Battlefield 1 - set in World War 1

[Puukko]

I tried getting into BF4 but really couldn't. It felt like the kind of game I'd easily be able to sink lots of time into but it just didn't hook me. I played a good chunk of BFBC2 which was simpler and I think that may be why I preferred it over 4. I had a similar issue with 3 when it came out.

 

[Daedalos]

So WW1 is really just for flavor, other than that it's the same as playing any other BF.

What did you honestly expect? Of course it plays like a BF game, because .. *GASP* i.. it's a.. fucking battlefield game.

Obviously the formula is not gonna change drastically.

That's like saying Fallout 2 plays exactly like another cRPG in the fallout universe! just more flavor! So bad!

Personally, I feel this is still a fresh take on the franchise, and I love the WWI setting.

I know I'm gonna sink in hours and hours into this for pure fun and lols

 

[Alienman]

Well, they could have changed some of the gameplay. Like having massive charges, or more of a focus on teamwork. But it looks exactly the same. Same chaotic mess - every man for himself -gameplay as BF4.

 

[J_C]

It seems like Intinium is among the few people who can see things how they are, and not vomiting edgy stuff all the time.

 

[Baron Dupek]

or more of a focus on teamwork.

And how they do that? Instagib if player don't join any squad or go too far from teammates? More useless XP for teamwork - dropping meds and ammo? Seriously, how?

But it looks exactly the same. Same chaotic mess - every man for himself -gameplay as BF4.

sounds like every multiplayer shooter (and any multiplayer game for that matter) ever. Now seriously - it's no secret that devs are terrible players. Or the person set behind controller get advise to be one man army for this video alone.
Still don't know why they show video with good teamwork to promote game. They have good relation with youtubers (who upload BF videos on regular basis) so I got no clue.

 

[Alienman]

Ditching the XP would be a start. So people focus on team objectives instead of stat-padding and getting XP from kills. Unlocks and stuff like that have ruined almost every multiplayer game out there. They could also make vehicles usable only with several people. Man, I'm not a game designer, but I haven't felt as lonely as I did while playing BF4 even on full 64 player servers. And there is just no sense of a struggle, just random skirmishes all over a large area. This one looks the same. Well, rush game mod feel a little less chaotic since you have an actual objective and if captured moves the map up. But that teamwork is all accidental.

Anyway, I know there is other games out there that promote more teamwork, have higher degree of realism and such. I'm just kinda baffled actually how little have changed watching the footage. Instead of unlocking modern weapons with XP, it's now WW1 prototypes.

 

[L'ennui]

So this game looks pretty stupid and not in a fun or original way. Hopefully the next Battlefield game is either more "authentic" to its setting or just accepts its gonzo fps nature and ditches all claims of historicity or verisimilitude.

 

[sullynathan]

or more of a focus on teamwork.

And how they do that? Instagib if player don't join any squad or go too far from teammates? More useless XP for teamwork - dropping meds and ammo? Seriously, how?

But it looks exactly the same. Same chaotic mess - every man for himself -gameplay as BF4.

sounds like every multiplayer shooter (and any multiplayer game for that matter) ever. Now seriously - it's no secret that devs are terrible players. Or the person set behind controller get advise to be one man army for this video alone.
Still don't know why they show video with good teamwork to promote game. They have good relation with youtubers (who upload BF videos on regular basis) so I got no clue.

For one, limit the amount of people that can play a specific class. Like say, your only able to have 8 or so assault players in a match.

Slow the game down a notch so that people don't forget to help their teammates. Really annoying that BF4 is so fast so assaults forget our ignore reviving their teammates in fear of dying.

Limit all the useless customization options. We don't need 16 different scopes per weapons or 600 weapon skins. Seems like they solved this though

Reduce some of these op explosives like grenade spam, airburst and noob tubes.

Remove health regen. Slow down the tanks and big vehicles. Make some of these classes abilities more useful or more important on the battlefield.

Put less of an emphasis on kills. This can be done by making assists get nearly the same amount of points as a kill or just don't show others k/d ratio. It's really telling when a losing team can have players with far more kills and points than the winning team.

Rainbow six siege is a big AAA shooter and nails most of this shit down and requires far more teamwork than the battlefield games.

So WW1 is really just for flavor, other than that it's the same as playing any other BF.

What did you honestly expect? Of course it plays like a BF game, because .. *GASP* i.. it's a.. fucking battlefield game.

Obviously the formula is not gonna change drastically.

That's like saying Fallout 2 plays exactly like another cRPG in the fallout universe! just more flavor! So bad!

Personally, I feel this is still a fresh take on the franchise, and I love the WWI setting.

I know I'm gonna sink in hours and hours into this for pure fun and lols

"but dude, those totally existed... this game isn't meant to be historically accurate"

"quit whining it's a battlefield game"

"lol it's only a vocal minority that wants to utilize the historical setting."

 

[AwesomeButton]

If the game doesn't play any different due to the setting being WW1 then what's the point of doing a WW1 setting?

 

[AwesomeButton]

That's not the case with me. I've never played CoD multiplayer. Watched a friend play it (on a Nintendo Wii no less) and it looked pretty bad to me. I play Battlefield (not every game) since the first one, and there seems to be more thinking involved, and teamwork has more impact on a team's performance.

 

[sullynathan]

There is no teamwork in modern battlefield and that's coming from someone who didn't play the old ones

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'd say teamwork is still there as a factor because with the game trying to balance teams by player level, resulting in relatively balanced teams in terms of players' XP, a match will usually be won by the team that plays better as a team.

However, I've played Bad Company 2 multiplayer, some BF3 and a lot of BF4, and this may be rose tinted glasses effect, but I think teamwork used to be more important in BF2 and BF1942, especially on larger maps.

The reason I'd get frustrated with BF games is usually because of the inconsistent teamwork across matches, when you play with random people - you're unable to tell if you are winning matches because your team is good or because the other team lacks teamwork, and vice versa, when you lose a few matches in a row. When you play with random people your own skills usually matter less than the chance that the team will play together.

 

[Monk]

I remember BF2 tournaments involving a lot of teamwork and planning. Does it still apply to subsequent versions of BF?

 

[sullynathan]

I remember BF2 tournaments involving a lot of teamwork and planning. Does it still apply to subsequent versions of BF?

no.

 

[Coma White]

That face when Battlefield will never be this fucking sweet again.

 

[Neanderthal]

So whats gameplay? Sit around in a trench for weeks, write poetry, fuck Frog whores while on leave and catch a dose, back to trenches, watch bloated bodies o your mates drift by and then go over top and get shot to shit in five seconds.

 

[Alienman]

Haha, I remember that argument from the good old Day of the Defeat days. When people asked the devs to make the mod a bit more realistic on their forum, you always got the "Hey, let's make it so when you die in-game you die in real life" or "Why not force your character to piss and shit at random intervals"

 

[Neanderthal]

I'm only jokin, plenty o commando stuff you could use, night missions in No Mans Land, tunneling under enemy lines, big fuckin war, assume you won't be playin just in trenches o Flanders.

 

[L'ennui]

Yet when Call of Duty does that, the response is a tornado of mockery and dislikes. Double-jump? Grappling hook? Zero-G? Who cares, it has Call of Duty in the name so it's ALWAYS THE SAME.

You can't blame DICE for giving the players what they explicitely show being fine with.

I actually give credit to CoD for going full-on arcade/gonzo with their last few games. The end result is their gameplay is less constricted and they don't have to try being so damn serious all the time. (They still resort to big, orchestrated set pieces and grim-faced NPCs telling you how serious everything is, but the games and their settings are themselves totally fantastic by this point.)

I think DICE should just admit that they don't have a better idea than that and follow suit OR actually make good on their claim of being at least somewhat history-based-ish, teamwork-based-ish shooters. Right now they're trying to have their cake and eat it too in a way that is as disingenuous as it is uninteresting.

 

[Morgoth]

If the game doesn't play any different due to the setting being WW1 then what's the point of doing a WW1 setting?

If this was an accurate kinetic depiction of WW1 military hardware, everything would be hella slow and prone to breakdown. BF players don't have the patience driving around a tank at 6 mph that takes an eon to make a turn. Neither can't they fly around with these WW1-era airplanes making these super cool nimble maneuvers of a WW2-era Mustang or Messerschmidt. Slow and boring is not what the BF audience wants. They just want the same shit with a different sugarcoating poured on it. And EA provides. And niggers.

 

[Alienman]

Yeah, but there is more than Arma like realism and total arcade craziness. Right now, it looks like they have gone full arcade-mode in a setting that wasn't really like that at all. It looks even faster and more chaotic than BF4.

 

[Coma White]

Would play if game looked like this. :terrorist:

 

[AwesomeButton]

If this was an accurate kinetic depiction of WW1 military hardware, everything would be hella slow and prone to breakdown. BF players don't have the patience driving around a tank at 6 mph that takes an eon to make a turn. Neither can't they fly around with these WW1-era airplanes making these super cool nimble maneuvers of a WW2-era Mustang or Messerschmidt. Slow and boring is not what the BF audience wants. They just want the same shit with a different sugarcoating poured on it. And EA provides. And niggers.

I wouldn't argue for a moment - the closer you go to a simulation the more boring it gets.

In this line of thinking - why play anything other than q3dm17 for multipllayer? I did it a few days ago and still felt just as great as it did 15 years ago.

 

[Neanderthal]

the closer you go to a simulation the more boring it gets.

I imagine charging enemy trenches at Ypres would be pretty fucking exciting if perfectly simulated, an horrifying.

 

[AwesomeButton]

the closer you go to a simulation the more boring it gets.

I imagine charging enemy trenches at Ypres would be pretty fucking exciting if perfectly simulated, an horrifying.

In single player - yes. Look at MoHAA's famous dday landing. But in multiplayer the meta kills the emotional effect every time.