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.
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.
