Home
I'm all for arcadey shooters, especially in a stylized or futuristic setting, but I'm with B. in that I don't want or expect to be Rambo in a game like Modern Warfare or Call or Duty....
[Before we jump into my rant about why I'd like to see shooters evolve, I want to take a moment to shout out to my bros in the picture above. This picture was taken back in 2003 in Iraq with several members of the unit I served with. Great group of dudes right there.]
First-person shooters have consistently disappointed me in this current console generation. It's not that I think any of the soon-to-be-mentioned games are bad -- I just want to communicate why they don't appeal to me, and suggest ways to make them better for folks that share my opinions (and I accept that my opinions probably fall into the minority).
Tactics (Or the Lack Thereof)
Many of my non-military friends have told me that my experience in combat has ruined the way I approach FPS games. They are probably right. My training and experience are often at vicious odds with the way shooters are traditionally constructed.
The largely hated concept of "camping" is a good example of how real and virtual combat differ. In many real combat situations, finding a location that gives you a tactical advantage and maintaining it is the best way to survive and win. Charging out into the middle of an open plaza to shoot your opponent in the face would most likely get you killed.
This is probably my biggest fundamental issue with shooters: I approach every combat situation in games with the same caution mixed with aggression that I approached real tactical situations with. That typically gets me killed by the folks that have the maps memorized and rely on the popular "run-and-gun" style of play prominent in modern FPSs.
I also struggle with shooters in campaign mode, because they seem designed to never let you have a tactical advantage over the enemy. FPSs fabricate difficulty and the sense of combat stress by always placing you in situations where you are out-manned and out-gunned. Victory hinges more upon your ability to memorize enemy patterns than it does your tactical knowledge of a given situation. (In multiplayer, the spoils usually go to those that have the best map memorization and weapon load-outs.) I would love to see a shooter where my knowledge of tactics helps me win more than my memorization skills.
Counterexample: Rainbow Six: Vegas -- R6V is not perfect, but it went a long way to address this long-standing issue I had with shooters. It rewarded a tactical approach, and quick deaths made the player think before jumping into a firefight.
Real Soldiers Don't Have Regenerating Health And Enemies Don't Spawn Indefinitely
Strangely enough, I enjoy shooters with regenerating health. But that's mostly because I hate health-pack management more than just about anything.
So there I was, playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 at my cousin's house. It was a Favela level, and I was getting hammered by the multitude of combatants. My cousin watched as I devised several failed attempts at tactically overcoming my far superior aggressors. He chuckled as he watched me get served. I asked him for advice. He told me, "You are taking too long in one place, you need to just run to the checkpoint and disregard the enemies in your way." I said, "But I'll get shot up." He said, "True, but you won't die; you'll take a few bullets. It'll be aight."
Word? "It'll be aight?!" That just doesn't compute to me. I understand it's just a game, and creating heightened emotional situations -- something MW2 is excellent at doing by the way -- is part of the developer's job. I realize that there may have been other ways to overcome that scenario besides the "run for it and hope you take one bullet short of dying on the way" approach. However, that style of fighting is pretty prevalent in many of the shooters I've played. Multiplayer in the Halo series is known for this arcade style of fighting.
Artificial-Intelligence-Controlled Teammates
I have yet to play a shooter where the A.I. has been up to snuff. Honestly, if I have to micromanage my team in battle, don't give me a team. I don't have time to grab cover when the enemy machine gunner starts chopping up the place to stop and give a digital command to my teammates to do the same.
It seems like shooter A.I. ranges from slightly retarded (Ghost Recon series, Mass Effect 2) to completely ineffective (Call of Duty series).
A real team would have standard operating procedures that govern how members react to different combat situations. As a platoon leader, I did have to give orders on the fly based on battlefield changes, but I never had to give commands to my team to execute the basic combat situation tactics during a fight. Having to do so not only slows the game down, but makes having a team more difficult than just going alone.
Counterexample: Again, Rainbow 6 Vegas did a decent job with the A.I. team. Not perfect, but probably the best I've experience in a shooter.
Plausible Solutions
1) Do away with enemies that spawn indefinitely.
2) Take the Delta Force approach -- in other words, make a game in a more open-world setting. This gives the player a chance to command the battlefield how they see fit, versus forcing them down pre-scripted paths.
3) Give us A.I. teammates that are as competent as real infantrymen, not mindless drones that we have to babysit.
Despite my tirade, I can't say for sure that developers are missing a huge opportunity. FPSs are one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the world, even with the "flaws" I've addressed here. However, I would love to see more games like Operation Flashpoint get the proper development time and love needed to make them excellent. There's got to be a market out there for a more realistic shooter experience...right?
