New Battlefield 1 Trailer Offers a Look At Tanks, Planes, and Other Vehicles

[ffronw]

New Battlefield 1 Trailer Offers a Look At Tanks, Planes, and Other Vehicles

Tanks, planes, and armored cars, oh my! The latest Battlefield 1 trailer shows off the game's vehicles.

The newest Battlefield 1 trailer is here, and this installment is focused on the vehicles in the game. You'll see the fighters and bombers that filled the sky, as well as one of the biggest inventions of World War I, the tanks.


If you were looking for the zeppelin and the battleships that we've heard about before, they're still missing. We'll probably see them in a future video. If you missed the previous video in the series, it offered up a look at the weaponry of Battlefield 1 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqkfMXYtKI].

Battlefield 1 is launching for PC, PS4, and Xbox One on October 21.

Permalink

 

[Bobular]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Give me bolt action rifles that were actually used in mass numbers. Then give me ranges which make them useful.

You're just making the same game again with a slightly different flavor.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

And how would they do that?

And planes here don't have Homing Missles and has a rear seat machine gunner.

And tanks will always be tanks no matter the era.

 

[hamsterkilla]

The Battlefield franchise has always taken every weapon technology available and put it in their games, even in BF 1942. Didn't matter if it was rarely used or in common use, they allow their players to choose what they want. It's like demanding that in BF4 Americans only use M4's or the Chinese using a QBZ. Or do you all think that in battles today Americans are all running with RPG's strapped to their back shooting at snipers from a mile away, or shooting ACR-4's/Type 88 LMG's, or even throwing C4 around like it's candy. SMH

I understand that people want a legit WW1 game, and maybe the single player will deliver that *laughs at my own joke* but I don't see this sudden uproar towards multiplayer and DICE for giving their players every weapon available at the time like it's a bad thing.

It's like people want to complain for complaining sake. (Again I know I'm on the internet and I should expect this)

Like other's have posted above me, it's Battlefield. I don't know why anyone expected anything different.

 

[NLS]

The Battlefield franchise has always taken every weapon technology available and put it in their games, even in BF 1942. Didn't matter if it was rarely used or in common use, they allow their players to choose what they want. It's like demanding that in BF4 Americans only use M4's or the Chinese using a QBZ. Or do you all think that in battles today Americans are all running with RPG's strapped to their back shooting at snipers from a mile away, or shooting ACR-4's/Type 88 LMG's, or even throwing C4 around like it's candy. SMH

I understand that people want a legit WW1 game, and maybe the single player will deliver that *laughs at my own joke* but I don't see this sudden uproar towards multiplayer and DICE for giving their players every weapon available at the time like it's a bad thing.

It's like people want to complain for complaining sake. (Again I know I'm on the internet and I should expect this)

Like other's have posted above me, it's Battlefield. I don't know why anyone expected anything different.

This.
If people want the real deal authentic WW1 experience, then there's other games out there that can provide it, but it will not be Battlefield. I've enjoyed Red Orchestra and the ArmA games, but I also like the quick action of the Battlefield games, and it's nice to see a WW1 game that can be enjoyed without getting smacked in the face by the harsh reality of war.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

And how would they do that?

And planes here don't have Homing Missles and has a rear seat machine gunner.

And tanks will always be tanks no matter the era.

The gulf of different between the early tanks and even their world war 2 successors was vast. That's like saying there's no appreciable difference between a Model T Ford and a Mustang GT.

 

[Mad Sun]

The Battlefield franchise has always taken every weapon technology available and put it in their games, even in BF 1942. Didn't matter if it was rarely used or in common use, they allow their players to choose what they want. It's like demanding that in BF4 Americans only use M4's or the Chinese using a QBZ. Or do you all think that in battles today Americans are all running with RPG's strapped to their back shooting at snipers from a mile away, or shooting ACR-4's/Type 88 LMG's, or even throwing C4 around like it's candy. SMH

I understand that people want a legit WW1 game, and maybe the single player will deliver that *laughs at my own joke* but I don't see this sudden uproar towards multiplayer and DICE for giving their players every weapon available at the time like it's a bad thing.

It's like people want to complain for complaining sake. (Again I know I'm on the internet and I should expect this)

Like other's have posted above me, it's Battlefield. I don't know why anyone expected anything different.

And yet people say that there can't be women in multiplayer because it breaks realism.

Semi-related: I like how they have the Renault FT as a playable vehicle in multiplayer but the French themselves are locked behind DLC. That's nice. >

 

[Vigormortis]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

So, pretty much as I'd predicted when the game was first announced? And continued to claim after gameplay vids 'leaked' out of E3 showing almost exactly what I'd predicted?

I'm shocked. Shocked!

Smug gloating aside, I just do not understand the immense hype for this game.[footnote]Of which, I still say, has a catastrophically stupid name.[/footnote] And this isn't some "I don't like this, why does anyone else" sort of thing. It's more "This is just Battlefield with a different coat of paint. Why are those who don't like Battlefield creaming their pants in excitement for this? This, a game from post-BC2 DICE..."

I just don't get it. Everyone's acting shocked that BF1 looks just like BF3/4 but with a thin veneer of WWI paint on top. How did they NOT know this was what it would be?! Why did they assume it would be anything else?

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

But that would require creativity, talent, and risk. Three things EA and DICE are vehemently opposed to.

 

[Cowabungaa]

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

That's my feeling too. I was really excited for Battlefield 1 because it offered the possibility of a lack of automatic-fire-spam that's so typically Battlefield. But it seems that they stretched and pulled the setting to still include that. I mean sure audio-visually it looks fantastic (that sound design is off the charts) but gameplay-wise... Man I was hoping for something truly different.

I also was thinking to say "Well at least the planes look very promising with no rockets-" aaaand then the trailer showed a plane spamming rockets. I mean sure it's historically correct, but it still made me sigh that we're yet again seeing shit like that. I guess the dogfights still look cool, the planes definitely seem slower.

 

[Bobular]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

So, pretty much as I'd predicted when the game was first announced? And continued to claim after gameplay vids 'leaked' out of E3 showing almost exactly what I'd predicted?

I'm shocked. Shocked!

Smug gloating aside, I just do not understand the immense hype for this game.[footnote]Of which, I still say, has a catastrophically stupid name.[/footnote] And this isn't some "I don't like this, why does anyone else" sort of thing. It's more "This is just Battlefield with a different coat of paint. Why are those who don't like Battlefield creaming their pants in excitement for this? This, a game from post-BC2 DICE..."

I just don't get it. Everyone's acting shocked that BF1 looks just like BF3/4 but with a thin veneer of WWI paint on top. How did they NOT know this was what it would be?! Why did they assume it would be anything else?

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

But that would require creativity, talent, and risk. Three things EA and DICE are vehemently opposed to.

I've been saying the same thing since they showed us the first Hollywood style action trailer. I've seen loads of people saying that this is going to completely change the way multiplayer FPSs will work but to me its always just looked like the same generic Battlefield I stopped playing when 2142 died.

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

And how would they do that?

And planes here don't have Homing Missles and has a rear seat machine gunner.

And tanks will always be tanks no matter the era.

I would have liked to see the majority of guys using bolt action rifles, I would have liked machine guns to have to be set up before use (though I think needing a team to use them can be lost for game play reasons) rather than run and gun with them, I would like tanks to be slow moving behemoths that rightfully scare infantry when they see one approaching with maybe AT guns being a separate vehicle that you could set up in a location. I would like to see a big emphasis on artillery, the destructible scenery looks good and would be cool to shell. I'm hoping the gas stuff will be a game play mechanic and not just a scripted event in the campaign.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I was so interested to see how this game would turn out, but I lost pretty much all interest in this game when I saw how the tanks handled. A genuine WW1 would be a fascinating thing to play, but this is just modern Battlefield with a thin WW1 veneer scraped over the top.

And I don't buy their argument of "we sped up the tanks in response to tester feedback", because the AT-ATs in Battlefront creep forward at a suitably glacial pace and players still line up to operate them.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

So, pretty much as I'd predicted when the game was first announced? And continued to claim after gameplay vids 'leaked' out of E3 showing almost exactly what I'd predicted?

I'm shocked. Shocked!

Smug gloating aside, I just do not understand the immense hype for this game.[footnote]Of which, I still say, has a catastrophically stupid name.[/footnote] And this isn't some "I don't like this, why does anyone else" sort of thing. It's more "This is just Battlefield with a different coat of paint. Why are those who don't like Battlefield creaming their pants in excitement for this? This, a game from post-BC2 DICE..."

I just don't get it. Everyone's acting shocked that BF1 looks just like BF3/4 but with a thin veneer of WWI paint on top. How did they NOT know this was what it would be?! Why did they assume it would be anything else?

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

But that would require creativity, talent, and risk. Three things EA and DICE are vehemently opposed to.

I've been saying the same thing since they showed us the first Hollywood style action trailer. I've seen loads of people saying that this is going to completely change the way multiplayer FPSs will work but to me its always just looked like the same generic Battlefield I stopped playing when 2142 died.

Its just looking like every other Battlefield game, I mean did you see that guy running round shooting a machine gun everywhere and the tanks and planes look like they play exactly the same as tanks and planes in previous games.

They could have done something interesting with the WW1 setting, instead they just did the same thing they always do.

And how would they do that?

And planes here don't have Homing Missles and has a rear seat machine gunner.

And tanks will always be tanks no matter the era.

I would have liked to see the majority of guys using bolt action rifles, I would have liked machine guns to have to be set up before use (though I think needing a team to use them can be lost for game play reasons) rather than run and gun with them, I would like tanks to be slow moving behemoths that rightfully scare infantry when they see one approaching with maybe AT guns being a separate vehicle that you could set up in a location. I would like to see a big emphasis on artillery, the destructible scenery looks good and would be cool to shell. I'm hoping the gas stuff will be a game play mechanic and not just a scripted event in the campaign.

Than do this:

You purposely make tanks move slower.

You do make your teams use Bolt Action Rifles.

You do force them to use machine guns startionary and never use hip fire.

Don't use rockets from the planes if they are not accurate.

And mabye they will add artilary in the future DLC I mean BF3 had it.