It wasn’t so long ago that Battlefield’s biggest competitor, Call of Duty, looked like it was heading back to the trenches of World War II. History showed it wasn’t meant to be, as Treyarch continued to push Call of Duty and the Black Ops sub-franchise back into the future. But there’s really only so far Call of Duty can travel into tomorrow before it becomes more about lasers and less about ballistics.
This is where the Battlefield franchise has the chance to reverse the polarity of the contemporary combat flow and rewind the series back into a mostly unexplored era for gaming: World War I. And if the recent rumours prove true, that’s exactly where Battlefield is heading next.
Here are five reasons why Battlefield 5 could work in the muddy, bloody combat of World War I… and five counter-arguments as to why those reasons might not be such a good idea.
Pro: Different war, different momentum
If well-received PC-exclusive shooter Verdun is a taste of what a World War I-themed Battlefield game could be like, it would necessitate a change of pace for the franchise. In Battlefield 3 and 4, DICE showed it could offer faster-paced gameplay with infantry-focused maps and DLC even though, historically, Battlefield wasn’t a particularly fast-paced game.
Given the slower nature of the weapons and vehicles, and an abundance of trench warfare in World War I, DICE could own large-scale battles that play out at a more methodical pace. Slower pace doesn’t mean lower lethality, though, and given the dominance of bolt-action rifles and slow-firing, fixed machine guns, it might also result in a shorter time to kill to deter lone-wolf tanking strategies and generally make combatants think twice about peeking over that trench.
Con: Different gameplay, different game
The reason Verdun works so well is because it’s not a Battlefield game. The slower pace, higher lethality and lack of vehicles bumps it out of the sniper scope for easy comparison to DICE’s shooter. If Battlefield Hardline proved anything, it’s that there are certain pillars that you cannot remove from the franchise formula without it feeling like it’s not really a Battlefield game.
A change to the era is fine, but major changes to the gameplay expectations for pace and lethality has the potential to alienate fans. Furthermore, newer converts may feel doubly alienated given that Battlefield has branded itself as a contemporary shooter in recent iterations. Battlefield’s current faster pace and comparatively moderate lethality is matched with fast-moving vehicles, jets, and fast-firing handheld weapons, and that might be hard to remove from the gameplay loop.
It would definitely be a huge change of pace.
Pro: A chance for an engaging campaign
DICE has really pushed the Battlefield single-player agenda since the release of Bad Company in 2008. While the comedic adventures of B Company were more engaging than the grittiness of Battlefield 3 and 4, DICE clearly still wants to tell stories in the Battlefield universe. If DICE insists on the realistic campaign tone, there’s no better place to explore this than in the brutal realities of frontline combat in World War I.
There are plenty of untapped cinematic reference points to use for inspiration, too, such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Gallipoli, and The Blue Max. Best of all, given that Call of Duty hasn’t touched World War I, it means every World War I movie is ripe for novel gamification. A drastic change in the time period could be the narrative kick up the keister that DICE needs to tell a darker narrative.
Con: There’s no need for a campaign
The campaigns for Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 were the weakest points of those games. DICE has proven it can tell effective whimsical tales in the Battlefield space with Bad Company, but it’s yet to show narrative prowess when things turn serious.
On top of this, DICE’s Star Wars Battlefront reboot didn’t ship with a campaign because apparently the player base has said they don’t need ’em, so said EA CEO Andrew Wilson in a Game Informer interview. If DICE has been following a campaign-less logic for Battlefield 5 and its release date is locked in for October 2016, it’s unlikely it’ll be able to add a campaign at this stage.
World War I saw the birth of aerial combat, which means that air-to-air and air-to-surface technology was incredibly primitive. Hell, at the start of the war, aerial combat translated to reconnaissance pilots performing pistol fly-bys.
A World War I setting means that Battlefield’s community of ace jet pilots and Airwolf-like chopper jockeys won’t be a concern because jets and helicopters won’t be in the game. While these veteran pilots would still be able to make use of a variety of World War I-era biplanes and triplanes, the lack of speed, slower-firing guns and inability to propel explosive ordnance help to make the air superiority of a single pilot (or crew) less of a threat.
Given the slower flying speeds, it also means that infantry have a greater hope of wounding or killing pilots during strafing runs, and machine-gun emplacements are a real threat to both troops and planes. After all, the deadliest World War I ace of them all, Manfred “Red Baron” von Richthofen, was most likely killed by Sergeant Cedric Popkin’s Vickers gun ground fire and not by pilot Arthur Roy Brown (who was credited with the kill).
Con: Air supremacy is important to Battlefield
Slower speeds and higher lethality for veteran Battlefield pilots may result in a player base that’s less interested in flying, and more interested in taking their chances with surviving on foot. Aerial combat has been a big part of the series since the inception of Battlefield, so it may prove to be incredibly challenging for DICE to balance, should the player base reject flying options as underpowered.
Furthermore, a viable fast-moving way to take out an entrenched position or dominating tank crew is important to the Battlefield formula to ensure that no one tactic or class of ground vehicle dominates a map. If players don’t have a way to quickly destroy such threats from above, it may result in map imbalances out of the gate.
Pro: Trench warfare = more melee combat
World War I had a strong emphasis on close-quarters combat, which presents another possibility that has interesting gameplay implications for a World War I-set Battlefield game. Rifles were fitted with bayonets, entrenching tools doubled as improvised melee weapons, and Winchester Model 1897 shotguns (appropriately dubbed “Trench Guns”) were coveted close-range ballistics armaments because of the prevalence of short-range engagements.
Oh, World War I also featured crazy cavalry cats charging into battle with freakin’ swords. Swords!
Traditionally, melee combat has been a very secondary mechanic to shooting in the Battlefield series, with Battlefield 3 including (and Battlefield 4 improving on) a classier one-hit kill system. This mechanic could be bolstered again in Battlefield 5 and become an even greater focus. Given smaller magazine sizes on weapons, and the scary threat of breathing time between bolt-actioned shots, it would incentivise players to use melee more frequently.
Con: More melee = different game
Despite the addition of several non-shooter trappings over the evolution of the series, Battlefield is a first-person shooter first, and everything else second. Detracting from the core shooting experience means DICE would run the risk of the Battlefield series becoming more like Chivalry, and less shooty.
Bolt-action rifles, pistols and shotguns would mean that Battlefield is already veering away from the versatile dominance of assault rifles (not invented until World War II) or the short-to-mid-range power of submachine guns. Crafting a melee system that incentivises players to rely on it more than shooting, would likely necessitate changes to map design and gameplay flow to create more short-range engagements, instead of the usual balance of short, mid- and long-range encounters of the Battlefield series, to date.
Pro: Terrain destructibility is incredibly tactical
Among long-fragging Battlefield fans, it’s no secret that the awesome destructibility of Bad Company 2 was downgraded for Battlefield 3. While Battlefield 4 edged closer to Bad Company 2’s destruction derby, the 2010 spin-off still came out on top of the rubble rally. A new Battlefield game gives DICE a chance to not only match but trump Bad Company 2’s destructibility, and World War I also happens to be the perfect space for its glorious return.
Given the emphasis on trench warfare, artillery barrages and deadly infantry charges, the concept of a dynamically transforming terrain has never been more contextually appealing. Couple this with the deadliness of no man’s land and the general lack of above-ground structures on the World War I frontline, and the Frostbite engine’s already-powerful destructibility would be an essential tool for creating dynamic cover.
Con: Muddy balancing
It’s unlikely that every map will be set on the frontline, given how boring that would be to experience supposedly different locations that all look the same thanks to a lack of flora and an abundance of muddy holes. From another perspective, as Ubisoft Montreal learnt between the fully destructible reveal and partially destructible release of Rainbow Six Siege, a comprehensive level of destructibility can be a nightmare to balance and can actually decrease the overall fun factor.
There’s also the reality that DICE’s signature visual fidelity might have to take a backseat to such an extensive destructibility engine, and that’s not likely to happen with such a pretty engine. The controlled macro destructibility of Battlefield 4’s “levolution” moments is one thing, but allowing an entire field of war to be dynamically transformed over the course of a match might be too much of an ask for 64-player matches.
Whatever Battlefield 5 turns out to be, we’ll likely have an official reveal from EA in the coming weeks, if it follows the Battlefield 3 and 4 trend of unveiling around March. Do you think DICE will drag the series back to the trenches of World War I? Will it continue to explore contemporary warfare? Or will it follow Call of Duty and start forging further forward into futurist territory?
Be sure to sound off in the comments!
0 commentaires: