PixlBit

[This blog, originally posted on October 10, 2011, was the greatest exposure I ever got on 1UP. I can't tell you how excited I was when my wife pointed out that it was the "Featured Blog" on 1UP's homepage. This was also the first time I had comments from people that obviously had not read the entire post. So if the title alone gets your fanboy ire up, read through to the end before you rant. We might agree more than you think. Thanks for reading and enjoy!]

The PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 with a lot of crappy games, but one of the better ones was TimeSplitters, a first-person shooter developed by Free Radical, which was founded by a group of former Rare employees. (Ever wonder why Perfect Dark was good and Perfect Dark Zero wasn't? Yup, it's 'cause of the Free Radical exodus.) TimeSplitters didn't have much of a single player campaign but at the time it set the standard for console FPS multiplayer. The sequel followed two years later on the PS2, Xbox, and GameCube and added a significant, if story-lite, single-player experience to the robust multiplayer, as well as a bunch of quick and often crazy challenge missions. The series reached its pinnacle in 2005 with its third and thus far final entry, TimeSplitters: Future Perfect. Future Perfect took everything from TS2 to the next level and included an involved and hilarious story. It was a game you could sink dozens and dozens of hours into.

 

Call of Duty, developed by Infinity Ward, started on the PC in 2003 and took the Medal of Honor WWII template and made it a cinematic experience that put you into the war. Despite several ports, the series didn't hit it big on consoles until the second game launched with the Xbox 360. CoD2 was so successful that Activision wanted another the next year. Infinity Ward decided it wanted two years to make its next game...but we're not gonna talk about Treyarch's CoD3 (though they did figure things out eventually).

 

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, with its thrill-a-minute campaign and RPG-infused multiplayer, was an instant classic in 2007. Its 2009 sequel was mostly more of the same—which was awesome. A bigger campaign, excellent multiplayer, and the inclusion of the new challenged-centered Special Ops—Modern Warfare 2 was the complete package.

 

I've been playing MW2 for about two weeks (two days to complete the campaign, mostly multiplayer after that), and I'm surprised by how much it makes me think of TimeSplitters...but at the same time I'm surprised it makes me think of TS at all. Comparing MW2 with Future Perfect shows that both games have tons to keep you occupied. Special Ops really reminded me of TimeSplitters because I spent hours back in the day shooting cardboard cutouts and punching zombies in the face and doing all sorts of crazy things. Both games have campaigns with involved stories and excellent multiplayer with a ton of modes. And while MW2 does have the upper hand in multiplayer thanks to the proliferation of online gaming and despite the fact that Future Perfect did have spotty online on the PS2 and Xbox, TimeSplitters has always had bots. They're generally not as fun or perhaps as satisfying as playing with people...but they also don't camp out and snipe you, so I don't hate them with a passion. So really, the multiplayer in either game is a blast to play.

 

Of course, in some ways the two games couldn't be more different. The most obvious thing is the tone of the games. The Timesplitters franchise is very goofy and has never taken itself seriously. Even the character models are more cartoony. Call of Duty is the opposite. It's all about realism and drama. While the first Modern Warfare struck a nice balance, MW2 takes itself way too seriously. The number of times the developers made use of the woozy, disoriented camera after your character falls off of something or has something fall on him or gets caught in an explosion is kind of ridiculous. TimeSplitters is also much more objective-based. Think N64 GoldenEye taken to the next level. The number of objectives depends on the level of difficulty, and sometimes there are purely optional things you could try to do. While Call of Duty has objectives, they’re simply an excuse to get you from point A to point B. On the harder difficulties the bad guys are simply better at killing you.

 

We should also consider what a spiritual successor is. It’s very much like a sequel—features many of the same themes, elements, or styles—but with a completely unrelated story. Most spiritual successors, I would think, are intentioned that way. Everyone knew that BioShock was the spiritual successor to System Shock 2 and that Ikaruga followed Radiant Silvergun because the developers told us so (despite how obvious it was). And these games were by the same developers as the earlier titles. Infinity Ward would probably never admit to the influence of other games, except perhaps a grudging nod to Medal of Honor.

 

So, to answer my own question, I think the case could be made for spiritual succession only in what the games deliver—an excellent campaign, robust multiplayer, and stand-alone challenges. Beyond that I think the differences are too great. Perhaps the term “meta successor” would be more appropriate. But regardless, they are two excellent expressions of the FPS genre, and I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to enjoy them both.

(And hopefully one day Free Radical will get to make TimeSplitters 4.)