I wouldn’t mind seeing a tad bit slower more strategical style.
What did you expect, the pace of ARMA 3 or maybe the one of a good chess game?
DICE will obviously keep nearly the same game pace of BF3 and BF4 as this is FPS with no particular inclinations of being realistic. You think millions of casual gamers and potential customers (many coming from years of COD), would want a “slower” game? Unfortunately unlikely!
I’m gonna take a shot in the dark and guess your an Arma3 fan.
I don’t think it’s obvious that DICE will keep nearly the same pace as Bf3 and 4, and I really don’t see a reason for them to. There’s also no reason for DICE to make Bf1 pacing realistic. Why do people frame anything that isn’t doing exactly what they want as doing something completely polar opposite to the extreme? The same ridiculous arguments can be made for every single one of these silly defensisms of a particular gameplay:
‘Why would DICE make a non-realistic game pace, when obviously it wouldn’t be fun to snap between capture points within 3 seconds, and people would be running too fast for anyone to be able to shoot anybody. The guns would have to be given lock on mechanisms, and pin-point accuracy across the maps, and that would spoil the gunplay. Obviously, DICE can only make the game have realistic pacing, otherwise the game will be a total flop and nobody will play it.’
See how ridiculous those arguments are?
Battlefield 4 is too ADHD in its game pacing, and it needs to be slowed down. Nobody will have issues with Battlefield 1 becoming a little slower in pacing, though not as slow as classic Battlefield. People are just afraid of anything different.
I also would like the movement to be slower than BF4. BF4 was too crazy fast. Jumping running and parachuting of small buildings all the time. It came dangerously close to CoD in terms of pacing.
I would go with 85% speed of BF4.
I agree with this, but that’s just a personal wish of mine.
Fast paced action is one of the key elements in any FPS (with the obvious exception of mil. simulators and heavily tactical games). Yes, the pace can vary from game to game but it is still predominantly “fast”.
Considering also that the run-and-gun mentality in FPS has been the dominating trend for many years, I really don’t think BF1 will be any exception. We are most likely not going to see prolonged and tedious firefights between trenches with the occasional bayonet charge to add a bit of exitement. Most FPS players want a feeling of action while gaming, and action means speed (whether you appreciate it or not).
Not saying that BF1 will be an arena style shooter (heaven forbid), but a gaming pace significantly slower than BF3/BF4 is very unlikely.
The trailer itself was clearly edited to give a sensation of action and speed. (I doubt that EA/DICE would risk it by delivering a game with a “realistic or slow WWI” pace after hyping people up for months with action packed trailers).
modern or or near future settings have also been the dominating trend for some time too, but dice did decide to step outside the box and go back to a past time. So it’s hard to say 100% that the pace of the game will stay at the current trend.
But I do believ that the gameplay will still stay “fast” (ish) IF dice do decide to be bold and slow it down, I have to think that it won’t be by much. Although I would like to see it become slightly more tacticle and strategic rather than full on twitchy and run and gun.
Dont forget pasing needs to be realistic with exploading buildings ect