High-performance playtime.
Doesn’t turn the series on its head, but offers a refreshing change of pace.
I’m chasing a man carrying a pigeon. He dives into a building — a mistake, because I’m using an assault class loadout specced for shortrange combat. I follow and get the drop on him. A couple of blasts from my Trench Shotgun take him down. He drops the pigeon. I pick it up, and start scribbling a note. The note — that is, the timer that dictates how long until the note is finished — writes faster when I’m standing still. I crouch in the building, and my teammates surround me. A gas grenade flies through the window. I tap ‘T’ to put on my gas mask, and continue to scribble.
Outside, I hear gunfire and shouting. When the note finishes, I sprint through the nearest door, round a corner and release the pigeon. The opposing team tries to shoot it, but it flies free. Moments later, an artillery strike rains down. It’s carnage. War Pigeons is a new mode for Battlefield 1. It’s not the best, or the biggest, but it’s a handy example of how DICE’s latest multiplayer FPS handles its World War I setting. Just the concept of two armies running around fighting over a pigeon is inherently ridiculous. It’s a mode that takes the seed of something historical — that pigeons were used to send messages in the war — and warps it to absurdity in order to create an enjoyable multiplayer mode.
And yet, it’s also an effective showcase of some of Battlefield 1’ s greatest strengths. It’s still a multiplayer shooter about two teams, fighting over a series of objectives — attacking, defending or capturing, depending on the mode.
Soldiers charge over fields, tanks roam the streets and fighter planes dive and spiral overhead. On the micro level, squad leaders issue orders, medics rush in to revive downed teammates, and snipers lay prone in what they hope is an unnoticed spot. Teams win or lose based on their ability to work together, to push on the objective, to fully utilise a broad spectrum of class roles. This is all stuff that, if you’ve played any Battlefield game, you have already seen and done hundreds of times before. The pace and style have both shifted, but only when judged within the constraints of what a Battlefield game is.
It’s a better infantry game, too. The key to this is the early-20th century weapons and, paradoxically, how much worse they are. Guns here are less effective than their 21st century counterparts, and Battlefield 1 is better for it.
Each weapon has its strength, but its weaknesses are more notable. A sniper’s headshot is a guaranteed kill, but every rifle available to the scout class is bolt action. If you miss, you waste precious seconds reloading the chamber while your target is running for cover.
SOUND BITES
Once again, DICE’s sound design is extraordinary. The sense of power implied by each weapon’s audio and animation makes most guns a pleasure to use. I predominantly play medic, and the selection of semi-automatic rifles feel gratifyingly hefty, even as I struggle against their kick.
Audio has always been a big part of the series, and Battlefield 1 is no different. Particular sound cues become crucial for processing the carnage of war, from the scream of a soldier in the middle of a bayonet charge, to the distinctive zip of a sniper’s bullet narrowly missing your head. It enables you to parse important details invisibly, and makes the game feel better to play. The reworked weapons have a greater skill ceiling, and because of that,
your class choice and loadout feel more important. Each role has a stronger identity, and often excels at a different range. Even within those categories, it’s possible to tailor for specific playstyles. The additional tools you carry feel more important, too. If you’re playing medic, you’ll likely stick with the tried and tested medibag and reviving syringe. But other classes have access to a broad range of kit.
Arguably, the biggest change is the way vehicles interact with the battlefield at large. Planes, tanks and horses are selected directly from the spawn menu, and vehicles feel less numerous than in previous games. Part of that is likely down to the absence of shouldermounted rocket launchers, making it harder for infantry to take down a tank. In addition, drivers can now repair tanks and planes (not horses) from inside the vehicle. The upshot is that a careful driver in a fully-manned heavy tank can be a significant problem, able to easily push forward a team’s front line.
FOOT TRAFFIC
The maps feel smaller than some of Battlefield 4’ s biggest and most open environments — a possible casualty of how most traversal is done on foot. Despite this, map size still varies greatly, based on both mode and concept. Conquest maps tend to offer some of the biggest, but even here, you’ll encounter outliers like Suez — a tight, linear map with only three capture points. In a 64-player match, things feel a little cramped.
The nine maps each offer a different set of challenges and considerations, whether it’s the varied elevation of the mountainous Monte Grappa, the large, defendable mansion of Ballroom Blitz, or the wide open expanses of Sinai Desert.
Once again, Conquest and Rush are the main multiplayer draws, with Team Deathmatch, Domination and War Pigeons providing a secondary, infantry-only experience.
As usual, Team Deathmatch feels out of place, offering a simpler, objective-free match type in a game that really doesn’t support that style. Battlefield is at its best when you’re working towards objectives, collaborating with your squad to sneakily back cap a point or arm a telegraph station.
Battlefield 1’ s multiplayer is undoubtedly the main draw, but in a rare move for the series, DICE has made an enjoyable, engaging singleplayer campaign. Called War Stories, it’s an anthology collection, each mission following a different person at a different time and place in the war. The prologue switches between multiple protagonists, showing the impossible odds they face across the breadth of a single battle. Each War Story focuses on a different combat style, be it driving tanks, flying planes, or creeping around, quietly stabbing people in the chest. Each also uses a different framing device, letting DICE experiment with narrative styles. And yet, around that variation, the tone often oscillates between two extremes. At times, it’s a respectfully sombre exploration of the harrowing tragedy of a senseless war. I enjoyed the singleplayer a lot — brief though it is.
War Stories fit well as a short, entertaining distraction away from the intense competition of multiplayer. Overall, the singleplayer lasts just 5–6 hours, but the structure feels well suited to expansion. If that is DICE’s plan, I’d love for future episodes to cover other parts of the war — particularly from the French or even German perspective.
It is still, ultimately, just a Battlefield game. It offers many of the same experiences as its predecessors. Two things mitigate that.
Firstly, Battlefield is an excellent template for a multiplayer shooter. Few games provide the same sense of unpredictable sandbox drama, at least outside of more hardcore simulators such as Arma 3. Secondly, little differences can have a big impact. Battlefield 1’ s little differences mean better infantry combat, a heightened sense of destruction, and a slower pace that feels more deliberate and tactical. This is no simple rehash and, while I appreciate Battlefield 4’ s sense of scale, for me, Battlefield 1 is the better of the two.
Verdict
By returning to the past, Battlefield 1 feels renewed. This is the best game in the series since BadCompany2.