Battlefield 1 Announced, Set In World War One

Battlefield 1 [official site] will be this year’s new game in EA’s FPS series, set in World War One, earlier than ever before. I suppose this means that all the hilarious jokes people have made about “not playing Battlefield 2142 until they’ve played the previous 2141 games” were actually eerie predictions. All Battlefield games until this have been part of an incredibly ambitious plan to create over two thousand virtual wars. That’s at least four millennia of games at this pace. Heck, the series started with its 1,942nd part – George Lucas can suck an egg. So! Yes, BF1, WW1, coming on October 21.

Biplanes! Horses! Big clunky tanks! Airships! Flamethrowers! Gas! Warships! Shovels! You know, a bit like Codename Eagle, the precursor to Battlefield 1942 (though I suppose we should retrospectively rename CE to Battlefield Origins: Eagle). That’s not a gameplay trailer, of course, but DICE say it’s all “captured in-engine”.

Along with multiplayer, Battlefield 1 will have a story campaign following several protagonists, and boasting plenty of “Battlefield moments”. I think they means cool explosions and unlikely heroics.

I had grand dreams of a news post rewriting Battlefield by Jordin Sparks but I’m so very tired tonight.


  1. Xocrates says:

    But seriously, what’s with the name? Who thought that was a good idea?

    • Matt_Ceb says:

      Microsoft, with the XBone? And a good deal of other AAA devs and publishers who think that re-starting game-counts is a swell idea.

      Probably because they’re all fans of Rambo: First Blood Part II, Part IV: Rambo (2008).

    • MrFinnishDude says:

      Soon there will be “Doom 1” and “Tomb raider 1”. After that a new games will come out named “Doom (1993)” and “Tomb Raider (1996)”

      • welverin says:

        Uh, no. Every Doom game is simply titled Doom. Except Doom 2 of course, it’s unique in the series and ever shall it be thus.

        • Legion1183 says:

          I could have sworn there was also a Doom 3…

        • treat says:

          There was DooM, DooM 2, DooM 3 and now RetarD 4. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • GWOP says:

            Easy with the language, son.

          • Sinjun says:

            Look at you, using the R word on a video game comments section. I guess you never mentally graduated middle school.

          • Ham Solo says:

            Reported to the cyber police for using a big meanie word that is bound to hurt someone’s feefees.

          • Unclepauly says:

            Now I must go evaluate the meaning of life in front of a mirror for 4 hrs.

          • Douchetoevsky says:

            I love to prove I am more mature than other people by saying “feefees” and pretending that other people don’t matter. After all, I am the protagonist of life.

    • ColdTemplar says:

      WWI was the first “modern” war. It was the genesis of combined arms. The name makes sense, as it is the first time period DICE could have used without having to massively change their gameplay formula.

      • Aspirant_Fool says:

        I am almost, but not entirely, certain that the statement that WWI was the “genesis of combined arms” is almost, but not entirely, completely inaccurate.

        Using the spears and shields of your infantry to maneuver an opposing force into a position that allows your cavalry to achieve maximum effect is probably closer to the genesis of combined arms.

        • Marclev says:

          You may as well go back to the stone age with that reasoning! Using your people waving bones at the enemy to maneuvre them into range of the guys hiding in the bushes throwing stones.

      • ansionnach says:

        I’ve often seen the American Civil War considered the first modern war. Depends on how it’s defined, of course. The terrifying nature of nuclear weapons and the Cold War, where major powers avoided direct conflict is certainly a development that eclipses what came before it. Perhaps there’ll be a Battlefield: Cold War, where proxy wars are fought and if the commander of one side loses his nerve, continental devastation and a nuclear winter await. Fun.

        The technology the US has right now seems quite an advance, too. Drone strikes have been quite effective at picking off certain individuals. Perhaps sitting there in a room controlling a virtual drone might be too close to the real experience, though? Such a game might need to be moved to the distant future, space or an alien world and involve mechs.

        • ansionnach says:

          Found this an interesting read:
          link to

        • Fnord73 says:

          Battlefield: Civil War would actually possibly be amazing.

          • ansionnach says:

            I haven’t played a BF game since 1942 (which I played a lot of). An American Civil War game would be great. Would be tricky to get it right as the dynamics would be so different to the existing games. The only games in this setting I’ve heard of have been serious turn-based war games. They probably suit it better – not sure how the BF team could capture the importance of rail and telegraph communications. The steam-powered submarines and ironclads would be interesting to see, as would cavalry, swords, gatling guns all mixed together.

          • Press X to Gary Busey says:

            Battlefield 1854: Crimean War! That’s my bet for the next spinoff.

            Experience logistics utterly horrifying to any modern armchair general in the new Crate&Barrel Moving Commander Interface. Also for the first time introducing a new, revolutionary What Was In That Stew? Mystery Meat Physics.

            Meet and stab-shoot new interesting Imperial people: The Frenchie Imperials, Brit Big Stached Imperials, Ottomen Imperials. Lots and lots of Empires! Also The most OP Sardinian Kingdom! Gang up on the Russian Empire, and some Greek guys.

            Play as the All-New Hero Characters Queen Victoria! Florence Nightingale! (Watch out! she can make you wash your filthy little hands good) and Presidentor Napoleon Mk 3.0!

            Battle cholera in locations you can’t spell or pronounce! Relive the glory that people will never have heard of in a hundred years and level up your Imperial Facial Hair!

          • syndrome says:

            I’m still waiting for Battlefield: Zulu
            link to

    • PseudoKnight says:

      I normally hate reboots with just the name by itself, but this isn’t that. I …. kinda like it. First, it’s WW1, and second, there was never a “Battlefield” so there’s no confusion. It will only trip people up that expect 1 to be before 2. It’s kind of clever, so I will accept it (not that anyone cares what we think). I have more issues with the trailer and company practices. heh

      • cannedpeaches says:

        I still think Battlefield: 1917 might have gotten the point across a bit better. “Battlefield 1” just sounds like they’re trying to make a statement, dunnit?

        • Cinek says:

          While I agree that it would be nicer – keep in mind that they want to include battles from all over the WW1. Not any specific year.

    • XxBrentos9xX says:

      AHHHH, thank you. The second I saw the name of it, I just had to roll my eyes. I understand the symbolic reasonings for why they wanted to do it, but really? There really doesn’t exist any other word in the English language to describe something to WW1 than a number? To hell with the naming scheme or conventional chronological ordering.

      “Hey guys, Hardline didn’t do so well. We need a better name. Instead, lets take a cue from Microsoft, how they named their third console the ‘one’. Yeah, what a good idea! It’s like a brand new series in a series!”

      Battlefield fucking 1. Ugh.

    • Sulpher says:

      Battlefield 1 is a good name for a WW1 game and for a series that had releases titled 2, 3, 4.

      • Cinek says:

        Because BF2 was WW2, BF3 was WW3 and BF4 was… World War 4?

        Oh, wait, that never happened!

        • DrollRemark says:

          Which is fitting, because BF4 should never have happened.

    • Sinjun says:

      Who thought it was a good idea? Hmm, I dunno, maybe the people in charge of a franchise that’s been incredibly successful for over 14 years now. Clearly they need help on how to title their games.

      • Sin Vega says:

        Oh, come on. Many games have sold well despite terrible titles, and vice versa. Some long-running series backed by a mega-publisher will sell in huge numbers regardless of the title, that doesn’t mean that any title they pick is automatically good just because the games are a financial success.

        I mean, Kojima could pretty much shit in a box and put “MGS” on it and it’d sell millions. Again.

        • Press X to Gary Busey says:

          Also it’s a continuation of over half a century of blockbuster movie series with increasingly silly sequelitis naming before the eventual name reboot.

          Somethingoranother 4: The Revenge Awakening 2: Continuum Revelation Returns 3: The Reckoning Begins: Origin 1.

          • Press X to Gary Busey says:

            And there is a newly built custom 10th circle in Hell reserved for people naming the Kingdom Hearts games.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      It bothers me more than it realistically should. However I really hate this current trend in games and Movies to just reboot a franchise, naming it the same as the original. Its nonsensical, can be confusing (and will get more confusing as time goes on and these reboots aren’t brand new anymore), and is generally done for no reason than fishing on the popularity of a recognised name.
      Stop rebooting everything and make something new for a damn change.

  2. Grimcull says:

    Gas? Trench foot? Barbed wire? No-mans land?

    I think “inspired” by WW1 is more appropriate.

    • subedii says:

      Seems appropriate.

      • MrFinnishDude says:

        It is deemed appropriate.

      • Herr_C says:

        So basically the Metro map from BF3; a clusterfu*k of people russhig to their deats.

        Since this the direction BF series has been going for lately, WW1 period seems very appropriate.

        But I can’t say I care too much since I stopped playing after I realized this. Oh, and becouse the netcode was unbearably bad…

        • Grizzly says:

          WW1 was much, much more then just the trench war.

        • Grible says:

          and the trench war was a lot lot more than just walking into machineguns.

          • syndrome says:

            yes, also sometimes you’d man a machine gun. and don’t forget artillery. all dandy. if you die all the time, that’s actually a true depiction of WWI. “losing is fun,” no?

    • Flea says:

      Really? You’re going to comment on realism in a Battlefield game? The same game that has people jumping out of a fighter plane, shooting down another plane with a rocket launcher while in mid-air and then jumping back into your own plane? Of course it’s inspired by it, it’s not a WWI Simulator.

    • Ethaor says:

      Indeed. It doesn’t anything like WW1, nothing like it. It looks like fiction with bits inspired from early 20th tech.

      I hope the new generation won’t think that’s what WW1 was like. Hopefully that’ll get Verdun on Steam some spotlight.

  3. Lobster9 says:

    “If you can fly a Sopwith Camel, you can fly anything.” ¬ Aristotle

  4. Rymosrac says:

    inb4 no LAN servers or server files of any kind because it might compromise the sacred cow of persistent progression unlocks. Fascists.

  5. MrFinnishDude says:

    Experience thrilling shelling action! Have your lungs turn to acid with chloride gas! Trench foot!
    I find it funny how there’s suddenly this sudden influx of WW1 shooters. A war that had been purposefully left out of the action genre due to its sheer misery and lack of a clear monstrous enemy. I guess WW2 had been done to death so what’s next? Second Boer War? Finnish Civil War?
    Also seriously? “Battlefield 1”? Like the the current naming trends weren’t confusing enough.

    • RaunakS says:

      I would love a good recounting of the sepoy mutiny of 1857. Lots of great heroes and heroines, plenty of cathartic violence and a timely east vs. west story. What I want most is to play as a true-to-life Rani of Jhansi. There are enough wars in history for commercial exploitation lasting centuries.

      I wonder if the very large Indian contingent will have some role to play in the game. My great uncle fought in Syria as part of the Royal Deccan Horse – even a hint of that would be fulfilling.

      • MrFinnishDude says:

        Maybe in the far far future, where all the “relevant” wars that the average consumer knows about have all been done to death.
        Hell, I think the average player of the Battlefield series doesn’t even know that the Germans aren’t Nazis in WW1, so maybe that dream of obscure war games might be closer than we thought.

        • MrFinnishDude says:

          I speak of average as in stereotype, please don’t hurt me.

        • gunny1993 says:

          Eh the English history syllabus consists of 2 things “how we defeated the Germans in WW1” and “how we defeated the Germans in WW2” Even if you have no interest in history the differences between world wars is ingrained in us all.

          Can;t speak for any other countries though.

          • Sarfrin says:

            1. Trenches and mustard gas.
            2. D Day and Spitfires.

          • gunny1993 says:

            1. Only a little bit of Hitler
            2. A lot of Hitler

          • magogjack says:

            Lol at the English sometimes, how “we” defeated the Germans ah haha. Not saying the english were not a big part of it but might it be better to say how Europe defeated the Germans, as I understand it, they were quite light on allies in both wars….

          • dsch says:

            You’re forgetting all the years devoted to the Tudors.

          • LionsPhil says:

            Russia’s just a little bit of an ommission there.

          • magogjack says:

            Well I did say better, lionphil, not perfect.
            But I understand it, In Canada we over inflate our own involvement making it sound like we were the crack commandos that made victory possible….

          • LionsPhil says:

            Yup. History lessons are not free from a little propaganda to instill that all-important national pride in the children so you can go make them die for the country when they’re all grown up.

            I would not be surprised if the French are taught that their resistance was a crucial lynchpin in defeating Germany. They’d be at least partially right—I know English history lessons downplayed them, with the liberation of France being our plucky ingenuity and the muscle of American support sweeping across the country, but Eisenhower himself stated the importance of their intelligence and sabotage activities.

          • gunny1993 says:

            Heh yeah, tbf it’s been a long, long time since I did GCSE History, but I remember it definitely being a “[b]WE[/b] and our allies, maybe the French, [b]DEFEATED THE GERMANS[/b]”

          • canicheenrage says:

            Well, Lionsphil, in France we aren’t told much, but i happen to have read a little on the subject.

            Well, in ww1, if France would not have held without the other Entente members against all central europe, especially without Russia, it still did a good part of the killing and a good part of the dying on the western front.
            After all, it has, what ? More soldiers Kia than The U.K., the U.S., than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, japan, Portugal and Greece…All combined.
            And it’s not like if there was an offensive launched in late 1918 that freed Serbia, and made Hungaria, Bulgaria and Austria and Turkey sign an armistice, isolating Germany . What country’s generals planned it and were in charge of the troops there, what units were the core ? I don’t remember, but it was called the “armée d’orient”.

            As for ww2, we are told even less, but i’ve read quite more, so let’s see.
            I’d be here forever if i wanted to detail the battle of France, so i’ll focus.

            The Wehrmacht lost 50% of its planes and 50% of its tanks before the Dunkirk evacuation. That Hitler might have wanted to let the BEF go is rubbish, as the attacks never stopped, and the halt order was requested by the OKW because of the tanks losses.
            When the BEF ran literaly without warning ( in fact, the british government sent a telegram telling they were “fully commited to the fight” around the same time the french scouts discovered a 20km gap between them and the belgians ), the french DLMs held the germans. When “entire [british] battalions left their positions without being ordered to”, at the slighest attack, the british army had to call in coldstream guards, during the evacuation, to fight alongside the french.
            “Despite our overwhelming superiority in men and matériel numbers, the french counter-attack in several places. I don’t manage to understand how those soldiers, sometimes fighting 1 to 30, can find the strength to launch any assault: this is astonishing ! I see in those french soldiers the same energy than with the veterans of Verdun in 1916. For several days now, hundreds of bombers and guns are pounding the french defence. But, it’s always the same thing: our infantry and panzers can’t break through, despite some local and ephemeral successes. The french high command has very smartly set up his troops and artillery. I fear that the Dunkirk operation could be a failure for all of us: almost all the BEC and the biggest part of the french 1st Army will escape, because a few thousands of braves block the path to the sea. That’s shocking, but that’s how it is !” Gl Von Küchler, responsible for reducing the Dunkirk Pocket.

            On 18.000 kia at Dunkerque, 16.000 were french. On 235 ships sunk, 123 were french.
            I guess it can have some importance since without the “miracle of Dunkirk” the U.K. would not have been able to keep on fighting.
            In fact, even at the time Churchill made his “never surrender” speech, he was asking germany, through Sweden and then Italy, what armistice terms Germany would offer.

            A few years later, Rommel is cutting the retreat of the british army. Well, he tries to, as his tanks are immobilized by lack of fuel. There are attack of convoys in the mediterranea, the royal air force harassments, and the SAS ( half of which were free french ;) ), but there entire convoys are raided.
            Well, when the entire british line had fallen in 2 days, right in the way of his encircling movement, an outpost was still standing. Why, if it was’nt the first free french brigade, holding for 14 days, encircled, in the desert and constantly bombed and hammered, at 3700 against 37000, making a sortie after the british told them the evacuation was complete. Quite an important grain of sand blocking the clock, as several divisions arrived at El alamein just hours before the battle.

            As for the 1944 italian campain, well, there were 45 free french battalions ( more or less 50% of locals, and the same of europeans, most being mixed ) fighting alongside 65 americans, 39 british, 12 polish, 12 canadians and 9 indians; Some quotes to add to the breach of the Gustav Line ( Monte Cassino, the french being the first to break through ): “The tactics of the british and americans have been mostly very methodical. local successes have rarely been exploited. The french however, have attacked with an extraodrinary bite, and fully exploited each succes in assigning it troops. We have noted the french way of widely overwhelming, when necessary, the german support areas. In several occasions, mountaineous terrains reputed impassable ( note: lol, reminds me of sth ) have been crossed by the enemy which seems to have prepared up to the smallest details for that operation and is equipped in consequence. There is therefore reason to guard methodically even terrains considered impossibles. Especially remarkable is the great all terrain aptitude of the french troops which cross the quickly moutaineous zones, with their heavy weapons loaded on mules, always trying to overwhelm our positions by large flaking manoevers, and pierce from behind”. Marshal Kesselring. “We have to recognize to the FEC ( french exped. corps :P) troops a smooth command, a will to stay on our heels and to jostle our retreats. units with a combative, biting and offensive spirit”. German official war journal. “The advance of the FEC, both in moutains and valleys, has breached our dispositive, made more easy the progress of the 5th and 8th allied armies and prevented our recovery on the Dora Line. ” Marshal Kesselring.

            There is also the liberation of France, the sacrifice of entire maquis which immobilized or delayed entire german divisions at Dday, operation dragoon which was half french, etc, etc…
            So i’m afraid the french contribution to the allies was not just “intelligence and sabotage”.

            As for the fall of France, i could go on about the Cagoule, a far right movement paid and armed by fascist italy to down the french republic, its ties to some french HQ members, the coup d’état attempts in the ’30, and the fact that the only mass panic and surrender of the campain was under a man which was “more loyal to eternal France than the third republic”, and also
            -Dismissed 50 air recon reports pointing out the german armored columns up to the horizon
            -When warned by the secret services of the invasion for the night, went to the theater
            -Displaced his HQ, cutting all coordination in a french counterattack, without being in danger
            -When told by the french air force chief that squadrons had been taken on other sectors to be focused on the german spearhead, he answered “everything is quiet”, when he knew germans were 20 km in.
            Did i mention he was sent by Petain to negociate with Hitler the terms for surrender, made minister of defense in Petain’s government, and the first to recieve its fascist decoration, the order of the francisque ? What ? Treason ? You’re too suspicious.

            Oh, and just before that, the ministers and representatives which wanted to go on fighting had been arrested under false accusations of “high treason” ( originating from a journalist from the cagoule ). Funny, aye ?

            But of course, the coup d’état was a hard blow, but not sufficient on its own. Allies had to screw up too.

            Let’s see…I’ve not yet mentionned the U.S., which backed from their engagement in the Versailles treaty; ( Either France can fortify a german land on the “wrong” side of the Rhine, or the U.S. and U.K. declare war to germany if it invades France. France wanted the former, the U.S. pushed for the latter, signed, then backed, and so did britain. Nice !
            Then, when France ordered 5.500 planes, fully paid for, only 20% were delivered, in spares, and with no armament.
            But i guess it’s not like air superiority was necessary for the success of Blitzkrieg.

            In the far east, Claire-Lee Chennault was ordered by the U.S. to not deliver under any circumstances any supplies or ammunitions to the french troops desperately fighting the japanese in indochina (“i carried out my orders to the letter but did not relish the idea of leaving frenchmen being slaughtered in the jungle while i was forced to ignore their plight” ). Frenchmen which had previously sent a mission to the us to recieve in indochina the guns and ammunition they had ordered, which would be refused. Not to mention Roosevelt ordering to send a task force to give St-Pierre et Miquelon back into Vichy hands, as they had just voted unanimely to join Fighting France ( official name of Free France), only to be persuaded otherwise by Eisenhower.

            That’s funny how just reading Chuchrill’s memoirs may help to complexify one’s vision of the events. Not to mention further reading.
            Or you can just watch gunney.

            In the end, yes. As a full participant, and in some crucial occasions, the french were instrumental in the final allied victory. Without the Battle of France, no Battle of Britain. Without the U.K., single front Barbarossa.
            But it’s not something i was told.

            Probably a Tl;Dr. Ah, nevermind.

          • Talbot says:

            What on EARTH was that music? I absolutely despise the music in Battlefields since 2142. Awful, awful, AWFUL! There, I’m done.

          • Talbot says:

            @canicheenrage Okay mate, France are completely blameless for their defeat in 1940. Good grief man, insecure much?

          • Dunbine says:

            @canicheenrage – seems like we were lucky France was overrun in a month and a half. Otherwise, I don’t know how we possibly could have won WW2!

          • LionsPhil says:

            Well, I found canicheenrage’s post informative. What kind of reaction do you expect when the usual belief of “France’s contribution to WW2” is “surrender immediately”? There’s a pretty huge pre-existing bias to offset there.

          • Grizzly says:

            Jup, with Lionsphil and Canicheenrage: No history of WW2 is complete without looking at the achievements of the Free French. French did not simply surrender, it’s government split in two, and a significant part of the french’s forces were still in the fight. There’s a reason why part of Germany was held by the French after WW2, and that’s not because they asked nicely: They had a fully capable army before they retook their own home country and much more so afterwards, which is impressive considering the terrible position they were in before.

            The story that the French simply surrendered and let others fight their fight for them is a story that is more commonly held by the US and Great Britian, but it’s simply not true and I can imagine that such ignorance is very insulting to anyone who has family members who died either in combat or in the resistance. If one would speak of insecurities, one should first consider that the French would never have been put in such a situation if it had not been for Neville Chamberlain trading the Sudetenland away (which the French PM objected to, noting accurately that this would not secure peace and play straight into Hitler’s hands) and that this particular view on WW2 got a lot of traction in the US especially after the French refused to partake in the Iraq war.

          • heretic says:

            @canicheenrage merci pour ce petit moment d’éducation :)

          • canicheenrage says:

            @Heretic: Merci. Je trouve que sur le sujet, en général, remettre les pendules à l’heure n’est pas du luxe.

            For the rest, i could go on and on. Everyone knows that the french army lacked radios; Everyone knows that the french had not recovered from WW1 losses, and that there were 2 germans for every french. Everyone knows that germany had been entirely turned into a war machine by its fascist government.
            But still concerning France, there is a lot of ignorance, a lot of inaccuracies, oversimplifications, outright lies and entirely reverse-spinned informations.

            Btw, yes, in France, debate is the national sport, so we’re quite good at finding excuses too. ;)

            What i did, and will do in way more details, is present information to temper the distorted vision of the events caused by those falsehoods.

            I won’t do it here, but i a few month i’ll upload a doc on youtube. Being fair, not witholding any information ( i’ve found a historian which truncated a quote from Churchill’s memoirs to blame the french and removing all blame on the U.K..) With all the precise sources cited. So it is taking quite some time, that limited resource among all.

            But i think between correcting the falsehoods, heroic, tragic or happy tales worthy of being told, infamies worthy of being denounced, funny jokes and anecdotes, geopolitical and historical information, it will be worth it.

            My lectures, if one is interested in the subject:
            -Chuchill’s War Memoirs.
            -De Gaulle’s Memoirs & “towards the professionnal army” -“1940 myth and reality” C. Ponting.
            -“The war without hate” E. Rommel.
            -Von Manstein’s Memoirs.
            -Life of the french people during the occupation
            -The Phantom Major
            -The Battle of France, 100.000 forgotten dead.
            -Blitzkrieg in the West
            -History of the Gestapo
            -Murder in the metro, Laetitia Toureaux and the Cagoule in the 30′ France
            -SAS paratroopers of the free french.
            -René Mouchotte’s carnets.
            -1 of the Normandie Niemen.
            -The big show
            -No more heroes, madness and psychiatry in war
            -“Fighters spotted, attacking !” Legrand
            -Vichy’s Army, and Vichy France, R. Paxton
            -The american economical and military support to France, 1938 to 1960
            -War journal of Franz Halder, german HQ
            -Conference on Bir Hakeim, UNESCO
            -The fall of the Third Republic
            -The choice of defeat
            -Gamelin’s war memoirs.
            -France was made out of sword slashes.
            -To serve or to disobey
            -Memoirs of a secret agent of the free french
            -the battle of dunkirk D. Lormier
            -The miracle of Dunkirk W. Lord
            -Dunkirk, fight to the last man
            -The model occupation, The channel islands
            -the strange defeat
            -War as i saw it.

            Still has to recieve a handful of others, but i have already enough material to work on. ;)

            All that said, looking at this trailer i can’t wait to see how the ‘muricans helped by some brits will win ww1 by themselves. ;)

          • gunny1993 says:

            Wait wait wait wait…. Do you actually think people actually think the French did nothing in ww2? You do know we just say that to piss you off yeah? Its practically our national sport.

            The world wars are called as such because they took their toll on everyone and you’ll find acts of great courage and stupidity from all sides.

          • Hedgeclipper says:

            Its Battlefield, no doubt we’ll get the real history of America saving the Queen and some people with Cockney accents from the French and German invasions.

          • magogjack says:

            Absolutley amazing posts canicheenrage, I learned a lot.

    • Deakul says:

      What influx? Besides Verdun what other WW1 shooters are there coming out?

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      The Emu War? At least the Toyota War would be good for product placement.

      • magogjack says:

        They would have to nerf the Emu, they were just too effective.

    • Sinjun says:

      Verdun, a low-budget PC exclusive indie running on Unity, does not count as an “influx”. You’re talking out of your arse.

      • MrFinnishDude says:

        Previously there were none.
        Now there are some.
        Not truly an influx but you still get a point, that shooters are now being set in WW1 instead of WW2.

      • Ham Solo says:

        No, Verdun is a more realistic shooter, that wouldn’t do as influx for a battlefield game. But the BF1942 mods “The Great War” and “Battlefield 1918” would actually classify as influx I believe. Similar to what the BF 1942 Mod “Desert Combat” did for Battlefield 2.

    • Fnord73 says:

      Looking forward to “Battlefield: The Trump wars” ?

    • Chris Evans says:

      I don’t have any problem with EA/DICE choosing to cover World War One itself, there are probably lots of elements of the War which would transfer over well to a videogame – much like World War Two has done in the past.

      The issue I had with the announcement live stream, and the following announcement press release from EA, is that there seems to be a sense of “there were some many fascinating technological advances in the War that changed real world combat, we can make a game showing them all off!” without any pause to reflect on the War itself.

      I wrote a bit more about my feelings on this here – link to

  6. Viper50BMG says:

    Questionable trailer music (and odd title) aside, I am absolutely on board for this one.
    But I’ve also just realized how much I want a Lawrence of Arabia sim.

  7. ColdTemplar says:

    Thye explained in the stream that the name was based on the fact that WWI was the first “modern” war. It was the genesis of combined arms. The name makes sense, as it is the first time period DICE could have used without having to massively change their game play formula.

    • Koozer says:

      Reeaally? Noone ever thought in the history of warfare to stick the pikemen in front of the archers?

      • Zekiel says:

        No, before WW1 you just mashed all your troops – whatever they’re armed with or riding on – into one big ball and chucked them towards the enemy.

      • Grizzly says:

        I think the point is that airplanes started playing a big role for recon and bombing.

        • gwathdring says:

          But it was surely the *flying* that was new not the *combined arms* and *recon* parts that were new. Everyone who talks about WW1 being the start of “combined arms” has a different definition of combined arms and its almost always very silly. Time changes technology which changes warfare. Period. No need to draw arbitrary lines.

  8. Spuzzell says:

    This will confuse all the RPS writers who feel the need to append “1” to the first title in every game series.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      There’s always Battlefield 1 – Liverpool 0 to fall back on.

    • gwathdring says:

      The first game already has a number though. No one calls if Battlefield 1: 1942, they just call it Battlefield 1942.

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        Its still dumb though, going Battlefield 2, then 3, then 4, then 1. What’s wrong with Battlefield 1914? Did they consider it and think people might be too dumb to understand the significance of “1914” in relation to a war game series? I mean Battlefield one gives me less clue about the setting of the game.

        • gwathdring says:

          It’s known as WWI by rather a lot of people and it’s as far back as you can go and still have the armor/infantry/air triangle that the Battlefield series is more or less built on–it gets convoluted since the series has so many spinoffs and such.

          It’s as far back as Battlefields can go while still being more Battlefield game than anything else and it’s a way to get in on the conceptual trend of count-resetting, subtitle-effacing reboots like Tomb Raider without being quite as obtuse about it.

          I don’t think it’s the cleverest thing in the world, but it works and it actually has a straightforward logic to it rather than being a pure rebranding.

          But I guess it’s a AAA release from EA so we have to hate SOMETHING about it!

          • gwathdring says:

            It’s also a return to the roots, in a way. The easy one is we’re doing alt-history again rather than mock-present or near-futurism.

            More specifically, the planes fly more like BF1942 planes than modern jets do (not that said jets have ever approached simulationism in the slightest, but still). There are not helicopters. In theory, weapons fire more slowly and tanks have more limitations. Many maps will return to the European countryside. There are a lot of differences between WWII and WWI and the franchise has certainly changed a lot since BF1942 … but whether the game lives up to the promise of the title or not, the title could easily portend a fresh examination of the series and a departure from some of the now tired features that get between players and the core BF strategy triangle that makes the series stand separately from Call of Duty.

            Odds are the game won’t live up to it … but if they do manage to reset things a bit and restablish some comfortable distance form CoD mechanically speaking? BF1 sounds just fine to me.

  9. Orija says:

    Yes, dubstep and blue-orange filters do make one of the most horrific wars of the modern era appealing enough.

    • magogjack says:

      Nothing like watching your best friend be eaten by rats (while still alive, no less) because you are too busy soiling yourself unable to move.

  10. Shazbut says:

    The name is weird and I don’t like it but I keep thinking about it. Does that mean it’s already “won”?

    Funnily enough I just listened to the Cannon Fodder theme tune again today. Remember that? Seems appropriate in the face of that trailer.

  11. Elusiv3Pastry says:

    Shall we start a betting pool on how many maps will be little more than “BattleHallway”, only set in a trench instead of a tube?

  12. The Sombrero Kid says:

    Wow, Seven Nation Army really captures the tragedy one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

  13. Abacus says:

    Perhaps the least tasteful thing I have ever had the misfortune of watching.

    • Sulpher says:

      Gosh, I love commenting about pop cultural effluent in the most smug tone possible. Really lets me blow off steam from a long week spent in front of a screen.

  14. Styxie says:

    Pre-order now and receive a free copy of one of Sassoon’s endless laments about the crushing loss of an entire generation.

    • Pelaf says:

      That was the most soul-crushing joke I have ever heard. I adore it.

    • SlimShanks says:

      Thank you very much. That said, I want Mr. Sassoon in game, so I can accidentally friendly fire him in the head. For the realism, you understand.

  15. Sakai says:

    Honestly, can’t think of a more boring setting for a shooter.

  16. cannedpeaches says:

    Looks like that front is bound to move a whole lot more than the actual front ever did. While I’m all for a good World War I game – Verdun, Valiant Hearts – they’re really at their best when they’re absolutely demoralizing to play.

  17. int says:

    Over the top lads!

  18. A Gentleman and a Taffer says:

    I guess. I mean. Is this. Wow, so WW1 is fair game now. I suppose it is daft debating which wars of atrocious mass murder are acceptable play pens for virtual fun times, but still.

    It’s a cultural thing more than anything. WW2 is all daring do and adventure, thanks to Hollywood. Modern warfare is all Ooh-ra, smash the enemy with mega technology, war isn’t up close and messy any more. But WW1? That’s the poetry and misery war. The one that invented chemical and explosive warfare of which one got banned but the other was deemed acceptable.

    I’m hoping this is some kind of amazing metacommentary on the way other wars are viewed as more acceptable, but if not we’re really not doing the reputation of gaming a lot of favours here.

    • gunny1993 says:

      OOOhhhhh, maybe they’ll have famous poems of misery up in the load screens instead of military quotes.

      “Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom”

    • Untruth says:

      I think even relative to most other games, they’ve really managed to tip this into the totally inappropriate bracket.

      What were they thinking with that trailer? How have they managed to make theatre out of the war universally viewed as monotonous and senseless?

      Either the game is a lot more visceral and they let the work experience kid make a trailer, or they really have lost the plot entirely.

      • wengart says:

        This is really just kind of absurd.

        Culturally WW1 has a more negative connotation than most other modern wars for the West and Western Europe in particular. But hell… In World War 2 Soviet military dead was the combined military dead of every combatant in World War 1. Total combined Soviet dead is more than double.

        And World War one is going too far…

        Nearly One Hundred Million people died during the Second World War. The First World War was a stroll in the park by comparison.

        • MrFinnishDude says:

          The thing is that WW1 was kinda pointless. People sitting in a trench waiting to die.
          WW2 had a clear enemy. Something that had to be stopped, making all the suffering and casualities mean something in the long run. Thats why it’s viewed differently.

          • wengart says:

            Was it really though?

            You have battles like the Hurtgen forest and really the entirety of the Eastern Front which existed largely as a place to grind people into meat. You have the Germans and Japanese fighting long after any realistic possibility of winning the war exists. The battle of Iwo Jima cost the lives of 26,000 men for no purpose.

            Fighting for the Germans and Soviets was largely a battle with a brutal dictator behind and at the front. Fighting in the Pacific didn’t really have some greater meaning. It was a classic war for economic dominance.

            You can maybe make the case that World War Two had a greater meaning in Western Europe 44 – 45. In that one place it has some sort of moral meaning, but outside of that…

            World War One wasn’t that much worse, if it really was worse.

            In popular imagination WW1 is smashing two bricks of men into each other, but that really isn’t that true either. Militarily there was constant development in strategy and tactics throughout the war in attempts to overcome the stalemate and there was dynamic fighting in the East. The difference between the hundred days offensives and the fighting in 1914 would essentially be night and day.

          • Nibblet says:

            They were both economic wars, the biggest difference was that propaganda had been almost perfected by the time ww2 came about, while during ww1 they still relied almost exclusively on religion and nationalism to trick the masses into war.
            Incidentally, ww2 was in many ways a continuation of ww1.

      • Napalm Sushi says:

        If that body armour’s anything to go by, I imagine that a slew of experimental and limited issue hardware that barely saw service during the period will be treated as practically standard issue, drastically changing up the pace and mobility of the combat and empowering individual soldiers far beyond the capabilities they actually had.

        Maybe they’ll surprise us, but I’d expect the Wolfenstein of World War I shooters rather than the Red Orchestra (which I understand is pretty much covered by Verdun?).

        • Koozer says:

          To be fair to them they’ve done that for every Battlefield game. Even 1942 had the Secret Weapons expansion with its rocket planes and jetpacks.

      • Solgarmr says:

        Yeah but it’s okay to make games and books and movies about all the other tragic things in the history of man, but no not WWI that’s crossing a line . . . what about Ghengis khan, the huns, I don’t feel total war payed enough respect to the atrocities that happened during the timescales they’ve covered so damn them.

        It’s what we do as a culture we obsess, glorify and gorify death and war, it’s how we deal with it as a culture.

        I’m for one am excited and I ain’t jumping on the hypetrain, mounted combat and proper meele hopefully, plus biplanes and zeppelins.

        Dlc and EA sucks but you’re essentially buying year or three worth of online play for that and because they don’t do proper Beta in slow trickles to make sure the server structure holds up, the netcode sucks the first month.

      • Sinjun says:

        Give me a fucking break. The last 10 years have been littered with games making light of the current war we’re actually in, where people are dying every day. Before that, WW2, where this little thing called the holocaust happened and yet we played endless numbers of games trivializing that. If you’re going to make some kind of stand against this you should stop playing violent shooters altogether.

  19. yhancik says:

    I swear that at first I was sure RPS was joking about the game title, in the spirit of Rayman Oranges :p

    • Jackablade says:

      There’s probably an alternate timeline where this thing wound up being called World War: Origins.

  20. Gordon Shock says:

    Gotta love people who spent years studying marketing only to come up with that title

    • gunny1993 says:

      Isn’t the idea of marketing mostly to get people talking about your product? so surely so long as something isn’t so bad as it would stop people buying it, it’s a success

      • Gordon Shock says:

        Yes exactly but but to me it feels that their move is detrimental to what they want to accomplish as it is more confusing than anything else.

    • Blackie62 says:

      And they managed to get a black man on the cover. Marketing has not taken its pills today and it completely mad.

      • Grizzly says:

        Ok, I’ll bite: That’s not so crazy!? WW1 armies, especially on the French and British side, had shiploads of soldiers drafted in from Africa, India and Asia fighting in the trenches, and WW1 is much more then just the trench war over in Europe. There was plenty of fighting going on in Africa and Asia as well, as the Germans, British and French all held colonies (although it’s commonly forgotten since Germany obviously lost those colonies and never had much of them). Heck, if DICE are smart (and they are), they’d look towards those battles as well as there is plenty of opportunity for variance inbetween the African, Asian and European fronts. WW1 is commonly depicted as everyone jumping into the western front trenches, but that is not why the First World War is called the First World War.

        I am surprised that you were able to deduct ethnicities from the Battlefield covers at all though.

        • Grizzly says:

          Huh, so one of those pre-order bonuses is a “Lawrence of Arabia” pack, so it looks like they are indeed going to take a look outside the trenches.

        • Koozer says:

          He was poking fun at the fact that marketeers usually go for the safest option that will appeal to the widest potential customer base, which usually means Gurney McWhiteman.

  21. Michael Fogg says:

    And they will use it as set dressing for standard FPS action, where the player is a one man army, mowing down hundreds left and right? That’s completely superficial and doesn’t do justice to the setting. Hell, I’d rather play something based off Warhammer 40K, with Imperial guardsman in a sci-fi WWI inspired setting, rather than something really taking place 1914-18

    • Hedgeclipper says:

      German machine gunner on the Somme? It could well be the first realistic ‘mowing down of hundreds of men’ in a FPS ever!

  22. Hunchback says:

    I am afraid to get interested in this… :(

  23. Monggerel says:

    Yep, definitely don’t use the Battlefield series’ own theme music, throw in some shitty and highly inappropriate remix instead.

    It’s like watching the psychotic breakdown of a really talented 14 year old.

  24. Wulfram says:

    Soon they’re just going to start naming video games like people whose preferred user name was already taken

  25. Sarfrin says:

    Those biplanes look rather nippy though, eh?

    • JB says:

      The tanks look startlingly nippy

      • Koozer says:

        I hope they make them slow as hell but armoured up the wazoo. Like, oh I don’t know, a WWI tank.

  26. DarkLiberator says:

    Besides the atrocious dubstep, cool looking trailer. Did we see a hint of naval action?

  27. Dynamique says:

    That trailer is… quite something. Though I’m sure wheter that is “so bad, it’s good” – or me getting old.

  28. maximus says:

    i used to work for EA, for real, making need for speed games. i cant even imagine how far they will miss the mark on this….

  29. Parrilla says:

    Honestly don’t care about any of the criticism, I am fucking hyped for this.

  30. Ancient Evil says:

    As usual, I don’t get the negativity. So it’s not “realistic”? When has Battlefield ever been realistic? And WWI was more than trench warfare, that was pretty much just the Western Front. Though scant few seem to realize that there even were other fronts.

    And 15 years of WW2 and “modern warfare” shooters have been fine to use as popcorn entertainment, but WWI is somehow morally beyond the pale? What sense does that make? More people suffered and died in WW2, you know. A lot more. The trailer music is a bit jarring, I admit, but trailers make odd music choices all the time. It means nothing.

    I’ve been reading comments for years lamenting the lack of diversity in AAA shooter settings. The consensus seemed to be that a megabucks AAA WWI shooter would never be made. Well, here it is. I’m optimistic.

    • klops says:


    • Zankman says:

      It’s just the RPS comment section; People are always pretentious hipsters and someone always whines about something, often with odd humor and random inappropriate references.

    • Sinjun says:

      RPS is rotten with contrarian assholes, especially when it comes to AAA releases. Nothing meets their standards, yet they persist on making their empty complaints heard.

      • bill says:

        Says the guy who has posted nothing but rude insulting comments so far…

      • LionsPhil says:

        If all you have to contribute is yelling at people like a grade-A drunken jackass, you’re welcome to piss off elsewhere.

      • Zankman says:

        I was looking for a word to best describe the trend often seen in the comment sections – “contrarian” is perfect, I’m embarrassed that I missed that one.

      • Ham Solo says:

        No, it’s mostly just you, insulting random people.

    • thelastpointer says:

      Please keep in mind that we are video game experts and we can accurately judge the quality of the game from this single trailer.

      Just like we did with Doom and Call of Duty.

  31. Walsh says:

    Y’all realize that trench warfare wasn’t the entirety of WW1, right? Read a freaking history book.

  32. noxohimoy says:

    WARNING: Stay away from it.

    The last Battlefield (Hardline) was released a year ago, the single player FOV never worked, there is no fix for it, is the worst of all vomiting FOVs (super zoomed), DICE never fixed it, and doesn’t give a f**k about fuc**d PC players.

    • feverberries says:

      Hardline was made by Visceral mostly, not by DICE. They did some collaboration on it, though.

  33. gpown says:

    That must be the worst possible editing of the worst Seven Nation Army cover ever.

  34. Jackablade says:

    Horsies! More specifically Australian Light horsies. If they give the Aussies appropriate accents, I think I can look past the slightly problematic setting. I managed to have plenty of fun in the arguably more fraught Battlefield Vietnam.

  35. uh20 says:

    not sure which game won the vagueness award this time around.

  36. Lars Westergren says:

    That’s a lot of incredibly pretty graphics and action movie dumb crammed into a short trailer.

  37. celticdr says:

    Looks like WW1 as directed by Michael Bay – I’m gonna have to pass on this.

  38. snowgim says:

    Can’t help but lol. CoD announces CoD:Space and everyone hates it (me too), BF goes further back than ever before and I’m loving it.

    Or I guess it’s more about CoD adding another drop to the flooded space marine genre, and BF quenching the dry dry desert that is the WWI genre.

  39. bill says:

    Sopwith Camels and WW1 tanks sound fun… maybe because I grew up reading Biggles novels.

  40. Unsheep says:

    It’s a great idea, I just hope it’s a return to lengthy single-player content and not just boring multiplayer stuff.

  41. ZombieFX says:

    OH THOSE OLD TANKS!!! LOVE EM!!! so much more character than the new “all look alikes” (just like old cars) <so bad its good< way… just bad)

  42. Ham Solo says:

    Very unfitting music in trailer: check
    Already pre-order DLC known: check
    Cowadoodoo style action movie trailer: check

    Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll stick to Verdun.

  43. LennyLeonardo says:

    Not yet will those measureless fields be green again
    You have to wait a moment for the textures to pop in.

  44. feverberries says:

    I don’t know about this… WW1 doesn’t sound very interesting.

  45. Mindestens says:

    Now just wait until they finally get back to World War II and name it ‘Battlefield 2: 2’…

  46. Tomhai says:

    This trailer is full of so much awesome that WW1 must really have been…. awesome.
    But seriously it looks like an alternative history comic book adaptation. Defenitely cant blame them for sticking to their roots.

  47. criskywalker says:

    “George Lucas can suck an egg”. How many times have I said that after the prequels…

    The game looks fun though! It’s great to have something in a different time period.

  48. SlimShanks says:

    I am predicting complains about camping.

  49. HumpX says:

    I dont know if its been mentioned already but the studio that was pre-DICE did a combined arms game called “Codenamed Eagle” set in WW1. It was ahead of its time in some ways so Im hoping they give a small nod to that ancient (if flawed) classic.

    Wingwalking anyone?

  50. Marclev says:

    “I think they means cool explosions and unlikely heroics.”

    Probably lots of dirt flying around more like from shell impacts.

    And running across no-mans land and dying randomly through no fault of your own until you finally luck out to make it to the opposing trench without being hit (assuming you don’t sink in the swamp on the way there or die of some hideous disease in your trench).

    Yeah, that’ll be fun if they make it realistic. Of course they won’t though, that’d be like having a game set in the pre-historic era without any magic aids that make the gameplay “more accessible”.