Any "fight alone" War Games?

[Buddyjay]

I had Medal of Honor (the first one) for Xbox and really liked the game, especially where you didn't have to fight with a squad. You were completely alone.
I just finished Call of Duty4 for PS3 and although really enjoyable, you still fight with a squad.
Are there any other war type PS3 games where you can fight alone?

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by Buddyjay

I had Medal of Honor (the first one) for Xbox and really liked the game, especially where you didn't have to fight with a squad. You were completely alone.
I just finished Call of Duty4 for PS3 and although really enjoyable, you still fight with a squad.
Are there any other war type PS3 games where you can fight alone?

Define "war game"?

There's plenty of first person shooter type games that don't feature artificial intelligence allies, or have only minimal use, but the typical mold is that if you're a soldier in a... war... you typically are part of an army, and thus have people around you trying to do the same thing.

You're more likely to find a more "pure" first person experience in a different game setting.

The Darkness, Dark Sector, Bioshock (sort of, since you can earn temporary allies, but its all optional), most of Resistance: Fall of Man (the first, not the second), are all examples of games with heavy solo first person shooting gameplay.

[Buddyjay]

Originally Posted by Icemage

Define "war game"?

There's plenty of first person shooter type games that don't feature artificial intelligence allies, or have only minimal use, but the typical mold is that if you're a soldier in a... war... you typically are part of an army, and thus have people around you trying to do the same thing.

I prefer anything in the WW1, WW2 or any "real" wars that took place. As I mentioned, the first Medal of Honor game took place in WW2 and was really good. You fought completly alone... your "partners" didn't get in your way or hog the scene as is a common complaint with gamers in other scenarios.

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by Buddyjay

I prefer anything in the WW1, WW2 or any "real" wars that took place. As I mentioned, the first Medal of Honor game took place in WW2 and was really good. You fought completly alone... your "partners" didn't get in your way or hog the scene as is a common complaint with gamers in other scenarios.

As I said... wars have armies.

The original Medal of Honor games had you by yourself as a limitation of the hardware, not specifically because the developers chose to make it that way.

It's pretty unrealistic to think of any war-time scenario in which you're by yourself, so I don't really understand your insistence on "hogging the glory". Most of the time, there's PLENTY of opposition to take down even if computer-controlled allies lend you a helping hand once in a while (see: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare).

[BluHavik]

No not really. I'm like you I want my single player to be me alone. Nowadays they focus on the multi though and kinda spit out the single player. Forcing you to play with a buncha AI's who only seem to get in the way. Blame the man who came up with the co-op. We want to play alone or online!

[BluHavik]

Originally Posted by Icemage

As I said... wars have armies.

The original Medal of Honor games had you by yourself as a limitation of the hardware, not specifically because the developers chose to make it that way.

It's pretty unrealistic to think of any war-time scenario in which you're by yourself, so I don't really understand your insistence on "hogging the glory". Most of the time, there's PLENTY of opposition to take down even if computer-controlled allies lend you a helping hand once in a while (see: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare).

Ya I understand that point. I've been playing RA3 and hate that they make you have a CPU co-commander during the campaign. Not to mention the campaign's are ridiculously short.

[ObiTrentKenobi]

Originally Posted by Buddyjay

I had Medal of Honor (the first one) for Xbox and really liked the game, especially where you didn't have to fight with a squad. You were completely alone.
I just finished Call of Duty4 for PS3 and although really enjoyable, you still fight with a squad.
Are there any other war type PS3 games where you can fight alone?

that's odd...

[Buddyjay]

Originally Posted by Icemage

As I said... wars have armies.

The original Medal of Honor games had you by yourself as a limitation of the hardware, not specifically because the developers chose to make it that way.

It's pretty unrealistic to think of any war-time scenario in which you're by yourself, so I don't really understand your insistence on "hogging the glory". Most of the time, there's PLENTY of opposition to take down even if computer-controlled allies lend you a helping hand once in a while (see: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare).

First of all you are incorrect about harware limitations. When Medal of Honor came out, there were numerous war games that had multiple characters. The producers DID choose to make it that way.

Second, you are again incorrect about my "insistence" about the subject. If you re-read your first post to my topic, you asked me to 'define war games'. All I was doing was answering your question.
And who implied I wanted to "hog the glory"?
I mentioned "hogging the scene". In other words, there are glitches in the program where you get blocked out by a character. Many times, I have been in a corner, unable to move because the character won't move AND I CAN'T EITHER. I am then forced to shoot him (ally) and the level ends giving you the friendly fire statement.
I, as MANY others, prefer to fight alone in some games,for various reasons. In the world of video games, this is not an un-realistic request since there are many other games where you do fight alone and some of these are extremely un-realistic world events, so why can't you fight alone? I just prefer to in a World War event.

In Metal of Honor, it was enjoyable to be able to sneak up on the enemy, in a quiet room. There were many scenes where you had to sneak around so you weren't detected. Many of the war games today is nothing more than group attacks, all the time. I know the COD4 has the sniper level where you have to sneak around a bit, but not as much covert action like Metal of Honor. That's what I am referring too.

Is fighting alone in war un-realistic? Sure it is. But so is fighting robots, spaceships and half the other first person shooter type games.
Again, I just prefer this in a real life war event.

[DezNutz]

To answer your question, yes;

Resistance 2: single player you really only rely on yourself.. kinda takes place during a WWII.. of course things are way different.. of course there is always co-op online.. with real players not computers.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by DezNutz

To answer your question, yes;

Resistance 2: single player you really only rely on yourself.. kinda takes place during a WWII.. of course things are way different.. of course there is always co-op online.. with real players not computers.

Humans are no better then AI, they in fact usually get in the way, specifically the ones that enjoy the lord of the dance in front of a allied sniper..

Also the op asked for real situations, sadly aliens and alternate time lines tend to fail that request.

Let me think some bit Op and ill see if I can find anything.

[Hedchekr]

I don't really think you will find anything like that in a "real war setting", as groups seem to be the in thing. But if you can put up with it as in Call Of Duty 4, there is Rainbow 6 Vegas 1 & 2, Ghost Recon 1 & 2, for real war settings, The Darkness, Uncharted, Resistance 1 & 2, and a few others in the fantasy/sci-fi setting.

[toef]

What about Fall of Liberty? I never played it, but it seems like you might have been fighting on your own in that one.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by toefer

What about Fall of Liberty? I never played it, but it seems like you might have been fighting on your own in that one.

That would still be a fake war, its a alternative history game if germany took over America...

The op has requested real wars...

Nothing has come to mind yet...

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by Buddyjay

First of all you are incorrect about harware limitations. When Medal of Honor came out, there were numerous war games that had multiple characters. The producers DID choose to make it that way.

No, I really don't think so.

The original Medal of Honor was released in late 1999 for the PS1. It's relative contemporaries on consoles at the time were things like Perfect Dark. It wouldn't be for another year or two before allied artificial intelligences would make the jump onto console shooters (first one I can think of offhand were the console ports of Rainbox Six, which lost much of its brilliance in the transition).

The developers most certainly were hardware limited at the time.

Second, you are again incorrect about my "insistence" about the subject. If you re-read your first post to my topic, you asked me to 'define war games'. All I was doing was answering your question.
And who implied I wanted to "hog the glory"?

I mentioned "hogging the scene". In other words, there are glitches in the program where you get blocked out by a character. Many times, I have been in a corner, unable to move because the character won't move AND I CAN'T EITHER. I am then forced to shoot him (ally) and the level ends giving you the friendly fire statement.

You are exaggerating. If you find yourself cornered with no option but to shoot your allies in most decent FPS games, you're either playing the wrong games or doing it wrong. Probably more the latter than the former, since the only cases where I can think of where the game makes it impossible to avoid accidentall kills on friendlies are stupendously bad games like Turning Point: Fall of Liberty.

I, as MANY others, prefer to fight alone in some games,for various reasons. In the world of video games, this is not an un-realistic request since there are many other games where you do fight alone and some of these are extremely un-realistic world events, so why can't you fight alone? I just prefer to in a World War event.

Are you even listening to yourself?

"I want to play in a realistic REAL historical wartime environment that involved millions of troops but I want to fight by myself."

Either you want the realism or you don't. There is a reason why all of the wartime shooters have gravitated toward team tactics/AI support, and it's because it's a more "realistic" (there's that word again) representation of the scenario.

If you want to play something where you are alone, pick up something like Quantum of Solace or another spy-based game where you can reasonably and logically expect to be a lone operative.

In Metal of Honor, it was enjoyable to be able to sneak up on the enemy, in a quiet room. There were many scenes where you had to sneak around so you weren't detected. Many of the war games today is nothing more than group attacks, all the time. I know the COD4 has the sniper level where you have to sneak around a bit, but not as much covert action like Metal of Honor. That's what I am referring too.

Is fighting alone in war un-realistic? Sure it is. But so is fighting robots, spaceships and half the other first person shooter type games.
Again, I just prefer this in a real life war event.

If you want to sneak around, go get a copy of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. It'll give you all the wartime feel and sneaking you could ever want.

[dk3dknight]

Im sorry Icemage but I don't really think telling someone there playing a game wrong is going to accomplish much, the op has stated what he wants, we can either mock him or try to help him.

Op may I ask you a small innocent question, What if the game based on real life military scenario based on modern machines and electronics and while the campaign has bots game contains a scenario editor to allow yourself to create infinite missions with only you against whatever you want?

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by dk3dknight

Im sorry Icemage but I don't really think telling someone there playing a game wrong is going to accomplish much, the op has stated what he wants, we can either mock him or try to help him.

Well, what else do you say to someone who says he occasionally has to resort to teamkilling his own allies to get out of trouble? Either the game itself is bad or the tactics being employed are bad. Take your pick.

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by Icemage

Well, what else do you say to someone who says he occasionally has to resort to teamkilling his own allies to get out of trouble? Either the game itself is bad or the tactics being employed are bad. Take your pick.

True

But the op did not say, man I keep killing my allies can I have some suggestions on what to do to change my strategy to work better with the AI?

I find hes made his or her decision and I really doubt we are going to change his or her mind, by offering suggestions to better his or her strategy, when he or she decided they wish to learn about altering there strategy to play better with the AI he or she shall tell us...