A fact from Battlefield 1 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 May 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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. [2]. 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. [3]
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. [4] 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. [5]
References
Any thoughts? Kransky ( talk) 13:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)