The Medal of Honor Curse

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Medal of Honor Curse

Blame Steven Spielberg for the brown shooter.

Read Full Article

that is a really interesting and informative article. while i have played medal of honour many times and you couldnt help but see the saving private ryan influences i never realised it was made by dreamworks.

the pacific theatre is one area thats been sadly lacking in games outside the strategy genre

EXCELLENT article.

The obsession with "realism" in aesthetics, even in truly unrealistic games like Modern Warfare 2, needs to end. Not saying that realistic aesthetics need to stop, but that the obsession needs to end, especially when true realism is betrayed for the sterotypical "gritty realistic" look, as you pointed out regarding the tropical Pacific in games like Call of Duty: World at War.

Innovation is definitely needed, and for that to happen, less mature consumers need to wise-up and realize that brighter colors doesn't make a game silly or "kiddie."

MOH:AA draws so many Saving Private Ryan locations and set-pieces it could be called Saving Private Ryan: The Game and you wouldn't notice much.

Why no love for Hidden & Dangerous 2? The Burma Campaign was one of the best bits. Terrifying misty jungle. I also loved driving through Libya. That game felt insanely authentic, but allowed you to do anything you liked to get the mission done, you are SAS after all. Every locale felt very different too. It wasn't overtly colourful or dreary, just fairly natural looking. I would say that it is a game that needed a sequel more than MOH or COD do. At least it didn't treat the player like an imbecile either.

I think you ought remember that Normandy is at the same latitude as Vancouver and consequently the ambient light is that much colder. The desaturated look is familiar to anyone who lives in northwest europe. The colour plate of browns and greens is not unusual in Autumn over here.

See, I loved the first two MOHs for the PS1 precisely because the missions and aesthetic embraced World War II thrillers like Where Eagles Dare and The Guns of Navarrone. And Michael Giacchino's soundtrack was perfect.

It wasn't until the third game, Frontline, that they really started playing up the "realism".
Contrarily, it was the "realism" that kicked me out of the experience--Frontline opens with an almost scene-for-scene recreation of the Normandy beach landings from Saving Private Ryan. But you stormed the beaches as Jimmy Patterson, the OSS commando from MOH 1. And that just threw me out of the whole game: the idea that the OSS would send one of their most skilled operatives, and officer and a pilot no less, into the meat grinder.

In retrospect, that might have been the first time I played a game that was more concerned with forcing in cinematic moments than whether it made any sense to the game. I haven't played a MOH game since.

I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

This didn't include the information on what spurred the change over from WWII shooters to the modern shooters. I remember so sonny you sit down on grandpa's lap and he will tell you a story. Battlefield 1942 had come out and was a success from the lan parties we had in college but all that changed when Battlefield Alpha came out, faster people, faster airplane, faster tanks and the navy was so much larger. You could run a whole battleship or sub by yourself and lay waste to whole areas with little effort. It was a success and the other companies desperately looking to change the WWII shooters to something new found it with a modern twist.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

You cant make a game with Gurkha's though. Soon as you start the mission, the enemy completely surrenders...

That was a great article. Thank you for introducing me to the term "tinnitus effect"; it's so nice to learn that ubiquitous things actually have names.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

Hell yes. Once the industry realises we don't need (or particularly want) another white, brown-haired, three-day-bearded protagonist, they're gonna have a field day.

You're preaching to the choir here.

A good article, very informative, but the message is old news here.

The drab coloring is which finally ruined it for me for BF3. Every single fucking map, lets just cut the color down by 50% and call it a day.

You know what would have been impressive, is that at the start of every map (if not already on fire) started out brilliant and bright, but as the war waged on it would slowly turn greyish/brown due to smut and smoke caused by the fighting.

I'm looking forward to FC3 more of the vibrant jungle and island colors more then anything else.

Bashful Reaper:
Why no love for Hidden & Dangerous 2? The Burma Campaign was one of the best bits. Terrifying misty jungle. I also loved driving through Libya. That game felt insanely authentic, but allowed you to do anything you liked to get the mission done, you are SAS after all. Every locale felt very different too. It wasn't overtly colourful or dreary, just fairly natural looking. I would say that it is a game that needed a sequel more than MOH or COD do. At least it didn't treat the player like an imbecile either.

I didn't know about that one. I'll keep it in mind. Sounds fun.

Falseprophet:
See, I loved the first two MOHs for the PS1 precisely because the missions and aesthetic embraced World War II thrillers like Where Eagles Dare and The Guns of Navarrone. And Michael Giacchino's soundtrack was perfect.

No joke: I have a Where Eagles Dare poster on my wall. I also once had a birthday party where we watched The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare as a double feature. It was a pot luck where everyone had to bring food or alcohol representing one of the Allied or Axis nations.

WanderingFool:

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

You cant make a game with Gurkha's though. Soon as you start the mission, the enemy completely surrenders...

Thunderous Cacophony:
That was a great article. Thank you for introducing me to the term "tinnitus effect"; it's so nice to learn that ubiquitous things actually have names.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

Hell yes. Once the industry realises we don't need (or particularly want) another white, brown-haired, three-day-bearded protagonist, they're gonna have a field day.

Someone call Activision. Call of Duty: Gurkha Rampage needs to be a thing.

What possible response can there be to this article besides this?
image

I never knew about the origins of MOH, thanks for the incredible article. I kind of wish I had that kind of research power though.

What a great article! As a MoH: Frontline and Rising Sun player back in the day I always thought that the series was one of the biggest stepping stones toward the modern day shooter. This helped fill in some of my gaps in knowledge and really tie everything together.

Come to think of it, I think I would rather play either of those games over any of the recent installments of the series. Might be time to hook the Gamecube back up!

Woaw.I didn't... I didn't know.

It always occurs to me that MOH:AA was inspired by Saving Private Ryan, but I didn't know it was all part of a greater work. It kinda makes me proud to be a gamer that the game that lead to the creation of the Call of Duty games(aka a exemple of game that people always use to dismiss video game as "stupid things for children") was intented as a work of art.

A great article.

I think it makes sense to mention "Schindler's List", an earlier Spielberg movie where he tried to go for authenticity by making it mostly black and white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List

"Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" where both excellent movies. But when I saw them I remember thinking that Spielberg took the easy way out by using those colour tricks. Life isn't black and white or washed out brown. Even when life is hell, trees and bushes are still green, flowers have colours and beautiful days exist. This could have caused some interesting and cruel narrative contrast or dissonance, like soldiers being slaughtered on a beautiful field.

In the late '80s and early '90s Hollywod had a brown period with several Western movies made to look gritty and dirty. Notable examples were the "Young Guns" movies and "Tombstone".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Guns_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_%28film%29

This seemed to make a lot more sense in that genre, since Westerns often depict muddy, dusty environments. It felt like a revolt against the technicoloured fairy tale beauty of some of the '60s and '70s Westerns and maybe even marking the end of the bright pastel colours typical of the 1980s.

I remember the first MoH & CoD games very well. What's really sad about this genre is that all subsequent games are essentially clones of these two with trumped up graphics.

For me the most captivating thing about MoH wasn't the realism, games like Delta Force did realism much better. The hallmark was the intensity of the sound. i distinctly remember the omaha mission in AA, and not wanting to get out of the little hole because of the sheer acoustic intensity of war.

I often wonder if the Pacific Theatre was largely ignored because there was no obvious villian like Hitler and the Third Reich. The enemy was Japan and the Emporer but without the obvious villiany of the holocaust and Nazism.

Or was it because designing realistic jungles is hard. I remember the early attempts at jungle warfare FPS and the plants were always those 2D models that rotated to face the player but if you walked through them were paper thin. Buildings and streets are much easier to make.

Personally I've never been bothered much by the "look" of a game as I am the sense of gameplay. I like MoH and earlier CoD because tactics had to be used, you had to push ahead, suppress, flank. Strangely all these games have become more linear corridor shooters than their forefathers (except of course the inevitable "bunker" missions that must have made level designers breath a sigh of relief).

The lastest MoH Warfighter was panned but I can honestly say I enjoyed it. I love the Tier 1 stuff and the soldier's story is far more entertaining and believable than anything CoD has done since CoD4. And the multiplayer feels pared back to something that feels almost like Counter-Strike. No stupid cheap spawns, sensible cover and placement (camping) better than hopping around like a moron. Seriously, where is your realism when the "better" method of playing is jumping around a corner shooting. Then again we all have our limits. I don't want to play ARMA or some similar "realistic" shooter where you're shooting at people 500m away that you can barely see. Then spend 20 minutes "covering your sector" with nothing happening. So realism be damned, it's about finding your own subjective preference of how much realism you want.

I think we're all tired of this "realistic" look by now, great article!

What seems to "rescue" me from this situation is actually the wonderful new game called Planetside 2 (currently in beta, release on the 20th as Free-2-Play, check it out now at www.planetside2.com! /advertizing). It already has 3 varied continents to battle on, one more beautiful than the other! Amerish is by far my favorite, the huge biolabs look amazing on grassy fields surrounded by tall, sharp mountains. The gear is colorful, looks great and the game sound simply amazing. Knowing that every shell fire, every explosion barly audible is created by another player... I can't explain it! My favorite moments include 400 of my friendly players charging across the open desert towards a heavily defended enemy outpost. Seing hundreds of enemy rifles open up on us as we run makes me shiver with fangirl excitement! The nights are great too. We lose much of the colorful world the day presents, but in return we get some SERIOUSLY good looking lighting effects. Flying over the continents in a gunship and seing the headlights of enemy armored collums slowly crawling along a windy mountain road, or on the ground observing the previously mentioned gunship get torn to shreds by enemy AA tracers darting across the sky... Watch some Youtube videos, google some pictures, but on Nov 20th... DL this game damnit! If you have any kind of half-decent PC, do it! I should stop shamelessly promoting my new favorite game now X3.

Murmillos:
You know what would have been impressive, is that at the start of every map (if not already on fire) started out brilliant and bright, but as the war waged on it would slowly turn greyish/brown due to smut and smoke caused by the fighting.

Honestly, what you described is exactly what I expected from BF3, and it is my absolute main reason for being very disapointed with the game (also, no mod-support or LAN capabilites, WTF?!). I was shocked to see how grey they made the game look. Desert maps, jungles, fields, cities and snowy mountain alike all have this heavy gray filter over it. Your gun looks gray, your friendly players look gray, the vehicles look gray... It's shocking, truly!

I remember in the mid-2000s everybody was getting sick of every shooter being based in World War II and every World War II game trying to one-up the other one in how much they looked and felt like Saving Private Ryan. Then the first Modern Warfare game came around, and we were all excited because of the way the gameplay translated into a more modern aesthetic.

But I think now the modern military shooter has reached the same kind of saturation point that the World War II shooter did before 2007. The question remains... what's the next big trend that's gonna be awesome for a few years before it gets overplayed?

I'm thinking the only two options are either near-future high-tech warfare (with Black Ops 2 leading the pack) or we go back to World War II again.

Critical intel is the best read on the escapist now.

I'm glad someone has finally admitted that it wasn't all Halo's fault for the modern shooter.

WanderingFool:

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

You cant make a game with Gurkha's though. Soon as you start the mission, the enemy completely surrenders...

You actually can.
The really interesting thing about playing as the Gurkhas or Indians is playing as subjects of the British Raj with divided loyalties. One the one side, if they knew what the Nazis had been doing, they would want to fight them but on the other side they were conquered subjects of a foreign power and were fighting their war. Some even fought their own people due to the Free Indian Army's loyalty to Imperial Japan.
Then there was the political strife among themselves(if you are playing the Indians) as the Hindus and Muslims weren't on very good terms since the failed 1857 rebellion and in 1940 the Muslim League finally decided that the communities were too different to live together forever (the biggest example; Hindus worship cows, we eat cows, especially on Eid ul Adha) and announced their intentions for a separate country, Pakistan after years of campaigning only for equal job rights and separate electorates(as voting was usually based on ethnicity or religion and Muslim candidates, being part of the minority, had no chance of winning and so had no chance of getting their voice heard by the British rulers).

Add all this and you have a World War 2 that would still be very original and that most developers would find difficult to emulate like they did with Call of Duty.

Nice. It is a damn fine idea to change from common and well-known shooter locales. I for one am tired of sand, concrete and drab colours.

Why not get a bit heart of darkness, and set a shooter in something like the Amazon. Make it bright, colourful, put a lot of effort into plants and animals. Your tough grunt stomps around the jungle, a snake bites him, now deal with the poison.

Fighting mercs, aliens (predator influence?) or drug cartels in the brightest of surroundings could add a lot more to the genre. People have powerful gaming machines, let's use it.

Dead island was mostly a bore, but some parts in the jungle had the right feel and could be used for something new. The Indonesian military in PNG could be another theatre, or Indonesian anti terror units against JI.

Arif_Sohaib:

WanderingFool:

Pallindromemordnillap:
I'm sure I had lots of intelligent thoughts after reading this altogether well-written article but all I can think of know is "Fuck yeah I want to play a game where I'm a Gurkha." Seriously, those guys kick so much arse the toes of their descendants must be pre-emptively sore.

You cant make a game with Gurkha's though. Soon as you start the mission, the enemy completely surrenders...

You actually can.
The really interesting thing about playing as the Gurkhas or Indians is playing as subjects of the British Raj with divided loyalties. One the one side, if they knew what the Nazis had been doing, they would want to fight them but on the other side they were conquered subjects of a foreign power and were fighting their war. Some even fought their own people due to the Free Indian Army's loyalty to Imperial Japan.
Then there was the political strife among themselves(if you are playing the Indians) as the Hindus and Muslims weren't on very good terms since the failed 1857 rebellion and in 1940 the Muslim League finally decided that the communities were too different to live together forever (the biggest example; Hindus worship cows, we eat cows, especially on Eid ul Adha) and announced their intentions for a separate country, Pakistan after years of campaigning only for equal job rights and separate electorates(as voting was usually based on ethnicity or religion and Muslim candidates, being part of the minority, had no chance of winning and so had no chance of getting their voice heard by the British rulers).

Add all this and you have a World War 2 that would still be very original and that most developers would find difficult to emulate like they did with Call of Duty.

Following a Japanese infantryman in Asia could be a good game. There at Singapore, fighting the warlords in China, stomping through south-east asia.

Settingwise, why not take the Korean War? There's like, what, 2 niche strategy games that take place there. It's a mountainous area, sufficiently different from European or Middle Eastern areas. And you're still using most of the weapons from the WW2 era, so you have to choose between short range SMGs or long range rifles, without the all-ranges assault rifles. Plus, narrative wise the war can be interesting for keeping the tension high. Just check how the frontline moved:

image

So we'd actually be fighting a narratively dangerous foe, instead of the terminator-vs-rockthrowers idea that Yahtzee ranted on about. Early in the war, allied tanks and AT weapons were vastly outclassed by the enemy's T34 for instance. Should make for tense gameplay.

SiskoBlue:
I often wonder if the Pacific Theatre was largely ignored because there was no obvious villian like Hitler and the Third Reich. The enemy was Japan and the Emporer but without the obvious villiany of the holocaust and Nazism.

Or was it because designing realistic jungles is hard. I remember the early attempts at jungle warfare FPS and the plants were always those 2D models that rotated to face the player but if you walked through them were paper thin. Buildings and streets are much easier to make.

Personally I've never been bothered much by the "look" of a game as I am the sense of gameplay. I like MoH and earlier CoD because tactics had to be used, you had to push ahead, suppress, flank. Strangely all these games have become more linear corridor shooters than their forefathers (except of course the inevitable "bunker" missions that must have made level designers breath a sigh of relief).

The lastest MoH Warfighter was panned but I can honestly say I enjoyed it. I love the Tier 1 stuff and the soldier's story is far more entertaining and believable than anything CoD has done since CoD4. And the multiplayer feels pared back to something that feels almost like Counter-Strike. No stupid cheap spawns, sensible cover and placement (camping) better than hopping around like a moron. Seriously, where is your realism when the "better" method of playing is jumping around a corner shooting. Then again we all have our limits. I don't want to play ARMA or some similar "realistic" shooter where you're shooting at people 500m away that you can barely see. Then spend 20 minutes "covering your sector" with nothing happening. So realism be damned, it's about finding your own subjective preference of how much realism you want.

the pacfic never really flew because it wasn't a "nice" war, the fighting was nasty and completely broke a lot of the soilders.

any story based there has a marine posted for 4 months on a rock, with no way out, no manaver against a suicidal enemy that can shoot straight, and at least initially was better trained and battle hardned.

I agree with just about everything this article said- ESPECIALLY the part about how ww2 games could be so much more diverse in location, climate, and people and races involved (though limiting it to just the Pacific when there is still yet so much other content from WW2 also untouched seems almost as bad as the ill-doing the article complains about), but this bit here...

Critics and veterans often praise Private Ryan for its accurate depiction of combat, but Private Ryan wasn't just a movie about the "reality" of WWII, it was also a reaction to the glamorized myth Hollywood had built around the War. This is especially clear during the Normandy scene, where the images of maimed American soldiers serve as a dual indictment of the horrors of warfare and the glossy film culture that glorifies it. The Americans in this scene aren't tough, gravely heroes like John Wayne, they're nineteen and twenty year-old kids being butchered en masse. What makes them heroic isn't a steely lack of fear, it's that despite their terror and anguish, they still push forward with blood on their boots and sand in their mouths. It's a masterful piece of filmmaking that simultaneously manages to be anti-war and pro-soldier.

Oh please. The first 20 minutes of SPR was realistic, but everything else in it ended up being just as much of a cartoon as any 70s technicolor war film. They even deliberately altered the tactics of the Germans in the last battle to make them incompetent enough to get taken down by the Americans. Add to that the fact that the tanks were painted up to represent a real life unit of German armour that attacked and defeated a British force on the exact day mentioned in the film, plus all that Monty bashing that came literally out of nowhere, and you have in Sving Private Ryan a film that is every bit as jingoistic and narrow minded as the war films of old. The only difference is that instead of laying the heroics and adventure on thick like the old films, they're going totally overboard on the 'war is hell' and nobody can have any fun ever' and 'war destroys all beauty in everything' angle. It's not really pro-soldier, and it isn't really anti-war either, considering how saturated with 'being noble' everything is in it- getting so caught up with the cause and everything that it leaves no doubt in the audience's mind that it weas a war that most definitely was worth fighting.

bificommander:
Settingwise, why not take the Korean War? There's like, what, 2 niche strategy games that take place there. It's a mountainous area, sufficiently different from European or Middle Eastern areas. And you're still using most of the weapons from the WW2 era, so you have to choose between short range SMGs or long range rifles, without the all-ranges assault rifles. Plus, narrative wise the war can be interesting for keeping the tension high. Just check how the frontline moved:

image

So we'd actually be fighting a narratively dangerous foe, instead of the terminator-vs-rockthrowers idea that Yahtzee ranted on about. Early in the war, allied tanks and AT weapons were vastly outclassed by the enemy's T34 for instance. Should make for tense gameplay.

The way the frontline moved is exactly why nobody makes a Korean wargame: nobody got anywhere- the Allies pushed well up north and were doing very well, before China got involved and pushed the border all the way back down again. Playing a game based on Korea would seem just like the war itself- entirely pointless.

Arif_Sohaib:

You actually can.
The really interesting thing about playing as the Gurkhas or Indians is playing as subjects of the British Raj with divided loyalties. One the one side, if they knew what the Nazis had been doing, they would want to fight them but on the other side they were conquered subjects of a foreign power and were fighting their war. Some even fought their own people due to the Free Indian Army's loyalty to Imperial Japan.
Then there was the political strife among themselves(if you are playing the Indians) as the Hindus and Muslims weren't on very good terms since the failed 1857 rebellion and in 1940 the Muslim League finally decided that the communities were too different to live together forever (the biggest example; Hindus worship cows, we eat cows, especially on Eid ul Adha) and announced their intentions for a separate country, Pakistan after years of campaigning only for equal job rights and separate electorates(as voting was usually based on ethnicity or religion and Muslim candidates, being part of the minority, had no chance of winning and so had no chance of getting their voice heard by the British rulers).

Add all this and you have a World War 2 that would still be very original and that most developers would find difficult to emulate like they did with Call of Duty.

See, I think that would be fascinating -- I'd love to play that game. One of the great advantages of videogames, and one that's almost never used, is that they literally put you into the shoes of another person. That can (and should) be a powerful tool for understanding other cultures, countries, and time periods, but we've yet to see anyone really take advantage of that. The game you're describing would be especially relevant in light of recent events between India and Pakistan and the strained U.S./Pakistan relationship.

I honestly think you could do something similar with the Sino-Japanese War, focusing on a Chinese Nationalist Army unit but sprinkling in the uneasy alliances and mistrust between the Nationalists and the Communist guerillas they often found themselves working with. Again, that's a fascinating and important part of history that most people don't really know about.

On a weird side note, one of my ancestors was a British Army doctor who served during the 1857 rebellion (and also in the Crimea). His son, my great-grandfather, was actually born in Hyderabad and served in the Indian revenue police and the British Army commissariat in the 1890s, in what's now Pakistan actually, before immigrating to the U.S.

bificommander:
Settingwise, why not take the Korean War? There's like, what, 2 niche strategy games that take place there. It's a mountainous area, sufficiently different from European or Middle Eastern areas. And you're still using most of the weapons from the WW2 era, so you have to choose between short range SMGs or long range rifles, without the all-ranges assault rifles. Plus, narrative wise the war can be interesting for keeping the tension high. Just check how the frontline moved:

image

So we'd actually be fighting a narratively dangerous foe, instead of the terminator-vs-rockthrowers idea that Yahtzee ranted on about. Early in the war, allied tanks and AT weapons were vastly outclassed by the enemy's T34 for instance. Should make for tense gameplay.

The Korean War is so widely and unjustly ignored in our history. I'd really like to see someone make something of the material so more people would become interested in it.

When my dad was in Vietnam a lot of his senior NCOs had been through Korea. He said they never talked about the fighting, they just talked about how cold it was.

Squilookle:

The way the frontline moved is exactly why nobody makes a Korean wargame: nobody got anywhere- the Allies pushed well up north and were doing very well, before China got involved and pushed the border all the way back down again. Playing a game based on Korea would seem just like the war itself- entirely pointless.

That makes me want one even more.

The way the frontline moved is exactly why nobody makes a Korean wargame: nobody got anywhere- the Allies pushed well up north and were doing very well, before China got involved and pushed the border all the way back down again. Playing a game based on Korea would seem just like the war itself- entirely pointless.

I would disagree that it would be pointless to play. I don't think every game needs to end with a ticker-tape parade, secure in the knowledge that all evil has been vanquished by the player, Huzah! The war wasn't an unmittigated success story, but that in and of itself makes it more interesting than stomping on Generic Middle Easternstan again. Tell the story of the blood and tears sacrificed for a stalemate, because it was about the best result that could be achieved. That's a far better way of making a gritty war game than putting a brown filter over the screen.

Besides, there's been a number of Vietnam-based games. And that war was considerably more pointless. The Korean war started when North Korea invaded the south, and whatever else may have gone wrong, South Korea was still there afterwards and has made decent progress in productivity and democracy since then. South Vietnam... didn't. And from a gameplay standpoint, the Vietnam war is far more pointless to play, since the open battles were mostly pretty lopsided and the real threat came from ambushes, traps and sneak attacks. And no one wants to play a game where you have to patrol for days only to be killed on the 6th day by a hidden sniper. A game that starts with a frantic retreat south, an amphibious landing to turn the tide, driving the enemy back, then being confronted by huge enemy reinforcements from China, followed by a new retreat untill the tide can be turned again to push the enemy back sounds far more interesting.

Actually, a game with a Vietcong protagonist side would be considerably more fun gameplay wise. Doubt any studio would dare release it in the US though.

I would be so happy if there were more shooters that were set in brightly lit, colorful environments.

As Yahtzee noted, I feel so sorry for the people that painstakingly design the models for NPCs, making sure their attire, down to the very spots on the jacket, are appropriate for the setting and for the character, and then they're stuck behind walls because that's the whole meat of the game. Some elaborate design would be amazing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here