Anyone would easily notice the numorous amounts of WWII games on the market (for quite awhile). And it seems more games about this era are still coming out (CoD 2, DoD:S, etc.)


It appears that the sense of innovation used in these WWII is quite limited, because, of course, it has to be WWIIish down to its roots. But after seeing and playing this titles, it seems that new and innovating concepts brought to this genre seem to be somewhat small tweaks and details. BF1942 brought vehicles into gameplay. Call of Duty, correct me if I'm wrong, was the first to introduce the Russian side of the war. Yes, it is interesting what game developers can add to games about this era, but overall, WWII titles seem to all flow in the same direction. Playing games about Second World War for the first time was like, "this is awesome! I'm playing in the war!" Now, the average reaction toward these games is probably, "Been there, done that." I understand that titles about this war can not have new insanely, incredible concepts or features added without the game looking silly, so I think them being in this WWII genre is the problem. Sure, players may face interesting experiences in these various war games, unfortunately, players may feel they are facing the same experience throughout these titles overall. *shrug*


The only WWII game that struck me as the most innovating would be RtCW with the zombies and monsters with electrical a**es, but many could argue if it is really belongs in this genre in the first place.

Probably the only real aspect about these games that bring players buying and playing is the gameplay. Sure, the same weapons are featured over and over again, but shooting people can be fun for awhile. That is pretty much a FPS is all about. Vehicles and such add to the mix, I guess. And playing online can be alot of fun because, well, online gameplay is pretty much where any new innovation lingers. People can make up new experiences, gameplay ideas, and so on when playing with each other. The gameplay is probably the only true selling point, ...for me, for checking out a new WWII game. This is because, personally, the atmosphere and the idea being a part of a virtual world in this era is, well, quite overuse for some time now.

What do think about WWII games? To be honest, I think I will be checking out Cod2 and DoD:S, among other games. Are you still interested in this genre?

I play a deal of DoD nowadays, and I'm certain that most people do not play for the WW2 aspect. In fact, they tend to do the same three or four maps, in an entirely repetitive manner. It's no more a WW2 simulator than Counter-Strike is a counter-terrorism simulator any more.

I'm not going to go out and buy a WWII shooter because it's a WWII game, but I will buy a good game. CoD remains one of my all-time favorite games, and I'd like to try out Brothers in Arms, as that looks like a really cool concept.

Actually, it seems like most of the WWII shooters turned out to be pretty good games, (which cannot be said for the Vietnam-themed shooters :p )

Right. I didn't really have a point besides "CoD rocks"

I loved MoH and Battlefield 1942. I thought CoD was a good game but hugely overrated because it didn't offer anything new. I don't see how a new set of (Russian) guns counts as renewing. After that I just got completely sick and tired of the genre and haven't touched a WW2 game since.

- Oh, with the exception of Hidden and Dangerous II which I consider to be the best WW2 action game ever. Enjoyed that much more than MoH though it had a few quirky levels-

And well it's that I don't care for strategy games, but the flood of WW2 games there seems to be even larger, not to mention flight (and submarine?) simulators.

Sure some of those new ww2 games are very good games and all that, but if it isn't renewing in *any* way whatsoever I'm just not going to bother with it.

Also a mayor reason I never cared much for the WW2 genre anyway is because I play games mostely for the story and well WW2 games either just follow a story we have long heard at school and tv a billion times, or have some dodgy story about you having to reconquer this and that as to ensure victory for the main troopos, bla bla.

But then again I'm more into RPG, TBS and Platform games anyway.

I'm still waiting for one that uses real things(Support, Massive Maps, AI that can make a tactical decision). You have no idea how many times I wished I could call in Artillery Support in some of these games... And I don't mean something that spawns a few explosions on the ground.

BF1942 is really only a multiplayer game with horrible AI. Not even a good one since people will routinely run off with a very useful weapon(Bomber, Artillery) and use it for a one man transport.

Until someone gives us this i've always got whatever mods are out for Operation Flashpoint(Quite a few...)...

What could it offer? Nothing. But it perfected the way everything was done, which is why it's so great. The score, the atmosphere, the voice acting, the models, the textures, the effects, everything was modelled around making the game perfect, and it worked.

And anyone who says games like DoD or BF1942 don't use teamwork need to get into clan matches. Honestly, that's where those games shine.

CoD made the game a lot ore personal. It made the player feel like they were actually there with the superb atmosphere.

CoD did have a nice atmosphere. A good change of pace would be one as the Afrika Corps or something, but good luck possibly ever having a realistic portrayal of playing as the 'bad guys' released in America.

Also, World War II was a *world* war. Only recently have I seen titles about the Russian campaign or the Pacific Theater.

Some things I would like to see:
- A game that does some part of World War I justice, and I mean beyond just trench warfare. Think cavalry, bicycle units, those biplanes flying around, massive artillery strikes, swords, mauser pistols, scimitars, machine gun nests and line after line of German troops.... *Sergeant York reverie*

- Some of the Imperial age campaigns but on the battlefield, like against the Abyssinians, the Zulus, the Boxer Rebels, or the Incas. Yes, you'd have vastly more lethal technology, but sheer numbers and tactics would serve a great challenge. "Fetch me some tea, old chap... old chap?" *arrow in the heart*

- French Indochina, the Korean War, the Phillipine Uprising, the Mexican War, battling Barbary pirates.

- CAMPAIGNS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

Unfortunately, many of these concepts still hold a lot of charge in people's opinions, so the politically correct nature of the market would kill much or all originality of these games (i.e. Europeans = evil and their victories = travesties because they had better weapons and were meany expansionists)

You lot seem to be over overlooking Mohaa:SH (first russian bits to my knowlege)

Brothers in arms is the possibly the best WW2 game I've played.
although I've only played the demo.
The team aspects of it are very unique and makes you really care about your AI companions.

I really did enjoy COD as well.

[QUOTE=Commander 598]I'm still waiting for one that uses real things(Support, Massive Maps, AI that can make a tactical decision). You have no idea how many times I wished I could call in Artillery Support in some of these games... And I don't mean something that spawns a few explosions on the ground.

BF1942 is really only a multiplayer game with horrible AI. Not even a good one since people will routinely run off with a very useful weapon(Bomber, Artillery) and use it for a one man transport.

Until someone gives us this i've always got whatever mods are out for Operation Flashpoint(Quite a few...)...[/QUOTE]


CoD2 will have all that, but maybe not the artillary strikes. I read up on CoD2 in a PCGamer preview, and you're more or less dropped into a living battlefield which will never play the same twice. The AI is supposed to be great aswell.

CoD2 screenshots make me whimper with a pathetic and probably repulsive longing.

oh man oh man

Artillery strikes should only be available if you have a living squadmate with a radio, and it should take them an accurate amount of time to be fired and then hit.

We we're talking about this in the #massassi chat a few weeks ago as I recall.

What would make the game really interesting and innovative, would be having like a German campaign.
We eventually came to the conclusion though, that everyone would boycott the game, automatically thinking German=Nazi.

Well, I don't know if WWI would make a good game (if it followed historical standards). Biplanes and tanks were quite primitive in combat. People wouldn't really like carrying and shooting/reloading those slow, bolt-action rifles (correct me if I'm wrong about WWI weapons). Swords and bayonets were pretty much just for intimidation, but people could still use them if they aren't somehow shot first. WWI put the end of the cavalry, although people might enjoy killing people while riding horses.

It would be interesting if people could release containers of poisonous gas on the enemy.

*shrug*

WWI was a series of rifle armed infantry running into machine gun fire.

I doubt that. CoD didn't exactly have impressively large maps, CoD2's maps will probably be under 2km. The viewdistance will probably be below 500m most of the time(I can set Flashpoints to 2500m and still play it).

I like being able to spot that enemy tank column long before it can spot me, and have plenty of room to go around it.

CoD2's AI probably won't be any real different from CoD's AI, it's greatest tactic is side-stepping and diving away from and on grenades, and alot of scripted stuff. I like immersive games, I like realistic immersive games even better.



So that accounts for 10% of the games that my crappy modem can't play anyway.



As compared to those slow, bolt-action rifles from WW2?

Have you ever watched Lawrence of Arabia? I would pay $50 to charge a machinegun nest alongside mounted sword-wielding nomads.

I didn't like Call of Duty. The A.I. had the I.Q. of a bag of rocks. Plus you always ended up killing everyone yourself because most of them had crap aim. It isn't a bad game, but it isn't the best WWII game ever like so many seem to think.

Brothers in Arms wasn't as bad as CoD, but I still didn't like it. They tried way to hard to make the game 'realistic' and they turned it into this WAY over-dramatic crap-a-thon. Throwing in random F-words to make it seem more realistic, overly dramatic squad sounds and cutscenes that are like 'Days of Our Lives' and all this other junk made it bleh.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein I liked because it didn't try to be realistic (even when you were just fighting nazis and not zombies). The A.I. wasn't that great either, but it wasn't mind numbingly annoying either. RtCW was fun because it wasn't over complicated. It was a simple shoot em up game about nazis and super natural zombies and stuff. It's a big breath of fresh air from all these 'super realistic and dramatic WWII games' that try and become Band of Brothers: The Game, but fail because they suck.

(DoD and BF1942 I liked too :p)

BF42... though i think they failed with the weapons... there may have been others but that's the only one i can think of

Watch the CoD2 Normandy trailer, then tell me you're tired of WWII.

Yeah. That was pure sex.

I also watched the CoD2 Normandy trailer. The game's graphics look great and there seems to be alot of intense action.

But it also appears that alot of the game is scripted.

A WW1 would not be very fun. Trench warfare would not translate well into a game experience.

Perhaps a game based on Gallipoli, or one based on Austrian soldiers fighting partisans. Settings like those are probably too obscure.

I want a WWII game from the perspective of the german soldiers.

Since you liked BF1942, your opinion is void.

You just voided 99% of the gaming community's opinion

SAJN--opinions plzkthx. I think it's the best WW2 game ever--it's certainly the best PRODUCED WW2 game ever but whether or not you think it's not that great because the AI supposedly sucks (though I think it's actually fairly decent, especially on hardest setting) does not effect the quality of the title. It's got a great production, great music, great voice acting, great atmosphere, animations, it does the weapons really well, etc. The fact that you didn't like it based on one simple factor is kind of silly, to me.

99% Don't play/edit Jk/Mots, even less actually play PC games, even less actually understand history or ballistics.

BF1942 is quite historically inaccurate. There were probably less trees at the actual Battle of Kursk than are in BF1942's super scaled down map, not to mention the complete lack of Soviet weapons(Some of which have tactical signifigance).

A.I. is what makes up a large chunk of gameplay. Gameplay is what makes a game. If the A.I. sucks, the gameplay sucks...the game sucks. Would FarCry still be a good game if the A.I. was horrible? Hell no. It would suck.

[QUOTE=Commander 598]

As compared to those slow, bolt-action rifles from WW2?[/QUOTE]

Garand..M1 Carbine..Thompson submachinegun..M3A1 'Grease gun'..they weren't around in WW1.

If you want to talk about inaccuracies in BF1942, there are plenty more...the Battle of Midway was not fought on Midway..you can't parachute out of a Corsair and fire a bazooka on the way down..etc. Does that mean I don't like the game? No..I find it entertaining regardless. If you want realism, go reenact or something.




Close Combat III: The Russian Front
Minimum requirements: Pentium 133, 32mb RAM

I think that came a bit before MOHAA.

FarCry would still be decent, but it depends on if you like killing hordes of monsters or not. That's why I stopped playing after the mercenaries disappeared. CoD's AI wasn't even all that bad, especially not on the harder difficulty settings.

[QUOTE=Commander 598]99% Don't play/edit Jk/Mots, even less actually play PC games, even less actually understand history or ballistics.

BF1942 is quite historically inaccurate. There were probably less trees at the actual Battle of Kursk than are in BF1942's super scaled down map, not to mention the complete lack of Soviet weapons(Some of which have tactical signifigance).[/QUOTE]

...who cares about accuracy?

It's still fun.

Watching the AI of your allies was painful in CoD though. Especially when almost all of your team gets ripped apart by one enemy machine gun.

I think some historical accuracy is needed for WWII games (except of RtCW of course) otherwise the game will start to look silly when certain aspects seem obviously "out of place."

True, but they did that for a reason--you were the focus of the game.



BF42 has enough historical accuracy. Some innacuracies obviously need to be made to balance out the playing field.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]True, but they did that for a reason--you were the focus of the game.[/QUOTE]


I somewhat agree. But, in war combat, soldiers should work more as a team. I believe that idea was mentioned by the makers of the game.

It wasn't random. It wasn't done to make it seem realistic. It was done because it was realistic.

yeah. right. like anybody nicer than me will be running around with an m180 and yelling stuff like F*** you, ****ing NAZI!! BURN IN HELL! before shooting?

...

The monsters made FarCry so much better. The game would have been so boring if it was just shooting mercenaries for the entire game. By adding the monsters it made the game scary, suspensful and more fun. FarCry was fun before the monsters, but when they introduced the monsters it made you even more aware and on your feet. You not only had to look out for flanking mercs you also had to keep about your wits because at any time a monster could just run at your face and slash you >.<

It did? I could've sworn it made the game dull, stupid, and just another "LOL SHOOT AT THAT THING BEFORE IT KILLS YOU" game which...well to be honest is not what it was made for.

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=34713

No one posted on my thread.