omg do i need to put "this is a joke" at the beginning of every joke i make now?lightningmagurn said:There is no truth in that statement. Germany was pounded into ruin by The Soviets, while America and England ate away at it's resources. America literally vaporised, burned or irradiated between 150,000 and 246,000 depending on who you ask. Incase that didn't work we had the worlds biggest invasion force ever on speed dial. The lost. All major axis cities were turned to rubble and ash.Jeffrey Ross said:They didn't lose, they just got bored.Jackpot524 said:You mean play a Campaign that you are eventually destined to lose? I don't see any sense of accomplishment being gained there...
That is not getting bored. That is loosing. They had nothing left to give. They lost in every concievable way.
That's an entirely different story. The afgan war is going on right now. WW2 is in the past. Pearl Harbour was more than half a century ago and 9/11 not even a decade.Jroo wuz heer said:didnt a developer JUST try a game playable as the taliban and fail miserably? isnt this the same thing?
True noone said it HAD to be realistic. Probably wont happen though, at least not in a long while until WW2 is basically what the middle ages is to us today.busterkeatonrules said:Who said anything about losing? Surely the point of such a game would be for the player to try and do a BETTER job than the original Axis forces?Jackpot524 said:You mean play a Campaign that you are eventually destined to lose? I don't see any sense of accomplishment being gained there...
The guerrilla warfare sounds interesting, if done right. Any game that attempts it (Red Faction: Guerrilla and The Saboteur) make it a tad ham-handed.Hardcore_gamer said:A German campaign would be interesting, but a Japanese campaign would mostly just be either guerilla warfare against the Chinese, genocide against the Chinese, and hopelessly one sided battles against the US where you loose almost every time.
I don't see your point. Everyone on any front line of any war ever killed people. When Americans gunned down Nazis, they were killing people. Men with families. Men who were individually mourned at funerals by loved ones, and were buried in graves.I agree entirely with your post, however regarding this line those men who stood against overwhelming odds killed people.
I don't think the games industry has to justify tasteful - not since Manhunt. MW2 proved this with their 'mowing down of civilians' level.SacremPyrobolum said:Wouldnt it be interesting for you to be the one mowing down the Americans durring Dday instead of the other way around? How about participating in Pear Harbor. Sure their will be a backlash, but the industry is not stranger to that. As long as the whole thing is presented in a tasteful and unbias way...
It's no more boring that playing as the winning side. That's what I've always disliked about WWII games: you already know how the story ends. Win or lose, it's still boring.Jackpot524 said:You mean play a Campaign that you are eventually destined to lose? I don't see any sense of accomplishment being gained there...
I love how, no matter whether you're on the good side or the bad side, there's always an excuse to shoot at Russians. They've superseded good and bad to become everybody's common enemy.Nagisa94 said:They don't even have to portray the player character fighting Americans, put him on the Eastern front, fight Russians.
Why? Why stray away from that subject? Mowing down Germans, Russians, Iraqis, Afghans and Africans is okay, but leave Americans alone? What, pray tell, is the difference?Nagisa94 said:It would be cool to see another perspective, while straying from things such as "mowing down the Americans during Dday". They don't even have to portray the player character fighting Americans, put him on the Eastern front, fight Russians. (...)
Getting squashed on the edges of the Volga is no fun.bog7metal said:it would be interesting to play as different axis countries like Romania