Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

But you'd have to fix combat to make it believable, you couldn't do the whole running kill count in the thousands. Audie Murphy was not German.

What, a game about non-Americans can't have unrealistic one-man-army heroes?  It's about entertainment.

[Strife26]

Well, if you're being pushed back and ultimately defeated, then you being able to hold off an army single-handed doesn't make sense.

[Virtz]

Well, if you're being pushed back and ultimately defeated, then you being able to hold off an army single-handed doesn't make sense.

You could always end up killed by something like a Katyusha salvo, you needn't necessarily die at the hands of actual soldiers.

Or the game could end before the reich begins to fall and you die.

[Aqizzar]

Well, if you're being pushed back and ultimately defeated, then you being able to hold off an army single-handed doesn't make sense.

Name one element of any other WW2 FPS that does make strict sense.

You're ordered to fall back, or hold the line and fall back, or the enemy force is big enough to kill you if you don't run, or whatever.  It's a game, not a documentary.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

To the OP, well.. who wants to play as a Nazi? It's not exactly a fantasy to play a genociding race. If you win as an Allied soldier, you stop the evil Nazis from taking over the world. If you fight a long war and win as a Nazi, you commit mass genocide. All that hard work and you get a really horrible ending.

1. OP hasen't talkin' about nazis it was about wehrmacht (there is big difference but you should have learned it in history)
2. Actualy if you win as allied you let at some moment the CCCP genocid happen (gulags, with much much more dead people then the nazi camps), and also that one of the americans (hiroshima, one time shot but still it is a genocid).
3. "a genociding race" ... never heard something that racist, and generalist ... in this line of thinking you could really be one of them ...
4. WW2 had a really horrible ending, actualy all wars have horrible ending, no metter who wins the ones who lose will take the worst part of it, so you say that it haden't had a horrible ending becouse it have a horrible ending for someone else?

[Puck]

The problem with the whole setting is probably the following:

Even to crazed gun nuts and pro-war-people it should be clear that the wehrmacht was THE one army, more than any other in history, where it would have been the duty of every soldier to desert ASAP, maybe even suffer the punishment, if flight wasnt an option.

I know, I talk big, and didnt have to make that choice. But a lot of people were only fighting for the wehrmacht because they had to. A lot claim they didnt know about the genocide. From whatever angle you view it, all the systematic mass murdering the wehrmacht fought to support (the nazis had friggin killing factories - they were butchering people like animals, and I dont think there was ANY genocide in mans history THAT organized) makes the whole topic waaaaay to dark and heavy for entertainment purposes.

Some might say "it's too soon". I however hope, it will always be to soon. "Never forget" isnt too inappropriate a saying for the holocaust. It's puzzling how it could happen, and it could happen again.

On the other hand, you have several RTS titles with two campaigns, axis and allies. Ida know. It's weird. I guess the problem is the whole shooter thing, those gmaes usually have to jump through more hoops than games from other genres to not get banned.

[Virtz]

Even to crazed gun nuts and pro-war-people it should be clear that the wehrmacht was THE one army, more than any other in history, where it would have been the duty of every soldier to desert ASAP, maybe even suffer the punishment, if flight wasnt an option.

As opposed to, say, the Red Army, where officers sent under-equipped conscripts against swarms of gunfire WW1-style and shot at them for retreating?

And you make it sound as though the average German knew exactly of what was happening. But they didn't. They even thought Poland invaded Germany. They knew as much as the Nazi propaganda machine told them.

(the nazis had friggin killing factories - they were butchering people like animals, and I dont think there was ANY genocide in mans history THAT organized)

Soviet gulags killed more people than Nazi concentration camps. Except they most often weren't executed, they died of exhaustion, starvation and disease.

[Leafsnail]

One mission could be to escape the front lines as things go from bad to worse and to try to get past your own soldiers.  Sure, a game like this (with fairly realistic gameplay mechanics) would be a long way from the "LOLOLOL I KILLED A WHOLE ARMY" theme of traditional FPS's, but it would be interesting to play something different and more sombre.

[Servant Corps]

To the OP, well.. who wants to play as a Nazi?

Me? I don't usually try to associate morality with playing a game. Because, I'm going to tell you right off the bat, that if I do that, I would be seeing the mass butchery of moronic and idiotic Germans in the COD series as a evil act and that my avatar as a evil person. All those mothers crying, all those sons left without fathers. Am I doing all this to "defend" the Free World? Seriously now, am I? Of course not, since if I was, I wouldn't seek to replay the same horrors again for extra bonus points, now.

[Keiseth]

I'd be interested in this. I'd like to play a game from the other perspective. You don't have to be evil to be in the Wehrmacht. Did every soldier sit after a battle, smoking cigars made from the sinew and ground bone-dust of his enemies, dropping ashes in an opened skull, and raising their champagne glasses-- full of allied blood-- in triumph?

It'd be easier thinking they did. We wouldn't have to feel bad killing an enemy who did that.

[de5me7]

I think theres a number of reasons why theres never been a single player fps from the German side.

no.1 reason is probably patriotism

Major video game developers seem to have decided that WW2 started in 1942 (late 1941) when the US joined the war, and when the russians started to get their act together. War was already 3 years old in europe at this time. There are plenty of campaingns (russian vs finland winter war, germany breaking france, italians in north africa) which could all make good games.

The problem is developers dont think they'l be able to sell a game unless the main protagonists are american. And if your protagonist is american then there has to be and evil vilan (because video gamers are all very simple people and we need simplified history with polar opposites).


its interesting that strategy and simulation games arnt effected by this, red baron,panzer general, and a host of  strategy games published by CDR are all focused on the jerryside. FPSes are generally mosre sotry driven (even if the sotries were written by children), and habve more emotional content making it more taboo to turn 'vilans' in to good guys.

personally id liek to see an axis sided shooter.

[Mipe]

That's why Americans are all about "we fought and won both world wars for you, eurofag". Annoying gits and even more annoying glorified patriotism.

[umiman]

We get to play as the enemies quite often in strategy games. Heck, in Civilization, you could reenact the entirety of World War 2 with no big deal. Men of War, Germany is hugely stronger than all the other factions. In Generals, we get to play as global terrorists. It's just a lot less prevalent in FPS.

It's difficult to place though. I'm gonna guess that when we play an FPS, we don't really expect to have to deal with issues or things that impede our way of shooting stuff. Not to mention America is a bloody huge market for FPS where people actually pay for games and it would be kinda silly to alienate that market. Not to mention the fuss all the veterans would kick up when they see their kids (or themselves) aiming guns at fellow American soldiers. We all know how that plays out.

And playing an FPS as the Germans in WW2 is kinda lame. You'll spend your whole time defending and retreating. Not many cool battles for the FPS player to experience as that faction. Even when they were on the offensive, they advanced like the wind and broke through lines so fast that there wasn't really much cool combat to be hand. And even then, you're faced with the realization that you're fighting for the losing team...

Different for strategy games though. We like defense missions.

[a1s]

And playing an FPS as the Germans in WW2 is kinda lame. You'll spend your whole time defending and retreating.

well that's untrue.
The Polish campaign was all about offensives. Then there was taking over the 'low nations' (even though most are actually to the north, and thus above, of germany), and Farnce. On to Russia, where even after the 1941 advance to Moscow, Germany made numerous counterattacks. Africa was really fun, with many great offensives for both sides (although it will put the already Nazi protagonist near the recently infimized Reactionary Muslim Arabs). Even the over hyped American invasion of 1944 had the Ardennes Offensive...

[umiman]

Which brought me to my final point. They all failed in the end. :/ It's a quality that holds quite true to FPSes, and games in general. Nobody wants to play for the losing team. How would you structure it? Play only the successful parts of each operation and ignore the aftermath? If there was continuity, it would be so weird with this guy feeling like missions only succeed because he was there. And if there wasn't, it would be strangely jarring as you'd be jumping bodies constantly for no real reason. And how would it end?

Overall, it's just strangely complicated and way too political to get into for no real market to enjoy. Just a few core gamers who've grown sick of shooting Nazis and not actually sick of WW2 FPSes in general. Kinda limited there.