june gloom on 28/7/2008 at 23:57

---

In defense of the WW2 genre:

First of all, why all the complaints about there being too many games set in World War 2 when there are hundreds if not thousands of games taking place in some generic space or fantasy setting?

Second of all, the two biggest contributers to the conception of WW2 games being ubiquitous has been Medal of Honour and Battlefield 1942. Medal of Honour has what, 10 games in the series? They're pretty much all crap, too (with the exception of Infiltrator and to some extent Airborne.) BF1942 had a huge following for years and is largely responsible for there being a heavy multiplayer element in WW2 games these days (it's been reduced to a bunch of hardcore clan fags who scream cheater for doing stuff that's described in the manual.) Granted, there are quite a few WW2 series, but to be perfectly honest World War 2 has been a common theme since the days of tabletop wargaming. I had a history teacher who had so many wargames I suggested that he could basically re-enact every battle from the invasion of Poland in 1939 all the way to the battle of Berlin. This tradition continued into the strategy genre of PC gaming, and into the RTS subgenre.

So why is it so common? Because firstly it's a real-world setting that's far back enough in time that it effectively avoids political issues that a game set in the modern day (or even as far back as Vietnam) would not. The only exception would be censorship in Germany. But also, WW2 mixed modernized combat with older equipment making for an interesting juxtaposition of old and new.

I think the fascination these days with World War 2- a fascination which seemed to die out in the 70s and 80s- is due to Saving Private Ryan, which was the first WW2 film to really portray the sheer brutality of the war. It used to be, a character died he would just fall over, no blood. Nowadays it's much more realistic. The film was revolutionary in the war movie genre, and established a certain style that would be used in war movies since. This happened just as FPS games were beginning to come into their own and break away from the "Doom clone" label. Okay, granted, there was Castle Wolfenstein way back on the Apple II, and then Wolfenstein 3D, but they weren't really about famous battles- instead it played on the WW2-era style of espionage and intrique. The lack of realistic locations, too, was a result of the technology of the time. The first FPS to ever actually show some simile of WW2 combat was actually a mod for Duke Nukem 3D that came out in 1997. The creators went on to make WW2GI, which sucked. The point is that Duke3D was one of the first games to portray a real-world setting as realistically as possible, proving that FPS games were more than (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_%28series%29) just the same damn hallway over and over and over. This allowed for a level of detail that previous games could not reach- and thus the modern WW2 shooter was born.

The truth is, there's nothing wrong with the genre itself. The problem isn't that there are a lot of games with that setting, it's that way too many of them are either trash or not that memorable unless you're a die-hard RTS nerd. If you're going to complain about WW2 games complain about the relative lack of quality (but don't forget the games that DON'T suck.) But there's no point in complaining about WW2 as a setting unless you're going to complain about fantasy as a setting or sci-fi as a setting.

june gloom on 29/7/2008 at 00:51

---

Get out.

Phatose on 29/7/2008 at 02:14

---

She's got no eye glow, but core gameplay - crouch all the time, sneak up to do something horrible to them - sounds a good bit like EfBB. Not that that's a bad thing though, EfBB was one hell of a game.

demagogue on 29/7/2008 at 05:39

---

I haven't played it either so I don't know. I have no doubt that the device is more common than what I know. I just don't think it's quite to the level of being "overdone" ... yet.



Yeah, totally. I was thinking more about things like her sneezing and everything turning into mushrooms and umbrellas or whatever surreal gimmick it is. We haven't seen much of that WWII ... not that that makes it necessarily better. :)

As for the actual WWII-based gameplay when it's consistent ... it's on the espionage end; I suppose it can't do so much that's new, but I'd imagine things like level design would be affected -- there won't be as many overused bits as a straight-up FPS would inevitably have -- but anyway you do have more of a point there. I don't think people will play this looking for a new take on WWII.

Malleus on 29/7/2008 at 07:31

---

I was thinking about gameplay mechanics, like stealth in both games are based on light/darkness and sound, enemies detect you visually and by sound. You can create dark places in both games by destroying/disabling light sources. You can distract guards by picking up and throwing objects. The equipment is also comparable (bow <-> SC20K, broadhead <-> bullets, gas arrow <-> gas grenade, scouting orb <-> sticky cam, etc). Also, killing is not the point in either game, both games feature readables on levels that give you some extra insight into the game world, etc.
The only real differences is the setting and the level design. Btw, the AI is better than in Cold War, and also has similarities to Thief's.



There are a few parts where you are supposed to shoot enemies, but I never really noticed this emphasis on killing you mention. You have quite a number of tools that's sole purpose is to let you evade or knock out enemies. And I don't think I understand what you mean by the second part.