I realize I started a different thread like an hour ago, but one of the posts did get me thinking about something. We all know that World War II games are a tired staple in the video game market, but they're certainly not a dying breed. Every year there are several World War II-related games released, and there is probably a decent one to come out of each wave, but with every par quality release there are several vacuous titles that feel rushed and poorly executed. It doesn't matter what genre--RTS, FPS, Fantasy RPG--you come up with a way to play a game and some developer will find a way to work Nazis into it. The film industry does it too; at least every couple of years a movie set during World War II will work its way into theaters, but most have been fairly poor in the last few years.

World War II, at least the European theater) is the easiest of modern (last 200 years) conflicts to translate into the video gaming medium. But for what reasons? I'm sure most historians could write up a more concise idea within minutes, but this is how I've come to see it thus far. Korea and Vietnam were two wars that each have gained a bad rap for one reason or another; Korea is said by some to be a "forgotten war" while Vietnam is thought by several to be a bloody clusterfuck. It would perhaps be naive to suggest that there was no clear objective for either conflict and that neither of them saw their share of heroes, so I would like to avoid any implication of either. I do think, however, that World War II might have seen more heroic deeds acknowledged than the two later 20th Century wars.

So why this focus on the European front? One word: Nazis. Look at the film industry, especially the Indiana Jones series--at least Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Last Crusade. Both of which employ Nazi characters as the antagonists, all of them as despicable as Hitler himself, a common and perhaps disturbingly accurate portrayal of the Third Reich. They make for simplistic villains--no personal goals, only the will to serve the fuehrer. The Elsa character in the Last Crusade does not follow this archetype fully, as it is clear towards the end that she does have a personal agenda, but her loyalty to Nazi German is unquestionable. Even Saving Private Ryan, a film I hold to high esteem, shows a lack of character development among the Nazi ranks, with the exception of a single soldier who is likely considered a coward by the viewer due to his actions. Nazis are by far considered historically villainous, which I suppose anyone with genocide and world domination on their agenda can make for a decent bad guy.

Personally, I have no qualms with the quantity of World War II games. I think we all have that inherent desire to annihilate a personification of "pure evil," and from a historic perspective, the Nazi war machine would probably be your best bet. But all I ask from now on is a bit more development. Don't depend on an already existing franchise: if you want to create a new game and you made no promises at the end of your last for a sequel, do a new thing. Keep it in World War II if you must but keep it at least somewhat unique.

But don't arbitrarily add characters who are werewolves.

Hearts of Iron 3 comes out next fall. That's really all I need in the WW2 genre.

I am tired of bare-bones WW2 first person shooters, Their are just way too many good games already developed in that nitch. I just wish game companies would spend time and effort developing something else rather then another world war 2 shooter.

I do think theirs room for expansion, because your correct in assuming next to Demons Nazi's make a great personification of evil (Nazi's who ARE demons, thats just awesome) but eh, they can't keep remaking medal of honor 2 and expecting me to buy it.

I would like to say that a WW1 game would be nice but I soon realize that sitting in a trench for half a game really doesn't sound like fun. Still something or somebody needs to break the chain of WW2 games.

My motto is: if the game(play) is good, then it's worth a look and maybe a playthrough. But man, oh man, it sure would be nice if series like CoD would permanently break the bonds of WWIIisms and use their talent to make something fresher...

There are only so many times I can run at some foreign dude with a tommy gun, after all.

ObnoxiousTwat:
I would like to say that a WW1 game would be nice but I soon realize that sitting in a trench for half a game really doesn't sound like fun. Still something or somebody needs to break the chain of WW2 games.

There was a game that came out recently that was an interesting concept in which WWI never ended and continued on into the 1960s, which is where the game takes place. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the name of the game is but I do remember that the demo was harder than hell. As for actual WWI games (at least shooters), the only one I'm aware of is some Half-Life 2 mod which I have yet to try out.

There's definitely good and interesting WWII games still being made every year (most of them strategy games mind you), the thing is by now these games are only really appealing to WWII enthusiasts who will already be adept at recognising a diamond in the rough.

I think one of the biggest things that makes most of the big WWII shooters from being indistinguishable now is that the thrill of the game mostly derives from the slaying of enemies, rather than the experience. Few games manage to deliver the grittiness and atmosphere so praised in war films of the past few decades.
I'm no expert on the industry but I'm sure most of the tools are there for developers to make a WWII shooter that mixed enough realism, historical accuracy and good gameplay to be a great and unique game. A game that like all the best war films, questions you on the point of war and the morals concerned with it. I'd like to think games have come that far, or at least they have the potential to in the near future.

As an example a shooter where you play the Germans during the campaign, at least in part, would no doubt be a much more unique experience. Especially because any developer wanting to make a game like that would surely be trying to cater for those who want something different within the genre. An FPS would definitely be the best medium for the hard-hitting WWII game I dream of, strategy is by definition the focus on the military aspects of the events it portrays.

I'll always have something to say on WWII games.

I really wish that they would just stop with the World War 2 games because they're really getting old. Whether it be RTS or FPS, we've still seen it dozens of times and it still makes me feel like I wasted money for no good reason.

WWII games are... annoying. You can see what it did for Infinity Ward when they broke out of the same old war and went to a more flexible setting. They allowed themselves to create a completely original storyline, instead of the linear path of WWII.

Digitalpotato:
I really wish that they would just stop with the World War 2 games because they're really getting old. Whether it be RTS or FPS, we've still seen it dozens of times and it still makes me feel like I wasted money for no good reason.

Wait, you're sick of WWII games yet you buy them anyway? How can you complain then?

Anyway, I have a nice collection of decent WWII games, and there's at least one (Men of War) coming out before Christmas I definitely want to get my hands on... so, I only hope they stop making bad ones, as I hope they stop doing with any genre.

It is true that most of the soldiers' time in WWI was spent waiting around, but that is true of all wars. Fact is, the first phase of the war was action packed, not a trench fest, and the fighting in the east never devolved into trench combat. There was also action in the Middle East and the Balkans.

People are quick to write off WWI, but I think if people knew more about it they would see that it would make for a great game if done well, especially with a couple of obligatory trench levels. I also am fine with new WWII games, but I like things that break the mold.

The initial post pretty much says it all. WWII is a game designer's dream; well documented, near-universal appeal, and hardly any moral gray zones to make the publishers feel uneasy. What other modern war setting can boast that? Precious few. Imagine the shitestorm if the next Call of Duty game was set in the Six-Day War.
(Would I play that game? Hell yes, assuming you play for the IDF.)

Consider the wide variety of settings for strategy and sim titles, by way of comparison. On my shelf, let's see... the Yom Kippur War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cold War, Viet Nam, generic Cold War Middle East, modern day Crimea, 1980s Germany, 1985 Cold War. All from sim or strategy titles, excepting the last one (Operation Flashpoint). Lots of variety, but imagine- just imagine- the press if you set your next big FPS in one of these.

LordCraigus:

Digitalpotato:
I really wish that they would just stop with the World War 2 games because they're really getting old. Whether it be RTS or FPS, we've still seen it dozens of times and it still makes me feel like I wasted money for no good reason.

Wait, you're sick of WWII games yet you buy them anyway? How can you complain then?

WHOA, I didn't know I actually still bought them. The last World War 2 game I actually bought and not rented or played at a friend's house was Call of Duty 2 years ago. (And the damn thing won't reinstall despite running perfectly) DANG, I better find some games that need to be traded in for cash, maybe I'd be able to afford an Xbox 360 game! :o

(NOTE: This is sarcasm considering that I do realize that I had worded my post wrong, seeing as it'd take a Shadow Hearts or Jeanne d'Arc style game to make me spend any more money on something in World war 2)

Last WWII game I played for longer than an hour was medal of honour frontline. I tried cod2 and just didn't like the games mechanic, it felt weird. I just can't really get into the genre and wouldn't know how because of the amount of titles.

Company of Hero's is supposed to be awesome sauce. I shall play it someday, when my PC doesn't suck.