SneakyStephan
Banned
Yeah, the remake of Dragon Valley from BF2.
It does, unfortunately.
exactly
Yeah, the remake of Dragon Valley from BF2.
It does, unfortunately.
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.
But why would you run at lower than native resolution via resolution scale? Wouldn't you just crank down the resolution itself?
But why would you run at lower than native resolution via resolution scale? Wouldn't you just crank down the resolution itself?
But where's snoop dog? And Zac "where am I?" Efron? And Terry Crews with his M&K "skills"? And Weed?
It's just not a Battlefield stream without them.
Disappointed in the lack of ps4 gameplay, hell console gameplay in general. When well over 50% of revenue comes from them it would be appreciated to give at least equal shine when promoting.
Why would they advertise their game with a version that looks worse?
Engine likely does upscaling to your selected resolution, which can look better than straight running a lower resolution into your native.
This looks like like what I envisioned the original TF2 game was going to be. Very hyped.
But why would you run at lower than native resolution via resolution scale? Wouldn't you just crank down the resolution itself?
You know this how?I wish we could stop with this nonsense.
They promoted Battlefront last year just fine with PS4 Gameplay. (Yes it was PS4 gameplay)
How far out is the beta?
Its too fast. On foot movement looks like they are athletes on speed. Miss BF42.
That announcer has to redo her lines with something else. It is just so boring to listen to.
You know this how?
Last I heard 2 weeks
Same as the embargo
But my source was reddit battlefield in the wake of GI releasing their closed alpha video early.
Westie was on stage alongside developers of the game at the reveal event, introduced as a "Battlefield Gamechanger", which is a program where EA pays for travel etc. for them to play a game early and leave feedback and contribute to the game.Remember most of these streamers were a part of the EA ronku campaign for bf4, they are not independant fans, they are message steerers.
Footage is useful but take their opinions with a huge grain of salt. Jackfrags was praising bf4 for being extremely polished before release (yeah...)
Hoping for a primarily city based one TBH.
But why would you run at lower than native resolution via resolution scale? Wouldn't you just crank down the resolution itself?
He was also one of the announcers at the official game play reveal.Westie was on stage alongside developers of the game at the reveal event, introduced as a "Battlefield Gamechanger", which is a program where EA pays for travel etc. for them to play a game early and leave feedback and contribute to the game.
He says in the video that this made him feel privileged, like the developers really listened to him, and like he actually helped contribute to the development of the game, which contributed to him feeling like he had authorship of the game to some extent.
I view all this tuber footage as official EA ads.
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.
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? 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 these. 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.
What Embargo are we talking about now?
Westie was on stage alongside developers of the game at the reveal event, introduced as a "Battlefield Gamechanger", which is a program where EA pays for travel etc. for them to play a game early and leave feedback and contribute to the game.
He says in the video that this made him feel privileged, like the developers really listened to him, and like he actually helped contribute to the development of the game, which contributed to him feeling like he had authorship of the game to some extent.
I view all this tuber footage as official EA ads.
The release date of the alpha to a wider population.
A bit like the BF4 alpha.
seems like a fair amount of people who were hyped for this being a "world war 1" game are kinda bummed.
seems like a fair amount of people who were hyped for this being a "world war 1" game are kinda bummed.
People are saying that it's a placeholder,but I haven't seen any confirmation from DICE about it.Why is there the same British female announcer when you're on the German side? Sounds a bit stupid.
It's threatening that the game running with an i7 and GTX 1080 defaults to Medium.
People are saying that it's a placeholder,but I haven't seen any confirmation from DICE about it.
Same.I sure hope they have different announcers depending on the side you're on in the final game.
Any console footage yet? I really hope dice downgrade the effects to make it run 60fps on consoles.
You couldn't be more wrong.This is looking more and more like a re-skinned Battlefield 4 with a couple rule changes and it's bumming me out.
edit: didn't a couple of these guys take bribes from EA to keep quiet on how completely busted Battlefield 4 was before and during launch?
Digital Foundry checked the footage. It was 900p etc.. like standard PS4 settings for Frostbite 60fps games. A lot of pc players act like showing the Console version will ruin their life.
?
They need to get rid of the announcer and have the objective lines come from a random nearby team-mate instead, that'd make it more authentic and fitting.
WW1 you didn't have any kind of "earpiece" or any such thing, there were no easily portable radios either.
The lines like objective Apples, butter, etc make sense, because in ww1 these are the phonetics the British used. There was no "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc" then.
http://www.oocities.org/faskew/WW1/Glossary/GW-Phonetic.htm
I still get confused when people complain how Battlefield 1 isn't authentic mil-sim about World War 1. One has paid literally zero attention to Battlefield franchise if expects super authentic mil-sim experience from any Battlefield game, in any time period setting.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Not only were they huge but you could've only spawned at the bases and a FEW vehicles, so the dynamic of the battlefield felt... Realer. Well, realer than four dudes clown car-ing out of some idiot that just drove a motorcycle to a remote location. And 90% of your deaths weren't by some dude behind you. It actually felt like a battlefield instead of the "COD in a sandbox" approach the modern games took.
And this... Looks more of the same. Sad!
I'm really displeased, to put it politely, that they've put mustard gas into multiplayer. It was bad enough that they put it in the SP, but okay narrative reasons, but to make such a vile, horrific chemical weapon something kids will laugh about, I really think it's an ethical breach by DICE.
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 dont think you will ever get that kind of experience from a BF game.