It would be kickass if you enjoy simulating contracting trenchfoot after three days of lying in a mud pit and taking the occasional pot shot across an expanse of mud to hit the mud barricade of a German machinegunner covered in mud. So, yeah, if I wanted to experience mud and diseases, I'd just go to my local strip club and pay the ten extra bucks for the 'V.I.P. room'. An interesting concept, but unless is was a manager sim or RTS, it would fail horribly.
WWI Shooter?
- Thread starter TheSteamPunk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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 always wanted to see a game do an RTS/FPS with you playing as the commander in person. Even without the front-line FPS aspect it would be fascinating as you'd have to be dealing with second-hand and confused reports from the front line and make decisions based on this intel.Joe said:
I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but that's a game I would really like to watch someone else play.Saskwach said:
A WWI shooter would be a boring test of masochism as you sit in a mud-filled trench taking a bet on what will kill you first ganegreen or trench-foot. Only to be interrupted by press X to live reaction commands for you to put on your gas mask only to learn some NPC has given you the order "over the top." Then you and a horde of allies not worth the processing power wasted on their AI's as they're immediately hosed by the enemy lines of machine-gun fire.
Oh and every now and then you periodically die from artilery fire just because.
Oh and every now and then you periodically die from artilery fire just because.
I have the best idea for a game, it's about a war in space in the future, you play as a super enhanced space soldier... oh wait nvm. Seriously though i would love to see a game that makes you fight after the world was destroyed by nuclear war, not sure why i just would.
You do know what trench warfare involves right. Well pretty much it involves running like crazy at the angry end of a machine gun or sitting tight at the peaceful end of a machine gun and killing the people running at you.
But if you took the role of a trench Commander and it was your job to break the german lines (in any way possible) then that might work.
But if you took the role of a trench Commander and it was your job to break the german lines (in any way possible) then that might work.
More an Adventure game, not RTS as such.Owlkeeper said:
Can I ask why you named yourself Owlkeeper? The Escapist has a bad history with owls.
I was just thinking; Are games so realistic anyways when displaying war, tactics and guns involved? I guess it doesn't really have to be a barrier for a developer, who knows the details about WW1 in the target group?
Aside from that, another reason could be the background. People don't care as much about the WW1. They know the WW2 and Vietnam and Middle east wars much better, so it got a better appeal in the background. But seriously, how many people know why the WW1 started, what it was about, and who were involved?
Also, the amount of heroism has a part in this; WW2 is known for its great displays of heroism (at least; people know it from the series, following the truth or not) but WW1 was basically (as everyone said here) trench waiting. WW1 has a greater reputation then other wars we know that it was dirty, senseless, non-heroic, full of diseases. It just doesn't make a fun setting to play it.
When we play war games, we want a more or less action-man/heroic setting. WW1 doesn't really offer that.
Aside from that, another reason could be the background. People don't care as much about the WW1. They know the WW2 and Vietnam and Middle east wars much better, so it got a better appeal in the background. But seriously, how many people know why the WW1 started, what it was about, and who were involved?
Also, the amount of heroism has a part in this; WW2 is known for its great displays of heroism (at least; people know it from the series, following the truth or not) but WW1 was basically (as everyone said here) trench waiting. WW1 has a greater reputation then other wars we know that it was dirty, senseless, non-heroic, full of diseases. It just doesn't make a fun setting to play it.
When we play war games, we want a more or less action-man/heroic setting. WW1 doesn't really offer that.
I got an idea. Make a few maps for Call of Duty 2 of the sort of trench warfare you are after (like distance between etc.). Make it British vs Germans, Restrict all weapons except Bolt rifles (K98, Lee-Enfield) and Scopes (K98 Scopes and Lee-Enfield Scoped). With the exception of a few nuiances (which would turn out to be nuicances 
) you have the core of a WWI shooter.
Weapons of the era, The landscape etc. And if you want to make it a challenge to attack stick a few .30cal static emplacements on each side (MG42 wouldn't fit at all, and .30 cal is closer to WWI machineguns than the 42 is).
Essentially in that you have the combat sections of WWI and people wouldnt play if you modded in the (awaits /flame on) *boring* sections.
Even that i can't see being fun, the sights on the enfield in COD 2 make it inferior to the K98, same for the scoped versions so the German team would end up stacked. That is just a minor issue compared to the sheer volume of clippers there would be (if you play COD 2, you'll understand)
Thats the only way i can see WWI combat even close to working in an online FPS, plus you would have to remove the pistols from each side and a few other things. Reskin all the soldiers too, it isnt a good idea. if u want fun bolt action rifle combat play COD/2 rifles, if u want genuinely fun WWI combat then i'd say forget it.
) you have the core of a WWI shooter.Weapons of the era, The landscape etc. And if you want to make it a challenge to attack stick a few .30cal static emplacements on each side (MG42 wouldn't fit at all, and .30 cal is closer to WWI machineguns than the 42 is).
Essentially in that you have the combat sections of WWI and people wouldnt play if you modded in the (awaits /flame on) *boring* sections.
Even that i can't see being fun, the sights on the enfield in COD 2 make it inferior to the K98, same for the scoped versions so the German team would end up stacked. That is just a minor issue compared to the sheer volume of clippers there would be (if you play COD 2, you'll understand)
Thats the only way i can see WWI combat even close to working in an online FPS, plus you would have to remove the pistols from each side and a few other things. Reskin all the soldiers too, it isnt a good idea. if u want fun bolt action rifle combat play COD/2 rifles, if u want genuinely fun WWI combat then i'd say forget it.
Ive always wanted to see a WW1 game, but I dont think itd take off as a full length game like Call of Duty or something. I think it would be a good net game though, getting 30 or 40 people, make it class based, similar to Enemy Territory.
Some of the best times playing Battlefield 1942 were the Omaha beach rushes; if you got a balanced two teams, the game could go for 30 minutes and still be close
Some of the best times playing Battlefield 1942 were the Omaha beach rushes; if you got a balanced two teams, the game could go for 30 minutes and still be close
There was a World War One Mod for Battlefield 1942, I forget the name at the moment. Also while yes there does need to be realism for a FPS to succede, there also has to be concessions to playability.
War, any war WW1 is not the exception, is by definition long periods of boredom interrupted by brief moments of terror, this was true of WW1 just as much as it is of modern war. Gulf War 1 for example, spent 7 months of playing spades and baking my brains out followed by 3 days of not sleeping and constantly moving through Kuwait.
FPS tend to condense the action to make the game more playable rather than sticking to realism 100%. Also in most FPS you do not usually play average joe the grunt, you normally are some kind of Special ops, Ranger, ect.. thus cutting down the actual sitting there in a trench part. There were raids going on constantly and the early part of the war was a war of movement until it bogged down just outside Paris (Western front).
Yes the weapons for the most part had a much slower rate of fire than we are currently used to, but in a WW2 shooter the only army fielding a large number of semi-automatic rifles was the American one, most of the other armies were still using bolt action rifles as their standard weapon. Also don't forget the first SMG was fielded by the Germans near the end of the war.
War, any war WW1 is not the exception, is by definition long periods of boredom interrupted by brief moments of terror, this was true of WW1 just as much as it is of modern war. Gulf War 1 for example, spent 7 months of playing spades and baking my brains out followed by 3 days of not sleeping and constantly moving through Kuwait.
FPS tend to condense the action to make the game more playable rather than sticking to realism 100%. Also in most FPS you do not usually play average joe the grunt, you normally are some kind of Special ops, Ranger, ect.. thus cutting down the actual sitting there in a trench part. There were raids going on constantly and the early part of the war was a war of movement until it bogged down just outside Paris (Western front).
Yes the weapons for the most part had a much slower rate of fire than we are currently used to, but in a WW2 shooter the only army fielding a large number of semi-automatic rifles was the American one, most of the other armies were still using bolt action rifles as their standard weapon. Also don't forget the first SMG was fielded by the Germans near the end of the war.
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...Joe said:
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.TheSteamPunk said:
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 armySaskwach said:
I suggest looking up Darkest of Days, its a time traveling FPS, with you visiting battles that took place during the American Civil War and WW1 plus a few natural disasters such as Pompeii.
From what i hear,you're armed with period weapons, so you only use for example, muskets during a civil war battle, and enfield rifles during WW1. However, there are times you do get to break out the Futuristic Plasma Rifle to mow down some fools.
From what i hear,you're armed with period weapons, so you only use for example, muskets during a civil war battle, and enfield rifles during WW1. However, there are times you do get to break out the Futuristic Plasma Rifle to mow down some fools
.