'Battlefield 1' Is The Most Liked Trailer In YouTube History, 'Infinite Warfare' The Most Disliked

[Misanthrope]

Hey this is just the shooter cycle: For years it was ww2 until you got sick of it then modern/contemporary FPSes came, after that the future shit now ww1 will be the hot shit for a while. 

[Mihle]

Just leaving this strawopoll here for anyone that havent seen it.

 

http://www.strawpoll.me/6459945/r

[KR0N05]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you for real? In what universe do you live where futuristic shooters aren't selling well? COD, Halo, Battlefront, Titanfall, Crysis, Borderlands, Star Citizen, Warframe... The list goes on. Futuristic shooters is like the best selling genre and have been for several years.

 

If anything, it seems like a vocal minority that wants more historic FPS games, while the silent majority wants futuristic games.

 

 

 

Amen to that. Like I said in the other thread, I fully expect BF1 to just be BF4 with a WW1 skin on top of it and possibly some chemical warfare gimmick.

 

EA's marketing team is very impressive. They got people shitting their pants for a trailer that doesn't even show any proper gameplay. They were holding an entire event for a pre-rendered cinematic trailer, and people lost their minds.

If you look at the usages of these games this day mainly, Battlefront and Titanfall, there was masses of hype that stemmed for a few weeks and then dropped out, like whenever I go to play titanfall the max players I seen online at one point seems to be limited to 1000. And Battlefront seemed to be a massive let down because it didn't live up to other players standards. You may say that the silent majority want futuristic shooters then why don't they voice their opinions to be heard for upcoming games?

[dalekphalm]

13 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

You mean, you dont care about our ACTUAL world history? a massive war that had millions killed and involved most of the world

 

Also battlefront is kinda meh, as somebody who has put like 350 hours into BF4 (and into every BF and COD) Battlefront I just dont enjoy, and I am a massive massive star wars fan

The funniest part about Battlefield 1 is that it isn't actual world history. It's Alt-History, borderline cyberpunk with the zeppelins flying around. Hardly anything about that BF1 trailer was historically accurate I'm getting the vibe that there will be some pretty significant historical divergence from real history.

 

Personally, I'm all aboard the Infinite Warfare hype train. I give zero fucks about COD multiplayer anyway, but that campaign looks pretty damn interesting. I'd take near future/military sci-fi over WW1 any day. They are going to be taking a hell of a lot of historical liberties to make "trench warfare" interesting and fun.

 

Honestly, they should do some Korean War games, or something. Maybe revisit Vietnam too. WW2 has been done to death, and so has MMS. NFS (Near Future Shooters) are starting to be overdone as well).

[Nup]

I wonder what it'd be like if BF1 did smatter IW, just to see how CoD fights back. I mean they're a subsidiary of activision/blizzard, could make for an interesting game, if it were to get extra attention, and break out of the from the usual CoD cycle... 

[durpflip]

and then people will notice that BF1 can't be played and everyone's going to panic because the game crashes on startup.

not to mention most of these panickers will be insecure 13 year olds with dell inspirons who want to look cool among their PCMR peers.

and CoD is pretty self-explanatory.

[The_Denks]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 10:20 PM, UberGamerKing said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/05/09/battlefield-1-is-the-most-liked-trailer-in-youtube-history-infinite-warfare-the-most-disliked/#7edff8d235c2

 

After one week, IW trailer got 1M Dislikes. Same time frame BF1 gets 1M Likes

 

Activision just got rekt by Battlefield. Sotked for BF1. Noteven gonna think about the game that Infinity Ward has just turned int a cash hog.

https://youtu.be/XOYwWaH9gGc?t=4m50s

https://youtu.be/XOYwWaH9gGc?t=7m34s

Quick update.

 

Battlefield One now has 1.4 Million likes, while COD IW has 1.94 Million Dislikes. Almost doubled in 3 days

[Eroda]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The funniest part about Battlefield 1 is that it isn't actual world history. It's Alt-History, borderline cyberpunk with the zeppelins flying around. Hardly anything about that BF1 trailer was historically accurate I'm getting the vibe that there will be some pretty significant historical divergence from real history.

 

Personally, I'm all aboard the Infinite Warfare hype train. I give zero fucks about COD multiplayer anyway, but that campaign looks pretty damn interesting. I'd take near future/military sci-fi over WW1 any day. They are going to be taking a hell of a lot of historical liberties to make "trench warfare" interesting and fun.

 

Honestly, they should do some Korean War games, or something. Maybe revisit Vietnam too. WW2 has been done to death, and so has MMS. NFS (Near Future Shooters) are starting to be overdone as well).

you understand that WW1 was more than Just Trench warfare right?? but CoD will go back to WW2 now for sure  leaving Dice the Korean War which has untold stories and weapons similar to ww2 but with some more modern improvements

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Eroda said:

you understand that WW1 was more than Just Trench warfare right?? but CoD will go back to WW2 now for sure  leaving Dice the Korean War which has untold stories and weapons similar to ww2 but with some more modern improvements

Certainly, WW1 was more diverse than just trench warfare, but that was a large component of the conflicts. That, plus the types of weapons in use at the time, the conflict just doesn't make as interesting a setting for a fast faced FPS game.

 

Obviously, they'll make due, but I imagine they'll take a few liberties along the way.

[Albatross]

Both games will most likely still be terrible games.

[Revinval]

On 5/11/2016 at 1:00 PM, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Am I the only person here suspicious of both of these numbers? I am sorry, but when a trailer of a video game, a niche product in perspective of the general audience, gets more likes/dislikes than some of the mainstream videos, which everybody and their dog has watched, something is not adding up there.

The battlefield trailer has something like a 1/27 like to view ratio that is insane. But even before it hit the million mark there is an obvious preference shown as to which one was better but I agree its a little out of hand. But BF1 trailer was one of the only videos that I instantly went for the like button in recent memory. 

[ShadowCaptain]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The funniest part about Battlefield 1 is that it isn't actual world history. 

I know ,its kind of a spin on it, but it was just people saying "world war 1 bullshit" as if WW1 wasnt even a real thing that happened

[ShadowCaptain]

21 hours ago, GarnetDevil said:

Let's hope MW remastered isn't actually bundled with IW so that I can buy an actual FPS with a good storyline

Id just play the original MW, its still perfectly good looking and playable, it doesnt even need a remaster 

[FoxHunter]

On 11/05/2016 at 2:23 AM, X1XNobleX1X said:

Still don't understand why Activision/IW thought the community wanted an even more futuristic game.

People didn't even like that it was in the future in the first place.

 

I'll probably buy it just for Modern Warfare. 

 

Return to the roots.....

 

 

On the other hand, the BF1 trailer blew me away, even if only 15% of it was actual gameplay. 

The problem is not IW, they even launched CoD4 Remaster because they knew that it wouldn't satisfied many fans taking what happened on the two previous games. Activision decided to do a futuristic game and each of the three developers had to do a futuristic game. IW was just the third the developer and got all the rage that accumulated from two previous games. 

 

And since they knew it would be hated by the community, and Activision forces them to sell Infinite Warfare and not COD4 Remaster (which, if was sold stand alone, can only be sold for 30 dollars, not a full price new game). It's just captalism and someone with an idea that have to be repeated three times and since the first it was a mistake.

[Commander Llama]

18 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The funniest part about Battlefield 1 is that it isn't actual world history. It's Alt-History, borderline cyberpunk with the zeppelins flying around. Hardly anything about that BF1 trailer was historically accurate I'm getting the vibe that there will be some pretty significant historical divergence from real history.

 

I'm just interested in discussing this point with you in-depth, but before I dive in, I'd like to say that a borderline cyberpunk alt-history WW1 video game sounds awesome, so I'd be perfectly cool with that. I also have nothing against futuristic shooters, I quite like them. I enjoyed Halo, Titanfall, and even Battlefront, though both will permanently lie in their graves once Overwatch drops. However, these mainline COD and Battlefield future shooters are just so... uninspired. There's nothing interesting about the worldbuilding to hook me in. I'd almost rather see a Mass Effect FPS, because at least that universe is well established and hella cool. EA is also still making Titanfall and Mass Effect, they don't really need a third futuristic IP right now.

 

Anyway, of course it's not "actual world history." I am wondering what the point of that statement is. Neither Battlefield nor Call of Duty as franchises have ever strove to be historic video games. Very few video games do, or can. They're video games first with their game mechanics (fun, hopefully) in mind, and the theme/setting/history comes second. I'll cite some of the historic Total War games as fairly in-depth as far as their lore and attention to detail goes, but they're still not actual world history either. By the nature of the game itself, it's never going to be actual history. I don't even consider this a weakness! It's fiction meant to entertain, and if there's some education by accident for whatever reason, that's just a bonus. History is often just there to provide a ripe wellspring of game mechanics and aesthetic, and WW1 is just as awesome as WW2 for this. WW2 is just more popular, because it was also huge and more recent. There are zero living WW1 veterans, it is now rapidly fading into historical memory.

 

Second, although the teaser trailer is pretty goofy (especially since it's WW1 accompanied by a dubstep remix... Jesus), all the set pieces and assets presented in the teaser have authentic historical roots. WW1 was an incredible conflict, a period of huge transition. It is the war where multiple tiers and types of military technology clashed, and it birthed modern combat as we know it (WW2 and on). It was a wacky period of military experimentation and evolution.

 

Before the rapid evolution of air superiority during the war, zeppelins were used for aerial recon. So the zeppelin scene you mention might be a stretch if its like, some big bad boss's villainous zeppelin mwahaha, but they were used earlier in the war.

 

Airplane combat was both primitive enough and hectic enough that mid-air collisions happened, and huge aerial battles occurred (larger than BF1's servers will be, no doubt). Airplanes exploding and crashing everywhere is a stretch for sure, but well, trailers.

 

The Ottomans, and others, deployed traditional cavalry (though that certainly saw a decline in the post air and trench part). Horses were still hella useful for utility and transportation though.

 

Plate armor was used, even if it wasn't standard issue. With the proliferation of artillery and modern firearms, people were trying just about anything to counter it defensively. That dude that looks like a Knight could conceivably have happened, and while that armor wouldn't do anything against firearms, it would definitely provide resistance to artillery and shrapnel. Trench guns were a thing too, and while the combination takes that set piece right outta a Michael Bay screenplay, it's authentic enough.

 

Naval battles were nuts! The Battle of Jutland was one of the largest naval battles ever fought in human history (though as an ancient history fan, I like to think Salamis was larger :D), with 250 ships facing off.

 

The trench warfare gets a lot of flak (pun intended), but it's an area of the game that's ripe for coordinated strategic play and an expansion of melee combat that Battlefield is pretty good at anyway.

 

WW1 was nuts man. During some of the major offensives soldiers were dying by the tens of thousands per day. This can be stretched into a fun, fast paced Battlefield game with ease!

 

As far as authenticity goes, I'm sure they'll stretch where they have to. And they did. There are two glaring historical errors in the teaser that I noticed. First, the tanks are ridiculously fast, they're acting practically like WW2 tanks, which is wrong. Early WW1 tanks were garbage and almost useless. The later WW1 tanks did have strategic benefit, but they were never rolling around the Battlefield like proto-Abrams.

 

Also the chemical warfare is just fantasy. Chemical weapons are so stupidly deadly, they're pretty much second only to tactical nukes. That scene with a dude just waltzing in and around mustard gas is bull. A gas mask meant you couldn't corrode from the inside out via chlorine or mustard gas, but if you could even see either of those gases, you would be sprinting in the opposite direction or you stood a decent chance of dying. The bravest soldiers in the whole war were probably the ones that fought through chemical attacks, because god damn.

 

My primary concern, and the reason I wouldn't ever consider getting BF1 until after launch and extensive review, is can I trust DICE/EA to follow through with the rich possibilities of WW1? The teaser is promising because of the diversity present, but what's there in the actual game? And given all the possible mechanics I've touched on, can they make it all work together in a fun way? Not an easy thing to do. Did the Hardline experiment pan out? How about the Battlefront experiment? Yeesh...

 

Lastly, nobody need worry about not having WW2, Vietnam, etc shooters. They'll come, in fact, they're probably up next after BF1.

 

Edit: I should also add that there's probably going to be some game-ifying of things like weapon modding and such, and while there was great experimentation with weapons that kind of thing wasn't standard issue. It's pretty standard fare for modern FPS though, so I expect that'll be there and be a historical stretch too.