Totalbiscuit - WTF Is... - Battlefield 1 Single Player Campaign?
179 replies, posted
It's quite sad that so many armchair historians are attacking this game for it's authenticity, because there's plenty of other things to attack the game over. Like it makes the actual critique sort of overshadowed.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249847]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]
You can't criticise Transormers for not being Citizen Kane [b]because it was never trying to be Citizen Kane.[/b] Similarly you can't criticise Battlefield for not being a realistic depiction of WWI because it was never trying to be that in the first place.
Well, you can. You just look like a fucking moron when you do. The only reason complaints about 'realism' are being held up on mass is because of all the pseudo-historians who get annoyed that their vague knowledge of history isn't being pandered to.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249847]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]
It almost seems like you're contradicting yourself here
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51249859]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. [B]The films having shit stories is fine as no one was promised a good story[/B], 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. [I]Now whether you think the campaign is any good on the terms it set out is a personal opinion, but it has [B]nothing[/B] to do with how much an authentic WWI experience it is because that's not what it's trying to be.[/I]
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.[/QUOTE]
I don't even know how to respond to that to be quite honest. I can't criticise a game for having a shit story with shit characters? Having a good story and being exciting/engaging is two sides of the same coin. I would also like to see the interview where Dice said that you shouldn't expect a good story with good characters, but until then I'll assume that you're simply inferring that from earlier games. Okay, I'll infer that the story also will have bad pacing and be generally boring, because that's what I've experienced in earlier games. Great, now we can all agree that the campaign will be shit and not worth playing, but we were never supposed to expect that anyway, so that's fine.
On the part in italics - yes, we can agree on that. I never said that it wasn't. The problem is that it seems Dice is simply cramming your usual BF story (that TB obviously despises) into a WWI setting, and that story is usually (as TB points out multiple times) about you, YOU, [B][I]YOU[/I][/B]. In that regard it doesn't matter that BF1 is "alternate history" or whatever, because the problem is the exact same as if it was in a realistic WWI setting. That BF1 then takes a rarely used setting and squanders the opportunity (at least story-wise) is just icing on the cake I guess.
I'm sure the multiplayer is a lot of fun, and I'm happy you guys don't mind accepting the main story for what it is I guess. I don't want to shit on anyone's parade.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249947]I don't even know how to respond to that to be quite honest. I can't criticise a game for having a shit story with shit characters? Having a good story and being exciting/engaging is two sides of the same coin. I would also like to see the interview where Dice said that you shouldn't expect a good story with good characters, but until then I'll assume that you're simply inferring that from earlier games. Okay, I'll infer that the story also will have bad pacing and be generally boring, because that's what I've experienced in earlier games. Great, now we can all agree that the campaign will be shit and not worth playing, but we were never supposed to expect that anyway, so that's fine.
On the part in italics - yes, we can agree on that. I never said that it wasn't. The problem is that it seems Dice is simply cramming your usual BF story (that TB obviously despises) into a WWI setting, and that story is usually (as TB points out multiple times) about you, YOU, [B][I]YOU[/I][/B]. In that regard it doesn't matter that BF1 is "alternate history" or whatever, because the problem is the exact same as if it was in a realistic WWI setting. That BF1 then takes a rarely used setting and squanders the opportunity (at least story-wise) is just icing on the cake I guess.
I'm sure the multiplayer is a lot of fun, and I'm happy you guys don't mind accepting the main story for what it is I guess. I don't want to shit on anyone's parade.[/QUOTE]
Have you played the campaign?
What's an average BF story?
The average BF story, juding by [I]two games[/I], is shitty small squad tactics 'you gotta save the world from the bad guys' with sometimes an on the rails tank / plane mission.
The BF1 campaign is absolutely different from other Battlefield games. Only one of them even makes you feel like you're a super soldier, and it's literally only one mission.
[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]
I think a more apt analogy for your point would be "it's like a transformers game that doesn't let you transform" in that the game has a unique theme but doesn't treat that theme as anything more than a paint job.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249947]I don't even know how to respond to that to be quite honest. I can't criticise a game for having a shit story with shit characters? Having a good story and being exciting/engaging is two sides of the same coin. I would also like to see the interview where Dice said that you shouldn't expect a good story with good characters, but until then I'll assume that you're simply inferring that from earlier games. Okay, I'll infer that the story also will have bad pacing and be generally boring, because that's what I've experienced in earlier games. Great, now we can all agree that the campaign will be shit and not worth playing, but we were never supposed to expect that anyway, so that's fine.
On the part in italics - yes, we can agree on that. I never said that it wasn't. The problem is that it seems Dice is simply cramming your usual BF story (that TB obviously despises) into a WWI setting, and that story is usually (as TB points out multiple times) about you, YOU, [B][I]YOU[/I][/B]. In that regard it doesn't matter that BF1 is "alternate history" or whatever, because the problem is the exact same as if it was in a realistic WWI setting. That BF1 then takes a rarely used setting and squanders the opportunity (at least story-wise) is just icing on the cake I guess.
I'm sure the multiplayer is a lot of fun, and I'm happy you guys don't mind accepting the main story for what it is I guess. I don't want to shit on anyone's parade.[/QUOTE]
Alright you need to fuck off putting words in my mouth. I said that you can't complain about Battlefield 1 not being a realistic depiction of WWI, not that you couldn't criticise the story or characters. You need to stop conflating all complaints as being equal. It makes trying to communicate with you incredibly frustrating.
There's a world of difference between "This game isn't very good because the character's are underdeveloped and the pacing is shit" and "I am a space marine". One is a legitimate criticism of the game's story, characters, and plot. The other is stupid whining about the game not being a fucking simulation.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51249893]It almost seems like you're contradicting yourself here[/QUOTE]
No?
Let me make it really clear what I'm saying:
Universe A - Blade Runner doesn't exist, and Transformers 45: Revenge of the Red Rabbit set in Los Angeles in 2019 has just been released. Turns out it sucks, which is extra annoying because no one made a good movie set in Los Angeles in 2019.
Universe B - Blade Runner exists, and Transformers 45: Revenge of the Red Rabbit set in Los Angeles in 2019 is just getting released. Turns out it's probably gonna suck (which you can criticise), but it doesn't matter because Blade Runner already exists.
Of course this example gets a bit stilted, but basically we live in Universe B movie-wise and Universe A games wise. If I had to make a different example it would be about how Hollywood makes period movies in general - some periods don't get a lot of love, and therefore it's extra disappointing when they pull out a turd of a movie set in that time period.
[editline]23rd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51249992]Alright you need to fuck off putting words in my mouth. I said that you can't complain about Battlefield 1 not being a realistic depiction of WWI, not that you couldn't criticise the story or characters. You need to stop conflating all complaints as being equal. It makes trying to communicate with you incredibly frustrating.
There's a world of difference between "This game isn't very good because the character's are underdeveloped and the pacing is shit" and "I am a space marine". One is a legitimate criticism of the game's story, characters, and plot. The other is stupid whining about the game not being a fucking simulation.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that didn't understand TB's video at all - the complaint about the Super Duper Armor Model 1918 was about the game's story being played straight over something that breaks the immersion immediately; a presumably normal person (everyone else appears to be a normal human like you or I) running around in 100kg of armor with a 50kg machine gun with a voiceover being played straight. Give him a powered armor or some other explanation - you're in an alternate universe for Christ's sake - and I wouldn't have a problem with it at all (and I'd presume TB wouldn't either).
At the same time, it epitomises the "you, you, you" narrative that really doesn't jive with the setting. They're two separate points, and one is [I]a lot[/I] more general than the other.
And fyi I feel the exact same about you.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51249972]Have you played the campaign?
What's an average BF story?
The average BF story, juding by [I]two games[/I], is shitty small squad tactics 'you gotta save the world from the bad guys' with sometimes an on the rails tank / plane mission.
The BF1 campaign is absolutely different from other Battlefield games. Only one of them even makes you feel like you're a super soldier, and it's literally only one mission.[/QUOTE]
No, I haven't played BF1 - I think my posting should've made that clear (but perhaps it should've been clearer), but my original post ([I]and[/I] the one you're responding to, mostly) was about what you can and cannot make criticisms about, not about BF1 as a game specifically [I]at all[/I]. I'm discussing this from what I've seen and heard in TB's video, and what I know about Battlefield in general from playing the games. Take that as you will.
Maybe I'm totally wrong on this, and BF1 does everything differently story-wise from earlier BF games. From what I've seen in the video in the OP, that doesn't seem likely, but maybe that's not how it is. Either way, that's not what I really wanted to discuss - I didn't plan on entering this BF1 discussion until Janus Vesta posted something that is really only meta-related to the game. I think I've said what I've wanted to say now, I don't think my posting will really contribute more to the thread.
[QUOTE=Joshii;51250078]It's one mission in the Italian campaign, the next mission plus the rest of the war stories don't have you doing anything ridiculous except friends in high places where you find out in the end that he was probably making it all up.
Have you actually played or seen someone else play through it cause it seems like your thinking the entire campaign is what is in TB's video.
I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that he compares it to just another generic shooter but conveniently neglects to mention the "Nothing is Written" war story which is far away as generic shooter as it can be, if I didn't know better when I played it first I wouldve thought I was playing MGSV.
It shows in the video that he's played but he talks about every war story except that one like it doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
To be clear, the point that was supposedly more general was the one about "you, you, you" - that's been the theme of every BF game I've played, and according to TB it's also the case with this one - [I]not[/I] the one about you in ridiculous armor. Maybe there's way more to the story this time around, and TB's video isn't representative at all. Again, I haven't played the game, and I shouldn't have gotten this far into the discussion.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51249995]At the same time, it epitomises the "you, you, you" narrative that really doesn't jive with the setting. They're two separate points, and one is [I]a lot[/I] more general than the other.
And fyi I feel the exact same about you.[/QUOTE]
It's one mission in the Italian campaign, the next mission plus the rest of the war stories don't have you doing anything ridiculous except friends in high places where you find out in the end that he was probably making it all up.
Have you actually played or seen someone else play through it cause it seems like your thinking the entire campaign is what is in TB's video.
I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that he compares it to just another generic shooter but conveniently neglects to mention the "Nothing is Written" war story which is far away as generic shooter as it can be, if I didn't know better when I played it first I wouldve thought I was playing MGSV.
It shows in the video that he's played but he talks about every war story except that one like it doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=Joshii;51250078]I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that he compares it to just another generic shooter but conveniently neglects to mention the "Nothing is Written" war story which is far away as generic shooter as it can be, if I didn't know better when I played it first I wouldve thought I was playing MGSV.
It shows in the video that he's played but he talks about every war story except that one like it doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
tbh i didn't think it was all that great. it's different, sure, but not great
Whoa, when did this thread blow up
[QUOTE=Joshii;51250078]It's one mission in the Italian campaign, the next mission plus the rest of the war stories don't have you doing anything ridiculous except friends in high places where you find out in the end that he was probably making it all up.
Have you actually played or seen someone else play through it cause it seems like your thinking the entire campaign is what is in TB's video.
I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that he compares it to just another generic shooter but conveniently neglects to mention the[B] "Nothing is Written" war story which is far away as generic shooter as it can be[/B], if I didn't know better when I played it first I wouldve thought I was playing MGSV.
It shows in the video that he's played but he talks about every war story except that one like it doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Is it though? semi spoilers ahead, nothing too detailed.
I mean the first part is a solo 'stealth' ish mission. Seen it before.
the second part has you in a large-ish free roam arena with 3 objectives to do in any order, also semi stealth.
There's so many games that have done that including battlefield bad company 2, The only things that made it different this time was the horses and it was a solo mission, the tank if you used it, and if it really matters, you play as a woman.
And then the final part is litterally a boss battle whereby you have to run around using static emplacements to chip away at boss's health slowly, you have to constantly move so as to not be killed by it's attack and it has endless waves of enemies to distract you. As far as boss fights go, it's as generic as they come and IMO outstays it's welcome.
It was one of the more entertaining missions sure but it's not something that hasnt been done hundreds of times before, and because of the shit AI, done better.
You don't have to use static emplacements. The mission gives you several different methods to fight it.
I couldn't use the field guns on hard, the train would gib me with the mortar. I eventually found the anti-tank rifle and AT rocket gun and used those.
[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]
i dont understand why people reference this scene all the time as a way of saying 'man remember the GOOD old days, how games used to be made???' like you do understand that's by far the strongest scene in the game and the rest of the series still has yet to match it?
that's like saying 'people just dont make cakes like they used to, one time I had a good cake!'
[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51251356]Is it though? semi spoilers ahead, nothing too detailed.
I mean the first part is a solo 'stealth' ish mission. Seen it before.
the second part has you in a large-ish free roam arena with 3 objectives to do in any order, also semi stealth.
There's so many games that have done that including battlefield bad company 2, The only things that made it different this time was the horses and it was a solo mission, the tank if you used it, and if it really matters, you play as a woman.
And then the final part is litterally a boss battle whereby you have to run around using static emplacements to chip away at boss's health slowly, you have to constantly move so as to not be killed by it's attack and it has endless waves of enemies to distract you. As far as boss fights go, it's as generic as they come and IMO outstays it's welcome.
It was one of the more entertaining missions sure but it's not something that hasnt been done hundreds of times before, and because of the shit AI, done better.[/QUOTE]
You don't even have to stealth the mission, when I did it first I stealthed the first mission, stole one of the tanks in the second and started raising hell, and I didn't even know there was implacements to use on the 3rd cause I found a rocket rifle and was using that instead,
The point I'm making is that it [I]is[/I] different, you've obviously played it differently than I did and that's the point I'm trying to make with it, if it was another generic shooter you'd get another battlefield 3/4 where you can't even have control over the jet the game gives you, but with BF1 I can have a totally different experience with a mission than you and anyone else's.
I can't think of any other fps that did a mission like this except the bad company games, the missions in general feel more closer to bad company 1 for me than they do 2 for how more open ended they are in general and is why I like the gameplay of it a lot more than Battlefield3/4's singleplayer.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51252560]Lame review.[/QUOTE]
dunno if this would make it better, but these are first impressions of a game, not a review.
I did some cursory research, and surprise surprise, the armor that the Italian dude wore for the most part ACTUALLY EXISTED and was reported to have been worn by Arditi units.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/WWI_Italian_body_armor,_Farina_tre_sassi_museum.JPG[/t]
However, the arms were definitely taken from Bashford Dean's experimental design, so it didn't wholly exist as it is in game
[t]http://i48.tinypic.com/dw3oxu.png[/t]
And of course, it wasn't NEARLY ass effective in real life as in game, but it is a video game. Quoting Italian Wikipedia page "Corazza Farina"
[quote]Armor Farina were a characteristic feature of so-called "companies of death", ie groups of soldiers assigned to carry extremely dangerous and almost always fatal, for example, out of the trenches to go to cut the barbed wire placed by the enemy. their weight was more than nine pounds and were formed by two plates of trapezoid shape, a front and a rear, each composed of five layers of sheet steel, slightly curved towards the sides, and two movable shoulder pad. The armor was held down by two shoulder straps, the soldier crossed behind his back and knotted at the front.
Two bracelets fixed on the inside, also allowed to use the armor also mo 'shield. The manufacturer of the certified as resistant to blows bullet caliber 6,5 mm of Carcano Mod. 91 , fired at least 125 meters away. The armor was also equipped with a dome-shaped helmet in steel with chinstrap, of from 1.6 to 2.8 pounds variable weight depending on the size, that was worn over the cloth cap or with a special padded headset. The company Farina also also produced other types of armor, as "the breastplate Courses", but was never officially adopted by the Royal Army .
Although they were presented as the Summit of self defense methods, in practice armor Farina proved unsuccessful: in addition to the weight and the consequent difficulty of movement, in fact, only protected the chest and head, leaving entirely uncovered the rest of the body. In addition, it was enough that a bullet was slightly bigger size than that certificate, or that the distance was less than 125 meters, because the shot easily penetrate the armor.[/quote]
As you can see there is a hole in the helmet shown above, but they made concessions for gameplay reasons tbh.
The English page on the Arditi seems to point to the helmets being a real trademark the precursor to the Arditi units.
And looking back at Verdun too, the Belgians get the Farina armor in that.
I don't think anyone was disputing it actually existed, but rather the whole, bulletproof running up a mountain with a HMG part.
[QUOTE=Xavith;51278611]I don't think anyone was disputing it actually existed, but rather the whole, bulletproof running up a mountain with a HMG part.[/QUOTE]
Look at literally the first post in the thread "fucking wwi space marines". Although yes, TB said it existed.
[editline]29th October 2016[/editline]
And tbh as part of the story, he didn't bring it up until his daughter was like "wow listening to you tell this story makes me scared for you" and tbh he brings it up as a way to calm her a bit.
Thats how I saw it personally
[QUOTE=bdd458;51278675]Look at literally the first post in the thread "fucking wwi space marines".[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's literally the complaint? It plays exactly like you're in power armour.
[QUOTE=Xavith;51278713]Yes, that's literally the complaint? It plays exactly like you're in power armour.[/QUOTE]
Maybe TB should have played it on hard then, because in all of the campaigns I kept dying on hard since they seem to focus the player more, do more damage, and throw more grenades of all variaties.
So no, it didn't really play like that.
[QUOTE=goon165;51247653]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.
[/QUOTE]
i don't say this often because a lot of the time developers straight out lie to you but
how, from the very first trailer with seven nation army blaring while people sprint across trenches shooting machine guns at each other to the free beta that came out did you not at any point stop and think "hmm... maybe this game ISN'T the accurate WW1 game im looking for"
instead you shelled out $130 on the super special deluxe edition and now you're blaming DICE for apparently lying to you about what the game was going to be.
also im like rank 7 and can buy 5 of 6 different weapons wtf
[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]
Realistic WAR isn't compatible with arcade game-play; it's not unique to WW1.
[video]https://youtu.be/8ljv0VZ1R8U[/video]
Wow, you learn something new every day.
Yes you can walk with a LMG and shoot it. That's a MG 08/15 pretty sure, which is pretty damn heavy as is, not something you'd be able to do for long.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51278475]I
[t]http://i48.tinypic.com/dw3oxu.png[/t]
[/QUOTE]
That Armor , looks badass
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.