Click here to view original web page at www.pushsquare.com
@Bad-MuthaAdebisi LOL - I thought the media tells them that they could all be 'Rambo' style heros where a bullet is unlikely to hit you but if it does, its hardly going to slow you down. If you do die, there is always the option to respawn...
Personally I am not a fan of Telltales type of gaming. I think though that if 'any' game, regardless of genre, has to focus on a real life event in which people died, then it has to be handled in the right way. Its easier to move away from reality and set it in an 'alternative' universe
People would be in uproar if you had a game based on the events of 9/11, the Falklands war, Gulf war etc - In fact one game was 'cancelled' that was set against the Iraq War - Six Days in Fallujah - or at least couldn't find a publisher because of the public outcry. Of course these events are more recent and the majority of gamers could know 'someone' involved in these. I still the principal applies though.
I appreciate its 'difficult' to ascertain where the cut-off point is. Is a war that took place a 100 years ago now less significant than the Iraqi war that we can make insensitive games out of it? Then what about 2000 year war games like Ryse?
Apart from World at War, every CoD game since and including CoD4 has had a 'future' setting. CoD4 was set 5yrs into the future from its release date. I believe this is a better route for CoD because of the nature of the game-play and allows creativity and innovation.
I can understand why Battlefield would and does suit an historical back-drop but from my PoV I would prefer it to have an alternative time-line/universe. That doesn't mean that a WW1 'era' would have to have steampunk jet-packs or Tesla laser rifles but could be more creative with the settings, the story etc. Still take inspiration from the technology and real life events but move it to an alternative universe.