hopefully the game is slower pace only reason buying it is that its in ww1
There’s an interview article with Daniel Berlin in which he states the game pace is pretty close to BF4. They’re still tweaking it here and there though. My best guess would be that it’s going to be around 90-95% that of BF4.
Not that different game dynamics are necessarily a bad thing.
It seems likely that the pacing will remain the same. He makes it clear that the setting itself has no bearing on it.
How on earth can you have a WW1 shooter that has the same pace as a 21st century war. This game is gonna suck hard. Gameplay is way too fast in BF4 but it still works because it’s modern combat. Fast paced WW1 is going to be ridiculous.
fight against trenches was slow and bad, but a fight “inside” a trench was certainly fast, frenetic and bloody…
So, maybe the pace has something to do with it being more close combat while on foot
I doubt the pace of the game itself will be the same or slower, it will be different depending on how the mechanics turn out to be…
Planes should be faster. Otherwise, I think everything is moving at the correct speeds.
After seeing the trailer I believe its going to be about the same.. won’t know for sure until we see some gameplay but I wouldn’t hold my breath for a slower pace.
I really hope that Bf1 re-instills some of the more dynamic game pacing that the classic Battlefields have. Battlefield 4 is too much of one flavor of game speed and intensity, to the point that it becomes distasteful and monotonous. I’d really like limited-sprint and larger maps (with more control points) to held breathe more depth into the Battlefield experience in Bf1.
so you’re idea of “depth” is abject boredom as you slowlyu trudge toward the nearest flag knowing that you could set a weight on “w” and go grab a snack before anything remotely exciting happens?
So your idea of considering people’s opinions is reframing their posts into a straw-man argument, and then mocking it? You sound like the type of person who only plays Metro. It also sounds like you have no experience with classic Battlefield, because its dynamics were not always a hindrance, but also undeniably added a depth that isn’t there in Bf4.
Hopefully, with Bf1, DICE will find something not entirely like classic Battlefield pacing, but also not entirely like Bf4 pacing, which becomes really stale and boring over time, due to being very one-speed. Bf1 ought to bring some more gamespeed dynamics into play, via larger maps, with more capture points, and perhaps an option of limited-sprint. There is every degree of difference between classic Bf and Bf4, and hopefully DICE finds a nice spot that includes more dynamics than Bf4, but isn’t as restrictive as classic Bf is to some players.
i’ve been playing since 1942, and definitely not only metro in BF3. BF2 had maps that were huge for the sake of being huge. there’s a reason everyone only played the city maps after a while. because the rest were pretty boring. you can call it “dynamic pacing” all you want, but if half of the pacing sucks, that doesnt make the high’s better, it just makes half of the game suck.
classic battlefield is the king of false memories. everyone remembers it being awesome, but BF2 was deeply flawed and kind of a let down after 1942’s promise. BF2 was a an ambitious game. it did not live up to those ambitions.
Bf4 may be a pretty one note game, but BF2 wasnt any better. transit time in BF2 sucked. trying to pretend it was a “feature” is just you trying to convince yourself.
Yup, it sounds like you never played classic Battlefield and are making fiction up to support your argument. Why are you trying to tell people what they like and what they remember? Maybe you get beaten at home a lot or something, or don’t feel very respected in your life. Stop being a .
I still play Battlefield 2 online, and it’s still a great game. It helps that Battlefield 2’s maps are more interesting than a lot of Battlefield 4’s maps, which makes them a pleasure to explore. And the time spent travelling to flags builds up suspense for the battle that’s coming ahead, and gives time to think about what’s going to be done. Overall, it makes the battles that occur more meaningful. All around, having a more dynamic game pacing creates a positive depth. I’m sure there will still be a metro-esque map for you to get your kicks out of.
Gee, you think there’d be some middle-ground between the two, something sort of like what this paragraph was talking about:
"Hopefully, with Bf1, DICE will find something not entirely like classic Battlefield pacing, but also not entirely like Bf4 pacing, which becomes really stale and boring over time, due to being very one-speed. Bf1 ought to bring some more gamespeed dynamics into play, via larger maps, with more capture points, and perhaps an option of limited-sprint. There is every degree of difference between classic Bf and Bf4, and hopefully DICE finds a nice spot that includes more dynamics than Bf4, but isn’t as restrictive as classic Bf is to some players. "
yeah, i must never have played 1942 or BF2 because i refuse to suck up to the series and deify it.
classy.
i wont argue that BF2’s maps arent more interesting than BF4. There’s a reason i dont own BF4. but that doesnt make BF2’s maps good. they werent. A pleasure to explore? nah, they were boring as hell.
BF2 was never a great game. it was an ambitious one, but it was never great.
in my opinion, it’s nothing but a drag. i dont need that much time to plan ahead, and there is no built suspense. considering that most people, including longtime series fans, play lots of locker and metro, it seems they agree with me somewhat.
i get that, that’s why i didnt address that. i didnt have anything to say about it. its a valid opinion. my comment wasnt a response to that, just me contrasting the faults of BF3/4 with the faults of BF2.
If it is slower I hope it’s not too slow paced, otherwise it will turn alot of players away.
it would be hard to reverse to slow pace. i cant go back to small FOV for that reason, it is too slow.
at the same time, i feel soldier movement are too fast, relative to the space and building. you can’t make any prediction, what you check at time t is invalidated 100ms after.
null
planes in ww1 were so slow you could get them down with a well aimed rifle shot!
Not sure how it will be slow when some people probably hop in a biplane then jump out near the objectives and just use it as a taxi. Horses will get people there at a decent rate. Battles from the sea when get boats to shores fast. I’m sure there will be some kinda spawn beacon that has ya parachute in? Tanks might be a bit slow but put the pressure on those camping in the trenches. Also the zeppelins are probably like a spawn beacon as well. Then either parachute out or a biplane is attached to the bottom as a escape pod. Maybe motorcycles with side car on them and jeeps?
no jeep. jeep is WW2
horse is jeep.
Yeah my bad no jeeps. I hear US and France did have trucks to haul soldiers. I read a article. But not sure if accurate or not. http://www.answers.com/Q/Was_the_jeep_used_in_world_war_1