Anybody else is sick and tired of Call of Duty and other fPS's always doing the same thing. I mean how many times did we play the Battle of Stalingrad in COD. We could actually set COD in WW1 for example and it could be fun because automatic weapons did show up in WW 1 so it would not be just you shooting a rifle. There was a lot more sides clashing in WW2 the Germans vs Brits/US and Germans vs Russians. It would be awesome if Medal of honor or COD would do a Finnish campaign for once. Also the japanese and the Soviet Union did fight for Manchuria in 1945. I really wish Sniper Elite 2 would had happened in Manchuria or you would finish a Soviet Campaign there instead of always in Berlin. The british invasion of Madagascar against the French would be really interesting or something happeneing in Burma. Playing US special forces training and fighting with the taliban. They could make it work, just the main character and arab-amaerican and it's not like the mudjahedin carried id with them. I would love to play a soilder in the Iraq Iran War. I would love a good FPS in WW2 where you play someone form the FFL. It would certainly have a unique considering feel the unique nature of the Legion. At one point legionares were face tof ace with each other one unit on the side of the Vichy, the ohter on the side of the Free French. Is EA insisting on people always making games in the most familiar setting? Woud't something with COD stamped on it sell even if you would not have to go back to the same battles? Which campaings and wars would you like to play in?
The only interesting games made about WWI involve air combat. A realistic ground combat game set during WWI would just be horribly depressing. A more pointless waste of human lives, the world has not seen. I think people like WWII as a setting for video games because it has such clear heroes and villains. That kind of narrative simplicity is lacking in most wars. It's hard to find a greater real-world evil than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Likewise, WWI didn't have any real "winner," a bunch of people just died for no good reason. Thousands perished fighting for months over a mile-wide strip of land. Stuff like that isn't engaging or fun, it's just awful.
Like i said there were autmatic weapons toward the end. i had not read anything about WW1 in a while so i cannot name any, but there were submachine guns there. From wikipedia; You don' have to be stuck in Trench warfare.For example Rommel spent most of the war avoiding that. As far as winners go Bad Company has a cinical outlook on war yet it's still engaging. There are so many campaings that we never played yet.
This sums it up perfectly. There were automatic weapons throughout (actually, since the Civil War). They were the number one reason that no one could advance since charges "over the top" resulted in people being mowed down before they could ever fight back. The fact that you only think they started being used at the end of the war makes me wonder if you have any sense of how the war was fought. If you did have this sense, you would realize that it more or less could not translate into a video game with the possible exception of a few well-defined battles or theaters.
He's talking about the BAR and the Thompson I think, both of which saw limited to no use in the Great War. I think a WW1 RTS could be pretty groovy. I'd love to see a Total War game based on it in fact.
I forgot to link the artice, it was about submachine guns. I know that stuff like Maxims were around way before WW1. We got plenty of more nuanced main characters in other games and like i said Battlefield Bad Company was fun.
Okay, how about this then? The World War II Western Front setting needs to be banned from any and all video games. No exceptions.
Hell yeah. I'd love to play a British infantryman fighting the Japanese in Burma. Hell, I'd love to play as a member of the BEF in the battle of France in 1940.
Part of it might be down to the target market of the games. For gamers in Europe the conflict with Nazi Germany is more prominant than say the war against the Empire of Japan. But you could do a WWII game set in N. Africa with things like the 2nd Battle of El-Alamein, the Torch landings, the landings in Scilly and in Italy.
COD and i think Medal of Honor already did this. Which was the Medal of Honor game that focused onthe Pacific Theater? I would like to look at some sales numbers.
"World at War". It was pretty good until you got the obligatory Stalingrad mission at which point I stopped playing.
Total War focuses on set battles, while World War I focused on fronts. Even the key set battle of the Western Front (Verdun, imo) lasted months and months and had the strategic objective of attrition. Other battles are named after broad fronts that stretched for miles. Don't get me wrong, I could see a World War I strategy game (if there isn't one, I'm not sure), I just think it would be a macro-level game rather than a micro-level game. Rather than micro-managing every soldier's position and focusing on tactical maneuvering, you would manage logistics, supplies, and distribute manpower along the front then carefully plan your assaults and watch it play out.
The only one I can think of is a Paradox game called "Victoria", but it's at the very tail end of the game and since it's a Paradox grand strategy game it blows.
I'd say that's a very western point of view. If you look at what happened in the eastern front during the WWII, lines between heroes and villains are very muddy at best.