Google+

We Recommend

83 comments

  • taokaka - March 5, 2012 11:46 p.m.

    You forgot the greatest war of all time, the losing side was Australia and took place on Australian soil in 1932. The result of the war was approximately 60,000 casualties over the next two years. The war of course that I am refering to was the great emu war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War#Aftermath
  • Hobogonigal - March 6, 2012 12:16 a.m.

    Ahh, the most horrifying and brutal war of them all. I just can't think why it wasn't made into a blockbuster film and videogame yet...
  • jmcgrotty - March 6, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    Especially if the end boss was actually a Cassowary
  • Rainbow-Carnage - March 5, 2012 11:40 p.m.

    Wow, this was a really fantastic article. I can't wait to hear you guys talk about it in the next Talkradar.......Oh wait :(
  • DevonOO7 - March 5, 2012 11:29 p.m.

    The SPANISH civil war? BIAS I say BIAS. jk but good red thou
  • DevonOO7 - March 5, 2012 11:30 p.m.

    read*
  • BladedFalcon - March 5, 2012 11:29 p.m.

    Hah! Mexican Revolution represent! XD And i am both pleasantly surprised, and a wee bit disappointed that Mikel got all the facts right regarding the conflict. XD I would have loved to be able to nitpick flaws but NOPE! Wikiparaz is way too accurate to give me that pleasure >_> I DO want to point out that the funny thing about the Mexican revolution is that it really didn't change things that much, or at least, not for the better. As much of a big dictator as Diaz was... at least he brought a lot of order, peace and progress to the country. (And a lot of poverty as well, since he marginalized the low class even more.) And after the revolution, all that order and peace went right to hell, and the government that followed after things settled down slowly became just as power hungry and pseudo-dictatorial in it's own right. (It would be eventually be known as the PRI, the party that got hold of the presidency for over 70 years straight.) Then again... Who cares about the aftermath, right? XD I do agree it'd be hella fun to have a sort of strategy or faction-ized war game that would let you control any of the 4 main factions. Or hell, just focus on Villa and his ass kicking raids. (Including attacks on the US itself, even if at low scale.)
  • FlashDancerElite - March 5, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    Fantastic article, the amount of history that's neglected to make room for yet more WWII shooters is just sad. I'd bet the Russian Civil War would make a fantastic setting as well, especially considering the characters involved and the moral ambiguity of the entire conflict.
  • ElDudeorino - March 5, 2012 11:48 p.m.

    The Russian Civil War would work well within a larger WWI game as it could essentially be considered a continuation of the conflict. Allied troops intervened on the side of the Whites and the Bolsheviks readily sought the help of Russian deserters to help fight.
  • FantasticMrStarFox - March 5, 2012 11:17 p.m.

    A game based on the french revolution would be hardcore and awesome. I certainly hope ubisoft would have nothing to do with it.
  • Fenderstat - March 5, 2012 11:47 p.m.

    There is one, it's called Napolean Total War. It's been out for 2 years. By creative assembly, published by SEGA. Not on console though, probably why Reparaz didn't mention it.
  • GR HollanderCooper - March 5, 2012 11:50 p.m.

    He said that some of these have been made into games, but not plot-driven ones, and Napoleon Total War isn't really a story-based game.
  • Fenderstat - March 6, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    Not in the traditional aspect, it was the total war series first real attempt at an individual's story set over a number of different campaigns but I suppose it didn't meet the qualifications for a "story game" Most of the player base (myself included) just played the sandbox campaigns and didn't really care for the narrative scenarios anyway. Napolean however is one of the few people in history they could have done that for, he did have an entire period of history named after him.
  • ElDudeorino - March 5, 2012 11:14 p.m.

    I think the First World War would be the best candidate, though that heavily depends on which nation the game focused on. The American experience in the war wasn't all that extensive and, given the relative lack of interest in the conflict among the general American public, I can see why it hasn't been featured. If you want examples of WWI battles that are prime video game material you have to turn to the British, Canadians, ANZACs, Russians and maybe even Germans. Canadian assaults at Vimy, Hill 60 and Canal du Nord not only make for exciting reading today, but would be great for games. Imagine playing a game where you're part of a unit of infantry advancing within 100 metres of a creeping artillery bombardment with bayonets fixed. As you walk by you see artillery signallers waving semaphore flags, machine gunners suppressing German troops and NCOs ordering men forward and leading the charge. You hop into trenches and jump right into frantic, dirty close-quarter fighting with bayonets, grenades and fists. After you take the trench the Germans pound you with artillery and counter-attack and you have to fight them back. Lots of potential. Could have multiple campaigns or short missions where you explore the different fronts and branches. You could be a runner trying to deliver messages during the gas attacks at Ypres, a pilot in the skies over the Somme, German lancer cavalry at Tannenberg or the driver of a Mk V tank in Palestine. The weapons would be familiar to all WWII shooter fans and it would be a fresh, interesting shooter that doesn't revolve around American military supremacy. I'd be first in line.
  • Fenderstat - March 6, 2012 1:04 p.m.

    There was a PC game called Darkest of Days which did WW1 eastern front quite well. The battles in the east were much more free flowing than the trench stalemate and Darkest of Days represented it by huge maps and lots of characters on screen at once. The catch was you were a super soldier time traveller who was given occasional futuristic weapons (like auto targetting gattling missle launchers or assualt rifles) to help even the odds of a particular side. One mission you a battle on the russians side and blew up a bridge it while a later mission you played it on the germans and watched yourself blow up the bridge in the past. You were also fighting opposing Futuristic super soldiers as well. It was a real clever game. I thi k it was out on consoles as well but not sure about that. I know it didn't do that great but I had fun with it.
  • kyle94 - March 6, 2012 8:33 p.m.

    Darkest of Days was alright, but sort of disappointing, since I was following the game beforehand. I read about how it was going to take place over all sorts of never before scene theaters and take place over several time periods. Then, it came out, and 90% of it was the Civil War or WW1. Sure, they're not usually seen, but I was expecting greater diversity.
  • Malakie - March 5, 2012 11:03 p.m.

    There is a big problem with your article.. First, I am wargame and combat simulation buff. I prefer modern forces, especially naval sims but other than Combat Mission Shock Force, Steel Beasts Pro and DCS-A10, there are currently NO worthy sims that really are at the level I like to see. Regardless, I can tell you why none of those periods of conflict you list in the article would NOT work in the computer sim arena.. Basically no one up to maybe a few would buy them. I am, as I mentioned, an avid fan and player partially because I also lived it. Thus the reason I like to see detail and correct representation of my sims. But even I would never purchase a sim from any of those arena's you mentioned EXCEPT for WWI and Korea. What I would love to see is a game sim that catered to a WWIII scenario and allowed full control to the player of ALL theatres and ALL forces.. i.e. Air power, naval power, ground forces and space/sat based systems. I would love to have a sim where you moved the pieces around on a strategic global scale. A system where you controlled supply and resources including building bases, airfields etc, manufacturer infrastructure and combat units, applied political and diplomatic treaties, and so forth. Then when conflict would occur you would be taken to another screen at the tactical level for whatever area the conflict was present.. i.e. if ground battle, you would go to a tactical ground location, muster your ground units and control them directly on the battlefield. If naval combat, it would be a tactical level ships, planes, subs etc.. If air... and so on.. Basically for those familiar with sims, imagine a game that were a combination of Pacific Storm Allies/Combat Mission Shock Force/Supreme Ruler 2020/Hearts of Iron III/Theatre of War II/Fleet Command/Dangerous Waters/Steel Beasts/Falcon 4 Allied Force/DCS-A10 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 all wrapped into one global WWIII type simulation and your player perspective shifted based on what was happening. It would be an RTS,FPS,RPG,SIM all wrapped into one allowing you full control at all levels, strategic, tactical, Unit etc. NOW THAT would be an awesome war time simulator.
  • kingsmikefan - March 5, 2012 10:28 p.m.

    Now, I have to catch up on my history...oh, hey, Mikel Reparaz. Thank you!
  • MarcTheCreator - March 5, 2012 10:26 p.m.

    What about the Falkland War? That war was awesome! You know...the British bombing the hell out of the Argentines. Great stuff.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 5, 2012 9:59 p.m.

    The Crusades

Showing 61-80 of 83 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.