why do no games feature 'the great war' (world war 1)

[2fish]

I tried going through all the games I have played to find the ones that were closest to what a WW1 game would be. I came up with Call of Duty and the original Oregon Trail. So there would be some charging the enemy and gun play but most of it would be what do you before the attack, plan get resources. ect.

-Leroy has trenchfoot
-You bought 1000 points of food
-You got 1000 new soldiers
-Are you ready for battle? Y/N
-Let the computer figure out the results OR I want to play?


I am sorry but I could think of no way that this would make the fast paced FPS people happy or make the RTS people happy in large. I am sure a small amount of people would play it, but not enough for the game companies to take a risk.

 

[TOGSolid]

It would pretty much be run toward the trench, run back, fight off guys charging at you, and repeat.

Not very exciting, in my opinion. Although I do want to see more World War One games (maybe a combat flight sim?).

And it's pretty god damn good. Biplanes are so much more fun than modern aircraft.

 

[Sacman]

I doubt it would be fun to sit in a trench for months before getting shot by a stray bullet while your drinking your morning coffee... and Playing as the Russians wouldn't be fun because no gamer likes losing...

 

[shootthebandit]

seriously people read the OP, everyone is talking about shooters when i clearly stated strategy games

 

[alrekr]

@wogen Necrovision is basicly what you described but with ghosts and vampires and stuff thrown into the mix

On another note wouldn't a total war version of ww1 make a decent RTS, it good even include plenty of sitroy before and after and thus not neccessarly result in the war.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Isn't WW1 technically regarded as only being won in the political sense? Since so much bad stuff went down on all sides that nobody came out without huge scars?

 

[procyonlotor]

It's not about trench warfare or visible "story arcs".

It's about the Americans not being the ones riding in to save the day.

 

[mattttherman3]

WW1 was mostly trench fighting, and there were not many truly decisive battles, WW1 was not ended by a great battle, Germany surrendered.

 

[Talon_Skywarp]

This would be the game

First 6 hours- sat in a trench getting trench foot
7-8- hide from shells
8-9- Get told by a prat of a General that walking towards the enemy will beat them
9:10- Get killed

About ten hours of game play and you would not do a damn thing

I HATE that war.

 

[shootthebandit]

This would be the game

First 6 hours- sat in a trench getting trench foot
7-8- hide from shells
8-9- Get told by a prat of a General that walking towards the enemy will beat them
9:10- Get killed

About ten hours of game play and you would not do a damn thing

I HATE that war.

read the OP, i said that an FPS wouldnt be so much fun but i was mostly refering to strategy games

 

[Daden]

Since the OP was talking about strategy games, I think a WWI game would be an excellent candidate for the Total War type of game for the following reasons:

-No clear heroes/villains would make for excellent sandbox type play, and alliances/diplomacy would play a key role.

-Battles could be fascinating to see play out, as this was a time period when horses and bayonets were used on the battlefield at the same time as motor vehicles and machine guns.

-Evolving technology could keep the game fresh with the refinement of aircraft, poison gas, tanks, machine guns, modern medicine, etc.

-Covert agents could be used to assassinate enemy leaders, sabotage fortifications, etc.

-Some of the last great naval battles before aircraft became all-important could be re-lived- this was the heyday of the battleship!

-Fighter aces could rely on a sort of experience system, as quality pilots were arguably more important than quantity at that time.

-Positioning and supply would be of prime importance, with chokes and the like being created by new trenches and creative use of old fortifications.

I know the Creative Assembly is currently working on a new Shogun game because people complained about the lack of melee in their two previous titles, but WWI is the most epic conflict I can think of that doesn't become utterly unmanageable on a grand scale in the modern era. At any rate, I think the turn-based strategy/real-time battle model would lend itself well to this conflict. It could be both visually striking and strategically challenging!

 

[Zhukov]

- Morally ambiguous compared to WWII and the Nazis.

- Less room for American characters.

- Crappier guns.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

The eastern front was very fluid with nearly no trench warfare, and the southern fron italia was also fluid(most of the fighting happening in the austrian alps) and then you have stormtroops, german soldiers specializing in penetrating deep behind enemy lines to disrupt the opposition.
There is actually much one could do to make an excellent ww1 fps.
Sadly it seems that most people think that all that happened in the war was trench warfare when that was only the western front.

 

[mr_rubino]

Because WWI didn't involve Nazis.

Ding!
No centralized story arc.

No story arc, really?

I think someone needs to to hit the history books, what WW1 didn't have is an easy to go to antagonist. The Germans at that time might have been the enemy, but they weren't straight up evil like they were in WW2.

"10 countries lose their **** and firing on one another after Serbia and Austria lose theirs" is not a story arc. I believe that is more closely described as "a cluster****".
I'd almost more readily believe Shadow Hearts's explanation that a girlyman with a funny haircut opened the vault holding all the world's malice in the first few months of the war's political unrest, thus putting everyone into Hulk-rage.

It's not about trench warfare or visible "story arcs".

It's about the Americans not being the ones riding in to save the day.

WOODROW WILSON WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A WORD WITH YOU WERE HE NOT DEAD, GOOD SIR!!!

 

[Thedayrecker]

Because digging and shooting don't make a good game.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Must video games drag every historical period through the muds of indignity kicking and screaming?

Why of course! What other purpose do they serve?! /sarcasm

 

[DiscoLenin]

As well as all of the above, you can't have a single protaganist who lasts the entire game, since a ww1 game would need to include battles such as the marne, ypres (all 3 of them), verdun and the somme to be considered "authentic" all of which had massive casualty rates.

and lets face it, most people only know about the trench warfare of ww1 and not stuff like the eastern front, gallipoli or the palestinian campaign
Seen as though most games rely on a single protaganist and main characters most(if not all) the way through, it couldn't really be an fps or an rpg.
and as for an rts, who wants to watch pretty much their entire army shot down not long after leaving the trenches?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I think it would be good if they made it a work of art like Bioshock and Shadow of the Colossus. I don't think it would be a massive seller so it won't ever be made, sadly.