Your toughts on WW1 for games or wads ?

[Trance]

This is a neat video that I think is relevant re: Battlefield 1.

[Freaklore1]

Nice list of machine guns Tirgal,also very informative video Trance.

But yeah,i think some peoples dont know enough about WW1,there are details that you can only know if you do some research on it.

[BFG]

WW1 was a lot more vintage and interesting for video games than the over-done WW2 concept. Medal of Honor is a good series, but I really don't like 100% accurate war games, because its not something to make fun of, so if they do make WW1 games I hope it has a sci-fi, alternate dimension spin to it so its not just reality.

[Naniyue]

WWI has its share of horror and glory, so I think it should be represented in an FPS. And with all these years of WWII FPS games, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with something. Even Call of Juarez - Bound in Blood had a Civil War trench battle that felt like WWI.

[Oberron]

Opinion on Battlefield 1: it's utter crap, and all I got to say, EA still SUCKS, and I still miss the pre-late 00's EA SO badly, that my recommendation is to get BF1942, Vietnam and 2, but its servers are dead and you will face crappy AI opponents instead.

[wildweasel]

Opinion on Battlefield 1: it's utter crap, and all I got to say, EA still SUCKS, and I still miss the pre-late 00's EA SO badly, that my recommendation is to get BF1942, Vietnam and 2, but its servers are dead and you will face crappy AI opponents instead.

...That's not really on-topic, though.

I really do feel like the first World War has potential as a setting for a game, especially if all sides of the conflict get explored. Machine guns, tanks, and grenades would be available but not common, and weapons like SMGs would be available only to officers. Players would either need to get well acquainted with aiming and firing their bolt-action rifles, sit stationary to use a machine gun, or sacrifice accuracy and range for speed by using a pistol. (And hell, this means stuff like the Mauser C96 and Artillery Luger would come into fashion.)

[Freaklore1]

One other aspect of WW1 to not forget is the close range+melee combat.

Things like swords and bayonnets were used of course,but there was also stuffs like that spiky thing (i think it's a hand grenade) wich was used as a blunt weapon,and of course when it come to close range fire arms there's the trench gun 'shotgun'.

[wildweasel]

but there was also stuffs like that spiky thing (i think it's a hand grenade)

That's what is colloquially known as a trench club. Usually hand-made on the fronts, with nails, lead, or other bits of metal scrap pounded into the end to make it more dangerous.

[Big C]

Opinion on Battlefield 1: it's utter crap, and all I got to say, EA still SUCKS, and I still miss the pre-late 00's EA SO badly, that my recommendation is to get BF1942, Vietnam and 2, but its servers are dead and you will face crappy AI opponents instead.

Can you at least wait until Battlefield 1 is *out* before proclaiming your opinion as fact, mate?

[Freaklore1]

So yeah,just to inform incase some peoples like Oberon didnt understood.

This thread is not about Battlefield 1,it's to converse on the concept of World War 1 as a setting for videos games/FPS or Doom wads based on that setting.

[Freaklore1]

but there was also stuffs like that spiky thing (i think it's a hand grenade)

That's what is colloquially known as a trench club. Usually hand-made on the fronts, with nails, lead, or other bits of metal scrap pounded into the end to make it more dangerous.

Speaking of it,i found a funny video about that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Th6joy7Aw

[TheLightBad96]

Even though WW1 Would be pretty Cool to play as an FPS or Third Person Shooter at the same time I think that the Steampunk and Dieselpunk Genres would make for A very interesting and fun as fuck FPS game due to the amount of imagination that could be placed in such an adaptable universe. anachronisms be Damned you can put anything into Steampunk/Dieselpunk provided it fits the style of said universe.

Just make sure it does not suck as hard as The Order 1886, I mean it's nice to look at and some of the concepts that that game had does look interesting but with all of the walking segments/ cutscenes taking up most of the time of the game and the times that action is involved you are basically fucked if you are everywhere else but in cover.
It's Like Gears Of War but with 90% shit and no fun. hell even watching other people play it makes me feel so bored that watching paint dry and counting every single individual grass blade in my backyard seems more entertaining than playing or watching The Order 1886. (if you like the Order 1886 then I am Sorry for my Harsh Opinion)

Back to the subject of WW1 games I did find this game called necrovision to be pretty damn awesome (it's a WW1 FPS with a lot of supernatural elements). Now that i think about it video games set in WW1 or WW2 are actually a lot more interesting if you add some supernatural elements and the enemy has some really cool Techological Advanced Gear "Cough Cough The Whole Wolfenstein Series ". I mean come on, every developer wants to recreate all the historical battles of the war but I personally think that a small group of dev teams should take a leaf or two out of the Wolfenstein Series' Book

---

The reason i said a small amount of Dev Teams is because I would not want to see this setting of game become like the WW2 and Modern Warfare games,..... also this may be from a personal point of view but I DO NOT WANT VALVE TO EVER MAKE THIS KIND OF GAME because fuck valve, steam is fucking awesome but god dammit I'd Sooner Play Big Motherf**King Rigs -Over The Road Racing before playing CS,TF2 "Half-life maybe due to the fact that people i know will not shut up about it ( people I know IRL )"
(With that being said If you like TF2,CS or Halflife then I am sorry for my harsh opinion)

[Freaklore1]

[quote="Reactor"]Another problem is, the first world war had no negative or positive legends on either side. There were no Hitlers or Stalins, and none of them generals became THAT legendary, unlike Patton, Montgomery, Model, Guderian, Zhukov or Rokossovski. In short, if someone makes a WW1 game, there won't really be any big motivations for winning, as there are no big bad evil overlords to defeat.--

That is something that doesnt necessarily need to be in a video games.

Take Wolfenstein for exemple,sure Hitler does appear as a boss but what about the other Wolfenstein games that came out after that one ?

While Hitler might be mentioned a fews times,he is not the main villain in those follow ups.Most of them are always a general or a commander or scientist wich are of course fictional.

While WW1 didnt have much win or loses since it was pretty much a stalemate on every sides,that doesnt mean developpers can come up with a scenario set in that era that would be quite interesting for gamers.

[wildweasel]

Well, that doesn't stop the first World War from being romanticized; I'd imagine a lot of people are familiar with the Red Baron, or Eddie Rickenbacker, or the quintessential "flying ace" archetype.

[Freaklore1]

True,there was some legends during WW1 like the Red Baron pilot,i feel that peoples should consider looking more into that war because they seem to not be enough informed on that historical event and clearly underestimate it (except those who actually did some research on it of course).If they take a closer look at the details they might be surprised and understand that there is far more to that war than what they believe about it.

But like i said in my previous post it doesnt matter too much when it come to taking a real life event and turn it into a game,because video games are never about being 100% accurate when it come to real life things.

That's why for an era like WW2 when you see a game made about it,it's always more fictional than the real thing,like how Wolfenstein add stuffs like supernatural,mechs and undeads.

Or how that franchise and others like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor have characters,locations and items/weapons that are fictionaly created for the game wich never existed in real life,just for the sake of giving us a scenario for us to play in.

One more detail i would also add is that in some of the games based on real life events, it tend to have a scenario that is isolated,as in whatever your character do it's only in the background/behind the scenes of that event,wich tend to be kept to that one specific location with not much persons even knowing that it happened.

Doom 3 story is a perfect exemple of this,only some of the peoples on Mars knew about the demons and the dimension of Hell until that executive from Earth arrived wich forced that evil scientist to plunge the whole facility into chaos,but even at the end of the story when the main character survive you can see that the rescue team doesnt seem to know what happened wich mean that the main character will be the one to tell what unfolded.

Same thing for other games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein,Wolfenstein 2009,the older Resident Evil games and mores,they all are isolated cases so if someone make a game set during WW1 with a story mode it need to be either a isolated scenario or in the background of the actual war.

Even if certain events doesnt seem to have much impact on the war itself,they do for the player if presented in a way that make it important,like you just stopped the enemies in unleashing something dangerous that could have gave them advantage on the war (weapons or plans or scientificaly made weapons or supernatural) and save the world even if most of the world will never know what happened.