Oh Battlefield what happened? You used to be great. With a new entry into the franchise out its high time we looked at the previous title.
Battlefield 1 tackles the far less morally clear of the two world wars. There's not a lot of games about the Great War and for good reason. In addition to having less evil enemies the war was far less glorious. Many people died of disease in trenches, choked to death on the air around them in gas attacks, and lived broken lives in a world that didn't understand what a conflict like this had done to their psyche. The technology of war then was at once simpler and more terrifying. Most had access to only bolt action weapons while the latest technologies cut people down in droves.
Battlefield, a series which has never had problems putting you on both sides of a conflict and equip the player with period weapons, opts here to give you a machine gun and point you at Prussians all day. In fact, the game makes a point of pushing me towards better weapons at every opportunity. Like it thinks I'll loose interest if my gun isn't constantly firing.
The single player experience is a number of war stories. Stories is right as the longest of these is only 4 levels. Not nearly enough time to become invested. The achievement says I'd finished the campaign but I'd be hard pressed to call this a campaign.
For example the Australian segment covers the battle of Gallipoli. The game stresses it's a battle with "the largest navel fleet hereinto assembled". It couldn't be bothered showing this or making the failed invasion feels as such. Medal of Honor Frontline had a better beach landing for god sakes.
Each war story also finds a reason to make you sneak around. No really, like with poorly implemented stealth mechanics. Now maybe I misread the title but this is Battlefield 1. From the Battlefield franchise. Why aren't we on more battlefields? Surely there were plenty of them in the First World War. Aside from one maybe two of the war stories they never make sense to force into the game. These stealth segments are made worse since there is really only one path to take. Never mind the diverse options and routes presented, the game demands one way and one way only.
The writing is just plain bad. A combination of cliches and words someone heard in a war movie repeated without regard for the situation is present throughout all the war stories. Most character lack the depth present in even straightforward Battlefield titles, and none come near those in the Bad Company games.
Sloppiness rounds out the experience. The game was happy to remind me to use my binoculars to scout ahead but the button on my controller for them refused to bring them up. Enemies that I hit would clip around me suddenly to get an elaborate bayonet stab on my AI allies.
The multiplayer seems hardly worth mentioning. For one when I tried this time the game stubbornly refused to connect to EA online. I did play a little after release though but there's not much to say. It's still fun. That's good I guess. I had trouble getting into it though because I had trouble getting into the mode.
The good:
-The game looks visually stunning.
-multiplayer is still fun.
The bad:
-too much sneaking around.
-less of a Battlefield game than a Call of Duty clone.
As I played more the problem became clear. Battlefield 1 didn't want to tell a new story about the First World War or even be a battlefield game. It wanted to be Call of Duty. Specifically it wanted to BEAT Call of Duty. With CoD WWII being released the same year Battlefield maybe thought it needed to compete. Oh battlefield, we loved you just the way you were.
It all a bit of a mess. Where's the battlefield that put 64 people on an open map and let us have at it? Where's the battlefield that took the time and effort develop good characters? I know that this Battlefield exists, I've played these games. They were good games. Battlefield 1 is not.
Comments
Post a Comment