^Flagrantly disregarding history = a gravely insulting game that I personally want nothing to do with.
...I just had to get that off my chest. I really liked studying the first two world wars, but they put absolutely no thought into Battlefield 1. It's Battlefield 1942 with equipment that looks like it should be from WW1, but from what I've seen, they operate like their WW2 equivelants. And that's only one example. Even the story premise feels like its bending history like a horseshoe. It's disgusting, IMO. I was willing to ignore it like the rest of the post-Battlefield 2 part of the franchise, but this one just pushes my buttons...
@CanisWolfred I have listened to many, many stories by my Grandad and Great-Grandad about both World Wars, and have read various books that were either written during those wars or upon reflection decades later.
I never expected DICE/EA to do the Great War justice, nor did I expect the game to be historically accurate.
What I do know is that I never seem to enjoy any of these near-future or futuristic FPS whereas I love playing the likes of Call of Duty 1 & 2, Medal of Honour: Allied Assault and Return to Castle Wolfenstein (it's not exactly 'grounded', but it is a World War game nonetheless).
That's why I bought Battlefield 1. Not for its (nonexistent) accurately, but for being set in the era that I like.
Feels refreshing to play too, after a gap of eleven years since Call of Duty 2!
@Ralizah Honestly, Team-deathmatch with 1 life (I forget what they call that mode in CoD) would be perfect for a Revolutionary war-style game. Bow & arrow would be OP, though.
@Peek-a-boo I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I just can't get past that.I just feel like they should've done something different rather than bending a real life event over their knee. Why not pull an Ace Combat and do some sort of alternate history thing? That way they can use whatever they want. It just seems so cheap and lazy on top of being insulting. Even if it winds up playing well, so did 1942. The main problem with the newer ones seemed to revolve around an emphasis on modern urban combat and weaponry, which are arguably too effective to make a fair challenge in a game setting. I'm not sure how the class structure worked in Battlefield 4, though, nor Battlefield 1 for that matter.
I'm just saying, it feels disingenuous, and I don't put up with that in my games. If I don't feel like a company's being straight with me, then they aren't gonna see a dime from me. And especially in this case, I gotta call them out on it, because I know they've given me that feeling before with both Battlefield Hardline and the Star Wars Battlefront reboot. I know they can do better than this.
@CanisWolfred I don't have a single problem with why you won't have anything to do with Battlefield 1. At least you explained your reasons in a polite and formal manner, unlike some angry people on other message boards!
I really have to show you how visually impressive the game is though. There's no photo trickery - what you see is what you get:
@CanisWolfred Kill Confirmed is probably the closest to what you're saying, kill an enemy and they drop their dogtag. If you or a teammate collects the dogtag they're permanently dead for that round.
@Grumblevolcano I used to play a mode in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 where you had to eliminate the enemy team, and you only had one life. Or maybe it was in Black Ops. Either way, I wasn't sure if Battlefield had an equivelant. I think there are already entire games that are based around that concept - The ARMA series somes to mind, though they add a lot of extra complexities on top of that which make it kind of impenetrable. Maybe Rainbow Six Seige had a mode like that, too, but by the time I finaly got around to it, I couldn't find any matches and I wound up selling it. Online-only experience are too big a gamble sometimes.
I'm just saying: I think that in a game where you mostly have limited fireing speed and capacity, and with the field and team size of a Battlefield game, I could see having one life and having to utilize some guerilla tactics could make for an interesting competitive experience.
Which version are people going to buy? Really need some advice here because EA like the darlings they are have provided a ton of fantastic options for me to give them lots of money. Any thoughts?~
. The standard £50, where I miss out on all the season pass content, don't get that essential early access and have to put up with microtransactions.
. The £70 Early Enlisters Edition.............. whoopsie, what a waste of money that would've been eh?
. The £110 Deluxe Edition where I get all the content and give EA all of my money. But of course there's still those essential microtransactions, can't have EA making a loss on this game after all.
All answers are welcome, particularly after EA knowingly released an incomplete Battlefront game last year and later admitted it but remembered to point out how great they were(are) that we all ended up getting the content they scrapped for the main game anyway. So long as we bought the £40 season pass.
I always buy the 'bog standard' edition as the season pass will eventually (and inevitably) be on sale.
The Star Wars Battlefront season pass was 50% off on the PlayStation store during their Easter sale earlier in the year - just five and a bit months after the game had come out.
Not sure who would pay £110 for a single game though, season pass or nay...
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been more active, Square Enix announced the full KH collection will be playable on PS4 (HD 1.5 and 2.5 Remix are coming)
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been more active, Square Enix announced the full KH collection will be playable on PS4 (HD 1.5 and 2.5 Remix are coming).
I am currently playing Battlefield 1, Ashes of Ariandel (Dark Souls III), Rez Infinite on the PlayStation VR (it's not mind though...) and Titanfall 2 is dropping through my letterbox today.
World of Final Fantasy came out yesterday, and I'm still debating whether to buy Dragon Quest Builders.
If somebody told me that Titanfall 2 was going to have the best FPS campaign this year, I'd probably shake my head and say 'no way!'.
Imagine my surprise to find out that it is...
Only played the first hour and an half and what the game reminds me of the most, asides from the usual moment to moment gameplay, is Portal 2 and a slice of Half-Life.
Why?
Because the campaign in the first ninety minutes had at least four different variety of gameplay styles.
You solve a rather clever area-based puzzle, you play through a big and bombastic set piece showdown, you lead your character through a nice sequence in which the story (yes, there's actually a story!) develops as well as climbing/wall running from ground level to the top of a building, almost like a platformer game.
I was very much enjoying Battlefield 1 however, it has swiftly taken a back seat since Titanfall 2 dropped.
If somebody told me that Titanfall 2 was going to have the best FPS campaign this year, I'd probably shake my head and say 'no way!'.
Well, it's not like Battleborn is giving it much competition, much less Overwatch :/
Anyway, obviously it isn't coop, but can you give this rating in the for of Halo (if you like Halo)? That's my only real reference for FPS games (unless you count Metroid).
@Haru17 Well, I thought DOOM couldn't be touched this year for best FPS campaign but so far, Titanfall 2 is offering me lots of different styles of gameplay in its opening hour compared to the 'shoot first, ask later' gameplay of DOOM, which is not to say it is a negative point... just that they are (very!) different.
Battlefield 1 also offers a pretty spectacular campaign too.
I have already said my part about the Halo series in the Xbox thread more than once; I am much more fond of the odd numbered Halo games the best - one, three and five (the latter in multiplayer, not campaign), whereas two and four were pretty unremarkable to me.
The campaign in Halo 5: Guardians, outside of Sanghelios, was very forgettable. And having less than a quarter of the campaign as the Master Chief was blooming terrible too.
If you would like me to compare the campaign in Titanfall 2 to Halo 5, the former is a hellva lot better.
The opening hour alone, in Titanfall 2, is better than the entirety of Halo 5.
I don't think I will ever feel compelled to replay the campaign in Halo 5 again, whereas the multiplayer (for me) is the best in the series.
I honestly prefer 2's campaign to CE, sure 1+ levels were cut off at the end due to time constraints and hence the ending is weak but I really hate the CE level "The Library". That and "Cortana" (from Halo 3) to me are the worst missions pre-5.
@Grumblevolcano The Library is terrible on your own, but in co-operative, with one person using the shotgun to blow those larger flood creatures away and the other person uses the assault rifle to dispatch the little awkward buggers, it isn't so bad. Almost feels like a Halo take on DOOM!
Cortana (or the 'anus level' as it is better known...) is just terrible full stop. I really don't know how my friend and I got through that monstrosity in co-operative on legendary mode. I don't think I went back to that mission ever again!
I enjoyed parts of the Earth missions and I really liked being dropped onto another Halo (Delta Halo and Regret are brilliant - arguably the highlight of the game), but the rest of Halo 2 didn't do anything for me. And let's not forget one of the worse anticlimaxes in videogaming history, upon boarding the ark.
To be honest, I don't think there's anything from Halo 2 that is on par or betters the likes of 343 Guilty Sparks (feels like a foreboding horror game in parts), Assault On the Control Room, Two Betrayals and of course, the Silent Cartographer, the latter of which remains the high point of the whole series and continues to be the benchmark, so to speak.
Everybody has their own favourite Halo game however, for me, after feeling ridiculously excited about Halo 2 at the time, I remember feeling mostly disappointed about it.
I reckon I put a shy over 200 hours on Halo (mostly through co-operative mode with numerous friends back in the day) whereas Halo 2 didn't get even close to a quarter of that time.
Since Bungie left, with the exception of the great multiplayer in Halo 5, the series hasn't been the same.
@Peek-a-boo That makes more sense. I just wonder how the story in Titanfall 2 will pan out. The Halo Trilogy — even 2 — always had really strong endings. They gave you a sense of progression through either all the twists in Halo 1, allying with the elites in Halo 2, or journeying to the ends of the galaxy in Halo 3. Even ODST and Reach felt pretty weighty by the end.
Does it all feel militaristic, or is there more to it than that?
Forums
Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread
Posts 4,441 to 4,460 of 16,269
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic