Are almost all military shooters mediocre since Medal of Honor 1999?

[ZeD [taken 0]]

ADS makes no sense, the way it is now. Typically, the dot in the center of the screen isn't wobbling and the character is keeping their arm steady. All ADS does is create artificial inaccuracy (when shooting "over the shoulder") to justify itself. Keeping still or not moving too fast should be enough. The hand on your mouse, the (dot on the) center of the screen and your own eyes are already representative of aiming down sights in real life. They should find a more realistic way to do ADS if they're gonna include it.

Insurgency did it pretty much correctly.
Though, they make it harder to control the recoil in hip firing than in real life.

Generally, I don't care that much. I view it as a game mechanic that can be fun.

 

[Hawki]

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?

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.

Wait, what point? You started this thread with the question (i.e. "statement") that "Are almost all military shooters mediocre since Medal of Honor 1999?" You then go on to say that MoH isn't influential (which isn't the same thing as calling it mediocre). Gethsemani then points out that it is influential, for the reason we all know it is, in that without MoH CoD might not even exist, among other things, such as arguably popularizing WWII shooters to begin with. You then shift your point again to say that it's been proven, and state that CoD is a stale franchise. Which says nothing about MoH being mediocre or irrelevant in of itself.

I know it's difficult for you to wrap your head around, but irrelevance and mediocrity are two separate things. So while I'm wasting my time in typing this at all, I may as well clarify that whatever their flaws, no-one could accuse CoD of being irrelevant, and while long past its heyday, no-one could accuse MoH of being irrelevant for the reasons I've given above.

I swear B-Cell, some times it is as if you and I live in different realities.

Don't worry, most of us are on the same plane as you.

 

[Battenberg]

It's amazing that, even when it's an entirely different forum, I knew who posted this by reading the thread title.

Ditto. I even knew the phrase 'fellow gamers' would crop up in the first few lines followed by them bashing a series of incredibly popular games and that they'd have posted a good half a dozen times on the first page to get the thread going.

It's just very formulaic predictable flamebaiting imo but I guess I'm in a minority seeing it that way given the response it consistently gets.

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

ADS makes no sense, the way it is now. Typically, the dot in the center of the screen isn't wobbling and the character is keeping their arm steady. All ADS does is create artificial inaccuracy (when shooting "over the shoulder") to justify itself. Keeping still or not moving too fast should be enough. The hand on your mouse, the (dot on the) center of the screen and your own eyes are already representative of aiming down sights in real life. They should find a more realistic way to do ADS if they're gonna include it.

Insurgency did it pretty much correctly.
Though, they make it harder to control the recoil in hip firing than in real life.

Generally, I don't care that much. I view it as a game mechanic that can be fun.

Right, "from the hip" is what I meant, not "over the shoulder".

How does Insurgency do it? It doesn't appear to have a dot on the screen. That makes sense. The reticle/sights would be redundant otherwise. Well, they still kind of are, unless I'm missing something.

Have you played Red Orchestra? Basically the same thing.
When you look to the left, you will also aim your gun to the left. And so on.
And when you fire, both your gun and vision will aim upwards, and you'll have to drag your mouse down to face your enemy, with both vision and weapon.

And there's no crosshair, so you'll have to go on your gut about it. It's pretty intuitive, so it's usually not a problem.

EDIT; If my explanation sucks, look it up on youtube. And buy it. 'Cause it's an awesome FPS.

 

[Vigormortis]

Just when I thought these sorts of threads couldn't get any more hyperbolic.

are all military shooters mediocre?

No. They aren't.

Mediocre:
: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so

This applies to some military shooters, but certainly not all. I'd even argue many have only gotten better as time has gone on.

In fact, I'm questioning whether you've even played any modern military shooters. You spend so much of your time hating on anything that isn't 'old-school' that it seems odd for you to have even attempted to play those games so frequently. I'm also amazed that your 'high-mark' for quality is Medal of Honor. MOH'99, for that matter. That game was riddled with issues, bugs, and antiquated game elements. It had some interesting ideas but mein gods was it rough, even for its era.

We get it. You like a very narrow niche of FPS games. Your dozens of threads on the matter have made that quite clear. But games from a different genre or sub-genre aren't 'bad' just because you don't like them.

Your opinion isn't sacrosanct. No ones is. Not even mine.

and success of Doom will lead to make FPS genre great again.

Again? When wasn't it? Well, except for your supposed 'sacred era' in the 90's. The same era when the genre was flooded with shitty clones and knockoffs.

Seriously, the 90's were terrible for the FPS genre. It was like the mobile market today. Just a deluge of shitty copy-cat games and shovelware on top of the few genuinely great titles. There's a reason the phrase "Doom clone" exists.

More like the vast majority of shooters, military or other. I have no idea how you can stand to play so many of them.

Code for "Stop liking what I don't like!"

I'd even say most of the criticisms in this thread can be summed up by that phrase.

"How anyone can like this thing I don't like is beyond me!" What narrow points of view people have nowadays.

I'm pretty sure the "Doom clones" got stale as well. As did the "Mario clones." And the "GTA clones." And the...well, you get the idea. Maybe.

Funny how people seem to forget those existed. Rose-tinted historical revisionism and all that...

Or they could...I dunno...make Quake 5?

Can we have this? Please? I actually want more stupid sci-fi action FPS games like Doom and Quake.

[sub]but only if id injects a sense of humor like they did with the new DOOM.[/sub]

That said, I was into sci-fi FPS "before it was cool" (Halo, Killzone, etc.), so, um, there. I feel it also signifies my personal choice. Usually I say clear of MMS/WWII FPS because sci-fi is my jam, and I highly value story.

Psh. Halo and Killzone? You young'un.

Does that mean those games are bad, just because of personal preference? No. The MoH games I played were all good (bar Breakthrough), and I loved playing Battlefield 2 back in the day.

Good to see someone else finally not conflating "I don't like this" with "This is bad".

Okay, we get it, you don't care about story or multiplayer in FPS, if not in general. That's fine. I don't care that much about multiplayer in FPS either, bar a few exceptions. That doesn't mean that a game doesn't deserve merit - it's like me calling TF2 or Quake 3 "bad" because they're multiplayer only, and therefore not in my realm of interest. Anyone with any understanding of fiction and/or politics could appreciate that regardless of how CoD plays, the fact that it touched on these things at all and executed them the way they did (e.g. the nuke scene) is worthy of merit. That's not to say that previous FPS games didn't tell stories, but I can't think of one before CoD 4 that tapped into the War on Terror so effectively in terms of how it reflected the darker side of patriotism and the risks of military intervention in the 21st century.

To be fair, Half-Life 2 and some of the Killzones did, to one degree or another. Both touched on topics of totalitarian regimes, military occupations, themes of civil unrest, etc.

I'm not saying they were particularly deep on all of those topics, but they did, in the very least, touch on them.

Even if the Doom game plays excellently, it's not doing anything new.

You're right, but that doesn't make the game any less laudable.

 

[Hawki]

Psh. Halo and Killzone? You young'un.

Heh...yeah. Looking back at the 90s, I think the only shooters I ever played were Doom, GoldenEye, and the original Medal of Honor. Since played other FPS games that were released in the 90s (Marathon, Armorines), but, yeah. Platformers and racing games were more my jam back then.

To be fair, Half-Life 2 and some of the Killzones did, to one degree or another. Both touched on topics of totalitarian regimes, military occupations, themes of civil unrest, etc.

I'm not saying they were particularly deep on all of those topics, but they did, in the very least, touch on them.

Oh, they certainly do that stuff, but I wouldn't have equated them to the War on Terror. Killzone 1-3 is more "WWII in space," whereas Shadow Fall is more analogous to the Cold War. Half-Life 2 is a game's take on dystopia/post-apocalypse/insurgency. Both of them have interesting storylines/settings (more HL-2 than KZ, but even KZ does more with its world then "space Nazis" would have you think), but War on Terror itself? Don't really see the parallels.

You're right, but that doesn't make the game any less laudable.

That's true. Haven't played it, so I might be eating my own words, but I doubt that Doom 2016 is going to be on the level of many '98 greats, at least in regards to how it's remembered. To be honest, I'm kind of put off by Doom in that it's a second reboot of a series with not enough story to really necessitate a reboot (similar to Star Fox), but I won't say it's bad. Not until I've played it at least.

 

[Vigormortis]

Heh...yeah. Looking back at the 90s, I think the only shooters I ever played were Doom, GoldenEye, and the original Medal of Honor. Since played other FPS games that were released in the 90s (Marathon, Armorines), but, yeah. Platformers and racing games were more my jam back then.

I started with the likes of Wolfenstein and Doom. I've been an avid FPS fan since then. Though, I only 'enjoyed' the first-person genre (not just shooters) until I played Half-Life in '98, where I fell in love with the genre and video games in general. Since then I've been fascinated by the art form.

Though, to be fair, I was a pretty big fan of racers and platformers as well. Gods know I still own my fair share of those sorts of games on my SNES and N64.

Oh, they certainly do that stuff, but I wouldn't have equated them to the War on Terror. Killzone 1-3 is more "WWII in space," whereas Shadow Fall is more analogous to the Cold War. Half-Life 2 is a game's take on dystopia/post-apocalypse/insurgency. Both of them have interesting storylines/settings (more HL-2 than KZ, but even KZ does more with its world then "space Nazis" would have you think), but War on Terror itself? Don't really see the parallels.

Fair 'nough.

That's true. Haven't played it, so I might be eating my own words, but I doubt that Doom 2016 is going to be on the level of many '98 greats, at least in regards to how it's remembered. To be honest, I'm kind of put off by Doom in that it's a second reboot of a series with not enough story to really necessitate a reboot (similar to Star Fox), but I won't say it's bad. Not until I've played it at least.

You should really give it a try. I've had an absolute blast playing it. It's been some of the most cathartic and laugh-inducing fun I've had with a game in quite some time. I had the biggest, dumbest grin on my face the first time I saw my DoomGuy pick up one of the DoomMarine dolls, extend its arm, and bro-fist it.

It's apparent ID had one, over-arching rule when they set down their design docs for this game: Make it fun. For me, it was mission accomplished.[footnote]I even like the multiplayer. I know everyone's complaining that it isn't "truly old-school" or that it "doesn't innovate anything". I don't think it has to. It's still solidly made multiplayer FPS action. I don't need it to be innovative or 'truly old-school'.[/footnote]

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

All the games you listed up top were fantastic (with the possible exception of MW3, imo).

hey zed, welcome here my old freind.

anyways my point was all these type of games almost ruined FPS genre last generation. until this gen where raise and return of Old school FPS.

EA originally reboot MOH to modern times just to compete with COD but series bombed so hard that EA has to abondon the franchise and shift focus toward battlefield.

only military shooter i found even decent were COD1 and MOH allied assault. they were good but not really great imo.

Hopefully success of Doom change the landscape for FPS genre as ID software revolutionize FPS genre back then too. Doom just released. next is Quake Reboot. do it ID.

Quake and Doom... Military shooters?

Did you play Black? Flashpoint (Red river and Dragon Rising)? ArmA? Hell, you mention the Rainbow Six games, but they were great!

Really not sure what you are arguing here...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

ADS makes no sense, the way it is now. Typically, the dot in the center of the screen isn't wobbling and the character is keeping their arm steady. All ADS does is create artificial inaccuracy (when shooting "over the shoulder") to justify itself. Keeping still or not moving too fast should be enough. The hand on your mouse, the (dot on the) center of the screen and your own eyes are already representative of aiming down sights in real life. They should find a more realistic way to do ADS if they're gonna include it.

ADS is more for controllers than anything as it gives people with a controller the ability to basically switch sensitivities on the fly as having a fast look speed is preferable for moving around (and the initial aim) but horrible for fine tuning your aim. Same reason why TPSs have over-the-shoulder shooting and most usually ADS as well. I never got why hip-firing is usually made so inaccurate though because regardless if you hip-fire or ADS, it's the same exact process to aim regardless (center free look camera on enemy and then shoot). I can understand making hip-fire inaccurate for sniper rifles because you don't want them becoming shotguns but that's really about it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Fucking controllers...

I love using a sniper rifle as a shotgun or mid range weapon. It makes the character seem so versatile and badass. I'm always disappointed when devs make their accuracy terrible from the hip.

I realize the mouse is far superior for aiming but I've always hated the keyboard part of the KB/M as analog sticks are better for movement vs digital inputs. Thus, I prefer the controller, which is better for the vast majority of games as most games don't require the aiming of a shooter or all the buttons of say an RTS.

I have no problem using a sniper rifle from medium range (and semi-close range) with a controller. I shouldn't be able to "shotgun" it because that makes shotguns rather useless when no gun should be useless. Quick-scoping takes skill and only gets a bad rep because of COD's bad aim-assist that players exploited to quick-scope. Now most shooters have longer scope-in times or bullet deviation or both to sorta stop quick-scoping, which is bullshit. Treyarch broke sniping in Blops1 just to stop quick-scoping when all they had to do was either fix the aim-assist or remove it completely. As a console gamer, aim-assist only makes my aim worse so I'd have no problem if every shooter completely removed it in multiplayer.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I never got why hip-firing is usually made so inaccurate though because regardless if you hip-fire or ADS, it's the same exact process to aim regardless (center free look camera on enemy and then shoot).

I'd say, you haven't attempted to hip-fire a weapon in real life.

You basically have no reference with where your muzzle is pointing, if you just hold it by your hip.

To me, ADS is just another level of authenticity, and like any tool, that authenticity has its place (usually military shooters, and most definitely not games like Doom).

 

[Yuri Gregorian]

The FPS genre could do with a bit more creative writing, maybe take more risks?? Maybe a story of redemption playing a WW2 German?? Or an insurgent walking a fine line between terrorist and freedom fighter?? Its the stories that are getting stale not the gameplay so much.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The controller is only better than the keyboard for the majority of popular games because those games are designed for the controller. I find it pretty limiting. I spent a long time trying to figure out how to write this imaginary game of mine for a controller because of analog movement, and as soon as I decided to give in and switch to the keyboard and mouse, everything became simpler. It wasn't even a complicated control scheme. I imagine it's the same for a lot of actual developers. They have to limit their ideas a lot. It's outdated tech (They haven't really changed in eighteen years.) that doesn't utilize the three remaining digits and leaves the thumbs too many functions to work with and the index fingers too few. You have a lot of games that relegate primary actions to the four index finger buttons because people need to use the camera and control their character. I can forgive the mouse and keyboard for not changing because they weren't designed for games in the first place. They're still pretty functional, though.

Most developers waste quite a few buttons on the controller with their poor control schemes. Most shooters waste at least 2 buttons for stuff like a grenade button and melee button when you can use a weapon/item cycle system saving a button right there. Most games don't have control schemes that even need every button on the controller let alone a keyboard full of buttons. I only play the occasional FPS because of how simplistic the genre really is, you really just move and shoot, it's boring to me as there isn't many ways to outplay someone other than just out-aiming them which I can to over 99% of players. The FPS I played the most last-gen was MoH Warfighter because the lean and slide mechanics allowed movement to be a much bigger factor, you could even combo them by sliding that ends in a crouched position and then lean off of that while still "moving" & shooting with less recoil since you're in a crouched position. And every shooter should have a lean mechanic as it's something that has been done on a controller just fine whether it's a FPS (Warfighter) or TPS (Metal Gear Solid 4/Metal Gear Online). I blame devs for lack of depth in shooters, not the controller as I've played shooters on consoles that have way more depth than the standard shooter that comes out nowadays.

With that said, I realize the KB/M is objectively better but I don't like the KB nor do I like to sit and game in a position required to use said KB.

I never got why hip-firing is usually made so inaccurate though because regardless if you hip-fire or ADS, it's the same exact process to aim regardless (center free look camera on enemy and then shoot).

I'd say, you haven't attempted to hip-fire a weapon in real life.

You basically have no reference with where your muzzle is pointing, if you just hold it by your hip.

To me, ADS is just another level of authenticity, and like any tool, that authenticity has its place (usually military shooters, and most definitely not games like Doom).

But firing a gun in real life and a game is 2 totally different things. You have to do the same exact procedure to aim regardless if you ADS or hip-fire yet one is less accurate than the other. Several PC FPSs like CounterStrike don't even have ADS because 1) the manner of aiming is the same and 2) the mouse allows PC gamers to not need the sensitivity "switch" to fine tune their aim like you do on a controller. I also find shooters with realistic bullet damage to be bad games just because it's at least 100x easier and faster to aim a gun in a game vs real life yet you wanna keep the same bullet damage? That only makes the game less realistic. I don't get why anyone would want to play a game where you die faster than real life.

 

[Demonic Quote]

I think that the reason a lot of people think Military Shooters are bad is because there are so many of them.
Every genre has their good and their bad games, but with military shooters, there have been so many over the years that people think there is a higher percentage of shitty ones.
But hey, what do I know. I wasn't even alive when Medal of Honor 1999 came out.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I never got why hip-firing is usually made so inaccurate though because regardless if you hip-fire or ADS, it's the same exact process to aim regardless (center free look camera on enemy and then shoot).

I'd say, you haven't attempted to hip-fire a weapon in real life.

You basically have no reference with where your muzzle is pointing, if you just hold it by your hip.

To me, ADS is just another level of authenticity, and like any tool, that authenticity has its place (usually military shooters, and most definitely not games like Doom).

But firing a gun in real life and a game is 2 totally different things. You have to do the same exact procedure to aim regardless if you ADS or hip-fire yet one is less accurate than the other. Several PC FPSs like CounterStrike don't even have ADS because 1) the manner of aiming is the same and 2) the mouse allows PC gamers to not need the sensitivity "switch" to fine tune their aim like you do on a controller. I also find shooters with realistic bullet damage to be bad games just because it's at least 100x easier and faster to aim a gun in a game vs real life yet you wanna keep the same bullet damage? That only makes the game less realistic. I don't get why anyone would want to play a game where you die faster than real life.

And you missed my point.

It's about adding a layer of authenticity.

Also, I wouldn't count CS as a modern military FPS, given that the gameplay is much more akin to arena-FPSs like Quake, or Tribes.

Modern military FPSs seeks to emulate real life combat (emulate, not simulate), and I'm sorry to say, but real soldiers do tend to actually use the sights mounted on their guns.

If you don't like shooters that has ADS, then I suggest you play arena-shooters instead, since they seem to cater to the more fast-paced frenetic gameplay you seem to value.

EDIT:
I am by no means saying that ADS is a requirement for FPSs. I mean look at Doom 2016. You play as a guy who can run at 52km/h, and carry an entire barracks worth of weapons, and oh by the way, he's literally fighting demons from hell.

Do I expect Doomguy to use the iron-sights of his guns?

NO!

That'd be ludicrous. That'd be like the Emperium from Warhammer 40k suddenly trying to use diplomacy, instead of exterminatussing a planet.

It's all about what the game is like.

Are you a normal soldier, enlisted in one of the armed forces of the real world (US Army, British Army), who unfortunately is limited to firing a rifle like a normal person would, which would mean properly shouldering it, and aim down the sights?
Modern FPS


Or are you the second coming of Christ, crossed with the terminator, who has no time to aim down the sights, because that'd take the focus away from killing baddies?
Arena-shooter/Old-school FPS

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And you missed my point.

It's about adding a layer of authenticity.

Also, I wouldn't count CS as a modern military FPS, given that the gameplay is much more akin to arena-FPSs like Quake, or Tribes.

Modern military FPSs seeks to emulate real life combat (emulate, not simulate), and I'm sorry to say, but real soldiers do tend to actually use the sights mounted on their guns.

If you don't like shooters that has ADS, then I suggest you play arena-shooters instead, since they seem to cater to the more fast-paced frenetic gameplay you seem to value.

EDIT:
I am by no means saying that ADS is a requirement for FPSs. I mean look at Doom 2016. You play as a guy who can run at 52km/h, and carry an entire barracks worth of weapons, and oh by the way, he's literally fighting demons from hell.

Do I expect Doomguy to use the iron-sights of his guns?

NO!

That'd be ludicrous. That'd be like the Emperium from Warhammer 40k suddenly trying to use diplomacy, instead of exterminatussing a planet.

It's all about what the game is like.

Are you a normal soldier, enlisted in one of the armed forces of the real world (US Army, British Army), who unfortunately is limited to firing a rifle like a normal person would, which would mean properly shouldering it, and aim down the sights?
Modern FPS


Or are you the second coming of Christ, crossed with the terminator, who has no time to aim down the sights, because that'd take the focus away from killing baddies?
Arena-shooter/Old-school FPS

I got your point. It's just that making me press one more button to literally do the same thing doesn't add authenticity to the game, it just makes the controls less efficient. I'm pretty much 99.9% console gamer so I do want ADS and over-the-shoulder in my FPSs and TPSs for gameplay purposes of being able to fine tune my aim, I really couldn't care less about emulating or not emulating shooting a real gun in my shooters. I just find it rather dumb that hip-fire is much less accurate for no reason as you are literally aiming in the same manner whether you hip-fire or ADS. Hell, hip-fire is actually harder to aim with due to the sensitivity issue with controllers. The way to make a shooter authentic would be to have hip-fire to cause a rather jumpy crosshair coupled with much higher recoil while making ADS take at least a full second or so to bring up (instead of being instantaneous) to emulate the time it takes someone to bring up a gun's sights and actually aim. That would give purpose to ADSing while emulating actually firing a gun.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I got your point. It's just that making me press one more button to literally do the same thing doesn't add authenticity to the game, it just makes the controls less efficient. I'm pretty much 99.9% console gamer so I do want ADS and over-the-shoulder in my FPSs and TPSs for gameplay purposes of being able to fine tune my aim, I really couldn't care less about emulating or not emulating shooting a real gun in my shooters. I just find it rather dumb that hip-fire is much less accurate for no reason as you are literally aiming in the same manner whether you hip-fire or ADS. Hell, hip-fire is actually harder to aim with due to the sensitivity issue with controllers. The way to make a shooter authentic would be to have hip-fire to cause a rather jumpy crosshair coupled with much higher recoil while making ADS take at least a full second or so to bring up (instead of being instantaneous) to emulate the time it takes someone to bring up a gun's sights and actually aim. That would give purpose to ADSing while emulating actually firing a gun.

"I just find it rather dumb that hip-fire is much less accurate for no reason as you are literally aiming in the same manner whether you hip-fire or ADS"

Except you aren't aiming in the same manner.

Your character is either shouldering the weapon, or holding it by his hip.

Now, granted, visually that looks like it's the same basic mechanics, but mechanically they're wildly different because you have no reference with the barrel, nor do you have any kind of recoil-control.

If anything hip-firing shouldn't have a reticule, and should result in a massive drop in accuracy because you aren't actually aiming.

You are looking and vaguely pointing.

EDIT:
It seems we're looking at it from two wildly different viewpoints.

You seem to look at it from a gameplay perspective, where granted, aiming down sights is mostly just an adjustment of the sensitivity. And I look at it from the real world perspective, where holding the rifle by your hip, and properly shouldering it, is worlds apart, and as such I think that they should be included (basically hip-firing for panic'y situations where you're literally in the face of the enemy, and ADS for everything else, assuming it's a game where ADS fits).