*** Battlefield 1 ***

Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,114
Location
Notts
they also out until launch day and post the most in this very thread :D

doesnt people realize the horse is a photoshop :p
 
Associate
Joined
24 May 2011
Posts
1,352
So many people are 'in' and 'out' of a game not out for months based on a 1 minute trailer half of which was CGI....crazy prediction skills shown by at least half of them..

Thought the trailer looks good but will be interesting to see more about the game and try the beta.

On a side note, every time we get a new game must we have posts that essentially say this isn't bf2 and therefore I won't play it......just play bf2 then....if it is such a good game you and everyone else would still be playing it. Now in response many will say disparagingly 'people are won over by flashy new games which look good but lack gameplay etc etc' in which case the people playing the new games are clearly not the sort of players you like thus those still playing bf2 are even more your type of gamer so you should be thankful to the new games for taking away the 'noobs' and leaving you with a challenge.....or just play Arma....
 
Don
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
13,985
Location
Spalding, Lincolnshire
A new leaked image of the vehicle selection.

FwEN9dK.jpg

Obvious troll is obvious - noone else notice the background is from Battlefield 4?
 
Associate
Joined
20 Nov 2013
Posts
1,300
Location
Batcave
Of course it was a bloody hoax, did people really think it was true?! Maybe I should have put a :p so the gullible people of the world didn't think it was for real.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,462
One thing that's got me worried about this was a comment someone made about being able to form a squad before joining a server, so that when the squad leader joins a server the squad will follow. In it's self that sounds good, but if it means no server browser, and only matchmaking then I'm out. You can't form communities when you have no say on which server you join.

And that horse loadout is a hoax.

Could mean that you form a group/squad in battlelog i.e. a party like you can for chat and then when the party creater joins a game, the rest follow and you all get put into a new squad automatically.

Or it could also use a similar system to battlefront... i.e. in game and matchmaking....

I hope not as I always found it hard finding "full" servers on battlefront, usually put me in half empty ones, not to mention ones where the round was almost over and on the losing side.... and as you said, you can't form a community + you won't be able to have custom server settings with custom map rotation etc. etc.

So many people are 'in' and 'out' of a game not out for months based on a 1 minute trailer half of which was CGI....crazy prediction skills shown by at least half of them..

No prediction needed for the heroes, it has been confirmed.
 
Permabanned
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Posts
10,264
Location
UK
If we ever talk about big game publishers like EA and Activision, it will always be games accessible for masses rather then elite.
- Didn't used to be like that before especially after they released the IP. The games wouldn't have been successful if it wasn't for the fans who supported their 'Vision' back in the early days. I can't say I share their same vision today as they continue to "lower the threshold".

People who don't understand that not everyone plays like nexus with 40 to 0 maps will struggle to have their dream filled for "hard game".
- So people don't like to be challenged anymore or improve themselves as a gamer? Do they not want to learn how to master weapons and learn the art of using vehicles and playing tactically as a team?

If I make a game and I want to make money I will make sure the game is ok for plebs, casuals, noobs, trolls and pros. Now pros will cry about the below but if the games is good it will be played by them too.
- They can't please everyone as there will always be different audiences to cater for but they made Hardline and SWBF full of noob crutches and that from a longevity and gameplay point of view wasn't a success in my eyes atleast. From EA's POV they got the sales based on hype and people continue to fall for it every year.

Now bf4 is not as hard as previous bf franchise (bc2 and bf3) but that doesnt mean for someone who wants a bit challenge you cannot make it hard.
BF4 is just crap. BC2 and BF3 weren't hard at all. Compared to BF4 imo they were more balanced games.

Dot play with OP weapons. Play infantry in vehicle heavy maps, play supports. Thats how you make the game challenging. I see people here with weapons and 20k kills on it (yes you haz :D) I try to play with all weapons to master them cos that makes the game challenging. So thats my conclusion.

People will not go back for more just to try different weapons. There will always be a go to weapon that everyone favours. Every noob and their dog used the m16a3 in BF3 myself included as it was the best all round weapon, not because it was OP. I used the aek, famas, g3a3 in that game too and the most devastating weapon in that game was the an94 when put in the right hands yet hardly anyone used it.

I kept going back to that game because of the great maps and variety. Also because it had less of crappy mechanics introduced in BF4.



If i see anything gamebreaking in the game i have my hopes that eventually it get fixed/nerfed to oblivion. Thats how its it It must be hard to find nice balance in game cos if I spend 3k hours flying littlebird I can abuse the crap out of it, but the dev or the testers will not have such skill so they will not see that LB is op up until potato factory is on the server. Same with AC130 and so on.

- Not sure what you are getting at there. :confused:

I would say lets wait and see, dont draw conclusions from a 1min trailer unless you played the game.

- I just hope they have learnt from their past mistakes but I have never said I won't play the beta as that is when I can judge for myself how much I will enjoy the game.

 
Soldato
Joined
11 Mar 2008
Posts
3,174
Location
Norn Iron
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2010
Posts
22,284
Given the choice between originality, difficult to master games that excite a limited number of players, or a more simplistic game that panders to the masses and sells 3x as many copies and twice as many Premium season passes, which one will a publisher choose? I think we all know the answer, despite what we want and wish for.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2011
Posts
5,735
You realise this is actually based on fact? Its not like Wolfenstein where they are all uber soldiers but in WW1 people did try wearing plate armour

http://flashbak.com/world-war-1-body-armor-1914-1918-32670/

I know it was a fact that they wore armour [some of the machine gunners in static positions anyway] funnily enough watched a documentary on it the other day. but at no point were they charging around the battlefield wearing it brandishing a machine gun.

my post was more to point out that I bet its a "powerup" not that it wasn't factual to the era
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2010
Posts
22,284
The game is definitely 'inspired by' rather than being historically accurate. The tanks of the era only had a top speed of about 4MPH and had a crew of four or five. The driver had no control over any of the weapons either.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Nov 2013
Posts
1,300
Location
Batcave
The game is definitely 'inspired by' rather than being historically accurate. The tanks of the era only had a top speed of about 4MPH and had a crew of four or five. The driver had no control over any of the weapons either.

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that that's true in this, you actually have a gunner shooting for you? Would be a good thing I think. Although I could have dreamt it, quite possible.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2013
Posts
2,510

It wasnt like that thats true, but also there where not that many cross platfor games. Do you see CSGO been played competitivly on console ? no cos they know what markets to target. So that has now changed and unless you are small/dedicated/startup company like the one that does squad of escape from tarkov games will never be challenging again. Kids will cry. devs dont like kids crying.

People do not like to be challenged mate, I mean us here are a minority. They want killstreaks rewards, a damn aimbots if possible. Noone wants to go full dark souls... I like to be challenged for sure.

They dont give a **** about longevity of games any more cos they have seen they can hype stuff up and ppl will pre order it. EXACTLY LIKE BFH AND BATTLEFRONT. and same will happend in bf1 so they already made millions from pre orders from plebs within the day or two.

BF franchise is hard for a majority players. the fact that ppl who plays here at ocuk are talented and know how to play is different you have to realize this. I dont think I am particularly good bf player but why am I 90% of time in first 3 spots on the table ? Logically if I am bad the but first rest of the ppl must be rubbish. so IT IS HARD. for big majority of players its hard. The fact you have talent and skill doesnt mean every one else does.
And I have not played bc2 I played 1942 and bf3 so I can only comment on those. I liked both of them. Balanced or not.

Last statement with the mistakes I hope too. If they build the bf game off of bf3 or bf4 it should be good, if its build of off bfh and battlefront we are doomed.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Jul 2010
Posts
3,110
Why do people keep moaning about the game being too casual and noob friendly etc.. etc.. There are quite a few games out there that are far more authentic and I don't see many of you in those threads or playing those games?

Everyone knows what this and COD will be about so why not try one of the others like SQUAD for example? You have options.

As for this, if it's half decent i'll play it and i'm not arsed about 100% historical accuracy.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2004
Posts
3,092
Location
Lincolnshire
Why do people keep moaning about the game being too casual and noob friendly etc.. etc.. There are quite a few games out there that are far more authentic and I don't see many of you in those threads or playing those games?

Everyone knows what this and COD will be about so why not try one of the others like SQUAD for example? You have options.

As for this, if it's half decent i'll play it and i'm not arsed about 100% historical accuracy.

Because this isnt what the battlefield series was made from, the DNA of battlefield was skill based not hero pick-ups or dumbed down mechanics.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2012
Posts
3,814
Location
Derbyshire
If they do go down the Battlefront path and remove the server browser then that is another reason not to buy the game. Hopefully they will keep the battlelog system and just let you preform squads before jumping into games. I think the console versions of BF4 allow you to this so it would be good if the brought it to PC.

You realise this is actually based on fact? Its not like Wolfenstein where they are all uber soldiers but in WW1 people did try wearing plate armour

http://flashbak.com/world-war-1-body-armor-1914-1918-32670/

That amour would have only be effective against low velocity pistol ammunition and some artillery shrapnel. It won't stop a rifle / machine-gun bullet at close to medium ranges. But with DICE taking liberties again and putting in overpowered 'heroes' then I would not be surprised if he could take a tank shell to the face and still survive

The game is definitely 'inspired by' rather than being historically accurate. The tanks of the era only had a top speed of about 4MPH and had a crew of four or five. The driver had no control over any of the weapons either.

The 4MPH will probably make a nice balance. The tank won't be very mobile but if your playing as infantry the weapons you have to to kill one with will be very limited and require you to get very close to the tank. My guess is you will have grenade-bundles / the equivalent of C4, and maybe AP bullets for some weapons.

There maybe an antitank rifle, a shot in the trailer shows a solider holding a large long barrelled rifle, but it maybe just a badly sized gun model.
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,462
Because this isnt what the battlefield series was made from, the DNA of battlefield was skill based not hero pick-ups or dumbed down mechanics.

This.



If I want to jump in to play a quick game or 2 with zero effort then I would go and play something like hardline, COD, titan fall, battlefront.

IMO, BC 2, BF 3 and 4 had a "decent" balance between COD and ARMA with regards to some learning curve, vehicle and infy play, they were fun and relatively quick paced and you didn't have to put in hundreds of hours just to get to an acceptable standard as you would in the likes of CS.

The other problem with low skill ceiling/no depth, the player base drops massively within a few months.

From what I have seen, squad seems to be more slow paced and a bit like planet side 2 which for me requires a bit too much effort and time these days.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom