#1 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

You hear a lot of people (and journalists) bitch about there being too many games (especially shooters) set during World War II. I think that is a false arguement. There are just as many sci-fi shooters, and there are just as many shooters set in modern battlefields. I think because people keep saying this, developers have actually stopped making World War II games. I don't think we are going to see another Brothers in Arms or Medal of Honor game, and I don't think Treyarch's next Call of Duty will be set in World War II. There is only Wolfenstein and The Saboteur in sight, and all you hear their developers talk about is how they are not actually World War Ii games.
Why is everyone suddenly sick of World War II games, specially since the games released have done pretty well financially and critically?

#2 Posted by lemon360 (1102 posts) -

i wouldn't mind a sequel to world at war.

#3 Posted by MetalR (422 posts) -

Nope

#4 Posted by Mikemcn (6988 posts) -
@lemon360 said:
"i wouldn't mind a sequel to world at war."

You might be the only one, no offense

Im tired of Nazis, sure they are fun to kill, but they just get so bland after a while, ive heard SCHIZAR< GRENADEN too many times, i now know half the german language from collected COD and MOH games.
#5 Posted by Out_On_Bail (1545 posts) -
@lemon360: You're not the only one, believe that.  I don't see a sequel coming though, as far as I knew WaW ended the pacific campaign, therefore the war is over now.
#6 Edited by Keyser_Soze (1186 posts) -

In 1937 there were too many World War 2 games, it's now past the event horizon, with society and games developers now locked in a reciprocal process where they must regurgitate the same war over and over again. In fact in the year 2156 society finally asked the question that the war has ceased to have modern day relevancy which began 'World War 2 Take 2' where nations re-fought WW2 just so the worlds economies propped up on a diet of WW2 merchandise, movies and videogames could be kick started alive again.

#7 Posted by Nasar7 (2671 posts) -

^ lol. Word War II  is the bread and butter of FPSes. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind some non-FPS WWII games. 

#8 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" @lemon360 said:
"i wouldn't mind a sequel to world at war."
You might be the only one, no offenseIm tired of Nazis, sure they are fun to kill, but they just get so bland after a while, ive heard SCHIZAR< GRENADEN too many times, i now know half the german language from collected COD and MOH games. "
Sadly many 12 year old morons would also like a sequel and I actually heard someone say W@W had a better story, and was about to hit him
#9 Posted by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

I wouldn't mind a sequel to WAW. I rather enjoyed it despite all of the hate it gets from jaded gamers and those who eat the asses of IW.

#10 Posted by caseylakes (293 posts) -
@PeasForFees said:
" @Mikemcn said:
" @lemon360 said:
"i wouldn't mind a sequel to world at war."
You might be the only one, no offenseIm tired of Nazis, sure they are fun to kill, but they just get so bland after a while, ive heard SCHIZAR< GRENADEN too many times, i now know half the german language from collected COD and MOH games. "
Sadly many 12 year old morons would also like a sequel and I actually heard someone say W@W had a better story, and was about to hit him "
someone does not know what an opinion is.
#11 Edited by ColinRyan (295 posts) -

There are too many BAD WW2 games. I would like to see some of the lesser known battles in a game for once, and maybe a Mussolini marching sim.

#12 Edited by Deusoma (3006 posts) -

You have a fair argument there, but the problem is, while there are a shitload of sci-fi shooters, the Halo games, for example, take place in a whole other universe from the Resistance games or the Killzone games. You fight different enemies, using different sets of weapons, on wildly different battlefields. You can play the hell out of one, then go immediately to another without it seeming boring or familiar.

On the other hand, World War II shooters are all drawn from a specific series of events that actually happened, meaning all of them have you fighting either Nazis or Japanese soldiers, with a specific array of period-appropriate weapons, in specific areas of war-torn 40's Europe or the Pacific Rim. After a while, all of them start to blend together and look the same, so instead of several franchises, it begins to feel like one gigantic World War II series that's constantly retreading old ground while not really innovating anything.

Just off the top of my head, mixing things up with a little fiction would be nice, the new Wolfenstein seems to have the right idea, throwing fantasy weapons and imaginary enemies into the setting alongside more traditional firearms and the usual Nazis will definitely seperate that game from the vast majority of WWII shooters.

#13 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

are there actually too many? i believe so


am i sick of them? no. if i get tired of killing nazis i put down the WW2 game and pick up something different, but you ALWAYS go back to killing nazis. its like the religion of FPS shooters!!

i would love a sequel to world at war, espicially that CoD WW2 games arent just about being on the battlefield doing headshots on nazi bastards, theyre about story and funky missions and very very amusing stuff..

I wish for the games industry to expand and improve and always have new innovations, but the WW2 theme should stay, atleast until they exploit every last fucking type of mission and battle from that war which i believe we're still far from.  i wish there will be a W@W 10 just like i wish we will see a MW 10
#14 Edited by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -
@Deusoma said:
"You have a fair argument there, but the problem is, while there are a shitload of sci-fi shooters, the Halo games, for example, take place in a whole other universe from the Resistance games or the Killzone games. You fight different enemies, using different sets of weapons, on wildly different battlefields. You can play the hell out of one, then go immediately to another without it seeming boring or familiar.

On the other hand, World War II shooters are all drawn from a specific series of events that actually happened, meaning all of them have you fighting either Nazis or Japanese soldiers, with a specific array of period-appropriate weapons, in specific areas of war-torn 40's Europe or the Pacific Rim. After a while, all of them start to blend together and look the same, so instead of several franchises, it begins to feel like one gigantic World War II series that's constantly retreading old ground while not really innovating anything.

Just off the top of my head, mixing things up with a little fiction would be nice, the new Wolfenstein seems to have the right idea, throwing fantasy weapons and imaginary enemies into the setting alongside more traditional firearms and the usual Nazis will definitely seperate that game from the vast majority of WWII shooters. "
The problem is that we didn't need 4 or 5 franchises about World War II, I think if Medal of Honor was the only one and they released a game each year, everyone would've been fine with it. You know, so Medal of Honor was everyone's share of WWII every year. But it seems like they have stopped makin traditional WWII games, and that kind of bugs me. I love what I'm seeing of the new Wolfenstein though, and I think if the WWII developers made their games more distinctive we would never have this problem. There was a point around 2003, 2004 when Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and Brothers in Arms were basically the same game.
#15 Posted by Absurd (2934 posts) -

There seems to be a lot of World war II games but I haven't played every single one, so I really don't mind them when they come out.

#16 Posted by HAMMERCLAW (298 posts) -

No. But there ARE too many BAD WW2 games.

#17 Posted by roushimsx (485 posts) -

Too many WW2 games set in Europe, not enough set in the Pacific.

It doesn't help that major series like Call of Duty rarely even try to infuse any sort of storyline and instead degenerate into replicating scenes from major movies/tv shows. One of my few gripes with World at War was that they took a promising introduction that followed the style of Modern Warfare's storytelling and then pissed it away by shoving in a bunch of Russian missions that felt completely out of place.

For as weak as a majority of the Medal of Honor games are, at least they try to put some sort of story in there. Granted, it's generally threadbare and the games themselves are questionable more often than not, every now and then there's a nice diamond like Pacific Assault (!) or Spearhead. Shame Rising Sun sucked, because its opening level was absolutely tits. Hell, I directly blame the anti-WWII movement to the overall lackluster quality of the Medal of Honor series. Frontline, Breakthrough, Rising Sun, European Assault and Airborne? That's quite a string of weak games for such a majorly promoted series. Garbage like Call of Duty: Finest Hour doesn't help things at all, either.

There's some really nice WWII games that get little exposure, too. Deadly Dozen and Hidden & Dangerous were both absolutely fantastic series well worth turning up in the bargain bins. Ever play The Outfit? Many other sci fi games are little more than WWII games with a fresh coat of paint. The easiest example is Killzone, which is a schizophrenic mix of WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam all in one title, though if you pay attention, you'll find quite a few other games with obvious WWII influences. Remember the assault map "Overlord" in Unreal Tournament? Guess the WWII-themed movie that directly inspired that one.

#18 Posted by Optiow (1745 posts) -

I think that there can never be enough WW2 shooters. They are always good I think. But they need more set on the Axis side, where you can play as the Japanese, Italians and Germans and stop making things all about the Americans and the British. The WW2 games where you play as the Allies are really boring now. A lot of the time it is just over and over again the same battles with the same weapons. If they did some as the Germans and Japanese I think it would offer a nice change and people might stop complaining.

#19 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

I think the major issue with World War 2 is that there haven't been any unique games inside of that. The battles are always the major ones you've played a million times, and they are always FPS. Lets see something more of an adventure, going in with the smaller battles, stuff like that. Plenty of things are over done in games. Sexism for example, is for more over used.  I think something along the lines of The Pianist, with some Sim-ish gameplay, some stealth gameplay, some Myst-esque gameplay (but full 3D) would make an incredible game.

#20 Edited by Wolverine (4281 posts) -
@buzz_killington said:
" You hear a lot of people (and journalists) bitch about there being too many games (especially shooters) set during World War II. I think that is a false arguement. There are just as many sci-fi shooters, and there are just as many shooters set in modern battlefields. I think because people keep saying this, developers have actually stopped making World War II games. I don't think we are going to see another Brothers in Arms or Medal of Honor game, and I don't think Treyarch's next Call of Duty will be set in World War II. There is only Wolfenstein and The Saboteur in sight, and all you hear their developers talk about is how they are not actually World War Ii games. Why is everyone suddenly sick of World War II games, specially since the games released have done pretty well financially and critically? "
 How can you compare WWII games to Science Fiction games. Science Fiction is a genre, World War II is a war that lasted six years. There are only so many battles you can replicate in games.