This is how you know they only have the USA in for money. I get the decision, but from a historical standpoint it rubs me the complete wrong way.

Just seems odd one of the biggest factions is DLC. That'd be like making Britain DLC in a WW2 game.

Still, we all get to bayonet some turkroach scum in a week's time so it's all good e.e

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on August 24, 2016, 07:29:00 PM

Quote from: Luciana on August 24, 2016, 07:20:39 PM

Just seems odd one of the biggest factions is DLC. That'd be like making Britain DLC in a WW2 game.

Or rather ignore us completely.

That too. Just wouldn't make sense.

Indeed

Well that was just focused on the American and Eastern Front (which rarely, if ever, gets covered). I'm talking about one that takes a bunch of factions in a world wide kinda view like CoD 2 or in this case, Battlefield 1.

Yeah a better comparison would be company of heroes

Bongs were DLC for that as I recall

Still I think they will be having as many factions represented in BF1 as they can, budget constraints are obviously going to limit the number they can include with the basegame

British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Ottoman, and American
Then add the frogs and the russkies and you have pretty much all of the major players covered

Plus you have the customisation for the soldiers which I've spotted bits and bobs for but that seems to allow you to cover British Empire nations/soldiers too (Sikhs for example). If anyone can complain about being forgotten in the history books it's the ~million indian subcontinent auxilliaries that fought for the empire and they rarely even get mentioned.

Quote from: Luciana on August 24, 2016, 07:36:50 PM

Well that was just focused on the American and Eastern Front (which rarely, if ever, gets covered). I'm talking about one that takes a bunch of factions in a world wide kinda view like CoD 2 or in this case, Battlefield 1.

Yeah a better comparison would be company of heroes

Bongs were DLC for that as I recall

Still I think they will be having as many factions represented in BF1 as they can, budget constraints are obviously going to limit the number they can include with the basegame

British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Ottoman, and American
Then add the frogs and the russkies and you have pretty much all of the major players covered

Plus you have the customisation for the soldiers which I've spotted bits and bobs for but that seems to allow you to cover British Empire nations/soldiers too (Sikhs for example). If anyone can complain about being forgotten in the history books it's the ~million indian subcontinent auxilliaries that fought for the empire and they rarely even get mentioned.

Yeah I like that they're covering them all. I just think it'd have been better if the USA was DLC and France wasn't. But muh freedom and money.

it's almost as if it costs money to make a video game and you need to make a profit to expand your business or something

No shit, but the French should have probably been in the base game and not the US seeing as the US only came in at the last 2 years. That's all I'm saying. I guess the US as DLC would make a lot of people complain? Just from a historical perspective, it's an odd choice to make. But from a business one since the main buyers are people from NA, I can understand why.

That aside, odds are the whole DLC/season pass will be ridiculously priced, unless they give out a bunch of free stuff like they did with BF4 (though I think that was more towards the end of its lifespan) and a teeny bit of Battlefront.

Edit: I guess if they're doing the campaign as part of the US (and British I assume since they were in the trailer) it makes a lot more sense. Not like it really matters in the MP aside from a few unique things here or there. No one cares about the looks.

No I think they should be in it. I just find odd that one of the biggest factors in the war is DLC is all. My argument would be the US came in at the last two years so I'd easily see them being tied off as the DLC since there were a shit ton more battles to go from before they jumped in, as opposed to after. I'm not really complaining (I guess I am, but I'm not hating on them for it) since it's DICE/EA, and no some Euro company doing it. I can easily see why they make the US already main installments.

Also, what do you mean kinda playing as them?

No I think they should be in it. I just find odd that one of the biggest factors in the war is DLC is all. My argument would be the US came in at the last two years so I'd easily see them being tied off as the DLC since there were a shit ton more battles to go from before they jumped in, as opposed to after. I'm not really complaining (I guess I am, but I'm not hating on them for it) since it's DICE/EA, and no some Euro company doing it. I can easily see why they make the US already main installments.

Also, what do you mean kinda playing as them?

If you switched the US and France you'd still be leaving one of the biggest factors of the war out as DLC. Games cost time and money to make and at some point a product needs to be shipped. It makes more sense to cater to your majority audience in your base game than it does to sell to a minority audience as well so you need to maximize profit. This is why you're seeing the US and UK being featured instead of France and Russia.

DICE is a Swedish company.

I mean what I said. The Harlem Hellfighters were placed under the command of the French military during WW1. They were even awarded French medals and distinctions for their service to them. When playing as the US in BF1 you will not be under the command of the American military.

If you switched the US and France you'd still be leaving one of the biggest factors of the war out as DLC.[/quote]You're already doing that though by not including France right away is what I'm saying. They did far more in WW1 than the US ever did.

Games cost time and money to make and at some point a product needs to be shipped. It makes more sense to cater to your majority audience in your base game than it does to sell to a minority audience as well so you need to maximize profit. This is why you're seeing the US and UK being featured instead of France and Russia.

Fair point. Like I said, makes sense to include the faction the majority of your users are buying.

DICE is a Swedish company.

You're right. Completely forgot about that. EA being the American publisher though, and I'm sure a lot of say on things. Doesn't really matter.

I mean what I said. The Harlem Hellfighters were placed under the command of the French military during WW1. They were even awarded French medals and distinctions for their service to them. When playing as the US in BF1 you will not be under the command of the American military.

Oh that's rather interesting. When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. Actually as I was typing that up, I was thinking of Valiant Hearts which as Emile the American coming to fight under the French since the US was still neutral. That makes a lot more sense and allows us to see the campaign (and battles) much earlier with US factions. It's also an all black regiment, so if they do go all out with that, it'd be interesting.

Touche. And now I must sleep.

Quote from: Verbatim on August 24, 2016, 11:00:56 PM

Quote from: LC on August 24, 2016, 10:46:32 PM

I'm not seeing as how the season pass is ridiculously priced either. If we use BF3 and 4 as an example they released like 5 paid packs which breaks down to $10 per dlc pack.

that's fucking CRAZY

I think a $50 season pass is too much for me. I wait till things go on sale.

The point was that's fairly standard pricing for DLC packs. It's really nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote from: LC on August 24, 2016, 10:46:32 PM

I'm not seeing as how the season pass is ridiculously priced either. If we use BF3 and 4 as an example they released like 5 paid packs which breaks down to $10 per dlc pack.

that's fucking CRAZY

Content-wise Battlefield Premium is actually the one season pass thing that I don't mind paying for. On top of getting the map packs/weapons cheaper (the primary reason you would buy it) they added so many extra things for the BF4 premium players that they really didn't have to.

Stuff like the phantom program meta-game stands out above the extra cosmetic stuff they gave out.

£40/$50 is expensive but I've never felt like I wasted my money buying premium for BF3 and BF4 (Hardline would have been another story, that would have been a waste seeing as the game all but died 6 months post-launch) so I'm expecting a pretty good value for money out of this one.

After Titanfall being disappointing (Written before the second tech test), I'm hoping Battlefield is good. I don't want the only game I get this year to be a remaster.

From what I've seen (which is all of the gameplay from E3/Alpha/Gamescom that I can find) the only thing that gives me mild concern about the game is going to be SMG balance.

The netcode for Battlefront was fine, BF4's current code is good too so I think they've gotten good in that department. Premium content looks standard fare. Tanks look strong, Planes look balanced, Infantry play appears to be as visceral as they can make it (that sound tho). Behemoths can be countered with a bit of thinking and so it boils down to getting the weapon balance right as the last remaining concern.

I've seen that SMG turn up a lot and there was a point in BF4 where SMGs were broken as per most FPS games (High speed, High ROF, High Damage, '''''''''''''short''''''''''' range etc) but they've sorted that out now too.

The beta is obviously gonna be the way to find out how the game feels but I've got high hopes from what I've seen so far.

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on August 25, 2016, 06:43:43 AM

Quote from: BaconShelf on August 25, 2016, 06:37:57 AM

After Titanfall being disappointing (Written before the second tech test), I'm hoping Battlefield is good. I don't want the only game I get this year to be a remaster.

From what I've seen (which is all of the gameplay from E3/Alpha/Gamescom that I can find) the only thing that gives me mild concern about the game is going to be SMG balance.

I've seen that SMG turn up a lot and there was a point in BF4 where SMGs were broken as per most FPS games (High speed, High ROF, High Damage, '''''''''''''short''''''''''' range etc) but they've sorted that out now too.

That has nothing on the absolutely broken state titanfall 2's weapons are in. One SMG has literaly no hipfire spread whatsoever and the other is a double barrel SMG that kills in 2 hits. It makes me long to go back to Battlefeild (M16A)3
This shit is on par with the pre patch M26 Dart

Yeah I've seen some footage of it, it's absolutely retarded.

I hope they sort their shit because I was kinda looking forwards to having a better titanfall game come out rather than another wallrunning dogshite call of duty clone.

I miss the M26 Dart though, that shit was hilarious. The weapon balance for BF3 at launch was unbelievably atrocious, USAS-12, Famas, Caged-Sun attachment, M26 Dart/G3a3 etc
Shame they never really fixed the M16A3 but they did at least sort their shit out in the end.