Turning World War 1 into a video game.

No too long didn't read here, just watch the video. It's Superbunnyhop, it's good, nay fantastic.

So what do you think?

I tend to agree with the general sentiment. Not only is there nothing wrong with WW1 being a video game, but it should be encouraged, and the way Battlefield 1 is doing it is a load of shit. It's more skin job, than some greater exploration of WW1 through systems. I'll probably still buy it because Battlefield is usually a good video game (when it's not broken), but as a "hooray they are finally doing WW1" NOpe, that's wank.

Will gaming ever not be wank?

Blog it bro

But that video is over 18 minutes long. TLDW. I could read one of your threads like 18 times before that video would be over.

Kinda sad he had to make that video. Point is the most Captain Obvious thing ever.

Good examples, though.

TL; DR for anyone who doesn't wanna watch a 20 minute video: Plenty of good World War 1 games exist, and you can do interesting things with any setting/scenario in a video game because they aren't constrained by reality.

You're welcome.

Kanye west music combined with snoop dogg smoking weed and locking the french behind DLC.

People with urine-stained cloths on their face died for this

Anyone who was expecting BF1 to be anything more than a skin is a fucking idiot. It's funny seeing how hyped people were after the reveal and how lukewarm they suddenly turned after E3 when they realized it was just a BF game. No shit morons, what were you expecting? Dice wasn't gonna go out and make AAA Verdun

Yo let's make Night Vision or whatever a game of the month.

I'm not against this. I'll back your play for that in August.

Judges' pick is totally gonna be Mafia 2.

There better be a shit load of bonus points for that game, that are specifically Gagan centric.

AAA gaming will always be wank. You'll get some occasional diamonds, but most of it is just bronze and silver.

As expected, Battlefield 1 just looks and plays like a reskin of Battlefield 3. Still flabbergasted that so many were cheering at the idea of Battlefield changing it up. Yeah, they're totally going to change the fundamentals of a game formula that has gotten them second place in the shooter market. The fact that they are just doing Battlefield 3 again in an older setting is probably the most boring sequel idea I've seen in awhile. If they're not going to take advantage of the setting, then why even go to it? People bash on Call of Duty for samey sequels, but that's what Battlefield has turned into at this point.

Anyway, WW1 is a totally fine setting for a video game. I have absolutely no desire for any current existing franchises to tackle the setting. All these AAA series are sticking to what they do best, and that doesn't work well in a WW1 setting.

I'd love to see more of World War I in video games (World War II is so overdone)... But that video is too long and boring for me to watch.

I disagree with your skinjob assessment and will reserve my final judgment until I get to play the campaign myself.

Bad Company 2 was one of the best campaigns in the series, and that was because of the huge levels, they are doing that again in this game. They even realised that their strength is the huge battlefields and not being a corridor shooter.

They could have just made Bad Company though, it's not like modern military aesthetic was stopping them from doing a more open sandbox level, shit they would have made more gudgets and gear to work with. World War 1 might force interesting design through limitation on them (not a back hand compliment, in general it should give the design team some focus), the game could be the tits. But what they showed looked no different than what Ubisoft did with caveman far cry.

Could have been this super cool thing. The actual execution? It's the fucking Ubisoft game, it's farcry with spears quite literally.

True, in some ways it does look like far cry with spears.

but there are also some bigger changes, like there being no lock-on missiles. Just overall taking out tanks and planes seem to require more skill now. Spotting also works completely different. There is the reworked melee, which also fit the time more. You wouldn't really charge at someone carrying an AK47 but you charge at someone holding a rifle and you might win. The gas system and gas masks look nice.

The game does look like it takes in 1918 and beyond more than it does 1914-1918.

And also the biggest gripe I have is that there are no Belgians and French forces. WW1 without Belgians and French isn't really WW1 to me.

I think at first they were expecting a little more, then reality set in and folks are expecting something a little better and advanced than BF4.

The issue with WW1 is the lack of range of weaponry and gamers want to upgrade as they play so they feel like badasses as the game progresses. For me WWI is a great setting. Unlike the prevailing notion it was all trench warfare, the opening few weeks of the war were absolutely crazy. The German advance on Paris and the desperate attempts by the British and French to stop them would make for a stunning campaign.

The heroic defense by the Belgians at the start of the war probably saved France.

Also why are there not more resistance style games? You could have a huge range of missions, from setting ambushes, stealth assassinations, destroying bridges and depots, to finding out who the traitor is, gathering supply drops, recruit members and build a team etc, instead of just go to point B from point A and shoot everyone.

Exactly. When I first heard the rumor that Battlefield was to be set in WW1, my reaction was: They aren't going to do that. people want their red dot sights and unlocks and whatnots.

So I'm glad they did take a chance with it. And this game does seem to have unlocks, albeit not as far going as modern games.

So there is something for everyone :)

Good question, I can remember some missions like that in Medal of Honor and the earlier Call of Duties.

But I think those kind of missions take up 0.001% of all military shooter missions :(

I'd love a good WW1 game, especially one that wouldn't be afraid of tackling it on the SP level.

Let's see what BF1 does, but it's not looking that great. I mean the MP looks like it could be fun, but MP alone won't bring me onboard.

I can't remember the last EA game that was well done.

Can't wait for Battlefield 1,never been so pumped for a game since Halo 3.

I would like to see a game based off of WW1 and it would be something I would play.

I thought Valiant Hearts was a decent World War 1 game. It had a good balance of some silly stuff mixed with things that actually happened- people leaving home, trench warfare, POW camps, etc. And taught you about the solider's experiences and actual parts of the war.

With that said, I am expecting none of that in BF1

Toy Soldiers was good, I mean sure it wasn't dark or realistic or anything like that but it was a fun game nonetheless.

Anyhow, I've wanted to play Darkest Hour for a long while, saw my roommate playing it many years ago and it looked like fun but I forgot what it was called.

Yeah I'd love them to explore the more complex issues that occurred during these major wars. Not some forced in, "oh war sucks, dead civies, ahhhh" but actually explore them in depth, show gamers upfront some of the terror you would face as a soldier such as terrible living conditions, dead bodies filling the trenches, diseases like trench foot, little knowledge of the effects of combat on the psyche and sanity of the soldiers leading to executions of those who were shell shocked or refused to fight due to complete mental breakdown, (Paths of Glory is a great film that displays this) how the war went on much longer than anyone expected and devastated landscapes and human life with the introduction of chemical warfare. And that's just scratching the surface. Battlefield looks cool, but it's just that. Glorification. Not that that's necessarily terrible, it's their creative decision and I respect that fully. Still wish games would explore different territory, but I guess in some cases it'd be hard to explore these ideas and still keep the game fun (like if we had realistic combat).

Don't have the opportunity/time to watch the video right now so I can't comment much on what it said.

I'd love a less janky version of Verdun but lets face it, most people would not enjoy that kind of gameplay. I would like to see a game mode similar to the one in Verdun implemented in the new Battlefield, even with the ridiculous prevalence of automatic weapons. Hopefully its not just Conquest and Rush again, that would be disappointing.

I do wish that more classes had access to bolt action rifles. I love playing with those weapons but don't typically enjoy playing as the scout/sniper class in BF games. I think it will be fun but if anyone was expecting major changes to the core gameplay design, they are kidding themselves. I think there is a certain atmosphere that comes with the WW 1 aesthetic that will be the main draw of this game, and I'm still happy they went with this setting over a modern or futuristic one.

Well...it's gaming, if i want to know more about WW1 i would read a freaking book.

The most moronic thing about this are the idiots that expect games to be accurate representation of history like its a fucking documentary or something AND NOT A FUCKING GAME!.

Plebs.

Come on bro, why do you even play then? LOL

@blue_hazy_basic: The Saboteur is probably the best example of this kinda game

It's missing triple A gaming* so i did qualify it lol

More so it wasn't really there initially, just the first sentence with "it's bunnyho, it's good, nay fantastic", but I was quickly getting the "I can't watch routine" so I figured **** it, only way I'll get responses is over done positivity and over done negativity, so might as well go all in. I had zero intention of bad mouthing anything, Battlefield 1 is probably going to be a fun game (because Battlefield outside of BF4 being a hot mess is a good game), it's just slightly annoying that our big blockbuster attempt at WW1 in video game, is sort of safe. It might freshen the series up, but it's a setting that could make up for some neat gameplay ideas.

Hell just from a story standpoing, for starters it wouldn't be a cut and dry, we saved the world from douchebag, the way World War 2 is. It's more muddy, it's complicated, there is a whole lot of moral gray to it. The ending kind of sucks, because the treaty of versailles is a load of shit. It's usually dismissed as "well you can't do a FPS in WW1", and honestly why do we always think it's gotta be a FPS?

More to it beyond my wants, bunnyhop brings up the other point: it's a fucking video game, it can be whatever it wants. World War 1 just has to have a feel to it, but systematically you can take some liberties, because game. Leaving it to just a paint job for a franchise that is more or less refined to the point where they aren't going to exactly reinvent the mechanic is a bit unsatisfying. I'd compare it to what they did with Far Cry Primal, on paper, it's kind of badass that Ubisoft said "no go ahead, **** guns, make a game about Cavemen, people saying unga bunga, and spears". The execution from my understanding: Take all the creative possibilities out of it, and make an ubisoft game.

And an Ubisoft game is fine, a lot of people like it, mazel tov to those that dig it, but something a bit more daring would have been appreciated.

@jg4xchamp : this phrase is the death of video game design. This is why gaming is wank.

@jg4xchamp: From the footage I've seen it is exactly a skin job. Add horses, make bi planes, first gen tanks. But the full auto weapoms being carried around were few and far between. That is the biggest thing devs don't want to touch. A single shot, WW1 rifle like what is carried in Verdun isn't sexy enough to the average 18-25 year old imo.

Gonna have to hunt down those bolt action/iron sight only servers.

kinda looks like BF1 on the xbone 720......

cant wait to see that on scorpio.......

they had open bolt sub machine guns then mp 18 ....just like in the civil war the generals thought they where useless....even in WW2 the same exact line was said.....when the germans had the first auto rife infact they had 4 I think.....they also had shotguns in ww1 and the BAR.

like any war things evolve over time....civil war,ww1 ww2,viet nam etc.

@cainetao11:

A veteran of the armed forces and a military history buff here, I'm aware they had them. But they weren't handed out to infantry common place as we will probably see in the game. Americans in WW1 were first outfitted with the French Chauchat automatic rifle but it was a failure. The BAR saw its first action in combat in the fall of 1918.

Ever since I first heard it announced, I knew the new BF was just going to be yet another BF game with a new coat of paint. A proper WWI game will explore the politics that motivated the war, and instill in the player a sense of pure disgust with having to participate in those events, rather than empowerment and power fantasy like so many military shooters do these days.

The tone of a proper WWI game will be more Spec Ops than Doom.

@cainetao11: weak brass and dirt ...lol that sort of war you really would need a bolt action mauser...it made exactly for that kind of war....wet ,dirty dusty air....plus the ranges would been 600m not exactly great for anything except a bolt.....I think most died from non bullet related wounds...indirect fire and trench related sickness.

i would not wanted to been there one bit....that war most of all was the worst horror show of all.there was really no great victorys just one long slug ....a war like this is what we really face next ...it wont be this exact but like this....ww2 was really a major exception to the rule.

Let's not forget brutal beatings with trench clubs.

I don't doubt there were more caved in skulls and diseased corpses than anything else during that war.

The mounted machine gun and artillery and mines in no mans land took a massive toll as well.

It is absolutely nonsensical to expect the multiplayer of a Battlefield game to not be a Battlefield game and that's what we've seen so far, we don't know anything about the single player yet ...maybe, as stupid as it sounds, DICE pull off a great campaign .... that's where they can prove that it's not only a skin, personally, i don't expect them to go all realistic and accurate in multiplayer.

Good rundown of games with a WWI setting - yeah, I watched the whole video. Battlefield outdoing Verdun, though? Not bloody likely.

Yeah I was surprised no mention of Valiant Hearts in that vid. Sure its a side scrolling puzzler at heart but you can learn a shit-tonne about WW 1 just from the game's facts and collectibles. Not to mentioned the everyday hardship of European life at that time conveyed by the story. They hit just about every major campaign/battle. Hell I didn't know Indians and Middle Eastern soldiers fought alongside the allies in the Great War until I played this one.