Today I was thinking about world war one. A war in which there were tanks, but cavalry was still used in some instances. Where there were machine guns, but bolt action rifles were still on the front lines. Now, I realize that a significant part of the war took place in trenches, but still- why are there so few games regarding this war? So, I started thinking of one.
So, what do y'all think of this idea? Is this something you think you would play? How do you think it would fit into the idea of gaming as an art form?
For one, the war really wouldn't lend itself to an overarching grande story where you play as several different characters from different sides. There is some belief that oil interests played a roll, but, historically, the war was simply a massive clusterfuck that occurred from one man being assassinated. The USA tried to turn it into a war for Democracy, but, in reality, that was about it. So, rather than capturing the entirety of the war, it would be best simply to capture the intensity of warfare and the wonder of the era. So, in this game there would only be one character you play with for the whole game.
Now, while there would be parts of the game where you would be involved in trench warfare, that would not be most of it. While that made up most of the actual war, there is no reason why it has to be most of the game. However, some trench portions could be good to capture the intensity of the situation.
Similarly, there would be no uncontrollable cut scenes that occur in the middle of action. Cut scenes that take over action ruin war games. If you want to have a brief scene between battles to get a point across, that is fine. However, the intensity of warfare can never be simulated by losing control in the middle of a battle and turning into a remote controlled bad ass all of a sudden.
However, while there would be no uncontrollable cut scenes, there would be scripted events. For example, at one point of the game, while charging an enemy entrenchment, you will be wounded and then dragged off of the battlefield. You will lose and regain consciousness as you go and when you are concious you can still, of course, attempt to move (though your character will only be able to slow down the person aiding you as you are weak from being shot) and discharge his side arm. The medic who treats you at this portion would be none other than Ernest Hemingway, who was a medic in World War One. During his treatment of you, he will say something that, later in life, he wrote.
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
That is what we call foreshadowing. From that point on I have little planned out until the end (I just thought of this earlier today). The end will be your character on horseback easily cutting through routing enemy infantry. However, as you push enemy infantry back, a line of enemy tanks will roll over a hill. You will not lose control of your character for this. Your death will not take place in a cut scene. You will still be in full control of this character but know that there is nothing you can do to save yourself. You can try to flee, or you can push on and tank as many enemies with you as you can, but you are going to die. Then, when you get hit, the screen simply goes black. No game over. No the end. It just goes black and after about a minute the credits start to roll.
Now, while there would be parts of the game where you would be involved in trench warfare, that would not be most of it. While that made up most of the actual war, there is no reason why it has to be most of the game. However, some trench portions could be good to capture the intensity of the situation.
Similarly, there would be no uncontrollable cut scenes that occur in the middle of action. Cut scenes that take over action ruin war games. If you want to have a brief scene between battles to get a point across, that is fine. However, the intensity of warfare can never be simulated by losing control in the middle of a battle and turning into a remote controlled bad ass all of a sudden.
However, while there would be no uncontrollable cut scenes, there would be scripted events. For example, at one point of the game, while charging an enemy entrenchment, you will be wounded and then dragged off of the battlefield. You will lose and regain consciousness as you go and when you are concious you can still, of course, attempt to move (though your character will only be able to slow down the person aiding you as you are weak from being shot) and discharge his side arm. The medic who treats you at this portion would be none other than Ernest Hemingway, who was a medic in World War One. During his treatment of you, he will say something that, later in life, he wrote.
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
That is what we call foreshadowing. From that point on I have little planned out until the end (I just thought of this earlier today). The end will be your character on horseback easily cutting through routing enemy infantry. However, as you push enemy infantry back, a line of enemy tanks will roll over a hill. You will not lose control of your character for this. Your death will not take place in a cut scene. You will still be in full control of this character but know that there is nothing you can do to save yourself. You can try to flee, or you can push on and tank as many enemies with you as you can, but you are going to die. Then, when you get hit, the screen simply goes black. No game over. No the end. It just goes black and after about a minute the credits start to roll.
So, what do y'all think of this idea? Is this something you think you would play? How do you think it would fit into the idea of gaming as an art form?
