Battlefield 1

Users who are viewing this thread

So somehow we're gonna get a worse WW1 game than Verdun?!? What the hell Sweden!

Almalexia said:
I'm just puzzled why some folks (looking at you, Joe  :razz:) give off the impression it was never used, when it certainly was.
That's not what I meant, I just think it wasn't used often/wasn't a common tactic after 1941 anymore.
I know it was used, but saying that it was the Red Army's favored/most-used tactic in WW2 pisses me off.
So yeah, pretty much what Jhessail said.

Also I knew it, Enemy at the Gates was a Cold War movie!
 
If it will be anything like Battle Field Four then it is going to be a decent game because Battle Field Four was a decent game that was not bad.

Arvenski said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/french-forces-will-be-premium-dlc-for-battlefield-1/

Vive la cashgrab.

Why don't we DDoS them as punishment for being a company that wants money.
 
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu said:
If it will be anything like Battle Field Four then it is going to be a decent game because Battle Field Four was a decent game that was not bad.

Yeah, especially compared to the mess that was BF3.

I've been getting some BFBC2 vibes from some of the gameplay footage I've seen, so I'm a little hopeful about how this game will turn out, but I'm not going to get my hopes up too high as I'm expecting they'll get crushed. Game also seems somewhat interesting now that I've kinda accepted that it isn't WW1, but more of a WW1-steampunkish alternative history. Guess if you want realism you've got to go the way of Verdun, Red Orchestra or ArmA, and it could actually be a nice change to have something that isn't exactly the same as everything else.
 
If they made the US forces DLC instead, it would better fit the timeline and guaranteed to sell DLC units. People would be pissed, but they'd still pay... they always pay for the red white and blue.
 
NKOR0001.GIF
 
Battlefield 3 was way better than bf4 though. Bf4 campaign sucked arse. Only the graphics have been improved. I still play the third more than the fourth.
 
From the Internet said:
Both terrible, linear, cliché ridden, corridor shooters lacking any opportunity for the player to explore or utilise the unique sandbox nature of Battlefield to progress.

The Bad Company campaigns were alright, I wish they'd make the BF1 SP in a similar vein.
 
I personally quite enjoyed the BF4 campaign. Most levels were wide, had different routes towards objectives, often even accommodated stealth, and you could in some cases commandeer vehicles. Or sneak around buildings on foot. Cool stuff. Battlefield stuff.
The story was so-so, with some evil Chinese general being evil, and for some reason the Russians were also evil, but something something military intelligence and EMP blasts and Chinese prisons under a mountain, and big decisions at the end. Most of these things actually had an explanation, I think. Most of them. Wasn't as great as BFBC2's pacifist-hippie-heli pilot, but was lightyears ahead of BF3's.
(Honestly, the only good moment in the BF3 campaign was when me and a squadmate had to sneak inside a building through the toilets, but there was an evil Iranian there and he saw us, and I failed the quick-time event and got stabbed in the stomach, and as I was bleeding out, I heard a gunshot and saw my squadmate's body dropping on the floor beside me. It was hilarious. That Iranian guy made for a better protagonist than me.)
 
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu said:
From the Internet said:
Both terrible, linear, cliché ridden, corridor shooters lacking any opportunity for the player to explore or utilise the unique sandbox nature of Battlefield to progress.
The Bad Company campaigns were alright, I wish they'd make the BF1 SP in a similar vein.
They were good because the characters were good. And yeah if with the ww1 setting they have the potential to make a funny squad made up of different nationalities. The posh Englishman, the nationalist Irishman, the useless Italian and the drunk Russian. I would get behind that campaign.

Although you'd need a super-serious, brooding American of course.
 
Lumos said:
Wasn't as great as BFBC2's pacifist-hippie-heli pilot, but was lightyears ahead of BF3's.
(Honestly, the only good moment in the BF3 campaign was when me and a squadmate had to sneak inside a building through the toilets, but there was an evil Iranian there and he saw us, and I failed the quick-time event and got stabbed in the stomach, and as I was bleeding out, I heard a gunshot and saw my squadmate's body dropping on the floor beside me. It was hilarious. That Iranian guy made for a better protagonist than me.)

I really liked the bits of the campaign with the American grunts on the streets of Tehran and the bit with the Spetsnaz in Paris.
I don't really remember any highlights from Battlefield 4's campaign. The only part that mattered was in the end, when you could choose which one of your friends would sacrifice themselves.
And it mattered because you could unlock two guns to be used in the Multiplayer. Also Battlefield 3 had co-op multiplayer missions.
 
Radalan said:
The only part that mattered was in the end, when you could choose which one of your friends would sacrifice themselves.
I honestly expected to be able to sacrifice myself. After all, I had no personality, didn't utter a word, would only moan slightly when a car crushed my legs, and wouldn't make a sound whilst being tortured with electricity. Moreover, others in my squad would give out audible orders despite me being the sergeant and having a mechanic to give orders.
In the end, we knew that the black guy, a long-term squadmate and close friend of mine, had a family and so on, and the asian chick, the love-interest-ellipsis-question-mark, was completely devoted to saving China and stopping the war and being a good person and whatnot. Meaning that the protagonist was the most expendable out of all of them. And they didn't allow me to sacrifice myself. *sigh*.
Also, yeah, having to do the final checkpoint three times in order to unlock all weapons for MP. Though I don't really mind that. A slightly different cutscene every time and nothing more than five minutes' worth of time.

Radalan said:
Also Battlefield 3 had co-op multiplayer missions.
Indeed, and whilst they could get a little repetitive because there was only six of them, I found them quite enjoyable with a friend. Wish they had more of them, and had added them to the next games. Who knows, we might get a wave-based bot survival mode for Battlefield 1. Totally not stolen from Battlefront. :iamamoron:

Anyhow, if the horse-riding woman is a playable character (and the trailer lad is one as well), I'm pretty sure I'll be enjoying the campaign. Seeing the main characters in cutscenes means that they're likely to talk, and I very much prefer games where I'm not just a mute killing machine on legs.
 
Lumos said:
Radalan said:
Also Battlefield 3 had co-op multiplayer missions.
Indeed, and whilst they could get a little repetitive because there was only six of them, I found them quite enjoyable with a friend. Wish they had more of them, and had added them to the next games.
The sneaky-beaky one (second or third) was do-able solo without breaking stealth. Once had a recording of me doing it, but lost it in the shuffle to new hard drives a while back. You have to pop 2 guards with headshots and a camera all within a second at one point. That was frustrating as ****.
 
Back
Top Bottom