-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Battlefield 1 (EA Play Alpha) Gameplay from LevelCap, JackFrags, and More
- Thread starter The Flash
- Start date
I do remember the Garand being the basic rifle for the US side. Using bolt action as the default would slow down the game a lot. I don't think that's their goal with BF1.
Man you are reminding me how good old Battlefield was and it's really bumming me out that not only is this game not that but also WE CAN'T PLAY THE OLD ONES ANYMORE FUUU-edit: actually it looks like the community solved that "no more gamespy" dilemma.
Oh man, you missed out on BC2, which was the last MP from DICE I loved.
I'm just not feeling this footage. It looks like the same stuff they did with BF3/4. Did they say anything about fully destructible environments?
Hidden One
Member
Definitely gonna upgrade my PC specs before this game drops. I wanna experience it in all its glory.
He doesn't have to miss out, you can still play it! It probably runs on any modern PC now.
eyeball_kid
Member
Yeah, the Garand was the Rifleman weapon in 1943. I think with BF1 it's mostly the amount of machineguns being carried around. It just wasn't much of a MG war, so in that respect it doesn't feel 'authentic' to me.
The air combat does look quite fun, though they need to improve the destruction animation. They just kind of...stop right now.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Eh the Japanese didn't use semi automatic rifles nor was the Type 100 smg common as well. in addition their tanks were terrible compare to US Sherman as well.
Tainted
Member
I'm one of a handful of people who wants to play BF1 for the campaign. I generally suck at online competitive games and dislike it to the point of not wanting to spend the time to get good at them.
The WW1 setting is what does it for me...there just isn't enough games set in this era. I just hope the campaign is decent.
The WW1 setting is what does it for me...there just isn't enough games set in this era. I just hope the campaign is decent.
GodParticle
Member
I hope this runs as well as battlefront on console. I tried playing BF4 recently and the framerate was atrotious in the big maps
True! Probably still has a good population too!
Yes but it's no longer part of the zeitgeist. When it came out it was a huge counterpunch to CoD, which had just started to feel stale to me with MW2 the November prior. I'm sure a lot still play it on PC, but nowhere near the community it once had.
BC2 is on sale on Steam right now but I saw something that said you can't play multiplayer without getting a key from EA. Something about servers and stuff.
Edit: The Deluxe Edition which includes the Vietnam expansion is on sale on Origin for $7.49
https://www.origin.com/en-us/store/buy/battlefield-bad-company-2/pc-download/base-game/digital-deluxe-edition
Gnome Scat
Member
Hope those raindrops make it to the consoles.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Dont worry.
Battlefront uses the same kind of effect with Sand and Snow. Its not impossible
BF4 only runs really smooth in the 32 player modes.
64 isnt that great. Hardline improved that, but still isnt as butter like in Battlefront.
But Battlefront has less players. So who knows.
Im sure the PS4 Neo Version will run really great and look great.
This is the same build from the EA Play stream
Must be from him messing with the settings then. The motion blur in all the other footage I've seen looked like the effect in the Battlefront beta before it was improved in the final release.
Just remember, you will have to always play the Scout to do it since I believe bolts are restricted to the Scout class.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
You've played the game? It doesn't play anything like BF4, other than spawning.
In fact, a lot of BF4 players are probably gonna hate the game.
TheVoidDragon
Member
But BF143 was more "authentic" than previous games because the game was more limited due to it being a small, cheap downloadable game. It not being a full game meant it didn't have as many weapons, vehicles or classes; there were 3 classes with 1 main weapon each, 3 vehicle types and 1 plane per faction from what i remember. That game seemed to be "authentic" in terms of equipment because they either couldn't add more, or there was no real reason to.
They can't really do that in Battlefield games now because they're all about customization and allowing players to choose; while bolt-action rifles were the most common weapon in WW1, the game still offers a choice of different classes with different weapon types to make things more varied. It's up to the players to decide. No battlefield game has had classes with all the same weapon or type of weapon (beyond the multi-class choices in BF4), they all have their own function. They're not going to take that way by giving everyone Bolt-action rifles, especially when there's only 4 classes in the game.
Every Battlefield game has allowed things that either wouldn't be used that much, or wouldn't be used at all in reality.
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
Why?
icecold1983
Member
pretty surprised to see they brought back msaa
Stiler
Member
You can still give snipers the unique variants and specialized versions of bolt actions with scopes, that's actually MORE authentic , because in WW1 with limited supplies when it came to things like very accurate rifles or variants with optics mounted on them they actually gave them to the people who could make the best use of them (IE the guys with really good aim and marksmanship).
Having bolt actions isn't going to make the snipers somehow less focused or not have an identity and I do not get why people think this will.
Am I the only one that played BF 1942? Snipers had scoped Kar98's/no. 4's, know what the engineer had? Un-scoped versions. It didn't make the engineer somehow magically a "sniper" and it didn't make the sniper feel less special.
It's the same thing in games like Red Orchestra, bolt actions are the most available class type, snipers get scoped versions of the ba's and also some semi-auto scoped rifles. Both feel and play differently. Snipers engage and have better long-range because of the scopes.
Battlefield games have ALWAYS had weapons that were shared between other classes, from bf1942 to BF4, I don't get why people are suddenyl having an issue with this or think that un-scoped ba's somehow would negate the need or importance of scoped ba's.
No no no.
Everyone is getting confused by this and I can understand. In this build of the game, the slider only goes to 100% and 50% = native resolution (i.e. -1440p). It's just the labels that don't make sense but it works just like the older slider. 100% in Bf1 alpha = 200% in Bf4
I think most users played at defaults (which were medium in this case). I cranked things up.
GodParticle
Member
Yeah, I'm curious if the neo will get this to a solid 60. It looks a lot more complex than battlefront, so it may need that boost
SneakyStephan
Banned
Do you have any guess of what settings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NxAzWAM9Hc&feature=youtu.be&a is using?
I swear your DF video has way less pop up and nicer graphics than that older video. You said the settings defaulted to medium? Is that for everyone? Like was it on medium before you changed it? If so: Why would EA let people play and record the game on medium?
I'm just asking because that frankie video has a distracting amount of pop in (and I haaaate pop in in games) , so it would be nice if that video used lower settings
That's fine with me. I actually enjoy playong scout and spotting.
I'm not entirely sure what settings were in use there, since I'm not THAT familiar with the game just yet, but next week I'll have settings comparisons. I did the settings comparison in a different mode which we will be able to show next week, which is why it wasn't in this video.
By default, the PC that I sat down at as well as the ones being used by the guys I was with were set to "automatic" mode and, despite using a GTX1080, the greyed out settings indicated that the automatic mode was selecting medium across the board.
Seeing that this was the case with four PCs in my vicinity, I would guess that it was the default for everyone. To go beyond that, you would have to manually adjust settings (which is what I was doing). I'd imagine there was at least a couple other people in the room that were doing the same, but I can't be sure.
So it's very likely that Jack's (and many others) video is running at sub-Ultra settings.
eyeball_kid
Member
Well, I liked it. The rock-paper-scissors weapons forced more strategic and team-based play. And 1943 showed that a BF game doesn't have to be big to feel complete (aside from the lack of maps, which yes I'm still bitter about). I think the popularity of 1943 surprised the BF team, but unfortunately they didn't take any lessons from that success. Other than that people were still interested in 'vintage' time periods.
I'm using DICE's definition of 'authentic' (which they've used to defend a bunch of silly design choices in BF1), which is not the same as accurate. I'm by no means an expert on WW2 weaponry, so to me 1943 gave a feeling of authenticity.
That's basically DICE's measuring stick for these things. However, even someone like me that doesn't know much about WW1's weaponry knows that there weren't machine gunners (or tanks) running around all over the place. So they keep using their term authentic to describe BF1, but it doesn't hold up to even their own tenuous definition of the term. They've basically just decided, right, we have to have X, Y, and Z weapon types, so find some prototypes or rare weapons and make that standard kit. As a layman, it's not a convincing representation of WW1.
ShutterMunster
Junior Member
My lord, the sound. Watching LevelCap's video.
TheVoidDragon
Member
It's not the sniper class that is the problem, obviously you could give them the scoped versions, it's the other classes in the game that would have issues. Currently in Battlefield one (and previous battlefield games) the most defining feature of each class is their primary weapon, if you gave them mostly all the same thing there wouldn't be very much to define the purpose for each of them, to the point where you might aswell get rid of the classes entirely and just go for a loadout system like Battlefront.
I haven't seen anyone say anything about unscoped Bolt-actions making the scout classes scoped versions pointless, its the use of SMGs, semi-automatic and machine guns that i've seen people say should be replaced with Bolt-action rifles instead, despite those being there to offer players choice and give a class a more specific function.
It's been a long time since i've played BF1942, but what weapons did that have shared between classes? Same with BF2, the closest thing there i can remember would be the Assault and Medic both get an assault rifle, yet the Assault classes has a grenade launcher which made it different.
It's not supposed to be a convincing representation of WW1. BF3 and BF4 certainly weren't convincing representations of modern combat, i don't know why people suddenly expected the next Battlefield game wouldn't be a Battlefield game.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Thanks for the reply
I'm not that much of a gfx whore (gameplay over graphics
) but pop in is the one thing that bothers me endlesslyJumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
But still no Console footage in sight i guess
Well, I've seen the game running on an Xbox One and it did look quite good. But I didn't get a particularly close look at it nor was capture available.
But still no Console footage in sight i guess
So we only have PC capture to examine.
I will say that it seems to have benefitted from the improvements made to Frostbite since BF4/BFH. I'm sure it'll be 720p in its final form but the frame-rate should be steadier than BF4, at least, and the visuals are improved.
Stiler
Member
No one is asking for them to drop mg/smgs, everyone asking for BA's are asking for them to be an optional "all kit" weapon like carbines in BF4 or such, just a weapon type that anyone can play with any class, an unscoped BA that is.
In bf1942 engineers had unscoped Kar98/No. 4's whereas snipers had scoped versions. I n BF2 you were right about assault, that was my point, other bf's had weapon sharing with some differences (IE scopes or underbarrels).
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
How close was it to the PC footage so far?
And nice to hear.
I hope the Beta isnt that far away.
It looks authentic [weapon models, tank models, uniforms and details on them etc.], but it doesn't play authentically. I specifically said "authentic mil-sim experience" and something like ArmA 3 fits that description. We are talking about authentic mil-sim experience from equipment looks to behavior, and pacing of the gameplay. Battlefield franchise has never been about time period authentic gameplay, it has always been fast and acrady FPS.
Which is okay, but to expect else this far into lifespan of franchise is... weird?
UnforgivenTwin
Member
Obviously it won't look as good as the PC,but I would say that the game will benefit greatly on PS4 and XBO by not having to develop for PS3 and XB360 like with BF4.
But still no Console footage in sight i guess
I'm surprised they're revealing another map so soon, we sure it's not just domination gameplay from the same alpha on the same map?
It's hard to say if it's because they don't understand it, or if they simply consider it less important than making the game all about instant action & gratification. It's really all about always being close to the action, reward you for it with points, and puting chock points for even more action.
Metro is just that design at it's extreme, but pretty much every map got that treatment, even karkand and Oman remake in bf3. Alborz Mountains is probably the least affected map of bf3-4.
eyeball_kid
Member
Making modern warfare over the top and unrealistic is fine, this is not ARMA after all, and as a layman non-gun expert, the tech in the modern BF games feels authentic to me. BF1, unless you're some poor uneducated soul that has never heard of WW1 before, fails the authenticity test under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
But perhaps I just have a different standard for games based on historical settings. They should be treated with a bit more reverence, especially for a war which has never really had a spotlight in games. All these kids who know very little about WW1 are going to think it was just a steampunk version of WW2.
Hard to say from such a distant look but it's unmistakably BF1. You can assume more pop-in and lower image quality at the very least.
Similar threads
- Locked