<!--QuoteBegin--Jim+Nov 22 2003, 11:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Nov 22 2003, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that ww2 games are a good thing, since they immerse you in the atmosphere of which your grandparents were subjected to, it gives you a new perspective on things, however I think that they shouldn't be blood-splattered gorefests, that just seems disrespectful to me <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dear god. How could a game EVER immerse you in an atmosphere of fearing for your life every second? Games could not possibly subject you to anything CLOSE to what it must be like to be in a war, they'd be banned instantly if they could ever achieve something like that. I don't play a game and have to watch close friends and colleagues die, they're characters, they're not real.
And by the way, they should be blood splattered gorefests. You think it's a pretty sight when someone gets shot with a machine gun round only to have a massive chunk torn from them? Bones shatter, limbs are ripped off, this is a gore fest and it is entirely real.
Oh, and the battle of Trafalgar, Aegeri.
Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone. I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me. I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok?
But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world.
I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.
Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.
<!--QuoteBegin--::esuna::+Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (::esuna:: @ Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jim+Nov 22 2003, 11:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Nov 22 2003, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that ww2 games are a good thing, since they immerse you in the atmosphere of which your grandparents were subjected to, it gives you a new perspective on things, however I think that they shouldn't be blood-splattered gorefests, that just seems disrespectful to me <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dear god. How could a game EVER immerse you in an atmosphere of fearing for your life every second? Games could not possibly subject you to anything CLOSE to what it must be like to be in a war, they'd be banned instantly if they could ever achieve something like that. I don't play a game and have to watch close friends and colleagues die, they're characters, they're not real.
And by the way, they should be blood splattered gorefests. You think it's a pretty sight when someone gets shot with a machine gun round only to have a massive chunk torn from them? Bones shatter, limbs are ripped off, this is a gore fest and it is entirely real.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So true. No WWII game has shown the real thing of war. In games there are no emotion. You can't feel that persons pain (Hences its not real). In war emotion is the biggest thing, while in WWII games it makes your character a unstobbale killing machine.
<!--QuoteBegin--::esuna::+Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (::esuna:: @ Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and the battle of Trafalgar, Aegeri. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually try Jutland. It is still the largest naval engagement in history and occured during World War 1, which is what I was alluding to in fact. Over 250 ships took part in the battle, which makes it quite a bit bigger than Trafalgar don't you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This isn't to say that Trafalgar ISN'T significant, because it is VERY significant. But it is NOT the largest battle in history, and thank you for proving my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this because I make valid points?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I insult you? I pointed out an obvious and gaping flaw in your logic. If that is insulting you then you're far too over sensitive and shouldn't be in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think you are far too over pedantic myself, but I see the "OH NOES I'M STUFFED IN THIS ARGUMENT SO I'LL PRETEND YOU INSULTED ME TO IGNORE YOUR ARGUMENTS" type too damn much nowadays.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I understand this quite well. I'm more than aware England has a rather large population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you happen to think the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is insignificant, but it takes more than one country to keep the memory of EVERYONE who died in wars like WW1 alive. I suppose you've missed my point entirely, and are now trying to make this issue about you or England to cover up your weak arguments.
Nice debating tactic, but it doesn't work on me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this isn't about you really, I've pointed out the flaws in your incredibly weak arguments, now either answer them or just cease trying to weasel the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for missing the point AGAIN.
Why don't you argue against my points, rather than trying to simply weasel the debate and sadly attempt to discredit me by making it seem like I have some vendetta against you or England? I didn't come down in the last rain shower and after 5 years of debating I know a few tricks. Again, answer my arguments and my points, don't try to make it seem like I'm insulting you or making some vendetta against England God ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I enjoy teaching, but biology is what I mainly teach, I only do history when I have a holiday <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the second part, whatever, I'm sick of people who don't answer arguments and try to weasel debates by trying to make it look like the other side is being insulting. THAT is patronising to me.
If you reply (and please do), answer my points and not go on a whinge about how I have a vendetta against you (or England, or WHATEVER). The discussion will be MUCH more interesting.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Nov 22 2003, 02:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 22 2003, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--::esuna::+Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (::esuna:: @ Nov 22 2003, 06:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and the battle of Trafalgar, Aegeri. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually try Jutland. It is still the largest naval engagement in history and occured during World War 1, which is what I was alluding to in fact. Over 250 ships took part in the battle, which makes it quite a bit bigger than Trafalgar don't you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This isn't to say that Trafalgar ISN'T significant, because it is VERY significant. But it is NOT the largest battle in history, and thank you for proving my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this because I make valid points?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I insult you? I pointed out an obvious and gaping flaw in your logic. If that is insulting you then you're far too over sensitive and shouldn't be in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think you are far too over pedantic myself, but I see the "OH NOES I'M STUFFED IN THIS ARGUMENT SO I'LL PRETEND YOU INSULTED ME TO IGNORE YOUR ARGUMENTS" type too damn much nowadays.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I understand this quite well. I'm more than aware England has a rather large population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you happen to think the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is insignificant, but it takes more than one country to keep the memory of EVERYONE who died in wars like WW1 alive. I suppose you've missed my point entirely, and are now trying to make this issue about you or England to cover up your weak arguments.
Nice debating tactic, but it doesn't work on me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this isn't about you really, I've pointed out the flaws in your incredibly weak arguments, now either answer them or just cease trying to weasel the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for missing the point AGAIN.
Why don't you argue against my points, rather than trying to simply weasel the debate and sadly attempt to discredit me by making it seem like I have some vendetta against you or England? I didn't come down in the last rain shower and after 5 years of debating I know a few tricks. Again, answer my arguments and my points, don't try to make it seem like I'm insulting you or making some vendetta against England God ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I enjoy teaching, but biology is what I mainly teach, I only do history when I have a holiday <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the second part, whatever, I'm sick of people who don't answer arguments and try to weasel debates by trying to make it look like the other side is being insulting. THAT is patronising to me.
If you reply (and please do), answer my points and not go on a whinge about how I have a vendetta against you (or England, or WHATEVER). The discussion will be MUCH more interesting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you've not guessed at all, i have next to 0 debating skills. I don't know all the facts on WW2, and i don't claim to either.
What i had was an idea, and if you didn't already notice i've been trying to keep to the topic at hand and throw new ideas into the mix as opposed to actively taking part in the debate.
I'm sorry if i'm attempting to "weasel" my way out of the debate, but if you re-read your posts it is blatantly obvious you are being patronising, whether you notice it or not.
Oh, and yes, i do find being patronised an insult, hence why i brought up the point of being insulted so much.
And i admire you for being a teacher, not any specific subject, the decline in people wanting to be a teacher and the lack of respect they get from students just makes it harder.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you've not guessed at all, i have next to 0 debating skills. I don't know all the facts on WW2, and i don't claim to either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I usually like to assume that actually O_o
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What i had was an idea, and if you didn't already notice i've been trying to keep to the topic at hand and throw new ideas into the mix as opposed to actively taking part in the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why bother posting here? If you aren't going to expect people to answer you don't bother participating at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if i'm attempting to "weasel" my way out of the debate, but if you re-read your posts it is blatantly obvious you are being patronising, whether you notice it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I disagree, I DID in my last post however do so slightly deliberately because I was a bit annoyed with you.
Again, you are simply being overly sensitive and I suggest if you don't want a debate on something then don't post it in here. Really rather simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and yes, i do find being patronised an insult, hence why i brought up the point of being insulted so much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O_o. Whatever, I think you're just making a (poor) attempt to avoid arguments.
We do know this is the <b>Discussion Forum</b>...not the <b>Debate and Flame Eachother Forum</b>...right?
Now, on to my slightly related points: I don't appreciate how WW2 is portrayed. It's terrible, in movies and in games, the Americans are always 'super invincible heroes' except when the director (or programmer, or modeller...whatever) is trying to convey emotion, and that's not right.
We'll take Band of Brothers here as an example: The normandy airdrop: There weren't nearly enough american deaths. Okay, there was one plane that blew up, and then there were like 2 guys that got killed on an assault against the MG nests. Yep...that's how Normandy was, us Americans lost 17 guys and we killed all teh N@z1 skummmm!!!!!!1111oneoneone.
Victory was not assured in normandy, but in every single movie it never looks like the American's are struggling...or the British, in their occasionally movies. Then there was the one...ONE...time they showed Americans retreating, 2 Americans die (...and the British Sherman).
Bah, I can't descibe anymore, it's making me mad just thinking about it. The point is: Germans are always shown as evil, very killable, not worth having remoarse for, weaklings. The only movie that's portrayed a remotely good Nazi was the Pianist, and I like that movie (for the Holocaust perspective, the minor showings of Russian brutality, and the story). The fact is, not every german soldier wanted to kill jewish people, or help Hitler.
Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp. So, you can either join the army take an empty oath to Hitler and protecting your family, or you can get sent to a death camp. There's a nice choice.
That's not to say all the Germans were good either, many were also bad, and many were also influenced or forced by others to be bad. Most of the SS were bad, many nazis were bad. Now, people will say stuff like, "Then they shouldn't have let Hitler come to power." This again brings up the point, many people didn't like Hitler, there were multiple assassination attempts on his life and multiple demonstrations against him (which were all swiftly put down). Most of the people that voted for him, did so because they wanted to get out of a terrible economic depression, much like the US.
Which the US and most of the world have to thank WW2 for. The war ended the depression. Even with all the acts and laws being enacted in the US the depression was still terrible. Once the orders for military vehicles, supplies, food...everything, there were plenty of jobs.
Many people also forget that WW2 is very much a continuation of WW1. The treaty of Versailles is just a breathing point. There's also the point that Hitler might not have come to power had Germany not been forced to pay for all of the WW1 debts. This mistake was remedied at the end of WW2, where the allies helped rebuild Germany instead of punish it.
Now, I've gotten slightly off-topic, with many incomplete ideas...but that's okay.
I think World War 2 games. or any war for that matter, are perfectly fine. Despite the bad (bad as in incorrect) representation of parties involved and the almost consistent historical inaccuracies, they can teach people about the War. There's also a lot left out from WW2 games though. Most don't feature airplanes, mortars, tanks and marching. Generally you're thrown right into the action. This in itself is a historical inaccuracy because many of the men in WW2 never fired their weapons (I think it's something like 50% in WW2 compared to 70% in Vietnam...but I'm not sure where that source is from).
No one wants to sit there typing up after action reports or driving a fuel truck to a refueling depot. People want to shoot things. There's also the lack of Russian, Japanese and Italian representation in most games. You generally shouldn't take games at face value. They're not meant to be learning tools, they're meant to be a means to have fun. Every game is going to say things like "We're historically accurate, except when it gets in the way of fun." How much fun is there in a war anyway? Technically isn't the entire game historically inaccurate?
Well, I'm to tired to continue, and I doubt anyone will read all that typing anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Nov 22 2003, 03:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 22 2003, 03:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, considering I'm not even certain there is a Russian language version of the game, and there isn't such an ad of the PAL version, I assumed you were American. When you spoke of 'the army' however, you are implying ONE army. You don't talk about 'THE' world army, because there is none, therefore you HAVE to be talking about ONE army in particular.
As I've assumed your American, then I assumed you are talking about the American army. Unless of course, you think that somehow 'the army' is actually plural <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am American, other then that you assume to much. But let me take your tone of arrogance for just a second. You really should only play as Americans, we won the war, the smaller much less important countries merely helped or got in the way. Must hurt to be you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*cough* alright, seriously though, what im wondering is why hasn't there been any WW<b>1</b> games out?
maybe because they <i>can't</i> be glamourized? what i mean is:
how can you make wading in 1 foot deep mud in a 5 foot trench haunched over carrying a rifle/machine gun/ammo and gas mask in total fear of a chlorine/mustard/etc gas attack and enemy machine gun and artillery fire rattling on every day and night at you and a possible enemy attack at dawn the next day glamourized? how can you make <i>walking in a line</i> towards the heavilly defended enemy position and proceeding through one of the choke points of barbed wire with machine guns just waiting to chop you in half glamourized? how can you make continual bombardment from enemy explosive and gas shells spewing flak and poisonous gasses mincing and smothering glamourized?
oh wait, you can't... hence so few WW1 games. then again, who wants to play in a game of true attrition, static defences/immobility, and save/load 10 billion times trying to rush that choke point differently? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
sometimes WW2 games are glamourized (F*** that bloody JetPack B.*...) but usually they stick their feet on the ground and give a decent "scrape of the surface" to the actual or fictional events of WW2. Sometimes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You really should only play as Americans, we won the war, the smaller much less important countries merely helped or got in the way. Must hurt to be you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically Russia won world war 2 (at Stalingrad) <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->, and thanks to the Japanese pulling in the Americans, didn't have to worry about a war on two fronts. There is a large amount of historians who argue that the allied landings are just to stop the soviets and not in fact bring down Germany. Considering the man power and armour that the Russians had amassed, with or without the allied landings in Normandy they would of run over the Germans inevitably. That probably would of resulted in a much poorer end to the war though, so it is a very very good thing the allies did invade.
UltimateGecko.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is semi-incorrect, unless you mean someone opposing joining the army? In which case, please criticise Russia, American, New Zealand, Australia and Britain too btw. In Russia, they shot you simply for running away, talking back, talking about ANYTHING they deemed 'unpatriotic', talking about the Germans in a good manner (complementing German troops would have you shot) etc etc. The Russians were worse than the Germans sometimes! If you mean the civilians, it's actually kind of funny because a large group of women DID protest to the NAZI government. Not only did neither event you said occur, but they won and their Jewish husbands were released about 1943 from memory. There was the option to protest, the real thing is that choice wasn't taken.
Quite frankly, the Germans had a choice in World War 2, they chose to simply watch the slaughter of the Jews and take their share of the profit from it. An interesting thing to note is few people who housed Jewish families and the like actually did get caught. This is partly because the Gestapo was a bit incompetent, and confused because everyone would try and dob in people they disliked to them. By the time they had investigated the red herrings, spies and the like got away! It is a MYTH that the Gestapo were some sort of ruthlessly efficient organisation that swifty (and cruelly) delt to all who opposed the NAZI's ideals. In reality, they got a few of them, but they ended up bogged down in their own incompetence so missed a great majority of people (thankfully). Now the Soviets on the other hand......
-Adam Leebor [Some other dude], Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I'm to tired to continue, and I doubt anyone will read all that typing anyway<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people in this forum aren't afraid of a lot of text <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Nov 22 2003, 06:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 22 2003, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Technically Russia won world war 2 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->, and thanks to the Japanese pulling in the Americans, didn't have to worry about a war on two fronts. There is a large amount of historians who argue that the allied landings are just to stop the soviets and not in fact bring down Germany. Considering the man power and armour that the Russians had amassed, with or without the allied landings in Normandy they would of run over the Germans inevitably. That probably would of resulted in a much poorer end to the war though, so it is a very very good thing the allies did invade.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The American air power significantly weakened Germany, if it was not being pressed on from both sides I highly doubt the Russians could have overtaken it by themselves. Not to mention Russia owes its very existence to its winter, not exactly something to be proud of.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 22 2003, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 22 2003, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The American air power significantly weakened Germany, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that goes to the RAF, who decisively crippled the German airforce at the battle of Britain. In addition to this, they wasted many of their best pilots in the attack on Russia as well, and the Soviets had developed a VERY large airforce themselves. Really, as the Soviets advanced, the bombing would probably have been just as much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if it was not being pressed on from both sides I highly doubt the Russians could have overtaken it by themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had the tanks, the men, planes and equipment to do it however. Remember by this stage in the war the Germans have thrown most of their divisions into a massive meat grinder at Stalingrad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention Russia owes its very existence to its winter, not exactly something to be proud of<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is, like so many things an incredibly silly thing. Firstly, the Russians lasted for YEARS, not ONE winter ****.
Secondly, the Germans could of easily knocked Russia out of the war in their first engagment. Hitlers key mistake (and what allowed the Germans to be driven to a standstill in 1941-1942) was not driving a panzer division right into Moscow. Had he taken moscow he would of taken Russia out of the war. Instead, he ordered key divisions to turn north and support some pointless attack, allowing Russia time to counterattack and defend Moscow adequately.
The Germans also made a mistake of anticipating a short war, which they very nearly got admittingly, against the Russians. When the Russians surprised the Germans by actually being able to fight back, they got held up sufficiently long for the winter. The Russian winter DID cripple the Germans first assault because they hadn't prepared at all for it. They had insufficient clothing, no protection of their vehicles engines and so forth. This simply crippled their first assault on Russia, but wasn't a mistake that was made a second time. In addition to this, the Germans soon found that the T-34 was not a bad tank at all. Engagements between panzer divisions and soviet tanks were not as one sided as some would believe. The soviet tanks could penetrate most German tank armour at a greater range, were faster on the snow and generally better armoured. This would later be key to the Germans defeat at Kursk later in the war.
Then we have the massive German mistake which was the assault at Stalingrad. This was the reason for the German loss (not the winter as everyone seems to think oddly). The main point of stalingrad (and why it was a disaster) was they bombed the city into the ground forming a mass of ruins and hideouts. This benefitted the rag tag Russian defenders greatly because the Germans were a superior army, <i>on the open field</i>. Once put in confined conditions (like Stalingrad) the German army lost that mobility that made them so superior. Simply put, they were now throwing their best troops into a massive meat grinder and that is exactly what happened. Hitlers refusal to allow retreat, and his sheer obsession with Stalingrad ensured the German downfall in the east.
As the Germans wasted time fighting at Stalingrad, Stalin built up the industry, particularly planes, tanks and artillery. In addition they massed a huge army. Remember here that the Russians held the Germans at stalingrad for YEARS (1942-1944), remembering the French only managed 6 weeks. The 6th army was then surrounded and annihilated, not because of the Russian winter but because Hitler made an idiotic decision and his troops paid for it. However, the biggest factor is all about numbers.
Overall in WW2 the Russians lost 27 million people, of which around 18 million was military. Most of that 18 million was lost at Stalingrad. The Germans lost far less than 18 million (an exact figure does not come to mind), but the fact is they could NOT AFFORD to get the **** beaten out of them because they DID NOT have the men to waste. Stalingrad allowed the Russians to waste the German armies through sheer attrition. If you lose 3 men to every German, it doesn't matter if you can replace those 3 men easily and the Germans cannot.
I could go on, but I think I've clearly demonstrated how ignorant (and disrespectful to the millions of Russians that died at Stalingrad so the allies COULD win the war) your statement is.
That’s all very nice*yawn* but nothing I didn't already learn in history class. You seem to forget that if Hitler was not fighting off the Americans that had landed in France, he WOULD have had the troops to replace the ones lost in Russia. Not to mention American bombers destroyed countless German factories and supply lines towards the end of the war. I have nothing against Russia, but I find it very very hard to believe they could have won WWII on their own. Wouldn't have even been a world war then would it? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is semi-incorrect, unless you mean someone opposing joining the army? In which case, please criticise Russia, American, New Zealand, Australia and Britain too btw. In Russia, they shot you simply for running away, talking back, talking about ANYTHING they deemed 'unpatriotic', talking about the Germans in a good manner (complementing German troops would have you shot) etc etc. The Russians were worse than the Germans sometimes! If you mean the civilians, it's actually kind of funny because a large group of women DID protest to the NAZI government. Not only did neither event you said occur, but they won and their Jewish husbands were released about 1943 from memory. There was the option to protest, the real thing is that choice wasn't taken.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I was refering to protests against Hitler while he was in power, not the actions he took. However it does apply to the army in some respects, but I would rather have been in Germany than Russia, where you get to be shot for not joining the army, not following orders correctly and retreating, among other things. Generally the SS can be stereotyped as brutalized, but generalizing the Heer, which consisted of all types of german citizenry, as evil or cruel.
There's a thread on the DoD boards that's in their discussion forum, it's like 20 pages long. It starts out with someone feeling sorry for the German soldiers, but then goes into a big debate about whether Russia or Germany did the worst acts of the war.
Just for basic, coinciding evidence: <a href='http://ww2bodycount.netfirms.com/' target='_blank'>casualties source 1</a> <a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second' target='_blank'>casualties source 2 (slightly more indepth)</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country' target='_blank'>casualties source 3</a> (and unfortunately, I have no offline sources because I'm no where near a library, but these seem close to what I remember from school)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly, the Germans had a choice in World War 2, they chose to simply watch the slaughter of the Jews and take their share of the profit from it. An interesting thing to note is few people who housed Jewish families and the like actually did get caught. This is partly because the Gestapo was a bit incompetent, and confused because everyone would try and dob in people they disliked to them. By the time they had investigated the red herrings, spies and the like got away! It is a MYTH that the Gestapo were some sort of ruthlessly efficient organisation that swifty (and cruelly) delt to all who opposed the NAZI's ideals. In reality, they got a few of them, but they ended up bogged down in their own incompetence so missed a great majority of people (thankfully). Now the Soviets on the other hand......<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're generalizing the germans again here, and while a majority may fall under that pretext, you probably shouldn't do it in a thread devoted to the topic (despite the fact it's easier to type). There's also the claim that many of the germans didn't know that the jews were being killed in death camps. Since you could be shot for being close to a camp, I don't think it's a large surprise many people didn't know more than rumors. Although I'd be suspicious if all my Jewish friends were taken away and never came back...but then again, I probably wouldn't do anything about it in fear of being shot, or going missing like they did.
Then there's also the smell that apparently comes with the camps (me, never having been in Germany, wouldn't know), but if there's a citizen that has lived in a city by a death camp for the entirety of the death camp, I would think they'd get used to the smell. Just like you get used to the smell of burnt stuff in your oven when it wafts throughout your house and never goes away (hopefully no one thinks I'm comparing jews, gypsies, homosexuals and various political prisoners to stuff here).
I'll also throw in sone of Hitler's mistakes here: -The Battle of Dunkirk, by wanting the Luftwaffe to finish off the remaining British and French troops; instead of just sending in the army and tanks. -The Battle of Kiev, for not taking the city immediatly and letting the russians slow them down (when they had the manpower to push through) -The Battle of Britain, for stopping his attack on RAF airfields and radar sites and switching to London, because there was a small bombing of Berlin -The Battle of Stalingrad, for not going right to Moscow instead. This was just a big propaganda battle, and no serious general would ever make this mistake. "Ohh, it has Stalin's name on it, we have to capture it!"....that's just retarded commanding (what else would you expect from Hitler's big plan though). -The Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), just because Hitler's armies were pretty much beaten by then, and their lack of air superiority and adequate supplying (especially during the offensive).
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. Hitler is a terrible high commander.
I can honestly say I've never learned about those protests by the women for their jewish husbands, I'd appreciate it if you'd send a book suggestion or website which entails that information my way.
On the subject of WW2 in school curiculums (probably spelt that wrong...), 9th grade here is World history and 10th grade is US History (11th is Civics and Economics...and 12th isn't mandatory and there's multiple choices). In 9th grade it was mostly ancient history and then some medieval stuff, like the bubonic plague and stuff. Very little WW2.
10th grade however, started with basic Revolutionary War causes and events, war of 1812 (very little though...basically the burning of the White House...that's all I remember),The civil war, The Spanish-American war in Cuba and the sinking of the ship that slips my mind at the moment. World War 1, which there was lots of information on.
The causes and events leading to the war (the teacher liked to say, "The Balkans was a powder keg" a lot), some major battles and advances and the how and stuff of trench warfare. There was a lot of information, but all I can drag up without anything specific to talk about is the battle on the Seine that stopped the germans, and the battle of Ypres. Also the propoganda (posters of german soldiers stabbing babies, and the like), the sinking of American merchant vessels, the Zimmermann telegram and the Russians leaving the war because of one of their revolutions.
Then there was lots of great depression stuff.
Then there was WW2, which basically was a week long chapter, where we filled out a packet with lots of information on the war, which I think I was the only one who did it in it's entirety (lots of copying and answer sharing going on, as I remember it). Although, if you did the packets they complimented games fairly well, because games focus on small aspects, like weapons and troop names, and names of some battles, while the packet focused on major battles and victories, causes, generals involved and the like (Although I specifically remember there being no Zhukov...anywhere...It always seemed like the Russians only did Stalingrad (until U reserached it myself)).
Think I'm done for now, have to go watch my friends band perform.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but then goes into a big debate about whether Russia or Germany did the worst acts of the war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends in general. I don't have a real opinion in the end because they were both as bad. The Russians WERE worse in some respects, but the Germans did some equally as bad things [to civilian populations].
And I'd agree with those sources too, though the Russian casualty figure is a bit low.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're generalizing the germans again here, and while a majority may fall under that pretext, you probably shouldn't do it in a thread devoted to the topic (despite the fact it's easier to type). There's also the claim that many of the germans didn't know that the jews were being killed in death camps. Since you could be shot for being close to a camp, I don't think it's a large surprise many people didn't know more than rumors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is absolute rubbish. IG Farnben ran one of the biggest camps and employed a large amount of ordinary German citizens as well as working many hundreds of Jews to death. The very notion that the general public didn't know is utterly absurd, and no, people were NOT shot for simply going near a camp, otherwise how would people go to work at IG Farnben for example! I know some camps were more secretive, but you're joking if you can hide them all. In addition, the local German populations commonly worked in tandem with camps! Are you telling me they executed entire villages of GERMAN citizens? No I don't think that theory would stand up myself.
It isn't a 'large surprise' at all, it's plain wrong to think that the general public didn't know about what was occuring to the Jews. The writers of Surviving Hitler (I've already referenced it) and many other historians are coming to the conclusion that they knew more than you think. I really suggest you read that book (and then a few others on actually living in NAZI Germany), it's VERY different than what is normally portrayed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although I'd be suspicious if all my Jewish friends were taken away and never came back...but then again,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More importantly, all that expensive furniture sold at a really cheap price!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but then again, I probably wouldn't do anything about it in fear of being shot, or going missing like they did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or that expensive cabinet I just picked up for a real bargain that I've always wanted for the lounge. Or the Jewish shop I just aquired, or the local doctors practice...or...
Should I have to continue?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there's also the smell that apparently comes with the camps (me, never having been in Germany, wouldn't know), but if there's a citizen that has lived in a city by a death camp for the entirety of the death camp, I would think they'd get used to the smell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know that IG-Farnben was a chemical factory right? I doubt anyone would of really cared, considering the smell such a place would of had normally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can honestly say I've never learned about those protests by the women for their jewish husbands, I'd appreciate it if you'd send a book suggestion or website which entails that information my way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already have:
Adam Lebor and Roger Boyes, Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich. I've yet to read their other book on the Gestapo (new) and their previous one of the KGB (Pre berlin wall). It is an incredible book and made me rethink what I previously believed about NAZI Germany. Further reading can be found in it and several other sources (More attention seems to be on this aspect now).
Oh incidently, I rarely quote websites, everything I say comes from books of one sort or another <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The causes and events leading to the war (the teacher liked to say, "The Balkans was a powder keg" a lot), some major battles and advances and the how and stuff of trench warfare.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did a lot more than I did at school though! I never got anything on WW1 at all, I had to go and look it up myself.
The main point I'm trying to make about Games is that they present the history of WW2 in such a way that people easily remember. Many people who've played BF1942 would know what happened at Kursk or Stalingrad in some vague manner. Sure it wouldn't be 100% accurate but at least they would know what happened in a general manner at such battles.
You see, most people don't really remember something they are taught except for exams. At least in games people see (at least in some way) what happened and can at least appreciate the battles. You can't get that from a book because books aren't quite as interactive. While it is a shame to say it portraying the likes of WW2 in a video game is a lot better than a book in some respects because it's easier to keep peoples attention.
From my posts you can hopefully see I'm fairly anal retentive about various facts and the like. I still however support the games because it's better that people at least know something, than know nothing at all. Battles like the Bulge, Stalingrad and Monte Casino will at least be remembered for a long time. But who will remember Jutland (as I clearly caught out Esuna with earlier, proving an earlier point), Flanders, the first gas attacks, the mistake Moltke made that essentially made WW1 what it was etc etc. I'd rather someone at least knows that some 50,000 died to go 100ft, even if it isn't 100% true to life, than nobody even being aware the battle exists!
EDIT: NOOOOOOOOOO MY UBB WAS SHOWING! I FEEL SO NAKED!
I have to say I'm slightly tilted to the side that says that WWII games are just into the glamour and the entertainment.
What I find lacking between the games and the movies is that with all WWII games I know of out there, (and I know very little, so feel free to provide me an example to counter my next statement), <b>none</b> of them evoke an emotion in you. What you’ll get our reactions like: “Wow, cool graphics!”, “Holy ****! Where the hell did that grenade come from?”, “Did you see that? I took out 12 Nazis with this pistol! I rule!” I’ve never seen any WWII games as of yet evoke emotions, simply put, because there’s no story to go along with it, and it’s no excuse to say that video games can’t evoke emotions either, because there are. But to be fair, I think such a game wouldn’t do commercially well, so that’s why there’s so much focus on multiplayer, because that’s what will make the game cool and profitable, rather than meaningful.
Movies on the other hand can evoke emotions. Saving Private Ryan was the first movie to make me weep, I mean holy ****, a mother losing three of her four sons. And nearing the end of the movie, I felt “wrong” by all the fighting at the end, it was damn desensitizing. Movies that show this kind of pain aren’t banned though, but why?
The stereotype of video games right now is that they are just a form of senseless entertainment. Most people don’t think games have the ability to really tell a beautiful story. To these people, I spit at them games like Planescape: Torment and Grim Fandango, (as a coincidence is that these games sold poorly yet were showered with praise by reviews). My hope in the future is that people start taking advantage of games as a medium of storytelling, even for action games – we all know what Half-Life can do.
Hmm… just thought of something extra. In making a serious, emotional game, the graphics play a huge part in the atmosphere. In HL1, none of you had any qualms with hitting the scientists with a crowbar – it was amusing. When the first screenshots came out for HL2, my friend said to me, “I don’t think I’d be able to attack the scientists, with the AI scripts built in making them cry for their lives, and the graphics. It’s not right.” It will indeed be scary if WWII games ever go this route, which is why WWII will stay in a more milder territory, where peoples’ morals aren’t too badly tread on, so it can still be sold as profit. Thus the glamourization and milking of WWII could continue.
Comments
Dear god. How could a game EVER immerse you in an atmosphere of fearing for your life every second? Games could not possibly subject you to anything CLOSE to what it must be like to be in a war, they'd be banned instantly if they could ever achieve something like that. I don't play a game and have to watch close friends and colleagues die, they're characters, they're not real.
And by the way, they should be blood splattered gorefests. You think it's a pretty sight when someone gets shot with a machine gun round only to have a massive chunk torn from them? Bones shatter, limbs are ripped off, this is a gore fest and it is entirely real.
Oh, and the battle of Trafalgar, Aegeri.
Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone. I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me. I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok?
But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world.
I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.
Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.
Dear god. How could a game EVER immerse you in an atmosphere of fearing for your life every second? Games could not possibly subject you to anything CLOSE to what it must be like to be in a war, they'd be banned instantly if they could ever achieve something like that. I don't play a game and have to watch close friends and colleagues die, they're characters, they're not real.
And by the way, they should be blood splattered gorefests. You think it's a pretty sight when someone gets shot with a machine gun round only to have a massive chunk torn from them? Bones shatter, limbs are ripped off, this is a gore fest and it is entirely real.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true. No WWII game has shown the real thing of war. In games there are no emotion. You can't feel that persons pain (Hences its not real). In war emotion is the biggest thing, while in WWII games it makes your character a unstobbale killing machine.
Actually try Jutland. It is still the largest naval engagement in history and occured during World War 1, which is what I was alluding to in fact. Over 250 ships took part in the battle, which makes it quite a bit bigger than Trafalgar don't you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This isn't to say that Trafalgar ISN'T significant, because it is VERY significant. But it is NOT the largest battle in history, and thank you for proving my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this because I make valid points?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I insult you? I pointed out an obvious and gaping flaw in your logic. If that is insulting you then you're far too over sensitive and shouldn't be in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think you are far too over pedantic myself, but I see the "OH NOES I'M STUFFED IN THIS ARGUMENT SO I'LL PRETEND YOU INSULTED ME TO IGNORE YOUR ARGUMENTS" type too damn much nowadays.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I understand this quite well. I'm more than aware England has a rather large population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you happen to think the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is insignificant, but it takes more than one country to keep the memory of EVERYONE who died in wars like WW1 alive. I suppose you've missed my point entirely, and are now trying to make this issue about you or England to cover up your weak arguments.
Nice debating tactic, but it doesn't work on me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this isn't about you really, I've pointed out the flaws in your incredibly weak arguments, now either answer them or just cease trying to weasel the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for missing the point AGAIN.
Why don't you argue against my points, rather than trying to simply weasel the debate and sadly attempt to discredit me by making it seem like I have some vendetta against you or England? I didn't come down in the last rain shower and after 5 years of debating I know a few tricks. Again, answer my arguments and my points, don't try to make it seem like I'm insulting you or making some vendetta against England God ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I enjoy teaching, but biology is what I mainly teach, I only do history when I have a holiday <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the second part, whatever, I'm sick of people who don't answer arguments and try to weasel debates by trying to make it look like the other side is being insulting. THAT is patronising to me.
If you reply (and please do), answer my points and not go on a whinge about how I have a vendetta against you (or England, or WHATEVER). The discussion will be MUCH more interesting.
Actually try Jutland. It is still the largest naval engagement in history and occured during World War 1, which is what I was alluding to in fact. Over 250 ships took part in the battle, which makes it quite a bit bigger than Trafalgar don't you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This isn't to say that Trafalgar ISN'T significant, because it is VERY significant. But it is NOT the largest battle in history, and thank you for proving my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aegeri, i'm going to ignore your generally patronising and condescending tone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this because I make valid points?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am fully aware of it being a World War, there's no need to insult me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I insult you? I pointed out an obvious and gaping flaw in your logic. If that is insulting you then you're far too over sensitive and shouldn't be in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I said "i'm sure it's the same", not "i know for a fact that it's taught everywhere in the world". You proved me wrong, fine, no need for the insulting tone, ok? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I think you are far too over pedantic myself, but I see the "OH NOES I'M STUFFED IN THIS ARGUMENT SO I'LL PRETEND YOU INSULTED ME TO IGNORE YOUR ARGUMENTS" type too damn much nowadays.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But history is a mandatory subject in English schools, and do bear in mind that millions go through the schooling system learning the same curriculum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I understand this quite well. I'm more than aware England has a rather large population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you seem to think that England is an insignificant little country, but there's still millions of us over here and we are a part of this world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you happen to think the REST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD is insignificant, but it takes more than one country to keep the memory of EVERYONE who died in wars like WW1 alive. I suppose you've missed my point entirely, and are now trying to make this issue about you or England to cover up your weak arguments.
Nice debating tactic, but it doesn't work on me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am FULLY aware that England was only one of many countries involved, do you take me for a complete idiot or something? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this isn't about you really, I've pointed out the flaws in your incredibly weak arguments, now either answer them or just cease trying to weasel the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, i live and have grown up in England so i speak about what i know the most. As i've proven, i was wrong in my presumption that it's being taught globally, but i'm entirely correct that it's being taught in England.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for missing the point AGAIN.
Why don't you argue against my points, rather than trying to simply weasel the debate and sadly attempt to discredit me by making it seem like I have some vendetta against you or England? I didn't come down in the last rain shower and after 5 years of debating I know a few tricks. Again, answer my arguments and my points, don't try to make it seem like I'm insulting you or making some vendetta against England God ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lastly, you may be a History teacher, and i admire you for your job, but your tone is unnecessarily hostile and i do not appreciate being patronised.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I enjoy teaching, but biology is what I mainly teach, I only do history when I have a holiday <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the second part, whatever, I'm sick of people who don't answer arguments and try to weasel debates by trying to make it look like the other side is being insulting. THAT is patronising to me.
If you reply (and please do), answer my points and not go on a whinge about how I have a vendetta against you (or England, or WHATEVER). The discussion will be MUCH more interesting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you've not guessed at all, i have next to 0 debating skills. I don't know all the facts on WW2, and i don't claim to either.
What i had was an idea, and if you didn't already notice i've been trying to keep to the topic at hand and throw new ideas into the mix as opposed to actively taking part in the debate.
I'm sorry if i'm attempting to "weasel" my way out of the debate, but if you re-read your posts it is blatantly obvious you are being patronising, whether you notice it or not.
Oh, and yes, i do find being patronised an insult, hence why i brought up the point of being insulted so much.
And i admire you for being a teacher, not any specific subject, the decline in people wanting to be a teacher and the lack of respect they get from students just makes it harder.
I usually like to assume that actually O_o
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What i had was an idea, and if you didn't already notice i've been trying to keep to the topic at hand and throw new ideas into the mix as opposed to actively taking part in the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why bother posting here? If you aren't going to expect people to answer you don't bother participating at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry if i'm attempting to "weasel" my way out of the debate, but if you re-read your posts it is blatantly obvious you are being patronising, whether you notice it or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I disagree, I DID in my last post however do so slightly deliberately because I was a bit annoyed with you.
Again, you are simply being overly sensitive and I suggest if you don't want a debate on something then don't post it in here. Really rather simple.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and yes, i do find being patronised an insult, hence why i brought up the point of being insulted so much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O_o. Whatever, I think you're just making a (poor) attempt to avoid arguments.
Now, on to my slightly related points:
I don't appreciate how WW2 is portrayed. It's terrible, in movies and in games, the Americans are always 'super invincible heroes' except when the director (or programmer, or modeller...whatever) is trying to convey emotion, and that's not right.
We'll take Band of Brothers here as an example:
The normandy airdrop: There weren't nearly enough american deaths. Okay, there was one plane that blew up, and then there were like 2 guys that got killed on an assault against the MG nests. Yep...that's how Normandy was, us Americans lost 17 guys and we killed all teh N@z1 skummmm!!!!!!1111oneoneone.
Victory was not assured in normandy, but in every single movie it never looks like the American's are struggling...or the British, in their occasionally movies. Then there was the one...ONE...time they showed Americans retreating, 2 Americans die (...and the British Sherman).
Bah, I can't descibe anymore, it's making me mad just thinking about it. The point is: Germans are always shown as evil, very killable, not worth having remoarse for, weaklings. The only movie that's portrayed a remotely good Nazi was the Pianist, and I like that movie (for the Holocaust perspective, the minor showings of Russian brutality, and the story). The fact is, not every german soldier wanted to kill jewish people, or help Hitler.
Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp. So, you can either join the army take an empty oath to Hitler and protecting your family, or you can get sent to a death camp. There's a nice choice.
That's not to say all the Germans were good either, many were also bad, and many were also influenced or forced by others to be bad. Most of the SS were bad, many nazis were bad. Now, people will say stuff like, "Then they shouldn't have let Hitler come to power." This again brings up the point, many people didn't like Hitler, there were multiple assassination attempts on his life and multiple demonstrations against him (which were all swiftly put down). Most of the people that voted for him, did so because they wanted to get out of a terrible economic depression, much like the US.
Which the US and most of the world have to thank WW2 for. The war ended the depression. Even with all the acts and laws being enacted in the US the depression was still terrible. Once the orders for military vehicles, supplies, food...everything, there were plenty of jobs.
Many people also forget that WW2 is very much a continuation of WW1. The treaty of Versailles is just a breathing point. There's also the point that Hitler might not have come to power had Germany not been forced to pay for all of the WW1 debts. This mistake was remedied at the end of WW2, where the allies helped rebuild Germany instead of punish it.
Now, I've gotten slightly off-topic, with many incomplete ideas...but that's okay.
I think World War 2 games. or any war for that matter, are perfectly fine. Despite the bad (bad as in incorrect) representation of parties involved and the almost consistent historical inaccuracies, they can teach people about the War. There's also a lot left out from WW2 games though. Most don't feature airplanes, mortars, tanks and marching. Generally you're thrown right into the action. This in itself is a historical inaccuracy because many of the men in WW2 never fired their weapons (I think it's something like 50% in WW2 compared to 70% in Vietnam...but I'm not sure where that source is from).
No one wants to sit there typing up after action reports or driving a fuel truck to a refueling depot. People want to shoot things. There's also the lack of Russian, Japanese and Italian representation in most games. You generally shouldn't take games at face value. They're not meant to be learning tools, they're meant to be a means to have fun. Every game is going to say things like "We're historically accurate, except when it gets in the way of fun." How much fun is there in a war anyway? Technically isn't the entire game historically inaccurate?
Well, I'm to tired to continue, and I doubt anyone will read all that typing anyway.
As I've assumed your American, then I assumed you are talking about the American army. Unless of course, you think that somehow 'the army' is actually plural <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am American, other then that you assume to much. But let me take your tone of arrogance for just a second.
You really should only play as Americans, we won the war, the smaller much less important countries merely helped or got in the way.
Must hurt to be you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*cough*
alright, seriously though, what im wondering is why hasn't there been any WW<b>1</b> games out?
maybe because they <i>can't</i> be glamourized? what i mean is:
how can you make wading in 1 foot deep mud in a 5 foot trench haunched over carrying a rifle/machine gun/ammo and gas mask in total fear of a chlorine/mustard/etc gas attack and enemy machine gun and artillery fire rattling on every day and night at you and a possible enemy attack at dawn the next day glamourized? how can you make <i>walking in a line</i> towards the heavilly defended enemy position and proceeding through one of the choke points of barbed wire with machine guns just waiting to chop you in half glamourized? how can you make continual bombardment from enemy explosive and gas shells spewing flak and poisonous gasses mincing and smothering glamourized?
oh wait, you can't... hence so few WW1 games.
then again, who wants to play in a game of true attrition, static defences/immobility, and save/load 10 billion times trying to rush that choke point differently? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
sometimes WW2 games are glamourized (F*** that bloody JetPack B.*...) but usually they stick their feet on the ground and give a decent "scrape of the surface" to the actual or fictional events of WW2. Sometimes.
Must hurt to be you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically Russia won world war 2 (at Stalingrad) <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->, and thanks to the Japanese pulling in the Americans, didn't have to worry about a war on two fronts. There is a large amount of historians who argue that the allied landings are just to stop the soviets and not in fact bring down Germany. Considering the man power and armour that the Russians had amassed, with or without the allied landings in Normandy they would of run over the Germans inevitably. That probably would of resulted in a much poorer end to the war though, so it is a very very good thing the allies did invade.
UltimateGecko.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is semi-incorrect, unless you mean someone opposing joining the army? In which case, please criticise Russia, American, New Zealand, Australia and Britain too btw. In Russia, they shot you simply for running away, talking back, talking about ANYTHING they deemed 'unpatriotic', talking about the Germans in a good manner (complementing German troops would have you shot) etc etc. The Russians were worse than the Germans sometimes! If you mean the civilians, it's actually kind of funny because a large group of women DID protest to the NAZI government. Not only did neither event you said occur, but they won and their Jewish husbands were released about 1943 from memory. There was the option to protest, the real thing is that choice wasn't taken.
Quite frankly, the Germans had a choice in World War 2, they chose to simply watch the slaughter of the Jews and take their share of the profit from it. An interesting thing to note is few people who housed Jewish families and the like actually did get caught. This is partly because the Gestapo was a bit incompetent, and confused because everyone would try and dob in people they disliked to them. By the time they had investigated the red herrings, spies and the like got away! It is a MYTH that the Gestapo were some sort of ruthlessly efficient organisation that swifty (and cruelly) delt to all who opposed the NAZI's ideals. In reality, they got a few of them, but they ended up bogged down in their own incompetence so missed a great majority of people (thankfully). Now the Soviets on the other hand......
-Adam Leebor [Some other dude], Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I'm to tired to continue, and I doubt anyone will read all that typing anyway<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people in this forum aren't afraid of a lot of text <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The American air power significantly weakened Germany, if it was not being pressed on from both sides I highly doubt the Russians could have overtaken it by themselves. Not to mention Russia owes its very existence to its winter, not exactly something to be proud of.
Actually that goes to the RAF, who decisively crippled the German airforce at the battle of Britain. In addition to this, they wasted many of their best pilots in the attack on Russia as well, and the Soviets had developed a VERY large airforce themselves. Really, as the Soviets advanced, the bombing would probably have been just as much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if it was not being pressed on from both sides I highly doubt the Russians could have overtaken it by themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had the tanks, the men, planes and equipment to do it however. Remember by this stage in the war the Germans have thrown most of their divisions into a massive meat grinder at Stalingrad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention Russia owes its very existence to its winter, not exactly something to be proud of<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is, like so many things an incredibly silly thing. Firstly, the Russians lasted for YEARS, not ONE winter ****.
Secondly, the Germans could of easily knocked Russia out of the war in their first engagment. Hitlers key mistake (and what allowed the Germans to be driven to a standstill in 1941-1942) was not driving a panzer division right into Moscow. Had he taken moscow he would of taken Russia out of the war. Instead, he ordered key divisions to turn north and support some pointless attack, allowing Russia time to counterattack and defend Moscow adequately.
The Germans also made a mistake of anticipating a short war, which they very nearly got admittingly, against the Russians. When the Russians surprised the Germans by actually being able to fight back, they got held up sufficiently long for the winter. The Russian winter DID cripple the Germans first assault because they hadn't prepared at all for it. They had insufficient clothing, no protection of their vehicles engines and so forth. This simply crippled their first assault on Russia, but wasn't a mistake that was made a second time. In addition to this, the Germans soon found that the T-34 was not a bad tank at all. Engagements between panzer divisions and soviet tanks were not as one sided as some would believe. The soviet tanks could penetrate most German tank armour at a greater range, were faster on the snow and generally better armoured. This would later be key to the Germans defeat at Kursk later in the war.
Then we have the massive German mistake which was the assault at Stalingrad. This was the reason for the German loss (not the winter as everyone seems to think oddly). The main point of stalingrad (and why it was a disaster) was they bombed the city into the ground forming a mass of ruins and hideouts. This benefitted the rag tag Russian defenders greatly because the Germans were a superior army, <i>on the open field</i>. Once put in confined conditions (like Stalingrad) the German army lost that mobility that made them so superior. Simply put, they were now throwing their best troops into a massive meat grinder and that is exactly what happened. Hitlers refusal to allow retreat, and his sheer obsession with Stalingrad ensured the German downfall in the east.
As the Germans wasted time fighting at Stalingrad, Stalin built up the industry, particularly planes, tanks and artillery. In addition they massed a huge army. Remember here that the Russians held the Germans at stalingrad for YEARS (1942-1944), remembering the French only managed 6 weeks. The 6th army was then surrounded and annihilated, not because of the Russian winter but because Hitler made an idiotic decision and his troops paid for it. However, the biggest factor is all about numbers.
Overall in WW2 the Russians lost 27 million people, of which around 18 million was military. Most of that 18 million was lost at Stalingrad. The Germans lost far less than 18 million (an exact figure does not come to mind), but the fact is they could NOT AFFORD to get the **** beaten out of them because they DID NOT have the men to waste. Stalingrad allowed the Russians to waste the German armies through sheer attrition. If you lose 3 men to every German, it doesn't matter if you can replace those 3 men easily and the Germans cannot.
I could go on, but I think I've clearly demonstrated how ignorant (and disrespectful to the millions of Russians that died at Stalingrad so the allies COULD win the war) your statement is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler's Germany was a terrible place to live, and if you picket against Hitler, guess what, it doesn't work like in America, you don't get your way, and get a raise, or a new law; you get sent to a work camp, or a death camp.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually this is semi-incorrect, unless you mean someone opposing joining the army? In which case, please criticise Russia, American, New Zealand, Australia and Britain too btw. In Russia, they shot you simply for running away, talking back, talking about ANYTHING they deemed 'unpatriotic', talking about the Germans in a good manner (complementing German troops would have you shot) etc etc. The Russians were worse than the Germans sometimes! If you mean the civilians, it's actually kind of funny because a large group of women DID protest to the NAZI government. Not only did neither event you said occur, but they won and their Jewish husbands were released about 1943 from memory. There was the option to protest, the real thing is that choice wasn't taken.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I was refering to protests against Hitler while he was in power, not the actions he took. However it does apply to the army in some respects, but I would rather have been in Germany than Russia, where you get to be shot for not joining the army, not following orders correctly and retreating, among other things. Generally the SS can be stereotyped as brutalized, but generalizing the Heer, which consisted of all types of german citizenry, as evil or cruel.
There's a thread on the DoD boards that's in their discussion forum, it's like 20 pages long. It starts out with someone feeling sorry for the German soldiers, but then goes into a big debate about whether Russia or Germany did the worst acts of the war.
Just for basic, coinciding evidence:
<a href='http://ww2bodycount.netfirms.com/' target='_blank'>casualties source 1</a>
<a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second' target='_blank'>casualties source 2 (slightly more indepth)</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country' target='_blank'>casualties source 3</a>
(and unfortunately, I have no offline sources because I'm no where near a library, but these seem close to what I remember from school)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly, the Germans had a choice in World War 2, they chose to simply watch the slaughter of the Jews and take their share of the profit from it. An interesting thing to note is few people who housed Jewish families and the like actually did get caught. This is partly because the Gestapo was a bit incompetent, and confused because everyone would try and dob in people they disliked to them. By the time they had investigated the red herrings, spies and the like got away! It is a MYTH that the Gestapo were some sort of ruthlessly efficient organisation that swifty (and cruelly) delt to all who opposed the NAZI's ideals. In reality, they got a few of them, but they ended up bogged down in their own incompetence so missed a great majority of people (thankfully). Now the Soviets on the other hand......<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're generalizing the germans again here, and while a majority may fall under that pretext, you probably shouldn't do it in a thread devoted to the topic (despite the fact it's easier to type). There's also the claim that many of the germans didn't know that the jews were being killed in death camps. Since you could be shot for being close to a camp, I don't think it's a large surprise many people didn't know more than rumors. Although I'd be suspicious if all my Jewish friends were taken away and never came back...but then again, I probably wouldn't do anything about it in fear of being shot, or going missing like they did.
Then there's also the smell that apparently comes with the camps (me, never having been in Germany, wouldn't know), but if there's a citizen that has lived in a city by a death camp for the entirety of the death camp, I would think they'd get used to the smell. Just like you get used to the smell of burnt stuff in your oven when it wafts throughout your house and never goes away (hopefully no one thinks I'm comparing jews, gypsies, homosexuals and various political prisoners to stuff here).
I'll also throw in sone of Hitler's mistakes here:
-The Battle of Dunkirk, by wanting the Luftwaffe to finish off the remaining British and French troops; instead of just sending in the army and tanks.
-The Battle of Kiev, for not taking the city immediatly and letting the russians slow them down (when they had the manpower to push through)
-The Battle of Britain, for stopping his attack on RAF airfields and radar sites and switching to London, because there was a small bombing of Berlin
-The Battle of Stalingrad, for not going right to Moscow instead. This was just a big propaganda battle, and no serious general would ever make this mistake. "Ohh, it has Stalin's name on it, we have to capture it!"....that's just retarded commanding (what else would you expect from Hitler's big plan though).
-The Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), just because Hitler's armies were pretty much beaten by then, and their lack of air superiority and adequate supplying (especially during the offensive).
Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. Hitler is a terrible high commander.
I can honestly say I've never learned about those protests by the women for their jewish husbands, I'd appreciate it if you'd send a book suggestion or website which entails that information my way.
On the subject of WW2 in school curiculums (probably spelt that wrong...), 9th grade here is World history and 10th grade is US History (11th is Civics and Economics...and 12th isn't mandatory and there's multiple choices). In 9th grade it was mostly ancient history and then some medieval stuff, like the bubonic plague and stuff. Very little WW2.
10th grade however, started with basic Revolutionary War causes and events, war of 1812 (very little though...basically the burning of the White House...that's all I remember),The civil war, The Spanish-American war in Cuba and the sinking of the ship that slips my mind at the moment. World War 1, which there was lots of information on.
The causes and events leading to the war (the teacher liked to say, "The Balkans was a powder keg" a lot), some major battles and advances and the how and stuff of trench warfare. There was a lot of information, but all I can drag up without anything specific to talk about is the battle on the Seine that stopped the germans, and the battle of Ypres. Also the propoganda (posters of german soldiers stabbing babies, and the like), the sinking of American merchant vessels, the Zimmermann telegram and the Russians leaving the war because of one of their revolutions.
Then there was lots of great depression stuff.
Then there was WW2, which basically was a week long chapter, where we filled out a packet with lots of information on the war, which I think I was the only one who did it in it's entirety (lots of copying and answer sharing going on, as I remember it). Although, if you did the packets they complimented games fairly well, because games focus on small aspects, like weapons and troop names, and names of some battles, while the packet focused on major battles and victories, causes, generals involved and the like (Although I specifically remember there being no Zhukov...anywhere...It always seemed like the Russians only did Stalingrad (until U reserached it myself)).
Think I'm done for now, have to go watch my friends band perform.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends in general. I don't have a real opinion in the end because they were both as bad. The Russians WERE worse in some respects, but the Germans did some equally as bad things [to civilian populations].
And I'd agree with those sources too, though the Russian casualty figure is a bit low.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're generalizing the germans again here, and while a majority may fall under that pretext, you probably shouldn't do it in a thread devoted to the topic (despite the fact it's easier to type). There's also the claim that many of the germans didn't know that the jews were being killed in death camps. Since you could be shot for being close to a camp, I don't think it's a large surprise many people didn't know more than rumors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is absolute rubbish. IG Farnben ran one of the biggest camps and employed a large amount of ordinary German citizens as well as working many hundreds of Jews to death. The very notion that the general public didn't know is utterly absurd, and no, people were NOT shot for simply going near a camp, otherwise how would people go to work at IG Farnben for example! I know some camps were more secretive, but you're joking if you can hide them all. In addition, the local German populations commonly worked in tandem with camps! Are you telling me they executed entire villages of GERMAN citizens? No I don't think that theory would stand up myself.
It isn't a 'large surprise' at all, it's plain wrong to think that the general public didn't know about what was occuring to the Jews. The writers of Surviving Hitler (I've already referenced it) and many other historians are coming to the conclusion that they knew more than you think. I really suggest you read that book (and then a few others on actually living in NAZI Germany), it's VERY different than what is normally portrayed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although I'd be suspicious if all my Jewish friends were taken away and never came back...but then again,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More importantly, all that expensive furniture sold at a really cheap price!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but then again, I probably wouldn't do anything about it in fear of being shot, or going missing like they did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or that expensive cabinet I just picked up for a real bargain that I've always wanted for the lounge. Or the Jewish shop I just aquired, or the local doctors practice...or...
Should I have to continue?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there's also the smell that apparently comes with the camps (me, never having been in Germany, wouldn't know), but if there's a citizen that has lived in a city by a death camp for the entirety of the death camp, I would think they'd get used to the smell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know that IG-Farnben was a chemical factory right? I doubt anyone would of really cared, considering the smell such a place would of had normally.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can honestly say I've never learned about those protests by the women for their jewish husbands, I'd appreciate it if you'd send a book suggestion or website which entails that information my way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already have:
Adam Lebor and Roger Boyes, Surviving Hitler: Corruption and Compromise in the Third Reich. I've yet to read their other book on the Gestapo (new) and their previous one of the KGB (Pre berlin wall). It is an incredible book and made me rethink what I previously believed about NAZI Germany. Further reading can be found in it and several other sources (More attention seems to be on this aspect now).
Oh incidently, I rarely quote websites, everything I say comes from books of one sort or another <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The causes and events leading to the war (the teacher liked to say, "The Balkans was a powder keg" a lot), some major battles and advances and the how and stuff of trench warfare.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did a lot more than I did at school though! I never got anything on WW1 at all, I had to go and look it up myself.
The main point I'm trying to make about Games is that they present the history of WW2 in such a way that people easily remember. Many people who've played BF1942 would know what happened at Kursk or Stalingrad in some vague manner. Sure it wouldn't be 100% accurate but at least they would know what happened in a general manner at such battles.
You see, most people don't really remember something they are taught except for exams. At least in games people see (at least in some way) what happened and can at least appreciate the battles. You can't get that from a book because books aren't quite as interactive. While it is a shame to say it portraying the likes of WW2 in a video game is a lot better than a book in some respects because it's easier to keep peoples attention.
From my posts you can hopefully see I'm fairly anal retentive about various facts and the like. I still however support the games because it's better that people at least know something, than know nothing at all. Battles like the Bulge, Stalingrad and Monte Casino will at least be remembered for a long time. But who will remember Jutland (as I clearly caught out Esuna with earlier, proving an earlier point), Flanders, the first gas attacks, the mistake Moltke made that essentially made WW1 what it was etc etc. I'd rather someone at least knows that some 50,000 died to go 100ft, even if it isn't 100% true to life, than nobody even being aware the battle exists!
EDIT: NOOOOOOOOOO MY UBB WAS SHOWING! I FEEL SO NAKED!
What I find lacking between the games and the movies is that with all WWII games I know of out there, (and I know very little, so feel free to provide me an example to counter my next statement), <b>none</b> of them evoke an emotion in you. What you’ll get our reactions like: “Wow, cool graphics!”, “Holy ****! Where the hell did that grenade come from?”, “Did you see that? I took out 12 Nazis with this pistol! I rule!” I’ve never seen any WWII games as of yet evoke emotions, simply put, because there’s no story to go along with it, and it’s no excuse to say that video games can’t evoke emotions either, because there are. But to be fair, I think such a game wouldn’t do commercially well, so that’s why there’s so much focus on multiplayer, because that’s what will make the game cool and profitable, rather than meaningful.
Movies on the other hand can evoke emotions. Saving Private Ryan was the first movie to make me weep, I mean holy ****, a mother losing three of her four sons. And nearing the end of the movie, I felt “wrong” by all the fighting at the end, it was damn desensitizing. Movies that show this kind of pain aren’t banned though, but why?
The stereotype of video games right now is that they are just a form of senseless entertainment. Most people don’t think games have the ability to really tell a beautiful story. To these people, I spit at them games like Planescape: Torment and Grim Fandango, (as a coincidence is that these games sold poorly yet were showered with praise by reviews). My hope in the future is that people start taking advantage of games as a medium of storytelling, even for action games – we all know what Half-Life can do.
Hmm… just thought of something extra. In making a serious, emotional game, the graphics play a huge part in the atmosphere. In HL1, none of you had any qualms with hitting the scientists with a crowbar – it was amusing.
When the first screenshots came out for HL2, my friend said to me, “I don’t think I’d be able to attack the scientists, with the AI scripts built in making them cry for their lives, and the graphics. It’s not right.” It will indeed be scary if WWII games ever go this route, which is why WWII will stay in a more milder territory, where peoples’ morals aren’t too badly tread on, so it can still be sold as profit. Thus the glamourization and milking of WWII could continue.
Now, Confuzor mentioned Planescape Torment & Grimfandango.
I would also like to point out Homeworld, which for me did strike emotions. I actually cared about my people.