alcal
surfin'
What about war in Middle East? Laurence of Arabia was cool.
Battlefield 1916
- Thread starter Danielos
- Start date
Oerdin
Deity
It would be cool but I doubt there would be much in the way of tactics and the vast majority would simply be wiped out whole sale. Personally, I'd just tell my team to stay in the trench, keep firing, keep the machine guns firing, and keep the artillery firing. I bet the game would get pretty frustrating with 14 year old idiots running around and fragging their own side out of stupidity.
salty mud
Deity
The Darkness had a cool World War I section. Although it was seriously twisted (the frontlines represent Hell itself, and all the soldiers are made of patchwork skin sowed together and speak in absurd, stupid British accents,) it still got the point across that WWI was not a nice thing. And the best thing is... it was totally unexpected!
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
WW1 had nice amounts of good vs evil as well, just no death camps. Number thematic killer is that WW1 was imperialism gone stupid, and everyone wanted to forget it immediately afterwards. Also the stagnant nature of WW1 made it pretty boring from a visceral gaming perspective; Most of the innovations of WW1 were on how to hold the line, or tactics to break a line. That and the technology of WW2 was fairly iconistic for the remainder of the 20th C, whereas WW1 saw initial forms of such technology.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
German and British battlefleets met few time, although there was only one real battle.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, WW1 had many battlefields and not all of them were static. Fighting on the Eastern front was very unlike anything on the Western front. Also, Gallipoli, the Alps, Africa and the Middle East could be fun.
[stereotype]Would the average American even heard of Kut, Tsingtao, Galipoli or even Tannenberg?
[/stereotype]A WWI Battlefield would be cool.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Sims2789
Fool me once...
Some charges could be fun, and maybe they could have some defensive missions too. They'd need to take make artillery shells less common than they really were; perhaps you could hear the sound of the shell coming and have to run or else you're likely to get hit and die.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
I used to have that game, it was awesome. Ever get 100 kills? You'd get that medal even Von Richtoffen never got.
Somehow I don't think a game where you got whipped and sodomised, and enjoyed it, would sell well. Unless you worked for Formula One.
Back to the point though, I would love to play some sort of RTS dealing with WWI. It's not just Europe, you could hit Gallipoli, the German colonies in Africa, there's all sorts of stuff you could do. Naval warfare, tracking the Emden, there's tonnes of cool material.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The game would probably be centered around avoiding trench rot and being eaten by rats while napping, as western front warfare was boring as hell.
The main reason the theme wouldn't work is because there's almost no room for the lone-hero-gunman in that kind of war. Riflemen killed almost nobody, bayonet charges leave close to zero deaths (to kill with a bayonet is beyond most humans' capacity, same with shooting with rifles). Basically it was up to grenades, gas, artillery, snipers, and machine guns to kill people.
Nevertheless, WW1 is something I find INTENSELY interesting, and would probably play such a game anyway.
The main reason the theme wouldn't work is because there's almost no room for the lone-hero-gunman in that kind of war. Riflemen killed almost nobody, bayonet charges leave close to zero deaths (to kill with a bayonet is beyond most humans' capacity, same with shooting with rifles). Basically it was up to grenades, gas, artillery, snipers, and machine guns to kill people.
Nevertheless, WW1 is something I find INTENSELY interesting, and would probably play such a game anyway.
Verbose
Deity
No real reason it wouldn't work, besides the lack or pre-packaged knowledge about situations and episodes among the potential customers of the WWII stuff relies on.
You could sortie by taxi with the Paris garrison under Gallieni to taka part in the Battle of the Marne.
Mons could be a huge sniper-game for the BEF.
You could have hth combat inside the guts of Fort Vaux at Verdun, where French and German soldiers knifed each other in the stinking, dripping darkness for control of the privies; it went on for weeks. (Remaking Sg. Kunze of the Brandenburger's exploit of capturing Fort Douaumont would be fun, but perhaps more comic relief.)
You could fight underground in the mining galleries of the Champagne front (unlike the soggy British frontline you could dig deep in Champagne).
And taking a platoon of Stormtroopers as deep into enemy lines as possible in 1918 would be way cool.
Otoh you could take command of a French fire-team at the 1917 Malmaison offensive and go give the Germans hell provided with still wet aerial reconnaissance photographs of the German positions.
Or man a tank at the Second Battle of the Marne (though machine gunning unarmed German soldiers behind the frontline might get old after a while).
And of course we would have Argonne Forest, and Bellau Wood, in there somewhere.
Maybe Japanese operations against Tsingtao on the Shandong penninsula.
You could be with von Lettow-Vorbeck and his native Ascaris in East Africa (Battle of Tana and the bees included).
Lawrence of Arabia has been mentioned.
So has Gallipoli.
Etc.
You could sortie by taxi with the Paris garrison under Gallieni to taka part in the Battle of the Marne.
Mons could be a huge sniper-game for the BEF.
You could have hth combat inside the guts of Fort Vaux at Verdun, where French and German soldiers knifed each other in the stinking, dripping darkness for control of the privies; it went on for weeks. (Remaking Sg. Kunze of the Brandenburger's exploit of capturing Fort Douaumont would be fun, but perhaps more comic relief.)
You could fight underground in the mining galleries of the Champagne front (unlike the soggy British frontline you could dig deep in Champagne).
And taking a platoon of Stormtroopers as deep into enemy lines as possible in 1918 would be way cool.
Otoh you could take command of a French fire-team at the 1917 Malmaison offensive and go give the Germans hell provided with still wet aerial reconnaissance photographs of the German positions.
Or man a tank at the Second Battle of the Marne (though machine gunning unarmed German soldiers behind the frontline might get old after a while).
And of course we would have Argonne Forest, and Bellau Wood, in there somewhere.
Maybe Japanese operations against Tsingtao on the Shandong penninsula.
You could be with von Lettow-Vorbeck and his native Ascaris in East Africa (Battle of Tana and the bees included).
Lawrence of Arabia has been mentioned.
So has Gallipoli.
Etc.
Verbose
Deity
You're absolutely right in principle. But those observations are true for the WWII FPS shooters as well. It's just not that cool to simulate how the US infantry when running into German opposition usually resorted to calling a Mother of All Artillery strikes, rather than go do something heroic. The Germans weren't too impressed by the US infantry, but had a very healthy respect for the US arty.
The only reason you couldn't take the liberties you can with WWII with WWI would be that "everyone knows" how WWI was a brutal slog, while we have been taught WWII fighting was somehow heroic (if you were on the allied side at least).
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
It has nothing to do with tactics or gaming experience. People really put too much thought into these kind of games.
A WWI FPS will toss realism for entertainment just like all the other FPS war games. A WWI FPS will be functionally no different than any other FPS out there and it would be pretty easy to make a fun WWI FPS.
The fact is WWI isn't as popular in gaming because there are way more WWII "fanboys" out there. It's as simple as that. Fanboys want WWII and they get WWII.
A WWI FPS will toss realism for entertainment just like all the other FPS war games. A WWI FPS will be functionally no different than any other FPS out there and it would be pretty easy to make a fun WWI FPS.
The fact is WWI isn't as popular in gaming because there are way more WWII "fanboys" out there. It's as simple as that. Fanboys want WWII and they get WWII.
Oerdin
Deity
Oh, yeah... Africa would be fun. You could role play marching 70 days through the jungle, 75% of your troops getting malaria, and then you have a brief fight before both sides withdraw to defensive positions.
Oerdin
Deity
There was a game called Jutland which was did just that. That had to be back in the early 90's though.
Oerdin
Deity
Oh, I just looked it up and it seems they're coming out with a new version later this year. It must be loads better then the one from the early 90's.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Oh, yeah... Africa would be fun. You could role play marching 70 days through the jungle, 75% of your troops getting malaria, and then you have a brief fight before both sides withdraw to defensive positions.
Considering that games like "Call of Duty" convinced vast amount of teenagers that WW2 was about heroism and intense combat 24/7, I don't think it would be too hard to portray the war there in a bit more dramatic way
