Poll: are world war 2 games getting old?
- Thread starter thatdude1243
- Start date
Not getting.... Gone.thatdude1243 said:
The last WWII shooter that was infinitely awesome (and still has yet to be topped) was MOH: Pacific Assault.
It's been trampled, stomped on, beaten like an old blanket, spit on, set a fire, thrown down a long pit, shred to pieces and then nuked.
ESPECIALLY MEDAL OF HONOR!!!I think it's good for all people to remember about WWII as long as possible. This MAY help to prevent WWIII as long as people remember the WWIII.That is why WWII games should never become old as well, cause they give us a chance to remember. I love Company of Heroes, but at the moment playing the new Order of War, which is also very good.
What I wanna know is why there aren't any games where you play an ANZAC (that's Australian and New Zealand Army Corps for those who don't know) fighting in Gallipoli.
Not only are they old, they were old years ago! I'm guessing the constant influx of young gamers who haven't seen it done a million times is what keeps such games going, but personally I've had more than my fill of WW2 by the time Company of Heroes hit. The 3-4 years since then have only been driving the nail in deeper.
Essentially, I discount any action or FPS game that's claiming to be set in WW2 by default. Strategy or RPG games in that setting are not disregarded immediately, but still recieve a massive amount of negative points, so no matter how good the game, it'll only be mediocre at best in my eyes (CoH, I'm looking at you). Leeway is given for alternate history or new angles on the whole mess, but I still look disfavourably on such games.
Essentially, I discount any action or FPS game that's claiming to be set in WW2 by default. Strategy or RPG games in that setting are not disregarded immediately, but still recieve a massive amount of negative points, so no matter how good the game, it'll only be mediocre at best in my eyes (CoH, I'm looking at you). Leeway is given for alternate history or new angles on the whole mess, but I still look disfavourably on such games.
Really, you disliked CoH for being in a ww2 setting? That was one of the selling points for me, I can't think of any other RTS game set in that time frame. The gameplay complimented the setting brilliantly.Jandau said:
Yes, they were overdone at one point. Kinda like generic sci-fi supersoldier shotters are now, the setting in a first person shooter is largely unimportant, the gunplay and mechanics are far more relevant.
The scene is not overdone, especially for good games (call of duty 2, medal of honour airbourne etc), it's just that so many crap games used it for so long.
Yes! Either give me a game where I can play has a Nazi soldier, or make a WW1 game. OR BETTER, make a FPS where you control a soldier in Napoleon's army aiding him in conquering Europe?
But please, stop making WW2 games. We've had enough of those, HONESTLY!
But please, stop making WW2 games. We've had enough of those, HONESTLY!
OF COURSE they're old!!! They died, went to hell, spent eternity down there, got reincarnated, died again and repeated the process about a billion times already! PLEASE stop making them and PLEASE stop buying them!
Don't get me wrong; WW2 games are fun when they are done well.
However most are just plain crap:
--they are getting a bit old.
--most of them are rigged; one US soldier can take down entire German or Japanese armies.
--I have yet to see a good WW2 game that shows the Axis side (they may exist, but are crap).
I would like to see a realistict WW2 game, meaning that for once the enemy would do something smart like shoot properly or have some tactical prowess.
However most are just plain crap:
--they are getting a bit old.
--most of them are rigged; one US soldier can take down entire German or Japanese armies.
--I have yet to see a good WW2 game that shows the Axis side (they may exist, but are crap).
I would like to see a realistict WW2 game, meaning that for once the enemy would do something smart like shoot properly or have some tactical prowess.
I've just never found the WW2 setting particularly interesting. Of all the Battlefield games (for example) the only one I've ever owned was BF2142, and I liked that game a lot. I played Battlefield 1942 a while before that, and I found it okay but not as engaging.
I guess as long as the core gameplay is solid, the only real distinction is what setting you find most interesting. Personally, I've always preferred gritty and futuristic to gritty and contemporary.
I guess as long as the core gameplay is solid, the only real distinction is what setting you find most interesting. Personally, I've always preferred gritty and futuristic to gritty and contemporary.
60 and something is a long period. But WWII is too an important event of the last century to get old so quickly. Good war games are good. Bad war games are bad.