BATTLEFIELD 1

Fixall said:
I told myself "no more preorders" after being initially disappointed with Star Wars: The Old Republic (great game now)... But I think I'm going to make an exception here. I really want to show my support for taking the risk to go back to WW1. This is looking like the FPS I've been waiting for since BF2.
Click to expand...

We've seen virtually nothing of this game so far. No real gameplay, no PC footage, etc.

FAR too early to pre-order, and even then I wouldn't pre-order an EA title anymore.
 
MavericK said:
We've seen virtually nothing of this game so far. No real gameplay, no PC footage, etc.

FAR too early to pre-order, and even then I wouldn't pre-order an EA title anymore.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder whether people who make these statements are professional shills, they have a "no pre-order" rule but will happily make an exception based on a heavily scripted bombastic trailer which mostly focuses on snippets from the SP campaign (which in DICE's case have been generally shit). I can understand if they are taking advantage of an exceptionally good pre-order discount, but at full RRP there is literally no good reason to pre-order especially when there are going to be multiple opportunities to play the game beforehand so one can judge for themselves whether it is actually worth buying.
 
Personally the game looks intriguing with the older by wing 2 seater air planes and blimps:)....could be really cool to play
 
Man I'm so excited to pay for an unfinished game just to have to pay for it later as a DLC.


I seriously can't fathom why people would trust this company after the Star Wars battlefront
 
I think they went with World War one since they ran out of Ideas for a new franchise.
 
Blade-Runner said:
You have to wonder whether people who make these statements are professional shills, they have a "no pre-order" rule but will happily make an exception based on a heavily scripted bombastic trailer which mostly focuses on snippets from the SP campaign (which in DICE's case have been generally shit). I can understand if they are taking advantage of an exceptionally good pre-order discount, but at full RRP there is literally no good reason to pre-order especially when there are going to be multiple opportunities to play the game beforehand so one can judge for themselves whether it is actually worth buying.
Click to expand...

Because it gets the chronic "Don't preorders U gais" and "DYZE SUXX" bros foaming at the mouth if you just type that you're preordering. Wind them up and watch them go..
 
DPI said:
Because it gets the chronic "Don't preorders U gais" and "DYZE SUXX" bros foaming at the mouth if you just type that you're preordering. Wind them up and watch them go..
Click to expand...

What exactly do you have to gain by pre-ordering this game right now? If you want the bonuses, you can wait until a day before the game drops, and by then we will likely know a lot more about the game, have some gameplay footage, etc.

You have absolutely nothing to gain by pre-ordering at this point.
 
MavericK said:
What exactly do you have to gain by pre-ordering this game right now? If you want the bonuses, you can wait until a day before the game drops, and by then we will likely know a lot more about the game, have some gameplay footage, etc.

You have absolutely nothing to gain by pre-ordering at this point.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - in this game's case there's nothing to gain ordering sooner than a day before the game launches. The point is just that the "EA/DICE/Battlefield/Battlefront sucks" mantra has gotten a little stale.
 
DPI said:
Because it gets the chronic "Don't preorders U gais" and "DYZE SUXX" bros foaming at the mouth if you just type that you're preordering. Wind them up and watch them go..
Click to expand...

So they are either trolling, shilling or just plain dumb.

DPI said:
I'd agree - in this game's case there's nothing to gain ordering sooner than a day before the game launches. The point is just that the "EA/DICE/Battlefield/Battlefront sucks" mantra has gotten a little stale.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that the mantra is undeserved. What has EA/DICE done lately to earn its customers' loyalty, because as far as I can see they have consistently fucked up since BF3.
 
Fixall said:
I told myself "no more preorders" after being initially disappointed with Star Wars: The Old Republic (great game now)... But I think I'm going to make an exception here. I really want to show my support for taking the risk to go back to WW1. This is looking like the FPS I've been waiting for since BF2.
Click to expand...

There is literally no downside to waiting for launch-day reviews.
Never forget how quickly a developer will run away once they've made their money. Remmber Sim City. Remember Diablo 3. Remember RAGE. Remember Batman, Arkham Knight. Remember Aliens CM.

Remember ALL of these games that the developers cashed in on, got the company bonuses BEFORE THE PRODUCT SHIPPED, and responded with 'lol sry!' when the games released as buggy, unfinished, abandonware trash.

Never forget.
 
Pretty sure Diablo 3 got patched into something much better than what it started as.

I get your point though.
 
Won't touch this game until after release and I've seen plenty of twitch streams and reviews. Even then I'll still be reluctant based on DICE's recent track record. Also I miss the good old days when we had dedicated server files and community mods.
 
DPI said:
I'd agree - in this game's case there's nothing to gain ordering sooner than a day before the game launches. The point is just that the "EA/DICE/Battlefield/Battlefront sucks" mantra has gotten a little stale.
Click to expand...

How is it stale? It took them like 2 years (if not more) from launch date to fix Battlefield 4, Battlefield:Hardline sucked like shit, and Star Wars absolutely flopped.
 
DPI said:
I'd agree - in this game's case there's nothing to gain ordering sooner than a day before the game launches. The point is just that the "EA/DICE/Battlefield/Battlefront sucks" mantra has gotten a little stale.
Click to expand...

It may be stale, but it's undoubtedly earned.

Not everyone is a hardcore BF fanboy like yourself.
 
Pringle said:
It may be stale, but it's undoubtedly earned.

Not everyone is a hardcore BF fanboy like yourself.
Click to expand...

Well I'm a fanboy of good games and a lot of us are BF fanboys, but I don't see the logic of giving anyone $60 5-12 months before receiving a product especially since there won't be any shortage of origin keys on launch day. Maybe if it there was some relevant discount for pre-orders it would make more sense.
 
Fixall said:
I told myself "no more preorders" after being initially disappointed with Star Wars: The Old Republic (great game now)... But I think I'm going to make an exception here. I really want to show my support for taking the risk to go back to WW1. This is looking like the FPS I've been waiting for since BF2.
Click to expand...
At least wait for some actual gameplay videos to be released.
MavericK said:
What exactly do you have to gain by pre-ordering this game right now? If you want the bonuses, you can wait until a day before the game drops, and by then we will likely know a lot more about the game, have some gameplay footage, etc.

You have absolutely nothing to gain by pre-ordering at this point.
Click to expand...
Unless you want that CE swag, but as usual it looks like the PC is getting shafted...
 
MavericK said:
We've seen virtually nothing of this game so far. No real gameplay, no PC footage, etc.

FAR too early to pre-order, and even then I wouldn't pre-order an EA title anymore.
Click to expand...

Incorrect sir. The trailer that was released was 100% in engine they said........
 
Brules said:
Incorrect sir. The trailer that was released was 100% in engine they said........
Click to expand...

That is neither gameplay nor necessarily PC footage, so...how is that incorrect?

Even if it did look exactly like that (it won't), it still doesn't show us what the game is actually going to be like. Let alone if there are dedicated servers (unlikely), Season Pass / DLC plans (very likely), etc. We simply don't have enough information.
 
MavericK said:
That is neither gameplay nor necessarily PC footage, so...how is that incorrect?

Even if it did look exactly like that (it won't), it still doesn't show us what the game is actually going to be like. Let alone if there are dedicated servers (unlikely), Season Pass / DLC plans (very likely), etc. We simply don't have enough information.
Click to expand...
Huh? Since when does Dice/EA not used dedicated server for their battlefield games? Since when does EA/Dice does not use season pass or Premium for their battlefield games? I am more than sure the game willl look like what we saw (with some graphical downgrades for consoles). Still a Day 1 for me. Matter of fact its a Day -14 for me since im part of the EA access crew..
 
Brules said:
Incorrect sir. The trailer that was released was 100% in engine they said........
Click to expand...
In-engine can still mean pre-rendered. It just means they rendered the scenes in the trailer using the engine that will be used in the game. I'm sure the infamous Killzone 2 E³ trailer was also rendered "in-engine." It's a tricky phrase used to confuse people.
 
Iceberg Mays said:
Huh? Since when does Dice/EA not used dedicated server for their battlefield games? Since when does EA/Dice does not use season pass or Premium for their battlefield games? I am more than sure the game willl look like what we saw (with some graphical downgrades for consoles). Still a Day 1 for me. Matter of fact its a Day -14 for me since im part of the EA access crew..
Click to expand...

When I say "dedicated servers" I mean servers that end users can actually run themselves, on their own hardware. And yeah, like you said, there is likely to be a Season Pass and tons of DLC, and some people are adverse to that.

Given how Frostbite games look I'm sure graphically it should be good, but that is nothing to say of gameplay mechanics, and I guarantee you it is not going to look just like the trailer. I'm sure they have post-processing and AA jacked up to maximum levels on that stuff, and I doubt it's playable.
 
I get the whole worry about Mgs vs Bolt Action.

But let's not forget bf1942. I would pick a bolt action over the smgs and mgs any day in that game. Remember what it was like to actually shoot them? lmfao. No spry and pray at all.

HOPEFULLY, they somehow balance the shit out of MGS, where spraying 30 rounds at an enemy 200+ yards out won't do shit. Hell even at 50 yards.
 
Pringle said:
It may be stale, but it's undoubtedly earned.

Not everyone is a hardcore BF fanboy like yourself.
Click to expand...

Not a hardcore BF fanboy, just prefer to use cognitive brain function and judge each game release case by case and on its own merits, rather than broad brush "EA SUX K GAIS" silliness. I realize that's too common sense for some, but then the most vocal complainers are usually the first ones in line to buy and play a game anyway. You could set your watch to it.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
In-engine can still mean pre-rendered. It just means they rendered the scenes in the trailer using the engine that will be used in the game. I'm sure the infamous Killzone 2 E³ trailer was also rendered "in-engine." It's a tricky phrase used to confuse people.
Click to expand...

Nothing confusing about "in-engine". It just means the trailer guy has the tools to pause the action and move the camera around freely.

Here's what I do know: The first trailer for Star Wars Battlefront came out along with the "In-Engine" stamped on it, people were skeptical the graphics wouldn't look like the trailer, and the actual game graphics ended up being pretty damn similar.

I'm sure there'll be plenty to criticize about the game, but you're going to have a hard time making a case against the graphics - the latest Frostbite is optimized to high hell and gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Nothing confusing about "in-engine". It just means the trailer guy has the tools to pause the action and move the camera around freely.

Here's what I do know: The first trailer for Star Wars Battlefront came out along with the "In-Engine" stamped on it, people were skeptical the graphics wouldn't look like the trailer, and the actual game graphics ended up being pretty damn similar.

I'm sure there'll be plenty to criticize about the game, but you're going to have a hard time making a case against the graphics - the latest Frostbite is optimized to high hell and gorgeous.
Click to expand...
DICE is also one of the few companies who has consistently provided game trailers that were taken while in game in some fashion, be it single player or multiplayer. I have seen this consistently since Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4 and every DLC released for each. They are also known to use their own in-house tools or even 3rd party software such as BF Cinematic tools that removes all the other on-screen information.

This trailer is a mix of single player and some multiplayer pulled from their in-house Alpha testers.
For example...
When you see the soldier's face as the zeppelin approaches=Single Player
When the Mark V Tank goes out onto the sands with the troops running alongside=Multiplayer

On that last one, the easy way to tell is the soldiers and tank are both british, but the soldier's are carrying a German Anti-Tank rifle. This means weapon loadouts and customization that's only in multiplayer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
CaptNumbNutz said:
On that last one, the easy way to tell is the soldiers and tank are both british, but the soldier's are carrying a German Anti-Tank rifle. This means weapon loadouts and customization that's only in multiplayer.
Click to expand...

... or the game is just incomplete. In the recent MoH game trailer they used a 1911 model straight from BF3. It never appeared in the actual game. In engine? Certainly. Will it look that good? Maybe for the other reasons you stated. But in general in engine doesn't = in game. You can do some impressive stuff in engines that would bring frame rates to a crawl real time.
 
They already said they were using photogrammetry so I have little doubt it will look amazing. That's what they did for Battlefront and it would make no sense for a "new" game from Dice to look worse then an older one.

As long as they are able to find and photograph a lot of real-world based items it will be fine.
 
DPI said:
Nothing confusing about "in-engine". It just means the trailer guy has the tools to pause the action and move the camera around freely.

Here's what I do know: The first trailer for Star Wars Battlefront came out along with the "In-Engine" stamped on it, people were skeptical the graphics wouldn't look like the trailer, and the actual game graphics ended up being pretty damn similar.

I'm sure there'll be plenty to criticize about the game, but you're going to have a hard time making a case against the graphics - the latest Frostbite is optimized to high hell and gorgeous.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

Keep in mind this version of the FB engine will be better than SW Battlefront, and that game looks OMGWTFBBQ good.

I anticipate this being better. They made a point to note how this is the "future" of Battlefield series - so my guess is a generation step on the engine? Maybe more physics/destructable environments? Maybe ground is destructable to create craters like you see in WWI pics? I may have hated Hardline and Battlefront - but the engine progression is legit and kicks the shit out of the CoD engine.

Also - I saw above someone mention consoles will be down sampled - don't forget the updated PS4 and Xbones will be out around the same time with updates themselves - so we may finally be reaching near parity (1080) for PC-Consoles?

My general all round sense is this is a "get back to our roots" game (look at how negatively the CoD game was recieved for space fighting lol - wow), generation increase in the engine etc and hopefully great gameplay.

The age of running your own server is long gone - but this will have server browser/menu. I think/hope they learned their lesson from Star Wars lol - and that may have been a Disney thing......

Good thing is we should find out a shit ton more come E3!
 
As for the engine, some who attended the party have said there's been advancements in the destruction department as wood buildings can now be set on fire, they'll burn, and slowly collapse.


I'm looking forward to e3 and what we might see. I'm really curious what the spotting mechanic will be, if any. I absolutely hated what the 3d spot did to the series as far as tactical. They should have nerfed it (as you could spam it).

The spot is supposed to simulate in-battle communication. Because of the limited comm technology, if they have to have it I hope they do something like this:

- Spotting someone requires you hold the button for 2 seconds.
- The spotted POSITION and TYPE are communicated to troops within a short radius to the spottee. That last known position and type shows up on their minimap, fading over time.
- No magical GPS coordinate through walls to the entire battle command bullshit.

Opens the door for a sniper to have the ability to spot for a larger radius (or to the entire team or to just the commander).

Aiming at a friendly should show their name above them. Aiming at an enemy should show nothing.

The point would be to give you the ability to simulate you communicating that there's an enemy troop in the vicinity without allowing you to spam it or take away from the tactical maneuvers.

Trench warfare should be about running around the corner and being surprised by an enemy troop. Not camping a corner because you have a magical blip heading in your direction.
 
I honestly like how spotting is on bf4 and hardline and hope they dont change it. As these games are getting more and more realistic graphically, its getting easier for opponents to blend in with the environment. The only change i would recommend is for snipers (god i hate their punk ass), is to keep their last known position on the map unless they fire another shot.
 
5150Joker said:
Won't touch this game until after release and I've seen plenty of twitch streams and reviews. Even then I'll still be reluctant based on DICE's recent track record. Also I miss the good old days when we had dedicated server files and community mods.
Click to expand...

I agree, last BF game I bought was BC2. I miss the dedicated servers, mods, and how few cheesy gimmicks like unlocks there were in bf 1942 and bf Vietnam. I could couldn't careless about a campaign, it is BF not MoH. The series was founded and became popular because it was a multiplayer game not because it had a any sort of campaign. Having said that I would like the original single player/co-op mode back. It was a lot of fun to me to crank up the AI for the enemies and turn it down on your team. It was kind of like playing with hackers, they always new exactly where you were and could snipe you from almost anywhere. I would be the happiest guy on earth if they gave us the exact original 1942 game with better graphics.

Edit :weird an entire sentence disappeared. So adding it back in.
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping spotting is dialed back to what it was in BF1942. You spot them, they show as a blip on your mini map. That's it. I think they should take it a step further and not even have the blip move on the map it just fades away over 5 seconds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top