TimeEffect
Member
I hope they rework medals.
Also, I want to turn this shit off:
Also, I want to turn this shit off:
I've played most of the mainline battlefield games up to this point.
Enjoyed the Bad Company games, BF3+4 no doubt great but not without some deep flaws. BF2 has always been the holy grail for me.
This is a very good Battlefield game. I feel like a mug for saying it was like Battlefront [spoilers]I still don't like that map[/spoiler]. Like seriously this is incredible.
Feels a dream after BF4 on PS4 too.
-screenshots-
Are you saying u are happy with the PS4 performance.My copy is unlocked on 21st but some of the comments here make me scared.
Unlocked that gun last night and it's pretty good! Certainly way better than the first support gun.
2.5 GB and there is a PS4 community you can Join search Neogaf battlefield 1Any day one patch rumoured or anything like that? I've been caught up with finishing dying light and haven't been following too close.
Also looking for EST, casual (read no clan) gamers who PTFO.
2.5 GB and there is a PS4 community you can Join search Neogaf battlefield 1
whos saying what?
That the performance is terrible.
So, I completed the single player.
It was.....okay, at best? At least the first mission Through Mud and Blood, that one was actually really good. I liked the characters, the length, the setting and the overall story. Then after that I feel like the rest was just lacking. Like they were really the low priority and they made one really good in order to constantly showcase it.
Friends in High Places had a interesting story but was short and had some seriously stupefied controllers for flying the airplanes (think Battlefront).
Avanti Savoia was short and played out on a multiplayer map. Felt a bit alright story wise but didn't really flesh out the characters.
The Runner had interesting characters but boring missions and was also short (this is pretty much the theme of all the missions except the first).
Nothing is Written had barely any characterization, played out on a multiplayer map and was just honestly boring too with a boring climax.
The Epilogue in the end was just a video.
Then there is not to mention the slapstick A.I which did some really silly shit while I was playing, you'd think in the budget they could afford some of the programmers who made the A.I for more successful open world shooters like Far Cry, Crysis etc. These were just really dumb.
As for the whole "Battlefield 1 Single-Player Campaign Embraces Series' Open Sandboxes" it really didn't. The airplane missions were strictly airplane when it was time for airplane and on foot when it was time for foot, though you could fly a little bit here there (but with seriously simplified controls, if this was supposed to prepare you for the multiplayer, prepare to fucking crash and burn repeatedly cause the controls were Battlefront style of simple while there is not such option in the multiplayer). Same with everything else, the only sandbox, sorta, was Nothing is Written which used Sinai Desert map from multiplayer as playground and you went around and did some stuff.
All in all, can we stop asking DICE to make single player now? There have been hints that they can do it (Through Mud and Blood was one such hint) but I feel that in the end it's just wasting people's time. It drains development resources and for those who buy the game for its single player only as some weird people do, its only gonna come out as a disappointment. Not that any of that budget would be reallocated to the multiplayer part as you would assume like a reasonable human being, that did not happen in Battlefront which had one of the most lacklustre contents ever for a multiplayer only game.
Yup, find it really annoying having to focus on one (at a time) of the objectives on each medal at a time. They ruin gameplay rather than enhancing it when I try to fullfill their objectives by going out of my way on focusing on singular things rather than picking a medal that fits my general style of play and just over time slowly filling it up.
Is it just me or is the aiming a bit off on PC?
Changed the servers (by the way, they are awful in South America), played with 14-20 ms ping and still think something is wrong. Maybe the bullets aren't registering correctly, or the 30 hz tick rate is just to low for today standards (I'm playing Overwatch on PC on the past 6 months and the improvements are amazing).
Is it just me or does Monte Grappa not run well? I've got a 1070 FTW and a i5-4670K and generally BF1 is running great at 1440p for me- usually well above 60fps with pretty much everything maxed out. The framerate on Monte Grappa seems like its usually right around 50-60 but it feels like its stuttering. I can't really tell if its something with my machine or if its lag...
That the performance is terrible.
It's really not, PS4 version here. I had a few FPS slowdowns but nothing that took me out of the game immersion wise. It runs well 99% of the time.
so thats not out if im playing now?
Well i was playing it on xbox one for the trial, felt pretty smooth. I played one game on ps4 this morning and it didnt feel better than the xbox version did. I remember thinking that it felt a bit choppy actually.
I hope this isnt the case after the patch. I got it on ps4 cause of the performance boast....
Isn't the baseline res lower on XB1 though? I thought XB1 was 720p and PS4 was 900p. Or are they both 900p?Problem is. BF games are CPU hungry. And the Xbox One has a "better cpu" so it will run abit better on Xbox One.
Just you.
BF1 servers are 60 tick by default.
Isn't the baseline res lower on XB1 though? I thought XB1 was 720p and PS4 was 900p. Or are they both 900p?
I know that. That's why I'm asking about the baseline res each one aims to hit. I know PS4 tries to hit 900p. What does XB1 go up to?The both use dynamic res.
Problem is. BF games are CPU hungry. And the Xbox One has a "better cpu" so it will run abit better on Xbox One.
And you have the day one patch already btw.
It's really not, PS4 version here. I had a few FPS slowdowns but nothing that took me out of the game immersion wise. It runs well 99% of the time.
Are you saying u are happy with the PS4 performance.My copy is unlocked on 21st but some of the comments here make me scared.
Well the Pro will fix this for me since im buying it. Sucks for the people who arent upgrading tho.
I know that. That's why I'm asking about the baseline res each one aims to hit. I know PS4 tries to hit 900p. What does XB1 go up to?
Well the Pro will fix this for me since im buying it. Sucks for the people who arent upgrading tho.
The Server info they say 30 hz.
Probably forgot to mention.... I'm on PS4, my PC is still under development kkkk
VGA is expensive as fuck here in Brazil.
Pro is making CPU changes?Well the Pro will fix this for me since im buying it. Sucks for the people who arent upgrading tho.
Thanks. So, pretty similar.Xbone:
1100x620 up to 1780x1000.
PS4:
1100x620 up to 1807x1014
Are you saying u are happy with the PS4 performance.My copy is unlocked on 21st but some of the comments here make me scared.
Yup. Those arguing this performance is super bad must have not spent much time at all with any console Battlefield games, because they all run a lot worse than BF1. Especially BF4 on PS4 from my experience.I played a lot of BF4 on PS4 and both the framerate and connection at times would be noticeably janky causing the odd death, we all know it.
This is leagues better. Haven't found performance a bother once even if you might notice the odd dip, rare as they are they don't impact fluidity as in BF4.
I can't believe it's so smooth sometimes considering how bonkers the graphics are.
Pro is making CPU changes?
Pro is making CPU changes?
So, pretty similar.