BF1

Did Sup Forums get into the alpha? Is it any good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fRRrjffUXzM
youtu.be/hj8rSuGeMd0
reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/4q3hk4/bf1_different_weathers_changing_the_atmosphere_in/?st=iqmdih2i&sh=69907253
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it's just okay.

I mean it's Battlefield, nig. What do you think you're getting?

youtube.com/watch?v=fRRrjffUXzM
It looks like fucking shit. I thought this game was supposed to have good graphics?

Yeah, have been playing a lot of the alpha and having a blast. Lots of cool new changes add up and there's some really cool attention to detail. Destruction is absolutely awesome.

youtu.be/hj8rSuGeMd0

it's fun :3

This is bait, right?

It may be but that image is obviously not gameplay and part of the baked hype material.

BF games usually look good but not that good.

I mean Battlefront looked fucking incredible and that game was a rushjob

Is that an in-game render? Looks great

>gameplay footage obviously looks like shit
>better post some bullshot to change this fact

Its an in-game screenshot you dip

Taken by someone from the alpha

Are you're judging from a compressed youtube video you sperg, who is more in the wrong?

reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/4q3hk4/bf1_different_weathers_changing_the_atmosphere_in/?st=iqmdih2i&sh=69907253

Same as that naughty dog game. Game looks good, has a photo mode that applies a bunch of post processing effects so people can post it and say wowee look how great it looks

yeah, and also only had small maps and no destruction

'no'. it's a screenshot that has been altered by processing software.

you can't argue that shit when there's gameplay footage available and we all know what it looks like.

>Screengrab of a compressed youtube video
>Indicative of the game's graphics

Look up some raw footage or play the game yourself. You're judging it based on the compressed 720p youtube footage you watch you mong

>that complete lack of aliasing
no, it's not an in-game screenshot.

Yes I am Sup Forums and it sucked.

>Bullshot
>Indicative of the game's graphics

I have I'm just using what is posted in this thread.

I really don't give a fuck senpai its gonna have the same braindead gameplay as BF3 and BF4 did full of the CoD audience they want so bad.

>that scope
Is that really something that existed back then? It looks like high tech shit.

I mean the graphics look fine and it just looks like another standard Battlefield game gameplay-wise. What's your problem? It's not photo realistic?

>braindead
Explain

It looked great in the promotional footage and now it looks like BF4, a 2013 game, and worse than Battlefront. How are you defending this?

Took me like 5 seconds to google "first world war scopes" to find dozens of pictures.

The game looks fine. I don't care about Battlefield games, I especially don't care about the graphics, but the graphics and gameplay look perfectly fine to me in that video. Honestly I feel like you're either baiting or just really miserable and whiny and you're taking it out here.

Don't you care more about the gameplay anyway? Why not comment on that instead of whining about something that will barely affect your enjoyment of the game?

Maybe I'm just out of touch but the emphasis on good graphics these days just doesn't make sense to me. Almost all games that are coming out are meeting the standard for 'good graphics'. I can only assume it's people who grew up with nice looking games and so a game that doesn't push graphic quality further is 'terrible', regardless of the gameplay.

So is this going to be a watered down piece of crap like the last battlefront game compared to its predecessors or what?

Im still salty as fuck they removed all those progressive rush maps. Fucking the one in bf3 where you jump off a fucking cliff, god dammit why, rush was the best part of the game, conquest is just a bunch of shitters camping and running around ghost capping bases, its fucking retarded

Whatever nerd.

I thought that at first too, but the longer I looked at it, the more it started to resemble a very old camera or something primitive like that.

Thanks for the giggle

>I don't care about this game but let me make this big shill post to defend it

Better than the overhyped overwatch

I think the tipping point was Bad Company 2

The game just oozed fun and actually made use of the destruction gimmick quite well.

BF3 and 4 toned everything that was good about that series down.

where the fuck is bad company 3?

t. Mad because bad

Conquest is fun as hell as long as you have an inkling of what you're doing

Rush is good on a few maps but is often one-sides

Conquest is TDM with flags
Attack/defend game modes are always superior

explain your reasoning cause it makes no sense to me

BF4 has more destruction than Bad Gustav 2. BF3 had more internal destruction too.

BC2 has less of everything than BF3 and 4 and plays like shit since it's a console shooter.

>Conquest is TDM with flags
>TDM
>Kills no longer count towards the score
B8 harder m8.

...and rush is tdm with progressive flags? How does that make sense

Kills don't nearly matter as much as objectives do

There's also obliteration, which is very fun, chainlink, CTF, gun master, etc

BF4 is shit it has the same crap formula that 3 has which is a bunch of points close together even the expansions didnt solve it.

Battlefront well thats basically BF1 lite

I dont know who the fuck Dice are trying to appeal to with these games since CoD is now dead and they basically own the market again why dont they just go back to form and make a Real BF2 sequel.

No memes


Im still Waiting for 2143 or something else but i guess thats off the table for another 3+ years while they fart around with ww1

that said if it doesnt turn out to be trash ill play it

>EA is actually paying this stupidfuck to market this shitty WW2 reskin

it's going to play out exactly the same
i.e. people are just going to run around going for kills because there is no frontline

Superior multiplayer game coming through.

>a bunch of point close together
Explain

>ww2 reskin
Literally what the fuck

You know the capture points? They are too close together i liked them more spaced out like they where in BF2 and 1942

2142 was two steps forward and one step back
1943 was okay but clearly it didnt track since they didnt make a full game out of it like they wanted to.

Cool tech its aged pretty well.

I'd love to see them actually try something new since ww1 is basically ww2 lite and they just copy pasta'd battlefront mixed with the worst parts of bf3 from what i could see

>He really thinks it's a WW1 shooter.

BF2>BC2>BF4, so no BF doesn't automatically mean good

Even the dumbest kid will realise how important capping points is when people with lower K/Ds than him consistently reach the top of the scoreboard while he hugs the bottom.

>he really thinks using greentext explains anything and proves him right

>He thinks BF:1942 was a WW2 shooter
>He thinks BF:V was a Vietnam shooter
>He thinks BF:2/3/4 are modern warfare shooters
Go back to Arma or Verdun or whatever.

>He is actually this stupid and needs to be spoon fed even further.
Facebook cancer everyone.

>WW1
>Everyone has a machine gun.
also
>He doesn't think 1942 was a WW2 shooter.
The idiots just keep pilling in.

m8, there are like over 20 maps and 2 modes of CQ. There are plenty of maps with spaced out capture points. You're trashing 2 entire games based on a couple of CQ maps?

Not the user but did you even fucking watch any gameplay of this game? The game has far far far too many automatics for a ww1 game so it may aswell be ww2.

the "compressed youtube video" argument is the dumbest argument ever.

To be honest most of the maps are clusterfucks.

Ah yes, let's have everyone use bolt actions and sit in trenches and slowly die of gangrene while they wait for the order to go over the top from command, that'll surely make a good game.
user, you're a genius!

>Bolt actions weren't the primary infantry weapons in WW2
>Everyone were running around with SMGs in WW2
>Everyone were running around, hip firing LMGs in WW2
People who thinks this is more like WW2 are fucking stupid.

>can't explain his point of view
>"stupid Facebook cancer fug off xd"
Truly amazing

wow leave this board any time

>WW1 game has more automatics than a WW2 game.
>Shills are ACTUALLY defending this.

See this
Also the bolt actions are pretty powerful, they ohk at a certain range, you just have to actually aim well

Never mind bayonet charges!
Never mind navigating no man's land!

Wow, continue to post non-replies with worthless reaction pics

this is a forum not a board you Fucking idiot

>Everyone can run around with full auto rifles
>NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT ONLY HIGH RANKING OFFICERS HAD ACCESS TO THESE EXPENSIVE WEAPONS XDDDD
>nevermind the fucking fact that lowly soldiers only had one strip of bullets and a shitty surplus bolt-action and off to be canon fodder they went

>"WE'RE FINALLY MAKING THE WW1 GAME EVERYONE SECRETLY WANTED
>"hold on though, let me make this as close to a WW2 game as possible
>hold on, can't forget to make it racially diverse :^)
Fuck them, I hope it bombs. The one thing I hate most in the world is history revision. The fact that they couldn't make a simple WW1 game without filling it with revisionist shit and prototype weapons that only had 5K in production at the time is fucking abhorrent, and they should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, even COD of all things managed to put effort into how they include women in combat roles by handwaving them with "it's the future get over it."

user I DO NOT WANT TO USE BOLT ACTIONS IN MY SHOOTY GAMES I DON'T WANT TO BE PUNISHED FOR MISSING
GIVE ME MY SMGS NOWWW

No

>So retarded he needs someone to explain every single thing to him.
>''le i r knot dum guys xD''
Go back to facebook please.

>battlefield is a mil sim

>Having the most widely used standard issue rifle makes it a sim.

If RO2 was a failure why would this shit be any different?
Besides the marvelous
>lel the arcade shooters are fun xD
argument.

>bayonet charges aren't in the game
>no mans land isn't in the game
Have you even watched a single round of bf1 or did you just come here for (you)s?

no one said it was going to be historically accurate you spastic

Standard issue bolt action rifles are in the game you tool. You don't HAVE to use them though.

>RO2
>failure

>The fact that they couldn't make a simple WW1 game without filling it with revisionist shit and prototype weapons that only had 5K in production
Because a Chinese soldier running around with a Famas and D. Eagle and defibs tht instantly revives someone who got sniped in the head is so much more accurate amirite?

The only bolt action rifles are sniper rifles you fucking faggot.

Jesus Christ you people. Were you legitimately expecting it to be a ww1 simulator? Where you spend several months in the trenches before getting blown to bits by artillery or dying of dysentery?

Also anyone that bases their history off a fucking battlefield game is literally retarded.

>He thinks knife backup weapon reskin counts as a bayonet charge.
>He thinks no man's land is just a flat piece of land.

You don't have to use a scope.

Underage please leave, or at least start telling me to go to places other than Facebook. Variety is the spice of life.

No.

That's where you're mistaken

You fucking idiot, most of war isn't running around with a machine gun anyway.

People sat in trenches in WW2.
People sat in positions getting bombed in WW2

THERES LITERALLY A BAYONET CHARGE MECHANIC

THERES LITERALLY A PART OF THE ALPHA MAP DEDICATED TO TRENCHES AND NO-MANS LAND

Can you be more ignorant?

It could at least try, like RO2, which is by no means simulator, yet it tries to make it at least somewhat believable. BF1 just jumps the shark and goes one step below a fucking alternate history with all of prototype shit and frontline aerostats.

I thought the first titanfall was fun but just kind of boring after a few hours; I liked the premise and mobility in the combat, it just got dull over a short amount of time for me. I'm pretty hyped for the sequel though but I dunno if that singleplayer campaign will be good.

That's what i said?
Do you want a game where you sit in trenches and get bombed?

Its battlefield
It has never been close to realistic

Of course its not going to be like ro2, no bf game was, not even fucking 1942 or 1943

>BF1 just jumps the shark and goes one step below a fucking alternate history with all of prototype shit and frontline aerostats.
you mean like Battlefield always has?

I want a game that had more realistic WW1 action than just a WW2 reskin. The Eastern front didn't have many trenches anyway. If they wanted a more mobile theater they could had choose to use that.

>Sup Forums juding the entire game on 1 map, a handful of weapons in an alpha build

every time

Verdun?
I was thinking of getting it

>I want a game that had more realistic WW1 action
Why the hell then are you in a Battlefield thread?

I don't know so far everyone is talking about a fantasy game taking place in an era when everyone had machine guns and looks like dragons could as well be around.

BF2 was pretty grounded, probably the most grounded BF even.

I guess M-16's are fantasy then.

But there WERE machineguns everywhere in WW1.

If you want, you can take a bunch of roleplayers to your server and each team can sit in a trench and you can shout at each other while someone fires artillery all around you.

The problem is, nobody wants to do that. People want to fight.