"When a developer decides to make a VR game, they have to ask themselves one simple question, “Why does this game need to be VR?” I am fairly confident that no one at Respawn or EA even considered this question let alone had an answer for it. This is certainly not the triumphant return to the series fans were hoping for."
Well that's a shame, I had high hopes for this one.
You lost me at "all these WW2 weapons have iron sites."
Yes, yes they do.
While I agree the specs this game requires is crazy, the game itself is quite fun. It’s no HLA but this is a different game entirely. The gunplay is very satisfying, it has big open spaces, and big set pieces. If HLA is a 10/10, This is a solid 7/10.
I think the opening question is flawed. It's the inclusion of "need" that puzzles me. You can choose to have any game in VR for any reason, it isn't like you say "ah, it's a shooter, and we have those on consoles/PC so...does it NEED to be in VR?" You can ask how you can take a traditional title and use the strengths of VR to make a good game, or if the game might be a bad fit for VR. But I don't get "need".
As to the second sentence, shooting and VR go together incredibly well so it makes sense from that standpoint alone as to why it would make a good VR game. But more to the point, Oculus was going for a big brand name to inject into their lineup, it's not like EA/Respawn decided on their own to make a VR exclusive game. It'd be like asking FromSoftware why Demon Souls needed to only be on the PS3...because Sony paid for it to be there lol.
So many questionable things tossed into those opening 2 sentences lol.
The best moh games they had and done was Moh allied assault Moh spearhead and moh breakthrough. Expecially the jail mode on mp was ny fav