omg that would kick arse, even being from New Zealand i think that would be cool. also just more FPS's set around then or like the british colonial warsw would be awesome.cptjack42 said:
why are there no WW1 games?
- Thread starter suhlEap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
WWI was almost a hundred years ago, there's not much of a market for it because the target market aren't that educated about or exposed to it.
WWII is the Hollywood war and will always be the Hollywood War.
Vietnam was exposed by the media eventually as the Americans losing and just an all out failure, this is why no Vietnam war game has had that much money pumped into it, why produce something that's harder and more expensive to market when Hollywood has done half the marketing already for WW2?
This is also true of WWI.
WWII is the Hollywood war and will always be the Hollywood War.
Vietnam was exposed by the media eventually as the Americans losing and just an all out failure, this is why no Vietnam war game has had that much money pumped into it, why produce something that's harder and more expensive to market when Hollywood has done half the marketing already for WW2?
This is also true of WWI.
I have to say that you are completely right in that area. Hollywood has made a fair share of World War II movies. However, the problem game developers are now facing is the fact that too many games are being made about World War II, so they will simply have to change it up a bit. Vietnam has the problem of the tactics the Communists used and the response the US had to use to counter it, that war also has the problem of the outcome. Which leaves them with only a few modern American wars left to choose from and out of a choice of the Korean War, Spanish-American War, Desert Storm, and World War I they will probably stay close to home in terms of who vs. who and pick World War I. Also I have noticed a surge in movies about World War I over the recent years (I can think of at least 5 in the past decade) and this might be just what is needed to make that war the new video game war.
As indicated here there is plenty of room for interesting play. The problem lies in the story and design of the game with the War as the setting. You can't give the modern player the feeling that they won the war for good because we know about the results in WWII. What could be done instead is a story focused on the characters.AirACE said:
I do like the suggestions of playing other nations. Vorbeck's trek through Africa was an interesting sideshow that could make for a very obscure setting for a game on bush warfare. But war in the desert could also be accomplished. If the designers want to get really crazy with bringing in obscure areas, they can do the Japanese attack on the German port of Tsingtao in 1914.
I only read the first few pages but here's my two cents to those that find WW1 trench wars are boring....Ehem "The fall of the Ottoman Empire", they weren't exactly the nicest guys around and their battlefields weren't in deep trenches most of the time, you have desert terrain, mountain terrains, you can play a spy mission in small villages (similar to those done in France in WW2). A great designer can make any boring concept into a great gameplay or addictive ...and don't forget there's Mata Hari! The exotic dancer that caused the death of thousands of soldiers due to 1337 espionage skills! (well she did get executed but still you gotta admit she did some great damage)
again just my two cents on this
again just my two cents on this
their were heroes in a way, but sadly not for the most part, and ovcourse america didnt hav that big a hand in it, so their goes the patriotism out of the way.
but mostly cos it was considered the worst war in history and the war that ended all wars, sadly humans are incredbly pathetic, greedy, stupid beings who never learn, or atleast those at the top who get to control the normal ppl are since chances are usually they dont suffer as bad and not in the line of fire.
their would probably be less wars if there was a world rule that those at the top had to go in and fight as well instead of sending in the peons, shame itl never happen, and people will continually die for others selfish demands while believing their murdering people for the greater good :/ the human race is just a *joy* aint it :/
god only 18 yet most of the ages below 30, maybe even 20 are so bloody cynical nowadays :/ eugh, sorry for the rant
but mostly cos it was considered the worst war in history and the war that ended all wars, sadly humans are incredbly pathetic, greedy, stupid beings who never learn, or atleast those at the top who get to control the normal ppl are since chances are usually they dont suffer as bad and not in the line of fire.
their would probably be less wars if there was a world rule that those at the top had to go in and fight as well instead of sending in the peons, shame itl never happen, and people will continually die for others selfish demands while believing their murdering people for the greater good :/ the human race is just a *joy* aint it :/
god only 18 yet most of the ages below 30, maybe even 20 are so bloody cynical nowadays :/ eugh, sorry for the rant
Actually it was the civilians not the generals that were responsible for the Armistice. Men of all ranks from privates to the Supreme Allied commander were against the signing of the armistice (the top allied commander General Foch was quoted saying: "this is not peace, this is an armistice for 20 years!"). Even men who saw the war themselves and suffered from shellshock after going through it wanted to see the sacrifice of their fellows soldiers to actually not be in vain (one such example was Bruce Bairnsfather). Who can you thank for World War II? Not the generals and not the privates. World War II in truth only occured after pacifists forced a premature end to the great war. Had the Allies reached and took Berlin (which would have by all acounts occured by the end of 1919) we would never have had World War II (and saved millions of lives). By the way, most (if not all) of the Generals had seen combat, the problem was that no one had ever seen this type of warfare on such a scale (trench warfare is nothing new, but with modern technology it presented a unique challenge). The lesson of World War I is not to just prevent war where possible, but to also once started finish and finish fully. But there is not fiction in that war being the worst in history to have fought in.Droa said:
This is truly a superb observation. The one thing I'd say is that the German high Command wanted to end the war prematurely because they knew that the Allies would crush them irrevocably. The Allied leaders as you stated were under political pressure to accept the terms as war weary people (particularly the French who lost 1 million combat men) had seen enough and that any peace was acceptable.AirACE said:
Another important aspect of our modern perception of the war is that WWII interrupted that natural flow of investigation and accurate historical chronically as we have in WWII. Many WWI documents in Germany, France and Britain were destroyed during the endless bombing raids on major cities. What we often see and understand is a very biased and sided view of how stupid the war was fought. This is based off of a lot of reactionary literature that sold well in postwar period because of the shock of the worlds first complete and TOTAL world war. Only recently have historians and students begun to really uncover what the war was really about and why it was fought the way it was.
That's good news, I liked a lot of stuff in Red Orchestra, like leaning weapons on objects and that it was heavily team oriented.The Tommy said:
I thought it was more of Russians versus Germans perspective, than just solely Germans.The Tommy said:
On another note I wouldn't want to play a game about the WW1 Russian front, it makes the WW2 look like a holiday (okay maybe a slight exaggeration).