It's just a reskin of Starwars Battlefront, do I have to say more about this game?
So you complain about it being slow yet you agree with me when I said it's fast paced and brutal? Which one is it? Are you sure it's not just because you suck at the game?
Sound about right for Battlefield. At least my experience in Bad Company 2. 30 seconds within LoS of a tank (not necessarily with the tank aiming it's main gun at me of course) is very doable.
Again, doable in BC 2, I will admit, I have not played Battlefield 1. But it sounds fairly doable. Provided one has enough explosives. Just gotta know how to move.
Also have to remember, Battlefield games aren't about how long you live. You can't fear death.
Get Gud? /s
Seriously. If you are running for 5 minutes in a battlefield game, you're doing it wrong. You need to spawn on a squad mate, and stick to them. Either be a sniper and cover them, be assault and stick to their ass (or lead the way), be an engineer and heal their vehicle or take out others, or be a medic and heal and revive your squad mates.
Battlefield is about team work. You can do well on your own, but it's a lot fucking harder to do so. This isn't CoD or CS:GO, you don't get to just spawn, run ten feet and belly flop no scope people. This is team work in an extremely chaotic environment.
Unless your me :3
Legitimately this though. There are some assholes like me that will run around and frag until we drop, but thats not the only way to play a battlefield game. You have to pay attention to the mini-map, see where action is and spawn where the fun is happening. Maybe if you can't out aim every person you see, play as a medic and revive team mates and give health. Or provide ammo as support. If you really can't win fire fights, then be that guy and abuse explosives.
Also just on BF1 specifically, I think DICE has done a lot to change the game so that in a multiplayer match your never running for 5 minutes without seeing someone. The maps are still big, but they're structured differently. A lot of area was included in maps from games prior that was just unnecessary, and that's been mostly removed. Your always spawned within 5 seconds run of the objective your spawning on, and you spawn directly onto your squad mates. So if you just move to a squad with some active people (which there are always 3-4 of), and the game isn't one of the rare complete stompings, you can usually get action fast.
Admittedly I think the map in the beta was the worst possible that could have been provided to show what the actual tempo of the game is. The beta map, the desert one, played extremely similarly to a more classic BF4 or BF3 conquest large map, and the rest of the maps don't really play that way. They're a bit faster, a bit more concentrated, and I think more fun than the beta map. That map, and one other which is a mountain hill (not played up and down the hill but mostly horizontally across the hill), are IMO the worst maps in the game right now.
You know what?
I was considering giving BF1 a chance. But after watching TB's review, I won't be, at least not any time soon.
I might have enjoyed the multiplayer (if my ISP would allow it, which they won't because they're ASSHOLES). But from what I am seeing, the campaign is complete and utter shit. Even more so than 3 and 4 (which I actually enjoyed). I'd buy it for the multiplayer, and I probably will when the game goes on a legitimate sale (at least 50% off), but for $60? With my ISP being a total shit? Not a chance.
Glad I watched this.
This is what makes me hopeful. In BF 3 and 4, they forgot what made BFBC 2 an amazing game. The maps were just big enough to contain 64 people, and still be spacious. Rather than being big enough for 64 v 64 matches. Not to mention bringing back destruction in a legitimate way (without destruction, Battlefield is just CoD with more people, and vehicles)
You obviously missed the point of what I was saying. Ive been playing since the very first battlefield so I know very well of squad spawns. I meant more that the maps are so large these days that you can spawn (where ever and however you choose) run for along time to get somewhere just to get sniped.
Haven't bought it yet, but I'm planning on it assuming the reviews aren't too critical. I did put 19 hours into the beta though, which is more time than I could stand to put into Star Wars: Battlefront so I'm inclined to say I like it.
What I am saying is that there is no way to play the game fast bc the guns make it very hard to do well with that play style. You can either sit back and pick people off which is slow or bum rush kill one person and get killed on the reload or have very little health to do much. Its crazy hard to kill more than one person in this game at a time. It takes more time to kill in this game does any other bf game. Thats due to the slow rof and low bullet dmg.
Trust me I can play the game fine when I play back with the bar and pick people off points(but I find that boring as hell) but any of the smgs but the Hellriegel are impossible to play with on a point bc it takes so many bullets to kill so youre stuck reloading after killing two people if youre that lucky.
In bf4 bf3 and bc2 you could kill five people with one mag. You can easilly have a 35% plus accuracy in bf3 and 20% plus in bf4. I would be very surpirsed if I have more than 15% accuracy in bf1. There is no skill with coming around a corner and hip firing to win a 1v1 at close range and thats all the assault class can do at the moment. In fact there is no reason not to. The range at which the smgs are effective its equally as good to hip fire as it is to aim. They make it impossible to be a better player and beat some one who is less of a player when you are not at your effective range which closes the skill gap and makes the game boring and frustrating.
I agree good positioning is part of being good but how can you play conquest when one needs to run between flags and be effective with an smg when a sniper or medic can easily pick you off. All the other classes are suited for staying off an objective bc the smg are so much better at close rang bc they can just spray hip fire you down. The problem with support is that bc of the way the lmgs work you hit your first shot then miss the next 5 and by that time the guy has already figured out he's being shot at and runs back to cover. lmgs are trying so hard to be good at mid range and they fail and thats simply due to the fact that they just arent accurate enough to be any good to kill people quickly at a medium range. The bar is the only useful gun bc its so much faster than the others.
The game is as fast or as slow as you want it to be. I like to play it fast and hard but the game makes that hard and thus you need to be slow. If you play fast youll get killed. If you play it slow youll do better but thats no fun. I dont want to sit around and camp points and pick people off like its a game of zombies. The point of a game isnt to play how you like it the point is to play how its desgined. A good game will let you play which ever way you want and be still do fairly well at it. BF1 locks you into a role and the reduces the skill gap. A good game allows a skilled player to move out of his role to beat a worse player at his. That isnt possible in BF1. The maps are wonderful. I really like the maps but they just are so difficult to play with any sort of versatility. Its so painful to be playing assault and have to run away from people bc they are playing medic and they are 30 meters away bc you have zero chance to win that fight.
Do I like BF1?
List of things that come to mind when I think about BF1:
- Military FPS (imo a dry, boring, overused, overhyped genre)
- EA (cuz EA...)
- Pretty much no single player mode forcing you to play online (some games it works [rocket league is a great example]... but not a full priced AAA title imo)
- ridiculous dlc, pricing, and other bullshit of the like
So no I do not like BF1
Honestly, you just sound like you're whining because you couldn't get multiple kills in one mag, you sound spoiled.
Your are right.
Their map design has gotten worse over the years. BFBC2 was great, but then 3 and 4 kind of lost the point and just made the maps bigger, without giving them a good layout.
Complaint not whining. There is a difference. And how am I spoiled for wanting a higher skill gap in a game that reduces the skill gap by making everyone less effective?
All the weapons will probably get rebalanced, so maybe make it a point in their battlelog forum. Same thing happened in BF4, every major weapon balanced almost required you to relearn the game every update.
After playing it for some time there are a few things I don't like and doubt they will fix.
Two major ones are, when you die the screen changes and goes to a bright white screen nearly blinding you,
and the second major issue is if you are crouched next to an object and want to stand up you cant just hit space like you can in like every other frikn game made, instead it vaults you over the object, that alone is making me regret buying it.
Crouched behind a railing on a roof...better not hit space to stand up or your jumping over the railing.
I haven't played BF1 yet, but I haven't liked any of them since 2142 really. God I wish we'd get a 2143.
Will not be purchasing bf1. If they made a native Linux binary then i'd consider simply for their efforts. But I think my money is better spent elsewhere.