why are there no WW1 games?
- Thread starter suhlEap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True, a good game needs those three concepts to properly flourish. But it would be incorrect to write out WW1 completely, this is the war that made the 20th century. When you say 'people of interest' you mean important leaders and generals, WW1 was filled to the brim with them. General Haig, Kaiser Wilhelm II and even Winston Churchill, who at the time was lord of the admiralty, the main supporter of the tank and the mastermind behind the Gallipoli fiasco. If by 'people of interest' you mean Rambo-like figures who achieved far more than the average soldier/pilot then look up Alvin York and Manfred von Richtofen on wikipedia, in fact here are the links.Arbitrary Cidin said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen
And the atmosphere being depressing and dim really only holds true if you are solely going to focus on the western front, where it really was quite miserable. The Battles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East were worlds apart, involving dramatic manoeuvres and large scale battles and sieges over a wide area. And even if the western front was grim, isn't war in general? Whether I would be fighting in France in 1916 or 1944 it would still be a grim affair of death and slaughter. More people died in WW2 than in WW1, if you care to remember.
The excitement could come from the atmosphere, the idea that you are constantly under attack and that feeling of dread of the coming fight, instead of elation at the chance. A WW1 game, if done right, would be a very atmospheric thing. And most defiantly not repetitive, as my hypothetical game above shows that variety is possible, if not easy, in a WW1 game.
WW1 started when the European alliance system, a sort of pre-cold war MAD, blew up. Fear, distrust, and ambiguity sparked the whole thing off, that had been brewing for far longer than WW2 had been. And you are correct, there was no evil tyrant behind any of the powers, and that is a bad thing? The world isn't a cartoonish perception of something is black or white. All sides of the war were grey, neither morally just nor unquestionably vile. Stark moral contrasts get quite boring after a while. Introduce some ambiguity, make the player thing "Why am I fighting", as potent an anti-war message as any nuclear device detonated in an unmarked Arabic city.
See my hypothetical game above for an idea of the variety of what is possible for singleplayer. Multiplayer, to be honest, has never mapped reality very well, with the whole idea of running around and blasting away without thinking.
A very solid point on America's perspective. Its contribution to WWII and its Civil War experience far outweighs , not in just casualties, that of other conflicts. WWI saw Britain lose "Splendid Isolation" to Naval attacks on her Eastern shoreline (the first enemy action on English soil since the Normans in 1066. German Zeppelin and Gotha bombing raids on industry and London (the First Blitz). The War saw the first time British citizens were conscripted for military service and from that all walks of life served together in what was four hard years of war. Large enough explosions could be heard in England coming from the Western Front if the winds were right. It was a major transformation and shock to British society that had not had a precedent since the Protestant reformation.Aeviv said:
I know that they didn't have a much long reloading cycle, but you must agree that jamming was a constant problem for them, jams would mean you had to clear the chamber, slowing down firing times. I understand there was some awesome weapons, but they were so unbalanced that it would make the game shit.RAKtheUndead said:
Three reasons. 1, most of WWI was trench warfare, which is where you sit in a hole dying of disease until you get told to jump out and get shot. 2, the U.S. makes most of these games, and we joined the war effort less than a year before it ended. So, while I'm not sure which, we either didn't do anything, or we were just so much manlier and cooler than the Europeans, that they never stood a chance against us. 3, WWI gets over-shadowed by WWII, becuase Germany was the dominant power in both, however, in WWII, Germany was led by Adolf Hitler one of the most menacing villains of all-time and in WWI, it was led by a Candy-ass fuck named Kaiser Wilhelm, and Germany didn't even start that war. It was started by Austria-Hungary, which is the equivalent of a flame war started by a mentally challenged turtle, and led by Fred from Youtube...
Oh yeah, I went there Austria-Hungary! What now?
...Well, technically, you could say Serbia started it... either way, mentally challenged turtle
And I can say that, because neither of those countries are still around... I think... Is Serbia still around?
Oh yeah, I went there Austria-Hungary! What now?
...Well, technically, you could say Serbia started it... either way, mentally challenged turtle
And I can say that, because neither of those countries are still around... I think... Is Serbia still around?
You know, a game based around the greatest battles of a bunch of different wars would be really cool. You would fight in the Revolutionary War, then a big battle in the Civil War, than WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. It would just zip from one to the other instead of just following one story. That could be funHellsingerAngel said:
Its interesting to note that you point the Kaiser as a "Candy @$$ F**&" but in reality he was an incredibly complex personality whose motivations for going to war in 1914 were the build up of 20+ years of tension between France, Britain and Russia. You also seem to forget that while it would have taken until 1919 for the U.S. to be militarily decisive on the Western Front, up to 2 million men were amassed in France and the US occupied 80 miles of frontage in the South. They participated in combat as early as May 1917. Cantigny, Belleau Wood, the Argonne and St. Mihiel provide plenty of opportunity to explore the US participation in the War.Superhyperactiveman said:
Your corrupted view of history is so distorted and disjointed that its almost barely worth mentioning in this thread. Again I must remind you and others to cease with the foul mouthed biased rot that is continually plaguing this topic.
BTW Serbia is still around.
How about a WW1 game, then, where you have the superhuman ability to turn invisible? Your superiors eventually discover this, and then all of a sudden, you're sent booking it across No Man's Land into the German trenches to sabotage, assassinate officers, etc.
A Call of Duty style shooter in WW1... Could not be very fun, I agree. The guns are just.. Bleck.
Either way, if there is one, it needs Uncharted's dirty clothes graphics for every time you fall in the mud. :]
A Call of Duty style shooter in WW1... Could not be very fun, I agree. The guns are just.. Bleck.
Either way, if there is one, it needs Uncharted's dirty clothes graphics for every time you fall in the mud. :]
ouch.aalio said:
I must say that what is needed from a WWI game is an engaging personal story that focuses less on the struggle between the Great powers but rather uses the War as a setting for which a storyline like that in BIA can unfold. The game play should feature combination of successful cinematic qualities in FPS and explorable RPG like sandbox maps. Innovation is the key. Intelligent and foresighted people would be needed to make it a success.