why are there no WW1 games?

[maninahat]

Besides, WWI had some pretty badass weaponry. Lewis machine guns, gas bombs, revolvers, broomhandle mausers, sniper rifles, trench knives, clubs, mills bombs; the whole gamut.

If you want to read about WWI war heroes, look no further then Adrian Carton de Wiart. Come to think of it, he was a war hero in practically every major conflict in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[Arbitrary Cidin]

Because the weapons weren't nearly as good as in WWII? Because you'd have no gameplay-wise excuse to have your character be a walking tank? Because it was too long ago for most to remember? There are a bunch of reasons.

None of which are any good so please refrain from spilling rubbish on this post. You trite comments betray an inherent hostility to the idea of WWI game and has no place in this discussion as its been used to no end with little credibility.

Holy shit! I didn't expect this to be the pinnacle of Escapist discussion...

OT: I'd have to say that it's because WW1 wasn't cool. It's like saying "Why are there tons of games where you're a hero, but none where you're an insignificant henchman who has nothing to do with the story?

"WWI wasn't cool".... What a piercing statement. I take it you thought about that a great deal before you posted. Enough with the 'boring' 'wasn't cool' comments. If you don't think its a good idea, THINK a little before you post. Give some detail with your reasons.

Okay, since you decided this is so common and I'm the only one you quoted on it, I'll elaborate. A good game needs a fun gameplay style, good characters, good atmosphere, and brilliant story. World War 1 had no outstanding people of interest, the atmosphere was dull and depressing, and as far as the story goes, it was probably the most uneventful wars in history. It wasn't exciting in real life, so why would a video game be made? Level 1, you wait in trenches, level 2 you die. The End. Another thing. WWII is an amazing plot because of Hitler. Deception, betrayal, bigotry, ruthlessness, and military genius... it's like if Hannibal Lector is President. Hitler's an evil leader that writers couldn't dream of conjuring up. Who was the evil tyrant behind World War 1? There WASN'T one. There's nobody to blame and I'm sure the thought "I'm doing this because..." is sure to be reacquainted with the player after the plotless fun bliss (a.k.a. TF2 Syndrome) isn't around to keep him away. More than that, what CAN you do? Basically, imagine a game of Gears of War 2 where everybody on one team is huddles behind a single chest-high wall, as does the other team on the other side of the map. Now imagine that everyone on the map has nothing but a lance that has no chainsaw. What happens? Everyone leaves because they're bored. It's a bad idea. World War 1 wasn't cool.

You haven't mentioned anything about trench raids, fierce hand to hand combat, underground combat (i.e. mining), machine guns both of light and heavy variants, rifles, rifle grenades, trench mortars, fire and maneuver tactics, stormtroopers, prisoner snatching, sniping, street combat, open field combat, flamethrowers, etc.

Yes there was no fixed evil in WWI but that opens things for a personal story!

Trench raids were so rare that most history books don't give mention to them, along with everything else you listed. Sniper rifles were unreliable at best, and none of these things are honestly good enough for a full game. As for your personal story theory, the fact that everyone was faceless, nameless gun fodder with exclusions to off-battlefield types who wouldn't make good protagonists. If you wanted a strapping lad who "overcame the depressing trenches and made a name for himself", that never happened so a historic setting isn't fitting. That, and it's so cliche it's disgusting.

 

[Shamgarr]

see: History Channel, a nation divided. Terrible Game.

 

[Shamgarr]

Because it was the most depressing war ever to be fought in the history of the world. Although a game set in the American Revolution/Civil War might be cool.

See: History Channel, a nation divided. Not so cool.

 

[Catfoot]

Would you like to play a reloading minigame for a minute or two after every shot? Me neither.
Thats just off the top of my head so its not totally accurate

.....

I'm almost on the verge of giving up. Let me say it one more time, and unfortunately I don't know how to do size 48 font here.

The standard infantry rifles used by the British, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and 9 out of 10 countries you care to name in WWII were essentially the same infantry rifles used by the British, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and 9 out 10 countries you care to name in WWI.

In fact,most WWI rifles were longer than their WWII counterparts, so at the very least had a longer range, and I do believe barrel length does have a positive effect on accuracy as well.

Really? Shows what i know xD

 

[maninahat]

Trench raids were so rare that most history books don't give mention to them, along with everything else you listed. Sniper rifles were unreliable at best, and none of these things are honestly good enough for a full game. As for your personal story theory, the fact that everyone was faceless, nameless gun fodder with exclusions to off-battlefield types who wouldn't make good protagonists. If you wanted a strapping lad who "overcame the depressing trenches and made a name for himself", that never happened so a historic setting isn't fitting. That, and it's so cliche it's disgusting.

No, you do it the other way around. You take a strapping lad who enters the war naive and full of jingoistic ideology, but comes out a sadder and wiser man. Perhaps clichéd too, but at least maybe someone could make an FPS from a GERMAN perspective for a change.

 

[Shamgarr]

Just because its not a Halo clone that has plasma rifles that fire 1000 rounds a minute doesn't mean it wouldn't be entertaining. This would never even work within the context of the war; WWI simply wasn't about a single man infiltrating the enemy lines and mowing down thousands of enemies.
With this being said, it would have to be seen from a different angle than what we're used to seeing in a shooter. If ever a sucessful WWI game was to be made, it would need to encooporate gameplay machanics not used in most other wartime games. As to what these are, I don't really know.

 

[Dorian6]

because in WWII the goals and motives were clear, fight Germany and stop the spread of Nazism. But in WWI things weren't so black and white. England declared war on Germany because they were aiding Austria-Hungary, who were trying to invade the smaller countries to the south.

In WWII games, you can look at the flag of the Third Reich and say "That is our enemy, we are fighting evil!" In WWI it's more "...Why are we doing this again?"

 

[maninahat]

Crap guns, muddy shit holes, disease, trenches. Sounds suspiciously like Fallout 3 to me. Make an RPG of it!

 

[Aeviv]

Would you like to play a reloading minigame for a minute or two after every shot? Me neither.
Thats just off the top of my head so its not totally accurate

.....

I'm almost on the verge of giving up. Let me say it one more time, and unfortunately I don't know how to do size 48 font here.

The standard infantry rifles used by the British, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and 9 out of 10 countries you care to name in WWII were essentially the same infantry rifles used by the British, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and 9 out 10 countries you care to name in WWI.

In fact,most WWI rifles were longer than their WWII counterparts, so at the very least had a longer range, and I do believe barrel length does have a positive effect on accuracy as well.

Bang on, what were Russian troops carrying on the front- the 1891 Mosin Nagant. What did the sniper Vassili Zaitzev carry in Stalingrad- the Mosin Nagant. What were british troops armed with? The MKIII SMLE, and in WW2? The MK4 SMLE. Americans? The M1903 Springfield, also used by snipers and marksmen in WW2. The Germans? Yup, the Mauser 98 was in both. The only difference between WW1 and WW2 guns is that by WW2, sub machine guns, and later, assault rifles, were much more common

because in WWII the goals and motives were clear, fight Germany and stop the spread of Nazism. But in WWI things weren't so black and white. England declared war on Germany because they were aiding Austria-Hungary, who were trying to invade the smaller countries to the south.

Actually, Britain went to war with Germany because Germany's Schliefen Plan attacked France via Belgium. Until the Germans attacked Belgium, British involvement actually looked unlikely, but i get your point, im just a history geek- its how i make money

 

[aalio]

Dunno if anyone has said this yet, but slow reload times.

 

[Arbitrary Cidin]

Okay, since you decided this is so common and I'm the only one you quoted on it, I'll elaborate. A good game needs a fun gameplay style, good characters, good atmosphere, and brilliant story. World War 1 had no outstanding people of interest, the atmosphere was dull and depressing, and as far as the story goes, it was probably the most uneventful wars in history. It wasn't exciting in real life, so why would a video game be made? Level 1, you wait in trenches, level 2 you die. The End. Another thing. WWII is an amazing plot because of Hitler. Deception, betrayal, bigotry, ruthlessness, and military genius... it's like if Hannibal Lector is President. Hitler's an evil leader that writers couldn't dream of conjuring up. Who was the evil tyrant behind World War 1? There WASN'T one. There's nobody to blame and I'm sure the thought "I'm doing this because..." is sure to be reacquainted with the player after the plotless fun bliss (a.k.a. TF2 Syndrome) isn't around to keep him away. More than that, what CAN you do? Basically, imagine a game of Gears of War 2 where everybody on one team is huddles behind a single chest-high wall, as does the other team on the other side of the map. Now imagine that everyone on the map has nothing but a lance that has no chainsaw. What happens? Everyone leaves because they're bored. It's a bad idea. World War 1 wasn't cool.

I have some advice. I'll write it in 3 easy steps.

1. Find a history book pertaining to WW1. Any of these [http://www.amazon.co.uk/world-war-one/s/qid=1251153487/ref=sr_nr_i_0?ie=UTF8&rs=&keywords=world%20war%20one&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aworld%20war%20one%2Ci%3Astripbooks] will do.
2. Read it.
3. Realise what you just wrote was total bollocks. "most uneventful war in history" "no outstanding people of interest" you say? My arse.

I won't go into further detail about why you need to brush up on your histoy, as I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Because the guns back then sucked ass, atleast from a gameplay perspective.

Please refrain from spilling this rot. We've heard it before and its been proven at the very most a subjective perspective.

I feel sorry for ya, holding the fort against nutters like this guy. If old guns suck, then why has the new Call of Jaurez been praised? Lever action rifles and revolvers are far older than the weapons used in WW1, but they haven't hindered the games success.

The fact that I'd need a textbook to learn anything means it isn't interesting. Who discovered carpel tunnel? Hell if I know because that's boring. I bet a History Textbook would tell you, though. Then you look at WW2 with D-day, Operation Valkyrie, the Holocaust. Half of World War 2's lore is emblazoned into an American child's mind before they learn about it in school. Why? Because it's interesting and filled with action in every moment. I'm not saying that WW1 was an uneventful crapfest... it was a war, which is always serious business, but as far as wars go, it was bleak and boring. If you or The Tommy are honestly trying to hold WW1's events up to the intensity of WW2, then you're both delusional. As I've said, it's not interesting enough for a video game. The only way to make a semi-decent WW1 game would be to make it terribly inaccurate and exaggerated in terms of combat. From a marketing perspective... how many people in this thread like the idea? How many think it's a bad idea? Do you honestly think that example shows that game producers would be prudent in making a WW1 game when the vast majority of the gaming community thinks it's a stupid idea to begin with?

 

[Aeviv]

This isnt meant as a dig at Americans at all, but the reason ive noticed Americans dont think WW1 is interesting is because its really a foot note in US history compared to what a huge event it was the UK. The Americans were involved for around a year and lost 100,000 men- the British were involved much longer and lost far more men. As such, Americans arnt taught about WW1 like the British, just as WW2 takes precident over WW1 in education, as it should (much bigger event). Its the same reason your average Brit has NO knowledge of the war of independance or the US civil war. I still stand by what i originally said, that the game probably wouldnt work, BUT, WW1 is by no means boring or lacking interesting characters, that is an acusation that it cannot be accused of

 

[Shoto Koto]

To counter many of the points here, the first bit of WWI was actually quite interesting. Like the Battle of Mons (Wikipedia it) That COULD make a good game.

EDIT: Also just to counter something I read in this thread. In terms of combatant life WWI was more costly than WWII.

 

[The Tommy]

because in WWII the goals and motives were clear, fight Germany and stop the spread of Nazism. But in WWI things weren't so black and white. England declared war on Germany because they were aiding Austria-Hungary, who were trying to invade the smaller countries to the south.

In WWII games, you can look at the flag of the Third Reich and say "That is our enemy, we are fighting evil!" In WWI it's more "...Why are we doing this again?"

On the eve WWII Churchill suggested that war be called the unnecessary war because I was already fought!

 

[Aeviv]

Because the weapons weren't nearly as good as in WWII?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewehr_98

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun

Should I keep going?

Dunno if anyone has said this yet, but slow reload times.

*headdesk*

*headdesk*

*bleeding forehead*

Bolt-action rifles didn't have a much longer reloading cycle than modern box-magazine rifles. You did have to reload them more often, but we're not talking muzzle-loaded rifles or even pre-cartridge breech-loaders here.

THANK YOU!

 

[KissofKetchup]

Isnt it because they used like horses and Tin can style tanks in those days?
WWII Gets a lot of coverage because it was the first fully mechanised war with every soldier having a gun, Tanks on the battle field, Aeroplanes now involving in warfare. It just alot more horrible than the 5 minute reload time of muskets...
Would you like to play a reloading minigame for a minute or two after every shot? Me neither.
Thats just off the top of my head so its not totally accurate

The guns they used were quite accurate actually. And the guns had internal magazines that held 5 or so rounds. You're thinking of Civil War and earlier guns. They could only be fired thrice every minute by a good soldier.

 

[The Tommy]

Trench raids were so rare that most history books don't give mention to them, along with everything else you listed. Sniper rifles were unreliable at best, and none of these things are honestly good enough for a full game. As for your personal story theory, the fact that everyone was faceless, nameless gun fodder with exclusions to off-battlefield types who wouldn't make good protagonists. If you wanted a strapping lad who "overcame the depressing trenches and made a name for himself", that never happened so a historic setting isn't fitting. That, and it's so cliche it's disgusting.

Trench raids were part of trench routine. Haven't learned anything from the posts or perhaps better yet, from reading? It was a very important fixture in WWI warfare and quite fertile ground for a game.