-
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 single player trailer coming tomorrow
- Thread starter kriskrosbbk
- Start date
| Praxis |
Banned
Same. I forced myself to complete 4's singleplayer and it was just boring as hell. So uninspired.
Damn Lost Generation kids always taking pictures.FUCK YEAH
.
Looking forward to the trailer.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
I'm one of the few who actually really enjoyed BF3's campaign. It was a pretty decent attempt, yet deeply flawed. If the gameplay was more open like BF4's was it would be pretty close to what I want from a battlefield campaign. I liked that they fully stole the "Modern Warfare" styled perspective jumps from different people in the armed forces instead of just one man whose proficient at everything. Which is one of the reasons I think I'm looking forward to BF1's, it seems to jump around between different characters as well from what little we know of it, so at least we'll have more than 3 other characters this time.
BF4 was a pure dumpster fire though, deciding to make the player the squad leader...and then having your croneys make every decision for you is one of the worst creative decisions I've ever seen in games, just a total disconnect from what they were going for.
BF4 was a pure dumpster fire though, deciding to make the player the squad leader...and then having your croneys make every decision for you is one of the worst creative decisions I've ever seen in games, just a total disconnect from what they were going for.
JigglesBunny
Banned
Make it play out like Bad Company's Campaigns and don't take it too seriously and baby, you got a stew goin'.
Call of Duty has been doing that since the first game, though.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a total parody now, but it wasn't like that until BO1 I'd argue.
WHAT?
I would have liked to have been able to actually play it in the first place, to form my own decision. But...
ffejeromdiks
Banned
My bad, modern warfare was the first one I played, didn't know it was already a series staple by that point. I'd agree though that they haven't really capitalized on it's potential since black ops, it's seemed rather gimmicky ever since.
Looks like they're going for a Top Gun moment, but it just looks dumb as shit.
That's hilarious
Mookie1515
Member
Might be the first Battlefield campaign I ever end up playing.
CarbonFire
Member
Reverence.
CarbonFire
Member
BF3's campaign was just forgettable. I actively disliked BF4's campaign much of the time. Had there not been BS MP unlocks tied to finishing it, I probably would have never completed it.
I can't really get excited given DICE's previous campaign efforts. I'm honestly beginning to think the Bad Company 1 campaign was a fluke, BC2's campaign was mediocre, and 3 and 4's campaigns were just plain bad.
Hardline campaign was actually decent imo, but that was Visceral. Maybe DICE should outsource the campaign stuff going forward.
Hardline campaign was actually decent imo, but that was Visceral. Maybe DICE should outsource the campaign stuff going forward.
Negative Apples the pattern is full...
Yes it was
Bauer_Hans
Neo Member
It was dull and boring. simply awful.
I know, oppinions and all that but...why anyone would buy a Battlefield game for it's SP is beyond me. Their MP content is where they excel.
SillySinStorm
Member
Can't wait to see what they have in store for us. Hopefully the trailer isn't 29 seconds of edgy edits...
ElzarTheBam
Member
You crazy bastard
It was bad.
It was really bad.
The character were not memorable. The emotional segments really forced and really PG rated awkward (Press F to cut leg like it has absolutely no bone or tissue). The story was uninteresting.
It just doesn't work. I have no doubt that DICE won't do the first World War any justice with their depiction. They don't have anything near the massive steel balls required like Yager did with Spec Ops: The Line. And they still scratch their head and wonder why people actually enjoyed the Bad Company games (hint, funny characters and a silly premise for a silly story in a silly setting weaves well with silly gameplay).
For me to be sufficiently impressed, they need to make people walk away from the game thinking it would be a light adventure in "the jolly good old days of the Greatest Generation 1910's my dear old chaps!" but instead come off with a sense of dread for the human condition and fragility of the psyche of the average person as he battles a constant living hell on this planet Earth in a scale which have never been endured in human history before.
Officer.Sanchez
Member
I'm buying it for the multi, I never liked the single player in previous games but WW1 and 2 are my favorite settings, can't wait for the trailer, let's see what they do.
ebullientprism
Member
What a waste of time and resources. Shoulda used them to throw in some more MP maps.
I genuinely dont know why they bother. Most people I know didnt even get past the first mission of the BF4 campaign. And those that played the BF3 campaign didnt even bother launching 4.
I genuinely dont know why they bother. Most people I know didnt even get past the first mission of the BF4 campaign. And those that played the BF3 campaign didnt even bother launching 4.
bananafactory
Banned
Why bother, it's going to be garbage
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Not gonna get my hopes up, it's DICE afterall, but hopefully they surprise me.
Crashed on me three times on PS4 and deleted my progress every time, which gave me a super bad impression. I've never gone back to it but I might as I know its not very long.
jediyoshi
Member
Obviously because those two things will never translate into each other marketing wise. The perception would just be that they're removing a feature and lowering its value. You don't think Titanfall's 2 initial reception was heightened because it now has a campaign versus the original?
DICE blows at their single-player modes, without a doubt.
But if this campaign is just going to be one setpiece after another in a different setting and circumstances each level, then it could work out pretty well for them. They don't have to focus on characters or an overall narrative beyond the basics of the war (if that even).
But if this campaign is just going to be one setpiece after another in a different setting and circumstances each level, then it could work out pretty well for them. They don't have to focus on characters or an overall narrative beyond the basics of the war (if that even).
not really, I hate multiplayer shooters.
Singleplayer is all I need in my life.
Thanks.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
I played bf4 single player campaign..
to unlock MP weapons <3 ACE-23
DirgeExtinction
Member
If they don't add a single player campaign, it'll be crucified like Battlefront was.
I wonder what the SP story will be.
Neuromancer
Member
My favorite part was failing that QTE and watching the animation of the main character giving the rat the finger as he lay dying.
Stiler
Member
I am looking forward to this campaign, mainly because I love ww history and really want to see what details and things they've put into it.
Yes, that was like the main point of airplanes at the start of the war. Planes were more for photograph/recon and not for attacking anything.
It was only later in the war that they started outfitting them more and more for combat (though recon was still important).
At first pilots carried pistols and rifles, and would simply fire them at other pilots themselves. As you can imagine, this wasn't exactly accurate at all.
Then they started to mount guns on the aircraft, at the start on the wings, however with the "push" style of aircraft, where the propellor was behind the pilot rather then at the front of the plane IE:
They could mount them at the front. Then later on with the invention of the synchronization gear they were able to mount them on the front of the pull airplanes and could then fire the mg's much more accurately.
You still had many varied roles for airplanes throughout the war even after they had invented these things, you had the recon planes that were more focused on photographing and recon, you had smaller attack planes, large ones, etc.
Zeppelins were great at recon, especially earlier in the war, because they had a high ceiling of operation and the planes couldn't climb as high as the zeppelins, so they were basically untouchable early in the war, not to mention they could cover a long range without having to stop/refuel.
Even then when planes could reach them it wasn't nearly as easy to take them out as you see in movies or games (including bf1). Zeppelins aren't just like a big gas filled balloon that you "pop" with a single hit. They contain many individual bags and empty space around them. A bullet hit wouldn't even likely do anything to them. It wasn't until the use of incendiary ammo and things later on that it was easier for planes to take out ao zeppelin, because using things like that you could ignite the gas inside, whereas a normal bullet won't do that.
Yes, that was like the main point of airplanes at the start of the war. Planes were more for photograph/recon and not for attacking anything.
It was only later in the war that they started outfitting them more and more for combat (though recon was still important).
At first pilots carried pistols and rifles, and would simply fire them at other pilots themselves. As you can imagine, this wasn't exactly accurate at all.
Then they started to mount guns on the aircraft, at the start on the wings, however with the "push" style of aircraft, where the propellor was behind the pilot rather then at the front of the plane IE:
They could mount them at the front. Then later on with the invention of the synchronization gear they were able to mount them on the front of the pull airplanes and could then fire the mg's much more accurately.
You still had many varied roles for airplanes throughout the war even after they had invented these things, you had the recon planes that were more focused on photographing and recon, you had smaller attack planes, large ones, etc.
Zeppelins were great at recon, especially earlier in the war, because they had a high ceiling of operation and the planes couldn't climb as high as the zeppelins, so they were basically untouchable early in the war, not to mention they could cover a long range without having to stop/refuel.
Even then when planes could reach them it wasn't nearly as easy to take them out as you see in movies or games (including bf1). Zeppelins aren't just like a big gas filled balloon that you "pop" with a single hit. They contain many individual bags and empty space around them. A bullet hit wouldn't even likely do anything to them. It wasn't until the use of incendiary ammo and things later on that it was easier for planes to take out ao zeppelin, because using things like that you could ignite the gas inside, whereas a normal bullet won't do that.
Really? Thanks for this. I genuinely never knew. The first part was a joke but the spoilers I was genuinely interested to find out. Thanks again!Yes, that was like the main point of airplanes at the start of the war. Planes were more for photograph/recon and not for attacking anything.
It was only later in the war that they started outfitting them more and more for combat (though recon was still important).
At first pilots carried pistols and rifles, and would simply fire them at other pilots themselves. As you can imagine, this wasn't exactly accurate at all.
Then they started to mount guns on the aircraft, at the start on the wings, however with the "push" style of aircraft, where the propellor was behind the pilot rather then at the front of the plane IE:
They could mount them at the front. Then later on with the invention of the synchronization gear they were able to mount them on the front of the pull airplanes and could then fire the mg's much more accurately.
You still had many varied roles for airplanes throughout the war even after they had invented these things, you had the recon planes that were more focused on photographing and recon, you had smaller attack planes, large ones, etc.
Zeppelins were great at recon, especially earlier in the war, because they had a high ceiling of operation and the planes couldn't climb as high as the zeppelins, so they were basically untouchable early in the war, not to mention they could cover a long range without having to stop/refuel.
Even then when planes could reach them it wasn't nearly as easy to take them out as you see in movies or games (including bf1). Zeppelins aren't just like a big gas filled balloon that you "pop" with a single hit. They contain many individual bags and empty space around them. A bullet hit wouldn't even likely do anything to them. It wasn't until the use of incendiary ammo and things later on that it was easier for planes to take out ao zeppelin, because using things like that you could ignite the gas inside, whereas a normal bullet won't do that.
I loved it. Probably due to having a squad though.
Same, it's gonna be a pain trying to persuade my friends to wait until I've done the campaign lmao.
Neuromancer
Member
lol good work. Also, thanks for the history lesson Stiler.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Considering this game is now out in less than a month, and we've seen zilch of this I would be expecting very little from it >_>