Completely agree about that! I think the progression and weapon unlock in BF4 was done perfectly. Having them unlock sequentially made sure we had a reason to try everything, and kinda refreshed the gameplay and play style constantly as we progressed down the list on each class. Getting battlepacks consistently was also a nice thing.
On BF1 however, I feel like I have no clue what to unlock next.. I could end up spending my points on a horrible one and waste them, or get a really good one and not have any incentive to unlock anything else. I don't feel like there's any progression happening tbh. And the random battlepacks are a terrible idea.

I'm enjoying the gameplay itself a lot so far, but the progression system is a big disappointment. :/

2 year old thread, locked.

Even if we ignore all the things that were promised and weren't included, it's still a terrible game.
I love exploration games, but having the entire game world being as a randomly generated environments with no real narrative or substance and expecting that to be interesting is completely absurd IMO. That combined with the ridiculously boring and repetitive gameplay cycle made it an awful experience. Especially with the $60 price tag..
If Sean hadn't lied about what's in the game I think the reception still would've been bad, just a bit delayed. Instead of everyone immediately noticing all the missing content, they would've just noticed how utterly boring the game is after a few days.

The horse doesn't matter, I always ride the horse to a flag then leave it. The horse class itself is where it's at.
You get one of the best rifles in the game, a health pack, an ammo pack, a light anti-tank grenade and more armor than normal classes. It's ridiculously powerful, Dice already said it's getting nerfed in the final release.

Hahaha, omg.. are you making these numbers up? I have a 680 and it's not even close to what you're saying.. Stop spreading misinformation. >__>

GTA V all max settings except grass is on high. Average fps is 50-60, rarely drops to 45.

Witcher 3 foliage draw distance at medium, everything else on max, Nvidia Hairworks on, average fps is 45-55.

Battlefield 1 all max settings, average fps is 60-70.

Arkham Knight all max settings. Nvidia Gameworks all on except the smoke. Average fps is 50-60.

No.. Who gave you that idea?

I have an i5 3570K and a GTX 680 and I get an average fps of 60-70 on Battlefield 1 on ultra settings. This hardware came out 4 years ago..

I've been playing for two days so far and really enjoying it! I'm really surprised by how well it runs considering it looks this amazing, this engine is magical.

I don't think they picked the right map to show it off though.. it hard to move anywhere without getting sniped or shot by a tank, its a bit too open.

Yeah you won't see the extra frames, but frame latency can make a big difference. I have a 120hz monitor and on CSGO I can clearly tell if my fps drops from 300 to 150, the difference is very noticeable especially with the mouse movement.

Using either the in-game option or a separate application should be pretty much the same. Personally I use the in-game ones if available because it's easier. :P

It adds input lag though.

Gangbeasts, Trine, and any of the LEGO games.