Why is this game about World War 2, again?

Eastern Front is out fashion, they say. Ardennes are trendier these days. Pacific has been ignored for far too long and North Africa campaigns are not too popular, Husky is not doing too well and so it goes. But why are we always talking about World War 2, in the end?

There are interesting studies about this, that range from psychology to actual gameplay and customers behaviour analysis. One goes, for instance, that World War 2 allows a natural progression for players, from invasion of Poland to harder fought Operation Barbarossa, to get into gameplay mechanics gradually, in a historically accurate setting.

Reality is that World War 2 as a topic sells games. Or gives more chances for games to succeed in the market, at least. According to data we have on hand, which take into account over fifteen years of history, the only setting that's able to compete with World War 2 is Sci-Fi. So science fiction and Panther tanks beat the rocks off American Civil War, Napoleon, Middle Ages, Ancient Rome and all other conflicts put together.

Does a setting enhances or limits gameplay? Or does it give flavour and immersion, more like a promotional tool, than a true design choice? Come join the discussion at #HoW15 and share your views. There is so much to talk about!

Comment Form is loading comments...
Share This Post: