Battlefield 1- 12 minutes of single player gameplay

In a war where thousands died every day during major offensives I think this is an interesting way of capturing that. The death of an individual doesn't reset the mission just like a death in a battle doesn't stop it from continuing. People were canon fodder and that didn't matter if they were an infantry man in the trenches, a pilot, a tank crewman, or even a nurse in a field hospital. They were seen as a resource to be used, not even as valuable as a pawn on chessboard as anyone was easily replaced with the next piece of meat to fed into the grinder. There is no fail state because there should be no fail state.

Just to put it into perspective The battle of the Somme (1st July to 18th November 1916) over 1,120,000 (1 million 1 hundred and 20 thousand) men were killed or injured.

Also, this is only for the prologue of the game. The rest of the game isn't like this.

That looked boring af. DICE will never produce a quality campaign.

If it's just limited to prologue then I think this is great way to start the game. But I still doubt skills of DICE when it comes to Single Player Campaigns. There will probably be several other issues with the game's campaign. Multiplayer is where it's at.

I agree with you there; I'm sure it'll be a pretty mediocre campaign. Most excited for the MP.

"Scripted" is a complaint now?

Looks pretty good, but then again, that is coming from a guy who prefers to actually play games instead of coming on forums to pick them apart for no apparent reason.

doom bored the hell out of me it's not for everyone mate

Mario avatar. Why am I not surprised.

Battlefield campaigns always look good in these tightly scripted gameplay videos. And then, when actually playing them, you realize that the game will penalize you for wandering 2 meters away from the path you've seen in said video.

Also their setpieces make not a lick of sense.

"We're surrounded!"

*Camera pulls back.

You clearly aren't.

The graphics do look amazing, though.

There's also constant talking and big explody scenes to keep you engaged, and the stories are very comprehensive and not perfect. What else could you want from an fps like that?

If you strip away the linearity and just have a big battle where you can do whatever, then it's basically the mp-mode with a cutscene every mission.

I can definitely see people disliking it though, I'm a sucker for it.

Whereas I'm the opposite. The first two games I played in the beta were "WOW worthy" then it settled into, ok its Battlefield. Not a bad thing by any means. Just not worth my $60. Have fun folks

It's not a terrible idea if there was something more substantial about it (i.e. if there were some character development or some meaning to the characters), but the way the video is portrayed it seems like you just keep going until you die. I mean if it's a scripted pattern and everyone jumps to the same characters and it's just a matter of "how long can you hold out" with each one, that is actually incredibly stupid. Makes it seem rather pointless. Probably just a lazy way of making the campaign feel longer. If you are GOOD, it might take longer because you will hold out longer before dying. If you suck, you will just jump to the next character more quickly before dying again. I certainly hope there are more interesting ways of "progressing" through the campaign instead of simply jumping from one character to the next when you die.

Or you have Crysis 1 and Warhead, Far Cry, Stalker...

You know. FPS games with emergent gameplay. :P

I'm assuming it's a time based battle, and it will progress whether you have died or not, but again, I'm just guessing.

Stupid and pointless are very good feelings to portray in a game based on WWI, especially when it comes to portraying how disposable soldiers actually were. It's a difficult thing to represent in a game, especially a FPS, where people are looking for the enjoyment in slaughtering hundreds of enemy troops. You're not supposed to survive, that's the entire point. I don't get why people are struggling with this idea because it's anything but subtle.

As has been pointed out, it is just the prologue and the other campaign stories will be more focussed on individuals.

@DragonfireXZ95: They'd have to go way beyond the base mechanics. They could but it kills the familiarity of COD if you change it all. Gotta keep it simple for the casuals. Explodies, shaky cam, earthquakes.

Short and sweet. You're probably right, though, but that's risky.

My enthusiasm for this game has completely evaporated. I think this interpretation of WW 1 is borderline disrespectful. I think WW II gets away with glorification because it was a more of a just war, more clearly good vs. evil.

WW 1 was a clusterfuck of alliances and politics gone wrong, no clear good/bad guys, just a real mess of a war and a huge waste of human lives. I'm not convinced the tone of BF1 is going to handle this effectively based on the MP beta and this footage.

I probably would have loved this when I was 13 but I'm not sure I'll get any enjoyment out of this, not after learning about WW 1 as much as I have.