Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Drago-Kazov, Nov 27, 2012.
And every COD dealing with WW2 had a Soviet Campaign.
Well, I am referring to how it is perceived in the popular consciousness. The Allies did their share of heinous things, but they were the "good guys" because the Nazis were just so, so bad. Hitler is the perfect villain, with his Holocaust and his vision of a German Reich over all of Europe (and perhaps the world.) The Allies fought for "freedom"--what higher cause could there be? The devil is, of course, in the details, but if you ignore the details, the European theater of WWII is, as I said, an extremely simple narrative.
Contrast this with WWI where you had a bunch of European monarchs throwing bodies at each other in a prolonged and pointless pissing match.
If you insist on a positive narrative you could play the yanks who came to clean up the mess and had an elected leader.
The Americans tried to find a moral reason to join the war but that's because they had absolutely no reason to join except to prove that their soldiers could fight too. I think what sums up the first World War greater than anything else is the number of casualties under November 11 before 11:00 am (i.e., when everyone knew there would be a cease fire in a few hours but the world powers continued to throw troops at each other just because they could).
Considering the fact that Germany was essentially forced into the war due to alliances and French/Russian agression while the Americans and British joined in to show how big their dicks were...
Iewas also about resources adn crushing the germans who were on their way to become equals to the englishas a naval and economic power.
Wilson was an imperialist, but it never caught on in a major way and was not embraced by the population till the end of WW2.
I disagree that Wilson was an imperialist. Racist perhaps, but his whole thing was about self-determination. He had to justify the carve up of the Ottoman Empire that he knew the French and British were going to do anyway in terms that wouldn't contradict his principle of national self-determination. Obviously, the United States never signed the treaty of Versailles, but I'm not sure if we were considering taking any territory in the Middle East anyway (we were offered the mandate of Armenia, which was eastern Turkey and the Caucasus Mountains).
i think a relentlessly depressing ww1 rpg game with some fps elements would be good. youre stuck in a trench and you only have one life. when you die the disc melts.
It'll be like Oregon trail because the likely cause of death will dysentery.
As for wars and campaigns ignored by FPS, I can add most or all of these incidents prior to 1860. There have been games set in the Civil War - which, from reading the reviews, were terrible.
Well if we are talking WWI, from memory it was the invasion of Beligum with which Britain had a defensive treaty with that brought the UK into that war.
Treaty of London 1839
So how does honouring a treaty equate to joing to show how big their dicks are as you put it?
Because they didn't actually care about the treaty and had plans drawn up to enter the war and attack Germany via an invasion through Belgium?
The United States joined the war after a document was intercepted and decoded by the British that demonstrated that Germany had proposed to Mexico that this country should allied itself with the European nation and invade its neighbor to the north.
Many in the United States were opposed to entering into a war in Europe. Like what happen later in WWII, it was a real or perceived threat on our nation that prompted our leaders to declare war. In WWII, our nation might not have gotten into the European war if it wasn't for a treaty that Germany and Italy signed with Japan. Under the terms of the treaty, if one of the signatories was under attack, the other two nations were obligated to declare war on the aggressor. (When I said above "gotten into the European war", I am not discounting the efforts made by the Americans to provide aid to the nations fighting Nazi Germany. When I said the above, I was referring to the notion of troops on the ground.)
I would love to see a medieval Battlefield type game set during something like the crusades. Instead of AK-47's and Fighter Jets you'd have Crossbows and Swords and Catapults. Teams of players would form together in a Phalanx formation to defend from enemy archers when besieging a castle. It would be awesome.
sort of like that terrible medieval dynasty warriors type game they made, and whose name escapes me at the moment.
Medieval armies didn't use the phalanx maneuver - the Ancient Greeks did.
The Soviet campaign was there because Treyarch wanted the game to be about the end of World War II, so they focused the campaigns around the fall of Berlin (even though Infinity Ward had already covered it in CoD1) and the Japanese surrender. I agree that including yet another Stalingrad mission was a little lame, but they made it somewhat interesting and they put it to good use in an important part of the storyline for Black Ops.
A CoD game focusing entirely on the Pacific theater would have been cool, though. An American campaign and a British campaign, maybe the Australians, too.
That is a very western take on the First World War. The front lines in the east were much more fluid and trench warfare was the exception rather than the rule.
I'd be cool with a game about the Eastern Front then.
Is there a power on the Eastern Front for which a good guy narative would work?
Separate names with a comma.