EA Boss: I Absolutely Rejected Battlefield 1

I love the idea of world war 1 for battlefield.we need more shooters going back in the day.call of duty was once great.I think call of duty world at war was the best call of duty ever.they need to make another world war game .word up

It's logical for Battlefield & EA, they have Titanfall IP to cater Sci-Fi category.

Apparently he used to play a lot of Volleyball? I imagine a lot of the top brass still think that certain games have to be totes cool and always going forward, up and across walls. Following the setting of most other shooters these days seems pathetically unimaginative and 'safe', talk about sheep. I can now see a future where they make a bunch of trailers and see what's popular.

I'm so sick of sci Fi futuristic shooters, let's go back to historic warfare like call of duty 3 etc where they weren't jump gunning and running on walls 😕

@Neolit This.
It was about time we focus on another war than "modern warfare" - I live in central europe and everyone with a half brain can see that we will soon have plenty of "modern warfare" on our soils... so... enough of that. For now.

There is always something more exciting while playing a fps when it's based on historical events, be it first WW, the second one or another war! It's easier to believe in what's happening (being it a true event or an alternative but grounded story) and feel for the war you're playing! I feel that's why I want BF1 more then COD this year and I think that's why people were asking for a WW2 COD again!

"we felt like there was a need for a change,"

I agree. I think this is a good idea just as I found Hardline's setting to be a breath of fresh air. Well done EA!

Personally I don't like games that are based on real life conflicts. Basing a 'game' on something where millions died, millions were seriously injured is not what I consider 'right'. I would have preferred an alternative history - at least that way they could still keep the same level of tech.

I know CoD gets stick for being 'futuristic' but I also think it suits the franchise better because it is a fast paced, arcade and fun shooter. I think there is a difference between 'futuristic' and sci-fi. Understanding the plot-lines of the futuristic CoD's, there is a certain 'plausibility'. Exo-suits, Augments and even 'space' are real possibilities for future warfare. CoD:IW for example, is set in a rime when Earth's resources have been exhausted and we have ventured into space to mine those resources - something that has been considered in reality. I find it funny that people complained about Ghosts not innovating, moving the series forward etc and that Titanfall would be a CoD killer because of the Advanced Movement and how that plays into the fast paced, arcade nature of these games. 2 years later, people want CoD to go back to what it was churning out year after year, lacking creativity and innovation. I also think a lot of the negativity is to do with the Supply Drop issue!

I do think Battlefield suits 'historic' settings better than CoD because of the style of game-play it has. As I said, I would have preferred an alternative history though. I understand this will have micro-transactions (unsurprisingly) which I really find disappointing. Hope they are nothing but 'cosmetic' options. I wonder if they will have emotes - like SW:BF that will seem very much out of place if they do.

It seems that EA actually want to churn out FPS's like Activision - maybe even more than 1 a year. Looks like we have BF1, TF2 and SW:BF2 coming out within a year of each other...

COD:BO = Call Of Deodorant: Body Odor

@Scollurio sadly true... I got same feeling too...

I still hope that talking about what it was once will help to avoid this happening again.... But....

@BAMozzy I disagree.... I generally tend to relate more with real historical scenarios. I am a history freak and I will love to "live" what, at the moment, are just second hand memories from my granny talking about her father fighting the Austrohungarian Empire in North East Italy front.

@arnoldlayne83 I appreciate that others may feel different but from my perspective, I feel 'games' that are based on real life atrocities - especially those that glorify the killing is insensitive to those that fought and died.

I think there are enough ways to cater to 'history freaks' without making a 'game' of it - especially as that game is unlikely to be actually historically accurate. It may have the right 'look', even historically accurate looking weapons/vehicles etc but I doubt it will be 100% historically accurate. You are better off watching the History channel to actually see historically accurate documentaries, real life footage and perspectives from those few that were fortunate to survive. What life was really like for those on the front-lines, what the weapons actually performed like - not some altered impression to make the game 'fun' and 'balanced'.

As I said I appreciate that others may have a different Point of View but I think games that have a back-drop of a historical atrocity is in bad taste and a disservice to all those that actually lived through it and especially to those that died.

@BAMozzy how else are young men supposed to learn that society has always considered them the disposable gender?

@BAMozzy I'd also like to point out that the history channel and even books are not solely for 'education' most people treat them as entertainment regardless of their content. I am curious to know how you'd feel about a telltales type game relating to a War? Any War will do, the number of deaths attributed isn't significant as that would suggest smaller Wars and their loss of life have lower meaning.

I think they made the right decision trying something new just like they did with Hardline. I would not have bought the game unless it had been set in the past. On another note there is another free map for Battlefield 4 so download it while you can.

@BAMozzy well.... War is war and is atrocious no matter small or big, past or future....and killing a man in a videogames still depicts an homicide no matter if that really happened or not...

I believe the real insult we can do to the memory of who died is to forget them and not talking about whst happened anymore.... I have hope that among who will play BFI, some kids will start to dig into the history, reasons and condition men had to bear during that conflict.

Speaking of me, I red many books and watched hundreds of documentaries about WWI and II, and i can say that the videogame media can now depict some facts pretty well. I still remember the first moment of Stalingrad in COD 2. It was epic and even more frightening... Having to follow your comrade with just ammunition, waiting dor him to be killed to get his rifle while artillery was destroying everything aroumd us... It was accurate, and depict how horrible can be being in a conflict....

Sidenote: for anyone who wanna dig into WWI there is an extremely interesting youtube channel full of information and facts, The Great War channel. Just type it on youtube

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi totally agree. If it is depicted right, videogame media can be more educational than some books and bad movies. I mean something like The Thin Red Line compared to s##t like We were soldiers.

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi LOL - I thought the media tells them that they could all be 'Rambo' style heros where a bullet is unlikely to hit you but if it does, its hardly going to slow you down. If you do die, there is always the option to respawn...

Personally I am not a fan of Telltales type of gaming. I think though that if 'any' game, regardless of genre, has to focus on a real life event in which people died, then it has to be handled in the right way. Its easier to move away from reality and set it in an 'alternative' universe

People would be in uproar if you had a game based on the events of 9/11, the Falklands war, Gulf war etc - In fact one game was 'cancelled' that was set against the Iraq War - Six Days in Fallujah - or at least couldn't find a publisher because of the public outcry. Of course these events are more recent and the majority of gamers could know 'someone' involved in these. I still the principal applies though.

I appreciate its 'difficult' to ascertain where the cut-off point is. Is a war that took place a 100 years ago now less significant than the Iraqi war that we can make insensitive games out of it? Then what about 2000 year war games like Ryse?

Apart from World at War, every CoD game since and including CoD4 has had a 'future' setting. CoD4 was set 5yrs into the future from its release date. I believe this is a better route for CoD because of the nature of the game-play and allows creativity and innovation.

I can understand why Battlefield would and does suit an historical back-drop but from my PoV I would prefer it to have an alternative time-line/universe. That doesn't mean that a WW1 'era' would have to have steampunk jet-packs or Tesla laser rifles but could be more creative with the settings, the story etc. Still take inspiration from the technology and real life events but move it to an alternative universe.

@BAMozzy yep, that's what society wants, rambo, expendable rambo. Gentlemen go to war.
There's probably a graph somewhere that measures popular public disdain against marketability and profitability.

@BAMozzy it's also a lot easier to 'spice up' a game with Nazis or just copy something like WWI rather than create something new. Wolfenstein had a lot of classy design to it, much like the whole 50s influenced Fallout, too many games seem to be either historical or uber Sci fi. Bit of a shame really.

cod needs to go back to world war settings.world at war was the best cod.

@BAMozzy So would writing a book or making a movie about world war 1 be just as insulting as making a game? Food for thought....when I put it in those terms it makes me think your comment sounds biast, like video games are bad compared to a book or movie. Being a veteran myself I dont have a problem with someone playing a game based on black hawk down events etc . Comments like that are what lead to ...gulp game censorship ..... and please dont take this comment as condescending, just merely offering you a different point of veiw as to alleviate your concern of the source matter.

Im a big Battlefield fan, but I'm only really interested in a modern setting. Maybe WW2 could be interesting, but I feel like WW1 is too limiting in it's scope of weapons and vehicles.

So I think the game will be fun in terms of gameplay but I don't think I'll love it like I did BF2, 3 and 4.

@BladeRider The difference between Books and Movies and video games is that books and movies tend to be more grounded in the reality and often the emotional consequence. Video games tend to make 'death' almost a non-event. If it happens you just restart the checkpoint or respawn.

Books and Movies are rarely 'fun' and unsentimental to the source material. Even if the main characters are not on the front-lines, the impact is generally handled in an appropriate manner. I would of course feel the same way if they were 'insensitive' to the source. Most books and movies portray what life was like for these soldiers. The emotional impact of the loss of friends, the psychological impact, the harsh reality, the fear, the families back home - not knowing if you will see them again etc. The environment in which they live, the noise, the threat etc.

Obviously we don't yet know how Dice will handle the story and whether or not it will honour the lives of the soldiers that fought and reflect the impact of the deaths too. I struggle to see how that can be portrayed in its MP though - something that is designed to be 'fun', where death is non-permanent and risk/reward is completely different.

Its hardly courageous or brave to flank an enemy position when your 'death' is meaningless and has no significance. In books and movies, these 'acts' often have significance - the sacrifice of one so that many can live, the impact is often emotional - the families that have lost a son, a husband, a father. The colleagues that have lost a friend and maybe owe their life to...

As you can see the difference is often significant when Books and Movies use real life settings for their 'story' and rarely handle the setting with irreverence. Not something I feel games tend to do.

The fact that the guy in charge almost rejected a WW1 setting show's just how detached the idiot's in charge are from the people they actualy make the game's for, it's obvious people have been screaming out for this setting for a good while now. Typical suit's, probably failed politician's.

@playstation1995 World at War was my favorite of the franchise too (though the original Modern Warfare comes in at a close second). There was a time when World War II shooters were all that were being made and any time you went to a game store and looked at the shelves, it'd be the same grey and brown game set in Germany over and over. That space has long been cleared and I think we've all had enough of a hiatus from the theme to want to go back to it.

It's pretty refreshing to tell tales based on history. I missed the original call of duty where I had to infiltrate submarine bases and blowing up nazis. Wonder if baldric and black adder would turn up in the ww1 trenches!

It was the right direction. Whether the game is developed well and actually turns out good is another thing altogether.

But it was definitely the right direction.

Should've kept it in the trash and told them to make BFBC3 or 2143. Not interested in steampunk horseback riding and an onvious ripoff of the wolfenstein reboot's alternate history setup.