why are there no WW1 games?
- Thread starter suhlEap
- Start date
Because it's a terrible war, not a glorious one. WWII saw heroes of valour while WWI saw people dieing en masse like never before. It was the age where mass genocide was first being developed and the gritty realism that most people either died sitting in a trench from shells, nerve gas or terrible disease was as equally horrific as those that survived these events, forever crippled and unable to function properly in society. Most of the Eastern front would be the Allied Forces moving back into Russia, getting their villages burned to the ground until winter came. Not a terribly heroic saga.
HOWEVER, it should be noted that done properly, some of the battles in WWI would be VERY cool to play out, Vimy Ridge being one of them. I would love to see the shells explode infront of your troups as they slowly advance the hill. Now, properly placed in a game that maybe covered a wide veriaty of wars and it could work.
HOWEVER, it should be noted that done properly, some of the battles in WWI would be VERY cool to play out, Vimy Ridge being one of them. I would love to see the shells explode infront of your troups as they slowly advance the hill. Now, properly placed in a game that maybe covered a wide veriaty of wars and it could work.
WW1 was just a bad war. Mostly it was trench fighting, where people just sat around and died in their own waste. There was the other battle, but it was pretty bad. Plus that was when the first tank came out, and it was a horrid piece of trash. Plus the planes we had could barely do any fighting whatsoever.
It was just a slow drawn out war were there was no action. No one would want to play that.
It was just a slow drawn out war were there was no action. No one would want to play that.
Essentially, WWI really was a giant bloody pile of suck. There was little heroism; it was mostly a bunch of poorly trained teenagers desperately trying to fire off a few shots at the enemy before being exploded by a shell and scraped out of the trenches with a shovel. A WWI game would probably just be depressing. In order to be historically accurate you'd spend most of your time sitting in a muddy pit with shells exploding around you and occasionally run out into the open with hundreds of enemies shooting at you, and then you'd die. Again and again.
There are reasons there are so many WWII games: It happened in living memory for some, the fighting that took place was all over the world, it was the last war where there was clearly a good guy and a bad guy, and the last war where the US was involved and actually did some good. There was no evil Fascism in WWI, no liberation of death camps, just a bunch of frightened grunts blasting the hell out of each other for reasons they couldn't even remember.
(EDIT: and I find that in the time it took me to write this post, a dozen other people have already voiced the same opinion.)
There are reasons there are so many WWII games: It happened in living memory for some, the fighting that took place was all over the world, it was the last war where there was clearly a good guy and a bad guy, and the last war where the US was involved and actually did some good. There was no evil Fascism in WWI, no liberation of death camps, just a bunch of frightened grunts blasting the hell out of each other for reasons they couldn't even remember.
(EDIT: and I find that in the time it took me to write this post, a dozen other people have already voiced the same opinion.)
My question is, why do people keep on making World War games? Is it because it has the words "World War" in it? Really people..
I think we should stop crapping those games out, because it's the same thing. Personally, I think a Colonial Era war game would be awesome, or maybe even a Civil War game.
I think we should stop crapping those games out, because it's the same thing. Personally, I think a Colonial Era war game would be awesome, or maybe even a Civil War game.
at armorgames.com there is a flash game on WWI, i think its called Warfare 1917. WWI doesnt appeal to big developers because it is basicallly sitting in filth and getting shelled and then rushing out of the trench and running at machine guns, not appealing to the entertainment aspects
Circus Ascendant said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York
Bullshit theres no hero's in WWI
On topic- I think a game were an over the top charge would be cool. If it would not be full of Repetetive dying like the astroid part of Dead Space.
What would make an awesome WWI game would be a giant online multiplayer game. I know this impossible at this time, but I'm seeing the entire front being represented and two armies trying and move into the opposing territory. If done correctly, though, it would remain locked in stalemate forever (the U.S could never enter because it would unfairly give one army the advantage needed to win).
Empire: Total War is good, but it's a Real-Time-Strategy game. I was talking about first person shooters.brodie21 said:
Learn your history.
Sitting in a hole for weeks at a time being eaten by parasites a game does not make.
Sitting in a hole for weeks at a time being eaten by parasites a game does not make.
I can't remember the name of the battle, but a game version of it would go like this.
You fire idly across your trench at the enemy about 30 yards away, this has been going on for several weeks. A while passes and artillery begins to batter the enemy trenches, 6 days later the artillery clears, and now is your chance to take the enemy trench and make it all worth the hell so far!
But wait, what's this? Your commander is telling you to WALK through no-mans land or you'll be shot (As it's improper to run), suddenly the enemies machine guns are back on as you watch yourself get ripped to shreds along with all your nearby allies.
Credits roll saying 150,000 people or so died in that attack, the war dragged on for a few more years and your death was a pointless waste caused by incompetent command. You're also told that the enemy (A respectable sovereign nation much like your own) suffers so massively from their surrender terms that the war indirectly leads to the rise of the most evil power of modern times. Fighting this evil power also happens to destroy your own nations glorious empires rule, and paves the way for the previously isolationist crazies to replace you.
It doesn't quite have the punch of 'Kicking the evil nazi's ass! Fuck yeah!' WW2 had.
You fire idly across your trench at the enemy about 30 yards away, this has been going on for several weeks. A while passes and artillery begins to batter the enemy trenches, 6 days later the artillery clears, and now is your chance to take the enemy trench and make it all worth the hell so far!
But wait, what's this? Your commander is telling you to WALK through no-mans land or you'll be shot (As it's improper to run), suddenly the enemies machine guns are back on as you watch yourself get ripped to shreds along with all your nearby allies.
Credits roll saying 150,000 people or so died in that attack, the war dragged on for a few more years and your death was a pointless waste caused by incompetent command. You're also told that the enemy (A respectable sovereign nation much like your own) suffers so massively from their surrender terms that the war indirectly leads to the rise of the most evil power of modern times. Fighting this evil power also happens to destroy your own nations glorious empires rule, and paves the way for the previously isolationist crazies to replace you.
It doesn't quite have the punch of 'Kicking the evil nazi's ass! Fuck yeah!' WW2 had.
A WWI game absolutely would work. There were phases and theaters of the war which were highly mobile, such as the opening German advance, and every other theater that wasn't in Western Europe. All phases and theaters had battles where soldiers left the trenches.
And even if you do spend some time in trenches, so what? That's exactly what you do in WWII games, anyway.
You'd spend all your time sitting in trenches? Why? In WWII games, do you spend the whole game sitting in a ship? Do you march and ride around barren countryside for 12 hours? Of course not, you cut to the action.
Trouble is, if no one has done it already, that is reason enough to disregard the concept and then think of justifications for doing so.
And even if you do spend some time in trenches, so what? That's exactly what you do in WWII games, anyway.
You'd spend all your time sitting in trenches? Why? In WWII games, do you spend the whole game sitting in a ship? Do you march and ride around barren countryside for 12 hours? Of course not, you cut to the action.
Trouble is, if no one has done it already, that is reason enough to disregard the concept and then think of justifications for doing so.
seeing as most WWII shooters are made by Americans and the fact that they didn't do very much in WWI i don't see why they would want to make a game where they are not the courageous hero
A world war 1 game would necessarily be very slow paced - even if it wasn't in the trenches (which was the largest experience), you'd be mostly stuck with bolt-action rifles. It could make for a great mod, but game publishers aren't interested in something so slow-paced and therefore niche.