Battlefield 1

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

 

http://www.battlefield.com/community/insider

Signup for early access to beta

All I can say is F*ck Yes!

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

So I need a new change of pants after watching that. So freaking happy DICE went with WWI, this will be a nice change from modern warfare titles..

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Not only will it have the Euro nations, but the Ottoman Empire as well. Gas warfare is going to be brutal pending on how its placed. It will bring a whole new dynamic to rush if you can gas the comm site. Gas Mask looks like its regulated to a class. I wonder if you can TNT horses as replacement for C4 Jeeps... PETA would not be pleased.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

DICE has me hyped. I was hesitant when I heard WW1 instead of WW2, but from what I've seen in this trailer, it will be epic.

There will be a campaign, solid multiplayer, insane 'only in battlefield' action.. yes. All criteria is met.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

So more info, Jack was at the reveal (along with LevelCap (he'll probably have a video tomorrow about it)). Sound freaking awesome.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Awesome vid on the authenticity DICE put into the game.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

 

[Sledgstone 8,672]

DICE knows how to make their fans happy.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

They come out 2 weeks before COD:IW. They're making the big push this year. Normally they come out a month in advance. They have to get this right. Launch must have very few issues. I hope they are ready because the hype train is going to be huge. 1 million likes vs. 1 million dislikes for the COD trailer. Not only has it surpassed a trailer that came out almost a week prior, its the fastest game trailer youtube video to ever reach 1 million likes. I think on reddit someone said it was like #25 of all youtube videos currently.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

I think everyone got burned out on scifi / futuristic shooters because of Destiny. BF1 is exactly what everyone has been wanting for a while. Compared to what everyone has been playing for a while this will feel fresh and enjoyable. Activision was dumb to combine Modern Warfare with their new COD. If they'd have released just the remaster for $30 it could have given BF1 some serious competition. But for $70 minimum just to get it, I'm sure a crap load of people would rather dump that money into BF1 instead to get 60 player MP and top of the line graphics on a great game engine. As long as BF1's servers run smooth, I'm sure they'll get massive sales.

On another note, they said they've been working on BF1 for a couple years now. With how Star Wars Battlefront plays, my guess is they pulled alot of developers off that game for BF1 in that last year of it's own development. Battlefront could have been so much better but it felt like a cash grab compared to how battlefield games feel more like an investment for entertainment to me. lol. I played about $40 worth of battlefront but lost my excitement for it quickly. I paid $100 for bf4 with premium and I played that game for hundreds of hours over 6 months. Only Guild Wars 2 and Battlefield games can keep my attention that long. Destiny did for a while, but I'm done with that franchise.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

The bundling of the Modern Warfare Remaster on Infinite Warfare has a lot of people thinking Activision has no faith in IW. Sad but I think they're right. BO3 did well but they did notice a drop off in sales from previous years and with the bad press for their the IW trailer I think they're more afraid then ever. Plus, apparently pre-orders for IW have been pretty steady due to the remaster so I don't think the game will have trouble selling but outside of that it'll probably never be played (and by what I've heard the remaster will not work without IW so this means the game is going to be connected to the IW disc/dl, which completely sucks).

DICE took the right approach here. While I would of preferred a WWII game I'm extremely hyped for BF1 from that trailer. Plus everything I've heard about it since the trailer dropped has me even more intrigued to play it (the main thing being Assault being its own class and it's healing abilities being brought into it's own class, plus needing a whole squad to operate a tank seems like an awesome idea). While DICE dropped the ball on Battlefront it's launch was pretty damn smooth so I'm hoping they took what they learned from the CTE in BF4 and BFH and bring it into BF1 at launch (stable servers, great netcode, etc). However, if this game launches like BF4 did DICE will most likely loose a lot of the player base who will most likely buy and play IW (reluctantly but they still will).

Jack's in depth analysis. He goes over quite a bit of stuff he saw during the Press Event that happened after the live stream. A little more indepth info is presented about the trailer as well (well what he could talk about, he's under NDA for quite a bit of stuff yet).

[Sledgstone 8,672]

I think the biggest problem with the BF4 launch was the fact that they used a new frostbite engine and launched on 5 different platforms simultaneously. They must not have had the resources to address the amount of issues across all platforms in a timely manner. I remember the PS3 and Xbox 360 were had the most significant issues with Bf4's launch. Now with BF1 only being on 3 platforms and they're using the same game engine, it should go much smoother. And theres really no excuse why it shouldn't go much smoother the more I think about it.

The other positive is that BF1 won't be restricted to old gen limitations like BF4 was:

That DLC had it's shield limited because of PS3 and Xbox 360 limitations. Now theres no more need for DICE to hold back on anything they want to actually do. This is the biggest difference between Battlefield and Call of Duty. DICE will take the chance of having a rough launch and customer complaints for the sake of innovation and improvement. EA lets them do this because DICE knows what they're doing. But Activision keeps COD stagnated. Its all the same game engine. Its all the same recycled game. There is no real innovation with that franchise anymore. And if the Modern Warfare remaster needs IW installed as part of its base code to run, well it'll be another game I won't buy until I see it on sale for $10 on steam or on a PSN sale. Its actually kind of stupid of activision to do this.. bundling the 2 games together actually makes the game compete with itself in terms of the population of each COD's multiplayer.

I don't necessarily think it's Activision that is screwing over all these developers. I guess it could be. It looks like Activision screwed Destiny, but Bungie also screwed Destiny with their horrible game engine that takes forever for them to update. But did Activision screw the COD developers? Maybe Activision is telling these companies to keep popping out new COD titles like pez and not worry about the game engine. Or maybe these companies don't have the developmental power to actually update their core game engine or are even willing to take a chance. Bungie took a chance and made a new game engine and in the end that engine sucked horribly for them to develop into new expansions or potential sequels. If Activision wants to save COD, they need to put the money into a new engine. They should do what EA did and make their own version of Frostbite to use on a variety of game titles.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

See when the whole Infinity Ward debacle went down a few years ago Activision lost it's only team willing to challenge the genre and write new Engine code (something that is not easy and would require there to be a 2-3 year break inbetween COD titles (which, lets be honest, they need it)). While Titanfall somewhat flopped that was what was made by most of the original Infinity Ward staff (remember COD4 was made by these guys hence why it's a freaking masterpiece, though MW2 was a mixed bag) because EA said "Hey we want you to work for us. Give us an original IP and you have complete control over how you do it (well not complete control but enough to make a AAA game)."

Activision (as well as EA but they're more willing to allow developers like DICE to do as they please, not so much with their other developers) are known for stagnating game growth (WoW too a serious down hill turn when Activision bought out Blizzard in 2008 (however that is my opinion, I noticed a serious lack of quality once they took over)). While I'm sure it's not entirely their fault and IW, Treyarch (who have had the three best games in the series since BO1), and Sledgehammer have to take on some of this blame but when a company comes out and says we'll release a game in this series every year you severely stagnate the growth a game franchise can have. As I said above it takes up to a year to get a new engine coded and fully kink free before you even plan on using it to build a game. None of these developers have the time and probably don't have the money to invest in building a new Engine from the ground up (I believe I stated this in another topic quite a while ago but besides the initial startup funds all a developer gets for money is milestone payments if they reach their milestones (which is just enough to pay you're team and pay any bills/overhead you might have) and a pathetic little 6-10% royalty on every game sold (10% is generally reserved for developers like DICE who release quality products all the time). You also have to realize that this initial startup payment they get is based entirely on a budget that's proposed by them and okayed by the publisher (which you know is completely low balled on the publishers end)). DICE, on the other hand, does which is why we see new iterations of the Frostbite Engine at a pretty regular pace. BF4 will be 3 years old in October (in fact after BF1 is released) and the game was made using the infant FB3 engine, which was extremely noticeable at launch. The Engine has had 3 years and multiple games on it to work out all those kinks to make it the great engine it is now. Plus DICE probably has an in house team devoted to programming and bug fixing current and future engines (a luxury most developers don't have, then again most developers don't release consistently great and money making titles like DICE either).

Bungie took a chance only because Bungie was brought on specifically to create a new IP by Activision, they forked over the cash to get the game out because Activision knew they were falling behind with original IP titles to push them forward (plus when you have the legacy of creating the Halo franchise, one of the most successful FPS games to date, it's not hard to not get what you want). Did Bungie fuck up? Well since we all agree on that this question was sorta loaded. Did Activision have something to do with it? Damn right they did but what that was we will probably never know (but a lot of the shady shit that went down prior to Destiny being released can probably be tracked back to Activsion).

The idea to bundle the MW remaster with IW was totally Activision's idea which screw IW in the long run because even if this game sells extremely well it's only because everyone wanted the MW remaster. This also screws us over as it requires us to spend $70+ to get the game we really want. Whether Activision is truly screwing the developers or not is a matter of opinion but when you looks at their current business model it's quite obvious to see they aren't helping their developers any.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Does Activision screw their companies? Yes.... Thats why Respawn exists. When MW2 was in development the two head guys wanted the game to drop the COD title and just be called Modern Warfare. Activision was having none of it, and that's where things started to sour. Shortly after MW2 was out both of them left (Taking a large chunk of Infinity Ward with them) and EA picked them up spawning a massive and bitter lawsuit that was settled discreetly. Activision is in a place where EA was a few years ago when they were viewed as the worst company ever. COD coming in 2nd place is probably the best thing that could ever happen to the franchise. They have no reason to try as long as their games keep selling.

EDIT: Strider beat me to it.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

 

[Sledgstone 8,672]

A side mounted scope could be quite useful if we can swap between iron sights and the scope on the fly like I could on Medal of Honor Warfighter:

Dual sights worked great for going around corners inside a building and then swapping back to the long range scope in the open.

 

Jackfrags has made a couple really good videos talking about the weapons and vehicles of WW1:

 

 

 

 

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

This was also doable in BO2 or one of the COD games, and it was never brought back.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/05/18/ea-originally-absolutely-rejected-dices-battlefield-1-pitch

Props to EA for not being like Activision when it came to Destiny. I hope this game is successful enough to allow DICE more free reign. 

[Sledgstone 8,672]

EA did screw DICE with battlefront apparently. The game was rushed to meet the deadline of releasing alongside with the movie:

Quote

"The one thing that we got criticized for was the lack of a single-player campaign. It was conscious decision we made due to time and being able to launch the game side-by-side with the movie that came out to get the strongest possible impact," he explained. "I think the team created a really good game based on the premise that we had. I would say the game has done very well for us and reached a very different demographic than a traditional EA game. So from that perspective, it's a success. Are we happy with the 75 rating? No. Is that something we're going to cure going forward? Absolutely."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-explains-why-star-wars-battlefront-didnt-have-s/1100-6439898/

If DICE actually had the time to work on Battlefront like they did have with BF1, I bet the game would have been amazing. But if future Star Wars games are set to be released alongside movie release dates, I'll never buy one again until I see a full review for it after release. After reading this, I'll assume any and all future Star Wars games will be rush jobs if they release around the same time as a movie.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

I bought it because star wars. I didn't buy hardline and probably won't buy off year battlefields for that reason. I hear hardline has bad balance issues. A friend that played it said there was an assignment for a gun that made you use it to unlock it. Wtf? It was a sniper rifle to. So how can you unlock a rifle that everyone has to unlock by picking up off a dead person? I guess they relied on people buying shortcut packages to let normal  players unlock it.

[Sledgstone 8,672]

Yeah, I had no interest in Hardline. I'll stick to DICE only battlefields. That assignment sounds like complete BS.

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

I pretty much bought Battlefront for the same reasons as DX. Is it a good game? Yes, it's a really good game. Sadly thought it suffered for the reasons DICE said it did, it was rushed. There wasn't enough to do when the game released, it had a limited amount of maps, and honestly once you played it once you pretty much knew everything it had to offer and that's what killed it for me (Battlefield is always fun because Battlefield matches are driven completely by their players, you never get the same experience twice when you're in a Battlefield match however you get the same experience every match you play in Battlefront).

Hardline was a good game it just wasn't thought out properly (a lot of gamers enjoyed it, I know a lot of PC gamers wished the game would of lasted longer but the PC version pretty much tanked after release). I enjoyed the beta mostly because it was more fast paced then core Battlefield games. Don't get me wrong I love the core series but Hardline was a nice change, almost a COD style Battlefield game. I think the theme pretty much killed it as most gamers aren't interested in Cops vs Robbers games.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

 

WOW!!!!

[Strider Hiryu 2,704]

That was fucking amazing and I'm glad I watched it live. Chat was freaking hype during it.

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Things I noticed from the live stream

When you spot enemies, it shows there class... this is really useful in order to take out the medic first.

The time left to revive teammates is very noticeable.

The hatchet is instakill with seemingly no long animation.

Weather for every map is great and can change the dynamic of play. Snipers and bombers can be made totally ineffective outside of pure luck. I can already see people crying to change the algorythem to make fog happen less.

The behemoth is 100% player controlled and therefore comes down anywhere on the map when taken out, bringing down whatever it lands on with it, and leaving its big metal frame.

Sniping looks awesome, overall gunplay looks more challenging. The speed of movement looks like BF3 straight out the gate, and not the slower BF4 speed it had at launch. 

I like the new voice work for notifications. I don't know if its only for the British, but the softer woman's voice was a nice change from the usual generic radio static call outs.

You don't have to leave your tank to repair, no more having your tank stolen when you're trying to fix it. I'm curious if you have to stay in place as only the driver? Or can a gunner repair while you're moving? While it may seem OP, the mutli-person tanks can be disabled a lot easier than in the last 2 games.

Semi-autos have sniper scope options... I doubt I'll use them much as it would really screw up my normal range engagements.