why are there no WW1 games?

[That One Six]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

 

[The Tommy]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

Well, you could read some of the previous posts and ideas that have suggested that the Western Front would make an interesting game scenario. But you must understand that the Great War was more than just standing around. BTW Mustard Gas was not used as often as people think. Certainly not every six seconds (yes I know that was an exaggeration).

 

[BeastofShadow]

A better question is why arent there any Korean war games? Or for that matter there should be a game set during the "troubles" of ireland and england, it could be like a splinter cell meets COD4.

Why you'd want to play as terrorists harming civillians in a war about religious persecution I have no idea. Anyway considering the damn things only really ended in the early 90s I'd prefer to wait a couple of decades.

 

[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.

I guess you'll shoot me at dawn?

No, actually, you'll be probated.

I take it that means you still had nothing to contribute to this thread?

I think you missed my earlier post, although it may have been easy to miss considering it was my first post in this thread. Here it is:

[hr]

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.

[hr]

And yes I did join the forum for this very one topic.

Good for you, kiddo.

I don't think its fair that the subject matter should be trashed like this since no one has any understanding of it.

You realized you just insulted every single person in this thread except you?

 

[suhlEap]

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?

No, actually, you'll be probated.

I take it that means you still had nothing to contribute to this thread?

I think you missed my earlier post, although it may have been easy to miss considering it was my first post in this thread. Here it is:

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.

And yes I did join the forum for this very one topic.

Good for you, kiddo.

I don't think its fair that the subject matter should be trashed like this since no one has any understanding of it.

You realized you just insulted every single person in this thread except you?

would it be ok to stop the arguing and get back to the topic at hand?

 

[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?

No, actually, you'll be probated.

I take it that means you still had nothing to contribute to this thread?

I think you missed my earlier post, although it may have been easy to miss considering it was my first post in this thread. Here it is:

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.

And yes I did join the forum for this very one topic.

Good for you, kiddo.

I don't think its fair that the subject matter should be trashed like this since no one has any understanding of it.

You realized you just insulted every single person in this thread except you?

would it be ok to stop the arguing and get back to the topic at hand?

Yeah got carried away that last bit. Let me clarify, since ALMOST no one.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Yes, it would.

 

[That One Six]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

Well, you could read some of the previous posts and ideas that have suggested that the Western Front would make an interesting game scenario. But you must understand that the Great War was more than just standing around. BTW Mustard Gas was not used as often as people think. Certainly not every six seconds (yes I know that was an exaggeration).

I know that World War I's western front wasn't just standing around. It was a mess of artillery and machine guns going off while soldiers in gas masks crawled and jumped through barbed wire while tanks just blasted through (tanks were during the end of the war). And the whole time a person was trying to force their way through, they were being shot at by rather inaccurate guns. That's why nobody could win. Nobody could get past the trenches and wire, or at least, nobody could get far enough to gain any real territory.

 

[Arbitrary Cidin]

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.

Okay, since you decided this is so common and I'm the only one you quoted on it, I'll elaborate. A good game needs a fun gameplay style, good characters, good atmosphere, and brilliant story. World War 1 had no outstanding people of interest, the atmosphere was dull and depressing, and as far as the story goes, it was probably the most uneventful wars in history. It wasn't exciting in real life, so why would a video game be made? Level 1, you wait in trenches, level 2 you die. The End. Another thing. WWII is an amazing plot because of Hitler. Deception, betrayal, bigotry, ruthlessness, and military genius... it's like if Hannibal Lector is President. Hitler's an evil leader that writers couldn't dream of conjuring up. Who was the evil tyrant behind World War 1? There WASN'T one. There's nobody to blame and I'm sure the thought "I'm doing this because..." is sure to be reacquainted with the player after the plotless fun bliss (a.k.a. TF2 Syndrome) isn't around to keep him away. More than that, what CAN you do? Basically, imagine a game of Gears of War 2 where everybody on one team is huddles behind a single chest-high wall, as does the other team on the other side of the map. Now imagine that everyone on the map has nothing but a lance that has no chainsaw. What happens? Everyone leaves because they're bored. It's a bad idea. World War 1 wasn't cool.

 

[The Tommy]

Yes, it would.

Please understand that I'm just trying to convey a point that many on here including the topic originator have striven to elaborate on. Dismissive comments like 'trench foot" "waiting around" and "crappy guns" become rote and annoying.

Getting back on topic is often difficult when someone just post their immediate reaction to what little history they know regressing the conversation.

 

[mayney93]

think about it

germans sitting in a trench

other forces french, english, rusian sitting in a trench

once every so often u would run back as a gas bomb would be thrown, or u have to go into no mans land either way u have a very high percentage of dying

 

[suhlEap]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

Well, you could read some of the previous posts and ideas that have suggested that the Western Front would make an interesting game scenario. But you must understand that the Great War was more than just standing around. BTW Mustard Gas was not used as often as people think. Certainly not every six seconds (yes I know that was an exaggeration).

I know that World War I's western front wasn't just standing around. It was a mess of artillery and machine guns going off while soldiers in gas masks crawled and jumped through barbed wire while tanks just blasted through (tanks were during the end of the war). And the whole time a person was trying to force their way through, they were being shot at by rather inaccurate guns. That's why nobody could win. Nobody could get past the trenches and wire, or at least, nobody could get far enough to gain any real territory.

you do have to remember that there were other parts to WW1 than just the western front. the majority of the game wouldn't necessarily be set in it.

 

[The Tommy]

You've got fighting going on in the Balkans (what was Yugoslavia) Northern Italy, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Russia, and even a bush warfare campaign in central Africa. Pretty wide scope.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

because there was no game developers around at the time! lol, na, i never really thought about it till now...

 

[That One Six]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

Well, you could read some of the previous posts and ideas that have suggested that the Western Front would make an interesting game scenario. But you must understand that the Great War was more than just standing around. BTW Mustard Gas was not used as often as people think. Certainly not every six seconds (yes I know that was an exaggeration).

I know that World War I's western front wasn't just standing around. It was a mess of artillery and machine guns going off while soldiers in gas masks crawled and jumped through barbed wire while tanks just blasted through (tanks were during the end of the war). And the whole time a person was trying to force their way through, they were being shot at by rather inaccurate guns. That's why nobody could win. Nobody could get past the trenches and wire, or at least, nobody could get far enough to gain any real territory.

you do have to remember that there were other parts to WW1 than just the western front. the majority of the game wouldn't necessarily be set in it.

I'm not saying it would be. I was just a bit annoyed at someone saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

 

[suhlEap]

WWI was much more gruesome in its western front than any part of WWII (as far as I know). Also, trench warfare would be annoying in its barbed wire and mustard gas deaths every six seconds. I don't know all that much about the Eastern Front.

Well, you could read some of the previous posts and ideas that have suggested that the Western Front would make an interesting game scenario. But you must understand that the Great War was more than just standing around. BTW Mustard Gas was not used as often as people think. Certainly not every six seconds (yes I know that was an exaggeration).

I know that World War I's western front wasn't just standing around. It was a mess of artillery and machine guns going off while soldiers in gas masks crawled and jumped through barbed wire while tanks just blasted through (tanks were during the end of the war). And the whole time a person was trying to force their way through, they were being shot at by rather inaccurate guns. That's why nobody could win. Nobody could get past the trenches and wire, or at least, nobody could get far enough to gain any real territory.

you do have to remember that there were other parts to WW1 than just the western front. the majority of the game wouldn't necessarily be set in it.

I'm not saying it would be. I was just a bit annoyed at someone saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

ah i see. well me and the tommy have been watching this thread since it started (obvious since i started it) and it gets a little frustrating that people keep giving the same reasons without reading the rest of the thread. but yeah it's all good.

 

[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.

Okay, since you decided this is so common and I'm the only one you quoted on it, I'll elaborate. A good game needs a fun gameplay style, good characters, good atmosphere, and brilliant story. World War 1 had no outstanding people of interest, the atmosphere was dull and depressing, and as far as the story goes, it was probably the most uneventful wars in history. It wasn't exciting in real life, so why would a video game be made? Level 1, you wait in trenches, level 2 you die. The End. Another thing. WWII is an amazing plot because of Hitler. Deception, betrayal, bigotry, ruthlessness, and military genius... it's like if Hannibal Lector is President. Hitler's an evil leader that writers couldn't dream of conjuring up. Who was the evil tyrant behind World War 1? There WASN'T one. There's nobody to blame and I'm sure the thought "I'm doing this because..." is sure to be reacquainted with the player after the plotless fun bliss (a.k.a. TF2 Syndrome) isn't around to keep him away. More than that, what CAN you do? Basically, imagine a game of Gears of War 2 where everybody on one team is huddles behind a single chest-high wall, as does the other team on the other side of the map. Now imagine that everyone on the map has nothing but a lance that has no chainsaw. What happens? Everyone leaves because they're bored. It's a bad idea. World War 1 wasn't cool.

You haven't mentioned anything about trench raids, fierce hand to hand combat, underground combat (i.e. mining), machine guns both of light and heavy variants, rifles, rifle grenades, trench mortars, fire and maneuver tactics, stormtroopers, prisoner snatching, sniping, street combat, open field combat, flamethrowers, etc.

Yes there was no fixed evil in WWI but that opens things for a personal story!

 

[Catfoot]

Isnt it because they used like horses and Tin can style tanks in those days?
WWII Gets a lot of coverage because it was the first fully mechanised war with every soldier having a gun, Tanks on the battle field, Aeroplanes now involving in warfare. It just alot more horrible than the 5 minute reload time of muskets...
Would you like to play a reloading minigame for a minute or two after every shot? Me neither.
Thats just off the top of my head so its not totally accurate

 

[Wadders]

Okay, since you decided this is so common and I'm the only one you quoted on it, I'll elaborate. A good game needs a fun gameplay style, good characters, good atmosphere, and brilliant story. World War 1 had no outstanding people of interest, the atmosphere was dull and depressing, and as far as the story goes, it was probably the most uneventful wars in history. It wasn't exciting in real life, so why would a video game be made? Level 1, you wait in trenches, level 2 you die. The End. Another thing. WWII is an amazing plot because of Hitler. Deception, betrayal, bigotry, ruthlessness, and military genius... it's like if Hannibal Lector is President. Hitler's an evil leader that writers couldn't dream of conjuring up. Who was the evil tyrant behind World War 1? There WASN'T one. There's nobody to blame and I'm sure the thought "I'm doing this because..." is sure to be reacquainted with the player after the plotless fun bliss (a.k.a. TF2 Syndrome) isn't around to keep him away. More than that, what CAN you do? Basically, imagine a game of Gears of War 2 where everybody on one team is huddles behind a single chest-high wall, as does the other team on the other side of the map. Now imagine that everyone on the map has nothing but a lance that has no chainsaw. What happens? Everyone leaves because they're bored. It's a bad idea. World War 1 wasn't cool.

I have some advice. I'll write it in 3 easy steps.

1. Find a history book pertaining to WW1. Any of these [http://www.amazon.co.uk/world-war-one/s/qid=1251153487/ref=sr_nr_i_0?ie=UTF8&rs=&keywords=world%20war%20one&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aworld%20war%20one%2Ci%3Astripbooks] will do.
2. Read it.
3. Realise what you just wrote was total bollocks. "most uneventful war in history" "no outstanding people of interest" you say? My arse.

I won't go into further detail about why you need to brush up on your histoy, as I am not responsible for your ignorance.

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.

I feel sorry for ya, holding the fort against nutters like this guy. If old guns suck, then why has the new Call of Jaurez been praised? Lever action rifles and revolvers are far older than the weapons used in WW1, but they haven't hindered the games success.

 

[maninahat]

I think the sole reason why there is a lack of WWI games is because there is a general lack of recent World war I related films to generate interest. Hollywood is disinterested in the idea of a war in which the "enemy" aren't unambiguously evil, where America joined later than in WWII so have less to write about, and where there is far less scope to "glamorise" conflict.

Saying that, a spy related game, or one based in the colonies, would be great in a WWI setting. That takes the setting away from disease ridden trenches and into base complexes, urban areas, jungles, deserts and pretty much anywhere exotic. There wold be huge scope, and very varied gameplay.