Matrix Games Forums

Article:

“But while players were stoked for a game set in World War 1, a setting rarely touched by the genre, culture critics in the media and on Twitter found it in poor taste. After decades of ultra-violent video games depicting all sorts of travesties, apparently WW1 is the line in the sand for some critics.”

http://heatst.com/tech/is-world-war-1-t ... or-gaming/

For me there is main stream gaming and the all important indie developer gaming...[:)]

Damn, that is pretty dumb.

"...culture critics in the media and on twitter..." 'nuff said.

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


Article:

“But while players were stoked for a game set in World War 1, a setting rarely touched by the genre, culture critics in the media and on Twitter found it in poor taste. After decades of ultra-violent video games depicting all sorts of travesties, apparently WW1 is the line in the sand for some critics.”

http://heatst.com/tech/is-world-war-1-t ... or-gaming/

warspite1

Never mind. Rubbish like that written by idiots like that isn't worth getting worked up about.

Is WW1 Too Hot to Touch for Gaming?

No.

But it might very well be to cold.

Funny, I've always heard it isn't a popular genre because it's seen as boring

Well ya if it is at all historical you are looking at 4 years of trench warfare, can we say boring? Otherwise it is not worth playing if fantasy.

You could make a pretty good argument that the impact and contribution (and life-expectancy) of any single soldier on a WW1 battlefield would be so minor (and short and brutal) that you couldn't represent any sort of compelling gameplay with it.

You'd either have to turn it into a game of constant Roguelike respawns of the player-soldier throwing themselves into the trenches forever and ever, which falls somewhere between a disservice to the history that you're attempting to depict and a sop to realism that produces no interesting avenue of play

Or you could turn the player into the Western Front equivalent of Rambo, throwing out realism in exchange for playability, but at that point one wonders why you'd choose to set the game in WW1 in the first place if you're going to have to go out of your way to make it feel like something else.

Actually, a board game version of WWI: Fatal Aliances is an incredibly fun game to play. Its WWI WiF. It shouldn't be difficult to code since the vast majority of the code already has been written in MWiF. It has the best diplomatic system I've ever seen.

There are now a fair few strategic level WW1 games out there.

The article seems to be addressing the realm of first person shooters. It is specifically addressed to the recently touted Battlefield 1. The thrust seems to the ability of developers to deal with the horrors of the war sensitively.

It's a bit of a silly take given that FPS's have for years dealt with other violent conflicts. Trench warfare was pretty ugly but so was a lot of the WW2 conflicted in the Eastern Front which at times resembled trench warfare.

However at the end the author (sensibly in mho) concludes the criticism only has validity if you regard the Battlefield series as being some sort of definitive source material for what soldiers endured during war. Clearly it is no such thing.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Actually, a board game version of WWI: Fatal Aliances is an incredibly fun game to play. Its WWI WiF. It shouldn't be difficult to code since the vast majority of the code already has been written in MWiF. It has the best diplomatic system I've ever seen.

That's a strategic-level board-wargame though. The article (and my post) was about the usefulness and tastefulness of trying to simulate WW1 from a first-person shooter perspective.

It's no surprise that a World in Flames-esque game about WW1 would work, because that's the level where a player's choices can actually matter.

This is my Twitter "WW1 On This Day" site for those interested.

I found it interesting that The Great War channel analysed the trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Well ya if it is at all historical you are looking at 4 years of trench warfare, can we say boring? Otherwise it is not worth playing if fantasy.

Much like letting OKH build units in WiTE. A fantasy.

And a game that allows you play as a member of Hitlers armed forces is seen as acceptable taste?[8|]

I always thought that there were so few games about WW1 (except air combat of course) was that there was very little strategy or tactics involved in comparison to other wars. Dig a trench, wait for artillery bombardment, charge enemy, gain or lose a few hundred yards. Repeat.

Looks to me more like a writer that needed to publish something and he found an idiot with a twitter account for his subject matter.

There are lots of good WWI games and I think the idea that it's all trench warfare is a common misconception, though IMHO a lot of WWI works best wargame-wise at an operational or grand strategy scale.

I had a friend who loved WW2 games but could not stand WW1 games because he said that "there are no real and large tank battles, no fighter planes per se attacking each other, no house to house infantry fighting, no large scale city attacks etc..." so he found them "boring" to say the least. But on the other hand he loved Napoleonic and US Civil War Games! His argument held no foundation to me if he said that about WW1 but played the other military era war games. Go Figure???

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


Article:

“But while players were stoked for a game set in World War 1, a setting rarely touched by the genre, culture critics in the media and on Twitter found it in poor taste. After decades of ultra-violent video games depicting all sorts of travesties, apparently WW1 is the line in the sand for some critics.”

http://heatst.com/tech/is-world-war-1-t ... or-gaming/

Critics have also made claim that Starship Troopers movie is praise of fascism.