I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying the games should be bigger, I'm saying that, whatever I know of war was already covered in other games
Again, looking at it with a flat, almost childlike view.
You basically are, like before, equating bigger to better. World War 1 lasted about 4 years with about 70 million people taking part in the conflict. With multiple layers of combat, politics and countless individual case by case stories. So far, games for the most part have explored Pew! Pew! Not because of world war but because of world war shown in movies. Specifically, Saving Private Ryan.
Conflicts between countries, alliances, weapons, vehicles, disasters, losses...and, obviously, things blowing up. That tend to happen in wars, you know? They have grenades, bombs and nuclear weapons.
You basically are, like before, equating bigger to better.
I haven't mentioned once that bigger is better or even thought like that. You're seeing what you want to see, not what is there. Interpret my posts before you post, please.
War is basically fought behind trenches, waiting for an opportunity to advance. If it's not possible, they fall back and wait for a better time. A game like that would bore you to hell. What I mean by bigger is that they give you more opportunities to advance, they give you more chances, weapons and ways to advance. If you advance, then you can't just run through a lifeless field or, once again, you'll be bored to tears, so they blow stuff up for you, to make things exciting. They give you enemies, they give you different challenges, or every missions will be ''cover behind trenches, wait, and shoot when the enemy appears''.
I don't know if you can imagine a game like that, but I can't. They have to think of something that will be entertaining. That will be fun. It's not because it's a war game that it'll be something depressive or exactly equal to a war, so they make things bigger so we are able to enjoy it.
World War 1 lasted about 4 years with about 70 million people taking part in the conflict. With multiple layers of combat, politics and countless individual case by case stories.
Like every other war. Still not saying what it has that is interesting enough to be translated to another media.
So far, games for the most part have explored Pew! Pew! Not because of world war but because of world war shown in movies. Specifically, Saving Private Ryan.
The only one looking at it with a flat, almost childlike view, is you, if you're thinking about ''Pew! Pew!''.
From what I've read, the last Medal of Honor gave a really good sense of what war is truly like, but I don't see people talking about the game, and the reviews weren't anything good either.
Games of war are shooters games, that's what you're going to get. The war is just the premise to keep you going and to give you settings, weapons and characters. If you're looking at anything other than that, than you're not hoping for a game, but for a movie or a book.
What I see above is you failing to understand what I'm getting across in my posts, thinking a game will sell or even be fun with just that. Yes, it's ridiculous.
Also, what you claimed to be ridiculous before was my question, not my visions of war (showing you're getting lost in your own posts), which, for the third post in a row, you still haven't answered, showing you haven't got a clue of what you're talking about. I can look up on Wikipedia too. You keep hiding behind futile posts looking at everything as a childlike view instead of elaborating why WWI should be made into a game which, as you've shown for the last 4 or 5 posts, you still don't know why. The Lord did it in one post. You haven't in any of yours.
Conflicts between countries, alliances, weapons, vehicles, disasters, losses...and, obviously, things blowing up. That tend to happen in wars, you know? They have grenades, bombs and nuclear weapons.
Really? Because, off the top of my head when I play Total War, marriage is used as a weapon. Spreading religous influence. Ransacking land. Seducing generals. technological advancment. Trading resources. Inciting rebellion. Populous intrigration. Blocking trade routes. Assasination. Keeping your own populous happy. Troop moral. Ambushes. Hell, even the season and weather is taken into account. So no, not at all. That is once again you having a really super simplistic way of looking at things.
And these are authentic methods of war. The UK (my wonderful country) was practically formed on a general (Willaim The Conqueror) re-rallying troops who thought he had died, turning on troops who had broken lines. This is the exact same component (and one of the most important) Total war uses. Which again, is why I used that as an example of a game that could do it justice. War (practically any war) is far complicated than an ADD's funfair explosionfest wither it be medieval or modern war. Many of the methods used back than (mass rape to intrigrate a populous) is used even today.
The only one looking at it with a flat, almost childlike view, is you, if you're thinking about ''Pew! Pew!''.
From what I've read, the last Medal of Honor gave a really good sense of what war is truly like
Any game. What was there about World War I that wasn't already made for WWII and bigger? Like, for example, the Pearl Harbor attack? I don't think there was weapons, vehicles or technology interesting enough on the WWI period either.
Now, put your glasses on, if you're not already using it, and read it. After you read, interpret it. I didn't mention the word better. I didn't say it is better using other words. I didn't imply it and, in my previous post, I explained exactly what I meant. Go back and read it again instead of pretending you haven't, which you also haven't quoted, only quoting the parts you see fit. Do I need to draw it for you?
No, you think I implied it. You're seeing what you want to see. I even explained why I used those words, but I never said it was better.
Really? Because, off the top of my head when I play Total War, marriage is used as a weapon. Spreading religous influence. Ransacking land. Seducing generals. technological advancment. Trading resources. Inciting rebellion. Populous intrigration. Blocking trade routes. Assasination. Keeping your own populous happy. Troop moral. Ambushes. Hell, even the season and weather is taken into account. So no, not at all. That is once again you having a really super simplistic way of looking at things.
And these are authentic methods of war. The UK (my wonderful country) was practically formed on a general (Willaim The Conqueror) re-rallying troops who thought he had died, turning on troops who had broken lines. This is the exact same component (and one of the most important) Total war uses. Which again, is why I used that as an example of a game that could do it justice. War (practically any war) is far complicated than an ADD's funfair explosionfest wither it be medieval or modern war. Many of the methods used back than (mass rape to intrigrate a populous) is used even today.
What the hell does it have to do with World War I? Are you still talking about it or you forgot the subject of the conversation? Total War is a strategic game. Games that emulate the big wars, such as world wars, are shooters. Your complaint comes from why WWI is so ignored among them. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Total War, from what I'm seeing, like Command & Conquer, is supposed to be a game of real-time tactics, a strategy game, not a game that is supposed to emulate any wars. Soldiers of WWI go through the things I mentioned in my previous post, to which you ignored. I'm not having a simplistic way of looking at things, I'm looking at them the way they are. You're avoiding them. See Platoon (which was the war in Vietnam, but serve as an example) and even Forest Gump, which will give you the right idea of what is war and how it is fought. Don't be deceived.
I don't know if you're asking for a game that makes WWI into a video game and how that was fought or if you want a strategy game that is placed on the same period but have you controlling troops. Either way, I'm still waiting for your answer, which you keep avoiding.
Then you're gonna lose in the court, because it's pretty bad. Besides the fact you keep seeing what isn't in my posts, comparing strategic games to world war games, you still didn't answer what WWI has that should be brought to game that the others already haven't, because if it brings the same things, then it'll just be another game in the series.
There are a lot of games I'm looking forward to this year. But the ones I'm anticipating the most is; Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite, The Last Guardian, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, Hitman: Absolution and Tomb Raider.
EDIT: F***! How could I forget Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time?
No, they emulate (i use that word loosely) instances of specific events of war. Total War, emulates entire periods and multiple layers war (the clue is in total) far beyond a first person shooter. And when a first person shooter does it, it's generally emulating a movie presentation of war as oppossed to the actual war itself. With regen health, checkpoint reached and 100 nazi's being gunned down while you follow the little linear path.
It does, more so than any FPS you can probably think up.
Practically all of Napoleons wartime life is emulated.
It's worth noting here, Total War had several tv programs on it used to replicate and demonstraight battles , one of which was the history channel. This was media that has nothing to do with video games and one of (probably the only) video game itself (the video game itself, not the video game license) to actually transcend it's medium in such a manner.
See Platoon (which was the war in Vietnam, but serve as an example) and even Forest Gump, which will give you the right idea of what is war and how it is fought. Don't be deceived.
:/ To platoons credit, Oliver Stone was in Veitnam.
However, as far as actually showing the scale and scope of war goes, Total War still exceeds it. Forest Gump? Really? Eh. Whatever.
I don't know if you're asking for a game that makes WWI into a video game and how that was fought or if you want a strategy game that is placed on the same period but have you controlling troops. Either way, I'm still waiting for your answer, which you keep avoiding.
I said in like my first post, Total War would do it justice. Which is turn based and real time.
What this means is emulating years (as major wars can and do last years) as well as specific instanced battles that can last minutes. Again, Total. It attempts to encapsulate every possible aspect as oppossed to sitting still watching enemy at the gates. It shows war on a scale movies, and even books can't achieve. As far as war games go, it's a crowning achievement. It's also worth noting that it's fun and accessible.
Then you're gonna lose in the court, because it's pretty bad. Besides the fact you keep seeing what isn't in my posts, comparing strategic games to world war games
World War 1 obviosly has specific battles, political reasons and methodes of battle that were diffrent from World War 2. This qeastion is still ridiculous.
No, they emulate (i use that word loosely) instances of specific events of war. Total War, emulates entire periods and multiple layers war (the clue is in total) far beyond a first person shooter. And when a first person shooter does it, it's generally emulating a movie presentation of war as oppossed to the actual war itself. With regen health, checkpoint reached and 100 nazi's being gunned down while you follow the little linear path.
I said in like my first post, Total War would do it justice. Which is turn based and real time.
What this means is emulating years (as major wars can and do last years) as well as specific instanced battles that can last minutes. Again, Total. It attempts to encapsulate every possible aspect as oppossed to sitting still watching enemy at the gates. It shows war on a scale movies, and even books can't achieve. As far as war games go, it's a crowning achievement. It's also worth noting that it's fun and accessible. It does, more so than any FPS you can probably think up.
Practically all of Napoleons wartime life is emulated.
It's worth noting here, Total War had several tv programs on it used to replicate and demonstraight battles , one of which was the history channel. This was media that has nothing to do with video games and one of (probably the only) video game itself (the video game itself, not the video game license) to actually transcend it's medium in such a manner.
Once again, what does it have to do with WWI? You keep avoiding the subject, posting about a game that is completely different. Like I said, you're comparing apples to oranges. In Total War, you basically play god, building structures in a faction's territories or sending soldiers to attack, as seen here:
And you wait for them to battle. At least in FPS games, you take the place of a soldier. It is you who goes to battle, who suffers from bullets, grenades and bombs, who goes to point A to point B. You take on the role of someone who is experiencing what war is truly like, even the piercing sound a soldier hears when something close to him explodes is there.
The way they talk to each other, the way they communicate, they way they advance the battlefield, it's all there, the strategies they come up with to dismantle the enemies communication, ammo supply or energy, this is all there. The dust and prairie they go through, the waiting game to carefully advance the battle field without being noticed to reach a farther point...
I could go on. This is the kind of game that emulates what it is to feel like you're in a war, not building structures, telling your soldiers to attack or making deals.
In real WWI, which is the true subject of the conversation, not the completely different Total War, the confront, at least on ground, happens like I said. They cover behind trenchers and wait for the right time. If it's unviable and they're being attacked, they retreat or slowly move through the battlefield
Now, stop avoiding the topic of what can WWI bring to the gaming industry and tell me why it should, or just leave as it is.
No, I just mentioned those two other games were strategy games, not that war doesn't have them. Once again, you're just seeing what you want to see, not what is there. Read carefully.
To platoons credit, Oliver Stone was in Veitnam.
However, as far as actually showing the scale and scope of war goes, Total War still exceeds it. Forest Gump? Really? Eh. Whatever.
Forest Gump shows exactly what I said. Going through the dust, the woods, the rain, the mud..., spending days there, just to get to the point of desire and make trenchers. Once they get there, the enemy might flank them, so they have to retreat, wait for a better time and make a new plan. Now, try to put that into video game. It can't be done. You can't spend days doing just that, that's why they have to go bigger, because otherwise it's unviable.
World War 1 obviosly has specific battles, political reasons and methodes of battle that were diffrent from World War 2. This qeastion is still ridiculous.
If it was ridiculous you would have responded right away, but after 5 or 6 posts avoiding it, you still didn't, that's what I call ridiculous. Every war has specific battles, political reasons and methodes of battle different from each other. That's not a reason to be made into a video game, which is a media that is supposed to entertain. You're just describing what ever war has, not why it shouldn't be ignored in the gaming world.
This is the second time you mention this out of nowhere. You're losing your sense. If your going to post again about Total War, which has nothing to do with your WWI fustration, or this PS dilemma, then don't bother.
Jeez, what's up with this World War over WWI versus WWII?
The reason that FPS games favor the latter over the former is extremely easy to see: namely, WWII is geared towards the format. WWI isn't.
WWII was, for the most part, fought exactly in the manner that FPS excel: house-to-house run-and-gun squad-level infantry shootouts. COD and MOH play out almost *exactly* like actual newsreel battles from the war.
WWI, on the other hand, was firmly grounded in trench warfare. There's nothing even remotely interesting about hunching down in a smelly cold pit, staring out at your enemy across a cratered no-man's-land, and waiting for the inevitable whistle blow for your suicidal charge against the enemy's machine guns.
This is why the Civil War doesn't get FPS treatment, either. Although I think the case could be made for a pretty exciting and interesting game based around raiders and partisans, a la Mosby's Rangers, Quantrill, and even Cold Mountain.
Otherwise, every war prior to WWII seems best suited to strategic-scale games, not grunt's-eye-view FPS games that are genetically predisposed towards the WWII era and later.
I'm sure there are a tonne of others & I'm also really behind from this year's releases. From the list though & in some kind of quick order:
Mass Effect III
Diablo III
Halo 4
GTAV
Tomb Raider
Resident Evil x2
Streetfighter X Tekken
Soul Calibur V
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
Bioshock Infinite
Borderlands 2
Darksiders 2
Far Cry 3
Ninja Gaiden
Asura's Wrath
Metal Gear
DMC
Hitman Absolution
Max Payne 3
Not sure where Warcraft, Starcraft II & FFXIII fit but got to somehow make time for them. Going to be another busy year!
Vita is top of my list. Aside from that, Journey, Yakuza: Dead Souls, Asura's Wrath, Dragon's Dogma, Tomb Raider, Halo 4 and Metal Gear Rising are the ones I'm actually very excited about.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
