why are there no WW1 games?

[The Tommy]

I was just observing though how this topic has managed to produce some very interesting points on the subject. It not only could be done, but by the amount of interest in the 18 pages of this thread so far, quite a few people both negative or positive care enough at least to say something about it.

Good sign

 

[Bamboochakill]

2 post over this: INCLUDED ANTIETNAM, WW1, WW2, LITTLE BIG HORN AND POMPEII

 

[Bamboochakill]

http://www.vgreleases.com/PC/ReleaseDate-43952.aspx

 

[Viking_IV]

I can easily see a multi-theatre FPS, like the CoD games. WW1 wasn?t just the trenches as too many people forget. The variety

This hypothetical game could have four campaigns, spanning four separate theatres; have the player as a member of a different army in each one. One could be set on the Western Front, fighting as a British soldier in the trenches. You get to work on a variety of missions, like sniping, manning machinegun posts and marking for artillery. Then you get to taste real battle at the Somme. You manage to survive, although you do get to witness the horrors of war, including a case of a man drowning in mud. You also see the first use of tanks, which inspires you to volunteer to become a member of a tank crew. Your first tank level would be the Battle of Cambrai and the climax of the British campaign would be a large tank at Amiens, one of the first battles to use combined arms of armour, air power and infantry.

A second campaign could focus on the German armies fighting the Russians. It would start similarly to the British one, climaxing at Tannenburg, but by the second half it has become much more fluid, fighting in Eastern European cities like Warsaw and Riga. You also have to defend against massive Russian armies at Kowel. The climax would be the transfer to the west for Operation Michael.

The third campaign would be a Russian one, starting with the Brusilov Offensive. Here the player experiences the same mass attacks you experienced as the German, but from the other side. After winning a few battles against the Austrians, the game quickly turns into a series of desperate attacks against the German Army. At the same time you experience second hand the turmoil?s that Russia is going through, until eventually the climax is the beginning of the Russian Civil War.

The fourth campaign could be an Ottoman one, where you originally fight the British in Mesopotamia. You start by retreating from the British at Basra, before fighting them to a standstill at the Battle of Ctesiphon and the Siege of Kut, whilst hearing news about the Battle of Gallipoli. The success carries on at the Battle of Hanna, before turning for the worse at the 2nd Battle of Kut by the end of the game you have been transferred to the Palestine Theatre and loosing to the British at the Battle of Megiddo (also known as the Battle of Armageddon).

There, four campaigns with a wider variety of gameplay than simple trench warfare as everyone keeps coming back to.

 

[suhlEap]

http://www.vgreleases.com/PC/ReleaseDate-43952.aspx

that sounds pretty interesting. the civil war hasn't really been covered before, and this is another WW1 game coming out. sounds good to me.

 

[The Tommy]

I can easily see a multi-theatre FPS, like the CoD games. WW1 wasn?t just the trenches as too many people forget. The variety

This hypothetical game could have four campaigns, spanning four separate theatres; have the player as a member of a different army in each one. One could be set on the Western Front, fighting as a British soldier in the trenches. You get to work on a variety of missions, like sniping, manning machinegun posts and marking for artillery. Then you get to taste real battle at the Somme. You manage to survive, although you do get to witness the horrors of war, including a case of a man drowning in mud. You also see the first use of tanks, which inspires you to volunteer to become a member of a tank crew. Your first tank level would be the Battle of Cambrai and the climax of the British campaign would be a large tank at Amiens, one of the first battles to use combined arms of armour, air power and infantry.

A second campaign could focus on the German armies fighting the Russians. It would start similarly to the British one, climaxing at Tannenburg, but by the second half it has become much more fluid, fighting in Eastern European cities like Warsaw and Riga. You also have to defend against massive Russian armies at Kowel. The climax would be the transfer to the west for Operation Michael.

The third campaign would be a Russian one, starting with the Brusilov Offensive. Here the player experiences the same mass attacks you experienced as the German, but from the other side. After winning a few battles against the Austrians, the game quickly turns into a series of desperate attacks against the German Army. At the same time you experience second hand the turmoil?s that Russia is going through, until eventually the climax is the beginning of the Russian Civil War.

The fourth campaign could be an Ottoman one, where you originally fight the British in Mesopotamia. You start by retreating from the British at Basra, before fighting them to a standstill at the Battle of Ctesiphon and the Siege of Kut, whilst hearing news about the Battle of Gallipoli. The success carries on at the Battle of Hanna, before turning for the worse at the 2nd Battle of Kut by the end of the game you have been transferred to the Palestine Theatre and loosing to the British at the Battle of Megiddo (also known as the Battle of Armageddon).

There, four campaigns with a wider variety of gameplay than simple trench warfare as everyone keeps coming back to.

Excellent idea!! I suppose the heavy element would be on the FPS action. The British campaign should have more post Somme battles though like Arras, Third Ypres, Cambrai and of course the mobile 100 Days Offensive across Picardy and Flanders. Most people wouldn't what to make of WWI village combat but it most certainly happened throughout the entire Western Front campaign.

 

[The Tommy]

http://www.vgreleases.com/PC/ReleaseDate-43952.aspx

and this is another WW1 game coming out. sounds good to me.

What game is that?

 

[Standby]

Probably should have posted in here first: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.133079

 

[Arbitrary Cidin]

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?

 

[mightybozz]

I can easily see a multi-theatre FPS, like the CoD games. WW1 wasn?t just the trenches as too many people forget. The variety

This hypothetical game could have four campaigns, spanning four separate theatres; have the player as a member of a different army in each one. One could be set on the Western Front, fighting as a British soldier in the trenches. You get to work on a variety of missions, like sniping, manning machinegun posts and marking for artillery. Then you get to taste real battle at the Somme. You manage to survive, although you do get to witness the horrors of war, including a case of a man drowning in mud. You also see the first use of tanks, which inspires you to volunteer to become a member of a tank crew. Your first tank level would be the Battle of Cambrai and the climax of the British campaign would be a large tank at Amiens, one of the first battles to use combined arms of armour, air power and infantry.

A second campaign could focus on the German armies fighting the Russians. It would start similarly to the British one, climaxing at Tannenburg, but by the second half it has become much more fluid, fighting in Eastern European cities like Warsaw and Riga. You also have to defend against massive Russian armies at Kowel. The climax would be the transfer to the west for Operation Michael.

The third campaign would be a Russian one, starting with the Brusilov Offensive. Here the player experiences the same mass attacks you experienced as the German, but from the other side. After winning a few battles against the Austrians, the game quickly turns into a series of desperate attacks against the German Army. At the same time you experience second hand the turmoil?s that Russia is going through, until eventually the climax is the beginning of the Russian Civil War.

The fourth campaign could be an Ottoman one, where you originally fight the British in Mesopotamia. You start by retreating from the British at Basra, before fighting them to a standstill at the Battle of Ctesiphon and the Siege of Kut, whilst hearing news about the Battle of Gallipoli. The success carries on at the Battle of Hanna, before turning for the worse at the 2nd Battle of Kut by the end of the game you have been transferred to the Palestine Theatre and loosing to the British at the Battle of Megiddo (also known as the Battle of Armageddon).

There, four campaigns with a wider variety of gameplay than simple trench warfare as everyone keeps coming back to.

Nice plan. I especially like the Ottoman idea. Games never cover Turkey or parts of its history. Could be an interesting exploration.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

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.

 

[The Tommy]

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.

 

[suhlEap]

http://www.vgreleases.com/PC/ReleaseDate-43952.aspx

and this is another WW1 game coming out. sounds good to me.

What game is that?

take a look at the link above my last post. it's not a totally WW1 game, but at least some of it seems to be which is good.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

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.

...could you repeat that again, less incoherently, in plain English? o_0

Insults are really only insults if the insulted can understand them.

 

[teutonicman]

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

 

[suhlEap]

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

bows and arrows also suck balls but call of juarez 1 is pretty cool. the weapons in WW1 were nowhere near as bad as people here seem to be making out.

 

[The Tommy]

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.

...could you repeat that again, less incoherently, in plain English? o_0

Insults are really only insults if the insulted can understand them.

You knew enough to know it was an insult so it qualifies.
Does that mean you wish for me to simplify it for you.. I used modern English. If you don't understand what I said, try using a dictionary.

You said weapons aren't nearly as good. Nonsense. WWII games have plenty of light machine guns and bolt action rifles that would be present in a WWI game.

Walking tank? I take it you mean walking across the battelfield? Well that tactic wasn't used nearly as often as one would think.

 

[The Tommy]

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.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Well, I don't think I've ever encountered a WWI elitist before. Halo elitists, PS3 elitists, 360 elitists, sure, but WWI? That's a first. You might want to tone down your overly confrontational attitude down a notch. I highly recommend it.

 

[The Tommy]

Well, I don't think I've ever encountered a WWI elitist before. Halo elitists, PS3 elitists, 360 elitists, sure, but WWI? That's a first. You might want to tone down your overly confrontational attitude down a notch. I highly recommend it.

I guess you'll shoot me at dawn?

I take it that means you still had nothing to contribute to this thread? And yes I did join the forum for this very one topic. I don't think its fair that the subject matter should be trashed like this since no one has any understanding of it.