@Fredchuckdave said:
WW2 shooters are fine, just like Modern military/Fake modern military in the future shooters are fine, just only in small doses; if the market would diversify and have more than one dominant type of shooter at a time that would be great.
I agree with this. There's a place for WW2 shooters, modern military shooters, sci-fi shooters, fantasy shooters, wild west shooters (and we could really use some world war 1 shooters, since the only ones I can think of have been alternate history stuff like Codename Eagle and Iron Storm, and the twisted nightmare WW1 environments in The Darkness and NecroVision), the problem is when every shooter tries to do the exact same thing another popular game has done (like how just about every current modern military shooter is a carbon copy of Call of Duty 4 and/or Battlefield 2), resulting in an endless flood of nearly identical games. What we need is developers and publishers that strive to do something new, or at least explore alternate perspectives on a popular setting, like what Spec Ops attempted to do with the modern military shooter (not being very successful at it, but still quite fascinating), or what the original Call of Duty did with the even then overpopulated WW2 shooter genre rather than just trying to do the exact same thing another game has already done (has that idea actually ever worked in practice? I can't think of any World of Warcraft clone that's been successful, and, well, the Medal of Honor reboots didn't seem to do all that great either, and even back in the WW2 shooter days, few of the hundreds of games are remembered today - it's generally only the old Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and Hidden & Dangerous games that tend to come up).
Log in to comment