Too Many WWII Games?

i love the world war II setting and love to play any games that come out for it. although many are not that good. the new alternate histories in rush for berlin and war front are adding some new content to the era. But i love any war games, and while i prefer world war 2, i dont mind seeing some vietnam or korea games come out.

or maybe a arab-israeli conflict game,


btw anyone who has not tried the T-72 demo should check it out, im gonna buy the game i think.
 
yhamez said:
I can't stand it...I've avoided so many games due to them being set in the WWII era. Something about it just seems dull to me. The only game out there I would play that's in the WWII era is probably RtCW just because it adds some cool stuff to the theme. I've always been strongly anti-WWII for game settings, though that could change.
Click to expand...

same here.

btw I didn't consider RTCW a WW2 game ...
 
Mindriot said:
Future crap has been done over and over again just as much as WW2.

How many times can you recolor or revamp a plasma rifle!
Click to expand...

That's why I like BF2142's way of doing things - no stupid plasmoid/electro gun nonsense, just massive-calibre high-velocity people-shredding lumps of metal and so forth.

But yes - BF2 modded well to 1942 again, or even a whole new game produced (even though it'd be cheap of them to do so) would be supoib.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
WW2 games killed PC gaming for me.

Nobody makes new fresh games anymore, its all WW2.
To prove my point, the last PC game I bought on release was System Shock 2. (thats right, 1999.)

Prolly the same reason I'm on a computer pushing 6 years, I feel NO need to upgrade. This used to be a game box, but all I do on it now is Internet and emulators.

Only PC game I am remotely excited about is Crysis, and thats only because NOTHING looks like that. A reason to upgrade if you will, hopefully the gameplay will match the graphics.

Its sad, but IMO the PC games sector has turned into a single genre industy. FPS and nothing more. Ocassional sports drivel from Electronic Arts, but FPS is all you get. And you can thank companies like EA for taking that single genre system and pushing it to nothing but World War games.
Click to expand...



if youve not bought or played hardly any war games since 1999, then your not really a fan of it. and they are not all fps by far. tons of rts versions, flight simulators, turnbased games and a couple rpg games. and several 3rd person games. were they all winners nope. but there are tons of great games. both deadly dozen games are budget titles and the second one has multiplayer. for the price they are great. I happen to prefer fps games personally but wish they did not play linear. some of the titles on the horizon are being made that way and will just have to see what happens.


sniper elite is a great game, it could look better but its tons of fun to play. least i think so and ive not bought it yet. but i played the demo for 30 hours at least. it gives you 3 levels to play. its not ultra realistic on some of the parts of it, but othertimes it almost makes you feel like your their somewhat if you focus on whats going on.

i think for rts the close combat series is top knotch. the last one was ok. it added new elements while taking some others away. the 2 and 3 i think were the best ones. as after you played the battles in campaign you could make your own battles. unfortunately both sides always started on the same sides of the maps you could pick the army for boths sides before playing.

im not sure why they made the new close combat a FPS game. ill give it a try, but i was looking forward to another solid title. hopefully they go back to the roots of the game even though its had 4 different developers make it..
 
Didn't read the whole thread, so thought I'd just address a little bit of the "why" questions I see on this subject a lot...

Think about WW2 compared with modern combat. Aerial dogfights where distances are measured in yards instead of miles. Pitched naval battles fought without the aid of guided missiles or advanced defense systems. Ground combat where not every weapon was automatic, and where one often had to get up close and personal with the enemy to kill them.

As gameplay goes, WW2 era combat is just more *fun* than modern warfare. It's also easier to make semi-realistic without making it boring.
 
not too many ww2 games...

just too many ww2 games that uses the same patern
 
LeviathanZERO said:
WW2 games killed PC gaming for me.

Nobody makes new fresh games anymore, its all WW2.
To prove my point, the last PC game I bought on release was System Shock 2. (thats right, 1999.)
Click to expand...

Here's what you've missed out on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1999_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2000_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2001_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2002_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2003_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2004_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2005_computer_and_video_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2006_computer_and_video_games

LeviathanZERO said:
Its sad, but IMO the PC games sector has turned into a single genre industy. FPS and nothing more. Ocassional sports drivel from Electronic Arts, but FPS is all you get. And you can thank companies like EA for taking that single genre system and pushing it to nothing but World War games.
Click to expand...

You're very wrong.

The RTS genre is not only going strong, it's got two major offerings in the pipe: C&C3 and Supreme Commander...neither of which has anything to do with WW2.

Not to mention that MMORPGs are more popular every day...did you forget about WoW, EverQuest (a 1999 release, btw) and the rest?

Or how about old-fashioned RPGs, like NWN? I've heard those are poised to make a comeback as well.
 
Why are all you pointing me toward RTS, when I said I dont like them?

I stand by my jadedness. (and my 6 year old PC.)

I dont play MMO, either. Just dont agree with the system. Why pay $50 for the game, and then $15 more every month? Thats expensive as fuck. WoW is addictive, but damn, thats almost as much as a pot addiction.

Oh well, all that computer upgrade money is going to more usefull things anyway. (my car, bills, dslite....)
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Why are all you pointing me toward RTS, when I said I dont like them?

I stand by my jadedness. (and my 6 year old PC.)

I dont play MMO, either. Just dont agree with the system. Why pay $50 for the game, and then $15 more every month? Thats expensive as fuck. WoW is addictive, but damn, thats almost as much as a pot addiction.

Oh well, all that computer upgrade money is going to more usefull things anyway. (my car, bills, dslite....)
Click to expand...

You said that all there is, is FPS. That's simply not true. The fact is, you just don't like the alternative.

You've got FPS, RTS, TBS (turn-based strategy, a small but still-alive genre), simulations, sports, MMORPG, RPG (not the same as MMO, as I already mentioned), puzzlers, adventures, and a lot of games that defy classification. "Only FPS and a few sports" turned into "Only FPS, a few sports, RTS, and MMORPGs"...and you still left out a lot.

Either you haven't ever seriously looked at PC gaming and just don't know what's out there, or...well, I don't know any alternative :)
 
Mindriot said:
Future crap has been done over and over again just as much as WW2.

How many times can you recolor or revamp a plasma rifle!
Click to expand...

for me, it has nothing to do with either genre being overdone...i simply don't enjoy a ww2 atmosphere.
 
PopeKevinI said:
Didn't read the whole thread, so thought I'd just address a little bit of the "why" questions I see on this subject a lot...

Think about WW2 compared with modern combat. Aerial dogfights where distances are measured in yards instead of miles. Pitched naval battles fought without the aid of guided missiles or advanced defense systems. Ground combat where not every weapon was automatic, and where one often had to get up close and personal with the enemy to kill them.

As gameplay goes, WW2 era combat is just more *fun* than modern warfare. It's also easier to make semi-realistic without making it boring.
Click to expand...

Well said. Battlefield 1942 is the best game ever. It sounds like some of you have never played it online. You can lead a team of guys to out-flank a German position, or play it as a German. If you suck as a leader, nobody will follow you. BF2 sucks because the newer weapons kill you from a distance. WW2 weapons you're still reasonably close. Throw a grenade, hit a tank with a bazooka, sniper an outpost, jump in a jeep and run people over as you fly past their defense while being shot at, dogfight in a Mustang, bail out behind enemy lines an capture a flag. Of course it's only fun online, where teammates and enemies do human like things. Some smart, some stupid.

Not to mention the historical perspective is amazing. To look at a map on BF42 and come up with a strategy to get up Omaha beach (not easy) with bullets and limited tanks against heavily fortified guns and Tigers is amazing to re-inact.

Kind of like why movies that are base on real life are so much more interesting. That's why WWII games are so much more interesting. The shit really happened. You just didn't get to re-spawn. :eek:
 
I'll certainly agree that from a gameplay perspective, WWII makes the most sense out of many different eras for use in such a game, but a good developer can come up with ways to convincingly balance combat in a similar way. I guess I'm just not a fan of historically accurate type games...I'd rather blaze a new trail (even if it's overdone and contrived).
 
Way I see it, Call of Duty was WWII game to end all WWII games. IMO, no WWII FPS has topped it yet.

Though I will say this as well: if you're looking for a fresh spin on WWII, play Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault. WWII setting yes, but it's not the 'traditional' setting.
 
DoomRulz said:
Way I see it, Call of Duty was WWII game to end all WWII games. IMO, no WWII FPS has topped it yet.

Though I will say this as well: if you're looking for a fresh spin on WWII, play Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault. WWII setting yes, but it's not the 'traditional' setting.
Click to expand...

The main thing I dislilke about CoD 2 are the constant respawning of the enemies until you cross "x" point, it makes me feel like i'm playing some old console game with checkpoints.

Aswell even though there's many people around you it seems like so many of the things depend solely on you and you alone to do them otherwise the npc's just sit there.

Plus the lack of an actual squad based gameplay and such.

Those are some of the main reasons I thought Brothers in Arms was a better game.

Though the Number of npc's and such is something CoD did better. I think BIA: HH will give wwII games a run for thier money.

Supposdly it's going to have no lv based design anymore but be more open (a la operation flashpoint or such) aswell as having new squad placements like an MG/Mortar team, etc.
 
I dont play MMO, either. Just dont agree with the system. Why pay $50 for the game, and then $15 more every month? Thats expensive as fuck. WoW is addictive, but damn, thats almost as much as a pot addiction.
Click to expand...

What you've just said is an oxymoron, I hope you realize that. Pot isn't addictive, it doesn't have addictive properties. If I dont smoke pot for 6 months thats fine, its recreational. If I smoke everyday thats okay too, but if I don't have pot thats perfectly fine too.

Compare Digital crack to real crack, not pot. Which is a totally unaddictive and not really a "gateway" drug like the government wants you to believe.
 
Superfly3176 said:
What you've just said is an oxymoron, I hope you realize that. Pot isn't addictive, it doesn't have addictive properties. If I dont smoke pot for 6 months thats fine, its recreational. If I smoke everyday thats okay too, but if I don't have pot thats perfectly fine too.

Compare Digital crack to real crack, not pot. Which is a totally unaddictive and not really a "gateway" drug like the government wants you to believe.
Click to expand...

I think he was talking about the fiscal cost of addiction, not the mental cost...
 
I honestly feel like i'm going to scream at the next WW2 game that hits the market. I don't care how easy of a target the Nazi's are, as you can only blast so many of them in a digital environment before getting worn out on it. I'm not even sure how i'm going to respond to ID Software's rumored new Wolfenstein game as it's still set in a WW2 environment. I just wish they would give it a break before returning to the theme.
 
Why don't they make any major like Revolutionary war or Napoleonic era war fps type of games?
 
Stiler said:
Why don't they make any major like Revolutionary war or Napoleonic era war fps type of games?
Click to expand...


I think that would be pretty cool, but WWII had so many great weapons: some of them were brand new or even developed for the war. I'm not sure but I think it would be a nusance taking 30 seconds standing still to reload a musket rifle...... HEAD SHOT!
I just don't feel like it could be done in a fun way and still maintain historical acccuracy. I think that is what WWII games are all about. (within reason)
I look forward to Quake Wars, and Battlefield 2142 or whatever... I think they will be fun.

Gosh, they could make a caveman FPS where the only weapons are rocks, fire, and mabee some spears, but that doesn't sound like that much fun either. lol :p
 
There are way too many...

At a friend's house, everyone always wants to play COD2, over any other possible game he has.

I get tired of it after ~5 minutes, it's just too dull and un-innovative. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but it's just like any other WWII game out there. Even if i'm destroying my friends, I still get bored of it.

The problem with WWII games is that the story is set in stone, and there's nothing new you can really do to it.
 
There are too many of them, but I still enjoy them. I played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault for a while, and now I've moved on to Call of Duty 2 and its always fun. Single player gets old- you just dont get the same DDay experience after you've already done it a million times. Still, I've put a good bit of time into Call of Duty 2 and rifles only just never gets old- one hit kills are very satisfying after you've been playing Unreal Tournament.
 
...wtf?

call of duty is sweet! major bummer that the 3rd isn't going to be coming to the PC. if ya don't like em, don't play em. obviously if there's a ton of them, there's people playing them. it's like elmination reality shows. the more people who watch them, the more copies that all the networks make.
 
Stiler said:
Why don't they make any major like Revolutionary war or Napoleonic era war fps type of games?
Click to expand...

Who do you know that will actually play a game set in either period?
 
I do beleive that there are too many WW2 games as well. However I still like them, as many have said. the sheer quantity of games in this era would not be so bad if nearly all of them didnt focus on the European Theater, or even just land battles.

What i would love to see in a WW2 game would be Pacific theater FPS, naval combat, air combat. give me the pacific! europe is all but played out.

Naval combat was very entertaining if anyone remembers TaskForce 1941 from microprose, i played that game for hours, and the same missions over and over and over..... it was amazingly fun to pilot a battleship and broadside a japanese destroyer with 9 16" guns and 12 5" guns.. so satisfying :)

Fighter combat needs some work in my eyes. I know there is the game Pacific fighters from the people who made IL-2, and it IS fun. but i get tired of flying for looooooong periods of time and not having a coherent, linear campaign like Aces of the Pacific from Dynamix. Midway, Wake, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima... so much material not covered.

FPS can go along way too! give me the battles for Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, etc! all the rest of the islands in the campaign. i just wanna battle in the jungles of the south pacific with my trusty Garand. they could cover the battles from the american AND japanese sides. They could also cover the invasion of america on Attu and Kiska islands here in Alaska.

so much to cover....unless i have missed somting. :D
 
Thermite Paste said:
The problem with WWII games is that the story is set in stone, and there's nothing new you can really do to it.
Click to expand...

That's always been a big problem with 'em for me, as I may have alluded to earlier.
 
Im still waiting for an AA WWII strategy game. There have been many attempts but they always seem to fall short.

Ya, and as someone else said MORE PACIFIC THEATER with ships and planes!
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
I think that would be pretty cool, but WWII had so many great weapons: some of them were brand new or even developed for the war. I'm not sure but I think it would be a nusance taking 30 seconds standing still to reload a musket rifle...... HEAD SHOT!
I just don't feel like it could be done in a fun way and still maintain historical acccuracy. I think that is what WWII games are all about. (within reason)
I look forward to Quake Wars, and Battlefield 2142 or whatever... I think they will be fun.

Gosh, they could make a caveman FPS where the only weapons are rocks, fire, and mabee some spears, but that doesn't sound like that much fun either. lol :p
Click to expand...

Well, a lone gun doesn't have to be it as far as combat goes.

They can have bayonets, and melee combat, etc.

Aswell it could be like brothers in arms where you can control AI aswell. Plus have mounts, etc.

I thought Battlegrounds (hl/hl2 mod) was fairly fun and it's a revolutionary war fps and reloading takes a while in it, it's just a different pace then your usual fps, you get used to it.
 
Superfly3176 said:
What you've just said is an oxymoron, I hope you realize that. Pot isn't addictive, it doesn't have addictive properties. If I dont smoke pot for 6 months thats fine, its recreational. If I smoke everyday thats okay too, but if I don't have pot thats perfectly fine too.

Compare Digital crack to real crack, not pot. Which is a totally unaddictive and not really a "gateway" drug like the government wants you to believe.
Click to expand...


denial


as for to many ww2 games, ill never think that. if it was not for ww2 id never like war movies, or prolly enjoy video games as much. and while most are not great. a few gems a year make it out.


here is 2 out of the plethora of games being made.

pacific storm
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/pc/gam...articleId=20060724164124511024&sectionId=1001

- PT Boats: Knights of the Sea

http://www.hookedgamers.com/forward.../previews/2006/7/pt_boats_knights_of_the_sea/


i think there is a another pt game either just releashed or in the works.


i was just playing blazing angels demo on the xbox 360. i did download it for the pc but i think its more fun prolly on a console controls wise unless your using a joystick. overall i give it a 3.5 out of 5. its good but some stuff just irks me. the planes look really good for what they are.


i wanna give this one a try, not played it since the first version on the first UT
http://www.gamepyre.com/reviewsd.html?aid=754&p=1
Red Orchestra
 
rob2000 said:
denial
Click to expand...

At the risk of turning this into a drug thread, he's right. Pot is not physically addictive. There are no withdrawal symptoms associated with quitting. There is something he left out: a lot of people do become dependent on pot; they "need" it to be able to cope with every day life. They've used it so frequently for so long that they don't know how to function if they haven't used in a while. Psychological addiction is a very real thing, and might actually be the more appropriate comparison in this discussion :)
 
On pot: not addictive. I know. kthnx.

On WWII games: Of course there are to many. There always has been, its nothing new. WWII is a great genre/time to make a game around, it has all the things you need to make a great story and have great action. I'm not worried about "too many" WWII games honestly, I'm worried about "too many shitty" WWII games. The Call of Duty series is a prime example on how even the most overused stuff can still be monsterously fun.
 
Well I am burning out on WW2 games myself. What would be nice is some great armor games. Something like Force 21 but, majorly improved. It wasnt a bad idea really, just not developed fully. Or a good tripple layer game where you can go to an FPS or, third person mode. Other than that most games seem to be the same old, to me.
 
s001.jpg
T-34 vs Tiger looks promising.

http://games.iddk.ru/en/?pg=gm39
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top