digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Why There Are So Many World War II Games

next-gen.biz — Out of all the period games that could be made, a lopsided majority end up being about World War II. In the 2006 calendar year alone, a whopping 23 World War II-themed games (including special editions) were released at an average of two titles per month. Unthinkable? There's a reason.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gwjc, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5True dat; the Crimean War would also be good.
    • lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -56/+5Q. Why are there so many ww2 games?

      A. Because people like and buy ***** *****.
    • MrDash001, on 10/11/2007, -22/+160It's the last war America actually won.
    • corevette, on 10/11/2007, -27/+10why world war II?: because we won it
      why not the iraq war?: ....well....you can figure it out...
    • APHughes, on 10/11/2007, -32/+7Because idiots keep buying them
    • Tunguska, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35Because WWII was like, the best war! OMG didn't you know that!!?!?!!!111
    • CkMaverick, on 10/11/2007, -1/+107Well this is pretty easy. It's one of the only wars that are looked back upon very positively by this generation. It was potentially the most just war of all time and and being on the Allied Forces is seen as so morally right it is easy for us to parody the heroes who fought it. As the article says, 'it is pretty much the largest war ever fought', there is so much involved with world war II that you have so many battles, options, and stories to tell that it gives you a very broad and grand base to develop it anyway you want.

      And the biggest thing that sells WWII games is the brand of warfare. World War II is the most diversely fought modern war in the history of the world. While army, navy, and air force are still important aspects in warfare today, due to technology there is a lot less use of them and warfare is made into pretty much button pressing. What do you think made Battlefield 1942 and all its predecessors into such powerhouse gaming platforms? There is so much diversity in game play to World War II combat that you are given for the first time the option of land air and sea coordinated combat. In all previous games it was one or the other. Now you can be fighting on the ground and call for air support or naval artillery. Modern warfare is conducted by pressing a button for a cruise missile missile or locking onto your target from 20 miles away. In WWII you had to get right up on the tail of your enemy and gun him down with pieces flying into your own plane. It is a lot more up close & personal with more action than we have today. If you look BF2, while it has the modern weaponry, it is really still WWII combat. You think there is any dogfights or locking on with missiles locks nowadays with F-22's and Mig-29's 100 feet away from each other? Or tank on tank combat from 50 yards? Try miles and miles.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35@CkMaverick: "being on the Allied Forces is seen as so morally right it is easy for us to parody the heroes who fought it."

      I agree with everything else you say, but is "parody" really the word you were looking for?

      Also everyone thinks it's OK to hate the Nazis and to destroy them using any means possible. They're still history's ultimate bad guys.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Also WWII was the last war that the people actually supported. We could be trying to kill space monsters destroying the world at this point and people would still protest war.
    • woodcoxcb, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6"Also everyone thinks it's OK to hate the Nazis and to destroy them using any means possible. They're still history's ultimate bad guys."

      What about the Stormtroopers?
    • Nitrodist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14The other major reason is that it'd be very controversial to have games that feature conflicts in the present day. The WW2 theme is clear cut in that it had the dictators and the good guys. The conflicts these days can go either way as history hasn't had time to decide who's morally right and wrong.

      The risk that developers run by choosing a modern day conflict is greater because it runs the risk of having a political sentiment to it. Naysayers will say, just make the game non-political, but war by definition is a political act. WW2 offers a safe haven for developers to make a game for as it will not be controversial.

      EGM actually had a really good article about this very subject. It's an interesting read and if someone can find it on their site, I'd recommend reading it.
    • Fooord, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5That Nazis actually had Stormtroopers...So they could be the same thing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36Am I the only one who wants to see a WWII game where you play as the Germans/Japanese/Italians?
    • SillyRabbits, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Building on what nitrodist said. It's also a war that is very well documented with film footage and research material. The amount of material on bookshelves devoted to the war is almost unbelievable. Heck, there are probably countless books just detailing the aspect of every single weapon used in the war. From the game development perspective it's a goldmine of material. Additionally, the weapons of opposing sides can be balanced without it looking ridiculous. The weapon technology at the time also lends itself well to the FPS style of play. Muskets with 30 second reload times or cruise missiles that you simply punch in GPS coordinates aren't going to be much fun. Not much of a surprise.
    • Asshate, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2WWII was the last war the USA won.
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7lets not forget that this was also brought us out of a depression, innovated countless technology, brought women into the workforce, boosted international trade, exposed us to foreign arts and learnings and made enemies into allies (if only for a short time).
    • badjoke, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4"Why There Are So Many World War II Games?"

      Cause it was awesome. Lots of stuff going on, in vastly different parts of the world; along with great tales of brotherhood.
    • CkMaverick, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22@flashman

      Yes, I did intend the word parody because one of it's definitions is as follows:

      "to imitate poorly or feebly; travesty."

      While I probably wouldn't go so far as to call it a travesty when comparing to video games; I do very much believe that no matter how realistic it may become, it will pale in comparison to what those men actually faced on the beaches of Normandy and beyond. While there still are heroes today, their numbers are microscopic to those who answered the call of WWII; if there were, we would never have allowed our government to go as far as it has with these unjust wars and degradation of rights. Nowadays a lot of the beliefs they fought for are used as a punchline. I will give you the best example I know of the changed nature of the American people and our government from WWII to today:

      During WWII we gained 400,000 German prisoners of war. We shipped them to America, built large camps for them outside of small towns in America usually at a size of 300,000 prisoners per camp. Some of the camps weren't finished in time so we setup tents for them and even though the guards had their own quarters they decided to sleep out in tents with the prisoners. When the prisoners arrived they were greeted with Americans handing them bread and food and joining them in song.

      When the camps were finished they were all moved into their own quarters and given free reign around the camp. They were paid a stipend and allotted the ability to buy goods and services from locals and retail shops! They were given free usage of showers and their meals consisted of meats, vegetables, and some fruit along with coffee, water, or a beer (they were alloted one beer per day but the Germans would form groups take turns pooling their beer tickets together for each person in the group to have several and get a little buzz).

      We helped them build a park, a massive tier seating indoor theatre where they could conduct German plays from memory, and allowed to listen to the radio as much as they wanted. We gave them the ability to police themselves! The guards were only there to keep them in the camp and not to keep order. Their labor consisted of only a few hours a day and would often be assisted by guards. We schooled anyone who wanted to learn without indoctrination! We offered to teach in fields such as farming, engineering, the english language, and almost endless topics in classrooms there at the camp. They were encouraged to paint, craft, and build.

      Only 26 men died at the hands of American soldiers when trying to escape as a last resort amongst a couple hundred attempts hoping to run to Argentina (a friendly German ally at the time). These men had were buried in a military cemetery by the Germans themselves given full German burials and we even supplied Nazi flags to place over their coffins! A year after the war had ended (three and a half total) we returned the POWs to Germany, reason it took so long is we didn't want to handle any more troops at the time during the rebuilding of Germany. Only 7 prisoners were unaccounted for out of the 400,000 prisoners that were sent to the camps. If that is not management I don't know what is. Many of the POWs later returned to America and where they were captive to visit and often to live saying it was the best time of their lives.

      You see, America believed in this odd little document called the Geneva Convention. They believed that if they treated their POWs with as much respect as possible the same would be done for their own. They were of course wrong and in German and Japanese POW camps Americans were often tortured, starved, and beaten/killed. But in the face of the most hated enemies of all time, the most hateful people you may ever meet, and the most tyrannical regime in history America showed respect, civility, and adhered to international law.

      Now, compare that with today. "POW" captured (we are really in no war at the moment we are policing a nation in civil unrest) and is taken to Guantanamo Bay Cuba. He is then subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" : water boarding, exposed to extreme temperatures in the nude, deprived of sleep and forced to be under light 24/7, knocked around and in some cases beaten, and force fed. I mean it is already over, I don't have to go any further... Instead of showing them that we are a great nation of peace, understanding, love, and protectors of the people -- we instead show them that we are a nation of pain, torture, imperialism, and indoctrination. If their brethren tells them to do these irrational things but still gives them religious hope and are nice and respectful to them and then we go and treat them like the scum of the earth and prove, in their minds, that what they have been indoctrinated to fear from the U.S. is true... Who are they going to believe in the end?

      I am sorry for this long post and story for such a simple comment and answer, but I feel this story is a great one and at the hear of what our nation truly is and it solidifies the point in my mind that: Yes, today's America is a vast parody of what it once was -- the America our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought to uphold. And that truly is a travesty.

    • CkMaverick, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I am sorry it is late and I have to double post one correction. I can deal with the grammar mistakes at this hour but there is one glaring one that has to be corrected. The camps had *3,000 prisoners per camp. Not 300,000. I am sorry for that, it is an important number to get right.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Oh. Fair enough. I usually read 'parody' as 'making jokes about', so I read that differently than you intended.
    • karabunga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@ gir53457
      with WWII online (or Battleground Europe) you can choice your side, either play axis, french or british.
      It's a MMOFPS running for 6 years now, it's realistic and accurately modeled.

      http://www.battleground-europe.com
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Online
    • Asianwaste, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Because muskets and trenches sucked!
    • 0crabby0, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"The Good War" by Studs Terkel

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_War
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There was no moral ambiguity in WWII. Germans were using unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic were running over small countries that couldn't hope to stand againt them. Japan attacked without warning [alhough that was a screw up] and were mindlessly brutal to POWs and civilians.

      It is not difficult to shoot down an evil nazi or murderous kamikaze.
    • Veritate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@CkMaverick,

      Great post. Reminds us of what being American is supposed to be about.
    • salinemist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@veritate

      Have you read the Geneva Convention? Unless your country is a signatory and you're fighting in uniform it doesn't apply. Al-Qaeda/Mahdi Army/Muslim terrorists et al have brutally murdered every Westerner they've ever captured, we are far away from sinking to their level.
    • EatingPie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@MrDash001: "It's the last war America actually won."

      You get +94 Diggs for a saying something FACTUALLY WRONG. WTF, Diggers. You were even ALIVE during the last war America won.

      Operation Desert Storm, aka The Persian Gulf War. We didn't just win, we totally dominated. The war lasted something like a month, with 200,000 Iraqi casualities, and less than 100 American. Pretty horrifying.

      POPULARITY of a comment does not equal TRUTH of a comment.

      -Pie
    • Herald42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@jamessavik

      "There was no moral ambiguity in WWII."

      There was some in the beginning, especially contemporaneously to the unrestricted submarine warfare you mentioned. Without declaring war, we and the British tried to strongarm Japan by blockading their trade routes, threatening to sink their civilian ships, engaging in a trade embargo in an effort to economically starve Japan's war in China, and sending the Flying Tigers over to China to bomb them, in addition to sending weapons to England on civilian convoys and using civilian convoys to call in torpedo bombers to sink subs when they emerged to ask for surrender (incidentally, that's what the Germans were fairly certain the SS Athenia was doing when they sunk it, but happened to be wrong). While we were not committing atrocities per se, FDR was engaging in some shady tactics akin to the German unrestricted submarine warfare by dodging the isolationists in Congress until he could provoke something that could get all of America wanting to go to war -- Pearl Harbor. Once we got in the war, the atrocities on the enemy's side were revealed, but we didn't get into the war by simply waiting around to get attacked -- Japan wouldn't have touched Pearl Harbor at least as soon as they did; they were busy with their own wars in China and Southeast Asia. I do have to give FDR credit -- he was a political genius, especially when it came to PR.
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2>>@MrDash001: "It's the last war America actually won."

      >You get +94 Diggs for a saying something FACTUALLY WRONG... {we dominated in Gulf War I}

      One might argue that the Soviet Union fought the lions share of WWII on the ground. The German-Soviet theater of WWII was exceptionally savage. The casualties were vicious and can only be estimated. The Germans lost around 6 million where Soviet losses were around 25 million (combined military and civilian) This number may have been as high as 30 million.

      The war in Russia bleed Germany white and put the Soviets in position to be one of the most powerful nations in the post-war world.
    • xShad0w, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Jews?
    • staticneuron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Pie

      The gulf war was a mess. Yes americans lost 147 soldiers (combat related) in comparison to an estimated 20,000 ( combat related, imagine who made up the rest of those numbers) iraqi troops but this depends on how you view the war. The point of the war was to defend saudi arabia (desert shield) then they decided to drive iraq out of kuwait ( desert storm). We won.... but our attacks didn't stop there like it should have. You can research and throw out a guess at how many were killed when fleeing kuwait (highway of death) or how many were killed when the US and a few others persued the retreating forces into iraq.
    • Mohonri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"The last war America won"

      Even setting aside the inaccuracy of the statement, I'd like to point out that there's another side to that statement. The fact of the matter is that since the end of WWII, there haven't been that many wars to fight in the first place. If you look at the history of 18th and 19th century Europe, it was one long string of one war after another. Since WWII, we simply haven't seen the same kind of thing. We've had a few localized conflicts where communist and capitalist countries tried to increase their influence (Korea, Vietnam), and quite a number of civil wars, but by and large, the fierce nation-vs-nation warfare has been far less than in the past.

      The reasons are up for debate, but I would venture that one major reason it's been relatively quiet is because the big military powers (US, China, Russia, etc) are more interested in keeping the peace than in expanding their borders. And almost everyone else is sufficiently intimidated that they don't dare do anything.
  • thenoblesheep, on 10/11/2007, -30/+5I despise all WWII games, I started with Call of Duty 1 and ended with Call of Duty 1, they're all so dark, gloomy, and dull. The industry needs more Civil War and Revolutionary games, I found Battlegrounds 1 and 2 mods for Half-Life to be enjoyable and the 1-shot muskets add to strategy and team play.
    • Racerx52, on 10/11/2007, -2/+58Yes, I want to reload my muzzle-loader for 1 minute, for that solid, Shoulder-to-shoulder in line firing action of the Revolutionary war.

      Fun.
    • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Company of heroes is the least-dull game I've played in some time.
    • b0wl0fud0n, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I agree Battlegrounds is pretty interesting to play because of the "accuracy" in the game. I can see why there aren't many Civil War/ Revolutionary War games though - reloading takes forever - most of it is a hit and run. However, it's a lot more team based because you rely a lot more on the guy behind you to make sure if you miss, he takes him out.
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Civil war games should stick to the RTS genre. And name one FPS that isn't dark or gloomy. And Far Cry does not count because of the bright colors. COD 2 and 3 were both spectacular games and so were the early Medal of Honor titles.
  • tjsullivan1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"Non-Popular Modern themes (1800-1920) The American Old West, cowboys and Indians, Billy the Kid, etc. This theme has been covered before, but mostly in the minds of 10 and 11 year old boys."

    Did anyone else play Gun? Awesome, but I don't think it was aimed at 10 and 11 year olds.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28"The Mongolian Empire (1206–1405). The stage: Genghis Kong and one of the largest empires in history second only to the British Empire."

      Genghis KONG?

      Also, I think there's a place on the Wii for a cowboy-themed game: quick-draw street shooting in particular.
    • dinostabOMG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+46@flashman

      Yeah, Genghis Kong throws barrels down the Centrial Asian Steppe and you have to jump over them.
    • redneckblues, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would really like to see a sequel to Gun myself.
    • z3021017, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Outlaws by Lucasarts anyone?
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Call of Juarez? Did everybody forget CoJ already?
    • drachemorder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Western games would be awesome. I'm really surprised there haven't been more of them. It's practically the perfect setup for a FPS deathmatch game. Lucasarts made one a while back, and I do recall a Western mod for Doom 2, but I really can't think of very many others since then.

      It's time for the classic Western to make a comeback, I think.
    • stickyfeet17, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Its fun killing Nazis
  • gwolf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18World war two like no war before or since had clarity, good guy's and bad guys no Gray. Wars who's objectives are religious, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, perpetuating slavery or plain greed just don't appeal to a very broad audience because people are much more civilized in the 21st century.

    Also it was fought with modern weapons that don't limit your rate of fire to 3 shots per minute.
    • BoneyB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28> because people are much more civilized in the 21st century

      ha, good one!
    • bobcrotch, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Yeah no kidding, look at the middle east and africa, they're still committing unspeakable acts against their people!
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Is there a Russian or Arab video game where they butcher Americans?"

      Yes.

      "Would you find it offensive?"

      No.
  • homerj14, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1racerx I laughed for a good 5 min.

    I know what you mean haha
  • homerj14, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1How can you get sick of the Bar?
  • lordigor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+481) killing nazis is ok by most peoples morals
    2) weapons and equipment thats modern enough to be fun but not modern enough to be too complicated (23-item HUD or something like that)
    3) you can milk it for patriotism and heroics for all you're worth
    5) fighting in all kinds of terrain
    6) you can form your own storyline out of a very loose set of events
    • mdkoch84, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1i wonder if someday its going to be morally ok to kill Americans?

      or maybe it is already by most the worlds standards, they just dont have the army to do it.
  • LaSepultura, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Why are there so many World War II games?

    Because people keep buying them.
  • secretwhistle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Operation Urgent Fury: Grenada.

    ** - Short. Only difficulty setting is easy. No replay value. Patented "Cuban" AI no match for gunships.

  • samdu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It was the last war with a tangible, definite evil. It's still politically correct to hate Nazis. All of the wars since then have been less black and white. All of the wars prior, not technologically advanced enough to make for an appealing game to the masses.
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9WWII was far from black and white; especially for the Germans.
    • samdu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It was/is from a perceptual standpoint. "Nazi" is almost universally a synonym for "evil." That's pretty black and white.
  • gmprunner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The War of 1812 would be pretty fun on the Wii :-P

    Second funnest would have to be the Cold War.
    • lo0ol, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Maybe it's just me, but I thought a US Civil War game would be interesting (or, similarly, a WWI game). Yes, the tactics of warfare were different in those days, but the notion that maybe 5-10 years down the line we could have a first person shooter with 5,000 or so players over the internet at the same time would be really fun. Bandwidth-intensive and really server-intensive, but if you could make it where if you live through various battles you can get promoted and lead troops... it would just be a different game than everything else we see nowadays. Or maybe trench warfare would really end up being boring, who knows. :)
    • z3021017, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31"Second funnest would have to be the Cold War."

      Starts off as a RTS where you move your units in position for an attack and then over a period of 10 years, slowly move them back home. The game then turns from RTS to a management simulator as you try to keep your country from going bankrupt by selling arms to middle-eastern nations and the black market.
    • LaueOfficer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Could someone explain to me why "z3021017" was being dugg down? He is absolutely spot on with his quick sum up of the Cold "War".
    • Philodox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2A WWI game would be the worst game ever made. You are aware that the front moved something like 5 miles in the first three years of the war, right? The combat by and large consisted of running accross open terrain whilst getting wailed on by machine guns and artillery. If you actually made it accross then you'd get to some fighting. In the event that you actually took the enemy trench more than likely you'd be forced to retreat by a counter attack.
    • lo0ol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"You are aware that the front moved something like 5 miles in the first three years of the war, right?"

      Naturally. I was mostly thinking of a Civil War era game and threw the WWI reference in for fun. During the Civil War, they'd still do the initial lineup-and-wait-to-get-shot routine, but they do get some closer quarter attacks on charges. Yes, some of it would just be dumb luck - a cannon hitting you by chance, a stray bullet killing you - but then again, that's kind of how the war played out. I don't know, maybe it's just because the whole WWII thing is done ad nauseam. I love WWII games, so you could certainly do D-Day in my example (a 3,000 player real-time invasion, for example), but I just think it would be cool to give a few other wars and strategies a shot. Think a Second Life type game set during the Civil War, for instance, where you control the career of a soldier over many battles. I'm not a huge SL fan, but I know it has its fans, so it leads me to believe some would be interested in it.
    • AnthonyA7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Anyone played with the Battlefield 1918 mod for BF42? WW1, obviously, and it models all the weaponry, maps, and vehicles pretty damn accurately. It's pretty damn awesome to use a Maxim machine gun in an FPS.
    • saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@Philodox:

      Ever see Black Adder, or more specificially the 4th installment "Black Adder Goes Fourth". Set in WW1, there is this great scene where the General and his Lt are standing over a small sandtable.

      General: "So, this is a representation of the land we captured today?"
      Lt: "Yes, sir."
      General: "What's the scale?"
      Lt: "One to one."
  • abatch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@tjsullivan1

    Agreed. Gun was bitchin.
  • holygram, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Someone should make a WW3 Game.






    The concept of a wwIII game is now officially copyright Michael Claisse and anyone who makes it in the future will be hearing from my legal team.
  • IcedMetal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9'I find the Medieval wars like the wars of Troy, Sparta, old school England...'

    The wars of Troy and Sparta are most definately NOT medieval.
  • L0g1X, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1They should make a bow and arrow FPS game.
  • 13thMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21) Games need international appeal, so for example an American Civil War shooter would be of little interest to gamers outside the US.
    2) A pre-gunpowder era shooter would get very dull very quickly. "Stand there and when the Romans attack don't let go of your pike".
    3) For maximum popularity it helps if the war was a 'just' war that the good guys won.
    4) It helps if there are TV programs about the subject matter - preferably with real footage to go with it. That way there's a chance that gamers will have heard of the places and sides involved. "What do you mean I've just got creamed as a Phoenician at Carthage? I didn't know the Romans would have catapults"

    So, that pretty much leaves us with WWI and WWII. I can't see how sitting in a trench for a couple of maps and then running into machine gun fire for 'game over' would be entertaining, so WWII it is then.

    Of course, that's just for shooters. Tactical games are a whole different kettle of fish.
    • SJZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0War isn't fun. War games aren't like real war. Whether you're talking about World War 1 or World War 2, or Napoleon invading Russia, none of it is fun. Some great aces got less than a dozen kills in the air, and some pilots ran patrols and would never see an enemy, for example. Think about that: What game would let you fight an entire war where you shoot down less than a dozen aircraft, and in most missions never see combat?! Real ground combat is similar: No game will have you playing guard duty for 4 years at some strategically important power plant that never gets attacked, they make you the guy on Omaha beach on D-Day. The first thing you need to realize when playing any war game is it's not designed to be realistic, it's designed to be fun.

      That's why even when you're playing a general, you get unit-level control in RTSes (Who wants to sign a bunch of papers authorizing routine unit transfers and such?). That's why even when you've been shot dozens of times, you can just pick up a med kit and you're ready to go again(Who wants to win a level then have their character die of gangrene in his wounds? Who would like playing a game where an enemy sniper from a mile away wipes out your platoon and no matter how good you are you'll never figure out where he's shooting from or have a chance to fire back). It's all meant for fun game play, and it's not at all realistic. Because of that, you can "action movie"-ise the game play, so you don't have to be the general signing papers you don't care about or the poor shlub in the phalanx. You get to be the roman soldier carrying seven different types of weapons, who doesn't have to work that hard with his unit, even though Romans succeeded because of the superior organization in their units.

      Basically, you don't need to think about the fun or lack of fun in a war to determine if you can make a fun game out of it. You basically make a fun game, and give it a story and theme so the player can pretend he's there. It's not much different than when you were a kid playing cowboys and Indians. Even then, you could use BB guns and sharp stones and really make the game realistic(in terms of the combat -- you could bring genocide into the equation if you wanted to as well, but it's a game and genocide is a downer), but it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be fun.

      Your other reasons are the good ones. It's a marketing thing. You might be able to sell a civil war game in the US, and a Napoleonic game in France, but a WWII game you can sell EVERYWHERE, and it's got the recognition, and it's got the morality.
  • fixedcoma, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1I'm so tired of using WWII weapons in games and actually todays weapons are getting boring. When is battlefield 2142 coming out for xbox360? And don't get me on the racing games. NFS mostwanted and GT4 are the only ones that can compete!
  • supaklaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's because it's probably the easiest to make? There's already tons of wireframes out there, battle field scenarios are already well documented. Aerial combat simulators are also all over the place... and the weapons are easy to generate mediocre fire. And yes, people keep buying them.
  • l31101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Because it's the last "complete" war. There was a definite ending while Vietnam and all the rest of wars, the troops had to either retreat or stay and "guard" the countries.

    Besides, killing Nazis is fun.
    • salinemist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Because it's the last "complete" war. There was a definite ending while Vietnam and all the rest of wars, the troops had to either retreat or stay and "guard" the countries."

      Democrat Congressional majorities, the only force ever to defeat the United States Armed Forces.

  • Juroujin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Meh, why can't there be more games set in the Sengoku Era...

    /lament
    • SJZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'd love to see a swordfighting simulator based around old killing style military swords of Europe before plate armour became mainstream and hammers became required equipment. That type of fighting is all about moving between stances to present a complete attack, and as a general rule you can't block with your sword because you'll probably break your sword.

      Rapier style weapons are much flashier and better known, but the killing sword is the one I think would be interesting, because it'd be something completely new compared to most of what the world thinks of swordfighting.

      Sengoku era sword fighting is killing sword style, by the way. I'd prefer adding a Japanese era to a European game though, because there's way more in terms of weapons and strategies among the heterogeneous Europeans than the homogeneous Japanese.
  • StephenCIreland, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2people like killing russians and nazi's , simple as
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You're not really killing Nazi's in WWII games, you're killing Germans. The justification that killing them because of what their government did always kinda irked me.

    Anyway, as previously stated there was just so much that happened in WWII. You can fight in the desert, a snowy mountain an open country side and the ocean. You can also prevent Himmler from raising the dead to destroy the world!

    What? That didnt really happen?
    • SJZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You've got a point there. My grandfather told me that the people in the war, they were just like him, and there wasn't this vicious hatred of enemy soldiers, they were just people out there to do a job.
  • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1WW2 games are cool because they are set in an era when Nazi ***** were plentiful and bad, not the wacko shaved-head kids of today. Killing them was fun.

    Nowadays, get yourself one of those Nazi bitches and beat the crap out of him, he'll cry and run home to mama.

    We all envy our grandfathers who ***** those Nazi bastards for good. That's why they're cool and we're not.
    • Gir53457, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No, Last time I got in a fight with a skin head I lost.
    • EbowUK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@chixdiggme

      That's twice now you've demonstrated why Digg needs a minimum IQ requirement for members.
    • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1don't feed the troll.. he doesn't know what he's talking about. "ovens".. right. a dumb joke about the shame of human history.. good for you.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@chixdiggme (#7181905) said: "I would like a German video game where I can round up Jews and march them into ovens. ;) "
      You win the grand prize of a trip to my block list. I don't waste my time listening to the empty blather of a bigot.
      • SJZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Hey, who says you need to be a bigot to see the value in a game like that? Honestly, I can't even identify a Jew (The only ones I know of are the ones like Jon Stewart who go out and tell you), let alone despise them, but the thought of having a game where you're the evil bastard running a murder factory would, if nothing else, be interesting because from an artistic point of view, it could force the player to examine his response to evil.

        Since we're talking about something that IS terrible, the game could keep reminding that what the player is participating in is truly terrible and reprehensible and has no redeeming qualities (Possibly juxtaposed beside other aspects of the game, such as feedback from superiors, which would present your evil in a positive light), eventually pushing the player to either allow the evil and allow himself or herself to become a cog in the machine of evil, or pushing the player to stop playing, despite the fact that it's a fun game, because he doesn't want to play a part in the evil that is the game.

        The big thing would be framing the game so it was obvious that what you were doing is evil, and having things where you end up having to deal with individual prisoners with personalities so you're forced to face the people you'll be sending to their deaths.
  • gafasiesornivek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The framerates can be slower because the planes fly slower back then. Therefore, the graphics can be totally sick due to people walking slower back then as well.
  • PeterMackay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Having worked for a developer which struggled for funding, I wanted to add that the types of games developers want to create doesn't necessarily match up with those publishers are willing to pay for.
  • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bring back Tribes...Bring back Tribes...

    Thats all I have to say about that.
  • xSEED, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2cuz WWII was the last just war the us was a part of. although they didn't do ***** till attacked. no shut up about selling weapons. it's not it.

    also there were less fat americans then. good times for the us
  • dzorz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4How about depicting "dirty" wars like war in Ruanda or wars in ex Yugoslavia? "Private Petrovic, burn that village down. You get a new weapon for 10 rape+slaughter combos."
    • Izacus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Maybe because, it's would be hard to find a hero in such war : People want to play heroes, they don't want to see what war really looks like.
  • Query3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The best game would be the Falklands War. Hands down.
    • wyrdness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Good point - Harrier Jump Jets, naval and ground combat could make a great game. However, it would probably only really appeal to us British.
  • hollerback, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Simple people create simple stuff. You bought a 3D engine...lets do a shooter...who is the enemey: nazis.

    Simple people play simple games. You fell asleep 90% of all history lessons?....well, those 10% you were
    awake surely cover WWII. Since everyone is so "special" you wanna do good and it is easy to get into
    such a story. It is so black and white. Not like Iraq where the good guys rape and murder.

    Ruanda, Vietnam, Bosnia... that would be way too hard to understand for the usual "simple" gamer.
    (yeah yeah, i know...the gamers are all intellectual masters. especially in roleplaygames. *puke*)
  • FallenOmen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Cause you touch yourself at night

    -Family Guy
  • Darkshine07, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0A good first person war game would be one set during the roman ages as you work as a team with your unit to overcome your foes. This would include formations like wedge, hold the line etc. failing to do so would lead to destruction.
  • Threlly, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4And why are so many of them solely from an American point of view ?
    Compared to the Russians, the Americans, Brits and everybody else
    they suffered much more and it could be argued that they turned the
    tide.
    I blame that crappy Shaving Ryans Privates film for propaganda lean of these games.
    • SJZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Why blame Saving Private Ryan? The Americans have considered themselves the heroes of the German front for as long as I can remember.

      Sure, Russia lost 10 million soldiers, half a million just invading Berlin, and historians agree that if Hitler hadn't broken the peace with Russia the war would likely have gone differently, but the Americans don't like that most of their heroics were on the Japanese front. I mean, considering that the Chinese aren't exactly on good terms with the west, it's pretty obvious why Americans pretend they had a bigger role in protecting Europe than they did
  • jlebrech, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Sid Meier needs to make a new "Pirates!" but in the first person. With real gun fights and swordfights. But It would probably screw the original games mechanics.
  • juliehardman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It is because propaganda for the time was so good that everyone believes that the wwii generation is the greatest generation ever!
  • Egoist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'm surprised no one has mentioned the real reason that there are so many WWII games. And no, it has nothing to do with gameplay.

    There are so many WWII games because Nazis are universally reviled and you can create a violent game that involves killing them without any political firestorm.

    Create a game based on the American Revolution? What Brit would want to play that?

    Create a game based on the Crusades? Islamic anti-defamation groups would be up in arms.

    Create a WWII game where you play a Nazi fighting against the Allies? It wouldn't touch a single store shelf.

    Nazis are the only real-life enemy that can be portrayed in a game without some group or country getting sand in their vaginas and that's the real reason that there are so many games of that genre. John Carmack also said something very similar when he talked about making Wolfenstein 3D.
    • philz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I somehow feel left out. The current WW2 games contain way too few gold bullions. I must be because I'm from Switzerland :-)
    • saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Oddly enough, there are board games for each. Heck, there are even board games based on both Gulf wars.

      Oh, and there is are several Crusades video games with two very popular ones being Medieval and Medieval 2. Oddly enough, the faction I play best as in the Grand Campaign is "The Holy Roman Empire", otherwise known as the Reich or Germans.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"must be because I'm from Switzerland :-)"

      Lame. Make a mod then, the Schmidt-Rubin Kar31 was one ***** rifle. Gewehrpatrone 11, 7.5x55mm, state of the ***** KILLING art.
    • mookiemookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Egoist: "Create a WWII game where you play a Nazi fighting against the Allies? It wouldn't touch a single store shelf"

      Quite a few U-boat games have been made. Silent Hunter 2 and 3, Aces of the Deep...
    • Veritate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Perhaps you should look at the comments before you claim that no one said what you did.
  • gasoline, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Naah, WWII was not good vs. evil thing. Just take a look at the Eastern Front - small nations were struggling for their independence between Germans and Soviets/Allies and their only options were between bad and worse.
    • gasoline, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6And - on this very day in 1941, tens of thousands of people from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus and Ukraine were deported to Siberia in cattle wagons by Soviet occupiers. The elite of these countries was killed in order to make it impossible for these countries to become independent again. Hell, even policemen and their families were sent to die in Siberia for serving the pre-war states. Where where you then, Americans? Where? When the Germans and Russians made an coordinated attack on Poland in September of 1939, you morally condemned them. When Soviets attacked Finland two months later, you didn't even condemn them any more. Where were you, the good guys?

      And later, when the former alliance between Germans and Russians collapsed, you started supporting Russians. You didn't care that there was no difference between them for most of the Europe. The only thing that keeps most Westerners from understanding this is that they never saw the Soviet Union; SU is somehow morally 'higher' than Nazi-Germany for you. You promised freedom for all nations who had lost it with Atlantic Charter in 1941, but you lied. People in Eastern Europe had to live until the collapse of the Soviet Union under its oppressive regime, which didn't differ much from Nazi-Germany. About six nations never saw freedom again - they were suffocated by Soviet population policy. It's goal was to create one nation (see Wikipedia for '***** Sovieticus') under one leader. They already had one country. The slogan 'ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer' may remind you the same policy from Germany.

      And you supported the expansion of Soviet Union to the west. You were so afraid of a monster that you didn't believe there could be another and much worse behind its back - the Soviet Union.
    • EbowUK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Dugg for being so damn informative.

      I'm getting a little tired of the "America won the war" line. In those days, the term "allies" was used to describe a group of countries all fighting for a common purpose, not a group of countries that went along with what America wanted. Weren't the Russians the first into Berlin? Yes, America *helped*, providing resources, supplies and personnel. Along with many other countries. Everybody else didn't sit and drink tea while the Americans steamed through Europe to victory. This comment will get buried for this observation alone lol

      Also bored of the "all Germans were Nazis" ignorance, and the forgetting that not every soldier that fought for Germany was actually a German - people from occupied countries were used as soldiers by the Reich.

      Yes, it was a publicly perceived "good war", where the tyranny of Hitler's never-ending madness had to be defeated, but the politics of who did what when *outside* of Germany, in the years leading up to the war and after it as well as during '39-'45, take some of the icing off the good-vs-evil cake.

      And as an added bury-me bonus, a lot of the German people thought Hitler was a charismatic leader and could lead the country to good things (not war) when he was elected Chancellor, before he started ignoring the Treaty of Versailles and slipping into "let's invade this country and see who notices" mode.

      It's a good job we've all learned from that and aren't letting our leaders have carte blanche to do what they want while saying "it's for the good of the country!".

      Oh... hold on...
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Stalin's USSR was a monstrous regime, especially to its own people, but its policies and actions were still not nearly as genocidal and deranged as those of the Nazis. At least, not on the same grand scale.

      By the way, the Nazi Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union, no questions about it. 85% of all German losses were suffered on the Eastern Front. By the time the Allies invaded Normandy, the Germans could no longer afford to put up a decent fight.
  • NormanNormal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0"Instead of showing them that we are a great nation of peace, understanding, love, and protectors of the people -- we instead show them that we are a nation of pain, torture, imperialism, and indoctrination. If their brethren tells them to do these irrational things but still gives them religious hope and are nice and respectful to them and then we go and treat them like the scum of the earth and prove, in their minds, that what they have been indoctrinated to fear from the U.S. is true... Who are they going to believe in the end?"

    CkMaverick: bleeding heart, "can't everybody just get along", Liberals like you never cease to amaze me. It is asinine to compare these German prisoners you speak of to savage and barbaric Islamic Jihadist's that are the current insurgents in Iraq. Most of the Germans fighting in WWII were drafted in at a young age. They were not members of the Nazi party. They were doing what they were told. The Islamic Jihadist's only want one thing and this is to destory Israel and America. They hate capitalism, the freedom our women enjoy, our freedom of Religion. Their doctrine is that there is only one true God Allah and all other infidels must be destroyed.

    These are the people that decapitate Americans and the mutilate their bodies. These are the same people that murder their own children in so-called "Honor Killings". These are the same people that believe for every American Infidel they slaughter the higher they will ascend into the planes of Heaven. These are the people that indoctrinate their children to value death more than life, to kill themselves in suicide attacks in the name of Allah.

    You speak of our "torture" on these, poor helpless prisoners who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to be picked up by the Evil and brutal American Imperialists. (Or so you would like to believe) How about the fact that the torture that they mercilessly perform on their prisoners makes ours look like a stroll in the park.

    You say we show them "Peace, Love, and Understanding". You keep on waving that white flag and hugging the Jihadists. Meanwhile they will be busy planning how to kill you.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So you're posting from Iraq, right?
  • rex84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Three words: Saving Private Ryan
  • ampmob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1WWII was the last good war.
    • SteelChicken, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1No such thing as a good war.
      Perhaps the last moral one, but even that is debatable.

      Given how much Europe hates the US nowadays, we shoulda let them kill each other all off, or fall under Soviet Oppression for a few decades or so.
  • SeenByMany, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2At this point someone could write an article on "Why are there so many articles about why there are so many WWII games"....this has been done to death, move on.
  • OUPablo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The answer is simple. Everyone hates Nazi's.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0World War II provides a very definitive good versus evil. There was a clear enemy that everyone agreed upon, making it perfect for game plots.
  • Youowemelunch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What makes this article worthy of so many diggs? Isn't the answer to the question it poses obvious?
  • Maverick0420, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2maybe its because WW2 games are fun to play although I do wish there was more games that dealt with the pacific side of the war.
  • Khal3d, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Because WWII is the last war the US won.
    What wars have the US won afterword ?
    It lost Vietnam's and is currently sinking in Iraq's marshes.
    • drachemorder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The US hasn't been in a real war since WWII. Military actions, yes, but the United States has not declared war on anyone since WWII. Military actions without declarations of war or any sort of well-defined objectives in the first place don't make for good games. Or good politics, for that matter.
    • Khal3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0GWB already declared a war on terrorism, this war has sucked all of the US resources without reflecting any positive outcomes from it.
      Isn't it a losing war for the US then ?
      Don't take it personally, I don't have problem with the USAians ( I like this term ), the problem is with your Government and its endless stupid actions.
  • markgl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2WWII was the last we won? I think we kicked the crap out of Iraq back in 91. but all you kids were still in diapers back then.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That was a war? I thought it was a massacre.
  • wheezy360, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This is also the 23rd article written this year about the number of WWII games released this year.
  • alpine75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah, such short memories these children have. We won the gulf war. We also won the most important war since WW2, the cold war.

    The current situation is up in the air but we won the actual "war" part. It's a police action at the moment. Korea was a DRAW, not a loss. Vietnam was a loss.
    • Tritis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No kidding. The US won the cold war. Vietnam and Korea were just battles in the larger game being played between the USSR and the US. The US won the first Gulf War. We would have "won" the Gulf War II also if we had just pulled the troops out after nabbing Saddam.
    • willwander, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well the US were on the winning side in WWII but personally I think its a bit rich to say you won it
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The United States primarily defeated Japan and Soviet Union primarily defeated Germany.
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2>>The United States primarily defeated Japan and Soviet Union primarily defeated Germany.

      I'll agree on that point and offer you another,

      Great Britan was in WWII from the very beginning. After Germany invaded Poland in 9/1939, France and Great Britan declared war on Germany. Unfortunately for France, she was woefully unprepared to fight a mechanized war and collapsed quickly. Great Britan fought on in a valiant holding action until the USSR and the USA were in it.

      From the fall of France until Operation Barbarossa, Great Britan stood alone. In the view of many historians, The Battle of Britan, the magnificent, desperate battle for air superiority over England, and the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942 were the two fatal turning points that made it impossible for Germany to win.

      Without the sacrafice and valor of the English nation during this critical and dark period of history, Germany would have been too strong to defeat. Had England collapsed, the United States was too far away to mount a serious invasion for at least a decade. Germany would have been able to fight a one front war against Russia and would have easily rolled Stalin.
    • FlakMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Korea was a win. The goal from the beginning was to leave Korea the way we came, a divided peninsula. The only person who wanted to go further was MacArthur.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@jamessavik:

      Of course Britain contributed greatly to the Allied victory in Europe, but the USSR got to do the brunt of the "dirty work". The Eastern Front was a meat-grinder and 85% of the European Axis casualties were suffered there. The D-Day would never have worked if the majority of the German forces were not on the Eastern Front, trying to hold back the Soviet onslaught after suffering tremendous loses in the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Kharkov, losing air superiority and the ability to mount large scale offensives.
  • techsmack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Who wants to play a modern war game? A game with no ending...
    • salinemist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1That's because we fight like pussies now. A culture terrified of the death and horror we can inflict upon them tends to revert to pacifism. We need to use more napalm, because little baby terrorists don't tumble out of vagina's that have been charred shut.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.