Games I would like to see: Freedom Fighters 2
Back in 2003, IO Interactive, along with EA, released a third-person shooter known as Freedom Fighters. The game was set in an alternate universe where Russians take over and occupy New York city. Taking control of Christopher Stone, a simple plumber, you rise up and join the resistance to overthrow the ‘Red Army’ and reclaim New York.
Freedom Fighters was a rare gem of a game that came along and slapped gamers in the face, demanding them to play it. Using a modified game engine that we saw in Hitman 2, Freedom Fighters was an incredibly addictive, simple and enjoyable third person shooter with elements of a squad based tactical shooter. At the time, it had a welcome change of enemy in gaming as monsters had been over done, fighting Nazi superpowers was growing stale and gaming audiences everywhere awaited a new enemy to take down in their fantasy world. The idea that the were Soviets taking over Europe and slowly starting to take America by force was a gripping story and utterly enjoyable to play through.
The simplicity lay in the controls. Being able to command up to 12 freedom fighters, early previews worried game critiques and journalists as they questioned how this could be done on a simple game controller. The question was answered when demos were released, showing players how easily it could be done. The game had four commands you used to order your men to attack, guard, follow and scout. Although it featured a simple method of controls, sending your men on the attack and watching them duck for cover and pop out to take down an enemy soldier was always a joy to watch.
As you have probably already guessed, I simply adored this game. The story was a nice length and even though I completed it within a day, I still had many months of replay because it was incredibly fun. Even the multi-player, arguably the weakest element of the game, was still enjoyable with a few friends, as you take control of towers that are centred around a flag in the middle of the map. The idea being that, when you take a tower, you get nine men at your disposal (which re -spawn there if killed) and move to the centre to take the flag. Hold the flag for a pre-determined amount of time and you win the match.
So what ever happened to Freedom Fighters 2? Way back in April 2004, Eidos UK told the awaiting public that they had plans to make a sequel which they wanted to be released by late 2005. Sadly the sequel never came. IO Interactive then began work on Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, putting aside any idea of a Freedom Fighters 2.
The only recent word about sequel possibilities came from a representative of IO when being interviewed about Kane & Lynch: Dead Men back in late 2007. Shying away from any concrete evidence of a sequel to Freedom Fighters, all that was said was that “It’s on our to-do list”.
One must ask though, can a sequel to a last generation game really match up to what we have in this generation of gaming? Freedom Fighters was hailed as bringing squad games to the masses. The most appealing point of the game is being able to command your own small group of soldiers. Today, you can jump into an online game of COD4 and play with actual online players rather then AI players. Also, squad based games such as Rainbow Six that deeply involves squad tactics could simply mean there is no room for a game like Freedom Fighters 2. Sequels are usually bigger, meaner and look better then their predecessors, but with so many games this generation offering what Freedom Fighters can do but predominately better, there may be no place in the market for a Freedom Fighters 2.
Hopefully, IO Interactive will make me eat my own words and create something truly stunning and something that feels like a true sequel to Freedom Fighters, if they ever get around to their ‘to-do list’.
Overall, I do hope that we will one day see a sequel to Freedom Fighters, but with the amount of games out, the market that creates what Freedom Fighters does, one can’t help but feel that, if a sequel ever did come along, it could perhaps change our ideas of how good the original was and ruin this gem of a title that sneaked into the market and inspired a generation of gamers.
#1 – Travis Barbour on January 27th, 2009 8:06 am
Absolutely!
I loved this game but thought that the multiplayer was perfect to my needs. It focused the action in one place, around the flag, meaning that you always knew where to go and the maps were simple enough that you wouldn’t get lost. The match was also frantic with players desperate to hold on to the flag, particularly at the end.
I’d love to see a sequel but only if they remained true to the original in terms of gameplay. Being able to control your team in the way that you could was was made it such a ‘gem’!
#2 – Nick McKenzie on February 21st, 2009 6:28 pm
FF1 was an underrated gem. This much is true. I think the fact that the multi-player was so weak was because it was not online capable. Remember though, this was during the shift into online gaming for the first gen modern systems.
A sequel though I’m sure could be modified in order to accommodate the competition. The innovator at IO and EA I think could easily crank out this ‘check list’ game.
I have not yet purchased a new gen system due to the overwhelming lack of great games. For this one though I would pay 450 in order to play Freedom Fighters 2~
#3 – asner on April 27th, 2009 9:06 pm
yyyyyyyyy
#4 – VISHU on June 22nd, 2009 12:04 pm
I LOVE EA GAME AND I STEEL WATING PART 2
#5 – yajiv on September 7th, 2009 10:11 am
FF1 was really an amazing game.
The best parts were its graphics and its length inspite of small size.
I really wish for a sequel.
#6 – mohamed on November 1st, 2009 7:09 am
really , i love this game and hope to see pert two but with the capability of network and multi-player option in order to enjoy with friends.