner in all its various iterations since the halcyon days of Verdansk. Its faults and flaws are well known and hence there has been a decline in players over time. Which is why the developers decided to bring back the Verdansk map in the hope of turning the tide of the game’s fortune. As you would expect there was a lot of excitement and scepticism regarding this announcement. Would this simply be the old map with the current game mechanics in place or would the developers strive to adjust all aspects of Warzone to make it more akin to the 2020 experience? Well to cut a long story short, Verdansk returned to Warzone on April 3, 2025, as part of Season 3 of Black Ops 6 and to everyone's amazement it was as near a return to the state of play that existed in 2020 that the developers could manage.
It is hard for me to impress upon casual readers the significance of this development. It genuinely felt that the powers that be had actually listened to the player base and considered their requests. Gone were the redeployment drones and the constant opportunities to quickly move around the maps. Weapons choice and vehicles suddenly mattered again and the insane pace of the game was slowed down. Even the omni-movement system was tweaked. Getting “downed” and sent to the Gulag suddenly had consequences once more. Overall the game changes meant that both experienced and casual players had sufficient factors working in their favour. After watching some videos I reinstalled Warzone and was pleasantly surprised at how it felt like “the good old days”. You could play, have fun but also time to think, as opposed to being in an unrelenting pressure cooker.
But (and there is always a but when it comes to Call of Duty), despite all the positive player feedback, Black Ops 6 Season 3 Reloaded was released on May 1st, 2025 and pretty much undid all the previous good work. Bugs, weapon imbalance and a massive influx of cheaters have effectively derailed the return of Verdansk. There is a major lag issue that some players are using to their advantage and armour plates are simply not registering. The game’s hit box system is also messed up, removing any degree of certainty when a player decides to fire their weapon. Server stability continues to be problematic with disconnects and data desynchronisation. Simply put, this update has diminished the game and effectively given a reason for returning players to leave once again. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this sorry tale is that no one is really that surprised and the return of Verdansk has failed in less than a month.
Goodbye Call of Duty
I decided to play Call of Duty today as I wanted some undemanding entertainment. I was not surprised when the game client began an update, as I have not played for about three months. Hence, there was obviously new content to install. However, when I saw the size of the download, I knew this was more than just a season update. I therefore checked the Battle.net client and discovered that the game was installing Black Ops 6, the latest version of Call of Duty that is released on 25th October. A game I have decided not to buy for a multitude of reasons. Fortunately, you can modify your game installation on the fly, so I unchecked a few boxes and the download stopped. However, I was annoyed by the hubris of this “download by default” policy, so I decided to uninstall my existing installation of Modern Warfare 3 as it is no longer a mainstay of my gaming activities.
I decided to play Call of Duty today as I wanted some undemanding entertainment. I was not surprised when the game client began an update, as I have not played for about three months. Hence, there was obviously new content to install. However, when I saw the size of the download, I knew this was more than just a season update. I therefore checked the Battle.net client and discovered that the game was installing Black Ops 6, the latest version of Call of Duty that is released on 25th October. A game I have decided not to buy for a multitude of reasons. Fortunately, you can modify your game installation on the fly, so I unchecked a few boxes and the download stopped. However, I was annoyed by the hubris of this “download by default” policy, so I decided to uninstall my existing installation of Modern Warfare 3 as it is no longer a mainstay of my gaming activities.
I have a very specific mindset when it comes to technology and my relationship with it. A key aspect of which can be summed up by the old adage “the tail doesn’t wag the dog”. With regard to software, be it the operating system on my PC, apps, or games, I don’t like updates or fundamental changes being made without me being aware of them in advance. I want to know in advance what the patches are for and what they do as a consequence. Furthermore, I don’t like any changes that attempt to “do my thinking for me”. Everything that is installed on my PC is there for a reason and configured in such a fashion that suits my personal preferences. Hence, I do not like any software that decides to do its own thing and flies in the face of this policy. I’ll decide if a program starts when I turn on my PC and whether I want additional icons added to my desktop real estate. It is also down to me when something can or cannot monopolise my internet connection.
As for Call of Duty, the last year has been an interesting journey. Warzone teetered on the edge of returning to its glory days but the game was once again thrown off balance by specific weapons being overpowered, the tedium of an unavoidable loadout meta and a losing battle against those who cheat. I was one of the few players that enjoyed the open world approach to zombies mode and one of the reasons I’m not buying Black Ops 6 is due to the return of the round based matches. As I’ve said many times before, not only of Call of Duty but of many other competitive games, the experience the average player has is so far removed from that of a high end, content creator on YouTube. I have seldom found any of the group content to be anything other than a chaotic experience, defined by poor communication and unpleasant team mates. I’ve regularly read of players helping out others and representing the community well but have never met any.
Fortunately for me and not necessarily so for Activision Blizzard, there’s always something else to play. There are plenty of comparable games to Call of Duty and the sub genre of extraction shooters is certainly growing. Sometimes, when I uninstall a game I have a pang of sadness, especially if it has been a noteworthy experience such as Red Dead Redemption 2. However, more often than not, it feels the opposite. Call of Duty is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. It was certainly fun for a while but ultimately the developers made choices that weren’t for me. Such is life. You can’t please everyone. However, the community is a different matter and despite several claims that cheating and trolling are being addressed, no discernible change is apparent so far. Hence its time to find something else to play, although there is always the risk of leaving one shitty community, only to join a new one. Such is the nature of contemporary gaming.
DMZ and "Pay to Win"
For those who are not familiar with this latest niche piece of “gaming outrage”, it regards the extraction shooter Warzone 2.0 DMZ, which is part of the Call of Duty franchise. When you enter the game (either solo or in a squad), you use gear that you have previously collected. A key part of the game is looting and upgrading your weapon, bullet proof vest (there are 3 tiers) and sundry support items. If you die, then you lose all the equipment you are currently carrying. With this in mind, Activision have recently added two purchasable gear bundles to the game store. One comes with a medium size backpack by default. The other comes with a 2 plate vest (tier 2) and two weapons that only have a 15 minute cooldown. This does offer a degree of convenience. Furthermore, the second bundle is tied to the Ghost operator skin, who within the game’s canon is an iconic figure. Hence there has been a great deal of debate over the rectitude of these bundles.
For those who are not familiar with this latest niche piece of “gaming outrage”, it regards the extraction shooter Warzone 2.0 DMZ, which is part of the Call of Duty franchise. When you enter the game (either solo or in a squad), you use gear that you have previously collected. A key part of the game is looting and upgrading your weapon, bullet proof vest (there are 3 tiers) and sundry support items. If you die, then you lose all the equipment you are currently carrying. With this in mind, Activision have recently added two purchasable gear bundles to the game store. One comes with a medium size backpack by default. The other comes with a 2 plate vest (tier 2) and two weapons that only have a 15 minute cooldown. This does offer a degree of convenience. Furthermore, the second bundle is tied to the Ghost operator skin, who within the game’s canon is an iconic figure. Hence there has been a great deal of debate over the rectitude of these bundles.
Like many multiplayer games, there is a broad spectrum of player skill in DMZ. If you are at one end, then these so-called “pay to win” bundles are not required. Skilled players will maintain multiple operator slots (you can have up to 5) with appropriate gear for a variety of tasks. If you’re at the other end or approaching the middle of the skill spectrum, then the 2 plate vest, 15 minute cooldown weapons and medium bag cosmetic skins offer a practical benefit. And that benefit is one of convenience. A player doesn’t start the game immediately feeling vulnerable and having to search for better gear. However, I seriously doubt that the benefits offered matter little to top tier players. In my experience high end players and those of lesser skill seldom cross paths. When I play DMZ I find myself grouped with players of commensurate skill to my own. IE Distinctly average.
Ultimately, I find that the arguments against these “pay to win” bundles are mainly ideological. Objections are usually made by players that consider the game to be primarily about skill, leaderboards, hierarchies and perceived status. The sort of gamers that see DMZ as competitive and treat it like a sport, with the assumption of associated rules and player etiquette. Although players who think this way are entitled to their opinion, they need to realise that not all the playerbase feel the same way. Many, myself included, consider online gaming a recreational service. I play for entertainment and fun. I also pay money for this service and therefore expect a degree of “quid pro quo”. That’s not to say I want frictionless gaming, but I don’t expect my fun to metaphorically be sacrificed on the altar of more skillful players’ philosophy.
I therefore fully expect Activision to continue to monetise the game in this fashion and to take it as far as they can before there is a genuine mutiny. In a perfect world there would be no “pay to win” and players would be far more appropriately segregated to ensure that they were provided with a more equitable gaming experience. But we live in an imperfect world, and developers always prefer the path of least resistance as opposed to doing something labour intensive. So it is pointless to expect anything so egalitarian as a removal of “pay to win” items.
Finally, it never ceases to amaze me how so many gamers temporarily suspend their default consumerism and libertarian outlook and expect a meritocratic and altruistic approach from the video game industry. An industry that in many ways is the embodiment of the worst excesses of modern capitalism. They will complain about fairness, morality and ethics in the video games they play righteous indignation. Something they fail to do in other aspects of their real lives on a daily basis. Say no to “pay to win” in Warzone 2.0 DMZ but fuck universal healthcare because that’s “socialism”. Such is the cognitive dissonance of Gamers (™).
How Important is Your Operator Skin?
I don’t mind buying an occasional bundle from the store in DMZ, although it is often the weapon blueprint that determines my choice. Today I bought Overgrown 2, which includes the Ghillie Monster operator skin, to see if it offered any significant advantage. However, as I am not what you would call a “top tier” player, my subsequent experience and anecdotal evidence is hardly compelling. If you go prone in the desert, a shrubbery or among general herbidacious flora then it does offer a degree of camouflage. However, in suburban areas and the outlying villages of Al Mazrah, you look like a Wookie on a daytrip and I can’t see any advantage. So upon reflection, two questions spring to mind. Firstly, do any of the skins currently available in the game offer any tangible benefits? If not is it just a question of operator skins are 100% cosmetic and just about tickling a players fancy and getting them to put their hand in their pockets.
I don’t mind buying an occasional bundle from the store in DMZ, although it is often the weapon blueprint that determines my choice. Today I bought Overgrown 2, which includes the Ghillie Monster operator skin, to see if it offered any significant advantage. However, as I am not what you would call a “top tier” player, my subsequent experience and anecdotal evidence is hardly compelling. If you go prone in the desert, a shrubbery or among general herbidacious flora then it does offer a degree of camouflage. However, in suburban areas and the outlying villages of Al Mazrah, you look like a Wookie on a daytrip and I can’t see any advantage. So upon reflection, two questions spring to mind. Firstly, do any of the skins currently available in the game offer any tangible benefits? If not is it just a question of operator skins are 100% cosmetic and just about tickling a players fancy and getting them to put their hand in their pockets.
As to the tangible, practical benefits of specific operator skins, I am not aware of any hard data on the matter. The only observations I can bring to bear on the subject are those born out of common experience. IE What we can all see. As previously mentioned, ghillie suits do offer some camouflage in appropriate areas, depending on their respective colour. Similarly outfits that are predominantly black have benefits in darker areas and at extreme range. Ashika Island with its underground network and closely packed buildings favours darker coloured operator skins. Traditional operator skins featuring regular camouflage military apparel also follow suit. But these minor benefits do not make a player undetectable. A thermal scope on a weapon or a handheld spotter device reveals players regardless.
All the benefits listed above are situational and as DMZ feature a multitude of ecosystems, a green ghillie suit will only be beneficial in a limited amount of regions. It will potentially stand out due to contrast in others. And it is this latter point that may be the Achilles Heel of purely cosmetic operator skins. Especially those operator skins that are excessively colourful, and flamboyant. As Call of Duty frequently licences content from major pop culture franchises, there is currently a Shredder (from teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) operator skin available in the game. Although it is very striking and I can see the appeal, it stands out like a sore thumb in most in-game environments. Another consideration regarding non-standard operator skins is that they are more prone to clipping through walls, which can be fatal.
Overall, I think that the potential benefits of certain operator skins are modest and that as ever, it is the skill of the player that is the greatest factor in their success. I personally like the option to customise the look of my character in any video game I play and have my own particular preferences. Hence I have no objection to a broad selection of operator skins in the in-game store when playing DMZ. I won’t necessarily purchase “novelty” skins such as Rambo, John McClane and RoboCop, which were available in the previous version of Warzone. But I don’t have any “ideological problem” with such content being available in the game. Video games are a leisure activity and therefore they should be fun. The FPS genre has a tendency to attract some players who take it all very seriously, which can be wearisome. A little levity goes a long way.
A Month in Gaming
Here we are again with another summary of my gaming activities in recent months. Or in this case since last September. It’s been a while but I’ve been on a blogging hiatus until recently. However, I’ve kept myself busy gaming wise and often I find the hunt for news video games, just as entertaining as I do playing them. Perhaps that could be a future blog post. Back to the matter in hand. Gaming wise, pretty much all things related to the MMORPG genre are currently on the back burner. I’ll give specifics later but I am taking a break from these for the present. I am currently looking at trying games outside my usual comfort zone and also trying to test whether you can or cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Fortunately, the answer appears to be yes you can. Enough summation, on to the specifics.
Here we are again with another summary of my gaming activities in recent months. Or in this case since last September. It’s been a while but I’ve been on a blogging hiatus until recently. However, I’ve kept myself busy gaming wise and often I find the hunt for news video games, just as entertaining as I do playing them. Perhaps that could be a future blog post. Back to the matter in hand. Gaming wise, pretty much all things related to the MMORPG genre are currently on the back burner. I’ll give specifics later but I am taking a break from these for the present. I am currently looking at trying games outside my usual comfort zone and also trying to test whether you can or cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Fortunately, the answer appears to be yes you can. Enough summation, on to the specifics.
LOTRO Update 34: Before the Shadow. Let me state for the record that I still consider The Lord of the Rings Online to be a robust and entertaining realisation of Middle-earth. It has kept me entertained since late 2008. If you are new to the game there is a ton of content, a huge amount of lore references and a supportive and friendly community. But the last update had very little to offer veteran players. The new content was aimed at level 1 to 32 players. So apart from a new story, nothing much of note was added to the game for those with level cap characters and that is pretty much why I’m tired of this game. All it ever offers is “more of the same”.
Due to changes within EG7, I suspect a lot of the promised updates like the graphics overhauls and the console version will never be carried out and LOTRO is fated to remain essentially as it is. No major new systems or gameplay mechanics will be added. Just variations on existing content. For me that is no longer sufficient to hold my interest. Hence I played through some of Update 34: Before the Shadow when it was released last November but after a few days I just stopped logging in. I didn’t feel especially upset. In fact it felt like the right response. When you’re done, you’re done.
Red Dead Redemption 2. I returned to this RPG in January and picked up exactly where I left off in 2020. The plot was still familiar to me so it really was a seamless continuation. I played through the main story and was amazed at what a compelling experience it was. As I’ve already written a blog post about this remarkable game I won’t repeat myself too much but I consider this to be one of the best video games ever. Great game play, a compelling narrative and a feeling of immense satisfaction when you reach the end. It also keeps you thinking and reflecting upon it for days afterwards. As all great art does.
Hogwarts Legacy. Controversy aside, I really enjoyed this game. It offered everything I personally wanted from a Hogwarts themed video game. I was surprised at the quality of some of the companion side quests, especially the Sebastian Sallow story arc. I will happily return to the game if further DLC is released and I may at a future date play through the entire thing again with a new character. If they are in another house there are some unique storylines. In the meantime, the only content left to me to do is some completionist, busy work, so for the present I’ve finished with this title. It did provide over 70 hours of entertainment.
Sniper Elite 5. Nowadays, most games have a relatively short life cycle. One year is usual, so I was quite surprised to discover that Sniper Elite 5 was to get a second season pass with another “years worth” of content. New maps, new weapons, new cosmetic skins. Some may argue it’s all a bit thin but I just fundamentally like the concept behind this game. Slow, measured and tactical driven gameplay for those who want it. For those who like to run and gun, that is still an option. This fifth iteration of the game has really refined the sniping mechanics and the weapons customisation means you really can create a loadout that suits your need and style. I like the stealthy approach and setting booby traps and the game excels at this. Invasion mode where another player can gatecrash your game and hunt you down, still keeps me on my toes. I’ll happily play for another year.
Star Trek Online. What I like about this MMORPG is that you know exactly where you stand with it. You can complain about the monetisation, the ground combat and “lack of diplomatic missions” but the game doesn’t lie to you about its nature. STO is the gaming embodiment of a quid pro quo. If you grind a new event, you get a reward. If you grind all the events scheduled throughout the year, you get a bigger reward. There’s always something to do in this game. If you have time to kill, then you can play through all story arcs on all factions. There’s a lot. Alternatively, if you just have 30 minutes of gaming time, why not do the latest Task Force Operation? This is why STO is always in my gaming rotation.
Warzone 2.0 DMZ. I ended up buying a new graphics card because of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, when it was released last November. The latest iteration of the franchise also saw the release of a new version of Warzone, its free multiplayer counterpart. I’m simply not a good enough player to get the most out of the battle royale mode but the new DMZ variant, which is an extraction shooter, is damn compelling. Yes the game is flawed at present and a lot of the community are sociopathic but occasionally you get a game that hits the spot perfectly. You find a good squad, play in a coordinated fashion and gain some phat loot. And any fool that crosses your path, gets wrecked. You then exfil in the helicopter, under the cover of smoke, back in time for corn flakes. These are the days when gaming is good.
The Hunter: Call of the Wild. Finally, I bought this hunting game after watching a “let’s play” video on YouTube and am happy to report that it is a very interesting alternative take on the "first person shooter" genre. The game is slow, methodical and surprisingly immersive. It rewards patience. I didn’t think this genre would have any appeal for me but it is certainly holding my interest at present. It also has a substantial playerbase and community on reddit who are happy to share tips and information. I wasn’t expecting any of this which is an added bonus.
Warzone 2.0 DMZ
I like an analogy as a literary device, so here’s one for you. Video games are like parties. How so? In the following ways. They quite never live up to your expectations. The best ones are the ones you never go to, according to the “anecdotes” you’re told afterwards. And there’s always someone crying and throwing up at 2:00 AM. Okay, the last one isn’t quite relevant but the overall sentiment of the first two is sound. The reason I have used this visual metaphor is because both parties and multiplayer video games sell themselves on the alleged quality of their respective social dynamic. They supposedly offer you fun with your friends and a unique, memorable experience. However, the reality is a lot more lacklustre. Warzone 2.0 DMZ is a prime example. What enjoyment there is to be had in playing this game is offset by the iniquities of many of its players as they race to the proverbial bottom.
I like an analogy as a literary device, so here’s one for you. Video games are like parties. How so? In the following ways. They quite never live up to your expectations. The best ones are the ones you never go to, according to the “anecdotes” you’re told afterwards. And there’s always someone crying and throwing up at 2:00 AM. Okay, the last one isn’t quite relevant but the overall sentiment of the first two is sound. The reason I have used this visual metaphor is because both parties and multiplayer video games sell themselves on the alleged quality of their respective social dynamic. They supposedly offer you fun with your friends and a unique, memorable experience. However, the reality is a lot more lacklustre. Warzone 2.0 DMZ is a prime example. What enjoyment there is to be had in playing this game is offset by the iniquities of many of its players as they race to the proverbial bottom.
For those who are unfamiliar with this latest permutation of Call of Duty: Warzone, DMZ is a squad or solo based incursion into a large open world map. You enter with basic gear and weapons and loot on the fly as you travel the zone. There are contracts that award both cash and weapons. These may be securing and uploading intel, rescuing a hostage or eliminating other squads. The map is populated by AI bots that are no joke and there are also vehicles that can be used to traverse the region. Each round lasts 25 minutes and once a player has gained sufficient loot or completed what they wish to achieve, there are “exfil” locations on the map where the player can summon air transport and leave. These are often contested by AI bots and other players looking for easy pickings. It’s a well conceived gaming scenario with a lot of scope for fun. Theoretically.
If you peruse YouTube, you’ll find plenty of videos showing top tier gamers playing Warzone 2.0 DMZ very effectively in squads. They complete lots of contracts, run rings round the AI bots and eliminate any other operators (other players) they encounter. It can be very entertaining to watch the game played well. However (and there is always a however) I, and many other players, will never get to experience the game in such a fashion. I don’t know anyone who plays Warzone 2.0 DMZ and hence I have to join squads with random players or go solo. The latter is fun but does put you at a disadvantage. There is safety in numbers and squadmates can revive you if you are “downed”. But random squads are exactly that, random, and therefore an utter lottery. If you use voice chat (not everyone does), then there's no guarantee that everyone speaks the same language. Even if you do, there’s a good chance that not everyone wants to do the same thing, hence making the group invalid. Hence random squads are often a massive gamble.
I’ve played a lot of Warzone 2.0 DMZ recently and have kept a simple log of how well each game has gone. After a hundred plus games, about 1 in 10 has proven to be a positive experience. By this I mean that players have been communicative (IE we agreed where to go and what to do), helpful and very mindful that not everyone has the same level of skill. Gear and weapons were shared and we successfully extracted from the DMZ. So far I had about ten games in which I felt I experienced Warzone 2.0 DMZ as the developers intended. For the other ninety or so times, it has been chaotic and ended in someone picking a unnecessary fight with the AI bots or another squad of operators. Yes XP has been earned, but it is frustrating to lose a decent loadout due to poor planning or someone just biting off more than they can chew. IE charging into an area before spotting the AI bots or driving a vehicle when you’re not especially good at it. Some games have lasted no more than five minutes.
I’ve written in the past about whether it is realistic to have expectations of other players when “pugging”. I believe I used Task Force Operations in Star Trek Online as an example and I concluded that it’s best to expect the worst. The difference in this case is that grouping is an optional extra in STO, where in Warzone 2.0 DMZ it is pretty much the raison d'etre of the entire game. Playing collaboratively with others yields superior results than going it alone. Yet “pugging” in Warzone 2.0 DMZ is often an awful experience, especially if you have voice and proximity chat enabled. So many of the players are puerile, bellicose, unco-operative and socially dysfunctional that it leeches a great deal of joy out of the gameplay. Text chat is equally as bad filled with abuse, prejudice and the arrogant hubris and ill manners that so often goes hand in hand with youth. The community has very little class and even its ubiquitous victory cry of “let’s go” is as vacuous as it is trite.
Warzone 2.0 DMZ can still be a source of enjoyment and entertainment. Even if you “pug” and expect the worst, you can still sometimes be pleasantly surprised when another player does bother to revive you or drives back to pick you up when you’re separate from the group in a firefight. Running 20 or 30 indifferent or bad games still presents an opportunity to learn the map and to become familiar with key locations such as ammunition depots etc. You quickly learn not to be hamstrung by your own high standards. That’s not to say you should be an asshole like most other players, but if your squadmates are making poor decisions or being a liability it is perfectly okay to go do your own thing. Overall, if you’re not in a position to play with friends, then temper your expectations about Warzone 2.0 DMZ and autogroup. Turn off voice chat and expect the worst. Anything more is an added bonus. Warzone 2.0 DMZ can be a good game, in spite of its players.
A Month in Gaming
September has been and gone and the nights are now drawing in. Usually this time of year is ideal for gaming but sadly I’ve had a lot on over the last 30 days and as a result there’s been precious little time for gaming or indeed writing. Such is life. When I did have some leisure time, MMOs were the easiest way to get a quick gaming fix, as per usual. Standing Stone Games announced that the next expansion for The Lord of the Rings Online would be released in November and that a revision of the Legendary Item system would be coming prior to that. Hence I took a look at the beta builds on the Bullroarer test server and then started prepping my various alts on the live servers, to get ready for this major change. I also managed to complete the latest event in Star Trek Online. However, beyond these straightforward tasks I didn’t really get to do much more.
September has been and gone and the nights are now drawing in. Usually this time of year is ideal for gaming but sadly I’ve had a lot on over the last 30 days and as a result there’s been precious little time for gaming or indeed writing. Such is life. When I did have some leisure time, MMOs were the easiest way to get a quick gaming fix, as per usual. Standing Stone Games announced that the next expansion for The Lord of the Rings Online would be released in November and that a revision of the Legendary Item system would be coming prior to that. Hence I took a look at the beta builds on the Bullroarer test server and then started prepping my various alts on the live servers, to get ready for this major change. I also managed to complete the latest event in Star Trek Online. However, beyond these straightforward tasks I didn’t really get to do much more.
I toyed with the idea of playing New World. I had taken part in an earlier beta test and found elements of the game to be quite appealing. I especially enjoyed the combat which I felt was both fluid and had a sense of physicality. Yet the minimal plot, voice acting and general “old school” approach made the overall game feel somewhat archaic to me. And so I decide not to purchase it and get swept up in the excitement of a new MMO launch. However, it can be very interesting to observe such a phenomenon. Many of my blogging colleagues have been documenting their experiences and it can be very interesting reading multiple perspectives upon different aspects of the game. Plus the perennial question of what is a “good MMO launch” has been raised once again. Personally I am too old and impatient to have to deal with logon queues and for daily, rolling patches to fix content.
I did manage to log into Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Rather than play Warzone, I opted for Team Deathmatch with AI bots. I cranked up the difficulty and it proved quite taxing but on the plus side, it was nice to be able to play a game without any angry commentary in chat and more importantly people cheating with aimbots, or rage quitting the game and closing it for everyone as they were hosting. I am a big advocate of multiplayer games having AI bots as an alternative to live play. Playing against bots means you can practice and work upon your skills as well as just enjoy gameplay at a level that you can cope with. For many players it is potentially the only time that they’ll be able to access certain weapons, kill streaks and such like. Although playing with others is an integral part of such games as CoD:MW, it is always good to have options that don’t make your enjoyment totally dependent on others
Sadly, I am not using my Nintendo Switch much as I expected. I assumed that the handheld device would easily lend itself to short bursts of intermittent gameplay, which reflects my current schedule. But this doesn’t seem to be the case, although I do think this comes down to the sort of games one has. I may need to buy some new titles that lend themselves to casual gameplay, or 30 minute sessions over a long period of time. Perhaps the RPG Disco Elysium will fit that bill. I think the most I did in September with my Switch was update the software. At least now it supports bluetooth earbuds.
As for October, I’m not sure If it is wise to make any major gaming plans. I am toying with the idea of using an old hard drive to upgrade to Windows 11, to see how it performs. If there are any major issues I can easily return the original drive without any inconvenience. I guess that LOTRO and STO will fill the gaming gap, as per usual. As and when I get more time, I may look around for something new to play. It may be time to step outside of my comfort zone and try something different. The last few times I’ve done this the results have been positive.
Never the Twain Shall Meet?
Video games can offer a great opportunity for personal growth. If you are the sort of player who likes to prove themselves and continuously test one’s mettle, then some titles can provide the challenge required to be the best of the best. Hence many games are competitive, have league tables and other formal structures for measuring success. It is one of the reasons why esports have become so popular. But this desire to excel and master a particular play style extends beyond competitive games. For some players part of a games allure is understanding the numbers and stats that drive the game mechanics. Because these are often the key to optimising your build and maximising DPS output. Hence you will find skilled and learned players in a variety of games across multiple genres. Although they are often motivated for different reasons, they all strive to be elite players.
Video games can offer a great opportunity for personal growth. If you are the sort of player who likes to prove themselves and continuously test one’s mettle, then some titles can provide the challenge required to be the best of the best. Hence many games are competitive, have league tables and other formal structures for measuring success. It is one of the reasons why esports have become so popular. But this desire to excel and master a particular play style extends beyond competitive games. For some players part of a games allure is understanding the numbers and stats that drive the game mechanics. Because these are often the key to optimising your build and maximising DPS output. Hence you will find skilled and learned players in a variety of games across multiple genres. Although they are often motivated for different reasons, they all strive to be elite players.
I have been playing video games in some shape or form since the coin-op days of the eighties. But I have never been anything more than an average player. Plus I am motivated primarily by having fun and have never seen any game as some sort of personal trial or path to spiritual enlightenment. That’s not to say that I don’t try and attempt to improve. I just know that I won’t progress beyond a certain level of ability because the fun to work ratio will no longer be to my liking. And I’m not alone in this and have written before about how I believe the majority of gamers are “average” with regard to skill. Which brings me to my point. If you look at the skilled, top tier gamers and the average players in terms of a venn diagram, then there’s not a lot of overlap. Depending on the genre of game, I think that overlap reduces even further.
I joined a kinship (guild) in The Lord of the Rings Online in 2009 and I’m still in it. It has some extremely knowledgeable players who are skilled at multiple classes. Occasionally we will do group content and these players will “coach” (or even carry) the less able players. They are often already familiar with the dungeon or raid in question because they’ve completed it numerous time’s with their skilled peers. They spend the majority of their time with players of comparable abilities. When they do help out with what I shall politely call “The B Team”, I often become acutely aware of the disparity in skill and DPS. Hence the Ralph Wiggum meme at the top of this post. And once the group content is done they politely withdraw and go back to “swimming at the deep end of the pool”. The social panel in LOTRO tells players where their friends and colleagues are and whether they’re in a group. These folk are always busy doing the “hard stuff”.
At least in the MMO genre, you may occasionally encounter top tier players. I find that in other genres such as FPS games, there is clear segregation based on skill. When I play Call of Duty Modern Warfare Multiplayer, I will frequently play game styles and specific maps that do much to level the playing field. The small confined space of the “Shipment” map means that there’s scope to get by on luck and sporting a loadout that allows you to fire from the hip. Although I do encounter good players who are well versed in tactics and have good reactions, there is a chance to counter them. But I find that the players I encounter in Battle Royale and Plunder mode are broadly comparable to myself. Let it suffice to say that the quality of players I see in the various YouTube clip shows that I watch, have never crossed my path. Not that I’m complaining. Players should be grouped with those of similar skill.
Now I’m not advocating that this naturally occurring segregation of gamers based upon skill is a bad thing. Skilled players mainly prefer the company of their peers. Average players do not like being “target practise” and “cannon fodder” for the elite. And both groups are paying customers and as such should be afforded an experience that they enjoy. But it is curious how gaming is often spoken of as a shared experience and something that a wide variety of people have in common, when the reality is far more compartmentalised. Most MMO players have never participated in a raid. Many of those who enjoy the Battle Royale genre have yet to win a game. The reality is that a lot of video game content is never played, exotic weapons remain locked and achievements, accolades and deeds are left incomplete. Although we are united by the fact that we all play video games, that is where the common ground both starts and ends.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare
I originally climbed aboard the Call of Duty bandwagon in 2009 when Modern Warfare 2 came out. I enjoyed the campaign and the multiplayer so much I promptly bought the first instalment. I then stuck with the franchise up until 2013. I didn’t especially like Ghosts, although I enjoyed the option to play as a dog which was different. Overall I was somewhat tired of the FPS genre from then on and so didn’t keep up with any further releases. For me the best iteration of the game was Black Ops in 2010. The campaign had a densely plotted story and the multiplayer was extremely polished. The multiplayer maps were well conceived allowing for fluid and engaging gameplay. Six years on and I recently got an itch to play Call of Duty again. The soft reboot of the franchise with Modern warfare in November 2019 promised a return to basics. The recent inclusion of a battle royale mode with the release of Warzone finally clinched the deal. So I bought a discounted version of the standard game recently and dived back in.
I originally climbed aboard the Call of Duty bandwagon in 2009 when Modern Warfare 2 came out. I enjoyed the campaign and the multiplayer so much I promptly bought the first instalment. I then stuck with the franchise up until 2013. I didn’t especially like Ghosts, although I enjoyed the option to play as a dog which was different. Overall I was somewhat tired of the FPS genre from then on and so didn’t keep up with any further releases. For me the best iteration of the game was Black Ops in 2010. The campaign had a densely plotted story and the multiplayer was extremely polished. The multiplayer maps were well conceived allowing for fluid and engaging gameplay. Six years on and I recently got an itch to play Call of Duty again. The soft reboot of the franchise with Modern warfare in November 2019 promised a return to basics. The recent inclusion of a battle royale mode with the release of Warzone finally clinched the deal. So I bought a discounted version of the standard game recently and dived back in.
This post is not intended as a review. There have been plenty of those already. What I mainly want to do is share a few thoughts on the way Call of Duty Modern Warfare handles the various kinds of multiplayer modes. The campaign is acceptable and does what it’s supposed to do. Does it go out of its way to be controversial? Yes but the franchise has form for this. But let’s face it, these games are bought for their multiplayer component and that is where the franchise strength and innovation has always been. At present (Season 3) there are over forty multiplayer maps available in the game. Some of these are small and deliberately confined, offering rapid gameplay for small teams (2vs2). Then there are medium maps offering a more traditional multiplayer experience. Some of these are remakes of classic maps from CoD4, CoD MW2 and CoD MW3. And then there are the larger ground war maps, designed for 64 players in total. These offer a far more tactical approach to the game, rather than pure run and gun gameplay.
Out of all game modes, I enjoy Team Deathmatch the most. For me this is the most purest multiplayer experience to be found in CoD MW, unburdened with complexity or gimmicks. However in the latest instalment of the game, the degree of my enjoyment is very dependent upon which map is being played. Some such as Azhir Cave or Hackney Yard offer a sufficient variety of environments to afford the player a good choice in loadouts. These maps provide fluid gameplay but the players still have a choice of strategy. This is CoD MW at its best. However, the dial gets turned up to 11 on many of the smaller maps such as Gulag Showers. These are fine if they are played with the correct size team but if utilised with larger populations they become just a frenzied free-for-all. Spawn, spray gun fire, die, rinse and repeat. It’s manic gameplay that means that everyone will get a number of kills simply by random chance. And then there’s the Ground War maps which work best if each team plays in a collaborative and coordinated manner. Or else you spend half your time just trying to find where everyone else is at. Alternatively you can dig in and camp.
Then there’s the Plunder Mode, where the objective is to collect cash hidden around the map and then arrange for its collection. The principle is sound but the reality of the situation is not the same as the concept that is sold during the tutorial. The matches often take far too long. They’re limited to either 30 minutes maximum (which is forever in this fast paced genre) or until either squad has collectively banked $1 million. All too often the majority of players are concentrated in one area of the map, focusing on the same stash of money. These fights again just become a free for all, which makes them initially amusing but such an approach gets old quickly. Unlike the Warzone multiplayer experience there is no mechanic that forces the gameplay along or advances the situation. As a result Plunder Mode often descends into a “wee stooshie”, robbing players who crave a more measured approach of any measured fun.
Finally, Warzone is a surprisingly good attempt at the Battle Royale genre from the Call of Duty developers. It manages to add just enough innovation to the formula to make it sufficiently different from other games. The standout mechanic is the chance to re-enter the game, if you die early on. You respawn in the Gulag Showers map armed with just a sidearm and go one on one with another player. The victor is redeployed in the Warzone. Then there’s the looting in the actual combat zone itself, which is streamlined and equitable in the initial stages of the game. However, there is the ability to have prebuilt loadouts air dropped into the game and this can make a sizable difference to proceedings. Experienced players therefore tend to end the latter stages of the game better geared and with useful killstreaks and buffs. Warzone also works better with team based gameplay as this encourages a more proactive approach to exploring the map and seeking out the enemy.
As ever with multiplayer games, the wild card in the proceedings is the human element. If you play with a group of friends then you’ll more than likely find the engaging gameplay you seek. Play with strangers and it becomes far more of a lottery. Players will abandon pick up groups if they underachieve or differ in skill. Playing Warzone with 150 solo players is also a challenge. The sensible thing to do is the aim for where you think the centre of the ever decreasing circle will be, grab a weapon and find somewhere to dig in. You can frequently find yourself in the last remaining 20 players this way but it doesn’t make for the most compelling gameplay. Also joining a game populated by experienced players who know the maps well and have unlocked optimal loadouts can also make Team Deathmatch an uphill struggle. The flaw in most of the multiplayer permutations in CoD MW is that you have to play a lot to unlock resources and learn your way around before you get the most out of the game. Hence newer players may well become despondent at being cannon fodder and thus leave the game.
However, CoD MW has a saving grace that can throw a lifeline to new players who find themselves battling the learning curve. There is a multiplayer practise mode which allows you to play against bots of varying difficulty. It allows you to customise your loadout (and there is an insane amount of scope to customize your weaponry), pick a specific map and experiment with the various game modes. Furthermore, the AI of the bots is quite challenging. There is also a tutorial for Warzone, although it is confined to a specific part of the map (The Quarry) and doesn’t offer the scope of the other multiplayer practise modes. I would certainly recommend practise mode, especially for those players who dislike live PVP and its associated “culture”. Overall, Call of Duty Modern Warfare offers exactly what it claims to and if approached with the right mindset, will provide varying degrees of entertainment. If you have friends you can play with, then you’ll experience the best that the franchise can offer. As ever dedicated servers are sorely missed and every now and then you’ll have a poor game due to the players or the host quitting. The developers also need to come up with an incentive for players to stick around until the end of the match. However such issues have always been inherent with any sort of PvP. If you bear all of this in mind then the latest instalment of CoD can offer you hours of entertainment.
The Trivialisation of World War II?
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
If memory serves, in early 2010 EA ran into some PR problems during the run up to the launch of Medal of Honor, when it was revealed that in the multiplayer mode players could play as the Taliban. Needless to say, this decision was robustly challenged by sections of the “popular” press, politicians and many bodies representing servicemen and their families. Eventually, EA capitulated and changed the multiplayer game so that the enemy was known as the Opposing Force or OP4 in military jargon. If we dispense with the tabloid hyperbole and faux moral outrage from blustering politicians, it would appear that the main objection to this situation was that there are still many servicemen and women as well as their families that have suffered directly or indirectly at the hands of the Taliban. It is the current and ongoing human connection to the associated events in Afghanistan that were problematic and thus causes potential public outrage.
So, it would seem that time and an emotional link to the matter in hand, decides whether a historical event is either a bonafide setting for a game or nothing more than tasteless exploitation. Because when you apply these criteria to World War II then we find that many people, especially those under twenty-five, have no living relatives that served or grew up during that era. Hence the passage of time renders these profoundly important events into abstract, textbook history. Effectively it becomes something to be read about, but with no immediate bearing on one’s current existence, although obviously the complete opposite is true. This sense of disconnection with the past is further compounded by socio-political and economic change. Culturally speaking contemporary London, as seen through the eyes of a twentysomething, is a world apart from what my Father’s generation experienced, seventy plus years earlier.
Both my Grandfathers served during World War II. One was an Army Surgeon and the other served in the Eighth Army. My Father was born in 1929 and lived in South London during the Blitz. For him and his peers, World War II was a defining point in his life. He still uses to this day the phrase “before the War” as a means to reference the societal difference between then and now. I grew up in the seventies knowing many men and women who had served. There was a Theology teacher at one of my schools who had spent several years in a Japanese P.O.W camp. One of our neighbours when I was growing up, was a veteran and a member of The Burma Star Association. I would conservatively estimate that for at least four decades after the end of World War II, British society was still tangibly experiencing its fallout in some shape or form.
Yet, time and tide wait for no man. Call of Duty will be releasing their latest instalment of their game in November this year and the franchise is returning to its roots with a World War II setting. Due to the immense popularity of this FPS, a substantial percentage of players who are young, will be introduced to a historical setting that they are not overly familiar with. What will they make of the Normandy landings, the scale of the loss of life and the fundamental causes for World War II itself? Will they simply see the Germans as “baddies” by cultural default? Has the inherent evil of Nazi policies and of Hitler himself any immediate significance, or are they now nothing more than clichéd exemplars of stereotypical notions of evil. Have the passage of time and popular culture simply neutered them of their potency?
As I stated at the start of this post, this article stems from a train of thought and still remains a point to ponder, rather than a working theory. Such a subject needs to be explored by greater thinkers than I and no doubt have been. Already I’m pondering counterpoints to my own assertion. For example, I grew up at a time when a substantial number of comics still had stories set in World War II. Precious few were of any note. Where these also contributing to the trivialisation process I have suggested? What about the films and TV dramas that filled theatres and broadcasting schedules during the post war decades? Are comedies such as 'Allo 'Allo! or Hogan's Heroes artistically justified or potentially just as offensive and exploitative as games such as Sniper Elite (assuming you see them in such terms)?
As someone who tries to avoid the binary or a tendency towards knee-jerk responses, these are all difficult questions to answer. Especially at a time when rationality has been usurped by the cult of virtue signalling and an addiction to “finding offense”. I would like to think that common sense may prevail but even that seems to be a term that we cannot agree upon these days. As for the trivialisation of World War II and potentially many other important events and causes, I think that it will remain a hotly debated topic. If you’re looking for games publishers to act and think responsibly then I’m sure the majority will disappoint you. Morality seldom deters and as we have seen, change is usually only embraced if there is risk to the bottom line. As for myself, I have sufficient gumption not to allow the depiction of World War II in video games to impact upon my real-world perspective of those historical events themselves. Yet I still have a nagging feeling from time to time that something about these titles is somehow “troubling”.
Running Around Shooting Things
I took advantage of the current summer sales and pre-ordered the next instalment of Call of Duty, succinctly named WWII, due to be released in Autumn. After straying far from the established model, it’s nice to see CoD returning to its roots. The Second World War is a tried and tested formula and will no doubt be well received by fans of the franchise. As I have said before, COD is not a revolutionary product and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It provides a standard formula with sufficient variation, which is commercially viable and demonstrably popular. Those gamers that constantly rail against these games are on a hiding to nothing. You might as well complain about pop music being mainstream and accessible.
I took advantage of the current summer sales and pre-ordered the next instalment of Call of Duty, succinctly named WWII, due to be released in Autumn. After straying far from the established model, it’s nice to see CoD returning to its roots. The Second World War is a tried and tested formula and will no doubt be well received by fans of the franchise. As I have said before, COD is not a revolutionary product and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It provides a standard formula with sufficient variation, which is commercially viable and demonstrably popular. Those gamers that constantly rail against these games are on a hiding to nothing. You might as well complain about pop music being mainstream and accessible.
Over the years I played numerous FPS franchises such as Doom, Quake and Battlefield. Recently I’ve strayed in to cooperative variants such as Overwatch and For Honor. They all have their respective merits and downsides. But they all have to be offset against my relative lack of skill with the FPS genre. Map familiarity, optimising your load out and effective tactics are required skills if you want to get the most from the games. Skills that I lack. As a result, many of these titles have never fully satisfied me and lived up to the frenetic experience that the marketing depicted. However, COD, particularly the Treyarch produced instalments, have not fallen into this category.
The barriers to success are lower due to the mechanics of the game. Weapons physics and map designs are less esoteric and there is also an opportunity for luck. Even the most myopic of players will be presented with a chance to get kill sooner or later, even if it is simply by a player spawning in front of you. What some see as dumbing down is the foundation of the games appeal. For those that want a more challenging experience there are harder game modes. But for those that don't want a strict learning curve or the intricacies of more sophisticated games, COD provides a quick fix. There is also the offline multiplayer option in some instalment for those who wish to play against bots.
I have spent time in various incarnations of Battlefield where the multiplayer experience has been very good. But that has often been dependent on the server I was playing on. I have also had times when endless running across the map only to be shot the moment I arrived at the action, became very trying. The way certain players monopolise some of the vehicles is also a pain at times. Simply put, being a poor player inhibits your enjoyment of the game. With CoD, this simply doesn't arise as often. You may at times chance across some tedious troll but this can be addressed with the judicious use of the mute button. Overall you can jump into the action and quickly start enjoying the game without having to think to hard or worry about tactics. Overwatch has a similar accessibility about it. If you desire a greater challenge you can always find it with the variety of options these games offer.
The FPS genre provides a variety of products, catering to a broad range of tastes. Each has its place in the market and arguing that one is better than another seems as senseless to me as saying apples are better than oranges. There are times when I will knuckle down and attempt to up my game when playing something like Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad. It often helps in a more complex environment to be part of an organised team. On other occasions, I am happy to take a more leisurely approach because sometimes, all I want to do is run around and shoot things. It is then that I recapture that enjoyment I had when playing Unreal Tournament, back in 1999. Because isn't having fun what gaming is supposed to be about?