Ostriig on 29/7/2008 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I want to see a WW2 game set in occupied Europe with a massive open world where you are part of the resistance and a saboteur. Hitman on a massive scale if you like, holding down a day job, having to hide equipment, making secret communications with your allies, gathering intel and finally making a strike. Picturesque countryside too. With the occasional Dalek Panzer to keep you on your toes.
Hm. Alright, I see your point and you're right, there's room for better even with WW2. Though I'll still maintain there's more room when you're building a world that does not seek to accurately represent a well documented historical period.
demagogue on 29/7/2008 at 17:11
I think Pacific land battles don't make for good flow, in the sense that a lot of them were inching forward bit by bit, smoking resistance out of caves and crevices. The campaigns in Burma or China have more potential, although they are less US-centric. If they had a hypothetical scenario where there was an invasion of mainland Japan, now that would be incredible from a gaming pov, although a little politically sensitive to say the least.
Quote Posted by Ostriig
there's more room when you're building a world that does not seek to accurately represent a well documented historical period.
This could cut both ways. History is deeper than fiction, and there are more concrete pieces to build with (the concreteness of which is already viscerally hardwired into players' heads, so even new/fictional details they couldn't know about get a concrete-bonus by context)... "Room to build" is more than just the potential, but turning it into something concrete and identifiable that real-world players can really immerse themselves in. History and fiction are at polar ends of that scale, so the strength of one is the weakness of the other. I don't think either one gets a free pass; they both have different issues in making a good game world, IMO.
june gloom on 29/7/2008 at 17:26
That's why WW2 and Warhammer (to use an example) are both so compelling. One is history, the other is fiction. History done well can draw us into another time and another place- case in point would be Band of Brothers, the first WW2 game I ever played that was centered around individual characters. Warhammer is fiction but it's got twenty years of universe-building behind it but never feels very hard to get into- even if you don't know much about the history, you will eventually.
Ostriig on 29/7/2008 at 17:47
Quote Posted by demagogue
This could cut both ways. History is deeper than fiction, and there are more concrete pieces to build with (the concreteness of which is already viscerally hardwired into players' heads, so even new/fictional details they couldn't know about get a concrete-bonus by context)... "Room to build" is more than just the potential, but turning it into something concrete and identifiable that real-world players can really immerse themselves in. History and fiction are at polar ends of that scale, so the strength of one is the weakness of the other. I don't think either one gets a free pass; they both have different issues in making a good game world, IMO.
True, at the end of the day, personal interests play a big role in one's choices in terms of setting, and each "pole" has its strength. My preferences in video game themes lean more towards creativity than realism, which is why I stated my personal dislike for the whole WW2 trend in games. Along with the way most of these games seem to rely on simplistic stereotypes to provide players with something to shoot at, as a mentioned earlier in the thread. That does not, in my opinion, provide a good basis for valuable interaction, which I consider gaming's main strength to affirm itself as an artistic medium. Not that every game has to contribute towards this artistic legitimacy, of course. Serious Sam is still fucking awesome.
On a separate note, a solid blend of the two opposites you described is possible. Or at least I liked the way that Deus Ex mixed both sci-fi concepts with real-world elements, something which Spector commented on as being an intended and high priority characteristic of the game.
The_Raven on 29/7/2008 at 21:52
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I don't think that's the right use of that word.
Wrong, Merriam-Webster.com says there's nothing wrong with that usage.
Quote:
...case in point would be Band of Brothers, the first WW2 game I ever played that was centered around individual characters.
I didn't realize that a mini-series and a game were the same thing. :cheeky:
Jashin on 29/7/2008 at 22:27
Looks interesting, I'd play it.
I'm still eagerly waiting for Death to Spies: Moment of Truth to come to the US.
EvaUnit02 on 29/7/2008 at 23:20
I'm guessing that Dethtoll meant Brothers in Arms?
june gloom on 30/7/2008 at 02:00
D'oh. I did. Too many refills I guess. Or not enough.
Hesche on 30/7/2008 at 11:05
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Someone mentioned that you never fight the Japanese in WW2 games, and that's a valid point- but Call of Duty 5 seems to be going in that direction.
I don't really know why more WW2 games feature the Pacific war. I think a lot of it may have to do with the technology being unable to render a jungle convincingly, though obviously that's not true nowadays.
Another point might be that this jungle environment, along with the enemy you would be fighting, are emotionally too close to Korea and Vietnam war, both not treated as well as WW2 in retrospect, lacking that kind of heroism connected with the invasion in Normandy.
I, for one, prefer the European maps of BF:1942 to the Pacific maps, even though they are all build to provide the same fun multiplayer experience.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
I'm guessing that Dethtoll meant Brothers in Arms?
That reminds me I still have to order the DVD box of Band of Brothers.
thiefessa on 30/7/2008 at 17:41
Quote Posted by van HellSing
So what's "WF"?
Oooh, sorry. That's my own personal shortword for Wolfenstein. :)
