The Battlefield franchise goes back to its roots in Battlefield 1

Well, it’s that time of year again, folks. Spring is in the air, everyone's waiting for the Pascal reveal, and we have another Battlefield trailer for you. The next installment of the prolific franchise got an official reveal today, and it's called Battlefield 1. Seriously. The game takes place during the First World War, which presumably explains the odd numbering scheme, and it looks pretty slick. Take a look.

Where Battlefield: Hardline  was a departure for the series with its cops-and-robbers theme, Battlefield 1 looks like it takes after Battlefield 4's traditional large-scale warfare roots. The game retains the 64-player server size of Battlefield 4 and includes a single-player campaign like more recent Battlefield releases. Battlefield 1 is set to release on October 21 of this year for the PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4.

Comments closed
    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 3 years ago

    2 things would really help elevate the genre, 128 and or 256 player battles should be a thing they try for even if it isn’t ever BF release. Additionally a pre-rendered trailer is useless in this day and age of gaming unless its part of the franchise history (Blizzard)

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    Was the first ones timeframe this hybridized? I see WW1 (?) tanks, some bows and arrows, and what looks like a space ship, or at least large aerial warship (hello Avatar TLA!)?

    Actually don’t know, never played.

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      It’s called a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin<]zeppelin.[/url<] Maybe you've heard of them? ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster<]Hindenburg[/url<])

      • Anovoca
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t even…

      How do you…

      ….(rubs temples)

      • atari030
      • 3 years ago

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zIlSVT4mBA[/url<]

    • Lucky Jack Aubrey
    • 3 years ago

    If the game was going back to its roots, there’d be bots.

    No bots, no buy (at least, not until it gets very cheap).

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    I don’t have high hopes for this theme, but will naturally still jump into whatever beta with an open mind. Serious pitfalls I fear may lie in hand to hand combat and a slimmer variety of weapons.

    BF4 remains pretty strong though, as the dedicated support turned a shoddy release into one of the best experiences available in the genre. I’d recommend anyone who haven’t played it yet to pick it up for cheap.

    • bfar
    • 3 years ago

    EA make amazing trailers these days. They publish mostly decent, if uninspiring and unoriginal games. I genuinely wonder how anyone gets over excited about any Battlefield game these days. I’ll tell you what though, they know how to milk their customers for every cent they can get.

    Expect this to be short on content and high on DLC.

      • ptsant
      • 3 years ago

      I thoroughly enjoyed BF3 and BF4 multiplayer. Worth their money, including the DLC extra cost.

      Big studios are not about cutting-edge innovation, but EA at least gets the BF recipe right.

    • AJSB
    • 3 years ago

    So, in the SP campaign, we will play for different nationalities…that should include Germany…I just wonder if DICE will have the nerve to include AH as an “Easter Egg” and somehow we meet him in the campaign :”)

    • floodo1
    • 3 years ago

    Lol, Battlefield stopped being good at least 10 years ago (-8

    • AJSB
    • 3 years ago

    At 1st i was disappointed, but then i read/heard details of the extensive vehicles and weapons (including semi-auto rifles and SMGs…Yeah, they existed in WW1 like the German MP18 !) that they gonna have in this game, plus how classes are organized and the “extra classes” for vehicles (apparently, if you to ride a Bi/Triplane or drive a tank you have to spawn directly to inside it and will stay there till you DIE…sorry snipers, no more you steal my MBT/Heli/Plane just to travel to where you want to snipe) and now i’m looking forward to play the open beta.

    I just hope that server browser returned to the game and i don’t need a freaking WWW Browser just to join a match.

    • Krogoth
    • 3 years ago

    So does this mean that you are going to do bayonet charges into “no man’s land” and killed like 10-20 times before getting a chance at shooting back? Do you have loot corpses for gas masks in order to survive gas attacks?

    Kiddies are going to hate it and go back to COD franchies if Dice attempts to accurately depict WW-I era warfare.

      • npore
      • 3 years ago

      Pretty sure everyone will hate it if they did that 🙂

      • floodo1
      • 3 years ago

      don’t forget about the drum fire!

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      In the “modern” Battlefield games a couple RPGs can disable or destroy a M1 Abrams tank and the fighter jets have a top speed of something like 400kph. Also 1 hit from a defib instantly revives someone and standing next to a medpack for a few seconds heals all your wounds. You can repair tanks by waving a magic wand at them for a few seconds, and the support class can carry around infinite ammo. I don’t think you need to worry about them creating a realistic game.

      Completely realistic games usually aren’t that fun anyway so that’s a good thing IMO. It still remains to be seen whether it’s a good game though, especially for the $110 USD it will inevitably cost for the game+premium. $110 wouldn’t even be that bad if you knew there was going to be a large playerbase for awhile but they fragment the playerbase with DLCs and by releasing a new game every year or two.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 3 years ago

        $110 is really, really expensive unless the game prints money.

        Your 1st para is spot on though.

      • maxxcool
      • 3 years ago

      ∆ this. Or the 6 -7 shot magazine and bolt action goodness with one bullet per second ? Better yet.. No REZ kits 🙂

      Me, I will love it. No gimmicky scopes, just a solid Springfield rifle and a standard issue .45 revolver. I like the idea of harvesting gas masks actually, or body armor.

      • BenBasson
      • 3 years ago

      DICE is not known for delivering games that accurately depict war in any setting. They’re always basically War: arcade mode.

    • Jury-Pool-Reject
    • 3 years ago

    I spent lots of time playing COD’s ‘World At War’ back in the day… looks a bit like it. That was the last COD game I played. I later moved over to Battlefield Bad Company 2, then BF3, and now BF4…. love BF4…

    I will get Battlefield One.

    • iBend
    • 3 years ago

    this is what I waiting for 😀
    and give it 20vs20 multiplayer capture the flag, lol

    • Meadows
    • 3 years ago

    No no no no no no no no no. No. No. God no.

    Enough with the world wars already.

    No.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      Can you stop the Cavalry?

      Biplanes are a much better fit to Battlefield gameplay than modern jets, and WWI has much more culture around it for the single player game. I’d much rather have Battlefield (WW)1 than Battlefield Yet-Another-Bunch-Of-Terrorists.

      Although if you’re after a fictional battlefield setting then that would be nice. 2142 was a rather lazy effort but I’m sure they could do much better.

    • Bensam123
    • 3 years ago

    Still not nearly as good as the Dawn of War 3 trailer… Also looks a bit worse then some of their other intro trailers.

    I do like the setting though. Modern Warfare is so blanned and overdone. There is nothing too it. It’s not visceral enough.

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah I’ve been bored of the “modern warfare” setting for years now. That being said I’m looking forward to Rising Storm Vietnam a lot more than this new Battlefield game. I hope DICE/EA can surprise me though.

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      I stopped playing the Warhammer games when they went to 1st person. Just isn’t the same.

        • Pez
        • 3 years ago

        Dawn of War has never been first person?

          • DPete27
          • 3 years ago

          After DOW2-Retribution, they went to 1st person with Space Marine in 2011. That pretty much killed my interest. Not sure if there’s been 3rd person games since then.

          I’d love for DOW3 to be 3rd person again. Looks like Relic is back in the driver seat. I’ll add that to my follow list.

    • odizzido
    • 3 years ago

    Haven’t played a battlefield game for a long time….not since 1942.

    • f0d
    • 3 years ago

    WOW
    $89.99 (so $90) AU for the STANDARD EDITION
    [url<]http://s6.postimg.org/5mwn1qhwh/bf1.jpg[/url<] $110 AU for the deluxe edition and thats before you even think of getting any DLC's or premium ZERO chance of me wasting that much money on a game that only lasts a year or 2 max before the entire population of the game moves on to the next battlefield game

      • Airmantharp
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t blame EA, they have to deal with your economy too 😉

        • f0d
        • 3 years ago

        nobody else charges that much for new games over here
        why do EA do it?

        as an example battleborn is only $69
        far cry primal is $60

    • f0d
    • 3 years ago

    even though this game looks (graphics) good i doubt it will be any fun going by the last 3 or 4 battlefield games which were quite horrible multiplayer wise

    the franchise has been going downhill constantly with each iteration getting worse than the last

      • Joerdgs
      • 3 years ago

      What do you not like about them? The base game has been constantly improving, the only issue I have is that the more futuristic tools and weapons often feel cheap because of lock-ons and stuff. Battlefield 1 is going way back before all that stuff existed, which should bring it closer to the older titles again.

        • f0d
        • 3 years ago

        just a few things off the top of my head

        -smaller maps – maps have been getting smaller since bf2 which had some crazy huge maps
        -graphical effects that make gameplay not fun (unrealistic blinding sun and lense flare etc)
        -since bfbc2 destruction seems to have taken a nosedive, i remember being able to flatten pretty much everything in bfbc2 but it doesnt seem that way in newer games
        -too much and too expensive dlc/paid unlocks/level shortcuts

        yearly releases and almost required dlc, people move on to the newest dlc’s and newest battlefield games which leaves the older ones empty and not fun which means you have to keep dumping cash into the series or get left behind
        bfbc2 2010
        bf3 2011
        bf4 2013
        bfhardline 2015
        battlefrontfield 2015
        battlefield 1 2016

        i guess the fun to money spent ratio isnt very good for me when there are many other cheaper games that last longer and is more fun – for example i am still playing planetside 2 from 2012

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          Between upping the graphics a lot and trying to keep the games playable, map sizes and destruction had to be curtailed a bit- further, destruction can be game-breaking, or break the way the developers intend maps to be played. It’s their choice, really.

          As for the expansions- if you know you’re going to play all of them (like me) you get the premium pack. And I more than got my money’s worth.

            • f0d
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]As for the expansions- if you know you're going to play all of them (like me) you get the premium pack. And I more than got my money's worth.[/quote<] there isnt a single game in existance (even with all expansion) that is worth the amount EA charge for the base game + premium of battlefield games especially one that only lasts 2 years or so max before everyone has moved on, like now hardly anyone plays bf3 - its hard to even get a game id rather buy 4 or so really good games that will probably last longer

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 3 years ago

    *Spend 3 days waiting in the trenches while taking constant artillery fire, including a poison gas attack that killed a couple of your buddies because they couldn’t get their gas mask on fast enough*

    *Sometime later, ordered to charge over the no-man’s land during Battle of the Somme*

    *Watches everyone around you get cut down by rifle and machine gun fire*

    *Gets cut down by machine gun fire before an artillery shell turns you into dusty hamburger meat*

    EDIT:

    *On the 6th attempt at the charge through the no-man’s land, you get tangled in barbred wire, and then later step on a landmine*

    *On the 7th attempt, you finally reach the enemy’s trenches. Yay. Except almost all of your buddies are dead, and there are still lots of enemies in the trenches with their bayonets ready*

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      To be fair, there were no proper gas marks for a while so I’m sure they’re going to pull a dramatic “nuke” scene in the footsteps of COD: MW, except with chlorine gas rolling down the hills towards the French and turning their eyeballs into liquid.

    • tsk
    • 3 years ago

    Trailer looks good, but the last great battlefield game was Bad Company 2 so my hopes are low.

    • ermo
    • 3 years ago

    “War. War never changes.”

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    I stopped playing battlefield hardline, because of the unfixable, super zoomed in FOV.

    I won’t take it anymore. I don’t spend on an expensive PC just to have it ruined by disgusting developers.

    I won’t give a single cent to this game.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      I’m not comfortable with first person games with a FOV under 90 degrees, and usually settle for 100 in order to enjoy them. I don’t know Hardline but if it does not have adjustable FOV, then it’s rubbish.

    • south side sammy
    • 3 years ago

    It’s a good movie isn’t it? Thought I was going to see Indiana Jones pop off the screen for a moment. LOL.

    • Freon
    • 3 years ago

    Aren’t Battlefield’s roots in WW2?

      • ImSpartacus
      • 3 years ago

      Aren’t COD’s roots in WW2? Didn’t stop them from going to motherfucking space and it won’t stop BF from going to WW1.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        Well, the claim (unclear if it’s the developer’s claim or the author’s) is that Battlefield is going back to its roots. As a result, CoD’s roots aren’t at issue.

        If, as EndlessWaves says, the roots are in WW1 then it’s a true claim. 😀

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      No, DICE stated making that style of games with Codename Eagle which was a WWI game.

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    it looks like a ton of fun! I loved flying in BF1942 and Desert Combat but I never got used to the way jets worked in the later games, I guess biplanes will bring some of that old school fun back

    now lets just hope that EA doesn’t ruin it all with DLC. I’m STILL bitter from the way they messed up BF3

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 3 years ago

      “doesn’t ruin it all with DLC”

      AHAHAHAHAHA. The first DLC is already been leaked, “harlem hellfighters”.

      • f0d
      • 3 years ago

      you can absolutely guarantee they will milk this game with as much dlc and upgrade packs and leveling shortcuts as they can think of

      • morphine
      • 3 years ago

      “now lets just hope that EA doesn’t ruin it all with DLC.”

      That’s going to happen. All the sheep will be in line to pay for it. That’ll only stop when people stop buying 🙂

        • Firestarter
        • 3 years ago

        I won’t be buying then

    • SoundChaos
    • 3 years ago

    Never been a fan of Battlefield or COD series games.. but wow, this trailer is well done!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This