WWI Shooter?

[TheSteamPunk]

I think if some hippy artistic game developer wanted to make an anti-war statement with a game, a WWI game would work quite well. I actually have a few concepts for one. You have to survive on the front in a trench. You're just a grunt, you're ordered to do stupid things like charge an enemy machine gun and you do them. There would be occasional battles broken by long periods of sitting around doing nothing, getting shelled and running desperately to the bunkers, stumbling into pits of mustard gas, and other fun stuff like that. I never decided whether to make it winnable or not.

I've thought about that, too: if you are playing through the story mode and you die in a certian mission, that's it. You die, death screen plays, short intro, next mission starts. Period. This takes out the fact you are FORCED to sit in the trenches to play through the story. Instead, the reward is actually surviving the war itself, completeing the mission, WINNING. Which is how games really ought to be when you think about it...

The problem would be that trench warfare is pretty bad material for videogames.

You sit in a wet trench for four hours. You run out. You get hosed down by gatling gun fire.

Not much fun, is it?

Actually, they used Maxim guns, but the guns of Dr. Richard M. Gatling would make it even better. (He doctored in dentistry, by the way...)

 

[Saskwach]

I think if some hippy artistic game developer wanted to make an anti-war statement with a game, a WWI game would work quite well. I actually have a few concepts for one. You have to survive on the front in a trench. You're just a grunt, you're ordered to do stupid things like charge an enemy machine gun and you do them. There would be occasional battles broken by long periods of sitting around doing nothing, getting shelled and running desperately to the bunkers, stumbling into pits of mustard gas, and other fun stuff like that. I never decided whether to make it winnable or not.

If you're trying to do a statement game then don't make a win condition. Just string along a whole bunch of repeated silly objectives until the player dies. If you want to be a bit more accurate, though, you could say that after x objectives that the player has survived the war. No victory, no grand speech about freedom and liberty, (actually that could work in an ironic manner) just "you survived the war".

Guys, It would be really boring. WW1 was just a bunch of hiding in trenches and waiting for the enemy to make some stupid mad dash towards you so that you can pick them off with you machine guns. There wasn't much urban warfare or FPS type warfare. WW1 was a trench war. It had sniping, artillery, and hiding.

On the western front, yes. That's the MAJOR opposition I see mentally for a WWI game: People only think about the Western front. There's also the Eastern Front, where nearly NO trenches were dug, The invasion of Galipoli, hopping on the first tanks, or hopping from from artillery crater to artillery crater as a German sturmtrupper.

That's right, you should be able to play as the Germans. [Dramatic Pause] In all honesty, that's part of what seperates WWI from WWII: There were no real "bad" or "good" guys, or any real point for fighting the war in the first place. And displaying the war from both sides would be an interesting change, no?

Now I could be wrong but I'm near certain Galipoli was a trench battle too. Can't say about the other theatres though.
Something about trench warfare has gotten me excited. It doesn't make sense.

 

[TheSteamPunk]

Now I could be wrong but I'm near certain Galipoli was a trench battle too. Can't say about the other theatres though.

*Ahem*

The battle of Gallipoli was a near miss by the British Commonwealth to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war (which, i regret to inform, was not a magical kingdom of leg-rests). The actual ground campaign began with an amphibious assault of 75,000 men made up mostly by Australians and New Zealanders. After establishing a beachead, the initial assault was beaten back by turkish counterattacks. On the 6th and 7th of August, 1915, the Anzac troops staged an assault on the Sari Bair mountians, which failed by only the narrowest of margins. Eventually, Allied troops were forced to withdraw.

So in short think the D-day invasion with Aussies instead of Americans, up against Muslims (Without dynamite jackets) instead of Nazis, on the beaches of Turkey instead of France, culminating with an assault on a mountain.

If that's not epic, then what is.

 

[purifiedinfire]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

 

[TheSteamPunk]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

 

[Saskwach]

Now I could be wrong but I'm near certain Galipoli was a trench battle too. Can't say about the other theatres though.

*Ahem*

The battle of Gallipoli was a near miss by the British Commonwealth to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war (which, i regret to inform, was not a magical kingdom of leg-rests). The actual ground campaign began with an amphibious assault of 75,000 men made up mostly by Australians and New Zealanders. After establishing a beachead, the initial assault was beaten back by turkish counterattacks. On the 6th and 7th of August, 1915, the Anzac troops staged an assault on the Sari Bair mountians, which failed by only the narrowest of margins. Eventually, Allied troops were forced to withdraw.

So in short think the D-day invasion with Aussies instead of Americans, up against Muslims (Without dynamite jackets) instead of Nazis, on the beaches of Turkey instead of France, culminating with an assault on a mountain.

If that's not epic, then what is.

Yes there was amphibious assualts and some mixing up but I know all this stuff and what I meant was that by and large I'm pretty dure it was trench warfare. Over mountains as I said but still trench warfare. Hell even the landings were the kind of one-sided massacres we associate with trench warfare. To design it much different to trench warfare would be misrepresentative.

A stalemate set in at Anzac with the opposing front lines closely interlocked. By 1 May, 27,000 Australian troops had been landed at Anzac but they still did not have the numbers, heavy artillery or tactical means to end the deadlock. Exposed to continual enemy fire, the Anzacs clung to their tenuous beachhead, unable to either break out of the Turkish encirclement or safely break off the engagement.

In early-May a force of 5,000 Anzac troops was sent by sea from Anzac to Helles to assist the British forces to break out of the Helles position. The 2nd Australian Brigade suffered 1,056 casualties and the New Zealand Brigade about 750 casualties in this operation which achieved nothing.

On 19 May the Turks launched a massive counter-attack on the Anzac line. They committed their entire force of over four divisions ( about 42,000 men ) in an attempt to push the invaders into the sea. The Allies met them with devastating machine-gun and rifle fire and naval gunfire support and the attack became a slaughter. The Turks suffered about 10,000 casualties, including 3,000 killed. Australian losses were 628, including 160 killed.

As the summer heat increased during June and July, the physical condition of the Anzac troops deteriorated further. Plagues of flies infested the battlefield and men were tormented by lice, gaining only temporary relief through regular bathing in the sea. Dysentery, diarrhoea and enteric fever were endemic and the trickle of reinforcements barely kept pace with the constant wastage from death, wounds and disease. By the end of July, the force was losing through illness the same number every fortnight as were lost in the initial landing assault.

So it was mainly trench warfare with all the baggage that term brings to mind. Having said that, you inspired me to read some more and here's something that might work.

The intensity of the fighting and the close proximity of the Turkish trenches gave Anzac a human dimension almost entirely lacking from the warfare of the Western Front.

After the attack of 19 May there were no large-scale battles at Anzac for nearly three months. The warfare consisted of trench bafftes in the front line posts, counter-attacks and raids, and bombing and sniping duels.

All in all I think the Galipoli campaign would help but not save a WW1 game from its central problems: that it's slower, less personally heroic and less popular than WW2. Even Galipoli would only sell the game in Oz and NZ anyway.

 

[TheSteamPunk]

The actual fighting in trench warfare was extremely intense: it could take you five seconds to find another target. Also, the Eastern front (between Russia and Germany) had very few trenches at all, since the ground was too hard to dig into effectively.

However, I'm not a game developer, so I'm not exactly sure how everything might balance out: I'm just trying to spread the word, make it known that there's something that hasn't been done, and how it could work

 

[purifiedinfire]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

im not saying its not a cool idea. but most people who play shooters arent the same people who like to strategize and, well, aim. the whole point of the multiplayer in games like halo and CoD4 is to blow crap up. I just dont see people buying a slow-paced shooter.

plus, how good was the Civil War shooter anyway?

 

[Saskwach]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

im not saying its not a cool idea. but most people who play shooters arent the same people who like to strategize and, well, aim. the whole point of the multiplayer in games like halo and CoD4 is to blow crap up. I just dont see people buying a slow-paced shooter.

plus, how good was the Civil War shooter anyway?

This is the point. It's not that it couldn't possibly work -if you ignored how the average soldier lived, fought and died- but that it would be so slow-paced a shooter as to be hopelessly niche, even if it was good. Let's forget how hard making such a game good would be.

 

[purifiedinfire]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

im not saying its not a cool idea. but most people who play shooters arent the same people who like to strategize and, well, aim. the whole point of the multiplayer in games like halo and CoD4 is to blow crap up. I just dont see people buying a slow-paced shooter.

plus, how good was the Civil War shooter anyway?

This is the point. It's not that it couldn't possibly work -if you ignored how the average soldier lived, fought and died- but that it would be so slow-paced a shooter as to be hopelessly niche, even if it was good. Let's forget how hard making such a game good would be.

id buy it, or at least play it. it'd have to be the next best thing to jesus to be popular though.

Lets make this quote box as big and obnoxius as possible.

 

[TheSteamPunk]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

im not saying its not a cool idea. but most people who play shooters arent the same people who like to strategize and, well, aim. the whole point of the multiplayer in games like halo and CoD4 is to blow crap up. I just dont see people buying a slow-paced shooter.

plus, how good was the Civil War shooter anyway?

This is the point. It's not that it couldn't possibly work -if you ignored how the average soldier lived, fought and died- but that it would be so slow-paced a shooter as to be hopelessly niche, even if it was good. Let's forget how hard making such a game good would be.

id buy it, or at least play it. it'd have to be the next best thing to jesus to be popular though.

Lets make this quote box as big and obnoxius as possible.

Yea, verily

 

[Saskwach]

there wont be one for the same reason there will never be a revolutionary war shooter. the weapons are good enough to keep anyone interested. for those of you who are saying it should be an RTS, if im not mistaken (and i could be, im no professional), thefirst person shooter genre is dominant in the gaming industry right now while RTS's (with the exception of a few gems) are dying out. noone would spend money to make a risky game in a dying genre, and if they made it a shooter it'd be too slow paced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as well, but isn't one of the best guns in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor a bolt-action rifle? And heck, the History channel had the cajones to make a Civil War shooter, so why not a WWI game? Maybe a few tweaks here and there with the guns, but it certianly makes you think more about where you're putting your bullet as apposed to the dogma of "Frag, Spray, and Pray."

im not saying its not a cool idea. but most people who play shooters arent the same people who like to strategize and, well, aim. the whole point of the multiplayer in games like halo and CoD4 is to blow crap up. I just dont see people buying a slow-paced shooter.

plus, how good was the Civil War shooter anyway?

This is the point. It's not that it couldn't possibly work -if you ignored how the average soldier lived, fought and died- but that it would be so slow-paced a shooter as to be hopelessly niche, even if it was good. Let's forget how hard making such a game good would be.

id buy it, or at least play it. it'd have to be the next best thing to jesus to be popular though.

Lets make this quote box as big and obnoxius as possible.

I'd buy it too if it dealt with the limitations well and especially if Galipoli was in there. Some other non-Galipoli Anzac battles would be nice too. Sometimes we think Galipoli was the war down here.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Let me phrase how your game would go:
Gamer001 JOINED GAME
(You stand up and get shot by a sniper and die)
Gamer001 SPAWNED
(You stand up and get shot by a machine gun and die)
Gamer001 SPAWNED
(You do not stand up and you get killed by Artillery)
Gamer001 LEFT GAME

The horrors of that war come from sheer numbers of people who die because there is no real effective method of countering both-sided trench warfare. You can't stand up and sometimes you can't sit down, lest you get shot, shot, shot, exploded, shot again or gassed.

 

[m_jim]

Didn't The Darkness have a sort of twisted, WW1-style trench warfare segment? I didn't play it, but I remember reading about it and thought that it's surreal handling of it might be intriguing. However, this is a topic that comes up repeatedly in gamer circles, the answer always comes back to "trench warfare is horrible." Read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and tell me if that sounds fun.

 

[Boonesbane]

I just don't see how a WW1 game would work. The soldiers had about 8 bullets a day to fire, most of the time was spent sitting around in trenches, the game would either be plain boring or so unbelievably inaccurate it wouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

It'd be tough to do a WW1 shooter justice, but I think it could be done; there were lots of trench raids during the static times, and in the very early and very late parts of the war there was some war of maneuver happening. (Heck, you could even do a "stand-to" in a trench as the training level.)

Still, it'd be really difficult to draw in players with a WW1 shooter as typical Joes-in-the-street think it'd be a meat grinder game. If you want to make a game in that era, flight combat or a navy sim or a Diplomacy-type games would draw more of an audience.

-- Steve

 

[Luka5]

Some of the ideas you guys have produced make me think a WW1 shooter could work. I think however, (which is often the case in such games) historical aspects need to be "altered" for the sake of gameplay and replayability.

 

[Mr.Expendable]

The only aspect of the fyrst world war that's exciting enought to base a game on is I thing the Air Combat. It's inovation at the time was spectacular and excitement, thrilling.