Battlefield 1 Thread

[Jetboogieman]

I know we have one already but that one is about buying it, wanted to talk about gameplay if anyone is playing AND does anyone have it on Xbox one?

I find it thoroughly enjoyable, really liked the Medic Class this time around, the horse gameplay is just amazing, probably my favorite thing to do honestly, especially on Sinai and Suez, Ballroom Blitz for example, horses are at a pretty big disadvantage.

Suez is not such a hot map though overall and they're going to balance it apparently, create more flags.

Your thoughts?

 

[Higgins86]

I know we have one already but that one is about buying it, wanted to talk about gameplay if anyone is playing AND does anyone have it on Xbox one?

I find it thoroughly enjoyable, really liked the Medic Class this time around, the horse gameplay is just amazing, probably my favorite thing to do honestly, especially on Sinai and Suez, Ballroom Blitz for example, horses are at a pretty big disadvantage.

Suez is not such a hot map though overall and they're going to balance it apparently, create more flags.

Your thoughts?

Charging around on a horse with my sword is very satisfying as a British man lol

 

[Jetboogieman]

Charging around on a horse with my sword is very satisfying as a British man lol

What platform you on?

 

[Higgins86]

What platform you on?

Xbox 1

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I'm disappointed. If you're gonna make a WWI game, make a WWI game. Not the same ole same ole Call of Duty game with a WWI backdrop.

Weapons are unrealistic
Vehicles are unrealistic.
Multiplayer maps are not representative of WWI battlefields.

 

[Deuce]

I'm disappointed. If you're gonna make a WWI game, make a WWI game. Not the same ole same ole Call of Duty game with a WWI backdrop.

Weapons are unrealistic
Vehicles are unrealistic.
Multiplayer maps are not representative of WWI battlefields.

Realistic WW1 combat wouldn't make for a fun video game.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Realistic WW1 combat wouldn't make for a fun video game.

I actually really like Verdun. It's much more realistic, but the flow of the game makes it engaging. There's a real feeling of a "front" with more back-and-forth.

I was playing BF1 just today. Seems like it's so one-sided. No back-and-forth, rather one team overruns the other. It's a fun COD game, but doesn't really have a WWI flavor.

It's like playing a Vietnam game with modern weapons, and no jungle fighting.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Thought some of you might enjoy this.

Very well made.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Nice video. Did you notice though...the lack of house-to-house fighting in the actual footage? EA didn't.

Visually, Battlefield 1 looks authentic with the uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc. It's the mechanics/maps that are off.

...and I swear some of these kids are either cheating their asses off, or they spend every waking hour of their lives playing that damn game.

 

[austrianecon]

Xbox 1

I play it on PlayStation. Played that system for 21 years. PS1 to PS4.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

I know we have one already but that one is about buying it, wanted to talk about gameplay if anyone is playing AND does anyone have it on Xbox one?

I find it thoroughly enjoyable, really liked the Medic Class this time around, the horse gameplay is just amazing, probably my favorite thing to do honestly, especially on Sinai and Suez, Ballroom Blitz for example, horses are at a pretty big disadvantage.

Suez is not such a hot map though overall and they're going to balance it apparently, create more flags.

Your thoughts?

Funny how a certain game player likes to look down his superior nose on those who participated in the real thing, and claim they are better and tougher than they.
Never passing up a chance to say so in their digitally violent world.
Digital toughness has no bearing on anything, but a certain game player thinks it makes it so.
Digital bullets do not cause sucking chest wounds.
A firefight does not stop when you hit PAUSE.

Some things just have to be said.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Funny how a certain game player likes to look down his superior nose on those who participated in the real thing, and claim they are better and tougher than they.
Never passing up a chance to say so in their digitally violent world.
Digital toughness has no bearing on anything, but a certain game player thinks it makes it so.
Digital bullets do not cause sucking chest wounds.
A firefight does not stop when you hit PAUSE.
Some things just have to be said.

That thing that just flew over your head? That was the point of this thread. No one here is comparing playing a game to fighting in a war in real life. Jesus, what the hell are you thinking? Are non-military civilians just forbidden from partaking in a non-realistic game without some elitist moron bloviating about how less of a person they are that they didn't trade bullets in real life? What a stupid argument.

By the way...I've played "Red Dead Revolver," but I've never been a wild-west cowboy.
I've played NHL 17, but I've never played for an NHL team in real life either.
Every year I get (and play) the latest game from the MLB franchise, but *gasp*....I've never been a professional baseball player!

The only word you wrote that made any sense was "sucking."

 

[jmotivator]

Realistic WW1 combat wouldn't make for a fun video game.

Indeed.

On the Somme map you spend several hours staring at a mud wall and talking to your squad mates about dysentery until the whistle blows and then you crawl over the mud wall and die in a hail of gunfire. Good times.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

This thread reminds me of a Thanksgiving conversation between my cousin (10 years old) and my uncle who has been active military for 15+ years. The uncle saw the kid playing CoD and laughed at how absurd the combat was. He thought it was freaking hilarious how you could actually see the RPG's being propelled through the air and how they always exploded upon first contact with something, even a person. He tried explaining to the kid how the RPG's traveled way faster than in the game so seeing them sailing through the air like that was unrealistic. Also, he tried to explain how much more difficult RPG's were to use in real life since the grenades often wouldn't detonate right away if it was only a glancing hit, often bouncing or ricocheting. The kid was having none of it (just didn't really care) and the guy eventually just gave up trying to tell him how unrealistic it was.

 

[Jetboogieman]

A firefight does not stop when you hit PAUSE.

You can't pause when you're playing online. :roll:

 

[Velvet Elvis]

This thread reminds me of a Thanksgiving conversation between my cousin (10 years old) and my uncle who has been active military for 15+ years. The uncle saw the kid playing CoD and laughed at how absurd the combat was. He thought it was freaking hilarious how you could actually see the RPG's being propelled through the air and how they always exploded upon first contact with something, even a person. He tried explaining to the kid how the RPG's traveled way faster than in the game so seeing them sailing through the air like that was unrealistic. Also, he tried to explain how much more difficult RPG's were to use in real life since the grenades often wouldn't detonate right away if it was only a glancing hit, often bouncing or ricocheting. The kid was having none of it (just didn't really care) and the guy eventually just gave up trying to tell him how unrealistic it was.

That's the point. It's not real. In the case of Battlefield 1, the "realism" is laughable in every respect. They should have just stuck to WWII, because they got this one so retardedly incorrect.

The next EA Battlefield game should be a Civil War one. That way jarheads won't have to lecture us with "Ya know...those muskets weren't 100% accurate back then as they are in this game! And those horses? Those are fake too! And cavalry swords...those didn't work like that when I was in the cavalry."

 

[Threegoofs]

Realism aside (I mean... you die twenty times a game - thats not realistic) BF1 is a pretty good additon to the BF games.

I've played since BF 1942 on a PC and played Vietnam, Desert Combat, 2142, etc. Then BF2 and 3 on Xbox, and now I just bought a new XBox basically just to play it.

They need to add more maps - the ones they have are pretty good, but its getting old. And often, some of them really only center the action around one or two flags (that Italian map.. Castillo Alto? - all the action is at C and D).

I cant really get a handle on the planes - they seem to be generally weak though and thats balanced by the fact theres no antircraft weapons for individual soldiers to use - but there are some pilots out there that can do real damage.

The biggest issue I have is that on the public servers, hardly anyone uses a mic - and communication and teamwork are the keys to the game. A squad with bad skills like me but good teamwork can dominate a map full of kids with 50 knife kills and sniper kits.

I should join a clan or something...

 

[Velvet Elvis]

BF2 is still the best game by far. Better than any of the COD games either.

I sorely miss the "commander" aspect, where you coordinate your teams through the game. Back in the day, I was almost unstoppable as commander, as long as the teams followed along. Made for great flanking maneuvers, and the reconnaissance and resupply aspects were much more engaging.

 

[Threegoofs]

BF2 is still the best game by far. Better than any of the COD games either.

I sorely miss the "commander" aspect, where you coordinate your teams through the game. Back in the day, I was almost unstoppable as commander, as long as the teams followed along. Made for great flanking maneuvers, and the reconnaissance and resupply aspects were much more engaging.

I'd vote BF1942 with the Desert Combat mod. The maps were great (the original incarnation of Karkand) and the commander mode on a PC is light years better than the weak commander option in BF2 - at least on the Xbox.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Eh, I had BF2 for the PC.

 

[Jetboogieman]

BF2 is still the best game by far. Better than any of the COD games either.

I sorely miss the "commander" aspect, where you coordinate your teams through the game. Back in the day, I was almost unstoppable as commander, as long as the teams followed along. Made for great flanking maneuvers, and the reconnaissance and resupply aspects were much more engaging.

Commander was great.

I did some Commander on BF4 with the tablet, it was pretty cool but I could see why they axed it.

Just poorly optimized but a good idea.

 

[Threegoofs]

Eh, I had BF2 for the PC.

I bet Commander mode was good then- with the consoles, you really can't communicate with squads.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I bet Commander mode was good then- with the consoles, you really can't communicate with squads.

That was the glue that held an entire side together. It was great. Squad leaders would call in supply drops, and commanders would have to aim to drop them behind their firing line to make sure they could get to them. Call in air strikes on hard targets. Request surveillance when they couldn't find snipers. It was the difference between a bunch of gomers running around rogue, and a cohesive fighting force.

 

[Renae]

I know we have one already but that one is about buying it, wanted to talk about gameplay if anyone is playing AND does anyone have it on Xbox one?

I find it thoroughly enjoyable, really liked the Medic Class this time around, the horse gameplay is just amazing, probably my favorite thing to do honestly, especially on Sinai and Suez, Ballroom Blitz for example, horses are at a pretty big disadvantage.

Suez is not such a hot map though overall and they're going to balance it apparently, create more flags.

Your thoughts?

I rented it for the Xbox one. HATED IT. Sent it back after a week. The story mode is kinda neat, but short. It also is frustrating. It's hard to see enemies, I spent three multiplayer matches wondering "Why am I playing this stupid game?" I've played all the BF games, this is by far my least favorite. There are neat ideas they can incorporate, but the stupid loot boxes being random drops (thus encouraging people to "pay to win" is annoyingly obvious) added to the inbalance of classes and weapons makes this BF, a pass in my book.

 

[Renae]

Realism aside (I mean... you die twenty times a game - thats not realistic) BF1 is a pretty good additon to the BF games.

I've played since BF 1942 on a PC and played Vietnam, Desert Combat, 2142, etc. Then BF2 and 3 on Xbox, and now I just bought a new XBox basically just to play it.

They need to add more maps - the ones they have are pretty good, but its getting old. And often, some of them really only center the action around one or two flags (that Italian map.. Castillo Alto? - all the action is at C and D).

I cant really get a handle on the planes - they seem to be generally weak though and thats balanced by the fact theres no antircraft weapons for individual soldiers to use - but there are some pilots out there that can do real damage.

The biggest issue I have is that on the public servers, hardly anyone uses a mic - and communication and teamwork are the keys to the game. A squad with bad skills like me but good teamwork can dominate a map full of kids with 50 knife kills and sniper kits.

I should join a clan or something...

BF3, the Paris subway map, play as a support, lay down C4... kill entire opposing force in one fell swoop, have admin come on and yell at you for setting off his alerts for hacking (they banned me once for that till they reviewed, I killed 10 ppl with one push of the button). That for me was the best BF ever. 1942 is a close second