As one of the deadliest conflicts in human history, World War I had a massive impact on the twentieth century. Not only did both sides suffer an absolutely horrific number of casualties, but the geo-political upheaval it caused planted seeds of division that would resonate throughout the century to come. With the "bad guys" of the conflict widely being viewed as the politicians and military leaders – on both sides – who let the war escalate into a protracted stalemate, it makes basing a video game on the conflict a hard task. While titles such as Valiant Hearts effectively tapped the era to tell emotionally weighty stories, Battlefield 1 – the latest entry in the bombastic shooter series – has taken up this challenge in an attempt to move away from the futuristic trajectory of their competitors.
Sensibly, the game forgoes following one protagonist during its campaign, in favour of six short war stories that put you into the shoes of characters ranging from a tank driver to a female Arab warrior fighting alongside the famous Lawrence of Arabia. This works well, and at the start of the campaign there's a really effective sequence that drives home the wholesale slaughter of World War I, due to the deadly combination of outdated tactics and the latest military technology.
Similarly, in the many story cut scenes there's a reverence for those who lost their lives, and it's clear developer DICE wanted to be as respectful as possible in Battlefield 1. For the large part, this works in the stories told, but the need to offer the gameplay of a traditional shooter undermines this goal at times. Many of your characters will complete heroic feats that wouldn't feel out of place in the most over the top action films, killing scores of enemies as they pursue their objectives, whether that's sneaking around collecting parts to repair a tank or storming a fort single-handedly.
While the campaign's mainly linear, there are a few sections that open up, giving you much more freedom in the route you take. These sections are great, and while the stealth is as simplistic as you might expect – the only tools at your disposal are bullet casings you can throw to lure enemies away from their posts – being able to change things up, and get through without firing a shot, provides a welcome, if modest, challenge.
Overall, the balance between reverence and fun feels about right, coming together to provide the most memorable Battlefield campaign since Bad Company 2. The fast-pace, varied settings, and balance in what you're doing – whether in combat, or during the more open stealthy scenarios – make it well worth playing. In addition, you may just learn a thing or two that'll help you in the multiplayer, as by the time you've finished, you'll have driven vehicles, flown planes, and had the importance of spotting enemies using the R1 button hammered into you.
While it's nice to have a good campaign, the true draw of any Battlefield title is the multiplayer, and anyone who's played the online component of any of the previous games will immediately feel in familiar territory. That's not to say there haven't been changes – such as the removal of the engineer class, and the introduction of both medic and pilot classes in its place – but the big team carnage you've come to know and love is present and correct.
A lot of the game modes on offer will also be familiar to the initiated, with Team Deathmatch, Domination, and Rush all returning once again. In addition, there are also two new modes: War Pigeons, where each team fights for control of a carrier pigeon, and Operations, a combination of Rush and Domination. Out of the two, Operations is clearly being pushed as the marquee mode, and it doesn't take long to see why DICE think you should be playing it.
Offering all the best parts of Domination, with the added structure of Rush, Operations captures the chaos of an all-out assault, with the attacking team tasked with taking two control points in a sector of a map. With up to thirteen sectors, spread across two or three different maps in each Operation, these battles are enjoyably epic in scale, with the only downside being an imbalance that makes the defending team win noticeably more often than the attackers.
Whether you're playing the 40 or 64-player versions, the volume of gunfire and destruction during an Operations match will continually astound you. It's truly exhilarating to survive a bayonet charge of an enemy position or take part in a last ditch defence of a sector as the buildings around you slowly disintegrate, and you'll happily spend hours in these pitched battles, most likely to the exclusion of the other modes on offer.
While you wouldn't be wrong arguing this isn't entirely new to Battlefield multiplayer. The cocktail of Domination and Rush, as well as the real sense of progression in the map design, actually helps take the formula to new heights. In addition, the introduction of player controlled behemoth vehicles – such as airships and armoured trains – that appear in support of the losing team in both Conquest and Operations matches, represent another interesting change, which gives hopelessly outclassed teams a chance to make some headway.
What's clear is that DICE has tried to make the combat feel more like that of the Great War, and while a liberal amount of artistic licence has been employed – such as entirely too many automatic weapons being carried around – the focus on infantry combat, and the removal of a dedicated anti-armour class – helping make the few armoured vehicles more formidable – feels like the appropriate intersection of playability and authenticity.
Elsewhere, in virtually every aspect, Battlefield 1's visual presentation is seriously impressive. Whether you're experiencing the utter desolation of the frontline or the sun-drenched hillsides around Gallipoli, the environments throughout the campaign and multiplayer are a visual feast. The dynamic weather effects on the multiplayer maps are also quite striking, and end up having a noticeable impact on gameplay, with sandstorms and fog impeding the operation of bi-planes in the skies above.
The top notch work continues in the sound design – as you'd expect from a Battlefield title – which is some of the best out there. You'll feel the thump of every explosion, the snap of the bullets close to your head, and the chattering rattle of machine guns conversing across no man's land. It resonates so strongly in fact, you could worry about ending up with shell shock from spending too much time under fire.
Conclusion
While you probably know whether you'll enjoy Battlefield 1's multiplayer based on any past experience with the series, it does successfully sidestep feeling like a mod – a trap Battlefield Hardline fell head-first into – by making a number of notable changes that give a different spin on the chaotic big team battles you expect. At times, though, it can feel like a game at war with itself, swinging between the need to acknowledge the sacrifices of World War I and the desire to make an enjoyable shooter. While the multiplayer rightfully chooses to be a fun shooter first, the campaign tries to strike a reasonable balance on this front, delivering a memorable series of war stories that drive home the cost of war. And while it can't resist urge to go over the top at times, in doing so, it at least delivers one of the best Battlefield campaigns to date.
Please note that some external links on this page are affiliate links, which means if you click them and make a purchase we may receive a small percentage of the sale. Please read our FTC Disclosure for more information.
Comments 26
The campaign is good a little on the short side and the multiplayer is really were is that. Graphic is a good sound effects ,good contro.I won't pay $50 for more maps too much money.
I like it a lot. Only thing that struck me is the "watered down progression system". Not much to unlock. But back in the day, we were playin' the games for the fun of it, not for instant-gratification unlocks. And that's exactly what I'll be doing here!
Liked the historical facts that we unlock along the progression. An very important add-on for me...
Wait so you're telling me the campaign isn't poop on poop like 3 or 4?
The first lvl of the campaign was really good. I had watched gamplay for it , but its much better in person . But thats all Ive played of the campaign. The multiplayer is really really good. Only real complaint is I wish there were more maps. And that the weapons were harder to get like they were in bf3. But already droped 47 hours into the multiplayer. N the new battle pack system will help keep me interested.
The campaign is really awsome! "The best since bad company 2" was exactly my thought as well.
due to a family wedding only just got to play this and so far loving it can see it trouncing cod this year
I'm curious to know what this game is gonna look like on PS4 pro.
Man after reading the review I want to play valiant hearts again.
8/10 is a score I understand is being given to BF1, but I would have given it a 6/10, maybe 7/10 although I like the game an awful lot. The single player is exactly what I want out of a BF, but after sinking in quite some hours in multiplayer it's just too obvious EA is artificially handicapping their own product in order to make us spend money. I know it's been the same for over years, with BattleFront being the worst culprit, but I just can't give half a game a 9/10 like so many other outlets have done. It's like going on one of those "all- in" cruises where you end up paying $10 for every beer you drink because "all-in" somehow means "everything-you-really-like-is-excluded".
I'm sick of all the moneyhatting, of buying a $60 game which pretty much requires you to spend another $60 to enjoy it for more than 2 months. I know this is what the industry has come to, but after BF4 that was completely broken for a year and still charged us a game's worth of money for some mappacks, after Hardline that was nothing more than a re-skin -the likes of which we used to pay $10-$15 for in the BF Bad Company 2 days- and especially after Battlefront which was a cash grab we had no other option than to accept because Star Wars, I just hoped BF1 would treat us better. Sure, it's not broken and the single player is quite nice... but these shouldn't be USPs. Just charge me more money upfront for more content or chop the content up in pieces that better reflect what you're paying for. And instead of offering mappacks that will split the community, make some decent sized expansion packs that offer a bit more than just some maps that you clearly took out of the original game.
I'm old, I know...
Don't care about multiplayer, the reason I'm buying this is for single player campaign
The game is so so good! It's so satisfying to go back to an historical shooter instead of made up wars! There is something more interesting in the old wars than what COD is offering right now...it's just too sci fi for me to believe in it now...
Anyway, I like the game, but there should be more maps ;(
@Boerewors
100% agree with everything you just said chap.. & EA are either the worst culprits or just the most obvious candidate.. another being 2K with their WWE franchise. Its a sad state of affairs.
@AFCC there will be more maps, but expect to pay for them..
@wiiware - As good as the campaign is I wouldn't buy it just for that, it's really short and once you've collected all collectibles and completed it, there's little reason to go through it again, I'd rent it instead.
@FaultyDroid yeah but that's the thing...I don't want to pay more 50 euros for it :/ I think the game deserved way more maps in the first place!
Btw sometimes the spawn points are TERRIBLE!
I'm positive the answer is no because it's EA, but I have to ask. Does it have an offline mode for multiplayer? That right there would be enough reason for me to pay more money up front instead waiting a year to buy it for cheap just to play a short campaign.
@Boerewors If you wait 3 or 4 months, you can spend $60 instead of $120 when the game goes on sale. It will happen, it's just up to you to have the patience. Work on the backlog a little bit and see how many of your friends are still playing it in March.
@Boerewors Yeah I'll get it when it's £3.99 like BF4 recently was
@wiiware complete waste of money if yor buying it for campaign only. even if you don't like its multiplayer, try conquest at least.
@kyleforrester87 And all the expansions for free too.
I do not have an isse with buying the season pass for this game to get the extra maps. This game will be getting atleast 3 years of use if not more so it provides good value for money. The community will stay strong and loyal to the game as well.
Ot of the 3 big ones in the next few weeks this is the standout FPS. I was tempted with COD for the remaster realistically my time will only be spent on BF 1. Titan I feel will be the loser out of all the games.
Is this game good? for me its great and glad I got it day one.
I bought it yesterday and so far I love the single player campaign. 8.5/10
what i played of it (multiplayer only), i thought it was less like BF3 and BF4 and more like battlefront. argonne forest at times look like it came straight from the endor map, or the sinai desert makes a passable attempt at the jungland wastes - even the scarcity of assault rifles, makes it feel like being surrounded by the burst/pulse shooting of battlefront. also, no L1/R1 option for the shooting is an instant fail in my opinion.
i bought all battlefield games since bad company 1, but passed on hardline, and BF1 for now (. having learned from BF4 that the best maps are saved for the DLC).
Started it today and it's exceeded my expectations , absolutely brilliant yet again from Dice. This and Uncharted 4 are the games of the year for me. You can keep your Witchers , Fallouts , FFIIVVXX's and Metal Gears I'm an unashamed Battlefield fan and will get so much fun for my £32 investment that in a few months I will gladly pay for some DLC.
@Boerewors Think on the bright side. People pay 20 bucks for a DVD and get 2 hours of entertainment. 4 if they watch it twice. We pay 60 and get how many hours? 100? 200? More? Games even EA games give us far more for our money than most other forms of entertainment. Cheer up dude.
@tenderbeefcake
It's not so much about the money, it's how they want to make it. This isn't an EA problem, it's an industry wide phenomenon, but BF has been front and center with these nasty practices.
I am a firm believer of the fact that content is sold too cheap, but you can't just charge $60 extra to make up for it and giving 10% percent of the initial content in that DLC pack or gate content from the base game. People should have more possibilities, but unfortunately gamers are just as stubborn as publishers when it comes to these things.
Hitman really did an excellent job of selling a videogame in a way that benefits both consumers and the publisher, but they've gotten a ton of crap for it. Make people pay $20 for a decent chunk of content and ask another $20 for the same amount of value if they happen to like it.
EA could charge $30 for just the Battlefield 1 single player campaign and ask $30 - $40 for a multiplayer pass of season 1 so people know that they'll be able to find matches 3 months from now. Do a better job of explaining why the single player is $30, let gamers in on the cost of making a Hollywoodesque campaign and give a discount when people buy the entire package. Make another single player campaign in the year that follows and charge $20 for the additional content: it can be made cheaper because the team already had lots of assets available to them. Season 2 of the multiplayer should have a comparable amount of maps available so if gamers likes season 1 they can buy another season and know what they'll get. To make some extra money they can still have random lootcrates up for sale which are hugely popular, but make these things cosmetic. And again: explain why the lootcrates are there, so youngsters without the money to buy a full game with DLC know that others are indirectly "paying" for a chunk of their game. They don't want the single player, but will be able to buy just the MP for $30 and have everything they need till the next season begins, which doesn't have to be a full year; a 9 month cycle can work as well.
If they throw in an optional co-op horde mode for another $20 I'm absolutely positive EA will make just as much as they do know, if not more. But they'll also make sure that Battlefield 1 as a platform will be interesting to jump into for 2 - 3 years after launch because the pillars of the experience, in this case single player, multiplayer and horde mode won't have a fragmented user base. Add some minor DLC for free to keep players coming back for more and you don't have to rely on heavy discounts to attract players after the 3-4 months mark, which is so incredibly damaging for the underlying value of the product they're selling.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...