Battlefield 1 takes you back to WWI, here's the reveal trailer

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,255   +192
Staff member

Call of Duty’s next game is drawing criticism for its continued push into the sci-fi realm. EA and developer Dice, meanwhile, are taking things back to World War I with the next installment in the popular Battlefield franchise.

The game, officially titled Battlefield 1, goes back to the true dawn of all-out warfare, says lead designer Daniel Berlin. Earlier rumors suggested the game might be set in an alternate reality version of WWI but as Engadget notes, the game seems reasonably faithful to historic events.

As you’ll see in the trailer above, a variety of combat styles and weapons are on display including planes, tanks, horseback battles, blimps, hand-to-hand combat and more. There’s only a small sample of actual in-game footage but what we do see certainly looks impressive.

It comes as little surprise that multiplayer is the main attraction. After all, the single-player campaign wasn’t even mentioned until 45 minutes into the hour-long presentation, the publication recounts.

This time around, Dice said it wanted to encourage teamwork rather than the typical lone wolf strategy many adopt. Berlin said it’s important to feel like you’re a critical asset to your team but also that your team is an asset to you.

Battlefield 1 arrives on PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC on October 21, a full two weeks before Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare drops. Those who need no further convincing can pre-order the standard edition for $59.99, the deluxe edition for $79.99 or the exculsive collector's edition for a whopping $219.99 on Amazon.

Permalink to story.

 
Had me going, until the early access on XBone popped up at the end... So much for that, it's too bad they can't just make it on PC like back in the day and to hell with these stupid consoles. But money talks, and Microsoft has all the money in the world to throw at EA to get exclusive access and early this and that. That BS aside, it actually looks like it'll be a fun game, biplane battles especially! If that's gameplay I count at least 20 planes in the skies, dog fighting will be at it's best with relatively slow flying planes compared to the modern jet warfare they try to make work on such small maps in the current line up.
 
Yeah I know... XBox early release only? Hopefully they wont screw PC again. We did get early beta access with BC2 I know for sure, did we get it for BF3 and 4 as well? If so, I'm hoping this will follow suit and PC will also get early access.

Biplane dogfights could be epic, you are right about that. The jets in the modern setting BF titles are so scaled down in terms of speed and manuvorbility in order to be playable in such a small area. They may not have to do this with WW 1 planes. Although looking at this reveal trailer and the gunner in the plane, it sure looks like it is flying extremely slow. So they may have slowed down the aircraft as well.

I honestly prefer modern setting shooters, as I prefer modern weapons. I don't have much interest in WW2 and earlier weapons but I'll at least try the game if I can. If there is no beta I'll have to watch tons of video of gameplay before I could convince myself to buy. So I really hope there is beta access for PC so I can get a good taste for the gameplay. Otherwise I may be playing BF4 still for the next five years or so. Which is just fine by me...
 
A black German solider? Alternate reality confirmed. That would actually be OK with me because Codename Eagle was incredibly fun (even if it only had one good map). I've wanted a great WWI game forever.
 
Had me going, until the early access on XBone popped up at the end... So much for that, it's too bad they can't just make it on PC like back in the day and to hell with these stupid consoles. But money talks, and Microsoft has all the money in the world to throw at EA to get exclusive access and early this and that. That BS aside, it actually looks like it'll be a fun game, biplane battles especially! If that's gameplay I count at least 20 planes in the skies, dog fighting will be at it's best with relatively slow flying planes compared to the modern jet warfare they try to make work on such small maps in the current line up.

Check videos description on Youtube.
"Battlefield 1 will be available from Oct 21st, 2016 on Xbox One, PS4 and PC."
It's probably 3 day early access or so.
 
Don't play those games....What I would like to see is a game where real Americans go after real terrorist groups...what better way to teach the vapor heads who the enemy at the gates is.
 
Check videos description on Youtube.
"Battlefield 1 will be available from Oct 21st, 2016 on Xbox One, PS4 and PC."
It's probably 3 day early access or so.

I'm still worried in this day and age where things are never what they seem. With any luck it's just early access to the open beta.
 
I've had enough of these multiplayer FPS - they are always pretty much exactly the same. This one looks no different, just slap a new set of Textures on BF4 and call it BF1.

Everybody I talk to feels the same - stop focusing on multiplayer and start making great single player campaigns again. Is there a very vocal minority on the internet that convince publishers that this is what people want? I doubt that's the case, but I think there's an element of truth in there.
 
I've had enough of these multiplayer FPS - they are always pretty much exactly the same. This one looks no different, just slap a new set of Textures on BF4 and call it BF1.

Everybody I talk to feels the same - stop focusing on multiplayer and start making great single player campaigns again. Is there a very vocal minority on the internet that convince publishers that this is what people want? I doubt that's the case, but I think there's an element of truth in there.

I reckon it's because the cost outlay:return ratio of a campaign is far outwieghed by that of the fast buck gained from another MP game - slapping a WW1 twist on an established MP game engine just seems like the old days of modding (think Strikeforce etc on UT)
 
I reckon it's because the cost outlay:return ratio of a campaign is far outwieghed by that of the fast buck gained from another MP game - slapping a WW1 twist on an established MP game engine just seems like the old days of modding (think Strikeforce etc on UT)

I agree - first thing I thought when I looked at that was - looks like a BF4 mod pack.
 
You know, if the current consumer protection agency ever takes on the video game makers there are going to be a lot fewer game makers! All these deceptive practices teach us is never trust the game maker. Playing "go fish" with my grandson is looking better and better!
 
I've had enough of these multiplayer FPS - they are always pretty much exactly the same. This one looks no different, just slap a new set of Textures on BF4 and call it BF1.

Everybody I talk to feels the same - stop focusing on multiplayer and start making great single player campaigns again. Is there a very vocal minority on the internet that convince publishers that this is what people want? I doubt that's the case, but I think there's an element of truth in there.

Money speaks louder than words, and when the latest COD breaks record sales in it's first week year after year after year the people making it don't feel required to deliver much more than a multiplayer experience, or a very creative one either, thus we get the same game (with new textures) year after year after year. The single player campaign portion of the game is so unimportant to the people buying this game that most don't ever complete it let alone start it, because the game is known for it's multiplayer and that's all the COD community wants, dish out $120 for a game and a years worth of DLC just to start over the following year when the next game comes out. The profit margins on this practice must be astronomical at this stage in the games life, I don't imagine it cost a lot to make anymore and they guarantee themselves another $50 on top of the $70 retail with advent of paid for DLC. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is how the industry works because it favors the industry itself and not the gamer, then if you question their antics they throw piracy in your face as the biggest obstacle, which it really is not.
 
The trailer seemed a bit underwhelming but I guess we'll have to wait until some gameplay is released.
 
I've had enough of these multiplayer FPS - they are always pretty much exactly the same. This one looks no different, just slap a new set of Textures on BF4 and call it BF1.

Everybody I talk to feels the same - stop focusing on multiplayer and start making great single player campaigns again. Is there a very vocal minority on the internet that convince publishers that this is what people want? I doubt that's the case, but I think there's an element of truth in there.

My problem is whenever someone does make a "good" single player campaign, they charge $60 for 10-15 hours of gameplay, which isn't a good value to me at all. I can buy so few games so ill keep buying the ones that offer the better value, which is endless hours of multiplayer. id pay $40 for a really good campaign of that length but no more.

That being said, I can't help but laugh at the implication that a WW1 game is a reskinned modern day FPS.
 
Anyone know if the game supports dedicated servers? I've been reading up on different server alternatives which I could use with my friends, and it would be awesome if we could hos our own server.
 
Back