What I like about BF1

arche289
28 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
I've been seeing a lot of criticism for the game and thought I would just post what I like about it and see if others disagree...

This is my first real fps experience in multiplayer, so my first BF game. What appealed to me was the WW1 scenarios. I like using the weapons in the game. But my favorite aspect is the large scale battle. It makes me feel more like a simple solder in a larger war trying to make a difference. The chaos that develops is so much fun for me.

I guess I'm an outlier because my guess is that most people like BF4 more. I've thought about trying it, but am not that interested in the modern weapons genre.

Any thoughts or disagreements about BF1 being a fun title?

Comments

  • crswipe
    559 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Bf 1 is the only reason I bought an Xbox one. Well, that and someone stole my 360. It really caught my attention that a WW1 game was actually made. The game hasn't let me down, aside from a few things, and I play this game more than any other game I have now. To me, it is a game that has something for everyone, including those that constantly put the game down, who coincidentally, obviously can't put the controller down either. The game has a lot of thought invested in it and keeps on delivering every time I start it up.
  • Mishkin37
    833 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I prefer BF1 to BF4. It’s much more stable.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Mishkin37 wrote: »
    I prefer BF1 to BF4. It’s much more stable.

    I used to prefer it until TTK 2.0 came.
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.

    Well judging games can be very subjective, really the only objective things you can do to judge is how the game performs. BF1 did have a better launch than previous titles and it did have considerably less issues than BF4 and BF3.

    But graphics, and the time setting are both reason, just more subjective. I think gun mechanics and playstyle (prior to TTK 2.0) also made it a better game.
  • Mishkin37
    833 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.

    Alright, I’ll bite. Here’s my subjective list why I like BF1 better than previous BF titles:

    - better “rock < paper < scissors < rock...” gameplay balance (infantry < artlillery < air warfare < infantry...)
    - as stated above, one group does not dominate like in BF3/4 (scout/attack choppers, javelins, etc)
    - conquest matches are not as lopsided as in past BF titles
    - don’t have to chase kills to unlock attachments (e.g. get 250 kills with M16 to unlock Kobra red dot sight)
    - guns feel heartier, heavier and sound better
    - character moves much better; doesn’t get caught on terrain as much, which makes game feel much smoother
    - each of the 4 classes have a definitive, more fleshed-out role and better balance (remember when everyone played assault in BF3?)
    - better gun balance; nearly every gun is viable (rather than everyone and their brother using the M16A3 or ACE variant assault rifle)
    - more consistent; doesn’t crash every time you play certain maps (Operation Daybreak in BF4 for X360)

    And last but not least...

    - much prettier game with better graphics
    - better framerate, resulting in smoother experience
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Mishkin37 wrote: »
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.

    Alright, I’ll bite. Here’s my subjective list why I like BF1 better than previous BF titles:

    - better “rock < paper < scissors < rock...” gameplay balance (infantry < artlillery < air warfare < infantry...)
    - as stated above, one group does not dominate like in BF3/4 (scout/attack choppers, javelins, etc)
    - conquest matches are not as lopsided as in past BF titles
    - don’t have to chase kills to unlock attachments (e.g. get 250 kills with M16 to unlock Kobra red dot sight)
    - guns feel heartier, heavier and sound better
    - character moves much better; doesn’t get caught on terrain as much, which makes game feel much smoother
    - each of the 4 classes have a definitive, more fleshed-out role and better balance (remember when everyone played assault in BF3?)
    - better gun balance; nearly every gun is viable (rather than everyone and their brother using the M16A3 or ACE variant assault rifle)
    - more consistent; doesn’t crash every time you play certain maps (Operation Daybreak in BF4 for X360)

    And last but not least...

    - much prettier game with better graphics
    - better framerate, resulting in smoother experience

    1. So how many planes have you shot down as infantry without AA guns? And they only JUST NOW added an AA rocket gun. At least in previous BF's you could take out choppers and planes with vanilla rocket launchers and you didn't have to go prone and have a crappy engagement angle.
    2. Don't fully agree, but I'll give it to you.
    3. lolwut? What game have YOU been playing? Literally 8/10 BF1 matches are stomps.
    4. Because there's no customization...
    5. So? But I'll give it to you.
    6. Comes with using an upgraded engine, this is pretty much a given.
    7. Everyone plays Assault in BF1 as well, there's just no revive trains.
    8. lolwut? When was the last time you saw anyone use the Russian Trench, any shotgun other than the 10A Hunter, AL8 Factory etc.? There are some guns in BF1 that are avoided like the plague by most players, but honestly, by the end BF4's weapon balance was really good.
    9. Yeah, because you're not trying to play a next gen game on a last gen console...
  • moosehunter1969
    1108 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Mishkin37 wrote: »
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.

    Alright, I’ll bite. Here’s my subjective list why I like BF1 better than previous BF titles:

    - better “rock < paper < scissors < rock...” gameplay balance (infantry < artlillery < air warfare < infantry...)
    - as stated above, one group does not dominate like in BF3/4 (scout/attack choppers, javelins, etc)
    - conquest matches are not as lopsided as in past BF titles
    - don’t have to chase kills to unlock attachments (e.g. get 250 kills with M16 to unlock Kobra red dot sight)
    - guns feel heartier, heavier and sound better
    - character moves much better; doesn’t get caught on terrain as much, which makes game feel much smoother
    - each of the 4 classes have a definitive, more fleshed-out role and better balance (remember when everyone played assault in BF3?)
    - better gun balance; nearly every gun is viable (rather than everyone and their brother using the M16A3 or ACE variant assault rifle)
    - more consistent; doesn’t crash every time you play certain maps (Operation Daybreak in BF4 for X360)

    And last but not least...

    - much prettier game with better graphics
    - better framerate, resulting in smoother experience

    1. So how many planes have you shot down as infantry without AA guns? And they only JUST NOW added an AA rocket gun. At least in previous BF's you could take out choppers and planes with vanilla rocket launchers and you didn't have to go prone and have a crappy engagement angle.
    2. Don't fully agree, but I'll give it to you.
    3. lolwut? What game have YOU been playing? Literally 8/10 BF1 matches are stomps.
    4. Because there's no customization...
    5. So? But I'll give it to you.
    6. Comes with using an upgraded engine, this is pretty much a given.
    7. Everyone plays Assault in BF1 as well, there's just no revive trains.
    8. lolwut? When was the last time you saw anyone use the Russian Trench, any shotgun other than the 10A Hunter, AL8 Factory etc.? There are some guns in BF1 that are avoided like the plague by most players, but honestly, by the end BF4's weapon balance was really good.
    9. Yeah, because you're not trying to play a next gen game on a last gen console...

    Everyone plays assault do they? Reading these forums I thought everyone played Scout. Although in my experience of playing the game I actually see a really nice mix up of all the classes and loads of different weapons being used. Much much more so than BF3/4.
  • Emporer2
    294 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited April 2018

    1. So how many planes have you shot down as infantry without AA guns? And they only JUST NOW added an AA rocket gun. At least in previous BF's you could take out choppers and planes with vanilla rocket launchers and you didn't have to go prone and have a crappy engagement angle.

    And this is one of my primary reasons why I enjoy BF1. I can get into an aircraft and not have some lone engineer lock on to me with his shoulder launched, guided rocket and shoot me down in a matter of seconds. I've tried flying in BF3 and BF4 and I barely last a few minutes either because of an engineer locking on or another pilot who has better mods unlocked for his aircraft taking me out before I can even get across the battlefield. I prefer a player having to rely on their actual sight in aiming the AA guns or AA rocket as opposed to a fire and forget rocket.

    Also, the maps have a much larger boundary for aircraft. When I did manage to fly in BF3 or BF4, it seemed like I crossed the map in seconds and was out of bounds before I knew it. With the maps in BF1, aircraft are given a wider berth in regards to boundary limits, which allows for better escape routes to make repairs or longer dog fights.

    The variety of aircraft is another thing that I enjoy about BF1. Fighters, attack planes, and multiple types of bombers, each with varying loadouts makes for an interesting strategy choice.
  • Mishkin37
    833 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Mishkin37 wrote: »
    Funny how when I hear praise for BF1 it's always the same, "WWI setting is awesome and the graphics are amazing!" Never any actual concrete reason why BF1 is a better Battlefield than previous games.

    Alright, I’ll bite. Here’s my subjective list why I like BF1 better than previous BF titles:

    - better “rock < paper < scissors < rock...” gameplay balance (infantry < artlillery < air warfare < infantry...)
    - as stated above, one group does not dominate like in BF3/4 (scout/attack choppers, javelins, etc)
    - conquest matches are not as lopsided as in past BF titles
    - don’t have to chase kills to unlock attachments (e.g. get 250 kills with M16 to unlock Kobra red dot sight)
    - guns feel heartier, heavier and sound better
    - character moves much better; doesn’t get caught on terrain as much, which makes game feel much smoother
    - each of the 4 classes have a definitive, more fleshed-out role and better balance (remember when everyone played assault in BF3?)
    - better gun balance; nearly every gun is viable (rather than everyone and their brother using the M16A3 or ACE variant assault rifle)
    - more consistent; doesn’t crash every time you play certain maps (Operation Daybreak in BF4 for X360)

    And last but not least...

    - much prettier game with better graphics
    - better framerate, resulting in smoother experience

    1. So how many planes have you shot down as infantry without AA guns? And they only JUST NOW added an AA rocket gun. At least in previous BF's you could take out choppers and planes with vanilla rocket launchers and you didn't have to go prone and have a crappy engagement angle.
    2. Don't fully agree, but I'll give it to you.
    3. lolwut? What game have YOU been playing? Literally 8/10 BF1 matches are stomps.
    4. Because there's no customization...
    5. So? But I'll give it to you.
    6. Comes with using an upgraded engine, this is pretty much a given.
    7. Everyone plays Assault in BF1 as well, there's just no revive trains.
    8. lolwut? When was the last time you saw anyone use the Russian Trench, any shotgun other than the 10A Hunter, AL8 Factory etc.? There are some guns in BF1 that are avoided like the plague by most players, but honestly, by the end BF4's weapon balance was really good.
    9. Yeah, because you're not trying to play a next gen game on a last gen console...

    I now realized I should have numbered my points rather than dashed, but I was using my phone. Anyhoo...

    1. I've shot down 0 planes with AA guns...don't use them. I did shoot down a plane with a field gun, though. I don't bother with planes, because they're pretty inconsequential in Conquest. If the planes really bothered me, I could damage them with small-arms fire (especially if my squad helps). But like I said, I don't need to waste my time on them (I do miss my RPG kills on choppers

    2. My point was that neither planes, nor tanks, nor infantry dominate in this game. Everything can be countered fairly easily.

    3. So what constitutes a BF1 stomp? I'd guess that most games are within 100/150 tickets. For the heck of it, I checked my last 15 BF4 Conquest matches on Battlelog. My teams went 9-6 over these 15 games. Here's what I found in ticket differentials between the winner and loser:
    - Difference of 200+ tickets (7 games)
    - Difference of 300+ tickets (3 games)
    - Difference of 400+ tickets (2 games)
    - Difference of 500+ tickets (2 games)
    - The only game within 200 tickets was a 56-0 win
    - Even thought the sample size is very small, differentials like these seemed pretty typical for BF4.

    4. How much customization existed in WWI? "I'd like to buy the skin with the stock covered in pig feces, please. All out? Okay, how about the one with my girlfriend's initials carved into the woodgrain?"

    5. Adds to the aesthetic. I like my guns to have a punch!

    6. It does come with an upgraded engine. That is a given. But it still makes the gaming experience much, much better.

    7. According to Battlefield Tracker Network, here are the approximate percentages of kills by class (as of last month):
    - Assault = 22%
    - Medic = 20%
    - Scout = 16%
    - Support = 14%

    8. I'm not sure how to show this. I just know that people were always complaining about the noob use of the M16A3 in BF3. BF4 had so many guns that diversity happened naturally, I guess. I get killed and get kills with a little bit of everything in BF1.

    9. Nevertheless, it still sucked, and I can't just forget my experience of playing BF4 on the 360.

    I hate to say it, but we might just have to agree to disagree, friend.
Sign In or Register to comment.