Modern Shooter Cliches that annoy the hell out of you

[ediblemitten]

The reason no one has tried to conquer you is the first thing you listed as your country being good at.

Actually, the nation is probably more vulnerable than ever now. No-one wants to conquer us because our citizens are unproductive and lazy, and would be too much trouble to deal with, and we've already mined out all our natural resources, so there would be nothing material to gain except a lot of money and enough land for a giant Solar plant. Really, the country's a hellhole right not, pardon my french.

Why don't you invade Switzerland? It's small and weak and vulnerable.

Why don't you invade Canada? It's only 30 million people, with a small standing army.

Because the world doesn't work like that anymore. Because conquering a nation is, despite what you may think, an involved and extremely difficult process and even when we're talking about an internationally backed attack on a smaller nation, conquering simply doesn't happen anymore, especially if the invaded country has allies. The United States has over 3 million total military personnel, with some of the best trained and most technologically equipped forces of that magnitude. In a true "hot war", which is what an invasion entails, the United States dominates from almost every conceivable angle. Add to this that any successful invasion that crippled U.S military capacity would have to deal with millions of patriotic armed citizens, numerous military allies and of course, United States and foreign nuclear missiles.

Yeah, a lazy populace is all that's stopping your country from being conquered.

 

[Spartan448]

Why don't you invade Switzerland? It's small and weak and vulnerable.

Why don't you invade Canada? It's only 30 million people, with a small standing army.

Because the world doesn't work like that anymore. Because conquering a nation is, despite what you may think, an involved and extremely difficult process and even when we're talking about an internationally backed attack on a smaller nation, conquering simply doesn't happen anymore, especially if the invaded country has allies. The United States has over 3 million total military personnel, with some of the best trained and most technologically equipped forces of that magnitude. In a true "hot war", which is what an invasion entails, the United States dominates from almost every conceivable angle. Add to this that any successful invasion that crippled U.S military capacity would have to deal with millions of patriotic armed citizens, numerous military allies and of course, United States and foreign nuclear missiles.

Yeah, a lazy populace is all that's stopping your country from being conquered.

1: Switzerland is actually probably the hardest nation to conquer seeing as the entire thing is wired to blow if someone as much as throws a rock with the word bang on it over the boarder.

2: Canada... why? I mean, Canada's main natural resource is moose. And good hockey players.

3: And you think the United States has a tight little circle of allies who would do ANYTHING if China or Russia or hell even England decided to invade and just end most world problems. Sure, that explains why Bush's invasion of Iraq recieved UNANIMOUS support throughout Europe and Eastern Asia. And of course we actually have enough money to keep the army running if other nations decide to collect of the 14 trillion owed to them. And of course people would be firing off nukes and potentially making Fallout a reality! YOUR CONCEPTION OF THE WORLD IS WRONG. The United States has no real allies, only allies that buy our stuff. Stuff that can just as easily be made in a conquered nation whose populace is given no chance to revolt. If we had allies, it would've been evident when Bush invaded Iraq. WE WOULD HAVE HAD SUPPORT for the most ill-concieved godddamn war in history! And again, all a foreign nation has to do to cripple the U.S. Army, and the economy, is collect on debt. We owe 14 TRILLION. That debt has been building up since the first time we got all our debt paid down. One nation wants to collect, and there goes Medicare. Education. MILITARY SPENDING. And dealing with armed civilians, most who probably have experience with guns, but would crack under the pressure of war, is quite easy. THIS ISN'T THE REVOLUTION. If the American populace wasn't as lazy, and didn't get their conception of war from games, we'd be in a position to defend ourselves. The nation is broke, the people would be unable to carry the fight, and whatever alliances or foreign creditability we had was destroyed by Bush, and Obama hasn't done enough to repair it.

Keep dreaming.

 

[ediblemitten]

Why don't you invade Switzerland? It's small and weak and vulnerable.

Why don't you invade Canada? It's only 30 million people, with a small standing army.

Because the world doesn't work like that anymore. Because conquering a nation is, despite what you may think, an involved and extremely difficult process and even when we're talking about an internationally backed attack on a smaller nation, conquering simply doesn't happen anymore, especially if the invaded country has allies. The United States has over 3 million total military personnel, with some of the best trained and most technologically equipped forces of that magnitude. In a true "hot war", which is what an invasion entails, the United States dominates from almost every conceivable angle. Add to this that any successful invasion that crippled U.S military capacity would have to deal with millions of patriotic armed citizens, numerous military allies and of course, United States and foreign nuclear missiles.

Yeah, a lazy populace is all that's stopping your country from being conquered.

1: Switzerland is actually probably the hardest nation to conquer seeing as the entire thing is wired to blow if someone as much as throws a rock with the word bang on it over the boarder.

2: Canada... why? I mean, Canada's main natural resource is moose. And good hockey players.

3: And you think the United States has a tight little circle of allies who would do ANYTHING if China or Russia or hell even England decided to invade and just end most world problems. Sure, that explains why Bush's invasion of Iraq recieved UNANIMOUS support throughout Europe and Eastern Asia. And of course we actually have enough money to keep the army running if other nations decide to collect of the 14 trillion owed to them. And of course people would be firing off nukes and potentially making Fallout a reality! YOUR CONCEPTION OF THE WORLD IS WRONG. The United States has no real allies, only allies that buy our stuff. Stuff that can just as easily be made in a conquered nation whose populace is given no chance to revolt. If we had allies, it would've been evident when Bush invaded Iraq. WE WOULD HAVE HAD SUPPORT for the most ill-concieved godddamn war in history! And again, all a foreign nation has to do to cripple the U.S. Army, and the economy, is collect on debt. We owe 14 TRILLION. That debt has been building up since the first time we got all our debt paid down. One nation wants to collect, and there goes Medicare. Education. MILITARY SPENDING. And dealing with armed civilians, most who probably have experience with guns, but would crack under the pressure of war, is quite easy. THIS ISN'T THE REVOLUTION. If the American populace wasn't as lazy, and didn't get their conception of war from games, we'd be in a position to defend ourselves. The nation is broke, the people would be unable to carry the fight, and whatever alliances or foreign creditability we had was destroyed by Bush, and Obama hasn't done enough to repair it.

Keep dreaming.

I was using Switzerland and Canada as sarcastic remarks... you seem to throw the term invasion around like a country could just stroll into your turf and take it. And in fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did receive support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) or does multi-national military support not count?

I notice how you didn't respond to the fact that your country has the most powerful military on earth. Maybe if you had a poorer military your other points would stand more validly, but you can't skirt around that fact. Your country is not as weak and as fucked up as you think, you do actually have strong-military alliances (Britain especially has interests in the United States - UK partnership staying intact), and the idea that your vulnerable to being conquered by any old nation is a stupid thought.

Your economy may be in the shitter but you're at no risk of foreign invasion (although I could see you despairing at the notion of not being able to lick the boots of a foreign army on your soil).

 

[Spartan448]

I was using Switzerland and Canada as sarcastic remarks... you seem to throw the term invasion around like a country could just stroll into your turf and take it. And in fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did receive support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) or does multi-national military support not count?

I notice how you didn't respond to the fact that your country has the most powerful military on earth. Maybe if you had a poorer military your other points would stand more validly, but you can't skirt around that fact. Your country is not as weak and as fucked up as you think, you do actually have strong-military alliances (Britain especially has interests in the United States - UK partnership staying intact), and the idea that your vulnerable to being conquered by any old nation is a stupid thought.

Your economy may be in the shitter but you're at no risk of foreign invasion (although I could see you despairing at the notion of not being able to lick the boots of a foreign army on your soil).

Again. Everything runs on money. We don't have the money to manufacture new weapons and technology, the army fails within the month. And all U.S. allies already have business relationships with the two nations perfectly poised to successfully win a non-nuclear war with the U.S. : Russia, due to human wave tactics, and China, due to the fact that they declare that they are collecting the debt owed to them by the U.S., which can't pay up, and either sells all of it's stuff or sells the western half of the country. I still don't see why no-one's done it. As of late, the U.S. has not been a very good negotiator, and as I said above, the Bush administration made us look like a joke. There are millions of ways the U.S. could be invaded, and without major loss. As for the dissapearance of U.S. support of Israel if that happened... the Israelis are probably the only people who would actually realistically start a nuclear war, so I'm not too worried about them.

 

[ediblemitten]

I was using Switzerland and Canada as sarcastic remarks... you seem to throw the term invasion around like a country could just stroll into your turf and take it. And in fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did receive support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) or does multi-national military support not count?

I notice how you didn't respond to the fact that your country has the most powerful military on earth. Maybe if you had a poorer military your other points would stand more validly, but you can't skirt around that fact. Your country is not as weak and as fucked up as you think, you do actually have strong-military alliances (Britain especially has interests in the United States - UK partnership staying intact), and the idea that your vulnerable to being conquered by any old nation is a stupid thought.

Your economy may be in the shitter but you're at no risk of foreign invasion (although I could see you despairing at the notion of not being able to lick the boots of a foreign army on your soil).

Again. Everything runs on money. We don't have the money to manufacture new weapons and technology, the army fails within the month. And all U.S. allies already have business relationships with the two nations perfectly poised to successfully win a non-nuclear war with the U.S. : Russia, due to human wave tactics, and China, due to the fact that they declare that they are collecting the debt owed to them by the U.S., which can't pay up, and either sells all of it's stuff or sells the western half of the country. I still don't see why no-one's done it. As of late, the U.S. has not been a very good negotiator, and as I said above, the Bush administration made us look like a joke. There are millions of ways the U.S. could be invaded, and without major loss. As for the dissapearance of U.S. support of Israel if that happened... the Israelis are probably the only people who would actually realistically start a nuclear war, so I'm not too worried about them.

Well, when the inevitable cake walk of an invasion of the US comes, you can say 'I told you so'.

 

[dark_mist34]

two weapons limit and the always really annoying this is very important prevent end of the world all things are riding on this last chance mission we have hundreds of guys but we're only sending you mission but we keep on telling you how important it is you succeed mission. I don't know if they still use it but its really annoying. Oh and the shades of brown, grey and sometime green. Oh how I how i miss the days of health and armor pickups and having and full arsenal in the back pocket with no less but sometimes more a pistol, shotgun, machine gun, missile launcher and other assorted weapons. Sure it might not be realistic but I play games to escape reality for short periods of time and is regenerating health really all that realistic any way.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I was using Switzerland and Canada as sarcastic remarks... you seem to throw the term invasion around like a country could just stroll into your turf and take it. And in fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did receive support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) or does multi-national military support not count?

I notice how you didn't respond to the fact that your country has the most powerful military on earth. Maybe if you had a poorer military your other points would stand more validly, but you can't skirt around that fact. Your country is not as weak and as fucked up as you think, you do actually have strong-military alliances (Britain especially has interests in the United States - UK partnership staying intact), and the idea that your vulnerable to being conquered by any old nation is a stupid thought.

Your economy may be in the shitter but you're at no risk of foreign invasion (although I could see you despairing at the notion of not being able to lick the boots of a foreign army on your soil).

Again. Everything runs on money. We don't have the money to manufacture new weapons and technology, the army fails within the month. And all U.S. allies already have business relationships with the two nations perfectly poised to successfully win a non-nuclear war with the U.S. : Russia, due to human wave tactics, and China, due to the fact that they declare that they are collecting the debt owed to them by the U.S., which can't pay up, and either sells all of it's stuff or sells the western half of the country. I still don't see why no-one's done it. As of late, the U.S. has not been a very good negotiator, and as I said above, the Bush administration made us look like a joke. There are millions of ways the U.S. could be invaded, and without major loss. As for the dissapearance of U.S. support of Israel if that happened... the Israelis are probably the only people who would actually realistically start a nuclear war, so I'm not too worried about them.

One of the great parts of having a massive standing army and an already huge military budget is that there is ALWAYS money to pay for material and personnel. We've been in debt for over 10 years now, but have been fighting wars for the same length of time with no slowing down, remember? As for the debt, ha. You honestly think if China came to us, said "We are collecting the debt, give us your country" we would? Please. Money is just a number, that is an actual threat. We wouldn't be the first person in history to take the fight to the loan shark rather than pay a debt. And Russia conquering using human wave tactics? Really? Russia's standing army isn't even in the top 5 biggest. Ours is number 2. And it isn't like they are going to drag their entire population across the Bering strait to war; this isn't freaking Stalingrad. And at any rate, against modern weapons human wave tactics don't work without near immediate resupply on the attacker's part, or crappy supply lines on the part of the defenders. The attackers have to constantly resupply men to make up for losses, and it also counts on the defenders being unable to simply push back and reclaim lost territory. A war on U.S. soil would put ANY country in the same situation Germany was fighting Russia in WWII. Except instead of arming peasants with WW1 era tech and pitchforks, they'd be facing the current holder of "the world's strongest military" title.

I'm not quite sure you understand how "taking over" a country works, or rather, how it doesn't. Foreign countries simply don't walk in to other countries, declare them theirs, and everything is fine. Heck, even if they beat the other country's military, they still have to put up with resistance, logistical nightmares of supplying an army big enough to occupy an entire country, and more. Heck, look at the U.S. in Iraq. We aren't even trying to conquer the place, just police it, and we are still having way more trouble than its worth. And this is IRAQ. The people there are just short of throwing rocks at our tanks. Now compare to America, where in some parts of the country nearly everyone on any given street may own at least 1 gun. And don't forget that good old patriotism, ensuring that, even if our military was defeated, occupying troops could look forward to the fun fun time of getting shot in the back by any random Joe Civilian walking down the street.

 

[Akisa]

Rechargeable shields! I just hate how most games have rechargeable shields, from Duke Nukem to CoD.

 

[Spartan448]

I was using Switzerland and Canada as sarcastic remarks... you seem to throw the term invasion around like a country could just stroll into your turf and take it. And in fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan did receive support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq) or does multi-national military support not count?

I notice how you didn't respond to the fact that your country has the most powerful military on earth. Maybe if you had a poorer military your other points would stand more validly, but you can't skirt around that fact. Your country is not as weak and as fucked up as you think, you do actually have strong-military alliances (Britain especially has interests in the United States - UK partnership staying intact), and the idea that your vulnerable to being conquered by any old nation is a stupid thought.

Your economy may be in the shitter but you're at no risk of foreign invasion (although I could see you despairing at the notion of not being able to lick the boots of a foreign army on your soil).

Again. Everything runs on money. We don't have the money to manufacture new weapons and technology, the army fails within the month. And all U.S. allies already have business relationships with the two nations perfectly poised to successfully win a non-nuclear war with the U.S. : Russia, due to human wave tactics, and China, due to the fact that they declare that they are collecting the debt owed to them by the U.S., which can't pay up, and either sells all of it's stuff or sells the western half of the country. I still don't see why no-one's done it. As of late, the U.S. has not been a very good negotiator, and as I said above, the Bush administration made us look like a joke. There are millions of ways the U.S. could be invaded, and without major loss. As for the dissapearance of U.S. support of Israel if that happened... the Israelis are probably the only people who would actually realistically start a nuclear war, so I'm not too worried about them.

One of the great parts of having a massive standing army and an already huge military budget is that there is ALWAYS money to pay for material and personnel. We've been in debt for over 10 years now, but have been fighting wars for the same length of time with no slowing down, remember? As for the debt, ha. You honestly think if China came to us, said "We are collecting the debt, give us your country" we would? Please. Money is just a number, that is an actual threat. We wouldn't be the first person in history to take the fight to the loan shark rather than pay a debt. And Russia conquering using human wave tactics? Really? Russia's standing army isn't even in the top 5 biggest. Ours is number 2. And it isn't like they are going to drag their entire population across the Bering strait to war; this isn't freaking Stalingrad. And at any rate, against modern weapons human wave tactics don't work without near immediate resupply on the attacker's part, or crappy supply lines on the part of the defenders. The attackers have to constantly resupply men to make up for losses, and it also counts on the defenders being unable to simply push back and reclaim lost territory. A war on U.S. soil would put ANY country in the same situation Germany was fighting Russia in WWII. Except instead of arming peasants with WW1 era tech and pitchforks, they'd be facing the current holder of "the world's strongest military" title.

I'm not quite sure you understand how "taking over" a country works, or rather, how it doesn't. Foreign countries simply don't walk in to other countries, declare them theirs, and everything is fine. Heck, even if they beat the other country's military, they still have to put up with resistance, logistical nightmares of supplying an army big enough to occupy an entire country, and more. Heck, look at the U.S. in Iraq. We aren't even trying to conquer the place, just police it, and we are still having way more trouble than its worth. And this is IRAQ. The people there are just short of throwing rocks at our tanks. Now compare to America, where in some parts of the country nearly everyone on any given street may own at least 1 gun. And don't forget that good old patriotism, ensuring that, even if our military was defeated, occupying troops could look forward to the fun fun time of getting shot in the back by any random Joe Civilian walking down the street.

Conquering a nation doesn't necessarily have to mean you've left people alive. Conquering a nation might just mean that you take their land and kill everyone. That's been done before.

Rechargeable shields! I just hate how most games have rechargeable shields, from Duke Nukem to CoD.

These actually make sense if you find a way to actually fit them into the game, like in Halo. In CoD, regenerating health just seems stupid. In Halo, you've got a huge suit of power-armor being powered by a mini fusion reactor anyway, so why not go the whole 9 yards and add a sheild generator?

 

[The Funslinger]

The fact that everything is brown and grey.

Even in fallout vegas it annoys me and I love that game.

Yeah, but at least there was sound reasoning for that (it was the Mojave Desert, and most of the world's paintjobs would have deteriorated a lot over 200 years.

OT: Sighting right down the middle of all guns. Fine for the pistol, not for most rifles. Seriously, it would be a bit to the right!

This especially irks me with shotguns. Alright, you try that, in real life. Don't come bitching to me about your missing front teeth and shattered sternum.

If I may take the topic a mite further, the concept that "no-scoping" is the epitome of skill, rather than the flukey pointless thing it really is. "Oh, what's that, I beat you just because I wasn't no-scoping? That may be true, but that was because I was playing the damn game."

 

[The Funslinger]

Okay can we have a game where we explore two different characters in a difficult conflict with no obvious heroes or villains?
The South-American Empire invades mainland Europe and the New Liberal Germany and the French free federation do battle with them in Holland, like Amsterdam, a city with a lot of vibrance and soul, some color.
It follows two characters, Aksel, the old, tired war veteran who re-enlisted to help get both his sons through collage and to try and forget about the recent loss of his wife, having being persuaded by his friend Emiric for one last job.
And Davi, a young boy conscripted into the Imperial army and slowly gets corrupted by the dark underbelly of the army, drugs, rape, assault and murder of civilians. Both have their own stories and as we follow them we see a once live beautiful place slowly deteriorate into a cold husk of it's former self.

Hows that?

Sir, please take control of Activision right this damn minute. That's an order. I want to Beta test, buy, and play that game until my whole body becomes a giant beard with a hat.

 

[baddude1337]

Nothing really bothers me, except most of them are all basically "FUCK YEAH! AMERICA! FUCK RUSSIA AND CHINA! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!".

But seriously, an insane amount of modern shooters are about the US military, especially the marines. I would like one where we play as other countries, like British (Not SAS because their the second most overused faction), Germany, Italy or something.

Ah well, at Least I can play as British, Canadian, German and Dutch units in Combat Mission: Shock Force. Not a shooter, but still fun.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

Scope sway
It's in for no other reason than to annoy snipers.
Regenerating health
I don't have a problem with this upfront, it's that it's used in every single game and it's rarely explained WHY. Annoys me especially when it's in a game that tries to be realistic.

 

[ShakyFt Slasher]

Completely linear level design that GUARANTEES that every player has the exact same experience

 

[Siberian Relic]

Exactly what the title says really, but I'll give an example that makes me want to vomit blood.

I pick up a controller for the first time since Star Wars Battlefront II to play some Mortem Warfare (the first one) with my brother.

'I think I shall choose a sniper, because I am skilled in this subject and it was amazing fun in Battlefront.'

so we start the match, and I scope in to get a view of my surroundings. and that's when it appeared: Fucking SCOPE DRIFT.

Any one with the smallest increment of fucking rifle training knows how to keep a bead accurate up to AT LEAST fifty yards. and here I was swaying all over the damn place for no reason.

And I feel sorry for those who picked up a scoped rifle after playing Call of Duty, because holding your breath is the last thing you want to do. infact, I find it much easier to take deep breaths while shooting.

Sniping in general irritates me - even though it's my favorite type and I work on improving it. It's a system improperly set up to contend with the likes of others running around with rifles, carbines, and pistols. Your sniper rifle, many times, is rendered with a bipod you can't even use; your character model, when prone, moves and jerks around like you just dove into a nest of bullet ants; the maps are designed for close to medium range combat; and, yes, your weapon sways like you're caught in the middle of a political debate.

I don't mind a certain degree of sway, as we humans don't naturally have robotic, auto-locking arms. I look forward to a game that can seriously capitalize on every facet of a sniper's arsenal.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

It's all been said. Games don't want to even try to be original. Not even Duke Nukem, who was supposed to be the ultimate hero or something.

I'm glad they're making timesplitters 4. This might persuade other developers to follow suit and y'know, be original. And funny. And FUN.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

I hate how I can shoot people and not go to jail for the rest of my life. It's so unrealistic. Nothing gives me a larger anger boner than this.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Okay can we have a game where we explore two different characters in a difficult conflict with no obvious heroes or villains?
The South-American Empire invades mainland Europe and the New Liberal Germany and the French free federation do battle with them in Holland, like Amsterdam, a city with a lot of vibrance and soul, some color.
It follows two characters, Aksel, the old, tired war veteran who re-enlisted to help get both his sons through collage and to try and forget about the recent loss of his wife, having being persuaded by his friend Emiric for one last job.
And Davi, a young boy conscripted into the Imperial army and slowly gets corrupted by the dark underbelly of the army, drugs, rape, assault and murder of civilians. Both have their own stories and as we follow them we see a once live beautiful place slowly deteriorate into a cold husk of it's former self.

Hows that?

Sir, please take control of Activision right this damn minute. That's an order. I want to Beta test, buy, and play that game until my whole body becomes a giant beard with a hat.

Oh my god dude you made me lol so hard I cried.

Though another idea would be to have several options for the one mission, it'd give the game so much more re-playability.
Okay storm the secret sub base? LAnd and armor assault? Air attack and storm it from the roofs? Sneak in under-water? Infiltrate the base two days before hand and then wreak the joint?
Be glad I'm going into the gaming industry.

 

[Xanadu84]

The only "cliche" that's a problem with with modern shooters is overuse.

Regenerating health, low health, scope drift, brown and grey...there is nothing wrong with any of these things. The only problem is when insistence from all the developers means that only one set of mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics is employed. The key to good games is not one formula, but a variety.

I remember back in the day when all the shooters I played were colorful, crazy affairs. Then I played some Counterstrike and loved it because of it's elegant simplicity and superficial realism. The fact that you could die in a fraction of a second to a rather mundane bullet from someone you failed to see added tension, and it was fun to explore game play where tiny mistakes counted and twitch was king. Nowadays it's the colorful affairs that are in short supply, and we want them. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We shouldn't dismiss approaches to design as bad when in reality, we should be encouraging a wider number of approaches. Give me Serious Sam and give me Modern Warfare, just don't give me all of only one or the other.