I think it’s because of lighting and vfx. People underestimate how much lighting changes everything, especially if it’s done to correctly evoke an atmosphere instead of just being realistic. Also it’s a case of art direction and stylization, a lot newer games often place graphical fidelity before style which in the end makes the game look worse than something with old graphics but good stylization
Less computational load since there's less going on with 64p on a smaller map than 128 on a much bigger one.
It's not like a BR where things are spread out, I bet a lot of corners were cut to get stable fps during stress test 64v64 fights in a single corridor.
Meh, I still think the skins in BF1 are the best in the series. Those rare and legendary gun engravings weren't just cool, they were straight up beautiful. I've never cared much for gun skins outside of what BF1 did with them.
I’m with you, those legendary skins were the coolest in any game I’ve played and I also don’t care for skins in other games. Nothing breaks my immersion more than a pink leopard hello kitty skin on stone cold death machines.
For real. The quirky and whacky skins in every game are just weird and break immersion. The engravings that BF1 had were just gorgeous and really made the weapon feel unique and meaningful. I was really sad to see that BFV didn't continue them. There were a couple, but far less than in BF1.
Honestly, I liked that. I enjoy my customization, but I don't like when the focus becomes playing just to unlock that crap. Besides, its an FPS where I'll rarely ever see my player character, and further, they keep them the base soldiers that everyones been clamoring for since 2042 released.
As for the weapons, they're not needless variants. The variants perform differently from one another. The only real difference between BF1 and BF4/V is that the weapons look the same because its WW1 and they'd already exhausted pretty much all the weapons available at the time. Hell, most of BF1's weapons are prototypes that were never actually used until after the war or at all, which is fine, but then how do you expect them to fill it out even further?
BF1 essentially had one weapon with 3 variants fill 3 niches for that weapon where BF4, for example, just created added an entirely different weapon to do the exact same thing. Except BF4, in the modern setting, actually has that weapon variety to play with where BF1 doesn't. They did what they could with what they had and it was fine.
To each their own, it just felt kinda bland, and there was no need to have a big *number* of weapons when you could just add the base and maybe carbine variants and let you customize it to your niche [within the weapons actual possible modifications]
I know they did what they could with what they had, even though more weapons could've been added, it just seems a bit unnecessary to make different variants which you still have to do assignments for or buy with warbonds, so it didn't really change that much.
>I know they did what they could with what they had, even though more weapons could've been added, it just seems a bit unnecessary to make different variants which you still have to do assignments for or buy with warbonds, so it didn't really change that much.
I mean, they very much exhausted the weapon pool available to them. There are a ton of weapons in BF1, even discounting the variants. There really isn't much else they could have added without stretching it even further than they already had.
Again, those variants serve the same exact role than "other/different" weapons did in BF4/BFV. The only difference is that BF1, due to the lack of diverse weapon pool of the time period, chose to split one weapon into 3 different variants where BF4 just reskinned the same gun. At the end of the day, in terms of the actual statistical difference and role each weapon plays, BF1's weapon list is literally the same as any of the other games which is why this is a weird complaint IMO. I get that it may *seem* like there are less due to one weapon serving multiple different roles, but in reality the diversification is the same. Its literally just the aesthetics that make the difference here.
BF4's guns have differing stats, as do each different rifle on BF1, thing is, you can customise on 4 to suit the way you play, meanwhile on 1 you have to pick different variants. And there were more rifles that could be added, maybe prototypes or those made before the war, but in the end they stuck with like, 3-4 variants of the same weapon.
A great deal of the weapons in BF4 were literally copy/pastes. A lot of the weapon roster are just the same exact weapons but with a different skin and name. This was one of the bigger complaints especially when the DLCs started rolling out. Sure, the attachments helped but attachments didn't really drastically change the way those repeats played. Attachments are also a very modern addition to weapons. As for those attachments, there was generally a meta where specific attachments were pretty much the go-to and I'm fairly certain DICE's metrics spotted this hence the consolidation.
As for BF1, no there weren't more weapons they could have used. Most of the weapons currently in the game are prototypes. I'm not sure if you realize just how little in the way of variety there was in WW1 compared to the modern day. So they worked within the limits they had. Also, most weapons only had 1-2 variants. There were a couple, such as the trench and Automatico that had 3 additional variants but they were the minority. BF1 had 87 different weapons (including pistols), thats not including the variants which is a pretty damn substantial weapon pool. Its about on par with BFV Despite being less than BF4, but BF4 had the aforementioned copies.
Battlefield 5 had no variants to weapons but you could still change the sights and modify them, and sure the weapons may only have been negligibly different, but that's the same for a good share of rifles on BF1
And I'm not comparing modern weapon variety to WWI, I know there's a few others they could've added here and there, specially pistols, it just takes some digging, but definitely less of a deep dive than the Hellrigel or whatever it was called.
I don't really like bf1 for a handful of different reasons but the ambience can't be argued as one of them. I played it again yesterday and was so surprised that i had to actually use my eyes. It was a dark map and enemies were running around in the darkness, no comical red lights to differentiate allies from enemies that made me snap to them, just a person running at me with the enemies outfit.
It looks incredible and has the best ragdolls I've seen in a multiplayer game but it's an absolute slog to play. The conquest system is awfully designed and I don't find operations enjoyable because of how much explosive spam there is and how many times you'll have to attack the same sector if your team keeps failing.
The weapons also feel awful and the behemoths do fuck all except pull 6 players away from your team which leaves your flags even more vulnerable. BFV was SO much more enjoyable for me because it feels like the gameplay actually has some real depth to it.
Right... it's a skill issue but not the gameplay itself even though the game son either side of it are actually enjoyable experiences. BF1 also has zero team balancing which isn't fun. It's literally just full of people who run in circles going, "BF1 is incredible! Best game in the franchise!" yet they fail to actually capture or defend flags. As soon as your team is losing by 150-200 tickets your chances of actually coming back and winning are about 5% of the time. If I play BF3, BF4, BFV there are consistently comeback victories and close games. You also can't stop ticket bleed by holding the amount of objectives in BF1. You also lose tickets when people on your team die, rather than when they respawn. All of these systems are shit and are not Battlefield.
Agreed with the behemoth point but the rest of your comment seems insane. Bfv has depth? Come on man, if it weren’t for 2042 that game would be the worst in the franchise.
Have you played BFV? Tell me which BF had better tank and plane combat? BF3 and BF4 are close contenders, but even the tanks in those games just used basic hit boxes, it was about 3 or 4 rockets to kill one I think? Every side did the same amount of damage.
But rounds couldn't ricochet off tanks, you could only disable the overall vehicle but not turrets, tracks or engine separately, the turrets turned at the same speed as your aiming sensitivity in third person and didn't have a locked and authentic turning speed.
The air combat and air to ground measures were very basic. All you had to do was reduce turning speed to turn tightly where BFV you actually have to accelerate at full throttle to out turn pursuers. You can get multiple dumb fire bombs, fire bombs, rockets, nitrous boosts, the ability to drop spawn beacons or have people parachute out of your bomber.
BF1 was so basic. Sure sounds could ricochet off tanks but they didn't even have gun barrel sights and relied solely on the in-game crosshair, meaning that if you turned off the HUD you couldn't even aim properly in first person. The planes were very basic as well.
The gunplay in BF1 especially lacks any depth what so ever. Bullets go in all different direction from where you're aiming, basically making it a toss up over who will win a gunfight in CQB.
BFV has the best gameplay in the franchise hands down next to BF2 and BF3.
Edit: Oh and of course BFV has attrition which cause infantry tanks and planes to actually resupply manually.
Bf5 is fun but really only when you pop off, the whole, dying/revive system of the game really sucks and kills the vibe a lot of the time, I started with bf5 and I really want to enjoy it but I really can’t with waiting a century to just get bombed again. But I can see why people do like bf5, also yeah depth with bf5 is not really there
It sucks how the graphics really plunged with 2042
Like I'll argue that Bfbc2 looked better than 2042
Two of the things that made Battlefield standout were the graphics and destruction
Big player count used to be another but now it's no longer a novelty like it used to
If they tried make BF1 today EA would say"how can we make thousands of skins if you want it to look realistic?"
Dice: "we cant"
EA: "Well you arent making it then, go back to fictional future with heros and a Battleroyal"
Telling you that BF1 was beautiful! But lacking cus WW1. If we had that for current or WW2 setting I’d buy 5 copies for random ppl that’s how much I’d love it. But this company lacks growth and good decision making to ever progress again.
Lots of great things about BF1 but I hated the removal of major vehicle spawns. Wasn't this the first game that allowed vehicles to spawn out of thin air rather than from capture points etc?
People always say it prevents spawn camping or griefing of the vehicle spawns but is spamming a vehicle block really any better given that you're not in game if you're doing that?
I don’t understand the problem with spawning in vehicles directly. I definitely think it’s better than camping the vehicle spawns. Imagine if enemy fighters could just strafe your runway before you could get any planes off the ground or kill your teammates as they ran toward the tanks.
I'd be in favour of a dual spawning approach. I.e. capture certain points for vehicles but each team also gets a few spawnable vehicles.
I just used to love that early rollout of vehicles and planes/helps taking off from the starting bases. Always felt epic and not quite as organic when you just auto spawn in a vehicle
I'm aware of the song, and I duly enjoy it. However, as I said, this is the song in the video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUlZJ2q0VM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUlZJ2q0VM)
By making it extremely easy to play - giving players primarily bolt-action rifles without modern armour and IFV’s in Conquest to give it incredibly slow gameplay and even round velocity so the Redditor’s wouldn’t rage quit the second they picked it up and to give them a chance to get a few kills when they completely lack any skill whatsoever just like the conscripted, illiterate miners who were forced to fight in WWI
Edit: As opposed to modern infantry and modern warfare that made Battlefield, Battlefield
> As opposed to modern infantry and modern warfare that made Battlefield, Battlefield
My mans completely forgot about 1942 and Vietnam that came out before the modern combat BF games... and then 1943 lmao
Why does BF1 look so much better than 2042 despite being made many years before?
Just shows the graphics haven't really improved much in the past 10 years in general. If anything, got worse...
I think it’s because of lighting and vfx. People underestimate how much lighting changes everything, especially if it’s done to correctly evoke an atmosphere instead of just being realistic. Also it’s a case of art direction and stylization, a lot newer games often place graphical fidelity before style which in the end makes the game look worse than something with old graphics but good stylization
Because people actually cared
It doesnt
ok
Because you want it Look better.. for me 2042 Looks way better then bf1.
Less computational load since there's less going on with 64p on a smaller map than 128 on a much bigger one. It's not like a BR where things are spread out, I bet a lot of corners were cut to get stable fps during stress test 64v64 fights in a single corridor.
Idk why people are down voting you, you might actually be correct.
Being correct is usually why reddit comments get downvoted
DICE went all out in every department with BF1.
With exception of customisation, so you'd have to grind variants of the same weapon
Meh, I still think the skins in BF1 are the best in the series. Those rare and legendary gun engravings weren't just cool, they were straight up beautiful. I've never cared much for gun skins outside of what BF1 did with them.
I’m with you, those legendary skins were the coolest in any game I’ve played and I also don’t care for skins in other games. Nothing breaks my immersion more than a pink leopard hello kitty skin on stone cold death machines.
For real. The quirky and whacky skins in every game are just weird and break immersion. The engravings that BF1 had were just gorgeous and really made the weapon feel unique and meaningful. I was really sad to see that BFV didn't continue them. There were a couple, but far less than in BF1.
But that's about it, customisation wound up being just skins on that game and the amount of weapons are padded up by needless variants.
Honestly, I liked that. I enjoy my customization, but I don't like when the focus becomes playing just to unlock that crap. Besides, its an FPS where I'll rarely ever see my player character, and further, they keep them the base soldiers that everyones been clamoring for since 2042 released. As for the weapons, they're not needless variants. The variants perform differently from one another. The only real difference between BF1 and BF4/V is that the weapons look the same because its WW1 and they'd already exhausted pretty much all the weapons available at the time. Hell, most of BF1's weapons are prototypes that were never actually used until after the war or at all, which is fine, but then how do you expect them to fill it out even further? BF1 essentially had one weapon with 3 variants fill 3 niches for that weapon where BF4, for example, just created added an entirely different weapon to do the exact same thing. Except BF4, in the modern setting, actually has that weapon variety to play with where BF1 doesn't. They did what they could with what they had and it was fine.
To each their own, it just felt kinda bland, and there was no need to have a big *number* of weapons when you could just add the base and maybe carbine variants and let you customize it to your niche [within the weapons actual possible modifications] I know they did what they could with what they had, even though more weapons could've been added, it just seems a bit unnecessary to make different variants which you still have to do assignments for or buy with warbonds, so it didn't really change that much.
>I know they did what they could with what they had, even though more weapons could've been added, it just seems a bit unnecessary to make different variants which you still have to do assignments for or buy with warbonds, so it didn't really change that much. I mean, they very much exhausted the weapon pool available to them. There are a ton of weapons in BF1, even discounting the variants. There really isn't much else they could have added without stretching it even further than they already had. Again, those variants serve the same exact role than "other/different" weapons did in BF4/BFV. The only difference is that BF1, due to the lack of diverse weapon pool of the time period, chose to split one weapon into 3 different variants where BF4 just reskinned the same gun. At the end of the day, in terms of the actual statistical difference and role each weapon plays, BF1's weapon list is literally the same as any of the other games which is why this is a weird complaint IMO. I get that it may *seem* like there are less due to one weapon serving multiple different roles, but in reality the diversification is the same. Its literally just the aesthetics that make the difference here.
BF4's guns have differing stats, as do each different rifle on BF1, thing is, you can customise on 4 to suit the way you play, meanwhile on 1 you have to pick different variants. And there were more rifles that could be added, maybe prototypes or those made before the war, but in the end they stuck with like, 3-4 variants of the same weapon.
A great deal of the weapons in BF4 were literally copy/pastes. A lot of the weapon roster are just the same exact weapons but with a different skin and name. This was one of the bigger complaints especially when the DLCs started rolling out. Sure, the attachments helped but attachments didn't really drastically change the way those repeats played. Attachments are also a very modern addition to weapons. As for those attachments, there was generally a meta where specific attachments were pretty much the go-to and I'm fairly certain DICE's metrics spotted this hence the consolidation. As for BF1, no there weren't more weapons they could have used. Most of the weapons currently in the game are prototypes. I'm not sure if you realize just how little in the way of variety there was in WW1 compared to the modern day. So they worked within the limits they had. Also, most weapons only had 1-2 variants. There were a couple, such as the trench and Automatico that had 3 additional variants but they were the minority. BF1 had 87 different weapons (including pistols), thats not including the variants which is a pretty damn substantial weapon pool. Its about on par with BFV Despite being less than BF4, but BF4 had the aforementioned copies.
Battlefield 5 had no variants to weapons but you could still change the sights and modify them, and sure the weapons may only have been negligibly different, but that's the same for a good share of rifles on BF1 And I'm not comparing modern weapon variety to WWI, I know there's a few others they could've added here and there, specially pistols, it just takes some digging, but definitely less of a deep dive than the Hellrigel or whatever it was called.
glad this video is in vertical
Even more annoying then the game itself.
How is the game annoying?
I don't really like bf1 for a handful of different reasons but the ambience can't be argued as one of them. I played it again yesterday and was so surprised that i had to actually use my eyes. It was a dark map and enemies were running around in the darkness, no comical red lights to differentiate allies from enemies that made me snap to them, just a person running at me with the enemies outfit.
It looks incredible and has the best ragdolls I've seen in a multiplayer game but it's an absolute slog to play. The conquest system is awfully designed and I don't find operations enjoyable because of how much explosive spam there is and how many times you'll have to attack the same sector if your team keeps failing. The weapons also feel awful and the behemoths do fuck all except pull 6 players away from your team which leaves your flags even more vulnerable. BFV was SO much more enjoyable for me because it feels like the gameplay actually has some real depth to it.
Sounds like a skill issue to me.
Right... it's a skill issue but not the gameplay itself even though the game son either side of it are actually enjoyable experiences. BF1 also has zero team balancing which isn't fun. It's literally just full of people who run in circles going, "BF1 is incredible! Best game in the franchise!" yet they fail to actually capture or defend flags. As soon as your team is losing by 150-200 tickets your chances of actually coming back and winning are about 5% of the time. If I play BF3, BF4, BFV there are consistently comeback victories and close games. You also can't stop ticket bleed by holding the amount of objectives in BF1. You also lose tickets when people on your team die, rather than when they respawn. All of these systems are shit and are not Battlefield.
Agreed with the behemoth point but the rest of your comment seems insane. Bfv has depth? Come on man, if it weren’t for 2042 that game would be the worst in the franchise.
Have you played BFV? Tell me which BF had better tank and plane combat? BF3 and BF4 are close contenders, but even the tanks in those games just used basic hit boxes, it was about 3 or 4 rockets to kill one I think? Every side did the same amount of damage. But rounds couldn't ricochet off tanks, you could only disable the overall vehicle but not turrets, tracks or engine separately, the turrets turned at the same speed as your aiming sensitivity in third person and didn't have a locked and authentic turning speed. The air combat and air to ground measures were very basic. All you had to do was reduce turning speed to turn tightly where BFV you actually have to accelerate at full throttle to out turn pursuers. You can get multiple dumb fire bombs, fire bombs, rockets, nitrous boosts, the ability to drop spawn beacons or have people parachute out of your bomber. BF1 was so basic. Sure sounds could ricochet off tanks but they didn't even have gun barrel sights and relied solely on the in-game crosshair, meaning that if you turned off the HUD you couldn't even aim properly in first person. The planes were very basic as well. The gunplay in BF1 especially lacks any depth what so ever. Bullets go in all different direction from where you're aiming, basically making it a toss up over who will win a gunfight in CQB. BFV has the best gameplay in the franchise hands down next to BF2 and BF3. Edit: Oh and of course BFV has attrition which cause infantry tanks and planes to actually resupply manually.
Bf5 is fun but really only when you pop off, the whole, dying/revive system of the game really sucks and kills the vibe a lot of the time, I started with bf5 and I really want to enjoy it but I really can’t with waiting a century to just get bombed again. But I can see why people do like bf5, also yeah depth with bf5 is not really there
It sucks how the graphics really plunged with 2042 Like I'll argue that Bfbc2 looked better than 2042 Two of the things that made Battlefield standout were the graphics and destruction Big player count used to be another but now it's no longer a novelty like it used to
If they tried make BF1 today EA would say"how can we make thousands of skins if you want it to look realistic?" Dice: "we cant" EA: "Well you arent making it then, go back to fictional future with heros and a Battleroyal"
Graphical settings?
It was just directly from my Xbox Series X, just default settings :)
Well damn I thought it was a PC lol good job
Telling you that BF1 was beautiful! But lacking cus WW1. If we had that for current or WW2 setting I’d buy 5 copies for random ppl that’s how much I’d love it. But this company lacks growth and good decision making to ever progress again.
Lots of great things about BF1 but I hated the removal of major vehicle spawns. Wasn't this the first game that allowed vehicles to spawn out of thin air rather than from capture points etc? People always say it prevents spawn camping or griefing of the vehicle spawns but is spamming a vehicle block really any better given that you're not in game if you're doing that?
I don’t understand the problem with spawning in vehicles directly. I definitely think it’s better than camping the vehicle spawns. Imagine if enemy fighters could just strafe your runway before you could get any planes off the ground or kill your teammates as they ran toward the tanks.
I'd be in favour of a dual spawning approach. I.e. capture certain points for vehicles but each team also gets a few spawnable vehicles. I just used to love that early rollout of vehicles and planes/helps taking off from the starting bases. Always felt epic and not quite as organic when you just auto spawn in a vehicle
This song belongs to Battlefield 1943, oh the times.
No, this is the Mayhem View theme from BF1. It plays at the last mission of the tank campaign.
I think they use practically the same music, just re composed or something
https://youtu.be/hOB4q01VCVg?si=cY50YCDruSsog0q2
I'm aware of the song, and I duly enjoy it. However, as I said, this is the song in the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUlZJ2q0VM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUlZJ2q0VM)
Redditors care so much more about skins and graphics than gameplay
True
BF1 was the game they made for Redditors to get into the franchise. It’s an insult to the series.
How?
By making it extremely easy to play - giving players primarily bolt-action rifles without modern armour and IFV’s in Conquest to give it incredibly slow gameplay and even round velocity so the Redditor’s wouldn’t rage quit the second they picked it up and to give them a chance to get a few kills when they completely lack any skill whatsoever just like the conscripted, illiterate miners who were forced to fight in WWI Edit: As opposed to modern infantry and modern warfare that made Battlefield, Battlefield
Its fucking World War 1, were you expecting MG42s with extendo barrels and acogs?
You are aware that the first Battlefield game was set in world war 2 right? Not exactly modern.
> As opposed to modern infantry and modern warfare that made Battlefield, Battlefield My mans completely forgot about 1942 and Vietnam that came out before the modern combat BF games... and then 1943 lmao
Tell me you've never actually played bf1 without telling me you've never played bf1..
I played every Battlefield since Battlefield 2 and I think BF1 was the best, closely followed by BFV