Battlefield 1 Reveal Trailer, PC/PS4/XB1, Oct 21st [Up2: Screens, Info, Open Beta]

Sep 30, 2011
6,176
0
0
26
Dallas, Texas
This turns my stomach. Just flat out the most offensive game I've ever seen.

I can name family members that died in this conflict, wept at the pictures and accounts of the dead and maimed that experienced this hell, was taught all the horrors of it from primary school, through my whole life, it's only ever been a symbol of the folly of war, the worst, most black and shameful era of British and European history. I've been to the actual battlefields and mass graves across Europe, held the minutes silence without fail every rememberence day my entire life, for as long as I could understand the meaning of it.

There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes and villains, this was mass murder, a scar on the history of our species, and every single person involved in it was a victim.

This trailer, the entire concept of this game, makes me feel physically sick, and just so fucking angry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the First World War.

I don't know what's worse, the sick fucking emotionless, greedy cunts that would seriously exploit this horror of an industrialised massacre, or the ignorant, soulless bastards that will give them money and enjoy it.

Anyone involved in this, or seriously think of buying this, should be ashamed of themselves.
:lol if this is real I'm gonna cackle everytime I see you in an action game thread, I imagine most of the human race has some blood in the great war, Absolutely ridiculous.
 
Sep 1, 2015
3,604
0
0
Very nice trailer, especially the part with the green smoke.

But I HATE that title >_> Why do you have to call it "Battlefield one"...it really rubs me the wrong way for some reason ^^;
Because it's clearly sponsored by Microsoft, it's a way to make even more Xbox sales!!
agree completely, it's a strange title, it would've been easier to just call it battlefield 1914 or something like that
 
Nov 12, 2014
2,121
0
0
Very nice trailer, especially the part with the green smoke.

But I HATE that title >_> Why do you have to call it "Battlefield one"...it really rubs me the wrong way for some reason ^^;
Because there wasn't any "Battlefield" or "Battlefield 1" yet and it is about the First Wold War.

The only alternative I can think of would have been Battlefield 1914 (or 5/6/7/8). But why choose 1916 instead of 1915 ? 1918 over 1917 ? 1916 makes sense, like a +100 years game.
 
Jan 16, 2013
4,723
24
355
This turns my stomach. Just flat out the most offensive game I've ever seen.

I can name family members that died in this conflict, wept at the pictures and accounts of the dead and maimed that experienced this hell, was taught all the horrors of it from primary school, through my whole life, it's only ever been a symbol of the folly of war, the worst, most black and shameful era of British and European history. I've been to the actual battlefields and mass graves across Europe, held the minutes silence without fail every rememberence day my entire life, for as long as I could understand the meaning of it.

There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes and villains, this was mass murder, a scar on the history of our species, and every single person involved in it was a victim.

This trailer, the entire concept of this game, makes me feel physically sick, and just so fucking angry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the First World War.

I don't know what's worse, the sick fucking emotionless, greedy cunts that would seriously exploit this horror of an industrialised massacre, or the ignorant, soulless bastards that will give them money and enjoy it.

Anyone involved in this, or seriously think of buying this, should be ashamed of themselves.
Well from the time period it takes place in it's called The Great War.


I can't wait to see how this unfolds. The Great War could be very interesting.

I also wonder what the next battlefield game will be numbered.
 
Jun 13, 2004
1,426
183
1,290
Trailer didn't really sell me on the game. I will need to see some in game footage because ww1 is not a setting that interests me for multiplayer . Now if this was a campaign type game I might be interested but DICE have really soured me on their campaigns After 3 and 4 so I would never buy another battlefield for the campaign unless something seriously changes at that studio or I hear some good feedback.
 
Sep 1, 2015
3,604
0
0
Where's the info on the open beta? I don't see anything in the OP.
Usually battlefield betas are like a couple weeks before the full release, so I wouldn't expect any info on it anytime soon, but maybe they will keep doing what they did with the hardline beta because, imo, that beta was the reason the game wasn't a total meltdown, I hope they do betas that early more often to help the game more.
 
Jan 21, 2010
39,747
0
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
The name is also strange, but as I stated in the time count thread, it's not worse than Xbox One or Wii U.
The name is clever in multiple ways.

Battlefield 1 could be the name you could give to WW1, since it was the first large-scale multi-country conflict.

There was also never a BF1, it started with 1942, then went to 2. So in game names it's the prequel to 2, it's just now coming out.

It could also signify that it's a reboot of sorts, paring the game back down to simpler mechanics of the earlier titles, and as a play on titles calling themselves "gamename Zero" as a "Battlefield Zero.. + 1"
 

TheOfficeMut

Unconfirmed Member
Aug 21, 2014
6,664
0
0
This turns my stomach. Just flat out the most offensive game I've ever seen.

I can name family members that died in this conflict, wept at the pictures and accounts of the dead and maimed that experienced this hell, was taught all the horrors of it from primary school, through my whole life, it's only ever been a symbol of the folly of war, the worst, most black and shameful era of British and European history. I've been to the actual battlefields and mass graves across Europe, held the minutes silence without fail every rememberence day my entire life, for as long as I could understand the meaning of it.

There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes and villains, this was mass murder, a scar on the history of our species, and every single person involved in it was a victim.

This trailer, the entire concept of this game, makes me feel physically sick, and just so fucking angry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the First World War.

I don't know what's worse, the sick fucking emotionless, greedy cunts that would seriously exploit this horror of an industrialised massacre, or the ignorant, soulless bastards that will give them money and enjoy it.

Anyone involved in this, or seriously think of buying this, should be ashamed of themselves.
I'll be one of the people giving them money and enjoying this atrocious war immensely. :)
 
Aug 18, 2015
3,290
0
265
I am sorry but I don't see how drawing a line in the sand with this game works. It was an atrocious war, but they all are. If you have an issue with violence in video games, that's one issue, but to take up the banner against this one conflict doesn't make sense. Do you think the Vietnamese or Americans shouldn't have been upset about BF Vietnam? Is WWII not in a way shameful for the Germans? Yet we played the crap out of that. If you are taking a moral stand against war games in general, I understand, but taking up the rallying charge against only this is selfish and completely degrades your argument.

"There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes". Your ancestors should slap the shit out of you for saying that. They answered their nations call no matter how wrong it may have been in hindsight. I don't agree with the war I fought in but I'd never degrade the sacrifices I made or that my brothers did. We volunteered to fight for our nation, no matter the cause. There may not have been glory as a nation, but there was glory and heroes among the men that fought it. Wars have not changed at all since this moment and never will. We bombed mercilessly in WWII, Vietnam, and present day. Do you think the people that we bombed in Iraq and AFG felt different than those men in the trenches? They had nothing to defend themselves against our technology and weaponry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the First World War. How dare you act like your sacrifice is different than any other generation or any other nation. You put your foot down when it comes to this, but not when it effects others? What kind of coward are you? This is where you draw the line? If you have a principle, stand up for it in full, no when it casts an ugly light on the actions of your ancestors.

I'm not sure what I think of their handling of this yet. As I posted earlier...



But if you are going to cry foul to this, cry foul to the whole industry, for everyone that would be effected, not just your own. This war is unique in scale only. Time will tell if they've handled this properly. It's clear from this thread that there's plenty of misinformation about this war, and the game has probably already resulted in more people going out to learn about i than anything else. Wouldn't reminding the public of the atrocities do more good than harm? Besides reminding you how shameful it makes you of your countries history?
Damn, amazing post. OT material.
 
Jun 27, 2011
22,873
0
575
Finland
Gotta say MS pulled a good one with this. Obviously CoD will still be the king of the hill but I think when it comes to marketing I think BF1 allows much more interesting and eye catching ads rather than if it ended up just being Battlefield 5.

I wonder who will be the first to rush back into WW2 if this game is successful.
 
Nov 12, 2014
2,121
0
0
The name is clever in multiple ways.

Battlefield 1 could be the name you could give to WW1, since it was the first large-scale multi-country conflict.

There was also never a BF1, it started with 1942, then went to 2. So in game names it's the prequel to 2, it's just now coming out.

It could also signify that it's a reboot of sorts, paring the game back down to simpler mechanics of the earlier titles, and as a play on titles calling themselves "gamename Zero" as a "Battlefield Zero.. + 1"
Didn't say it wasn't clever or didn't make sense. Just strange at first because you'd expect it to be something like Battlefield 1916, or to have a subtitle ("Battlefield All-Out War", "Battlefield The Great War") or not to have anything attached ("Battlefield").

Also, I gave the same clever reasons to another poster just a few posts above yours, so I agree 100%. My favorite would have been 1916 though, for the anniversary and all, gives a clear reference of the Great War.
 
Sep 6, 2013
10,048
0
0
I am sorry but I don't see how drawing a line in the sand with this game works. It was an atrocious war, but they all are. If you have an issue with violence in video games, that's one issue, but to take up the banner against this one conflict doesn't make sense. Do you think the Vietnamese or Americans shouldn't have been upset about BF Vietnam? Is WWII not in a way shameful for the Germans? Yet we played the crap out of that. If you are taking a moral stand against war games in general, I understand, but taking up the rallying charge against only this is selfish and completely degrades your argument.

"There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes". Your ancestors should slap the shit out of you for saying that. They answered their nations call no matter how wrong it may have been in hindsight. I don't agree with the war I fought in but I'd never degrade the sacrifices I made or that my brothers did. We volunteered to fight for our nation, no matter the cause. There may not have been glory as a nation, but there was glory and heroes among the men that fought it. Wars have not changed at all since this moment and never will. We bombed mercilessly in WWII, Vietnam, and present day. Do you think the people that we bombed in Iraq and AFG felt different than those men in the trenches? They had nothing to defend themselves against our technology and weaponry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the First World War. How dare you act like your sacrifice is different than any other generation or any other nation. You put your foot down when it comes to this, but not when it effects others? What kind of coward are you? This is where you draw the line? If you have a principle, stand up for it in full, no when it casts an ugly light on the actions of your ancestors.

I'm not sure what I think of their handling of this yet. As I posted earlier...



But if you are going to cry foul to this, cry foul to the whole industry, for everyone that would be effected, not just your own. This war is unique in scale only. Time will tell if they've handled this properly. It's clear from this thread that there's plenty of misinformation about this war, and the game has probably already resulted in more people going out to learn about i than anything else. Wouldn't reminding the public of the atrocities do more good than harm? Besides reminding you how shameful it makes you of your countries history?
I'm probably going to buy the collectors edition just to spite you after reading this glorious post.
 
Mar 6, 2011
14,120
0
0
Colombia
While we can all have our doubts and all about MP, I personally hope that they don't somehow fuck up even further the SP campaign. They would have to make an active effort to make it suck more than BF4 sucked. Seriously DICE, you went from making BC1 and 2 and Mirror's Edge campaigns to making BF4.

I also suppose it's too much to ask for another FPS with an anti-war message.

MFW witnessing the birth of a new GAF copypasta....

I love how it involves shame as well.
 
Jun 1, 2013
2,157
0
0
Wisconsin
I never thought I would see the day we have a WW1 AAA game. I am stoked beyond belief.

Im done with modern settings, and while I am seemingly one of the few who liked the reveal of CoD in Space, the future stuff is getting stale also.

I was ready for a return to WW2, but taking this to WW1 is even better. Day 1 purchase for me.
 
Nov 12, 2014
2,121
0
0
Gotta say MS pulled a good one with this. Obviously CoD will still be the king of the hill but I think when it comes to marketing I think BF1 allows much more interesting and eye catching ads rather than if it ended up just being Battlefield 5.

I wonder who will be the first to rush back into WW2 if this game is successful.
I doubt COD will go all-futuristic now. Maybe use Treyarch to get back to WW2 ? Get some fresh gameplay ?

DICE could go down that road next time, I don't see them going back to modern era, Battlefront is their futuristic game, so it could be WW2, Vietnam, cold era WW3, something retro-futuristic.
 
Jul 26, 2007
34,865
0
1,010
Gamespot has some more behind the scenes info

https://youtu.be/1hnASW4N3aE
  • Medic has syringe revives
  • One of the maps mentioned looks HUGE--old BF style
  • Gameplay trailer looked similar; reveal trailer really didn't seem "facetious" in comparison (I think he meant fallacious/false?)
  • Air combat: dogfights, strafing runs, bombing runs--DICE wants there to be a lot of air options; you can sit in friend's gunner seat while they do strafing/bombing runs or dogfight
  • You can control battleships; can demolish shoreline (ground deformation was mentioned in another description)
  • Horses will be best for scouting/flanking (like bikes)
  • Supposed to have a new melee system
  • Bayonet charge ability
  • Can likely use sabers
  • Support seem like they'll have heavy machineguns
  • Seems like four classes will have weapons similar to what we'd expect
  • SP: more "open" campaign, make it feel like a "Battlefield" campaign as opposed to BF3/4 (he said it sounded more like Bad Company's campaign)
  • Trying to make use of battlegrounds a lot of people don't know about
  • Progression system wasn't confirmed; neither was weapon customization
  • Didn't find out if you can pilot the zeppelin/barrage, but it's not just a part of the skybox; planes flying around it
  • Seems very close to completion
 
Oct 15, 2015
1,188
0
0
USA
Oh man.

Hats off.

I wonder how realistic they're trying to br. This could have a crazy campaign. Not thrilled about the name though. Why didn't they just put a date on it like 1942?


And why didn't they just wait for e3?
 
Nov 12, 2014
2,121
0
0
  • Medic has syringe revives
  • One of the maps mentioned looks HUGE--old BF style
  • Gameplay trailer looked similar; reveal trailer really didn't seem "facetious" in comparison (I think he meant fallacious/false?)
  • Air combat: dogfights, strafing runs, bombing runs--DICE wants there to be a lot of air options; you can sit in friend's gunner seat while they do strafing/bombing runs or dogfight
  • You can control battleships; can demolish shoreline (ground deformation was mentioned in another description)
  • Horses will be best for scouting/flanking (like bikes)
  • Supposed to have a new melee system
  • Bayonet charge ability
  • Can likely use sabers
  • Support seem like they'll have heavy machineguns
  • Seems like four classes will have weapons similar to what we'd expect
  • SP: more "open" campaign, make it feel like a "Battlefield" campaign as opposed to BF3/4 (he said it sounded more like Bad Company's campaign)
  • Trying to make use of battlegrounds a lot of people don't know about
  • Progression system wasn't confirmed; neither was weapon customization
  • Didn't find out if you can pilot the zeppelin/barrage, but it's not just a part of the skybox; planes flying around it
    [*]Seems very close to completion
Thanks for the report.

More open campaign is cool, they don't know how to build something CoD-style and this could be a good tutorial for the multiplayer — especially the vehicles (planes!)

Other news are going in the right direction, like tone of GAMEPLAY ideas and they know how to implement them.

That last one gives me hope that it'll be heavily optimized for the launch, both for the fps and all and the netcode.
 
i'm super psyched for this.

i've always wanted to play a good WW1 fps and it looks like they're putting way more effort into it than i originally assumed. i look forward to seeing how a lot of the mechanics work and how it plays into the tech limitations of the old days.

also: i've been bored to tears of modern-day-esque shooters since the tail end of the PS2 gen, so it's refreshing to get something different and new for a change- and i'll include the new COD in this too. i feel like it's going to be a very enjoyable military shooter holiday season because we'll have one franchise going back and one going forward. :D
 
Pretty sure it was a remix of 7 Nation Army, not original veraion, but its not dubstep remix, more electronic
Remixed a little but its pretty faithful for a videogame commercial.

Nah dude that was some dubstep remix garbage. Jack White would never sour his blues roots like that.
Sure he wouldn't. Thats why the song appears in a commercial. You should listen to the song again.
 
Dec 18, 2007
23,675
0
0
waypoint.vice.com
I think DICE really, really gets it with this one. It would have been so easy to add another WW game that basically is blind to all except the Western Front and the white Americans who fought there, but instead decided to pay homage to a lot of the other fronts and faces that seldom see representation in media.

Not only is that commendable, the game very much benefits too. It looks great, varied, and more representative of the global character of the war. It's the first Battlefield title that has piqued my interest in many years.
 
Feb 28, 2009
2,471
0
0
Brussels, Belgium
Because there wasn't any "Battlefield" or "Battlefield 1" yet and it is about the First Wold War.

The only alternative I can think of would have been Battlefield 1914 (or 5/6/7/8). But why choose 1916 instead of 1915 ? 1918 over 1917 ? 1916 makes sense, like a +100 years game.
You're absolutely right, but my reason for not liking the title is really not something rational at all. I can't even explain why I don't like it...it's just a gut feeling without a clear explanation (yet).