Why is there not a (Good) FPS Game Set in the American Civil War?

Because republicans have embraced the confederacy as if it was led by Jesus himself and everyone's already tired of real life political shitstorms getting in our vidya.

Some fuckers tried that and the games were just mediocre and obnoxiously boring. The gunplay isn't what would be fun about that war. Its the mix of melee/cavalry and really shitty firearms that could barely be trusted to go off, let alone hit their target 2 feet away.

Do something like Chivalry but with retards in blue and grey trying to murder each other with shovels and jammed guns instead and it might be almost enjoyable.

>>382488573
Politics? That's it? Didn't stop them putting a black guy as the frontman for World War 1.

>>382488291
Most people don't want to spend 2+ minutes reloading a gun just to miss again and start over.

>>382488291
Call of Juarez was okay, only 1 level in the civil war tho and it's still just CoD gameplay.

>>382488291
Be happy with the history channel's civil war game and the first mission of call of juarez: bound in blood

>>382488731
But you'd have Henry rifles and shit.

Guns were shit int he civil war. Why would you want to play a game where the majority of your time is reloading a 1 shot piece of trash?

>>382488819
Fairly sure I addressed that by saying that you'd have multiple shot weapons...

I can't wait to see the Revised Version to promote Social Justice where the entire Confederate army was white men and 85% of the Union was strong black men. And the General will be black too.

>>382488926
Yeah, well
You've got me there.

>>382488291
>Repeating arms of the day
What's the fucking point of having a civil war game if you just make it into the equivalent of Battlefield 1?

File: 20f359e8ba526e02fa049ed1565d62cf.jpg (519KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 2048x1536px

>>382489154
Except in the Civil War they actually did use those weapons with the Spencer carbine and Henry rifle. Plus that's like the only fucking good thing about Battlefield 1 aside from the multiplayer According to some faggets.

>>382488926
>85% of the Union was strong black men
And womyn, you fucking cis pig.

Oh look, storefronts again. How entertaining.

>>382488573
>republicans
>confederacy
not sure if europoor or dumbshit democrat millenial

>>382489376
>They actually did use those weapons
Maybe I misunderstood. My mind immediately went to that gatling gun that showed up during this war.

>>382489696
I'm sure if they get Ian as a consultant for weapons again that's exactly what'll happen.

>>382488731
Even the single shot muskets could be reloaded in about 15-20 secs. You could make mini-game for it. Nothing like trying to nail a QTE mini-game while watching the enemy load grapeshot into their cannon a hundred yards away. Or you could just try to sprint and get there in time to use your bayonet.

>>382488291
>FPS
>american civil war
nope tactics on that war was stand in a line and fire
theres no run and gun and roam around the map youll get shot if you dont fall in line

also canons and friendly fire killed more people than the enemy

>>382489494
>storefronts
kek

>>382489919
Tactics, yes, you're spot on.
Your second point is true of every modern war. Come on, don't you want to play a fun video game?

File: 1497950810695.gif (990KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 500x281px

>>382489598
>having this poor reading comprehension
>calling anybody else a dumbshit

>>382489919
>>382490101
Actually, no. Tactics evolved as the war went on. Fuck you for making me question myself.

File: Darkest_of_Days_cover.jpg (58KB, 320x431px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 320x431px

This games comes into mind.

>>382491158
Such an amazing concept. That game was pure shit though.

>>382489919
I hate this "fps games are realistic" meme

>>382488665
The civil war was the first conflict to introduce accurate (rifled) weapons on a massive scale, that was why there were so many deaths when coupled with the antiquated line tactics used. The guns would be able to hit out to 500 yds by a trained soldier, so no, they would not "struggle to hit their target 2 feet away".

>>382489803
The history channel game literally did this.

It sucked shit and wasn't fun at all.

>>382491529
Gee, I fucking wonder why? How about a real goddamn publisher?

>>382491641
>Activision isn't a "real" publisher
You mean developer my fair southern backwater retard ilk.
Cauldron isn't good by any means but they are a legit studio who do try to make games with their shoestring budgets. The idea is ass and you're an inbred pigfucker for thinking it could ever work on with an AAA platform. If it could have been done, it would have by now, retard.

>>382492547
Holy shit.
Logical Fallacy+Tons of Ad Hom=
Argument!
I seem to remember the idea of a WW1 Game being thought of as ridiculous until recent years. Sit the fuck down.

Mount and blade Napoleonic wars had a civil war mod.
It was pretty good if you liked the NW. The guns were more accurate, the Axe was OP and you had more weapons and even preacher healers. You can even fight in the Texan Mexican war

>>382493043
Mount & Blade has exceptionally good mods for, like, everything. I was thinking of a ground-up game though.

>>382492865
>implying battlefield isn't a WWII game reskinned to look like a WWI game

>>382492865
You sound angry that no one likes your bad idea my friend.

File: Screenshot_20170606-132444.png (982KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 1080x1920px

>>382493447
Holy shit is that ever retarded. No video game ever accurately represented any kind of combat at all, ever. There's no such thing as realistic combat in a video game boyo. There is such thing as a good video game.

>>382491464
Hell yeah. History, nigga.

>>382493553
Nah, that would be true if no one liked the idea and if it was my idea in the first place. Did get triggered by the anon claiming a History Channel game is a real attempt and not just a sad mistake. They should stick to falsifying history.