Modern shooters vs WWII shooters.

Before CoD4, everyone was making the same ol garbage WWII shooters...but since then everyone has switched. I'm sure if the next CoD game ends up being a futuristic shooter, everyone will switch to that as well. Anyway, which of the two did/do you hate the most?

Crap, I thought the poll was for which is better. :(

Crap, I thought the poll was for which is better. :(

agpickle

Garbage WW2 shooters ?

BF1942
MOHAA
RTCW
COD

are some of the best games ever made.

Modern Shooters is my fav.... DAMMIT! Ah well, they're both generic i suppose.

Modern shooters are more annoying and generic as a whole. WWII shooters were in a similar position last gen.

I want my WWII shooters back dag nabbit!

They haven't made a WWII shooter in a while :(

Unless you want to count Wolfenstien. (Nobody likes you Wolfenstien)

They haven't made a WWII shooter in a while :(

Unless you want to count Wolfenstien. (Nobody likes you Wolfenstien)TheHighWind

Um Red Orchestra 2 came out this year.

I like WW2 shooters better for the most part.

They're both the same. Both at one point were or are popular and saturate the big budget FPS scene.

The most generic would be a modern shooter that involves time-traveling to World War II to stop the terrible trio of Adolf Hitler Saddam Hussein, and Josef Stalin.

Call of Duty: Modern Historical Warfare.

WW2 shooter were a lot more epic, because most were based on real life missions. people and events.

Modern shooters are all Michael Bay knock-offs with perks and "super cool special ops". All modern games boil down to these plot points:

• USA/Britain vs Russian, Arabs, Asians
• Nukes
• Crazy mad man bent on world destruction
• Special forces doing super cool slow motion stuff.

The most generic would be a modern shooter that involves time-traveling to World War II to stop the terrible trio of Adolf Hitler Saddam Hussein, and Josef Stalin.

Call of Duty: Modern Historical Warfare.

1PMrFister

modern shooters allow for fake settings and lets us play with all sorts of cool gadgets. WWII shooters were restricted to this one scenario and had us play with limited, clunky weaponry. i'll stick to modern shooters.BrunoBRS

Clunky is not a correct word to use when describing WWII weponry. You could use the word outdated, but not clunky.

WWII shooters weren't garbage... there was just plenty of garbage with a few gems among the waste. The same like any popular genre, setting or fad. And I much preferred WWII shooters. The bolt-action rifles required so much more skill.foxhound_fox

Back when the genre wasn't completely driven into the ground, I loved WW2 shooters. I played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault nonstop until Battlefield 1942 came out, then I played that one nonstop, too. The setting was fresh back then, before the market flooded.

WW2 shooter were a lot more epic, because most were based on real life missions. people and events.

Modern shooters are all Michael Bay knock-offs with perks and "super cool special ops". All modern games boil down to these plot points:

• USA/Britain vs Russian, Arabs, Asians
• Nukes
• Crazy mad man bent on world destruction
• Special forces doing super cool slow motion stuff.

The_Pacific

I have yet to see anything from CoD that tops heading towards Omaha Beach in MOHAA. The nuke from MW1 is really the only thing I can think of that comes close.

WW2 has longevity, whether you like it or not. BF3 is out, but I've already been sick of modern-era fighting since Bad Company 2. The thing that CoD4 had going for it was its novelty, but at the end of the day, I largely prefer the SAS missions over the America-in-Unnamedistan missions. In this, CoD is more like a spy/espionage shooter than an out-and-out warfare simulator.

I'm no lover of CoD, but I'm getting to the point where I might think MW3's campaign will be a lot better than BF3's. From what I've seen of BF3's, it's just a straight up WMD-hunt-with-military-toys. I can get that experience and better with ARMA 2.

World War 2 is not boring. It's the devs who choose to recreate Normandy that make it boring. Saving Private Ryan was a nice movie and it's pretty much become the basis of everything WW2, but the war didn't start on June 6th, 1944. That's what more devs need to realise, thank you Tripwire.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]modern shooters allow for fake settings and lets us play with all sorts of cool gadgets. WWII shooters were restricted to this one scenario and had us play with limited, clunky weaponry. i'll stick to modern shooters.organic_machine

Clunky is not a correct word to use when describing WWII weponry. You could use the word outdated, but not clunky.

Crap, I thought the poll was for which is better. :(

agpickle

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]modern shooters allow for fake settings and lets us play with all sorts of cool gadgets. WWII shooters were restricted to this one scenario and had us play with limited, clunky weaponry. i'll stick to modern shooters.BrunoBRS

Clunky is not a correct word to use when describing WWII weponry. You could use the word outdated, but not clunky.

Modern shooters are a bit overdone, but that's mainly because developers aren't even trying to break away from CoD. Same thing happened with WWII games and the popularity of CoD and Medal of Honor.

I think WWII shooters suffer more because they're a real thing you can't change much of. In the end, your still wielding the same WWII guns and fighting the same Nazi's and Japanese (and occasionally, Italian) enemies. Sure you can change things up, like Wolfenstein and the crazy weapons, but it still gets stale and is harder to be creative about.

Modern Shooters are still modern shooters as long as they take place in modern day and use modern day military. So you get games like ARMA that strive for authenticity, but also games like Rainbow Six that deal more with terrorists and close quarters, and Battlefield which is all about the vehicles and destruction. You can even fudge the details since most modern shooters deal with fictional wars and enemies, not something you can do in a WWII game.

I'm not particularly fond of either, really.vashkey

No both option?

At least modern can have guns not possible in WWII.

WW2 shooter were a lot more epic, because most were based on real life missions. people and events.

Modern shooters are all Michael Bay knock-offs with perks and "super cool special ops". All modern games boil down to these plot points:

• USA/Britain vs Russian, Arabs, Asians
• Nukes
• Crazy mad man bent on world destruction
• Special forces doing super cool slow motion stuff.

The_Pacific

This.

Its funny though. A couple of years ago people were all crying about how the WW2 setting was overused and blablabla.

Of course I prefer modern shooters. Were there even videogames during WWII? :o

I think war game devs should be more original and try other settings too.

Its funny though. A couple of years ago people were all crying about how the WW2 setting was overused and blablabla.

Postal_Guy

Thanks to WW2 COD and later MOH, it was because they used the same formula. USA/Britain vs Germany, where all the Germans are SS Elite who kill Jews for kicks, speak in highly-accented English, and are all Hitler's right-hand-men.

I don't know why people were complaining though. Brothers in Arms was a perfectly viable alternative with a damn good story, to boot. Unfortunately, Gearbox is murdering the series, but it was great while it lasted.

I have probably stormed Omaha beach 20 times and taken back stalingrad 15 times. While modern shooters are all about the middle east, russia, and post 911 fears, the story and setting changes. Whereas WWII shooters all tried to be historically accurate and follow the timeline of WWII as it actuall happened.

World War 2 was the last war where truely massive battles were fought and new equipment was constantly being developed. It's the perfect setting for video games. There was also a clearly defined bad guy and good guy.

Honestly I miss WWII games. I hope we see some next gen so we can recreate some of the biggest battles of WWII. I honestly don't think people fully undersatnd how big and widespread WWII is. You could literally make thousands of video games that are all very unique and still be set in WWII.

I prefer modern shooters.

Medal of Honor Frontline is my favorite FPS campaign evar. So much fun.

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

Its funny though. A couple of years ago people were all crying about how the WW2 setting was overused and blablabla.

Sharpie125

Thanks to WW2 COD and later MOH, it was because they used the same formula. USA/Britain vs Germany, where all the Germans are SS Elite who kill Jews for kicks, speak in highly-accented English, and are all Hitler's right-hand-men.

I don't know why people were complaining though. Brothers in Arms was a perfectly viable alternative with a damn good story, to boot. Unfortunately, Gearbox is murdering the series, but it was great while it lasted.

Funny thing is (or rather sad thing is) there were so many WW2 games out there but not a single one from the perspective of the Germans or Japanese. Lots of interesting stories to tell from that perspective as well.

Snipers that can be shot like pistols aren't very skillful, high tech sure but i far prefer the simple metal and wood of WWII games, not the alloy and plastics of modern shooters. I hope one day we'll all go back to WWII but i highly doubt it, Arena game should make a huge comeback i'd welcome it with open arms.

I am tired of both. Not the concept of WW2 shooters or modern shooters but rather how they are applied.

WW2: I am tired of what battles we are seeing, as Wasdie said, people dont seem to realize how widespread the situation was. In too many games we get the same setting over and over again. As one of the many untapped examples, how about defending Finland against the Russians?

Modern: Again, it is how they are set up which is tiring. Why are we always americans or brits fighting Russians/Arabs/Asians. Why do they always have to be michael bay movies. There are a lot of wars we arent aware of, and these games could possibly highlight these. With heavy political themes. You could also have a game about a rebellion attempting to overthrow a tyrannical regime. Or a country fighting against domestic terrorists.