WW2 vs modern entertaintment

[metsapeikko]

Originally Posted by Thunder_Turkey

France probably one of the smart ones not going to Afghanistan anyways since look at the United States Im just saying but the country is starting to fall apart because of this "war"

France

Current Troop Contribution:

3750

Presence in Afghanistan:

ISAF Command Headquarters

Kabul International Airport

Regional Command Capital

Regional Command East: Kapisa

Kandahar Air Field
Regional Command South

ISAF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lv0mnHkIxU

Excuse me Thunder Turkey, wtf are you doing?

United States of America isn't really falling apart either, it is surprising how little the war in Afghanistan affects the everyday life in the US.

"United States is in the mall, while Marines are in the war"

[Roby]

yea this thread is really getting off topic. if you want to discuss france in Afghanistan, start a thread about it.

[SpitFireMarkA1]

Meh, modern warfare compared to WWII isn't as interesting.. I'll admit, I really liked CoD4: Modern Warfare, one reason being that I never ever looked into it before it was released, so I never had any expectations for it, and was pleased to play it...

Modern Warfare 2, however (or MewTwo as I like to call it), is likely the most overhyped, mediocre piece of crud I've ever heard about. There's only one reason I want to play it (the Single Player, I'm not TOUCHING the multiplayer suffering from consolitis): And that is the "controversial" mission named "No Russian". Everyone gets their 'knickers in a twist' from something? I like it! >:U


Other than that, I guess most people are tired of WWII because they've "seen it all before". They've seen the East front and Stalingrad, they've seen the Pacific and Iwo Jima, they've seen North Africa and El Alamein and they've seen the West Front and Normandy...

I myself like to see different views of the conflict, historically accurate or not.

Vietnam, Korea... those are, to me, just wishy-washy wars between the US and developing nations. I do not see the appeal of either, and probably never will. As for WWI, I'd rather not sit and hold Shift down to keep my head down in a trench for several hours... possibly clicking F to "light cigarette" and looking out for snipers...


And WWII have a nice variation of weapons for every side. ICONIC weapons and equipment! Germany got their K98's and MP40's, the US got their Garands and Thompsons, the British got their Lee-Enfields and Sten SMG's, the Soviets got their Mosin-Nagants and PPSh's - as a minor example
Today, you're either on the side with the most AK-47's, or the other with the M4A1's.

/endrant

[Moody]

To me WWII is better because of the difference in tactics and weapons. There is a fine mix between bolt action rifles, semi auto rifles, smg's, and (rarely) the first assault rifles. strafing runs, artillery, mortars, and the occasional rocket launcher. While, modern games are a automatic/explosive weapons fest. Now, most modern games are good because they throw realism out the door for balance sake (which is what makes it fun to play). But in terms of realistic games, WWII will always be better than modern for me.