So I finally played battlefield 1, which feels odd to say, and not just because of the number 1 in the title. It’S strange because not long ago, battlefield was a franchise that seemed destined to fall and fast Edell. Field 4 is disastrous. Lots cost Electronic Arts millions of dollars in decline, sales compared to its predecessor and hardline, flew under the radar, with a setting that many felt was incompatible with the war themed multiplayer franchise, similar to how Call of Duty’s seemed forever trapped in world war ii in 2006. Not if you’ll seem to find itself stuck in modern times ever since its breakout hit on pc, but the flagging sales left EA open the dice pitching their idea for a game set in world war 1 and the reaction from fans upon its announcement was staggering. What EA and gamers presumed to be a setting that just wouldn’t work for either gameplay or the marketplace, turned out to be the adrenalin shot that prevented its death and that’s what battlefield 1 is a return to form the reset button, the chance for dice to tighten Their gameplay, instead of bloating it with pounds and pounds of feature creep. I remained a fan of this franchise since 2005, even enjoying hardlines multiplayer, but I never denied that the franchise stopped pushing boundaries after Bad Company 2. Battlefield 1 is easily the highest quality game. Since that installment, but not by copying that game, rather it brings back coveted twos, focused features with reinforced speed. This game has a flow to it that is unrivaled by any other war themed shooter on the market. The infinite sprint ensures that charges with squad mates are exhilarating, which is only encouraged by the bayonet. It’S without a doubt, one of the most satisfying ways to kill on a game and never seems to get old, but the fluidity isn’t just about sprinting. It’S the way you transition from prone to a run, the way your character hops into vehicles or my personal favorite bolting over obstacles, including walls that are just above your character’s height. It’S painful to go into other shooters afterwards, where your character is unable to bypass a 3-foot high wall where it to have the Crouch run from right Orchestra. This game’s movement system would be perfection, but that word should be saved for the presentation not including framerate drops in the most chaotic of operations. This game is one of the most beautiful I’ve seen it’s a technical marvel with motion, backdrops effects and colors that are stunning. In any and and it’s artistically spot-on, every piece, every detail for the guns, environments and soldiers is laser precise. When everything is combined, the visual spectacle is often more spectacular than single-player games, which is what battlefield is about bring in that sense of scale, epicness and chaos. To a multiplayer setting to bring a toy soldiers set to life, but while the authenticity and accuracy is a thing of beauty, there’s no avoiding the obvious. This is a world war two game through and through, not merely because there’s more automatics and bolt actions, but also in its level design, maps and battlefields, one or, for the most part, a combination of that company. Twos frontline assaults for rush and battlefield 3 and fours conquest maps, though it definitely leans closer to bad company with smaller capture zones that don’t require you to play, hide and seek with the enemy for conquest players. This is a drag, but while I’ve always enjoyed the mode as it’s a battlefield staple the most fun I’ve had was since the introduction of rush due to its focus. That ensures a constant battle that never has any tedious interludes and, with a renewed focus on rush and its grandeur variant operations. The best Maps have a strong sense of variety in progression. It really captures the atmosphere continually pushing against the enemy when your destination is so much different visually and in gameplay compared to your opening assault, but there are some bad apples with the most rotten of all being on the map Montegrappa to be fair. Most of it is a good map, but there are zones that just completely ruin it. The civically the assault zones, where one or more telegram or capture zones only has two entrances, both of which are narrow, hallways any semblance of tactics, flanking or skill devolved into a pissing contest between campers and bull rushers. Your only option is to charge in with a group big enough that will overwhelm the defenders and unless two squads are coordinating, it’s nearly impossible operation, metro, dem event, peak and Hurt. Locker were also terrible and anything beyond 24 players, but at least they function at some player count. These zones in Montegrappa are just cancerous whether the lobby is 24 or 64 players. Thankfully, most of the levels understand what made that complete, ooze rush mode work and place their zones and arenas that are a mixture of cover, open sea and trenchless conquest is enjoyable, but it’s very clear. The emphasis was on Russian operations for this game after 4. Is disinterest in the mode operations is a long-form game type that still has enough structure to be enjoyable? It’S a large scale version of rush, but capture points instead of armed objectives. That’S designed for 40 and 64 players. Every lobby I end up in this mode seems to be using the full player account, which is a shame, because the series really has struggled with it over the years while operations with 64 players may look like an amazing spectacle. The truth is it’s often just so chaotic that what you do as an individual player doesn’t feel valuable. The reason older games had 64 players was because conquest in those games had large enough maps that a small squad could change the tight of a battle with several points that can test, for it was common for side objectives to be focused on by a handful of Players, while larger groups fought for the more important owns, typically in the maps core, this has been the case since 1942, though it was greatly enhanced by the squad system in battlefield 2 in operations. There are no more than three objectives at once and because you need to hold all three without any contesting to progress, it’s common for defenders to pile up in the most challenging objective and mow down enemies that assault for as long as they can. This makes the experience worse for both teams, both don’t engage in the flanking and tactics that make battlefield what it is defenders, don’t move and attackers easily take other objectives with one or two defenders. Meanwhile, the last one is a meat grinder. The amazing, visuals and occasional close matches between teams do ultimately make operations a net positive and worth experiencing, but I do believe the best gameplay overall is found in smaller scale. Rush games, while may not have the visual intensity of operations. The strategy ultimately makes it worthwhile. Unlike 64-player operations. One squad really can turn the tide of a battle which only adds tension to every match. It also fits within battlefield ones. Changes the gameplay vehicles, for instance, are a much greater threat for as much as I love bad company. It took a really good squad to maintain vehicles for more than one assault between the tracer dart rocket launchers, c4 mines and repair tool. Vehicles were important, but often something that an experienced enough player could deal with on their own, while in battlefield one there is no equivalent of the Carl Gustav there isn’t any fire and forgetting when it comes to vehicles. You and your team need to commit against a driver that knows what they’re doing, which in turn only makes destroying them. More satisfying impact is a strong focus of this game. Both vehicles in combat just have a violent infliction that wasn’t as notable previously snipers and shotguns. In particular, that’s mostly down to the sound design which is once again mesmerizing while medal of owners. Multiplayer may have my favorite sound from dices catalogue. There’S not one weak link in battlefield ones, audio from the engines, two head shots artillery two rifles similar to the movement in graphics. It’S near perfection for multiplayer battlefield 1, isn’t a return to being the king, but rather registering a pulse, a light at the end of the tunnel. It’S a step in the right direction for the series, with a renewed focus on making the battlefield 4, which it’s named after the priority or 4 unlocks variants, and a quadrillion guns. What’S odd is that the game doesn’t seem to know which direction this single step is going in, while rush may be my personal favorite mode. There’S no question that the game isn’t built to make 24 player rushes epic, as it can be, because that’s what 64 players is for, even though operations isn’t able to capture the reason why battlefield had a 64 player count in the first place, it’s multiplayer as a Hell of a lot of fun, it only grew on me with time and I plan to play more of it. The multiplayer seems to be a bit conflicted where there once I put its foot down on strategy or spectacle. Meanwhile, the campaign lacks both single-player is something that dice can’t seem to narrow down even outside of the Battlefield franchise. The game’s opening doesn’t establish any interesting core gameplay, but it at least depicts a loose authenticity that hasn’t been seen in a long time. The words you’re not expected to survive convey a dark tone. An ineffable atif at games often have the player avoid in battlefield ones. Opening you have all the tools you need to mow down dozens of enemies, and yet it’s never enough. It’S far too scripted to do responsible, but it conveys what the game is aiming for in its presentation. The cinematics, audio, music, visuals and gameplay all have this desperation and sadness behind them. The ending of the stage would have been far more powerful through gameplay, but the message is clearly conveyed and it’s tragically beautiful in its imagery. Sadly, this is the closest that battlefield one’s gameplay ever comes to being aligned with its storytelling, while the opening may feel too much like you’re. Just following a script at least said script is of some interest. Meanwhile, the rest of the campaign utilizes the same tired, monotonous gameplay. That’S plagued the mediocrity of this genre for years. The only exception is the aerial campaign where the core gameplay is built around shaking enemies off your flank and coming around for the kill. The controls are extremely rkd and easy, which actually gives the missions a decent flow and pace to them. They feel quick objectives are clear. Any mistake is your fault, and backdrops are pretty uninspiring. Presentation is absolutely the campaign’s greatest asset, not just in visuals, but in cinematography. For cutscenes, the actors, great delivery in expressions and the soundtrack everything from top to bottom in this game is top-notch, except the things that make that presentation matter, gameplay and story. Without these things, the presentation just ends up being icing without a cake. Everything outside of air combat is composed of two things, pointing click and poor man’s Far Cry that we saw in battlefield hardline the reason earlier war. Titles such as called the t2 were excuse for having essentially one enemy you could kill in one or two bullets is because of global design. Didn’T pit you as an unstoppable force enemies were intelligent, pinning you down with grenades and suppressive fire being accurate in their shots. Forcing you to pin them down by returning fire and timing or push or lang smoke, grenades to blind their sight lines. You never fought alone, always surrounded by five or more troops. The best example is the same. I used in my channel’s first video the conclusion of the Russian campaign, where you have to juggle between sniping incoming waves of enemies and fighting off those that make it through at close range. Your skill with sniping directly affected. How challenging your close range encounters would be its excellent level, design and pacing like this. That’S desperately missing from battlefield 1. Every campaign is about controlling a single vehicle or person and making your way through a wave until you’re rewarded with a cutscene, and it’s not a matter of difficulty while call D 2 is best played on veteran hard mode, has barely any effect here, for example, during The Australian story, there’s a section where you hold off enemies alongside other soldiers in a church except the game’s AI, is so conservative that the best way to finish them off is the charge, as close as you can to the game’s boundaries with a shotgun and kill Them 5 seconds after they spawn it, doesn’t matter if they’re, a grunt or iron with a Gatling gun they’re dealt with the exact same way. Center screen push-button Center screen push button. Point click point: click, I’m starting to sound like a broken record by this point, but I’m going to keep calling it out when I see it, whether it’s first or third person, if your combat system is only about killing weak enemies while you’re a strong protagonist with Degenerating health, your gameplay is inherently flawed by design the player is never punished for their errors. There are no consequences without any consequence, there’s no tension without tension, there’s no reason to think or care and worst of all, it’s not even empowering destroying tanks. By pointing and clicking or mowing down austro-hungarian soldiers with the engagement of reading, my grocery list doesn’t make you feel powerful, it’s a digital equivalent of stepping on ants and once again, this isn’t about difficulty. It’S about what the game asks from you in Doom you’re asked to manage dozens of enemies at once with different strengths and weaknesses, while also maintaining your own arsenal. Fear asks you to defeat squads armed to the teeth and tactical in their movements, with your unique reflexes and abilities called the d2 as you to navigate environments that have enemies at every turn. Constantly pressuring you into making a bad call out of the desperation you find yourself in battlefield asks this. The closest this campaign comes to engagement beyond. Shooting is the story in Arabia, particularly the section where you need to send three messages from three different towns. For once you are in over your head, you have to keep track of the different enemy types, as you don’t have the immediate means to take care of them and there’s multiple ways to approach each of these bases. Yet I can’t help but feel that it reminds me of something and do the battlefield never being a stealth game. The mechanics here are remarkably unrefined. The gameplay in these sections really is an inferior, far crime, just like hardline enemies, regardless of their distance. No, your exact location upon one trooper, shouting enemies can see you from far away, except when they can’t and while they can hear you sprinting, they seemingly can’t hear their fellow soldier five feet away collapsing to the ground. There’S not a single thing done in these zones that hasn’t already been done for years and then done so so much better. It’S nonsense, speaking of which, as usual, if you want to avoid spoilers, there are time stamps in the description to skip this part of the video final warning in three two one. I do think the presentation in this game is fantastic. Its cinematics and acting is of the quality from film and television, but unfortunately none of that matters when the material everything’s built around is so rushed and undeveloped. The idea of a campaign being made up of short stories is an excellent idea, echoing the early Call of Duty campaigns with a narrative that was both continuous and self-contained, exploring the most unique stories of World War. One through characters is a strong concept, but while the dramatic gameplay is non-existent throughout the stories of each attempt to maintain a sense of danger and despair, but due to each of these stories being less than an hour long, every cutscene feels like there’s multiple scenes missing Between every transition in Arabia, killing the main villain rushing to and searching a burn only to find out Lawrence is okay outside of a town by a campfire all takes place in 45 seconds when playing as the Australian, the young and naive apprentice has never contemplated the Horrors of war until your character pointed out to him, despite said apprentice having to have run past this to get to the vertiginous in the first place. There are no surprises in any of the stories. Every plot point and device has a predictability of a sunrise man, who’s a jerk in the beginning and threatens to leave comes back in the Friends of protagonist. The likeable rebel, who is an unreliable narrator, turns on the audience at the end, the old guy who hates the young guy but grows to mentor him and sacrifice himself to save his life. Nato’S fighting to end the machine used by the evil people to destroy their home, the unlikable characters, seemingly getting his revenge, only to lose or die immediately. The list is endless, and this wouldn’t be an issue if the stories had enough time to develop or the gameplay was in sync, with the stories being told, but they’re not a united force fighting against the technologically superior enemy, one chick in the desert, showing someone the Horrors of war blowing up iron men with dynamite, Italian, struggling against an empire, one guy with a machine gun, and it must be reaffirmed. This issue has nothing to do with historical accuracy that doesn’t matter in the slightest. The problem is all this money: technology, polish and beauty – is used to create the most mediocre gameplay feasible. The campaign, neither recreates the magic of battlefields multiplayer. Nor does something unique to the series or genre in which it’s based even the opening level that uses all of its resources and design to communicate the sacrifice and slaughter and war does an inferior job than a PlayStation 2. An Xbox console port dice, made in 2005 featuring a mechanic that sent the exact same message without the need to limit its gameplay potential. In conclusion, battlefield 1 is an overall step in the right direction and it is a game. I’D recommend the multiplayer is fast fun and intense when firing on all cylinders, but it is only a step. The series stopped itself from walking over the cliff edge, but it’s got a long long way to go before it finds itself back home as the king [, Music ]. Would you rather fight a hundred duck-sized horses or one horse-sized, duck flip a coin? I’D lose them both. When is the Max Payne years later, I don’t know currently, I think I may just have to bite the bullet and make it some time because, unlike Mass Effect, I doubt I’ll be able to time it with a new release. Favorite, Easter eggs able to skulls grunt birthday party for life, [ __ ], you halo, 3, for ruining that skull zero to ten worst game. Ever you take a bath and maple syrup. No, I use it to drown my enemies. What is your favorite Pokemon, the most Canadian one is it true? Maple syrup is made from the bodily fluids of American orphans. Do you hate a Koopa Troopa from making the question channel like this I’ll? Let you decide, but the answer is yes: [, Music. ] really wasn’t trying to hear it. Looking at me shut up and whatever the song, what I told the risk or through your just leave the camera to gingerbread man. You rather have your guy in pain, cuz man,
