Shadow1980 said:
Define "wartime FPS." Most shooters seem to take place during a war or other conflict, because where else are you going to find two or more sides engaging in gun battles? If you mean it strictly by games like CoD or Battlefield that are done in more "realistic" settings like actual historical wars on in a modern-day or near-future settings involving full-scale wars between nation-states (or between a nation-state and an insurgent/terrorist/rebel faction) using relatively modern-looking weapons, then I could do without them. As I don't really play sports games, a system that doesn't have either sports games or "realistic" military shooters but does have everything else would be the obvious choice.
But if it also includes sci-fi/fantasy shooters like Halo and BioShock or "survivalist"/guerrilla warfare games with individuals unassociated with any uniformed service fighting for more personal reasons (i.e., something like Far Cry), then it'd be a tough call. A large portion of the non-Nintendo games in my collection of games over the last couple of gens are shooters, though I do have some JRPGs, fighting games, racing games, and a few other games from other genres. I don't really play sports games aside from Wii Bowling (the last football game I played was on the SNES, the only baseball game I really played was Bases Loaded on the NES), but giving up FPSs entirely would be a tough proposition. |
You pretty much described what I meant when I used the term "wartime". Halo has militaristic values but isn't based in the world we know. I'm referring to those you described which are relative to how humanity battles with guns. So one could include that sniper game or even Splinter Cell. Also, Wii Sports isn't annual so it wouldn't fall into console A's category either.
