-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 1 - The 5 War Stories (campaign) detailed
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I don't understand why they are being so callously dismissive to the contribution the French made back then.
Yes, yes, "it's just a game" but it's just so... urgh,.
GinoFelino
Member
You're being overly harsh, but that's fine.
FWIW: I'm really glad the singleplayer will be more substantive.
I just don't like when people see rumours as fact then shit on the developers ("always something with a DICE campaign") based on it. It's happened enough in NX threads that I don't really have much tolerance for it.
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
Stupid question but haven't the last few BF games always used at least parts of single play maps for multiplayer (or the other way round)? I'm pretty sure there is cross over in BF4 anyway.
GinoFelino
Member
I'm not one to do that. Just an honest mistake. Again, sorry.
As for shitting on devs; not one to do that either, but DICE's singleplayer stuff has been really spotty. That's no rumour
Also, there's precedent in Battlefront so I didn't think the info was far-fetched.Shared assets are normal. The thing I read which I thought was factual info but turned out to be BS was that the campaign took place on the actual multiplayer maps.
I'm assuming it's a very, very biased view of :
- who their customers are
- what they think their customers wanna see
But I really want to know who is the historian that helped DICE creating this world. And how his treatment for acute depression is doing.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
I don't think EA knows that.
That's...disappointing.
No real chance to learn in depth about the characters they highlight if that's the case.
I feel like this could be a disjointed mess.
My overall SP expectations are low anyway.
PintSizedSlasher
Member
They should've focused on MP only.
There's always drama about SP. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.
There's always drama about SP. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
Thanks. 2 war stories should be enough to form an opinion. Let's see tomorrow then.
I'm not one to do that. Just an honest mistake. Again, sorry.
As for shitting on devs; not one to do that either, but DICE's singleplayer stuff has been really spotty. That's no rumour
If thts the case, you might want to edit your first post until we have sort of confirmation or source.
jediyoshi
Member
Tell us more about how all anglo countries equated in WWI. Or should I give you the benefit of the doubt in saying you're coming from a place of unfamiliarity with shooter campaigns?
GinoFelino
Member
Ah! Good idea.
Again, they are applauding themselves for "diversity and showing complex different perspectives of the war" in the BF Blog and then go on to completely ignore the other side of the war. Do you think it's just a coincidence that we get 4 out of 5 protagonists fighting for the british, and not a single one fighting for the french? No german, austro-hungarian, bulgarian, ottoman perspective. When basically the only representation in video games (aside from low-budget german adventures) we get is being completely dehumanized cannon fodder that you blow apart. It's pandering to the US/UK markets to an extreme where it's quite disgusting considering WW1 is pretty much an untouched setting in video games so far.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
To me, battlefield series IS MP. The SP is just an extra tag on.
Masterspeed
Member
3 British campaigns? Fuck yes.
Yeah, it is insulting. Those poor bastards weren't nazis and some of the best stories will be left out is what I am expecting. I mean who the fuck wants to play as an generic "ace-pilot" when there is the story of a Red Baron to be told.
KillerMan91
Member
I mean considering how shitty the DICE campaigns are I shouldn't care that much but I am actually quite bit annoyed how the whole single player is from Allied perspective. Not to mention even if it's from Allied perspective there are no French.... Your know the party that had to sacrifice most in the war on Western Front... I guess this could be some marketing BS decided by EA. Britain being bigger market for FPS games than rest of European countries....
I guess a SP game that involves mowing down British soldiers would still be kind of uncharted territory. But yeah, considering this was a war where people even stopped fighting and celebrated Christmas eve together they should have put effort into showing both sides.
Especially when they claim to be so diverse.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Are you perhaps getting it confused with what they said about wanting the singleplayer to feel more like multiplayer with it's openness and different approaches to things?
My point exactly, the average Australian can't even spell it.
GinoFelino
Member
No, that's not it
Maybe whoever stated it took place on actual MP maps was confused about that, though.orthodoxy1095
Banned
Well there's the real confirmation that the campaign is going to be as disappointingly one-sided as I thought it'd be. What a shame. They had a chance to do justice to the misery of that war and they threw it away.
It's a bit of a shame, WW1 is not only a great example of how pointlessely fucked up war can be it's also one of the few wars where it's generally accepted that there's not just one big bad guy and you could show that without too much controversy.
I guess it's hard to sell an action game when you feel bad for the people you are shooting.
At least they show a bit of what was happening in the mediterean.
SpartanForce
Member
WW1 is not Nazi Germany conquering Europe. There were no "bad guys".
I will play for the multiplayer, because I don't even understand how they make Lawrence, a war criminal, a legend. The lands the arabs wanted were all taken by the British in the post-war.
If all fails, there's still Verdun to play on PC.
I will play for the multiplayer, because I don't even understand how they make Lawrence, a war criminal, a legend. The lands the arabs wanted were all taken by the British in the post-war.
If all fails, there's still Verdun to play on PC.
StanleyPalmtree
Banned
the campaign that has you playing as an ANZAC has me more sold on this than i would ever have expected from a battlefield's single player.
i really hope it doesn't suck
i really hope it doesn't suck
SpartanForce
Member
Indeed. But most people would think this is some proto-nazi thing playing in campaign on the german side. And that, same as this notion of bad guys they are trying to make, would hurt the sells. Other example is the black guys on the armys. 1914-1918, do I even need to explain the racism they would and suffered in they homelands and the minority that got into military? Mostly were used for disposable mass suicide on no man's land if you ask me.
Ragnar Blackmane
Member
Well, we did have Spec Ops: The Line.
On the other hand that game was developed by a German developer (Yager), so yeah... Prepare for continued US/UK pandering ad infinitum in 95% of all FPS that aren't full blown Sci-Fi.
It's pretty sad that the most thoughtful approach, diverse view and cast we can get in a FPS at this day and age seems to be Wolfenstein: TNO (featuring, GASP, Africans, Polish and Germans as heroes as well), even if that game at least did a really good job in that regard.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I guess that's accepted among anyone with a historical mindset, but I can just imagine the headlines among the idiotic general populace: "VIDEO GAME ALLOWS YOU TO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS"
Shame that DICE didn't have the stones to try it anyways though.
Straight Edge
Member
What about the Italian, Australian, and Bedouin fighters as noted in the OP?
ANZAC fought for the british, as does the bedouin woman (side by side w Lawrence of Arabia)
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Australians and Bedouins fought for the British.
There are plenty of countries on the same side of the war as the British that are getting shafted here like the French. Regardless, even if you say that those three are unique non-British/American perspectives, you still run into the problem that every perspective is from an Allied Power POV with none of the Central Powers getting time.
Ragnar Blackmane
Member
That didn't really happen with Spec Ops - The Line, now did it? Besides killing the odd evil American in CoD games as well. I think that point is overblown by Publishers who are too afraid they might lose a few precious bucks if they don't constantly pander and stroke the ego what they consider to be their biggest player base.
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
Battlefield 1 [OT] If there is no Nazis who are the bad guys?
Stolen from my long list of terrible ideas
idgaf.
Where are the French and German campaigns? It is an insult to forget about the biggest forces in this war. Everyone knows this, there is absolutely no argument for leaving out the fucking Germans and French soldiers. Makes absolutely no sense and you can tell it is some pseudo Hollywood bullshit campaign "based on true events" but I already lost hope in Dice's SP after they openly said they have no clue what made BC2 great. smh.
Straight Edge
Member
Why can't they do justice to the misery of war without showing both sides? Did All Quiet on the Western Front fail by only showing the German perspective?
You must be aware that killing americans as opposite side in world war games vs a us soldier killing deserted us soldiers that have become a cult in a weird semi-postapocalyptic Dubai setting is not the same in expected reaction.
Ragnar Blackmane
Member
It's pretty funny that they managed to represent almost every niche theatre and faction of the war that ISN'T literally the three biggest players (Central Powers, France, Russia), one way to tackle diversity I guess...
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Spec Ops seems like a flawed comparison given the limited audience that game had in comparison to the audience Battlefield is going to command. Same with CoD, where those "evil American" characters are often pretty cartoonish in their villainy. If you kill Americans in a World War I game, you're not going to be killing some apex antagonist, you're killing some kid on the line. And I wish they had gone with that, because it could have been some powerful, challenging stuff.
Straight Edge
Member
I was responding to someone saying you only play as Americans and British soldiers. The quality of the campaign would likely be the same regardless of who you play as.
A book about the experiences of one german soldier vs a videogame that has 5 different protagonists that however are all on the same side yet lauds itself as super diverse and dealing with complex different perspectives. Please think before you post abstruse comparisons.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Oh please, give me a break. Remarque's book is attempting to paint a portrait of Bäumer. Battlefield could have been a portrait of a singular British or French soldier and I would have no complaints. But Battlefield is doing vignettes of different soldiers from different armies, and it seems fairly clear the portraying the Central Powers should have fit into that easily.
Correct.
It's the self-aggrandizing about diversity that's the most annoying part.