Cover Shot

MODERN COMBAT SHOOTERS WILL NEVER BE "REAL"

I suppose that this would be a continuation of a previous blog post of mine, and I confidently say that I have a very strong fact that backs the above statement: whatever is in video games will never be tangibly real, and this extends to modern combat shooters.

(For those of you who are pedantic, yes, I am aware that whatever that is in a video game is technically real, i.e. they are the results of programming and software design, both of which are undeniably very real. The content and gameplay will never be tangible though - nothing can change this.)

The likes of Greg Goodrich (who is the lead producer for the rebooted Medal of Honor games) do seem to realize this, but their solution to address this is only semantic: they switched from using the phrase that is "realistic" over to "authentic", and focused more on the settings of the game instead of the gameplay (which has many, many designs that would remind a more conscious player that they are playing a video game, and one in a subgenre of shooters that is stagnating in design).

Perhaps the game-makers can highlight plenty of interviews with identity-obscured consultants to present themselves as being serious in making their modern combat shooters, and I have no reason to doubt this, nor the beliefs of their consultants. I am not one to pour so much scorn readily.

However, I am one to take things at just face value - and the face value of these consultations is that whoever the game-makers' consultants are, their identities are not immediately publicly identifiable, at least until cases such as the American consultants being (somewhat) revealed through events out of the game-makers' control occur.

As long as the identity of whichever consultants that are referred to during the development of the game are not verifiable, the game-makers will never allay suspicions - or rather, conspiracy theories - that these consultants are made up. Consequently, it will never allay presumptions that hyped-up modern combat shooters are not designed with heart and sincerity.

To cut the likes of Greg Goodrich and other modern combat shooter producers some slack, they do appear to believe in their products - this is very important for any product-makers trying to sell their products.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are people like Tom McShea who couldn't take most modern combat shooters at face value: that he has no less than two articles on Medal of Honor strongly suggests that he does not merely stop at considering modern combat shooters as yet more entertainment products that exploit the settings of real-life conflict.

Some of you would like to think that Greg Goodrich has the upper hand in this back-and-forth, but the wiser of us know that neither does. Both are stubborn, and there is no bridge of compromise between them.

Unfortunately, as vehement as he is, Tom McShea has yet to utter that word frequently: "boycott". He has mentioned phrases like "putting money where my mouth is" (which would make him poorly suited to review most modern combat shooters), but he has yet to adopt that word.

(I am aware that uttering that word is a very, very strong suggestion of bias on a part of a journalist - far more than just writing ranting editorials.)

As a side note, the likes of Tom McShea do appear to appreciate modern combat shooters like Spec Ops: The Line that provides darker views on modern conflict fiction. (Yes, I used that word - "fiction". As gritty and nasty as that game's plot development is, it is still fiction.)

Summary of the above: There would be more peace of mind all-around if everyone can accept that modern combat shooters, being a subset of video games, are not "real" and never will be, and don't go beyond thinking this.

THEY HAVE PRICE TAGS

Modern combat shooter titles, with the exception of America's Army, have asking prices. This is a fact, and nothing can change the reality that game-makers generally ask for money in return for playing their games.

Not to mention the collaborative deals that game-makers make with other product-makers.

Of course, without a breakdown of where the proceeds from a unit sale would go to, no one but the game-makers themselves would know whether they are driven by profits or that they are really sincere in making their games for people to play and only want to cover costs, or anything in between.

However, as long as the price tags are there, and the utilization of the proceeds from sales remain opaque to consumers, the suspicions and presumptions of greed will always be there.

Take-away: If game-makers are actually conscious about the complaints, flaming, rants and criticisms about them being driven by greed, they can well address this matter by divulging more details on where each cent from a unit sale would be going to.

(That is not to say that free modern combat shooters are free from bashing of course; America's Army has its share of cold water).

The cynical would say, with a mix of scorn and amusement, that America's Army is the only "sincere" modern combat shooter.

GAMEPLAY LIMITED BY SETTINGS

I will tell you about one of my peeves about modern combat shooters, which also happen to be the main reason that I have not had significant interest in modern combat shooters since Half-Life: Counterstrike.

The biggest obstacle that this subgenre of shooters faces now is the limitations on gameplay brought about by their settings, which concern real-life armed conflict. The need for believable facsimiles of modern combat made the gameplay of these games difficult to discern from each other, and also renders their designs very predictable.

There's ALWAYS at least one Kalashnikov in every modern combat shooter.

There had been attempts to shake up the gameplay, such as the transition from merciless one-way-trip-to-zero health system seen in Counterstrike to the very forgiving regenerative health system in present-day modern combat shooters (neither of which I personally find believable), but game-makers can only do so much before the more observant of critics (and cynics) point out that they are losing "authenticity".

The most sophisticated modern combat shooter game thus far is the latest in the ArmA franchise, which not only has players taking on many roles such as artillery commanders or even marine forces taking underwater routes, and then waging battles across vast battlefields, maneuvering by air, water or good ol' land. However, even such sophistication would hit a wall soon. After all, the requirements of the settings will limit the gameplay to what can be considered believable.

Despite the relative smoothness of this demo of ArmA III, you can expect bugs in Bohemia's products.

I am not certain how this subgenre could ever evolve, though I am sure that sooner or later, even the most ardent modern combat shooter fans would notice that the gameplay in them has not changed by much. It could take a direction similar to that of Spec Ops: The Line, but this is a thematically-oriented game design, and how easy it is to sell is uncertain, not to mention that it could not be woven into competitive multiplayer gameplay, which appears to be the main selling point of the AAA modern combat shooters.

Alternatively, there had been game-makers that are trying to move into near-future combat settings, which offer more flexibility in gameplay designs, though the aforementioned criticisms of loss of "authencity" remain and perhaps more so, as such games would not be modern-combat shooters anymore; they already have sci-fi elements, as some of the technology shown in them have yet to go beyond prototype or even conceptual stage, or are actually extrapolations of existing near-future technology.

The Warhound being one of the latter.

Another alternative is that they adopt sandbox-like gameplay, not unlike what is being done for the Far Cry franchise. However, a modern combat shooter would start to lose its identity too. In fact, it would be difficult for anyone to consider that the Far Cry games are modern combat shooters, other than similarities like the presence of firearms and other fundamentals of what makes a shooter.

Take a hard look at this and say - without flinching, cringing or any other expression of doubt and disbelief - that this is a modern combat shooter.

In other words: Modern combat shooters are more than likely doomed to stagnation in gameplay designs because of their need to adhere to their settings.

--------------------------------------

That's what I would write for this blog post. The matters mentioned above may seem obvious to some of you, but any down-to-earth reminders about modern combat shooters should do you some good.

Also, do keep this in mind: If you like modern combat shooters and don't mind paying to play them, then don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you don't like modern combat shooters and despise them, you may want to keep your despise to just these games and not extend it to people who like them; it's their money and time - not yours.