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.
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.