gaming Battlefield 1

[King 5,625]

Battlefield 1

 

Trailers

 

 

Battlefield 1 Website

 

 

Battlefield 1 takes players back over 100 years ago to The Great War or The War to End All Wars. Whilst it does take some liberties in favour of gameplay, the settings, weapons, vehicles and characters are all based around real world equivalents. This is the first AAA World War 1 game in a long time and personally Im really looking forward to it due to how important WW1 was to my countries identity.

 

What are your thoughts?

[Flutterstep 47,101]

Being a long time Battlefield fan, I can't wait for this to release. I've already played a lot of hours in the closed and open beta and I can't believe how well it works. It feels basic, like the original Battlefield game, with it's weapons - but at the same time, there's loads of new features added. I have high hopes for this game.

[King 5,625]

Im so happy there are no more lock on launchers or NV/IR scopes and such. It's good to finally get back to a more basic type of gameplay that relies more on skill.

[Lisa 5,553]

 

It looks really sick. I'm so excited for it. Also, I'm actually interested in a Battlefield campaign for once. There's 5 different stories to experience through the eyes of different soldiers. There's even a Gallipoli campaign which is awesome. I feel like this campaign is gonna make me cry, Dice seem to be aiming towards character development this time around, so people are going to become more connected to the characters, which means when something happens to those characters, tears are probably gonna well. (At least on my part).

 

The video above are the two prologues to both the campaign following the black soldier, and another campaign featuring a tank squad (Which is definitely going to be similar to the movie Fury, but instead in WWI).

Edited October 5, 2016 by Holiday

[Egnis 164]

Battlefield 1 is going to be, very simply, the worst Battlefield game yet.

[King 5,625]

Battlefield 1 is going to be, very simply, the worst Battlefield game yet.

And why is that?

 

 

 

It looks really sick. I'm so excited for it. Also, I'm actually interested in a Battlefield campaign for once. There's 5 different stories to experience through the eyes of different soldiers. There's even a Gallipoli campaign which is awesome. I feel like this campaign is gonna make me cry, Dice seem to be aiming towards character development this time around, so people are going to become more connected to the characters, which means when something happens to those characters, tears are probably gonna well. (At least on my part).

Im really excited to play the Gallipoli campaign, it's extremely rare to see Australian soldiers in games and even rarer (cant even think of a single game that's shown it) for a game to show the Gallipoli landings. Being a former Australian soldier, that's the campaign Im most looking forward to. Lets hope the campaign really lives up to the trailers, tears will be shed if it does.

[Egnis 164]

And why is that?

 

 

Im really excited to play the Gallipoli campaign, it's extremely rare to see Australian soldiers in games and even rarer (cant even think of a single game that's shown it) for a game to show the Gallipoli landings. Being a former Australian soldier, that's the campaign Im most looking forward to. Lets hope the campaign really lives up to the trailers, tears will be shed if it does.

 

Well, essentially, the other battlefield games are more realistic. They have more action, more emotions, and more of the feel for what war really is.

[King 5,625]

Well, essentially, the other battlefield games are more realistic. They have more action, more emotions, and more of the feel for what war really is.

Uh huh...

 

Aaanyway Im kind of annoyed that EA yet again took the Premium route, it'd have been nice if they gave the new maps away for free so as not to split the player base but I can't say Im surprised that yet again I'll have to buy premium if I want all the games content over time.

[Egnis 164]

Uh huh...

 

Aaanyway Im kind of annoyed that EA yet again took the Premium route, it'd have been nice if they gave the new maps away for free so as not to split the player base but I can't say Im surprised that yet again I'll have to buy premium if I want all the games content over time.

 

Actually, the premium route is a good thing. Would you rather they didn't make any more maps? Well, they will, and you can get them for just a little bit more money!

[TeeSix 116]

I'm looking forward to this game a lot, not least because of the extremely obscure pre-WWI and WWI weaponry, like the Cei-Rigotti and Huot rifles. Also, as a New Zealander, I'm greatly looking forward to the Gallipoli map. Hopefully it'll be ANZACs and not just Australia though, New Zealand always gets bloody forgotten with the ANZACs.

[King 5,625]

I'm looking forward to this game a lot, not least because of the extremely obscure pre-WWI and WWI weaponry, like the Cei-Rigotti and Huot rifles. Also, as a New Zealander, I'm greatly looking forward to the Gallipoli map. Hopefully it'll be ANZACs and not just Australia though, New Zealand always gets bloody forgotten with the ANZACs.

Well it Is Gallipoli, so its the proper ANZAC force. The main character in the Runner campaign is an Australian ANZAC though, Im sure there will be New Zealanders as other characters in that campaign though.

 

As for the obscure weaponry, Im honestly fine with it mainly because they had to take liberties to favour fun which means lots of obscure vehicles and weaponry that never really saw wide use.

[TeeSix 116]

Well it Is Gallipoli, so its the proper ANZAC force. The main character in the Runner campaign is an Australian ANZAC though, Im sure there will be New Zealanders as other characters in that campaign though.

 

As for the obscure weaponry, Im honestly fine with it mainly because they had to take liberties to favour fun which means lots of obscure vehicles and weaponry that never really saw wide use.

 

I'm hoping so, I couldn't find much about the Gallipoli campaign myself but then I didn't look very far beyond the trailer - I do hope some Kiwis, Brits, Newfoundlanders and Frenchmen make their way into it somewhere though since they were all at Gallipoli.

 

I admit I'm one of those people who likes all the obscure weaponry and vehicles, since I'm quite the fan of alt history, so seeing things as they could have been always fascinates me.

 

I must say I'm a little disappointed that there's no evidence of any Central Powers campaign, especially since in WWI the definition of the "bad guys" was much, much more obscure. I'd love a German or Austro-Hungarian campaign, not to mention seeing the French, an Eastern front campaign with the Russians, or an African campaign with South Africans, Bechuanans, Rhodesians, Nigerians, and so on.

[JonasDarkmane 19,788]

"based around real world equivalents". Not even close! This game is so historically inaccurate and politically correct, that I as a historian want to puke

 

Automatic hand weapons? Not produced en masse during the war for infantry use. Ottoman tanks in Sinai? Nope Africans as the German team? Nuh uh. 

The only justice I find it do for history is the mustard gas. For me that is the only redeeming part of the game

[Lisa 5,553]

"based around real world equivalents". Not even close! This game is so historically inaccurate and politically correct, that I as a historian want to puke

 

Automatic hand weapons? Not produced en masse during the war for infantry use. Ottoman tanks in Sinai? Nope Africans as the German team? Nuh uh. 

The only justice I find it do for history is the mustard gas. For me that is the only redeeming part of the game

 

It's alternate history. And they are based on real-world equivalents, while not being mass produced, they did exist. Dice has stated that Battlefield 1 isn't going to be 100% historically-accurate; it's going to be tweaked in hopes the game is fun for everyone. If it were a game with just bolt action rifles, sitting in trenches and occasionally pushing bit-by-bit then you can guarantee all the people who play FPS games for fast-paced action are going to leave. (Which is half or more of the Battlefield fanbase). 

[King 5,625]

"based around real world equivalents". Not even close! This game is so historically inaccurate and politically correct, that I as a historian want to puke

 

Automatic hand weapons? Not produced en masse during the war for infantry use. Ottoman tanks in Sinai? Nope Africans as the German team? Nuh uh. 

The only justice I find it do for history is the mustard gas. For me that is the only redeeming part of the game

 

Well yeah, it was never meant to be a 1:1 representation of WW1, rather it takes liberties to allow for better gameplay. That being said, all the technology and such did exist at the time, it just never saw wide use like it will in the game.

 

 

I'm hoping so, I couldn't find much about the Gallipoli campaign myself but then I didn't look very far beyond the trailer - I do hope some Kiwis, Brits, Newfoundlanders and Frenchmen make their way into it somewhere though since they were all at Gallipoli.

 

I admit I'm one of those people who likes all the obscure weaponry and vehicles, since I'm quite the fan of alt history, so seeing things as they could have been always fascinates me.

 

I must say I'm a little disappointed that there's no evidence of any Central Powers campaign, especially since in WWI the definition of the "bad guys" was much, much more obscure. I'd love a German or Austro-Hungarian campaign, not to mention seeing the French, an Eastern front campaign with the Russians, or an African campaign with South Africans, Bechuanans, Rhodesians, Nigerians, and so on.

 

From what we know, the 5 main campaign protagonists will be:

 

The Runner: Australian ANZAC runner

 

Nothing is Written:   Bedouin female warrior who serves as T.E Lawrence's right hand woman.

 

Avanti Savoia: Two Italian Arditi brothers.

 

Through Mud and Blood: British Mark 5 tank crew.

 

Friends in High Places: American/Possibly Canadian and British pilots

 

But yeah, Im kinda upset there wont be a German or Ottoman campaign or such.

[JonasDarkmane 19,788]

It's alternate history. And they are based on real-world equivalents, while not being mass produced, they did exist. Dice has stated that Battlefield 1 isn't going to be 100% historically-accurate; it's going to be tweaked in hopes the game is fun for everyone. If it were a game with just bolt action rifles, sitting in trenches and occasionally pushing bit-by-bit then you can guarantee all the people who play FPS games for fast-paced action are going to leave. (Which is half or more of the Battlefield fanbase). 

Sure, you get what you get for representing history

 

But if it is an alternative history.... that already devalues the game for me, as it is a really cheap way of saying "we don't need to follow what happened" or really just like WoW did with WoD when it came to explaining "alternative timeline" as a justification to changes of old characters :/ They might as well just make a steampunklike Battlefield and say it happens in a different world instead of selling it off as a WW1 scenario game :/

 

 

Well yeah, it was never meant to be a 1:1 representation of WW1, rather it takes liberties to allow for better gameplay. That being said, all the technology and such did exist at the time, it just never saw wide use like it will in the game.

 

 

 

From what we know, the 5 main campaign protagonists will be:

 

The Runner: Australian ANZAC runner

 

Nothing is Written:   Bedouin female warrior who serves as T.E Lawrence's right hand woman.

 

Avanti Savoia: Two Italian Arditi brothers.

 

Through Mud and Blood: British Mark 5 tank crew.

 

Friends in High Places: American/Possibly Canadian and British pilots

 

But yeah, Im kinda upset there wont be a German or Ottoman campaign or such.

Technology came late during the war and was not really put to use in the war :/ 

 

Not saying that the gameplay is bad, just pointing at certain elements I find poorly executed

[TeeSix 116]

"based around real world equivalents". Not even close! This game is so historically inaccurate and politically correct, that I as a historian want to puke

 

Automatic hand weapons? Not produced en masse during the war for infantry use. Ottoman tanks in Sinai? Nope Africans as the German team? Nuh uh. 

The only justice I find it do for history is the mustard gas. For me that is the only redeeming part of the game

 

As someone studying history at university-entry level, I can say this is perfectly normal for "based around real world equivalents".

 

All the equipment is historically accurate, and if it was historically distributed then the imbalance between the Entente/Allies and the Central Powers would be often pretty severe and unenjoyable for players, tanks are used in the Sinai and Middle Eastern maps and campaigns again for the sake of balance, and the Germans did have colonial Askari forces, even if they didn't serve in Europe.

 

Also, the mustard gas is historically incorrect, ironically. There were no hand-thrown gas grenades in WWI, the closest thing was mortar-fired gas grenades employed by the French in 1914, which delivered such tiny quantities of the gas that they caused no fatalities and more often than not weren't even recognised by German and Austro-Hungarian troops as chemical weapons. On top of that they also contained Ethyl Bromoacetate, which is a tear gas equivalent, and so was not green or yellowish in hue. The gas in-game is either Mustard Gas or Chlorine gas, neither of which was ever delivered by means of hand grenade anyway.

[King 5,625]

As a side note, I know WW1 isn't a huge topic in American schools so for any of you Americans interested in learning about WW1 check out this channel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar

 

These guys do a week by week short documentary series covering basically every aspect of WW1. Really interesting.

[JonasDarkmane 19,788]

As someone studying history at university-entry level, I can say this is perfectly normal for "based around real world equivalents".

 

All the equipment is historically accurate, and if it was historically distributed then the imbalance between the Entente/Allies and the Central Powers would be often pretty severe and unenjoyable for players, tanks are used in the Sinai and Middle Eastern maps and campaigns again for the sake of balance, and the Germans did have colonial Askari forces, even if they didn't serve in Europe.

 

Also, the mustard gas is historically incorrect, ironically. There were no hand-thrown gas grenades in WWI, the closest thing was mortar-fired gas grenades employed by the French in 1914, which delivered such tiny quantities of the gas that they caused no fatalities and more often than not weren't even recognised by German and Austro-Hungarian troops as chemical weapons. On top of that they also contained Ethyl Bromoacetate, which is a tear gas equivalent, and so was not green or yellowish in hue. The gas in-game is either Mustard Gas or Chlorine gas, neither of which was ever delivered by means of hand grenade anyway.

Not all the equipment, no. Existence? Sure. Use? No.  

I realize the sake of balance. It is in every game you really play. That is why I said I had nothing against the gameplay. That seems to be something people are mistaking . I am pointing out the historical fallacies in the image that they are trying to portray. And the Germans did, but making them represent the German team just makes me personally peeved, due to the very minor role they played.

 

And I did not know that in the game, mustard gas was thrown as a gas grenade. I was led to believe that those were called in via artillery. Something more for me to dislike then xD

[TeeSix 116]

Not all the equipment, no. Existence? Sure. Use? No.  

I realize the sake of balance. It is in every game you really play. That is why I said I had nothing against the gameplay. That seems to be something people are mistaking . I am pointing out the historical fallacies in the image that they are trying to portray. And the Germans did, but making them represent the German team just makes me personally peeved, due to the very minor role they played.

 

And I did not know that in the game, mustard gas was thrown as a gas grenade. I was led to believe that those were called in via artillery. Something more for me to dislike then xD

 

The entire gameplay of the game is a historical fallacy, of course. The Western Front was of course nowhere near as mobile beyond the very beginnings and end of the war.

 

And with the weapons I meant the objects themselves are largely historically accurate, their use is most definitely not historically accurate, yeah. For one thing light machine guns never got carried around by one man, as I'm sure you're well-aware - let alone something like an MG08/15 being fired from the hip as the Sentry elite class does. Or even the Tank Hunter elite class, who handles a Tankgewehr M1918 on his own, despite it weighing a solid 18.5kg.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,987]

Is there a cycle in games in which older and newer settings being popular? For instance, space games used to be very common some decades ago, then we went to WW2, then to modern, then to futuristic, then back in time to WW1? I really hope BF1 will set off many other developers to make games taking place in historical settings again.

 

Also, I very much approve of a FPS game with Russian Empire... or is it Russian Empire? Depending on time of the war and how much they're altering history, it will be Russian Empire, Russian Republic, or Soviet Russia (which wouldn't make sense but again I'm not sure how they would change history in their game) in which I hope it is the first.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tsaritsa Luna

[King 5,625]

Is there a cycle in games in which older and newer settings being popular? For instance, space games used to be very common some decades ago, then we went to WW2, then to modern, then to futuristic, then back in time to WW1? I really hope BF1 will set off many other developers to make games taking place in historical settings again.

 

Also, I very much approve of a FPS game with Russian Empire... or is it Russian Empire? Depending on time of the war and how much they're altering history, it will be Russian Empire, Russian Republic, or Soviet Russia in which I hope it is the first.

Russian Empire would be correct.

 

As for your first comment there does seem to be a cycle in multiplayer FPS games where we grow tired of one setting and shift to another. Once we have a few WW1/WW2 games, we move to Vietnam, Korean war or modern war, once that's been done to death we move to futuristic games, when thats been done to death we move back to WW1/WW2 games. Basically we grow tired of playing in one setting for too long.

[Corgis 574]

I love WWI stuff and have put more then 200 hours into Verdun which was the original WWI FPS game.  I won't end up getting it since it is crazy inaccurate, I'm not even going to try to explain how inaccurate it is.  Also paying $60 for a video game is way too much for me and then the French are DLC which really sucks since I love the French WWI guns.  Game play looks fun and all that but having all those snipers and gunners running around like Rambo's is just too silly.  I'll stick to Verdun.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,684]

Considering Battlefield 4 was awesome, I am quite excited for this one. The fact that it is World War 1 is really interesting because we almost never see games in that era. Speaking of Battlefield 4, I just hope we do not see a launch like BF4 with all of the crashes, bugs and server problems. That tainted what was actually a really good game for a lot of people and once it was fixed up, the game was amazing but the bad launch gave it a rough reputation. I don't want to see that this time Dice and EA.

[King 5,625]

Considering Battlefield 4 was awesome, I am quite excited for this one. The fact that it is World War 1 is really interesting because we almost never see games in that era. Speaking of Battlefield 4, I just hope we do not see a launch like BF4 with all of the crashes, bugs and server problems. That tainted what was actually a really good game for a lot of people and once it was fixed up, the game was amazing but the bad launch gave it a rough reputation. I don't want to see that this time Dice and EA.

That's the dream, hopefully the launch will be much better than BF4. Luckily the servers are also going to be running at 60 ticks rather than the 30 that BF4 does. The beta was a little buggy but nothing game breaking.