why are there no WW1 games?
- Thread starter suhlEap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
would it necessarily have to have an evil force as such. i mean, take dynasty warriors for example. i realise it wouldn't be anywhere near the same game, but you play as one of 3 different armies, with three different ideologies. none of them are evil as such, they just want different things. surely that would sum up the armies in WW1?The Tommy said:
Wasn't there a promising WW1 in the works at some point? Was is canned?
Anyway World war 1 might be interesting, because honestly, there was no real "good side in WW1" so you could actually play as other countries apart from the staple British and American supermen( Fuck yeah!), besides games aren't just about bloody kickass shoot em up nazis, it would have moral and mature themes about men dying through disease and desertion, executions etc. i.e its actually a history goldmine!
Anyway World war 1 might be interesting, because honestly, there was no real "good side in WW1" so you could actually play as other countries apart from the staple British and American supermen( Fuck yeah!), besides games aren't just about bloody kickass shoot em up nazis, it would have moral and mature themes about men dying through disease and desertion, executions etc. i.e its actually a history goldmine!
yeah this is exactly what me and tommy have been trying to say. it doesn't need to be just like COD, which is what most people seem to be thinking.Pigletdude said:
and yeah there's a couple in production. look up 'To End All Wars', that's probably what you're thinking of.
As I've heard on this thread, the game needs a distributor. But no substantial evidence of a release date has been heard of since last year. Its too bad. The one thing I didn't like about it was I don't believe PC supported it. But that's just a personal preference.
Wadders said:Yes. Yes I do. It sounds like something out of a film, pretty epic really. Customizing your squad sounds like fun tooThe Tommy said:
Well, with trench raider missions, and runner sections (I'm quite attached to that idea now) theres plenty to be doing, as well as more orthodox fps style levels. The nay sayers have no idea
Exactly. There is plenty to explore and the main theme that pervades war themed shooters is the exhaustion over WWII games. Even though one could certainly argue that the subject hasn't been completely covered by any stretch of the imagination, WWI would serve as a great diversion from the rather ill thought run and gun formula everyone is complaining about.The Tommy said:
WWI offers the ability to try a host of game styles and would force designers to think outside normal game design. A combination of FPS and RPG elements along with both a free world concept and scripted sequences could set a new precedent in not just the war genre but gaming.
I said I was leaving, but this guy's pissing me off with nonsense, so this is my last post for sure.
Did you READ my response? What your saying has no relation with what you quoted. I said it's not "worthy of attention" because I ONLY learned about it in school. WW2 came from the first post...Wadders said:
and if you don't think a WW1 game would be better than a WW2 game, why make one??? Yes it would be original, but so was Spore. We've all learned that unique doesn't mean quality.suhlEap said:
I've already said that WW1 one was a tragedy. Half of my points on the topic of the game being a bad idea were based on the fact that it was too depressing. Honestly, it WAS a pointless war to some magnitude. The situation at hand was so miniscule that ending that many young lives was grossly unnecessary. It wasn't a wonderful moment in history, and the antithesis of such is an "uneventful crapfest" as it truly was. When I say that WW1 sucked, who do you think that the dead soldiers, and grieving families would agree with: You or me? After all that, what did they have to show? Reparation demands that led to Hitler's grudge on France and it's following invasion, that's what. I understand that you're a WW1 junkie, but it wouldn't be a good game. I love cake, but "Cake: The Game!" isn't an fun idea to me. That's of course, an exaggerating comparison, but on their own levels, their enjoyable but incompatible with quality gaming. Even if you find a way to do it, you're still struggling for playability right now. Goodbye, The Tommy. It's been nice chatting with you, but this argument is obviously going to never end if I don't pull out for good and I'm not that content with extended discussion on the topic of World War 1 games.The Tommy said:
Well that's nice that you decided to call an Armistice but I think anyone who has fought in war will say that they don't appreciate having their sacrifices called total a waste. If you knew anything about the War you'd understand that British, US, and French soldiers were cheered when they arrived after having WON!! Parades and such. But post war literature like Owen, Sassoon, Remarque, and of course memoirs by the likes of Lloyd George cast an emotional reactionary light on a war without anything to compare it to. WWII interrupted the natural flow of a war's evaluation 30 years after. So historians during the 60's took the postwar literature to heart and only deepened the idea of stupidity and senselessness that you and others hold with merely a glance understanding on the subject. While it is true that WWII was a result of unresolved issues that politicians arsed up instead of the soldiers and commanders, I'd say that you are wholly entitled to your opinion. But mind you that if you dug deeper into the subject (which you won't) you'd find that it is an incredibly fascinating era and subject. Loads of intrigue and basically an event that gave birth to the 20th century and our modern view on war in general.Arbitrary Cidin said:
BTW I take it you meant enthusiast/aspiring historian when you refer to "WWI junkie?" Glad to see you off.
Yeah, I did read it, and I read it again just now, and you don't say anything about learning about WW1 in school in that post... Either way, you're dismissing the subject as boring, just because you might need to read a book or 2 to learn a bit about it. I could go on but I wont, as it's obvious that you don't care, and as you said, it's your last post on the topic, so fair enough. Have a nice dayArbitrary Cidin said:
it was terrible people died of illness and pnuemonia poisoning whatched their dead freinds get eaten by rats and sit around waiting to die in a muddy wet hellhole, it wouldnt make for funtimes.
the only ww1 game i can really think of is some sort of horror game ive forgoten the name of.
the only ww1 game i can really think of is some sort of horror game ive forgoten the name of.
NecroVision or in other words WWI Wolfenstein. Please read earlier post regarding REAL conditions of trench warfare. Not exaggerated high school dribble. Yes there were rats, illness and shellshock. But all wars have illnesses (Malaria in the Pacific and Africa etc) and shellshock (now called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) has been around since war began. All soldiers can loose their friends.w-Jinksy said:
I personally like the idea of a World War I game. If you ask me the one thing bad about that war for being made into a game is the fact that so few people know much about it. The game could be done in a good vs. evil fashion (by including some of the horror stories about what certain nations' soldiers did to civilians or POWs) or multiple campaigns spanning both sides. Bolt action rifles were not the only thing in the trenches (LMGs, SMGs, Semi-auto rifles, and even ARs were being used). In fact the only thing world war II added to war was atom splitters and computers (everything else was in use or being tested during World War I).
Also trench warfare was not the only thing in World War I, look at the Guerrilla warfare run in German East Africa by Lettow-Vorbeck (the most successful hit and run tactics in history), Fighting in asia (both Japan and China entered World War I on the side of the Allies), and the early days of 1914 (where the war was quite mobile).
Many folks say sitting around in the trenches getting trench foot would not make a good game, well if you described D-Day as "waiting in a landing boat vomiting then getting mowed in five seconds" then that would not appear like a good game material either (you would think going over top in World War I is quite similar to the D-Day mission in so many World War II games)
The final issue I find is that many Americans think the war was boring for the US. I look at it this way: in one year the US played a key role in stopping one of the largest offensives in history, and then pushed the German Army back to where the started in just a few short months, then took St. Miheal in two days with minimal loss (the French tried earlier and lost about 60,000 total without success), and finally made sure Germany did not stay in France during the Muese-Argon offensive (the bloodiest battle in American history)
Also trench warfare was not the only thing in World War I, look at the Guerrilla warfare run in German East Africa by Lettow-Vorbeck (the most successful hit and run tactics in history), Fighting in asia (both Japan and China entered World War I on the side of the Allies), and the early days of 1914 (where the war was quite mobile).
Many folks say sitting around in the trenches getting trench foot would not make a good game, well if you described D-Day as "waiting in a landing boat vomiting then getting mowed in five seconds" then that would not appear like a good game material either (you would think going over top in World War I is quite similar to the D-Day mission in so many World War II games)
The final issue I find is that many Americans think the war was boring for the US. I look at it this way: in one year the US played a key role in stopping one of the largest offensives in history, and then pushed the German Army back to where the started in just a few short months, then took St. Miheal in two days with minimal loss (the French tried earlier and lost about 60,000 total without success), and finally made sure Germany did not stay in France during the Muese-Argon offensive (the bloodiest battle in American history)
A friend raised a good point.
A game set in WW1 would work, as opposed to a game about WW1. The problem is not really the setting but rather the narrative and gameplay.
Also another cool idea is once you finish the game, you can play it all over again as Germans, playing all the same areas from a different direction.
A game set in WW1 would work, as opposed to a game about WW1. The problem is not really the setting but rather the narrative and gameplay.
Also another cool idea is once you finish the game, you can play it all over again as Germans, playing all the same areas from a different direction.