Lord_Leperman Wrote:The characters of the game are also a big factor, since you're often paired up with with a squad, whose members are often likable characters whom you get to know. This gives a sense of camaraderie or brotherhood and players identify themselves with the squad mates despite not being able to directly communicate with them. Stories also deal with how war changes individuals for better or for worse. It can break down even the toughest men into crying babies through shell shock, or elevate the lowest of common thieves into heroes through their bravery (such as the case of one of the characters in Call of Duty 3).
The selling point of these games is not so much as they are WWII in setting, but they're just that nicely done as FPS games. There's varied terrain that represents different locations where the conflicts happened, and multiple weapons that were based on their real life counterparts. In addition, the gritty atmosphere of a war-torn world coupled with the shear scale of the conflict unlike anything seen in human history immerses players into the story.
Sorry for the double post. It's the quality that matters anyway
I think this thread is going in an interesting direction (at least until someone decides to post military themed lolis xD).After reading your reactions, I wanted to pose this question as a follow-up: given that the selling point of these games usually remains as "because they're good first person shooters", why do they need to be made in the first place? From CZ's answer, I would come up with the conclusion that they provide for simple to understand, black and white storytelling because of the nature of the conflict.
Doesn't this in effect trivialize the war and all the underlying reasons for it (by romanticizing only specific aspects), as well as the millions of people who actually have to live with it everyday? It seems to work towards desensitizing people who play these games to war. The US military confirmed it with America's Army and its subsequent recruitment drive.
