Normally games and technology in general have a cold, functional pragmatic edge to it. You engage and experience what you need to, get a response or solution and move on. You rarely feel reengaged on a visceral level. At least, most of the time. A lot of what we try to do at Rush is to make an emotional connection with our technology so there is a higher value attachment. Apple does this well by designing their products to a level where you feel an emotional bond and as such, feel that no other competitor products can compete on the same level.
Here is a very poignant insight into how a game, tells a story beyond just a point and shoot experience. This story, which is portrayed so well in the game is about World War 1 and the scale with which the human tragedy hit.
It's a perfect use of narrative and the tools it uses to bring you through that narrative while also being a very fun game, is uncharacteristically intense, while also being impressive.
When I first played Battlefield 1, I found myself playing the campaign for a large part and I still default to going back into Story Mode than Multiplayer. And for that, I am thankful because, as Sean Buckley points out, this is a story which shows a depth to World War 1 gaming that we haven't seen in gaming before.
Its something that is inspiring and to be fair, I love to encapsulate in the projects that we create.
As my fictional soldier fell to the ground, I expected the game to cut to the Battlefield 1 logo. Instead, the camera zoomed out to reveal an epitaph for the character I had just failed. A somber voiceover touched on the futility of war as my view settled behind the eyes of another soldier. Soon, he fell too. Then another, and another, each expiring under their own floating epitaph showing the character's birth year and time of death. The narrative's emotionally manipulative hook was obvious, but still effective. This wasn't a game -- it was a war. I left the experience feeling like a soldier myself. One who might not make it home.