Battlefield One

The newest entry in the Battlefield series has been announced and it's titled Battlefield One

And it's in WW 1. Really unsure about this one to be entirely honest.

...an FPS in World War 1?

That's a first.

I remember hearing and then immediately dismissing rumors that this one would be set in WW 1.

Egg on my face.

Though I do wonder if naming it Battlefield One for like the seventh game in the series is all that smart of an idea. Then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Xbone indeed.

edited 6th May '16 1:39:25 PM by Gault

Now this has all my interest.

They say that it's called Battlefield 1 because World War I is basically the genesis of all-out war.

I'm really hesitant about this one. The WW 1 setting is really gonna be restrictive. No gun attachments to work for, little weapon diversity, the setting pretty much blows any chances of proper player customization out of the water, and it's gonna be really hard to do the combined arms thing or set up any big levolution setpieces.

WW 1 was a dull and horrific slog. Not a lot to do there in terms of excitement.

Actually there will also be weapon customization, according to the interview they gave immediately after showing the trailer. There's going to be tanks, horses, melee combat, battleships, superweapons, and if anything they said a previous build of the game was too destructive. So don't worry.

edited 6th May '16 1:48:48 PM by theLibrarian

Did they? I didn't catch the pre show or the interview, just the trailer.

I'm still very apprehensive. Have they announced a beta?

Yep. If you become a Battlefield Insider you can play the early access open beta.

The game itself releases October 21.

And how does one do that? Cause I really wanna be excited for this. I've played and enjoyed every Battlefield before it, even Hardline.

But I'm gonna need an awful lot of convincing

You go to the Battlefield website, I believe.

I have a few problems... first off, that bloke in armour holding a machine gun is ridiculous, it's jsut silly and stupid, second, biplanes don't explode like that, they just... crash and third... THEY USED THE WRONG BLOODY SONG!

I feel like we need to pass a law fining anyone who thinks "Hey I got an idea let's use Seven Nation Army in this trailer for the billionth time"

Judging by the looks of the cover fellow, I'm guessing it's more alternate history.

Because if they wanted to be a stickler to the setting, out of all of their covers, not wearing your helmet in World War I would probably be the stupidest considering artillery was fired off pretty constantly

Eh, weirder things were tried during the war. At one point they used chain mail to try and protect against bullets but it only made the injuries worse.

They would later give the chainmail to tank crews, because tank armor at the time would shear off bits of hot shrapnel from being shot. Apparently, it would help against those.

Therefore wearing armor while using a flamethrower isn't that out of the question

I agree with Fry; they should have goddamn used Sabaton. And because they did not, I shall not buy this. I mean I wasn't going to anyway, but I'll use that as my reason.

but what if the next trailer uses Price of a Mile?

That effect is called spalling. HESH (high-explosive squash head, a warhead that contains plastic explosive which splatters on the target's surface before detonating in order to transfer the maximum possible amount of force) was designed to deliberately trigger this effect. Hit a WW 2-era tank with this, it'll only show a scorch mark and a dent - but pop the hatch and you'll find the crew messily splattered all over the interior, shotgunned from point blank range by their own tank's armor.

It's not a thing in anti-tank munitions anymore, thanks to multilayered composite armor being developed in the seventies - but there's one incident from 2003 when a Challenger tank's hatch got hit by a HESH round and the spalling killed two crew members and detonated the ammunition.

The more you know...

edited 6th May '16 3:15:25 PM by amitakartok

Only in its experimental phases. Body armour was toyed with but remotely effective armour (pretty sure it wasn't reliable against rifle-sized rounds either) was far too heavy for an advancing infantryman, relegating it to sentries and static machine-gunners. So I'd be pretty sure a fellow with a flamethrower and the body armour tried out in WWI would make molasses look like it moves fast.

I'd like to be excited for this game, but all the people on You Tube who are happily proclaiming that COD is dead and buried thanks to this game and that Battlefield 1 has singlehandedly destroyed any of that games' hopes is turning me off from it. Not helped by the devs also taking part in the insult throwing, which only delights the fanboys even more. >_<

edited 6th May '16 4:03:40 PM by LDragon2

Small historical sidebar from a former British soldier and holder of a secondary school qualification in History - if you go looking for pictures of British Tommies wearing helmets during the first couple of years of the war, you'd be better off looking for hen's teeth - they're extremely rare.They didn't bother issuing our guys tin hats, or to give them their formal name the "Brodie Helmet" as general use items until the summer of 1916. Cloth and leather hats of various sorts were supposed to be enough to protect the troops from shell splinters and so on.

In fact, on the allied side, the first proper helmets made it onto the heads of French Poilus the previous year.

Looks like the scarlet and blue wanted more scarlet than blue.

So, despite the "common wisdom" that a WWI shooter would be a bad idea, DICE are going full speed ahead anyway, eh? Developers like Treyarch and Rockstar San Diego likewise did the same for similarly dismissed settings like Vietnam and the Wild West, respectively, and both Black Ops and Red Dead Redemption still turned out to be popular, well-received games.

OK, granted, they played a little with expectations; BLOPS wasn't strictly a 'Nam shooter and had a number of anachronisms, and RDR was set at the tail end of the West. Perhaps DICE will also play fast and loose with the setting, e.g., exclude the myriad long periods of non-battle marked by introspection and spirit-crushing boredom, sneak in a few WW 2 weapons where they can, and exaggerate the number of tanks used during the war.

Whatever the case, I'm intrigued, and if I had enough interest to jump into 8th gen gaming, I would even seriously consider buying it down the road.

Should it fail, and I don't want it to nor necessarily believe it will, I think we'll at least be in store for an interesting, maybe even bold, failure.