Koki on 12/9/2008 at 04:28
Wow, you managed to get it absolutely backwards. So games in WW2 setting are
more creative than the ones where setting has been made completely from scratch. Good job.
Scots Taffer on 12/9/2008 at 04:55
I wanted to point out that just because so many sci-fi/fantasy games fail to capitalise on the potential for unique environs and characters doesn't mean they are inherently more or less creative than their "based on true events" counterparts. It all boils down to quality, of which there isn't much in any genre.
There are a lot of shoddy people in the so-called creative industries that are less about uniqueness and art and all about product and dollars, which is based on "what sells, do it again, bigger and louder". The same principle of flawed shitty WW2 games can be applied to any game genre, almost every EA sports game iteration, most MMOs in generic fantasy setting, most sci-fi shoot-em-ups, they all lack creativity.
It's not the setting, it's the care in crafting a story worth shit inside that setting, and ultimately that's where WW2 does NOT have a lot going for it because the story is so well-worn and finite, it's also constrained by the realities of what happened unless you're doing alt-universe shit, which is -again- almost too controversial and creative for studios to embrace. They'd rather pump up another practically identical YOU'RE A SOLDIER IN NO-MANS-LAND/BOMBED-OUT-CITY/DESERT/JUNGLE/SECRET-BUNKER and the gameplay is near identical in all of them. Games not in WW2 at least have more POTENTIAL of being unique/creative, in my opinion.
june gloom on 12/9/2008 at 05:43
They have more potential but they don't fucking use it. They're all Star Wars/Heinlein/Aliens/etc. clones. Tell me that's somehow more original than WW2 games. WW2 games at least have an excuse in that they're based on a real world setting and therefore have their own restrictions.
I love having to repeat myself. :tsktsk:
Scots Taffer on 12/9/2008 at 05:56
You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, if you want - the fact remains you're making the WRONG fucking POINT.
It's not about that they ARE more or less creative, I'd argue as genres fantasy/sci-fi/war are all equally stagnant and unoriginal, but the potential for creativity is still far greater for the fantasy/sci-fi universes. WW2 games need not be restricted if developers are willing to think outside the box a little. It doesn't take much to take a sideways glance at a genre.
Volitions Advocate on 12/9/2008 at 05:59
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
"what sells, do it again, bigger and louder"
k wait though. What do you call halo 2 and 3? or UT 2003/2004/3? definately a good example of exactly what you're complaining about, so its not as though WWII games deserve all the flak. I think they're just an easy target because they all have a familiar face.
Quote:
it's also constrained by the realities of what happened unless you're doing alt-universe shit, which is -again- almost too controversial and creative for studios to embrace.
Turning Point: Fall of Liberty.
Volitions Advocate on 12/9/2008 at 06:01
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
It's not about that they ARE more or less creative, I'd argue as genres fantasy/sci-fi/war are all equally stagnant and unoriginal, ........ WW2 games need not be restricted if developers are willing to think outside the box a little. It doesn't take much to take a sideways glance at a genre.
I agree. again. TP:FOL is a good example.
I still haven't played it mind you, but I'd like to.
Scots Taffer on 12/9/2008 at 06:04
Christ, then it has the opposite problem... I weep for the game industry sometimes.
Quote Posted by Wikipedia
Turning Point: Fall of Liberty received generally negative reviews. IGN.com noted the unique concept for the game's plot, but criticized the quality of the gaming experience as "archaic". Other criticisms included a flat, linear storyline that provided little characterization, a lackluster and unamusing multiplayer mode, and frustratingly uncooperative gameplay actions such as climbing ladders. The musical score was better received, being described as a solid and well-made part of the game. Overall, the game was considered a "shining example of a great idea poorly executed."[26]
And is it a good example? Or the only example? Can't be good if it failed critically and commercially and there aren't any others to follow.
Volitions Advocate on 12/9/2008 at 06:06
have you played it yet? or is your opinion based on what they all said?
EDIT: as for comercial failing.. SS2 was a relative commercial failure and there has been no follow ups. I'd hardly say it was no good.
Scots Taffer on 12/9/2008 at 06:08
I hadn't even heard of it until now. It doesn't suprise me that I haven't when it got unanimously poor reviews DESPITE having a unique story. You see, it's the age-old problem of needing more than one gear to come together in order to make the engine run. I'm bemoaning the fact that it appears to be a bad game and a poor example of trying to do something OTHER than the usual crap, not criticising it as such.
Edit: stop taking a tilt at me like I'm attacking you, I'm not, I'm provoking questions not saying I have answers, and your SS2 analogy is just plain wrong.
Fafhrd on 12/9/2008 at 06:30
I think we need more World War I games, frankly. There's a setting that hasn't been done to death.
Just imagine machine guns actually being a rare and terrifying presence on the battlefield; clouds of mustard gas rolling over No Man's Land like night mist, and scrambling to equip your gas mask while watching your comrades literally vomit out their own intestines; trying to decide if the risk to your own people is worth sending a pigeon to call for an artillery strike, and praying christ that the Hun doesn't shoot your last pigeon when it finally becomes an unavoidable necessity.
I almost want to pitch this game, now.
