Battlefield = Money$$$

Battlefield 1 General Discussion
1

Welcome to Battlefield One. These are a few things I have come to realize what the game is about by just reading through the Battlefield 1 website and recent Battlefield 1 game play footage and advertisements.

Battlefield 1 is focused on:

  • Destruction
  • Amazing Graphics
  • Action-pack game play (Similar to the action block buster movie genre)
  • Celebrities
  • Cosmetics (Buying skins)
  • A unlock system that is focused on keeping people interested in playing the game.
  • Removing any inconveniences such as (base-, getting someone else to repair your tank, getting someone else to give you ammo, getting someone else to heal you, being too long out of Battle, slow firing weapons, slow running speed, not being able to see your enemy, not having a tank, having the enemy steal your tank, (insert any inconvenience). What they say Battlefield 1 is focused on yet it is not a priority:
  • Teamwork (Conflicts with making the game convenient)
  • Making an authentic World War One tactical first person shooter.(Conflicts with making the game convenient)
  • Going back to the roots of the franchise ie BF 1942, 2, 2142 (Conflicts with making the game convenient)
  • Improving the netcode (Most people won’t complain if it is adequate)
    The Battlefield Formula: Teamwork + difficult to master game play + good maps = Great Game

Update! This may be harsh criticism and some have corrected me on certain points and I am willing to knowledge that.

  • Netcode in Battlefield 4 (Hit detection and so forth) is actually one of the best compared to all the other games out there. If they do carry it through with the 60Hz update system in Battlefield 1 it will be awesome.
  • Making Battlefield 1 Authentic to the WW1 is more about making it look like WW1. (Everything looks great in the Frostbite 3 engine) but not making the gameplay actually like WW1 battles. So you could say that it is Battlefield game play with a WW1 skin/texture pack.
  • As for teamwork, a lot of people claim that it is a core part of the franchise but I still have no confirmation from DICE or from the game play. It is one of the things that got me to play Battlefield and I really think that it could only do good if it is implemented.
  • As for going back to the roots of the Battlefield someone pointed out that it meant going back to Battlefield Bad Company 2, 3 and 4. Not really Battlefield 1942, 2 and 2142.
    We all want to see Battlefield be the best Battlefield to date, and yes everyone has their own idea of what is the best Battlefield but usually this falls into 3 categories:
  • The Normal Battlefield BC2, 3, 4 group who enjoy the fast pace
  • The Casual Battlefront but with more depth
  • The Classic Battlefield 1942, 2 and 2142 Things we all in common want to see is:
  • Well designed maps for well designed game modes
  • Well thought out class structure
  • Good spawn locations (Please DICE)
  • Teamwork to varying degrees (Casual: not so much, Normal: a decent amount, Classic: Quite a bit)
  • Great Graphics
  • Great Netcode
  • And most important balanced and fun gameplay that has depth.
    And so far DICE has done great with most of these points. It would be awesome if they could add the different modes such as Hardcore which will cater to the Classic and Normal Battlefielders.
2

Do you agree with the way the Battlefield Franchise is heading?

3

it all comes down to if i have fun or not.

4

Oh they even made the name of the next Battlefield convenient for all the new players! See 1 is the first number that everyone learns and that is how they got Battlefield 1.

5

Battlefield 1 should have been Battlefield 2143.

6

I was hoping Battlefield 4 was Battlefield 2143 but DICE is taking a different road and that will always follow the masses and trying to please the masses.

7

so, the masses were clamoring for a ww1 shooter? I think you need to organize your thoughts a bit better…

8

So what’s wrong with trying to please every gaming demograph from the masses and casuals to the hardcore elitists.

It’s a business they make the decision on what makes the most money so appealing to all types of gamer is a sound business move.

9

No, not really. Too many sci-fi shooters right now. Gamers should be able to rest. And in two years they shall release BF2143. Though I personally would love something completely new, not even BF2143 or WW2-based. What about “Cold War went wrong” scenario? Or really futuristic warfare set after 2200?

10

I wouldn’t have bought some futuristic sci-fi garbage to be honest. If you want that, go play the latest Call of Doody.

11

Agreed - too many of them right now. After 2-4 years it may be ok to release such a thing cos BF2142 was amazing and it’s worth continuing this subseries. But something completely new is even better.

12

I thought video games were about enjoyment and having fun, not developers pleasing as many people as humanly possible.

If you play Battlefield 1 and it doesn’t appeal to you at all, why not just move on to something that does? Publicly proclaiming that you don’t enjoy the type of game it is isn’t going to accomplish anything, especially getting the devs to change what type of game it’s going to be.

13

Also - DICE never said this was a focus for the game at all. Maybe an Authentic WW1 Battlefield experience (don’t mistake Authentic with Realistic), but not a “tactical first-person shooter”. A lead DICE developer literally said in an interview that they wanted BF1’s pacing and gameplay to be similar to that of past BF titles.

These games have been similar since BC2 - if you’re just now catching on that they’re not 1942, 2142, or BF2, and that DICE has LONG since decided to have BF appeal to a broader audience, you need to open your eyes a bit wider. This is nothing new.

In saying that - since you seemingly have a problem with what DICE is doing with the franchise SINCE 2142’s days, it hasn’t seemed to stop you from playing BF4 for over 500 hours, and BF3 for nearly 200. There must be some redeeming qualities that keep you playing games you seem to blatantly dislike.

14

authentic
adjective
1.
of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.
“the letter is now accepted as an authentic document”
synonyms: genuine, original, realistic, actual, pukka, bona fide, true, veritable; More

As for “past BF titles” you probably mean the last three. And no this is not the first time I caught onto it. I thought BC2 was just a spinoff but BF3 proved me wrong. I do have that small hope that people will realize that what made the Original Battlefields so great was not all this graphics and destruction and all these unlockable weapons and gadgets but just good teamwork, well designed map layout and a decent yet difficult to master game play.

15

And what’s to say BF1 wont have teamwork and well designed maps.

You have only seen one map with one game mode on a showcase from EA for all to see what BF1 might be about.

they have said that it was PRE-Alpha and all of what you have seen is subject to change (and we all know things do change)

Bad Company 2 Rush had the best teamwork in any Battlefield I have ever seen and like iv’e said I have played them all on PC and console.

And just a little heads up for you it’s not just the game/maps that create teamwork (it’s the players and people you play with that actually makes teamwork (WORK)

16

The majority of people who play BF now started playing at BC2 - they make up nearly the entire fanbase (especially considering that before, BF was almost exclusively played on PC, potentially cutting the current fanbase numbers into a third).

DICE is appealing to those people - the people that took their franchise from being a lesser-played PC exclusive, to being one of the top 3 AAA FPS franchises of all time.

DICE are appealing to their overall playerbase NOW - not their overall playerbase a decade ago who were all playing on PC.

So to say “you hope people will realize what made the original Battlefield games great” is a lost cause, because the vast majority of BF players are console players, and have more than likely never played those games, and more than likely never will play those games. And this is coming from someone who has literally been playing since the franchise started back in 2002.

It’s just a fact, you need to learn to accept it, or move on. Or both. I rather enjoy Battlefield still to this day, and I’d wager that BF2 was probably my most favorite in the franchise. But just because THINGS CHANGED doesn’t mean they’re far worse. Maybe if the style of game that BF2 was is literally the ONLY style of FPS game that you can enjoy - in which case, you need to move on to something else, because modern-day BF is a different (no matter how slightly) beast.

And I say again (seeing as it was an edit and you maybe didn’t read it) - The things you seemingly despise about BF3 and BF4 didn’t seem to stop you from playing said games for hundreds of hours, hell, over 500 hours for BF4, which is almost as much time as I spent playing it (and I love that game). Seems odd that you’d spend hundreds of hours playing games with so much about them that you dislike.

Lastly - you forgot to compare the definition of Authentic to that of Realistic:

re·al·is·tic
ˌrēəˈlistik/Submit
adjective

representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.
“a realistic human drama”
synonyms: true to life, lifelike, truthful, true, faithful, unidealized, real-life, naturalistic, graphic
“a realistic portrayal of war”

See - compared to the definition of “realistic” - Battlefield 1 IS authentic. Nothing portrayed in the game didn’t exist during WW1. Just because they weren’t widely used, doesn’t mean they aren’t authentic WW1 weaponry or vehicles.

You stated the definition yourself - “Of undisputed origin” - well those are indisputably WW1 weapons and vehicles portrayed in the game, as are the uniforms and nations fighting, as are the locations the maps take place in. Their origins directly involve that of WW1.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the only problems you have with the theme being portrayed in the game are those of “realistic” origin - like tanks moving too fast, or weapons having larger magazines than their real-life counterparts, or too many people running around with automatic weapons, or LMGs not being primarily mounted and instead being carried by infantry, etc.

17
  1. yes
  2. yes
  3. yes
  4. no (they were just at EA play.)
  5. no
  6. yes
  7. who cares
  8. false. I haven’t seen ANYTHING yet that would lead me or anyone else to believe that these things are true…EXCEPT the vehicle repairing stuff.

What they said they’re focusing on.

  1. yes
  2. ish…but I don’t want to play with only bolt action rifles…and people would whine and complain SOOO much if they did that. Go play Verdun if you want that.
  3. The roots are actually still there and have been…you just want a BF2 remaster.
  4. they’ve already improved the netcode. It’d be great if they improved it more.
18

It all started with bad company ,the game that called itself bf but was actually an experiment to make bf available to console noobs and try to steal cods fanbase

19

Considering the franchise has been following the BC2 direction ever since the game was a huge success, and they still haven’t “stolen CoD’s fanbase” - I highly doubt that was their reasoning for changing up the franchise. Especially considering that they’ve kept said changes even though they, again, haven’t “stolen CoD’s fanbase”.

20

That was their reasoning all right.Many changes have been made to make the game more similar to cod or casualize it.And yes they have stolen a huge part.Many people here are noobs that started with bc2 ,and were playing cod before that.You have to be blind to not see that,what do you expect,for cod to go bankrupt and have 0 players? Not gonna happen