I can say with gratifying certainty I survived the WWII surge. The actions of a past generation most definitely need documentation, and in the digital age our ability to relive their experiences as we please is a testament to their suffering. But in the gaming world, to predict the resurgence of World War II spawns a universal groan from nearly everybody.
In this interview with Steve Hart from Rebellion, to publicize his studio's upcoming release Sniper Elite V2, spoke utterly treasonous words: "Not at all, I think the market is ready for World War Two. You've seen the extra press the likes of Red Orchestra 2 have gotten because all of a sudden WWII is a breath of fresh air whereas modern conflicts aren't."
Of course, he's fluffing the point because he's advertising his studio's game. And quite effectively. Though alluding to the upheaval of what's popular shows he misunderstands his audience severely. But it should be noted that Sniper Elite V2 is slated for PC exclusivity, a comparatively different creature than consoles.
Although once popular, any mention of the conflict in the same sentence as "video game" ushers in memories of a terrible time. Wikipedia has just a rough sketch of the turbulence, a period condemned by even non-FPS fans, as this genre has definitively lost any ounce of creativity.
What the warfare crowd plays is "follow the leader", where replication (and sometimes straight robbery) is perceived to be where the money is made. As evidenced by Medal of Honor's significant timeline change, the roaring success of Call of Duty 4 triggered an inevitable interest shift from the trenches to the vast deserts of the Middle East. Adding to that interest was the extremely controversial nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, thus showing Activision capitalized on a perfect storm.
So is this resurgence plausible? Probably not for numerous years. The likes of Call of Duty and Battlefield still reign, and so long as they stick with modernized combat, competing studios will behave similarly. Though, the predictably fading success after Modern Warfare's culmination speaks to a different tide for this ailing genre: other historical wars perhaps, or even finally breaking into the boundaries of space.
I agree, it was so tiring seeing WWII all the time although I have to say Call of Duty 5 was definitely the best one in my opinion!
ReplyDeleteI think I'll just stick to the WWII strategy games. Those never get tired!
ReplyDeleteI'm weary of war in general. I don't like the "war is awesome" mantra that comes from these types of games.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with you there, Phillip. It's a rare war game indeed that doesn't glorify war. Worse, we often end up with games that revel in the misery and violence of war.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see more games approach war as a horrific experience, actually.
War makes for low-hanging fruit in general for movies, games, books and so on. Often because there is already action, sides and some sort of motivation/plot already drawn in. However, contemporary war titles have never appealed to me as much as fantasy ones, or even strategy titles set in distant times and lands (like Nobunaga's Ambition or Romance of the Three Kingdoms). But of all the settings out there? I agree that WWII is probably the most over-used and has the least amount of untouched territory left to potentially cover.
ReplyDeleteI just find it absolutely hilarious that the mass of WWII games were set predominately in Europe, yet the fighting was international, so Europe became the tiring location. But still, studios insisted on documenting the invasion of France for the eightieth time instead of the Pacific Campaign, or the fighting amongst African colonies or even covering the political toll on the countries in North America.
ReplyDeleteWWII is the bloodiest conflict in history, but also the most diverse, and studios could easily get creative instead of rehashing the Battle of Stalingrad or Normandy. It's pathetic.