jdreyer wrote on Jun 8, 2016, 04:00:

The Half Elf wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 21:01:

theglaze wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:45:
FPS war games these days are too clean. Thy don't have grit or a hard edge, instead it's bright colours, pretty lights, and soft animations.

BF1 looks like it might go in the other direction, reintroducing the terror and ugliness of war.

The Battlefield games have ALWAYS had he best atmosphere and sounds. This could be great...

Are you a paid shill?

I dunno, while not as optimistic as this dude, I admire the setting/war that Dice chose for this iteration. The lower tech of the vehicles especially fits with BF's typically smallish maps. WW1 was unexpected, but is a natural fit if you think about it. Also, few have tackled it. It actually could be great.

That's how I feel about it, but at the same time I'm confident they'll fuck it up with bugs and excessive DLC/unlocks/XP etc.

The Half Elf wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 21:01:

theglaze wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:45:
FPS war games these days are too clean. Thy don't have grit or a hard edge, instead it's bright colours, pretty lights, and soft animations.

BF1 looks like it might go in the other direction, reintroducing the terror and ugliness of war.

The Battlefield games have ALWAYS had he best atmosphere and sounds. This could be great...

Are you a paid shill?

Optimism looks weird, huh?

deqer wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:10:
I didn't even click the teaser.

I think this whole thing is stupid.

And it's difficult for me to understand why anyone would want to play this shit.

If I wanted a WW1 simulator, then I'd go play a WW1 simulator.

I see, so instead of playing BF3 or BF4, you followed your own advice and played ArmA?

Does this mean the next battlefield game will have a plot of the medieval times, when guns didn't exist, and we'd all be on horses with spears and shit?

You say that like it's a bad thing. Mount and Blade averages more players than BLOPS 3. Personally I'd like Dice to do the US Civil war.

My god, EA, just get on with dumb shit already and release BF2242 already... you cunts.

Except that we've had plenty of near future shooters like Advanced Warfare, BLOPs 3, Crysis series, Titanfall, and the upcoming Infinite Warfare and Titanfall 2 (and even Star Citizen). How many WW1 shooters have their been? How many by AAA teams?

CJ_Parker wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:09:
Fucking garbage. Spiked clubs vs. machine guns? Oooookay.

You mean things that actually happened in WWI? Read your history dude. (Edit: ninja'd by Beamer. Heh)

And "gameplay footage" is such an old and tired EA marketing lie by now. Aren't those retarded fuckers ever embarrassed by their own dishonesty?

Fuck off with this piece of shit and the fucktard season pass bullshit.

Yeah, can't argue against either of these things though.

The Half Elf wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 21:01:

theglaze wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:45:
FPS war games these days are too clean. Thy don't have grit or a hard edge, instead it's bright colours, pretty lights, and soft animations.

BF1 looks like it might go in the other direction, reintroducing the terror and ugliness of war.

The Battlefield games have ALWAYS had he best atmosphere and sounds. This could be great...

Are you a paid shill?

I dunno, while not as optimistic as this dude, I admire the setting/war that Dice chose for this iteration. The lower tech of the vehicles especially fits with BF's typically smallish maps. WW1 was unexpected, but is a natural fit if you think about it. Also, few have tackled it. It actually could be great.

sauron wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 10:49:
Might check this out IF they don't fill it with DLC which quadruples the cost of the game. And we all know that they will, so no DICE (pun intended).

1942 + all DLC = $110 USD
BF2 + all DLC = $110 USD
BF3 + all DLC = $110 USD
BF4 + all DLC = $110 USD

formula literally hasn't changed in 15 years. And I don't think that 5x 4x map packs for $50 is "quadruple the price"

If you're going to hate, at least do it with numbers on your side...

sigh

theglaze wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:45:
FPS war games these days are too clean. Thy don't have grit or a hard edge, instead it's bright colours, pretty lights, and soft animations.

BF1 looks like it might go in the other direction, reintroducing the terror and ugliness of war.

The Battlefield games have ALWAYS had he best atmosphere and sounds. This could be great...

Are you a paid shill?

DangerDog wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 16:28:
The same club will be used to revive teammates.

Haha, it'll revive the shit outta 'em. *Smacks a flanged mace into his hand, menacingly.*

DangerDog wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 16:28:
The same club will be used to revive teammates.

I LOL'd

The same club will be used to revive teammates.

Hopefully the prop planes will be fun. That's the gameplay I'd like to see way more than anything else.

NegaDeath wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:33:

deqer wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:10:
Does this mean the next battlefield game will have a plot of the medieval times, when guns didn't exist, and we'd all be on horses with spears and shit?

Why not? Large battlefields with siege equipment. Sacking of castles with realtime destruction of walls via the frostbite engine. Spring traps like boiling oil on the invaders. Sounds awesome. Not everyone wants future stuff as much as you. I for one have been hoping for a return to an older war like in 1942.

I'm almost with you. Almost. A few problems:
* Hand to hand combat is historically a bit weak in FPS games. This is overcomeable. Crossbows take too long to reload. Longbows aren't really much fun due to the mechanics - the combination of a firing arc and very slow firing time gets tedious. All this is overcomeable in 1 main way: Magic. Literally adding magic

* Siege weapons are cool, but in reality the walls of a castle didn't come down often or quickly. Solution? Magic! Well, just amp up how damaging those things are. Also create far more intricate castles than we actually had

* Vehicles get limited. Trebuchet, catapult - all slow and really weapons, not vehicles. Solution: magic! It solves everything. I find riding dragons kind of... lame and predictable. I find most Tolkien fantasy kind of lame and predictable. But there's room to create a new world that isn't orcs and dragons


Basically, I see magic users and magic enhanced knights seizing large castles that can be blown apart Minecraft style. Rather than just doing classes, you make it more RPG oriented. If you create a character with high strength but low magic you bash skulls with huge axes, and all down the line, with ways to specialize, new spells or abilities to learn, etc. All in one forest, beating the hell out of each other.

And yes, I stick with killstreak rewards. Calling in some variation of a dwarf army, with 20 seconds of fast moving little AI guys ripping everyone apart for you.

Not going to click on twitter for any reason... and why the fuck would twitter host video?

FPS war games these days are too clean. Thy don't have grit or a hard edge, instead it's bright colours, pretty lights, and soft animations.

BF1 looks like it might go in the other direction, reintroducing the terror and ugliness of war.

The Battlefield games have ALWAYS had he best atmosphere and sounds. This could be great...

deqer wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:10:
Does this mean the next battlefield game will have a plot of the medieval times, when guns didn't exist, and we'd all be on horses with spears and shit?

Why not? Large battlefields with siege equipment. Sacking of castles with realtime destruction of walls via the frostbite engine. Spring traps like boiling oil on the invaders. Sounds awesome. Not everyone wants future stuff as much as you. I for one have been hoping for a return to an older war like in 1942.

Beamer wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:17:
But yeah, historically, this is 100% accurate.

Maybe posted previously but I enjoyed this analysis of the historical accuracy of the first trailer. Aside from a couple things pretty spot on.

So much hype now-days. Hashtags and other crazy crap. 15seconds of gameplay! this is important now!

I refuse to ride this hype train dammit. Too old for this sort of thing when it comes to games.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 13:09:
Fucking garbage. Spiked clubs vs. machine guns? Oooookay

I really thought those were grenades.

But yeah, historically, this is 100% accurate.

I didn't even click the teaser.

I think this whole thing is stupid.

And it's difficult for me to understand why anyone would want to play this shit.

If I wanted a WW1 simulator, then I'd go play a WW1 simulator.

Does this mean the next battlefield game will have a plot of the medieval times, when guns didn't exist, and we'd all be on horses with spears and shit?

My god, EA, just get on with dumb shit already and release BF2242 already... you cunts.

Fucking garbage. Spiked clubs vs. machine guns? Oooookay. And "gameplay footage" is such an old and tired EA marketing lie by now. Aren't those retarded fuckers ever embarrassed by their own dishonesty?

Fuck off with this piece of shit and the fucktard season pass bullshit.

The Half Elf wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 12:07:

Malachii wrote on Jun 7, 2016, 11:17:
Negativity in comments at Blues has increased over the last few years. Figured its a generational thing. /shrug

I for one cannot wait for this title. I will not however be doing the season pass as I have in the past. Very bitter on those wasted $.

There is something about the progression system in BF games that I totally dig.

You mean the progression system that should have been used in Battlefront?

Sorry after Hardlines and Battlefront (and personally not a huge fan of WW games) there is no way in hell.

Bad Company 2 had the best system:

• Level 1 through 50 with XP totals per lvl increasing exponentially its no "pres
• Main, class only weapons/items were only unlocked after several hours of gameplay, making you appreciate what you got and no prestige ranks
• Some of the best weapons were unlocked after +20 hours of gameplay with a class, which gave those weapons 'rarity' on the battlefield, but individual skill and tactic still exceeded any weapon advantage