Brother in Arms 3 Images

Looks like that guy is doing a one handed push up.

WWII is the new sports franchise, yay. Seriously, how many time can you reinvent shooting Nazis while capturing some random "important area".

Until people stop buying it, I guess.



Translation: Far too long.

Man... Im guessing you guys have never played BiA before? Its not like MoH, BF CoD and the rest of WW2 shooters, it is very different because it practically enforces tactical RTS style play. If you dont use the "four F's" tactics you will find the game extremely difficult. I think the game is quite dramatic and emotional which is nice for a game. Also I think it's the only WW2 game based on a true story. You can unlock many authentic photographs, documents etc of the real life events, characters and locations from the game, which is actually very interesting to look at. Most of the maps are supposed to be very accurate to the real locations.

Yeah so if you are sick of WW2 shooters I suggest you check this game out cos it is different. Strange though that its called BiA 3 because there was no actual BiA 2. Anyway, I cant wait for this sequel!

Facial stubble for the win!

BeerGut said:

WWII is the new sports franchise, yay. Seriously, how many time can you reinvent shooting Nazis while capturing some random "important area".

Click to expand...

It has been for many years already.... Personally I am sick of that ****. Find a new war and make games about it instead of the old WW2 crap.

BeerGut said:

WWII is the new sports franchise, yay. Seriously, how many time can you reinvent shooting Nazis while capturing some random "important area".

Click to expand...

It's not about shooting Nazis. It's about reliving the life of a soldier and being in the history. It's not Wolfenstein. It's real men, real locations, and real fighting. Some game developers do a better job than others portraying this, but that's the goal.

You'd be surprized at how many people there are that still like WW2-themed games. Basically, it's a bigger number than the people who don't like them. Development companies still make them because there are fans out there who want more. They don't keep selling because we force them down your throat. People wait eagerly and track the development of each WW2 shooter as much as you guys do for games like Gears of War or UT2007.

I mean, think about it. How monotonous is another WW2 shooter?

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of generic sci-fi shooters.

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of fantasy RPGs.

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of yearly sports games.

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of generic RTS games.

People complain about "OMG not another WW2 game!!1" when, in fact, there are many more generic games of other styles.

I think WW2 gets a bad rap (only among 20 people complaining on a message board) because the setting of the game is so recognizable and because companies like EA used the WW2 setting in a complete false way. MoH's stories aren't real. Nothing about any WW2 game they've ever created is even remotely authentic or true to history. CoD is the same way. They may have gotten the names of a few battles correct, but that's about it. They've basically butchered what little bit of true history they started with and managed to take a big dump on all those who fought in the war.

Bla I rant. Sorry.

Why always WW2 though? Why not one of the other multitude of wars? I have yet to see a game based on WW1 (The Great War).

ww1 might be fun, less armor, mustard gas, real trenches. You could start out as a french soldier whose hand is shot. Then, accused of self mutilation, you get thrown into the no man's land as an alt-execution, having to fight your way back home. And at the end of the game a hot Audrey Tatou shows up and declares here love for you...

Why so much ww2? I don't know. Because if we made a game about the war of 1812, gamers everywhere would suddenly stop and say "wait a sec, wtf were we all dying for again?" There are revolutionary war mods, but any indication of realism in them just goes to show how slow the guns were and how dumb it is to have everyone stand up while fighting. And any game about vietnam is going to end mysteriously early in the campaign. Personally, I still want to try that civil war mod I think it still around somewhere...

As for elsewhere, a yugoslovian game could be fun, the main character could be a vengful albanian muslim, though it's essential that this fact not be revealed in the promo material as to surprise all those redneck ww2 war hobbyists who didn't pay attention the first time because it was a war under that "disgraceful" president..

We could make a modern Iraq game, Sunni's VS Shiites. But considering the percentage of people killed by bombs and or kidnappings/executions VS people killed in actual firefights, that game would get realy f'n depressing real f'n quick.

I guess we could get a faulken islands war game where you can play a british commando who slices up the coastline and at the end gets the honor of having a psychotic crone pin a RAF medal through your nipple before leaning in and asking you where the best epicenter would be for a nuclear assault.

Perhaps I'm being too literal, but after finishing COD2 over the weekend I can say the actual style of the gameplay didn't bother me nearly as much as the lack of any indication of a story. It existed to do nothing but throw endless enemies at you to kill and repeat. Really, are there any players that aren't surprised by the sudden credit roll of these games?

Just killing the minutes before class...

ilkman said:

Why always WW2 though? Why not one of the other multitude of wars? I have yet to see a game based on WW1 (The Great War).

Click to expand...

I really don't know. I'd have to guess that WW2 is one of the first wars documented as well as it was. There are people that fought in it that are still living today. It's probably the oldest, easily translatable-into-a-video-game war. Would you want to spend 10 seconds loading your musket after each shot? The amount of documentation about WW2 makes it a nearly endless story to tell.

Anybody remember how doctored the first dozen screenshots were of the first bia? The game looked flipping fantastic, when it was released the only graphical thing it had over the other games was that overused bloom crap. The textures were worse then cod iirc.

Why is it that everyone whines about too many WW2 shooters when they hear about this game, yet nobody complained about Red Orchestra? The fact is Quake 4, HL2 and RO have far more in common with other run-and-gun WW2 FPS than BiA does.

antiAv said:

Anybody remember how doctored the first dozen screenshots were of the first bia? The game looked flipping fantastic, when it was released the only graphical thing it had over the other games was that overused bloom crap. The textures were worse then cod iirc.

Click to expand...

Those first several screenshots were not screenshots. They were concept art, or, if they had been movies, they be called "target footage". Sorry that point wasn't made very clear.

TomWithTheWeather said:

It's not Wolfenstein. It's real men, real locations, and real fighting.

Click to expand...

And that's why it's dull.

TomWithTheWeather said:

You'd be surprized at how many people there are that still like WW2-themed games. Basically, it's a bigger number than the people who don't like them.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that. Even if we were to take "people who like WW2 themed games" versus "people who plays games AND don't like WW2 themed games" it would be a very close margin, possibly going either way. That's the best I'd ever admit to.

TomWithTheWeather said:

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of fantasy RPGs.

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of yearly sports games.

Not nearly as monotonous as the multitude of generic RTS games.

Click to expand...

See, now that's just mean. Although there has been a sudden resurgence of sci-fi fps (doom 3, quake 4, whatever else) that was just random, and the new games have been pretty crap anyways. Usually dying off pretty quick.

And then you pick three horrible examples. Fantasy RPGs, yearly sports games, and generic RTS games are all indeed monotous bullcrap. And if this was a thread about one of those games, I'd complain about them too.

Bang_Doll said:

And that's why it's dull.

Click to expand...

That's fine to think that. Shoot, I still think that to a certain degree; I prefer sci-fi stuff. It's all a matter of opinion. There are a lot of people out there that would disagree. Many of the BiA fans enjoy it because of the authentic nature of the game and the historically accurate aspects.

Bang_Doll said:

I seriously doubt that. Even if we were to take "people who like WW2 themed games" versus "people who plays games AND don't like WW2 themed games" it would be a very close margin, possibly going either way. That's the best I'd ever admit to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I am probably over-exaggerating here. The numbers are still surprising though. Mostly, it depends on what type of gamer we're talking about. If we're talking about the majority of the 1337-ist PC user base, then yes, the majority of them don't like WW2 shooters. I don't expect many people on BuF to like this game. You guys are here because you like UT. If you're talking about the average console gamer crowd; they have no problems with more WW2 shooters. That's the market where these games sell the most. Shoot, most of the people that browse BiA specific forums are console gamers.

Bang_Doll said:

See, now that's just mean. Although there has been a sudden resurgence of sci-fi fps (doom 3, quake 4, whatever else) that was just random, and the new games have been pretty crap anyways. Usually dying off pretty quick.

And then you pick three horrible examples. Fantasy RPGs, yearly sports games, and generic RTS games are all indeed monotous bullcrap. And if this was a thread about one of those games, I'd complain about them too.

Click to expand...

I'm just trying to prove that this weird situation exists where everyone seems to whine about WW2 shooters. I mean how many of them are there compared to other theme-specific games/genres? There are just as many sci-fi shooters, rpg's, etc. Yet for some reason, and it seems to be only the PC gamers, people moan and groan the most over any new WW2 FPS.

As a side note, what's perplexing to me is that while professional developers that make high quality WW2 shooters get mostly pooped on in forum comments, WW2 mod teams that have gone pro get praised with promises of "we'll buy your game" by everyone. DoD and Red Orchestra come to mind. I'm not slamming DoD or RO, both are damn fine mods... er games; it's just that it's odd. They are also WW2. They also cost money. I just don't get it. Maybe it's the underdog appeal.

EggBoy said:

Man... Im guessing you guys have never played BiA before? Its not like MoH, BF CoD and the rest of WW2 shooters, it is very different because it practically enforces tactical RTS style play.

Click to expand...

Sadly, that doesn't really matter. Most of the people here won't even give it a chance just because it's WW2. Shoot, BiA gameplay is more akin to games like Full Spectrum Warrior or Gears of War than it is to Medal of Honor or Call of Duty.

TomWithTheWeather said:

That's fine to think that. Shoot, I still think that to a certain degree; I prefer sci-fi stuff. It's all a matter of opinion. There are a lot of people out there that would disagree. Many of the BiA fans enjoy it because of the authentic nature of the game and the historically accurate aspects.

Click to expand...

Aye, I guess. Though I would say taht that is the very reason for the popularity of WW2 games/mods... and it seems pretty paper-thin to me. I mean that's pretty much the l ine for some people.

Fake | Real

It doesn't even matter about anything else. If they're led to believe it's "real" they're like "omgWANT" and I just don't personally understand that. I can understand people's opinions, even if I disagree with them; but I just don't understand that one.

History is just another story to tell. I don't see why it's so much better than "non-fiction". Especially nowadays as historians find out a lot of our "history" has actually included quite a bit of "fiction"...

But I digress >_>

Its true that games with a familiar ring to them will get snapped up more quickly by regular consumers. BUT it's not just WW2 universe. If they make another Vietnam War game, HL2 universe game or Quake/Doom game (maybe even UT games to a lesser extent) it will be just as imediately popular because of the built in audience which has familiarity with the theme. WW2 just happens to be the biggest and most well known theme (especially for regular consumers), so naturally it will have a lot of games based on it. But the best part about making a game set in WW2 (or Vietnam) is you dont have to pay royalties like if you wanted to make your own Quake or HL2 universe game. Its almost like WW2 is a free "open source" theme and its also the most well known so why would developers not use it? The fact is that familiarity of theme is a very important selling point for regular people because often its all they have to go on when they see a game in a shop.

Of course developers can always make up new universes including sci-fi, fantasy or something based in historic reality like an alternate universe. But this costs money and the biggest drawback is that consumers will be unfamiliar with the new universe so they are less likely to buy it.

And that, my friends, is the true answer to the age old question: "why so many damn WW2 games?"