Talk:Battlefield 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (https://imgur.com/SdJJrSX) --66.60.157.2 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiplayer map location links

I've been thinking about changing the current links for the locations of the multiplayer maps (Arabia, France, and the Alps) to the specific pages for the Arab Revolt, Western Front (World War I) and Italian Front (World War I) respectively, but I'm not sure if this would constitute original research in that we only know the maps are set in these locations and not necessarily in the specific context of World War I. Alcherin (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TheAirstrip partially implemented my proposals in this edit so I've finished by including the Italian front wikilink as well. Alcherin (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

about the controversy

Hello, I would like to discuss (notbaly with Ferret ?) about what is problematic about the forum and reddit sources. Also, if they are problematic we can remove them, but the game-news magazines that i referenced are still valid I believe. thanks ! Another problem, is that i cannot include this link change-dot-org slash p shash russian-empire-and-france-in-battlefield-1 into the document because of copyright something. what can we do ? Lightness1024 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, none of that can be put into the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adrian ! did you check all the links I put in there ? there are reliable articles. I understand about forums, and we can take those away, which would also collapse into the removal of the phrase "Online backlash" because not citing forums policy will prevent from making that claim. (does it really make sense ? does the fact that we cant cite forums remove the truth that the backlash exists ?)Lightness1024 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Only Polygon is a RS, and it does not say anything about the inaccuracy. The rest are all unreliable. Forum opinion is not needed, unless they are covered by the reliable sources. (see Mighty No. 9) In addition, we shouldn't have a controversy section dedicated to only criticism. So, no matter whether they are covered by reliable sources or not, it shouldn't be presented like this. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, in fact I agree with you. There is still one sheer truth that remains and I really feel should get exposition, is the fact that french and russian armies are just plain absent from the base multiplayer game, and that is perfectly sourced (le monde article) and it was accepted on the french version of the same wikipedia page. So, bias and controvery aside, it could be presented on a neutral manner (in fact, just like the french article version does). How would you word this ? and do you agree that the lemonde article is amply sufficient for the fact ?Lightness1024 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The game isn't released yet, so you can't say for fact what factions won't be in-game until the actual game release. Only limited information is allowed to the public about the game from DICE. Since it is still in development anything can change regards to the game. Regarding the claim that the French armies are absent, see this article. This isn't a controversy, it is a business model, DLC has played a large part in Battlefield games. Offnfopt^(talk) 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Adrian and Offnfopt have already covered most of the points, but here's my position. Forums and reddits are user generated and unreliable sources. While Lemonde appears to be a reliable source, it never mentions a controversy. It confirms three things: France is not playable but is featured in single player, France is missing from multiplayer in the base game, and that DICE plans a DLC for France specifically because they wanted to take extra time to work on it due to the contributions France made to the war. If anything, the Lemonde source shows there's no real controversy at all. PCGamesN has been briefly discussed at WP:VG/RS and currently seems to be leaning towards unreliable, as user contributions can apparently be posted without editorial oversight. Regarding the Harlem Hellfighters... Polygon praises DICE for including them at all, regardless of how much historical background is included in the game. Even if the French commanded the unit, they WERE still American, and Wikipedia's article on them supports that too. Thisgengaming is almost certainly unreliable, but supports Polygon with no mention of a controversy or history revision. In short, there's no reliable source claiming the game has any sort of revisionist history. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source from a news website, criticising the omission of France, stating: "what if France had never been in the First World War? Seems ridiculous right? Not if you’re Battlefield 1 developers"; and "there’s a difference between providing paid bonus content and just withholding features that should have been present to begin with. That reeks of the sort of fleecing that has turned horrifically bad mobile games like Game of War and so on into multi-million dollar cash cows". http://thespinoff.co.nz/games/17-09-2016/world-war-whaaaat/

Multiplayer Classes

Hello guys,

I have added the multiplayer classes of BF1. If you would like to improve on the entry, feel free to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidmilan (talk • contribs)

Controversy Continues...

Could I get views please regarding possible content in the Reception?

The game has attracted interest outside the gaming community on account of its use of a highly stylised World War I setting. This may not be evident in the United States, but in the UK and Australia World War I is regarded with an unusual degree of solemnity, and the three articles I reference make some sufficiently noteworthy, interesting and relevant points.

Any thoughts about this paragraphy I earlier provided?

The unusual choice of setting a game in the First World War, a conflict generally remembered with reverence as a unnecessary tragic episode in history, attracted some commentary. Writing in Wired, Jake Muncy noted that the collective memory of World War Two featured clearly drawn lines of morality and objectives that rewarded bravery, and therefore was relatively uncontroversial while being highly compatible for gameplay. In contrast, the First World War was borne from a breakdown of complex Old World allegiances, and was chiefly fought as a disempowering war of attrition on an industrial scale. The war was marked by horror and squalor ( deliberately excluded from the game), and would have a lingering effect on the national psyche of many participating countries. Writing in Zam, Robert Rath reflected on the same themes, and noted the First World War was largely forgotten in popular culture due to its inability to inspire passion or interest; Rath even suggested Battlefield 1 could rejuvenate popular interest in this war.. The Guardian's Alex Hern also identified the reluctance for gaming companies to feature the First World War, but questioned why the public was not broadly against games about war in the first place.

I just don't think this alternative paragraph that replaced my work sufficiently captures the whole story.

Writing for Wired, Jake Muncy felt worried that the game may not be able to reflex the complex situations in World War One, and thought that the war may not be an ideal setting for a video game. In contrast, Zam's Robert Rath reflected on the same themes, and noted the First World War was largely forgotten in popular culture due to its inability to inspire passion or interest; Rath even suggested Battlefield 1 could rejuvenate popular interest in this war.

References

Any thoughts? Kransky (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you have written way too many about the war. We should focus on the game. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The long version sounds too much like a person essay. It's too much like something a freelance writer would write for GameSpot, not something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. The intention was to report the fact there was controversy without taking sides of passing judgement. I thought my text did this, but if you think otherwise I would consider any textual changes. Likewise if you think my text waffles on about the war too much that can be pared down without losing meaning or context, and again I am open to suggestions. I would contend that the subject matter is relevant and you will find other gaming articles which refer in passing to any controversy with the settings. Kransky (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

BF1 listed staffing

Hello there!

I'd like to discuss the listing of the developers for battlefield 1, since this has been changed very recently.

Lars Gustavsson is the Design Director of battlefield 1, however he has been moved to be listed under the design section instead of the director section. The structure at Dice, and most other game development studios, is that no matter if you are the audio, design, art or technical director you are within the directors group, and should be listed as a director. Designer is a technical term for system or level design, which is not something that is applied by someone at a director level. In addition, lead designer (who is also mentioned numerous times throughout the page) is Daniel Berlin, who has sense been completely removed from the list of designers for some reason? Why is this?

To actually mirror the development process within gaming studios, and dice in particular, Lars should be moved to the Directors field and Daniel Berlin should be re-added under the designer section.

I would apply this change myself, however the page has been locked from edits.

Thank you kindly! :) Opiumbloom (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it back, and agree. I believe this is in line with the expectations of Template:Infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

First, problem I have with including Daniel Berlin in designer field that he's listed as the Lead World Designer in the game credits, he's isn't listed as head lead designer in the game credits at all, there's also other two people credited as lead single-player designer and lead multiplayer designer. Despite being titled as Lead Game Designer by gaming news sources, he isn't listed that position in the game credits. In Template:Infobox video game, it states that "If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Game-design director" and "Lead planner". Since Lars Gustavsson is the Design Director and since it also can include people having the position of "Game-design director", then it be more fitting to included Lars Gustavsson in designer field then the director field. TheDeviantPro (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Heya, I'm not going to make a change to the infobox, but I do second TheDeviantPro's comments that according to the Template:Infobox video game we should be listing people based on what they are credited as, regardless of what their actual role is, we can only go based off of the credits. I am going to make a tweak to the Gameplay section to specify that Berlin is the Game's World Designer since that is what he is credited as by the game.

Maps

I've added a maps section in gameplay, alongside gameplay modes and classes. This is the first game in the main series since Battlefield 1942 which is based on a real war, and a lot of the maps are depictions of real battles, so I think they're noteworthy. Dr-ziego (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed them based on point #7 of the guideline WP:VGSCOPE. -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll defer to experience, particularly after seeing that comparable articles like Overwatch and Counterstrike don't have sections for them, but why is that? Why are multiplayer modes and classes considered noteworthy but maps are not? Dr-ziego (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Such a broad topic would be better asked at WT:VG, where the consensuses for guidelines like this are reached. On one hand, it might be argued that the class list WOULD fall under this. I just haven't seen it applied that way myself. -- ferret (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to point 7, which doesn't actually mention maps (but then of course they aren't a feature of most games, I guess the equivalent would be levels). It does mention "levels (including lists of stadia/sports venues)." So I suppose that counts. I certainly think the multiplayer maps have more bearing on most people's experience of the game (and its historical context) than the solo campaign, which most people will play once if at all, but which we nonetheless devote about 2,000 words to. I also think they're more noteworthy to non-gamer readers who might be interested in the historical context of the game. Dr-ziego (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You'd need to make this argument at WT:VG, since you're seeking to change a guideline essentially. To put it short though, I disagree that multiplayer is more important from an encyclopedic view than the single-player. However, what you could be looking for is if any secondary reliable sources have specifically called out any maps for historical context, either claiming accuracy or inaccuracy. That might be suitable to mention somewhere. -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm new to editing and don't really want to go rock the boat at the video games page but I'll keep a look out for articles about the maps. Dr-ziego (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)