Will It Be All Change for Battlefield 5?

The dust has settled on the news that EA’s FPS franchise could be heading to a trench near you following a leak from a German retail site that gave us a hint at what could be ahead for Battlefield 5.

When I first heard about the game supposedly being set in Northern France in a period of some of the most horrific fighting ever imagined in that time period, let’s just say I wasn’t rushing to pre-order a copy.

For me, games like Battlefield 3 and 4 have all been about fast-paced teamwork and bringing the world down around your opponents, whereas if we were to find ourselves on the Ypres Salient or preparing for the Somme Offensive, it would bring about a very different type of gameplay.

Glancing at a history book will tell you that the majority of the Great War was fought by two sides who stood a very short distance away and pummelled each other with artillery before going over the top. How would this fit into the slick, fast moving, modern world of Battlefield?

Well, it would make teamwork just that little bit more important, you’d need good cover from your machine gunners and snipers before even poking your head over the parapet. Good coordination with your fellow players and an understanding that if you start going big then you’ll probably be going home (and not in a good way either).

This could be a golden opportunity to highlight the ferocity and destruction that was wrought upon the simple soldier fighting in the trenches. We have eyewitness testimony, films, documentaries and books all on the subject. Why not produce something that will serve to show that it is not all about one man taking on the world but good, solid teamwork and an appreciation that someone’s grandfather did this?

On the other hand, we have games that have already touched on the subject of the Great War, most notably Verdun: a squad based WW1 shooter which relies heavily on teamwork and numbers to sway matches, rather than the brilliant shooting of just one player.

Verdun is an adequate representation of the Great War, and so I would ask: why do we need Battlefield to get in on the action? Well, for a couple of reasons. If EA play this right, we could have a game on our hands that brings us some of the most decisive points in the whole war.

Maybe it would have you landing at Gallipoli in what was the first ever combined operation launched by the Allies (meaning that they utilised both Sea, Air and Land units in the attack). Perhaps we would be thrown into the battle of Cambrai where tanks were used successfully deployed for the first time in modern warfare or have you struggling for a foothold at the battle of Verdun.

So, do we really want to see Battlefield go back to Flanders Fields? Personally, I would say yes, with the money and dedication behind Dice we could have a Battlefield game that could give us something very different to what we have experienced before. Maybe a campaign that wasn’t completely outrageous like the one in BF4. It would give us a multiplayer experience that would have us rely on a strong team to win the match, not to mention good tactical awareness so you don’t wander into your own latrine by mistake and end up being shelled by your own side.

On the other hand, I would rather see Dice focus its efforts on something slightly more modern. World War 2 games are increasingly coming back into fashion. With the Frostbite 3 engine, it could make storming the beaches at Normandy or Jumping into Holland as part of Operation Market Garden look amazing a breath a new lease of life into the Battlefield series.

For the moment, we will have to be content with speculation and the thought of what it would be like to go ‘over the top’ with the Frostbite 3 engine. If this ever goes ahead, this may not be as bigger hit as past releases, but Dice and EA could at least show that they were trying to do something different.