/v/ - Video Games

I'd probably make it a single player only game. I'll be honest I don't know much about the Korean war other than as far as armaments go it was a bit of a rehash of WWII so the actual game play opportunities are limited. I don't think there's a need to make a Korean war game other than to stroke the "fans of obscure wars" autists. Rather than the "yes, this would make for a good game" crowd.

Ultimately I don't see much value in yet another stare at iron sight and click hitscan button to win shooter, and I think the entire industry would be better if the entire genre was retired for 5-200 years.

The reason why it turned political is because you asked WHY there was no video game about the setting, not HOW someone would go about to making a good one. Maybe you should put some tought into your thread before you post it instead of making a shit one and then complaining when people try to answer the question you asked.

Just add the korean war as a campaign to one of the cod games tbh

>>14304258

>How would YOU tackle making a Korean War game?

I would simply stick it in a strategy game as a single campaign. Seems like a job for Sid Meier.

Make it a soccer game where the ball is a bomb, the playing field several miles long and ~5000 profesional soccer soldiers on each team. The starting phase is to find the ball-bomb, as it is buried somewhere underground in the middle area of the map. You can equip your soldiers with various weapons, and also shovels, which will allow them to dig in the ground. The map is on an isometric view, but there are 2 layers on the map, above ground and under ground. When someone digs hard enough, they may stumble into a cave system, which they can use as tunnels to sneak the ball or other soldiers behind enemy lines.There are about ~5 engineer squads on each side, which can set up barricades (especially useful for the caves), watchtowers and other fancy things. As the ball is found and a long stalemate is formed, The game starts heating up again with a new ballon-bomb airdropping from the sky into the frontlines and with foreign reinforcements becoming available. USA can call in their British pals or African mercenaries, whilst the Koreans can beg China for help or awaken the ancient tree-people sleeping beneath their Korean soil.

Engineers can band together to create dangerous, explosive soccer-machines or cheat by building golf ball artillery; just make sure the referee doesn't notice! Underground, deposits of various materials can be found, which can be used to bribe the referee so he turns a blind eye if you cheat. The richer you are than your opponent, the more you can get away with.

I wouldn't make one. Games based on real events are tied at the leg to a set of stipulations ("Did this thing actually happen this way?" "Am I making a political statement by reinterpreting history/telling people the inconvenient part of history their shitty schools neglect to mention?") that forever drag down gameplay. Most importantly, what's the point? I'm setting out to make some sort of action shooter and right away I've bogged down my creative possibilities by choosing to make it historic.

I would make one set in the current year as a hypothetical Korean War between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.

Playable characters would be split amoungst the possible belligerents of the war, so some classes would be USA/Russians, South Korea/North and Japan/China.

>>14304101

>In short, it wouldn't be fun for the unlucky faggots stuck being the Koreans who'd have to basically rush you like a fucking horde and hope for the best since, well, that's what they actually did. Does that sound like fun to anyone?

It sounds like fun to Koreans, since that’s exactly how Starcraft is played. What, did you people think that society and universal, overriding personal preferences in that society aren’t intimately tied to the genetics of the people therein?

Anyway, what’s wrong with a wave-war game? Who says it has to be a first person shooter? Why not a third person SQUADDER? I’m not talking “zoom out to see a tenth of the DMZ at once in an RTS”; I’m talking about “zoom out far enough to see the other side of Hill 419 and all the gooks over there. You’re not in control of a single character; you’re in control of a squad, which you command tactically and creatively to figure out how to either take the hill/mountain/valley or defend it. There would be a fuck-ton of replayability with something like that because of how varied Korea’s terrain is. You could even mix it up with… not urban engagements, because there weren’t any cities on that godforsaken peninsula, but village-based combat, sure. Plenty of squad-level fun to be had.

>making a second thread because your first one sucked

Kill yourself.

>>14304318

/thread

>>14304258

>How would YOU tackle making a Korean War game?

There was nothing special about the Korean war. A game about it would be just like every other war game except with a setting nobody cares about.

Also gas the kikes race war now

>>14304318

Except I wasn't the one who started the first thread, I'm just the guy answered it without turning it into a political rant that has nothing to do with why there aren't any video games about the Korean War.

I'd rather have a game about the Imjin War.

I would not do such an activity.

Make it a game about combat surgeons.

>>14304258

>How would YOU go about tackling a Korean War game?

Just do what that Starship Troopers game did with bugs having literal hordes run at you in arcadey levels with some points where you just hold a line or position by simply gunning down waves after waves of screaming asians. Multiplayer comes with optional tower defense maps and maybe some other remade flash games I guess.

I'd also make the game completely comedic with koreans charging at you hugging dakimuras and wearing silly underwear.

>>14304258

>muh /pol/

fuck off fag,thread exists

>>14303945

Give the US forces dragons and the Soviet forces Marxist-dialectics-brainwashed Djinn

>>14304258

I'm assuming you're asking for an FPS entry for this due to the other examples posted, so I'll ignore the obvious ideas of making it RTS or RTT.

Those would actually help mitigate the issues there and would let it be somewhat easier to do as well.

The US side is standard base defense in first person. You stay in a bunker or some other fortification and you shoot the rampaging hordes as they come near. Plenty of games already do this and they are quite fun as well. However considering your Claymore mention, I'd suggest a "Orcs must die!" aproach. Players can not only shoot at the advancing horde but also setup defenses. Forward fox holes, entrenched machine guns manned by NPCs and even set up mines all around.

Waves have a small interval in-between them where players can do so freely.

The Korean side is indeed the hardest part to solve since it happens in open ground, but I'd like to say it once again: "give every player a squad of NPCs that follow him and his orders". It's something that pretty much every FPS that tries to portray large scale fights should get.

Every Korean player would instead have a squad of 5-10 soldiers that follows him around. He has a 3rd person view of the entire squad while they charge, controlling no one in particular but as soon as he tries to aim, fire or gets close enough, control switches to one soldier in first person.

Being killed will see the camera swoop a bit up and then back down on another soldier in your squad in a slow process that allows a player to get his bearings, until you no longer have squadmates.

Every wave would have a certain time of 5 minutes, after which an interval of 30 seconds for the US would let them replant defenses before a new wave is sent.

The first team must hold out 3-5 waves, then they switch sides and the oposing team is now defending.

Alternatively, every round begins with 30 seconds of setup and proceeds to 5 minutes waves, with teams alternating sides every round.

However, your ammo and supplies (that you spend to build fortifications) do not replenish at all as the game goes. The first team to lose their base (likely because they ran out of supplies first) loses the game.

There can even be an interesting mechanic where Food is a resource that affects walking speed and health with larger armies consuming more.

So a side that is clearly winning with no casualties will run out of food first, balancing the odds and forcing them to take the oposing base faster.

>>14304258

Something like the old Wolfensteins would be fun, but the Chinese would screech about Mecha Mao.

>>14315204

>This entire post

Give me enough time and autism and I could implement most of those ideas into a Call to Arms mod, most of what you have are already mechanics in that game, and editor scripting would take care of the rest. Not trying to shill that game as fuck DMS but it'd be the closest game we have out now to what you're talking about

Of course a proper game would be better, Call to Arms has super clunky 1st/3rd person, but the squad command and switching between squad mates is already in there. Not to mention vehicles/tank gameplay is actually handled well in GEM games.

The inventory system would also play into it, you can have the player rush see troops to secure ammo and weapons off of dead norks and have the last few waves be a frantic defense using captured weapons and ammo holding off the enemy while calling in support such as mortars/air strikes. Can also make it so that the time changes, and at night you'll have to pick between having the mortars rain down HE or flair rounds so you can see.

But yeah, if you want a Korean styled game your best bet would be to look around at some Assault Squad 2 mods. If you have the time and autism you can do a lot with the editor to get something similar to what you're proposing.