World War One in video games

[thejboy88]

Recently, a game has come out that has got me doing a lot of thinking. It's a 2D sidescroller called "Valiant Hearts: The Great War", and is set during the First World War.

Now the game itself is one I heartily reccommend, but that's not what I'm talking abotu here. What struck me most about it was that, for the life of me, I can't remember a single other game out there, aside from a few strategy titles here and there, that focus on WW1. Mostly it's been WW2, the recent wars in the Middle-East, and a few other conflicts.

And yet this conflict, the GREAT war, is almost completely unrepresented in video game format. I asked this question a few days ago during Yahtzee's review of the VH game, and one of the most frequent responses I got was that it would be hard to do given that most war games these days require your opponents to be irredeemably evil, like the Nazis. As such, the complexity of WW1 would make it harder for most modern gamers to be as invested as they would be in the more black-and-white conflicts they're used to in war games.

I'm not sure if I believe that reasoning or not, but regardless it was a valid point.

This is something I'd like to hear from the Escapist community. What do you think of the lack of representation this war has in games? Is it unfair? Why do you think it's overlooked? Or anything else you feel like discussing on the topic.

 

[Angelowl]

It is not that The Great War is underrepresented in video games as much as it is underrepresented in all forms of media, including history lessons. Reading up on it I find it just as intricate, complicated and deep subject to study. But no one seems to care one bit. Which is very unfortunate since it is paramount to understand the politics and mindset of WW2.

As you said one of the reasons of why it is overshadowed is the lack of cartoonish-level villains. Unlike WW2 The Great War is pretty much impossible to paint as a good vs evil scenario that people are so fond of.

A pity, it would make a good setting for strategy games, focused on the terrain and difficulty to maneuver. The only game where I have seen the period being actually represented is Civilisation V (and that was ruined in later patches that screwed up the time periods).

There is a serious problem with marketing such games though. Market it as a game set during The Great War and people will go "Huh? The what now?"

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think another reason it is not touched in video games is because it's not very 'game-friendly.' World War I didn't have that many epic battles the same way that WWII. Now I don't mean that the battles weren't fierce and bloody and cost countless lives, because they were. What I mean is there aren't those stories of charging a position at the top of a hill, or holding the line against impossible odds. WWI was fought mostly in trenches, and most of the time the soldiers were huddled down, praying that the shelling wouldn't hit them. Most of the time, when they did charge, they were cut to ribbons by machine gun fire because tactics had not adapted to the new technology. As such, much of WWI was a waiting game. And a waiting game does not translate well into a video game, or at least not a shooter. And most people would expect a WWI game to be a shooter game.

That's my theory anyway.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It wouldn't really work as a combat game.

I think what might work would be forcing the player into a morale officer/propagandist role. You have to try to convince these kids, these draftees that it's their duty to their country to kill their counterpart who is pretty much the same as they are but with a different flag. If you do your job right, territory is gained but the same or even more men come back dead.

I think the guy who made Papers Please would have a field day with this subject matter.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I can't remember a single other game out there, aside from a few strategy titles here and there, that focus on WW1.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/242860/

You're welcome. If it wasn't multiplayer only I'd be on that like a German through Belgium. *cough*


OT:

Yeah, not the greatest of narratives and really, if you're going to make a game set in a world war with ye olde guns and things then good ol' WWII is far more bankable. 4 years of fighting that basically acheived shit-all except getting a few million people killed and working out how to do it better next time, as if anyone would be silly enough to do that...

 

[Neverhoodian]

Well, the air war has provided some good games at any rate. I spent many a childhood hour playing Knights of the Sky and Red Baron for DOS back in the day. There have also been a few titles that explored naval warfare of the era like Jutland and Shells of Fury (though I can't say if they're any good or not, as I haven't played them). Outside of flight and naval sims however, your options are slim indeed.

I think most reasons for neglecting World War I have already been mentioned: no "good vs. evil" struggle like World War II,[footnote]A gross oversimplification to be sure. Neither side was anywhere near perfect, it's just that the Axis powers committed atrocities and war crimes so heinous that most misdeeds committed by the Allies (well, the Western Allies at any rate) pales in comparison.[/footnote] complex and convoluted political origins, the terrible and disempowering monotony of trench warfare, etc. However, I think there's plenty of potential if game developers start thinking outside the proverbial box.

When World War I is mentioned, people tend to fixate solely on the Western Front. While that part of the struggle is generally regarded as the most pivotal, there were a number of other fronts that the war was waged on as well. The Eastern Front, Gallipoli, the Balkans, the African colonies, the Middle East, even Asia and some Pacific islands. What's more, many of these fronts were more mobile and didn't turn into the static trench warfare that defined the western European struggle. I think the opportunity would be ripe for settings like, say, waging guerrilla warfare against the British in East Africa under Siege of Tsingtao [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck] as a Japanese soldier (Japan fought for the Allies in World War I). You know, start exploring the "World" part of World War I.

Even if game devs were to go with the Western Front, I'm sure there could be ways to "spruce it up." They could make the player part of a trench raiding team tasked with digging to the enemy lines undetected to stage ambushes or set explosives. They could emulate the Arma/Red Orchestra approach for the "hardcore" military crowd. They could go the survival horror route and focus on the hellish conditions that destroyed both body and mind (try doing a Google image search for "Otto Dix World War 1" sometime if you're not too squeamish. Enjoy the nightmares). Or they could start making air and naval sims again. Maybe even a game (or an action sequence) where you get to drive an early tank across No Man's Land, hoping that your vehicle can get across before it breaks down, gets hit by artillery or your crew collapses from carbon monoxide, fuel vapor and cordite fumes (many tanks of the time had little to no ventilation).

 

[Artaneius]

WW1 would be boring as piss. The only types of WW1 games that would probably work are either a Total War like game or a naval/aircraft focused game. And even if you did that, WWII has a much bigger and better collection of mechanized weapons anyways. It would be honestly stupid for all intents and purposes to make a WW1 based game when WWII came only about 20 some years later and was much better and exciting.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Well, for starters it was one big political mess because alliances were formed and broken left, right and center, so it's hard to shoehorn that in a generic plot of AMERICA GOOD, GERMANY BAD thing that an average person is able to understand, and that's without putting some minor details in, like, the whole god damned Soviet Union who was the workhorse of the entire thing? Meaning, not enough pop culture material. Also, not much gameplay material wat with all trenches and tunnels and whatnot

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but World War One lasted from 1914 to 1918 and the Soviet Union was only just establised in 1917. I believe the Soviets sued for peace right after the October Revolution. They were definitely the workhorse force against Nazi Germany in WW2 though.

Anyways, I'd give a WW1 game a shot but what I'd really like to see is a Korean War FPS.

 

[clippen05]

No one would want to play a WW1 game, that's why they don't make them. Valiant Hearts is great and all, but note that it has very little to do with the combat of how the war was fought, its just an adventure game set during the period. Any other genre of game would fail miserably. FPS and TPSs would be extremely boring (for 99% of people, I actually like RO2 and think I would like Verdun) as there are extremely limited automatic weapons and they way the combat was fought does not lend itself to the 'run and gun' style of most FPSs. RTS would also be terrible, again, as the combat was fought with trenches, artillery, and suicidal charges over the top; RTS's would be extremely boring simulating this. Maybe turn-based strategy games and 4X games would work, but still, those don't appeal to the masses. (Because if they did, people would know that Paradox has a game or two that cover the period.)

 

[Marik2]

I swear there was an article on this site that showed a French game team made a demo for a WW1 shooter....

 

[Neverhoodian]

WW1 would be boring as piss. The only types of WW1 games that would probably work are either a Total War like game or a naval/aircraft focused game. And even if you did that, WWII has a much bigger and better collection of mechanized weapons anyways. It would be honestly stupid for all intents and purposes to make a WW1 based game when WWII came only about 20 some years later and was much better and exciting.

I'm not sure "better" would be the adjective I would use.

But yeah, World War II has some crazy rad weapons and tech. Still, World War I technology has its appeal in how antiquated and rickety it seems by today's standards. I mean, look at the airplanes. You'd have to be brave or crazy (or both!) to get into one of those mechanized kites:

Spoiler: Click for balls of steel

FPS and TPSs would be extremely boring (for 99% of people, I actually like RO2 and think I would like Verdun) as there are extremely limited automatic weapons and they way the combat was fought does not lend itself to the 'run and gun' style of most FPSs.

I'm not so sure. Fistful of Frags is fairly popular right now, and that's set in the Old West with guns that have small magazines and slow reloads. It forces the player to be careful with their shots and plan when to reload (or grab another gun from the ground), which makes kills all the more satisfying.

CAPTCHA: "you're in my spot"

I will punch you in the fucking SOUL!

 

[laggyteabag]

In terms of a shooter, it wouldn't really work. Most of the weapons that were used during WWI were bolt action rifles. The machine guns were stationary, and the automatic personal weapons were few and far between, and the ones that did exist jammed a lot. Also, most of the fighting in WWI consisted of waiting around, taking a few potshots, and then charging at the enemy's trench, almost always failing. At least in WWII and in modern combat there was a lot of urban or open field combat which really gave you the freedom to move around, but a WWI shooter would quite literally become a corridor shooter, but most of the enemies are outside of the corridor.

One game that I could see existing would be a WWI RTS, or a trench management sim, controlling what went in your trench, the posting of the guards, trying to keep morale up, positioning buildings or emplacements like machine gun nests or medical tents. That would be pretty cool.

As mentioned by other people, the story would be a mess. The problem with WWI is that there is no definitive "bad guy". World War I started with an assassination from a group supposedly not affiliated with any country, which led into a mess of alliances being pulled into war after Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary after they blamed Serbia for the killing, so it would really have to be more focused on the people fighting it more than what was going on in the background with politics.

 

[laggyteabag]

God damn, double post.

 

[SnakeTrousers]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

You know, I keep seeing this point made whenever this topic comes up, but it never made much sense to me. No armed conflict lends itself well to videogame adaptation when you think about it but really, how often do games - particularly shooters - endeavor to accurately portray the subject matter? What's more, you do realize WW1 didn't consist entirely of people sitting around in dirty trenches, right?

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I was thinking a while back (i was also off my face on a cocktail of chemicals, so on closer scrutiny it may not be best idea...) but what about if the whole thing was just one endless push/defend, with respawning giving you a completely different character (with real names and ages, and maybe a lil' background story in options) near the back of the push/defense, with it being really easy to die (around 2-3 rifle shots killing your, and machine guns/grenades basically being 1HK. Really plug in the futile absurdity of the war, with mud and screaming and a general depressing atmosphere (apart from occasional bit of gallows humour?)

As I said, wasn't in the best state of mind when thinking this up with friends.

 

[Dalisclock]

As a lot of other people have said, there's no "US=good, THEM=bad" dynamic going on. You've have goals like "Take that trench" Why? Because. Do it or you'll be shot. Try to do it and you very likely be shot anyway.

Not to mention the fun of "I'm sitting in my trench, in the rain, waiting for the next offensive. Shit! Mustard Gas!" Enjoy the fun as you try to don your suit and gas mask before the chemical weapons kill you/burn your skin/burn your lungs.

Though if you go the "SPEC OPS: The Line" or COD4 route and use it as a "War is horrible" platform it might work despite the shitty game-play.

 

[Padwolf]

Personally I think there needs to be a WW1 Horror game. Well, a psychological thriller sort of game, like silent hill. Because I don't think it would work as a shooter. I think a horror game would be where it's at. It's got everything that would make a horror game great. The trenches are a good setting for it. However, if done right then it would be absolutely horrifying due to the true psychological terror that occurred is just beyond description.

It could be fantastic if done right. The noises, the sights, scraps of letters laying around, all the gory details that are shown in "All Quiet on the Western Front", the poetry. Please please please someone one day make it happen!

 

[Sniper Team 4]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

You know, I keep seeing this point made whenever this topic comes up, but it never made much sense to me. No armed conflict lends itself well to videogame adaptation when you think about it but really, how often do games - particularly shooters - endeavor to accurately portray the subject matter? What's more, you do realize WW1 didn't consist entirely of people sitting around in dirty trenches, right?

Very true. I'm pretty sure one man did not win World War II all by himself as many shooters imply. I mean, James Paterson in Medal of Honor: Frontline was the ultimate bad ass, seeing as he was involved in nearly every major battle in Europe and single-handedly stopped a secret Nazi bomber project. But the games do still try to at least capture the feel of the battles and relate how they were actually fought. Soldiers did storm the beaches of Normandy, there was Market Garden, the battles in Africa, and all of that that the games try to capture.
WWI, because of the way it was fought, is missing that element. Soldiers often spent weeks sitting in trenches, and like I said, when a mass attack was launched, there was no 'heroic' moments (or rather, very few of them). It was a bloodbath, and at the end of the day things were rarely accomplished. The lines barely moved. Which means that at the end of the level in the game, the player is going to feel like they accomplished nothing.
Unless the game takes a different path by having you play as perhaps a spy, or a spec ops behind enemy lines, which could work.

 

[Souplex]

Playing WWI might be awkward since it was a lot of sitting in trenches shooting at anyone who gets out of their trench.

 

[Saltyk]

One of the few games I know that even made a reference to WWI was Shadow Hearts. This is largely due to the game taking place in 1911. It's even revealed near the end of the game that the main villain had foreseen WWI and was trying to prevent it and by extension WWII as well, which I think he had also foreseen.

Mind you this is a game with demons, monsters, magic, and you even kill God, who is an alien, at the end of the game.