• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.
AndyC

Battlefield 1

235 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Inb4 another broken piece of shit at launch delivered 6-12 months early by Dice.

Edited by Davkaus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It should be a looker though. Especially as some DICE employees were cracking into COD's looks at that reveal.

I do wonder what the point of doing an alternative take on WW1 is, when presumably the only reason for the alternative take is to get around some of the problems of that conflict, i.e. endless brown hellscapes with trenches and very limited weapon and equipment sets. So the alternative setting basically won't be WW1. So why bother calling it WW1 at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It would have to be an 'alternate' history wouldn't it as a true WWI game would involve a lot of sitting around in trenches and taking shelter from bombs and gas attacks while at the same time being malnourished and riddled with all sorts of illnesses. That comes before the actual action part which includes climbing into an open field and facing your inevitable death while some officer waits in the trench with a gun in case you have the good sense to turn back and suggest a better way to go about things.

No, that would be a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's my point.

You can't make a Battlefield game in a WW1 theatre. That war is an artillery and attrition conflict with few different types of warfare on offer.

So you have to step away from the WW1 setting to make a game in the style of Battlefield. So you do an alternative setting.

But the alternative isn't WW1. You've moved away from what defines the nature of that conflict so much you aren't using that setting anymore.

So why bother using WW1 at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Okay so the conference just ended.. The game isn't alternate history but it is WW1. The game takes place in many different countries telling their accounts of what WW1 was like for soldiers there. I wasn't aware but it seems that in doing their research they discovered that WW1 was only largely trench warfare in some areas of the world, so it's not all confined to a squad sat miserably in a trench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

I dunno. I'm fascinated by WWI, but it is a very complex war with a considerable impact how the following century played out. I'm not sure if it is the right 'subject' for a game of this nature. Will probs give it a go,though, as I miss the more 'historical' shooters.

Edited by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Looks cool.  I'm in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i was skeptical but after seeing the trailer this game might actually make a refreshing change. Thumbs up from me so far.

how do we change the thread title?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wonder if the tanks will break down every 50 meters or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Some guy breaks the trailer down. Makes it look very interesting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hopefully this is the year BF rightfully overtakes CoD, sales wise anyway.

1m likes and more views on the BF trailer, less views and 1m dislikes on the CoD one.

All the kids will still buy it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

cod fanboy here politely asking to join the party? 

Who would have thought going back to world wars would be refreshing after the medal of honour days...

cod is dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't know why anyone mature still plays CoD, Battlefield has been streets ahead since Bad Company 2 and CoD has been terrible since MW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've really disliked Cod games since BLOPS. Yet I think I've still picked up 3 of them since purely because other friends play them. I bought BLOPS3, think i've played it for about 30minutes and I just can't do it anymore. Sooooooo bored of everything to do with it, even the graphics and then engine of the game bores me to death. Run, shoot, die, run shoot, die, run, shoot, die.... on a loop... for the past 10 years. 

Since BC2 I've been a BF fanboy - wish more of my friends would play it though. But it's so vastly superior to CoD I really just don't understand how it trails in sales figures.

I'm pretty hyped about this new BF game. Feels like it's getting back to basics which appeals to me, i'm so sick of all this boosting, wall running, jet pack mumbo jumbo games have been pumping out over the past few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Multiplayer COD is shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

COD is more immediately accessible and you can fairly easily lone wolf play and be a hero. Battlefield tends to promote more teamwork and a longer game. Both have their merits, but COD's slowly got more daft in the search for ways of stopping gameplay they nailed 10 years ago going stale, with greater and lesser success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

3 hours ago, villarule123 said:

I don't know why anyone mature still plays CoD, Battlefield has been streets ahead since Bad Company 2 and CoD has been terrible since MW2

Cheap thrills. I enjoyed running around like a lunatic in close quarters but blast jumps and wall runs? Not for me.

Battlefield 2 was the first fps I played on pc (getting in the chopper over the  aircraft carrier ftw). No cod has ever came close to that. So I'm coming back to the tank game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

COD is more immediately accessible and you can fairly easily lone wolf play and be a hero. Battlefield tends to promote more teamwork and a longer game. Both have their merits, but COD's slowly got more daft in the search for ways of stopping gameplay they nailed 10 years ago going stale, with greater and lesser success.

Agreed with this. COD generally has you having more gun fights, which is what a lot of people want. Spending five minutes going cross map to the objective, on your own, only to be gunned down by a bunch of guys in an armoured car, can be a bit boring.

I've grown tired of both, but WW1 setting could be decent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've played all the CoD games but only really buy them now for the zombie mode.  I suck at muliplayer or haven't got the time to improve.  Always been a fan of BF. Yes I still suck at them but they are more fun, and graphically p all over CoD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 hour ago, kurtsimonw said:

Agreed with this. COD generally has you having more gun fights, which is what a lot of people want. Spending five minutes going cross map to the objective, on your own, only to be gunned down by a bunch of guys in an armoured car, can be a bit boring.

I've grown tired of both, but WW1 setting could be decent.

rush is game mode for you then not conquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites