Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
179 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51236359]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.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if Battlefield 4 or even this improve on BF3's biggest flaw with the singleplayer, either; entirely different physics and 'rules' from the multiplayer, where bullets are like lasers compared to the bullet drop and range limits in MP, as well as far faster regen and more durability. Battlefield 3 was literally just a gussied up CoD: Modern Warfare with its own story. I know 4 added the squad control but the story sucked, and beyond slightly more open battles I don't even think it changed much, though I may be wrong. BF1 having actual open missions is a large change but still.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51236165]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.[/QUOTE]
This thread as a whole seems to be fixated on the realism factor and it's completely missing the point
I was hoping, maybe too optimistically, that the WW1 setting could get us back to the same feeling of danger and hopelessness that was present in the old days of WW2 shooters
Remember Call of Duty 1? Remember the siege of Stalingrad, where you're asked to assault an enemy position without even having a weapon, under threat that if you try to retreat you're going to get shot by your own side?
Now instead of being just another soldier stuck in a meatgrinder, experiencing the horrors of war, we're the harbringer of doom wearing our bulletproof armor with our bullet hose gun, shrugging off flamethrowers
We're still stuck with roughly the same gameplay as back then and none of the atmosphere
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51236209]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]
Just as a side note since as I mentioned that's beyond the point, I've seen actual shooting tests that show otherwise. They'll stop a pistol bullet but rifle rounds go right through it, especially at any range you'd see in a game
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;51236513]Remember Call of Duty 1? Remember the siege of Stalingrad, where you're asked to assault an enemy position without even having a weapon, under threat that if you try to retreat you're going to get shot by your own side?
Now instead of being just another soldier stuck in a meatgrinder, experiencing the horrors of war, we're the harbringer of doom wearing our bulletproof armor with our bullet hose gun, shrugging off flamethrowers[/QUOTE]
Funny enough, Call of Duty 2 which introduced regenerating health to the mainstream FPS genre still had that feeling of danger. Mostly because even on the normal difficulty, it was incredibly easy to get overwhelmed and slaughtered in no time flat, and the enemies were relentlessly aggressive.
That's disappointing, there's a lot of potential in the setting even without going realistic like Verdun. I'm still waiting on another Republic Commando style game.
Best way to approach it imo is as alt-history, borderline dieselpunk
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51234302]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.[/QUOTE]
When the character's head-to-toe in steel wielding with no effort an 'L'MG that was never designed to accommodate such use, yeah, any leftover sense of authenticity goes out the window
So is it any good or is it bad? I'm confused.
TB's never heard of Ned Kelly it seems.
EDIT: Or that they actually did have rockets on biplanes in WW1.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51237534]Best way to approach it imo is as alt-history, borderline dieselpunk[/QUOTE]
prey tell how it's "borderline dieselpunk".
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
god yeah there are historical inaccuracies out the wazoo, but I feel that was to be expected out of a AAA game on WWI.
like seriously, there isn't really anything I've seen in game that I haven't seen in other sources (especially all the body armor, check out Bashford Dean's book on experimental armor from the war, it's pretty much a guarantee DICE used that. though im not talking about the stories) save for a couple of things like the Allied gasmasks. there's nothing that borders on dieselpunk
[QUOTE=bdd458;51237680]prey tell how it's "borderline dieselpunk".
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
god yeah there are historical inaccuracies out the wazoo, but I feel that was to be expected out of a AAA game on WWI.
like seriously, there isn't really anything I've seen in game that I haven't seen in other sources (especially all the body armor, check out Bashford Dean's book on experimental armor from the war, it's pretty much a guarantee DICE used that. though im not talking about the stories) save for a couple of things like the Allied gasmasks. there's nothing that borders on dieselpunk[/QUOTE]
he means "they should've done it as alt history dieselpunk"
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=weyu6572;51237657]So is it any good or is it bad? I'm confused.[/QUOTE]
If you're expecting something revolutionary in SP campaigns for Battlefield, don't.
If you don't mind the SP campaigns of the series, you may enjoy it.
If you are someone who hates historical inaccuracies and can't disassociate it from a game's liberties taken with the material, you're gonna have a brain aneurysm.
Personally I really wanted a 2143 just because there is so much room for new content for that it's begging to get made. You had a whole slew of gadgets that can be made based off the fact we had personal shields,sentry guns, motion mines, vehicle and infantry radars,active camo,decoys. New vehicles like the walkers and the VTOLS had huge room to be refined or expanded upon same with many of the armored vehicles,personal weapons, and the factions as a whole.
New factions = New weapons,vehicle types, and titan types. Hell just by going off what Last Stand was I believed that BF2143 was definitely going to be the one made.
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
I'm just sorely disappointed that these were teased buy left in the dust.
[thumb]https://battlefieldforum.net/index.php?attachments/bf3_hover-jpg.433/[/thumb]
[thumb]https://battlefieldforum.net/index.php?attachments/bf4-2143-hint-2-1-jpg.436/[/thumb]
[thumb]http://agagaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/giants-of-karelia-screenshot-1.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Drury;51237677]TB's never heard of Ned Kelly it seems.[/QUOTE]
Ned Kelly only did a single shootout in his armor, and he was not running up hills with it and a 10+ kilo machinegun. He was also captured as a result of said shootout. I doubt he could escape in 40 kilo armour.
- snipped
[QUOTE=snijboer;51238450]It is so funny he talks alot about that super soldier/immortal thing as he plays through it.
Look at 14:11, he retreats when the flametrooper decides to come in.[/QUOTE]
because you'd have to be fucking retarded to dive into a flamethrower's path headfirst
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51238456]because you'd have to be fucking retarded to dive into a flamethrower's path headfirst[/QUOTE]
Look at his health when it happens.
[QUOTE=snijboer;51238463]Look at his health when it happens.[/QUOTE]
He's not looking strictly at his health, it's a regen stop and pop shooter in the singleplayer. Don't think purely on logic here and give him shit for the situational context, would you inherently ignore all potential danger if you were playing without knowing how much damage it does and dive right into the fire?
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51238476]He's not looking strictly at his health, it's a regen stop and pop shooter in the singleplayer. Don't think purely on logic here and give him shit for the situational context, would you inherently ignore all potential danger if you were playing without knowing how much damage it does and dive right into the fire?[/QUOTE]
Well, he said that the only threat was flame troopers getting exploded. Pretty much everything else didn't hurt.
And that i thought it was funny, when he retreats.
It's like saying that the campaign is super easy, nothing is going to happen at all, got it all under control, until that moment you get shot everywhere, getting almost killed.
Like he underestimated it. But it is meant to be positive, not negative.
[QUOTE=snijboer;51238503]Well, he said that the only threat was flame troopers getting exploded. Pretty much everything else didn't hurt.
And that i thought it was funny, when he retreats.
It's like saying that the campaign is super easy, nothing is going to happen at all, got it all under control, until that moment you get shot everywhere, getting almost killed.
Like he underestimated it. But it is meant to be positive, not negative.[/QUOTE]
Did you even watch the same video? He was hardly even trying to play the game. The problem with the campaign is that it makes you a super soldier but tries to get away with realism. You are basically just [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafing_(gaming)#Circle_strafing"]circle strafing[/URL] around a [URL="http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Z-Targeting"]Z-targeted opponent[/URL].
There is no feeling that you're part of a squad, there is no point in taking a tactical approach (WW1 was all about coming up with new solutions) because the only thing you do is "see enemy > shoot enemy".
Also yes TotalBiscuit is being controversial but it's for a damn good reason, why are other reviewers saying the campaign is actually good and get emotionally attached?
The whole reason the multiplayer is good is because you feel challenged, TotalBiscuit was not challenged at all and even if he would put the game on Hard difficulty he still wouldn't feel challenged, because the AI is too bland for it, it just changes some damage parameters.
Right, i understand now.
Thanks
anti-aircraft emplacements taken out by standard aircrafts
i think they might've had a wrong idea of what 'aircraft' means
[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]
I've played the first 3 stories. Enjoying it so far. Some really cool set-pieces in it. It's not amazing and must-play, nor deep and emotional, but it's a fantastic addition to what is mostly a multiplayer game.
[QUOTE=O'Neil;51234288]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.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's possible or at least semi-accurate, idk how you'd want them to represent the difficulty apart from making them move slower (which i think they did i cant remember i've only seen gameplay videos) or some kind of sweat mechanic (though that would be pretty cool in its own way it'd just seem like a gimmick)
[QUOTE=comet1337;51238762]anti-aircraft emplacements taken out by standard aircrafts
i think they might've had a wrong idea of what 'aircraft' means[/QUOTE]
Except that was done during the war???????
Woah, I am SHOCKED and appalled that the new battlefield isn't realistic in the slightest.
Why is it you make it set during WWI and suddenly you're REQUIRED to make it realistic?
It's fucking Battlefield not Verdun.
[QUOTE=Skyward;51239152]Why is it you make it set during WWI and suddenly you're REQUIRED to make it realistic?
It's fucking Battlefield not Verdun.[/QUOTE]
Flo, the PR guy for the The Great War channel put it well - BF1 is a great WWI Video Game, and Verdun is a better WWI Simulator. Both attack the source material in different ways and do well in their respective areas.
I went into Battlefield 1 expecting a Battlefield game and I got a [I]really[/I] good one so I'm happy.
Everything argued here was countered by TB.
Half the replies didn't even listen: it's [I]unauthentic[/I].
Still being a modern military shooter, it's too easy & mindless.
[QUOTE=Talvy;51239392]Everything argued here was countered by TB.
Half the replies didn't even listen: it's [I]unauthentic[/I].
Being the modern military shooter, it's too easy & mindless.[/QUOTE]
Half the replies didn't even listen: it's unauthentic.
if you bought BF1 and expected it to be authentic I think you need to get your head checked
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51239538]if you bought BF1 and expected it to be authentic I think you need to get your head checked[/QUOTE]
shit attitude
I didn't buy it: it promised that change, but didn't deliver it, so its campaign could at least have engaging gameplay.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51236165]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][/QUOTE]
Actualy, the armor was pretty much useless for any kind of protection against rifle shots under 400 yards. At 60 these tended to simply shatter because it was hardened steel.
You could count on it stopping pistol rounds and shrapnel, though, that's it .
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.