Battlefield 1
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nRTF2SowQ

:salute:

Looks good, but EA :-?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK2CwlPnECQ

Nuff said.

I don't know, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
There's only a handful of WWI based games out there, and the vast majority of them are strategy or tactical based, and the other FPS that I can think of, Verdun, doesn't have the finance behind it that EA DICE has.
Of course, this being EA there's going to be a massive zeppelin sized load of unwanted stuff with it, microtransactions, and the like, so that's a major negative against it.
However, looking at the trailer there are some things in it that made me nod my head in appreciation. The trench club, the mission set in the Sinai and Palestine campaign/Arab revolt, the Mark V male tank, gas attack and the Dreadnought, as well as the armour clad machine gunner.

Sure, it's going to take some liberties with history, so did BF1942, but it was still a lot of fun...and who knows, if it does well enough then it might get more casual people interested in the history of the First World War, as we move through the centeniary.

So, I'm not going to look down my nose at this, instead I'm going to be interested in how it turns out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l20il6AHlWo

I'd like to give this game a shot. It probably won't be too good, but I do like how they're showing other aspects of the war than the stereotypical parts of the Western Front and there really aren't enough World War I games around, in my opinion. Unfortunately, with this being Evil Arts and tied to Origin I shall most likely have to pass on it.

Also, they could have been decent enough to spell the title out as 'Battlefield One' or something. That would have made some semblance of sense, at least...

While I remain skeptical, I would guess that this could become one of the best BF games ever. The gameplay could be really interesting, from what the trailer gave away. I don't think we need to start debates about authenticity or realism in a BF game, so the depiction of any period hardly matters in my opinion.

Let's see what they will deliver! :yep:

I admit, I am hyped abot this one.
Bzt this is EA, my PC is showing it's age and my finances still hadn't recovered from last year, so I'll wait a while after release. If the reaction is good I'll upgrade the rig and wait for a sale.
Or ask it as my birthday present :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pIvKHSCP0

:haha:

I´m a big fan of battlefield 4......looking forward to trying out WW1, although I am slightly worried that the limitations in technology in the period might take away from the game

https://www.twitch.tv/battlefield/v/...07?t=02h15m01s

Skip to around 2 hours mark. Some very beautiful graphics there, historically a bit dubious in many places but it does seem like a reasonable mesh between World War One and Battlefield.
Controllable airships which can be shot down and will crash pretty much anywhere with destruction of whatever is underneath and permanent wreckage, very impressive.
Deformable terrain, destructible buildings and changing weather conditions which effect visibility.
It's no Red Orchestra or Verdun, but it doesn't look terrible.

Still....EA.... :hmmm:

So?

Was BF3 bad?
Is BF4 bad?

Can't say I've played either, I'm just going on their reputation.
Don't get me wrong, I like the look of it, it's just a case of waiting for the other shoe to drop. :hmmm:

France will be available as a 'premium add-on'. :88)

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...ench-army-dlc/

Indeed...it's not as if the French suffered the third highest casualties, or that a significant portion of the fighting on the Western front took place on French soil, or that France contributed the second largest force in the Triple Entente or anything... :/\\!!

To sum it up:
http://i.imgur.com/HQ0ftDs.png

Honestly, I'd say in its choice of who to put as a DLC, yes...although sadly I can see why they did it, after all when World War One is mentioned, for the most part the people that come to mind are the Tommies vs the Jerrys, the French, Flemish, Russians, Arabs, Ottomans, Italians, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Serbians, Austrio-Hungarians rarely get a look in, even the Canucks and Aussies often lose out. A similar thing happens when the war in the Pacific comes about in WWII, it often focuses primarily on the US vs Japan and leaves out things like the Fall of Singapore, the Kokoda trail, and China. Things are getting better now that the world is smaller, and I've got to give BF1 its due, it looks as though the Sinai and Arabian front will be featured, and I honestly can't think of any game outside of the odd RTS which has featured that part of history before, and even if they do happen to mangle the history a bit, it will hopefully encourage some people to look into the real thing and shed some exposure on a piece of history that really has only have one film which features on one person.
So, yes, while there are some rather hefty sacrifices in the name of gameplay being made there, particularly in the prevalence of SMGs in the map that was demoed at E3, I still think that it's good to have a game which brings attention on this war, especially during its 100th anniversary.

How?

It's not content that they have to create, it's already there just locked out Multiplayer unless you pay extra for it...there's simply no excuse....that kind of marketing from anyone or any game happening to any faction in my books is a big pile of doo-doo. :nope:

Oh, I didn't realise that they were in the single player campaign but not in MP, that is a load of dinosaur poo.

It's a lot of fish. :yep:

Watched some gameplay videos.

So many assault automatic weapons, like a reskined Battlefield 4 :nope:

Where are the bolt action bayonet charges against fixed machine gun positions. All I saw was a bunch of yahoos spraying and praying.