Gaming Have war-sims lost the plot?

[BlueYoshi]

I don't know if this will get a major response but it's worth a shot, I suppose. And, sorry if I've come off at the wrong end of the stick here, because I know a lot of my comments are negative and all, but, ultimately, this is how I feel about this stuff, so, bare with me.

So I was watching The Sopranos on TV last night, and during the commercial break I came across the commercial for Conflict Vietnam. Usually, when commercials for games come on, I stop what ever it is that I'm doing and will subconsciously gaze at the TV screen while taking it all in from beginning to end (as they hardly ever come on over here). Anyway, I caught some in-game footage of Conflict Vietnam during that commercial and it struck me as to how a lot of these warfare-sims, are very similar to each other in almost every aspect.

Gameplay-wise, and in terms of concept and style, these games typically consist of having a four-man squad, or a platoon of some sort, with each character having their own specialisation and weapons, and a set of fairly constructive CPU AI commands. This concept has been overused, in my eyes. I'm not saying that everything has been applied poorly, it's just that there are so many warfare-sims I can play before getting bored with them.

The Tom Clancy games (with the exception of Splinter Cell) aren't very innovative in the sense of how exactly you'd go about doing each mission. I can understand that there is a strong emphasis on stealth (or at least, action is out ruled by it) in these games, but having to sneak around all the time and sniper a certain someone, or retrieve or sabotage or destroy a certain something gets plain, fast. I know that the games are based on his novels (which I have never read), and it's probable that part of the aim of the games are for the players to relive the experiences dictated in them, as well as sales, but what's to stop developers from a decent stronghold?

The ability to plan the actual sieges beforehand was the highlight of the Tom Clancy series, to me, but that was something I gave up trying to figure out rather quickly lol. There's no fluctuation in these games, the only major changes would most likely be a shift in location or a brand new terrain... or something along them lines.

Back to the Conflict games. Conflict Vietnam's predecessors, Conflict Desert Storm and Conflict Desert Storm 2: Back to Baghdad sold quite well. However, it wasn't because they were totally special or unique warfare-sims, but mostly because of the events where the games took place in (Gulf war, and, of course, Iraq, which, again, proves that gameplay is one of the last factors that a few gamers will take into consideration).

The games were by all means playable, and there were some sharp graphics that looked very attractive, along with a storyline, but that's not enough for it to be acclaimed as one of the exceptional war games of today. Plus, whilst on the subject, I've never played Full Spectrum Warrior before, but from what I've read, it sounds like another version of a Tom Clancy game, though it's got history so it must be special or something lol.

But, because of the content of the Conflict games and Full Spectrum Warrior, I'm led to believe that there's nothing left for warfare-sims, gameplay wise.

Anyways, my point is, do you think that warfare-sims (don't confuse this with god-sims and all-out action FPSs) have run their course? If a totally revamped version of one came out that was to totally revolutionise the genre, would you get it? Would you even anticipate it? Me? I lost hope after Rainbow Six 3's disappointing performance... I was so looking forward to that game, too :(.

[Brasil]

I know how you feel, man. I think the downward spiral of the "tactical squad-based FPS" really began with Red Faction 2. The game was just...bleh, and nothing in the industry since then has really pulled the genre out of that slump, I think. Of course, there have been some great games since then, Rainbow Six 3 comes to mind, but the gameplay hasn't improved substantially...we just keep getting "use the D-pad to issue commands."

I'm sorry I can't offer any more than that, but it's time to head out here.

I'd really love to see the FPS/War-FPS to get back to just blowing sh-t up, quite honestly...just all-out chaos, like Medal of Honor: Frontline's Normandy Beach.

[Solo Tremaine]

[color=#503f86]I'm not generally a fan of war sims, although I'll like first-person shooters in general if they're decent enough. I have reservations about war ones though, because the fictional element of it is almost lost. At least with a sci-fi based things you can suspend your feeling of reality for a bit, but some of these games are so gritty and realistic I just don't enjoy them for that very reason.

One thing I saw today put me off the genre even more, though- the PlayStation 2 version of 'America's Top Ten Most Wanted List' shoot-em-up. [i]Please.[/i][/color]

[Falkon]

I totally agree with you Wingnut Ninja. I, too, was excited about Rainbow Six 3, and after playing it for some time i realized that the gameplay wasn't all that fun, even online. Now, I used to go out and rent every squad-based shooter out there, and, honestly, i got bored of them all after SOCOM 1 and Ghost Recon 1. I have realized exactly what youre saying; These games just dont... I dunno, attract any attention, really. I mean, I even went out and rented SC: Pandora Tomorrow, and i really wasnt all that... impressed, i guess you could say, with it. I mean, the whole concept is cool with 2 different character types you can play online, each having their own abilities. But it really wasnt all that fun.

All the sudden Im getting more and more into games like SSX3 and The Sims and Diablo more than ever. Im not quite sure what it is exactly that makes a game like SSX 3 so much fun to play online. It is one of the best games i have ever played, and if you look on the world high score/time list for... umm... hmmm the one.. run... on peak 3... Ah yes Gravitude, on the PS2 online list, You should see my name in the number 75 or 76 spot. Heh. I am soo going to buy that game.

[BlueYoshi]

It's good to know that people see what I see, heh.

I thought that interactivity would help raise the standards of these games, too, but they prove to just be as uneventful and plain as they are as normal FPSs. Personally, I don't think that online play can help very much to staple the genre in general. Multiplayer is another story, though, because all of the interaction that take place is in real-time... you know, in an "atmospheric" kind of way.

[quote name='Siren']I'd really love to see the FPS/War-FPS to get back to just blowing sh-t up, quite honestly...just all-out chaos, like Medal of Honor: Frontline's Normandy Beach.[/quote]

Yeah, exactly. That's why I really liked Halo; there was no fancy crap involved. You just did what ever it is that you had to do. Medal of Honor shares that attribute, too, as there's a decent plot and some good, all-round, solid gameplay to top it off further. Great games.

[James]

[color=#707875]My experience with the squad-based stuff really only extends to the Rainbox Six franchise. I've sat down and watched a friend play SOCOM, but I never played it myself.

In my view, games like Medal of Honor are almost completely different in genre to games like Rainbox Six.

Rainbox Six is nothing like a traditional first person shooter. The entire game is heavily focused on strategy -- it's a simulator in the sense that it attempts to simulate the planning and precision involved in, say, an anti-terrorist operation.

I forget which game it was now...but there was a Rainbox Six game that I really enjoyed (the first mission involves terrorists in a museum, during an Egyptian exhibit -- does anyone remember which one that was?)

Although I wasn't too interested in the planning, I liked the fact that the game was so based on intelligence and strategy. You have to be insanely careful; you're in an echoey museum. If you do one thing wrong, you can be spotted or heard. And considering that there are also hostages, you have to be extra cautious with your approach. I also loved playing that online.

A game like Medal of Honor is less technical. To use a really vague and general term, it's more "arcadey". The game has no real emphasis on planning and minimal emphasis on strategy. In my experience, it's more a point A to point B affair. What makes it fun is both the scale of the world, as well as the interaction between the player and the A.I. controlled enemies. Also, the interaction with vehicles and background scenarios (fighting in the middle of a massive battle) helps to add to the sense of realism and excitement.

I've read a little on Conflict Vietnam, but I haven't played it myself. My understanding is that the game has less focus on being responsible for your comrades and more focus on your own achievements. This could potentially be a good thing, if you have less interest in the staples of squad-based combat (ie: the Rainbox Sixes of the world).

But yeah...it's hard to say. I am not interested enough in Rainbox Six-esque games to know a great deal about them, other than to say that the copy-cat stuff going around doesn't surprise me. Rainbox Six set a benchmark which others have apparently followed (with varying degrees of experimentation involved).

But something like Medal of Honor...that's almost a totally different type of game, even though it's first person and even though it's set during a war period. So, I think there are varying degrees and nuances in this sub-genre of FPSs.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

Yeah, Medal of Honor had a few stealthy moments, but nothing so serious that it would have to go to the extent of clear-cut planning. It was more of a trial and error thing, I'd say, since you'd suddenly get trapped in the moment without any premonition or warning, as opposed to the "knowing your enemy" routine that features in the tactical squad based games. Both styles are different, though.

I know which game you're talking about, too, James, heh, but the name has also slipped me. I can agree with your points on the matter because that particular Rainbow Six game was one of the earlier ones. It existed in a time where graphics weren't such a big deal, and evidently gameplay was the number one priority (in most cases, anyway).

These days, developers are living in the fantasy world of sugar-coating, where they'll front graphics as the games highest spectacle. Many games take after Rainbow Six, as you said, and I know that the Tom Clancy games are trying their hardest to steer away from that direction, too (take Splinter Cell for example, which, might I add, follows that trial and error route I aforementioned above, whilst being able to attribute the various stealth elements). So all in all, the genre's timeline varies, but in the present I think things are looking fairly downhill.

EDIT: Typos-abound here. You'll have to bare with me for now, as I'm typing on the worst keyboard to exist on the face of the earth lol.