How's this for an idea...

[silentsentinel]

A Civil War Shooter.

As we all know, there has always been a massive amount of WW2/Fantasy shooters. A few games try things in different locals (Rainbow Six: Vegas and Call of Duty 4, for two) but game deveopers have mainly been sticking to the same old places.

How would a Civil War shooter work? (I'm talking about the U.S. one, of course).

Well, a Civil War game should be set in the late years of the conflict: when repeating rifles were making their debut. I think the Spencer Repeater could hold seven shots, while the Winchester could hold twelve (not sure, I'm not much of a gun person) so we wouldn't have to deal with single-shot muskets. Furthermore, I'm thinking of a Condemned: Criminal Origins kind of gameplay (forgoing the crazed homeless people, of course): guns and fists. When you don't want to use a gun, pull out a bayonet/saber. Or use your fists. If you don't know what the Condemned style of gameplay is like, try Youtube. However, I can tell you it involves a system of blocks, counters, and attacks, where timing is everything. Vehicles? Try a horse. We could have a Legend of Zelda/Epona style of aiming (you know how Link uses his bow while riding, right?).

Think about it. We could have epic charges on open fields at the enemy. We could have reconnaissance missions where you have to get right up to the enemy in order to get info. We could pick sides at the start of the game, and have two different storylines.

So, that's my idea for first person shooters. How about you guys (or girls)? How would you improve the shooter genre? And please don't post things like "get rid of recharging health". This is a thread about locales and storylines. For example, maybe you could suggest a medieval shooter (crossbows, anyone?) Or maybe something a little more hard-hitting, such as playing as a U.N. Peacekeeper protecting people in the Rwanda Genocide (some people would be uncomfortable, but it could shine some light on the conflicts in Africa).

It's your call.

 

[night_chrono]

There is a civil war game for ps2. Made by the history channel no less. Heard it sucked though.

 

[SpaceGandhi]

The main problem with a FPS title based during the American Civil War is that it would take you roughly two minutes to reload your rifle. This is not fun. After that you'd have to resort to melee attacks which are incredibly wonky in 1st person. Also, there's the whole moral issue of playing as the Confederacy where you would be defending the institution of slavery. What's next Sid Myer's Auschwitz?

However one war I think could translate to game is a WWI game as an RTS. Imagine scrolling in to see the little men lying on the battlefield puking their lungs out after a mustard gas attack! Wow...I am a very sick person, who needs help...

 

[Anarchemitis]

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.

 

[SilentScope001]

There is in fact a World War I game where you play as a commander leading your troops to...er...something that looks like victory. I had fun with it so here it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/worldwarone/hq/trenchwarfare.shtml

 

[Fire Daemon]

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.

 

[EntropicWit]

The problem as I see it is that there aren't too many other large military actions since WWII that would make America look good enough to justify making a game about it. Any military actions before that time run up against the issue of the played being too detached from the old military tactics and weapons. As to the civil war idea in particular...no. You would have to approach it the right way and even if you managed to pull it off...the whole choosing a side thing could make potential fanboys...well...confrontational to put it nicely.

I admit a departure from the traditional formula is necessary and I am all for a mounted calvary because that just sounds fun, but the first step to me in mixing things up is maybe moving out of US territory. Even if it's fictional, apocalyptic, and/or non-patriotic. (You could try something vaguely 'Red Dawn' -ish ala 'Tomorrow When the War Began' for you literary folk.)

 

[Mr Wednesday]

(I'm talking about the U.S. one, of course).

Why "of course"?

As to the concept, period guns were a trifle shite, they hardly makes for pulse pounding action.

 

[silentsentinel]

Why the "of course"? Because the U.S. Civil was quite large and eventful, and most people have learned about it, so it'd make for the most interesting storyline. Not to diss other country's civil wars, of course.

Also, everyone's talking about long reload times. I mentioned Spencer Repeaters and Winchesters, didn't I? Those were fast breachloading rifles that could hold multiple shots, and were pretty accurate.

And you guys are right, shooting at each other oven an open field is not exactly fun sounding... but some battles in the War took place in dense forests.

Anyway, you guys have made really good points. It would have to be done just right... or it would be screwed up.

Haven't there been some Civil War RTS's, though?

 

[Another]

I think I have an idea. A highly trained Marine from the future is dropped into the past using a SVGC (Standered Video Game Cliche)and you realize its the civil war and the Union is losing. So President Lincoln asks you to go on a covert mission using only a small revolver, any items you find, and a club. Think of a first person MGS in the civil war era.

 

[BaronAsh]

The main problem with a FPS title based during the American Civil War is that it would take you roughly two minutes to reload your rifle. This is not fun. After that you'd have to resort to melee attacks which are incredibly wonky in 1st person. Also, there's the whole moral issue of playing as the Confederacy where you would be defending the institution of slavery. What's next Sid Myer's Auschwitz?

However one war I think could translate to game is a WWI game as an RTS. Imagine scrolling in to see the little men lying on the battlefield puking their lungs out after a mustard gas attack! Wow...I am a very sick person, who needs help...

BULLSHIT!!!!!!! the point of the American Civil war was a rebellion to define state rights. the reason Why Briton Didn't come to the aid of the South was the brilliance of Abraham Lincoln's politics leading most people to beleave that the war was over slavery.the British were very anti Slavery. (applauds Abraham)

 

[Kogarian]

The main problem with a FPS title based during the American Civil War is that it would take you roughly two minutes to reload your rifle. This is not fun. After that you'd have to resort to melee attacks which are incredibly wonky in 1st person. Also, there's the whole moral issue of playing as the Confederacy where you would be defending the institution of slavery. What's next Sid Myer's Auschwitz?

However one war I think could translate to game is a WWI game as an RTS. Imagine scrolling in to see the little men lying on the battlefield puking their lungs out after a mustard gas attack! Wow...I am a very sick person, who needs help...

BULLSHIT!!!!!!! the point of the American Civil war was a rebellion to define state rights. the reason Why Briton Didn't come to the aid of the South was the brilliance of Abraham Lincoln's politics leading most people to beleave that the war was over slavery.the British were very anti Slavery. (applauds Abraham)

Actually, for the politicians and Southerners, it was about states' rights. For over-worked factory workers in the North, it was about feeling compassion for the slaves who lived in an even worse situation. No politician starts a long-term war based on a single issue.

And about the south defending slavery, most didn't even own slaves. I think the statistics were 1 in 10 were a slave-owner. For the majority, it was a matter of honor and/or the threat of their rights.
But everyone fails in mention that playing the Russians in WWII is wrong...Stalin and his regime killed/purged more civilians than Hitler.

But back to the actual point of the post, you could have the focus of the game be on skirmishers...the soldiers who moved ahead of their army and acted as snipers and scouts...you could play as a Union soldier, who, along with his squad, are issued experimental winchester/spencers and fight against Confederate's infantry armed with only muzzle-loaders abd bayenots, officers with pistols, and cavalry armed with carbines, etc. Then later switch the sides and show a Confederate group of snipers in the ending part of the war using the winchesters they collected off of Union soldiers they killed...but since the Union has so many of the guns, it increase the difficulty. Plus add a storyline that show's both sides' views, where they were right and wrong, and what role other countries played in the conflict.

Sharpe's Novels and 'Rifles for Whitey' were good books that influenced my ideas.

 

[Kogarian]

How about a game similiar to Star Wars Battlefront 2, except it takes place in the years between the American Civil War and WWI? So that way you have rifles with higher rates of fire, early gatling guns, etc. You should also be able to become various infantry men, a cavraly man, an officer, or a techician-like class that allows you to work artillary, cannons, and machine guns. Maybe you could fight on a map about the size as Hoth was on SWB2, and have various command posts be actual physical locations that provide a bonus to your team: owning the railroad tracks allows your units to respawn quicker or move slightly quicker, a large hill that gives you an extra cannon piece that you can stick anywhere on the map, a church or some civilian land mark that grants your team moral points: they have a slightly higher resistance to enemy fire and can take more damage before dying. You could also have a CP in the city-slums that gives your team weaker AI bots whose kills stack up points on your team, but their deaths don't add to your enemies overall kill limit. Maybe even have a supply cart that gives your troops extra ammo.

My history in this time period is sketchy at best, but who said games need to be absolutely historically accurate? Just put a warning label on it: 'Non-educational'

Sorry if I had poor spelling or grammar, I'm pretty tired right now.

 

[Retloc20]

If it's gonna be exactly like Star Wars Battlefront 2, then why theme it like the Civil War?
Yes, there are some nice ideas that come with it, but you could do that by just trying to improve SWB2 on its own terms. Extra content/ different variables doesn't equal fun fun fun.

 

[Kogarian]

If it's gonna be exactly like Star Wars Battlefront 2, then why theme it like the Civil War?
Yes, there are some nice ideas that come with it, but you could do that by just trying to improve SWB2 on its own terms. Extra content/ different variables doesn't equal fun fun fun.

It's not going to be like SWB2, just inspired off of it...that's the point. You just have a limited amount of soldiers, fixed platforms that can shoot, different classes, and different maps. After that, it should have nothing else in common. You wouldn't have a futuristic soldier in bright white armor unloading his fully automatic weapons at his enemies while huge space vessels stand by uselessly...instead you have troops running through the forest or in a city, making every shot count, hoping to make it to the railroad command post first so you and your friends don't have to waste those extra couple of seconds waiting to respond. I think using permanently mounted troops, swords (that are actual metal, and don't give you the ability to block bullets), and fixed gatling guns and artillary positions is a lot different more different than troops with grenades, aircraft, and 'hero' units. I mean, you don't see people looking at Halo and saying, "That's so stupid. They should just improve Doom's system."

It just depends on how creative the game's design team is.

Besides, Battlefront itself was just a copy of several other games, with little innovation.