BATTLEFIELD 5 IN WW1?

One hardly needs to be particularly observant to spot that the entertainment industry is fairly compulsive in its adoption of fads. Whether its super hero movies, vampire television shows, or post-apocalyptic video games, producers across all sectors of the industry will stick to whatever trend is in keeping with the zeitgeist. For that reason, the most popular genres are vulnerable to becoming stagnant, starved of innovation and creativity as a result of being overly restricted to fit the mould of whatever proves popular. Perhaps nowhere is that more vividly apparent at the moment than in the video game first person shooter genre. As shooters become ever more obsessed with a near future theme, overladen with futuristic weaponry and gadgetry; do the recent rumours of a possible new Battlefield title set in WW1 foreshadow a long overdue reset on a tired genre?

Ever since the overwhelming success of Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare back in 2007, the whole FPS genre has slowly moved to capitalise on gamers appetite for the setting. In fact, virtually the entirety of the last console generation, continuing into the current generation, has been totally dominated by contemporary or near future conflicts. For the best part of a decade, the genre has been over saturated with those same modern themes, with the only innovation taking form in ever more futuristic weaponry and cyber age gadgetry. Indeed, the emergence of new IP’s such as Titanfall have convinced the big players in the industry, Battlefield and Call of Duty, to move to include an ever more futuristic design in their recent titles. In particular, Call of Duty’s latest endeavor with both theAdvanced Warfare and Black Ops 3 iteration of the series, have propelled the series into a more far flung, almost science fiction motif, complete with exco suites and augmented abilities. FPS titles are becoming increasingly less recognisable and more obscure as developers continue to add density to shooter mechanics via these futuristic features. Inevitably, at some point, something has got to give.

Of course, the switch to contemporary and near future conflicts was itself a reform of the genre. During the mid 2000’s the shooters was awash with WW2-centric titles. Before Call of Duty andBattlefield had eclipsed their competition with modern warfare offerings, games such as Medal of Honour had been rehashing a tried a true WW2 formula for years. The difference, however, was that these games often involved a single protagonist against base loads of enemy soldiers, completing missions level by level. Advancements in computer hardware allowed titles such as Call of Duty to replicate the excitement of large scale battle with NPC allies and large maps. Innovation took the guise of increased scale, especially with Battlefield’s introduction of drivable vehicles and large 30+ player maps. Yet, in the end, it was the subject matter, rather than a lack of new mechanics, that had become stale. Gamers grew tired of the same weapons, the same aesthetic, and the same locales. Just as modern conflicts are becoming tiresome in the contemporary FPS ecosystem, WW2 era shooters had been overdone to the point of tedium.

The appeal of modern warfare is understandable, with new technology and more destructive weaponry providing a more exciting variety of material for developers to work with. A plethora of impressive vehicles, and more recently the rise of robotic arsenals, has kept the series plump with evermore dramatic ordinance. Jets, helicopters, drones, missiles, cyber warfare, and now augmented abilities; developers don’t need to look too far for innovation. Yet, it’s a design that’s becoming increasingly boring, and if rumours prove to be correct, a return to the earliest days of conventional warfare in a Great War/WW1 setting could be just the shake-up that the genre needs.

The First World War isn’t a setting that has been explored very often in video games. It was a war of attrition, of static combat in which tens of thousands of men died in single day of battle. Undoubtedly, a tragic war and still a sensitive subject; the futility of men charging into walls of machine gun fire is a far less glamorous rendition of warfare in comparison to the flashy cyber warfare akin to current FPS titles. The Great War was a gritty affair, as much about human survival in dire conditions as it was about battlefield tactics. It won’t be an easy premise for Battlefield 5 to pull off, but that is perhaps what makes the subject matter so intriguing. Though trench warfare dominated proceedings, The Great War saw the use of both the bizarre and the terrible in regards to offensive weaponry; the introduction of gas warfare, the use of rudimentary body armour, brutal melee combat, and massed cavalry against early mechanised units. There is some fascinating material to work with for both multiplayer gameplay and some truly brilliant story telling in a campaign mode, something that Battlefield has been sorely lacking in recent times.

WHY IT WOULD WORK?

WWI Is Largely Unexplored In Video Games
Two generations ago, everyone complained about the overabundance of World War II based shooters. Last gen became an arms race to make modern military shooters. Now we’re seeing a glut of science-fiction focused FPS games, with franchises like Titanfall, Star Wars Battlefront, all three Call of Duty varieties, and Evolve joining the Dooms and Halos of the world with futuristic weaponry. By taking Battlefield to World War I, DICE will have a huge point of differentiation working in its favor.

The Great War also takes second billing to World War II in modern entertainment, so setting a game during this time period also affords DICE an opportunity to teach people about a huge part of history they are likely unfamiliar with. While the majority of people think mainly of the battles of mainland Europe, in reality the war extended its reach far across the globe, with skirmishes in Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, China, and the coasts of both North and South America. That affords DICE a wealth of varied options when designing maps.

Battlefield’s Trademark Land, Air, and Sea Battles Translate Well
When you see pictures of World War I, they are often from the perspective of trenches, where defensive battles between the Central Powers and Allies resulted in heavy casualties thanks to strong defensive strategies and limited offensive options that could break the stalemates. But while infantry combat may have been a major part of the war, we also saw large-scale naval conflicts, the rise of air supremacy, and the birth of the tank.

Yes, many of the standing armies heavily used horses, camels, and other beasts of burden in a military capacity, but as the war dragged on the technology aggressively ramped up. By the end of the war, modern military staples like tanks, planes, anti-air vehicles, armored cars with machine-gun turrets, aircraft carriers, submarines, and battleships all saw extensive action. These elements already translate perfectly into the battlefield.

DICE could also have fun with some of the weird technology that was used during the war, like observation balloons, acoustic locators, and fake horse carcasses snipers used as camouflage.

Aviation Could Be Great Fun, And More Balanced
By the time the war started in 1914, aircraft were already being used militarily, primarily for reconnaissance and close air support. To counter air supremacy, World War I saw the introduction of anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft. Aces became the biggest celebrities of the war, with pilots like Eddie Rickenbacker and Manfred von Richthofen (a.k.a. the Red Baron) gaining popularity for their exploits.

Air supremacy has always been a major component of Battlefield, so this rich history is just waiting to be tapped by the series. The aircraft of the time weren’t as dominant as modern birds of war (a problem you see DICE continually wrestle with in modern Battlefield installments), which could help keep the air game in better competitive balance with the ground operations.

Weapons Fit The Battlefield Class System
World War I didn’t have an abundance of automatic rifles and machine guns, but that doesn’t mean DICE has to completely rework its class system. Enough options exist in most weapon categories to preserve the Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon division of labor should the studio go that route.

With more than 20 different standing armies participating in the war, the Assault and Recon classes would have an abundance of options to choose from for bolt-action rifles. Some will be familiar to those who have played World War II games, such as the M1903 Springfield, M1891 Mosin-Nagant, and Pattern 1914 Enfield. Machine guns were largely stationary for the early years of World War I, but light machine guns like the BAR, Lewis Gun, and MP 18 were introduced toward the end of the conflict.

The Engineer class poses more of a problem, but solutions do exist. Infantry proved largely ineffective against armored fighting vehicles in World War I, so military engineers started to develop armor-piercing bullets, “reverse bullets” that had increased propelling charge over standard issue bullets, and eventually anti-tank rifles like the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr. You could also arm the engineer class with mortars to fight off the tank advancements.

WHY IT MAY NOT WORK

Progression System Could Prove Problematic
The amount of weaponry used in World War I is staggering, but scopes and attachments for standard issues were a rarity, meaning DICE would need to get clever in developing an unlock system for progression. As a silver lining, the stripped-down nature of combat could force DICE to spend more time on competitive balance, even if it comes at the cost of continually getting new gadgets to play with. The crazy gas masks of the time give the studio some interesting cosmetic options to explore.

Are Players Looking For Slower Paced Combat?
One reality DICE simply won’t be able to work around is the fact that the pacing of combat in World War I is significantly slower than you’ll find in both modern and sci-fi shooters. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect trench warfare and mustard gas to play a dominant role in multiplayer maps – enough large-scale battles that resulted in serious progress for one side or the other occurred that DICE can give us a good variety of battles. But even taking this into account, there’s no denying that the tanks are slower, planes are clumsier, and infantry guns fire at a slower rate in World War I. How the market reacts to this different pace would go a long way to making or breaking Battlefield 5.

Whether or not rumours of Battlefield’s World War 1 setting turn out to be correct, the very notion of new and unique premise in the FPS genre has already got the community talking. It’s surely an indication that modern warfare and near future themes are becoming stale. Just as the WW2 era shooters died as a result of becoming too stagnant, perhaps modern shooting games have also reached their critical mass.

Below a ww1 game, Verdun shows some MP action:

DICE may well have identified the theme as having reached its crescendo with the COD franchise moving further into the realms of science fiction to stay innovative, and an unexpected return to more a more classical theme could hand the initiative back to Battlefield. Though, the limitations of vehicle technology during the early 20^th century might prove challenging to incorporate the sort of gameplay systems normally akin to Battlefield games, this is exactly the sort of creativity that we need in the FPS genre. In an industry that has become increasingly commercial, and in a genre that is dominated by corporate decision making; breaking the mould of convention and approaching things from an entirely new angle is perhaps exactly what is…

In any case the PBS Gameteam will be ready

Source:Gameinformer/Gamersftw.co.uk/Verdungame.com