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

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Is it not unfair to label every single Military Shooter in the last 17 years as generic?

you are right my friend longview its not unfair because every millitary shooter is indeed generic while most rely on set pieces and on rail segments.

 

[Hawki]

Is it not unfair to label every single Military Shooter in the last 17 years as generic?

Yes. In fact, I'm not even sure why "military shooter" is even a term being used here when this thread is lumping WWII and the conflicts of the 21st century into the same subject matter. The themes of something like Modern Warfare are very different from something like Pacific Assault.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Medal Of Honor 1, Allied Assault and Big Red One.

Just want to point out that Big Red One is a Call of Duty game [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_2:_Big_Red_One].

Shows how closely I pay attention to these things. Looked up Big Red One and I never played it, but I somehow convinced myself I had and it was a Medal of Honor game. I remember playing a WW2 game around the time Big Red One came out as I remember the adverts for it, so I looked up what MoH could have been out in or around the same time.

MoH Airborne seems to be the one I got my wires crossed with. I checked some footage online and I remember playing through some of it. As I never played Pacific Assault or any other MoH after Airborne, and I never played a CoD game before WaW, I think it's safe to assume I just mixed these 2 games from the same year up.

To be fair, they all started to blend together around this time.

Is it not unfair to label every single Military Shooter in the last 17 years as generic?

Yes. In fact, I'm not even sure why "military shooter" is even a term being used here when this thread is lumping WWII and the conflicts of the 21st century into the same subject matter. The themes of something like Modern Warfare are very different from something like Pacific Assault.

Not to mention the drastically different types of games they are between different franchises. CoD:MW 1-3 and Battlefield 3-4 have commonalities by being in the same genre (FPS) and by following certain trends (like leveling and unlocking gear in Multiplayer), but if you like one game that won't mean you'll automatically like the other as they have significantly different offerings. Campaign wise they are fairly similar (not accounting for taste), but multiplayer is wildly different and that's their primary selling point.

 

[CaitSeith]

I read the title and immediately my B-Cell sensor gave a signal. Still, he still needs to explain what exactly he calls a military shooter. Why? Because maybe he is referring to TotalBiscuit's definition, which it's used to separate old-school FPS from CoD-clones (in other words, TB's version of Spunkgargleweewee). That would be the equivalent of saying "has every CoD and CoD-clones been like CoD since CoD predecessors?"

 

[MysticSlayer]

To be fair, they all started to blend together around this time.

Perhaps for you, but I would say they started blurring around the time Medal of Honor decided to be a really bad Call of Duty clone, but of course then a mark of quality on CoD (even if I didn't find them fun) was what easily separated them.

The thing is, CoD actually started with many of the people who worked on Allied Assault, which kept the series very close initially, and they did trade ideas for a while. But then Medal of Honor decided to go all story heavy with Pacific Assault while Call of Duty continued trying to see how intense they could make things. And CoD4 and Airborne were about as different as those two series could get. But then someone decided that Medal of Honor had too many good ideas to expand upon and trashed all of them to chase after CoD's money (abysmally so might I add).

 

[The Wooster]

Hey there,

my all fellow gamers, friends, buddies just recently i was thinking something. i look at history of this sub genre. some say modern millitary shooter suck since modern warfare etc but i look deeper and say its always been bad apart from very few like COD1 and MOH allied assault and they were just decent titles

Allied Assault was one of the best shooters of its time and was leagues beyond the original Medal of Honor. The original COD was a step beyond that. IF you think the Medal of Honor (1999) holds up to those games you're completely blinded by Nostalgia.

Do these games look alike? Yes, do they play similarly? No. Not in the slightest. Games that could be called "military shooters" come from a vast array of sub genres with drastically different design philosophies.

Side note: If you think Doom 2016 is even remotely similar to an actual 90s shooter, you need to go back and play some 90s shooters.

 

[Politrukk]

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.

You must have never played MoH frontline, I think that's one of the better shooters to this day (Rising sun afterwards whilst sometimes impressive was an incredible flop).

I think the op's post is also leaving out "realistic" Shooters like Red Orchestra and specific shooters like Spec Ops,Gears of War and Sniper Elite.

or are we just discussing console shooters here.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

IF you think the Medal of Honor (1999) holds up to those games you're completely blinded by Nostalgia.

my friend, read the OP again as i mentioned MOH 1999 play worse than COD. I think 1999 MOH suck back then and still now and allied assault is far superior. i think MOH 1999 was pioneer of what we see in modern military shooter.

I have been playing FPS since 90s and I think new Doom is indeed true Old school shooter. id say its best in series because Doom 3 was not real Doom game and classic games are not age well since they dont have support mouse.

 

[Sonmi]

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that all of them are mediocre.

I had plenty of fun with Red Orchestra 2 and Verdun, for instance, and shooters are pretty much one of the genres I dislike the most.

Not too much a fan of modern settings though.

 

[LordBaztion]

Related,
@B-cell, Here is some info about Scape from Tarkov.

 

[My name is Fiction]

Ok by just reading the title I think i got a example of a good old FPS.

Arma 1: "Wow what a sexy smooth game where i can see the pixels."

Socom: "Never played them but I heard some good stories about them."

oh and uh halflife or something. That was a good meme too.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Related,
@B-cell, Here is some info about Scape from Tarkov.

is theres SP? if so than i would be interested.

 

[RedDeadFred]

GRAW isn't anything like these other military shooters... It's much more about tactics than it is about twitch shooting. Hell, depending on how you outfit your team, you could sit back and command them a lot of the time without having to fire a shot. Utilizing proper cover and the various tech at your disposal was much more important than simply being able to shoot a guy as he pops up from cover like so many of these other games.

 

[elvor0]

You're forgetting that before it became the basis for years of stale sequels, the first Modern Warfare game had one of the most innovative and subversive campaigns for a war game up to that point. So much of that game is iconic, and almost deconstructive of military jingoism in places, at least in the first half.

what is so innovative about first modern warfare? its basically COD2 in modern skin but even more linear, scripted. only NPC can open door and game has no level design, rely on set pieces.

1. The general narrative structure of letting you follow two different people in reaching the same goal. Different character was a thing since CoD1, but MW was the first time they shared a story other then "kill axis dudes".
2. The AC-130 sequence was truly groundbreaking and paved the way for every single game with aspirations having a "pilot the support vehicle"-section. At the time it had never been done before and the seamless transition between gunship and soldier on the ground just made it all the more effective.
3. The post-nuclear detonation scene was one of the first times a FPS killed off a protagonist in the middle of the storyline without the player having any chance to stop it. It also set the bar for "shocking death scenes from player perspective", something that later CoDs (and many other games) would abuse the hell out of.
4. Most missions varied their fighting distances tremendously. The assault on the Russian village or the lead up to the AC-130 section are great examples of this, where you move between houses and long/medium range firefights dominate, then you fight short range in the houses and the game keeps mixing it up like that.
5. The game tapped into the contemporary "War on Terrorism" and instability in Russia to deliver a storyline that was grounded in a real world that people could recognize. The story was also, at the same time, a clever subversion of the "evil arabs"-archtype.

I could go on, but just those five points alone should be enough for any game to prove its' merits.

EDIT: Not to mention how its' multiplayer innovations of load outs and kill streaks would go on to become such an industry standard that even the DOOM reboot got in on it.

But my friend, it was not "innovative" in a good way as it take FPS genre backward and focus more on Multiplayer. all points you mentioned reflect cutscenes rather than gameplay. most important thing in FPS is level design and shooting while level design are non existance there. and entire game was full on rail. I was never super impressed with original COD but modern warfare quickly become most overrated game of all time tied with GTA series.

now look at this

Spoiler

Lazy developers copy paste same thing over and over again.

So your argument against it being innovative is...that the games that came after...didn't innovate? So what? A game being copied doesn't make the first one unoriginal. It was still an innovative way of presenting a story in FPSes. Just because they were lazy later, that doesn't mean they were lazy when they made the first one, unless you're accusing them stealing from themselves with a time machine or something.

What is your point here? It's iron sight aiming. Why does that need to be changed or advanced upon exactly? It fits the theme of the genre, it's like complaining that there's been no changes to the reload mechanic.

hopefully this gen we will have more old school shooters like they were on PC in late 90s. and success of Doom will lead to make FPS genre great again.

Complains about lack of innovation, praises a game that, while enjoyable, has nada in terms of innovation and is quite unashamedly a retread with modern graphics. riiiight.

Is it not unfair to label every single Military Shooter in the last 17 years as generic?

you are right my friend longview its not unfair because every millitary shooter is indeed generic while most rely on set pieces and on rail segments.

He's not agreeing with you. He's stating it's unfair to state everything is generic.

i was hoping rising storm 2 to have SP yet tripwire have no interest. same with killing floor 2. because that game will take huge advantage for it.

It really wouldn't. Why would they add SP just for the sake of it? That's not what the game is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be a co-op shooter.

Jesus, I hate that CoD/Doom IGN picture. Yes, the scores, if you solely want to look at 'em, are pretty different.
But in the text, they're mostly praising Doom's singleplayer.

If they are praising SP why give it 7 while other 9? because MP is not good? like any one care about Doom MP? I guess they need MP in every game. SP is most important part and worth for games alone. I dont really play MP at all.

"I don't care about the MP, therefore nobody else does! Now excuse me while I stick my fingers in my ears!"

Clearly people did care about the MP, otherwise there wouldn't have been such an uproar about the MP being so lackluster, would there now?

The game gone from most hated game on steam to most loved game on steam. majority of reviews of people who played it. im hearing nothing but praise. even i read neogaf thread on early impression and lot of people surprise.

Or did you forget that you said this? You remember why it was negative? Because of the MP. Either nobody cares, or it was the most hated game on steam. It can't be both.

Regardless, the MP is still part of the game, and therefore would be factored into the review. Because it's a review of the whole product. But apparently that's moon logic. You can't just pretend part of the game doesn't exist in order to skew the review score.

 

[Faaip]

Medal Of Honor 1, Allied Assault and Big Red One.

Just want to point out that Big Red One is a Call of Duty game [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_2:_Big_Red_One].

I think this is secretly one of the better CoD games.. I'd love another historical game that follows a real unit through their war campaign. BiA series did the same thing

Also, while I'm thinking about it.. are we ever getting another Brothers in Arms game??

 

[Hawki]

I read the title and immediately my B-Cell sensor gave a signal. Still, he still needs to explain what exactly he calls a military shooter. Why? Because maybe he is referring to TotalBiscuit's definition, which it's used to separate old-school FPS from CoD-clones (in other words, TB's version of Spunkgargleweewee). That would be the equivalent of saying "has every CoD and CoD-clones been like CoD since CoD predecessors?"

Did TB actually give a definition per se? I'm aware of two key videos he did on the subject, namely Warfighter, and "Have Shooters Gone Backwards?"

To be honest, TB irritates me for similar reasons as this thread does. If he doesn't like something, fine - tear into the likes of Warfighter as much as you want. However, it's the point when he insults people who do like MMS games that I feel a line has been crossed. Heck, I don't even like MMS games, but I'd like to think I'd have enough civility to not insult the people who do. At least with "Spunkgargleweewee" it's presented in a humorous manner.

MoH Airborne seems to be the one I got my wires crossed with. I checked some footage online and I remember playing through some of it. As I never played Pacific Assault or any other MoH after Airborne, and I never played a CoD game before WaW, I think it's safe to assume I just mixed these 2 games from the same year up.

This isn't really directed at you, but it's something I want to highlight. In retrospect, MoH and CoD started off in very different places. In MoH, the idea was "you are the most important soldier on the battlefield." You're with the OSS (or in the case of Underground, the French Resistance), and while the likes of Allied Assault and Frontline introduced allied troops you could fight beside, they still featured a plenthora of missions you completed on your own. Even Spearhead and Breakthrough introduced solo missions for what were obstensibly every day soldiers. I haven't played any MoH game after Pacific Assault, which did go the route of everyday soldier that's never without his squad, but, yeah.

In contrast, CoD started off as being focused on the everyman. While the British campaigns of the WWII games usually focused on commandos, the American and Soviet campaigns mostly, if not always, had you as being a grunt as part of a larger whole. You're a far more capable soldier than your buddies, but in-universe, you're an average joe. CoD games of recent times seem to have gone the special forces/super soldier route, but looking at the WWII MoH and CoD games, there's a clear difference in design philosophy.

So, yes. I bring this up because while they both fall under the umbrella of "military shooter," even with WWII, there's differences between them. It's the example of taking the term "sci-fi shooter," and lumping every bit of sci-fi together, whether it be the space opera of Halo, the cyberpunk of Perfect Dark, the cartoony near future of Overwatch, the post-apocalyptic future of Half-Life, or whatever else floats your boat. It's why "military shooter" is a reductive term - heck, Halo itself can be called a military shooter, considering that Halo is, at its core, military sci-fi, with the usual themes that entails.

You must have never played MoH frontline, I think that's one of the better shooters to this day (Rising sun afterwards whilst sometimes impressive was an incredible flop).

Ditto on Frontline. I know Allied Assault is the poster child of the Medal of Honor series, but personally, I hold Pacific Assault and Frontline as superior. Frontline even has a spot in my top 10 FPS list.

my friend, read the OP again as i mentioned MOH 1999 play worse than COD. I think 1999 MOH suck back then and still now and allied assault is far superior. i think MOH 1999 was pioneer of what we see in modern military shooter.

Pioneer...how? How is MoH even equated with MMS? From a gameplay standpoint, MoH is still rooted in the player being "the guy," as in infiltrating Nazi strongholds as an OSS agent. There's still elements of 90s shooters there in that you're the only man on the battlefield. From a setting standpoint, MoH was the brainchild of Steven Spielberg as, among other things, possessing a desire to make an authentic WWII experience. In contrast, compare it to something like Modern Warfare. From a setting standpoint, Modern Warfare is rooted in the cultural unease of the invasion of Iraq and the broader war on terror. From a gameplay standpoint, the MoH/CoD approach differences I described earlier still exist, and a lot of the time you're playing an average soldier.

Call of Duty as a series might not have happened without Medal of Honor, but a game like Modern Warfare could easily exist without it, from both its setting to its gameplay.

I have been playing FPS since 90s and I think new Doom is indeed true Old school shooter. id say its best in series because Doom 3 was not real Doom game and classic games are not age well since they dont have support mouse.

A lot of us have been playing shooters since the 90s. That's nothing special. Also, Doom 3 is probably my favorite Doom thus far, but hey, don't you know that Doom is a sci-fi shooter? Don't you know that all sci-fi shooters are generic? Real manly men only play military shooters. ;p

Also, while I'm thinking about it.. are we ever getting another Brothers in Arms game??

Never actually played Brothers in Arms, but obstensibly, the answer is yes. I'm personally skeptical though, as BiA being a WWII series, and WWII having gone out of fashion, I'm not counting on it anytime soon.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Also, while I'm thinking about it.. are we ever getting another Brothers in Arms game??

There have been mobile games. As for the main series Gearbox worked on, maybe. They did have that awful-looking co-op game that got cancelled, and I believe they said that they intend to continue the series for at least one more game. But then again, I doubt Gearbox really cares much about anything beyond Borderlands and maybe Battleborn at this point.

 

[Faaip]

Also, while I'm thinking about it.. are we ever getting another Brothers in Arms game??

There have been mobile games. As for the main series Gearbox worked on, maybe. They did have that awful-looking co-op game that got cancelled, and I believe they said that they intend to continue the series for at least one more game. But then again, I doubt Gearbox really cares much about anything beyond Borderlands and maybe Battleborn at this point.

Yeah I think you're right.. I did a quick search and found that Randy Pitchford said in a podcast that a new game is in "early pre-production". While that's far from definitive, its enough to keep me hopeful

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Are all games mediocre since MoH 1999? No, not really. Are a lot of them mediocre since every game decided to copy the same formula as everything else and caused things to stagnate a little? Yes. I think that's a better question we should be asking. I don't like most modern military FPS games myself either, I'm not a huge fan of the genre to begin with (With only slight exceptions).

There's something to consider though. The current formula most CoD games are recognized for is something that brought success to several games. In case you haven't figured this out, it's because this formula works. Every company trying to be the next CoD is by no means interesting, but CoD does what it does cause it works. FPS games have stagnated. But there's PLENTY of other FPS options that do their own thing to play. Though, I doubt you've spent very long looking

 

[Elvis Starburst]

But my friend, it was not "innovative" in a good way as it take FPS genre backward and focus more on Multiplayer.

Did it actually make the series go backwards, or did it just take it in a direction you dislike? Considering the focus and full-blown success of multiplayer focused shooters, I'm willing to bet it's the latter. As I touched in my post above, there's still single player FPS games being made out there. The problem I can tell is that they're not "hardcore" (Which is a garbage term commonly used (But not always) by people to claim their game is above others of its kind, while simultaneously degrading the pure success of its competitors) and that isn't enough. Everyone has their tastes, you don't like multiplayer. We know. WE KNOW.
WE KNOW.
But CoD is a huge success story that turned the tide of an entire genre. Let's not bullshit around and pretend that's not amazing. It might not be what everyone wants, and we're seeing a steady decline in success that shows we want things to be different now... But that formula worked. It worked for a lot of games.
(And as was said before, DOOM 2016 is nothing like the 90's shooters it used to be. So that doesn't many any logical sense)