Are there any world war 1 games?

It can be on any platform

most that im aware of are quite old and are mostly flying games.

the ones i can remember without looking

History line (amiga)

Wings (amiga)

Red baron (PC/amiga)

flying Ace (pc)

Chocks Away (archimedies)

Dawn Patrol

Knights of the sky (amiga - this was ace!!)

shells of fury (pc)

oh, actually, there are: flight sims. red baron - one of the greatest games of all time. i hear they're making a sequel. :D i'm giddy with excitement!fireandcloud

:/

read my post??? lol

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]oh, actually, there are: flight sims. red baron - one of the greatest games of all time. i hear they're making a sequel. :D i'm giddy with excitement!FragSponge

:/

read my post??? lol

actually, i didn't. but i read it afterwards. you can take the credit, though, for all i care. :|

you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.fireandcloud

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.Dilan120

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

you need to swat upon ur history dude. :)

There are a few, but from what I remember theyre all pretty awful.

WW1 isnt a particularly exciting setting for games, it literally is just soldiers rotting in trents, making charges once in a while only to be massacred by machine gun fire, switch roles, rinse and repeat etc.

Even the air combat wont be so exciting considering the planes back then were made of cardboard and could fly probably no higher than 100ft.

There was a strategy game though based on the conflict, again as far as I remember it was pretty crap anyway; I cant remember what it was called but it comes back to me ill let you know.

you need to swat upon ur history dude. :)

FragSponge

Yeah i guess

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.fireandcloud

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

:|

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.Dilan120

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

:|

lol. maybe not...

not you dude lol, that was aimed at dilan, i didnt add a quote to my reply.FragSponge

yeah, i realized it too late. :P anyway...

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.fireandcloud

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

ww1 datesim?

There are a fair number of games which cover WW1, just not from the first person perspective of being in the trenches because modelling trench foot, 14 day artillery barrages and suicidal charges into entrenched MG positions doesn't make for compelling gaming.

For strategic/operational level views of the war, you've got Guns of August: 1914-1918. If you get the Revolutions expansion pack, you can play through WW1 and on into the great depression with Victoria: an Empire Under the Sun. On a more abstract level, there's Diplomacy.

For naval sims there's a WW1 U-Boat simulator called 1914: Shells of Fury. There's a tactical level wargame about a slugfest between British and German dreadnaught fleets called Jutland. It's also covered in a more conventional wargame ****akin to an old tabletop boardgame by HPS Jutland.

For flight sims, there are a couple of games out right now. There's a fairly nice budget title called First Eagles. The stock version of the game isn't the greatest, but the mod scene is great and they've added a tonne of extra content. The developer's been busy too and is releasing an expansion CD soon.

You can also get an amazing total conversion mod for Combat Flight Simulator 3 called Over Flanders Fields. Truly one of the best mods ever created and they're busy working on version 3.0. It'll be excellent and V 2.0 is already stellar. Not a bad deal when you consider that you can find CFS3 for about $10 now.

Finaly, there's the upcoming Knights of the Sky by the makers of IL-2. I suspect there may have been a snag in the development as they were pumping out regular info and updated screenshots all of last year. Then they seemed to pull the plug and delete most of the goodies from their webpage. Now it's pretty spartan. Here's a more descriptive article.

Enjoy!

There are a fair number of games which cover WW1, just not from the first person perspective of being in the trenches because modelling trench foot, 14 day artillery barrages and suicidal charges into entrenched MG positions doesn't make for compelling gaming.

For strategic/operational level views of the war, you've got Guns of August: 1914-1918. If you get the Revolutions expansion pack, you can play through WW1 and on into the great depression with Victoria: an Empire Under the Sun. On a more abstract level, there's Diplomacy.

For naval sims there's a WW1 U-Boat simulator called 1914: Shells of Fury. There's a tactical level wargame about a slugfest between British and German dreadnaught fleets called Jutland. It's also covered in a more conventional wargame ****akin to an old tabletop boardgame by HPS Jutland.

For flight sims, there are a couple of games out right now. There's a fairly nice budget title called First Eagles. The stock version of the game isn't the greatest, but the mod scene is great and they've added a tonne of extra content. The developer's been busy too and is releasing an expansion CD soon.

You can also get an amazing total conversion mod for Combat Flight Simulator 3 called Over Flanders Fields. Truly one of the best mods ever created and they're busy working on version 3.0. It'll be excellent and V 2.0 is already stellar. Not a bad deal when you consider that you can find CFS3 for about $10 now.

Finaly, there's the upcoming Knights of the Sky by the makers of IL-2. I suspect there may have been a snag in the development as they were pumping out regular info and updated screenshots all of last year. Then they seemed to pull the plug and delete most of the goodies from their webpage. Now it's pretty spartan. Here's a more descriptive article.

Enjoy!

bogaty

Thanks for the info

Nice work

It can be on any platform

Dilan120

Have a look at this one called Iron Storm. It is a FPS where World War 1 has not ended, set in 1960's

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/ironstorm/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Tell me what you think of it!

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

It can be on any platform

biggest_loser

Have a look at this one called Iron Storm. It is a FPS where World War 1 has not ended, set in 1960's

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/ironstorm/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Tell me what you think of it!

Looks intresting

I remember playing a demo of it years ago and I think it was alright.

See if you can find it and download the demo too!

"To end all wars" for PS3 and X360

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/toendallwars/index.html

If you want WWI, dig a hole, fill it halfway with water, and dive in head first. If you want to play hardcore mode, wet all your clothes before you dive in the hole.

/end

I've seen alot of WWI flight sims (free ones).

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.fireandcloud

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

Every read All Quiet on the Western Front? I wouldn't call WWI "boring" =/

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.MasterYevon

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

Every read All Quiet on the Western Front? I wouldn't call WWI "boring" =/

yeah, read it. it's not like i was saying 'regeneration' or other books on ww1 are boring; i'm saying playing a ww1 game in which you sit on your @$$ for weeks and months would be boring.

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.fireandcloud

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

fireandcloud, I don't mean this badly, but your post is totally uniformed about World War I since you call it "boring" -or think that a WW I FPS would be boring. The Great War is further back in the past than WW II which is a more likely reason there are no fps games. There are no Civil war FPS's as far as I know -but I suppose you would call that boring too.

The fictonal author you cite doesn't seem like an objective historical source for World War I, which was one of the most brutal wars in human history. The battle of Verdun was of the bloodiest battles in the history of the world, with a quater million deaths and a half million wounded in one single battle. World War I was a brutal war, with bayonet charges, phosgene gas, mustard gas, artillery, sniping, machine guns, disease, dugout attacks, night raids, and so on and so fourth.

They could easily make a fps of the ground war which would scare the daylights out of players and be an exciting game, but the market is not there for that period compared to WW II -which is much better known, and therefore a better investment for the Game company's stockholders.

oh, actually, there are: flight sims. red baron - one of the greatest games of all time. i hear they're making a sequel. :D i'm giddy with excitement!fireandcloud

*high fives* That game was Awesome!. I love that level blowing up the Zepplin at night. Really fun game.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="Dilan120"]

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.Deltaforce-

Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring

yup, it's that boring. there's an author named pat barker that writes a lot of ww1 fictions, and she even writes about how soldiers used to develop feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality, cuz they'd be bunkered in behind trenches with nothing better to do. ok, i shared too much. :P read 'regeneration;' pretty good read.

fireandcloud, I don't mean this badly, but your post is totally uniformed about World War I since you call it "boring" -or think that a WW I FPS would be boring. The Great War is further back in the past than WW II which is a more likely reason there are no fps games. There are no Civil war FPS's as far as I know -but I suppose you would call that boring too.

The fictonal author you cite doesn't seem like an objective historical source for World War I, which was one of the most brutal wars in human history. The battle of Verdun was of the bloodiest battles in the history of the world, with a quater million deaths and a half million wounded in one single battle. World War I was a brutal war, with bayonet charges, phosgene gas, mustard gas, artillery, sniping, machine guns, disease, dugout attacks, night raids, and so on and so fourth.

They could easily make a fps of the ground war which would scare the daylights out of players and be an exciting game, but the market is not there for that period compared to WW II -which is much better known, and therefore a better investment for the Game company's stockholders.

by boring, of course, i mean the an fps game would be boring (if it is indeed representative of the war in question), not learning or reading about the war. and yes, a civil war fps would be boring. it would involve a lot of shooting, reloading, and dying. you actually think an fps in which you line up with other soldiers and shoot once, spend about 20 seconds reloading, and shooting again is fun? a game in which survival is mostly based on luck is fun? randomly dying is fun? come on. it might be exciting to watch a civil war movie or read about the civil war, but an fps game is fun mainly because you can use your skills to survive, and if it meant that your survival is based mainly on whether or not the enemy is shooting your way, then it's not fun.

and my source is not the fictional book. i mentioned the fictional book only as a point of amusement, not as a reference. trench warfare is representative of ww1 ground fighting.

yeah, it was a brutal war, with 20 millions soldiers dying, but brutal does not make a fun fps necessarily. the fighting, for the most part, took place in no man's land which separated a system of trenches and fortifications, and it involved a lot of failed attempts at rushing which inevitably resulted in those rushing dying. and as exciting as the idea of chemical warfare may be, it doesn't quite translate to excitement in an fps. and mostly, fighting involved a lot of waiting and guarding. yeah, you could make a ww1 fps that's exciting, but it wouldn't really be representative of ww1 warfare. and my sources are whatever i learned from history courses and books. unless you're a professor of modern european history and unelss you actually experienced ww1 yourself, i suggest you don't pretend to be an expert on this subject.

fireandcould,

a) No, you're backtracking from originally saying WW I was boring. You said "yup, it's that boring." To the contrary, World War I was brutal and how anyone could call a war with 40 million casualties boring, particularly if you didn't fight in it, eludes me.

b) You said soldiers would have "feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality". I don't care who you are citing, or if it's for amusement -that is a lie you posted. And how convenient you target your lie at World War I brave soldiers who for the most part are deceased.

c) Again, you are mistaken as to why there are no WW I FPS's. It probably wouldn't sell is the reason, because the period is overshadowed by WW II. The Korean War from 1950-53 is also not as well known, and likewise there are no FPS's as far as I know, even though the weapons were at least WW II grade.

World War I had sufficient weaponry and battles to make a good FPS objectively. The Mauser's and Springfield rifles were accurate and deadly, and they had pistols, mortars, grenades, machine guns, artillery, phosgene gas, knives, etc. Hand to hand fighting with rifle mounted bayonets would make for action packed and gory sequences in a FPS.

FPS's don't represent all aspects of warfare, they merely portray some of the battles -and are hardly accurate. The first FPS, Wolfenstein 3d was in rooms, hardly representative of WW II. The COD and MOH series didn't show sitting in a bunk in England passing the time. Likewise a WW I FPS could focus on the tactical battles when forts and towns were attacked and taken in hard-core fighting. There was more gaining and losing of ground than your trench warfare stereotype. It woudn't be boring.

But it's not likely because game companies want to make money. And WW II has been a money maker for movies, books, and games, perhaps in part because the Nazi regime makes a compelling evil villain and also WW II was certainly interesting strategically.

b) how is it a lie? how da **** do you know? have you interviewed all the soldiers that ever served in the war? did you take a poll? how da **** do you know this is a lie? what's your source? and what's with your comment regarding targeting brave soldiers? why even mention that? are you saying homosexuals can't be brave soldiers? i wasn't targeting anyone, because i don't even think that depicting someone as a homosexual is targeting someone. how am i targeting someone? how is mentioning an author depicting the relationship between soldiers bordering on homosexuality targeting brave soldiers? get a clue before you try and make your useless points; you only end up coming off as a homophobe.

c) what's with these absolute statements? again, how do you know what the reason is for ww1 fps not presumably selling well? why do you necessarily think that what you think is correct? i just don't understand why you think you're such an expert on this subject? did you take a poll on how popular wars are? do you know for a fact that ww1 isn't that popular? did you take a poll both in europe and america? what da **** do you really know? what's with these assumptions taken as absolutes? yeah, sure, ww2 is probably more popular, but that doesn't mean that this is the reason for ww1 fps games not being developed. it may be, but then again i might be right and people find the prospect of a ww1 fps boring. you're just not the expert to make such conclusions, unless you've actually taken a poll and conducted some studies on this subject of why there isn't a ww1 fps.

fps doesn't represent all aspects of warfare, but it represents it to a fair amount. sure, you could make a ww1 game that features the guns, the uniforms, and even the background, but what would be the point of doing that if you can't represent it accurately to a certain degree? wolfenstein 3d isn't even a good example of ww2 fps games; most people wouldn't call that a ww2 fps game. it may have featured the nazis, but hitler didn't use a robotic suit, did he? i seriously doubt anyone would list that game or its sequel, return to castle wolfenstein, when naming ww2 fps games. yeah, you can make an fps that features ww1 soldiers and equip them with desert eagles and m16s, but that game just wouldn't quite qualify in this discussion. you can make stupid examples all you like; but if you're not going to make intelligent arguments, don't make them at all.

and trench warfare isn't a stereotype; it's representative of the type of ground warfare in ww1. if you can't even acknowledge that, then you really should hit the books again.

and i've heard all your stupid arguments, and you've heard mine. we both think the other is wrong. i think you're an idiot; and you think i'm an idiot. so i'll leave it at that. you can respond all you like to this thread, but this is my last response to this pointless argument. adieu.

Fireandcloud,

I'm not surprised you resorted to name-calling in the end, calling me an "idiot", given the lack of merit in your statements.

a) You did backtrack on calling World War I "boring". You want to say that is not what you meant, fine, but that is not what you originally wrote, saying "yup, it's that boring." That's a past tense statement, so how could you be talking about a fps when there isn't one for WW I.

b) You said the soldiers had "feelings for each other that bordered on homosexuality", implying that soldiers were changing sexual orientation, and now again are backtracking from your statement. This is not about one sexual orientation versus another -you were saying soldiers where changing their orientation, which is baloney, and you don't have a shred of evidence. Further, soldiers, or anyone, could well be offended by being mischaracterized, which is what you were doing to those World War I soldiers. How convenient you do that to a group who are for the most part deceased.

c) You are overstating the degree to which fps's are realistic, or need to be, saying; "fps doesn't represent all aspects of warfare, but it represents it to a fair amount." Actually, the standard of historical accuracy for most shooters is very low, as game designers aim for fun. In COD the player ends up mowing down hundreds of enemy, many at close range, and down linear paths -hardly realistic, although it's fun to play. The Wolfenstein series would be in the WW II genre because the standard is low to qualify.

But it surely would be possible to create an exciting WW I fps, focusing on periods like the Hundred Days Offensive, etc, when territory was being taken. But the reason game companies haven't has little to do with your rationale, but because they don't see a war that is not as well known as a good investment for their stockholders when WW II has been a proven seller.

*sigh* i promised not to respond, but when you make things up and put words in my mouth, i have to...

a) this is almost pointless, but if you look at my first post, i wrote 'you mean a game in which you sit in trenches for months after months? gosh, i hope not. i guess there could be a ww1 rts or tbs, but definitely no fps.' so i was obviously referring to a game (read the fourth word in that quote - 'game'). and then dilan120 responded to what i wrote, 'Wow i didnt know world war 1 was so boring.' i was talking about the game; he said he didn't know ww1 was that boring, which i thought was referring to the possible ww1 game (since i was referring to it), and i wrote, 'yup, it's that boring' in response to what i believed was about a ww1 game in which you sit on your ass for months after months.

the reason i called you a nitwit was because i felt like you were nitpicking. i already told you that i wasn't referring to ww1 in general but a game, but you had to go and argue a stupid point. that's why i called you a nitwit. but i take it back (yes, i'm backtracking!!!). you're not a nitwit. you just like arguing needlessly.

and let's argue needlessly even further. 'yup, it's that boring' could be either past tense or present tense, cuz it could be 'yup, it is that boring' or 'yup, it was that boring,' so your evidence (that i wrote in past tense) doesn't quite back up your argument, ok?

and as for the idiot reference, you obviously have no respect for my opinions or knowledge on this matter; hence, you write things like 'your post is totally uninformed.' if you were some kind of ww1 historian, i'd shut my mouth, but i seriously doubt that you're all that more educated about this subject matter than anyone else is on this forum. your method of calling me an idiot may be more 'civilized,' but it's the same thing as calling someone an idiot when you tell someone that he's 'totally uninformed.' so it's obvious from your statements that you think of me as an idiot, so i'm just returning the favor by calling you one as well. so yeah, i'm not surprised that you're not surprised that i called you names; you started it.

b) you must love that word backtracking or something. i'm not backtracking at all. i never said that heterosexual soldiers were changing their sexual orientations. don't put words in my mouth. but let's pretend you're actually making sense. there are many case studies of straight guys or girls engaging in homosexual activites; and certainly, many friends develop strong feelings for each other that border on love (and in fact, many have developed romantic relationships from such). but that's just a moot point anyhow. pat barker wasn't even saying that they changed their sexual orientation; she was saying that they developed FEELINGS for each other that BORDERED on homosexuality; she was talking about confused feelings and developing such strong bonds from being in difficult situations that their feelings were close to that of romantic love. but certainly, she didn't write that hetereosexual males became homosexual males by changing their sexual orientations, and i certainly never wrote that. why don't you read a bit more carefully what i wrote and stop putting words into my mouth.

c) i'll give you that point - a ww1 fps does not have to be realistic. but if it were, it would be boring from what i read about ww1 trench warfare. that was my point. if you want to dress up characters in ww1 getup and give them ww1 guns and have a fragfest and call it a ww1 fps game, go ahead. and you can make a game that selectively includes only 'fun portions' of ww1 warfare and release it as a ww1 fps, but i'm not interested; i much prefer games that are more historically accurate than not, which is why i think the cod series (the first two) is fun to play but don't find them all that great. i'd rather play a ww1 aerial simulation, rts, or tbs; i'd definitely sign up for them, cuz those games would be interesting, especially if they're a good presentation of ww1 warfare. but i just don't think a ww1 fps would be fun if it's accurately portrayed, and i'm not interested in playing a ww1 fps if it's not accurately portrayed (so either way, i'm not intereted in ww1 fps).

and you should try brothers in arms; it's not the fragfest that cod series is and is often praised for being a more accurate presentation of ww2 ground warfare. and wolfenstein 3d is not a ww2 fps; it's a run and gun game dressed up in ww2 costumes.

[QUOTE="Dilan120"]

It can be on any platform

biggest_loser

Have a look at this one called Iron Storm. It is a FPS where World War 1 has not ended, set in 1960's

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/ironstorm/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Tell me what you think of it!

Dude!!!! I loved Iron Storm. I even used to play it multiplayer. A very underrated game. I loved the big train. Great political mass media manipulation storyline.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="Dilan120"]

It can be on any platform

jasperrussell

Have a look at this one called Iron Storm. It is a FPS where World War 1 has not ended, set in 1960's

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/action/ironstorm/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Tell me what you think of it!

Dude!!!! I loved Iron Storm. I even used to play it multiplayer. A very underrated game. I loved the big train. Great political mass media manipulation storyline.

Ahh soo the prodigal son returns! Did you get my email thingo?

I have only played the demo of the ol' Iron Storm, it wasn't too bad if I recall..

I know a FPS game about the war between Deltaforce and Fireandcloud. But I don't think it will sell well, because it's boring!!!!!!jasperrussell

lol. yes, it's very boring. both the game and the actual war. ignore us. please.

[QUOTE="jasperrussell"]I know a FPS game about the war between Deltaforce and Fireandcloud. But I don't think it will sell well, because it's boring!!!!!!fireandcloud

lol. yes, it's very boring. both the game and the actual war. ignore us. please.

Don't worry, i know the point you're making - it was exactly my own mental reaction when i saw the original question. You could set an FPS in WWI, but as pointed out it would either be jumping out of trenches and getting machine-gunned, or firing a machine gun at rows of troops all charging towards you, or thirdly firing a very big gun in the general direction of a front lline you can't see. The alternative is a fast-action shooter with silly (but fun!) made-up guns, but as pointed out that would be more like RTCW.

We all know wars aren't 'boring' and 'All Quiet on the Western Front' is a great book which anyone that thinks that war is glamourous (or doesn't for that matter) should read

But all i really wanted to say is that the only WWI-related action in a game i've seen is the bit in Painkiller where you have to fight all those spooky WWI troops in the station - not much , but maybe it's a start.... :oops: