Topic: War and Videogames

But Halo pre-dates modern call of duty. If anything pre-modern warfare call of duty can be seen in the same way as a historical film can be right?

Haven't played any of the half-life games but what makes them any different than halo or any other sci-fi shooter. I don't enjoy the glorification of war but i enjoy shooters with good stories.

Also I really wanted to see six days in Fallujah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah

I agree & am aware of the geneology of the games, though my point was actually about the saminess of FPS gaming rather than an attack on a particular series. Yes COD moved from WW2 to modern day - but did the game change THAT much because of it? Does pressing A to launch an old missile beat pressing A to launch a shinier one? Yes a change in uniform & a nice graphical upgrade is nice but to someone like myself that plays RPGs, Strategies, Fighters and the like to a high standard but dislikes FPS games... a minor control reassignment and a new polygon count does not seem like progress.

LOL Sorry, I'm going to take my punishment and leave this topic alone. But please do watch the Youtube links I've posted as Yahtzee is an excellent professional game reviewer.

Fighters

Wait. You criticise FPS games for a lack of progress?

Yes COD moved from WW2 to modern day - but did the game change THAT much because of it? Does pressing A to launch an old missile beat pressing A to launch a shinier one?

Yes. It did. Not only did the guns, maps, offline, and graphics change, but everything from the ground up was revitalized and thought out in a completely different direction than WW2 Call of Duty titles that it not only looked different but played and felt different than shooting Nazi's heads off.

Yes a change in uniform & a nice graphical upgrade is nice but to someone like myself that plays RPGs, Strategies, Fighters and the like to a high standard but dislikes FPS games

You can apply this to any game genre out there.

a minor control reassignment and a new polygon count does not seem like progress.

Neither does a revamped, balanced character roster and a new polygon count.

lol

people thinking CoD never changes

Mario is always exactly the same, does pressing A to jump on an enemies head really make that much of a difference when you're on Yoshi's Island compared to some random galaxy in the sky?

I'm forced to watch my brother play MW3 all day and, to me, it's still a lot like MW2, just with other maps... But I don't play them myself, so I could be wrong.
He also pretty much plays it exclusively on multiplayer, so that must explain it.

Why is it I always end up defending the FPS genre? I don't even like the genre <_<

There are plenty of things wrong with the genre, imo - I don't think the idea of funneling people down linear tunnels to then shoot a room full of enemies and then wander down another tunnel is especially interesting, and I don't agree with the genre's preoccupation with multiplayer, but to criticise the genre for not evolving is simply untrue.

And in fairness, every other genre out there is going to have people that have issues with the very core of the genre. It's important in that context to not mistake personal preference for genuine flaw.

War ... war never changes.

You're mistaking me for yourself. Unless I'm missing something. What I'm not missing is the fact that this is another one of those sites where everyone thinks Call of Duty is a sin. And to them I always think: Sorry a game franchise, out to perfect the genre, is making buttloads of cash off of their awesome games.

They never have a valid reason to why it's terrible. It's always how it's always the same or it's casual. lol

@feenie:

_{you knew it was coming}

I know, I know, I pretty much admitted that my post was troll bait, so well done on remaining so calm everyone. LOL

To be honest, I could argumue my point (but then if you're bright enough you can argue anything with selective logic) - but I will pin this down to be a genre of game that I will just never like, which will of course always skew my opinion negatively. XD

One thing you can move from one genre to another though is the attempt to add additional story through cutscenes & forced encounters - if you take my earlier example of Metal Gear Solid 3 & 4, then add Final Fantasy 10, 11, 12 & 13, and any more examples people care to bring up, these are all examples of games that have eschewed free choice inorder to enhance the story further. Is it possibly that kind of linearity that is keeping developers away from adding more depth into their FPS characters? Or is it possible that those same developers would rather not risk alienating some of the more action-orientated gamers at the expense of the more creative ones when they are going to spend a lot of their time online in either case once the single-players done?

Linear games are not bad. They're different from nonlinear games, but that doesn't mean they're bad :/

It's funny, believe it or not, if you're not running around all day doing pointless sidequests you can actually develop the story/characters a lot better than if there's an open world.

I do agree it wouldn't hurt for even more character development into the Call of Duty series, but the offline isn't why Call of Duty is great, nor is the online why Metal Gear Solid 4 is great.

Dear Mr. Person,

I have a wonderful example of how a linear experience can provide deep characters and awesome storytelling.

It's called a book.

Also, Final Fantasy XI (11) is a MMO, a genre that is about as open as they come. The irony of MMOs such as FFXI and World of Warcraft is they have almost no story and character development, relying on players to come up with that.

Dear ChocoGoldfish,

It's 4:30am in my native England, I can forgive myself accidently adding FF11 onto my linearised RPG list at this time in the morning. I can only hope you can too.

Yours sincerely, Fallible Human Being. ( n_-)

Impressive.