• 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.

Battlefield 1 leaked, Oct 18, Harlem Hellfighter DLC

What are you most excited to hear about today?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mupod

Member
Harlem Hellfighters is great. Was hoping to see the story of Vimy Ridge in there, though.

Or literally every battle before the Americans joined at the end.

I fully expect this game to be completely 100% 'america fuck yeah' but I'd like to be surprised.
 

mcz117chief

Member
Now that the Great War is confirmed I am just hoping for two things:

Battles of Isonzo (any part, preferably high up in the Alps)

And be able to play the Arditi, the legendary Italian Stormtroopers known for their impressive mêlée skills with knives.
Italian_Arditi.jpg


465aceb2bab73443deca36b85b7b702a.jpg
 

Ascenion

Member
All righty I am so very in. Love what I'm seeing. Bring on the reveal proper. I'm also hoping since we are going back in time they bring back


the GOAT main theme



Not 1942 because 1943 is the better version. Make it so DICE.
 
As I read more leaks from reddit etc and the other BF thread, it looks like there will be 6 single player episodes, and you take over different soldiers. I think the Harlem DLC might just be cosmetic DLC so my hype is cooling just a smidge. So curious to see what the total package is.

Well, if it's different soldiers that would make the Harlem Hellfighters being part of it even more likely. The thing about that DLC, it’s already in the game. So they probably took it from the campaign and just added it to the multiplayer.
 

Phawx

Member
I honestly didn't care at all about another Battlefield until I saw the cover art. Hopefully it's explored well.
 

Flipyap

Member
Going to take this moment to tell everyone who is interested in this type of thing, but hasn't played Valiant Hearts, please do. It's only 6 hours or less.
Seconded. It might look like a silly cartoon, but it actually handles the subject matter with a kind of somber respect. Fantastic game.
 
S¡mon;202801413 said:
It appears that the game takes place in 1920. WW1 ended in 1918, so it's likely to be alternate reality (the question really is: to what extent?).

2 years doesn't seem like a lot of time for them to introduce some weird tech. So I guess no mechs or anything dumb.


I would guess its enough of a justification for the WW1 setting and factions while adding WW2 era looking guns and more open & fast vehicular warfare.
 

SenkiDala

Member
FqCxbYa.png


These DICE guys are the most unprofessional bunch of fucking idiots I have seen. First publicly calling out CoD devs amateurs and incompetent and then accusing Microsoft of being MoneySoft.

Grow up.

Well, I have to agree with them on that. They've been preparing this event since a long time, the hype is going up and up and up and MS fucked up everything by leaking this artwork just a few hours before the event. I can understand why it makes them salty about it.

And, it's my opinion but, it's nice to see some honesty and not the usual "PR talk" that we have those days, with people like Phil Spencer and all this "we are all friends and fans of video games, we are a family and love each others so much" bullshit. ^^"

Something make you angry say it, be respectful, but say it.

And technicaly, he didn't say MoneySoft but MicroMoney, it's absolutly not the same thing! :eek:
 

SpartanN92

Banned
The name is actually not dumb at all, in fact, is is genius.

- Their is no "Battlefield" game as others have pointed out.

- This game if in WW1 will take place before BF: 1942

- If it is in WW 1, Battlefield 1 kind of makes sense, as in "The battlefield(s) of World War 1" - Battlefield 1


I agree... When I think of the word "Battlefield" there are clear distinctions to make between the generations of armed conflict.

There was the hand to hand combat battlefield
There was the infantry line up and shoot battlefield
And there is the modern battlefield. It could be argued that the American civil war was the beginning of the "Modern Battlefield" but for the sake of the title let's say that WWI is the first modern battlefield. With that being the case Battlefield 1 sounds perfectly okay with me.
 
The name is actually not dumb at all, in fact, is is genius.

- Their is no "Battlefield" game as others have pointed out.

- This game if in WW1 will take place before BF: 1942

- If it is in WW 1, Battlefield 1 kind of makes sense, as in "The battlefield(s) of World War 1" - Battlefield 1

Nah. It's still dumb.

Calling it Battlefield 1 because it's the earliest game in the "Battlefield Timeline" is a ridiculous argument because there's no "Battlefield Timeline." It's just Battlefield. By that logic, Metal Gear Solid 3 should have been called Metal Gear Solid 1.

And, yes, it's very obvious that the game is called "1" because it's set in WWI, but that doesn't make it genius. It's far from genius. It's convoluted. I won't go as far as to call it "confusing to the consumer" because fuck the consumer, but it's still really dumb.
 

S¡mon

Banned
I'm sceptical I'd like a WW1 shooter. I don't know much about the first world war but I assume it's mostly slow-firing rifles. I can't imagine it being all that exciting.

I was hoping for it to have been WW2. If they remade BF1942 (one of my favourite MP games ever and one of the best ever made) in Battlefront's Frostbite, it'd be amazing.
WW1 saw huge changes from beginning to end. Maybe something else 'exciting' to look forward to are chemical weapons? WW1 was the first war where chemical weapons were used on a large scale, like chlorine gas.

Terrible weapons and ever since many countries agreed to not use chemical weapons again.
 
FqCxbYa.png


These DICE guys are the most unprofessional bunch of fucking idiots I have seen. First publicly calling out CoD devs amateurs and incompetent and then accusing Microsoft of being MoneySoft.

Grow up.
A pretty understandable reaction, and honestly justified given the amount of work they put into hyping up the event. I don't see anything wrong with it. Might as well be open about it.
 

Alexious

Member
I need to go read a history book, were helicopters around back then? Wondering how limited this game is going to be.

2 years doesn't seem like a lot of time for them to introduce some weird tech. So I guess no mechs or anything dumb.


I would guess its enough of a justification for the WW1 setting and factions while adding WW2 era looking guns and more open & fast vehicular warfare.

You do know that an alternate reality could have diverged much earlier from ours, at least in theory? They could do whatever they want regardless of the year.
 
FqCxbYa.png


These DICE guys are the most unprofessional bunch of fucking idiots I have seen. First publicly calling out CoD devs amateurs and incompetent and then accusing Microsoft of being MoneySoft.

Grow up.

What a ridiculous reaction to that tweet. I am sure you wouldn't be upset if you were in their shoes as well.
 

ktroopa

Member
Nah. It's still dumb.

Calling it Battlefield 1 because it's the earliest game in the "Battlefield Timeline" is a ridiculous argument because there's no "Battlefield Timeline." It's just Battlefield. By that logic, Metal Gear Solid 3 should have been called Metal Gear Solid 1.

And, yes, it's very obvious that the game is called "1" because it's set in WWI, but that doesn't make it genius. It's far from genius. It's convoluted. I won't go as far as to call it "confusing to the consumer" because fuck the consumer, but it's still really dumb.

I agree with the above
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom