Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
179 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Talvy;51239579]Your attitude is shit.
I didn't buy it: [B]it promised that change, but didn't deliver it,[/B] so its campaign could at least have engaging gameplay.[/QUOTE]
It never promised anything of the sort.
You're turbo-projecting your own hype and expectations onto something that [I]never ever[/I] aimed to achieve that goal. You literally misguided yourself and are now blaming the game for your own ineptitude at properly reading promo material.
Battlefield never was, and never will be a realistic, or "authentic" depiction of any war. People instantly started to bitch and moan when the game was revealed because it wasn't realistic enough, despite the fact it belongs to a series that never aimed for that result.
[editline]a[/editline]
And about TB's video directly, I love the guy and all but it's pretty much well established by now that the guy has absolutely no interest whatsoever in anything that's more narrative/spectacle oriented and isn't just raw gameplay with as little in the way as possible. Him disliking the single player campaign is predictable and his complaints about it are pretty much just subjective perception of the game rather than any actual objective analysis of the provided experience. The fact he spends good chunks of the video talking about what [I]he[/I] would have done to design these areas goes to show that he's not really capable of immersing himself into just a spectacle. That's not the kind of player he is and that's fine, but his word isn't gospel.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51239739]It never promised anything of the sort.[/QUOTE]
Yes it did.
Listen to the video / check out interviews.
For the record, I merely followed its release. I don't have a problem with the game itself, I'm sure it's good; but the campaign's W+M1 as evident.
I honestly didn't have a problem with the BF1 campaign. It was enough to keep me hooked and play through it in a single sitting. What I didn't like is the multiple times where it tried to be Far Cry, that's not the kind of gameplay I want in Battlefield.
Totalbiscuit never said the game had to be an authentic ww1 shooter. Did anyone actually watch the video? He said the shooting was boring and had no challenge and the vehicle mechanics sucked.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;51236513]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
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]
Because who cares, so the game isnt 100% realistic. Its battlefield, a game where soldiers were using prototype guns that never really exsisted, stands on the wings of bombers, and where you can revive a person who was literally shot with a 120mm howitzer with an defibrillator. They just took what did exsist at the time and stretched it a little. They put assloads of care about ww1, and you can tell by the final message and the 500+ codex messages about the tech/battles/tactics/cultural changes in the codex system.
[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]
Totalbiscuit addressed this. His complaint with the trench armor segment was that no troops besides you matter and you have unlimited regenerating health and no one is a threat. He further questions why everyone doesn't have the armor on if it guarantees the user near invincibility.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51240619]Totalbiscuit addressed this. His complaint with the trench armor segment was that no troops besides you matter and you have unlimited regenerating health and no one is a threat. He further questions why everyone doesn't have the armor on if it guarantees the user near invincibility.[/QUOTE]
It was literally a 5 minute segment for one level and he dwells on it for an large chunk of the video. The mp version is probably closest since having that armor half the time is a detriment rather than a plus due to you being so slow and picked off at medium range.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51240743]It was literally a 5 minute segment for one level and he dwells on it for an large chunk of the video. The mp version is probably closest since having that armor half the time is a detriment rather than a plus due to you being so slow and picked off at medium range.[/QUOTE]
I'm simply pointing out what he said since everyone apparently missed it because he states like at least 8 times that he is fine with ahistorical gameplay.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51240612]Because who cares, so the game isnt 100% realistic. Its battlefield, a game where soldiers were using prototype guns that never really exsisted, stands on the wings of bombers, and where you can revive a person who was literally shot with a 120mm howitzer with an defibrillator. They just took what did exsist at the time and stretched it a little. They put assloads of care about ww1, and you can tell by the final message and the 500+ codex messages about the tech/battles/tactics/cultural changes in the codex system.[/QUOTE]
That's mainly TB's problem; even with historical inaccuracies aside, you're practically a badass superhero that is played with a straight face most of the time in what is just another shooting gallery singleplayer with occasional vehicle or gimmick / stealth sections with nothing but the setting and presentation factors to separate it from the rest of the market. The inaccuracies and exaggeration are inherent to the series, yes, but the battle and situational context are the main problem; Call of Duty got down survival senses strongly and made its situations intense, as mentioned on the last page, and it's working on a lot of the same core ideas and overall mechanics. They could've written and developed things to actually fit the setting more, but DICE just sort of went into their safe zone after the opening mission.
Also, the multiplayer video would be separate as he says at the beginning. TB usually likes the BF multiplayers a whole lot more than the campaigns, as to be expected, and especially if they improve on things from previous games or do things well altogether with no real launch bullshit.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51240858]That's mainly TB's problem; even with historical inaccuracies aside, you're practically a badass superhero that is played with a straight face most of the time in what is just another shooting gallery singleplayer with occasional vehicle or gimmick / stealth sections with nothing but the setting and presentation factors to separate it from the rest of the market. The inaccuracies and exaggeration are inherent to the series, yes, but the battle and situational context are the main problem; Call of Duty got down survival senses strongly and made its situations intense, as mentioned on the last page, and it's working on a lot of the same core ideas and overall mechanics. They could've written and developed things to actually fit the setting more, but DICE just sort of went into their safe zone after the opening mission.
Also, the multiplayer video would be separate as he says at the beginning. TB usually likes the BF multiplayers a whole lot more than the campaigns, as to be expected, and especially if they improve on things from previous games or do things well altogether with no real launch bullshit.[/QUOTE]
The only mission I would say that comes close to a one man army ordeal is the one he spent half the video on even though it only takes up a small segment of the campaign, later on in that mission it has you taking your armour off and has you to look for a friend and walk into a bunker that has a bunch of dead bodies + shell shocked soldiers in it, after that you've to fight up a hill in trenches towards a bunker with other soldiers on your team with flame thrower troops and mortar/explosives everywhere and I actually ended up dying a few times here because I tried running in only to get myself cornered and die which was something I didn't expect to happen.
The runner mission has you charging up a beach with a bunch of soldiers dying with some making it through and you've to fight your way up trenches and capture a flag at the top of the hill, after that you've to either sneak or fight your way through a village to find allies on the other side who you discover are losing so you have to run back to your base where you end up finding a note saying that they've abandoned and are just gonna drop artillery on their own troops to cover their retreat so you've to run, or get on a horse, back to the frontline and tell them they've been abandoned and find out a kid who you're working with decided to storm a castle, so you can either sneak or fight your way up to the castle to find him and a bunch of injured/dead soldiers trying to hold out but you let them escape by turning yourself into a distraction which ends with you dying. To me that captured both the hopelessness but also the hopefulness that early Call of Duty/Medal of Honour games captures.
You say that DICE just went into their safe zones after the prologue but if that were true then wouldn't it just be like BF3/4's singleplayer then that try to imitate Call of Duty linearity?
I say that because the Nothing is Written war story is as far from linear as can be and is probably my favourite out of them all in terms of gameplay elements because it was like they embraced their multiplayer part of the game through this part with its openess with having soldiers patrolling different parts of the map and just drops you in and telling you to do the objectives in any order you want with what you want, whether that be stealth, shooting or using vehicles you can steal, or even a horse. I cant help but feel like he deliberately left out mentioning the Nothing is Written war story cause it shows he played through the whole thing of that one but he talks about all the other War Stories except this one.
I was never expecting much of the BF1 single player in the first place, so I'm not surprised. I'll probably play through it and enjoy it when I get the game but I don't know what people were hoping for.
[editline]21st October 2016[/editline]
I am by no means dismissing people who expected more.
Reminder that this is the same game that didn't include female characters because it was "unrealistic" and "immersion breaking."
[QUOTE=Aztec;51240619]Totalbiscuit addressed this. His complaint with the trench armor segment was that no troops besides you matter and you have unlimited regenerating health and no one is a threat. He further questions why everyone doesn't have the armor on if it guarantees the user near invincibility.[/QUOTE]
It's obvious that the campaign isn't designed to provide a challenge but purely a spectacle. Stuff like switching protagonists upon death instead of reloading to a checkpoint in some areas where you can actually easily die is a pretty obvious indicator of this.
What you have to keep in mind is that the singleplayer campaign for battlefield 1 is quite literally just one big showcase of cool shit happening. The player doesn't have as much agency or isn't in quite as much real danger as with the multiplayer part of the game because the goal is to provide a spectacle, not an actual traditional game experience.
If the game marketed the SP campaign as the primary appeal and the MP was relegated to a bonus feature I'd understand the dislike, but it's quite literally the opposite. The SP campaign is there for added value and practically nothing else.
TB's criticism is a textbook example of missing the point. He's free to not like it just like anyone else but his points make him sound like he completely misunderstood the general design philosophy.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51242940]It's obvious that the campaign isn't designed to provide a challenge but purely a spectacle. Stuff like switching protagonists upon death instead of reloading to a checkpoint in some areas where you can actually easily die is a pretty obvious indicator of this.
What you have to keep in mind is that the singleplayer campaign for battlefield 1 is quite literally just one big showcase of cool shit happening. The player doesn't have as much agency or isn't in quite as much real danger as with the multiplayer part of the game because the goal is to provide a spectacle, not an actual traditional game experience.
If the game marketed the SP campaign as the primary appeal and the MP was relegated to a bonus feature I'd understand the dislike, but it's quite literally the opposite. The SP campaign is there for added value and practically nothing else.
TB's criticism is a textbook example of missing the point. He's free to not like it just like anyone else but his points make him sound like he completely misunderstood the general design philosophy.[/QUOTE]
Your post is a textbook example of missing the point. As you literally just said, the developers were focused on multiplayer and left the singleplayer with bad ai intentionally. Then if someone wants to criticize the singleplayer on those grounds its not that they are "missing the point" its that they are [I]right[/I].
It's a terrible waste of a campaign
It shows appalling bad and inconsistent/tone deaf writing and is generally unimaginative in the way that it displays what it's trying to depict.
Prime example of lack of imagination: Through the Mud and Blood. The campaign could have started much as it did but far earlier with the initial introduction of the tank, displaying it as the brand fucking new and totally unproven weapon that it was, then built up to the first hair-raising Tank on Tank engagement in history with an A7V.
But what did you get? You blunder through a line of trenches, then, with very little fanfare, encounter an A7V as a speed bump, and then on top of that a random captured Renault FT. Then more braindead field guns. Then you have an on foot section in which at the end you single handedly destroy four-five more Renaults and two armored cars, completely forsaking the fact that you have a tank yourself and could be in it if this mission suddenly didn't become 'escort' the fucking [B]DEATH FORTRESS[/B] of a vehicle you have for some reason. Then you need to go steal spark plugs in a generally unnecessarily implemented stealth mission, which again takes focus away from the fucking tank. And then you go on to destroy an entire armored division singlehandedly.
And the crescendo of the entire campaign, the best one they could think to throw at you, was an encounter with [B]2[/B] A7Vs.
[B]HOLY SHIT TWO A7Vs WHAT A CHALLENGE AFTER THREE ENEMY MARK Vs AND 5+ FTs. IT REALLY FEELS LIKE THIS ISN'T JUST USELESS PADDING WITH NO BEARING ON HISTORY WHAT SO EVER. JUST THROWING TOUGH GUYS AT YOU TO SHOOT SO YOU CAN CALL IT A DAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERY OTHER BRAIN DEAD SHOOTER DOES. JUST MINDLESS ESCALATION OF DIFFICULTY.[/B]
It did not need to be 100% historically accurate, it did not need to be 100% realistic. But what the campaign was is [B]Lazy.[/B] Lazy and uninspired. And to a point insulting your intelligence (Friends in High Places. Holy shit.) It did not treat the war as anything other than a source for oddball comedy weapons and equipment and it failed to even give most of those the light they deserved. As seen by treating one of the biggest innovations of the war, [B]the tank[/B], like an ad in the sunday paper. Just a normal fucking thing.
Fuck the machine gun doesn't even seem important with the glutton of automatic weapons running around.
You know, the machine gun.
Half of the reason why we had to resort to trench warfare to begin with.
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
While I'm at it, it's also fucking disingenuous and pretentious. It says behind every gun sight is a human being.
You never play as anyone from the central powers, ever. [B]And the Christmas truce is never touched upon. One of the most humbling events in the entire history of modern warfare.[/B]
Do you understand how fucking flawed this is? I hope so, or you're just dense.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51239141]Woah, I am SHOCKED and appalled that the new battlefield isn't realistic in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
I said this when it was announced, and it's proven now even more with its release. The game is fine, and it offers a lot of fun for those who like it. It IS fun, and visually very impressive!
The topic of history is also something I am passionate about, and WW1 is basically at the top of that list. The only real travesty of this all(other than the typical EA bullshit) is the new generation of WW1 "experts" it's going to spawn, just like the game World of Tanks did. The impact this medium has on these topics reaches such a broad audience and distorts the reality they represent to cringe-worthy proportions to the point that it ruins engaging conversation about the subjects. This thread being proof of that in real time.
Have fun playing the game, but please for the love of god do some actual research on the events before, during and after WW1.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51241943]Reminder that this is the same game that didn't include female characters because it was "unrealistic" and "immersion breaking."[/QUOTE]
It did have a female character though? Besides, why does every game need female characters if they don't fit with the source material? For the authentic woman in WWI experience they'd just have us doing QTEs to build artillery shells in a factory somewhere in Canada. Unless you're just trolling or being sarcastic.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;51244470]It did have a female character though? Besides, why does every game need female characters if they don't fit with the source material? For the authentic woman in WWI experience they'd just have us doing QTEs to build artillery shells in a factory somewhere in Canada. Unless you're just trolling or being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]
Playable*
And because women are people who like to play video games, too. Sometimes they want to play as a woman. And, like what's been said, it didn't take a playable woman for the game to not fit its source material. It's already not an "authentic WWI experience." The thing they were trying to avoid by not putting in female characters was the very thing they did, anyway. They ignored the source material in a lot of sectors, already.
[QUOTE=killiam;51243980]I said this when it was announced, and it's proven now even more with its release. The game is fine, and it offers a lot of fun for those who like it. It IS fun, and visually very impressive!
[/QUOTE]
no. stop with this fucking "oh the game shits and pisses all over history but its FUN" line of dogshit. its a terrible game made by a development house full of awful people who don't have a [B][I]shred[/I][/B] of fucking respect for history and those who died. its beyond disgusting to see anyone trying to defend this filth and i hold anyone who bought this piece of dogshit and doesn't protest this shit accountable for the damage this game is doing to history. fuck the game needs to be just fucking banned. period
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;51244612]no. stop with this fucking "oh the game shits and pisses all over history but its FUN" line of dogshit. its a terrible game made by a development house full of awful people who don't have a [B][I]shred[/I][/B] of fucking respect for history and those who died. its beyond disgusting to see anyone trying to defend this filth and i hold anyone who bought this piece of dogshit and doesn't protest this shit accountable for the damage this game is doing to history. fuck the game needs to be just fucking banned. period[/QUOTE]
did a battlefield game piss on your cereal or something dude
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;51244612]no. stop with this fucking "oh the game shits and pisses all over history but its FUN" line of dogshit. its a terrible game made by a development house full of awful people who don't have a [B][I]shred[/I][/B] of fucking respect for history and those who died. its beyond disgusting to see anyone trying to defend this filth and i hold anyone who bought this piece of dogshit and doesn't protest this shit accountable for the damage this game is doing to history. fuck the game needs to be just fucking banned. period[/QUOTE]
Do you have to go to school to be this edgy?
Seriously, while BF1 isn't the most accurate game around, it's amazing to finally see a AAA WWI game and get the setting in people's minds. Cause them to get curious about the war, to read books and memoirs and to visit museums. To attend living history events, and actually expand their knowledge base.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51244635]it's amazing to finally see a AAA WWI game and get the setting in people's minds. Cause them to get curious about the war, to read books and memoirs and to visit museums. To attend living history events, and actually expand their knowledge base.[/QUOTE]
It's amazing there exist people so optimistic.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;51244612]no. stop with this fucking "oh the game shits and pisses all over history but its FUN" line of dogshit. its a terrible game made by a development house full of awful people who don't have a [B][I]shred[/I][/B] of fucking respect for history and those who died. its beyond disgusting to see anyone trying to defend this filth and i hold anyone who bought this piece of dogshit and doesn't protest this shit accountable for the damage this game is doing to history. fuck the game needs to be just fucking banned. period[/QUOTE]
This is a ridiculous, you're acting like their pointing a gun to peoples heads telling them that if they don't believe WW1 was like this then they'll get shot. It's almost as if it's a game, a Battlefield game in particular which, believe it or not, [I]isn't[/I] a milsim game like some people are suddenly pretending, and isn't a series that is 100% grounded in reality and never has been.
Tell me please someone, why is it that 1942 was okay, why Vietnam was okay, but BF1 suddenly takes it too far?
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;51244612]no. stop with this fucking "oh the game shits and pisses all over history but its FUN" line of dogshit. its a terrible game made by a development house full of awful people who don't have a [B][I]shred[/I][/B] of fucking respect for history and those who died. its beyond disgusting to see anyone trying to defend this filth and i hold anyone who bought this piece of dogshit and doesn't protest this shit accountable for the damage this game is doing to history. fuck the game needs to be just fucking banned. period[/QUOTE]
"The damage this game is doing to history" suuuure... A video game is going to ruin history...
If this was a WWII or Vietnam game where crazy nonsensical bullshit was happening nobody would bat an eye. But now that it's WWI its somehow more disrespectful than any of the other countless ridiculous depictions of historical wars in video games. [I]This one[/I] somehow crosses the line. Suuure.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51244635]Do you have to go to school to be this edgy?
Seriously, while BF1 isn't the most accurate game around, it's amazing to finally see a AAA WWI game and get the setting in people's minds. Cause them to get curious about the war, to read books and memoirs and to visit museums. To attend living history events, and actually expand their knowledge base.[/QUOTE]
do you actually believe the player base of battlefield is actually going to educate themselves and not take this shit at face value? what a fucking joke
i'd much rather not see any games based on ww1 at all least of all dice do it. video games are not a medium that can handle anything with respect or decency. leave it to [I]historians[/I], people who actually give a fuck about what the war really was like and the people who died in it instead of shameless game developers out for money
Just ignore 9 here he's always a stupidly aggressive and brash poster who thinks literally anything modern sucks shit.
I don't honestly care for BF1 after watching the campaign footage, but shit I can't tolerate people like 9 who are literally saying the devs "Have no respect for those people". Neither do you, clearly, because it takes a game screwing up the representation to upset you, when games that bumble Vietnam, or the other conflicts are fine.
The fact people get so up in arms about "disrespecting the dead" over a war that I know they know nothing about besides the popular points
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;51244721]do you actually believe the player base of battlefield is actually going to educate themselves and not take this shit at face value? what a fucking joke
i'd much rather not see any games based on ww1 at all least of all dice do it. video games are not a medium that can handle anything with respect or decency. leave it to [I]historians[/I], people who actually give a fuck about what the war really was like and the people who died in it instead of shameless game developers out for money[/QUOTE]
...You do realise there is an ingame codex that acts like a mini wiki for WW1 stuff, right?
also the people who run "The Great War" youtube channel seem to like the game and have done a few videos on it, they're actually going to do a video soon where they're gonna compare the game to WW1 stuff which would be interesting to see.
The people who worked on Verdun as far as I know also like the game, infact if I remember correctly one of the lead dev's who worked on Verdun I think went to visit DICE earlier this year and congratulated them on their work.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;51244594]Playable*
And because women are people who like to play video games, too. Sometimes they want to play as a woman. And, like what's been said, it didn't take a playable woman for the game to not fit its source material. It's already not an "authentic WWI experience." The thing they were trying to avoid by not putting in female characters was the very thing they did, anyway. They ignored the source material in a lot of sectors, already.[/QUOTE]
You olay as a woman in parts of the campaign... and woman can play male video game characters and all enjoy the game. I do it all the fucking time lol (ignore my username)
[QUOTE=Joshii;51244753]...You do realise there is an ingame codex that acts like a mini wiki for WW1 stuff, right?
also the people who run "The Great War" youtube channel seem to like the game and have done a few videos on it, they're actually going to do a video soon where they're gonna compare the game to WW1 stuff which would be interesting to see.
The people who worked on Verdun as far as I know also like the game, infact if I remember correctly one of the lead dev's who worked on Verdun I think went to visit DICE earlier this year and congratulated them on their work.[/QUOTE]
The National WWI museum put this out:
[t]https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14753194_10154619583661241_2620465121832740833_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9[/t]
And I know that when BF1 was announced The Great War channel got a huuuge boost in subscribers. So yeah, people ARE inquistive once they start learning about something lmao, the problem is you don't put enough faith into people.
Ive heard a lot of stories about people becoming interested in learning about WWI after playing BF1. Getting people interested in history is always a good thing, i don't see how you can claim otherwise
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.