Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
179 replies, posted
I still firmly believe that had this been 2143 there would be a lot more potential for the campaign to be better just due in part there is a lot more different machines for war and ways to dick around, IE active camo,walkers,titans, and all sorts of neat stuff they could've played with.
Could have been, but unfortunately they'd appear to be riding COD's sci fi coattails to the uninitiated.
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;51244814]I still firmly believe that had this been 2143 there would be a lot more potential for the campaign to be better just due in part there is a lot more different machines for war and ways to dick around, IE active camo,walkers,titans, and all sorts of neat stuff they could've played with.[/QUOTE]
Eh, considering Titanfall and CoD are both doing the sci-fi thing and those two [I]and [/I]BF1 are all coming out within 10 days of each other, I'm glad they worked with the WWI setting.
I [I]did [/I]enjoy 2142, but I don't think now's the time to go back to it.
[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[/QUOTE]
My uncle played a lot of Battlefield 1942 back in the day. Like, a lot. Clocked thousands of hours.
Maybe it was the game, maybe it was destiny, but either way - he enlisted with the army. He wanted to be a pilot, and become a pilot he did, with the same determination that drove him to sink so many hours in his beloved Battlefield.
One time they deployed him over Ukraine. The copilot said he wanted to show off. "Don't touch the controls," he said. "This is what we call a 'loopzook'." He raised the nose of his fighter plane straight up at the sky, then he ejected. The plane drew a vertical circle, and rammed him as he fell.
I lost an uncle to a videogame on that day. I shall never forgive EA for the atrocity they have unleashed upon my family.
[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]
Did they actually state that they didn't include a woman cause it was unrealistic and immersion breaking? Cause yeah that's a fucking shit reason - not having a playable woman isn't an issue, but implying it was a conscious decision to not include a playable women for those reasons is bullshit lol
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51244809]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[/QUOTE]
Ofcourse that's bound to happen - I mean I didn't get into WW2 because I started out playing Red Orchestra and WW2 mods for ArmA, I was playing Battlefield 1942 and Call of Duty
[editline]22nd October 2016[/editline]
[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]
If anything, this will just inspire more WW1 games to come out in the next few years, and some of them will be more historically accurate
[QUOTE=Drury;51244890]My uncle played a lot of Battlefield 1942 back in the day. Like, a lot. Clocked thousands of hours.
Maybe it was the game, maybe it was destiny, but either way - he enlisted with the army. He wanted to be a pilot, and become a pilot he did, with the same determination that drove him to sink so many hours in his beloved Battlefield.
One time they deployed him over Ukraine. The copilot said he wanted to show off. "Don't touch the controls," he said. "This is what we call a 'loopzook'." He raised the nose of his fighter plane straight up at the sky, then he ejected. The plane drew a vertical circle, and rammed him as he fell.
I lost an uncle to a videogame on that day. I shall never forgive EA for the atrocity they have unleashed upon my family.[/QUOTE]
shit, man that story got dark fast sorry to hear that
[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]
[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]
take it easy it's just a game
[QUOTE=Drury;51244890]My uncle played a lot of Battlefield 1942 back in the day. Like, a lot. Clocked thousands of hours.
Maybe it was the game, maybe it was destiny, but either way - he enlisted with the army. He wanted to be a pilot, and become a pilot he did, with the same determination that drove him to sink so many hours in his beloved Battlefield.
One time they deployed him over Ukraine. The copilot said he wanted to show off. "Don't touch the controls," he said. "This is what we call a 'loopzook'." He raised the nose of his fighter plane straight up at the sky, then he ejected. The plane drew a vertical circle, and rammed him as he fell.
I lost an uncle to a videogame on that day. I shall never forgive EA for the atrocity they have unleashed upon my family.[/QUOTE]
I fucking thought you were being serious until you started blaming EA.
Genius.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51244809]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[/QUOTE]
Video games are how I got interested in history as a kid. I played Medal of Honor on PS2 and it got me interested in WWII. If BF1 does the same for another 8 year old kid and gets them interested in WWI, I'm all for it.
[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[/QUOTE]
People already hit up this one and I'm pretty sure you are a troll but for other peoples interest; Hardcore History/The Great War Youtube series gets posted on the front page of the Battlefield and BF1 subreddits weekly.
[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 [/QUOTE]
Well I know that I am going to look up The Great War more after exams thanks to BF1 and BF4/BF3 certainly made me more interested in their guns and their history, so you assuming people who play Battlefield will never grow any new interests in new subjects is just close-minded and really shows how toxic you are.
Seriously, people like you love to cry 'muh vidya is are ruin historicalll!!!!' just because it's WW1 but do jackshit nothing when WW2 games do the exact same shit. At least be consistent in your endless bitching.
Then again, you're the same lad who bitched about the Desert Eagle being in [I]Killing Floor[/I], so I really doubt that the words 'arcade' and 'fun' will ever go through your dense skull.
People seem to overlook the part where he says the unauthenticness could be forgiven if the gameplay was fun and interesting (and also if it didn't take itself so seriously). But it's not fun and interesting, it's piss-easy shooting galleries all the way through.
[QUOTE=Derp123213;51246724]Well I know that I am going to look up The Great War more after exams thanks to BF1 and BF4/BF3 certainly made me more interested in their guns and their history, so you assuming people who play Battlefield will never grow any new interests in new subjects is just close-minded and really shows how toxic you are.
Seriously, people like you love to cry 'muh vidya is are ruin historicalll!!!!' just because it's WW1 but do jackshit nothing when WW2 games do the exact same shit. At least be consistent in your endless bitching.
Then again, you're the same lad who bitched about the Desert Eagle being in [I]Killing Floor[/I], so I really doubt that the words 'arcade' and 'fun' will ever go through your dense skull.[/QUOTE]
wait i remember reading something about someone bitching involving a gun, could it be that same one? could you link it if it's not too much problem?
what kind of reasoning one has for a gun not being in a zombie game dude
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51245648]I fucking thought you were being serious until you started blaming EA.
Genius.[/QUOTE]
[video]https://youtu.be/k-wFI9vTqto[/video]
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;51246787]wait i remember reading something about someone bitching involving a gun, could it be that same one? could you link it if it's not too much problem?
what kind of reasoning one has for a gun not being in a zombie game dude[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1486857&p=48917529#post48917529"]Here you go, it's fucking gold.[/URL]
Some spoilers: [sp] muh realistic firearms handling in an arcade zombie shooter [/sp] :v:
[QUOTE=Derp123213;51246821][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1486857&p=48917529#post48917529"]Here you go, it's fucking gold.[/URL]
Some spoilers: [sp] muh realistic firearms handling in an arcade zombie shooter [/sp] :v:[/QUOTE]
thanks a lot fam
[QUOTE=Derp123213;51246821][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1486857&p=48917529#post48917529"]Here you go, it's fucking gold.[/URL]
Some spoilers: [sp] muh realistic firearms handling in an arcade zombie shooter [/sp] :v:[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, thank you so much.
[QUOTE=goon165;51243394]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]
yet you have literally no problem playing games that have prototype tanks/planes from WWII and modern/coldwar combat, and have outright lied about thier stats while straight up praising about being as historically accurate as possible. DICE never said BF1 was going to be a sim at all, They just took the very interesting and weird concepts in WW1 and brought them to the big screen.
You keep bitching about the friends in high places campaign while time and time again you didnt get the point at the end [sp]the entire thing was a war story that was blown up to a gigantic scale[/sp]. The campaign was obviously not going to be following one person in a trench just sitting in a spot and eventually getting sick leave for trench foot. If you want that, go play verdun instead.
You are literally one of the dozen of people who expected a sim experience, [B]from a fucking battlefield game[/B]. When's the last time Battlefield has had any realism at all, and DICE never intended it to be 1 to 1 realism.
Also don't touch on the operations at all, even though its MP, when you do play on the central powers, you're given an cutscene like the campaign with average soldiers talking about the war and the hell to come. No, we cant talk about that, that would ruin your point, [B]especially when they confirmed the nations added in the DLC will get their own operations which means those cutscenes will be in them too.[/B]
I'm disappointing with the campaign, the game really hasn't captured the spirit of WW1. In fact, it really failed to reference or do much of anything that is symbolic to the first world war? The only real situation I even got to fight in a trench was that mission I was behind German lines - for that brief moment it felt right; but then its taken away very quickly. I thought the sad music and tone of it all was very pretentious, it relied far too much on the trope of "gosh wasn't WW1 really horrible?" I tried a bit of the MP - it was OK; still didn't do much trench fighting. There was a map involving a town fight, and with all the automatic weapons (i.e - everyone but sniper class) it felt like I was playing a WW2 game. I bought the game knowing Battlefield was going to the rambo CoD style WW1 adventure and was always fine with that - I figured this is what the market needed to push WW1 into the mainstream and show people it wasn't just trenches and dying in no-mans-land.
But then I noticed there is actually a lack of trench fighting, and if there is it's very brief and avoided - iconic places like the Somme, Passendale or Verdun are completely vacant in the game. When it came to technology it felt like Dice was desperate to find a way to fill up the point unlock roster, or they were worried their player base was too ADHD to handle bolt actions as a base choice - I'd be somewhat OK with this if they allowed me to use a bolt action rifle as any other class to at least immerse myself (unless I'm missing something, or its a special unlock).
I'm probably more critical than most because I work in a environment dedicated to WW1 history & events, it leaves me a bit mystified with the design choices they made.
But then again I don't think its even about 'realism' but just respecting the medium you're working with. Maybe a WW2 option would have been better for Dice.
If you're a long time Battlefield player you'll probably think it's a breath of fresh air and fun.
If multiplayer BF was ever made realistic, i'd hope it was another series altogether rather than a battlefield game.
I think my problem with the logic of the singleplayer is that it uses different rules from multiplayer, even if it does maintain more gameplay principles from MP this time around compared to the norm for campaigns, but the rules are still batshit insane and at odds with the storytelling. Besides the more heroic storylines, anyway.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51246921]yet you have literally no problem playing games that have prototype tanks/planes from WWII and modern/coldwar combat, and have outright lied about thier stats while straight up praising about being as historically accurate as possible. DICE never said BF1 was going to be a sim at all, They just took the very interesting and weird concepts in WW1 and brought them to the big screen.
You keep bitching about the friends in high places campaign while time and time again you didnt get the point at the end [sp]the entire thing was a war story that was blown up to a gigantic scale[/sp]. The campaign was obviously not going to be following one person in a trench just sitting in a spot and eventually getting sick leave for trench foot. If you want that, go play verdun instead.
You are literally one of the dozen of people who expected a sim experience, [B]from a fucking battlefield game[/B]. When's the last time Battlefield has had any realism at all, and DICE never intended it to be 1 to 1 realism.
Also don't touch on the operations at all, even though its MP, when you do play on the central powers, you're given an cutscene like the campaign with average soldiers talking about the war and the hell to come. No, we cant talk about that, that would ruin your point, [B]especially when they confirmed the nations added in the DLC will get their own operations which means those cutscenes will be in them too.[/B][/QUOTE]
Is the only defense you have to criticism about the game 'go play verdun'? Do you have that set to an automatic release to come straight out of your ass every time this happens?
Because if you were actually paying goddamn attention I OUTRIGHT SAID
[quote][B]It did not need to be 100% historically accurate, it did not need to be 100% realistic.[/B][/quote]
It didn't need to be fucking Verdun. My issue is that when it decided not to be Verdun it didn't go far enough in reinterpreting the source material. It was lazy and it lacked imagination. It's like they decided 'We're going to do world war 1!" finished the guns and then just slapped the rest of the game together like "whatever" and clocked out.
And if you seriously think that, in friends in high places, breaking the fourth wall and insinuating that the entire story you just witnessed was a lie somehow covers for flawed writing. You are just dumb. This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of someone defending. The concept of an unreliable narrator only works in one form of writing: [B]Parody.[/B] Or possibly in film with very short bursts of lying in your ears in the context of a conversation between the narrator and the person he is lying to. Accompanied by the viewer seeing what actually happened, to assist with showcasing points of character development and motives.
And no, narrating to no one but you doesn't count.
Because in this case you had an amazingly vapid wish fulfillment and power fantasy story, about a character who is nearly morally irredeemable but gets away with fucking everything with zero consequences and then... Nothing else! Everything else is bullshit insinuations for a story [B]which doesn't exist.[/B]
Good writers can play with your imagination, however this is a bad writer trying to make you think the shit you just witnessed was better than it actually was in an attempt to cut corners. Everyone focus on sailors fighting in the dance hall, oh man, look at those cavemen go. Isn't this the freakiest fucking show?
And before you say "Oh, but his sidekick chipped at him enough to make him see that he's a shitty person and he hands himself in!"
Yeah.
[B]And then he still gets away with everything, as the hand of the writer swoops in and machineguns the totally innocent and in the right antagonist to death because he was posing an inconvenience that they weren't clever enough to write their way out of. But fuck him he's rich and thinks that things like laws should work. Laws are stupid. WE DON'T NEED LAWS! I'M A RENEGADE! BAAAAAHHH GET OUT OF MY WORLD! YOU'RE RUINING IT WITH LOGIC AND REASON![/B] And going into the metaland to try and suggest that he's fucking with you at the end, in some attempt to be insightful, witty, inspiring profound thought and dipping into edgy as they suggest that it could have been a darker story, in no way covers for this laughable excuse for writing.
Oh, so it could have been a better story? Why the fuck didn't you tell me that one then? Moron. And it abruptly brings one question to the table:
[B][I]WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE POINT THEN?[/I][/B]
If none of that was true and didn't matter, the story and the game just [B]wasted your time[/B] and that time, plus the money and time the writers spent writing this and thinking they're the most clever bastards that ever lived, [B]could have been spent in a better story.[/B]
And seriously, I don't know what the hell I did to you, but eurogrind simulators have nothing to do with any of this. This is a poorly written campaign that glides around in pretentious airs and friends in high places is the tone [B][I]SHATTERING[/I][/B] cherry on top.
[QUOTE=goon165;51247580]This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of someone defending. The concept of an unreliable narrator only works in one form of writing: Parody. Or possibly in film with very short burst of lying in your ears in the context of a conversation between the narrator and the person he is lying to. Accompanied by the viewer seeing what actually happened, to assist with showcasing points of character development and motives.[/QUOTE]
Who is Keyser Söze?
Also you're taking a campaign in a video game [i]way[/i] too seriously, I get you're angry in reaction to codermaster's post but you're way overdoing it.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51247640]Who is Keyser Söze?
Also you're taking a campaign in a video game [i]way[/i] too seriously, I get you're angry in reaction to codermaster's post but you're way overdoing it.[/QUOTE]
Calling it just a video game doesn't let it skip out on criticism. All entertainment should be held to the same standard of quality at least in writing. You can be vague, you can be weird, capturing your imagination and making you think is the mark of a good story. However this is, in more ways than one, a con man's story. A cheap imitation in a game I played [B]$130[/B] for. And there is no excuse for it, or any ground to stand on to defend it.
And don't even get me started on the fact that the content in MP is a skeleton and this game is half done until the DLC comes in. You notice how every class stops having unlocks after rank 3 and then you have to wait until rank 10 to get something new?
Where do you think all the DLC weapons are going?
This is planned scarcity and I'm actually kind of amazed no one has noticed this yet.
[QUOTE=goon165;51247580]The concept of an unreliable narrator only works in one form of writing: [B]Parody.[/B] [/QUOTE]
I [I]really[/I] don't know about that.
[QUOTE=goon165;51247653]Calling it just a video game doesn't let it skip out on criticism. All entertainment should be held to the same standard of quality at least in writing. You can be vague, you can be weird, capturing your imagination and making you think is the mark of a good story. However this is, in more ways than one, a con man's story. A cheap imitation in a game I played [B]$130[/B] for. And there is no excuse for it, or any ground to stand on to defend it.
And don't even get me started on the fact that the content in MP is a skeleton and this game is half done until the DLC comes in. You notice how every class stops having unlocks after rank 3 and then you have to wait until rank 10 to get something new?
Where do you think all the DLC weapons are going?
This is planned scarcity and I'm actually kind of amazed no one has noticed this yet.[/QUOTE]
The last words in friends in high places are literally "or did I?"
Also the weapon unlock system is 100x better than bf3 and bf4 where despite every class meaning to be different they all still felt well rounded because it was like everything countered everything, there wasnt really much of a downside per class and was like they threw the whole rock paper scissors gameplay the series is usually known for out the window, BF1 brings that back by making a lot of things down to being more class specific instead of all class, things like the tanker and pilot class help this too I would say because they're only really good when in the appropriate vehicle whereas in battlefield 3/4 any class could get in a vehicle and be just as good.
Also this "planned scarcity" you're talking about has got me playing the game for 68~ hours so far including the 10 hour trial. Compared to Battlefront where I didn't even bother with it after the beta because it legitimately felt like there was nothing to do in that game compared to this.
[QUOTE=xalener;51247752]I [I]really[/I] don't know about that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, unreliable narrator can be a strong plot device, has nothing to do with parody.
to this date I still think the BF2MC on PS2 has the best 'battlefield campaign' out of all battlefield games tbh. The way they let you jump around different units was so fun and fitting for a battlefield game. I can't fathom why they never expanded on this mechanics further more though.
Well, his criticism seems very on point. Whether someone can enjoy such an experience is something else obviously, but all the things he points out are very valid.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51237534]Best way to approach it imo is as alt-history, borderline dieselpunk[/QUOTE]
That's what I've been saying since the first announcement trailer. Realistic WW1 just isn't compatible with arcade gameplay.
Dieselpunk WW1 with insane experimental weapons and machinery would have been fucking amazing.
Gameplay-wise I would love a more open strategy-focused campaign. In my dream campaign you could switch between soldiers (maybe like in the first mission), but were in charge of the whole battlefield. You could order AI troops around, request backup infantry, tanks, planes, etc. It could play a bit like a singleplayer NS2 maybe, except you get to play as the soldiers too.
[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]
Oh come on. It's a game. A battlefield game. A game that got its start in World war 2 launching Jeeps across Wake Island with C4, and running into Anti Air flak cannons at full speed to get launched 100 feet into the air, and docking battleships on dry land...
Battlefield 3 and 4 are when they got more serious, and while they were good games, they weren't true Battlefield games. As shit as Hardline is, it was closer to the series' heart. And now BF1 is pretty hilarious at times, it just looks gritty instead of cartoony
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.