surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Military shooters and FPS's in general are a nice inbetween for me. It's a genre with little expectations and guaranteed action. I enjoy them inbetween the more unique games.
I really liked the Combat Mission mode in the first one. It was like a stripped down Battlefield Conquest/Rush hybrid and was a lot of fun. It's really the only reason I have any interest in this, so it better come back to MOH:W and they better not fuck it up.
I can't even begin to tell you how tired I am of these. Why is anyone continuing to buy them? I just don't get it. Why buy what is essentially the same game over, and over, and over, and over again? I try hard to out myself in the shoes of a gamer who would continue to buy all of these military shooters, but I just can't see their reasoning.
And this is coming from a big FPS fan. I loved FPS's when they were just another genre, not the king of all genres like they are today in America. Yet, all we see is the same damn thing over and over again. And when something really fresh does come out, like Metro 2033 or Singularity, people ignore it.
What confuses me the most about all of these copy and past military shooters are the people behind them. The people in charge, specifically. Do they realize they are just being boring? That they are just emulating what has already been done to death? Do the guys and gals who are in charge of this product understand that they are simply a monkey for the publisher? Put in charge of a copy cat project simply because of the money?
I guess what I'm getting at is...Well, they must be in it for the money, and nothing else. There is no artistic value in a product that looks, plays, feels and sounds like every other military shooter. They aren't making art here, they are making a product. And I hate to think of games as products. Metro 2033 was art. Singularity was art. Homefront, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, these are all products.
And this is coming from a big FPS fan. I loved FPS's when they were just another genre, not the king of all genres like they are today in America. Yet, all we see is the same damn thing over and over again. And when something really fresh does come out, like Metro 2033 or Singularity, people ignore it.
What confuses me the most about all of these copy and past military shooters are the people behind them. The people in charge, specifically. Do they realize they are just being boring? That they are just emulating what has already been done to death? Do the guys and gals who are in charge of this product understand that they are simply a monkey for the publisher? Put in charge of a copy cat project simply because of the money?
I guess what I'm getting at is...Well, they must be in it for the money, and nothing else. There is no artistic value in a product that looks, plays, feels and sounds like every other military shooter. They aren't making art here, they are making a product. And I hate to think of games as products. Metro 2033 was art. Singularity was art. Homefront, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, these are all products.
@ EKG
battlefield is beautiful. Seriously sometimes I just stop and look at the vast changing battlefield before and say wow. Look at the carnage. It is wonderful.But yes the stagnation of the fps genre is saddening. honestly I have Red orchestra 2, Bf3 and then the new Counter strike And I will be set for along as they make content for them. on a side note, dishonored looks like a great step out. hope it does well.
battlefield is beautiful. Seriously sometimes I just stop and look at the vast changing battlefield before and say wow. Look at the carnage. It is wonderful.But yes the stagnation of the fps genre is saddening. honestly I have Red orchestra 2, Bf3 and then the new Counter strike And I will be set for along as they make content for them. on a side note, dishonored looks like a great step out. hope it does well.
Authentic is the word you are looking for, not Realistic. Using the latter only insults those of us who have served in the Military.
While you are at it, inform your colleagues to stop referring to Magazines as Clips! Unless you are referencing an M1 Garand.
While you are at it, inform your colleagues to stop referring to Magazines as Clips! Unless you are referencing an M1 Garand.
You know, Medal of Honor did the WWII shooter long before COD and EA was the first out the door with all these "modern shooters". Why does COD get a pass on this criticism?
I'm going to take EKG's advice and get Metro 2033. I loved Singularity so I'm sure I'll enjoy that.
Despite being short and a let down from ID's pedigree, I really enjoyed Rage too.
I'm going to take EKG's advice and get Metro 2033. I loved Singularity so I'm sure I'll enjoy that.
Despite being short and a let down from ID's pedigree, I really enjoyed Rage too.
Seriously why does everyone credit cod 4 for bringing fps games to modern times? Counter strike is set in modern times.
Bf2 did everything cod 4 did but better and before cod 4 by like a year or so.
Yet everyone is on cods nuts.
Bf2 did everything cod 4 did but better and before cod 4 by like a year or so.
Yet everyone is on cods nuts.
@madrox23 while I am someone who enjoys the older battlefield games a lot more than cod I would not agree on what you just said, bf2 had an unlock system that was total garbage and took 3000 years to complete while cod4 still had a more reasonable unlock system. (not saying unlocks are important or anything)
its just that bf2 is a very flawed and very imbalanced game, nothing will change that.
its just that bf2 is a very flawed and very imbalanced game, nothing will change that.
@qlum
So it takes time to unlock stuff and thats bad? Its no diff then bad company 2 taking forever to level up.
I dont feel that detracts, but by better i just meant as an overall game. Like always good graphics great sound, big maps vehicles the usual stuff.
So it takes time to unlock stuff and thats bad? Its no diff then bad company 2 taking forever to level up.
I dont feel that detracts, but by better i just meant as an overall game. Like always good graphics great sound, big maps vehicles the usual stuff.
Why is everyone on COD4's nuts? It was insanely advertised the weeks, had a 'shocking' campaign that people everywhere raved about, and instant gratification arcade-like multiplayer. It did nothing new, but sold mainstream numbers, meaning it literally brought in a new generation of gamers who now think COD is the only game to play.
Such a dull looking game, the more I read the duller it sounds. Time to stop reading about it, methinks.
"Seriously why does everyone credit cod 4 for bringing fps games to modern times? Counter strike is set in modern times.
Bf2 did everything cod 4 did but better and before cod 4 by like a year or so.
Yet everyone is on cods nuts."
Because counter strike is PC only? THat's why noone credits it for anything.
Bf2 did everything cod 4 did but better and before cod 4 by like a year or so.
Yet everyone is on cods nuts."
Because counter strike is PC only? THat's why noone credits it for anything.
@EKGProd
Why do people watch and play football and baseball and hockey and any other sport year after year? It's just the same shit over and over. Aren't people bored with them by now?
Why do people watch and play football and baseball and hockey and any other sport year after year? It's just the same shit over and over. Aren't people bored with them by now?
i see a lot of stalemate versions of "pop goes the soldier" happening with that squad-mate death mechanic.
Oops my bad
Do wrists really bend like that in the header image? I try holding mine like that and it hurts like hell after a few seconds.
Do wrists really bend like that in the header image? I try holding mine like that and it hurts like hell after a few seconds.
it's interesting that the original Medal of Honor was a solo experience and it was that "Call of Duty" clone that came onto the market and pretty much copied Medal of Honor but added in AI teammates... now Call of Duty's online is pretty much a solo experience and Medal of Honor has added a "buddy" mechanic. There's a bit of vague irony there.
I like the idea of a "buddy" - it's taking the squad mechanic prevalent in other games and narrowing the focus down to just two players. Still, it's not all about the gameplay or gameplay mechanics... it's all the peripheral stuff - the matchmaking and whether you have to sit for 10 minutes to get into a game, the control and controller options, the lag, working voicechat, the ability to group up and play with friends.
At this point I would rather just have a game that works, and works well... rather than a fantastic game that nobody plays because everything surrounding the game is a broken piece of garbage.
I like the idea of a "buddy" - it's taking the squad mechanic prevalent in other games and narrowing the focus down to just two players. Still, it's not all about the gameplay or gameplay mechanics... it's all the peripheral stuff - the matchmaking and whether you have to sit for 10 minutes to get into a game, the control and controller options, the lag, working voicechat, the ability to group up and play with friends.
At this point I would rather just have a game that works, and works well... rather than a fantastic game that nobody plays because everything surrounding the game is a broken piece of garbage.
"If, somehow, you're not entirely burned out on modern-day first-person shooters, then you may want to read further about Warfighter."
JonStweart"GoOn".gif
JonStweart"GoOn".gif
@EKG - I couldn't disagree with you any more than I do. I'll completely ignore you calling Metro and Singularity "art" because... just lol.
Anyways, My disagreement is how military FPS's are all cookie cutter, while Metro and Singularity are not. You know why I'll take a military shooter any day of the week? Because of the action.
I do not play shooters to have down time. I played about two hours of Metro, and was absolutely bored out of my mind. I'll give Singularity a bit more credit, but it's another game I just couldn't stick with. The ultimate reason on both was that I was just getting bored of the downtime between fire-fights.
I look at shooters as a guilty pleasure - my summer blockbuster movie that just constantly entertains even if it isn't the greatest game in the world. That's why they are great to me. The gameplay is FUN, which is the underlying point of playing them in the first place. I want to go from sniping, to snowmobiles, to infiltrating bases and blowing shit up. As long as there is a good balance, it's fun. Your two examples missed out on this, because most firefights feel the same.
I mean, I understand. A game like Bioshock can draw me in an incredible amount... but it's because it didn't have the expectations as a general shooter. I also question if you even played the last Medal of Honor. The campaign was actually great, focused, and not unrealistic like Call of Duty can be. It's a great balance in comparison to Call of Duty. I can't, however, defend Battlefield's obsession with trying to be CoD. I would say BF has the worst campaigns of all three of these games, but that's just my opinion.
Anyways, My disagreement is how military FPS's are all cookie cutter, while Metro and Singularity are not. You know why I'll take a military shooter any day of the week? Because of the action.
I do not play shooters to have down time. I played about two hours of Metro, and was absolutely bored out of my mind. I'll give Singularity a bit more credit, but it's another game I just couldn't stick with. The ultimate reason on both was that I was just getting bored of the downtime between fire-fights.
I look at shooters as a guilty pleasure - my summer blockbuster movie that just constantly entertains even if it isn't the greatest game in the world. That's why they are great to me. The gameplay is FUN, which is the underlying point of playing them in the first place. I want to go from sniping, to snowmobiles, to infiltrating bases and blowing shit up. As long as there is a good balance, it's fun. Your two examples missed out on this, because most firefights feel the same.
I mean, I understand. A game like Bioshock can draw me in an incredible amount... but it's because it didn't have the expectations as a general shooter. I also question if you even played the last Medal of Honor. The campaign was actually great, focused, and not unrealistic like Call of Duty can be. It's a great balance in comparison to Call of Duty. I can't, however, defend Battlefield's obsession with trying to be CoD. I would say BF has the worst campaigns of all three of these games, but that's just my opinion.
follow
