Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
Ah, I will admit the series I mentioned have spoiled me on what a good realistic fps for those historic wars are, so yeah I was thinking multiplayer.
Both of those capture the feeling of your role while giving you enough freedom to experiment with rarer stuff, such as unlocking the RSC rather than using a Lebel, or Berlithier rifle as French infantry in Verdun. Even with the advanced stuff it does not break down in to action movie like BF1. You are still a grunt in the trenches, shooting at dots, ever at risk of being mowed down or picked off, gassed or shelled.
Hell in the battlefield experienced safely, at least for me, enhances empathy for stories that would be less playable when combining a game with other pursuit of your interest. Admitedly I did not think in terms of how to convey the Civil War to new comers, I thought of a game for Civil War buffs that liked video games.
I think the problem is unlike even the Great War, where you can justify one guy using someform of automatic weapon (like a machine gun) and contribute meaningful tactical level input into the flow of battle. Not so much you with paper sleeves you manually reload your
only gun with getting off one or two shots (if you're lucky).
I mean if you're going to showcase 'life on the front' scene ... it's going to be less that poignant nuclear explosive in COD4 where your continued survival mattered not, against the sheer destructive capacity of Man makes you seem
insignificant regardless of how hard you fight, or what acts of heroism you exhibit... more COD 5 and main characters dropping like fucking flies ... basically a 3 minutescene of you marching in line, and showing
ridiculous levels of discipline to shoot as soon as one is commanded and only within effective range, and then
just die.
I mean that would make an amazing 'interactive intro' to the campaign, but that effect would only work once.
I could see a campaign, where, say ... you focus on one battle and you're trying to move under the cover of night, that's basically how it opens up. Interactive scene where the 'starting character' cops the bullet and reinforce the timing of shooting weapons only to die anyways. Player doesn't know what the hell they're supposed to do, and it's almost
futile to directly engage. Consider it open world ... where basically entire regiments have been reduced to disorganized, fractured groups of people scurrying towards whatever hardcover they can find.
I feel you could create a campaign, but to skip to merely cutscenes showing big battles and focussing only on a handful of actions or irregulars with both hand-to-hand weapons would kind of be missing the point of such a game. Basically you shoot your almost instakill rifle, and end up engaging with people in brutal, protracted melee moments (unlike something like Black Flag where youcan just instakill sometimes with swords or wrist daggers) ... but that really doesn't work well with FPS.
I feel if you want to prioritize the feel of the Civil War, third person would be better. Where you can showcase the idea of melee between people who were often barely trained and just raised on spot. None of those instant kills nonsense, but actually trading blows with rifles, sabres, bayonets and axes/hatchets.
But the thing is we kind of have that game already... the
Warband series.
