Battlefield 5 is set in WW1?

[Meelis13]

http://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-5-rumored-to-be-set-in-world-war-one/

 

If thats true, then this might be long-waited return of historical fps to triple-a section. And that puts battlefield back on my radar.

Now, concept itself is already done in game im big fan of- Verdun, but i am definetly interested in big triple-a company getting back to history.

History geek as i am, this news has gotten me very excited

[Seattleite]

...Okay. This is going to make boycotting EA really, REALLY hard. I've been hoping we'd get a game on the *first* world war for quite a while.

 

Though if they treat the subject matter as well as they treat modern warfare and the second world war, it'll make me want to mail them a howler.

[PriestOfJudas]

Can't wait to see all the trigger-happy 14 year olds getting frustrated with bolt-action rifles.

[Seattleite]

Funny thing, I actually played World at War for a while. People actually used the bolt-action rifles a LOT. It was a refreshing change of pace.

[Meelis13]

...Okay. This is going to make boycotting EA really, REALLY hard. I've been hoping we'd get a game on the *first* world war for quite a while.

 

Though if they treat the subject matter as well as they treat modern warfare and the second world war, it'll make me want to mail them a howler.

Well, there is Verdun already, MP-only game set in western front. Quite good and more free content (belgians, bot survival mode, americans, more weapons) should come soon. Its made by 3 people (though more have joined after release)

[Seattleite]

I'll look into it, thanks. Though I have to ask, is it strictly a shooter, or does it have vehicular combat like the Battlefield series? (I'd love to take an early fighter plane for a spin. Haven't done that in years.)

[Fric]

WW1 does not necessarily mean slower pace tbh. It all depends on how you make it. Yes, there are less weapons and vehicles, but still - you have artillery, you have machineguns, you have air power, you have your first tanks and armored vehicles. It all depends on how they make gun mechanics, how fast movement they make (Verdun - I haven't played it, but the movement feeled slow), how they include artillery and air support in the game), what objectives and game modes they make etc.

[Seattleite]

Yeah, I don't like how slow everybody moves in Verdun. The sprint is about the speed of a normal man's jog, like all the soldiers are on a strict diet of deep fried twinkies and beer. I get that a lot of shooters are like that nowadays, but can't we please go back to the era where we remembered that humans are bloody fast when they want to be? I'm not saying we make the opposite mistake, where everybody moves at the speed of an olympic sprinter all the time and never get tired, but "realistic" should not mean "slow", at least when it comes to movement speed.

 

Well, never the less, not a deal breaker. I'll see about picking up a copy once my tax return comes in. Afraid I have little choice, now that I've gotten into the spirit of things. Cheerio!

[Alyxx Thorne]

I prefer futuristic settings like in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare and Black Ops III to be honest, or modern day settings like in Modern Warfare.

 

I've always felt like unless you do something interesting with a real life setting like WWI or WWII, like games like NecroVision and Wolfenstein did, it's pretty much boring as heck playing them. I've never been a fan of games based on real life battles.

[Meelis13]

Verdun is strictly shooter. Because of many reasons, including historical ones and also the fact most of the game was made by just 3 people.

But as for "slowness"- it might seem so in vids, but not so much ingame. It also depends on loadouts as well. I do reccommend to try it- you can get your money back if you dont like it.

[Reverend_UshankaCat_]

While I welcome the idea of having a game take place in a historical setting that is usually ignored, I'm also quite sceptical. I mean, WWI (if I remember correctly) mostly consisted of sitting in a trench and shooting mortars and rifles at where you thought the enemy was, and then charging blindly into fire, hoping that you won't get shot, so can you really make an interesting game out of that? It's been a long time since I've played the Battlefield 1918 mod, but I remember that being quite boring.

I want this to be good though, it's just that I have completely lost faith in Battlefield after the blurry, crappy mess that was Battlefield 3 (or as I like to call it: Call of Colour Correction: Modern Battlefield). After playing that the series was basically dead to me. To this day I refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Battlefield 4.

So maybe Battlefield 5 can bring this once great series back to my heart!

[Meelis13]

While I welcome the idea of having a game take place in a historical setting that is usually ignored, I'm also quite sceptical. I mean, WWI (if I remember correctly) mostly consisted of sitting in a trench and shooting mortars and rifles at where you thought the enemy was, and then charging blindly into fire, hoping that you won't get shot, so can you really make an interesting game out of that? It's been a long time since I've played the Battlefield 1918 mod, but I remember that being quite boring.

I want this to be good though, it's just that I have completely lost faith in Battlefield after the blurry, crappy mess that was Battlefield 3 (or as I like to call it: Call of Colour Correction: Modern Battlefield). After playing that the series was basically dead to me. To this day I refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Battlefield 4.

So maybe Battlefield 5 can bring this once great series back to my heart!

Well, for one, Verdun is interesting game (interesting enough for me to sink 170 hours into it), so you can make interesting game based on ww1.

Also, like ww2 wasnt just Stalingrad, D-Day or Berlin, WW1 was more than just western front. And even western front saw lot of interesting and mobile action- though true, mostly in 1914 and 1918. But other than western front, eastern front basically didnt stop moving, balkan front, african front was literally british armies chasing german army (which managed to kick british butts quite few times), alpine front and short-lived asian front. Heck, ever heard of Arabian Lawrence? Middle-eastern front was extremely mobile.

So yeah, western front was mostly sitting in trench and charging on big events, but other fronts were way more open (well, aside alpine front, which really was even more sitting still than western front)

I know you didnt complain about this, but i want to put few other issues to bed here: its commonly tought not many weapons were present in ww1 (in variations that is) and also lack of vehicles.

Weapons: while indeed, most weapons were bolt-action rifles & carbines, there were several types of those, each with pros and cons. Plus pistols & revolvers (again, several types). Oh, and flamethrowers. Late stage war, even trenchguns and SMG-s appeared (probably best known one is BAR 1918, which was widely used in ww2 as well).

As for vehicles. Again, suprisingly large variety- while indeed tanks were mostly big and bulky (at least ones most used), Renault FT17 (first modern tank, also was in ww2) was used in war late stage. But there were also cars, trucks, horses and several types of planes. Planes are probably largest in variety, as planes were designed left and right in ww1, biplanes, fokker triplanes (like one used by infamous red baron), bulldog fighters.. Heck, even full-metal modern-looking bombers were developed (and used) during ww1. So there is tons of stuff

And hey, if someone thinks its not enough, then DLC expansion can always take place in Russian revolution and accompanying independence wars (i seriously hope that- to see estonian independence war battles in DLC expansion)

[Alyxx Thorne]

WW1 was pretty damn boring now that I think about it...

[Seattleite]

Not to mention stupid, pointless and destructive. It erupted right the fuck out of nowhere, killed a million men in the first month, everybody shares a little bit of the blame for its development (especially Austria and Russia), and directly lead to the second world war, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (thus instability in the middle east), the rise of the USSR and pretty much every single other geopolitical issue of the 20th century, earning it the nickname the "Seminal Catastrophe".

 

Most of the reason I want more attention drawn to it is because it was so massively important in shaping the modern world, and it was a complete travesty that happened for no real reason and killed millions upon millions of people who wanted nothing to do with it. And a game that treats it with the proper respect such a tragedy deserves would be appreciated, even if we need a few big name companies to shit all over the subject matter first in order for that to happen.

[Meelis13]

isnt ww1 caused issues bit of other topic entirely?

Anyways, its easy to blame it for all bad that 20th century had (because it DID play large role in that), but it also did ton of good. Female rights for one, advancements in technology, independence of smaller nations, it also caused birth of first real organisation, where nations discussed global issues. Also, effective end of colonialism, because while colonialism was still ongoing, it lost lot of supporters and influence with war. Oh and end of zars and kaisers in europe.

All in all, for better AND worse, ww1 is probably the most influential thing in 20th century, as it affected world to change what it is now.

[Seattleite]

I did not say it had no positive effects.

[rairii]

WW1 isn't bad source material for a video game, but it's TERRIBLE source material for a battlefield game.

WW2 and Vietnam just fit battlefield's formula better, and of course I can see why they wouldn't want to go in that direction.

Though, I'd love it if the folks at dice took a look at this and considered a return to ww2

B8KHClEGGM8

[Seattleite]

While I agree it doesn't fit their formula very well, and I know they will insult both the subject matter and the player's intelligence, the point in my mind isn't for the Battlefield game to really fit the war or vice versa. After Battlefield shits on the subject matter, lies about the history and insults their players' intelligence they won't have done any damage because no force on earth could make Battlefield fans worse at history. Then when another company is inspired by this horrific debacle to create a game that will respect the subject matter, tell an actual story or even teach actual history to players who have no idea what happened in the war other than "Germany must have done it, because... Uh... They must have"*, they could actually have a significant positive influence on these people's knowledge. Personally, I find that to be an overwhelming net gain.

 

*For the record, the war was not Germany's fault, they just took all the blame because they lost. But there's about a 50/50 shot you already know that, Extra Credits did a decent series on the matter and clearly you watch them. Crash course also did several excellent episodes on the matter, which I personally think are better from an educational standpoint, but that's neither here nor there.

[rairii]

*For the record, the war was not Germany's fault, they just took all the blame because they lost. But there's about a 50/50 shot you already know that, Extra Credits did a decent series on the matter and clearly you watch them. Crash course also did several excellent episodes on the matter, which I personally think are better from an educational standpoint, but that's neither here nor there.

 

I watch EC more for the perspective on video games from a design standpoint than history lessons.

You can't really put the blame of WW2 on any one country, since it started out as several smaller conflicts rather than just one person or country.

[Seattleite]

*For the record, the war was not Germany's fault, they just took all the blame because they lost. But there's about a 50/50 shot you already know that, Extra Credits did a decent series on the matter and clearly you watch them. Crash course also did several excellent episodes on the matter, which I personally think are better from an educational standpoint, but that's neither here nor there.

 

I watch EC more for the perspective on video games from a design standpoint than history lessons.

You can't really put the blame of WW2 on any one country, since it started out as several smaller conflicts rather than just one person or country.

 

I think you just had a slight typo... You can definitely blame the *second* world war on one country, at least in the European theatre. (In the pacific, it's WAY more complicated.) But as for the first world war, it really just started because the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, the Austrians got a blank check from Wilhelm to act as long as they did it fast (as to keep it a small, regional conflict) but the moron went on vacation right after saying that, the Austrians gave totally unreasonable demands to give themselves an excuse instead of just acting and largely sat on their hands for two weeks, Wilhelm returns to find they STILL hadn't acted, the Russians mobilized towards the German border and guaranteed the war would involve them (therefore their allies in France, and their allies in Britain), and the Russians refused to back down, forcing Germany to mobilize against them to defend itself.

 

So really, one conflict. And several mind-numbingly horrific gaffes on the part of Europe's leaders made mostly because the rulers involved were complete fucking morons.