Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
There is that WWII MMORPG.
No, theres a WWII MMOFPS. And I won't get into its vast problems, etc, as someone who's played for years, on and off of course.
In ww1.
Well, doing that undermines the point of the WWII FPS. The point is so people can shoot enemy guys and not feel like it's a bad thing to do - which is fine, fighting evil and all.
But the real life situation is that german soldiers weren't by and large evil, they were, sadly, bound by duty and oath to their country's decision to roll over a ton of neighbouring countries.
If you started pushing for better characterisation, it'd end up being really, really one-sided. I'm not sure I'd prefer to see that. Band of Brothers struck a good balance, though.
and also back then and especially in WW1, you joined the army fully knowing you were going to invade and take over a country (or die trying) and subvert it some day. so besides the conscripts, they might not have been evil but they weren't innocent either.
but on the same note, no soldiers were ever forced to kill any civilians and if they were told to and refused, they would just be transfered elsewhere. there were plenty of sociopaths and criminals to do the dirtywork, it isnt that hard to put them in a uniform. so you certainly weren't killing awful jew killers.
Steam Profile
Fair point. I guess I just feel WW2 FPSs take advantage of the "righteous hero" angle more than most.
Bad idea to judge people born literally one hundred years ago by today's moral standards. You joined the army fully knowing you were serving your country, and I'm pretty sure a decent amount of recruits in those days were forced into it via poverty.
Yup.
vast majority of recruiting would be done during the height of the invading though, so it would be "hey cool we can rule the world" that got people to join, although that idea might be there because of a lot of lies and brainwashing I guess but the intent is the same.
or in even earlier periods of history the invading of other countries was non-stop and you knew you'd be shipped off to invade somewhere else the moment you joined. the military since those times hadn't changed much so it was still the same idea. at least for the older nations like britain, prussia/germany ect.
really poverty is one reason, but it still doesn't mean they didn't do it because of the others as well. its a good reason but you can't completely write off the others because of it.
I'm also not really judging, at least not harshly. I mean I'm all for imperialism, I think it was a great way of international natural selection and kept us (or at least the winners) strong and motivated as a whole. I guess this isn't a politically correct view, since we're all supposed to love peace.
That's part of the point. I want you to not want to kill your enemies. I want you to feel bad when one of your comrades dies, beyond yelling out comically "BOOOOMEEER!" I want you to be an actual character.
You should play as a German soldier, actually. The entire game. Like in HL2, you don't talk, but you run into many people, some of which want to be in the army, some of which don't. You'd see crazy Hitler Youth kids. It'd be an entirely different experience, educational in some ways.
Okay, seriously dodgy ground here. You do understand that they thought they were taking back land that rightfully belonged to Germany, right? That had been "stolen" from them in the treaty of Versailles? It went beyond that, but that was certainly what they'd been told, certainly at the beginning. Look up "Lebensraum" in wikipedia or something.
edit: Okay, thinking about it, Lebensraum wasn't a good research topic to pick, since that dealt with a different issue.
Also, you realise that your argument applies equally to the US troops, right?
Aaaaand... back on topic again.
Brothers in Arms had some really good music.
sure, I'm not trying to say who was wrong or right, I'm just saying what is (or more correctly, was). I also seriously doubt they thought they'd just stop at the borders of old germany and go home.
No kidding. Why do they all have to be set as infantry in Europe?
There was the one Metal of Honor game set there
(it sucked)
Yeah, I just took a little bit of issue with your "rule the world" thing. I'm gonna stop talking about that now.
Brothers in Arms had some really good music.
I mean, the reason WWII games are bland is because they're all the same. They have no story or plot, really, besides "LOOK NAZIS." It's like an upgrade of Duck Hunt.
there are a decent number of pacific theatre games out there, if you actually looked you would find some.
I think why no one likes to do it if they can't help it is that a lot of battles were in jungles or just places with a lot of foliage. Games haven't been able to do those properly until just recently, and they looked like ass. When it wasn't foliage, it was water and its hard to do a FPS on a boat in middle of the ocean against other boats. You can do a game about that, but it isnt going to be a FPS anymore (and with that in mind, there are a lot of WW2 flight games that take place in the pacific theatre)
There should be a Pacific conflict game with the Crysis engine.
I also think that the pacific theatre has a little more guilt and confusion attached to it. It's just a little more unsettling.
That's my personal opinion, though.
Ohh, there have
Look at the awesome graphics
Are they fighting in Mordor, or something?
Invading Poland, kicking Dutch ass, chasing the British into the sea.
Then the last 2 levels are sitting around Paris getting drunk and stealing paintings.
For example, what if we invaded Tokyo instead of dropping the bomb on 'em?
On a slightly related note, the blitzkrieg games were really good. I forget which one it was, but one basically has you fighting in the netherlands, france, etc. The polish and french maps in Forgotten hope were really fun also. I've really been wanting to see an fps based on the german invasion of france, possibly even an alternate future one where the french repelled the germans, and got into all kinds of crazy franco-german fights in alsace-lorraine.
Maybe.
well I wouldn't say the world was on their minds, but certainly old country rivals that their country had been fighting with or been pushed around by, for centuries. after that, if you could, whats one more? then an other? and an other?
(dont expect a reply, just wanted to get that out there)
Now, on the other hand, don't discard the narrative potential of other genres. Wargames don't have any story. When you select a scenario, you've given a short briefing about the situation at hand, what your units consist of, pending reinforcement and supplies, etc. Then you're given the role of CO and throw into the game. Then all the lives of the soldiers you're commanding are in your hand.
In a RTS such as Company of Heroes, I'm not sure you feel much attachment to your units. So a squad of infantry just got wiped out. Luckily, a second one is being built. No problem, just send units into the enemy and keep rebuilding more. Which is fine as far as RTS go, but anyway.
Now, people say that historical accuracy is pointless, that it adds nothing to the game except for hardcore grognard enthusiast. I wholly disagree, particularly because I am NOT a hardcore grognard enthusiast. I'm certainly a big fan of wargames, but this is actually a genre that I've dwelt in only since last year.
Never mind the gameplay argument (which goes hand-in-hand with the incoming argument, anyway), historical accuracy can add a whole lot to narrative. You *are* General So-and-so, and this is where you are now. Hold a specific location for 2 days? Okay! Only, you have limited manpower, and supplies/reinforcements don't always come on time.... or at all. Meantime, you have to order your units around, putting them in situations where you might have to sacrifice a whole lot of them for the 'greater good'. When nightfall comes, do you anticipate enemy ambushes? Do you let your units rest? What about the constant artillery barrage you're eating? Do you hold at all costs? Do you retreat if it means that you could save the majority of your forces from an overwhelming enemy attack? This is what General So-and-so had to go through back then, and now you have to make the decisions that he had to make back then. This is 'immersion' at its finest.
Some people don't care about that stuff, but there's something about reliving history that's just... haunting for me. There's a lot more meaning in this narrative than a strongly plot-driven WW2 'epic' heroic story. People are asking for made-up stuff, but I'll argue that the real thing is that much more powerful.
Just a thought.
I really regret trading this one in.
We are all very sick of Normandy.
I've heard that Company of Heroes is pretty good.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
.. That didn't happen during WWII.
He meant North Africa, I guess. But desert warfare in WWII would be boring, since it'd be Atari 2600 Combat (the one with the tanks) in 3D.