No More WorldWar-II Games Please! Its a saturated theme for games of all types.
Greg
At least as far as shooters and RTS titles go, WWII as a theme has
just been played out.
Note to game publishers: The whole WWII theme needs about a 4 year
rest before any more titles hit the shelves. There's just been too
many of them.
"The story has become tiresome" to quote the SNL character Deiter on
Sprockets. Give it a rest already.
I know there have been some pretty good WWII games. Company of Heros
is a very well done RTS game.... The COD series are worthy shooters...
It just seems like the WWII genre, along with sci-fi (under which I
would categorize Quake, Unreal, Halo type games) are always the first
theme game publishers flock to.
Meanwhile there are VERY few Vietnam war era games. I really loved
Battlefield Vietnam and Vietcong, not because they were particularly
great games, but putting us in the late 60s Vietnam setting is
something very few games dare to do, and how lovely it is when they
do. The great thing about the Vietnam era is you have reasonably
modern weapons, but the scenery can get REALLY interesting with
jungles, villages, and so forth. Another genre we could use more of
is modern (Iraq-war era) combat games. Of course there is Battlefield
2, which is a great game, but there is not a lot else available along
the same lines, and seeing as how this war is going on RIGHT NOW, it
makes the theme all the more compelling.
I mentioned before that sci-fi is getting overplayed too. Well,
because sci-fi can mean different things to different people and it
does not alone describe a game genre, I am less likely to say give it
a rest. What I have noticed is that sci-fi seems most successful as a
theme when it is "minimally blended" into some sort of non-sci-fi
theme.
For example think back to the original Doom and Quake games (not the
recent ones, I'm talking Doom I and Quake I and their immediate
successors). The overall theme of those games felt more midieval with
a bit of sci-fi mixed in (Painkiller also had this feel to it). Duke
Nukem 3D, was sort of reality meets sci-fi -- Duke might have a
realistic weapon like a pistol or shotgun, then soon after be flying
around on a jetpack. I guess my point is use sci-fi elements in
moderation rather than going all out with space ships and such. At
this point I would almost rather see a WWII-SciFi hybrid that had Axis
and Allies running around with BFG2000s and flying around on jetpacks
than to see another WWII or "space ship" game. As pathetic as it
sounds, at least it would be fresh.
Nostromo
Domini:
>
>At least as far as shooters and RTS titles go, WWII as a theme has
>just been played out.
>
>Note to game publishers: The whole WWII theme needs about a 4 year
>rest before any more titles hit the shelves. There's just been too
>many of them.
>
>"The story has become tiresome" to quote the SNL character Deiter on
>Sprockets. Give it a rest already.
Shit, & I dusted off Sniper Elite for a bash just yesterday & here I thought
I was actually enjoying it & having a blast! :-/
>I know there have been some pretty good WWII games. Company of Heros
>is a very well done RTS game.... The COD series are worthy shooters...
>
>It just seems like the WWII genre, along with sci-fi (under which I
>would categorize Quake, Unreal, Halo type games) are always the first
>theme game publishers flock to.
>
>Meanwhile there are VERY few Vietnam war era games. I really loved
>Battlefield Vietnam and Vietcong, not because they were particularly
>great games, but putting us in the late 60s Vietnam setting is
>something very few games dare to do, and how lovely it is when they
>do. The great thing about the Vietnam era is you have reasonably
>modern weapons, but the scenery can get REALLY interesting with
>jungles, villages, and so forth. Another genre we could use more of
>is modern (Iraq-war era) combat games. Of course there is Battlefield
SOF anyone?
>2, which is a great game, but there is not a lot else available along
>the same lines, and seeing as how this war is going on RIGHT NOW, it
>makes the theme all the more compelling.
So basically, YOU have a hard-on about Vietnam (or post WWII 'realistic'
military shooters) & would like more games based on this theme? Newsflash:
some of us may prefer the more varied settings & limitations of the WWII
theme.
>I mentioned before that sci-fi is getting overplayed too. Well,
>because sci-fi can mean different things to different people and it
>does not alone describe a game genre, I am less likely to say give it
>a rest. What I have noticed is that sci-fi seems most successful as a
>theme when it is "minimally blended" into some sort of non-sci-fi
>theme.
>
>For example think back to the original Doom and Quake games (not the
>recent ones, I'm talking Doom I and Quake I and their immediate
>successors). The overall theme of those games felt more midieval with
>a bit of sci-fi mixed in (Painkiller also had this feel to it). Duke
>Nukem 3D, was sort of reality meets sci-fi -- Duke might have a
>realistic weapon like a pistol or shotgun, then soon after be flying
>around on a jetpack. I guess my point is use sci-fi elements in
>moderation rather than going all out with space ships and such. At
>this point I would almost rather see a WWII-SciFi hybrid that had Axis
>and Allies running around with BFG2000s and flying around on jetpacks
>than to see another WWII or "space ship" game. As pathetic as it
>sounds, at least it would be fresh.
RTCW (undead/mutant cyborgs) anyone? There are also plenty of other fps
games which aren't WWII themed like OpFlash, Chrome, Delta Force series,
Doom3, FarCry, HL2, Dark Messiah, Call of Cthulhu:DCotE, Prey, Jedi Outcast,
Max Payne, NOLF1/2, SIN, ST:Elite Force1/2, Undying, etc, to name but a few
I have played in recent years myself. If you're willing to crossover into
tactical squad shooters or action rpgs the world is your mega-oyster!
It sounds to me dude like you need to play some more fps games from the past
10 years before you acquire the 'right' to be jaded with the WWII theme ;-p
--
"I don't welcome it ... because I'm a different kind of gamer from most
of you. I'm a "benchmark" gamer." - johns 4/1/2007
Nostromo
Greg
Don't be a tool... I'm just saying that there are an unproportional
amount of WWII games compared to games in other war eras or with a
specific theme. Unline the math you presented, I am not implying that
the total number of non-WWII games is less than the number of WWII
games, I'm just saying the number of WWII games overshadows any other
single theme. When's the last time you played a shooter based in the
Korean War?
johns
> single theme. When's the last time you played a shooter based in the
> Korean War?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
I've noticed an absence of that too. Maybe because the Korean
war is sort of still going on in a way. Conflict Vietnam gave me
the creeps. I finished Basic Training at Ft Jackson, SC on Jan
11, 1968 ... a few days before the start of the TET Offensive.
I was lucky. I remained State-side as a Medical Specialist,
while many of my close friends spent the next 13 months
in day to day combat with no letup at all. Friend of mine said
he fired his last shot over his shoulder, and got in the jeep
to take him to the airport, and home. Another one gets a kick
out of showing everybody his half-ear where his ear lobe got
shot off during his last week there. The game, Conflict Vietnam,
brought back a lot of memories of characters I had forgotten
about. All that smart mouth, and officers who could not keep
their tempers, came from one thing ... We were the youngest
army the USA ever put in the field. I would say that 90% of
us were 18 years old, and a lot of us had not even started
shaving yet. Most of us had our first beer about week 5 of
Basic.
The WWII games portray a much older and more competent
soldier .. my fathers generation. It is much easier to portray
a hardened soldier in a game. It is really a trick to portray
the kid-soldiers of the Vietnam era. Conflict Vietnam tried.
johns
Greg
Point taken and interesting perspective on the age of soldiers. But,
what about games like Battlefield Vietnam which are fun shooters but
do not try too hard to tap into the emotional aspects of a particular
war?
Martin Feller
"Greg" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:770nr253094as3jp3...@4ax.com...
>
> At least as far as shooters and RTS titles go, WWII as a theme has
> just been played out.
We need a good modern or near-modern RPG (the Jagged Alliance and Silent
Storm games are cool, but not fully realized as RPGs)
johns
I don't care for the Battlefield series at all. They
treat war like it was a tag football game. War is
more like a grinding wheel in a shop. Everything
at the end of the rod gets ground off. The trick is
to not be anywhere near that edge. Close is fine.
You get to tell your grandchildren about that.
johns
Greg
>
>
>I don't care for the Battlefield series at all. They
>treat war like it was a tag football game. War is
>more like a grinding wheel in a shop. Everything
>at the end of the rod gets ground off.
Yes but do we really want computer games that make us feel like we are
getting grinded down? I personally just want to be entertained by
them. Agreed the BF series is not realistic, but man they can be fun.
mcv
Not sure why we're talking about FPS and RTS games, but I think a WWII
CRPG could actually be pretty cool. Maybe a Kelly's Heroes or Dirty
Dozen kind of scenario.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
mcv
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 09:40:41 +1100, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>>Thus spake Greg <no...@none.com>, Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:07:28 -0500, Anno
>>Domini:
>>>
>>>At least as far as shooters and RTS titles go, WWII as a theme has
>>>just been played out.
>>>
>>>Note to game publishers: The whole WWII theme needs about a 4 year
>>>rest before any more titles hit the shelves. There's just been too
>>>many of them.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile there are VERY few Vietnam war era games. I really loved
>>>Battlefield Vietnam and Vietcong, not because they were particularly
>>>great games, but putting us in the late 60s Vietnam setting is
>>>something very few games dare to do, and how lovely it is when they
>>>do. The great thing about the Vietnam era is you have reasonably
>>>modern weapons, but the scenery can get REALLY interesting with
>>>jungles, villages, and so forth. Another genre we could use more of
>>>is modern (Iraq-war era) combat games. Of course there is Battlefield
>>
>>So basically, YOU have a hard-on about Vietnam (or post WWII 'realistic'
>>military shooters) & would like more games based on this theme? Newsflash:
>>some of us may prefer the more varied settings & limitations of the WWII
>>theme.
>
> Don't be a tool... I'm just saying that there are an unproportional
> amount of WWII games compared to games in other war eras or with a
> specific theme. Unline the math you presented, I am not implying that
> the total number of non-WWII games is less than the number of WWII
> games, I'm just saying the number of WWII games overshadows any other
> single theme. When's the last time you played a shooter based in the
> Korean War?
Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
Many millions died, it impacted every nation on earth, it's the single
most defining moment of the 20th century. There's tons and tons of
strategy board games about WWII. What's so surprising about there
being a lot of computer games about it? Do you seriously want to
compare the scope of the Vietnam or Korean wars to that of WWII?
I don't doubt Vietnam and Korea can be great sources of inspiration,
but WWII isn't anywhere near exhausted either. Is there a good game
that properly simulates the nasty streetfighting in Stalingrad already?
Or the battle of Kursk? Or the deception and trickery between Monty and
Rommel in North Africa? (Alright, there probably are some already, I'm
really not that up to date, but aren't these excellent themes for
games?)
Nostromo
>Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
>It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
>Many millions died, it impacted every nation on earth, it's the single
>most defining moment of the 20th century. There's tons and tons of
>strategy board games about WWII. What's so surprising about there
>being a lot of computer games about it? Do you seriously want to
>compare the scope of the Vietnam or Korean wars to that of WWII?
To be sure.
>I don't doubt Vietnam and Korea can be great sources of inspiration,
>but WWII isn't anywhere near exhausted either. Is there a good game
>that properly simulates the nasty streetfighting in Stalingrad already?
>Or the battle of Kursk? Or the deception and trickery between Monty and
>Rommel in North Africa? (Alright, there probably are some already, I'm
>really not that up to date, but aren't these excellent themes for
>games?)
Some of those have been done in fps games like CoD & MOH:AA, but not nearly
extensively enough imo.
Hey, I'd like a game that offers an alternative history path from 1939,
where you can choose to play one of many countries (not just Allies/Axis -
bletch!). It would be morbidly interesting to see the Nazis win the war by
not spreading themselves too thin on too many offensives & ruling
Europe/Africa/Asia while maintaining neutrality. They could even make the
race for the A-bomb in 1945 the culmination of the game in some way.
Imagine, fighting as your choice of German, Italian, Brit, Frog, Rusky,
Yank, Jap, etc...could even have minor 'neutral' or rebel/underground
nations somehow involved in a sprawling campaign. I dunno if it would work
best as a TB strategy title like Civ, or RTS like RON, or mainly a
action/rpg/sim ala OpFlash or Delta Force series, but I certainly like the
idea so long as it's not just another grindfest mmog! :)
mcv
> Thus spake mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl>, 30 Jan 2007 18:40:32 GMT, Anno Domini:
>
>>but WWII isn't anywhere near exhausted either. Is there a good game
>>that properly simulates the nasty streetfighting in Stalingrad already?
>>Or the battle of Kursk? Or the deception and trickery between Monty and
>>Rommel in North Africa? (Alright, there probably are some already, I'm
>>really not that up to date, but aren't these excellent themes for
>>games?)
>
> Some of those have been done in fps games like CoD & MOH:AA, but not nearly
> extensively enough imo.
> Hey, I'd like a game that offers an alternative history path from 1939,
> where you can choose to play one of many countries (not just Allies/Axis -
> bletch!). It would be morbidly interesting to see the Nazis win the war by
> not spreading themselves too thin on too many offensives & ruling
> Europe/Africa/Asia while maintaining neutrality. They could even make the
> race for the A-bomb in 1945 the culmination of the game in some way.
That sounds more like something for a turn-based strategy game. In Panzer
General, for example, the Germans could win if they did well on the
Moscow scenario and did well enough on other scenarios to unlock the
Sealion (invasion of England) scenario.
But PG is still operational strategy. A game that deals with which fronts
to fight on, which countries to invade, etc, would be dealing with grand
strategy, and that's a whole different game. I'm not aware of any PC game
that deals with this in considerable detail, and I know of only very few
board games that do it (Hitler's War sort-of does it, Empires in Arms does
it well, but is humongous).
I have actually been thinking about writing a game that does something
like this: individual scenarios would be very much like Panzer General
(except in a SF setting). The campaign would be about a planetary
invasion; you've got a space fleet, tons of troops, tanks and other
equipment, and the planet features continents, cities, factories,
roads, etc. It's up to you to determine where your next attack is going
to be and what points you'll be defending, and depending on your
decisions and those of the (AI controlled) opponent, and the terrain
and strategic points where you'll be fighting, the game would
automatically generate the next PG-like scenario.
Never actually got around to writing this though, and if I do, I think
I'll start with something slightly less ambitious instead.
johns
"progress" from the Dark Ages to the end of
the Industrial Revolution. It was the only end
possible for the "Darwinian" age. The Modern
Age begins in Vietnam. You cannot send
educated people to war. They will turn on their
"leaders", and the result is always chaos.
A game about Hitler winning would involve
undoing the Industrial Revolution and higher
education, and it would make no sense.
The "themes" of WWII would be lost. In
the game Conflict Vietnam, the best thing
about the game are the underlying "themes"
of that generation. On that basis alone, the
Vietnam conflict is the equivalent of WWII.
And that is why I really dispise games
like the "BattleField" series that merely
see war as a sport .... organized murder.
johns ( a Benchmark gamer )
mcv
> WWII was the final result of 1000 years of
> "progress" from the Dark Ages to the end of
> the Industrial Revolution. It was the only end
> possible for the "Darwinian" age. The Modern
> Age begins in Vietnam.
Wow. I never knew. I suppose everybody has the right to divide history
into different eras according to their own taste, but I really don't
see how this definition can possibly make sense.
JAB
> johns <john...@moscow.com> wrote:
>> WWII was the final result of 1000 years of
>> "progress" from the Dark Ages to the end of
>> the Industrial Revolution. It was the only end
>> possible for the "Darwinian" age. The Modern
>> Age begins in Vietnam.
>
> Wow. I never knew. I suppose everybody has the right to divide history
> into different eras according to their own taste, but I really don't
> see how this definition can possibly make sense.
>
>
> mcv.
You missed the bit about "The Modern Age begins in Vietnam. You cannot
send educated people to war. They will turn on their "leaders", and the
result is always chaos." Not exactly up on say World War I then for example?
Nostromo
Cool, tx for the rundown mcv. Might take a closer look at Empires in Arms.
>I have actually been thinking about writing a game that does something
>like this: individual scenarios would be very much like Panzer General
>(except in a SF setting). The campaign would be about a planetary
>invasion; you've got a space fleet, tons of troops, tanks and other
>equipment, and the planet features continents, cities, factories,
>roads, etc. It's up to you to determine where your next attack is going
>to be and what points you'll be defending, and depending on your
>decisions and those of the (AI controlled) opponent, and the terrain
>and strategic points where you'll be fighting, the game would
>automatically generate the next PG-like scenario.
>
>Never actually got around to writing this though, and if I do, I think
>I'll start with something slightly less ambitious instead.
Heh, sounds good, now you just need capital ;)
mcv
I never got around to playing it. For the full campaign, you need 7 players
and 200 hours. That's kinda hard. There are shorter campaigns, rules for
playing with less players, and scenarios for only 2 or 3 players, though.
>>I have actually been thinking about writing a game that does something
>>like this: individual scenarios would be very much like Panzer General
>>(except in a SF setting). The campaign would be about a planetary
>>invasion; you've got a space fleet, tons of troops, tanks and other
>>equipment, and the planet features continents, cities, factories,
>>roads, etc. It's up to you to determine where your next attack is going
>>to be and what points you'll be defending, and depending on your
>>decisions and those of the (AI controlled) opponent, and the terrain
>>and strategic points where you'll be fighting, the game would
>>automatically generate the next PG-like scenario.
>>
>>Never actually got around to writing this though, and if I do, I think
>>I'll start with something slightly less ambitious instead.
>
> Heh, sounds good, now you just need capital ;)
And time. Especially time.
Werner Spahl
> Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
> It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
Don't forget that it was also the last war the USA really won, and who
likes to replay wars that were lost in the end ;)...
--
Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
Werner Spahl
> We need a good modern or near-modern RPG (the Jagged Alliance and Silent
> Storm games are cool, but not fully realized as RPGs).
Have you tried Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines yet? It's the only
FPS/RPG I know off not playing in a SF or Fantasy setting.
Nostromo
17:24:09 +0100, Anno Domini:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, mcv wrote:
>
>> Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
>> It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
>
>Don't forget that it was also the last war the USA really won, and who
>likes to replay wars that were lost in the end ;)...
ROFL - ouch! >8^D
mcv
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, mcv wrote:
>
>> Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
>> It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
>
> Don't forget that it was also the last war the USA really won, and who
> likes to replay wars that were lost in the end ;)...
I don't know. I kinda like playing the German side in WWII games.
JAB
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, mcv wrote:
>
>> Isn't it obvious why there's more about WWII than about any other war?
>> It's by far the biggest, most world-spanning war we've ever had.
>
> Don't forget that it was also the last war the USA really won, and who
> likes to replay wars that were lost in the end ;)...
>
Were on the winning side surely?
OldDog
> just been played out.
>
> Note to game publishers: The whole WWII theme needs about a 4 year
> rest before any more titles hit the shelves. There's just been too
> many of them.
>
> "The story has become tiresome" to quote the SNL character Deiter on
> Sprockets. Give it a rest already.
>
WWII was fought on a huge scale. There's still a few battles that haven't
been touched. And I'll never get tired of killing Nazis. :)
> I know there have been some pretty good WWII games. Company of Heros
> is a very well done RTS game.... The COD series are worthy shooters...
>
> It just seems like the WWII genre, along with sci-fi (under which I
> would categorize Quake, Unreal, Halo type games) are always the first
> theme game publishers flock to.
>
Sort of like Hollywood movies. Make whatever sells to the public. But if I
hear of one more slasher movie, or one more boy meets girl - boy loses
girl - boy marries girl... I'm going to jump!
> Meanwhile there are VERY few Vietnam war era games. I really loved
> Battlefield Vietnam and Vietcong, not because they were particularly
> great games, but putting us in the late 60s Vietnam setting is
> something very few games dare to do, and how lovely it is when they
> do. The great thing about the Vietnam era is you have reasonably
> modern weapons, but the scenery can get REALLY interesting with
> jungles, villages, and so forth. Another genre we could use more of
> is modern (Iraq-war era) combat games. Of course there is Battlefield
> 2, which is a great game, but there is not a lot else available along
> the same lines, and seeing as how this war is going on RIGHT NOW, it
> makes the theme all the more compelling.
>
For modern battlefield engagements, there is Joint Ops and Ghost Recon
Advance Warfighter.
How about a WWI shooter?
Wild West?
Civil War?
Revolutionary War?
Attila the Hun?
However, there might be a problem with going too far back in time. The
limited number of weapons. Might be too boring if the player only got to
choose between big sword, spear, or rock.
This might explain why developers lean more towards 1940 and above
timelines.
> I mentioned before that sci-fi is getting overplayed too. Well,
> because sci-fi can mean different things to different people and it
> does not alone describe a game genre, I am less likely to say give it
> a rest. What I have noticed is that sci-fi seems most successful as a
> theme when it is "minimally blended" into some sort of non-sci-fi
> theme.
>
> For example think back to the original Doom and Quake games (not the
> recent ones, I'm talking Doom I and Quake I and their immediate
> successors). The overall theme of those games felt more midieval with
> a bit of sci-fi mixed in (Painkiller also had this feel to it).
Doom had space station levels, and took place on Mars. Quake has the player
teleporting all over the place. And the weapons in both are very much
futuristic.
There are some castle levels in Quake that had some creatures that looked
like knights in them. But the player gets to blast them rocket launcher or
thunderbolt weapon.
ps Over at Wikipedia, there's an interesting comment about Quake and the
story line: It should be noted, however, that by the time the game was
released the specifics of the story had become relatively unimportant and
somewhat disorganized. This is mainly due to a last-minute mix of two
different game designs - John Romero wanted to make a dark fantasy hand to
hand combat/RPG hybrid game while level designers Tim Willits and American
McGee wanted to make a more futuristic, Doom-like game. Ultimately the
Doom-like mechanics were implemented and many of the dark fantasy design
elements were incorporated into the graphics and visual effects of the game.
> Duke
> Nukem 3D, was sort of reality meets sci-fi -- Duke might have a
> realistic weapon like a pistol or shotgun, then soon after be flying
> around on a jetpack. I guess my point is use sci-fi elements in
> moderation rather than going all out with space ships and such. At
> this point I would almost rather see a WWII-SciFi hybrid that had Axis
> and Allies running around with BFG2000s and flying around on jetpacks
> than to see another WWII or "space ship" game. As pathetic as it
> sounds, at least it would be fresh.
>
>
>
Sounds like you just want the weapons from SciFi shooters. Isn't that
getting a little old? :)
Time to go. Got to kill some Nazis to kill with my M1.