gaming Futuristic Shooters or Real World Historic Shooters?

[Lunar Echo 10,334]

 

Over the past couple years we've been experiencing more and more variety in shooter games. From the Days when just about every shooter released was set in the WW2 theater to completely made up sci-fyi futuristic shooters. My question for you today is, which have you taken more of a liking too? Do you like the current theme of sci-fyi, or would you rather it keep with the times as they are now or before? 

 

I personally really liked the historically correct shooter games, at least the ones that used that as a template for their entertainment. We have so many sci-fyi shooters today, just like we had so many WW2 shooters in the past. Where do we go from here? We've pretty much covered all paths of our human life cycle. It'll be interesting to see if a company can make a unique and new shooter from what has already been used by the market, to great extent.

 

-Lunar Echo

Edited November 8, 2015 by Lunar Echo

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,525]

Since many of these 'futuristic shooters' have done a terrible job at storytelling nowadays, I have to go with historical ones. One of the only sci-fi setting shooters off the top of my head that has a deep and enriched lore is Halo but games like Call of Duty have pretty much squandered the Sci-Fi genre. I would like see how much better historical shooters could be now on current technology, this could be WWII or even modern day stuff, something more accurate. Six Days in Fallujah is a good example of what could be awesome in a modern historically accurate setting, but sadly that game was never released.

[Megas 27,183]

I miss mah dubya dubya two shooter

[Deae Rising Shine~ 52,888]

i like both kinds, but after so many future shooters, it sure could be a change for once making a WW2 one again

[kaleidoscope234 30]

Futuristic shooters because it allows for more potential creativity in their design. Although modern day shooters are still my favourite.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Sadly, "Historical" really just means "mid-late World War II," and very occasionally, the Cold War. If I could get it through the thick skulls of game devs that it's possible to make a shooter set before 1941, then I'd gladly pick historical.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Mand'alor Dash

[Krampus 197]

Verdun is a good example of a "historical" shooter, as it's actually set in World War I, and it's about the Battle of Verdun, the longest fight in the war, with neither side really gaining the upper-hand, leading to this massive stalemate.

 

As for my opinion though, I really like the sci-fi shooter genre, though a lot of games can screw that up. Hawken, Blacklight, and (hopefully) Overwatch seem to be doing the sci-fi shooter thing right, though Blacklight can get annoying with it's payment methods.

[Satsuki Kiryuin 1,154]

I believe it's inevitable for futuristic shooters to become much more enjoyable from my standpoint. If one were to change history somewhat, it can have a strongly negative effect (accusations of defamation etc.) or a strongly positive effect (Wolfenstein : The Old Blood, however I consider it much more of a "futuristic" shooter for the elements it incorporates). In my opinion, there is much more room for growth within the sci-fi genre of shooters. Writers are more free to add brand new ideas, and it helps to create originality and a flair to the game.

[1Bit 1,531]

I prefer sci-fi when it's done right. The problem with many sci-fi shooters we get now like Black Ops 3 and Advanced Warfare is that they're a weird blend between modern and sci-fi which just messes up the genre in my opinion. You either go full sci-fi like Halo or Killzone or not at all

 

But I do also enjoy WW2 based shooters. I wish Treyarch had actually listened to their fan's outcries and made another WW2 one...CoD's version of sci-fi is growing stale now.