The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Television nowadays has become a very successful source for elightenment, but I'm not neccessarily speaking about the likes of science and all that. The population of programmes is mainly made up of documentaries and historical dramas, each focusing on the past as well as receiving a substancial view rating, and this is where I think gaming could also benefit.
When you think about it, games are already overflowing with features from the past, like the myhtical and magical sorcery in 'Devil May Cry', the egyptian times mystery well held in 'Eternal Darkness' and quite plainly made-up war titles. Although I find the use of past beliefs and so on very good in a game, I think that it would be better if there were more games around like 'Medal Of Honour' and 'Battlefield 1942', which relive real historical events with a lot more detail. But this will obviously raise some controversial issues.
Many may argue that this isn't healthy for the industry, but to that I would say that is maybe true for those who see games differently and are easily influenced, which seems to be an almost microscopic amount since we see a major flow of frequent violent films. Others could argue that it's very disrespectful to the actual disaster of a war and it gives off the wrong message, but I think that any game (war game in particular) made almost a century after a campaign has the right to be imitated and developed, especially since the element of violence evidently seems to work well in a videogame.
I think such creators like EA have done well to control the flow of war titles in the market and have shown a good example to what I'm talking about. War games should be made at a distant rate, not frequently because it could change the way the event should be remembered, as a bad and not a good thing. The war America had with Vietnam; we've seen the films, so why not the game? This was potentially one of the most damaging and difficult occassion for the US, withholding impressive war strategies, especially the very effective Guerrilla tactic, ambushes and things like that, so I think it would make a really good game. Another event could date way way back, like the Battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armada and maybe even the French Revolution. History has so much potential, and I'm not just talking about in the classroom.
I'm not too sure whether Braveheart has its own game, but there's another great example. Just imagine how good it could be. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers simply shows a taster of how good conflict and combat games can be, and it was even rushed to fit into schedule with the release of the film, so just think of what could have been if EA had more time. From this, I can imagine famous Riots also fitting well in a videogame. State of Emergency was comical, I could see that, but it still had the right ingredients as well as evidence to show how enjoyable rioting games coould be. So why no base a real historical event such as the French Revolution into the same equation to have and even more memorable videogaming experience, which most historical computer games give.
Medal of Honour was intense and a very thrilling game, same goes for Shogun: Total War, Battlefield 1942 and so on, so why not try the same formula with more historical events? It has the strength and backbone to work. So far, I've seen more sci-fi futuristic strategy games than pre-modern ones. Sure it's all fun and interesting to see zapping guns and flying ships and all that, but it's a lot more fun to be able to relive and actually control/participate in a world famous event that has actually happened. I'm not against games that stereotype the future ( e.g. Star Wars: Bounty Hunter), but for now I think we should make use of the things of the past more than things we have encountered yet. Another advantage goes to the developers, who would also have an easy job of their hands to simply imitate than innovate.
Politics is very annoying and (to me) incredibly unstable, but it does well to benefit games, for the pure and simple reason that it fits perfectly with the needs of a videogame. Even a game about the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Austria that triggered the First World War could be made, or even Pearl Harbour, I mean, why not? Films have it so easy nowadays and I think it's about time the gaming industry stood up for themselves as well. However there is always a border, which should never be exceeded, meaning no imitations of the Holocaust, I think I need not explain any further.
There is so much potential and opportunity in history for games, which I think should be pounced on with more confidence than it has already, so the future of gaming can really look up, thanks to help from the past.
When you think about it, games are already overflowing with features from the past, like the myhtical and magical sorcery in 'Devil May Cry', the egyptian times mystery well held in 'Eternal Darkness' and quite plainly made-up war titles. Although I find the use of past beliefs and so on very good in a game, I think that it would be better if there were more games around like 'Medal Of Honour' and 'Battlefield 1942', which relive real historical events with a lot more detail. But this will obviously raise some controversial issues.
Many may argue that this isn't healthy for the industry, but to that I would say that is maybe true for those who see games differently and are easily influenced, which seems to be an almost microscopic amount since we see a major flow of frequent violent films. Others could argue that it's very disrespectful to the actual disaster of a war and it gives off the wrong message, but I think that any game (war game in particular) made almost a century after a campaign has the right to be imitated and developed, especially since the element of violence evidently seems to work well in a videogame.
I think such creators like EA have done well to control the flow of war titles in the market and have shown a good example to what I'm talking about. War games should be made at a distant rate, not frequently because it could change the way the event should be remembered, as a bad and not a good thing. The war America had with Vietnam; we've seen the films, so why not the game? This was potentially one of the most damaging and difficult occassion for the US, withholding impressive war strategies, especially the very effective Guerrilla tactic, ambushes and things like that, so I think it would make a really good game. Another event could date way way back, like the Battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armada and maybe even the French Revolution. History has so much potential, and I'm not just talking about in the classroom.
I'm not too sure whether Braveheart has its own game, but there's another great example. Just imagine how good it could be. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers simply shows a taster of how good conflict and combat games can be, and it was even rushed to fit into schedule with the release of the film, so just think of what could have been if EA had more time. From this, I can imagine famous Riots also fitting well in a videogame. State of Emergency was comical, I could see that, but it still had the right ingredients as well as evidence to show how enjoyable rioting games coould be. So why no base a real historical event such as the French Revolution into the same equation to have and even more memorable videogaming experience, which most historical computer games give.
Medal of Honour was intense and a very thrilling game, same goes for Shogun: Total War, Battlefield 1942 and so on, so why not try the same formula with more historical events? It has the strength and backbone to work. So far, I've seen more sci-fi futuristic strategy games than pre-modern ones. Sure it's all fun and interesting to see zapping guns and flying ships and all that, but it's a lot more fun to be able to relive and actually control/participate in a world famous event that has actually happened. I'm not against games that stereotype the future ( e.g. Star Wars: Bounty Hunter), but for now I think we should make use of the things of the past more than things we have encountered yet. Another advantage goes to the developers, who would also have an easy job of their hands to simply imitate than innovate.
Politics is very annoying and (to me) incredibly unstable, but it does well to benefit games, for the pure and simple reason that it fits perfectly with the needs of a videogame. Even a game about the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Austria that triggered the First World War could be made, or even Pearl Harbour, I mean, why not? Films have it so easy nowadays and I think it's about time the gaming industry stood up for themselves as well. However there is always a border, which should never be exceeded, meaning no imitations of the Holocaust, I think I need not explain any further.
There is so much potential and opportunity in history for games, which I think should be pounced on with more confidence than it has already, so the future of gaming can really look up, thanks to help from the past.
Obviously nobody believes this theory.
Challenge me, if you dare!
Challenge me, if you dare!
Television nowadays has become a very successful source for elightenment, but I'm not neccessarily speaking about the likes of science and all that. The population of programmes is mainly made up of documentaries and historical dramas, each focusing on the past as well as receiving a substancial view rating, and this is where I think gaming could also benefit.
When you think about it, games are already overflowing with features from the past, like the myhtical and magical sorcery in 'Devil May Cry', the egyptian times mystery well held in 'Eternal Darkness' and quite plainly made-up war titles. Although I find the use of past beliefs and so on very good in a game, I think that it would be better if there were more games around like 'Medal Of Honour' and 'Battlefield 1942', which relive real historical events with a lot more detail. But this will obviously raise some controversial issues.
Many may argue that this isn't healthy for the industry, but to that I would say that is maybe true for those who see games differently and are easily influenced, which seems to be an almost microscopic amount since we see a major flow of frequent violent films. Others could argue that it's very disrespectful to the actual disaster of a war and it gives off the wrong message, but I think that any game (war game in particular) made almost a century after a campaign has the right to be imitated and developed, especially since the element of violence evidently seems to work well in a videogame.
I think such creators like EA have done well to control the flow of war titles in the market and have shown a good example to what I'm talking about. War games should be made at a distant rate, not frequently because it could change the way the event should be remembered, as a bad and not a good thing. The war America had with Vietnam; we've seen the films, so why not the game? This was potentially one of the most damaging and difficult occassion for the US, withholding impressive war strategies, especially the very effective Guerrilla tactic, ambushes and things like that, so I think it would make a really good game. Another event could date way way back, like the Battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armada and maybe even the French Revolution. History has so much potential, and I'm not just talking about in the classroom.
I'm not too sure whether Braveheart has its own game, but there's another great example. Just imagine how good it could be. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers simply shows a taster of how good conflict and combat games can be, and it was even rushed to fit into schedule with the release of the film, so just think of what could have been if EA had more time. From this, I can imagine famous Riots also fitting well in a videogame. State of Emergency was comical, I could see that, but it still had the right ingredients as well as evidence to show how enjoyable rioting games coould be. So why no base a real historical event such as the French Revolution into the same equation to have and even more memorable videogaming experience, which most historical computer games give.
Medal of Honour was intense and a very thrilling game, same goes for Shogun: Total War, Battlefield 1942 and so on, so why not try the same formula with more historical events? It has the strength and backbone to work. So far, I've seen more sci-fi futuristic strategy games than pre-modern ones. Sure it's all fun and interesting to see zapping guns and flying ships and all that, but it's a lot more fun to be able to relive and actually control/participate in a world famous event that has actually happened. I'm not against games that stereotype the future ( e.g. Star Wars: Bounty Hunter), but for now I think we should make use of the things of the past more than things we have encountered yet. Another advantage goes to the developers, who would also have an easy job of their hands to simply imitate than innovate.
Politics is very annoying and (to me) incredibly unstable, but it does well to benefit games, for the pure and simple reason that it fits perfectly with the needs of a videogame. Even a game about the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Austria that triggered the First World War could be made, or even Pearl Harbour, I mean, why not? Films have it so easy nowadays and I think it's about time the gaming industry stood up for themselves as well. However there is always a border, which should never be exceeded, meaning no imitations of the Holocaust, I think I need not explain any further.
There is so much potential and opportunity in history for games, which I think should be pounced on with more confidence than it has already, so the future of gaming can really look up, thanks to help from the past.
When you think about it, games are already overflowing with features from the past, like the myhtical and magical sorcery in 'Devil May Cry', the egyptian times mystery well held in 'Eternal Darkness' and quite plainly made-up war titles. Although I find the use of past beliefs and so on very good in a game, I think that it would be better if there were more games around like 'Medal Of Honour' and 'Battlefield 1942', which relive real historical events with a lot more detail. But this will obviously raise some controversial issues.
Many may argue that this isn't healthy for the industry, but to that I would say that is maybe true for those who see games differently and are easily influenced, which seems to be an almost microscopic amount since we see a major flow of frequent violent films. Others could argue that it's very disrespectful to the actual disaster of a war and it gives off the wrong message, but I think that any game (war game in particular) made almost a century after a campaign has the right to be imitated and developed, especially since the element of violence evidently seems to work well in a videogame.
I think such creators like EA have done well to control the flow of war titles in the market and have shown a good example to what I'm talking about. War games should be made at a distant rate, not frequently because it could change the way the event should be remembered, as a bad and not a good thing. The war America had with Vietnam; we've seen the films, so why not the game? This was potentially one of the most damaging and difficult occassion for the US, withholding impressive war strategies, especially the very effective Guerrilla tactic, ambushes and things like that, so I think it would make a really good game. Another event could date way way back, like the Battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armada and maybe even the French Revolution. History has so much potential, and I'm not just talking about in the classroom.
I'm not too sure whether Braveheart has its own game, but there's another great example. Just imagine how good it could be. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers simply shows a taster of how good conflict and combat games can be, and it was even rushed to fit into schedule with the release of the film, so just think of what could have been if EA had more time. From this, I can imagine famous Riots also fitting well in a videogame. State of Emergency was comical, I could see that, but it still had the right ingredients as well as evidence to show how enjoyable rioting games coould be. So why no base a real historical event such as the French Revolution into the same equation to have and even more memorable videogaming experience, which most historical computer games give.
Medal of Honour was intense and a very thrilling game, same goes for Shogun: Total War, Battlefield 1942 and so on, so why not try the same formula with more historical events? It has the strength and backbone to work. So far, I've seen more sci-fi futuristic strategy games than pre-modern ones. Sure it's all fun and interesting to see zapping guns and flying ships and all that, but it's a lot more fun to be able to relive and actually control/participate in a world famous event that has actually happened. I'm not against games that stereotype the future ( e.g. Star Wars: Bounty Hunter), but for now I think we should make use of the things of the past more than things we have encountered yet. Another advantage goes to the developers, who would also have an easy job of their hands to simply imitate than innovate.
Politics is very annoying and (to me) incredibly unstable, but it does well to benefit games, for the pure and simple reason that it fits perfectly with the needs of a videogame. Even a game about the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Austria that triggered the First World War could be made, or even Pearl Harbour, I mean, why not? Films have it so easy nowadays and I think it's about time the gaming industry stood up for themselves as well. However there is always a border, which should never be exceeded, meaning no imitations of the Holocaust, I think I need not explain any further.
There is so much potential and opportunity in history for games, which I think should be pounced on with more confidence than it has already, so the future of gaming can really look up, thanks to help from the past.