Printable View
Battlefield 1 - the new iteration in the Battlefield series - going back down to World War 1! :yes:
www.battlefield.com
World War 1 gameplay, complete with trenches. 44 minutes of raw gameplay below from a EA event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iJVTHMZ6EY
Thoughts? :yes:
Unfortunately, I don't think they will reproduce the tragedy of WW1. Being ordered to cross 'no mans land' at walking pace, with a rifle, full kit, whilst facing machine-gun fire and artillery from the enemy.
The video you linked there also looks more like WW2.
That's the raw BF1 gameplay, which is essentially the MP component, a fleshed out battle complete with trenches and Hindenburgs. And small WW1 tanks.
There is somthing very sinister about WW1, but if you put things together right it could be a great, much more organised game. Needs a commander-mode to unleash havoc. I think the developers are aware of what a bleak setting it really is, but trench warfare was only a part of WW1 a lot can be done
It is actually just trying to recreate the Urban style modern warfare with random weapons and vehicles from the period. The warfare in the OP is closer to WW1, especially with the hand-held machine guns. WW1 shoulder get-up was more akin to this: http://www.sofmilitary.co.uk/media/2...er_pose_01.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
And Trench-warfare was basically what was done till the very end of the war. (except in the East)
This only really changed with the Ludendorff offensive in 1918 who managed to break through the trenchs, and was a race of time to win the war before the Americans arrived in significant numbers.
Ofc it's not authentic WW1-warfare gameplay.
That wouldn't be much fun, would it?
- stand in trench
- wait for barrage to stop
- wait for captains signal pipe
- press F to go over the top
- die
- respawn
Machine guns = spawn campers
That said, it might be a fun MP shooter. Haven't played one of those in a while.
Trench-warfare was just the last (and long) phase, but even trench warfare has the potential to be fun if you turn it into an fp/
s/rts hybrid with strong emphasis on planes and tanks and zeppilins (zeppilins having the same role as the AT's in Battlefront) battlefields were completily destroyed so should be plenty of room to hide for infantry and slowly progress. Could become something really focused.
It will be interesting to see how it works out, because WW1 warfare is not suited to the usual Battlefield gameplay. Plus - Hindenburg warfare will be quite a matchup, because it's slow and vulnerable to attacks from the ground.
If I had to guess, they'll make the same BF game they've made the last couple times in a WW1 setting.
Actually Air ships were immune to ground and even air plane attacks for a few years. Until incendiary ammunition for machine guns was developed.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
So in essence you could not destroy Hindenburgs...
I wonder if you can in the game, or at least any counter measures against them.
Pop them with artillery.
Tragedy is the least of my concerns. Apparently, they are not going to reproduce the biggest contributors of Entente, either. Russia and France are not in the game, which is a historical disgrace or a DLC, another form of disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I know it's just a game, but I'm becoming a bit fed up with Anglosaxonic egocentrism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI
They've already said France is DLC. I wouldn't expect that will be the last one they release either.
After all the gameplay footage and all that fun stuff I'm a little disenchanted so far. Everyone is using SMG's, Semi-automatic Rifles, and every gun seems to have a scope, for-grip, and/or bayonet attached.
If you want an actual WW1 shooter, try Verdun. Actually a pretty good game, if frustrating at times.
Doesnt run on my pc. Stutters like crazy
That's impossible. These things could be a great way to give a trench-map momentumQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
BF1 beta now available for those interested in trying it out.
www.battlefield.com
So after 4 hours of the open beta I can definitely say that it's a modern FPS with a WW1 reskin. Only bolt action guns I've seen so far belong to the sniper class. Oh well.
That really is such a bummer. One of the exciting things about Verdun is playing with the bolt actions because you actually have to aim carefully. Think I will pass on this one. Maybe pick up Battlefield 4 when it gets cheaper or something since I heard it got good now.
13.2 million players for the Battlefield 1 BETA. EA record.
https://www.battlefield.com/news/art...beta-thank-you
I wonder how many were like me and realized it was poop after 2 hours.
A considerable number of people enjoy the game, that is for sure, the BF1 hype is quite massive right now and as evidenced by the number of people who actually played the BETA.
Never played a Battlefield game then? You don't play as a faction on maps. You play maps that have factions on them. So if they just leave engagements that include France and Russia out for later DLC's then they won't be in at launch. Also you really need to build a bridge and get over the fact that the gaming industry runs on DLC and other forms of Micro transactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
What did you expect? This game uses the exact same engine that Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Does that mean FIFA 17 will also have lots of SMGs and foregrips?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Well then it is a historical disgrace that the Eastern Front was ignored. And I am really curious to learn what maps they found where only British and Americans, but not a single Frenchman, fought. DLC is the norm and shame on the consumers for that, but I am not seeing why I should stop protesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
So never played a Battlefield game then, got it. As this series has always made you buy content packs for new armies. And protesting DLC (as a concept) at this point is like moaing about de-colonization.
National armies had responsibility for specific sections on the front. So it's ludicrously easy to focus in on a specific action that only has one entente or central powers army on each side. As the maps in a BF game cover maybe 5-10 square km. And focus on one specific action, like the battle of Wake island or the capture of Caen.
De-colonization is not a current phenomenon, so not a very apt comparison. The fact that Battlefield and EA are very proud of spamming DLCs is irrelevant, unless you believe that complaining about Nazi gangs beating up foreigners is nonsensical, because Nazi gangs always attacked foreigners.
Even if Battlefield maps have a size of 20 square meters, not adding 20 square meters, where French and Russians fought and died in WWI is ridiculous history-wise and very shameful, if they are sold later as DLCs.
Oh but it is. As your complaining about something that's not only over and done (digital DLC being the norm). But has been done for quite sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
In Battlefield 1942 the Italian army, Free French forces, and sub-factions like the USMC, SS, SAS, RAF, Luftwaffe were only available through the expansion packs. Where's your butthurt for that? It's the exact same situation as France and Russia being held back for DLC later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar