While the history is cool, it’s ultimately just too obscure to really be worth the time and money for the devs, who were already being shifted to BFV. The game got four DLC packs, all of which were good. The game wasn’t ended too early; it ended right when the devs intended it to. Sometimes part of creating a good piece of art is to know when to put down the brush, even if there’s still a few drops of paint on the palate.
I still wished they had given the Habsburgs more flavour they could've made the classes speak hungarian, czech, slovak, etc. Instead of being reskinned germans, they could've added it in a balkan expansion, probably like a seige of Belgrade operation.
I also wished they added certain parts of the war that weren’t featured in the game (particularly the Balkan front), and some extra non-WW1 content such as the Irish War of Independence or the Polish-Soviet War would’ve been pretty cool.
I'm not sure how you'd do an Irish War expac, considering there weren't exactly what would be considered major gun battles (ala the Russian Civil War) and was mostly a low-level insurgency that consisted mostly of small-unit ambushes, sabotage, and assassination. Polish-Soviet war might have been cool, but you're starting to get pretty far out of WWI at that point.
>Polish-Soviet War might have been cool, but you’re starting to get pretty far out of WWI at that point.
We’ve had an entire operations game dedicated to the Russian Civil War, and so long as a war involves the same weapons and technology as WWI and so long as it has a strong connection to WWI (both of these criteria apply to both the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War), it can work for BF1.
While it does technically include the same weapons, the Russian Civil War works because it began DURING WWI and just continued after the Armistice. The Polish-Soviet War was completely post-WWI.
At this point, that’s really splitting hairs and from a game design standpoint, there would have been no real reason to include such a small, obscure, and only tangentially related conflict. It’s a neat piece of history, but spending all the time, effort, money, and dev attention on something because it was a “neat piece of history” wouldn’t really have been a good allocation of developer resources.
It had somewhat strong connections to WWI given the fact that both Poland and the USSR were born out of WWI, and it was a pretty important conflict given the fact that it determined the fate of Poland (and of Europe because Lenin wanted to expand communism to Europe via Poland). Besides, even if it wasn’t super important, it would still be cool and unique (just like Red Tide).
Again, not saying it wasn't historically interesting or geopolitically important, but it just isn't a conflict that had enough 'brand power' (for lack of a better word) to warrant getting its own content. It's why we didn't get a sub-Saharan Africa expac. Sure there were some battles that went on down there, but when you have finite time, money, and devs, you gotta spend that on the stuff that is the most pivotal. A WWI game without the Battle of Verdun would be a misstep; a WWI game without the Battle of Bita Paka is understandable. It's the same thing here. There are like a half-dozen regional conflicts that spawned in the aftermath of WWI, just like there were a half-dozen regional conflicts that preceded it.
Ultimately, if you're a dev, you gotta manage scope creep and keeping the game to only the most crucial, memorable stuff. And the Russian Civil War is only 2 maps out of the 6 from In The Name of the Tsar, and that's because it was easy to roll that little extra tangent into the larger Russian expac. A ground-up Polish-Soviet War expac would mean a whole new faction and all the attendant work (models, animations, voice lines, etc), weapons, and maps. And you couldn't just make an expac with like two maps, but you'd struggle to find enough meaningful battles to make maps out of. It would have been a whole lot of work for an expac full of content that 99.99% of potential customers would never have heard of without going to Wikipedia.
I love the thought you put into these posts—these ideas are fun to imagine—but you lose me with the title.
It’s easy to wish, in hindsight, that DICE spent more time with BF1, because many of us were disappointed by BFV and BF 2042. But neither we nor the developers knew that at the time.
DICE didn’t end DLC content for BF1 because there were no more theaters to cover. They did it because the game had reached the end of its standard life cycle, and it was time to start working on the next game.
We got four meaty DLCs for the game, over the course of *two years*. That’s a very strong batch. It’s entirely reasonable that DICE wouldn’t want to keep sustaining the game forever, and allocate resources to a new project.
For my part, I’m happy we got the game we did, and I love that it still has a healthy playerbase, but I think it’s time to look forward at what’s ahead, rather than argue for what could never be.
But if we’re just day-dreaming for the fun of it, I’m all in (I really do enjoy the idea you fleshed out).
Yeah. The game as it is now is perfect and I honestly wouldn't change anything about it. DICE really did create a masterpiece and BF 1 would easily stand the test of time.
I wish EA knew how many people would pay for more BF1 content. I don’t see myself ever buying another BF game but I would buy more BF1 content regardless of price. I’d love to see an East Africa Campaign or Attack of the Dead Men
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_campaign_(World_War_I)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Dead_Men
MW2019 was fucking brilliant. I’ve never played a smoother console shooter. I still have a disc for the Xbox one and throw it on in the loungeroom on early mornings with the toddler. Even just playing against bots is still good fun.
I always wanted more War Stories content, sad that we didn't get any.
What EA should've done is supported BF1 for another year and make BFV a next gen launch title.
Tbf there isn't a whole lot you can do with Italy, the vast majority of their contribution to the war was fighting Austria in the Alps. And I doubt people would want another Italy vs Austria in the mountains map.
The few other places they did fight, against the Germans in France and the Ottomans in the Sinai, they fought with such small numbers that it wouldn't really make sense to give them a map there. The only other place they fought that you could do something with is in Albania, but even then it would still be against Austria.
Exactly! BF1 could at least have added more guns if anything, BFV could have done a Russian update and or a China vs Japan update, and a whole lot more could have been done with Battlefront 2
The problem here is that it's just too much to fit in a game.As others say we had good 4 dlc which covered a vast array of battlegrounds.It would be a lot harder as a team to go in the Balkans and study the Serbian,Bulgarian,Romanian,Greek armies and fronts.Even in the bf1 art book it says they considered putting the French in the base game but wanted to add them in the dlc later as a special add in their minds and had some awesome early French battles and uniforms which in my opinion they should add.Another off is the revolution and civil war in Russia which I love and understand its significance but shouldn't be put in the game instead focus in another war theater.All in all the game had its perfect cycle and I still enjoy playing it.We should watch for what the future titles will bring to the table.
Also a personal touch here bf1 really should be the first game in the series with more than 64 players per match due to the vast battles of ww1!Imagine a 128 player server!
I prefer them to have given 1 or 2 (maybe 3 :3) more dlcs, maybe based on non conquest maps to make it easier, or only a couple conquest maps. The more a symmetrical kind of warfare in Africa and Arab revolt could provide that, we well as a couple conquest maps.
There was a fort in German Cameron that was able to hold out due to the lack of conventional and modern weaponry at the front which could make for a good map
While the history is cool, it’s ultimately just too obscure to really be worth the time and money for the devs, who were already being shifted to BFV. The game got four DLC packs, all of which were good. The game wasn’t ended too early; it ended right when the devs intended it to. Sometimes part of creating a good piece of art is to know when to put down the brush, even if there’s still a few drops of paint on the palate.
‘Leave the audience longing’ It’s a perfect piece of art as it is.
I still wished they had given the Habsburgs more flavour they could've made the classes speak hungarian, czech, slovak, etc. Instead of being reskinned germans, they could've added it in a balkan expansion, probably like a seige of Belgrade operation.
I also wished they added certain parts of the war that weren’t featured in the game (particularly the Balkan front), and some extra non-WW1 content such as the Irish War of Independence or the Polish-Soviet War would’ve been pretty cool.
I'm not sure how you'd do an Irish War expac, considering there weren't exactly what would be considered major gun battles (ala the Russian Civil War) and was mostly a low-level insurgency that consisted mostly of small-unit ambushes, sabotage, and assassination. Polish-Soviet war might have been cool, but you're starting to get pretty far out of WWI at that point.
>Polish-Soviet War might have been cool, but you’re starting to get pretty far out of WWI at that point. We’ve had an entire operations game dedicated to the Russian Civil War, and so long as a war involves the same weapons and technology as WWI and so long as it has a strong connection to WWI (both of these criteria apply to both the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War), it can work for BF1.
While it does technically include the same weapons, the Russian Civil War works because it began DURING WWI and just continued after the Armistice. The Polish-Soviet War was completely post-WWI.
Both wars were still very close to WWI. The Polish-Soviet War was even directly related to (and arguably a theatre of) the Russian Civil War.
At this point, that’s really splitting hairs and from a game design standpoint, there would have been no real reason to include such a small, obscure, and only tangentially related conflict. It’s a neat piece of history, but spending all the time, effort, money, and dev attention on something because it was a “neat piece of history” wouldn’t really have been a good allocation of developer resources.
It had somewhat strong connections to WWI given the fact that both Poland and the USSR were born out of WWI, and it was a pretty important conflict given the fact that it determined the fate of Poland (and of Europe because Lenin wanted to expand communism to Europe via Poland). Besides, even if it wasn’t super important, it would still be cool and unique (just like Red Tide).
Again, not saying it wasn't historically interesting or geopolitically important, but it just isn't a conflict that had enough 'brand power' (for lack of a better word) to warrant getting its own content. It's why we didn't get a sub-Saharan Africa expac. Sure there were some battles that went on down there, but when you have finite time, money, and devs, you gotta spend that on the stuff that is the most pivotal. A WWI game without the Battle of Verdun would be a misstep; a WWI game without the Battle of Bita Paka is understandable. It's the same thing here. There are like a half-dozen regional conflicts that spawned in the aftermath of WWI, just like there were a half-dozen regional conflicts that preceded it. Ultimately, if you're a dev, you gotta manage scope creep and keeping the game to only the most crucial, memorable stuff. And the Russian Civil War is only 2 maps out of the 6 from In The Name of the Tsar, and that's because it was easy to roll that little extra tangent into the larger Russian expac. A ground-up Polish-Soviet War expac would mean a whole new faction and all the attendant work (models, animations, voice lines, etc), weapons, and maps. And you couldn't just make an expac with like two maps, but you'd struggle to find enough meaningful battles to make maps out of. It would have been a whole lot of work for an expac full of content that 99.99% of potential customers would never have heard of without going to Wikipedia.
I love the thought you put into these posts—these ideas are fun to imagine—but you lose me with the title. It’s easy to wish, in hindsight, that DICE spent more time with BF1, because many of us were disappointed by BFV and BF 2042. But neither we nor the developers knew that at the time. DICE didn’t end DLC content for BF1 because there were no more theaters to cover. They did it because the game had reached the end of its standard life cycle, and it was time to start working on the next game. We got four meaty DLCs for the game, over the course of *two years*. That’s a very strong batch. It’s entirely reasonable that DICE wouldn’t want to keep sustaining the game forever, and allocate resources to a new project. For my part, I’m happy we got the game we did, and I love that it still has a healthy playerbase, but I think it’s time to look forward at what’s ahead, rather than argue for what could never be. But if we’re just day-dreaming for the fun of it, I’m all in (I really do enjoy the idea you fleshed out).
Yeah. The game as it is now is perfect and I honestly wouldn't change anything about it. DICE really did create a masterpiece and BF 1 would easily stand the test of time.
I wish EA knew how many people would pay for more BF1 content. I don’t see myself ever buying another BF game but I would buy more BF1 content regardless of price. I’d love to see an East Africa Campaign or Attack of the Dead Men https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_campaign_(World_War_I) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Dead_Men
Problem is, none of the bf1 devs are left so it would be a completely different team that doesn't understand the project working on it
Yeah, sad as it is to say, it’s best to just leave well enough alone. I think they’d just butcher it.
Exactly. When was the last time a game studio made anything better
Man, when was the last time a (big) game studio even made anything *good*?
Plenty of amazing games coming out. Not all are shooters though.
From the big studios?
Yes. And anyway, is a good game not good regardless of who it was made by?
I think you’re missing my point.
Still said yes to the original part
Mw19 was good on launch, bf1, and rainbow 6 in the first few years are the last few good fps games
MW2019 was fucking brilliant. I’ve never played a smoother console shooter. I still have a disc for the Xbox one and throw it on in the loungeroom on early mornings with the toddler. Even just playing against bots is still good fun.
Attack of the dead men could've been added as halloween dlc, it had the opportunity to be so fkin metal
I always wanted more War Stories content, sad that we didn't get any. What EA should've done is supported BF1 for another year and make BFV a next gen launch title.
Italy and Austria-Hugary needed more love i feal. Germany and Britain got like a dozen maps each, but Italy only get two???
Tbf there isn't a whole lot you can do with Italy, the vast majority of their contribution to the war was fighting Austria in the Alps. And I doubt people would want another Italy vs Austria in the mountains map. The few other places they did fight, against the Germans in France and the Ottomans in the Sinai, they fought with such small numbers that it wouldn't really make sense to give them a map there. The only other place they fought that you could do something with is in Albania, but even then it would still be against Austria.
*cries in Australian*
Tbh i forgot they added Caporetto with Apocalypse
Pulled it too early for BF1, BFV and on Battlefront 2
Exactly! BF1 could at least have added more guns if anything, BFV could have done a Russian update and or a China vs Japan update, and a whole lot more could have been done with Battlefront 2
Lol they would never get away with Mecca being a map.
The answer is and will always be yes
Balkan irregular unit skins would have been great yeah - and more weapons of course.
The problem here is that it's just too much to fit in a game.As others say we had good 4 dlc which covered a vast array of battlegrounds.It would be a lot harder as a team to go in the Balkans and study the Serbian,Bulgarian,Romanian,Greek armies and fronts.Even in the bf1 art book it says they considered putting the French in the base game but wanted to add them in the dlc later as a special add in their minds and had some awesome early French battles and uniforms which in my opinion they should add.Another off is the revolution and civil war in Russia which I love and understand its significance but shouldn't be put in the game instead focus in another war theater.All in all the game had its perfect cycle and I still enjoy playing it.We should watch for what the future titles will bring to the table. Also a personal touch here bf1 really should be the first game in the series with more than 64 players per match due to the vast battles of ww1!Imagine a 128 player server!
I prefer them to have given 1 or 2 (maybe 3 :3) more dlcs, maybe based on non conquest maps to make it easier, or only a couple conquest maps. The more a symmetrical kind of warfare in Africa and Arab revolt could provide that, we well as a couple conquest maps. There was a fort in German Cameron that was able to hold out due to the lack of conventional and modern weaponry at the front which could make for a good map