The untapped FPS genre!

[Sir_Montague]

Wait, aren't there several real games out there like this already?

[http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/historychannelcivilwar/index.html?tag=result;title;0]

 

[Jazzyluv]

I never said i had good game ideas, the only problem with this discussion is it flawed because some think setting has to do with how fun the game is. It doesn't its that simple, COD2 was a great game, liked it alot more than COD4, simply because it's multiplayer wasn't absolute shit.

The conclusion, setting has very little to do with the quality of a game. The next COD game could be put in fucking medieval settings with guns, and as long as it goes with how COD2 and COD4 epicness and well thought out pacing then it will be just as good.

That was the point, If you didn't get it.

If it was easy to design a game then we would have alot of good games. But we don't, and it's because stupid people think they have good ideas, that simple.

We all know that a shitty game with Civil War trappings would still be a shitty game. No one said otherwise. Everyone in this thread would probably choose a game with great mechanics and a poor setting than the reverse. Who said it was easy to design games? No one in this thread. It's completely irrelevant, so take your strawman elsewhere. For most people, a game's setting has a significant impact on how they experience it. If that is not you, fair enough. But stop being a cock to the majority who can appreciate a winning theme. Let me ask this: why do games have settings at all? Isn't it a waste of time and resources? As you say, it doesn't effect how people experience a game.

We all understand your point, don't worry about that. The problem is that your point is not relevant to most gamers and is made in the most inflammatory way possible.

I ask again- Why do games have setting at all?

because, people need to rationalize games in ways they sort of understand, that is why games have settings. Look at the two people in between our posts, do you think those are good ideas?

The whole point of the thread is stupid. I'm tired of "oh god another space marine and WW2 game" threads because it has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and the quality of the experience.

I understand the point of why we have these things, i just think attacking certain settings is stupid, and ill attack those that think that.

: )

 

[DND Judgement]

i'd say they should stear clear of sci-fi and WW2 for a while..... there's way too many out there.... and they're all just the same...

 

[Unknower]

Why has nobody made a FPS game where you can actually play as a Terrorist, or a WWII game from the German perspective? Do people not realise that playing the bad guys is FUN? Yeah, so people will ***** about how "bad taste" it is, but you can guarantee half the planet would buy any shitty game if you just put the tag line "You get to blow up the White House!" on the cover.

It's what made the C&C NOD campaign worth beating.

You can play as terrorists in C&C: Generals and C&C: G: Zero Hour and in Zero Hour, US loses. Props to EA for having the guts to make a political statement like that.

Speaking of which, maybe games could be more interesting if they handled important stuff, like, I don't know, how western countries abuse Africa so much.

I wonder why Valve don't make a game about the seven hour war?
You can like unlock different characters with their own stories on different battlefields with different focuses, starting with a run of the mill soldier, moving to a partisan style guy and someone from elite squadron. Maybe even a view from the other side.
You could play it in real time too as each experience will last 7 hours at most, starting from the portal storms up until the character is ultimately killed.
Just made that up, sounds like a good idea from my point of view.

I'm pretty sure they've thought about it. I guess they haven't made it yet because they're slower than friggin' turtles. I'm beginning to wonder have they even began making concept art for Half-Life 3 yet!

Also, I bet Adrian Shephard's in it.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

because, people need to rationalize games in ways they sort of understand, that is why games have settings. Look at the two people in between our posts, do you think those are good ideas?

The whole point of the thread is stupid. I'm tired of "oh god another space marine and WW2 game" threads because it has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and the quality of the experience.

I understand the point of why we have these things, i just think attacking certain settings is stupid, and ill attack those that think that.

: )

That rationalization you mention is part of the setting. Even excluding the other parts, it's the setting that needs to do a good job rationalizing the action. But these are semantics, and I get your point. For the two people between us, yes, I think they are great ideas. How could they not be? Specifics are not really mentioned. But I could easily compare those ideas to good games that have come before.

You are projecting your opinion onto the rest of us. Just because the setting doesn't matter to you, you presume that it shouldn't matter to me. Well, maybe I need something better out of my games than you do. Your opinion does not dictate how I perceive games. Stating your opinion is fine, ramming it down my throat is not. Seriously, who the hell are you to decide where I derive my enjoyment from a game?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Props to EA for having the guts to make a political statement like that.

I don't think it was a political statement. You give EA way too much credit.

 

[the protaginist]

Okay okay, i got it, it got it! Here is my American Revolutionary War idea.

Dystopian future. England very upset because it's slowly being destroyed. American taken over by some sort of mind control device. I don't know. Anyway, some bright spark decides to travel back in time and change the outcomes of the war. You play a neo-londoner time travelling space marine who goes back in time and makes subtle changes (assasinating random people, using machine guns to destroy entire armies...) to history. You could fight actual people from then (murdering them in massive amounts) and other, American, time travellers. And at some point in the game your items would all be destroyed and you'd have to start surviving using old technology... And you'd probably die of syphilis. Ooh, and *time travelling* puzzles like in majoras mask...

Yep, i think this is an excellent idea. Fun, original AND educational. AND it would offend everyone if you made massive stereotypes of english/americans/black slaves --> uber sales.

I'd play it.

 

[Unknower]

Props to EA for having the guts to make a political statement like that.

I don't think it was a political statement. You give EA way too much credit.

Maybe, maybe not. EA could sometimes do something right in some way.

 

[goodman528]

American revolution makes a rubbish basis for a first person shooter. The tactics of the day was marching in sync in formation, slowly towards your enemy, then shooting volleys, where really whether you aim or not aim is completely irrelevant because there's so much smoke and muskets are so inaccurate. As a strategy game, like Empires: total war, sure, great idea, but as a shooter, no way.

Maybe a Robin Hood FPS would be a much better idea. Arrows reloads in 4 seconds, compared to muskets' 40 seconds, and arrows from a legendary archer would be much more accurate than a musket ball.

 

[Zeke109]

Theres a Rev. War mod for Battlefield Vietnam: Insurrection 1776.

 

[Good morning blues]

Well, I guess you'd have to totally whitewash all the atrocities. But they managed that by putting the Soviet Union in COD, so I guess it can be done.

I realize that this is from two pages ago, but I really do have to point out that the closest thing to an atrocity that I've ever seen an American character carry out in a video game is in the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault tank level where you're ordered to blow up houses so that German dudes can't hide in them. This is a far cry from the secret detention centres, torture, massacres, and targeting of civilians that have occurred in real life. Atrocities are always whitewashed in video games, no matter what conflict it is or who you're playing as.


And to be a bit more on topic, a revolutionary war shooter would be pretty boring - you walk in formation, stand there, and shoot blindly. Even a WW1 shooter wouldn't be much fun - you stand in a trench, go over the top, and shoot blindly. I would like to see more wild west six-gun type shooters, however.

 

[Duskwaith]

The indian wars.

Rifles where decent enough and both sides hand them(Well one more than the other) and add the french in for the helll of it.

 

[Jazzyluv]

because, people need to rationalize games in ways they sort of understand, that is why games have settings. Look at the two people in between our posts, do you think those are good ideas?

The whole point of the thread is stupid. I'm tired of "oh god another space marine and WW2 game" threads because it has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and the quality of the experience.

I understand the point of why we have these things, i just think attacking certain settings is stupid, and ill attack those that think that.

: )

That rationalization you mention is part of the setting. Even excluding the other parts, it's the setting that needs to do a good job rationalizing the action. But these are semantics, and I get your point. For the two people between us, yes, I think they are great ideas. How could they not be? Specifics are not really mentioned. But I could easily compare those ideas to good games that have come before.

You are projecting your opinion onto the rest of us. Just because the setting doesn't matter to you, you presume that it shouldn't matter to me. Well, maybe I need something better out of my games than you do. Your opinion does not dictate how I perceive games. Stating your opinion is fine, ramming it down my throat is not. Seriously, who the hell are you to decide where I derive my enjoyment from a game?

Maybe because your conclusions are wrong, yes, i will continue to shove my opinion down peoples throat, I don't feel like bullshitting around like most do to persuade people. I don't derive pleasure from games from settings, and neither do most people, they just don't realize it. That's the point, ever see the movie taxi? their was a women who was totally terrified of the state of the planet, but her real problem was that she was having problems with her husband, life, and family. Same thing, its not the setting that makes the game horrible, its just alot of shitty games have fallen under that setting. Attacking a setting will not achieve anything.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Maybe because your conclusions are wrong, yes, i will continue to shove my opinion down peoples throat, I don't feel like bullshitting around like most do to persuade people. I don't derive pleasure from games from settings, and neither do most people, they just don't realize it. That's the point, ever see the movie taxi? their was a women who was totally terrified of the state of the planet, but her real problem was that she was having problems with her husband, life, and family. Same thing, its not the setting that makes the game horrible, its just alot of shitty games have fallen under that setting. Attacking a setting will not achieve anything.

So your argument is that it's everyone else who is crazy. Not you. Taxi has nothing to do with this. It is a good movie though. Besides, many of us, the OP included, are not attacking the WWII or any other setting. Simply stating that there are many great, untapped settings. This is a ridiculous argument. What's the point? I say that setting matters to me, based on my opinion of the effect it has on my perception of games, and you say that this is merely a delusion I have created.

You are just trolling, and it has become pretty blatant at this point. How arrogant is it to say that people who think the setting effects their experience of a game are delusional? I could as easily claim that setting is the only thing that matters, and a game's mechanics do not influence someone's experience of it. It would be just as easy, and then I would be just as much a cock. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Troll elsewhere, please.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Oh man, how many times do I have to say this? Watching The Patriot does not make anybody an authority on historical warfare. Armies in the past did all the same things that modern armies do: storm cities, conduct raids... Oh god, I cannot bring myself to repeat it.

 

[hypothetical fact]

What about a roman legion fps? Though you would have to be playing from the perspective of the barbarian hordes otherwise it would be formation marching all the way.

 

[TOGSolid]

What about a roman legion fps? Though you would have to be playing from the perspective of the barbarian hordes otherwise it would be formation marching all the way.

Could probably pull that off with a Mount and Blade mod actually. I wouldn't be surprised if there's one already out or in developement, it's been a while since I've checked their forums.

You are just trolling, and it has become pretty blatant at this point.

I kinda pointed that out the minute he made his first post.

Oh man, how many times do I have to say this? Watching The Patriot does not make anybody an authority on historical warfare. Armies in the past did all the same things that modern armies do: storm cities, conduct raids... Oh god, I cannot bring myself to repeat it.

Except muskets suck. The Battlegrounds mod for Half Life pretty much proved it to everyone without us actually having to go buy anything.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Except muskets suck. The Battlegrounds mod for Half Life pretty much proved it to everyone without us actually having to go buy anything.

That is beside my point, but I can certainly understand the opinion. I still play that Battlegrounds Mod, as do many. To me, it proved muskets do work. It's entirely subjective.

There are always doom-callers and nay-sayers about something that hasn't been done before. We have games already which don't have guns at all, and a lot of people like those. So there's no reason to think breech-loaders couldn't work in a game.

 

[Tartarga]

I think you just won the game...

I'd definitely buy it

as would i also... I JUST LOST THE GAME!

 

[Jumplion]

How about a game about the six day-war!
No?

I actually like that idea, and the first mission would be the bombing of the Egyptian airforce (?) I believe or something like that.