Battlefield 1 - anyone else a little disappointed?

I feel the need to ask a question to all the nay-sayers and those that post negatively about how they "can't see dice making a ww1 style fps game playable or enjoyable"


Are you a game developer and know the inner and outer workings of how to create a game and make it enjoyable? If so, which developer do you work for (for verification purposes)? If not, what other credentials can you provide that solidify your claims of BF1?
 
I feel the need to ask a question to all the nay-sayers and those that post negatively about how they "can't see dice making a ww1 style fps game playable or enjoyable"


Are you a game developer and know the inner and outer workings of how to create a game and make it enjoyable? If so, which developer do you work for (for verification purposes)? If not, what other credentials can you provide that solidify your claims of BF1?

I guess people love their automatics, XM25 airbust and UCAVS :P
 
Well according to a couple sources from DICE and EA, their PR teams were saying that a World War 1 era game was a bad idea, but the game developers insisted on it.

Based on the initial reaction and reception...I would say their risky bet paid off
 
The entire point of this post was to spark controversy in terms of gameplay. And to bitch (as gamers do) about DICE's choice for the setting, where-as we could have had 2143, which was imo, *one* of the best Battlefield games of its time.
Quite a few of my best BF memories came from playing 2142, and I think a lot of the "naysayers" you're putting down would have merely preferred a sequel to that, as it was hinted in Last Stand. I, for one would have loved to see Titan warfare in the new Frostbite engine. I am mostly not sold on this because EA is imposing the same shitty business practices it used with Battlefront, along with the fact that I don't want another reskin; I want legitimate changes to gameplay mechanics, and new gamemodes, etc. *COUGH* Hardline. *COUGH*
Hopefully, DICE learned its lesson with Battlefront, and they blatantly admitted it was bad.
Is 2143 similar to the new COD? Sure - Because COD rips off everyone else. Will a game in an older time period pay off? Only time will tell, but atleast it's something that strays from modern day combat.

However, I agree wholeheartedly that I'm glad to see EOD bots, XM-25 and UCAVs go - But the reality of the situation is that DICE is just going to find something else to replace some of them. (For instance, rifle grenades will replace the M320 and XM-25. There is no way to replace the mortars, so be prepared for more mortar spam.) Fortunately the EOD bot won't have an equivalent, thank God for that; Because that Bot spam gets infuriating.
Regardless, automatic weapons, both man portable and crew served were quite common in WWI, and will probably be common in this game as well. Hopefully DICE will find a way to counterbalance this effectively, though. I would really hate to see newer players getting stomped by level 140's with access to the Sub-Machine Guns of the time.
We'll see how it goes, however; But it is unfair to bash on "naysayers" because they would have preferred a different setting. WWI FPS is relatively uncharted territory for the most part, and all we can do is speculate until E3.
As I said before, I hope they make me eat my words. Anything is preferable to CoD at this point.
 
I really do hope there's a lot of changes but the feel of the gameplay stays the same. WW1 setting was a surprise Can't wait to get the game and run around sniping but I will be missing metro.
 
I'm going to repair tool your horse.... just watch. I'm aiming where the sun don't shine!

C048F08F0656935C05A97353195F114ACC1AD95E
 
Last edited:
Back
Top