Remove ads

Battlefield 1: Because the Xbox One and New 3DS weren't enough gamer confusion

DeltaV11.2 said:
Because I don't know of any WW1 games that aren't trench warfare focused? And because modern conceptions of WW1 focus almost exclusively on that setting, which is why I like that DICE is going outside of it.
Combat is to some extent defined by equipment, but I'd say that it's not the main driving force and that if you give players WW1 equipment they will not use it with the tactics that were used in WW1. Players will end up using more WW2 infantry tactics simply because WW2 equipment is not significantly different from WW1 equipment and those tactics overall work better with it. There is obviously a difference between the effectiveness of a semi-auto rifle from a bolt-action or a hip or shouldered LMG from an SMG, but these are not revolutionary on intantry tactics. Ultimately the big difference will come because players will almost certainly use tanks and support infantry in a way that nobody did in WW1 because tanks were such new weapons on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're going on about looking beyond the iconic representations of WW1, then come out with stuff like this built on those selfsame myths.
 
Honestly, the abundance of rare weapons and one-offs is a minor quibble compared to rumors the fact that DICE is going to make FRANCE DLC ONLY.

EDIT: Damn. No French at launch is CONFIRMED!
 
Last edited:
PraiseVectron said:
Honestly, the abundance of rare weapons and one-offs is a minor quibble compared to rumors that DICE is going to make FRANCE DLC ONLY.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Past a certain point a have to wonder if DICE is contractually obligated to make a certain number of stupid decisions in their games.
 
Ian from Forgotten Weapons did an overview of the second trailer, pointing out just how far DICE are going to push ahistorical semi-autos, such as including a rifle of which only around ten were ever made.
 
Seriously, trench warfare was really no fun, and may not be very fun in a Battlefield-style game.

Besides, focusing too much on trench warfare in WW1 is meh. What about Gallipolli, and having a chance to fight for a win this time around? Or a desert campaign where you actually have suitable terrain to shoot enemies from a kilometre away, and a whole slew of weapons meant to do just that? (The improved draw distances available only on the latest consoles and PCs are what make this possible at all. If your system cannot render really far away you are going to be at a disadvantage here.)

Or, for something much more mechanical, Jutland?
 
They're really deleting the nation on who's territory the most iconic and deadly part of the war took place?o_O

Somebody said:
Seriously, trench warfare was really no fun, and may not be very fun in a Battlefield-style game.

Besides, focusing too much on trench warfare in WW1 is meh. What about Gallipolli, and having a chance to fight for a win this time around?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What, the trench warfare at Gallipolli?
Or a desert campaign where you actually have suitable terrain to shoot enemies from a kilometre away, and a whole slew of weapons meant to do just that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because there were certainly no trenches in the Middle East...
 
croxeye said:
sooo they go from saying that lots of people don't know WW1 at all to skipping out 2 of the most important countries? (France and Russia)

because lol history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See Russia was a bit of a given since as far as I know they have nothing set in the Eastern Front in either MP or SP.

France though?

The light tanks of the game are Renault FT-17s

There are French weapons

There are maps set in France

The campaign has the French

Like it's really, really baffling that they're trying to do this considering it's a very obvious absence.
 
Yikes. I mean, I'm still looking forward to this game, but that's a bit of a blow. Really, DICE?
 
I'm a bit surprised that Italy got in but France didn't.

I mean, the anglophonic world tends to forget Italy was even *in* the first world war.
 
Last edited:
What I find funny is the idea that WW2 infantry tactics at the company level downwards were somehow strikingly different from those of 1914.

They are not.
 
100thlurker said:
What I find funny is the idea that WW2 infantry tactics at the company level downwards were somehow strikingly different from those of 1914.

They are not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a fair degree of change in what the primary manoeuvre elements were and such. But I'd certainly say there's not a lot of ground between WW2 infantry tactics and those of 1918.
 
No more recent information officially I've found, but I've seen various fan reactions.

There does seem to be some outrage about hearing of female and black combatants. I've seen people complaining that seeing too many of them will break immersion, or be seen as an insult.


The insult part seems to partially be from the black man on the cover is in an American uniform as well. The argument I've heard a lot is that it dishonors the World War One dead, majority of which were European and white I've been told, not American.

The black soldier I've heard might be part of the all black Harlem Hellfighters, the most decorated World War One American unit, which was on the frontline much more often then other American units and given much riskier assignments.

The game overall seems to be admit it's not realistic, and maybe embrace the feel of an alternate history, steampunk World War One.
 
sapphirenebula said:
No more recent information officially I've found, but I've seen various fan reactions.

There does seem to be some outrage about hearing of female and black combatants. I've seen people complaining that seeing too many of them will break immersion, or be seen as an insult.


The insult part seems to partially be from the black man on the cover is in an American uniform as well. The argument I've heard a lot is that it dishonors the World War One dead, majority of which were European and white I've been told, not American.

The black soldier I've heard might be part of the all black Harlem Hellfighters, the most decorated World War One American unit, which was on the frontline much more often then other American units and given much riskier assignments.

The game overall seems to be admit it's not realistic, and maybe embrace the feel of an alternate history, steampunk World War One.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The idea that WW1 was somehow an all-white, all-European affair, is very silly and misguided, even just regarding the fighting in France.
Amongst others, there were Senegalese and Vietnamese troops in French service, West Indian and Sub-Continental Indian ones in British, and hundreds of thousands of imported Chinese labourers to backstop the front - the world came to the Western Front to die.
 
You know what's also misguided? That BF1 is sexist.

There are some (thankfully not many) that are upset you can't be a female soldier in BF1... except DICE is being historically accurate, because there were no women soldiers on the Western Front, and only 5000 or so on the Eastern Front. Compare that to MILLIONS of men... it's a stupid argument that I cannot BELIEVE was advertised by The Know.
 
still_guns said:
You know what's also misguided? That BF1 is sexist.

There are some (thankfully not many) that are upset you can't be a female soldier in BF1... except DICE is being historically accurate, because there were no women soldiers on the Western Front, and only 5000 or so on the Eastern Front. Compare that to MILLIONS of men... it's a stupid argument that I cannot BELIEVE was advertised by The Know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well there were disguised female soldiers in the Western Front, and the singleplayer does look like it will include some female soldiers in the various campaigns of the game like the African or Middle Eastern campaign section.
Though I agree female characters aren't necessarily absolutely vital or anything in every work.

Though DICE has admit that they're not going for realism considering the fantasy war blimps and war zeppelins, so I don't think the historical accuracy is the point. Also since from the sneak peak of the multiplayer maps, it looks like there can be things like American soldiers fighting in Russia. Historically the Americans only sent a force of less then 8,000 into Russia, and that force didn't fight anyone at all.

Has any Battlefield series even made female models before? I know Call of Duty has in the modern game multiplayer and a few older singleplayer had them like Tanya Pavelovna in Call of Duty Finest Hour who was playable for a few levels.
Another older EA series also had a Medal of Honor game where the player was a female OSS agent operative, but that's not Battlefield.

Also, what's the Know?
 
Have DICE come out and stated explicitly that this is going to be steampunk WW1 or are they still keeping to the pretence of being historical despite everything?
 
still_guns said:
You know what's also misguided? That BF1 is sexist.

There are some (thankfully not many) that are upset you can't be a female soldier in BF1... except DICE is being historically accurate, because there were no women soldiers on the Western Front, and only 5000 or so on the Eastern Front. Compare that to MILLIONS of men... it's a stupid argument that I cannot BELIEVE was advertised by The Know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So accurate they gave everyone automatic weapons, giant war-blimps, and made the French and Russians post-release DLC.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a good reason why one of the few WW1 games was one that took place in an Alternate Universe where the war dragged on till the 70's.
 
Ironanvil1 said:
Have DICE come out and stated explicitly that this is going to be steampunk WW1 or are they still keeping to the pretence of being historical despite everything?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Did DICE actually ever have a pretense of realism for this game, Battlefield 1?
I don't think it was announced either way, but I think some are assuming because it's a Battlefield title.

For me, I'm not sure if assuming that is right. Just because it's a Battlefield title doesn't mean there's going to be a heavy focus on realism.
The Battlefield video game series went off historical rails long ago, and I don't think the name is inherently associated with history currently.

The fictional events and elements started being really obvious with Battlefield 3, and continued with Battlefield 2142, Battlefield Bad Company, and more. All with different tone.


Did Dice ever state or announce this game was intended to be realistic?

Battlefield Bad Company for example never had a statement either way stating if it was realistic or if it was intended to be not, but from the information given the game was obviously unrealistic. With fantasy weapons, equipment, map settings, character interactions and trailers with action focus and humor, and a fictional plot with no basis. No real realism in any aspect of its tone.

The Battlefield 1 game itself seems to have WW1 flavouring and dressing, aesthetic and tone. But doesn't seem totally committed to realism. It invoke WW1 style, or at least a pop culture impression of WW1, but not a realistic WW1 style. Though some elements like some weapon models have aspects drawn from realistic historic images and weapon designs, so some weapons look realistic, but despite how they appear they might perhaps operate in a more unrealistic manner. As seen with people sprinting with ease with heavy weapons for example, or guns being perhaps more accurate and less lethal then they historically were.


I can imagine historians might not like it if the game imposes or reinforces false assumptions and impressions on the conscious or unconscious of a lot of the public, which might lead to large portions and demographics of the public making false assumptions for how WW1 was fought and other information of that era.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top