Too Many WW2 Games? Hogwash, I Say!
 

I typed up an article for www.psittacine.com that I thought would be highly relevant here. I know we always hear someone say that there have been too many World War Two FPS games, a statement that usually triggers a response from me on various forums. Last night I came across one such statement again, and this time decided to type a full fledged ranting article. I mentioned Forgotten Hope at the end as it was a major part of my thinking process during the writing process, and so would like to see what you all have to say.

"A lot of people complain that World War Two has been overdone in the gaming industry, that developers should stop making World War Two FPS games and instead start focusing on something else. I say hogwash!

The problem is not that World War Two has been hogging the FPS genre, but that every World War Two game always chooses to portray the exact same thing.

World War Two is so immensely vast that if you take every World War Two FPS in existence, you'll find that they've only begun to scratch the surface of the conflict. By now you'd think World War Two consisted of "Normandy."

Let us not forget that the Second Sino-Japanese War began in 1937. Point out a single non-mod FPS game widely released (mass produced) in the United States that has ever portrayed this Far East conflict between Nationalist China and Japan, a brutal conflict which put the majority of Japan's ground forces against the Chinese in a static front that lasted until the end of World War Two, 1945. I dare you.

What about the beginning of World War Two? How many FPS titles have portrayed the German Blitzkrieg in either the east or west of Europe? How many show Poland's defense? None. How many show France's defense? One: World War Two Online (Battleground Europe) which in itself is merely alternate history, and thus not a true World War Two game.

The Italian Campaign has gotten only a few portrayals, all of which were half-hearted, historically inaccurate junk (a Medal of Honor portrayal, a few CoD titles, and Battlefield 1942: Road to Rome).

Have we seen other Far East campaigns? Burma, Singapore? What about Vichy French Indochina, which faced off Japan in 1940 for a short while, then Thailand 1940-1941, then Japan again in 1945.

How about any part of Africa that isn't the British 8th Army at El Alamein? Where's East Africa, where the British fought the Italians in Eritrea, British Somaliland (the only un-assisted large-scale Italian victory of the war), Ethiopia...? Or Central Africa, where the Free French took over Gabon from the Vichyites? Or Madagascar, where the British and South Africans fought for months against Vichy French forces?

The Middle East, where Commonwealth and Free French forces faced the Vichy French at Syria and Lebanon? Or Iraq, which fought Britain for a short while?

How about the liberation of Elba?

Even in campaigns we have seen, we've only seen a very narrow vision of the war. I'm still waiting to liberate Toulon as part of the French First Army following US and French forces landing in Southern France during Operation Dragoon. What about smashing through the Romanians during Operation Uranus in order to encircle the German 6th Army at Stalingrad? Face-off between the Finnish and Soviets during the Continuation War?

Yet with this entire wealth of historical battles, many of which whole wars within the war (the French-Thai War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Continuation War…), all we get time after time is the exact same stuff: how many bloody times do I have to storm Omaha Beach, how many bloody times do I have to paradrop into Normandy, how many bloody times the same things over and over again until some company refreshes the genre by portraying something different from what we've seen? Normandy, shallow North African portrayal, and some shallow, stereotypical movie-inspired (then again, the rest are movie-inspired stereotypical junk too) Soviet front. That's all we've seen, and that's all companies continue to make. The reason behind this is, of course, marketing; what is popular in today’s mass media culture is what will sell. Nevertheless, it is important for this reason to note that World War Two is not to blame for the lack of originality in FPS titles based on the conflict, but rather the fault is with the developers, who refuse to take a risk in showing any conflict not based on Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan.

Battles alone are not the only problem with the World War Two genre; another major issue is gameplay. When you consider that just about every World War Two game plays the same... How about having different games with varying degrees of historical accuracy? Not only are guns often nothing like their real counterparts, but simple style of play is off. What is all this going rambo in CoD and MoH games? CoD at least tries to create the impression of teamwork by having useless meatshield bots, but what we really need is games more along the lines of a realistic version of Battlefield 1942, games that ensure no one soldier would be a superman.

A good example of a start to the type of World War Two game that should be made is the Battlefield 1942 modification titled Forgotten Hope. In this mod, we’re given a glimpse of campaigns ranging from the invasion of Poland by German forces on September 1st, 1939, to the fierce fighting over the Karelian isthmus by Soviet and Finnish troops during the Continuation War. In addition, the combat style is given a realism twist, so that gameplay feels very different from the typical World War Two FPS title. Although it has its flaws, the Forgotten Hope mod is a step in what is, in my opinion, the right direction, and is an example of how much we’re missing in the current crop of World War Two titles."

So what do you FH regulars think on this subject?

You can find the original article at:

To the History Mobile!

Excellent.

Or how about that legendary Winter War game that never came out? If COD would make a game out of finnish wars, or any other "forgotten fronts", other than Normandy/Stalingrad, I would perhaps consider returning to that game series. For now, I keep my eyes open, altho mind closed. Im sick of all the yankcrap. In mods, our salvation stands.

I for one, love "yankcrap" but I understand your frustration. Great read Johannes. I dont think I could ever get enough of a WWII FPS. So vast and amazing. Its perfect for video gaming. How many of you spent hours with the toy soldiers with a friend? We couldnt get enough of it. And now to play in a sandbox with 64 other people is ridiculously cool.

More people need to see this...

I fully agree. But I doubt you will find many who disagree here... =p

Nicely written though.

Very well written article. This is from the son of an English teacher, so be flattered! You make excellent points, too. Couldn't agree more, really, although saying WWII Online is not a true WWII game is not really correct, given that it remains the only WWII game to allow players to decide how the war is fought on a grand scale - yes, the Allies can win in 1940, but I don't see how being alternate history stops it being WWII.

The problem with WWII Online is that it relies on the assumption that the German Blitzkrieg did not steamroll over France in 1940, and that as a result weapons of war that were not implemented until far later in the war are seen in a fictional France and UK versus Germany setting in what is essentially 1940 France.

Tanks, planes, etc. from outside the historical setting (1940 Invasion of France) are thus fully playable.

That is why I do not consider it a "true WW2 game" in the strict sense that it does not, at least, fit properly with the progression of the war.

Of course, similar problems abound elsewhere too (StG44 as a common infantry weapon at Stalingrad, 1942, in Call of Duty, anyone?), but WWII Online just happens to take that problem to a level outside of what I personally would consider a "true WW2 game."

Thus, although WWII Online uses WWII weaponry, I personally classify it under "alternate history, thus not WW2 as we know it."

Agree. IIRC, XWW2 had a couple of Sino-Japanese battles in its version from a couple of years ago, and it was a nice change.

I can see what you mean. But to clarify, it all makes sense - by the time items from 1941 are implemented, in game time (give or take) it would actually be 1941, and so on.

You are right jumjum, XWW2 has one Chinese map (Ichi-go). I've been playing the mod a lot lately having just downloaded it recently. It's actually because of the mod that I specifically stated to find a non-mod Second Sino-Japanese War game.

Meadow, I know what you mean, and I know you know what I mean, but just to clarify for others, it's basically the idea of 1941 and on taking place in France that makes me place the game not as a "World War Two" game but as an "alternate history, 1940-1945" game.

i just miss a full blow German side campaign in for example COD or MOH , imagine how many games they could fill instead of redoing omaha beach for the 78th time .

Why do the game makers do the same battles over and over? Because they realize their target market doesn't know anything else - and doesn't care to learn, either. So they stick with the mass-market high points of history, more interested in following a movie storyline than creating a historically accurate game. It's basic business.

But FH is a labor of love, and committed to accuracy. That makes FH pretty close to unique, guys. I've seen a very impressive amount of knowledge about some of the most arcane, but interesting, areas of WWII history. (e.g., Lightning's masterful post above.) And the neatest thing is, people here by and large want to learn.

Not really. WWIIOL can actually be realistic, if the Germans steamroll France in a few days of fighting. At the start of a campaign (which can be quite long), the game is in 1940 and the weapons are historical (B1bis, S35, H39, Vickers, PzII, PzIIIH ect.), but if neither side gets mauled early, then the fighting goes on for a few months, and eventually all sides receive new weapons.

WW2OL (or Battleground Europe, as it should be called) is like a massive, months long and continent spanning, online match. In FH, the Germans can win Stalingrad and the Allies can win Fall Weiss. Its the same thing in Battleground Europe, it starts from a realistic setting, but the rest is up to the players.

EDIT: To jumjum

That pretty much hits the nail on the head. It is unfortunate though, that as a result of the laziness and uncreativeness of the mass-market, that now people from that very same market are complaining that there are too many World War Two games that are too alike. It's both ironic and sad.

Just think about it though; here is a genuine opportunity for a video game to actually be educational (on history) while being completely amazing, yet developers keep passing up the opportunity in order to create another game recreation of a movie. Pity.

EDIT 2:

I guess describing each campaign as a single giant match might work, but the idea is that because of the continuous nature of the game in portraying only a single campaign, it invariably ends up altering the historical timeline. Hence, an alternate history.

With something like FH, you play a map, but regardless of who wins the next map portrays a different battle from World War Two. Maps are not treated thus as part of a continuity that would alter the course of history.

I do see where you're coming from in regards to WWIIOnline though.

The normandy campaign has, infact, never been done...
What has been done is so horribly unrealistic in any kind of aspect of the games that it's not even been done right.
Everyone thinks "normandy is overdone, let's do something else" so in the good mods, like FH, the community despise the normandy campaign while i think it's an awesome campaign when realistic and done how it really was, which is not like all those games (and tv shows/movies) out there.

That is true but it concerns less the campaign being portrayed and more the gameplay of the games in question. As I said in the first post, the campaign and gameplay are both factors in this; everyone makes Normandy, but nobody gets the gameplay historically accurate. Whether they want to be historically accurate, however, is a different subject. Pretty much all the games just mimic what is shown in movies instead of trying to be historically accurate.

There are not too many WWII games necessarily, but too many games that are the same WWII battle or campaign over and over again.

That being said, I think a really well-made game focusing on the Korean War would be a nice change of pace.

Another thing I detest in most WWII movie games, is that if they do D-Day, they only do Omaha Beach or Juno Beach, But never Sword beach(forgive me if I am mixing up, but I think You get the point.) This is very frustrating, since it is not just about England or America in D-Day.

You are mixing them up actually, Juno beach is where the Canadians landed. And to be honest, I don't know what you mean. I don't know any games or movies that show the British D-Day landings, but not the Canadian ones.

Oh, uh, lost my place. I was referring to Lightning's post in the Japanese naming convention's thread.

Remember how riveting it was when you first saw the beach landing on SPR? I watched it about 6 months ago and thought to myself... Trudging that beach in FH is so much harder!!!

Waitaminute. You surely aren't suggesting that a game about World War Two expand its boundaries to include the entire world, are you? That's just silly. Everyone knows Americans were the only people to fight in WWII, with helpful tutorials by Americans putting on Russian or British accents. Americans actually had a massive breeding program during the 1920s and late 1910s, producing millions upon millions of young men fit for combat. They were then given false papers and sent to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain, and Russia, where they used their espionage skills, honed since birth, to assassinate millions of Russians, Brits, and Commonwealth young men and assume their identities. The plan, as all plans conceived by Americans, went off without a hitch, allowing Americans to make a deal with Hitler in order to help the new American film industry in Hollywood by giving them enough fodder for millions of hours of films. The invasion of Poland was a hoax, where German B-list actors played the Poles. The Americans were in on it, but wanted to make sure it seemed realistic, so they messed with the Poles too. The Americans, gleeful after a successful scene, decided to celebrate by "invading" Finland. The Finns, not in on the plan, promptly butchered the Americans, who were taken aback by their hostility. I mean, come on, they were just playing! The Finns were not amused.

Americans then waited for the Germans to invade France and attack Britain, which would make great cinema, especially with the unplanned inclusion of a handful of Americans who weren't in on the joke serving alongside the "Brits". However, Americans on the Eastern Front, planning to make a prank raid on Berlin, were rudely surprised when Hitler decided to call off the movie deal and attacked Russia. The Americans realized this wasn't a joke right about the time that the Wehrmacht reached Stalingrad, and, being Americans, kicked the ass of the Nazis(who were so forfeiting their royalties from the movies for this!) and pushed towards Berlin.

Since American realized this might have been a bit boring for the moviegoers, they decided to opt for a change of scenery and decided to invade France. They chose Northern France for the believability factor of the "British" being involved, and chose Southern France for the scenery. Oddly, Southern France was almost completely ignored by filmmakers, but no matter, that vein will last the film goldmine for a few decades once they tap into it. We all know what happened from there, thanks to the many films about the Americans singlehandedly defeating the Nazis from there(The "Brits", "Commonwealth soldiers", and "Russians" respectfully declined any accolades from the American filmmakers).

:lies::lies: and more :lies: anyway, Medal of Honor European Assault gave me some sort fo comfort by working with bots, sometimes entire companies/regiments. But you always got to do the dirty work, and an American with the British in St. Naziare? Wicked sick. Normandy, in fact, is underdone. What about the thick Hedgerows? What about getting OFF the beaches? This stuff isin't looked at. People think Normandy was just Omaha/ Utah Beach.

I want more Canadian Battles, especially want to play their retreat at Dunkirk :p

I don't quite see the fun in a map where you just run away?!? :p

Well i understand them...
You don't want a movie where people land where nothing happened...
Omaha was the worst, at sword they had some problems with the first wave, but were off the beach quite fast, and juno and gold was just a bit of cannon fodderism to get off the beach in like an hour only. And Utah was even easier. Most D-Day soldiers (those who landed on Utah, juno and gold specifically) said they were disappointed with the big "D-Day" thing, some found it to be easier than the exercices in England...
The only movie in which i have ever seen juno beach featured is "the longest day" in which all the beaches are featured, Gold, Juno, Sword, Omaha, Pointe du Hoc, Utah...Only the Saint-Marcouf islands are left out, because the allies found only landmines there...
The book is far more interesting. :p

Again I have to rectify myself. I meant the games like MoH and CoD when I said Movie games.

Also, no matter how many times you play the single player, you always fall stunned out of the landing craft in CoD 2, because it is arranged that way. What I like to see, is that every time you fall down because of shellshock or anything very bad, a soldier leans over to help you, like in BF 2, where a medic comes when you call him. This does not effect the cinematic effects, but it does give a more diverse gaming experience. It would also make interacting with the bots possible, and that in turn makes it more realistic. So no more pre set deaths to make it shocking, but more "I'll go up front to see if there's a machine gun round the corner" action.

Right now, when I play D-Day in CoD 2, I almost automatically stop moving the mouse when I am at that damn point in the game, because I know I cannot do anything.

By changing that, and giving people even more routes toward a goal, game makers can prevent the "oh, now we have a bit of movie, lets rest a bit" reflex.

Again, I already said that I probably mixed up the names of the beaches. Also, I didn't mean the movies when I said movie games, because today, a movie spanning all the beaches would take way too long.

Would be nice though, to shoot a modernized and more realistic version of "The Longest Day"...
If you read the book, it's a great story written like book, and yet it gives you a mountain of precise information and anecdotes on D-Day, as it was written just after the war, when the information was still fresh, and the persons needed to interview still easy to be found...

they should make saving private Ryan the game, loved that movie.
your right to, lazy developers make WW2 games suck, Day of Defeat is a good realistic expieriance

The movie "The Dirty Dozen" would make a good game too.

edit: CoD is a very scripted game, so it will always play somewhat the same. With certain events that happen and you dont get any control. For me those game are always a play once type game. I can never play them over and over its like re-watching the same movie over and over. So i only buy the really good ones to get my monies worth.

Eh, Kelly's Heroes anybody ? :rolleyes:

Kellys heroes ftw, or Where Eagles dare

Where Eagles Dare was pretty much turned into Return To Castle Wolfenstein.

"Guns of Navarone" would also make an extremely good SP game imo

No, that is precisely what we should avoid.
Saving Private Ryan is a horribly historically unrealistic movie.
And the game would result in something as sucky as all the others.
5 Garand hits to kill a guy, the same guy carries a garand and a tompson and explosives and 10 grenades and a knife and a pistol, and so on, with sounds as lame as emo music, and so on and so forth.
If you want to play something like saving private ryan, the map "omaha charlie sector" in FH looks alot like it, because that map is so horribly historically inaccurate too. :lol:

You know which movie they should make into a game? The Great Dictator!

Lol, Just joking, But it would be very funny.

and you call yourselves FH fans!

how can you all forget the beauty, the majesty, the sheer awesomeness that was the aesthetically and strategically pleasing Hailar

what a joy of a sino-soviet battle map that was :)

I was actually thinking The Eagle has landed :P

Now that could be cool

If they made a game like Day of Defeat, only single player and placed in some Japenese Island, will that make you happy