I blame Jimmy Patterson: Hour Of Victory

darleysam

Gamespot preview linkage

So Midway are making a new game set in that most overcrowded of genres, the WW2 shooter. What's unique about it? From the preview, it looks like some '3 character system':

gamespot wrote:

The three-character system looks like it's going to offer some interesting variety to the action. Each of the characters is going to offer unique ways to get through a level. For the demo, Midway and nFusion were showing off Taggert and Ross, both of which played very differently. Ross is a more traditional "run and shoot people in the face" kind of guy, while Taggert offers a more deliberate play style of the "sneak around and stab people in the back" variety. Besides having different ways of killing fools, the characters have unique attributes. While Ross is more traditional in his approach--that is, run and gun your way to victory--Taggert is able to sneak around, picking locks and cutting through barbed wire to slip past pockets of enemies he can then take out from behind with his trusty knife. Though each character starts out with his own specialized gear, you'll be able to pick up any weapon you find and use it if you choose.

That just makes me think of something like Commandos or Hidden and Dangerous, though.

But do people really care anymore? It's a cliché that gets dragged out every time there's a new Call of Duty or Medal of Honor (why the three-word titles, too?), but do we really need another WW2-based action game? Some discussion on this would be great, since i'm more to accept there are plenty of undiscovered goldmines, but i really don't see any great variety or innovation coming forth yet. In the end, it only feels like it's watering down the whole thing, to the point that people really don't care anymore.
I know this is a pretty negative OP. I do genuinely enjoy the CoD games, they feel far more atmospheric than a lot of other things i've played, and do throw you into some truly epic battles. By contrast, i quickly became bored of the 'one-man army' feel i got from Medal of Honor. I would just prefer if WW2 didn't feel like an easy excuse for an action game, i suppose.

some 'linked for hueg' screenshots now follow:
when towers go wrong
pretty smoke..
RUN FOREST, RUN!

there's more on Gamespot

Drez

Oh good. Another World War II game. Haven't seen one of THOSE in a while.

They should make some more Civil War games. Or how about one based on the Boer War?

ToadTheMushroom

Some days I feel ashamed that we, as the gaming community, have raped and shit all over the World War 2 genre and disrespected our grandfathers legacy.

Then I jump right into Day of Defeat and corpse hump dead Americans.

Blakout

I was just thinking about this, actually. Well, the WWII subject, not this game. I'm thoroughly enjoying Call of Duty 3 right now, but I can't shake the feeling that I've done it all before, many many times. The CoD series does it better than any I've played, but you can still only shoot so many Germans in the face before it gets old.

core tactic

That new Medal of Honor game where you play as a paratrooper sounds interesting though. You can land anywhere in the level and fight on rooftops.

darleysam

core tactic wrote:

That new Medal of Honor game where you play as a paratrooper sounds interesting though. You can land anywhere in the level and fight on rooftops.

yeah, to its credit, that does actually sound interesting. Although i hear the PS2 version has 'landing points' to aim for, which i can understand, but does sound a little more restrictive. But the thought of having to possibly touch down in precisely the wrong place could make for some fun missions.

Drez

darleysam wrote:

core tactic wrote:

That new Medal of Honor game where you play as a paratrooper sounds interesting though. You can land anywhere in the level and fight on rooftops.

yeah, to its credit, that does actually sound interesting. Although i hear the PS2 version has 'landing points' to aim for, which i can understand, but does sound a little more restrictive. But the thought of having to possibly touch down in precisely the wrong place could make for some fun missions.

I thought the intro level to Medal of Honor: Spearhead (expansion to Allied Assault) for the PC was awesome. You paradrop into France. The level is insane with shit going on all over the place. I thought it was even crazier than the Omaha Beach level in Allied Assault.

I always thought Medal of Honor did a good job at giving you that feeling of being a soldier in a war, despite the levels where you act as a super operative.

Also, in looking up Spearhead (couldn't remember which expansion that was), I remember what Jimmy Patterson referred to. Good stuff.

darleysam

Drez wrote:

darleysam wrote:

core tactic wrote:

That new Medal of Honor game where you play as a paratrooper sounds interesting though. You can land anywhere in the level and fight on rooftops.

yeah, to its credit, that does actually sound interesting. Although i hear the PS2 version has 'landing points' to aim for, which i can understand, but does sound a little more restrictive. But the thought of having to possibly touch down in precisely the wrong place could make for some fun missions.

I thought the intro level to Medal of Honor: Spearhead (expansion to Allied Assault) for the PC was awesome. You paradrop into France. The level is insane with shit going on all over the place. I thought it was even crazier than the Omaha Beach level in Allied Assault.

I always thought Medal of Honor did a good job at giving you that feeling of being a soldier in a war, despite the levels where you act as a super operative.

Also, in looking up Spearhead (couldn't remember which expansion that was), I remember what Jimmy Patterson referred to. Good stuff.

yeah, i guess my criticism is directed more at the earlier versions (countless shouts of "you're that American.. Jimmy Patterson!"). I just remember how.. which one started off with Pearl Harbour? That was a spectacular opening, then seemed to quickly degenerate into 'follow the path, shoot the nazis, finish the game'. That said, i lost interest pretty quick and didn't see much :-\

Drez

darleysam wrote:

Drez wrote:

darleysam wrote:

core tactic wrote:

That new Medal of Honor game where you play as a paratrooper sounds interesting though. You can land anywhere in the level and fight on rooftops.

yeah, to its credit, that does actually sound interesting. Although i hear the PS2 version has 'landing points' to aim for, which i can understand, but does sound a little more restrictive. But the thought of having to possibly touch down in precisely the wrong place could make for some fun missions.

I thought the intro level to Medal of Honor: Spearhead (expansion to Allied Assault) for the PC was awesome. You paradrop into France. The level is insane with shit going on all over the place. I thought it was even crazier than the Omaha Beach level in Allied Assault.

I always thought Medal of Honor did a good job at giving you that feeling of being a soldier in a war, despite the levels where you act as a super operative.

Also, in looking up Spearhead (couldn't remember which expansion that was), I remember what Jimmy Patterson referred to. Good stuff.

yeah, i guess my criticism is directed more at the earlier versions (countless shouts of "you're that American.. Jimmy Patterson!"). I just remember how.. which one started off with Pearl Harbour? That was a spectacular opening, then seemed to quickly degenerate into 'follow the path, shoot the nazis, finish the game'. That said, i lost interest pretty quick and didn't see much :-\

Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, which I enjoyed. It had that war feeling to it.

darleysam

ahh, i knew it was some kind of 'Assault'. I guess i wouldn't go out of my way to avoid a MoH game now, i've just been bitten a few times by what felt like very generic gameplay shoehorned into a WW2 setting. If i do play one, i want to feel more like i'm just a single cog in the middle of it all, fighting firstly just to survive, rather than to win the war singlehandedly. I'll be keeping an eye on Airborne though, to see how it actually turns out.

Backlash

I'm still waiting for the WW2 game that actually tells a story. Games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty have done a great job of putting you in the action of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, but none of them have really conveyed the best part of watching them.

I really want to have a connection to the person fighting next to me, and I want to feel like what I'm doing is going to have a real impact on a personal level.

Quintile

Backlash wrote:

I'm still waiting for the WW2 game that actually tells a story. Games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty have done a great job of putting you in the action of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, but none of them have really conveyed the best part of watching them.

I really want to have a connection to the person fighting next to me, and I want to feel like what I'm doing is going to have a real impact on a personal level.

I found Brothers in Arms did a pretty good job with that, making you feel for the characters you fight beside. They give them all unique personalities and looks, and you get to know them.

The Brothers in Arms games are really the only WW2 games I've enjoyed to any great extent.

Mattie

Backlash wrote:

I'm still waiting for the WW2 game that actually tells a story. Games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty have done a great job of putting you in the action of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, but none of them have really conveyed the best part of watching them.

I really want to have a connection to the person fighting next to me, and I want to feel like what I'm doing is going to have a real impact on a personal level.

Brothers in Arms. You follow the same company through the whole game.

edit: Beat'd.

FreddyD

Backlash wrote:

I'm still waiting for the WW2 game that actually tells a story. Games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty have done a great job of putting you in the action of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, but none of them have really conveyed the best part of watching them.

I really want to have a connection to the person fighting next to me, and I want to feel like what I'm doing is going to have a real impact on a personal level.

That would send the game over into adventure territory which might actually be a good idea at this point.

Backlash

Quintile wrote:

Backlash wrote:

I'm still waiting for the WW2 game that actually tells a story. Games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty have done a great job of putting you in the action of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, but none of them have really conveyed the best part of watching them.

I really want to have a connection to the person fighting next to me, and I want to feel like what I'm doing is going to have a real impact on a personal level.

I found Brothers in Arms did a pretty good job with that, making you feel for the characters you fight beside. They give them all unique personalities and looks, and you get to know them.

The Brothers in Arms games are really the only WW2 games I've enjoyed to any great extent.

That is one series I've never tried. I should look into it I guess.