Your comment about modern MoH/CoD spin-offs doesn't make sense - of course I was talking about first parts of the series set in WW2. Am I that hard to follow?

I recall using a bipod on LMG in one of CoD (WW2) games. Sharpshooting with a bolt-action rifle was the biggest fun for me. It's challenging to aim well in a firefight, as reloading takes time. So it wouldn't be a problem to repeat this in WW1 setting.

My comment about American Civil War was aimed to counter "it's not as cool as WW2" argument (used against WW1), I wasn't thinking about FPS games in ACW. By the way: the only one I found unfortunately mixes in some future time travel themes: http://www.mobygames.com/game/darkest-of-days/

I still don't know why are we still talking about major battles in all those wars - we are not discussing wargames, after all. Aren't we often sent on a special missions in those WW2 FPS games? In small teams or even alone? Scouting out, infiltrating?

These are things I already brought up in my posts, I literally said it would have to be like the original MoH and that it would need to be about stealthy infiltration of enemy lines. And a LMG and a Squad Based MG are different things, a LMG needs two people due to the weight of the weapon and ammo, one carries the ammo and maybe a baseplate and the other the gun. The rate of fire also means that someone has to be feeding ammo into it from a chain otherwise it would shoot a box full of ammo in seconds and be dry. A Squad Based MG is like a M60, it can be fired on the move or be sat down in a stable position for more accurate suppression fire. If they had you carting around LMGs and sitting them down for some suppression fire it could be a great bit of fun once or twice, but mowing down running people would be boring after awhile and using one in stealthy infiltration would be silly.

You brought up Civil War games so I assumed that you meant that they had succeeded in the FPS market, since I didn't know any I asked about them. Do you mean that because a non-FPS game can be popular or good that an FPS must be as well? Or are you just saying that a WW1 game could be of a different genre, that I would agree with as well.

Really I have only been saying that this could make a good game if done right, I am agreeing it would be a cool thing. Everyone of my points is a carefully thought out reason for why it could not be a fast paced FPS but rather why it would need to be a much slower stealth based one. This is a much more niche market and thus is a riskier move for a game company. And that is simply why you have not seen one and will never get one like the current CoD or MoH. Perhaps a smaller company willing to take a big risk could make such a old school MoH game, pushing ideas and concepts to their limit and I would snap that game up fast.

Oh yeah the original MOH was a great game! What I think is going to be cool in Trench 1916 ist the altering Landscape depending on artillery and so on. When I first played Red Faction I thought "Man that Geo Mod Enginge combined with a war game would be the coolest thing ever!" and here we are (well it's another engine though).

I apologize for sounding confusing, this is due to problems with translating military nomenclature, note that ręczny karabin maszynowy links to light machine gun in Wikipedia, some things were also renamed over the years (kontrtorpedowiec/ contre-torpilleur/torpedo boat destroyer is today's destroyer), not sure if squad automatic weapon was already used in the BAR era.

I also agree that WW1 FPS won't be as appealing to the masses as mowing down terrorists, zombies etc., yet when done right it could still gather own fanbase and be financially successful, such as more demanding (ie. for finer taste) tactical shooters.

The problem is you can make a wargame or adventure in a small company, FPS requires decent audiovisuals, thus bigger dev team and bigger budgets... that's why we keep seeing the same games over and over again (because big players won't take the risk).

I think a smaller company could pull of a FPS, but it would take a lot of money and skill to make it look and feel as good as current gen FPS games. However I think the real problem will come from the story, the stable games have a story already built up. People know zombies, people know NAZIs they don't need to be told, these things are bad and here is why they already know. For WW1 a lot of people just don't know that much about it, they only learned the very basics in school. So the games storyline would have to cover details about why you are at war, why this is all happening...why there are no tanks or assault rifles.

For a long time they said Western games were dead, that people didn't want to play them any more. Then Rockstar made Red Dead Redemption and Westerns weren't dead any more and it turned out they never had been, the players just didn't have anywhere to turn to play the game they wanted to play. I think WW1 could fall in the same boat, most companies think it wont sell but out there is a group of people thinking it just might and they could just walk into a gold mine if they pull it off right.

Call of Juarez was first.

Well Darth, your arguments against a WW1 FPS are just plain sad.

Some of them are:

- Trench warfare is boring, it would be better if it would be about stealth.
- The weapon were crude, slow, and there were few machine guns.
- No nazis! Holy fuck! Who will we kill?!!!! (The saddest of them...)
And the last one:

"Everyone of my points is a carefully thought out reason for why it could not be a fast paced FPS but rather why it would need to be a much slower stealth based one."

I'm not sure how many WW1 movies you have seen, but the Lost Battalion clearly shows us how much action they could get out of those shitty guns and shitty, boring, not perfectly evil or perfectly good people.
You forgot about bayonet charges, which were the core part of early 20th century warfare. If you think it is impossible to implement bayonet or sword fights in videogames, probably you've been living under a rock for the past ten years, which I doubt. Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault (2004), The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002), and Call of Duty (2003) with it's close-quarter combat all proved that WW1 bayonet and swordfights are perfectly possible.
Yesterday night I played some TF2 with TC on a melee weapon only map, and it was a lot of fun, and I had more adrenaline than on shooting maps.
Also WW1 battlefields featured a lot of experimental weapons, such as flamethrowers, tanks, and there were even shotguns, along with the aforementioned SMGs and Maxim mounted machine guns. What about gas attacks? Airplanes, anyone? ZEPPELINS?!!
How the damn fuck could that be any boring, there were as many battlefield as in WW2, the people behind The Trench 1916 could build up an entire franchise.
Also, not having a "clearly evil enemy" is good because now we could play as Germans, something I always missed from WW2 games. Your ignorance wouldn't let you play that though Darth, so I guess that isn't much of a feature for you. I wouldn't like to begin a fight over how evil those people were, because you'd never admit that most of the Wermacht contained people just like anyone, fighting for their families, and that only a very little part of the entire German army were involved in shameful actions.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, Darth:

You act like you haven't seen my link to the upcoming WW1 FPS with the promising screenshots and videos...

What the hell Tracker. Just going against like 3 guys would mean instant death, you wouldn't be able to shoot fast enough to actually kill them before they kill, you that means the gameplay would need to be slower then current gen CoD or MoH. Nothing wrong with that, in fact the original MoH was about the speed I am talking about and has many missions based on stealth. I have been talking about how good the game could be, not how bad it would be. The NAZI thing had nothing to do with them being the best enemies, just that lazy writers and writers on a fast timetable often use them as an easy enemy. As I said many people don't know a lot about WW1 so the writers would have to work hard to make a great story. I wasn't saying in real life they were all monsters, where the hell did you get that? Just that there is already a lot of story and history that players will know so you don't need to work hard on that part you can trust the player knows this already.

Bayonet charges could make for an epic moment, they could be cool as hell. But as in reality you would be gunned down by a MG nest. All the rest yeah they could be cool but they would be short lived. Wow a gas attack quick get the gas mask on...oh yeah they are doing it again...and again...and again. But done right it could make for some epic moments in a game. Which is what I have been saying, that a FPS in WW1 would need to be made well and then it would be great.

And no I haven't seen your link, nor do I care to after that tirade of insults. I don't know if you noticed but me and RRS didn't agree about everything but at no point did we call the other person ignorant or tell them what they thought. Personally I would like an apology for that post, at no point in it did you treat me and my opinions with respect. If you will notice at no point have I insulted you here, nor implied or out right stated what you think and have even agreed your ideas have merits.

Well played. I apologize for insulting you. Please forgive me.

All good man, you bring up some good points. Points I hadn't thought of, I still don't think the game could be as fast paced as current gen MoH/CoDs but maybe if done right it could pull it off. I think it would be a safer bet, in a already risky scenario to take a slower pace and follow more along the original MoHs lines.