FeedBeating a Dead Horse – World War II and Video Games
by Betrand on Nov.23, 2008, under Opinions, Rant
Ah, how far we’ve come. From the days of Wolfenstein all the way now to the new Call of Duty. How many waves of Nazis have fallen under the hail of glorious, righteous gunfire? How many times have we stormed Omaha Beach, watching helplessly as our AI comrades are ripped to shreds in scripted events? And how many times have we had to play that goddamned sniper level?
Too many, we cry! We raise our brows in skepticism whenever we hear about the next new war game coming out, despite the publisher’s desperate pleas and wild claims of “unprecedented realism.” We let out a collective groan when Call of Duty – World at War was announced. And of course, we’ve all had that moment; walking through the Best Buy, we spy a copy of the new Medal of Honor game. You quietly muse to yourself, “They’re still making Medal of Honor games?”
Yes, we gamers moan and bitch about it, but in the end, these games are made, sold, and forgotten in a cycle that repeats itself all too often. But we have only ourselves to blame. These things sell; damn do they sell. In their respective first weeks, World at War outsold its predecessor, the (in my opinion) vastly superior Call of Duty 4 almost 2 to 1. Who the hell is buying these games? And why? Why do we visit upon ourselves these horrors? One could argue that it’s comforting to some people to have an enemy as undisputedly evil as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese. Well, maybe not evil, but hate-able at the very least. Maybe (for us Americans) it’s that nice little hurrah of the last time America was involved in a war that wasn’t mired down in a bog of political maneuvering. Maybe traipsing down through war-torn Europe, much as the US Cavalry did in all those old Westerns, inflates our egos a bit, a feeling of “yes we’re here to rescue you, yes we are awesome.”
Now, I’m not saying that all World War II games are crap. There were plenty of great titles, Company of Heroes, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Call of Duty 1 & 2, Brothers in Arms wasn’t half bad. But the fact of the matter is that these were great games. These games are locked away in our memories, wonderful and joyous in a time when World War II hadn’t been done to death. If these games were released today, with all the new current-gen bells and whistles attached, I wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole, just because of their setting. That’s how sick I am of them.
How much longer, industry? How much longer till’ we get this crap out of the system? It’s dead. And no matter how hard you beat it, it ain’t coming back.
November 23rd, 2008 on 10:57 am
PATRIOTS OF THE PATRIOTS and stuff like that. Honestly, I`m tired of all of these WW2 games, last year when Call Of Duty 4 came out I was happy that it was a war shooter that left the WW2 setting, but this year? SHAZAM, WW2 AGAIN! But honestly WW2 is to FPS what the DnD setting is for RPGs.
November 23rd, 2008 on 12:57 pm
“How much longer, industry?”
You should instead ask:
How much longer consumers
because as you said these games still sell and as long as they sell they will be made… simple as that
November 23rd, 2008 on 2:08 pm
“you’re mom” is right. The bullshit will continue until people can’t take it anymore.
November 23rd, 2008 on 5:51 pm
I’m sorry to say this but there is a reason why these things sell. As much as you don’t like them they are still pretty good games that give you your moneys worth. Now I did notpersonally pay for World at War but for 60 bucks most would definitely get enough gameplay. It really is not a step up from Call of Duty 4 but this game gives Call of Duty 5 room for much more improvement.
Kind of like how Fallout 3 is giving Bethesda more time for their next Elder Scrolls game.
November 23rd, 2008 on 6:17 pm
@Killer Tofu
Sure, the gameplay might be solid, but gameplay is only one factor. The size and scale of these WWII games are so incredibly huge, that you’d expect more.
If I wanted only gameplay, I would’ve downloaded a Half Life mod, or something else that provides it. When I buy a Call of Duty game, I expect the full package. Sound, visuals, atmosphere, etc.
(I will admit, Gary Oldman was pretty awesome in World at War, despite the fact that he was playing a stock character).
I’m not attacking World at War in particular. It’s only the most recent, big name WWII game, so I decided to use it more than other games. Personally, I think the zombie mini-game at the end was fantastic, and I was pleasantly surprised at the banzai charges, which added a whole new gameplay mechanic if you weren’t paying attention.
My beef, is that with a 60 dollar game like this, I expect to get my money’s worth. I shouldn’t get a rehash of everything that’s not gameplay. Same ripped of Williams/ Giachinno score, same old Nazis, same old war.
November 27th, 2008 on 11:52 pm
Err. I think you’ve failed to realize that every genre of FPS has been done to death. It isn’t just World War II, look at modern warfare games: Battlefield 2, Black Hawk Down, Americas Army, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six… The list goes on and on, so why not raise the question of why Infintity Ward even bothered making Call of Duty 4, it is only beating a dead horse after all?
Plus beyond that I actually find the whole w+mouse1 spray and play gameplay of CoD4 rather boring in comparison to World at War where you actually get guns that have even a little recoil (And even this is alot more then Modern Warfare). On top of the the maps in multiplayer are so much more well made and the SP is brilliant, I actually think CoD5 is an all around better game then 4 could ever be.
November 29th, 2008 on 9:02 pm
@Tree
Modern combat games don’t all look the same though. The setting of Rainbow Six isn’t the same as CoD 4. I don’t think that you can lump “modern” into a single setting because it is relatively diverse. A game where you foil an eco-terrorist doomsday plot isn’t the same as a game where you fight Russian ultranationalists bent on vengeance.
But with WWII games, you get one or the other. The Soviet campaign, the British, the American, etc. Most all of them have been done to death. (I’d love to see a WWII game that goes where others don’t though. A KMT Chinese campaign, or Australian, or an Italian campaign or something). You’re not fighting eco-terrorists in these games; you’re not fighting Russian ultranationalists; you are fighting against Nazis, every single goddamned time.
I had not noticed any significant changes in recoil between CoD 4 and WaW. Bolt actions always hit their spots, and the PPsH was just plain cheap. Besides, you could argue that the recoil, or lack thereof, was just trying to be consistent with the times. I couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn most the time in Brothers at Arms.
Now, this last part is purely personal. I enjoyed CoD 4’s single player MUCH more than WaW. A relatively engaging plot, fantastic music, top of the line voice acting, etc. WaW, I thought, had a bread and butter plot; it gets the job done but it’s ultimately mediocre and forgettable. The music, while it went in interesting directions, branching away from the tried and true blaring orchestral tracks, were inappropriate at best and painful at worst. Though, the WaW voice acting was pretty damn good.
I can’t speak for multiplayer, because I only played the single player.
November 30th, 2008 on 5:52 pm
@Betrand
“Modern combat games don’t all look the same though. The setting of Rainbow Six isn’t the same as CoD 4.
But with WWII games, you get one or the other. The Soviet campaign, the British, the American, etc. Most all of them have been done to death.”
Well if you’re going to argue that, surely I could argue that there is a massive amount of diversity in WW2 games. After all, the massive beaches of the Pacific islands, or the ruined towns of Nazi Germany in Battlefield 1942 are completely different to those that you will find in Call Of Duty, or Medal Of Honor.
One of the biggest reasons that a game is considered to be great is because that same style can’t be found elsewhere, which is obviously very rare.
For example: Bioshock does nothing revolutionary or new. It’s a fun game, but nevertheless it’s the same game play in a different setting. Does this automatically make it better than Deus Ex, which depicts the all too common dystopian future? Or Half Life which places you in an underground research facility? Or Max Payne, which throws you onto the cold winter Streets?
December 1st, 2008 on 3:04 am
@Eighteen
You misunderstand me. I wasn’t saying “new setting = better game.” I’m saying that WWII is a setting that is overdone. And because it’s an overdone setting, I am automatically turned off.
See, WWII is a very specific setting: you’re in the Pacific or Europe somewhere, fighting the Japanese or the Nazis. There’s no ambiguity you get with, for example, a dystopian future. Compare, say, Deus Ex with Mirror’s Edge. Both dystopian futures, yet radically different in visuals, sounds, atmosphere, etc. There’s a leeway there that’s not present in WWII games.
Also, no ruined towns of Nazi Germany? The Battle of Seelow Heights is recreated in World at War. And the Pacific? The entire American campaign is focused on the Pacific.
I must ask though. What exactly do you mean by “style?” Setting? Gameplay mechanics? Overall feel?
January 7th, 2009 on 4:55 pm
Yea WW2 games had their time, now it’s over…seriously, you can stop trying now gaming industries