830°

Battlefield 1 Weapon Classes Revealed

Battlefield 1’s World War I setting is awesome: It’s just the kind of change-up we need when we’re down with the Sci-fi shooter blues. But considering that the game’s set one hundred years ago, you might be wondering just how well the multiplayer weapon loadouts will work out. Well, fear no more.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
JoeMcCallister2919d ago

curious to know how weapon customization will pan out - being that loadouts are on a per-weapon basis and the customization is "more focused" I wonder if it's going to be focused as in limited, or focused as in more detailed.

Fist4achin2918d ago

I wondered that too since weapon s in WW1 were limited.

Kleptic2918d ago (Edited 2918d ago )

6 weapon classes doesn't point to a 'focused' anything, imo...They're notorious for weapon balance issues, and having way too many options in general (that aren't well realized)...WWI should be a rifle, automatic rifle, or more sinister mustard gas/flamethrower type options...there were not any form of traditional LMG's back then...they had some automatic rifles like the Lewis, and some nasty machine guns like the M1917 (water cooled, and in NO WAY a weapon that a single person carried around)...but typical infantry for all armies involved were basic rifles...

sullynathan2918d ago

getting disagrees because this is N4G. Look at how no one could refute your points but just hit downvote? They probably think you're a COD fanboy for criticizing DICE.

Kleptic2918d ago

ha oh well. I'm not worried about where others think my preferences come from...I'm worried about whether or not EA/Dice learned anything from BF3 and BF4...so far it appears doubtful.

kneon2918d ago

Having held an M1917 and M1919 I can confirm you aren't going to be running far carrying one of these 30lb behemoths. But of course that didn't seem to bother the COD developers.

All I need is a pistol and a rifle(scoped), you can keep the rest.

Kleptic2918d ago

^agreed...M1917's were like 50 lbs empty, over 100 w/ water and ammo...usually manned by a crew of 4 or 5...

Worried this game will give one to 32 players per side....

Utalkin2me2917d ago

@kneon

Some are in better shape then others. You mean you, yourself.

kneon2917d ago

@Utalkin2me

I don't care what shape you're in, these weapons just aren't suitable to use as a run and gun weapon as they are too often used in video games. They are large, heavy, unwieldy and have a lot of recoil. There is a reason they are mounted on a bipod/tripod, it's the only way to really use them with any effectiveness.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2917d ago
13lackDeath2917d ago (Edited 2917d ago )

Most likely "More Focused" and "More Detailed" refers to:

-Multiple Iron Sights
-Trigger Assembly
-Wood Type Used for the Stock or Rifle Receiver
-Ammunition Types
-Foliage Camo for the rifles
-Rifle cloth Wraps
-Flash hiders
-Barrel types/length
-Limited scopes
-Custom Grenades/Explosives
-Better Water Cooling for LMG's Upgrades

Basically very minor upgrades for the weapons, nothing serious. It is WWI after all. Although DICE can still make it fun and throw some modern day "improvisation" modifications that could have been made during the time period with the parts and tools at hand, but were not actually used historically.

-Highly Customizable Melee Weapons will most likely be a thing...Since the game is focusing a lot on Melee.

Just play "Heroes and Generals" and you'll see what DICE and EA will most likely do for BF1 in terms of weapons customization. (Yes, I know Heroes and Generals is set during WWII, not WWI).

JoeMcCallister2917d ago

Damn! Well thought out and solid reply - I'd actually welcome a lot of this stuff, part of me hopes that they also have their last DLC pack be just bonkers steampunk stuff that totally breaks it because by the time that comes out they're typically ramping up for whatever the next year's release will be anyway right?

2918d ago Replies(1)
detroitmademe2918d ago

We're good as long as the setting doesn't hold the gameplay back. Don't focus to much on being historically accurate. Remember we're playing a game first

Zorkaz2918d ago

Exactly. I mean in the end, no game is going to ressemble anything like real war in the first place. Soldiers documented the waiting factor being one of the worse things in the trenches, only to be broken up by short bursts of gunfire, bombs, and mustard gas. It was truly miserable, and that's not what they're gonna convey. I think the game's fine for people who understand how horrible it must have been, but it's gonna friekin' get on my nerves if I start hearing kids saying 'Hey wouldn't it be cool if I was in WW1' ...

sullynathan2918d ago

then there is no point in going to a WW1 setting just to ignore it from a gameplay perspective.

sullynathan2917d ago

Reason why the darkness is mediocre

DarthZoolu2918d ago

This is the dumbest idea ever this will be the first Battlefield game that I don't own.

InTheZoneAC2918d ago (Edited 2918d ago )

support weapon: pew
engineer weapon: pew
assault weapon: pew

upgrades include painting on camo during a match, adding a knife to the end of the barrel, cutting the iron sight so it's more open, larger pouches to carry more ammo. I'm also assuming(not trying to insult or offend, seriously) that if you want to play as a black character it will come from unlocking a gold battlepack and it will be an ultra rare drop.

you know the weapons are limited when a flamethrower becomes a viable option...

Show all comments (36)
70°

DICE Needs To Recapture The Magic Of Battlefield 1 In The Next Game

For DICE to succeed with its next game, it has to return to the roots of the franchise. Atmospheric map design, clear and defined class-based gameplay, attention to detail, and total chaos. Battlefield 1 feels like every rock, every glint on your sniper rifle, every falling brick from a collapsing church, has been painstakingly considered. So much care went into the design of the game, from its soundtrack to its costume department. To stand a chance alongside the behemoths of Treyarch and Infinity Ward, DICE needs to recapture what made their old games so brilliant, otherwise it’s all over.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
LordoftheCritics569d ago

"DICE Needs To Recapture The Magic Of Battlefield 3 In The Next Game"

/Fixed

...on a serious note, DICE needs to remove the Battlefield name.

isarai569d ago

Eh, bfbc2 was the peak for me, only ad dogfighting and the accommodations that come with it. Every BF after that was such an unsatisfying progression system for weapons and gear for the classes, 90% of the guns feel exactly the same when you unlock them, just felt boring in comparison. Not to mention the gimped destruction as the series progressed

Sciurus_vulgaris569d ago

I found Battlefield 1 to be overrated. The gameplay was simpler and less strategic than its predecessors. Battlefield 1 did have a woo-factor, but the gameplay got repetitive faster than Battlefield 4 in my opinion.

porkChop568d ago

If DICE needs to return to the roots of the franchise then why would they look at Battlefield 1? BF1 is overly simplified and streamlined. What DICE should focus on is Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2. Those two games were the pinnacle of the franchise.

TheEnigma313568d ago

BC2 was the best. they need to get back to that.

Show all comments (7)
150°

Battlefield 1, Hardline, BF4 Servers Are Being Taken Offline by Cheaters; EA Silent on Issue

Cheaters & hackers have been causing grief on Battlefield 1, Hardline & BF4 servers, with nonstop DDoS attacks among other things. Unfortunately, EA has remained silent about it.

-Foxtrot799d ago

Course they are silent, they are hoping people flock to 2042

gamesftw250798d ago

Maybe it was a inside job then haha.

jeromeface797d ago

wouldnt be the first time, titanfall 1+2 anyone?

PapaBop798d ago

Not even if they paid me.. EA always do this with old games with less money potential, if this was Ultimate Team, they'd address and sort it faster than stories could spread. Why invest time in their products when they will just dump it in the following years? Then again EA never could see the forest for the trees.

Inverno798d ago

I imagine after those games were given out for free a couple months back through Amazon, anything that makes people go to 2042 is a plus for them

XiNatsuDragnel799d ago

They want people to go on 2042. My theory

excaliburps798d ago

Nah. I think they can't do anything about it or they want to sink money into fixing it.

Pudge102888798d ago (Edited 798d ago )

EA owns all BF servers so yes, they can do something about it but they refuse to because they dont want ppl playing their old games instead of the new one. Its EA we’re talking about here

pr33k33798d ago

if this happened in 2042, they'd have something to say. which is weird, considering battlefield 1 has more players on steam right now.

Pudge102888798d ago

Its so obvious that EA is doing this or hired ppl to mess up the games so that we’d be forced to have just 1 Battlefield working.

FPS_D3TH798d ago

Honestly it’s probably the devs themselves. They did an update to bf4 way back that kinda made assault rifles doo doo in hopes that people would flock to BF1 cuz BF4 was too perfect

Show all comments (15)
140°

Xbox Store Weekly Game Sale Features Deep Discounts On Many X360 Games & DLCs

Daily Video Game writes: "This week’s weekly digital game sale on Xbox Store features deep discounts on many popular AAA Xbox 360 games that are backwards compatible for Xbox One and Xbox Series X/S, including Gears of War, Fable, Max Payne, Saints Row, Bully, Catherine, and lots more!"

Read Full Story >>
dailyvideogame.com
MadLad867d ago

Grabbed Panzer Dragoon, the Darkness, Conker Reloaded, Burnout Revenge, Time Splitters 2, Fight Night Champions, and Stuntman Ignition.

Essentially some of the classics that I can't get on PC, now that I have a Series S.