Just a little note this is coming from someone who has never played a Battlefield game before and who likes mid speed tactical games like World of Tanks. So I'm really excited and also concerned over the new Battlefield 1 game that's coming out and I'm concerned it's going to be one of those tiny maped overly sped up games like Call of Duty. I love World War 1 and World War 2 games and I like games to have some sort of realism in them and games like Call of Duty really make me not like play FPS games because there is no realism it's played like your sonic the headgehog with a lazer rifle that looks like a regular rifle. What would make Battlefield 1 a great game for me is if they added things like bullet ballistics in so you would have to actually elevate the barrel of your rifle at extreme ranges and also make you have to lead the target when your shooting at medium to long range to hit a moving target, and even if they don't add the bullet drop at long ranges at least add the thing where you would have to lead a target at medium to long range to hit the target. Also the number one thing that would make Battlefield 1 my favorite game is if they actually made actually giving a extra 5 seconds to think on what your going to do while your in cover actually benefit you in getting the advantage over the enemy and not be another one of those run and gun games. Now I can deal with some sort of non historical accuracy and some non accuracy to real life like I can accept if it wasn't so realistic with the bullet physics and if it was sped up a little bit to be a bit faster then the extremely slow World War 1battles and also I can accept that they made stuff like the tanks a bit faster then they were in history to keep the game play going. I just don;t know if they are going to make it so fast paced there would be no room for tactics and knowledgeable players who like to think about what they do in a game and how it affects the outcome by working with their team. I have seen some gameplay in some weekly tech news live streams and one thing I can say is they nailed the speed of the tanks to the point where they are fast enough to keep the gameplay moving and also keep the tanks slow enough to keep it feeling like they are slow lumbering hunks of metal like they were in World War 1. Also from the game play I have seen the game is one of those faster paced ones and I don't know if the game is only going to be fast paced or if it's going to be one of those games that the pace of the game can change based on where you are on the map and where everyone is on the map. So I hope the makers of Battlefield 1 really strike a good balance of keeping with the WW1 theme, game play speed, and tactical game play because if they make it too fast paced and too run and gunny the game isn't going to be too enjoyable for me.
I don't think it will be very accurate at all, here is a video on the accuracy of the weapons
Having not played a battlefield game in a very long time I am sure pacing will be prioritized over accuracy as well, to what degree I don't know but I will be watching closely as a WWI game would be very interesting.
What you want is Red Orchestra 2
Yah I am looking at that game too I'm looking at mutiple games to get and I was just wondering about Battlefield 1 because it's a new game that the theme falls into the timeperiod theme I like and with it being a new game you get all the latest and best graphics, RedOrchistra 2 does look like a game I want too.
Like I said I can accept some diviation from historical accuracy (if you ever see how historically accurate World of Tanks is you'll see what I mean) but I do like to see some accuracy when it comes to games based in a historical timeperiod
As a BF4 player with hundrets of hours sunk into that game .. battle field has: bulletspeed, bullet drop, they do not do raycasting... they have bullet physics.
You both have to lead and aim higher or zero your scope if you exceed somewhat short to short-medium range.
Some (youtube) outlets also said, that the devs for BF1 also mentioned to add bullets slowing down through air resistance.. so that they aren't as fast any more.
In BF4 your bullet will leave with its muzzle velocity and would not loose that until it hits anything.
I was highly sceptical of the WW1 setting when first hearing of it and even after the first trailer. But now I'm convinced that they're going in a good direction. A few things worry me like the melee which seems to boil down to a simple insta-kill(typically) click fest whenever a player gets in range, but then again the knifing in BF4 is worse so I guess I'll take it.
Yes tanks are a bit too nimble, but they will have a lot of threats coming at them so they deserve it. Maybe it will feel like there's too much of automatic weapons being used in the game, but that could always be tweaked with weapon balancing. At least they're looking at using heavy recoil and spread to make it harder to use sub-machineguns at range or light machineguns very effectively without support.
Whether or not an individual weapon was experimental or widely issued doesn't really matter. That's aestethics. Gameplay and balance is all important. We have a lot to see when it comes to that, but I'm feeling like there's a chance that I might finally stop playing Battlefield 4 when this WW1 game is out. And dammit, I probably won't be able to keep myself from preordering. My apoligies. ;-)
If it ends up like COD, which I doubt, that means BF4 will still have a substantial player base could always play that :P
I don't care about accuracy and WWI simulation. That's not what BF series is about.
As a general rule, the Battlefield games are pretty good for shooters - and you'll be happy to know that as far back as the first one, they've had bullet travel since the first battlefield.
Anyway, however, BF1 comes out, I think there will be some people that bitch no matter what. World War 1 games are... tricky to pull off, to say the least, and it all has to do with people's expectations. I'll just be happy for a game to play with my friends.
TBH if mod support for BF3 or BF4 was a thing we would not be having this discussion. we could have custom map sets with custom weapon sets to match any period. want to play WW I maps with proper weapons you got it. want to do it with modern can do. all of the code is there just needs a re-skin and some of the code for the ballistics to be modified for each weapon that you add. ( sounds like BF hard line and star wars battlefront to me) and we all willing pay each year for what essentially is a re-skin of the same game with a few tweeks be it to the theme or be it with different maps and slightly better graphics ( has yet to cross into uncanny valley for me with aforementioned titles but i dont want to get to uncanny valley so pointless for better graphics ). i am more concerned about single player and multiplayer and to be blunt there is serious issues with multiplayer in almost all of the titles mentioned (BF1 to be determined but past history does not bode well)
conclusion post wall of text. i would like for it to be good but i will not buy it. It should be at best DLC for BF4 or hardline and at worst cost about half of current pricing structure. but thats just me and my love for community made content and having servers that are player hosted are the best kind for games to have.
Battlefield 4 is a DLC mess. I am so done with EA.
thankfully i gave up on buying battlefield at 3 and dont even mind not having to deal with the issues that are plaguing BF4 and hardline in multiplayer. the net code on 3 is bad enough and hit detection with head shots sucks balls. must hit dead center or its a chest shot or a miss. and if i am correct about how they developed each game then its just as bad if not worse for all titles since.( used to be semi competitive when the game first came out on PC i averaged a KD ratio of 1.9 -2.2 on Xbox360 i managed a KD of 4.1. the auto aim is real was like shooting stationary melons for headshots. or i was better with a controller in my hands that i am with KB.M I dunno.)
Outdated views, BF4 netcode is stable to date. Their support has been top notch too, only rivaled by MMO subscription based games, and I'm not sure how your KDR in consoles relate to anything in the subject. 😕😥
I have to second that, I never saw a non mmo game that got so much support and improvement, and care over that many years;
Yeah, changes made some people mad, I still mourn for the old smaw.. bla bla... but base line is, it was not perfect, but dice did a great job keeping it up and making it a great game whos playerbase still amazes me;
Yeah he DLCs were not the best, but in the end the whole community is playing the base maps, and the free DLC maps and guns that they added last year.
I've never been disappointed by a BF game. Everyone complains "oh is EA it's going to suck blah blah blah" Really?? It's not going to suck. Battlefield 3 and 4 have been absolutely awesome shooters and way way way better then jet pack over shield COD shooters. From the videos I've seen of battlefield 1 it looks amazing and the atmosphere looks intense.
Sorry to tell you this but battlefield is by no means a slow peak the corner game. And bc of the what looks like a lot of visual recoil which isn't really recoil the main strat for this game is speed and fast movement just like bf4.
Bf3 was I think the last game that was all about having a 35% hit ratio which is doable. Bf4 you're lucky to have more than 25%. It's all about coming out hard and fast and putting as many rounds down towards the other guy. They don't seem to have switched that from bf4 to bf1.
The main concern I have with this game is they better have maps with trench warfare and long drawn out fights from in and outside buildings between people. They can do this of course by having different maps that cater to certain types of play. Hopefully EA delivers on the things people have mentioned that should be in a WWI game.
Has EA ever listend to the customers in the past? No, because the customers will buy the product anyway.