I am not pleased with Battlefield 1

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#1 Edited by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

Geez it's kinda hard to pin point what puts me off about this game. It's fun, but it doesn't feel Battlefield honestly. It doesn't feel like any good battlefield game I have played so far. I have kinda weird feeling that something is not right about BF1. And it's not their reimagination of WW1 that is at fault Maybe it's just too many little things that annoy me.

1. Infinite sprinting ability.

I mean now everything moves so fast. It's like 64-player Call of Duty on steroids. It kinda loses older BF slowness and tactics feel. It's not like sprinting is bad, it's just too fast even for sprinting lol. It feels like an Olympic game now. People just can reoccupy their lost positions too fast - they die, they sprint back. And shooting is like shooting a bunch of mad chickens in the pen.

2. Very weird hit detection. I don't know if they reduced hit boxes, but sniping someone from afar is almost impossible. I clearly see how my bullet trace passes through a running figure, but still no hit is detected. And I have a ping around 60. I sniped a lot in BF 1/2/3/4. In no game it was as hard to snipe someone as in BF1. The funny thing there is almost no bullet drop. And when you can not hit someone at a very reduced distance because of sprinting, very fast game play and first of all some weird jerking animations in general as if every WW1 soldier had Parkinson or something, is just too frustrating.

3. That one cavalry guy looks hilariously off place. Like really, wtf, in the middle of tanks and machine guys, one guy on a horse. If they wanted include horse gameplay, why not add a mode where everybody has a horse, not just one guy lol. The action that is already looks goofy because of infinite sprinting and jerky animations becomes even goofier.

4. As I had already mentioned animation and rag doll now looks...I would say low budget. In BF3/4 they were so much more polished. This time bodies flying just like birds past you lol. Planes getting stuck in a weird way and continuing flying. And when plane crash they stay on the earth continuin their falling jitteing movement while burning for minutes which looks silly and takes off immersion.

5. Tanks move too fast. Shall I remember that WW1 tanks moved with a speed of a turtle. I am OK with history reinterpretation but make at least something historically accurate for god sake. Tanks need a nerf. They just roll at full speed all over the map to avoid grenade damage.

6. Weapons are practically the same with different skins. Like seriously, one doesn't need to change their weapon at all, as their only difference is class based:

rifle - low fire speed, high damage

Assault rifle - high fire speed, low damage

Support - high fire speed, medium damage, high recoil

Shotgun - you know acts as any shotgun.

I literally couldn't see or feel, like in previous BF's, any significant difference between different weapons of the same class

7. Where the hell is bullet drop. Anyway hit detection is so bad, with bullet drop it would be impossible to kill someone from afar lol

8. Graphics.

Oversaturation that gives a slight cartoonish feel of your surroundings.

In general, I don't hate BF1, I am just not enjoing it like previous games. Honestly, I have this weird feeling of playing 64-player TF2, not much ad COD which I had mentioned before, but this jittery, sprinting and chaotic sensless action remembers me Team Fortress somehow.

What are your impressions of the new Battlefield ?

Avatar image for deactivated-583c85dc33d18
#2 Posted by deactivated-583c85dc33d18 (1619 posts) -

It's Call of Duty One

Avatar image for mr_huggles_dog
#3 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (7805 posts) -

I don't like the game either.

For one, the graphics are black. I swear, there might be one other color somewhere on the map....but for crying out loud every map is just all black.

Its ugly as ****....I dont care how realistic it's suppose to make it it.

Avatar image for primorandomguy
#4 Edited by Primorandomguy (3368 posts) -

I'm sorry to hear you don't care for the game. It disappoints me because I was actually looking forward to this game. But I've heard a lot of negative things. I'm going to wait for a huge price drop.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#5 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

You know what's funny, is you complain about sniping being hard, and then you say this:

@jhonMalcovich said:

7. Where the hell is bullet drop. Anyway hit detection is so bad, with bullet drop it would be impossible to kill someone from afar lol

I found sniping to be easier than any Battlefield game I've played in the past. In fact, I think it's too easy.

Avatar image for Epak_
#6 Posted by Epak_ (10695 posts) -

Just got it, it's OK.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#7 Edited by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

You know what's funny, is you complain about sniping being hard, and then you say this:

@jhonMalcovich said:

7. Where the hell is bullet drop. Anyway hit detection is so bad, with bullet drop it would be impossible to kill someone from afar lol

I found sniping to be easier than any Battlefield game I've played in the past. In fact, I think it's too easy.

Sniping is very confusing. As I already said, hit detection is weird, and from 100 shots I only managed to hit 10 running targets. I can always hit relatively stationary target as I don't have to make adjustments for bullet drop. But something is definitely weird when you shoot at moving targets.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
#8 Posted by Ghosts4ever (10304 posts) -

Titanfall 2 is better.

Battlefield 1 is call of duty in WW1 with vehicles.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#9 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

You know what's funny, is you complain about sniping being hard, and then you say this:

@jhonMalcovich said:

7. Where the hell is bullet drop. Anyway hit detection is so bad, with bullet drop it would be impossible to kill someone from afar lol

I found sniping to be easier than any Battlefield game I've played in the past. In fact, I think it's too easy.

Sniping is very confusing. As I already said, hit detection is weird, and from 100 shots I only managed to hit 10 running targets. I can always hit relatively stationary target as I don't have to make adjustments for bullet drop. But something is definitely weird when you shoot at moving targets.

That's good. Means moving across the battlefield doesn't get you killed by annoying camping snipers, right? But if you stay still, then you're punished. I don't see much wrong with the system.

Also, I don't find it that difficult to hit moving targets. :P Killing them is a whole 'nother story, because many shots don't kill in 1 hit.

Avatar image for Kruiz_Bathory
#10 Edited by Kruiz_Bathory (4765 posts) -

I found that the tanks are too overpowered and the usual support units not giving ammo out. Fucking idiots.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#11 Edited by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95: it's good when it's fair. But when i clearly see my bullet trace touch my target and still no hit is detected it's maddening. This is why almost everyone choses automatic weapons. Sniping is not gratifying and fair. Even at close ranges sniping doesn't do lots of damage. 95% is the biggest damage you can cause by default. At close combat, even if you manage to land a shot, you will probably die anyway while reloading.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#12 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@ghosts4ever said:

Titanfall 2 is better.

Battlefield 1 is call of duty in WW1 with vehicles.

"Titanfall is Call of Duty with Mechs"

"Battlefield 1 is call of duty in WW1 with vehicles."

People need to enhance their vocabulary I think.

Not every FPS ever made is DOOM

And not every FPS ever made is call of duty

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#13 Posted by uninspiredcup (34401 posts) -

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#14 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich said:

@DragonfireXZ95: it's good when it's fair. But when i clearly see my bullet trace touch my target and still no hit is detected it's maddening. This is why almost everyone choses automatic weapons. Sniping is not gratifying and fair. Even at close ranges sniping doesn't do lots of damage. 95% is the biggest damage you can cause by default. At close combat, even if you manage to land a shot, you will probably die anyway while reloading.

Nah, not everyone chooses automatic weapons. It all depends on what class you want to play, and I see plenty of medics and snipers.

Also, the tracer is not the bullet, so just because your tracer hits them, doesn't mean your bullet hits them.

But, perhaps the game needs some adjustment, because bullets do seem wonky at times. It definitely needs a bit of fixing, I do agree on that.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#15 Posted by with_teeth26 (9594 posts) -

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#16 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Yeah it has a lot of great nuances that simply make this a lot better than Battlefield 3&4 for me.

I hate the littlebird, lock on missiles, and flares to deter lock on missiles.
I like the 'old school' feeling that tanks and propellor planes give. That the old school weaponry gives.

I play all my classes with iron sighted weapons. From the Gewerh 95 for the scout to the MP18 for the assault. But people that prefer their red dot sights and what nots, can have those too :P
I like how there is skill involved now in trying to take out the Behemoths, airplanes and tanks (people that claim tanks are OP have no idea what they are talking about, they die so easily with the least amount of teamwork. And me and my squad have found some ways to really easily take out behemoths).

If you want to make the most out of this game: Stick with 40 player operations. 64 players on that mode is a bit too hectic, with way too many grenades and mortars flying on your head. 40 players makes this the best gamemode I've played in battlefield.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#17 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Battlefield 4 had elite pick ups, but I don't understand your problem with desert maps. There were two large battles that took place in the desert in the actual war? Do you want them to just not include actual settings from WW1?

Suez sucks as a map, but that doesn't mean desert maps are bad. Sinai is okay; It's much better after the vehicles were nerfed.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#18 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

I think it's the best Battlefield since BF2 by far. It's deeper than BF3/BF4 as it removes a lot of the cheese of the lockons and gadgets that were just annoying in those games and rebalances the classes to be far more unique than in previous entries. The differences between the weapons within the classes is intentionally subtle because of how they decided to balance the 4 classes against each other. There was way too much gray area between classes in BF4. This was a combination of the gadgets and secondary weapons you could equip in each class, but also that many of the primary weapons simply fit the roles of other classes. Having 4 pool of general weapons was a huge contributing factor to this, but there were also weapons of each classes that would basally cover the intended engagement range of 2-3 other classes. They fixed this by reworking how each class of weapon works in BF1 compared to previous titles. They emphasized headshots too and completely removed the "2 round burst" meta that I loathed from BF4.

The Model 10 Hunter is OP right now, glaringly so, so don't base your opinion of the gunplay off of unbalanced weapons. It'll take another 2-3 months for DICE to really home in the weapon balance. That's the same with pretty much every shooter ever made. You just can't have a perfectly balanced game out of the box.

I don't have any of the problems with the hit detection you do, but I am very annoyed with the running animation. As you said, it feels jerky. This is simply because they increased the fidelity of the animations and added too much momentum to the animation. It looks great, but it makes a zig-zag pattern even more pronounced. The hitboxes are very tight on the character model so these exaggerated animations for changing direction move the hitboxes a lot more than they should, leading to a lot of frustrating moments.

The speed of the game is a bit slower than BF4 since there are no longer placeable deploy gadgets anymore. The maps are also a bit larger on average and way more open ended on average. Though, if you include all of the DLC of BF4, some of those maps were a fair bit larger, especially the Dragon Valley Remake. One would assume we'll see a BF1942 map ported to BF1 in the future as well as DLC that expands the variety of maps. So far I don't hate any of the maps. There are no glaringly bad maps, but none I would say are stand-out either. They are all just good maps that aren't very remarkable in the long run.

Bullet drop was reduced greatly in favor of a completely new approach of balancing the weapons. All of the weapons now have a range of peak damage rather than a damage dropoff. This is a pretty significant change from previous games and I like it a lot. It requires you to emphasize on a certain range far more than in previous titles. The thing you have to know about the bullet drop in BFBC2, BF3, and BF4 is how unrealistic it was. Bullet drop in those games was comically overexaggerated. It was silly. The new system achieves the same results since it punishes you more harshly for fighting out of your classes range.

Tanks move a bit fast yes, but making them slower would make them even more vulnerable to infantry and aircraft, which then means you have to buff the health of the tank, which then means you have to nerf its guns. It's a pain in the ass to balance. They clearly settled on faster moving tanks so they could keep the overall firepower of the tank to a slightly less annoying level.

I've noticed a real "love it or hate it" mentality for BF1. A lot of BF3/BF4 players really hate it because they've changed so much of the meta. I find a lot of people who enjoyed BF1942 to enjoy this game more than BF3/BF4. Of course you can't please the BF2 diehards. Luckily for them BF2 is free and can be played again, with a healthy community, so they should just shut up about it.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#19 Posted by with_teeth26 (9594 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@with_teeth26 said:

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Battlefield 4 had elite pick ups, but I don't understand your problem with desert maps. There were two large battles that took place in the desert in the actual war? Do you want them to just not include actual settings from WW1?

Suez sucks as a map, but that doesn't mean desert maps are bad. Sinai is okay; It's much better after the vehicles were nerfed.

I didn't mean that desert maps are inherently bad, just that they remind me of Battlefront which for me is a negative association.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the elite pickups in BF4 were just weapons, whereas in BF some of them seem to provide some extra armour as well?

Avatar image for ningyupowadat
#20 Posted by NingYupOwaDat (182 posts) -

Didn't bf3 and bf4 have infinite Sprint?

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#21 Posted by with_teeth26 (9594 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
@with_teeth26 said:

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Yeah it has a lot of great nuances that simply make this a lot better than Battlefield 3&4 for me.

I hate the littlebird, lock on missiles, and flares to deter lock on missiles.

I like the 'old school' feeling that tanks and propellor planes give. That the old school weaponry gives.

I play all my classes with iron sighted weapons. From the Gewerh 95 for the scout to the MP18 for the assault. But people that prefer their red dot sights and what nots, can have those too :P

I like how there is skill involved now in trying to take out the Behemoths, airplanes and tanks (people that claim tanks are OP have no idea what they are talking about, they die so easily with the least amount of teamwork. And me and my squad have found some ways to really easily take out behemoths).

If you want to make the most out of this game: Stick with 40 player operations. 64 players on that mode is a bit too hectic, with way too many grenades and mortars flying on your head. 40 players makes this the best gamemode I've played in battlefield.

yea, I've been wanting a mode like Operations ever since I fell in love with the attack/defend Territories mode in RO2 so I'm thrilled its finally in and that people seem to be playing it. seems like a great mode for Battlefield's mechanics

first thing I did after I got 200 credits was unlock the Gewerh 95 and take off the scope lol. I'm hoping the Battlefront vibes will start to go away with time

Avatar image for Wasdie
#22 Posted by Wasdie (53592 posts) -

@ningyupowadat said:

Didn't bf3 and bf4 have infinite Sprint?

And BC2. It's a pretty weak argument against BF1 since that's how the series has been for a decade.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#23 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@with_teeth26 said:

for me, its the Battlefront DNA that makes it feel a bit off. The ultra-clean UI, the 'elite' pickups, and the desert maps all scream Battlefront and Battlefront was the least WW 1 thing ever.

everything just feels a bit too streamlined. EA seem to be casting as wide a net as possible with this series and I think that is to its detriment.

I've only been playing this for a day though so my opinion is subject to change. I do like what I have played of Operations mode and I quite like that 3D spotting doesn't seem quite as powerful as it was in BF3/4, you are actually looking out for/shooting at people instead of red triangles. The lack of lock-on weapons is also nice.

Battlefield 4 had elite pick ups, but I don't understand your problem with desert maps. There were two large battles that took place in the desert in the actual war? Do you want them to just not include actual settings from WW1?

Suez sucks as a map, but that doesn't mean desert maps are bad. Sinai is okay; It's much better after the vehicles were nerfed.

I didn't mean that desert maps are inherently bad, just that they remind me of Battlefront which for me is a negative association.

correct me if I'm wrong, but the elite pickups in BF4 were just weapons, whereas in BF some of them seem to provide some extra armour as well?

Yeah, they have extra armor, but you can instakill them with melee weapons. And, you can also pick the weapon up after you kill them. So, while being elite, it doesn't make them an unstoppable force; you just have to know how to counter them.

I think they are a fine addition, personally.

Just because they are only guns in BF4 doesn't change that they are an "elite" pick up, though. :P

Also, I only played Battlefront a couple times, because the beta was such garbage. I don't really associate desert maps with Battlefront, especially since we also had desert maps in the other Battlefield games, such as Gulf Of Oman.

Avatar image for silversix_
#24 Edited by silversix_ (26347 posts) -

I think its the best BF since BC2 but i do agree that sniping became way too easy. Really is Battlefront's casual sniping in a BF game.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#25 Edited by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:

yea, I've been wanting a mode like Operations ever since I fell in love with the attack/defend Territories mode in RO2 so I'm thrilled its finally in and that people seem to be playing it. seems like a great mode for Battlefield's mechanics

first thing I did after I got 200 credits was unlock the Gewerh 95 and take off the scope lol. I'm hoping the Battlefront vibes will start to go away with time

I think after you play this game for a while, the battlefront vibes will wear off :)

I'm getting a lot of Red Orchestra 2 and BF1942 vibes. A lot of the weaponry reminds me of WW2 weapons, and heck most of the pistols/revolvers are the same xD
The behemoths are also pretty cool, and those along with taking them out with anti tank guns, give it this BF1942 vibe.
Reloading weapons is also way longer than in say BF3&4, which at times feel like a hastle, and can get you killed. But again, it fits the era.

The pick ups in Battlefront kinda made you a god for a brief moment. I remember being Darth vader or skywalker (once, lol) and being able to reflect bullets.

Once you know what's going on, it's pretty easy to take out elite classes in Battlefield 1. They just have a tiny bit more armor and a somewhat better weapon. Those advantages come with other disadvantages.

Avatar image for parkurtommo
#26 Posted by parkurtommo (28295 posts) -

I don't like your opinion

Avatar image for parkurtommo
#27 Posted by parkurtommo (28295 posts) -

Most of the complaints so far are just "I'm not used to this, why can't it be like it used to be". Guys it's ww1 it should be as chaotic, unbalanced and cruel as possible. Take a step back and appreciate the frantic vibe in this game, the energy. This shit didn't exist in the previous Battlefield games, not even in BC2.

My only problem with it so far is 1. There are a lot of missed opportunities, ww1 theme offers a lot of those anyways. 2. Not enough content (maps, weapons, vehicles), but that's kind of expected since it launched with all these editions and passes, EA's gonna make a shit ton of money off DLC this year, more than any year before I think, because ww1 offers WAY more variety in locations, battles, etc. than any modern setting could ever hope for.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#28 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#29 Edited by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

The speed of the game is a bit slower than BF4 since there are no longer placeable deploy gadgets anymore. The maps are also a bit larger on average and way more open ended on average. Though, if you include all of the DLC of BF4, some of those maps were a fair bit larger, especially the Dragon Valley Remake. One would assume we'll see a BF1942 map ported to BF1 in the future as well as DLC that expands the variety of maps. So far I don't hate any of the maps. There are no glaringly bad maps, but none I would say are stand-out either. They are all just good maps that aren't very remarkable in the long run.

St. Quiten Scar is the stand out map for me. It plays excellently in Operations and Conquest.
Suez is the stand out worst map for me. It's pretty much unplayable at the moment for me in conquest. Though I did enjoy the few rounds of domination I played on it.

DICE has just announced they will be looking into making Suez better for conquest.

I also like Amiens, as it's a nice change of pace from the more open maps like Sinai, Fao Fortress, Emperor's Edge, ...

And the Fargone Forest map only having infantry and no tanks or planes is also nice !

Not sure about Monte Grappa yet.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#30 Posted by uninspiredcup (34401 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

The Nazi's were popular.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#31 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

The Nazi's were popular.

When you have no more arguments left, why not make a WW2/hitler/nazi comparison ?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#32 Edited by uninspiredcup (34401 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

The Nazi's were popular.

When you have no more arguments left, why not make a WW2/hitler/nazi comparison ?

It was an exaggerated form of the same argument to criticize the rhetoric used.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#33 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

It was an exaggerated form of the same argument to criticize the rhetoric used.

Now you are just using expensive words.

Make a point, man :/

Comparing a videogame that entertains people with the rise of a political and dictatorial system in the 30s-40s. Context much ?

Avatar image for quadknight
#34 Posted by QuadKnight (12916 posts) -

I had similar issues in the beta and it's why I haven't bought it yet. Waiting on a good deal before pick it up.

Avatar image for robokill
#35 Edited by robokill (1392 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich: you lost me at Dice, they are shovelware now. Like Ubisoft and Bioware, Dice stopped putting any passion into their games.

BF1 is a lazy reskin of star wars battlefront that was a lazy reskin of bf4. Dice does not give two shits about quality or integrity. Clearly they don't rigorously test their netcoding they spend all their time and effort making trailers to sucker people into buying the next reskin.

You get a big enough company with no accountability whatsoever and people just start fucking around all day.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#36 Posted by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@R4gn4r0k said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Pretty bemused as to why everyone was kissing it's butt in the first place.

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

The Nazi's were popular.

As was Martin Luther King

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#37 Posted by uninspiredcup (34401 posts) -
@GarGx1 said:

As was Martin Luther King

Unfortantly this discrepancy makes me more right.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#38 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31467 posts) -

@GarGx1 said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

"In other Battlefield 1 news, EA said during an earnings call this week that the game's total player base after its first week was "nearly double" that of Battlefield 4 during its launch week."

Because it seems like a great game that a lot of people are playing and enjoying? :/

The Nazi's were popular.

As was Martin Luther King

As are video games

As are cars

As is healthy and tasty food

@uninspiredcup said:
@GarGx1 said:

As was Martin Luther King

Unfortantly this discrepancy makes me more right.

You were never right to begin with. Like I said, you couldn't come up with a proper argument, so you just referred to the nazis.

So much stuff is popular. I'd love it if you were a researcher.

Avatar image for oflow
#39 Edited by oflow (5185 posts) -

That's why I went with Titanfall 2 after playing both betas. They both are trying to be CoD now but at least Titanfall has mechs and good gunplay.

BF1 played like Battlefront with a WW1 skin to me. The last good BF to me was Bad Company Viet Nam.

Avatar image for p3anut
#40 Posted by p3anut (6306 posts) -

@Kruiz_Bathory said:

I found that the tanks are too overpowered and the usual support units not giving ammo out. Fucking idiots.

Not really overpowered, just assault players not doing their job.

Avatar image for mems_1224
#41 Posted by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -

Its alright, better than I thought it'd be and surprisingly less disappointing than Titanfall 2. Snipers are OP and so are some of the medic guns

Avatar image for pimphand_gamer
#42 Posted by PimpHand_Gamer (2867 posts) -

@primorandomguy said:

I'm sorry to hear you don't care for the game. It disappoints me because I was actually looking forward to this game. But I've heard a lot of negative things. I'm going to wait for a huge price drop.

You'll always read a ton of negative reviews when it comes to most any, highly popular franchise like this. Well mostly COD and BF series.

Avatar image for blangenakker
#43 Posted by blangenakker (3240 posts) -

This is what I've noticed. Those who REALLY got into BF4 don't like BF1 and vice versa.

Avatar image for Kruiz_Bathory
#44 Posted by Kruiz_Bathory (4765 posts) -

@p3anut: that's what I mean, you run out of ammo and can't shoot that thing down. There are no Support players leaving ammo even when you use the commands or ask around.

Avatar image for kend0_kap0ni
#45 Posted by KEND0_KAP0NI (1231 posts) -

This my first BattleField since 1943, but man I am having a terrible time online.

The Campaign is great, but the multiplayer is so frustrating and confusing.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
#46 Posted by deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde (12935 posts) -

How is the destruction? I loved how destruction made Bad company 2 so different, but the destruction in BF3 and 4 was reduced almost to the point of not being needed or seen.

All I know is that the campaign was like a cartoon. Me and my friend played the campaign on Xbone, and what a pile of shit. It was even more absurd than COD games. From the Iron Man god mode level to the insanely stupid plane level, where the planes are taking out the AA guns, Huh?!? The hell?!?!?

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#47 Edited by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

@hillelslovak said:

How is the destruction? I loved how destruction made Bad company 2 so different, but the destruction in BF3 and 4 was reduced almost to the point of not being needed or seen.

All I know is that the campaign was like a cartoon. Me and my friend played the campaign on Xbone, and what a pile of shit. It was even more absurd than COD games. From the Iron Man god mode level to the insanely stupid plane level, where the planes are taking out the AA guns, Huh?!? The hell?!?!?

Destruction is pretty much even more reduced than in BF3 and BF4. Some debris, walls and bunkers are completely unbreakable. For example, I haven't seen a single house to crumble down yet.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
#48 Posted by deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde (12935 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich said:
@hillelslovak said:

How is the destruction? I loved how destruction made Bad company 2 so different, but the destruction in BF3 and 4 was reduced almost to the point of not being needed or seen.

All I know is that the campaign was like a cartoon. Me and my friend played the campaign on Xbone, and what a pile of shit. It was even more absurd than COD games. From the Iron Man god mode level to the insanely stupid plane level, where the planes are taking out the AA guns, Huh?!? The hell?!?!?

Destruction is pretty much even more reduced than in BF3 and BF4. Some debris, walls and bunkers are completely unbreakable. For example, I haven't seen a single house to crumble down yet.

Well, I'm not gonna buy it then. Destruction was a huge part of what makes Bad Company 2 one of my favorite games ever.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#49 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25459 posts) -

@blangenakker said:

This is what I've noticed. Those who REALLY got into BF4 don't like BF1 and vice versa.

Well, that's a negative, because 2 friends of mine and I enjoy both BF4 and BF1. :P

Avatar image for FLOPPAGE_50
#50 Posted by FLOPPAGE_50 (4493 posts) -

You sound bad op

Sniping is the easiest it's ever been, ppl camp non stop with snipers for ezmode killz

It's more bf1942 than anything, you are probably too young and never played it.