So I was thinking...

Giovanni · 2006-06-05, 10:22 PM

And thinking never leads to anything good for me but what the hell?!

I was wondering why the hell is there no WWI games out there? Atleast... none that I know of. I know it was a trench war and all but it could fun.... no?

Rbstr · 2006-06-05, 10:23 PM

You get either a machine gun, or a bolt action rifle. With or without and internal magazine.

And lots of artilery.

In trenches, with mud, and rats, and rotting people.

If you stick your head up into no man's land, it ceases to exist.

Kinda boring.

Giovanni · 2006-06-05, 10:37 PM

Bah! If in medal of honor you can kill the entire german army on your own I'm sure we could do some creative thinking with WWI

!

Setari · 2006-06-05, 11:47 PM

There's a HL1 mod called The Trenches, obviously based on WWI, and it's extremely fun. Essentially, it's CTF where the flags are surrounded by trenches and everyone gets bolt rifles, but I find it great fun.

Kikinchikin · 2006-06-06, 12:57 AM

This is just me thinking at 2 am, but why not make it almost a strategy-fps combination game. Like you build your own trenches and bases or something and then move the troops, artillery, tanks/vehicles etc into positions and then fight it out in first person. Online, the game wouldn't really be much different from a standard WWII shooter except the guns would of course be WWI weapons, although you could still incorporate the strategy into league play perhaps.

321 · 2006-06-06, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Setari

There's a HL1 mod called The Trenches, obviously based on WWI, and it's extremely fun. Essentially, it's CTF where the flags are surrounded by trenches and everyone gets bolt rifles, but I find it great fun.

That sounds pretty cool, going to go look for it. Are there some active servers?

Lonehunter · 2006-06-06, 09:48 AM

I'm still waiting for Battlefield: Civil War

they're kinda running out of options

Hamma · 2006-06-06, 11:14 AM

We need more wars so we have more game options.

Biohazzard56 · 2006-06-06, 11:22 AM

You couldnt do an entertaining game without breaking the history of it. Battle Doctrine hadn't really advanced enough to anywhere near that would translate into a fluid experience with good pacing. Rob is right about all that stuff.

Id like to point out that there is a ton of WW2 battles that have not been covered yet.

Kikinchikin · 2006-06-06, 11:36 AM

I think it'd be cool if they took the idea of different roles used in CoD with soldiers from each Allied country, but went the extra mile. Have a campaign specifically for a medic, pilot, tanker, and of course grunt. If done properly it could be pretty sweet, if they really make the campaigns extremely different.

Again the multiplayer wouldn't be that different than BF, but there's only so much you can do with shooters in the online department.

Setari · 2006-06-06, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by 321

That sounds pretty cool, going to go look for it. Are there some active servers?

I haven't played it in a while, but everytime I did there were 2 or 3 near-full servers, so those are probably still up. Not a huge amount of options, but it's still fun.

Electrofreak · 2006-06-06, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

We need more wars so we have more game options.

Don't you worry Hamma, as long as Bush is in office, the US government will continue to help yah on that.

Firefly · 2006-06-06, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

Don't you worry Hamma, as long as Bush is in office, the US government will continue to help yah on that.

As long as a LOT of people are in power. We're not examining the other number of trigger-happy warmongering leaders. Shit, the hell with Bush - go look at your average African dictatorship. Those guys chop off people's arms and legs and heads and genitalia with a dull rusty machete. That's in between conscripting 10-yr old kids, giving them an AK that's bigger than they are, and having an entire battalion of kids that haven't even hit puberty charge the walls of a base as a diversion. You think Bush is bad? Bush is a pussy, compared to some of the shitbags that run other countries.

Personally, I think a majority of the people who play shooter-types are interested in killing shit without any sort of compunctions aside from team-based compunctions. If you really want to just go absolutely apeshit in a shooter, then you should make one based on the Balkans conflict before NATO and the UN pussified - I mean pacified - everything.

That conflict, also known as "Bosnia", had artillery-versus-civilian sieges, partisans, paramilitary, black-ops, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, genocide, rape, about a billion landmines, neighbors butchering neighbors for being a different ethnicity, 14-year old kids with guns, exploding buildings, Mafiya warlords going toe-to-toe with police and military units because they didn't know who their allies were on a week-to-week basis... and just like Planetside, they had more than two sides and a bunch of "commanders" that nobody ever really listened to.

Personally, I'd like to see an FPS about the Rwanda, Congo or Sudan conflicts. Instead of my #5 button being a chainblade, it'd be a dirty old machete. And if you're from another tribe, there will be no mercy! Chop off your friggin' head...

Electrofreak · 2006-06-06, 01:02 PM

BUT, for the most part, we only make games about wars we were involved in. People want to feel patriotic, and you don't get that if you're fighting on behalf of some Rwandan national.

Firefly · 2006-06-06, 01:48 PM

People don't give a shit about patriotic. That's why you have people playing Middle Eastern Coalition in BF2. Do you know anyone that's actually part of the Vanu Sovereignty? Or the Brotherhood of NOD?

Besides. We were involved in the Balkans crisis before NATO and the UN officially stepped in. We were also involved in Rwanda and Sudan, but you won't read about it on the news. And if I end up in jail for telling you that, expect my memoirs to mention you as my imaginary prisonbitch friend.