WWI Shooter?

[Saskwach]

Really, I only see this working if it doesn't adhere to modern genres. I'd imagine playing an officer/trench commander would be pretty fun, where you'd get your rifle and sidearm and be in charge of everyone else in the trench. You could order a charge, retreat, fire your gun FPS-style, mess with formations, and actually manage life inside a trench network.

Say you're playing on the far end of the trench and it's your job to keep the enemy from attacking your exposed side. You'd have to be able to shoot, get a message to the middle that you're being attacked, get your troops aligned to properly repel the charge, and organize a counter attack. It would be far less run-and-gun than a typical FPS and would focus more on decision making than twitch combat. Almost an RTS, but you're eye-level with the field and your resources come once a month.

You know, I've played and enjoyed a game with that same general format, except it was a Third-person instead of a first-person shooter. It's called Battalion Wars, and it was for the Purple Lunchbox. It's part of the Nintendo Wars series (I.E. Advance Wars), and you play as one of the many units in your battalion while directly controlling all the others. So you control tanks, planes, and infantry, and it worked fairly well...

I hadn't thought of a WWI game that way before, and it might turn out better than a plain FPS...



But I would like to say one thing to everyone who cries out about Trenchfoot and machine guns...

You would rather take on an entire platoon of Brutes and Grunts by yourself, or the monsterous Brumak with a friend, than take on some paltry earthwork defenses with countless other soldiers at your side? Not only are you guys wusses, you're Hipocritical and just sad. Indeed, WWI wasn't about heroism and machoism, which is why it is a story that should be told. In an era applauding games that make you question your morals as a gamer like in Bioshock, or entire levels devoted to you DYING like CoD4, why CAN'T there be a WWI shooter at all?

It's just amazing that no-one has bothered trying to make one, and I just wanted to bring that to light without hearing "Trench warfare sux!!"

Hypocritical and sad for disagreeing? Nice, just nice. I notice that all the games you mentioned were either a)fantastical, b)involved automatic weapons and a modern form of warfare and/or c)set the player apart and above his more mundane comrades. None of these are possible in a WW1 game.
Oh, and the dying level was hardly a level; it was short and it had no gameplay to speak of. It was a message thing. Messages are great but I ain't paying for only messages in my game box.

Alright, I admit I was being a bit harsh, and could have better crafted my reply. But I'm certain most of you are thinking of being a one-man army

Fair enough, I see your point. Still, without some addition to the FPS genre, the one man army is the only interesting way to go because games are all about agency and power. We've looked at some ways to do that, but their common thread is that they are more than just FPSes. Some are,
FPTS: FP Tactical Shooter, with orders and field command and all
FPAS: First Person Ambulance Shooter
FPS: First Person Sniper, which would be much more boring than most other sniper settings- trench warfare strikes again. Stalingrad would be MUCH better, for example.
So FPSes might work but they would be radically different from the norm and they probably wouldn't even be straight FPSes.

 

[dekkarax]

I can just imagine one thing in a WW1 shooter: brown. I think we all have enough brown and grey war shooters for now. The napoleonic wars, now THAT'S a concept.

 

[TheIr0nMike]

I'm a bit skeptical. Unless there is an option in which you can pilot a plane or the developer is going to ignore the way World War I was fought and only use the weapons and countries that fought, it would probably be boring and repetitive.

 

[Owlkeeper]

But seriously, how many people know why the WW1 started, what it was about, and who were involved?

Well you see; it all started when Serbian nationals, thinking Austria-Hungary were holding them back, ran up to Franz Ferdinand and shot him. Now Europe at this time was a powder keg, because apparently if Europeans go to long without a good old fashioned war, they explode or something. So every country in Europe is making alliances, and generally giving the finger to other countries in a desperate attempt to prove who can piss the furthest without actually shooting. Anyways, when Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia, the Russians declared war. See the Russians had this thing about Balkans, and never missed a war in there. Germany had a few years ago tied their hands to Austria when they signed the reassurance treaty, so when Russia invaded, Germany had to invade Russia. Now due to the Entente alliance, this also meant war with England and France. This puts the first 6 countries in the war. Eventually Japan and Italy will join in when the allied powers (that's England's side) promise some nice territories for them. England calls up it's colonies: India, Candida, ect. for help. Bulgaria joins Austria's side, and so does Turkey. America intercepts a telegram where Germany promises Mexico help if they invade America, and then the yellow press does the rest and America joins in.

Did I miss anyone?

 

[Force Feedback Codpiece]

WWI would be great and it could work.

MASSIVE BAYONET CHAAAAAAAARGE

 

[Anarchemitis]

If there was going to be a WWI shooter, it would better be realistic and gritty. If it would try and glorify the war's butchery, then it would be a travesty to gaming more horrific than Custer's Revenge.

 

[TheSteamPunk]

If there was going to be a WWI shooter, it would better be realistic and gritty. If it would try and glorify the war's butchery, then it would be a travesty to gaming more horrific than Custer's Revenge.

True that...

After a disscusion with an aquaintance of mine, I get the feeling a MMO WWI FPS(/TPS) RTS might work...

The mechanics for each individual is by and large the same as other shooting games. The interesting part is when you've accumulated enough kills: You can be promoted to actual military rankings such as sargent, lietenant, etc. In such a position, you can adjust where the artillery in your area fires, the respawn points in your section of trenches, and others. If you win enough smaller-scale battles using tactics, you can commandeer larger and larger sections of the fight, doling out instructions to different parts of the battlefied in an almost top-down view.

The frontlines would be dynamic, with a the map divvied up into squares, each of which can be controled by either side or wher the fighting might be currently taking place. If an advance is mounted and exploited, the fight might very well carry into a city or even the capital. Holding various territories would give certain benefits. Capturing a rail-station, for example would result in faster respawn-rates for units in the immediate areas surrounding it. Taking an industrial center might result in more ammo, grenades, or tanks.

That's all I've got so far, but it sound pretty awesome to me

 

[G1eet]

If there was going to be a WWI shooter, it would better be realistic and gritty. If it would try and glorify the war's butchery, then it would be a travesty to gaming more horrific than Custer's Revenge.

True that...

After a disscusion with an aquaintance of mine, I get the feeling a MMO WWI FPS(/TPS) RTS might work...

The mechanics for each individual is by and large the same as other shooting games. The interesting part is when you've accumulated enough kills: You can be promoted to actual military rankings such as sargent, lietenant, etc. In such a position, you can adjust where the artillery in your area fires, the respawn points in your section of trenches, and others. If you win enough smaller-scale battles using tactics, you can commandeer larger and larger sections of the fight, doling out instructions to different parts of the battlefied in an almost top-down view.

The frontlines would be dynamic, with a the map divvied up into squares, each of which can be controled by either side or wher the fighting might be currently taking place. If an advance is mounted and exploited, the fight might very well carry into a city or even the capital. Holding various territories would give certain benefits. Capturing a rail-station, for example would result in faster respawn-rates for units in the immediate areas surrounding it. Taking an industrial center might result in more ammo, grenades, or tanks.

That's all I've got so far, but it sound pretty awesome to me

in the first person view you'd have to deal with rats. and during/after battles, you'd need to take a look at your good ol' trench foot.
the battles would take forever though. unless they subdivided them, like in waves.

 

[Sisyphus0]

If someone makes a ww1 game it should be slow and intense. Not run and gun. It should be something like a hardcore tactical online mission in Arma ACE combat that takes a few hours to do. Or, something like Red Orchestra. Something slow with one hit kills from nearly all weapons, and constant falling artillery that blurs your vision. A WW1 game could make a great fps simulator, but it seems unlikely that there are any besides one or two current developers that could do it right.

 

[JoeVenezuela]

I am planning to make a WWI game, and i had think in almost all the issues.
Guns: Is true that the lack of Sub Machineguns makes the troops to defend more than attack, however, italy had a Submachine gun by 1915 (Villar perosa) and the ovp and beretta smg by 1918. Germany the MP18 by 1918. Also, there are a lot of guns that people love from several games like the BAR (USA), M2 .50 cal (1918. USA), the Mosin Nagant (Russian Empire, later the USSR), etc. So the infantry guns are not the problem.
In WWI the were a lot of accion in the aviation and navy. (there are several games about the Red Baron for example...) and about the trench warfare: Yes, it is VERY hard pass no man´s land, but it is not impossible, actually, the reason why the Germans invented this:
http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/65/Arty08.jpg
was because ONCE you get in the enemie´s trench, a bayonet is not going to help you so much.
Also, the U.S. army dont call this baybe ¨Trench Gun¨ for nothing:
http://www.superdrummy.com/trenchgun.JPG
*But Joe, WWI guns are booring
-Have you play NecroVision yet?

Also, in the Western front, there were some inventions that made the chargeing worth it. A perfect example, my personal favorite: http://www.daimler.co.uk/daimlermodels/images/Daimler_militery/mk1tank2.jpg
I would like to see if the German machine guns will feel so confident againts them.

Finally, smoke screens should make attacks easier, however, i dont know if they were invented by WWI.

 

[Miumaru]

A WW1 game that isnt just waiting in a trench would have to be a tank game.

 

[Judgement101]

Hmmmmm, sounds like a camper fest. Teach patience, timing, reflex, and most of all swearing.

 

[JoeVenezuela]

It would be great, its not just trench warfare, its also fighing in towns, charging at people and conquering fortifications! It would be great,especially cause you have semi automatic guns and cannons, and BAYONETS!

If there was going to be a WWI shooter, it would better be realistic and gritty. If it would try and glorify the war's butchery, then it would be a travesty to gaming more horrific than Custer's Revenge.

True that...

After a disscusion with an aquaintance of mine, I get the feeling a MMO WWI FPS(/TPS) RTS might work...

The mechanics for each individual is by and large the same as other shooting games. The interesting part is when you've accumulated enough kills: You can be promoted to actual military rankings such as sargent, lietenant, etc. In such a position, you can adjust where the artillery in your area fires, the respawn points in your section of trenches, and others. If you win enough smaller-scale battles using tactics, you can commandeer larger and larger sections of the fight, doling out instructions to different parts of the battlefied in an almost top-down view.

The frontlines would be dynamic, with a the map divvied up into squares, each of which can be controled by either side or wher the fighting might be currently taking place. If an advance is mounted and exploited, the fight might very well carry into a city or even the capital. Holding various territories would give certain benefits. Capturing a rail-station, for example would result in faster respawn-rates for units in the immediate areas surrounding it. Taking an industrial center might result in more ammo, grenades, or tanks.

That's all I've got so far, but it sound pretty awesome to me

Dear lord.... you just had the same idea than me (with the diference that i was going to make it at a smaller scale) you must die...

 

[Nouw]

I know that game! Looks kinda stupid though.

 

[JoeVenezuela]

NecroVision? It is fun, but it would be a lot cooler without the satanic/demmon/over helled plot.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think the problem with a game set in World War 1 was simply that the war suffered from a distninct lack of effective maneuver. It took most of the war for generals to figure out how actually win a battle after all. If one had an FPS set in the era, it would realistcally amount to sitting around for 20 hours of your position being shelled, followed by shooting people as they ran across no-mans land, followed by a counter-attack that would inevitably get you killed or forced into retreat.

An RTS game would fair no better. You would throw men into the grinder, take a line of trenches or two before the assault lost steam and you were forced back with a handful of your force intact.

A specialized FPS where you played a sniper could be possible, but much of the game would amount to little more than a carnival game where targets peek over the trench only to be shot.

If you ignore the major battles and instead focused on something else like the espionage aspect, you could probably have a decent game premise.

 

[JoeVenezuela]

The U.S. army was cool in WWI, but sometimes is over rated. Dont get me wrong, the BAR was awesome and the Colt 1911 but the U.S. did not have tanks, they had to use French tanks in WWI. Also, the M1 Garant was not invented by WWI, it was invented in the 30s. The French had an semi-auto rifle by WWI however: http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl29-e.htm

 

[squid5580]

Gas Mask Quick time anyone?

YES! Or, even better, a gas-mask toggle: so you can take it on and off at will.

And a random QTE every 5- 10 minutes to see if you die from any number of diseases. Fail and it erases all your checkpoints and you get to start again with a new (but different) character.

Oh and it has to have realistic damage. If you get your leg shot off or something you get to spend the rest of the war in a hospital playing those random QTEs.