What kind of experience? The "authentic" experience that I said I got from 1943 in the message you just quoted?
That's what modern bf games are missing
the flags are never more than 30 seconds away for anyone spawning anywhere, especially with all the vehicles and how fast they are
Add squad and vehicle spawns to that and it just becomes a meatgrinder
You can't have conquest when taking a flag doesn't mean anything other than tickets.
Conquest was brilliant because you could cut off enemy spawns effectively, take a flag behind enemy lines to pincer spawn etc. Taking a flag was meaningful and would reshape the entire battlefield.
It'll never stop amazing me that dice don't know their own series enough to understand how to do conquest maps
I've owned every battlefield game ever made other than the bad company's and Vietnam (1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4 and even hardline), and this game just isn't doing it for me even though I desperately wanted the old timey setting. I think it just feels too "fast" maybe? It just looks like BF3/4 with a different skin. Or the sense of scale is not there as much. I mean, 1942 was not a slow game by any means but the maps were HUGE. Wake was like 5 flags but it felt so large. The sense of scale in Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal were amazing too.
It might be nostalgia too but I'd love to just see modernized recreations of 1942 maps. Pure class based gameplay as well, no attachments. How many attachments are gonna be in BF1? I always found the 40+ attachments per weapon in 3 and 4 annoying.
He doesn't have to miss out, you can still play it! It probably runs on any modern PC now.Oh man, you missed out on BC2, which was the last MP from DICE I loved.
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.
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.What kind of experience? The "authentic" experience that I said I got from 1943 in the message you just quoted?
He doesn't have to miss out, you can still play it! It probably runs on any modern PC now.
He doesn't have to miss out, you can still play it! It probably runs on any modern PC now.
True! Probably still has a good population too!
Hope those raindrops make it to the consoles.
I hope this runs as well as battlefront on console. I tried playing BF4 recently and the framerate was atrotious in the big maps
Damn, the DF video is awesome quality.
Is this build different from the one shown during the stream? Motion blur is significantly better than all the other footage I've seen. Could just be from Dark cranking up the settings though.
This is the same build from the EA Play stream
Can't wait to no scope fools with the bolt actions. Game looks so damn good.
You've played the game? It doesn't play anything like BF4, other than spawning.nah I think I'm on point here
What kind of experience? The "authentic" experience that I said I got from 1943 in the message you just quoted?
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.
Aw, you missed the video I did for DF with the game downscaling from both 4K and 5K.
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 was 3 classes with 1 main weapon each, 3 vehicle types and 1 plane per faction from what i remember. That seemed to be "authentic" 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.
No no no.Battlefield 1 PC on GTX 1080 1440p+ Gameplay Footage - Digital Foundry
They seem to be confused in this one. Stating that a resolution scale of 100% at 1440p is equivalent to 2880p, which it isn't. 100% resolution scale means it's running at 100% of the native resolution, so 1440p.
I think most users played at defaults (which were medium in this case). I cranked things up.Damn, the DF video is awesome quality.
Is this build different from the one shown during the stream? Motion blur is significantly better than all the other footage I've seen. Could just be from Dark cranking up the settings though.
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.
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.
That's fine with me. I actually enjoy playong scout and spotting.Just remember, you will have to always play the Scout to do it since I believe bolts are restricted to the Scout class.
DICE has been operating under the mantra of going for an "authentic" experience. 1943 felt fairly "authentic", even if not always accurate. It gave me the feeling of fighting in the Pacific with what felt like the weapons of the day. Most of my time was spent with the M1 Garand rifle. But this game, with semi and full-auto rifles everywhere, doesn't really capture the feeling of WW1. A medic with a semi-auto rifle in 1917? Come on. Bolt-action rifles should be the standard in this game, not the exception. This just feels like a re-skin of BF4. A very pretty and evocative re-skin, but a re-skin nonetheless.
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.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
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.
The IJN riflemen carrying a reskin of the M1 Garand as their battle rifle didn't really feel authentic, either (even if such a weapon did exist), but I'm in agreement with your point regarding BF1.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
DICE has been operating under the mantra of going for an "authentic" experience. 1943 felt fairly "authentic", even if not always accurate. It gave me the feeling of fighting in the Pacific with what felt like the weapons of the day. Most of my time was spent with the M1 Garand rifle. But this game, with semi and full-auto rifles everywhere, doesn't really capture the feeling of WW1. A medic with a semi-auto rifle in 1917? Come on. Bolt-action rifles should be the standard in this game, not the exception. This just feels like a re-skin of BF4. A very pretty and evocative re-skin, but a re-skin nonetheless.
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.How close was it to the PC footage so far?
And nice to hear.
I hope the Beta isnt that far away.
But still no Console footage in sight i guess
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.That's what modern bf games are missing
the flags are never more than 30 seconds away for anyone spawning anywhere, especially with all the vehicles and how fast they are
Add squad and vehicle spawns to that and it just becomes a meatgrinder
You can't have conquest when taking a flag doesn't mean anything other than tickets.
Conquest was brilliant because you could cut off enemy spawns effectively, take a flag behind enemy lines to pincer spawn etc. Taking a flag was meaningful and would reshape the entire battlefield.
It'll never stop amazing me that dice don't know their own series enough to understand how to do conquest maps
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.
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.How close was it to the PC footage so far?
And nice to hear.
I hope the Beta isnt that far away.