Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/16/10 09:04 PM, Warforger wrote:
Uhhh well Canada had to fight because it was still part of the British empire. Italy had been on the Allies side since the beginning of the war to take territories from their arch enemy the Austrians (well everyone hated the Austrians, if it wasn't for Germany Austria would have no friends, thats why Russia didn't fight with Germany even though they had an alliance, same with Italy), and for the most part neither side went anyway, the Austrians I think advanced into Italy through the mountains, but the main reason Italy performed poorly most of the war was because of all those years of separate Italian states they hadn't built a very effective way of transporting things throughout Italy, it was still horses and donkey's, no railways yet.

While not entirely a part of the British Empire since 1867, it would have been political suicide to consider not going to war with the British Empire because of the very close ties at that point, so yes we had to fight. What does that have to do with Canadian capabilities during the war? Does that make their sacrifices any less horrible or their gains any less important?

And Germany declared war on Russia, they had some very bitter fights during the early years of WWI. What do you mean they didn't fight?

And yes while correct about the Italians for the most part, they didn't enter until 1915 while the two sides offered them bribes to join them. The allies had a better offer.

At 10/16/10 10:28 PM, sinfulwolf wrote: And Germany declared war on Russia, they had some very bitter fights during the early years of WWI. What do you mean they didn't fight?

By that I mean the treaty Germany, Austria and Russia had that said they were part of a alliance, because Austria wanted to conquer and takeover Slavic countries Russia didn't like Austria, and Germany generally supported the Austrians anyway and so they made another treaty, this time with Germany Austria and Italy to make sure they aren't overrun on all fronts.

So basiclly I meant that Russia didn't fight with Germany as an ally.

And yes while correct about the Italians for the most part, they didn't enter until 1915 while the two sides offered them bribes to join them. The allies had a better offer.

That, and the fact that Austria controlled lands with native Italian populations which Italian nationalists seeked.

Slow paced FPS in modern Times? It'll never sell well, no matter how good it is. Didn't you know every FPS in modern times is "TESTOSTERONE MILITARY MODERN OR FUTURE WARS FAST PACED ACTION GHRAAAHGAGH" ?

At 10/16/10 05:45 PM, Warforger wrote: THEN the German generals told the Kaiser "Man, look, we're fucked, our people are already starving, our advance is a retreat and we can't possibly stop the Allies now, let's surrender before they invade Germany" and so they did.

I don't think it was like that, the Germans were holding enemy territory even when they 'surrendered', which was actually supposed to be a peace treaty of sorts, not a defeat.

US president Woodrow Wilson presented his proposition which were the 14 points, on where no one would actually lose, and it would prevent another conflict of this nature from rising. The Germans went along with that, but when they actually sat down to discuss it, Britain and France decided to fuck Germany over and make them pay for the war.

The US didn't agree with this and considered it madness (no this isn't Sparta). No wonder they didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles, and even aided Germany after the war.

At 10/17/10 12:39 AM, Liquify wrote:
Also... what you said about Modern Warfare...

No, go into a secret army base and pilot a Predator... That's Modern Warfare.

I think the tower thing is more common from my experiences.

id like to see a ww1 game

Wow, you guys know little about what the war was actually like. It would be even worse to play than the many wars preceding it where many guys would stand in a line with muskets, fire them, kill a few hundreds and then run up to each other and get stabbed by bayonets. No tactics, no thinking, just death and discipline until the end, unfortunately. But WW1 was worse

I've been to a few trenches in Belgium myself. Even today the sheer number of cemeteries around the parts of Flanders the war was fought on would make a strong man cringe. You can see kids, even, riding their bicycles happily... outside many, many cemeteries spread all over the area.

Trenches were the worst conditions anyone could live in. Fuck, I can't imagine how people could stand all that mud, the constant smell of smoke, having to keep your head down for so long.

Specifically, I've been to the "Trench of Death" in Diksmuide--by far the most important place for Belgium to hold to stop a German invasion (otherwise the game was up, and Germany could advance into France), but a lot of its original non-charm (horror, rather!) has been lost, as the sandbags and a lot of the floor and what-not have been concreted over.

I also had a chance to go to Hill 62, at which is also a memorial to Canadian soldiers. Now that was fucking horrible. I feel very sympathetic to all the poor souls who had to experience trench warfare, and that wasn't even at its worst. Still bloody horrible... and very creepy. I'd recommend for anyone to go there. Entrance is free, and there are also many unique, uncensored photographs you can look at inside old viewmaster types of machine, only there. Oh, and I saw one of the most disgusting things in my life... a head, split in half from the front, place on other parts of a body to make something like a horrible, bloody Frankenstein. And also a number of photographs of soldiers literally in bits blocking up a trench looking like meatballs in a big pile... fuck, it really helps you realise some of the things soldiers there had to see. And the trench has been made to be as much as it possible like it would be back in the day, I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested.

At 10/16/10 05:45 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't think it was like that, the Germans were holding enemy territory even when they 'surrendered', which was actually supposed to be a peace treaty of sorts, not a defeat.

US president Woodrow Wilson presented his proposition which were the 14 points, on where no one would actually lose, and it would prevent another conflict of this nature from rising. The Germans went along with that, but when they actually sat down to discuss it, Britain and France decided to fuck Germany over and make them pay for the war.

The US didn't agree with this and considered it madness (no this isn't Sparta). No wonder they didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles, and even aided Germany after the war.

For one, you are so, so very wrong. Germany had to concede defeat, as did the rest of the Central powers, especially the Ottoman Empire that was absolutely in ruins by the end of it!

Secondly, Wilson's 14 points were all based on ideas that were over 250 years old, which is the concept of what is called "Westphalian sovereignty". This is to signify that larger states and empires, like the Spanish Empire should respect territorial integrity, also starting the concept of a nation--people united by language and culture.

But at the same time, this system was so empires could stay their original size and export troops elsewhere, to less important places, that being the Americas, western and south Asia and the like. It was a system of exclusion of the smaller states from empires. It really favoured empires remaining strong, I believe, just preferring them to grow elsewhere, somewhere without Christians.

It's a shame Wilson pursued a strong Germany. Sure, no problem with the US "world police" not being in what was mainly an organisation for peace in Europe, but actually funding Germany and letting the rest of the empires (and non-empires, like, well, post-WW1 Germany) continue expanding their navies. The US just went with what was best for the Allies, really. All they wanted was to make some quick money and go back to laissez-faire politics, the second of which didn't quite pay off in the end.

***

All in all, I'd hate to see a WW1 game being made. It couldn't capture the realities of the war whatsoever, which was to sit around in a trench all day, seeing your unit gradually get killed by an enemy 100 metres away whom you could never fight, but wait for to attack... at which point the enemy would be chopped down by your machine gun. Mostly waiting around, seeing disgusting sights, oh, and of course a great many people dying by disease, either by something like frostbite or trench foot on the Western and Eastern fronts or all sorts of horrible diseases in the Balkans and the Asia Minor.

***

On a slightly lighter but still plainly fucked up note, at the most vulnerable sides of the trenches like in Diksmuide had some big open areas at the ends, of about 8 by 10 metres wide at most (huge for a trench), I'd say, with only one small entrance to the rest of the the trenches for which you'd have to duck right down to get in, and it would be quite long and probably flooded.

This was literally so that if the enemy managed to get in the trench (almost impossible), there would be a free for all with spades and clubs and they would be like rats in a trap, unable to move into the trench! So no glory there, guys, just death, death, and more death.

WWI FPS? I don't even want to think about it... It's too horrible.

Because WWI is to intense to be made into a game.

At 10/18/10 05:12 PM, BarkingBushbaby wrote:
All in all, I'd hate to see a WW1 game being made. It couldn't capture the realities of the war whatsoever, which was to sit around in a trench all day, seeing your unit gradually get killed by an enemy 100 metres away whom you could never fight, but wait for to attack... at which point the enemy would be chopped down by your machine gun. Mostly waiting around, seeing disgusting sights, oh, and of course a great many people dying by disease, either by something like frostbite or trench foot on the Western and Eastern fronts or all sorts of horrible diseases in the Balkans and the Asia Minor.

This was literally so that if the enemy managed to get in the trench (almost impossible), there would be a free for all with spades and clubs and they would be like rats in a trap, unable to move into the trench! So no glory there, guys, just death, death, and more death.

Okay, so in my mind you best be thinking the same thing of every war game ever. You had better put such a firm stance of "war is horrible don't make games of it" for every conflict in human history. What you think Afghanistan is just American soldiers zipping around shooting people up with no consequence. WWII which was a massive source of video games, has had highly realistic games that depict what war is like.

Do you stand against pretty much every video game with violence ever made, because not a single one has been able to realistically capture the brutality and horrors of true conflict. But guess what, they never will, because they are never really trying to.

I've yet to see a Call of Duty level where you go out with a big bag to pick up the pieces of your friend and pressure wash the remains of the side of your armoured vehicle. Or desperately try and stop the bleeding after a piece of shrapnel went through buddie's throat.

All war is horrible. WWI is no different, but don't make the mistake of thinking that a man in a trench stabbing another man in the neck, is any worse than a man in a desert village stabbing another man in the neck.

And once again, you amongst so many, assume that all of WWI was trench warfare and that all trench warfare was, was sitting around waiting. What about the raids? Tunneling? Clearing villages and towns in the opening battles of the war before the trenches were dug? The first tanks? Dog fights? Gas attacks?

In the end, this is a piece of entertainment, like all the WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Fictional wars that have been displayed in games and movies throughout the years. Oh yes, they've already even made games based in the civil war, an FPS no less. Doubt that showcased the horrors of war either... but my point stands that nothing will.

At 10/18/10 06:07 PM, Yrtnej wrote: WWI FPS? I don't even want to think about it... It's too horrible.

That's it? You have to have a better reason than that.

A thing about that "evil" side thing. What if there was a WWII FPS on the Nazi side. It was fully voiced in German, and had English subtitles. Now it was so very well made, that it actually made you feel a little for the characters. It went from 1939 starting in Poland, to when Germany surrendered. And even if the battle was a loss, it was so well made that you felt like you won.

I want that.

At 10/22/10 05:48 PM, letiger wrote: A thing about that "evil" side thing. What if there was a WWII FPS on the Nazi side. It was fully voiced in German, and had English subtitles. Now it was so very well made, that it actually made you feel a little for the characters. It went from 1939 starting in Poland, to when Germany surrendered. And even if the battle was a loss, it was so well made that you felt like you won.

I want that.

Yeah, most games just show the heroic Americans invading Normandy beach, I've yet to see a game that shows from a Nazi's perspective. Sure, you can play as the Axis in BF 1942, but that's it, you're just a meaningless soldier who dies in a few minutes, there's no character.

In games, it seems like the Nazis, well, Germans are mindless monsters who are possessed by Beelzebub and have no emotions as if they were machines.

This would be interesting.

At 10/16/10 11:41 AM, Shnam wrote: my teacher said said america kicked when we entered the war. it was a stalemate until we came along and beat the living shit out of germany?

Your teacher is wrong. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
America lost something like 600 people in the war. Australia lost over 60, 000 - in terms of percentage of population, it had the highest casualty count in the war.

How the fuck did this turn into a politics thread?

Also, WW1 FPS would be horrible. I don't care how much potential it could have, ALL YOU WOULD DO IS SIT IN TRENCHES.

At 10/16/10 10:02 AM, puddinN64 wrote: If you played through a WWI game, by the end of it, you'd know that Hitler would still rise to power, Italy and Japan would turn into America's enemies, millions of innocent Jews would die, and that the world would be forced to go through a terrible economic recession.

I am horrified you could say such a thing while ignoring the horrors of communism that were allowed to rise after WW2. In fact, id say that is much worse.

At 10/22/10 05:48 PM, letiger wrote: A thing about that "evil" side thing. What if there was a WWII FPS on the Nazi side. It was fully voiced in German, and had English subtitles. Now it was so very well made, that it actually made you feel a little for the characters. It went from 1939 starting in Poland, to when Germany surrendered. And even if the battle was a loss, it was so well made that you felt like you won.

I want that.

Or how about the Wehrmacht? I don't want to play as Nazis, but I would play as a regular German soldier in WWII simply fighting for his nation and his survival rather than a political ideal. Which could add some character to what is seen as simply "the evil nation" in most games. Show some of the humanity.

Darkest of Days had a WWI section in it, I found it interesting.

At 10/22/10 10:56 PM, Dr34m3r wrote:

At 10/16/10 11:41 AM, Shnam wrote: my teacher said said america kicked when we entered the war. it was a stalemate until we came along and beat the living shit out of germany?

Your teacher is wrong. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

So you use a comic of what happened instead of real hardline evidence? I've never seen anything which suggests that Britain and France were pushing Germany back, especially since Britain and France had such a shitty track record of any good tactics or strategies during WW1 and especially against Germany/Prussia its like saying that Serbia beat Austria on its own, its believable if your Serbian maybe, but it requires some proof before you can say that with a straight face, especially when the first war of the German Empire against France (we'll count it as Germany) France suffered record defeats! The greatest surrender (in terms of troops in a fort) ever, just in a couple months, they then moved onto Paris and forced the French into a treaty.

America lost something like 600 people in the war. Australia lost over 60, 000 - in terms of percentage of population, it had the highest casualty count in the war.

Again, your wrong, America lost 116,708 people during the war, Australia lost 61,928.

At 10/23/10 11:52 AM, Blaze-Heatnix wrote: How the fuck did this turn into a politics thread?

Also, WW1 FPS would be horrible. I don't care how much potential it could have, ALL YOU WOULD DO IS SIT IN TRENCHES.

Oh really? Would the creaters actually have 99% of the game be sitting in trenches? Would there be no action? You sir, are a retard.

At 10/23/10 05:43 PM, Liquify wrote: If you aren't sitting in trenches for more that 99.9999% of the time, then this isn't a true WWI FPS.

IIRC, they didn't use trenches at the start of the war. And they had much more raids and actual movement in the end of it, with Stormtroopers and all.

Actually it would be a pretty cool idea to follow a soldier's life at the beginning of the war, thinking it would be a quick victory with nationalism and all, and drag onwards into a pretty bloody war.

And besides, like everyone else said, WW1 wasn't only trench warfare.

At 10/22/10 07:57 AM, letiger wrote:

At 10/18/10 06:07 PM, Yrtnej wrote: WWI FPS? I don't even want to think about it... It's too horrible.

That's it? You have to have a better reason than that.

Well, it was the first time that there were casualties all over the world. It was the first time chemical warfare was used (I'm sure you already know the horrors of Mustard Gas). It was the first time airplanes and submarines were used in a war. It was the first time tanks were used.

Many people weren't used to this kind of warfare, and as a result, many, many people died because of inexperience. Most conditions for the soldiers were terrible, and, as the war went on, medicines and medical supplies dwindled. Deaths continued to pile up, and a lot of money was used to fund all sides of this war.

There were also painful standstills that trench warfare brought on. Neither side advanced for days on end. Then tanks were introduced. This brought a deadly and bloody end to trench warfare, because now impenetrable land ships could easily cross the no-man's-land.

At 10/23/10 06:52 PM, Yrtnej wrote: There were also painful standstills that trench warfare brought on. Neither side advanced for days on end. Then tanks were introduced. This brought a deadly and bloody end to trench warfare, because now impenetrable land ships could easily cross the no-man's-land.

Tanks were introduced 1915, the war lasted until 1918, nobody left the trenches until 1917, thats a good 2 years for the tanks to do something.

The problem was the users, the British didn't know how to use them and any new tactics were shot down by most military commanders, the tank design in itself was only able to shoot one side and the other and not directly in front of it, and it was really slow so it was easily destroyed along with it not very good at working alot of the time.

Its also worth pointing out that the Germans only used tanks that were captured mostly, they didn't make their own, but they were far better then the British at advancing especially in 1918.

At 10/23/10 11:52 AM, Blaze-Heatnix wrote: How the fuck did this turn into a politics thread?

Also, WW1 FPS would be horrible. I don't care how much potential it could have, ALL YOU WOULD DO IS SIT IN TRENCHES.

All a lot of guys do in Afghanistan is stand in towers watching over an empty expanse of desert. Yet somehow video games and movies make it seem like non-stop action 100% of the time. No rest, only firing your gun and stabbing the enemy in the chest and taking his rifle and still running out of ammo because there's so many enemies.

So... just because much of the time people sat in trenches doesn't mean that a game would be entirely about sitting there.

At 10/23/10 06:52 PM, Yrtnej wrote:

Well, it was the first time that there were casualties all over the world. It was the first time chemical warfare was used (I'm sure you already know the horrors of Mustard Gas). It was the first time airplanes and submarines were used in a war. It was the first time tanks were used.

Many people weren't used to this kind of warfare, and as a result, many, many people died because of inexperience. Most conditions for the soldiers were terrible, and, as the war went on, medicines and medical supplies dwindled. Deaths continued to pile up, and a lot of money was used to fund all sides of this war.

There were also painful standstills that trench warfare brought on. Neither side advanced for days on end. Then tanks were introduced. This brought a deadly and bloody end to trench warfare, because now impenetrable land ships could easily cross the no-man's-land.

You've also ignored all my points. Yes WWI was horrible, but like I said before, so was WWII, so was Vietnam, so is Iraq, so is Afghanistan, so was Somalia... Just because this was the first time that a few things came into the battle field does not mean it was the first time men had fought each other and killed each other in a land not their own (Crusades anyone... oh they made games of that horrible experience too).

My entire point is that various sources of entertainment have been looking to war to give us something to watch or play, and all of those battles were horrible.

So like I said before, unless you are against every war movie/game ever made... hell even against every source of entertainment with a bit of violence in it (because nothing really ever captures true violence very well), then stop bringing up the fact that the war was horrible as a reason not to make a game from it.

At 10/24/10 10:52 AM, sinfulwolf wrote: You've also ignored all my points.

I was never talking to you, and I didn't read every single post in the thread.

Excuse me for ignoring you; you are too important for that to have happened.

At 10/24/10 11:23 AM, Yrtnej wrote:

At 10/24/10 10:52 AM, sinfulwolf wrote: You've also ignored all my points.

I was never talking to you, and I didn't read every single post in the thread.

Excuse me for ignoring you; you are too important for that to have happened.

Only pointed it out as I directly responded to you. Perhaps you should read some more of the posts in the thread.

Vimy Ridge

Now that is a battle I would love to see in a FPS.

Come on, WW1 fps would work as its more realistic with games like CoD

like how in online games on modern warfare how US special ops can get killed in the 30's or even 100's (depending on the player)

While in ww1 there gunna die anyway