• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Apex Spartan

Battlefield 1 set in World War 1 - Official Trailer

78 posts in this topic

Well, now nobody can say DICE doesn't listen. People asked for WW1 or WW2 setting and DICE delivered. If someone complains, they are assholes.

I'm not defending them since they might screw the game up, but in general they delivered one part. Now we will see the rest.

 

I'm really hoping for some naval warfare like in BF1942.

 

I'm honestly surprised by DICE. In a FPS market, which is currently dominated with futuristic settings, they decide to not to go in WW2 setting, but WORLD WAR 1! I'm really interested how they will pull it off. If they succeed, great job! They are carrying a lot of weight with this title now. If they make it right, they will earn lots of love and love from their fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not Overwatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that, given DICE's history when it comes to storytelling, they will cock this up, but Battlefeild's fans probably won't care because it's all about the multiplayer, right?

 

NO! NO! That is NOT what matters! We're talking about WW1, not some bullshit, over the top, dick-flick style nonsense that you can do what you want with! This is history god damb it!

 

The idea of a Battlefield game set in WW1 sounds cool, don't get me wrong, but anyone who forgives this game for a bad and/or short campaign needs to put their controller down, go to the local library, be locked in and not be allowed to leave until they've grown a soul.

 

EDIT: Also, just a thought, why did they use that remix of "Seven Nation Army"? Wouldn't it have been more clever to use something like Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" or Iron Maiden's "Paschendale"?

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't give a shit about campaign in Battlefield because it was always generic. Yes, Battlefield was always about multiplayer until Bad Company 1 and 2, where the game got it's first campaign ever, but let's not forget that BC1 and 2 were special because it contained lots of humor, which was one of my favorite FPS campaigns ever. BF3 and BF4 had classic shit that every military shooter has, so whether they fuck up the campaign now...I don't know, I hope not.

 

But when people think BF is about campaign, they are wrong. Battlefield 1942-Battlefield 2 was all about MP. It's like if VALVE decides to make the next Counter Strike have a campaign and then people say "CS is all about campaign." It was founded on MP gameplay, just like Battlefield.

They only introduced first campaign with Battlefield Bad Company and Bad Company 2. Those were actually good because it was very humor-based, like a comedy war movie. Every other campaign later was probably because of the mainstream market. Battlefield sells and has always sold for MP, not SP. So if DICE focuses all their effort on MP, I won't blame them.

 

I'm hoping for a good Battlefield 1 campaign, but I'm saying people shouldn't have high expectations for the reasons I stated above.

TheMadGeek likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apex Spartan said:

Well, now nobody can say DICE doesn't listen. People asked for WW1 or WW2 setting and DICE delivered. If someone complains, they are assholes.

I'm not defending them since they might screw the game up, but in general they delivered one part. Now we will see the rest.

 

I'm really hoping for some naval warfare like in BF1942.

 

I guess I'm an asshole then!

 

I never asked for this in fact I mentioned that DICE taking on WW1 was the stupidest thing they could possibly do.  WW1 was complicated and tragic and you seriously expect something well done out of this scenario from the same people who re-drew the positions of the world tectonic plates just to have a level set in Iran.  Hell the only reason they even went to that trouble was because of Modern Warfare was popular!

 

I have ZERO confidence in these guys and judging by this trailer I am absolutely right not to.  This is NOT WW1, this is Michael Bay's WW1!  Stuipid, dick flicking, over the top action in what's supposed to be a war of attrition.

 

I'd rather pre-order 10 copies of of Infinite Warfare and bury them knee deep in mud, I am not even close to kidding because that more accurately simulate the experience. 

DemonsColt and Shagger like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

I guess I'm an asshole then!

 

I never asked for this in fact I mentioned that DICE taking on WW1 was the stupidest thing they could possibly do.  WW1 one was complicated and tragic and you seriously expect something well done out of this scenario from the same people who re-drew the positions of the world tectonic plates just to have a level set in Iran.  Hell the only reason they even went to that trouble was because of Modern Warfare was popular!

 

I have ZERO confidence in these guys and judging by this trailer I am absolutely right not to.  This is NOT WW1, this i s Michael Bay's WW1!  Stuipid, dick flicking, over the action in what's supposed to be a war of attrition.

 

I'd rather pre-order 10 copies of of Infinite Warfare and bury them knee deep in mud, I am not even close to kidding because that more accurately simulate the experience. 

 

Yeah them DICE bastards fucked up Battlefront. They're dead to me. DEAD!

slamming-the-door-o.gif?w=320

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are putting too much shit on a game that you don't know much about man. I can understand your point of view, but just because you don't like the setting yourself or you PERSONALLY didn't want this setting (I'm in your shoes), that don't mean other million people didn't. People got tired of futuristic settings. I don't know why they chose WW1 if they could of gone with WW2, but it doesn't mean they will fail. People spammed and begged DICE for a WW1 or 2 setting. I assume they went with WW1 because they already have 2 games set in WW2 (BF1942 and 1943).

 

Me or you or anyone can't judge the game yet. After all, this is just a fancy trailer so of course it shows off tons of explosions. They won't show a trailer where people talk. Also you might be right, they said the game will be set in ALTERNATE WW1, I don't know what that means exactly, but obviously they've done something to make their life easier. As I've said, people put too much shit into the campaign and I'm not because I was raised playing this game in MP since BF1942 and all their previous campaigns were mediocre so I don't wanna get dissapointed. People need to realize that their first 3 MAJOR titles that made Battlefield the title that it is today and that has been since 2000, was BASED and meant only for multiplayer. There was no campaign until it's release of Bad Company 1 in 2007 or 2008.

 

Am I defending them? No, because if I was I would have a lot more hours placed in BF4 than I do now. They fucked the game with launch issues that lasted for months and with their bullshit battlepacks. I don't like the current DICE, even tho I've been a fan of the series and always loved it's multiplayer. Do I think BF1 will be shit? I don't know, with how BF4 went it will. Knowing DICE, the game might suck ass for first few months until most updates are out which is why I never buy their games instantly. I only bought BF4 couple of months ago. I'm a fan of the series, but I ain't blind or dumb. I don't support a game I love, just because it's titled BATTLEFIELD. I will support it when I think they deserved it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw something out there, without accidentally joining a debate that might occur, I'll say:

 

I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Apex Spartan and DemonsColt like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dyzzles said:

I'm looking forward to seeing more.

I'm looking forward to playing the obvious open beta. DICE looove their open betas.

Dyzzles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DemonsColt said:

I'm looking forward to playing the obvious open beta. DICE looove their open betas.

There's that, too. If you haven't done so already, they said that if you sign up for some insider program thingy on their site, you'll get a chance to be invited to one of their betas in the upcoming months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can't say no to a free game. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Dyzzles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dyzzles said:

There's that, too. If you haven't done so already, they said that if you sign up for some insider program thingy on their site, you'll get a chance to be invited to one of their betas in the upcoming months.

Isn't that "insider program" the EA Access thing? You pay 5 euros or so monthly, get access to ALL of their supported game in that programme and then they also give out early access to their newest games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apex Spartan said:

Isn't that "insider program" the EA Access thing? You pay 5 euros or so monthly, get access to ALL of their supported game in that programme and then they also give out early access to their newest games.

Oh, no, not that. It's on www.battlefield.com, you can find it either at the top in the tabs or just scroll down and you can find it to sign up. It's completely free, but I doubt that getting access to the beta is guaranteed. Probably just enters your e-mail for a chance to get invited.

Apex Spartan and savagejoe444 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Apex Spartan said:

Well, now nobody can say DICE doesn't listen. People asked for WW1 or WW2 setting and DICE delivered. If someone complains, they are assholes.

Weren't we asking that to Call of Duty? Since their campaigns are "decent" (or were) we wanted a good CoD based in WWII or at least "modern warfare" setting, which is why Infinite Warfare got so much dislikes?

But instead we got more space battles in the new CoD than in Battlefront.

However, this is the kind of things you never needed until you see it. I'm really digging this one, specially those planes (hopefully you can finally controll them with mouse).

Apex Spartan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Apex Spartan said:

You are putting too much shit on a game that you don't know much about man. I can understand your point of view, but just because you don't like the setting yourself or you PERSONALLY didn't want this setting (I'm in your shoes), that don't mean other million people didn't. People got tired of futuristic settings. I don't know why they chose WW1 if they could of gone with WW2, but it doesn't mean they will fail. People spammed and begged DICE for a WW1 or 2 setting. I assume they went with WW1 because they already have 2 games set in WW2 (BF1942 and 1943).

 

Me or you or anyone can't judge the game yet. After all, this is just a fancy trailer so of course it shows off tons of explosions. They won't show a trailer where people talk. Also you might be right, they said the game will be set in ALTERNATE WW1, I don't know what that means exactly, but obviously they've done something to make their life easier. As I've said, people put too much shit into the campaign and I'm not because I was raised playing this game in MP since BF1942 and all their previous campaigns were mediocre so I don't wanna get dissapointed. People need to realize that their first 3 MAJOR titles that made Battlefield the title that it is today and that has been since 2000, was BASED and meant only for multiplayer. There was no campaign until it's release of Bad Company 1 in 2007 or 2008.

 

Am I defending them? No, because if I was I would have a lot more hours placed in BF4 than I do now. They fucked the game with launch issues that lasted for months and with their bullshit battlepacks. I don't like the current DICE, even tho I've been a fan of the series and always loved it's multiplayer. Do I think BF1 will be shit? I don't know, with how BF4 went it will. Knowing DICE, the game might suck ass for first few months until most updates are out which is why I never buy their games instantly. I only bought BF4 couple of months ago. I'm a fan of the series, but I ain't blind or dumb. I don't support a game I love, just because it's titled BATTLEFIELD. I will support it when I think they deserved it.

 

 

They only say alternate WWI in articles before the official reveal and seem to be speculation.  They would probably just make maps based on the real life locations where interesting things happened instead of just a no man's land and two sides dug in.  But an alternate WWI would be pretty cool since I'm more interested in the technology used in that war.  The setting of zeppelins, biplanes, mustard gas, cavalry/horses vs tanks just seems more new and fresh.  I look forward to seeing how they will balance everything and what maps they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skullhead51 said:

They only say alternate WWI in articles before the official reveal and seem to be speculation. 

 

So one shoehorn's in the word "alternative" and that automatically makes it ok?  Here's an "alternative" take on the titanic disaster that features a giant Octopus, underwater shark gangs, a whaling scheme, moonbeam magic and all the passengers miraculously survive!

 

 

To all Battlefield fans........  STOP FORGIVING WHAT IS SO OBVIOUSLY BULLSHIT!

 

Cod wouldn't get away it, Medal of Honer wouldn't get away with it, their is a laundry list RTS games that wouldn't get away with it  and even Micheal Bay himself didn't so what the fuck is so special about this shitty franchise that means it can get away with anything?  "It's okay because it's DICE" seems to be the general consensus, even when they flooded their games with outrageous season passes, pay-to-win microtransactions and some of the worst campaigns ever nobody cares!

 

DICE DON'T GIVE A FUCK!  It's not even their fault, it's the fanbase since they obviously don't give a crap either!

zawisz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Glaice said:

Verdun did WW1 better. There's just too much polish on this version.

 

 

You see!  This is SO much more authentic and better!  Thanks Glaice!

Alexander452 and Glaice like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skullhead51 said:

They only say alternate WWI in articles before the official reveal and seem to be speculation.  They would probably just make maps based on the real life locations where interesting things happened instead of just a no man's land and two sides dug in.  But an alternate WWI would be pretty cool since I'm more interested in the technology used in that war.  The setting of zeppelins, biplanes, mustard gas, cavalry/horses vs tanks just seems more new and fresh.  I look forward to seeing how they will balance everything and what maps they do.

Not sure if it's rumors or not, but several articles mentioned it. Battlefield in past hasn't even been 100% true when it came to historical accuracy. I mean I'm 99% sure we will have what you just said. After all, it's Battlefield lol

 

35 minutes ago, Glaice said:

Verdun did WW1 better. There's just too much polish on this version.

Quote

What I want most—aside from everything in our Battlefield wishlist—is for Battlefield 1 to at least not get too wacky with the setting. Battlefield has never been much for historical accuracy—I’d play Verdun for something further in that direction—but Battlefield 1942 did attempt to model real weapons and battles. It was goofy but somber, as if we’d all invaded a giant WWII museum diorama to hop on the wings of planes and shoot paintballs while absorbing information plaques in our peripheries. I hope Battlefield 1 captures some of the atmosphere and despair of Verdun and Ypres and Somme in the same way, so that I feel like I’m running amok on a historical field trip, not flying around in Assassin’s Creed’s Animus with knives taped to my arms. 

 

This was pretty said in the PC Gamer article: http://www.pcgamer.com/why-wwi-is-a-great-setting-for-battlefield/?utm_content=bufferf8d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_pcgamer

 

I wouldn't expect that what you want in Battlefield. I have a feeling it will be a glorious war there, nothing else, but who knows.

 

28 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

 

You see!  This is SO much more authentic and better!  Thanks Glaice!

 

Mate, it's fine to have an opinion, specially the way Glaice puts it, but you are attacking everyone here and calling out all Battlefield fans to show them how much you think the game will suck because you hold something against DICE or the entire franchise. Everything you've said so far is just your personal opinion on the game and distaste for it. In which part of my post did I "forgive DICE" or said that it's okay what they did. I don't know what kind of a miracle you expect or don't expect from the game, but this game never was about authentic feeling of war. It was a simple game set in a war setting which was 70% based for Multiplayer gameplay. People need to fucking realize that if they don't like a game, they should leave. Since the first BF game till BF4 now, the game was nothing but a explosions and weapons fest set in different settings and time periods, but people loved and love it for what it is. You are comparing ONE game to another which aren't SUPPOSED to be compared. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's like comparing Skyrim and Witcher 3 and saying Witcher 3 is better because it has a darker setting or more "realistic".

 

In this case I'm not even defending Battlefield, but trying to understand people who don't like it just because they dont for some fucking reason like the company or the game, so they use other games that have NOTHING to do with Battlefield, just because they don't like the way BF is made or played. Battlefield isn't ARMA, it isn't Call of Duty, it isn't the game you posted above, it isn't anything of that kind. And last thing that it is not is a WW simulator.

 

If you are playing Battlefield for historical accuracy or SUPER IMMERSION then you are playing the wrong fucking game. Make your peace with it. People play this game to shoot people and blow shit up. Simple as fucking that. If you think I'm defending DICE or the franchise, read my post before this one again, but carefully and you will see what I said and realize I didn't suck DICE balls and said I forgave them.

You even made a post bashing the game in the Call of Duty thread. It's no point talking to you because it seems that once you decide to not like something, you make up your mind with it and there ain't no helping. I'm done here lol

 

You post hate about the game on threads that have nothing to do with Battlefield itself. Did DICE harm you personally somehow? Eh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

So one shoehorn's in the word "alternative" and that automatically makes it ok?  Here's an "alternative" take on the titanic disaster that features a giant Octopus, underwater shark gangs, a whaling scheme, moonbeam magic and all the passengers miraculously survive!

Why are you quoting me lol.  I only mentioned that part because there are assumptions when there is barely any information or gameplay footage released.  I just want a good game, historically accurate or not.  Zeppelins, WWI tanks, horses, and mustard gas don't usually appear in fps games or even all in one game so this is something genuinely new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skullhead51 said:

Why are you quoting me lol.  I only mentioned that part because there are assumptions when there is barely any information or gameplay footage released.  I just want a good game, historically accurate or not.  Zeppelins, WWI tanks, horses, and mustard gas don't usually appear in fps games or even all in one game so this is something genuinely new.

I want some magic. I heard they could cast spells in WW1. I read it in a history book

 

 

Some people just don't understand that you can still like a franchise despite some drawbacks. Last BF I loved was 3. I didn't enjoy BF4 because it was too shitty at launch, it had shitty battlepacks and it felt too much like BF3. I bought it on sale for 15 dollars which was the worthy price IMO. It's the same reason I have no high expectations for this Battlefield, but the actual change of ENTIRE setting gives me hope. One of the big reasons I look forward to this setting is the removal of all the LOCK-ON weapons (Stingers, IGLAS, heat seekers), I couldn't stand people brainlessly spamming that shit in BF3 and BF4.

 

I love the style of Battlefield gameplay and I know DICE can make the gameplay good in it. Yes it will be unimmersive and probably won't make lots of sense, but it's Battlefield. You play it for the only in Battlefield moments, you play it to make plays, shoot and blow people up in fancy explosions. That's what I expect from next Battlefield and I don't expect a WW1 simulator which is why I can't be dissapointed from that perspective. I've played Battlefield my entire life, every single game and I can always tell what the base gameplay will be like.

 

 

I think too many people who call themselves "fans" or something, think that Battlefield needs a good campaign. It's like if after current DOOM, some new generation of DOOM fans is created saying previous DOOM titles were shit cauze it didn't feature multiplayer. That's the logic many people use nowadays for Battlefield. Battlefield didn't introduce campaign in their games 7/8 years after it's first game. Battlefield 3's campaign was more of a product for pure competition vs CoD's highly anticipated Modern Warfare 3 at the time and now it was just moved to Battlefield 4. Both campaings were medicore. NOBODY in this thread out of people who talk shit about Battlefield probably don't even know about Bad Company 1 and 2 campaings. The only worthy campaings in Battlefield history. The ones that trully stood out from all first person shooters.

 


I don't expect a nearly good campaign by DICE unless they announce BFBC3. Every other campaign will be nothing but a fancy shooter with shit story.

Kids don't know SHIT about Bad Company 1 or 2. Most people don't even know the games existed and they couldn't appreciate the different approach DICE took. Only people who knew about these 2 BF games were Battlefield fans and people who didn't wanna play CoD. When these games were released, they were overshadowed by fucking Modern Warfare 1 and 2 and everyone thought that was the best shooter ever. No one outside Battlefield fans or few people who wanted to play a different kind of shooter knew or cared for Bad Company. So here is some advice: if you want a good FPS with another approach and a good Battlefield campaign, then play Bad Company 1 and 2.

 

 

xKaros likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nooot going to bother with the drama above me.

 

 

When I saw the title of the game, I think back on all the Battlefield games before.

Battlefield 1942

Battlefield 2

Battlefield 2142

Battlefield Vietnam

Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2

Battlefield 1943

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 4

And now Battlefield 1?? Is this the first game in the series? If that's the case, shouldn't Battlefield 1942 be Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 4 be Battlefield 5?? Or shouldn't Battlefield 1 be called Battlefield 1914 - 1918???

 

This reminds me of AVGN.

 

 

 

Next thing you know, the next game will be called:

Battlefield: Back in Time

 

and the plot will take place in ALL of the past wars, and you play as a time traveler from 2200 that go back to the past to stop someone from the future from taking over the world. So the multiplayer map will include every single battlefield of all the years, and you can change the layout by traveling back and forth in time.

 

 

 

 

this sounds familiar.....

 

 

 

theeeeere we go. 

Raspharus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield Vietnam came before Battlefield 2 and 2142

 

Battlefield 1942

Battlefiend Vietnam

Battlefield 2

Battlefield 2142

Battlefield Bad Company 1&2

Battlefield 1943

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 4

Battlefield Hardline (more like Bullshit Hardline)

and now Battlefield 1 for some reason

 

Also there is lots of expansion packs for 1942, BF2 and few more. BF1943 is also like a bigger expansion than an actual game.

 

Tbh I'm not that super bothered by the name, I'm just hoping they make the gameplay good. I suppose they put Battlefield 1 because it's the BF set in WW1, so it is set in oldest settings of all BF games atm. That's the only logic, but like you said, putting in the year would be just better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is gonna confuse Battlefield 1 for the first Battlefield game right now of course, but I agree with Kaz, the name is pretty stupid. I get it, it's WW1 so call it "1", but if they were to maintain tradition shouldn't they have called it Battlefield 1914 or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now