Battlefield 1

Post by **Edgelord** » 06 May 2016, 17:09

When I was a wee lad I built a computer, and the first game I ever got for that PC was Battlefield 2, I have so many fond memories of playing 2 and its sequel 2142. While I personally miss the more complex games, I've still had a decent time with 3 and 4.

I was REALLY hoping for 2143, but this is what was revealed today. I had my qualms when I heard the concept, but it could be interesting. I really like the style of WWI, ie with horses and bayonets and just a clusterfuck of weird weaponry. One should never judge a game off of its cinematic trailer, but I think it looks impressive. I'm definitely going to be following its development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nRTF2SowQ

Thoughts?

KeyWii · Post by **KeyWii** » 06 May 2016, 17:11

I FUCKING LOVE IT

Azmodan412 · Post by **Azmodan412** » 06 May 2016, 17:30

I was in love with Battlefield during Battlefield: 1942.

LordLoko · Post by **LordLoko** » 06 May 2016, 18:34

At least it's something original.

Except the name, it looks retarded

Monoo · Post by **Monoo** » 06 May 2016, 19:04

I'm not even a Battlefield player and I loved that, it was absolutely perfect. They did a great job capturing the mashup of new and old weaponry during that era.

One of the best cinematic trailers I've ever seen, in the same vein as For Honor's announcement trailer.

The James Russle · Post by **The James Russle** » 21 Jul 2016, 10:56

I can't wait to get this game man.

Warnipple · Post by **Warnipple** » 21 Jul 2016, 12:58

Feels like another EA move to milk the Battlefield franchise. I don't know why I keep buying the games since Hardline was a real disappointment.

Also @OP, I really wish they'd made another 2142 too. I miss assaulting Titans as buggy as that was.

LordeKilly · Post by **LordeKilly** » 21 Jul 2016, 13:51

I hate it. Honestly, I play realistic games and grand strategy, but seriously? The game will most definately feature no trenches, it will just be village assaults and a couple city maps. They've shown off the gameplay, it's run and gun and blitzing the other team. It just makes me angry, it has French DLC, no bolt action rifles and bayonets on submachine guns. They couldn't have upset me more, honestly. The game claims to be world war 1, but features hardly any doctrine, ideas or the proper faction that fought the war.

All in all, i'm pist, and I'm not buying it. This shit wouldn't have happened if they just did a new world war 2 game.

Solacian72 · Post by **Solacian72** » 21 Jul 2016, 16:31

LordeKilly wrote:I hate it. Honestly, I play realistic games and grand strategy, but seriously? The game will most definately feature no trenches, it will just be village assaults and a couple city maps. They've shown off the gameplay, it's run and gun and blitzing the other team. It just makes me angry, it has French DLC, no bolt action rifles and bayonets on submachine guns. They couldn't have upset me more, honestly. The game claims to be world war 1, but features hardly any doctrine, ideas or the proper faction that fought the war.

All in all, i'm pist, and I'm not buying it. This shit wouldn't have happened if they just did a new world war 2 game.

So you would rather have a game where you sit in a trench all day, hoping the enemy doesn't mortar you, gas the trench, or charge you? That's what World War I was. It is pretty much impossible to make a historically accurate World War I game because all it was was sitting in a disgusting trench, quite frankly. 1/5 of casualties during the Great War weren't even from combat. I agree, they should've just went World War 2 because there was a lot more conflicts that would make it easier to be historically accurate, while also having an entertaining game.

EDIT: Just to clear things up, I won't be buying this game. The only game I will buy soon from EA will be Mass Effect 4.

Warnipple · Post by **Warnipple** » 21 Jul 2016, 17:34

LordeKilly wrote:I hate it. Honestly, I play realistic games and grand strategy, but seriously? The game will most definately feature no trenches, it will just be village assaults and a couple city maps. They've shown off the gameplay, it's run and gun and blitzing the other team. It just makes me angry, it has French DLC, no bolt action rifles and bayonets on submachine guns. They couldn't have upset me more, honestly. The game claims to be world war 1, but features hardly any doctrine, ideas or the proper faction that fought the war.

All in all, i'm pist, and I'm not buying it. This shit wouldn't have happened if they just did a new world war 2 game.

Battlefield has more away from realism a long time ago.

The theme is WW1, the target is fun not realism.

LordLoko · Post by **LordLoko** » 21 Jul 2016, 18:35

Solacian72 wrote: So you would rather have a game where you sit in a trench all day, hoping the enemy doesn't mortar you, gas the trench, or charge you? That's what World War I was. It is pretty much impossible to make a historically accurate World War I game because all it was was sitting in a disgusting trench,

Verdun is basically that and it's one of the most fun and original games around. You charge the enemie's trench or he charges you

LordeKilly · Post by **LordeKilly** » 22 Jul 2016, 13:23

LordLoko wrote: Verdun is basically that and it's one of the most fun and original games around. You charge the enemie's trench or he charges you

Yeah, I really enjoy Verdun, but the lack of population is crappy. I was hoping maybe it'd get a boost one of these days but I doubt that'll ever happen now because everyone will just flock towards BF1.

LordeKilly · Post by **LordeKilly** » 22 Jul 2016, 13:24

Warnipple wrote: Battlefield has more away from realism a long time ago.

The theme is WW1, the target is fun not realism.

I just feel it's disrespectful to just bundle up all of that history and toss it out the window so they can appeal to a wider audience.

Solacian72 · Post by **Solacian72** » 22 Jul 2016, 13:29

LordeKilly wrote: Yeah, I really enjoy Verdun, but the lack of population is crappy. I was hoping maybe it'd get a boost one of these days but I doubt that'll ever happen now because everyone will just flock towards BF1.

Yeah, if Battlefield 1 and Verdun had a baby, it'd probably be the closest game we'd get to a realistic WW1 game.

LordeKilly · Post by **LordeKilly** » 22 Jul 2016, 13:37

Solacian72 wrote:
Yeah, if Battlefield 1 and Verdun had a baby, it'd probably be the closest game we'd get to a realistic WW1 game.

Negative. Battlefield 1 is doing the opposite of World War 1. They claim its some alternate reality BS. It's in no way historical. If they had a baby it'd be a watered down verdun.

monkeysfist101 · Post by **monkeysfist101** » 22 Jul 2016, 13:44

The fact that the French (the army who fielded to most troops and who's country you're fighting through) are a day 1 dlc is a deal breaker for me.

Post by **apophis775** » 22 Jul 2016, 16:42

It says, the campaign is with the french forces, and that France will have a massive DLC?

Battlefield 1

Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1

Re: Battlefield 1