Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Surprise, Medal of Honor going to present day

GameloadingGameloading Member UncommonPosts: 14,182

In a move which surprises nobody, EA announced the next Medal of Honor will be set in present day.

Players will play as a tier one soldier in afghanistan. I have to applaud EA on this, they transfered their franchise from the single most overdone setting to the second most overdone setting.

More news will be revealed at the VGA as well as news of other games because nobody would care about the awards otherwise.

Comments

  • TheShimmersTheShimmers Member Posts: 76

    Thinking about it has there even been many WW2 games that have come out in a while? I've seen a couple obscure PC titles regarding it, but as far as big releases none.

  • RallycartRallycart Member UncommonPosts: 717

    They need to get moving on Vietnam. I have been dying for a Vietnam fps for years, and Battlefield Vietnam does not count. Hell, most people don't eve know about it, and it was terrible.

  • Jimmy562Jimmy562 Member UncommonPosts: 1,158

     Why do they all skip Vietnam. Sure the Americans lost but not every game has to be from a winning scenario.

  • xanphiaxanphia Member Posts: 684

    What about Korea? We forget that one too? War of 1812? No?

  • nAAtimusnAAtimus Member Posts: 342

    Interesting, I haven't played an Medal of Honor game in a while, I wonder how it would stack up.

    I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    EA used to be the big kid on the block, releasing all the big budget major release games. It's nice to see them scramble to try and keep up with the new big kid Activision/Blizzard. But in case you can't tell I despise EA as a company for how they buy out and kill solid game franchises, and that all they make is flashy games with no substance.

  • TdogSkalTdogSkal Member UncommonPosts: 1,244

    Vietnam? Nobody wants to play Vietnam.  You would never see your enemy other then a few seconds then they would head back into their tunnel system or back into the jungle.

    Really though Vietnam is a bad subject in America and most game companies do not want to open that wound up again.

    War of 1812? Really? That would be fun.  Stand around for 60 seconds reloading your weapon to fire and have less then a 30% chance to hit your target?

    Civil War would be about the same and just as boring.

    Korea War would be okay.

    WWII is the most popular simply because it was the "best" war and was so important to everyone in the world.  Modern Day is popular because the weapons are amazing and fun to use.

    Sooner or Later

  • RallycartRallycart Member UncommonPosts: 717

    They could always show wars from yet another point of view too. WW2 has a lot of unexplored areas if you ask me. More african themes could be cool, with tons of tank battles. How about playing as Finland, defending from Russia? Crazy out numbered, but still "winning". Could be fun and fast paced if done correctly. Or how about playing from losing sides for once? Like playing as a French soldier. Or what about playing as an Italian? You start out fighting for one side, and switch to the other half way through.

  • GameloadingGameloading Member UncommonPosts: 14,182

    Or they could create their own universe and war? They could use..you know, creativity?

  • TdogSkalTdogSkal Member UncommonPosts: 1,244
    Originally posted by Gameloading


    Or they could create their own universe and war? They could use..you know, creativity?



     

    Only problem with this is they always go into monsters and aliens which I cannot stand.  AKA Halo and shit like it.

    Sooner or Later

  • RallycartRallycart Member UncommonPosts: 717
    Originally posted by TdogSkal

    Originally posted by Gameloading


    Or they could create their own universe and war? They could use..you know, creativity?



     

    Only problem with this is they always go into monsters and aliens which I cannot stand.  AKA Halo and shit like it.

     

    This.

    People like things that they can easily relate to, and people like to invision themselves in a place and time in history. Take Battlefield 2142 for example. Crap. Hated it. Yay, laser rifles and mechs and all kinds of blah blah. Not my thing, at all. I don't want things to be over the top. I want them to be believable.

    There is a reason they model weapons from real weapons, vehicles from real vehicles and so on. People want to pretend they are there, and it is easy to relate to a place and time that actually happened. You also get MUCH more detail. And the story might be something that you know, but it is believable. When people start writing new stories for games, it usually turns into something very cliche, or something that you would not think could/would happen. And good god... Have you played MOH Airborne? I was loving it until I got to the giant death tower with metal nazies strapped with miniguns that could take a million sniper bullets to the brain.

    You can still be creative, and use real times and places.

  • GameloadingGameloading Member UncommonPosts: 14,182
    Originally posted by TdogSkal

    Originally posted by Gameloading


    Or they could create their own universe and war? They could use..you know, creativity?



     

    Only problem with this is they always go into monsters and aliens which I cannot stand.  AKA Halo and shit like it.

     

    Universes like the one in Halo and Half Life 2 are far more detailed and developed than any real world modern day shooter out there, which is almost always going to involve middle eastern terrorists, russian terrorists or both.

  • KithcaKithca Member Posts: 118
    Originally posted by Rallycart

    ...
    People like things that they can easily relate to, and people like to invision themselves in a place and time in history. Take Battlefield 2142 for example. Crap. Hated it. Yay, laser rifles and mechs and all kinds of blah blah. Not my thing, at all. I don't want things to be over the top. I want them to be believable.
    There is a reason they model weapons from real weapons, vehicles from real vehicles and so on. People want to pretend they are there, and it is easy to relate to a place and time that actually happened. You also get MUCH more detail. And the story might be something that you know, but it is believable. When people start writing new stories for games, it usually turns into something very cliche, or something that you would not think could/would happen. And good god... Have you played MOH Airborne? I was loving it until I got to the giant death tower with metal nazies strapped with miniguns that could take a million sniper bullets to the brain.
    You can still be creative, and use real times and places.

     

    I also agree. BF2142 was trash and I still play BF2 more often. I won't keep BF2142 installed even. 

    One thing though, futuristic isn't impossible.  There are newer types of tech they could use that are in development that are pretty snazzy.  I think when they start knocking heads together for futuristic ideas, they start knocking heads together a little too hard.

    And for pete's sake, I'll admit I'm an old school 'Techer, but people need to stop putting mechs into every freaking game that's set 100+ years from now.  It's like pink, just because a little bit goes good with most things doesn't mean you have to drown yourself in it.

  • RoutverRoutver Member Posts: 383

    Or maybe just let us play as opposing forces (or make two campaigns showing both sides of the conflict). I know it might not be exciting to kill american soldiers to some, but it's a nice change of pace.

  • ArndurArndur Member Posts: 2,202
    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


    EA used to be the big kid on the block, releasing all the big budget major release games. It's nice to see them scramble to try and keep up with the new big kid Activision/Blizzard. But in case you can't tell I despise EA as a company for how they buy out and kill solid game franchises, and that all they make is flashy games with no substance.

     

    Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Madden Series, Mass Effect 2, Battlefield series, Army of Two, Command and Conquer, Need for Speed Series, The Sims. Yeah they need to scramble with all of that. I would hardly call any of the Battlefield games flashy with no substance, and Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were 2 great new IPs.

    IMO WW2 is way to over done. I'm glad they have moved on. Also there was a stretch of vietnam war games on the xbox and ps2 but none of them did well I think.

    Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.

    If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
    And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms

    AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD

  • rashherorashhero Member UncommonPosts: 510
    Originally posted by Arndur

    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


    EA used to be the big kid on the block, releasing all the big budget major release games. It's nice to see them scramble to try and keep up with the new big kid Activision/Blizzard. But in case you can't tell I despise EA as a company for how they buy out and kill solid game franchises, and that all they make is flashy games with no substance.

     

    Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Madden Series, Mass Effect 2, Battlefield series, Army of Two, Command and Conquer, Need for Speed Series, The Sims. Yeah they need to scramble with all of that. I would hardly call any of the Battlefield games flashy with no substance, and Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were 2 great new IPs.

    IMO WW2 is way to over done. I'm glad they have moved on. Also there was a stretch of vietnam war games on the xbox and ps2 but none of them did well I think.

     

    Yeah well...what about Command and Conquer huh?

  • dethgardethgar Member Posts: 293

    War games can't keep using the WW2 back drop for the sake of it being an important timeline. They have to move on. If they want to stay true to reality, moving to modern times is the only real option. Vietnam was fought in an unorthodox method and can not translate into an enjoyable experience for either side, not to mention there isn't much of a leap in technology. Modern Warfare 2 should really be considered "near future" warfare, as we don't typically have soldiers outfitted with heartbeat monitors and we definitely don't see EMP's or Nuke's used. BF2142 failed due to using too many gaming concepts and not enough theoretical military technology(I don't think we'll be using manned Mech's ever, if they're used at all). The truth is that we've been forced fed military and fantasy based games for 2 decades now, and the standard is beginning its shift. What comes next? No clue, but I'd expect that this is a turning point for war gaming, either turning to the current/near future or away from the first person perspective.

Sign In or Register to comment.