Battlefield 1 will only have NINE (9) maps at launch and SIX (6) gamemodes

I pre-ordered it already did I make a mistake

>no multiple galaxies

how original

6 game modes means that the community isn't congregatinng solely to conquest just to find a game. BF4 had WAY too many playlists and the community couldn't support any of them. To this day I have rarely(some of them never) seen a game on most playlists.
I don't see the problem there, but 9 maps is very little.
I was never going to buy it though because of WEWUZ
youtube.com/watch?v=ZCPX7bgOf-M

I better play cheap shooters like Project Reality, Squad, ARMA III. Fuck DICe.FUCK EA

6 game modes is already too many

Yeah there's no point in having fucking chainlink mode playlists or whatever because there's never going to be anyone in there. I'd like to try other modes, but really, when I get the itch to play Battlefield it's because I actually have the itch to play conquest. They even fucked that up though with the new rules.
go for it

Not only that, but the representaion of less than 10% of American's in the US in the early 20th century.
It's not even an an accurate portrayal of Americans, but I suppose it's probably an even bigger insult to Germany who apparently had 4/5 nigs in their military.

I think they're reverting back to the normal conquest(nu-conquest from BF3/4) rules after feedback from the beta.
I agree, there really should be 4 at the very most, preferable even just 3.(hardcore being just a condition people can add to their servers)
Conquest
Rush
(Insert)
(Insert)

The other problem I have with BF4 is that there aren't enough servers in use with All maps+DLC in the mix.
You have these servers with huge queues for no reason when there are empty servers available.

Why would anyone buy it after the underwhelming beta?

Because diversity is our strength.

>tfw no kangz spaceship combat

god the beta was so fucking miserable
this is the most painfully unfun game i have ever played

and 1 war

>half of the maps are in France.
>No French army, instead its UK every where

I pre-ordered the digital deluxe, it came with 3 day early access even though i'll be playing a week later anyways lmao. I also suck at these games.

See you in game

Yet Overwatch has 1 game mode and half a map and you faggots won't shut the fuck up about it

If it was so over the top ridiculous that it couldn't be accused of anything other than revisionist history, I'd play it.
I'd play a WEWUZ game.

Bf 3 was good tho and maps weren't half assed

>There are people who still give EA monetary support

You are a blight on humanity.

Overwatch had fewer yet you fucks shill it like no tomorrow

>Bf 3 was good tho and maps weren't half assed
BF3 had only 3 decent maps.

?
And what's the problem here?

>It will still sell 10 million copies before the end of the year

Overwatch sold 10 million with 1 game mode

I know it was a marketing beta
but shit i was actually going to buy that heap of shit before i got to try it
it's easily the worst game i have ever played
i'm astonished by just how bad they did

All publicity is good publicity
Fuck off shill

Yea, fuck me for enjoying video games.

No if you liked the beta

I pre-ordered deluxe

OW is $40 with all further content additions being free. Don't forget to preorder your $120 digital deluxe cuck edition of BF1.

All of the CoD maps combined doesn't even equal the size of one BF map.

...of the apes

>game with premium costs THREE times more
Huh, I wonder where all maps go.

>NINE (9)
>SIX (6)
What is this meme?

Maybe because CoD maps have at least a bit of design in em instead of MUH FLAT DESERT TEXTURE FOR 10 SQUARE MILES with two copypasted huts on capture spots?

I'll always maintain that while environment destruction is cool, it's not good in its current state. I think they've been increasing the toughness of environment objects since Bad Company, which is a good thing. A concrete wall should take a beating before crumbling.

If you're playing a 30m+ conquest match, after a short while nearly every building is going to be demolished leaving giant open no mans land killing fields in a game where being 1 shotted is common.

ITT people who have never played battlefield games talking about battlefield games

>BF3 had good maps
BF3's maps were all generally terrible.
The maps that were actually large had all the objectives clustered into one place and this meant that 80% of the map went unused.

>2004+12
>still no military fps with maps as big as joint ops
>still no military fps with as many players per map

>you can't say this game is bad because you haven't played the others

Overwatch is shit, but it gets a free pass because it's something fresh, whereas Battlefield is now a yearly release series that constantly rehashes gameplay and adds only new skins.

>few maps but software house says there will be more for free
>few maps but there will be more at ~5$/map

I really can't see why user

>he's defending CoD in 2016
>but it's fine because $80 is reasonable for a PC port of an earlier title
HOLY SHIT

I'm very surprised that anyone on Cred Forums actually cares about the fucking yearly DICE pile of shit.

Shame on all of you.

>big maps
>good in any way

I bet you're one of those NEET arma/dayz faggots that loves wasting 30 minutes between engagements.

Underage pls go

arma is shit and i never played day z but it looks like shit

joint ops was good and you could spawn close to the front, but you wouldn't know that cause you never played it and are probably a youngfag too

>He fell for the cod is bad meme
>>But muh battlefield is gooder!1!1!1!
>It's realistic EVEN THO ITS NOT AT ALL REALISTIC

You can say whatever you want, but you opinions are instantly invalid.

I've been playing battlefield since 1942 came out. Forgotten Hope mod for 1942 was the pinnacle of the battlefield ww2 experience.

Battlefield 2 was equal in my eyes in greatness and expertly advanced from the Desert Combat mod for 1942, obviously since it was the same guys who made the mod who made BF2 but were ultimately betrayed after BF2s release.

The BF2 expansions were quite good as well with very fun maps & new ways to play.

BF2142 was great but there was a noticeably smaller pool of vehicles. Gibraltar was always fun.

BC Bad company was on a new engine and had new features like enviro destruction. Graphics & sound quality in particular were ramped up x1000 (best sound design in any game or movie I've ever heard) which was nice. However the gameplay was noticeably heading towards run & gun CoD gameplay.

Since then it has become more run-and-gun-one-man-army gameplay and less about teamwork. About the only teamwork element left is zerging bodies.

Faster paced doesn't always mean better, and BF2s pacing seemed in a good middle ground between fast & tactical.

>everyone being one shotted

Battlefield's biggest problem since 3 has been that they are still trying to be objective based games, but your character dies in a fraction of a second incoming fire. This effectively punishes playing the objectives, since you'll die on the way there, and encourages staying where you are and waiting for someone to come to you.
The games have become twitch shooters in that sense where you don't have to aim any longer than 1/2 a second to kill someone at full health so battles usually come down to who sees who first.
In Bad Company(which had it's own flaws) you had enough health to react to incoming fire and at least find cover. It just doesn't happen in the new ones.

I am not defending anything, your arguments just sound retarded.

Non of these games are worth buying this year. CoD from worst dev and nigga simulator, what a choice.

I'm 30 years old. I was too busy not playing shit games like joint ops in 2004.

>it's something fresh
Literally just a worse dirty bomb except it has disgusting waifus so people loved it

As somebody who's been around since BF1942 as well, I can agree with all this.

Personally, after playing BF1's beta, I think they're taking BF in a better direction. No more levelution means destruction is more context sensitive. The class restructuring is better, I think, and encourages team work and a little less one man army shit. The air vehicles felt weighty and fun again. The sound design was pretty damn good and the graphics were great too, even though that's just icing on the cake.

Yeah its another yearly release game, but at least there are some pluses. I'll probably play BF1 for a few months and enjoy it.

>argument

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But that's fine, CSGO has like 3 gamemodes (only one of which gets played) and even fewer viable maps (d2, nuke, inferno, cache, cbble....)

And you aspies suck the sweat off Valves balls daily.

Don't even get me started on Overwatch, that has even less content.

That being said, multiplayer fps are the lowest tier of videogames possible and if you play them you should fuck off.

M8. It literally plays just like every other battlefield

They been releasing their new games with only 9 maps since BF3 now.

And for the gamemodes, you only need 2 gamemodes in BF, Conquest and Rush.

In fact, there's only 3 gamemodes if you look at it closely.

Conquest (Normal Conquest, Small Conquest, Multi conquest)
Rush (Normal Rush, Rush with Pigeons)
Deathmatch

But respawn time is like 3 seconds. There's nothing that really punishes the team or the player for being shit. And the gameplay is way too fast. It felt like an ADHD simulator. Even the weapon handling is fast.

Are all 9 maps playable in all 6 gamemodes?

It's double the amount of Overwatch gamemodes.

Cred Forums will love this game, then.

Already covered the fact that it's shit. It's undeniably fresh, which is why everyone is playing it.

how the fuck is that not enough, kill yourself nigger

> multiplayer fps are the lowest tier of videogames possible and if you play them you should fuck off.

Whoops, you misspelled JRPG.

>B-BUT [completely unrelated game]

Battlefront 2 has over 25 maps, what's your fucking excuse

Fuck I wish everyone would stop buying EA. They would monopolize the industry if they could.

Meant for

>people comparing it to overwatch to defend it

But overwatch is shit too

Respawn time on most servers is about 10 seconds.
It should be fast, guns don't have to feel weighty because it's a video game.
BF has never been a realistic series, not comically unrealistic, but there are things that coul be adjusted to make it more interesting overall.
For instance, a little more health for all players adds a new dynamic to battles rather than simply player A sees player B first on his way to the objective and mows him down. With more health, now player B has the decision to make whether to head for cover and outmanuever(safer) or to make a stand there and hope to outshoot his opponent(risky).
In its current state, these kinds of battles don't happen because death is almost immediate(that's partly to blame on the client side Hitreg).

It's okay for BF to be the arcade shooter it always has been.

k

>SIX (6) gamemodes

Conquest
Conquest Large
Rush
Team Deathmatch
Squad Deathmatch
???

>SIX (6) gamemodes
Does anyone actually care about any BF mode besides Conquest and Rush?

>replaced France and Russia by Harlem fighters and Bedouins for the sake of diversity

Anyone who respects history just a little bit won't buy this shit, big franchise or not

Why does this matter?

Most people only play conquest on the best map.