MMS by themselves aren't the problem. The problem we have is a lot of companies just churning the same spunkgargeleweewee games out every single year. The problem is with the restrictive design, the repetitiveness of it, the restrictive design (WHAT HAPPENED TO THE JUMP BUTTON WHILE I WAS GONE?!? Also why can I only run for maybe 30 seconds? If I'm playing as a trained soldier, minutes at a time shouldn't be a problem), the non-interactive story, missing character development (or well-characterised characters at all), autosave (Where are my saves? I want to be able to save myself, gods be damned! I 've already needed to start SEVERAL games from the beginning due to them thinking they need to save just when the power goes out) and tons of DLC nobody wanted in the first place.RicoADF said:
I mean, don't you get weary of space marines or the short brown-haired white dude with no armor that somehow ends up being the protagonist in a lot of games?
A modern military shooter can be well executed. I don't think that the genre is per se wrong, but that it just hasn't been executed well to date. Call of Duty could mix things up for once - Treyarch, for example, has lots of manpower. They could actually make a good game - with exploration, tactics, and some actually new things. Another thing you've managed to neglect: the BF gameplay is pretty refined for what it is (I'm not talking about balancing or anything, simply about the mechanics of moving and shooting). Shooting feels good and movement the controls in general feel precise - that is when playing on 60 frames per second, below that it does begin to feel sluggish. While you can say that you do not like an aspect of the game, dismissing the whole game outright seems like a strange thing to do to me.