Is battlefield 1 taking us back to the golden age of early 2000's?

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for commander
#1 Edited by commander (15378 posts) -

I still remember playing medal of honor allied assault, battlefield 1942 and the very first call of duty.

What these games had is something we have lost pretty much the last decade and that is the feeling of being in a world war. This time world war I , and there aren't many games like that, most are about world war II, but lately we haven't gotten much of those either.

Lately all we got is modern warfare and futuristic warfare. The problem with that is, after the invention of the atomic bomb, these battlefields are either fantasy or urban/civil wars. While some of these games are quite fun, there is something about the first two world wars that other fps simply cannot grasp.

After playing the beta for a couple of hours I must say dice have done an amazing job and the current gen potrays the world war I setting quite well.

What do you think?

Avatar image for dynamitecop
#2 Posted by dynamitecop (6395 posts) -

No, it's a facade. it's a modern shooter like any other with a WW1 skin applied to it.

What you're missing is legacy game mechanics, not aesthetics.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#3 Posted by Juub1990 (8717 posts) -

It's got an awful Battlefront feeling so far.

Avatar image for dotWithShoes
#4 Posted by dotWithShoes (5552 posts) -

It's got that battlefield server feel though.

Avatar image for Ryan_Som
#5 Posted by Ryan_Som (2474 posts) -

Yeah, I was gonna say the font choices and the way the loadout screen looks give me a Battlefront vibe.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#6 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

Nothing about Battlefield 1 feels like a WW1 game. It still has all the chaos of a modern BF game.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#7 Posted by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

Nothing about Battlefield 1 feels like a WW1 game. It still has all the chaos of a modern BF game.

Was anybody honestly expecting a AAA shooter with a 10+ million fanbase to radically alter their gameplay just to fit the setting?

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#8 Edited by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -

@Wasdie said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

Nothing about Battlefield 1 feels like a WW1 game. It still has all the chaos of a modern BF game.

Was anybody honestly expecting a AAA shooter with a 10+ million fanbase to radically alter their gameplay just to fit the setting?

No, but that's the point. Why even move to such a setting if they're not going to take advantage of it? Such chaos has much more creative flexibility in a modern/future setting.

DICE is still trying to milk that Battlefield 3 style of gameplay into more sequels. I would really like a change of pace at this point.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#9 Edited by uninspiredcup (34932 posts) -

The early 2000 games were streamlined, efficient, generally about skill and teamwork.

Battlefield is now about grinding through an artificial barrier with more emphasis on unlocking items, getting xp or personal kill/death ratio than team work, primarily aimed to promote dlc and microtransactions.

In short, it's nothing like the early 2000 titles.

Avatar image for PSP107
#10 Posted by PSP107 (17516 posts) -

This Beta sucks so far. The TitanFall 2 Beta was better.

Avatar image for dynamitecop
#11 Edited by dynamitecop (6395 posts) -

This really makes me wish that Battlefield 2 was still alive, that was honestly one of the best FPS games ever created.

This was back in 05 at a local 42 person garage lan when the BF2 demo dropped, we played it all weekend, good times!

Avatar image for mems_1224
#12 Edited by mems_1224 (56917 posts) -

No. BF 1 feels like the bastard child of Battlefront and hardline with shittier guns

They pretty much ruined Conquest, their signature mode

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#13 Posted by uninspiredcup (34932 posts) -
@dynamitecop said:

This really makes me wish that Battlefield 2 was still alive, that was honestly one of the best FPS games ever created.

This was back in 05 at a local 42 person garage lan when the BF2 demo dropped, we played it all weekend, good times!

Pretty much where the series died.

Rising Storm 2 looks gud.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Wasdie
#14 Posted by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:
@Wasdie said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

Nothing about Battlefield 1 feels like a WW1 game. It still has all the chaos of a modern BF game.

Was anybody honestly expecting a AAA shooter with a 10+ million fanbase to radically alter their gameplay just to fit the setting?

No, but that's the point. Why even move to such a setting if they're not going to take advantage of it? Such chaos has much more creative flexibility in a modern/future setting.

DICE is still trying to milk that Battlefield 3 style of gameplay into more sequels. I would really like a change of pace at this point.

Settings get stale, gameplay doesn't. Successful franchises do not alter their gameplay in radical ways or depart from past successes. You're basically asking them to take a huge risk.

There are other games that fit what you want to play, but they are pretty niche and will stay that way.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#15 Posted by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

No. BF 1 feels like the bastard child of Battlefront and hardline with shittier guns

They pretty much ruined Conquest, their signature mode

You're not the first person I've heard say that and it just proves how many people didn't play Battlefront.

At least know what the hell you're talking about before you spout off nonsense. Don't just compare this to other games that gamers generally trashed on just because this isn't fitting the mold of exactly what you had built up in your head.

There is no similarities between how Battlefield 1 and Battlefront play. Battlefield 1's closest companion is BF4, but with more diverse gun mechanics and a slower pace. If you're used to how BF3/BF4 played it's a big change. The focus is off of 2-3 round bursts and most weapons having very similar profiles. Now each class is very diverse and all suffer balance issues that will be ironed out through the first few months of the game. No FPS ever hits the market balanced, unless it has a generous alpha/beta for over a year. Even then it's not perfect.

There are problems with the game. What they did with conquest is a tragedy and needs to be addressed ASAP. Balance is all over the place and, without the full subset of weapons, it's hard to get that right. The map they included has some flow issues as well. I don't think it's as bad as some are saying, it reminds me more of the chaos of BF1942 and BF Vietnam maps when the flow between points was pretty loose, but it carries over the problems of long runs between points just like in both of those.

The beta is also pretty unpolished. It's clearly an older build. I expect launch to be a lot more polished.

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

@dynamitecop: yup times 1000. The mechanics of bf1942 are what made it better than BF2, Vietnam, 3, 4, battlefront, and now bf1.

What those all have in common are crammed in linear chokepoint maps, cash grab dlc, seasons passes, terrible server browsers. BF1942 had wide open maps that players could actually apply strategy to. The newer games are twitch click meat grinders.

I've never been a fps guru but in BF1942 I could go 30-0 in a round by constantly outsmarting the competition. I studied battle tactics, maneuvers, flanking etc. and applied them to bf1942. In the meat grinders that's all irrelevant. Dice makes zergfest meat grinders with dlc and seasons passes. Don't hold out on BF1 being anything but a battlefront reskin.

The days of 64 multiplayer battles with strategy and open maps is long gone. We might get an open map, hell we might even get 64 players but I'll be god damn amazed if it's anything but a series of chokepoints that create meat grinders.

In BF1942 the players would spread out, like in an actual war. Players would create an offensive front, like in an actual war. The tide of battle shifted with realistic scenarios, haven't had an experience like that in more than a decade.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#17 Edited by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@robokill: There was no strategy to BF1942. This ridiculous notion needs to die.

It was an explosive spam on point from the big vehicles. Rinse and repeat across the entire map.

Am I the only one that played BF1942? It was great because of the scale, not because of the gameplay. The gameplay was very average in the face of other great shooters of the time. The 64 player matches with full combined arms was the real treat. The maps weren't that great either and nearly all of them suffered from some serious pacing issues.

There were no fucking tactics in BF1942. Just spamming explosives and having a better internet connection than the enemy. The winning team was always the one that controlled the vehicles the most and just spammed the control points with massive AoE explosives.

These arguments are just more of the same bullshit of "hardcore" gamers with rose tinted nostalgia glasses getting all vocal. The cycle never fails to repeat. I heard these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS since BC2 and yet each time the game comes out, millions buy and enjoy it, the games get decent ratings, and people like you sink into the shadows until the next game comes out where you inevitably pop your head into the threads to try to make yourself look like some "superior hardcore gamer" with better taste than the rest of us.

It's outrageous the claims you made about BF1942. They do not stand up and are complete bullshit. You're fabricating these memories of the game and amplifying these fabrications through years of nostalgia.

Avatar image for silversix_
#18 Posted by silversix_ (26347 posts) -

Downloaded it on ps4 to torture my eyes with some juicy 900p. I think this is my fav BF game since BF1943.

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

@Wasdie: I really meant the menus and UI is very battlefrontish. The gameplay is more like bf4 and hardline but leaning more towards hardline. Conquest is a mess. It's not longer conquest. Vehicles are a problem because only one class can actually do anything to them. The medic class has been rendered completely useless.

it's definitely not a bad game but I got the same feeling from the beta that I did from hardline and battlefront. Very meh

Avatar image for dxmcat
#20 Posted by dxmcat (2745 posts) -

You mean when video gaming was blowing up and games were developed with imagination and creativity, rather than a sheer quest for profits?

Yea, good luck.

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

@Wasdie: well you're personal opinion is incorrect. The tactics were team based and many people played using them. Offensive front, flanking, stealth are all legitimate strategies. Can you comprehend that?

How can I be 30-0 in a game using strategy when I can barely get a kill in other fps games?

Good use of rhetoric though, classic leftist nonsense. Speak without saying anything logical and conclude with absolute certainty based on zero objective analysis. It's like a playbook stupid people use.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#22 Posted by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@mems_1224 said:

@Wasdie: I really meant the menus and UI is very battlefrontish. The gameplay is more like bf4 and hardline but leaning more towards hardline. Conquest is a mess. It's not longer conquest. Vehicles are a problem because only one class can actually do anything to them. The medic class has been rendered completely useless.

it's definitely not a bad game but I got the same feeling from the beta that I did from hardline and battlefront. Very meh

They have some serious balance and QoL things to work with.

I like the more minimal UI though. I like Battlefront's UI too. Doesn't distract from the beautiful graphics and gets the job done.

Once they sort out Conquest, which given the universal dislike of the changes I expect them to do, and get the weapon balance online, I think the tank vs. infantry play will come into its own when more equipment and weapons are unlocked.

Field guns are being underutilized by players right now. They are insanely good against tanks.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#23 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25508 posts) -

@Wasdie said:
@mems_1224 said:

No. BF 1 feels like the bastard child of Battlefront and hardline with shittier guns

They pretty much ruined Conquest, their signature mode

You're not the first person I've heard say that and it just proves how many people didn't play Battlefront.

At least know what the hell you're talking about before you spout off nonsense. Don't just compare this to other games that gamers generally trashed on just because this isn't fitting the mold of exactly what you had built up in your head.

There is no similarities between how Battlefield 1 and Battlefront play. Battlefield 1's closest companion is BF4, but with more diverse gun mechanics and a slower pace. If you're used to how BF3/BF4 played it's a big change. The focus is off of 2-3 round bursts and most weapons having very similar profiles. Now each class is very diverse and all suffer balance issues that will be ironed out through the first few months of the game. No FPS ever hits the market balanced, unless it has a generous alpha/beta for over a year. Even then it's not perfect.

There are problems with the game. What they did with conquest is a tragedy and needs to be addressed ASAP. Balance is all over the place and, without the full subset of weapons, it's hard to get that right. The map they included has some flow issues as well. I don't think it's as bad as some are saying, it reminds me more of the chaos of BF1942 and BF Vietnam maps when the flow between points was pretty loose, but it carries over the problems of long runs between points just like in both of those.

The beta is also pretty unpolished. It's clearly an older build. I expect launch to be a lot more polished.

He might have played Rush mode in BF1, because Rush mode is pretty shite. Definitely wrong about Conquest, though; it feels nothing like Battlefront.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde
#24 Edited by deactivated-5cf0a2e13dbde (12935 posts) -

It looks way more suitable for running and gunning. I saw some footage, and people were shooting planes out of the air while on horseback with carbines. I think that after being underwhelmed with BF3 and 4, after loving Bad Company 2, they are kind of losing the soul of the series.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#25 Edited by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@robokill said:

@Wasdie: well you're personal opinion is incorrect. The tactics were team based and many people played using them. Offensive front, flanking, stealth are all legitimate strategies. Can you comprehend that?

How can I be 30-0 in a game using strategy when I can barely get a kill in other fps games?

Good use of rhetoric though, classic leftist nonsense. Speak without saying anything logical and conclude with absolute certainty based on zero objective analysis. It's like a playbook stupid people use.

Don't believe you when you say you went 30-0 by using "strategy". You have brought no proof to this, just your own anecdotal evidence. You having a good game or two doesn't prove what you're trying to say either.

I know your idea of "flanking" is to hit the enemy from behind after using wide sweeps to get around them. The map design in BF 1942 made you vulnerable from all sides all of the time. A cautious player could rack up a big K/D ratio by just being cautious. It's not very engaging gameplay since most of the challenge is simply not being seen by the enemy. That wasn't all that difficult when the maps were so generously open. Hitting where the enemy was not was the only real way to win the game and it was a successful strategy because the maps were so large and getting around them was so difficult, responding to a flank attack was pretty much impossible.

The series moved away from this as it only really appealed to people who were ok with playing for 45 minutes and barely racking up 15 kills with most of the time being down time. The series logically evolved away from that. Once they hit BF2/BF2142, the series blossomed. The flow and pace set by those games has been the foundation of what all of the Battlefield games since have. The series iterated from those and not BF1942 because BF1942 didn't age well and the gameplay mechanics were only average at best.

BF 1942 was only great at the time because it made combined arms work and it introduced us to proper 64 player battles. The actual gameplay was mediocre even by shooting standards in 2002. Lots of nagging issues. Grenade and explosive spam, vehicles generally dominating every map, aircraft dominating battlefields without much proper counters (fixed AA was easily bombed and countered on the ground, it was easy to deny the enemy the ability to spawn planes by bombing them on the ground), terrible gunplay (CS, Quake, Unreal, and MoH AA were out at this time and had clearly superior gunplay and FPS movement mechanics), and maps that had no real logical flow and lend themselves to attacking where the enemy wasn't. The game was only greatly successful because it was doing things those aforementioned FPSs were not doing, providing a sense of scale, forcing players to work together with classes that did not provide a player with all of the tools they needed to win in the moment, and making vehicles work with infantry combat.

The fact that you've gone on the attack of my personality means you really don't have a way to back up your argument. Personal attacks are a sign of a flawed argument. You yourself brought no "evidence" to back your opinion either other than you claim you were good at the game. I say you're greatly overrating the actual gameplay of BF1942 and the series evolved for a reason.

I've actually never been called a "leftist" before and it makes me wonder how shallow your reasoning is to come to that ridiculous conclusion.

Deflecting and attacking me doesn't disprove what I said about people like you becoming vocal around the time of a new Battlefield beta/launch and then disappearing when the game does well.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
#26 Posted by Ghosts4ever (10544 posts) -

Im downloading it right now. will tell you when I played it.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#27 Edited by R4gn4r0k (31588 posts) -

Gonna go ahead and say this doesn't play like Battlefront for me :/

For one their are no OP power ups or AT ATs on the map.

Avatar image for BassMan
#28 Edited by BassMan (10648 posts) -

Anybody who says this is a Battlefront re-skin is an idiot. This is a Battlefield game. The only thing this has in common with Battlefront is the GUI and HUD elements. The look of the rocks also reminds me of Battlefront, but that is it. Nothing about how the game actually plays made me think of Battlefront. I am having a lot of fun with the game. Sure there are some things to work out, but this is definitely BF and it is fun.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#29 Edited by KungfuKitten (26793 posts) -

I'm having a lot of fun with it. But it is 100% a modern Battlefield game. The WW1 veil is thin. It doesn't feel as refreshing as I'd hoped. In that sense it's an improved version of BF4. Still, like I said, I really enjoy playing it. They made improvements. I'm liking the maps. The hit detection feels better. Most things are smoother. The destruction is better. And it's still full of Battlefield jank moments and I love that stuff. I cheered when I saw an airplane drive 90 degrees up the side of a cliff and take off.

Also the game is running smoother on my PC than BF4 did. With my old trusty 780ti I'm running on Ultra 1080p settings and get 70+ fps guaranteed (most of the time it's around 90).

Avatar image for kinky-unikorn
#30 Posted by Kinky-Unikorn (916 posts) -

I'm enjoying the game on my PC. Graphics are clean, game runs smooth at 60 frames. I do find it annoying trying to get a party going with my friends, it'll say we're all in, but it sometimes doesn't allow us to connect in a game. For some reason, I can only play Rush in a party with my friends, if I try Conquest, it won't connect...

As for the guns, they do need work I believe, some work better than others. I do feel each class is diverse though and offers enough incentive to try them each out to see what suits your play-style.

I've never played Battlefront, nor have I played, so can't relate with what others are saying here...

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
#31 Posted by Ghosts4ever (10544 posts) -

Im playing it. its very well optimize. Im quite enjoying it but no way im going to buy it on day one. or full price. I will wait when it will be bargain bin. its MP game after all. or when it will be on sale. i will grab it.

Avatar image for themanofpears
#32 Posted by TheManofPears (284 posts) -

Myself and my friends are having fun with it, that's all that matters right?

Avatar image for s0ldier69
#33 Edited by s0ldier69 (2239 posts) -

bf1 is a great idea on paper. But after playing it I have to say it's pretty bad. Give me back modern day military.

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

I always thought it looked like bf4 with ww1 skin. They should have made an expansion pack like Vietnam.

Avatar image for Alucard_Prime
#35 Posted by Alucard_Prime (10107 posts) -

Sounds like I shouldn't bother with the beta. I'm a big BF fan but I played BF3 and BF4 a little too much, kind of taking a break from the series.....will wait until release.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#36 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (13699 posts) -

@ghosts4ever said:

Im downloading it right now. will tell you when I played it.

He's going to hate and bitch about it. Just watch.

Avatar image for unrealgunner
#37 Posted by UnrealGunner (1071 posts) -

Are you serious? The game doesn't even work properly

Avatar image for deactivated-583e460ca986b
#38 Posted by deactivated-583e460ca986b (7240 posts) -

The 90's were the golden age of shooters though and Doom successfully took us back there. Battlefield 1, judging by the beta, is taking us back to Battlefield 4. That's nice and all, but I'm not gonna get too excited over it.

Avatar image for koko-goal
#39 Posted by koko-goal (1122 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:
@Wasdie said:
@JangoWuzHere said:

Nothing about Battlefield 1 feels like a WW1 game. It still has all the chaos of a modern BF game.

Was anybody honestly expecting a AAA shooter with a 10+ million fanbase to radically alter their gameplay just to fit the setting?

No, but that's the point. Why even move to such a setting if they're not going to take advantage of it? Such chaos has much more creative flexibility in a modern/future setting.

DICE is still trying to milk that Battlefield 3 style of gameplay into more sequels. I would really like a change of pace at this point.

DICE is talented, but the men in black at EA won't let them do their work without creative limitation.

Avatar image for sirk1264
#40 Posted by sirk1264 (6014 posts) -

In my opinion no. Battlefield 1 still feels more like battlefield 4. That's ok though. The gameplay is solid but it definitely doesn't have an old school feel to it like the new doom had. I'm debating on whether I should buy it. This beta at least allows me to get a chance to demo the game to make a decision.

Avatar image for Phazevariance
#41 Posted by Phazevariance (12334 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

Downloaded it on ps4 to torture my eyes with some juicy 900p. I think this is my fav BF game since BF1943.

That's how I feel playing console 1080p games on my 4k TV. Tortured that the hardware is too weak for my viewing capabilities.

Avatar image for quadknight
#42 Edited by QuadKnight (12916 posts) -

No, this game is a joke compared to games like BF1942. It's a reskinned Battlefont game with WW1 weapons and vehicles. It's casual as hell with little teamwork, poor balancing, bad map design, and an emphasis K/D ratio and flashy graphics. It's a step back in the series for me and is probably going to fail like Battlefront and Hardline in retaining a strong player base once the people realize how shallow it is.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#43 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (25254 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@robokill: There was no strategy to BF1942. This ridiculous notion needs to die.

It was an explosive spam on point from the big vehicles. Rinse and repeat across the entire map.

Am I the only one that played BF1942?

Nope. You were pretty much right on the money. Once you got hold of the other team's heavies and kept them, that's it for the other team. It was just a matter of time.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#44 Edited by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@quadknight said:

No, this game is a joke compared to games like BF1942. It's a reskinned Battlefont game with WW1 weapons and vehicles. It's casual as hell with little teamwork, poor balancing, bad map design, and an emphasis K/D ratio and flashy graphics. It's a step back in the series for me and is probably going to fail like Battlefront and Hardline in retaining a strong player base once the people realize how shallow it is.

I get it. You're saying BF1 is like Battlefront because Battlefront is arcadey. It's not really clever and the two play nothing alike. Of course people saying these things have clearly never played Battlefront.

BF1 is a mix of BF4 and BF1942. At least that's the best way I can describe it. Getting from point A to B is slower than in BF4, the setting removes the modern crap and crappy gameplay elements of BF3/BF4, and the pace of the entire game is just a bit slower. The gunplay is closer to BF4, but it uses a completely new bell curve damage system which is frankly pretty broken right now for most of the guns. The idea being that, unlike in BF4, all 4 classes have a very defined role on the battlefield and all play very uniquely with their own strengths and weaknesses. BF4's and, to a lesser extent, BF3's classes were much closer together in how they played. The biggest difference between them all was their strength against vehicles. Infantry wise, all but the sniper had pretty much identical gameplay. They finally addressed that in BF1, but the balance is still a WIP.

There is just no real similarities of the gameplay to Battlefront unless you want to go broad and say they both include shooting from the first person.

Avatar image for quadknight
#45 Edited by QuadKnight (12916 posts) -

@Wasdie: I play Battlefront, I have over 45 hours in the game and I'm a rank 39 with a KD of 1.85. I have over 1000 hours in BF4 and a KD of 4.07. I think I know what I'm talking about. When People say it plays like a reskinned Battlefront they aren't talking about the weapons they are talking about the flow of the game. Both games have a casual flow to them. Lots of running around running and gunning with little emphasis on actual team work. Played the beta for over 8 hours and only got revived once, that's not a Battlefield game.

The vehicles like tanks are also OP like the walkers on Battlefront and they are fun to use but the problem is they dont have timers on them, so people like me that are already good in tanks can go 50-0 with little sweat. Conquest mode is also not based on kills like previous BF games. Sounds like you're the one that is ignorant about the BF franchise, and before you start talking I've played every BF game from the start of the series.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#46 Posted by Wasdie (53593 posts) -

@quadknight said:

@Wasdie: I play Battlefront, I have over 45 hours in the game and I'm a rank 39 with a KD of 1.85. I have over 1000 hours in BF4 and a KD of 4.07. I think I know what I'm talking about. When People say it plays like a reskinned Battlefront they aren't talking about the weapons they are talking about the flow of the game. Both games have a casual flow to them. Lots of running around running and gunning with little emphasis on actual team work. Played the beta for over 8 hours and only got revived once, that's not a Battlefield game.

The vehicles like tanks are also OP like the walkers on Battlefront and they are fun to use but the problem is they dont have timers on them, so people like me that are already good in tanks can go 50-0 with little sweat. Conquest mode is also not based on kills like precious BF games. Sounds like you're the one that is ignorant about the BF franchise, and before you start talking I've played every BF game from the start of the series.

There is a legit problem with the UI and whatnot for the medic right now and the weapons are a bit out of balance, but BF1 is a much slower paced game than Battlefront. It's much closer to BF4 with different shooting mechanics. A person who has so many hours into the game should easily recognize that.

The tanks aren't as OP as people think, you just can't spawn an infantry class as a direct counter to them (at least in the beta, we don't have the full weapon and equipment set of the full game yet). Use the field guns and better control your faction's armor and air. Work together with other players to bring them down. This isn't BF4 where you can solo a tank (which was my most hated aspect of BF3/BF4 as it forced the tanks to get a lot of defenses against attacks making them stupid to fight against which led to a stupid arms race between infantry and tanks over the many patches). There also isn't as many tanks on the field for this exact reason. They wanted to make the tanks a proper tool that should be feared but requires a crew of multiple players to use effectively. It's a different approach and all I see is people not used to it yet.

They did break Conquest and I hope they fix that. The general attitude towards the new approach to conquest has been negative on all fronts. Nobody likes the change and I think they'll fix it.

I've too have played every Battlefield game ever made, including the F2P offshoots and Battlefield 2 Modern Combat on the Xbox. This game in no way plays like Battlefront. You're just being hyperbolic because BF1 doesn't play like BF4 (at least that's what I'm seeing from your complaints).

They intentionally changed the behavior of the weapons on a per-class basis to prevent the overlap that BF3 and BF4 suffered for. No longer is it 2-3 round bursts from all guns that will win you the fight. Each class's weapons have a damage bell curve that give you maximum damage within a certain range. Too close or too far makes the weapons less deadly. They are still in the middle of tuning this and thus the weapon balance is a bit off right now.

Don't accuse me of being ignorant when you're the one making outlandish claims that do not stand up to an ounce of scrutiny. The pace and feel of Battlefront is completely different than Battlefield 1.

Avatar image for davillain-
#47 Posted by DaVillain- (38002 posts) -

PC Battlefield 1 impression

To me, Battlefield 1 feels boring. The guns and vehicles are fine, the horses are cool, the pickups are fine. The beta map is like Red Dead Redemption Map.

It just feels uninspired despite the setting. Everything feels like a pallete swap from the previous games with no spark even if they are named differently on the selection screen. The game technically is fine but I'm just not having fun. Maybe it is a "me" thing but this game feels like every other Battlefield game shoved into a particular time frame much like Hardline felt Battlefiled tucked into a police setting. It doesn't feel unique as of this beta. Maybe time will change that but initial impressions for me aren't great. The graphics, music, atmosphere, and attention to detail is all top quality, I'm still getting the game day one mainly just for the Campaign alone, MP is just a bonus for me.

@Wasdie said:
@quadknight said:

No, this game is a joke compared to games like BF1942. It's a reskinned Battlefont game with WW1 weapons and vehicles. It's casual as hell with little teamwork, poor balancing, bad map design, and an emphasis K/D ratio and flashy graphics. It's a step back in the series for me and is probably going to fail like Battlefront and Hardline in retaining a strong player base once the people realize how shallow it is.

Yet another person who has clearly never played Battlefront.

The ignorance of you people is astounding.

I think the only Battlefront comparisons I would make is the UI including the font, and the desert map which clearly borrows textures from Battlefront... I didn't like the map they chose for the beta, but overall, I like the World War setting, weapons, and planes. I only played a couple games before stopping. Not much point in playing beta the more, and I already got what I wanted out of it. Pretty much plays like Battlefield, but slightly more difficult because of the primitive weaponry.

Avatar image for quadknight
#48 Edited by QuadKnight (12916 posts) -

@Wasdie: I was being hyperbolic by calling it a reskinned Battlefront but it doesn't change the fact that this game feels too casual compared to BFBC2, BF3, and BF4. I still get a lot of Battlefront running and gunning vibes from it when I play it. I like Battlefront to an extent for short bursts but I don't want my mainline BF games feeling casual like that.

UI issues and balancing notwithstanding it should feel like a proper BF game, I just don't feel that with this game.

PS: I'm not mad it doesn't play like BF4, I don't want it to play like that. In fact, I'd prefer if it played like BF1943 on a bigger scale.

Avatar image for commander
#49 Edited by commander (15378 posts) -

@quadknight said:

@Wasdie: I play Battlefront, I have over 45 hours in the game and I'm a rank 39 with a KD of 1.85. I have over 1000 hours in BF4 and a KD of 4.07. I think I know what I'm talking about. When People say it plays like a reskinned Battlefront they aren't talking about the weapons they are talking about the flow of the game. Both games have a casual flow to them. Lots of running around running and gunning with little emphasis on actual team work. Played the beta for over 8 hours and only got revived once, that's not a Battlefield game.

The vehicles like tanks are also OP like the walkers on Battlefront and they are fun to use but the problem is they dont have timers on them, so people like me that are already good in tanks can go 50-0 with little sweat. Conquest mode is also not based on kills like precious BF games. Sounds like you're the one that is ignorant about the BF franchise, and before you start talking I've played every BF game from the start of the series.

you might be good in a tank, but I'm pretty good with dynamite.

In conquest they might be overpowered though, but in rush they are not, there are too many close quarters where the objectives are and while tanks can amazing to run in a building, they can be ambused quite easily as well.

I have never like battlefield games to be honest, besides 1942 because it was an innovative game with the vehicles. Battlefield 2 wasn't bad because of the big maps, but it paled into comparison with games like joint operations imo, where vehicles were much more powerfull.

The biggest problem I always had with the battlefield games , is how team based they have become and how underpowered vehicles became. 64 players maps have never been my thing either, since you don't weigh enough in a game and because vehicles are not powerfull enough to manage a lot of enemies. It's also the reason why I never liked conquest and I still don't like it in battlefield 1.

Battlefield strongest point was never the on foot combat, that's call of duties territory. Battlefield orignated as a game around vehicles and with the world war I setting I feel they have gone back to their roots.

So to me being able to go 50-0 in a tank is a good thing, because that was battlefield was about in the first place. Moderate team gameplay is nice as well, but needing a 5 man squad that's very used to play with each other to actually mean something in a game has never been my thing.

In that regard battlefield 1 is a lot more lenient to the lone wolf and the small teams with the smaller player count like in rush and this in a ww setting. Battlefield 1 is actually a very fitting name for it. Amongst call of duty and medal of honor battlefield 1942 was never as popular. It's only with battlefield 2 and bad company that they really made a name for themselves but like I said I've never been much of a fan of those games, because of the overfocus on team oriented gameplay and the underpowered vehicles.

When fps originated, I was always a big fan of unreal, because there you could really dominate as a single person and when team based gameplay became more popular I was alway more of call of duty person. Simply because you could be more powerfull as a lone wolf or with a small team. Battlefield always catered the bigger teams but with battlefield 1 they tapped into player base like myself that gave up on fps some time ago, and that time was post call of duty black ops 1.

Like wasdie said, too many things are different to say this game is like battlefront with a ww1 skin, battlefront is much faster paced and the weapons and settings are completely different. You might as well say that medal of honor was a world war II reskin of unreal or quake.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
#50 Posted by babyjoker1221 (1308 posts) -

I haven't had a chance to play it yet, so perhaps some of you that have can answer this for me.

I've watched some youtube vids of people playing it, and I'm noticing that there is alot of hip fire going on ala battlefront compared to bf4 where ADS was used.

Is the gunplay and gun handling more akin to bf4, or battlefront?