[KillerGremlin]

People complain about first person shooters being shallow, there's a reason for that.

If you go watch movies like Saving Private Ryan, you see incredible character development. So your argument that Medal Of Honor is a war game so it gets excused from having character development is flawed. The basis for Medal Of Honor, at least Allied Assault, "coincidentally" echoed the elements in Saving Private Ryan, minus the character depth. Medal Of Honor works better as a cinematic shooter, much like Half-Life. The premise of the game is throwing you into the action, and making it as stimulating as possible. That was, at least, Medal Of Honor's intent. I won't break the game down and explain why it didn't work as a whole for me, but occasionally the game shinned, despite its weak character development.

First Person Shooters don't need character development, per se, but it doesn't hurt. You're right, a FPS isn't an RPG and you really don't need to sympathize with your character, but it seems like the First Persons Shooters with the most character development are the most memorable. I remember No One Lives Forever and Clive Barker's Undying very well, and both games featured tones of character development and plot. Hell, even games like Duke Nukem and Serious Sam developed their characters. Duke and Sam where both smart asses, and it was entertaining to play as them.

Also, if a story is included in the manual, that's fine. But if you give a character a huge story, and don't incorporate it into the main game, then it's really just pointless information that will quickly be forgotten. Some games, like Warcraft 3, give you tons of in-depth information on the history of the continents and the races you're playing as, and then that information is presented in the game. I was compelled to read the Warcraft 3 booklet because it helped the flow of the Single Player game.