• Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
    179 replies, posted
[video=youtube;s5_LPJIQDLI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw[/video]
WW1 Space Marines What a bloody waste of an interesting setting
Looks like the campaign is quite poor.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51234183]Looks like the campaign is quite poor.[/QUOTE] It's quite the opposite according to pretty much everyone who's played it.
I'd like to hear a second opinion from someone else who has played it since a lot of his complaints seem to boil down to "it wasn't exactly what I wanted from a Battlefield game in WWI."
TB is the last person I would look to for a review of a single player experience. He is the kind of person who can't get immersed in anything and even the slightest oddity will cause him to rip into the setting, even when it's his own ignorance which causes the oddity to exist. Fucking "I am a space marine", suits of armour like that did actually exist during WW1. They weren't hugely effective against machinegun fire but they could block rifle rounds. I can understand criticising the game for being unrealistic (to which I would ask what did you fucking expect from a Battlefield game) but you should at least be somewhat fucking knowledgable before you start running your mouth about how things are ridiculous. WWI was a time of rapid experimentation, much of what they tried seems pretty crazy today and most of that stuff didn't work, but it still existed. This video is one step away from "Why isn't everyone using bolt action rifles?" tier shit.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51234253]I'd like to hear a second opinion from someone else who has played it since a lot of his complaints seem to boil down to "it wasn't exactly what I wanted from a Battlefield game in WWI."[/QUOTE] People like myself were hoping for a more authentic campaign, but you have people lugging a heavy machine gun up a hill, while wearing a suit of metal armor without a sweat.
I mean really. He's never complained about soldiers running around hip firing LMGs, but once it's WWI suddenly hip firing a machinegun is a problem. This is the complaint of an idiot, I wasn't expecting TB to be one of the "Buh why isn't it realistic" morons. Fucking retarded.
I don't even care about the immersion and setting, the singleplayer just looks boring. It's been done so many times now, that it just looks like every other generic singleplayer FPS campaign. They could've done so much more with this setting and I agree with him (both storytelling and gameplay wise). [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51234302][B]He's never complained about soldiers running around hip firing LMGs, but once it's WWI suddenly hip firing a machinegun is a problem.[/B][/QUOTE] He wouldn't care that much, if the game wouldn't take itself so damn seriously. He said that in the video.
I don't get pretty much any of the complaints in this thread. There was literally a single mission where you're playing as the dude walking around with the LMG. Otherwise you're a tanker, pilot, Bedouin, runner in Gallipoli or, in the same campaign the LMG one is in, fighting through Austro-Hungarian lines. It's not perfect but it's hardly bad. The game takes itself seriously and tbh it works. Some of the imagery they push is actually really touching, and the war feels pretty real all throughout. The game may not be historically accurate but it's thematically accurate. Just like Battlefield 4 was more of a representation of a Hollywood war than it was actual modern warfare, Battlefield 1 is a representation of the war told in stories.
Battlefield Defence Force at work in this threat. God forbid anyone say something about how shit BF1 is.
[QUOTE=Fantastical;51235253]Battlefield Defence Force at work in this threat. God forbid anyone say something about how shit BF1 is.[/QUOTE] Wow dude so wacky defense force amiright. If you're gonna come into a thread like this where people are gonna be giving their opinions about the game it's probably not a good idea to just insult half the thread cause they don't agree with you. I found it to be one of the best multiplayer Battlefields since 2/2142 and the best singleplayer since Bad Company 1.
[QUOTE=Fantastical;51235253]Battlefield Defence Force at work in this threat. God forbid anyone say something about how shit BF1 is.[/QUOTE] Nothing wrong with offering a rebuttal.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51234286]Fucking "I am a space marine", suits of armour like that did actually exist during WW1. They weren't hugely effective against machinegun fire but they could block rifle rounds. I can understand criticising the game for being unrealistic (to which I would ask what did you fucking expect from a Battlefield game) but you should at least be somewhat fucking knowledgable before you start running your mouth about how things are ridiculous.[/QUOTE] He explicitly mentions it does exist, but even though he generalizes the statement on it being unable to stop bullets, he still has a point that you're essentially a superhuman running up a mountain in armor and with a heavy gun that should wear you out in no time flat while wiping out enemy forces left and right like it's nothing.
i think his point is they made the first AAA WW1 game then wasted there time with a modern military shooter style story rather than a story than tries to represent WW1. it didnt have to be 100% realistic but they wasted the setting with the story they used
I think its fairly entertaining, I didn't have expectations that it would be some immersive WW1 sim. I've bought battlefield for the multiplayer every time, so when theirs a decent singe player worth the time playing its kind of a nice bonus.
[QUOTE=waylander;51235606]i think his point is they made the first AAA WW1 game then wasted there time with a modern military shooter style story rather than a story than tries to represent WW1. it didnt have to be 100% realistic but they wasted the setting with the story they used[/QUOTE] None of the stories felt particularly out of place. It would have been more unrealistic if it was just trench warfare like most people wanted. [editline]20th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Fantastical;51235253]Battlefield Defence Force at work in this threat. God forbid anyone say something about how shit BF1 is.[/QUOTE] Most of the posts in the thread are anti-Battlefield posts from people who haven't bought the game, only three posts are defending it, only one of those people cursed. Nobody here is angry except for you. I suspect you also haven't played the game, however.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51234620]I don't get pretty much any of the complaints in this thread. There was literally a single mission where you're playing as the dude walking around with the LMG. Otherwise you're a tanker, pilot, Bedouin, runner in Gallipoli or, in the same campaign the LMG one is in, fighting through Austro-Hungarian lines. It's not perfect but it's hardly bad. The game takes itself seriously and tbh it works. Some of the imagery they push is actually really touching, and the war feels pretty real all throughout. The game may not be historically accurate but it's thematically accurate. Just like Battlefield 4 was more of a representation of a Hollywood war than it was actual modern warfare, Battlefield 1 is a representation of the war told in stories.[/QUOTE] Did you even watch the video? The space marine bullshit isn't his only complaint. You bring up piloting? He shows the piloting section, and talks at length about how bad he thinks it is, demonstrating aptly that it's impossible to lose, and being offended by the idea that part of the mission is to strafe the fucking AA guns. He also talks about the tank sections, and again brings up how piss easy they are and how nobody can challenge you, because there might not even be other tanks around and the infantry AI is too busy shooting at your tank with rifles and throwing anti-personnel grenades to do anything that might, y'know, cripple a tank. The final part of the video is TB "sneaking" back through enemy lines at night, and he thinks that section is as dumb as bricks because there's no point to it when he can go loud with a shitty revolver and kill all the AI because they run straight at him and are devoid of any understanding of self-preservation. He clearly hates that the game tries to take itself seriously but gives the player no actual challenge or reason to take it seriously, and thinks that the power-fantasy gameplay undermines any serious theme they might have gone for. Something something wasted potential.
I just can't suspend my disbelief for BF1
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51234286]TB is the last person I would look to for a review of a single player experience. He is the kind of person who can't get immersed in anything and even the slightest oddity will cause him to rip into the setting, even when it's his own ignorance which causes the oddity to exist[/QUOTE] You do know his 2 favorite games are Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons and Deus Ex right? Those are both singleplayer games that kinda require being immersed. I know you like the videogame, but please don't make things up to make his opinion seem less valid.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;51234131]WW1 Space Marines What a bloody waste of an interesting setting[/QUOTE] trench armor was actually a real thing that was tested by the italians and germans. It was great for blocking rifle rounds but it hindered too much movement to be considered worthwhile. [IMG]http://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-shot-2015-03-23-at-21.11.55.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/85/44/63/854463681667b2ca7a6b5b1f4c0cf231.jpg[/IMG] shit even this sci-fi looking visor was a thing: [t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/12/9e/e3/129ee3c1169fa928374b2a4420754c5f.jpg[/t]
Having only played Storm of Steel and Mud and Blood, I kind of agree with TB while simultaneously feeling like he lays the hate on a bit thick. Mild spoilers for Mud and Blood so I'll tag it; [sp]Storm of Steel and the first tank level are actually pretty decent. The latter actually lets you get out on foot at will and take out objectives like that but awkwardly requires you to get back in the tank to drive and progress the level. I'm not sure if this was an oversight or original ambitions being scaled back but it's not terrible and actually kept me engaged. The second level is the exact opposite, with you being tasked with going down a road in super-linear fashion, clearing checkpoints so your tank can move through. This succeeds in feeling nothing like a WW1 game or even a Battlefield game, with your lone soldier just stealthing through individual fire-team level patrols one after another until you get to the end where you have to hold out against a typical enemy assault before moving on to the next level. Once again the game decides to set you off on a stealth adventure into a village and once again it feels neither like the campaign for a Battlefield game nor an immersive WW1 experience. Maybe things like these did happen, individual soldiers sneaking into enemy held villages deep behind enemy lines scrounging for supplies, but it feels a lot less legitimate when the game tells you to climb to the top of a windmill and I shit you not there is a silenced American sniper rifle in land that no American had seen at that point of the war. This part is actually the closest to what you would get to a "Bad Company 1" style campaign mission, where you have quite a large play area to do what you want with and approach how you will. It's engaging, but it doesn't feel like a WW1 game at all. The fourth level is a paint by numbers cookie-cutter Battlefield/CoD vehicle section that you can't lose unless you specifically ignore the repair ability. You go down the same village in a tank then go to a staging point where you once again hold out against enemy reinforcements that spawn just over a hill in front of you. The story that links all of these levels is theoretically decent but far too rushed with not nearly enough investment given to any of the characters. I was reading posts about how people were struck by a certain characters death on Reddit and in similar fashion to TB was flabbergasted why when I played the game myself as absolutely no emotional connection had been made. It doesn't even end in a satisfying way.[/sp] So yeah, I've only played one story (though from what I've read it's the "best" story overall, as well as the longest; I beat it in an hour and a half) but it's largely what TB complained about; it feels nothing like a WW1 game most of the time, and it feels nothing like how a Battlefield campaign [I]should [/I]be. Ever since Bad Company 2 DICE has just mostly tried to emulate the CoD model of a campaign but for whatever reason just continually falls short of even that low barrier, and I think one way to shake it up is TB's frankly awesome sounding idea: A 4 player coop campaign where you play each of the 4 now standardized classes that can't actually do everything by themselves and make every level as free-form as the one or two in BF1 that allow you to tackle objectives how you want.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51236165]It was great for blocking rifle rounds but it hindered too much movement to be considered worthwhile.[/QUOTE] Where did you read this? I've only heard of the lobster-looking armor being capable of stopping pistol rounds or rifle rounds at very long distance.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51236198]Where did you read this? I've only heard of the lobster-looking armor being capable of stopping pistol rounds or rifle rounds at very long distance.[/QUOTE] there was an old book someone posted in the battlefield thread of all the different types of trench armor and some were okay at the job, just weren't good at very close range due to lack of protection and it hindered movement.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;51235859]Did you even watch the video? The space marine bullshit isn't his only complaint. You bring up piloting? He shows the piloting section, and talks at length about how bad he thinks it is, demonstrating aptly that it's impossible to lose, and being offended by the idea that part of the mission is to strafe the fucking AA guns. [/QUOTE] I can't find anything talking about specifically countering enemy air defenses but when they are far behind defensive lines I can't think of any better way to neutralize anti-aircraft fire and protect bombers than relying on faster moving fighters to take them out. The idea that planes shouldn't attack anti-air because they are a quote unquote "hard counter" is patently ridiculous as planes have been purpose-built for suppressing enemy air defense and variants made since the Vietnam War. In WW2 P-47 Thunderbolts were tasked with going specifically for enemy air defense and radar sites because they had a good combination of survivability and speed. Given the primitive nature of air combat and particularly close air support doctrine during WW1 it's more than possible to believe that fighters would be instructed to take out anti-aircraft guns ahead of an aerial bombardment.
On Hard on the plane sections all I did was die, the AI was relentless in just targeting the player and killing you. I've played nearly all the War Stories and enjoyed each one personally, though the use of steel helmets at Gallipoli sorta triggered me during the Runner. Buuuut it's pretty much what I expected out of a AAA WWI game, so I'm not disappointed at all, especially since Battlefield is always about the MP rather than the MP and the MP is so damn good. [editline]20th October 2016[/editline] also lol AA guns were strafed by planes in WWI all the time. Strafing runs were a new thing, the Germans even built the first plane dedicated to it.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;51235859]Did you even watch the video? The space marine bullshit isn't his only complaint. You bring up piloting? He shows the piloting section, and talks at length about how bad he thinks it is, demonstrating aptly that it's impossible to lose, and being offended by the idea that part of the mission is to strafe the fucking AA guns. He also talks about the tank sections, and again brings up how piss easy they are and how nobody can challenge you, because there might not even be other tanks around and the infantry AI is too busy shooting at your tank with rifles and throwing anti-personnel grenades to do anything that might, y'know, cripple a tank. The final part of the video is TB "sneaking" back through enemy lines at night, and he thinks that section is as dumb as bricks because there's no point to it when he can go loud with a shitty revolver and kill all the AI because they run straight at him and are devoid of any understanding of self-preservation. He clearly hates that the game tries to take itself seriously but gives the player no actual challenge or reason to take it seriously, and thinks that the power-fantasy gameplay undermines any serious theme they might have gone for. Something something wasted potential.[/QUOTE] This is pretty much it. It seems like the few recent Battlefield campaigns have felt all mushy and devoid of challenge, you can quite easily just melee through all of it if possible.
I feel like while they've been taking small steps towards addressing it, DICE still doesn't get how to make Battlefield singleplayer 'work', and EA is probably pressuring them for cinematic stuff since that's what all FPS games do nowadays apparently. They have the manpower, the capability and budget to be able to essentially do a Battlefield: Bad Company again, or perhaps a Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, where it was basically bot matches but you could switch between soldiers on a dime depending on the situation. Infact, that would've worked well with the style of the opening mission, making the player value and try to protect their soldiers so they don't lose a potential sniper or engineer in a bad situation. Instead, it's just more "you're a badass hero in a bad situation".
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51236328]I feel like while they've been taking small steps towards addressing it, DICE still doesn't get how to make Battlefield singleplayer 'work',[B] and EA is probably pressuring them for cinematic stuff since that's what all FPS games do nowadays apparently.[/B][/QUOTE] There might be "indirect" pressure in the form of deadlines but EA doesn't really work that closely with the game to make large decisions on the campaign like that. It's really just DICE continuing to be DICE at this point. They just have a really hard time selling a singleplayer campaign and the fact that people say this is the best campaign yet or "the best since Bad Company" doesn't say much because [I]none of them[/I] have been noteworthy in the least. [QUOTE=bdd458;51236233]especially since Battlefield is always about the MP rather than the MP and the MP is so damn good.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to deflect from TB's genuine if somewhat overly-harsh criticism but this is absolutely true for anyone who wandered into this thread and was wondering. I played out the 10 hour Origin Access trial and I'm chomping at the bit to play more. I haven't had this much fun playing a Battlefield game since 2142.
I still don't know why they keep making you the lone hero in Battlefield singleplayers, that's the exact antithesis of what the multiplayer is like.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.