Forgotten Hope Public Forum

Off-Topic => Gaming => Topic started by: Hjaldrgud on 06-05-2016, 22:05:44

Title: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 06-05-2016, 22:05:44
So rumors were true. WW1 Battlefield game.

https://youtu.be/c7nRTF2SowQ

Anyone got any opinions?


I think the name is retarded. No logic. They need to be inventive in the weapons department.
Hypelevel 3/10 - they know how to make trailers
Hopelevel 2/10 -been burned so many times by AAA


Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 06-05-2016, 22:05:54
Looks like a realistic take on the First World War.

Just kidding.  I think I'll keep away.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: LuckyOne on 06-05-2016, 23:05:22
Boy those WWI planes sure were loaded with highly combustive jet fuel...


I don't have high hopes yet. But hey, at least it's not modern or future warfare again...  ::)

As for the name... Yup, its retarded. They could have at least called it Battlefield 1918. But I guess then they would have needed to compensate the modders of the original one for using it :P.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 06-05-2016, 23:05:20
Changing the theme music from the epicness that was in 1942 to fart sounds in BF3 and now to 7 nation army. The whole thing reminds me more of WW2 setting rather than WW1.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Kelmola on 07-05-2016, 00:05:30
I was sure that when CAWADOODY: INFINIIT WÄRFÄREE was announced, next BF would Battlefield IN SPAAAACE, so this is in some way a pleasant surprise. Also, lots of lovely little details...

...and then it's another modern shooter designed to be "epic" rather than realistic, complete with launch day DLC, "season passes", unlockables, no mod support, playercount capped at 48 because consoles (which would finally have enough memory to run more!), heavy-breathing-gains-health mechanic, 9mm and 75mm rounds doing about the same damage and requiring multiple shots to kill an unarmoured human, even more ludicrous flight physics than BF2, and maybe, just maybe if we are lucky, no pay-to-win mechanic.

Still, it's at least an original idea and not directly copying the competitors, which are pretty rare nowadays, and there's never enough WW1 games around, so I remain cautiously positive. Dare I hope for an optional "hardcore mode" server setting?

Regarding "Seven Nation Army", at least the name fits thematically to the Allies, but I think the real reason for its inclusion is that the exact same remix was used in the trailer of GI Joe: Retaliation. Though, I would have preferred something like a somber piano deconstruction (The Dark Knight Rises trailer 3, The Force Awakens theatrical trailer style) of the Battlefield theme (the Blackadder theme obviously being unavailable), while the narrator reads In Flanders Fields in the background.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: NTH on 07-05-2016, 01:05:43
The trailer was epic. Excellent mix of music and scenery.
I skipped BF4, but this looks like a winner. Bi-plane Dogfights, horses and bolt action rifle combined with whistles and F7 (Once more unto the breach). And Zeppelins .....
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 07-05-2016, 04:05:24
I think it is a bad thing when a historian watches the trailer and has to ask "Soooo, is it supposed to be steampunk WW1 or something?"


I'll pass until the day a Forgotten Hope 1918 comes out for it.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Torenico on 07-05-2016, 05:05:49
It's EA, never again.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 07-05-2016, 06:05:26
Ah, a new Battlefield game. :D You can tell it's just around the corner from the unmistakable pessimism concentrated in the off topic section.

I really hope nobody actually expected some kind of 'realistic' or 'historically accurate' WW1 game out of EA.

Still, it's at least an original idea and not directly copying the competitors.

This is what I'm excited for. It takes some balls to jump to WW1 and challenge yourself to make a AAA game title out of it. All I can hope is that they stick to the core of what made battlefield fun and let you and your friends get in big ass machines and blow shit up.

If I can pilot a bomber or a Zeppelin with a full crew of people. Or slug a tank across some trenches while a bunch of other people man all the gun ports. Or hell even jump in a battleship and have all my squad mates man a set of guns. I'm sold.

The only thing I would question is the infantry gameplay. The bread and butter of battlefield games is good gun play with auto or semi auto weapons. From what I hear tho they might just keep bolt action weapons to the scout class and use machine guns, and stretch for prototype SMGs to fill out the other classes.

I'm interested to see some gameplay :)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-05-2016, 07:05:24
Ah, a new Battlefield game. :D You can tell it's just around the corner from the unmistakable pessimism concentrated in the off topic section.

Still, it's at least an original idea and not directly copying the competitors.

This is what I'm excited for. It takes some balls to jump to WW1 and challenge yourself to make a AAA game title out of it. All I can hope is that they stick to the core of what made battlefield fun and let you and your friends get in big ass machines and blow shit up.

*cough* Verdun *cough*. But they at least added tanks, planes and Zeppelins, and horsies (let's not forget how fun those were in FHSW with crappy animations, hopefully now they will do them justice).


If I can pilot a bomber or a Zeppelin with a full crew of people. Or slug a tank across some trenches while a bunch of other people man all the gun ports. Or hell even jump in a battleship and have all my squad mates man a set of guns. I'm sold.
I wouldn't bet on the Zeppelin, it'll probably work similar to a gunship or whatever. Battleship is probably the cinematic part of the game, I doubt they'll make them controllable ever again.

The only thing I would question is the infantry gameplay. The bread and butter of battlefield games is good gun play with auto or semi auto weapons. From what I hear tho they might just keep bolt action weapons to the scout class and use machine guns, and stretch for prototype SMGs to fill out the other classes.

I'm interested to see some gameplay :)
Well bolt-actions are not really that liked by the console generation of today, so I'm sure they'll keep them to a minimum by beefing up the historical developments.

Anyway, could be fun, but we will see if the price is right. Glad to see they are revisiting older periods again. Maybe we could finally get a Battlefield Korea some day? :D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Jimi Hendrix on 07-05-2016, 08:05:48
 Destined for consoles around the world.....

 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 07-05-2016, 09:05:44
I like that they do it because of 100 years of WW1 and I like the name Battlefield1-WW1. But gameplay looks so shit like some modern warfare... Trailer and game all in all is....some COD gameplay and totaly unrealistic gameplay with NONE of teamwork and goal of game just to kill and look at their score...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 07-05-2016, 13:05:32
Looks awesome

But that electro dubstep remix of “Seven Nation Army” makes me think of a racing game like dirt rally and not battlefield ww1 
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 07-05-2016, 13:05:53
https://youtu.be/l20il6AHlWo

A what did you miss video.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 07-05-2016, 14:05:36
So we have Germans who are monsters with big coaths and bats? What a stupidity this will be within history facts... But,I hope horses will be avaible! That would be so cool!!

Edit:Hey! Since when did they remove bf song?? >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 07-05-2016, 15:05:29
OK, nobody mention the ships? Could be pretty rad fighting in those Dreadnoughts.

Anyway, this is a console-destined Battlefield. It will be all bollocks like Battlefield 1943, a 1942 succesor that never was.

Keep your hope level around Hjaldrgud's to be safe.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 07-05-2016, 18:05:39
Ah, a new Battlefield game. :D You can tell it's just around the corner from the unmistakable pessimism concentrated in the off topic section.

I really hope nobody actually expected some kind of 'realistic' or 'historically accurate' WW1 game out of EA.

Still, it's at least an original idea and not directly copying the competitors.

This is what I'm excited for. It takes some balls to jump to WW1 and challenge yourself to make a AAA game title out of it. All I can hope is that they stick to the core of what made battlefield fun and let you and your friends get in big ass machines and blow shit up.

If I can pilot a bomber or a Zeppelin with a full crew of people. Or slug a tank across some trenches while a bunch of other people man all the gun ports. Or hell even jump in a battleship and have all my squad mates man a set of guns. I'm sold.

The only thing I would question is the infantry gameplay. The bread and butter of battlefield games is good gun play with auto or semi auto weapons. From what I hear tho they might just keep bolt action weapons to the scout class and use machine guns, and stretch for prototype SMGs to fill out the other classes.

I'm interested to see some gameplay :)

I totally agree
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Musti on 07-05-2016, 18:05:25
Huh, quite a brave move for them to make WWI game, even though there were rumors about it months in advance it's still quite a surprise :D. Honestly though, trailer didn't do anything for me, the generic hype-building overly-epic-biplanes-flying-through-canions trailes somehow doesn't fit a WWI game, they might have as well put in a few naked chicks and dubstep to finish it off (or maybe that's just me)
The name of course is stupid as fuck, I wonder how many hours they've spent thinking about it.

Anyway, my expectations are close to 0, so I guess I won't be disappointed at the very least, like I said, it's a brave move for them to make their next "flagship" Battlefield game set in WWI, I'm still not quite sure how exactly are they planning to pull off a modern get-points-earn-ranks shooter in such a setting.
And if I see any scope unlocks for MP18 then fuck me.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 07-05-2016, 20:05:22
I only approve this game only in term of:  they made it because of 100 years from ww1. Thats nice,in memory of WW1,but rest is just so.....
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 07-05-2016, 20:05:52

And if I see any scope unlocks for MP18 then fuck me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFTyJDjfjG0
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Butcher on 07-05-2016, 21:05:08
It's EA, never again.
This. The last time I bought an EA game was Command and Conquer - Tiberium wars in 2007. RIP Cnc.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Dukat on 08-05-2016, 02:05:31
Dice got the problem that many players who bought recent BF titles are having negative expectations about BF 1. Thus they have to offer something modern like the music and the steampunk design.

Actually I believe this will be a good title, though featuring only 64 players at maximum. It looks like they're going back to the roots of BF 1942. The arcade flight model of the engine suits best for WWI clown planes with low speed and high maneuverability. The shell trajectory of WWI will suit the engine best, forming large bows at short total distance. And if they're making naval battles with carrier based flight action, the immersion could be huge. This will be a bummer, because it will simply feel 'well composed' once you started playing. Could be the most underestimated game announced in 2016.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 08-05-2016, 08:05:46
Those who skipped BF4 and Hardline knows what BF has become: DLCs, unlockables with pay option, season pass, and ridiculous mods.

I mean BF3 was briliant and perfectly fine. BF4 is excessive and dumbed down significantly. The Economist were right, the economy did indeed expanded, people are getting wealthier, tasteless people now can afford to play this game.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-05-2016, 12:05:49
The problem i had with BF3 was that my eyes would hurt after a few minutes playing due to the colors and effects.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: ajappat on 08-05-2016, 12:05:26
The problem i had with BF3 was that my eyes would hurt after a few minutes playing due to the colors and effects.
I liked that about BF3. Everything looked more like real life and none of this dark and gloomy shit we tend to see in many games.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Musti on 08-05-2016, 13:05:39
I think he means all the colorfilters (EVERYTHING IZ BLUEEEEEEE), the blurring, and, my personal favuorite the always-blinding sun. Other than that the game really looked (or rather still does look) brilliant.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Torenico on 08-05-2016, 16:05:12
Then again, Battlefield became a Yearly game, one per year. That sucks, a Battlefield replaces another Battlefield..., like a PES or a FIFA game, but that is a bit more understandable, a bit.

Well, Battlefield became Call of Duty, and speaking about the last CoD....




Where do I get treatment for brain damage?.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-05-2016, 17:05:22
Not to mention BF4 was rushed because COD came with Modern warfare 3
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-05-2016, 22:05:31
I think he means all the colorfilters (EVERYTHING IZ BLUEEEEEEE), the blurring, and, my personal favuorite the always-blinding sun. Other than that the game really looked (or rather still does look) brilliant.

This. Since i do not wear glasses i hate that there had to be dust ALWAYS on the googles and LENS FLARE was everywhere.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 09-05-2016, 16:05:45
(http://i.imgur.com/QnUCw39.jpg)

10/10, would have been the plot twist of the century.


inb4 message runner behind the front
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 10-05-2016, 22:05:38
Im still excited about this thus it will be pretty unhistoric. But we will get bf1918 in awsome grafics! Imagine these biplanes,so cool! Finally not some jets but biplanes! Totally new sounds of airplanes and guns,no stupid fast crap guns. And actually WW1 game in Battlefield,till now we had bf1918 and dead NoManLand-mods..

EDIT: I wish Natty come and give us some W.I.P-FH2 community exclusive- pic of his map..He is still lurking around.. Last visit 04.04.2016! ;D  (PLEASE  ;D)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 11-05-2016, 07:05:59
It is called immersion. I've been to some sand dessert and the sunlight reflection from the brightly-coloured sands are spectacularly blinding. Without proper sunglasses, you will catch cataract. Also, from real life shooting experience, those gun powder residue is irritating for eye, no wonder real life soldiers wear goggles.

To appease him (Natty) more let's be a little bit positive.

This game looks awesome, especially the concept. It is a departure from tired futuristic warfare that doesn't dare to innovate much more from the current one. It is too much about individual isolated combat situations. There is no feeling of epic-ness of a battle.

Meanwhile, Attack at Verdun or Somme would be massive and grand in scale. I hope DICE is able to re-create such epic atmosphere in this game. Let's hope for new engines as well. I want to get it all muddy, so when we run across the no man's land, a recently shelled ground will be slushy, softened, and slow us down with the effects visible on our boots.

Sea battles! I don't need realistic scale of the battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, just relative scale is enough. And then all we need is epic sound and visual effects. We are all set.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 11-05-2016, 16:05:37
Pls rate my meme

(http://i.imgur.com/yB7okVs.png)


I'll see how it turns out. Maybe this will be my first BF since the let-down that 3 was.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Turkish007 on 11-05-2016, 16:05:26
I'm really curious about the land vehicles. I mean, what will the counterparts for the buggy, Humvee, etc.. be? Armored cars?

Also... HORSES!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: GeoPat on 12-05-2016, 03:05:36
It seems that Dice has been taking the lead from the mod community. EoD got us BF Vietnam.  Desert Combat became BF2.  PR inspires BF3 and BF4, maybe.  Now they are making BF 1918.  I hope they release a BF Pirates inspired title.  That will always be my favorite.  I also hope that their engine does horses at least as good as Mount and Blade.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Berkolok on 12-05-2016, 09:05:16
lets see..black guy with cape holding german pistol...it seems this gonna be soooo realistic..
i would play verdun instead of this
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 12-05-2016, 15:05:38
lets see..black guy with cape holding german pistol...it seems this gonna be soooo realistic..
i would play verdun instead of this

What is Ottoman Army/Middle East/African front?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Kelmola on 12-05-2016, 23:05:48
black guy with cape holding german pistol...it seems this gonna be soooo realistic..
Germany used to have this thing called "colonial empire" and in battles fought in the colonies you would actually expect the majority of soldiers to be locals (with only officers and NCO's from Europe), and most of German colonies were in Africa... Being an Empire, there was also a number of black Germans living in Germany too, and when the war came, they were drafted into the army just like everyone else.

Even the Third Reich, despite the race laws, accepted persons of colour (among other minorities) into arms (and there were actually even more black Germans now, since Rhineland had been occupied by French colonial troops). There were black soldiers even in the Waffen-SS, for crying out loud (OK, technically non-Aryans weren't members of the SS, they just fought under its command wearing the same uniform, which is just about as hypocritical hair-splitting as you can get).
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 13-05-2016, 12:05:53
Late war or early war? I get the sense that the SS and Wehrmacht only "open for all" during their desperate later era.

I know that in WW1 they use a lot of colonial troops. But that's after Kaiser Wilhelm II get over his "Yellow Peril" crusade and pinned by Russia and the West. Race politics might not be as prominent as in WW2, but old time Germany is old time Germany.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 13-05-2016, 15:05:16
Just to inject some history in here:

First of all, there were tons of black soldiers in the Kaiser's army, though most were indeed askari in Africa.  That said, there WERE blacks who made it to Germany as citizens and were duly conscripted like any other.  I don't know of any who became officers, but I have seen photos of guys who at least made it to high ranking NCO ranks.  Also many in cavalry units were used as drummers.  That said, they did see combat on the Western front for those who were already in Germany, and were not in any way segregated or disallowed from promotion.

As for WW2, there were no blacks in the SS that I am aware of, however there was a Heer unit raised in North Africa that later served as occupation troops in Crete that did have at least a couple blacks.  Also, blacks/mixed race Germans eho lived in Germany pre-war, it really differed from district to district whether thye were sent to concentration camps, disallowed from service, or, in very rare cases, drafted with everyone else.  It should be noted as well that most of the so-callled Rhinland Bastards, children of white Germans and lccupying French Senegalese post-WW1 were castrated by the Nazi government.


So basically, yes, in theory, you could play as a black German on the western front and be correct.  However I highly, HIGHLY doubt that DICE has seriously gone through that kind of reserach.  He is probably either representing someone on the Arabian Front, or a Harlem Hellfighter given that both have been announced as game content.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 13-05-2016, 17:05:31
But...but...but...

We already have Hollywood movies depicting black Americans impressed by non-segregated European armies. Also a National Geographic WW1 documentary depicting black German fighting in mostly white German units. And that anecdote that Hitler shook hands with black American Olympic Gold medalist, urged by Goebbels, while President FDR in the still segregated USA refused to do so.

Also Askari (probably from the Arabic word Laskar = warrior) has been existing since World War 1? I thought it was WW2 thing.

Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 13-05-2016, 17:05:01
And that anecdote that Hitler shook hands with black American Olympic Gold medalist, urged by Goebbels, while President FDR in the still segregated USA refused to do so.
I read that Hitler didn't shake hands. Not only not with the black winners (like Jesse Owens), but with nobody. He just didn't shake hands with the winners. Period.

Also Askari (probably from the Arabic word Laskar = warrior) has been existing since World War 1? I thought it was WW2 thing.
Also Askari in WW1, this guy even made it into a Freikorps after the war:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/94/19/ee94192069558e81a3a525d8b6d4d4af.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 13-05-2016, 17:05:21
Actually he acknowledged him in his after event speech whereas the US guy refused to or something along those lines. VonMudra prolly knows this.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 13-05-2016, 19:05:06
But...but...but...

We already have Hollywood movies depicting black Americans impressed by non-segregated European armies. Also a National Geographic WW1 documentary depicting black German fighting in mostly white German units. And that anecdote that Hitler shook hands with black American Olympic Gold medalist, urged by Goebbels, while President FDR in the still segregated USA refused to do so.

Also Askari (probably from the Arabic word Laskar = warrior) has been existing since World War 1? I thought it was WW2 thing.

Yes, Askari were a pre-WW1 thing.  There were, as I said, black Germans fighting in white German units- the Germans didn't have a segregated military, just there were very very very few blacks living in Germany proper at the time.  Hell, I have even seen a photo, that I wish I could find again, of a black Austro-Hungarian soldier.

Hitler, according to Owens, afforded him full cordiality.  FDR never got around to sending a congratulations because his secretaries said he was too busy.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 13-05-2016, 19:05:28
(http://i.imgur.com/UG3WBPK.jpg)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8a/b4/7c/8ab47cd40f6e393d4ee9f556f3a4e6a1.jpg)

(http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/agroup2qaa1.jpg)

(http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/002_elcher_uniform.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 13-05-2016, 20:05:32
Great to have this anecdote straighten out.

Anyway that last guy looked like Indian to me.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 13-05-2016, 20:05:35
Nope, he's definitely black:

Music Master Gustav Sabac el Cher, 1st Prussian Grenadiers

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Sabac_el_Cher

As for the drummer in Lifeguard Hussars, he was an orphan from Camaroon who was adopted by a white German family and brought back to Germany when they moved back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_Sambo

He was in 1st Lifeguard Hussars as a drummer.  The first two are unknown infantry troops, the one at top being a high ranking NCO as he is equipped with the NCO sword and officer's troddel.

Another black German infantryman:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ea/74/60/ea74609aee55b3b8f98b29adad2a9152.jpg)

And here's a photo of the drummer in Lifeguard Hussars:

(http://s400910952.websitehome.co.uk/germancolonialuniforms/photos/samboLGH.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 14-05-2016, 03:05:28
lets see..black guy with cape holding german pistol...it seems this gonna be soooo realistic..
i would play verdun instead of this

I really don't understand that view. Seriously, people here, should stop complaining about how a game or a movie set in an historical context is not historical.

It's not something surprising. "Historical" movie or game are art. Arts doesn't need to be accurate to be fun or good. It's arts. The same way science in movie or game doesn't make sense, history doesn't need to make sense.

In my opinion, if someone seek historical knowledge in movie and games, they are wrong and naive.

That said, "historical" movie or game can make people to be interest by history. I'm one of them. When I was 9 years old, I saw Saving private Ryan at the local theater and it spark an interest about WW2 and War. Sure it's not historical at all, but it spark an interest.

Those who reject arts because it's not historical have a wrong view of what is arts.

I'm really looking forward to play to BF1 and I know I will have way more fun than Verdun. Not that verdun is a bad game, but it have to many issue in my opinion.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 14-05-2016, 04:05:54
That said, "historical" movie or game can make people to be interest by history. I'm one of them. When I was 9 years old, I saw Saving private Ryan at the local theater and it spark an interest about WW2 and War. Sure it's not historical at all, but it spark an interest.

^This. I had no real interest in WW2 until I started playing Forgotten Hope, hearing the devs claim that it was 'historically accurate' and then doing my own research to verify it.

I'm doing this even now with 'Battlefield 1.' I've never had much of an interest in WW1, but this announcement has sparked it a little more. I've even subscribed to 'The Great War' channel and I'm slowly catching up on all the weeks I've missed since it started :)

Also, I'm not the only one. 'The Great War' did a unique video in response to all their new 'Battlefield 1' subscribers breaking down the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI)

It's what you'd expect, but I really like what he says at the very end;

"Overall, it is an entertainment product. And you probably won't get an accurate depiction of the horrors of the war. However, the trailer already shows a lot of aspects that are usually forgotten when talking about this war; the different theaters, the different vehicles... so it's definitely applaudable that the developers took a look at the whole conflict and all its aspects.... looks like a lot of fun tho..."

Really cool channel btw. You only need to watch 1 video a week and you learn a lot.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 14-05-2016, 05:05:55
I hold on to that view a lot of times, even now. But you will get a lot of "US army uniform is in wrong colour here." A couple of times and "respect our veterans" and show WW2 costume players dressing in US GIs Saving Private Ryan's on-screen uniform colour.

But let's say, this game is positive.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 14-05-2016, 15:05:54
I'm doing this even now with 'Battlefield 1.' I've never had much of an interest in WW1, but this announcement has sparked it a little more. I've even subscribed to 'The Great War' channel and I'm slowly catching up on all the weeks I've missed since it started :)


I'm really sorry to break this to you.  I had to respond to inquries about The Great War channel on the traction war forum, so here's what I posted there:

Quote
I'm sorry to say this, but that youtube channel is just....ok. I've watched a bunch of their videos, and while they sometimes have pretty good information, other times I just want to slap that guy. He's not a historian (he's an actor), so let's just get that clear, and he barely uses any sources in his work (yes, I know, he lists them), and those that he does use are mostly general histories or pop-histories. A lot of his broader information is therefore good, but when he gets into the details, or worse yet, gets into character studies, he stumbles hard and puts out mostly pop-mythos, or just flat out incorrect information.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 14-05-2016, 16:05:55


^This. I had no real interest in WW2 until I started playing Forgotten Hope, hearing the devs claim that it was 'historically accurate' and then doing my own research to verify it.

I'm doing this even now with 'Battlefield 1.' I've never had much of an interest in WW1, but this announcement has sparked it a little more. I've even subscribed to 'The Great War' channel and I'm slowly catching up on all the weeks I've missed since it started :)

Even today, after having a degree in anthropology with a specialization in archaeology, with a minor in history with a archivist degree (here it's a 1 year university degree) I will play a game like Assassin Creed it will still spark interest. Black Flag for example, remind me that piracy was something interesting from an historical perspective. So I did some research about it and found many book (History and archaeology) about it.

Because of BF1, my next book I will read will be Seven Pillars of Wisdom I have bought 2 or 3 years ago but didn't have the time to read it. Etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 14-05-2016, 16:05:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l20il6AHlWo

An analysis of the trailer. Pretty interesting that he missed the black German guy.

Could be an Ottoman soldier too though. Also, that black guy at the end of the trailer is part of Early Purchase bonus: Harlem Hellfighter themed sets.

God I wish so much this isn't made for a console!
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 14-05-2016, 17:05:33

Also, that black guy at the end of the trailer is part of Early Purchase bonus: Harlem Hellfighter themed sets.


Exactly my worst fear.  What a disservice to the actual harlem hellfighters to represent them like that....  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 14-05-2016, 20:05:33
I'm really looking forward to play to BF1 and I know I will have way more fun than Verdun. Not that verdun is a bad game, but it have to many issue in my opinion.
Did you play the latest version? Many issues have been resolved :)

About your argument: I see what you mean, but as a history teacher I have to correct views of kids very often. They take those views from watching a movie or Youtube, and although you are right about people looking for history in a movie being naive and wrong, most people are not actively looking for history there, but they are being fed "history" passively while watching something like SPR. Fortunately, kids are flexible and can bend their views quite easily after some explanation/education/research. Adults however are much more stubborn, they will not even admit they they start to believe something is historical just because they saw it in a historical drama, but that happens very often.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 14-05-2016, 20:05:59
I'm really sorry to break this to you.  I had to respond to inquries about The Great War channel on the traction war forum, so here's what I posted there:

Don't be sorry, I don't have any disillusion that everything I read or hear is gospel ;)

That's exactly what you watch the channel for, a general timeline of WW1. It's a way to present the history of WW1 in a (more or less) visual manner. When it comes to details or character studies of major generals, that's something that not even professional historians can be objective on tbh.

You have to take any history with a grain of salt anyway. No history that's re-told or re-written (even first hand accounts) is 100% accurate, because nobody that's ever lived is completely free of bias.

The channel isn't out to spread disinformation tho. It's a really good way to educate the layman on the broad history of WW1, and if you want more detail, get into more detail. He even mentions to read through other sources yourself because there is alot more info in them than can be gotten from five to 10 minutes per week.

Exactly my worst fear.  What a disservice to the actual harlem hellfighters to represent them like that....  :-\

Considering all video games based on real conflicts turn war into a literal game that people can have fun with. Wouldn't they all be considered a disservice to the actual people that fought there?

It's a video game, it's meant to bend history. Why does it matter to what degree it actually bends history?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 14-05-2016, 20:05:17
Why does it matter to what degree it actually bends history?
Because of this ;)
...most people are not actively looking for history there, but they are being fed "history" passively while watching something like SPR. (...) they start to believe something is historical just because they saw it in a historical drama
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: NTH on 14-05-2016, 21:05:24
As long as you have a correct high level view a game dev or movie director can have some artistic freedom while justifiably using the label or meta data "WW1 theme".
Let the young ones learn something about the pre WW1 era. They don't teach it in Netherlands for sure ...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 14-05-2016, 22:05:23
Let the young ones learn something about the pre WW1 era. They don't teach it in Netherlands for sure ...
Sure they do ;) You didn't get any lessons on the Dutch Revolt and the Republic of the Seven Provinces?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 14-05-2016, 22:05:39
...most people are not actively looking for history there, but they are being fed "history" passively while watching something like SPR. (...) they start to believe something is historical just because they saw it in a historical drama

If that's the case then I wouldn't take issue with DICE trying to make a fun video game. I'd take more issue with the people thinking that the video game is an accurate representation of history.

It's not the DICE devs' job to educate people on WW1. It's their job to make a fun video game that sells well. Just like I don't bemoan the Assassins Creed devs for twisting history or The Revenant for fictionalizing Hugh Glass' story etc... 
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 14-05-2016, 22:05:46

About your argument: I see what you mean, but as a history teacher I have to correct views of kids very often. They take those views from watching a movie or Youtube, and although you are right about people looking for history in a movie being naive and wrong, most people are not actively looking for history there, but they are being fed "history" passively while watching something like SPR. Fortunately, kids are flexible and can bend their views quite easily after some explanation/education/research. Adults however are much more stubborn, they will not even admit they they start to believe something is historical just because they saw it in a historical drama, but that happens very often.

For Verdun I will give another chance, but I will be playing lonely, but many of my friend will have BF1.

Like I said, it's naive from them, that's why you can explain it to them. I do that I lot to the people that surround me and I see the results.

That's said not everyone will see the light. It's not the fault of video game or movies, since they doesn't try to be historically accurate. It's a problem of worldview and pride. For example, someone with whom I was working saw a national geographic documentary about the maya and came to talk to me about it. I said to him that the documentary made mistake and he was piss. What can I do about it ? nothing, but that's not a real problem. If he doesn't want to learn it's his loss, not mine, not to history, simply because behind the rejection his behavior show that he don't want to learn.

You can't blame alcool because some drunk and drive or because others are alcoholic. You can't blame stubbornness and ignorance on arts and entertainment.

Even FH2 is not historical on many thing, it doesn't prevent that's a good game nor that many people will learn because of it.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 15-05-2016, 03:05:27
Yes, video games and television might be harmless. That Harlem Hellfighter DLC at less than $5 during Pre-Order though, it is quite interesting actually. But as a "themed sets". I don't know how it will play out, but they have specific segregated command unit in WW1 in US Army. But then, integrated into unsegregated French command. Also, the first to enter Germany? They were called Hellfighter by the Germans because of their ferocity in fighting?

Regarding spreading false information and our own filtering ability: I am a balanced person, thus I ask about Hitler vs. FDR cordiality to blacks, German vs. US (the WW2 victors) and reconfirm my knowledge. I know you lot have some qualifications, Slayer is a teacher, Mudra is educated historian, Alakazou is educated archaeologist. Well, I should source my materials carefully.

That black Olympic gold medalist (Jesse Owens) anecdote is one of those examples of twist & bend propaganda. It might seem harmless if that slightly inaccurate fact was presented like that. But to my Muslim friends, this anecdote is prone to be twisted into "winners re-write history", and then pro-Hitler message (e.g: see, Hitler is not really as racist as the 'Muricans actually was), which leads to anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish sentiment in general). For a lot of people outside the first and second world, Holocaust rarely have any significant meaning. My father was educated in Singapore (British system) and Canada (Montreal, Quebec), this is how he knows how serious it was. But others, well you have seen an Indonesian guy signing up in this forum posing with his sig runes avatar, as if that will fly cool even to our neo-nazi bunches. There is SS-themed cafe in Bandung, Indonesia. And one of our most famous artist, wore farby SS uniform during presidential election campaign.

According to my father, USA consisted of 50% blacks, as seen on movies. He didn't believe it when I say it was only 13-15%. Now, representation of blacks in movies anyone? He is quite okay though with almost no Asian in major pictures or music scenes. While, recently the SJWs made a fuss about that. I said to him that Latinos and Asians are under-represented, actually the number of Latinos are almost twice of the blacks. He is finding it difficult to accept either. I am beginning to agree with the SJWs now, but not the engineering diveristy part. If you ask, what's the harm? Well, this suddenly makes USA looks incredibly and systematically racist (which it is, but not that much). That plays well to the likes of Chinese Communist party piece, the North Korea, ISIS, and Iran propaganda machine. It keeps and legitimises racist policy in Asia very well (take a look at Malaysia's blatant discriminatory act, a Malay guy told me that "USA is no better").
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 15-05-2016, 22:05:22
For Verdun I will give another chance, but I will be playing lonely, but many of my friend will have BF1.
Add me on Steam and we can play together :)

It's not the fault of video game or movies, since they doesn't try to be historically accurate.
No, and I'm not blaming (pop) culture for deforming historical views. But it is very much a factor in how views are made, and like I said, sometimes even without the person acknowledging it.

I agree that sparking interest is a great thing: it's just a bit sad that people often don't go any further than this "popular" form of history, and take it for real. And then the real historians have to defend their educated views ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 17-05-2016, 01:05:32
Add me on Steam and we can play together :)
Yeah I will do that when I will reinstall verdun

No, and I'm not blaming (pop) culture for deforming historical views. But it is very much a factor in how views are made, and like I said, sometimes even without the person acknowledging it.

I agree that sparking interest is a great thing: it's just a bit sad that people often don't go any further than this "popular" form of history, and take it for real. And then the real historians have to defend their educated views ;)

I understand your point of view, but I think if someone doesn't want to go further, most of the time, they will not talk about it. If they talk about it and thing they are right, I will not care simply because they doesn't have learning to heart.

And sure many people can't acknowledge it, simply because it's our worldview. Worldview ensure that we are taking for absolute truth, thing without challenge it. In a way it's sad, but we can't save everyone.

I will focus on those who want to learn. Even if we lose some people, we will change the view of  others and that's in my opinion what worth it.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 25-05-2016, 04:05:10
Nice job FHSW ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIueVjAmHzA&feature=youtu.be&a (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIueVjAmHzA&feature=youtu.be&a)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 25-05-2016, 10:05:57
Funny thing is that the BF1 trailer didnt make me want to play that game, but the FHSW trailer makes me want to play FHSW.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 25-05-2016, 14:05:11
That was well done! ;D

If it had some content from BF1918 it would be even better.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 06-06-2016, 21:06:32
Here new footage about BF1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8J4BXdwMy8

and some information about the weapons:

https://www.battlefield.com/games/battlefield-1/weapons?utm_campaign=bf1_hd_ww_ic_soco_twt_bf1-weapons-6062016-tw&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cid=6580&ts=1465243205341&sf46726420=1
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 06-06-2016, 22:06:00
Quote
If your weapon of choice is an assault rifle or a powerful LMG, Battlefield 1 is loaded with guns to scratch your trigger finger on.

There are six categories of weapons.
There are your Shotguns (great for blasting enemies from up close), SMGs (made for short range rapid-fire), LMGs (amazing at tearing things apart from medium range), Semi Autos (balanced and powerful), Sidearms (great in a pinch), and Sniper Rifles (which do exactly what you think).

UGHHHHHHH  >:(

Because the first thing that comes to mind when playing a WW1 game is fast paced LMG and SMG action? Or am i misunderstanding something?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Korsakov829 on 06-06-2016, 23:06:52
Oooh, assault rifles... do they come in black and polished steel?

lol no explicit mention of bolt rifles
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 07-06-2016, 01:06:56
Does everyone with a nostalgia boner for BF1942 remember the Japanese getting the 'Type 4' (type 5) rifle?... you know, the one where only 250 were ever made, and never actually saw action, and were designed in 1944, yet they were carried on Wake Island in game?

I wonder if those guys complain about Battlefield 1's accuracy :P
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 07-06-2016, 19:06:24
Does everyone with a nostalgia boner for BF1942 remember the Japanese getting the 'Type 4' (type 5) rifle?... you know, the one where only 250 were ever made, and never actually saw action, and were designed in 1944, yet they were carried on Wake Island in game?

I wonder if those guys complain about Battlefield 1's accuracy :P

I think many people have just understand that BF1 would not be historically accurate and they are in shock. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Berkolok on 12-06-2016, 22:06:54
new footage shows that it will be just reskinnned bf4.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 12-06-2016, 23:06:18
Yep, everyone is equipped with an MP18 or a Madsen LMG, shotguns and some weird semi-autos everywhere. Semi-auto sniper rifles, fast-firing dual purpose guns (at/aa), A7V and british Mk Vs rushing at 30mph, FT17 and some armored cars. Pre-alpha shows a total lack of trenches or positional warfare, it's fast like the US offensive in Iraq, 2003.
The damage is ridiculous and you need multiple rifle shots to the body for a kill, everyone has a parachute...
There are weird "experimental" scopes mounted on rifles, there's a general lack of dug covered positions, everything (on that one map) is above ground, and there's an AC-130. I mean the Zeppelin.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 12-06-2016, 23:06:12
I want to type out long explanatory replies and argue why most of the opinions I see here are shallow and not thought through. But I guess at this point it's easier to just rolly eyes as it has more-or-less the same effect ::)

Either way, gameplay looked promising to me. It seemed like BF4 gameplay but also it felt a bit like it was going back to the direction of the 'core' of battlefield. i.e. the game is more fun if you play as a team.

The tanks, planes, zeppelin etc, all seem to work better and look more fun if you have them fully crewed. 'Solo-ing' vehicles is possible, but infinitely more fun if you work together.

Amazing destruction that actually has an effect on the battlefield. Changing weather just like in BF4 but has obviously been refined to be more immersive. Even more/better melee animations. New 'entering-vehicle' animations which are awesome imo.

Also, I like how DICE's gameplay reveal is an actual gameplay reveal. It's not like watchdogs or rainbow six where they show 'enhanced' scripted gameplay. DICE knows their product is awesome and they'll show it to you as-is (more or less.) Kudos to them.

Looks good, I'll wait to see what kinda content they promise before buying it tho. I don't wanna get dicked over like Battlefront :P If they support this game like they did with BF4 then this is way worth the $60. (or $100+ after all the DLCs)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Wilhelm on 13-06-2016, 00:06:53
The Twitch stream of 64 player match. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/06/12/battlefield-1-64-player-gameplay-e3/#more-374039

Arcade as all hell, but it looks like a ton of fun to play!  Still wish we could get more realistic shooters with that level of detail and destruction.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 13-06-2016, 02:06:28
I want to type out long explanatory replies and argue why most of the opinions I see here are shallow and not thought through. But I guess at this point it's easier to just rolly eyes as it has more-or-less the same effect ::)


Indeed.

Seriously people doesn't seem to understand that those game are not historically accurate. Bf1942 wasnt' either, but it was a damn fine game.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 13-06-2016, 02:06:40
Also, cool new 'gameplay' trailer. (just another trailer really)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY3hlQEOc0&index=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY3hlQEOc0&index=1)

And Ian even does a nice video pointing out the crazy weapons being used and what will evenatually be in-game ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19hohCtdJ4Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19hohCtdJ4Y)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 13-06-2016, 03:06:02
Jackfrag was one of those who played the game today

here some new footage he made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkRcvtGE90Q
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 13-06-2016, 07:06:01
Looks good, I'll wait to see what kinda content they promise before buying it tho. I don't wanna get dicked over like Battlefront :P If they support this game like they did with BF4 then this is way worth the $60. (or $100+ after all the DLCs)

They already have all sorts of extras in Origin. I think it will be that $100+ game. Will probably try for the fun's sake. Not going to lie, but I really want to shell money for the unlocks sometime. It is frustrating to progress in a stalemate MP session, and people will find a lot of stalemates in close quarter maps pretty fast.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst on 13-06-2016, 07:06:14
Couldnt they just have called the game 'battlefield steampunk'. Everybody would have been happy.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Dukat on 13-06-2016, 14:06:50
Jackfrag was one of those who played the game today

here some new footage he made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkRcvtGE90Q

What I relly dislike are games that highlight enemies with a red dot above their head, making you actually shoot red dotted shadows instead of actually recognized enemies.

And then this video reminds me rather to WW2 than WW1. The buildings, the colors, the vehicle speed, the running, the whole type of combat would perfectly fit for a WW2 shooter. Oh wait, it's Battlefield, no wonder, ehh.

Definetely 2 fast paced for WW1.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 13-06-2016, 18:06:35
Imagine modding it ! It would be awesome.
Video of Gameplay show a cool Benet-Mercie lmg !

Unfortunately it can't, so the game will suck as much as a modern game with a ww1 skin
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 13-06-2016, 19:06:17
Imagine modding it ! It would be awesome.
You must remember that we are too stupid to be able to mod the game. Only Dice devs who has an average IQ score of 230+ are smart enough to even comprehend the tools you must master to be able to mod on the frostbite engine. It is just too complicated.  8)  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: McCloskey on 13-06-2016, 19:06:41
Battlefield 1 - looks so good, feels so wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 13-06-2016, 20:06:00
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.twitch.tv/battlefield/v/72078007?t=01h55m46s

HAHAhaha Stoned guys ready for some gaming

Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Leopardi on 13-06-2016, 21:06:52
Pre-alpha shows a total lack of trenches or positional warfare
https://www.battlefield.com/news/article/battlefield-1-operations-mode?utm_campaign=bf1_hd_ww_ic_soco_twt_bf1-operations-6122016&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cid=7923&ts=1465772407721&sf46877994=1
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: LuckyOne on 13-06-2016, 22:06:06
You must remember that we are too stupid to be able to mod the game. Only Dice devs who has an average IQ score of 230+ are smart enough to even comprehend the tools you must master to be able to mod on the frostbite engine. It is just too complicated.  8)  ::)

The funny thing is, the tools are probably the easiest to use to date... The only problem is that they need an army of artists & coders to make so much content of this quality (and in such short time!).

I guess EA just doesn't want more independent competition. People who start modding AAA engines might get an absurd idea of making their own games, better games even, and then people might stop buying whatever recycled products and day 1 DLCs EA shoves down their throats ...  ::)

Well. at least we can hope for a future WWII reboot if this succeeds. But the feeling that we all had the first time we were amazed by BF1942 probably won't be there.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: NTH on 14-06-2016, 19:06:02
Pre-alpha shows a total lack of trenches or positional warfare
https://www.battlefield.com/news/article/battlefield-1-operations-mode?utm_campaign=bf1_hd_ww_ic_soco_twt_bf1-operations-6122016&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cid=7923&ts=1465772407721&sf46877994=1

Interesting game mode
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-06-2016, 21:06:12
i'm still gonna run around with my Gewehr 98 mit seitengewehr...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst on 16-06-2016, 09:06:27
The only one, who could save this game would be damaso. He would bring back the bayonette charges back to the game. Napoleonic wars event anyone?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-06-2016, 15:06:44
Appearntly..

Bolt action rifles are only avaiable with the ...sniper class




The Fuck
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 23-06-2016, 15:06:23
Appearntly..

Bolt action rifles are only avaiable with the ...sniper class




The Fuck

I was sorta mad at first that Battlefield 1 was obviously completely ahistorical.  But you have to remember that Battlefield 1942 had Japanese infantrymen running around with MG-42's as apparently standard gear.  The way I see it is that Battlefield 1 and the like are for more mindless fun and FH2 is for historic fun.  Also it seems clear that Battlefield 1 is taking place in some sort of alternate history World War I, right?  I suppose the only reason that this is a shame is because a lot of people think WWI would be boring from a video game standpoint unless you completely re-write history, which is untrue and unfortunate.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-06-2016, 15:06:31
They never mentioned alternate reality IIRC.

I dont care about that tough, just put the bolt action rifles in the rifleman class...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 23-06-2016, 15:06:32
Yeah but it's one thing to give the Japs the experimental Type 5 and the MG42, and a completely another thing to arm all the armies with semi- and full auto weapons as if it were completely normal for the 1914-1918 war. That's just wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Dancho on 23-06-2016, 21:06:30


I was sorta mad at first that Battlefield 1 was obviously completely ahistorical.  But you have to remember that Battlefield 1942 had Japanese infantrymen running around with MG-42's as apparently standard gear.  The way I see it is that Battlefield 1 and the like are for more mindless fun and FH2 is for historic fun.  Also it seems clear that Battlefield 1 is taking place in some sort of alternate history World War I, right?  I suppose the only reason that this is a shame is because a lot of people think WWI would be boring from a video game standpoint unless you completely re-write history, which is untrue and unfortunate.


That was still less weird than BF1.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Musti on 24-06-2016, 07:06:29
To me, it's a pointless waste of a theme. Why make a WWI game if it's going to have very little to do with WWI? Outside of making a buzz in the media and generating hype ofc.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-06-2016, 08:06:43
I yesterday began playing verdun again and having loads and loads of fun. If only they have the austrian-hungarians...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 24-06-2016, 11:06:28
In BF1942, the Japanese side are carrying StG 44 and MP-18 SMG. Their bunkers were armed with MG-42 and Todt coastal battery.

In 2002, you are beggars and you can't choose.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Klimax on 25-06-2016, 11:06:41
Appearntly..

Bolt action rifles are only avaiable with the ...sniper class




The Fuck

Battlefield was never realistic at this point. Remember the days of BF1942. Almost every map faced Tiger tanks, STG44 etc. ;)

Of course it would be pleasant to have a more historical oriented mode. I think about only 20vs20 players on standard maps for less crowded gameplay and of course focussing bolt-action-rifles. Whoever played FH2 won't miss them again.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst on 25-06-2016, 17:06:12
In BF1942, the Japanese side are carrying StG 44 and MP-18 SMG. Their bunkers were armed with MG-42 and Todt coastal battery.

In 2002, you are beggars and you can't choose.

Back then with the never seen gameplay was new, so you could oversee this easily. And with the patches they tried to fix this, e.g. the type 96 MG.

But on the other hand, this is 2016. In particular the newer battlefield titles throw so much varierity and gadgets on you, that some limits, e.g. only certain factions carry certain weapons, could have even been beneficial.
Just think about RTS games, e.g. starcraft, where you find several heavily different factions. You can only master the game, if you master the specialities. Such a concept could easily fit into multiplayer shooters aswell. And we are back to a game like FH2 and its sometimes assymetric layouts.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2016, 17:07:02
I knew historical inaccuracy would be big with battlefield 1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZcYmP9wfVw


But seeing at the classes and the loadouts...
my frikking god


Not to mention the extremely weird thing that the scout class of the Imperial german army is.....black?

Whats this? extreme left winged multiculturist assholes who demanded it?
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst_Kroenen on 04-07-2016, 19:07:12
I knew historical inaccuracy would be big with battlefield 1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZcYmP9wfVw


But seeing at the classes and the loadouts...
my frikking god


Not to mention the extremely weird thing that the scout class of the Imperial german army is.....black?

Whats this? extreme left winged multiculturist assholes who demanded it?

Wow scouts for real? And from what i can see you can equip your soldier with all kinds of weapons from all nations not only with german weapons.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ts4EVER on 04-07-2016, 19:07:38
You do realize that Germany had black askaris in its army? So the inclusion of a black player model is not less realistic than all the space age guns.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 04-07-2016, 19:07:55
They should´ve just ported Battlefield 1918 to the new engine, but I guess that wouldn´t be hip enough for a wider audience.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2016, 19:07:37
You do realize that Germany had black askaris in its army? So the inclusion of a black player model is not less realistic than all the space age guns.
Space age guns... some of the guns in BF1 look like they belong in some steampunk novel

Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 04-07-2016, 19:07:22
I think von Mudra's post from earlier pages already confirmed about the existence of black German officers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askari#German_colonies

Making less "hip" games aside. Let's address some 14-years old players with full length bolt-action rifle, getting repeatedly mowed down by Maxim gunners. The gunners raking up all achievements by bodycounts in game, while the riflemen's K/D deficit "forced" them to rage quit and abandon the franchise altogether.

I admit, DICE are being not creative enough with the gameplay to accomodate realism and accuracy, but it's the best they can do. Given they have chosen the theme too creatively, and having such a short development time, it is good already.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst_Kroenen on 04-07-2016, 21:07:19
You do realize that Germany had black askaris in its army? So the inclusion of a black player model is not less realistic than all the space age guns.

But I thought that they fought only in Africa...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2016, 21:07:50
Seems as hindu's and colonial african troops from france would fit in to....

oooh wait, we dont have a france in BF1 release....

but wait! Belgian congo....
no...no Belgian army in BF1....

Thank god for a 60 euro season pass!
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ts4EVER on 04-07-2016, 21:07:11
You do realize that Germany had black askaris in its army? So the inclusion of a black player model is not less realistic than all the space age guns.

But I thought that they fought only in Africa...

And they only used the Mondragon on airships.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2016, 21:07:22
Yeah, during the famous airship battle of Verdun, were hundreds of airships clashed, the mondragon really stood out. The german mondragon hitted harder then the british one, but the british, because of the larger 20 round magazine, were able to pull out more shots
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 04-07-2016, 22:07:28
You do realize that Germany had black askaris in its army? So the inclusion of a black player model is not less realistic than all the space age guns.

There were tons of blacks in the German army...in AFRICA.  There are only a few known blacks to have served in the German military in Europe during the war, and most served as musicians/bandsmen.  That does NOT imply that there were so many blacks who served that they should be represented as a class.  We're talking that there is photographic evidence of 4 blacks that I know of who served in the European theater with the German army, and only 2 are named and their backgrounds known.

And just as a fun fact- there was a black pilot in the Russian Imperial Army, and I even have a photo of a black soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 05-07-2016, 01:07:23
Ignoring the useless discussion of historical accuracy in a AAA game published by EA...

If I play infantry and I wanna kinda immerse myself, it looks like I'll be sticking to the recon class and hopefully modifying its scopes and gadgets to strip it down. It would be easier if they had a way to pre-set the loadout I chose so I can make a loadout for Germans, British etc... without having to change the guns every time.

Interested to see more armies and maps.

EDIT: Saw this leak on reddit; someone (obviously) datamined the alpha files and found some info for the game. Take it how you will;

https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/4qu1pm/maxi_leak_by_the_big_lobix300/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/4qu1pm/maxi_leak_by_the_big_lobix300/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/4qwl55/more_bf1_leaks/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/4qwl55/more_bf1_leaks/)

important bits, there's a whole damn weapons list and map list. Idk how 'final' these are but they probably give a good indication of things. Also, armies names;
Quote
AUT / AUS (Not Australia - Austria-Hungary.)
GER
FR
ITA
RU
UK
US
OTT / OTM / TK
this probably includes future packs etc...

also a bunch of those camos are probably still holdovers from BF4

cool leak
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-07-2016, 08:07:54
I see the steyr-mannlicher M1895....nice

But look at the amount of content..thats actually quite...low
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 10-07-2016, 13:07:50
  Kinda bummed that it looks like bayonets are either on or off depending on your loadout.  I was in hopes that maybe it would work more like RO2 with bayonets being employed might cause a little more sway and inaccuracy to aimed fire.   :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 15-07-2016, 03:07:54
GOD DAMMIT. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR UNWORTHY EYES!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGqtZc-xsQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGqtZc-xsQ)

This doesn't make me want to play it, it makes me want someone to MOD it. FOR CHRIST SAKES DICE GIVE IT TO US!

Someone get on some shady Chinese hacker forums and throw bitcoins at them to make them mod this engine. :'(

In all seriousness this game is beautiful. IF I got this game (and that's a big if) and IF I had a computer to run it like this (an even bigger if). This is how I would wanna play the game. HUD-off full-on eye-gasm.

Give me Purple Heart Lane on this Engine, Pegasus, Siege of Giarabub, anything pls.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 15-07-2016, 07:07:51
Given how much flak gaming community has been receiving lately, I doubt modding would be supported by the likes of EA. Even a game like Pokemon Go! is already reported to be child predator-exploitable by the British government. Niantic, Google are curious scientists, EA and the likes are narcissistic corporations, they will not do it for the sake of anti-violence bleeding hearts, I guess. So we should really start farming bitcoins for the Chinese hackers.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Oberst_Kroenen on 15-07-2016, 19:07:58
GOD DAMMIT. LOOK AT IT. LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR UNWORTHY EYES!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGqtZc-xsQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGqtZc-xsQ)

Damn that does look really nice. I love the reload animation of the AT gun. But as always not very historically accurate. Has anyone noticed that the tanks are not divided by nation - like the german light tank is the renault. And who new that WW1 era men were so strong they didn't have to deploy LMG's to fire them accurately.  :D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 16-07-2016, 15:07:58
The uniforms are also all incredibly wrong, the weapons for nations are wrong, the gear is wrong....  Basically it's like they fired their historical researchers and did whatever they wanted.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-07-2016, 09:07:43
atleast BF1942 had a small mild side sauce of authenticity...

Simply the fact i cannot have a bolt action rifle in the regular "assault" class makes me sick..

Thankfully atleast many people are demanding it towards EA. But then i bet people will be whining when someone who has the skill to aim and shoot in one shot at close range..
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 03-08-2016, 16:08:53
Battlefield 1 Funny Moments - Mythbusting & Martial Arts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5013F1iwS4g

One to Watch .-)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alakazou on 15-08-2016, 18:08:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwXbF1VTKU

New trailer
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 31-08-2016, 14:08:08
The beta is now open to public:

https://www.origin.com/en-us/store/free-games/demos-betas
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Chad1992 on 11-09-2016, 03:09:01
It looks cool and has nice features.  But its just another run and gun.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Torenico on 20-09-2016, 00:09:06
Ahh you're so dead Battlefield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw9KcqQSRRI

Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 20-09-2016, 23:09:47
Wouldn't be BF game if it didn't have funny glitches and bugs.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 21-09-2016, 02:09:38
Sadly, many of the things I find hilarious about the game aren't bugs or glitches at all.

They're the actual components and design of the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 18-10-2016, 19:10:58
Just pre-ordered at this cheap link

http://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/battlefield-1-pc-origin?gclid=CjwKEAjwkJfABRDnhbPlx6WI4ncSJADMQqxdWl12m3FZJuPANfcS3VrnVgE3ubJI-L-03mL6qE2IBxoC5ybw_wcB
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Torenico on 25-10-2016, 06:10:17
What the...

I was watching TotalBiscuit review on this game's Singleplayer Campaign. Go to hell, seriously, rot in hell Battlefield.

Supersoldier shit?. Battlefield, please. Remember when you used to be a serious game in the past?. Yeah, the Japanese did not used StG-44s nor the Allies had M10 Wolverines in El Alamein, among other historical innacuracies, but at least it tried to be a serious game, it had that WW2 feeling, it was fun, no Fallout-like Power Armors, no super soldier taking out waves of enemies with a machinegun in WW1...

This monumental piece of crap only tries to be a Call of Duty but with some "WW1 feeling", they missed WW1 completely, these days BFs are made to compete with CoD and nothing else. They insulted WW1, they pretend to be serious but they're just laughing at WW1, being totally unrealistic on so many levels.


You're so dead, Battlefield. You had a point one day, 1942 got us into WW2, made it interesting with the limited tools and resources we had back then, Vietnam brought attention to a War that is somewhat forgotten, BF2 brought us this fantastic game set in modern times, 2142 brought us the last true Battlefield, an experiment that went very well for DICE..., after that it was just trying to remain competitive in the market against Call of Duty.., releasing new titles became a sport, dragged into that by their Nemesis, Battlefield became an Annual game, like the other piece of crap.


1942-2142, rest in peace. I'll remain true to the original series.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 25-10-2016, 16:10:22
I Like the single player a lot. Still have 4 maps left.
Not enough maps, but maybe more will come in the future.
Battlefield 1 is an awesome action game just like Wolfenstein. I see no point of hating it.
 

Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Torenico on 25-10-2016, 22:10:09
I Like the single player a lot. Still have 4 maps left.
Not enough maps, but maybe more will come in the future.
Battlefield 1 is an awesome action game just like Wolfenstein. I see no point of hating it.
 

It's not about hating, it's about staying true to the series. Battlefield always made you feel part of a big battle, you were just "one more soldier". Remember the 1942 campaign, of course it had no cutscenes nor main characters, it was just their maps arranged in historical order..., and that was it. To me, it was a great gamemode, trying to win every single map with a "Total Victory" (or something) as Axis was challenging, because you had no steel armor and a heavy machinegun to take down entire divisions of enemies..., despite being "the special one", you had no unlocks, no BS guns or nothing, you were literally on the same level as the bots.

BF1 campaign is all about yourself, as always, you win the entire war on your own, pretty much. That's no Battlefield...

"Matteo and the entire Italian Offensive was in danger as long as that artillery gun remained. So I had to take it down", that's so Call of Duty, Ramirez...
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 26-10-2016, 01:10:19
Yea, can't agree. Battlefield Single Player has always been crap. It's always an after thought to the core multiplayer game.

This Battlefield Single player (from what I've seen) is the best BF Single Player ever. Sure they stole most of the 'get to cover/ kill all enemy's/ advance' from from Call of Duty and it's still an after thought, but it at least has better cut scenes ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-10-2016, 16:10:18
battlefield 1 is a huge leap forward compared to the modern AAA shooters. But it STILL is a Triple AAA shooter. And appearntly it has to be one to be succesfull, wich is bullcrap

I really love the tonnes of WW1 era weapons in it. Even the many experimental ones. But some things blatently copied from AAA shooters is just..wrong

Lets look for example at the classes= Assault, medic, support, scout. HURRAY the same bogged down crap as we saw in the previous games...Now very weirdly placed in a WW1 shooter?
I am a simple man. When i think about WW1, i think about trench warfare and bolt action rifles with bayonets, watercooled MG's & such.

Can we make this properly work in a massive consumer game? not as much.

But we have tonnes of weapons in this game but..ONLY 4 bolt action rifles? seriously?
We have the Mauser G98, SMLE, Springfield & Steyr mannlicher M1895.
And things become in a way cool here. As DICE gives you the first time ever a modern game= THE steyr mannlicher. A cool design IRL, and many people are now "Wow? a straight pull rifle?i did not knew this exist! amazing!" And they even give you the correct rifle & Stutzen variants! Awesome!

But scopes on every fucking weapon? short to mid range scopes? sights? Seriously?

I just want a bolt action rifle with a bayonet. Thats all. But if you play on multiplayer...well you are in a huge disadvantage because everyone has these fucking scopes, running around and gunning around like madmen...

Atleast give a historical mode?

In ways this is a leap forward but in ways they jump right back at where they started..
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 26-10-2016, 16:10:16
Agree.
Singleplayer is maybe in a console gamer favor and not in a pc gamer bf1942 style of way. But its still much fun
In bf singleplayer you can wrench/repair plane while flying  ;D
In fh2 many players can repair tank on top of it while tank is driving & shooting around in the battlefield.
You can wear a helmet and still you die when crashing that bicycle. But its just a fun part of the game :-)
 
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 26-10-2016, 16:10:35
I think the real mistake is thinking that a game has to be similar to a modern shooter to be fun, like Theta said.  I see that argument a lot about battlefield 1.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: VonMudra on 26-10-2016, 17:10:27
I think the real mistake is thinking that a game has to be similar to a modern shooter to be fun, like Theta said.  I see that argument a lot about battlefield 1.

This, basically.  In general, yes, they will always be successful with a AAA shooter.  But to claim that they couldn't have been successful with something more accurate to the history of WW1 is ludicrous.  Personally, I WOULD put down money for a COD1/2 style of historical accuracy WW1 shooter.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Dancho on 05-11-2016, 01:11:39
Today I saw a guy on YouTube playing with a Gewehr 95+iron sights and bayonet. I find this extremely fun and entertaining, and also the feeling of hiting an enemy at huge distance is so pleasing. Yes, it puts you in a bit of a disadvantage but it is still better than playing with those weird SMGs and MGs with scopes. I don't know why everyone should play with those automatic weapons and say "Bolt-action is stupid because I am stupid". Don't the players have some imagination? This is why I am not really into AAA games because the players only care about how to gain some advantage over the others (shouldn't they actually?) in any possible way. No one cares how idiotic their weapon looks.

Another thing I noticed is the map layout and object placement and it kinda reminds me FH2, just a little bit but it does. I was hoping that the gameplay will resamble FH2 too, at least a bit. Let's hope for something like Historical Mod or something altough I don't believe this will hapen. Heck, look at the World of Tanks historical mod-it existed for a very short time and you had to wait sometimes for 10-15 mins. to join a match. As far as I remember Wargaiming screw this idea because there weren't enough players. IMO such thing can drag many peole to play the game and it doesn't cost much. Just create a server with limitation for rifles only without much fancy gadgets and a few MGs-just like in FH2.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-11-2016, 12:11:46
You know, atleast DICE listened for once. For example in BF1 beta, you could reload the Steyr M.95 one bullet at a time. Someone on youtube demonstrated this with his own steyr that this is impossible. DICE redesigned it before release. I guess the touch for historical accuracy is in the game...but EA is the one who decides how this game actually will be.

For example, WW1 had many wacky experimental weapons who looked odd and even steampunk like. One of the reason why EA wanted them in is to show to the world " HEY WE GOT A GAME WITH NEW GUNS"

And then you realise they barely scratched the surface of WW1 era weapons.

I played BF1 on my mates account today. And yeah, i just took a Steyr M95 with bayonet and pure iron sights. I really enjoyed playing like this, especially when you gun down sprayer and prayers.

Instead of the usual ZOMG RUSH RUSH JUMP GUN GUN tactic, i actually advanced carefully, aimed and fired. And well it kinda works to a certain degree. But its nice to see that alot of people in BF1 follow this path. Just a bolt action rifle, bayonet and iron sights.

Its an improvement over the past decade of AAA shooters. But it still is one
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 06-11-2016, 00:11:02
Agree with you guys.
But engine of game is soo good. Wow imagine FH3 on it, with Pak reload animations,destuctible enviroment,naval gameplay,ENTER/EXIT VEHLICHLE ANIMATION

Just saying.Really cool eengine.But would like that lighting of map is something like Squad and reactable foliage
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Dancho on 06-11-2016, 00:11:53
I think it is very hard to do what Ivanic listed above. Just look at it: 3 tanks, 1 gun, 1 armored car and those  jihadist pick up trucks ;D, a few planes, a single train and some Naval vessels. And they (DICE) said they've been working on BF1 since BF4. Battlefield has never had a big variety of vehicles but the amount of vehicles in BF1 is just small. Considering this, I think it is helluva lot of work to make even a single vehicle.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Ivancic1941 on 06-11-2016, 10:11:49
Yes,I was just applying that the game engine has code in it that would allow you to intergrade that kind of stuff in game. Its like: FH2 works because it is using bf2 engine and code-you cant make anything more in FH2 and PR that bf2 engine doesnt allow (it doesnt allow enter vehlichle animation,so you cant ever to make one in FH2).

However this engine has everything that I said plus it has some naval gameplay so I asume it could be usable for recreation everything that bf1942 had and more.

Just one observation.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Sander93 on 06-11-2016, 20:11:55
Game looks very good, but I'm not gonna pay over 100 euros for the game with premium. I'll wait a year and pick it up half priced.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Leopardi on 08-11-2016, 20:11:00
Game looks very good, but I'm not gonna pay over 100 euros for the game with premium. I'll wait a year and pick it up half priced.
I got the game for 37€, and then I'll pick up premium from a good offer if there'll be.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Aggroman on 14-11-2016, 22:11:26
Bought the game on saturday for my weekend fun since I'm exploring germany right from monday to friday doing my duty for the country. ;D

I thought it's going to be a complete teenager fun shooter with no real facts about the first World War and all kind of prototype weapons and science fiction guns, typical meatgrinder maps and horrific fast-living gameplay. And kind of, it is.
Still, I really have to say that I haven't had so much fun with videogame for a very long time, MGS V was great but way too commercial and killed the best videogame series in my opinion, Far Cry 4 had it's nice story and countryside but was over way too fast and Battlefront II, well, it was Batllefront II....

Battlefield 1 has a huge potential to be an awesome game, the graphics are a blast, the destruction is driving me insane, the vehicle spawn system is perfect and the self-repair makes tanks and planes much more valuable for the player. They even were able to put a blasting atmosphere in the game, I mean, the distance sounds, the effects and the screaming soldiers really get you into the feeling of war.
The balancing also works out great, every team has the same guns, vehicles and the behemoths are game-changing. Plus there are many things to play around with and do foolish things (flare gun, flamethrowers, horses...), the typical battlefield feeling I missed for quite some long time.
It sure is disappointing that the historical facts are missing, I mean, MP18s with what appears to be a reddot sight, axis tanks for the entente and the over way around and many other things. If you are just looking at the game though, it sure is worth is money, games nowadays are sadly fixed on making money and not teaching you history but that's how it is and I accept that.

Don't want to miss the next battle in amiens, lurking around the ruins with my sniper rifle, putting down booby traps and hunting for enemies in the narrow roads, filled with gas, blood and screaming soldiers. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: FHMax3 on 08-12-2016, 19:12:05
Maybe in 30 years, there will be a Forgotten Hope mod for BF1 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 08-12-2016, 20:12:05
In 30 years, video gaming will probably change very much from what it is now and BF1's graphics + features will look "old". ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: FHMax3 on 08-12-2016, 20:12:04
Exactly, but it might still be great and I can only imagine how FH2 would look in the BF1 engine.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 11-03-2017, 13:03:59
French Army join the fight in the first Battlefield 1

Battlefield 1 Official They Shall Not Pass Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXl2ZybwTk

Gonna be fun :-)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 11-03-2017, 16:03:02
Good to see french added to the game, altho one could argue that they should have been there in the first place...

Not that I care all that much since I dont play the game, but I can at least appreciate their effort to include more nations. Darn good looking game thought.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 11-03-2017, 23:03:56
Believe it or not, I'm actually having a blast with BF1. Frostbite is just beautiful..

I haven't had this much fun with DICE titles since BF1942.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 13-03-2017, 21:03:57
yep. BF1 is so beautiful with its action packed graphics that you dont see the enemy before its too late. But its a very good response time training simulator :-)
The net code in Bf1 is also very tight. I have not experienced any server crash, stutter, lag or what so ever. Everything just runs like a hot knife on top of cold butter (Much better than Mac+console)
Dunno if net code its a part of frostbite engine or something else ?
I hope to see a 100+ player trench fight server in the future if possible :-)
Often when game engines are discussed in forrums I find it mostly always about the fancy graphics and not about how clients and master work out the net. Maybe net code cant get any better than <100 players and We are all just waiting for 5G around 2022 +/-  -:)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 14-03-2017, 15:03:33
Actually most BF games are good, except BF4, that's just a dumbed down BF3. Anyway, less nitpicking aside, BF1 does interest me a lot. I saw some Indonesian guy play it without lagging. Well, I might give it a try.

I just have some fit with Origin. Hundreds of Gigabytes of games just went missing, despite clearly being there and the stupid software just asked me to re-download the whole thing. Nope thanks, uninstalled it altogether.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 14-03-2017, 18:03:07
I have to admit, getting the Ultimate Edition for BF1 was the way to go (early access to the new DLC, extra benefits for examples).

It's actually on sale with Origin now, so you can get it for $77.98 (in U.S.) instead of the whopping $129.98. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 14-03-2017, 23:03:55
I have to admit, getting the Ultimate Edition for BF1 was the way to go (early access to the new DLC, extra benefits for examples).

It's actually on sale with Origin now, so you can get it for $77.98 (in U.S.) instead of the whopping $129.98. :)

BF1 had a price tag of $129.98???  :o

Call me old-fashioned but I will never go above $49.99.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Roughbeak on 15-03-2017, 02:03:08
Well to be specific, the Ultimate Edition was that price. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Zoologic on 15-03-2017, 07:03:15
Really CPS? $50? That was like 15 years ago. Today, an AAA title will set you back at least $60.
My pre-order of Simcity cost me $72 with 10% discount (with 2 "free DLCs" and 1 exclusive DLC), so it is $80 at full retail price. That was 2013, and now I never even touched that game. They throw in BF3 standard for free, because of the launch problems. Then they got me hooked, costing me another $24 (at a discount) for the packs and expansions.

I bought BF4 deluxe at $55, that is a 50% discount. Then I bought another map packs and other packs for another $18. So if BF1 asks for $80, that's a fair game. But $130? Bloody hole, that's a rip off. Another reason I abandoned The Sims altogether. Also, another reason why Indie game publishers / developers are booming.
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 15-03-2017, 16:03:37
Money is still better spent Vs cinema+cola+popcorn or Netflix or etc..  ;D

Some One playing Bf1 GTX 1080Ti SLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vd08z9ifSU
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Slayer on 15-03-2017, 20:03:28
BF1 had a price tag of $129.98???  :o

Call me old-fashioned but I will never go above $49.99.
"Old-fashioned!"

Oops, I did it ;)

Nah, I agree. I'm very happy that most games I like I try out first (demos, friends accounts, other ways), and then after some years of playing FH2 for ree I buy them on Steam sale for a few Euros.

My most expensove game was BF2 because I bought it when it came out. All my other games were on a  discount. I think it's something like this (only games I paid for):

1) BF2: 50 Euros
2) Half-life 1: 30 Euros
3) Company of Heroes 2 plus all expansions: 25 Euros
4) Battlefield 1942: 20 Euros
5) Company of Heroes 1 plus all expansions: 18 Euros
6) Verdun: 10 Euros
7) Civilization IV plus all expansions: 7 Euros
8 ) Red Orchestra 2 plus Rising Storm: 5 Euros

So all that for just a bit more than only BF1 ultimate edition ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Alubat on 15-03-2017, 23:03:51
BF1 PC Is still only € 31.49 on cdkeys.com without expansions

Many modern Games feels like many more working hours were put into them like the big hollywood moviee. Gaming industry was not like it is today 10-20 years ago.

I hope they will make BF1 playable with VR and/or UHD HDR monitors before its lifecycle ends :-)
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 16-03-2017, 22:03:27
Really CPS? $50? That was like 15 years ago. Today, an AAA title will set you back at least $60.
My pre-order of Simcity cost me $72 with 10% discount (with 2 "free DLCs" and 1 exclusive DLC), so it is $80 at full retail price. That was 2013, and now I never even touched that game. They throw in BF3 standard for free, because of the launch problems. Then they got me hooked, costing me another $24 (at a discount) for the packs and expansions.


Fair point. God knows how much I've spent on Crusader Kings 2 DLC's, let alone games I hardly play anymore. Still, must have some principles!

BF1 had a price tag of $129.98???  :o

Call me old-fashioned but I will never go above $49.99.
"Old-fashioned!"

Oops, I did it ;)

Nah, I agree. I'm very happy that most games I like I try out first (demos, friends accounts, other ways), and then after some years of playing FH2 for ree I buy them on Steam sale for a few Euros.


You are a smarter man than me!
Title: Re: Battlefield "1"
Post by: pizzzaman on 18-03-2017, 21:03:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1YDaSw8gDM