When you're making a war game, you want 2 things:

1) Guns that shoot fast.
2) A war that makes Americans happy.

World War 2 is the only one that fulfills both criteria. World War 1 would fulfill point 2 but not point 1. Vietnam would fulfill point 1 but not point 2. It really is the only option. Which is why it's milked to death and many people are sick of it.



There's really only one way around it... aliens, lazers, and space marines, oh my!

If the guns in the war didn't shoot fast enough, there were always other solutions. You think the Battle of Gettsyburg would have been won by the north if the 20th Maine hadn't Chamberlain called a bayonet charge? Nah! I'd love to see Wiimote bayonet and rifle controls. There are a lot of possibilities to innovate in the genre.

And you're forgetting about Korea and the Gulf War. Both were, okay...in the eyes of the public. 

But in all seriousness, WW2 is used so much because it has so many broad things about it to make games about. Why do you think so many movies are made about it. Same idea. Vietnam is the next best choice which is why its the second most made ware setting.

^yeah but i think rudbang makes a point,alot of americans might not buy the vietnam war games just cause america lost that war

Oh come on put some badass character in it and Americans will fall for any shooter game just like they do movies. Rambo and Braddock are in Vietnam war and timeframe, and Americans love those movies. Trust me it doesn't necessarily have to be about the war itself, jsut setting. And as long as you put some stereotypical badass in it(ever since Duke Nukem) people will buy it.

For me, it has to do with the lack of variety in the weapons. I mean, developers can't rewrite history, so every WWII game has the same set of guns to choose from. It gets boring.

yeah your right the main character is also a big factor

...because I've played 200,000 of them.

The key selling points to shooters hardly have anything to do with the genre.  It has to do with the looks of the game.  Not graphical, but what's in it.  Do you know how many people would have bought Halo if you played as one of the human soldiers and not a spartan.  Well I know I wouldn't have bought it haha.  Also in the looks has to have a cool look of the gameplay.  Gears is an awesome example which further proves the stereotype.

Secondly the game has to have an online setup that says its different from the others, vouching some new gimmicky online component but otherwise the exact same.  Do this and with some decent hyping of gameplay elements that are that of the series and you got yourself a seller.  Cause in reality all people really want in a shooter, considering how simplistic and repetitive the gameplay is, is just an expansion pack to the ones they already like.  Because shooters are just so easy and unchallenging in single player, yet very appealing to a gamer, all they want is something that brings more of a challenge.  Thus you'll get games like Goldeneye 007 and Halo that show awesome multiplayer.  Then they want the next step so online with Halo 2 and then they want upgrades with new stuff.  Thus you get your run of the mill online shooters that give you the exact same things with new weapons, maps, online modes, and characters.  And that's it.  Your paying $60 for an expansion pack.  Got to hand it to the devs its pretty smart.  Unfortunately sooner or later the gamer will wise up and want more after repetitiveness gets old and that's when the market becomes oversaturated and the genre goes into a recession and given the popularity of it, possibly hurts the market as a whole.  Scary eh.

 Yet people complain about COD5 which is beign set in the Pacific.  That's actually new isn't it?  I mean Pretty much all WW2 shooters are about Germany in WW2