A game we need

[Archamedes 10]

An observation of mine has revealed that there are no decent if any World War 1 games. I know world war 2 has been murdered by game companies and now they are starting to get more modern, but never has there been any games based in the great war. This goes for films too. except the old black and white films. Its probably known to be the most brutal and bloodiest war of the last century so im surprised about this. For one i guess it hasnt been done because of the limited weapons of the first world war, but I don't see this as a restriction. The second thing is it seems because it was a war that the americans were not involved in, they don't seem interested in taking it on for a game. I may be wrong on this front, however true it may be that most combat games i have played always has a strong american presence as a players point of view.

Anyone who hasnt taken the time to read up some true history on the great war or look online for real diaries of soldiers on the western front, i tell you, it really is an eye opener and a very frightening war to be a part of.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Archamedes

[JdB 151]

An observation of mine has revealed that there are no decent if any World War 1 games. I know world war 2 has been murdered by game companies and now they are starting to get more modern, but never has there been any games based in the great war. This goes for films too. except the old black and white films.

Its probably known to be the most brutal and bloodiest war of the last century so im surprised about this.

The second thing is it seems because it was a war that the americans were not involved in, they don't seem interested in taking it on for a game.

There have been some low budget titles (can't remember their names right now, which sums it up rather nicely).

As for movies, there have been plenty in color, including a lot of recent ones as well (1990 onwards). To name but a few that I've seen myself:

All Quiet on the Western Front

Joyeux Noel

Passchendaele

The Lost Battalion

Behind the Lines

Flyboys

More soldiers died in WW2 than in WW1, purely in battlefield casualties alone (not counting POWs that died/were murdered). The number of civilians deaths in WW2 was many times higher than it was in WW1. It was named the Great War because there had never been a war of this scale until then, and they thought it would never happen again. Wrong.

The Americans were involved in WW1, they joined the Allies in 1917.

Edited August 18, 2010 by JdB

[Archamedes 10]

i stand corrected for any mistakes i may have made in my original post. However its still a fact i would love to see a really good ww1 fps game that tries to capture the realism, brutallness and raw feeling of living in a wet, dirty trench with trenchfoot.

Alough i havent seen the films you listed, I think spielberg would have a field day making a saving private ryan type action film in ww1

[JdB 151]

I think it also has something to do with the lack of diversity. The basic "tactic" was to bombard the enemy trenches, walk over to their trenches and kill what remained of them. This of course almost never worked, and the casual walk ended up in running a gauntlet of artillery and machine gun fire into either the enemy's barbed wire, or back into your own trench, followed by an attack on your own trenches by the enemy, hoping to exploit the losses you suffered in the attack. Front lines were so static that building a single storyline that retains it's fun-factor from start to finish would be hard if not impossible. The only variations that I can think of in 30 seconds that would be believable situations an infantryman could find himself in are:

-Survive the gas attack;

-Laying mines in no man's land/repairing trench & barbed wire at night;

-Recon at night;

-Sniper in no man's land.

Edited August 18, 2010 by JdB

[Second 0]

I think it also has something to do with the lack of diversity. The basic "tactic" was to bombard the enemy trenches, walk over to their trenches and kill what remained of them. This of course almost never worked, and the casual walk ended up in running a gauntlet of artillery and machine gun fire into either the enemy's barbed wire, or back into your own trench, followed by an attack on your own trenches by the enemy, hoping to exploit the losses you suffered in the attack. Front lines were so static that building a single storyline that retains it's fun-factor from start to finish would be hard if not impossible. The only variations that I can think of in 30 seconds that would be believable situations an infantryman could find himself in are:

-Survive the gas attack;

-Laying mines in no man's land/repairing trench & barbed wire at night;

-Recon at night;

-Sniper in no man's land.

Typical streotype which holds truth for western allies and even with them i'd argue that it's most about shock and pessimism conserning whole systematic manslaugther after the war, which is then seen as these mindless looking charges. Problem of ww1 was in so high level that it doesn't represent it self to player so clearly (double the amount princible, which meant that one should double manpower and firepower if assault didn't provide success). Not more than mindless slaughter fields in ww2. Infact regular grunt do seem to share same points of views in both wars from veteran statements which i've read.

Late German Shock troop tactics (=stoss trupp) are essentially what todays militaries still are doing and from where they still are seeking for answers. Erwin Rommel wrote highly regarded book about his doings and tactics during ww1. It would be interesting to play a ww1 game in such perspective.

Eastern Front was much more mobile as there wasn't such change for evolution of massive fortification zones. Unlike in west, partially due lack of success for Russian Army, which kept war mobile.

The basic "tactic" was to bombard the enemy trenches, walk over to their trenches and kill what remained of them

And this is what it is today aswell. Suppress them with arty so that you can bring your men into close combat (rested) with them (who hopefully are shocked from bombardment). There's generally more focus on smallarms fire in supporting role today (as was with tactics which Rommel used). But this could hold true in most infantry combat in ww1 aswell, hardly no-one just doesn't seem to know for thinks about it because ww1 is seen as so exceptionally mindless killing field.

Only real downsides with ww1 are that weaponry at squad-platoon level was so uniform that there isn't possibility for player to masturbate over choosing his firearm from over couple rifles, carbines, pistols, SMGs, LMGs, BARs and so on. Ofcourse German Shock troops again were exception.

And another much bigger downside is ill-reputation of ww1. Which is shame.

[Ragingbear505 10]

Rise of Flight - The IL-2 of WW1 flight sims

Shells of Fury - The Silent Hunter of WW1

[insert a bunch of low budget strategy titles]

Yeah that's about all we're working with.

[sic-disaster 311]

I too would like a WW1 fps. It would be an amazing experience if done right, WW1 was a horrific war.

I'd definitely recommend reading the book All quiet on the Western front, it'll give you an insight into what life was like on the frontline. Nothing short of absolutely gruesome, a true nightmarish experience and it comes as no surprise that after this war, people finally recognized PTSD syndrome.

The minds and nerves of some soldiers were so utterly shattered that their bodies kept twitching from fear, even years after the war was over. The psychological effect was so severe it found in outlet in a bodily reaction which could not be helped or stopped.

Soldiers twitched in fear at the sight of a uniform or even had some hiding under their beds at the mere mention of the word 'bomb', even after the war was over.

As Remarque notes in the start of his book: "Even those who were not hit by bullets or bombs were destroyed by the war."

Remarque describes a lot of the things we know about WW1: being bombarded by artillery for several days to deny sleep, the feeling of a gas attack, combat madness, bayonet charges, and the emergance of the first tanks which were absolutely terrifying in his mind.

As he described: "The soldiers running at our lines are men like ourselves, the artillery is something we cannot see, but a tank is a machine, it's tracks going on as endlessly as the war, crushing the dead and wounded without emotion."

It's a book that, when your finished reading, cant have done anything else but take away any thoughts of glory in war you might have had. It's human misery at it's worst, as for a soldier in WW1 there was no escaping from.

If they werent right in the front line, they were never that far away from it either and even in rest area's you could hear the bombs of the front line bursting.

And in the lines, they slept among the dead and mangled, sometimes dead bodies were even used to reinforce the trenches so they might have some use in Death, other times they couldnt be buried so they were shoved into sleeping holes where other men would sleep.

Other bodies in No Man's Land couldnt do anything other than rot and fester, spreading disease and horrible smells drifting over the trenches. Sometimes wounded would be left behind, suffering for days.

It was a bleak, horrible life.

As for a game, it might seem uninteresting due to scenarios, however:

- the start of the war was pretty mobile, they didnt dig in right away.

- there was a race to the coast, in an attempt to flank the enemy lines to roll them up from there.

And even when the sides were dug in, there is a lot of suspense that can be reached with nightly raids on enemy trenches or forward observing posts, playing as a sniper, guarding duty while other soldiers try to dig a trench etc.

And then there is ofcourse the massive charges. Maybe even play as tank crew.

Considering the length of most games today, this seems more than enough material to make a reasonably lengthy game. It doesnt have to last for 80 hours, but it would be an amazing experience if it's done right.

If only for the educational aspect, and reminding people of this war that is largely forgotten by most people.

Edited August 18, 2010 by SiC-Disaster

[vilas 474]

in OFP you have such mod

in Arma you will have

[Archamedes 10]

Yeah thats what im talking about, a game wouldnt need to be pointless endless shooting over a trench, but more psychological and role playing. For instance, helping to dig trenches, reinforce them, preventing the spread of disease etc...

I guess in a way Arma is the same, we all concentrate mainly on the mission, getting nto hot zones and fighting. Rather than concentrating on the main duties undertaken by a soldier. That is the boredom, the long waits (sometimes up to 3 weeks) before getting an enemy contact, the long unevenftfull patrols where enemy ai is intentially not added. Vehicle inspections border control that sort of thing.

Back to WW1 alough most of the time the men where hiding behind the rotten bodies of their mates and firing endlessly into the smoke, while completely exhausted and suffering from trenchfoot, they did mundane things and day to day duties that didnt always cover shooting and bombing

[st_dux 26]

There aren't any games/movies that focus on WWI because WWI sucked. Gameplay would consist of sitting down in a trench for hours until one of two things happens:

A. You make a futile charge straight toward enemy machinegun positions and get gunned down.

B. You are about to make a futile charge when you are hit with mustard gas and die an agonizing death.

An entertaining movie or game this would not make.

WWI was so bad that even in real life no side wanted to fight it all the way through to the end. They did it for a few years, and then everyone got so tired of it that they all agreed to an armistice.

[Bomber_c 0]

Wings.

[HotShot 0]

Although cheap and arcadey, Toy Soldiers is a good WW1 game (available on xbox arcade). A more realistic and gritty infantry game of this era would be great, but unlikely to happen.

[sic-disaster 311]

There aren't any games/movies that focus on WWI because WWI sucked. Gameplay would consist of sitting down in a trench for hours until one of two things happens:

A. You make a futile charge straight toward enemy machinegun positions and get gunned down.

B. You are about to make a futile charge when you are hit with mustard gas and die an agonizing death.

An entertaining movie or game this would not make.

WWI was so bad that even in real life no side wanted to fight it all the way through to the end. They did it for a few years, and then everyone got so tired of it that they all agreed to an armistice.

Read my post.

Also, i have got to wonder how any 'real' warmovie can be entertaining.

99% of warmovies that are 'entertaining' are also 'hollywood'. (read: fake, glorified, sugarcoated. Take your pick.)

A real warmovie would not be entertaining, but much rather depressing experience that leaves a heavy impression. Anything making it look cool is just... meh, how could i put it?

One of the best warmovies i have ever seen is Warriors by Peter Kosminsky, about the British UN mission in Bosnia.

One cant call it entertaining, but damn does it leave a heavy impression. THAT's a warmovie.

As to WW1 being so bad that no side wanted to fight it out, that's not entirely true.

Sure, the soldiers at the front hated it and didnt want to be there, most of them being conscripts and pressed into service. However, the ones that survived a while blocked those thoughts out and didnt think about it after a while. They were there, that was all they were concerned about. They gave up hope of an end. After time had gone on long enough, they had no feelings regarding home anymore, as they simply were not understood by the people back home who didnt grasp, or didnt want to grasp, the reality of the war. The only ones who understood what a soldier meant, were the other soldiers.

The civilians back at home had put on a blindfold. They simply did not want to hear anything other than 'the war is glorious'.

Veterans of the war with mental complaints were shunned and put down as traitors and cowards by a lot of the people who stayed home and did not sacrifice a single thing.

Opening your mouth and telling how the war really was being fought was a truth the populace simply did not want to hear. Shut up and back into the fight, cowardly soldier! :rolleyes:

Sometimes i really wonder how much people really do their research regarding this subject.

[vilas 474]

easy, easy, you will have WW1 mod in Arma in future, now you can play in OFP

at least sit in trenches :D

[-Snafu- 77]

It could be interesting if done right but it would probably be in the spirit of the grossly inaccurate Alan Clark's The Donkeys.

Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory is an excellent history of WW1 and firmly rejects many of the myths put forward as fact. That way cheesy clichés and myths would be avoided.

[st_dux 26]

Sometimes i really wonder how much people really do their research regarding this subject.

I wonder this as well.

Anyone who's done any research on WWI would know that one of its hallmarks was advances in military technology that far outpaced advances in military tactics. The result of this was impressive defensive lines -- with new machine guns and artillery much more powerful than anything that had been seen in the past -- being attacked via bayonet charge. Even simple things like barbed wire proved to be incredibly difficult obstacles for commanders to overcome with their utterly obsolete repertoire of tactics.

Both sides on the Western Front essentially took it in turns to throw men at the other's trench line in between massive artillery barrages that could go on for days. The men in these frontal assaults were invariably slaughtered, so battles only really progressed when one side ran out of men or ammunition. Add to this futility of action things like the widespread use of poison gas on both sides and you've got a picture so fucking bleak that even Hollywood can't turn it into something entertaining.

Yes, all war is horrible. But WWI is in a class of horrible all its own, and even a halfway accurate portrayal of it as a game would be nothing but depressing and boring.

[sic-disaster 311]

Maybe it's just me, but i'd like a game that could depress me. It puts things in perspective.

I liked for example, Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway even despite the cover system etc, because the story was dark, and Baker was losing his mind and displaying symptoms of PTSD.

(I by the way LOVED HH's ending. *SPOILER* It was quite unexpected for a character to become paralized for life, instead of cliché 'get wounded and heal, or die'. It hardly occurs in games that someone gets so wounded he just wont recover. *END SPOILER*

I like a game like The Witcher, where there are no choices that are either good or bad, just different shades of dark grey.

I've read All quiet on the Western front over 6 times even though it got me down and depressed after finishing. Why? Because it is interesting.

It is interesting because when you think about it, this war asked so much of the people that fought it that you are humbled by it. Personally i think WW1 is much more interesting than WW2 exactly because of how it was fought.

As you said correctly, WW1 is a class of horrible all its own, but people like to forget. I am convinced that they should not. A game would help that, because it appeals to people more than history books.

Let me ask you a different question.

Did you appreciate ('like' isnt the appropriate word imo) Schindlers List?

I did, though it's far from entertaining it's a great movie. It is a great movie because it shows you what happened and makes you think about it.

That is what i would like to see in a game for WW1, because there are some good movies about it already.

In the end though, you dont have to play it. I would like to, because it could be a very interesting experience, letting you feel 'first hand' what it would be like to lose so much to a war, with that level of intensity.

Even if i didnt want to play it i wouldnt discourage one to make a game like that.

But there is simply no option, since there isnt any shooter that takes place in this setting other than fantasy-versions.

[Second 0]

I wonder this as well.

Anyone who's done any research on WWI would know that one of its hallmarks was advances in military technology that far outpaced advances in military tactics. The result of this was impressive defensive lines -- with new machine guns and artillery much more powerful than anything that had been seen in the past -- being attacked via bayonet charge. Even simple things like barbed wire proved to be incredibly difficult obstacles for commanders to overcome with their utterly obsolete repertoire of tactics.

Both sides on the Western Front essentially took it in turns to throw men at the other's trench line in between massive artillery barrages that could go on for days. The men in these frontal assaults were invariably slaughtered, so battles only really progressed when one side ran out of men or ammunition. Add to this futility of action things like the widespread use of poison gas on both sides and you've got a picture so fucking bleak that even Hollywood can't turn it into something entertaining.

Yes, all war is horrible. But WWI is in a class of horrible all its own, and even a halfway accurate portrayal of it as a game would be nothing but depressing and boring.

More research required, for ww1 and ww2 both. You get facts wrong, and some facts which you manage to twist true held true in ww2 as well.

[st_dux 26]

@SiC-Disaster:

I did like Schindler's List. I also liked All Quiet on the Western Front. You couldn't make a viable video game out of either of those works, however. Video games need something that keeps the gameplay going, and subject matter as dreary as WWI or the Holocaust (not to be confused with fighting the Nazis to stop the Holocaust) just doesn't have that. You might find it interesting to play though an interactive story of depression, but 99% of people would find that sort of anti-gameplay boring, so the game would fail. Video games can't get away with being purely artistic like books and some movies can; video games need gameplay.

@Second:

I didn't mention WWII a single time in the post that you quoted, so I'm not sure what lack of research you're criticizing there. As far as WWI is concerned, what facts did I "twist", exactly?

[cozza 24]

another film is Gallipoli. Not set in the Western Front of WW1 but on Gallipoli (Dont know why I just explanded that its pretty simple to guess:p )

Stars a young Mel Gibson as an Aussie soldier.

[Archamedes 10]

another film is Gallipoli. Not set in the Western Front of WW1 but on Gallipoli (Dont know why I just explanded that its pretty simple to guess:p )

Stars a young Mel Gibson as an Aussie soldier.

Surprised he would do that, being as he hates all nationalities except australian and women

[Second 0]

I didn't mention WWII a single time in the post that you quoted, so I'm not sure what lack of research you're criticizing there. As far as WWI is concerned, what facts did I "twist", exactly?

Then how in the earth is WW2 one of most popular era in games/movies/books? Because stereotypes you mentioned are just as fitting into stereotype of ww2. Saving Private Ryan?

Both sides on the Western Front essentially took it in turns to throw men at the other's trench line in between massive artillery barrages that could go on for days. The men in these frontal assaults were invariably slaughtered, so battles only really progressed when one side ran out of men or ammunition. Add to this futility of action things like the widespread use of poison gas on both sides and you've got a picture so fucking bleak that even Hollywood can't turn it into something entertaining.

Problem here is that you try to present this as whole picture of ww1, stereotype created by pessimistic artists after the war, which came popular. And it's false as all stereotypes are.

There was creativity to get upperhand of enemy and to overcome problems. Like i said Late German infantry tactics are still studied and used to day, it's one of many less known (healthy) aspects of ww1. And infact most success was usually made in early period of battle, before opponent could draw it's reserves into fighting and prevent further success.

Problems generally lied elsewhere, like in lacking tactical mobility. Which drastically improved in ww2 and gave totally new mobility and greatly improved marching speeds also after breached defenses.

[st_dux 26]

@Second:

Stereotypes are generally true: That's how they became stereotypes in the first place. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and you're right about some of the late-war tactics -- like Stormtrooper tactics, as you mentioned -- deviating from the massive frontal assault model that was used most of the time prior to 1918. But this sort of thing was very much not the general course of action during WWI, and these tactics only came about as the war was coming to a close. Generally, the Western Front was as I described -- two sides deadlocked in a war of attrition.

The kind of trench warfare that was the norm during WWI was essentially made obsolete in WWII by the development of better tanks. Infantry forces were still necessary to support these tanks -- protecting them from anti-tank fire, for example -- but they were used in a far more mobile fashion than what had generally been seen on the Western Front of WWI. The late-war tactics that developed in WWI -- which were the exception rather than the rule -- became the norm in WWII. Of course, there were still battles of pure attrition in WWII, but this kind of fighting didn't constitute 95% of the infantry combat like it did in WWI. The fact that there are far more examples of effective infantry tactics having been used in WWII than there are in WWI is why WWII has been chosen time and time again as the basis for video games while WWI has been largely ignored.

Edited August 26, 2010 by ST_Dux

[JdB 151]

Then how in the earth is WW2 one of most popular era in games/movies/books? Because stereotypes you mentioned are just as fitting into stereotype of ww2. Saving Private Ryan?

Also WW2 is considered a textbook case of good vs evil, while WW1 is considered an unnecessary war (of the size it turned out to be anyway) caused by the ambitions, arrogance and self-interest of the European monarchs.

[sudayev 27]

I'm suprised that noone mentioned - Necrovision. A very good fpp WWI game with a horror twist, from Polish devs responsible for Painkiller.

Themes: Survival horror setting. Shooting, nightmares, zombies, artillery, fire, trenches everything is included in this game. Recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NecroVisioN

The year is 1916. Young American joins UK Army to experience an adventure of his life and soon realizes that greater evil is hiding beneath the Great War storm. He has to face the underground world of vampires, demons, evil genius creatures and even become one of the demons to rescue the human and vampire kind from forces of darkness.

NecroVisioN is a First Person Shooter taking place in a variety of locations from battlefields of World War I to much darker and brutal underground world of vampires and demons. Sceneries range from realistic to dream-like, opponents from enemy troops to fantasy creatures -- old fashion look and style of the game is going to remind the world setting from the Lovecraft's horrors and seamlessly mix the war shooter elements into it. Player will fight enemies using environments, powerful and evil artifacts, vampire technology, and authentic WWI era weapons.

Another great gmae I know is WWI mod for OFP :P