- Feb 16, 2009
to be fair, it's hard to make a thrilling, fast paced FPS set in a time that guns take 30 seconds to reload between shots. the only way i could see this working is if your character for one reason or another adopts anachronistic guerrilla tactics, and doesn't generally reload, but in battle moves from corpse to corpse, utilizing their weapons.LegendaryGamer0 said:Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.Parasondox said:Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?
Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.
and that's the other problem. warfare back then was largely boring. rows of men line up against each other and shoot.
better would be the revolutionary war, where american militia members DID resort to guerrilla tactics in the american wilderness, something the red coats were entirely unprepared for. to them, war was a gentleman's game, you line up proper in your teams colors and have a jolly good time. with tea.
now, having said all this, i grew up around gettysburg and seeing the reenactments, so i realize it does get chaotic and hectic at times. specifically, look up a rock formation knows as the Devil's Den. that would have been a crazy battle.
but the fact is that, with the combination of high development costs, expectations of the fanbase, and the inertia of having already been a twitchy adderrall shooter, going this far back would be highly dangerous.
of course, it would be far more interesting than Infinite Warfare. ugh. such a terrible name.