EA Releases 9th Military First-Person Shooter In 5 Years

It was a long time coming — longer than the gap between the announcement of the iPad 3 and the iPad 4 — but Electronic Arts has finally released another military first-person shooter.

The game is called Medal of Honor: Warfighter. It's EA's first military FPS since 2011's Battlefield 3 (we're not counting this past winter's sci-fi FPS Syndicate).

They make a lot of these kinds of games. Before MOH:W and BF3, there was, of course, BBC and AO2.

Why, in the past five years, we got…

2008

Army of Two

Battlefield Bad Company

2009

Battlefield 1943

2010

Army of Two: The 40th Day

Battlefield Bad Company 2

Medal of Honor

2011

Battlefield Play4Free

Battlefield 3

2012

Medal of Honor: Warfigher

That's nine military first-person shooters. Almost two a year! (Not counting map packs and expansions.

Some may say that military first-person shooters are inherently bad. They're not.

Some might say this is all EA does. Not true! They also make Dead Spaces, FIFAs, SimCitys and a whole lot more.

But who would dare accuse them of neglecting the military FPS? No one.

Coming next year from EA: Battlefield 4, another Army of Two and *maybe* whatever the former creators of Medal of Honor and Call of Duty are cooking up next. Plus: Crysis 3, but we're not going to count that.

What about EA's rival, big bad Activision? We won't count their James Bond FPSes. We didn't count EA's either. (You know, we didn't count EA's sci-fi FPS Crysis games, either. Ditto: Bulletstorm since it was a space-pirate FPS.) From Activision, we wind up with just one Call of Duty game a year. That's five in five years. Add a few more if you want to count standalone portable games, but Activision still can't match EA's military FPS fervor.

Man, why is EA so into making games like these? Any ideas?


Comments

    Army of Two wasn't really a Military FPS

    Awesome article, Army of Two is a third person game. Journalism++

    They make them because people keep buying them. Complaining that they're satisfying a demand that's obviously there (otherwise none of these would sell and they would stop making them!) is like complaining water is wet.

    you're missing a few games.

    EA: Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142 (NOT including expansions)
    Activision: CoD1, CoD2, CoD3 (NOT including expansions)

      The article is referring to games from the past 5 years only

        It's 5 years because hes counting only fps from this generation of consoles, which to me is just wrong. There is no such thing as "generation" on PC, so if you're going to make an article about all the fps ea made, why not list the ones made for pc only, before this gen? is the author a fanboi, or just uninformed like the rest of console kids?

        Last edited 24/10/12 3:48 pm

          ummm........ what?

          If you are going to make an article about all the fps' ea made, then yes I agree with you that mroe should be there. But uhhh, the article was titled 9 games in 5 years, hence he listed games from the last 5 years.
          I'd say the games listed fit into the title rather well, wouldn't you?
          As for the *reason* it is 5 years [beside because Stephen Totilo is the author and no you ;-) ] is because the concentration of games is higher in the last 5 years.... 9 games in 5 years sounds like an interesting article, compared to 13 games in 9 years as years as you would have it.

          The word "generation" also wasn't even used... sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder ;-)

            Nah not really. It's all good. Sure no "generation" was mentioned, but from the way I saw it, that's how it looked. 9 EA FPSs this generation. This generation is only 7 years old, and developers didn't jump ship straight away. That's why I said what I said above. That, and even just reading this article, the first BF to appear on the list is bad company, which was the first BF spin off on current gen consoles.

            You're more than welcome to disagree with me :) It's just how I see it. No big deal I guess :)

      Ah Battlefield: Vietnam, such a fun multiplayer game. Good times wasted at TAFE with that.

    Still wish they had released 1943 on pc >:( Or HD 1942 please.

    The Army of Two games are just... terrible.

    Anyway, this is just another "hurr dur army games and EA are shit" back-slapping-bait of a "story".

    Man, why do game "journalists" resort to petty populism so often? Any ideas?

    Just because Army of Two has the word 'army' in it, doesn't mean it's a military shooter, what military are they in?

    And also, it's not a FPS.

      A Private Mililtary Company/PMC ?.

    Battlefield 1943 was a tiny download-only title on PS3 and 360, which DICE did on the side for the hell of it.

    Battlefield Play4Free was a PC-exclusive, free-to-play rehash of Battlefield 2 (2005).

    Neither were significant titles.

    So really EA has released 5 core military FPS titles over the last 5 years, same as Activision.

    Last edited 24/10/12 8:36 pm

    Lets not forget Mass Effect and Dragon Age, both are more legitimate than Army of Two because you operate under an actual military.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now