It wasn’t so long ago that Battlefield’s biggest competitor, Call of Duty, looked like it was heading back to the trenches of World War II . History showed it wasn’t meant to be, as Treyarch continued to push Call of Duty and the Black Ops sub-franchise back into the future. But there’s really only so far Call of Duty can travel into tomorrow before it becomes more about lasers and less about ballistics.

Trench warfare in Verdun.

Remember Codename Eagle?

Loading

This is where the Battlefield franchise has the chance to reverse the polarity of the contemporary combat flow and rewind the series back into a mostly unexplored era for gaming: World War I. And if the recent rumours prove true, that’s exactly where Battlefield is heading next.Here are five reasons why Battlefield 5 could work in the muddy, bloody combat of World War I… and five counter-arguments as to why those reasons might not be such a good idea.If well-received PC-exclusive shooter Verdun is a taste of what a World War I-themed Battlefield game could be like, it would necessitate a change of pace for the franchise. In Battlefield 3 and 4, DICE showed it could offer faster-paced gameplay with infantry-focused maps and DLC even though, historically, Battlefield wasn’t a particularly fast-paced game.Given the slower nature of the weapons and vehicles, and an abundance of trench warfare in World War I, DICE could own large-scale battles that play out at a more methodical pace. Slower pace doesn’t mean lower lethality, though, and given the dominance of bolt-action rifles and slow-firing, fixed machine guns, it might also result in a shorter time to kill to deter lone-wolf tanking strategies and generally make combatants think twice about peeking over that trench.The reason Verdun works so well is because it’s not a Battlefield game. The slower pace, higher lethality and lack of vehicles bumps it out of the sniper scope for easy comparison to DICE’s shooter. If Battlefield Hardline proved anything, it’s that there are certain pillars that you cannot remove from the franchise formula without it feeling like it’s not really a Battlefield game.A change to the era is fine, but major changes to the gameplay expectations for pace and lethality has the potential to alienate fans. Furthermore, newer converts may feel doubly alienated given that Battlefield has branded itself as a contemporary shooter in recent iterations. Battlefield’s current faster pace and comparatively moderate lethality is matched with fast-moving vehicles, jets, and fast-firing handheld weapons, and that might be hard to remove from the gameplay loop.

It would definitely be a huge change of pace.

One potential reference point.

The campaigns are definitely the weak link.

DICE has really pushed the Battlefield single-player agenda since the release of Bad Company in 2008. While the comedic adventures of B Company were more engaging than the grittiness of Battlefield 3 and 4, DICE clearly still wants to tell stories in the Battlefield universe. If DICE insists on the realistic campaign tone, there’s no better place to explore this than in the brutal realities of frontline combat in World War I.There are plenty of untapped cinematic reference points to use for inspiration, too, such as All Quiet on the Western Front, Gallipoli, and The Blue Max. Best of all, given that Call of Duty hasn’t touched World War I, it means every World War I movie is ripe for novel gamification. A drastic change in the time period could be the narrative kick up the keister that DICE needs to tell a darker narrative.The campaigns for Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 On top of this, DICE’s Star Wars Battlefront reboot didn’t ship with a campaign because apparently the player base has said they don’t need ’em, so said EA CEO Andrew Wilson in a Game Informer interview. If DICE has been following a campaign-less logic for Battlefield 5 and its release date is locked in for October 2016, it’s unlikely it’ll be able to add a campaign at this stage.