So what historic war would make a good FPS nowadays?

Mentioning Ghengis Kahn reminds me of one of the problems of setting a first-person game in pre-Rennisance times? Things like the Geneva Convention and rules against civilian targets were very much not a thing on any side. A Song Of Ice And Fire depicts that fairly accurately.

I'm not saying that historical war games don't gloss over such things all the time but that might be one reason more games covering this period are strategy games that focus on the action from a distance.

Pffffff, I of course would expect that to happen within the story. I'm mean, you're working on Genghis friggin' Khan's payroll - ignoring it would be like ignoring lightsabers in Star Wars, it's kind of a signature.

edited 25th Sep '15 9:10:30 PM by VutherA

I honestly feel like setting a shooting game inside a real life war is more than a little bit offensive. Actual people fought and died in those wars, and it's pretty disrespectful to those real people who were risking their lives for better or worse to suggest that you could just step into their shoes just because you have a joypad and a CD.

Especially bad if you wanna set it in Vietnam. The U.S. is still feeling the ill effects of that war almost half a century later. People were left homeless and horribly traumatized.

You know why some people tend to be against FPS games? Because too often they tend to trivialize the horrors of war. And don't even give me anything about stories in these games that delve into that issue—the majority of people who play these games ignore the story and just play online or with their friends.

I cannot do that. If I were to, I would have to regard murder mysteries as offensive to the individuals who have suffered having their loved ones murdered, or pornography as offensive to hypersexuals and anyone that knows one.

I agree with this guy. Why or how you came to think like that I have no idea. COD Black Ops and World At War sold millions of copies and tackles the wars they had used quite efficiently.

Even then, they always put their little twist on things. (Zombies and some lore, like Reznov and Mason.)

Most murder mysteries and pornos aren't based on things that actually happened, nor do they generally reference actual people who were murdered or actual sex that has been had.

These games deliberately exploit actual wars solely to appease people's unconscious hyper-violent urges.

How many of those millions of people would you bet actually played the story mode? The majority of them likely ignored it in favor of killing their friends and online strangers.

edited 26th Sep '15 12:01:29 AM by Odd1

OR check this out-

They want to put a twist on the war and make their own version of events. The stories from Black Ops, World at War, and the early COD games used real wars. People knew that. What exactly are you trying to say? We're a violent race. We like to see our side winning and the Call of Duty games are a chance to experience that. To show the rest of the world what it was like and make an action blockbuster type game.

Are you gonna start saying Need For Speed tries to evoke people's inner street racer? It's just a game, dude. If you want to see it that way fine but for the most part I think everyone knows the difference.

@Odd1: simple solution:make a FPS version of This War of Mine...

edited 26th Sep '15 12:25:49 AM by onyhow

Neither do the vast majority of the games by the same degree. People have been murdered in ways surely some murder mysteries have at least vaguely depicted, games are based upon wars frequently usually as vaguely (you can't tell me soldiers have actually sprinted around in circles over and over to shoot their enemies in the back), they just kinda look like they are. Of the games that do...I've personally felt any games that I've seen actually attempt to portray the war they are based upon past it being the colours the game was painted with are entirely respectful showings of why you would not want to be in a war - it's scary enough in a game.

edited 26th Sep '15 12:29:15 AM by VutherA

This guy gets it.

I want to point out too that a lot of these games are popular with real life military personnel and some of the better historical games have brought in veterans to consult during development. If anyone's qualified to have an opinion about war games, they certainly are.

Which is not to say that war games are never morally objectionable. Games with racist or jingoistic subtext, games that grossly lie about important historical aspects, those should absolutely be criticized and derided.

On the flip side, lately there have been games that tackle the harshness of war fantasticly too: This War Of Mine, Valiant Hearts, Spec Ops The Line...

Always wanted to play Spec Ops. I heard it was great.

As a game in the technical sense, it's pretty average at best. As a narrative device it is reportedly outstanding but you might need a freaking drink afterwards.

Personally while I will defend them in concept, the modern military shooter turns me off as a genre and I could not bring myself to get past that and pick the game up to play. One of these days I might seek out a decent Let's Play of it. Also, the big twist is kind of out as a Late-Arrival Spoiler if you were following the word of mouth at the time.

edited 26th Sep '15 1:28:20 AM by Elle

Horse archery's done from a distance, so one could still set a historical FPS there without getting too graphic on the civilian side. Assuming you don't create a story about being in a Mongolian Special Forces unit that softened up military targets instead of engaging in the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Considering how varied and militarily progressive the Mongol campaigns could be, you have slip room for a Spec Ops squad armed with bows and skulking about forts to open them up for further attack.

Korea and the French loss of Indochina prior to the American interventian. The Yugoslav wars. The Sierra Leonian civil war in the 90s. A few of the Civil Wars in Latin America.