It's definitely peaked my interest and I will probably buy it if no major issues pop up but I would rather have a true sequel to BF1942.
There is so many things they could do with World War 2 and so many iconic battles they could create maps for. And all the awesome tanks, weapons, planes and other stuff....ahhh, I ****ing hope they make a World War 2 game again. Hell, you don't even need to add the "alternate history" angle that this game has (because if it didn't, it would be ****ing boring and depressing).
I like the idea of revisiting older wars but I don't see why we can't have a game that spans generations. Battlefield 2 proved that we could have a game that includes modern warfare and Vietnam so why can't we have one that spans them all. I love battlefield. Their gameplay is leagues superior to COD games but I think the WWI gimmick will wear thin
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
There will be more emphasis on dogfighting and planes will have turrets as well. It will have assault rifles, submachine guns, heavy machine guns and bolt action rifles. As well, the coolest thing is that you can use battleships and bombard emplacements and stuff. There is other stuff as well but I belive this is the closest BF has been to the original 1942. As for vehicles, heavy tanks, light tanks, armored cars and horses.
It looks very cool and I'm happy that the game will be more skill based than before. The single player campaign will try to be more Bad Company 2-ish and I think they said will revolve around flying, land and water parts. In the end, the game is about air, land and sea and I believe most maps will have all three....but I'm not sure.
From what they said, the guy who saw the game behind closed doors saw the blimp but it wasn't being used. He was unsure if you can use the blimp or not. He did say that planes were flying around it so it had a physical space in the game world.
Does that mean you can fly it? Maybe.....or it could be similar to how the AC-130 was used in modern BF's. However, it would a bit strange if you can control massive destroyers (and probably smaller cruisers and hell, maybe even subs) but not control that airship.
My best guess would be that the airship is part of mode and whoever controls are point get to use it and it's on rails.
Speaking of modes, I wonder what they are. I would assume conquest, rush, air superiority, and I'm guessing some sort of naval superiority.
Gender: Male Location: In Luna's mane, chasing STAAARS!
Turns out Battlefield 1's gonna have a campaign. What was it DICE was trying to explain to the rest of the world why their last game, Battlefront, couldn't have story? Something about nobody wanting one and that it was pointless? Friggin hypocrites man
There is gameplay footage of an actual match on Polygon. From what I've seen, I'm looking forward to it because it feels like it's back to the original 1942 where there isn't a lock on in sight.
Also, when the airship crashes, it crashes on the map in any location and obliterates anything beneath it and the remnants stay there until the end of the match. Also, it seems all the vehicles have multiple gunnery positions which I loved when I played BF3 and 4.
Yes. It's a strange decision to add the United States instead of French due to what you said and the fact that US didn't join WW1 until very late.
However, I assume US was added because it's probably costing the devs big bucks to develop and thought not having US would hurt sales in the US. I'm guessing that's the reason behind it.
KMC Community Forums
May 6th, 2016 11:32 PM
