Where Are The WW1 Games?

[JimbobDa3rd]

It has come to my attention that there are no games for the next gen consoles (or for that matter no ones spring to mind for the 6th gen either) based ion World War One. Now before you state to me this is because there was no real tactic used in WW1 besides over the top think about it, in the later years the German storm troopers were first introduced, bringing in the blitz tactic which has influenced wars since, or maybe create a RTS, you playing a commander you are given a situation of trenches and have to decide what artillery bombardment to use and for how long (obviously ammo limits would be present) and the which advances on which lines aswell as new trenches dug and defences layers, and, if in later war, where to try and place underground mines to destroy the enemy, it would be really cool, a kind of WW1 fought using modern day hindsight, or maybe a Battlefield 2 feel where you are in a rush and every time your character is killed you go into another view (Im not sure how else to explain it but if you have played the game you know what I mean). Also the landscape lends itself to easy creation, because the majority of the war was fought less then 1 mile either side of the trench line it would be relatively simple to create a very long line or trenches which gave the idea of massive open world whilst being still possible to develop. Also it really lends itself to the gritty realism part of game, imagine a game where you had to stumble around a trench in the dark hearing explosions cracking the air and men with missing limbs lying around bleeding to death, its horrific much more so, in my opinion, then anything else in games (mainly because it actually happened). WW1 was also the introduction of aviation in battle and yet (to my knowledge as a non-flight sim fan) there have been no games on it. Im not saying all war games should be WW1, but I find it very pecular that no major companys have developed a game on a war which is as big as World War 2 in Europe (and very arguable directly caused the second world war). I would like to hear your opinions on a WW1 based game, is it possible, would it be entertaining, is there one already out there?

 

[mikecoulter]

I for one would prefer a WW1 game to WW2, less complex weapons and more moustaches. Awesome.

 

[The Madman]

This topic has been done before and I can guarantee if this gets over two pages, more than half of that will be 'trench combat is boring' by people who really don't know that much about WW1.

I say a WW1 game would be amazing if rather than stick to a specific plot it instead jumped between different scenario. I would *love* to be one of the light horsemen charging the Axis lines at the Battle of Beersheba. That would make for an amazing scenario. Or perhaps a light soldier fighting amidst the Italian alps, ambushing my enemies before dodging back for cover.

But ultimately I want to see the battle of Vimy ridge in a game. One of the very first proper uses of tanks in a battle as well as the battle which created the 'advancing artillery' tactic where the infantry advanced behind the cover of a steadily advancing rain of explosive artillery. Can you imagine how incredible it would be? Dodging behind slowly tanks for cover, the screen filled with smoke and debris as fire descends from the heavens. You running between cover, then as the enemy finally comes close, firing off a couple shots before charging into trench warfare, the screen shaking as tanks rumble overhead and explosions surround you.

Not to mention it was the first real 'Canadian' battle, a massive success no less.

I'd buy a game just for that one level.

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

Rather than reading your long,unspaced wall of text, i'll just say this:
WW2: Hitler
WW1: No Hitler

If you had read the comment you would know I wasnt saying WW2 games were bad, and in all truth Hitler was not that intresting in a millitary way, more so a phycological way. So i agree if the ame was called "therpy with war time leaders" then yes WW2 would be beter

 

[Boaal]

You obviously don't know much about the fist world war.
We sat in trenches for weeks at a time, up to our arses in rainwater, got trench foot and a string of other hidious illnesses and ailments. When we went over the fucking top we were instructed, not to run, but to bloody well walk, at a measured pace, into a great line of machineguns.
This does not sound like good gameplay to me. it sound go aweful. Objective 1 - stand here for a week and don't scream to loudly if you get shellshock, or shot. Objective 2 - catch trenchfoot (this will probably happen alongside objective one, but it depends where youre standing I suppose). Objective 3 - recieve some god-aweful orders from someone who should have been hung with their own intestines for their gross incompetance.

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

This topic has been done before and I can guarantee if this gets over two pages, more than half of that will be 'trench combat is boring' by people who really don't know that much about WW1.

I say a WW1 game would be amazing if rather than stick to a specific plot it instead jumped between different scenario. I would *love* to be one of the light horsemen charging the Axis lines at the Battle of Beersheba. That would make for an amazing scenario. Or perhaps a light soldier fighting amidst the Italian alps, ambushing my enemies before dodging back for cover.

But ultimately I want to see the battle of Vimy ridge in a game. One of the very first proper uses of tanks in a battle as well as the battle which created the 'advancing artillery' tactic where the infantry advanced behind the cover of a steadily advancing rain of explosive artillery. Can you imagine how incredible it would be? Dodging behind slowly tanks for cover, the screen filled with smoke and debris as fire descends from the heavens. You running between cover, then as the enemy finally comes close, firing off a couple shots before charging into trench warfare, the screen shaking as tanks rumble overhead and explosions surround you.

Not to mention it was the first real 'Canadian' battle, a massive success no less.

I'd buy a game just for that one level.

Im sorry I didnt realise the thread had been done before, and im in total agrement that warfare in the great war is depicted wrongly as boring, also nice point about fighting in the alps I was thinking the more obvious western line, but the more the better

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

You obviously don't know much about the fist world war.
We sat in trenches for weeks at a time, up to our arses in rainwater, got trench foot and a string of other hidious illnesses and ailments. When we went over the fucking top we were instructed, not to run, but to bloody well walk, at a measured pace, into a great line of machineguns.
This does not sound like good gameplay to me. it sound go aweful. Objective 1 - stand here for a week and don't scream to loudly if you get shellshock, or shot. Objective 2 - catch trenchfoot (this will probably happen alongside objective one, but it depends where youre standing I suppose). Objective 3 - recieve some god-aweful orders from someone who should have been hung with their own intestines for their gross incompetance.

I know more about the first world war then the second, and I agree that the WINTERS of the war would make boring as hell gameplay, but base it during the summer campains. And there were days when major advances were made, if we can have 10,000 games based in normandy on D-Day I dont see why we cant at least try a game on the intresting campains of WW1

 

[The Madman]

You obviously don't know much about the fist world war.
We sat in trenches for weeks at a time, up to our arses in rainwater, got trench foot and a string of other hidious illnesses and ailments. When we went over the fucking top we were instructed, not to run, but to bloody well walk, at a measured pace, into a great line of machineguns.
This does not sound like good gameplay to me. it sound go aweful. Objective 1 - stand here for a week and don't scream to loudly if you get shellshock, or shot. Objective 2 - catch trenchfoot (this will probably happen alongside objective one, but it depends where youre standing I suppose). Objective 3 - recieve some god-aweful orders from someone who should have been hung with their own intestines for their gross incompetance.

That's why it would have to be multiple scenario, jumping between battles. WW1 had plenty of amazing battles, the trench warfare you're talking about was primarily the french front, everywhere else had their own twists on warfare. And who says it only has to be ground warfare? WW1 is after all the war which made 'The Red Baron' so famous, air battles, primitive rail-shooting sequence from inside tanks, even naval battles.

Plus I think the idea of doing a steady advance towards enemy lines is an excellent idea. It worked in the original Call of Duty after all, remember the Russian charge? You didn't even have a gun there. I picture a Gears of War style cover system dodging between cover, using advancing tanks for protection, stumbling through barbed wire fence filled with corpse and decay, thick smoke and mist... It could really work. Then that would lead up to some basic shooting sequence and then trench-warfare, which were some of the most brutal and violent battles ever fought in human history.

Trench Warfare, even the sound of it is cruel...

 

[The Iron Ninja]

Rather than reading your long,unspaced wall of text, i'll just say this:
WW2: Hitler
WW1: No Hitler

I'll put this in as few words as I can so you don't get scared away.

WW2: Hitler
WW1: Also Hitler. Except instead of being in power he was in the trenches getting shot at and miraculously surviving artilery barrages that killed the rest of his company.

As for OP.
Why no world war one games?

It's probably because world war one wasn't anything like the second world war. There were no clear cut good guys or bad guys. It just doesn't lend itself well to fun gameplay. Being mown down by machine guns as you slog across muddy, barbed wire covered and mine littered ground, being gassed or standing in the mud for months on end while the enemy shells you doesn't really sound all that fun.

The only aspects of it that could convert to fun games are the wars in the air and sea, but they have already been made into games.

What I would like to see is more games on the Korean War or the Spanish Civil War.

 

[WrongSprite]

It has come to my attention that there are no games for the next gen consoles (or for that matter no ones spring to mind for the 6th gen either) based ion World War One. Now before you state to me this is because there was no real tactic used in WW1 besides over the top think about it, in the later years the German storm troopers were first introduced, bringing in the blitz tactic which has influenced wars since, or maybe create a RTS, you playing a commander you are given a situation of trenches and have to decide what artillery bombardment to use and for how long (obviously ammo limits would be present) and the which advances on which lines aswell as new trenches dug and defences layers, and, if in later war, where to try and place underground mines to destroy the enemy, it would be really cool, a kind of WW1 fought using modern day hindsight, or maybe a Battlefield 2 feel where you are in a rush and every time your character is killed you go into another view (Im not sure how else to explain it but if you have played the game you know what I mean). Also the landscape lends itself to easy creation, because the majority of the war was fought less then 1 mile either side of the trench line it would be relatively simple to create a very long line or trenches which gave the idea of massive open world whilst being still possible to develop. Also it really lends itself to the gritty realism part of game, imagine a game where you had to stumble around a trench in the dark hearing explosions cracking the air and men with missing limbs lying around bleeding to death, its horrific much more so, in my opinion, then anything else in games (mainly because it actually happened). WW1 was also the introduction of aviation in battle and yet (to my knowledge as a non-flight sim fan) there have been no games on it. Im not saying all war games should be WW1, but I find it very pecular that no major companys have developed a game on a war which is as big as World War 2 in Europe (and very arguable directly caused the second world war). I would like to hear your opinions on a WW1 based game, is it possible, would it be entertaining, is there one already out there?

Gameplay would be fairly boring.

Also, you can't say theres no WW1 flight sim games. All 10 ish of the WW1 games in existance are flight sims as its the only vaguely interesting WW1 combat.

 

[Mariena]

You called?

this[/youtube]

As for land combat.. I'm sure trench warfare would be thrilling. Not.

 

[mikecoulter]

MUSTasch

That's not how my Firefox says it's spelled.

 

[JimbobDa3rd]

Rather than reading your long,unspaced wall of text, i'll just say this:
WW2: Hitler
WW1: No Hitler

I'll put this in as few words as I can so you don't get scared away.

WW2: Hitler
WW1: Also Hitler. Except instead of being in power he was in the trenches getting shot at and miraculously surviving artilery barrages that killed the rest of his company.

Don't confuse boredom with stupidity.
Making a game where Hitler is depicted as a grunt getting shot and whatnot would mean presenting him in a somewhat sympathetic way, and there's no way that's gonna happen.
As far as the gaming industry is concerned , Hitler only started existing when WW2 began.

Yea not the years he spent before the war started leading the nazi political party and rebuilding german economy, learn your history

 

[Danny Ocean]

'advancing artillery' tactic where the infantry advanced behind the cover of a steadily advancing rain of explosive artillery.

Wasn't the rolling barrage in use since the invention of artillery?

It just seems like such an obvious tactic I can't imagine no-one doing until that battle.

Also, I think the lack of significant American actions in WWI would deter the American customers.

 

[The Madman]

'advancing artillery' tactic where the infantry advanced behind the cover of a steadily advancing rain of explosive artillery.

Wasn't the rolling barrage in use since the invention of artillery?

It just seems like such an obvious tactic I can't imagine no-one doing until that battle.

Sounds stupid doesn't it? And yet yup, it was only at the battle of Vimy Ridge where it was first properly implemented and used. Infantry advancing with tanks for cover behind a screen of artillery fire.

There's some black & white footage floating around the internet if you're curious. I always have trouble watching WW1 footage however, because it's just so damn... grim. You see people just falling over while running forward, and it takes you a second to realize that that person just died. Just like that! Scary.