Alliedassault - View Single Post

Chronic Diarrhea · 08-25-2007, 10:50 AM

Yeah, I don't get why everybody bitches about WW2 games. Let's take a look at the only ones that even matter:

Medal of Honor
Call of Duty
Brothers in Arms

That's it. As far as RTS games are concerned, here are the only ones that matter:

Company of Heroes

Why people seem to think there's way too many WW2 games (that are actually worth playing) is beyond me. Those 4 franchises all bring something different to WW2, either in terms of the battles you fight or the storyline. There are so many battles that have yet to be portrayed in WW2 that could be incredible. Operation Citadel (Kursk) has yet to be accurately depicted (I think COD or CODUO kinda did it, but it was a waste). The only Kursk scenario I've played has been in Red Orchestra, and it's a user map.

Speaking of RO, G4 did a review on the game. The reviewer was Morgan Webb. Now, RO is more of a thinking man's game than most other WW2 games, and even then it's not very realistic, so you know she's going to fuck up the review. Of course, she gave it a 1 or 2 out of 5, simply because it's another WW2 game. Uh....WTF? Last time I checked, there's not many WW2 games that strictly focus on the Eastern Front. She said RO sucked because it was too hard. LOL. Forgive us if you don't understand how to steady your weapon on a crate, or don't understand how to adjust your sights on your tank to get that 800 meter kill.

Morgan Webb also does one of those commercial break sections where she talks about a game. I forget what the game was, but it had nothing to do with WW2, but somehow she spent the entire minute talking about how much WW2 games suck (showed portions of Airborne while she said that), because there's nothing else you can play in WW2 oOo:. That's pretty insulting to the men who fought in some pretty raw battles from 1939 to 1945 that most people don't care and don't want to know about.

And what's funny is, these people who bash WW2 games are the same people who think a WW1 game would be terrible. Personally, I would love to see a WW1 game done. WW1 was much more raw in terms of the fighting than WW2. More people may have died in WW2, but a greater percentage of soldiers died in WW1. There were plenty of soldiers who came home in WW2 who fought from the very beginning, but very few soldiers in WW1 would make it all the way through alive. Only 1% of stomach wounds did not result in death. The experience of seeing 300 or 400 men charging no man's land (early in the war; later fire teams came about), with 95% of them dying within the first 5 meters of jumping out of the trench would be incredible, and I know that sounds sadistic or even disrespectful to find that an unforgettable experience, but that's the kind of exposure WW1 deserves. Personally, I would love to jump in a trench and start bayoneting people like a mad bastard and throwing potato mashers all over the place.

	(#181)
Chronic Diarrhea is Offline 1st Lieutenant Posts: 4,318 Join Date: Jun 2002	08-25-2007, 10:50 AM Yeah, I don't get why everybody bitches about WW2 games. Let's take a look at the only ones that even matter: Medal of Honor Call of Duty Brothers in Arms That's it. As far as RTS games are concerned, here are the only ones that matter: Company of Heroes Why people seem to think there's way too many WW2 games (that are actually worth playing) is beyond me. Those 4 franchises all bring something different to WW2, either in terms of the battles you fight or the storyline. There are so many battles that have yet to be portrayed in WW2 that could be incredible. Operation Citadel (Kursk) has yet to be accurately depicted (I think COD or CODUO kinda did it, but it was a waste). The only Kursk scenario I've played has been in Red Orchestra, and it's a user map. Speaking of RO, G4 did a review on the game. The reviewer was Morgan Webb. Now, RO is more of a thinking man's game than most other WW2 games, and even then it's not very realistic, so you know she's going to fuck up the review. Of course, she gave it a 1 or 2 out of 5, simply because it's another WW2 game. Uh....WTF? Last time I checked, there's not many WW2 games that strictly focus on the Eastern Front. She said RO sucked because it was too hard. LOL. Forgive us if you don't understand how to steady your weapon on a crate, or don't understand how to adjust your sights on your tank to get that 800 meter kill. Morgan Webb also does one of those commercial break sections where she talks about a game. I forget what the game was, but it had nothing to do with WW2, but somehow she spent the entire minute talking about how much WW2 games suck (showed portions of Airborne while she said that), because there's nothing else you can play in WW2 oOo:. That's pretty insulting to the men who fought in some pretty raw battles from 1939 to 1945 that most people don't care and don't want to know about. And what's funny is, these people who bash WW2 games are the same people who think a WW1 game would be terrible. Personally, I would love to see a WW1 game done. WW1 was much more raw in terms of the fighting than WW2. More people may have died in WW2, but a greater percentage of soldiers died in WW1. There were plenty of soldiers who came home in WW2 who fought from the very beginning, but very few soldiers in WW1 would make it all the way through alive. Only 1% of stomach wounds did not result in death. The experience of seeing 300 or 400 men charging no man's land (early in the war; later fire teams came about), with 95% of them dying within the first 5 meters of jumping out of the trench would be incredible, and I know that sounds sadistic or even disrespectful to find that an unforgettable experience, but that's the kind of exposure WW1 deserves. Personally, I would love to jump in a trench and start bayoneting people like a mad bastard and throwing potato mashers all over the place.