Zero Punctuation: Battlefield 1

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Battlefield 1

This week, Zero Punctuation reviews Battlefield 1.

Watch Video

Ironically, I got a Battlefield 1 ad before the video that heavily criticized Battlefield 1.

Thanks, at least one reviewer who saw the wallpaper swapjob from WW II to WW I with the centerforces essentially beeing grumpykrauts.

And the weirdness concerning historical accuracy that wavered like a rollercoaster throughout

Thank you so much for tearing this piece of shit game a new asshole, why critics loved the campaign I will never understand, it fails miserably at getting you to give a shit about any of the characters and has very monotonous and unchallenging gameplay, Total Biscuit also had some pretty good criticisms of this game:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkDysHo83lw

Wolf Hagen:
Thanks, at least one reviewer who saw the wallpaper swapjob from WW II to WW I with the centerforces essentially beeing grumpykrauts.

And the weirdness concerning historical accuracy that wavered like a rollercoaster throughout

TotalBiscuit made similar remarks about the game on the Co Optional Podcast, and he was right, I was really surprised when Jim Sterling actually liked the campaign of this game.

Wonder if Yahtzee is going to do a double review of Titanfall 2 and Infinite Warfare next week since they share some similarities.

Ha, that dog got me! :)

Well, not much expected from BF1, didn't get anything. So no surprise there!

Wolf Hagen:
Thanks, at least one reviewer who saw the wallpaper swapjob from WW II to WW I with the centerforces essentially beeing grumpykrauts.

And the weirdness concerning historical accuracy that wavered like a rollercoaster throughout

I think a sizable part of it is that a "large" amount of reviewers and consumers wanted something that wasn't knock-off Halo/Doom/Half-Life/TimeSplitters/[insert sci-fi space/time/dimension travel FPS series].

I wonder, considering the amount of BIG releases at this time of the year (Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 2, Final Fantasy 15, Dead Rising 4, The Last Guardian), if Yahtzee will do a "Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare VS Titanfall 2" to save space and that way being able to review more games before the year is over.

It makes sense because this time they are both Sci-Fi military shooters about fighting over control of a solar system, limited jet packs and free running, piloting as a big part of the gameplay (Starship in one and Mecha on the other) with an AI companion and relatively short campaigns, they're similar enough that a comparison review would be perfectly plausible.

Is it ironic that this video that shits on BF1 does so while literally simultaneously being strangled by BF1 ads?

I guess Call of Duty is next, ten bucks Yahtzee mentions Federation Force.

master-xavier:
I wonder, considering the amount of BIG releases at this time of the year (Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 2, Final Fantasy 15, Dead Rising 4, The Last Guardian), if Yahtzee will do a "Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare VS Titanfall 2" to save space and that way being able to review more games before the year is over.

It makes sense because this time they are both Sci-Fi military shooters about fighting over control of a solar system, limited jet packs and free running, piloting as a big part of the gameplay (Starship in one and Mecha on the other) with an AI companion and relatively short campaigns, they're similar enough that a comparison review would be perfectly plausible.

I was expecting him to compare and contrast BF1 to CoD:IW this week.
And they really still have automatic weapons like from WWII for this game? Why not the single-shot rifles they actually had in the war? I've played WWII shooters that had those.

Now I can't get the image of a sad puppy wearing a trilby out of my head...

Gonna go have a little weep.

Darth_Payn:

master-xavier:
I wonder, considering the amount of BIG releases at this time of the year (Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 2, Final Fantasy 15, Dead Rising 4, The Last Guardian), if Yahtzee will do a "Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare VS Titanfall 2" to save space and that way being able to review more games before the year is over.

It makes sense because this time they are both Sci-Fi military shooters about fighting over control of a solar system, limited jet packs and free running, piloting as a big part of the gameplay (Starship in one and Mecha on the other) with an AI companion and relatively short campaigns, they're similar enough that a comparison review would be perfectly plausible.

I was expecting him to compare and contrast BF1 to CoD:IW this week.
And they really still have automatic weapons like from WWII for this game? Why not the single-shot rifles they actually had in the war? I've played WWII shooters that had those.

Apparently they took big strides to find any prototype smgs they could so people could run around with automatics instead of the bolt action rifles pretty much everyone would have.

I got it and there is a lot to recommend it.

Maybe I'm think: did yahtzee particularly dislike this game?

So far, to me, I agree it is not a history lesson. There weren't so many automatic weapons then. Even so, the focus on fun and it is beautiful to look at.

1. I like it.
2. I don't really understand Yahtee's review. Did he particularly dislike it?

Gorfias:
I got it and there is a lot to recommend it.

Maybe I'm think: did yahtzee particularly dislike this game?

So far, to me, I agree it is not a history lesson. There weren't so many automatic weapons then. Even so, the focus on fun and it is beautiful to look at.

1. I like it.
2. I don't really understand Yahtee's review. Did he particularly dislike it?

From what I gather, he did not like it. Basically too much like previous Battlefield games with nothing to differentiate it for the better outside of model skins.

Yeah, I had a feeling something like this would happen. Same old same old with a fresh coat of paint. Now with more hypocrisy!

As far as the name goes, I do wish they had gone for the Roman numeral this time around, seeing how that's how everyone I've ever known as always written "World War I". I mean, jeez, EA, you had one job...

Well, no, actually you had quite a few jobs and you botched a great deal of the important ones, but this is the one I'm choosing to be upset over because, as someone who's not actually buying the game, it's the only one that directly affects me in any way.

Last frame of the video, who is the imp riding?

Honestly, I think I'd rather play Verdun or Valiant Hearts if I wanted a decent WWI experience. Hell, I'd even play that one freeware game from yonks ago that had you running through trenches trying to avoid a dinosaur thing. Wish I remembered the name of that...

So basically, obvious spunk-gargle-wee is obvious.

Blimey, there sure are a lot of black soldiers running around in this 1900's war. I didn't know Austria had such a diverse population!

I didn't think there were that many machine guns in WWI either. Yeah, the dog at the end got me too.

WWI doesn't sound like anything that would make material for a shoot-em-up game. Maybe a game that tries to get the player to consider the grimmer side of life, or the strange oddities that can happen in life (Alvin York's story is about as odd as it can get). It's amazing to read about the numbers of deaths in even a single day in some of the battles. I used to read a lot of Robert Service's poems and he wrote about the Great War quite a bit. A lot of things in his poems and in the histories that made me stop and think, but nothing I'd want to play a game about.

If you want an historically accurate FPS, try Gears of War. Hey, it's set in the future. The future could be exactly like that. We don't know.

I got completely distracted and derailed when I remembered "wait, birds can't fart."

"the apocalyptic global conflict that will accompany the new American presidency"

Don't look at me - I voted for the blue team.

Probably one of Yahtzee's more delightful reviews in a while, I am equally baffled at why you would even bother setting a game in World War I if you were going to ape all the weaponry from the future. This is why I usually only play shooters set in the future; you can go as crazy with the weaponry as you want and no one's going to be asking questions. Not that the average Battlefield player probably cares, but I have a hard time getting past it.

If you pretend Verdun doesn't exist, this is quite an original idea.

Darth_Payn:

And they really still have automatic weapons like from WWII for this game? Why not the single-shot rifles they actually had in the war? I've played WWII shooters that had those.

Yep, people just rat-ta-tatting all over the place. They found any automatic some shop-worker kludged together in their garage and put it in as standard equipment. Presumably so as to not alienate the sprayers, or because close-quarters aiming is a bitch on controllers and a single shot would make melee the defacto fight winner at any range below 5 yards.

Press X to bail out trench water.

moosemaimer:
Last frame of the video, who is the imp riding?

This guy

What I'd like to know is: Where the Hell is my Serbian campaign?!

Sheo_Dagana:
Probably one of Yahtzee's more delightful reviews in a while, I am equally baffled at why you would even bother setting a game in World War I if you were going to ape all the weaponry from the future. This is why I usually only play shooters set in the future; you can go as crazy with the weaponry as you want and no one's going to be asking questions. Not that the average Battlefield player probably cares, but I have a hard time getting past it.

What's funny is I had kind of the same feeling about Darkest of Days. They go to the trouble of setting up this whole thing where you work for a time travel agency in the future and you go back to historic battles so you have to be careful who you shoot and to use period weapons in order to not change history, except then the game occasionally goes "Fuck it" and your co-worker gives you a future assault rifle and tells you to go to town. It doesn't even lampshade it either. To make it worse, the last mission is in Pompeii just before the town is buried by the Eruption, so all those futuristic bullet casing are gonna look kind of out of place when the archeologists dig them up in about 2 millenia. No changing history my ass.

This was my first Battlefield game because I was really excited about the setting. Was really hoping for some missions as the Central Powers since there was no good or bad side in this war. Instead we got this super short Allied Powers campaign. Consequently this was also my last Battlefield game.

For those wondering, submachine guns were briefly used right at the end of the war by Germans, but they were not produced in large numbers and only used by elite trench-assault troops. There are also some weapons used before then which resembled submachine guns a bit, but were not designed as such or were cobbled together variants of other weapons. In general, though, these were extremely rare as well.

The problem with world war 1 is that it kind of straddles the line between early modern and modern warfare. It's the point where old ideas like soldiers fighting in formation with rifles and bayonets met new technology like machine guns and massed artillery. That's why you get ludicrous things like people being told to walk, not run but walk across no man's land under machine gun and artillery fire so as not to break formation.

It's something which always struck me playing Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars. In the Napoleonic wars soldiers fought in rigid formation, with only specialist light troops being accorded any kind of freedom or initiative. The job of most soldiers was to stand in these formations firing and reloading and maybe form the occasional square, but because of the way players naturally play shooting games, what people actually do is to spread out and skirmish in a very modern way which creates a kind of dissonance between setting and gameplay. The same is going to be true, to a lesser extent, of any world war 1 game.

The single player campaign, in comparison to the one from Battlefield 4, was very good. I think they got a lot right. It was quite a low bar to jump over. BF4 suffered from numerous technical and design issues - such as enemies popping into the level next to you or behind you if you ran forward faster than the campaign was expecting you to and seemed to offer a single pace and type of play. Also following a single uninteresting protagonist through meaningless levels is worse than following a selection of different protagonists - with some effort made to provide some context and meaning for each character's motivation

It was always going to be a monumental challenge to get the tone right and to avoid disrespect and they've clearly compromised to land the correct side of respectfulness. I felt that some of the characters and their stories were much more memorable and interesting than previous titles and, for the most part, the missions were varied and offered some challenges with some effort made to change the pace and the style of play from story to story and within each story.

Clearly it's more of a "Boy's WWI action comic" than historical reflection and judging the campaign harshly for its failure to educate the audience about the realities of that era's warfare given the limitations of the genre, the franchise, and the conflicting demands of the audience, developer, publisher and critic is, I think, as unrealistic as the game.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here