Unpopular opinion: I miss modern-era shooter games

[FakeSympathy]

The last modern era shooter I?ve played was Battlefield 4. Ever since then, I haven?t seen a single fps game that is set in the modern era. The fps genre is constantly experimenting with settings and gimmicks, and while some of them are great, others are just failures.

For example, we all knew and hated the future-setting COD games. They should?ve just stopped at Advanced Warfare, and not carry the future-tec bullshit for two more games. The reason why I enjoyed COD4 multiplayer was its grounded, modern era style combat, whereas future-setting COD games were filled with ridiculous and bullshit abilities, killstreaks, jetpacks, wall runnings, and slidings. The single-player campaign in these COD games felt like watching a Michael Bay movies, as always.

Shooter games set in past era doesn?t help my quench either. COD WW2 may have returned to its roots era, but I feel the multiplayer was tailored for today?s generation. The campaign felt like the typical ?brothers-in-arms? story we?ve heard thousands of times from the veterans, novels, movies, and other media. Not that there?s anything wrong with that, but it?s kinda predictable. Battlefield 1 was nowhere close to being accurate, as it was more of an ?inspired by? type of game. And now, EA is about to take it up a notch with Battlefield V, which looks to be more of a fanfic ww2.

Some might argue that modern-era shooters are too simple, but I personally feel there is a charm to that aspect; nothing too crazy like future setting, and nothing too predictable like ww2 era or ?inspired by? like BF1. Modern-era shooter games may be not totally realistic, but at least they don?t have some crazy future techs and it makes sense to have automatic weapons in this era.

 

[Worgen]

I would argue that cod was at its best when it was about modern or future conflicts. One of the coolest cod games was Infinite Warfare, it had a really neat campaign and advanced warfare had some of the best multi of the series, before wall running made things annoying.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I would argue that cod was at its best when it was about modern or future conflicts. One of the coolest cod games was Infinite Warfare, it had a really neat campaign and advanced warfare had some of the best multi of the series, before wall running made things annoying.

I could never keep up with all the gadgets and weapons, espeically in the multiplayer when you get sniped by a cloaked sniper drone you haven't unlocked, while your teammates race on ahead with the cosmic booster rockets, deploying shields and having wall-penetrating assault shotguns.
And I'm just holding my dinky little pistol completely left out. I know it makes sense for future war to be less straight-up gunfights and more gadgets, drones and bombs, but it doesn't make it a more fun experience.

 

[CaitSeith]

I really don?t miss that era, but I understand how you feel.

 

[BrawlMan]

I do not miss the era, and I am glad it's gone. The reason why you do not see a lot of shooters of Modern COD and its ilk, is due to over saturation. After COD4, half of these publishers/developers were trying to make that COD money with most failing. Either making a new series copying them or turning their series in to it. Going after who only played COD did nothing for them, as they would continue to play that series and not much else. It's why 3rd person cover shooting has died out with minor exceptions such as Gears of War or Uncharted. When games like Hard Reset, Serious Sam 3, Dishonored, Shadow Warrior (2013), and Wolfenstein: TNO came out, then people remembered "Oh right, you don't have to copy COD to be successful!". And soon as Doom 4 happened, that was the final nail in the coffin for that genre of FPS.

I understand your frustration, but dude, you got a lot to choose from. There many games copying COD4 starting 2007 to 2013. There is always going to be this follow-the-leader without understanding why a series or genre was successful in the first place. The 2D/3D platforming era (with the 2d side having a major resurgence), Doom clones, Halo clones, Tournament Fighters, beat'em ups (also getting a resurgence), DMC/God of War clones (natch), games copying Batman's combat wholesale, and GTA/Open World clones. With Fortnite/PUBG being the hot new thing, and once again the AAA gaming industry not learning a damn thing. More so on the Western side, but Japanese have their moments too.

 

[Hawki]

Shun him! Shun him!

But, I do get it. I mean, I was never really into the whole 'modern combat' era of things, but we all have our preferred genres, and all of us have experienced a series we love dying.

On the other hand, there's a strong rumour around that Infinity Ward's next CoD game is Modern Warfare 4, so you might be in luck.

 

[sXeth]

The last modern era shooter I?ve played was Battlefield 4. Ever since then, I haven?t seen a single fps game that is set in the modern era. The fps genre is constantly experimenting with settings and gimmicks, and while some of them are great, others are just failures.

Far Cry 5 and BLOPs 4 (I think is modern-near future anyways, not 100%), just from this year.

As to why to the genre (of sorts) has died out a bit, besides the oversaturation fad burning out everyone on it. The world's in a bit of a politically tense state at the moment, and fantasizing conflicts that are plausible threatening realities probably isn't the direction a lot of folks are thinking.

 

[Dalisclock]

I would argue that cod was at its best when it was about modern or future conflicts. One of the coolest cod games was Infinite Warfare, it had a really neat campaign and advanced warfare had some of the best multi of the series, before wall running made things annoying.

IW had a lot of fun bits, but it felt like it was less then the sum of it's parts. I really liked the fact you got to do a bunch of side missions if you wanted, some of which had a nice mix of space combat/zero g shooting/on foot combat. Unfortunately, the plot/characters were just badly done all around(Evil John Snow was particularly lackluster), especially how it felt half the cast was just passing the idiot ball back and forth the entire game.

I feel like I'm one of the few who actually liked Advanced Warfare despite the stupid-ass "Press X to pay respects" scene.

 

[Worgen]

I would argue that cod was at its best when it was about modern or future conflicts. One of the coolest cod games was Infinite Warfare, it had a really neat campaign and advanced warfare had some of the best multi of the series, before wall running made things annoying.

IW had a lot of fun bits, but it felt like it was less then the sum of it's parts. I really liked the fact you got to do a bunch of side missions if you wanted, some of which had a nice mix of space combat/zero g shooting/on foot combat. Unfortunately, the plot/characters were just badly done all around(Evil John Snow was particularly lackluster), especially how it felt half the cast was just passing the idiot ball back and forth the entire game.

I feel like I'm one of the few who actually liked Advanced Warfare despite the stupid-ass "Press X to pay respects" scene.

Most COD games have that issue with the story. Really the only one that had an excellent story was COD 4. I think that IW would have been better if it mixed up the perspective characters like COD 4 did, plus they really went out of their way to have the earth forces be the underdogs.

I did quite like Advanced Warfare also, really the only issue with the press x to pay respect was giving the player control of it. In the context of the story it was actually really well done, but having a button prompt show up to make the player do it was way too easy to make fun of. For the rest of its story, they should have made it feel more like being in a mercenary company. Like no named bad guy you were chasing, just a series of missions against opposing forces where things become apparent that the company is kinda doing some shady shit, then things turn south and you fight against them. That would have been better.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm kind of ambivalent to the era, since a lot of them play the same whether they're WW1 or the near future.

 

[Dalisclock]

I did quite like Advanced Warfare also, really the only issue with the press x to pay respect was giving the player control of it. In the context of the story it was actually really well done, but having a button prompt show up to make the player do it was way too easy to make fun of. For the rest of its story, they should have made it feel more like being in a mercenary company. Like no named bad guy you were chasing, just a series of missions against opposing forces where things become apparent that the company is kinda doing some shady shit, then things turn south and you fight against them. That would have been better.

Yeah, the "Press X to Pay Respects" thing probably wouldn't have bothered anyone if there hadn't been a stupid button prompt there. Just have him lay his hand on the coffin and move on. The button prompt was pointless in this context. Then again, AW had this weird love for button prompts in places they didn't need to be.

Interestingly, your idea for being in a Merc company doing shady stuff is basically the same idea the last two Metal Gear Solid games(Peace Walker and Phantom Pain) worked on. Though Phantom Pain kept rubbing your face in it, while Peace Walker kinda leaves it up to you to notice just how sketchy pretty much everything you're doing is, such as using Child Soldiers, kidnapping people to enlist them into your army, fighting a proxy war against the CIA on behalf of the KGB, destroying a nuclear armed walking tank only to build your own from the intact pieces, but it's okay if you do it. Not to mention you're running essentially a heavily armed force that is beholden and accountable to absolutely no one and almost nobody bats an eye.

 

[Squilookle]

As someone who always thought WW2 provided the best variety, balance, and motivations to make a Battlefield (not so much an infantry only) game out of, I watched in despair as the series drifted so quickly away from such a well-balanced conflict. First they copied the Eve Of Destruction mod and took BF to Vietnam, then they copied Desert Combat and took Battlefield into the modern day. Since then, there have been no fewer than nine Battlefields set in the modern day, whereas it's taken them 16 years to devote another full Battlefield to the war that started the series. So when I hear people whinge about wanting Battlefield to go back to the modern day because they've had to sit through two historic Battlefield wars, you'll have to forgive me for telling them to godddamn suck it up already, princess.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind modern day shooters so much if they weren't so poorly written. Videogame writing is not a strong suit of the industry, even less so when they try to make a fictional modern conflict remotely plausible. Bad Company 1 pulled it off, but don't pretend the campaigns for BF3 and 4 weren't utter dogshit.

TLR: like I always say to people moaning about a lack of MMS- we've been waiting 16 years for this. Quit your complaining and get in line.

(Except you don't even have to do that, because here comes yet another MMS already. Go play World War 3)

 

[BrawlMan]

snip

it reminds me of you when some people were telling me to get over myself for when the Devil May Cry reboot happened. It wasn't on this website or form, but I chose not to buy it originally. I vote with my wallet and those same people are mad at me for not buying the game originally, and that there was a sequel to dmc4. With five out now, I can tell those people the same as to get over it and either play the new entry or just keep playing the reboot over and over.

I had a similar conversation would Hawki on Doom 3 and Doom 4. He was the only one on this form that was upset that the next Doom would not be a Call of Duty clone. I more or less said play the new Doom or don't, because nobody wants another Cod clone, and Doom has a legacy to live up to.

 

[Hawki]

I had a similar conversation would Hawki on Doom 3 and Doom 4. He was the only one on this form that was upset that the next Doom would not be a Call of Duty clone.

Yeah...that wasn't actually my problem with it.

My main problem was, as briefly as possible:

-I really liked Doom 3

-I didn't particuarly like Doom 4

-The Doom 3 storyline had a number of dangling plot threads that I'd preferred to have seen explored rather than the setting be rebooted AGAIN.

It wasn't a case of "I want Doom to be like CoD" - whether Doom became like CoD was incidental.

 

[BrawlMan]

I had a similar conversation would Hawki on Doom 3 and Doom 4. He was the only one on this form that was upset that the next Doom would not be a Call of Duty clone.

Yeah...that wasn't actually my problem with it.

My main problem was, as briefly as possible:

-I really liked Doom 3

-I didn't particuarly like Doom 4

-The Doom 3 storyline had a number of dangling plot threads that I'd preferred to have seen explored rather than the setting be rebooted AGAIN.

It wasn't a case of "I want Doom to be like CoD" - whether Doom became like CoD was incidental.

You still would not have minded if that happened be the case of it of becoming Cod. You even told me it would be something different, but I disagree hugely. It would have just been another military shooter, only with demons. The game would have been lost in the crowd of a bunch of other military shooters, without much to stand on other than name alone. No weapon wheel, a 2 to 3 weapon limit, a squad that constantly talk to you, and regenerating health. That does not make a good Doom game.

You are within your right to dislike Doom 4. I do like Doom 3, but it had its share of issues. Notably the jump-scares; they got boring and repetitive. But Doom3 did have creepy atmosphere and a couple of scary moments. I don't remember all the plot threads, but didn't Dr. Barringer or whatever his name is got killed off in the expansion pack, Resurrection at the end of the game. Other than that, I don't remember the other hanging plot theads being that important. Besides most people aren't going to remember those plots and even ID software seem to realize this. The last Doom game came out in 2005. That is over 10 years ago. I'm not counting the BFG Edition that was released in 2012.

I understand where you're coming from, as that is how I felt about the DMC reboot. The only difference being the publishers (other than shitty marketing from Bethesda) and developers knew what they were doing for doing for while Capcom and Ninja Theory had no idea what they were doing.

 

[Hawki]

You still would not have minded if that happened be the case of it of becoming Cod. You even told me it would be something different, but I disagree hugely. It would have just been another military shooter, only with demons. The game would have been lost in the crowd of a bunch of other military shooters, without much to stand on other than name alone. No weapon wheel, a 2 to 3 weapon limit, a squad that constantly talk to you, and regenerating health. That does not make a good Doom game.

This is potentially playing with semantics, but I'd argue that the presence of demons in of itself would make the game dissimilar to CoD significantly. It may not have been like Doom, sure. But when I think of stuff like "monsters have overrun the Earth, people with guns have to stop them," something like Resistance or even Half-Life comes to mind more readily.

But that aside, I'm inclined to judge media based on their own merits rather than how much they adhere to tradition. I mean, I get the rationale behind it, and there's probably exceptions (no-one's completely unbiased), but to cite an example, the jump from Warcraft (RTS) to World of Warcraft (MMORPG). I've stated many times how much I'd love Warcraft IV, and how I have little interest in WoW simply because I don't like MMOs. That doesn't make WoW in of itself bad. Similarly, Doom being more like CoD doesn't in of itself make it bad (nor good either).

You are within your right to dislike Doom 4. I do like Doom 3, but it had its share of issues. Notably the jump-scares; they got boring and repetitive. But Doom3 did have creepy atmosphere and a couple of scary moments. I don't remember all the plot threads, but didn't Dr. Barringer or whatever his name is got killed off in the expansion pack, Resurrection at the end of the game. Other than that, I don't remember the other hanging plot theads being that important.

There's a plot thread in the second Doom 3 novel that comes to my mind first and foremost, where there's a side plot with a UAC complex operating at a deep sea vent. There's a hint in the novel that kind of indicates that the activity might be related to Hell, setting up Hell on Earth. Also, in the context of the wider Doom 3 universe, even if Hell's stopped on Mars twice, neither of these events solves just how screwed Earth is as a planet as it's in the midst of environmental collapse. But even if I confine this just to the games, I'd argue that you could still get mialage out of the Doom 3 setting - there's plenty that's still unknown about the Ancients for instance.

Besides most people aren't going to remember those plots and even ID software seem to realize this. The last Doom game came out in 2005. That is over 10 years ago. I'm not counting the BFG Edition that was released in 2012.

I could point out the RPGs, but sure, fine, Doom's last major release was in 2005. Cut to 2016, and we have a new Doom game...that's another reboot...that's on Mars again...that has the same plot again...bleh.

Since you touch on it, yes, Doom never had the most in-depth plot in the world, but it can't help but feel stale to have three 'series starters,' and have each of them have the same premise (compare that to something like Prince of Persia, which has also been rebooted twice, but where each reboot distinguishes itself from its predecessor). And then we have Doom Eternal, which is on Earth (again). To cite another example, Sonic the Hedgehog - not a story-heavy series, but it gets very old, very quickly for so many games in the series going back to Green Hill for example (this isn't an uncommon opinion).

Anyway, don't want to derail this thread. I will say that based on screenshots, we do know that Doom Eternal will be exploring environments other than Phobos and Hell, so at the least, there might be something new there.

 

[BrawlMan]

You still would not have minded if that happened be the case of it of becoming Cod. You even told me it would be something different, but I disagree hugely. It would have just been another military shooter, only with demons. The game would have been lost in the crowd of a bunch of other military shooters, without much to stand on other than name alone. No weapon wheel, a 2 to 3 weapon limit, a squad that constantly talk to you, and regenerating health. That does not make a good Doom game.

This is potentially playing with semantics, but I'd argue that the presence of demons in of itself would make the game dissimilar to CoD significantly. It may not have been like Doom, sure. But when I think of stuff like "monsters have overrun the Earth, people with guns have to stop them," something like Resistance or even Half-Life comes to mind more readily.

But that aside, I'm inclined to judge media based on their own merits rather than how much they adhere to tradition. I mean, I get the rationale behind it, and there's probably exceptions (no-one's completely unbiased), but to cite an example, the jump from Warcraft (RTS) to World of Warcraft (MMORPG). I've stated many times how much I'd love Warcraft IV, and how I have little interest in WoW simply because I don't like MMOs. That doesn't make WoW in of itself bad. Similarly, Doom being more like CoD doesn't in of itself make it bad (nor good either).

You are within your right to dislike Doom 4. I do like Doom 3, but it had its share of issues. Notably the jump-scares; they got boring and repetitive. But Doom3 did have creepy atmosphere and a couple of scary moments. I don't remember all the plot threads, but didn't Dr. Barringer or whatever his name is got killed off in the expansion pack, Resurrection at the end of the game. Other than that, I don't remember the other hanging plot theads being that important.

There's a plot thread in the second Doom 3 novel that comes to my mind first and foremost, where there's a side plot with a UAC complex operating at a deep sea vent. There's a hint in the novel that kind of indicates that the activity might be related to Hell, setting up Hell on Earth. Also, in the context of the wider Doom 3 universe, even if Hell's stopped on Mars twice, neither of these events solves just how screwed Earth is as a planet as it's in the midst of environmental collapse. But even if I confine this just to the games, I'd argue that you could still get mialage out of the Doom 3 setting - there's plenty that's still unknown about the Ancients for instance.

Besides most people aren't going to remember those plots and even ID software seem to realize this. The last Doom game came out in 2005. That is over 10 years ago. I'm not counting the BFG Edition that was released in 2012.

I could point out the RPGs, but sure, fine, Doom's last major release was in 2005. Cut to 2016, and we have a new Doom game...that's another reboot...that's on Mars again...that has the same plot again...bleh.

Since you touch on it, yes, Doom never had the most in-depth plot in the world, but it can't help but feel stale to have three 'series starters,' and have each of them have the same premise (compare that to something like Prince of Persia, which has also been rebooted twice, but where each reboot distinguishes itself from its predecessor). And then we have Doom Eternal, which is on Earth (again). To cite another example, Sonic the Hedgehog - not a story-heavy series, but it gets very old, very quickly for so many games in the series going back to Green Hill for example (this isn't an uncommon opinion).

Anyway, don't want to derail this thread. I will say that based on screenshots, we do know that Doom Eternal will be exploring environments other than Phobos and Hell, so at the least, there might be something new there.

I can't judge the quality of the Doom 3 novels, but I never trusted tie-in novels to long running franchises. They are almost never one-to-one with the source material (to the extent that they almost take place in their own universe), and are almost never or barely mentioned in the next game or sequel. Making the novel(s) pointless in the grand scheme of things. It's usually the case of "See this, it did not happen!". I won't go any further either, but I understand your point of view. The Sonic thing I agree with, but never really bothered me. Sonic's had so many problems that a repeat of Green Hill is the least of the franchise's problems.

 

[Worgen]

I did quite like Advanced Warfare also, really the only issue with the press x to pay respect was giving the player control of it. In the context of the story it was actually really well done, but having a button prompt show up to make the player do it was way too easy to make fun of. For the rest of its story, they should have made it feel more like being in a mercenary company. Like no named bad guy you were chasing, just a series of missions against opposing forces where things become apparent that the company is kinda doing some shady shit, then things turn south and you fight against them. That would have been better.

Yeah, the "Press X to Pay Respects" thing probably wouldn't have bothered anyone if there hadn't been a stupid button prompt there. Just have him lay his hand on the coffin and move on. The button prompt was pointless in this context. Then again, AW had this weird love for button prompts in places they didn't need to be.

Interestingly, your idea for being in a Merc company doing shady stuff is basically the same idea the last two Metal Gear Solid games(Peace Walker and Phantom Pain) worked on. Though Phantom Pain kept rubbing your face in it, while Peace Walker kinda leaves it up to you to notice just how sketchy pretty much everything you're doing is, such as using Child Soldiers, kidnapping people to enlist them into your army, fighting a proxy war against the CIA on behalf of the KGB, destroying a nuclear armed walking tank only to build your own from the intact pieces, but it's okay if you do it. Not to mention you're running essentially a heavily armed force that is beholden and accountable to absolutely no one and almost nobody bats an eye.

I think going more with the merc narrative in cod would work well for the series since it likes to have a variety of locations and such. With just going wherever to do the dark bidding of Kevin Spacey would work really well for the series that likes its set pieces but narratively has trouble getting the player from one to another.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I wasn't aware modern-era shooters were gone to begin with.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Eh, the problem with the modern war shooter was that it leaned into uncomfortable, racist, xenophobic territory way too often and mostly came off as masturbatory schlock out of the wet dreams of racists and xenophobes. The absolute nadir of it was Medal of Honor: Warfighter where the player was a heavily decked out soldier who shot at non-whites using rocks. No one is in a rush to relive that