Crysis became much, MUCH easier if you played it more as a stealth game than a run-and-gun shooter. I was always either cloaked, hidden in cover, or picking off targets from a kilometre away with a sniper rifle.Silentpony said:
Are almost all military shooters mediocre since Medal of Honor 1999?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Um...which series? Didn't chasing CoD outright kill some series (e.g. Medal of Honor) or, in personal opinion, harm some series (e.g. the use of loadouts in Doom and Halo)?Elvis Starburst said:
I'm not knocking CoD itself here, since it can't be held responsible for the failings of those who tried to imitate it, but I can't think of an occassion when chasing what's hot has worked out. Mario sparked a 2D platformer craze, and apart from Sonic, how many stayed around? WoW spawned a legion of "WoW killers," how many of them are remembered today and/or still active? League of Legends and DotA sparked the MOBA craze, but they've still got the monopoly, and apart from Smite and Heroes of the Storm, the others have either failed or faded into obscurity.
Ok, yeah, fixed that to "games" instead of "series." I'd say Battlefield mostly, but I know it's been doing its own thing for awhile, so that might not be a perfect example, if not an outright bad one. You brought up a good point though, many games took up CoD like styles and "harmed" it. But to some, that might be a good thing. Or in our cases, we might feel that just sorta influenced some already successful titles with its crap elements (Like Halo, as you said). Good catchHawki said:
1. Discrediting MP in the FPS genre is ludicrous. The things you've praised before, DOOM, Quake and Half-Life, had extended life because of multiplayer. Single-player in those games were, for their time, innovative in their own right but its extremely wrong to devalue the MP aspect simply because it doesn't interest you. If you really want to look at it, those same games gave rise to the whole competitive FPS market. Counterstrike and TF started off as mods, now grown to their own games. Whatever you think of MP, it did a lot for FPS's and kept the market alive when it could easily have dropped off. Consoles brought the idea of the FPS to the mainstream because, like it or not PC only recently has seen a surge in the mainstream market. Notice the series that made it big were the ones with the biggest multiplayer base. Duke Nukem, ROTT, Hexen, and many others did not survive.
2. Knocking on derivative games is also ludicrous. So many games have borrowed bits and pieces from earlier titles. I could make a list of things that have jumped from dev to dev but I'm not going to as its not worth it, but its common knowledge that many devs "borrow" from previous games. Its how the industry grows.
3. Subjectivity is in effect, which means you're welcome to have opinions on whatever you want, but if you truly want discussion you have to be open to the idea that your opinions are not universal and cannot be applied as fact.
4. Military shooters are successful because more people enjoy them than don't. At some point the industry will turn as tastes change and people want something else.
5. DOOM 2016 is fun, I agree. I love it. Its not comparable to its predecessors simply because its evolved. It happens to be good because iD figured out how to tap into the feeling of the older games and subvert some of the newer tropes but they didn't remake DOOM with modern graphics. Can't be done.
6. Like CoD or not, its popular still and from what I can tell you're not part of that crowd. That is fine. Don't expect things to go your way though, minority groups tend to lose out on the AAA market. That's how it works. DOOM likely is selling well because there's enough recognition of the name, but boy were a lot of us scared that it was going to be shit. We lucked out but it was close. SO close. Complain all you want, but honestly your subjective tastes are not the majority at the moment (and likely won't be considering other posts I've read by you, no offense but you're in a very minority group with your views on GTA and Mafia in terms of quality).
So its fine that you've got your views, it really is but you've got to realize you're essentially very niche. There are some merits, that yes SP campaigns in CoD games have lost luster, but CoD4 is widely regarded to be one of the best campaign stories told in an FPS. DOOM 1 & 2, Quake 1-4 had little-to-no story beyond flavor. Half-Life and HL2 may have had storytelling contained in their games but when taken as a whole, they were extremely linear and still had setpieces. Replacing the cutscenes with faux-interactive parts in retrospect isn't innovative at all but can actually be maddeningly frustrating. It's all perspective but let's not kid ourselves, they didn't add to the story in any significant way.
Basically enjoy what you enjoy but you're not going to change people's minds on how games are perceived in terms of popularity. Multiplayer is, for better or worse, a huge selling point for games. Its just how these things work.
2. Knocking on derivative games is also ludicrous. So many games have borrowed bits and pieces from earlier titles. I could make a list of things that have jumped from dev to dev but I'm not going to as its not worth it, but its common knowledge that many devs "borrow" from previous games. Its how the industry grows.
3. Subjectivity is in effect, which means you're welcome to have opinions on whatever you want, but if you truly want discussion you have to be open to the idea that your opinions are not universal and cannot be applied as fact.
4. Military shooters are successful because more people enjoy them than don't. At some point the industry will turn as tastes change and people want something else.
5. DOOM 2016 is fun, I agree. I love it. Its not comparable to its predecessors simply because its evolved. It happens to be good because iD figured out how to tap into the feeling of the older games and subvert some of the newer tropes but they didn't remake DOOM with modern graphics. Can't be done.
6. Like CoD or not, its popular still and from what I can tell you're not part of that crowd. That is fine. Don't expect things to go your way though, minority groups tend to lose out on the AAA market. That's how it works. DOOM likely is selling well because there's enough recognition of the name, but boy were a lot of us scared that it was going to be shit. We lucked out but it was close. SO close. Complain all you want, but honestly your subjective tastes are not the majority at the moment (and likely won't be considering other posts I've read by you, no offense but you're in a very minority group with your views on GTA and Mafia in terms of quality).
So its fine that you've got your views, it really is but you've got to realize you're essentially very niche. There are some merits, that yes SP campaigns in CoD games have lost luster, but CoD4 is widely regarded to be one of the best campaign stories told in an FPS. DOOM 1 & 2, Quake 1-4 had little-to-no story beyond flavor. Half-Life and HL2 may have had storytelling contained in their games but when taken as a whole, they were extremely linear and still had setpieces. Replacing the cutscenes with faux-interactive parts in retrospect isn't innovative at all but can actually be maddeningly frustrating. It's all perspective but let's not kid ourselves, they didn't add to the story in any significant way.
Basically enjoy what you enjoy but you're not going to change people's minds on how games are perceived in terms of popularity. Multiplayer is, for better or worse, a huge selling point for games. Its just how these things work.
It seems to be a pvp/pve survival game.B-Cell said:
Here is an hour developer walkthrough of the alpha
Well, I'll give you this; as far as straight-faced, pseudo-realistic military shooters go, I haven't played any that impressed me from a gameplay standpoint after the first Call of Duty, before Activision sold out.
Though I did enjoy the hell out of Spec Ops: The Line, the gameplay on that one was intentionally generic.
Though I did enjoy the hell out of Spec Ops: The Line, the gameplay on that one was intentionally generic.
I was hooked on MoH back in the day. It was no GoldenEye, but I enjoyed it. That said, looking back at it, it's probably the weakest MoH game I've played (bar expansions).Worgen said:
In hindsight, I think MoH deserves more credit for concept than execution. I can't recall a WWII game before it that strove to emulate WWII in the same way that it did, in that regardless of the use of one-man OSS missions, it did show a desire to be true to history as much as its mechanics would allow. Considering that Wolfenstein's use of WWII years prior was "mecha Hitler" and "Nazi wizards," and the differences are like night and day.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Rising Sun... was that the one that starts out on pearl harbor? If it was I remember not liking that one either since it started with you shooting down a bunch of japanese planes using stationary guns. Doing a historical setting like that with so much wrong with it always rubs me the wrong way. Its not like other battles, we have good records of the number of Japanese planes lost and it wasn't many.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Battlefield Bad Company 2 came out after Medal of Honor 1999, so I would say that you are wrong.
That image about ADSing implies that you think that ADSing is bad, and that is a silly thing to think. ADSing isn't an inherently bad mechanic. It can be implemented poorly, or very well, like literally any mechanic ever. Besides, ADSing is a very common mechanic that is found in a whole bunch of games; picking out and comparing two games based on that mechanic alone is like comparing games based on the fact that you have to reload in them in them.
Besides, ADSing is a very important mechanic for milsim games, or games that are trying to be realistic to an extent, and the same goes for needing to reload. I've been having my fair share of fun with Doom 2016, sure, but I could not imagine those mechanics translating very well, to say, a WWII game where your are storming the beaches of Normandy. Other sub genres are allowed to exist in this universe, too, you know?
That image about ADSing implies that you think that ADSing is bad, and that is a silly thing to think. ADSing isn't an inherently bad mechanic. It can be implemented poorly, or very well, like literally any mechanic ever. Besides, ADSing is a very common mechanic that is found in a whole bunch of games; picking out and comparing two games based on that mechanic alone is like comparing games based on the fact that you have to reload in them in them.
Besides, ADSing is a very important mechanic for milsim games, or games that are trying to be realistic to an extent, and the same goes for needing to reload. I've been having my fair share of fun with Doom 2016, sure, but I could not imagine those mechanics translating very well, to say, a WWII game where your are storming the beaches of Normandy. Other sub genres are allowed to exist in this universe, too, you know?
Not every shooter needs to be run n gun. Look at everything from STALKER to Arma; there is ADS and the games simply wouldn't feel right without it.
Having said that, the military shooting sub genre has definitely seen better days. There needs to be more tactical, open-ended design with less reliance on scripted action sequences that really do little more than disengage the player. Escape From Tarkov looks interesting, but unfortunately it sounds like it will have limited single player depth.
I think the biggest problem with most shooters is the hook of rinse and repeat MP gameplay. Campaigns are treated mostly as an afterthought devoid of intelligent design, and the biggest draw the games have are endless bouts of mind-numbing killstreaks and what have you. Sometimes a game can work well that way, like with LFD or TF2 type strategizing and the recent Overwatch, but they still ultimately rely on that loop.
Having said that, the military shooting sub genre has definitely seen better days. There needs to be more tactical, open-ended design with less reliance on scripted action sequences that really do little more than disengage the player. Escape From Tarkov looks interesting, but unfortunately it sounds like it will have limited single player depth.
I think the biggest problem with most shooters is the hook of rinse and repeat MP gameplay. Campaigns are treated mostly as an afterthought devoid of intelligent design, and the biggest draw the games have are endless bouts of mind-numbing killstreaks and what have you. Sometimes a game can work well that way, like with LFD or TF2 type strategizing and the recent Overwatch, but they still ultimately rely on that loop.
I did not found any of game good beside allied assault. its one of the most irrelevant franchise in history imo. I also played airborne and that game was horrible. didnot bother to try modern reboot and its sequel.Worgen said:
So the franchise that was the major inspiration for Call of Duty (which in turn is quite possibly the most influential game series in history so far) in terms of preceding games and which is generally attributed for having started the decade long WW2-obsession in gaming is irrelevant, how?B-Cell said:
I swear B-Cell, some times it is as if you and I live in different realities.
my friend, you proven my point. COD is one of the most stale franchise in history and give bad influence to FPS genre. MOH has not been relevant since ages (or ever). so it can be blame for yearly iteration of COD.Gethsemani said: