why are there no WW1 games?

[Silva]

To anyone saying WW2 was more "glorious" than WW1, you clearly know very little about history. War is never glorious. It's only made to APPEAR glorious by propaganda, during and after the war.

In reality, wars are often guided by stupid generals, often about dying en masse for some meaningless control point, often lacking in any single people who truly stood above everyone else. Games aren't based on the reality of war; they're based on the fantasy of war, on the quite ridiculous concept of becoming a "hero" by murdering more of the opposition than your other allies. Even the games that try to depict the horrors of war really still are detached from the reality, because no matter how much you see, it's not anyhere near as bad as the real physical pain of being on a battlefield.

One world war is as good as another for gaming potential. Even trench warfare can be fun, just not necessarily within the FPS genre. Defense games with turn based upgrading are the best kind for WW1. You could pull off a good FPS, but like the games set in WW2, it is hardly going to reflect the reality of the history. History is only useful as a backdrop and story for a game, as motivation for you and your character to complete the objectives in each mission. In the end it's still all a fabrication.

In closing, I should answer the thread's question:

Why are there no WW1 games?

Because modern fantasies of WW2 puff up American ego, and America is where all the major FPSes get their sales.

 

[Ve1ociraptor]

A WWI game from the Canadian perspective would be interesting.

This. To anyone who knows their WWI, there is EXTREMELY good game material in the CEF campaign. Ypres, Vimy Ridge, and Passchendaele could be quite the levels if done well, and the entire thing has the makings of a great narrative.

And the "combat is boring" issue is weak and deep down, you know it. Simply ignore the trench warfare. Gameplay>realism, you all know that. Make it in the style of any WWII game and it will be fine. And some posters said chemical warfare would be boring? A) It was used very few times in the war, and B) have you ever played the flash game Dino Run? Running away from a cloud of death has proven to be chaotic, panicky, adrenalin-pumping fun.

The keys to a fantastic game are all there. The makings of a great story are built straight into history. All that is necessary is a developer/publisher willing to take the risk.

 

[cptjack42]

To anyone saying WW2 was more "glorious" than WW1, you clearly know very little about history. War is never glorious. It's only made to APPEAR glorious by propaganda, during and after the war.

While war is never actually glorious, WWI did happen to suck a lot more than WWII. Just WWI had as many casualties as the past 300 years of war in Europe, and nothing was even accomplished! At least after WWII, everything got resolved properly instead of just making the losers do everything.

 

[cptjack42]

Listen up Yank. We didn't need nor WANT your "help" in World War I.

Need, maybe not. Want, I think you'd want any help you could get in a World War (especially from a world power).

You only joined because moronic fatass' like you ignored the German U-Boat threat and went on the Lusitania. We were winning without you, and the ONLY major battle you did anything of note in, Meuse-Argonne, you LOST, and that was at the END OF THE WAR.

Well, that and the Zimmerman Note (Which may have even been forged by the British). Also, America did help demoralize the Germans/Austro-Hungarians in WWI by seeing that there were even more people showing up and that they couldn't win, and it helped give the other forces a moral boost instead of there usual 'committing suicide inside their trenches.'

Canadians did a LOT more than any Americunt did in both World War's, and I am sick and tired of the US forcing their "WE SAEVD DAH WURLD!" bullshit ideal from World War II, and it is the fault of American companies that no high-end World War I games have been made. Until someone has the balls to make a historical-accurate (read: US has a MINOR FUCKING ROLE FOR ONCE) World War II game, I'll start having hope. If that games becomes successful and spawns more historically-accurate World War II games, I'll start to believe that America isn't filled with morons. As it stands, it's American self-centered bullshit that prevents any historically-accurate World War II games and ANY World War I games from being made, or being successful.

Well, saying the U.S. didn't have a major role in WWII is a bit too far. The three major countries that fought on the side of the allies were the U.S., Russia, and Britain. Sure America didn't do it single-handedly, but they were one of the major contributors (Also remember that they did pretty much defeat Japan). If you have any doubts of this, see This book. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_in_the_high_castle]

 

[duckfi8]

people don't like bolt action rifles in video games?

 

[CosmicJester21]

trench warfare isnt all that entertaining

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

no-one really known about WW1. well, they know about the war but people know more about WW2 than they do about WW1. something people tend to not know: WW2 was against the Nazis, what was WW1 against?

Well in Australia they teach us about the ANZACS but not really what the ANZACS were sent to achieve. Later on we learned that Britain screwed us over at Gallipoli and that was the point where our attachment to Britain was tested, because Britain didn't care how many Aussies or New Zealanders died. It would make a compelling game if it was made into a less fantastical game akin to Valkyria Chronicles, but I'm not sure whether it would pass censorship laws in Australia if it was done badly.

Thing is in World War I it was a trade war over the old world, and it was essentially fighting over territories for resources. It was in the time of the British Empire so naturally the Brits wanted to stop the Germans grabbing their resources. WWI is so much of an ideological minefield that there was no true enemy in it, like there was in World War II. Even the Turks at Gallipoli turned out to be normal human beings. Nazis on the other hand are easier to hate, because they did inhuman things. The Turks at Gallipoli were just ordinary Turks who were defending their turf.

 

[Nouw]

Trench warfare wouldn't be the most fun thing in a game.

Yeah it ain't. But it some times is in SWBF1.

 

[Delicious]

Well, I think that if you made dying part of the game it could work. Ie, charge a trench, die inevitably, then resume control of another soldier and continue fighting.

Maybe an FPS/RTS Hybrid where it pretty much says "Here are your troops, here is the enemy, whaddya gonna do about it?"

 

[zombiechef]

What about Korea, stuff happened there to.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

Good answers all, but as an outsiders view. Because America wasn't very involved. Since the US is the ones producing these games and WW1 had little US involvement untill the end. Please no Yankee jerks go off at me saying "AMERICA FUCKING KICKS ASS! WE'VE GOT MORE FUCKING NUKES THEN YOU!!!" as has happened so many times, I'd like to think the escapist is better then that mates. Cheers.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

Well, saying the U.S. didn't have a major role in WWII is a bit too far. The three major countries that fought on the side of the allies were the U.S., Russia, and Britain. Sure America didn't do it single-handedly, but they were one of the major contributors (Also remember that they did pretty much defeat Japan). If you have any doubts of this, see This book. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_in_the_high_castle]

Hey mate sorry but can you just look up the Kokoda Trail for me. I'd just like to point out that the US as helpful as they were didn't have as big a part in defeating Japan as most would like to think. The Kokoda trail was possibly the hardest campaign in both world wars with the possible exception of the Somme and Gallipolli both of which Australia was also involved in. I know and acknowledge that you yanks helped alot but I'd just like to try and show some people a bit of WWII history. Cheers mate.

 

[WolfThomas]

we all know there are many (many) games set in world war 2, and yet there aren't any set in world war 1, and i wonder why this is!

Because there were no heroes in WWI, everybody died horrifically?

Eternal Darkness had a level in a WWI hospital. But a WWI game in the same style as the myriad WWII games wouldn't work. An RPG in the trench quarters that didn't revolve around killing Germans would be cool.

This guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Murray

Almost got a bar on his VC (that's the equivalent of getting 2)
Went from private to lieutenant colonel in the space of the war.

If there was a heavy melee aspect (much like Condemned 2) to trench fighting it could be good. Because there was a lot of it, using things like bayonets, swords (still used by mounted men), sharpened shovels, trench daggers (knuckles dusters with a huge spike dagger) and improvised weapons like trench clubs (sticks wrapped in barb wire).

Bolt action rifles would the main firearm, but revolvers and captured mausers could be carried, there could be sniper duels and attacking positions with lewis guns.

im not really sure but maybe it is because almost all of the basic infantry men only carried a boring bolt action rifle and all of the machine guns were too heavy to carry. but that is just a guess.

Lewis guns were machine guns that could be carried by the biggest soldiers in the platoon, you can see pictures of huge Australians soldiers carrying them like rifles.

A WWI game from the Canadian perspective would be interesting.

An Australian's perspective would be good also, it was the war that forged our national identity (we had just federated 13years beforehand).

Australians fought on many fronts and were incredibly respected, especially the Light Horse.

We also had General Sir John Monash who revolutionized the "modern" combat of the time. One battle he predicted he could win in 90min, which the higher command scoffed at. But using tank to punch through wire, supported by planes (both bombing and dropping supplies) and men already dug in metres from the enemy's lines who constantly harassed them with portable machine guns, he won it in 93min (so a bit of exaggeration).

He was responsible for the drip fired rifle, that allowed all of the Australian forces to evacuate Gallipoli without the Turks being aware.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/02.jpg

 

[Lord_Seth]

World War II had more things going on, more advanced weaponry, a more unequivocal villain, an actual purpose to the whole thing ("stop Hitler from conquering countries" makes a lot more sense than "a guy got assassinated, resulting in a chain reaction that caused a giant war"), and a much more resolved ending. World War I ended without much to really show for it. World War II just seemed to have more of a "yeah! We made a real difference" at the end. It just gives the developers more to work with.

Plus, as has been mentioned, the United States is the one that usually makes these games, and the United States only entered World War I at the end, and even then their entry had more to do with speeding up the end than actually turning the tables like their entry did in World War II. The last big war the United States was in prior to World War I was the Civil War, and there's not really so much you can do with that.

 

[sonidraw]

To be honest, the only good way to make a WWI game is to make it an RTS or something where you are the leader trying to make smart choices to win the war as a whole. Individual soldiers had almost no control over their own fate in that war... you'd run out of lives everytime the enemy commander decided today was a good day to use gas, or make an assault on the trench covered by machine guns...

World War II was a lot more mobile, and individual soldiers had more opportunity to actually kick butt.

 

[O maestre]

because the americans were not dominantly present in the first world war, it was more of a european war, therefore it has no interest to gaming companies the same reason why there have not been any games about the troubles, it is simply too far away for the amerocentric developers.

and you all seem to forget that imperial russia and imperial japan were also doing battle during ww1, where japan continuously conquered, both russian territory and other asian countries.

another interesting place of the war would be the arab campaigns by the ottoman empire

but then again this is too far away from the west for it to even cross the minds of developers

 

[sirdanrhodes]

Necrovision?

------

Edit - This thread basically turned into a thread about everyone arguing about WW2, how very interesting(!)

 

[WolfThomas]

and you all seem to forget that imperial russia and imperial japan were also doing battle during ww1, where japan continuously conquered, both russian territory and other asian countries.

Actually thats the Russo-Sino war of 1905 you're thinking of, Japan and Russia were on the same side in WW1. Yes the Japanese were on our side, thats because the British helped modernise their army, which really bit them (and us Australians even more) in the arse.

 

[ThorUK]

Necrovision is set during WWI. Recent fantasy FPS (zombies, etc).