Does anyone here know of any FPS's focusing on early gunpowder warfare and/or WW1? Darkest of Days was enjoyable but had MAJOR flaws and Battlegrounds 2 (source mod) won't satisfy me much longer. Li'l help for the new guy?

There was game out last year for xbox that could be described as an fps western. I don't remember what is was called, maybe it was "Gunfighter" or "Wild West". It involved revolvers, winchester rifles, shotguns, sticks of dynamite and a gatling gun. Poking about google, it seems that a fps set during the US Civil War was released back in 2006. Your question would be better asked at gamespot or similar sites.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There was game out last year for xbox that could be described as an fps western. I don't remember what is was called, maybe it was "Gunfighter" or "Wild West". It involved revolvers, winchester rifles, shotguns, sticks of dynamite and a gatling gun.

This sounds like GUN or Call Of Juarez unless I'm misunderstanding you entirely.

World War One is still a very, very touchy subject and to create a game based on it requires a great deal of sensitivity and care. There was one in development a while back and I read an article about it in a magazine where they essentially said exactly that. Also, sadly, World War One isn't terribly interesting; sit in a trench for ages and ages, eventually climbing over the top and walking very slowly into enemy machine gun fire. It doesn't have the variety that you get from later wars.

It's probably because of the above that few WWI games exist. I *think* there was a mod for Battlefield 1942 but it sucked.

It was GUN. All of the WWI games that I've seen have been flight sims/aerial dogfights.

Believe it or not but the US Civil War is still a touchy subject in some places.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
All of the WWI games that I've seen have been flight sims/aerial dogfights.

There has been at least one turn based strategy game: History Line: 1914-1918 by Blue Byte. It was fairly enjoyable, but apparently not very successful.

i would like to see more of this. Modern / WW2 shooters have been done to death.

Quote: Original post by ukdeveloper
Also, sadly, World War One isn't terribly interesting; sit in a trench for ages and ages, eventually climbing over the top and walking very slowly into enemy machine gun fire.

Oh sure. The First World War is boring for game play if you only look at the western front. Remember it was called the Western front, not just the front. There were other battles and other armies fighting in the east which covered a far larger area, and had far lower densities of soldiers. This meant that the non-ending lines of trench warfare just couldn't work. There was too much land and too few men.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It was GUN. All of the WWI games that I've seen have been flight sims/aerial dogfights.

Believe it or not but the US Civil War is still a touchy subject in some places.

Well.. you know. More Americans died in the civil war than in both world wars combined. Might have something to do with that.

Stand in a line and fire at the opposite side, wait 4 minutes before reloading would make a terrible FPS.

WWII is just a great war to romanticize. Everyone agrees on the villain, there's no cheap poison gas attacks, there's a lot of mobility and most of the stuff worked well. Go earlier than WWI and there's too much sword / bayonet play to be satisfying in a FPS. Go later than WWII and it starts getting "unfair", since one side is way more powerful than the other.

It's no wonder that pretty much every war game out there is WWII based.