How's this for an idea...

[WriterX]

There is somehing *similar* though it is not the Civil War.

Battlegrounds, a Mod for both HL1 and HL2 is very similar to what is being said here. The main difference is a lack of a campaign though the Multi is very entertaining at least for the version for HL1.

 

[werepossum]

It wont take two minutes to reload a rifle like some might believe. A skilled soldier could maype pull off 2 or 3 shots in a minute (I think). That wont be the problem with the game.

The fact that tactics revolve around standing up, looking at a target, firing, reloading, firing again untill one of you is dead is what will make the game suck.

But maybe if you lead the cavalry around a battlefield....make it a dice'em up game then prehaps it would eb good.

I can reload my muzzleloader in maybe 20 to thirty seconds - not sure if it would be less or more if I was under fire! Many of the battlefields involved lots of cover, so it might not be as monotonous as you'd think. Still, fighting over the same battlegrounds with more modern weapons would be more fun, so why bother to make a Civil War game? (I wasn't aware any multiple shot weapons were used in the US Civil War, so maybe with that it wouldn't be quite so bad, but I know I don't enjoy the bolt-action rifles from WW2-era games nearly as much.)

Bit off topic, but I never really bought the state rights line. I live in eastern Tennessee, which historically had small, family farms as the terrain is mostly not suited for large plantations. Consequently few people owned slaves. Western Tennessee is much more flat and historically had many plantations worked by slaves. Eastern Tennessee was solidly Union; western Tennessee was solidly Confederacy. Same thing on a larger scale - the north was a manufacturing economy requiring skilled labor; the south was an agrarian economy requiring cheap labor. Seems to me like the same old same old, people willing to overlook evil if it's in their own economic best interests.

 

[bulletproof12]

i think i read that idea on in team xbox magazine once....

 

[werepossum]

But everyone fails in mention that playing the Russians in WWII is wrong...Stalin and his regime killed/purged more civilians than Hitler.

I don't agree that playing the Russians in WW2 is wrong. Certainly I agree with you about Stalin, but most soldiers in a war are there because of love of country or forced service. And while Stalin certainly killed more people, Hitler had plans that would have equaled or topped Stalin had he succeeded. If you were a Russian in '41, would you refuse to serve and let Hitler take over your country because Stalin was (arguably) a bigger monster? We have a saying in Tennessee politics: He may be a son of a *****, but he's MY son of a *****.

More to the point, it's only a game. Playing as a Russian (or German) soldier doesn't necessarily imply endorsing their behavior any more than playing a terrorist in Counterstrike endorses Usama bin Ladin. I couldn't stand John Wayne for the same behavior after he criticised Jimmy Stewart fro playing a morally weak character. Playing the good guy in a movie, or on the good side in a game (even though, yes, I prefer it) is not inherently better than playing the bad guy(s), at least im my never to be humble opinion.

[/soapbox] Sorry.

 

[Protagonist]

If I may suggest a variation on the theme, instead of the WWII shooter inspired Civil War shooter, or Another's strange sci-fi spy theme, we could have either a pre-war slave rescuing thing, run back and forth saving slaves, or we could have a spy stealing information from houses of Generals and stuff! Lotsa knives and.. they had revolvers right? I'm pretty sure. Can't remember my gun history. Sorry.

Yeah, I think the second one is better.

 

[Kogarian]

But everyone fails in mention that playing the Russians in WWII is wrong...Stalin and his regime killed/purged more civilians than Hitler.

I don't agree that playing the Russians in WW2 is wrong. Certainly I agree with you about Stalin, but most soldiers in a war are there because of love of country or forced service. And while Stalin certainly killed more people, Hitler had plans that would have equaled or topped Stalin had he succeeded. If you were a Russian in '41, would you refuse to serve and let Hitler take over your country because Stalin was (arguably) a bigger monster? We have a saying in Tennessee politics: He may be a son of a *****, but he's MY son of a *****.

More to the point, it's only a game. Playing as a Russian (or German) soldier doesn't necessarily imply endorsing their behavior any more than playing a terrorist in Counterstrike endorses Usama bin Ladin. I couldn't stand John Wayne for the same behavior after he criticised Jimmy Stewart fro playing a morally weak character. Playing the good guy in a movie, or on the good side in a game (even though, yes, I prefer it) is not inherently better than playing the bad guy(s), at least im my never to be humble opinion.

[/soapbox] Sorry.

You missed my point entirely. Someone said playing a Confederacy soldier would be wrong because they all supported slavery. I explained that's not true and why you just can't listen to what one's leaders say (which you didn't bother to quote ). So I pointed out the fact about Stalin, and I guess I assumed that people would realize that serving someone who used slaves wouldn't be nearly as bad as serving a leader who killed more than Hitler. I guess I thought people would've figured that out from my context. My bad.

EDIT: No sarcasm intended.

 

[agent_capone]

This seems like a pretty good idea. However, because I'm not American and lack the knowledge and patriotism to grasp what in Christ that feud was about, I probably wouldn't play it.

However, in somewhat the same vein, I think a World War 1 FPS would be pretty interesting, minus the reload times mentioned by someone above. And I could play the Gallipoli levels and watch as my fellow Aussies get pummelled by an immovable Turkish front line!

As long as no more WW2 FPS's are released in the next gen market...oh shit, what's this? Turning Point Fall of Liberty?

Seriously, I welcome something new and unique in today's FPS market, and I'm bloody sick of WW2 shooters. Anything that takes us away from that has my vote.

 

[The Potato Lord]

I think a game set during the American Civil war, 1812, or any type of Confederate era would be not good because that was in the day of having a large mass of people firing at another, none of this 'soldier super commando, running under enemy fire and getting perfect headshots.' You stood there and firing and hoping you didn't get clobbered by cannonfire.

And a WWI game would be atrocious. Nobody liked that war because leaders made the horrible choice of fusing Confederate tactics with new technologies.
An FPS game in WWI would go thus: You stand up out of the trench and die.
Next life: You decide to sit in the trench, you die from some suspicious green gas.
Next life: You get up and run and get clobbered by atillery.

Long story short, the game would be like Saw: the video game times 100,000.

So basically multiplayer would be the same as Cod4?