Tech
Battlefield 1 Multiplayer Mode: Does It Undermine The Breath-taking Single Player Campaign?
Jai Sabharwal
First Posted: Oct 15, 2016 05:40 AM EDT
Looking into Battlefield 1, we find how committed the gameplay can be to the real World War scenario. Even though, in reality, it would have been a tragic experience, yet the single player mode influences players for its realistic gameplay. But, the same might not be true about the multiplayer campaign, which was recently added to the game. It feels a lot more like conciliation to accomplish the same old multiplayer gaming.
The single player mode in the Battlefield 1 delivers a story about the Great War. It shows how cruel a war can be. All those gallant memories are lit up in the virtual experience with as much accuracy as possible. But, the same cannot be said about the multiplayer mode where it all ends up leaving the same experience found in other games like - upgrading weapons, unrealistic headshots, winning rounds while controlling campaigns. We understand such tactics are meant to engage players in the game, but how many actually love this old method nowadays?
Similar approaches are seen in countless multiplayer FPS games. Such gameplay might make people forget the real battles fought at the time of the War. The unrealistic multiplayer campaigns do show violence and tragedy, but as soon as the round is over, the map resets to a new round making it an ambiguous experience. How could that possibly educate people about what actually happens in a real war? This could be seen when Snoopdog played the game with other celebrities at the Annual Press Conference in Los Angeles.
One can never know what real war is, unless they leave the safety of their homes and join the army, or something. Game developers should understand that exaggerating war games, especially multiplayer sections, require complete study of the actuality that took place back then. If games are created with a non-profit agenda and focused on the real experience, then it could bring out the best of games without emotional exploitation.
In a nutshell, while some sections of Battlefield 1 offer a dramatic experience, the others are not so committed towards a selfless goal of realistic scenario. Undoubtedly, the game is fun - both the single player and the multiplayer, but it needs to stay genuine. After all, who would want a tension-filled gameplay being joked around by impractical activities like 'tea bagging'?
See Now:
NASA's Juno Spacecraft's Rendezvous With Jupiter's Mammoth Cyclone
©2024 ScienceWorldReport.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission. The window to the world of science news.
More on SCIENCEwr
First Posted: Oct 15, 2016 05:40 AM EDT
Looking into Battlefield 1, we find how committed the gameplay can be to the real World War scenario. Even though, in reality, it would have been a tragic experience, yet the single player mode influences players for its realistic gameplay. But, the same might not be true about the multiplayer campaign, which was recently added to the game. It feels a lot more like conciliation to accomplish the same old multiplayer gaming.
The single player mode in the Battlefield 1 delivers a story about the Great War. It shows how cruel a war can be. All those gallant memories are lit up in the virtual experience with as much accuracy as possible. But, the same cannot be said about the multiplayer mode where it all ends up leaving the same experience found in other games like - upgrading weapons, unrealistic headshots, winning rounds while controlling campaigns. We understand such tactics are meant to engage players in the game, but how many actually love this old method nowadays?
Similar approaches are seen in countless multiplayer FPS games. Such gameplay might make people forget the real battles fought at the time of the War. The unrealistic multiplayer campaigns do show violence and tragedy, but as soon as the round is over, the map resets to a new round making it an ambiguous experience. How could that possibly educate people about what actually happens in a real war? This could be seen when Snoopdog played the game with other celebrities at the Annual Press Conference in Los Angeles.
One can never know what real war is, unless they leave the safety of their homes and join the army, or something. Game developers should understand that exaggerating war games, especially multiplayer sections, require complete study of the actuality that took place back then. If games are created with a non-profit agenda and focused on the real experience, then it could bring out the best of games without emotional exploitation.
In a nutshell, while some sections of Battlefield 1 offer a dramatic experience, the others are not so committed towards a selfless goal of realistic scenario. Undoubtedly, the game is fun - both the single player and the multiplayer, but it needs to stay genuine. After all, who would want a tension-filled gameplay being joked around by impractical activities like 'tea bagging'?
See Now: NASA's Juno Spacecraft's Rendezvous With Jupiter's Mammoth Cyclone