NationStates Jolt Archive

What the hell has gone into WWII games nowadays?
All I want is a WWII FPS game where I could play a campaign of an alternative history as a german, finnish, japanese, hungarian, romanian, italian or bulgarian soldier, ie on my country's side of the war.
The problem is that they make only games where you can play as an allied soldier.
Why on earth do they think a patriotic finn like me would like to play as an animal called russian soldier?

It would be neat if every country has a campaign of its own and there could be multiple endings. For an example if you play as a finnish soldier you could lead one of those brave scout-teams deep behind enemy lines and destroy russian tanks with molotov-cocktails.

I've already played through panzer-general-games and I'd like an FPS.
So, all of you game producers out there! Mark my words, there're many countries where this kind of game could sell as well a panzer general!

What the hell has gone into WWII games nowadays?
All I want is a WWII FPS game where I could play a campaign of an alternative history as a german, finnish, japanese, hungarian, romanian, italian or bulgarian soldier, ie on my country's side of the war.
The problem is that they make only games where you can play as an allied soldier.
Why on earth do they think a patriotic finn like me would like to play as an animal called russian soldier?

It would be neat if every country has a campaign of its own and there could be multiple endings. For an example if you play as a finnish soldier you could lead one of those brave scout-teams deep behind enemy lines and destroy russian tanks with molotov-cocktails.

I've already played through panzer-general-games and I'd like an FPS.
So, all of you game producers out there! Mark my words, there're many countries where this kind of game could sell as well a panzer general!
I have no clue. I find them very pointless. Imgine in like 20years, they'll be "Iraq war" games. It's just the excitemnet of killing nazis, Fascist, and Vichis. I see nothing in them. just another way to make money.

I have no clue. I find them very pointless. Imgine in like 20years, they'll be "Iraq war" games. It's just the excitemnet of killing nazis, Fascist, and Vichis. I see nothing in them. just another way to make money.
Actually there's already some games on the Iraq war. What was the one where you can kill Saddam?

Anyways, what's so funny about killing nazis? Why don't they make a game where you can kill a lot of commies (read Soviet Union)?
The nazis are a minority...let them rest in peace...

Actually there's already some games on the Iraq war. What was the one where you can kill Saddam?

Anyways, what's so funny about killing nazis? Why don't they make a game where you can kill a lot of commies (read Soviet Union)?
The nazis are a minority...let them rest in peace...
They have an Iraq war game? They have those really short ones on www.miniclip.com and other websites, but they've released an actual game? That's pathertic.

Why do we even have to be part of the drakest time sin history, playing as if it was just irrelevant, how many people died in those wars.

WWII games take us back to the day when we were fighting a war where we could actually take the moral highground and be supported in full by our allies for our participation. It's either a nice diversion from our present-day mess, or a patriotic backlash to try and remind our youth that we're the good guys.

WWII games take us back to the day when we were fighting a war where we could actually take the moral highground and be supported in full by our allies for our participation. It's either a nice diversion from our present-day mess, or a patriotic backlash to try and remind our youth that we're the good guys.
No one is the good guy in war.

I just found this:

*WARNING:VIOLENCE*

Iraq war (http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-666.htm)

that is just messed up.

No one is the good guy in war.

You couldn't be further from the truth. There was a good guy in WWII. The allies. Say this statement to a WWII vet and see how long you are standing.

You couldn't be further from the truth. There was a good guy in WWII. The allies. Say this statement to a WWII vet and see how long you are standing.
If you go to war, you are killing. Killing is bad.

Going to war in WWII was unavoidable and necessary, but it was wrong.

They have an Iraq war game? They have those really short ones on www.miniclip.com and other websites, but they've released an actual game? That's pathertic.

Why do we even have to be part of the drakest time sin history, playing as if it was just irrelevant, how many people died in those wars.
They have games for Daddy Bush's war.

If you go to war, you are killing. Killing is bad.

Going to war in WWII was unavoidable and necessary, but it was wrong.


Ok, well we agree on this point above.

I have no clue. I find them very pointless. Imgine in like 20years, they'll be "Iraq war" games. It's just the excitement of killing nazis, Fascist, and Vichis. I see nothing in them. just another way to make money.

nah nah nah, the entire point of world war 2, was it was total war, both sides were pretty much evenly matched in terms of fire power (well that’s the strictly true by 1944 but whatever), where as Vietnam and Iraq (well not Vietnam its an exception that’s just because the French and yanks could understand the concept of guerrilla war fare.) where just bombing poorly equipped natives who just routed as soon as the saw actual troops.

But yeah i think they should do more from a nation other than America, considering out of the major powers she actually did the least fighting, a British one that takes the first 6 weeks of fall of France be good, you could make it really atmospheric, like every time you take a German gun post of whatever the French or Belgians to the flank of you give up and you have to retreat and have the men all talking about it, then the last few days of operation dynamo(Dunkirk) where your a rear guard unit be awesome.

French be a bit pointless, xenophobia aside they dint actually do that much fighting, due to their government selling them out and all, and for the minor members of the axis, bah boring walk all the way to Russia, get captured and put in the a camp to the 60's that could be a level.

But the one they are really missing out on, is the Germans, obviously you couldn’t do it from a member of the waffen ss, or one of the Hitler’s youth brigades. but they really should just go one from the eyes of a bunch of German draftees, have all the jubilation of the early victories then the crushing hopelessness of the final months, considering these war games are now charter based like in band of brothers, that be a great one dont ya think.

Sorry for the essay

I'd like a WWI game. Or a Boer war game. Rifles + bayonets = cool.

WWII was indeed the last war in which you could distinguish the bad side from the less bad one.
That, and most WWII FPS's are being developed in the US which, as we all know, saved the world.

The French resistance did do a lot of damage to the Germans. No game has yet captured the real ambiance of lurking in the woods on the 5th June 1944 on a mission to blow up telephone poles.

I think that games (and a few movies) about real wars are verging on offensive; they seem to trivialise and glorify the experiences and traumas of the real soldiers who gave their lives. There are one or two exceptions in the film industry which do justice to the wars they cover, but I'm yet to spot anything in the gaming industry, though I did stop trying them after BF1942. If there is a game out there based on a real event which shows you just how horrific and traumatising war actually is, please point it out to me.

I don't mind violent games, I play them. But I just think they should be based off of fictional events. That's why I play a lot more sci-fi games.
I mean, even if it weren't degrading the real soldiers who went in there, they could at least be using their imaginations somewhat, rather than just having ready-made events, storylines and weapons to just put into a fancy graphics engine.

As to the topic, I doubt you'll get your wish, at least not very often. Most of these games are made in America, most of these games are sold in America, most of these games are marketed in America. As we all well know, America won WW2 single-handedly, so it's only logical that we play as them in these games which show the true glory and honour of military conflict.

I'd like a WWI game. Or a Boer war game. Rifles + bayonets = cool.

WW1 games wouldn't likely be very successful. Trench warfare doesn't translate into an exciting game. After all, most people buying them couldn't give a crap about how bad the actual war was, they just want a game that'll get their adrenaline rushing.

There were a few, a long time ago. The most recent one I can remember was pretty unusual, I only played the demo. It was an alternate history kind of thing; WW1 never ended, and you joined the game in something like the mid-thirties.

If you go to war, you are killing. Killing is bad.

Going to war in WWII was unavoidable and necessary, but it was wrong.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html

No sane person wants to fight a war. But many sane people believe that there are times when they are necessary. I believe this is one of those times.
For it seems to me that if you are against any war – if you believe that peace is always the right choice -- then you must believe at least one, if not both of the following:

1. People will always be able to come to a reasonable agreement, no matter how deep or contentious the issue, and that all people are rational, reasonable, honorable, decent and sane,

or,

2. It is more noble to live under slavery and oppression, to endure torture, institutionalized rape, theft and genocide than it is to fight it.

History, not to mention personal experience, shows me that the first proposition is clearly false. I believe, to put it plainly, that some people have been raised to become pathological murderers, liars, and first-rate bastards, and that these people will kill and brutalize the good, meek people and steal from and murder them whenever it is in their personal interest to do so. You are, of course, free to disagree about this element of humanity. I, however, can put a great many names on the table. History is littered with people and regimes just like this: entire nations of murderers and thugs, savage and brutal men who could herd grandmothers and babies into gas chambers and march to battle with guns in the backs of old men and teenage girls for use as human shields. I believe these people are real, and that they cannot be reasoned with. I believe that there are entire societies where dominance and force are the norm, and where cooperation and compromise are despised and scorned. Again, history gives me quite a sizable list, and that list is evidence of the first order.

There are people – pacifists – who do not deny this, and these are the people who I really do find repulsive and deeply disturbing, for these are people who acknowledge the presence of evil men and evil regimes, and yet are unwilling to do anything about them. These are the people who cling to fantasies about containment and inspections and resolutions, people who acknowledge that barbarism and torture are rampant but who desperately cling to these niceties as long as nothing bad happens to them. When you point out to them that 9/11 showed that bad things can happen when you ignore such people, they simply point out that Hitler or Stalin or Mao is not as bad as all that, that they haven’t done anything to us yet, that action against them is unconscionable and illegitimate.

There are also people who say “better Red than dead,” people who would rather face the possibility of slavery – for ourselves or others -- than the certainty of a fight, with all it’s attendant blood and misery.

I’m sorry to say it, but to me that is nothing but sheer cowardice and refined selfishness.

We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having. Slavery is peace. Tyranny is peace. For that matter, genocide is peace when you get right down to it. The historical consequences of a philosophy predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe devoid of a single living Jew.

It would be nice if there were a way around this. History, not merely my opinion, shows us that there is not. If all you are willing to do is think happy thoughts, then those are the consequences. If you want justice, and freedom, and safety, and prosperity, then sometimes you have to fight for them.

I still don’t know why so many people haven’t figured this out.

They have games for Daddy Bush's war.
Like for XBOX and such?

i am only aware of small games on teh internet.

Maybe they'll include in Iraq war games, abuse the 'terrorists' not prisoners.

If there is a game out there based on a real event which shows you just how horrific and traumatising war actually is, please point it out to me.

Brothers in arms attempts to do just that. It's quite Hollywood-y, and to be honest - boring.

There were some interesting events in WWI though. A few charges. The first tanks. Some pushes (like the one in that film from ~2000 which title I've forgotten).

You want a cool WWII game? Check out this site: http://www.wwiionline.com

It's play online, and pay to play, but it's WELL worth $10 a month.

You want a cool WWII game? Check out this site: http://www.wwiionline.com

It's play online, and pay to play, but it's WELL worth $10 a month.

I bought ww2 online years ago when it was first released and it never really worked? Are all the bugs worked out, how many people play it?



On a side note, there is a wonderful game called joint operations where you can be indonesians and kill the americans who try to come into your country.

You can shoot down their helicopters and put bombs on the side of the road and then wait nearby and use a remote detonator to blow their jeeps up while they drive alone.

Also you can shoot their jeeps and trucks with old soviet RPGs.

I bought ww2 online years ago when it was first released and it never really worked? Are all the bugs worked out, how many people play it?



On a side note, there is a wonderful game called joint operations where you can be indonesians and kill the americans who try to come into your country.

You can shoot down their helicopters and put bombs on the side of the road and then wait nearby and use a remote detonator to blow their jeeps up while they drive alone.

Also you can shoot their jeeps and trucks with old soviet RPGs.
Awesome. what is it called?

Awesome. what is it called?

"Joint Operations"

http://www.jointopsthegame.com/application/language.asp

I hate FPS's. FP games in general. They give me a headache. And I can't see my character move around.

On a side note, there is a wonderful game called joint operations where you can be indonesians and kill the americans who try to come into your country.

You can shoot down their helicopters and put bombs on the side of the road and then wait nearby and use a remote detonator to blow their jeeps up while they drive alone.
That sounds realy awesome!!!!

It's true what is said. I've been asking myself the same question: when is the controversy going to lift so finally we can play as a German landser or an Italian soldier in 1939, '40 or 1941. I've been studying the WW2, especially the military aspects, for some ten years now and in my eyes, with the recourses avaible, the German army was the best over the entire war. Don't forget: in the beginning of the war there was no army on earth that could match the new Wehrmacht and not all soldiers were diehard nazi's. Game publishers probably don't want to take the risk that no-one would buy the game because it would mean to shoot allies (the good guys).

For the people who say crap about the french, think of it this way. Brothers in arms takes place in eight days of action. The french only fought on their soil for 6 weeks, but its not that hard to make a game with enough fighting. It may not be medal of honor, taking place over years of fighting, but it could be done fairly well. You start off as a green soldier in the ardennes. May 10th, everyone is tense, but the news has not come that germans have landed in holland with gliders and started fall gelb. Then you hear the planes, in what is the worst bombing mission in history by that time(worst as in strongest). You survive in your trenches, and then you see the german tanks headed toward you. You fight hard, using what AT guns you have, sort of like the Battle of the bulge fight in Cod:UO. After giving them heavy casualties, you are ordered to retreat. Other missions would have you defending bridges, and trying to blow them up to stop the german advance. You have a number of missions in the ardennes, and then when your unit is nearly destroyed, you are transfered to the newly created fourth DCR under De Gualle. You get to fight in the counter-attacks from the 17th-19th, until being transfered again to the northern campaign, where you get to defend against the germans in heavy warfare in Calais. However, as the germans begin to over-run you, you finally are wounded. Luckily, a british unit takes you in the rush, and you get taken to britain to recover, as a part of the escape(operation maximo).

You learn that france is forced to surrendur, and you immediately join the Free French under De Gualle. You are one of the lucky few french soldiers who werent taken as POWs(1.9m were taken). You are assigned to a british unit which assaults north africa in operation torch, as a member of a free french regiment. You go through the beach landing, and a few other choice missions through algeria and tunisia. Wounded in africa, you recover for a short time, before again being pressed to action in Italy, taking the western flank that free french forces did. You slowly make your way up italy, and the games final mission would probably be taking rome, or maybe assaulting a POW camp of french soldiers in northern italy, afterward joining up with allied forced in france and the war ending.

The french were all over the war, and they fought heavily in Fall gelb, so its not only incorrect to say bad things about them, but its just as bad as saying US soldiers were pussies because they didnt have many deaths.

I want a WWII FPS, in which you get to choose from seven countries, Australia, Canada, US, UK, USSR, Germany, or Japan. And you get to choose your occupation from Infantry, Pilot, Tanks, Ships, and Artillery. Where you get to move up in rank in your respective class. You should get to live on it in real time, not just missions, you have to do your duties, and you get to fight when the enemy attacks. So liek an RPG/FPS in a way.

The problem is that they make only games where you can play as an allied soldier.
Why on earth do they think a patriotic finn like me would like to play as an animal called russian soldier?

The problem is called "perceived market value". They simply don't think there's enough money in that market to justify the millions necessary for development, distribution and promotion. The logic is simplistic: "People like to play as winners and the allies won". That's it, it minimizes the financial risk of lower market value and controversy.

But, there's an option. Many developers have released tools to modify their engines in almost unlimited ways. I'm pretty sure you are not the only Finn who wants to play a game like this and, from what I remember from the old C64 demo-coding days, there are some mean Finnish programmers.

A bunch of you with different skills could get together and create a mod that would be just the game you want.

I'm jsut pissed off that game designers never think about the other nations that took part in the war. Like for example Canada. We basicly were brutal shocktroops in a sense and what do we get in WWII games? Just being mentioned in Operation Overlord for christsake. And I would love to play as the "bad guys" for once in a game. Like hell who hasn't wanted to be evil atleast once in a game?

My favourite WWII game - Steel Panthers: World At War - is admittedly a wargame rather than an FPS, but it manages to give 27 nations to chose from. I think Brazil is the only country which fielded troops in the war which doesn't make their list.

I see that no one here has ever heard of Battlefield 1942. Nazis, Russkies and Brits oh my.

You're all ignoring something obvious...

The only reason I used to play day of defeat or years before that counterstrike...


team killing

Battlefield 1942 lets you be a Nazi or Japanese if you wish.

The problem with Axis games is the question of how they will end. What will happen? If you're Allied, you win the battle, whohoo! Victory is yours. When you're Axis, what happens? The way the war ended leaves little possible endings. Unless, of course, you make the game open-ended.

from what I remember from the old C64 demo-coding days, there are some mean Finnish programmers.
Yeah, I know what you mean but those games are rather old and anyways, I don't have any idea how to make the mods work.

Why can't they make a game where there are multiple endings like in Panzer general?
It was an extremely enjoyable moment when my army invaded the last parts of the city of Washington and I knew who's gonna be the winner.

I'd like a WWI game. Or a Boer war game. Rifles + bayonets = cool.

That sounds fun. :rolleyes:

Hold down the crouch key to avoid bullets whizzing over your head as artillery shells blast randomly near you, offering some chance of death. There's the odd chance the enemy might waft some mustard gas over your head, killing you outright. If you manage to make it past this difficult phase, then get ready to go over the top, offering an almost certain chance of death as you vainly attempt to dodge layered machinegun fire as the blood of your comrades splatters all over you!

If you manage to reach the enemy trench, you have an absolutely certain chance of death as you last about 10 seconds melee fighting an opponent that vastly outnumbers you! Reload level ad-nauseam. Fun!

If you make it past the first few levels, you get promoted to officer, and get to spend the rest of your tour of duty in a French Chalet, sipping champagne, consorting with the local girls, writing letters home complaining about your bed being too soft, and tucking into roast dinner as the sounds of battle rage several kilometres away.

Should be a best seller!

'You couldn't be further from the truth. There was a good guy in WWII. The allies. Say this statement to a WWII vet and see how long you are standing.'

Ah yes, the 'good' Allies that commited a bomb holocaust in the refugee-packed cities like Dresden or Würzburg. Or like the Soviets that raped and mass-murdered their way through Germany. Your perception of 'good' and 'evil' is kinda skewed, eh?

The French resistance did do a lot of damage to the Germans. No game has yet captured the real ambiance of lurking in the woods on the 5th June 1944 on a mission to blow up telephone poles.

There is a game in The Medal of Honour series called 'Medal of Honour: Underground' which told the story of a female member of the French Resistance from 1942 to '44. It started it off in occupied Paris, and then carrying out sabotage attacks on various targets onwards.

The graphics have long since been surpassed, but for atmosphere and tension, the game still has it.

Brothers In Arms has your dropping into Normandy on June 6th to carry out objectives like taking out AA guns and Asparagus poles.

In the multiplayer, you can play as German soldiers.

I personally would love to see a game concerning the British soldiers, like Pegasus Bridge, Mienville Battery, Arnhem, and D-Day beaches, as well as Canadians and so forth.

In the medal of honor games, WWII Vets gave their advice on the making of the games, as well as military experts.

For realism and great graphics, try Brothers In Arms.

Why can't you people understand that there are no such things as 'good' and 'bad'?
There are only different kinds of perspectives.

Why can't they make a game where there are multiple endings like in Panzer general?
It was an extremely enjoyable moment when my army invaded the last parts of the city of Washington and I knew who's gonna be the winner.

That's the difference, though. It's feasible to assume that in a strategy game you can turn the war around.

Doesn't really work with FPS. One man cannot win a war.

It's different you can lead a team of commandos.

It's different you can lead a team of commandos.

You aren't going to win the war, though.

There's a Finnish campaign in IL-2 Sturmovik...

Why can't you people understand that there are no such things as 'good' and 'bad'?
There are only different kinds of perspectives.

what is that saying... "history is written by the victors"???

could you imagen the horror in america and brittion if a game was releaced where you had to shoot your own people.... AND BE GERMAN!!!! :eek: the paper sadly would have a field day..

What the hell has gone into WWII games nowadays?
All I want is a WWII FPS game where I could play a campaign of an alternative history as a german, finnish, japanese, hungarian, romanian, italian or bulgarian soldier, ie on my country's side of the war.
The problem is that they make only games where you can play as an allied soldier.
Why on earth do they think a patriotic finn like me would like to play as an animal called russian soldier?

It would be neat if every country has a campaign of its own and there could be multiple endings. For an example if you play as a finnish soldier you could lead one of those brave scout-teams deep behind enemy lines and destroy russian tanks with molotov-cocktails.

I've already played through panzer-general-games and I'd like an FPS.
So, all of you game producers out there! Mark my words, there're many countries where this kind of game could sell as well a panzer general!
Absadoodle everyone knows the ANZAC soldier won WWII dammit!
Give me games with them in them thumping Rommel! :mad:

I personally would love to see a game concerning the British soldiers, like Pegasus Bridge, Mienville Battery, Arnhem, and D-Day beaches, as well as Canadians and so forth.

I think you mean Merville Battery?
The finest display of a Battalion of 750 men reduced to less than 200 without actually fighting taking out a position mostly protected by Russian conscripts! :p

Rather sad really of the 750 only 350 or so actually made it to any objective point the rest drowned in Rommels swimming pools!

There's a Finnish campaign in IL-2 Sturmovik...
Still, that's not an FPS.
But I haven't tried flying-sims for a long time so maybe I can give it a try...

For - The State of It

Call of Duty does - Pegasus Bridge and you can always play as the Germans in multiplayer

i just wanna see some WWII games not do the western front - no wait... the invasion of normandy every time

plus ... lets do a US civil war first person shooter - most guns take 20+ seconds to reload - no automatic weapons.... should sell no problem