Battlefield 1 Revealed in Launch Trailer

[Soviet Heavy]

Lets see whether the imperialists will forget the Balkan states in WW1. They managed to get the POC in, that is great, but... forgetting *US* would be downright moronic.

Sure will. Don't you know the WWI was a war of Britain and France vs Germany with most battles fought in Belgium and then the Americans came in and saved the day? Also there was something about that murder in Austria-Hungary that triggered the war so that could be shown in the campaign opening, but Austria-Hungary never contributed in any meaningful way so it's not worth mentioning in this WWI game otherwise. Neither are Russia or Turkey (though Gallipoli could be mentioned as Anglo-Saxons died there) or Balkan states altogether.

Oh, and I bet they won't have a German campaign either, cuz who would want to play those wacky Nazis?

Honestly... this is what I expect from them.

Would be dissapointed if they go down that route.

Because according to Western logic, a few people of color >>>>> all slavic nation, the Balkans, the rest of the Central Powers and Russia.

This is not even a joke. That is how I believe they think these days

Who cares about Serbia? They were defeated in 1915 and the Hellfighters weren't even in the Balkans. How do you expect to market this game to North American markets if the Americans aren't the focus?

 

[Bedinsis]

Wait what? They're actually going to cover WW1? In a AAA game?

All right! Let's get this show on the floor!

That was my initial reaction. More sober/collected thoughts followed.

I wonder how they'll be able to make the game accurate to reality. The objection against WW1 games have always been that the equipment would not translate well to the most popular forms of gameplay, and Battlefield is very much a mass appeal series. I saw airplanes, Zeppelins, early tanks and horses in the trailer, so maybe the focus is more on varying the equipment used. That would also fit historically, since WW1 was the war that made people realize that the old form of warfare with number of people vs. number of people would had to replaced due to modern equipment.

Or do something akin to starting a mission with your brother-in-arms expressing satisfaction over actually seeing some action after being struck in a trench for "so and so long", thereby acknowledging that the frontlines were rather immobile while still portraying the most exciting parts.

The title is... well, at first I thought it was stupid, but then I thought that "it is about WW1, hence: 1" made sense, and I didn't know what else to call it. Then it struck me: "Battlefield 1916". Acknowledges what year it took place while also hinting of the year of the title's release. So I'm back on calling the 1 stupid.

I hope the Armenian Genocide will be covered, since it's a tragedy not acknowledged by some to this day and portraying it might actually do some good.

I have heard that the campaigns of Battlefield games have bad stories, the multiplayer being their true strength, so I should probably not get to hopeful about this game. Not that I will play it either way, since I get simulation sick from FPS's.

 

[Joccaren]

Huh. Well, that's a somewhat difficult time period to build a Battlefield game around, at least if they're staying vaguely close to the real thing (which I'm not convinced they'll do from what I've seen in the trailer). But at least it's a fairly fresh ground. It'll at least be interesting to see what they can come up with. I haven't played any BF games since 3, so I might be tempted to buy one again, if it actually looks and feels like a new game.

Nailed it.

Honestly, I'm not too concerned with them keeping a sombre tone and everything for the game. Its a game, based around action, the multiplayer at the very least is going to focus on the action side of it. Who knows with the campaign. If they miss it in the campaign, well, complain, but I'll likely buy it just to support the idea of WWI games in general.
Gameplay you really can't have the same as normal Battlefield though. It might not be accurate WWI, but it really just can't be normal battlefield either. Tanks should end up quite different, and potentially less potent [Though also with potentially fewer real counters], there's not going to be a ton of other viable vehicles to use, biplanes just can't control like a Jet Fighter if you want any semblence of 'feel' to not create huge dissonance. It'll also focus air more on guns, less on missiles, so it'll be easier to dodge and harder to kill.
Overall, it seems interesting and it could end up a great game. Campaign also gives them at least a shot at not making Generic Modern Military Shooter 999999, and maybe levelling some criticisms at the fact the war occurred at all, or the actions taken by some in that war. Kind of hard to do that in Modern war where you're either making up the war, or are basing it in the Middle East, a pretty touchy subject for the time period. I don't believe they will though, and honestly if they try to glorify the war I'm hoping a lot of people shoot criticism at it for just being stupid and out of touch with reality, but I guess we'll see.

 

[RicoADF]

I have wanted a WW1 FPS for a long long time. Why did it have to be EA and Battlefield...

That's pretty much how I see it, friggen awesome to see but EA of all publishers......

I'll have to wait and see how they do this.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I mentioned earlier that I thought it would be cool to see the Battle of Beersheba where the Australian Light Horse famously rode the last great horse mounted cavalry charge of the 20th century but that's the provincialism in me as an Australian.

What this game really should include, is The Somme Offensive.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

I mentioned earlier that I thought it would be cool to see the Battle of Beersheba where the Australian Light Horse famously rode the last great horse mounted cavalry charge of the 20th century but that's the provincialism in me as an Australian.

What this game really should include, is The Somme Offensive.

100% with you with Beersheba, and as a Brit I have some defence against provincialism on that front. The most intriguing thing about it is that the Light Horse weren't a cavalry regiment - they were mounted rifles (who used horses as a mode of swift transport, and dismounted and fought as infantry). They had no swords or pikes, and used their bayonets - I have heard different accounts as whether the bayonets were used on their own as swords, or attached to their rifles and used as lances. A very brave action indeed.

 

[Jute88]

Interesting time period. I just hope they include the Russian Revolution, and how it affected not just the war, but the independence of several countries from the Russian Empire.

 

[direkiller]

The tonal dissonance is strong with this one. A serious question though, for anyone who has reputable knowledge, how many, if any (I luv commas) African men distinguished themselves during the "great war" and in what theater?

The French did recruit troops from their African colonies and they did see action against the Germans on the Western Front. The Germans themselves largely used African colonial troops for General Paul von Lettow-Vorbek's campaign of causing a nuisance for the British in East Africa that lasted the entire war. If you're talking African-American, then you'd have a much harder time finding one, the only one I can think of is a pilot that flew with the Lafayette Escadrille, as squadron made up of Americans that flew for the French Air Force before the USA officially entered the war in 1917.

Ah, some good information in there. I am actually surprised by das Germans using African soldiers back then, it just never crossed my mind. Were they recruited via normal means, paid, treated respectfully, etc?

Vorbeck had about 14,000 Askari under his command in German Africa.
That said Vorbeck was not exactly kind Africans who were not in the military.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

My son showed me this on the weekend and I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm much more excited about this WWI scenario for this than I am the space setting of the new COD.

 

[Worgen]

Its interesting that they have set this in a time we dont see often in games, especially aaa games. But, I have doubts as to how much fun it will be and keep historical. I mean pretty much the best infantry weapon was a bolt action, I know they show someone running around with an lmg, I want to say a Lewis gun but I dont care enough to look it up. Plus "realistic" military shooters didn't really go mainstream till players got a bit more usability from the guns. While its fun to mock red dot sights, they sure do make guns more usable.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Oh, and they should definitely have a brain and put a bit of an anti-war message in it. God, WWI was a fucking stupid big war.

The melee system has me slightly worried, since BF4's Knife/Counter Kinfe is almost game breakingly inconsistent and the one thing DICE haven't been able to improve at all since release. Making it a central mechanic seems a bit rash.

As for the tone, Battlefield games have always been extremely gleeful in their violence. I don't expect this to treat the horrors World War 1 any more respectfully than it did the Battles of Berlin, Guadalcanal, Hue, Jalalabad and so on.

Why have respect when you can make a tank do back flip?

 

[Bob_McMillan]

The melee system has me slightly worried, since BF4's Knife/Counter Kinfe is almost game breakingly inconsistent and the one thing DICE haven't been able to improve at all since release. Making it a central mechanic seems a bit rash.

Ah the counterknife... I'm not sure why they never bothered to remove it, especially with all the other improvements they have made to the game over the years.

But people who went to the BF1 event said that there are different melee weapons with different damage and attack speed, so I'm guessing the melee combat will be more similar to Hardline.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

Yeah, it looks promising, but DICE has always been good at making trailers, in my opinion. We'll have to play it to know if it's worth it.

It's going to be weird though, because WW1 was brutal fucking conflict, so if they make a campaign that depict it as is then it's going to look weird.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

So...if that bizarre trailer is anything to go by, BF1 will be just another mass produced run-and-gun shooter that will largely fail to capture dynamics and feel of the Great War. It almost looks like they were making a steampunk game but then decided to switch to WW1 at the last minute. Also, the name BF1 is really stupid, why not something like BF 1917? Still, this is the first Battlefield game to pique my interest even slightly since BF2...

You want a good WW1 FPS? Look no further than Verdun. Before playing that game, I didn't think it possible to make an enjoyable FPS that is based around trench warfare, but those guys nailed it. Relatively historically accurate, very nice graphics and truly unique, if unforgiving, gameplay.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Well it takes balls to do that, kudos to them. WWI could actually make a far more interesting and diverse game than the same "shoot nazis" kind of game that nearly every WWII game devolves into.

I just hope they manage to actually capture the conflict in its entirety, because WWI was in many ways a far more complex situation too. It also creates a whole lot of opportunity though.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

I'm interested if only because WW1 is really interesting and hopefully they go into some of the more obscure fronts like other people have said, I also love Lawrence of Arabia so that could be cool, but here's my worry, the only time you see the player shoot a gun it's fully automatic.

And fully automatic guns at the time were like the most advanced technology on the battlefield, they were also heavy as shit, needed a team usually of 2 or more to use and some even needed water cooling making them impractical to carry or use for mobile warfare.

I'm interested but I want a WW1 game where it's a little slower paced and you can really see how the toll of war affects different fronts, like the European front is slow and brutal but in the Middle East maybe it's fast hit and run stuff where you use swords and calvalry charges? I just don't want your soldier to be given an "advanced lightweight prototype machine gun" and then be told to just go apeshit in the trenches.