• Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
    179 replies, posted
Oh man, i fucking lost it at the power armor section. And the way they try to make it serious and emotional by having the attic guy narrating in the background as you play just makes it even funnier.
[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. 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] did you even watch the video, or did you just immediately start fuming at the very idea of someone not liking this game? because it sure doesn't seem like you even watched 10 minutes of it.
I personally liked the SP campaign, easily the best one they've made since BC2, MP wise it's great [editline]23rd October 2016[/editline] [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] You're going to explode when you find out about the Wolfenstein series Or Indiana Jones for that matter
Battlefield has a crap campaign with crap AI. Nothing new here then. I always felt like the single player was just dropped in to ticks boxes with the execs.
[QUOTE=Robber;51248095]That's what I've been saying since the first announcement trailer. Realistic WW1 just isn't compatible with arcade gameplay.[/quote] I highly, HIGHLY disagree - especially since the MP works so fucking well. Since the MP shows the war in 1918, it works extremely well. Especially Operations, like that is a really awesome game mode. There's an actual flow to the battles, much like any game of Red Orchestra. Not just a mad dash for random points.
[QUOTE=cyanidem;51248333]Battlefield has a crap campaign with crap AI. Nothing new here then. I always felt like the single player was just dropped in to ticks boxes with the execs.[/QUOTE] Why would execs want SP? All it does is cost more. Wouldn't it make more sense to just make MP only and save some money and earn the same? No one buys BF games for SP.
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51248717]Why would execs want SP? All it does is cost more. Wouldn't it make more sense to just make MP only and save some money and earn the same? No one buys BF games for SP.[/QUOTE] i could be wrong, but it might have something to do with some people getting pissed at battlefront for not having a singleplayer campaign.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;51248853]i could be wrong, but it might have something to do with some people getting pissed at battlefront for not having a singleplayer campaign.[/QUOTE] Has that ever been the case? I thought it was mainly because they tried to copy COD by having one starting from BF3
the "campaign" could be really just be said to be a series of tutorial missions for new players
[QUOTE=elowin;51248203]did you even watch the video, or did you just immediately start fuming at the very idea of someone not liking this game? because it sure doesn't seem like you even watched 10 minutes of it.[/QUOTE] Yes I did watch the video. It doesn't change the fact that TB, along with all the other idiots who were expecting it to not be a Battlefield game, are being incredibly anal about everything. First off, if he wants to criticise the game for being too easy he should start by playing on hard. The game gave him an option for more difficulty and he ignored it, just to complain that the game is too easy. Second, he complains about stupid shit like the armour not being worthless (because that'd be [i]oh so fun[/i]) and running around with a machinegun but has no problem with the same fucking thing happening in literally every othe Battlefield game ever made. Third, half his complaints come from sheer ignorance. Complaining about a plane having rockets and doing strafing runs on AA guns is retarded because that's exactly what happened. TB and all the people I've seen bitching about the game not being 'realistic' or 'authentic' enough are the same people who complain that it isn't set entirely in trenches where you die every 5 seconds. Newsflash, that'd make a fucking shitty game. Also, not everyone who fought in WWI died 5 minutes after arriving to the battlefield, a lot of people actually survived. There are plenty of problems with Battlefield 1's campaign, some of which TB very briefly touched on, but those problems aren't "The armour isn't useless like it was in real life" or "The plane has rockets and I don't think they did (Even though I'm wrong)", the majority of the complaints being made are appeals for a game which would be fucking awful to play, and a game which was never, ever going to be made with the Battlefield name attached. [b]If you were expecting Battlefield 1 to be anything more than a Battlefield game with a WWI coat of paint you were being unreasonable. If you are upset that it is a Battlefield game and not a WWI simulator you are being unreasonable. If you want Verdun, go play Verdun.[/b]
I feel like the people complaining are just the ones who have been complaining since the first trailer didn't have period music and haven't even tried the game.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51249018][b]If you were expecting Battlefield 1 to be anything more than a Battlefield game with a WWI coat of paint you were being unreasonable. If you are upset that it is a Battlefield game and not a WWI simulator you are being unreasonable. If you want Verdun, go play Verdun.[/b][/QUOTE] I think it's ok to have wanted or hoped for something different than what we got. not to expect it, because you're more likely to be disappointed. and it doesn't even have to be realistic, it's just that it feels they have this neat concept and don't really do much with it. and that's what i was expecting, and honestly that's what drives me away from this series.
Idk what hes talking about the game being too easy, the later half of the italian mission was pretty stupid on hard because of the 20 headshots to kill armored enemies.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51249357]Idk what hes talking about the game being too easy, the later half of the italian mission was pretty stupid on hard because of the 20 headshots to kill armored enemies.[/QUOTE] Yeah I kept getting slaughtered on that portion of the level. I normally like TB but he just focused one pretty much one sliver of the campaign and kept hammering on it despite the entirety of the rest of the game.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51249018][b]If you were expecting Battlefield 1 to be anything more than a Battlefield game with a WWI coat of paint you were being unreasonable. If you are upset that it is a Battlefield game and not a WWI simulator you are being unreasonable. If you want Verdun, go play Verdun.[/b][/QUOTE] This is honestly a shit argument - shouldn't we judge games for having shit graphics even if they never promised great graphics in the first place? How about games that never promised to be any fun? Should we just give them a pass because honestly if you expected fun in the first place you're being unreasonable? Why not the same for Battlefield's stories that have been perpetually shit? Maybe, [I]just[/I] maybe some people wanted something different than what already exists in a billion modern FPSs. And that's okay, just as it's okay that you enjoyed the game. Doesn't mean TB shouldn't be able to criticise it based on what he'd wanted to see. Edit: This is even besides the point, because from TB's video it seems clear that there are other issues than it simply not being what he wanted.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51249465]Yeah I kept getting slaughtered on that portion of the level. I normally like TB but he just focused one pretty much one sliver of the campaign and kept hammering on it despite the entirety of the rest of the game.[/QUOTE] I was the same, I kept getting myself stuck with too many flame thrower guys around me, but I guess he achieved what he went out to do as I've seen plenty of people assuming that the first half of the Italian campaign is what the whole campaign is like, which is a real shame. I'm gonna go on a mini-rant here but the amount of people taking TB's word as 100% truth here are kidding themselves if they think they're somehow superior because they only like mature games for mature people such as themselves. Back when The Great War channel did a poll asking people what they would like them to cover in the release version of BF1 a couple of dudes attacked them for not covering Verdun instead even though they said they would do both Verdun and BF1 and that they had to say they were also covering Verdun as well on their twitter cause people got mad. Gav, the miracle of sound guy said he liked the campaign and people attacking him and assuming him and TB aren't friends anymore because they have a difference in opinion that he had to post on his twitter saying that it's possible for 2 friends to have different opinions and still be friends. Jim Sterling, who I know doesn't exactly have the best rep here also said he liked the campaign and people saying that his video on it isn't good because it doesn't agree with what TB said. I'm not saying all people are like this but the amount of people attacking others just for liking this game is pathetic and TB's video only exemplified this that if I watch a streamer or video that is on BF1 there's people now complaining that it isn't realistic cause you are a guy in armour for 15 minutes for the 1st mission in the Italian campaign because that's all they saw in TB's video. If this is the kind of people who are upset about Battlefield 1 then I don't really want to be playing any game with them in the first place nevermind Battlefield because a lot of them are really stuck up with how they are towards people who [I]do[/I] like the game, you can even see evidence of this in this very thread.
BF1 is the most realistic ww1 game ever made /s
[QUOTE=J!NX;51249596]BF1 is the most realistic ww1 game ever made /s[/QUOTE] wtf i hate battlefield now
[QUOTE=Joshii;51249607]wtf i hate battlefield now[/QUOTE] its a great game I was being ordered to sit in a shithole for 12 hours at a time then my foot got hit by a stray bullet that bounced and my character died within 6 hours because of an infection that went out of control, killing him very painfully. He stopped suffering because he shot himself in the throat because he just couldn't take it any more. little did he know his wife at home was cheating on him with a group of chinamen [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51249465]Yeah I kept getting slaughtered on that portion of the level. I normally like TB but he just focused one pretty much one sliver of the campaign and kept hammering on it despite the entirety of the rest of the game.[/QUOTE] he usually doesn't really have time to finish games which is usually a huge issue with game reviewers tbh
[QUOTE=J!NX;51249619]its a great game I was being ordered to sit in a shithole for 12 hours at a time then my foot got hit by a stray bullet that bounced and my character died within 6 hours because of an infection that went out of control, killing him very painfully. He stopped suffering because he shot himself in the throat because he just couldn't take it any more. little did he know his wife at home was cheating on him with a group of chinamen[/QUOTE] wtf i love battlefield now
-snip-
Well I enjoyed the campaign, it did feel like each mission was designed by different people. 'Through Mud and Blood' was the weirdest mission to play through, again it just felt like two people had different ideas about how to do this mission and to be honest it was quite bad. The first part was enjoyable feeling like a total badass in the tank, but later during the tank escort mission - that should have been cut entirely. It was frustrating and stupid. Probably the most enjoyable mission for me was 'Friends in High Places.' Yes the flying was baby simple - but for someone who doesn't use planes or helicopters in battlefield, it was rather easy to get a grip with - I even used keyboard and mouse. Although the AI bullshits you by doing barrel rolls which I could never figure out how to do. I won't give too much away but after the flying section it does get pretty good story wise, so keep playing. One glaring issue I've found during my playthrough is the AI spawning system - maybe it's just me but I've had AI constantly pop in and spawn behind me which is just fucking annoying. And yes, half the time the AI is dumb as bricks and half the time they're competent enough to pose a challenge.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249568]This is honestly a shit argument - shouldn't we judge games for having shit graphics even if they never promised great graphics in the first place? How about games that never promised to be any fun? Should we just give them a pass because honestly if you expected fun in the first place you're being unreasonable? Why not the same for Battlefield's stories that have been perpetually shit? Maybe, [I]just[/I] maybe some people wanted something different than what already exists in a billion modern FPSs. And that's okay, just as it's okay that you enjoyed the game. Doesn't mean TB shouldn't be able to criticise it based on what he'd wanted to see. Edit: This is even besides the point, because from TB's video it seems clear that there are other issues than it simply not being what he wanted.[/QUOTE] Being a different type of game to the one you wanted is not the same as having shitty graphics.
Played the SP, had no idea people were praisng it so highly. It's was the same stuff I've been playing for the past 16 years. Some neat ideas spead out across the short campaign does not stop it from beng the same kind of game iv'e been playing since Allied Assaullt came out in 02. Thing is, the single player proved to be exactly what I thought it'd be, what i didnt expect was the praise it's been getting, hell 1 review i saw was calling the damn thing refreshing. All i can say is, it looked and sounded the part, but it was dull to play just like the other BF single player games, the only difference this time is you got to fly the plane. Anyway, i would never get BF1 for single player so it's a moot point.
I feel like people who think the game is super duper unrealistic's dream game isn't that much more realistic. Like half of it is "wtf where's all the trench warfare" when that's even less realistic than a lot of what BF1 portrays. It's especially ironic when people complain that BF1 will somehow sour people's idea of the history of WW1, when the previous common knowledge was somewhere between "nothing" and "the entire war was sitting in a trench in france forever"
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51249685]Being a different type of game to the one you wanted is not the same as having shitty graphics.[/QUOTE] It's analogous, but let me give you a better example. Do you think the Transformers series of movies should be exempt from criticism? Obviously it's just a different type of movie than what you wanted. Or well, maybe you like those movies, I don't know. And actually that comparison is pretty apt - I don't mind too much that some [insert genre/period/etc.] movie ends up either not being what I wanted or just plain bad, because there are other movies to turn to. You say "Well just play Verdun!" and it really shows that you have to scrape the barrel to come up with comparable games set in that period. Verdun is a multiplayer-only game (unless something major has changed) from an "indie" developer, while we're talking about the BF1 single-player campaign - which is a single player experience in one of the biggest franchises. If we're talking AAA WWI single player games, there's nothing of note that I can remember being released in the time I've played PC games. Maybe people wanted that void filled because there's nothing else to turn to - and maybe that's why they're a bit annoyed that Dice went for yet another dumb modern shooter story, something you'll find in abundance.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249796]It's analogous, but let me give you a better example. Do you think the Transformers series of movies should be exempt from criticism? Obviously it's just a different type of movie than what you wanted. Or well, maybe you like those movies, I don't know. And actually that comparison is pretty apt - I don't mind too much that some [insert genre/period/etc.] movie ends up either not being what I wanted or just plain bad, because there are other movies to turn to. You say "Well just play Verdun!" and it really shows that you have to scrape the barrel to come up with comparable games set in that period. Verdun is a multiplayer-only game (unless something major has changed) from an "indie" developer, while we're talking about the BF1 single-player campaign - which is a single player experience in one of the biggest franchises. If we're talking AAA WWI single player games, there's nothing of note that I can remember being released in the time I've played PC games. Maybe people wanted that void filled because there's nothing else to turn to - [B]and maybe that's why they're a bit annoyed that Dice went for yet another dumb modern shooter story, something you'll find in abundance[/B].[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but if you went to see the new Transformers and it wasn't the sequel to Citizen Kane you asked for, that's on you, not the films creators lol
Are people here arguing against trench warfare in a WW1? I don't understand.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51249835]I'm sorry but if you went to see the new Transformers and it wasn't the sequel to Citizen Kane you asked for, that's on you, not the films creators lol[/QUOTE] Citizen Kane already exists, there's no need for Transformers to fill that void. And nevertheless you can still criticise Transformers for what it is.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249796]It's analogous, but let me give you a better example. Do you think the Transformers series of movies should be exempt from criticism? Obviously it's just a different type of movie than what you wanted. Or well, maybe you like those movies, I don't know. And actually that comparison is pretty apt - I don't mind too much that some [insert genre/period/etc.] movie ends up either not being what I wanted or just plain bad, because there are other movies to turn to. You say "Well just play Verdun!" and it really shows that you have to scrape the barrel to come up with comparable games set in that period. Verdun is a multiplayer-only game (unless something major has changed) from an "indie" developer, while we're talking about the BF1 single-player campaign - which is a single player experience in one of the biggest franchises. If we're talking AAA WWI single player games, there's nothing of note that I can remember being released in the time I've played PC games. Maybe people wanted that void filled because there's nothing else to turn to - and maybe that's why they're a bit annoyed that Dice went for yet another dumb modern shooter story, something you'll find in abundance.[/QUOTE] The Transformers films should be criticised for being bad action films, not for having terrible plots. They don't set out to have good stories, but they do set out to be entertaining spectacle films. The films having shit stories is fine as no one was promised a good story, the inept action scenes and boring pacing aren't fine because the films are supposed to be exciting. Battlefield 1 never set out to be a realistic or authentic WWI simulator, so judging it as a bad game for not being one is unreasonable. Battlefield 1 DID set out to be an action game with variety in its campaigns, which it did. Now whether you think the campaign is any good on the terms it set out is a personal opinion, but it has [i]nothing[/i] to do with how much an authentic WWI experience it is because that's not what it's trying to be. Not all criticism is equally valid. I complained about Gone Home for being boring, predictable, and poorly written. If I had complained that there wasn't enough shooting, or how it would have been better with a driving mini-game I'd be a fucking moron.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.