Are there actually too many World War II games? [7 year old thread]

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?

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

Nope

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

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.

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

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.

" @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 "

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.

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 Killzonegames. 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 Wolfensteinseems 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.

are there actually too many? i believe so

"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 Killzonegames. 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 Wolfensteinseems 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. "

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.

No. But there ARE too many BAD WW2 games.

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.

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.

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.