why are there no WW1 games?

[Izakflashman]

There are a few of them, but it's a war most people would rather forget about.

Don't most people want to forget most wars? lol

 

[The Cheezy One]

they could make one less of a fps more of an rpg
get troops together, assault enemy trech in a sandbox map
could be good

the darkness

Spoiler

ww1 bit was good but scared the S*** out of me when the pestilence bird squawked D:

 

[RH3INLAND.]

It'd probably work as an RTS because of all the trenches. But warfare like that wouldn't make for a decent FPS at all.

 

[O maestre]

and you all seem to forget that imperial russia and imperial japan were also doing battle during ww1, where japan continuously conquered, both russian territory and other asian countries.

Actually thats the Russo-Sino war of 1905 you're thinking of, Japan and Russia were on the same side in WW1. Yes the Japanese were on our side, thats because the British helped modernise their army, which really bit them (and us Australians even more) in the arse.

right you are, my mistake, seen one war seen them all as they say. however is the correct name sino as far as my limited knowledge of latin allows me, is a name for the chinese

 

[sonidraw]

Correct, Sino is referring to China.

Russo-Japanese War is the one between Russia and Japan.
Sino-Japanese War is the one between China and Japan.
And then we have World War I, where the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and some other folks) fought a bunch of other people (Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, and eventually Italy and the United States too).

Germany had colonies all over the world, and the eastern front of the war was also highly mobile. However, I don't really see much changing momentum in this war. The first year had the most activity on the western front, while the Russians advanced a bit in the eastern front. From that point onwards the western front mostly stagnated and the eastern front was a slow retreat for the Russians. Eventually Russia surrendered to Germany, then a year later Germany surrendered to the allies. There was some activity around Turkey too (for example, Gallipoli), but I don't see that as being any more interesting than the western front.

Plus, it doesn't involve the Americans, and that's a big killer for a relatively modern war game. :-/

 

[WolfThomas]

and you all seem to forget that imperial russia and imperial japan were also doing battle during ww1, where japan continuously conquered, both russian territory and other asian countries.

Actually thats the Russo-Sino war of 1905 you're thinking of, Japan and Russia were on the same side in WW1. Yes the Japanese were on our side, thats because the British helped modernise their army, which really bit them (and us Australians even more) in the arse.

right you are, my mistake, seen one war seen them all as they say. however is the correct name sino as far as my limited knowledge of latin allows me, is a name for the chinese

Sorry got my terms screwed up...

 

[Evilmonkeysniper0182]

playing in trenchs would suck for a game though

 

[WolfThomas]

It'd probably work as an RTS because of all the trenches. But warfare like that wouldn't make for a decent FPS at all.

I think with an emphasis on melee like in Condemned, it could work. Leaping into a trench, shovel in one hand, looted Mauser pistol in the other deflecting a bayonet stab with the shovel and then blasting the attacker.

Or a sniper level where you're stalking through no mans land picking off other snipers.

 

[RH3INLAND.]

It'd probably work as an RTS because of all the trenches. But warfare like that wouldn't make for a decent FPS at all.

I think with an emphasis on melee like in Condemned, it could work. Leaping into a trench, shovel in one hand, looted Mauser pistol in the other deflecting a bayonet stab with the shovel and then blasting the attacker.

Or a sniper level where you're stalking through no mans land picking off other snipers.

Actually that doesn't sound bad at all. I'd play that game.

 

[DiscountSkill]

I really doubt the lack of World War 1 games is due to America's late entry in the conflict. That's a pretty absurd idea. That and it's made worse by continuously being repeated over and over in posts, as if it's some grand, genius like observation. It isn't. At first, it may have been amusing though still stupid. Now it's just getting sad and old.

Ignoring from those who've used this thread as an excuse to toss out poorly veiled insults at each others hated countries, let's move on. As mentioned earlier, Iron Storm and NecroVision are two known FPS WW1 based games.

Iron Storm is set in an alternate universe where the war never ended but continued on into the 1960s where the game takes place, mixing it with new age technology with a hint of old. From what I remember, it's a blending of first and third person combat. Necrovision, from what I understand, is an FPS that takes place during the war without any alterations, minus zombies and vampires. Oh my. I think it has an Undying twist, that being magic and shooter like combat. I could be wrong. Still, it looks great.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that while some games set in WW1 do exist, they are done so in different ways, not at all in the fashion that say Call of Duty or any other traditional factual war based FPSes are.

As stated before, the weaponry that was used in that time doesn't really promote decent gameplay, nor did the tactics... IN GENERAL at least. I mean, a realistic FPS could be made and done so without the aid of sci-fi or fantasy elements but I'd imagine it'd be difficult.
But I'll relent in my rant, I think it may have crossed the line of incoherency.

 

[Blood_Lined]

There are no WWI games because A: It's not as familiarized with today's society (I know nothing about WWI myself) and B: Some guns in the game, in order to maintain realism, would have 3-5 minute reload times.

 

[Silva]

While war is never actually glorious, WWI did happen to suck a lot more than WWII. Just WWI had as many casualties as the past 300 years of war in Europe, and nothing was even accomplished! At least after WWII, everything got resolved properly instead of just making the losers do everything.

I think that's an inaccurate commentary. The extent of the tragedy in WWI was a surprise after so long since the Boar War, but the fact that it was less expected isn't enough to say it was worse. If you put the assessment into pure statistical terms, more death, destruction and especially innocent life was lost in WWII. Everything wasn't "resolved" after that conflict either - the advent of nukes and America's use of them at Hiroshima and Nagazaki lead to a widespread political paranoia that continues even now. As a consequence of this paranoia, many smaller, less necessary wars where other bombs and chemical weapons are overused, like Vietnam, the Gulf War and now the Iraq War, were encouraged into existence. In Vietnam alone, for example, more total bombs were dropped than in the entirety of WWII.

 

[SeleneRose]

Because WWI suck'd
It was just on giant deathtrap of suck

 

[Agent Larkin]

Because the gaming industry can't see beyond the Second World War

 

[Starke]

Iron Storm has been mentioned, if its not too weird that it's set in 1963 (IIRC).

Another WWI inspired item in a game was the Imperial Guard in WH40k's Dawn of War. Supposedly they're based around the whole entrenched fighting in WWI. Though your millage may vary.

I want to say there was a global strategy game based around WWI, but, I don't remember the title. It tied in with other games from the same company so you could basically play from the age of sail up through the mid 1970s. I also think I recall hearing it was possible to avert WWI in that game, but I'm not sure.

 

[sadpolice]

The Americans weren't that involved in WWI, thats why there are no games.

 

[Sewblon]

Because people are idiots.

 

[PureChaos]

no-one really known about WW1. well, they know about the war but people know more about WW2 than they do about WW1. something people tend to not know: WW2 was against the Nazis, what was WW1 against?

Well in Australia they teach us about the ANZACS but not really what the ANZACS were sent to achieve. Later on we learned that Britain screwed us over at Gallipoli and that was the point where our attachment to Britain was tested, because Britain didn't care how many Aussies or New Zealanders died. It would make a compelling game if it was made into a less fantastical game akin to Valkyria Chronicles, but I'm not sure whether it would pass censorship laws in Australia if it was done badly.

Thing is in World War I it was a trade war over the old world, and it was essentially fighting over territories for resources. It was in the time of the British Empire so naturally the Brits wanted to stop the Germans grabbing their resources. WWI is so much of an ideological minefield that there was no true enemy in it, like there was in World War II. Even the Turks at Gallipoli turned out to be normal human beings. Nazis on the other hand are easier to hate, because they did inhuman things. The Turks at Gallipoli were just ordinary Turks who were defending their turf.

i think i just learned more reading that than i did during history lessons as school. thanks.

The Americans weren't that involved in WWI, thats why there are no games.

well, the didn't get stuck in during WW2 either, they didn't want to know until Pearl Harbor got bombed.

 

[Super Jamz]

Well I think gameplay would consist of you going over the trench to take in the scenery of no man's land for a few seconds before you got shot/gassed/bombed and had reload your last save.

The kind of fighting in WW1 was so monotonous that developers have to put a twist on it in order to make it interesting. A sniper/spy/RTS style game might work, but only because it's away from the trenches.