Battlefield 1

 PC
User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 2720 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,719 out of 2720
  2. Mixed: 506 out of 2720
  3. Negative: 495 out of 2720
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Viper0hr
    Oct 21, 2016
    5
    Pros:
    The game is beautiful, I don't ever expect a BF game to look or sound bad.
    Some of the gameplay, single player & multiplayer, does a very good job at portraying the horrors of war. Cons: Game is a blatant reskin of Star Wars Battlefront, typical EA fashion. The "Rock, paper, scissors" gun scheme has absolutely ruined the game IMO. (Explained: most guns use a "cone-style"    Pros:
    The game is beautiful, I don't ever expect a BF game to look or sound bad.
    Some of the gameplay, single player & multiplayer, does a very good job at portraying the horrors of war.

    Cons:
    Game is a blatant reskin of Star Wars Battlefront, typical EA fashion.
    The "Rock, paper, scissors" gun scheme has absolutely ruined the game IMO.
    (Explained: most guns use a "cone-style" programing for the bullets, just like SW Battlefront, where any/all of the bullets fire in a completely random huge cone whether you are aiming down sights or not.)
    Typical Dice engine bugs/glitches.
    Campaign is only 4-5 hours to finish.
    GPU crashes with up to date GPU and drivers, and re installs.

    Conclusion:
    While the game was obviously not going to be a realistic portrayal of WWI warfare, they went so far out of reality for the campaign and single player, I honestly wonder why the chose to make this a WWI game. It honestly seems like they wanted to make a WWII game but chose WWI to maybe draw on the centennial
    .
    The campaign is a cake walk even on hard, with AI who are laughably stupid, and the story while good at parts, is insultingly short and lackluster, with absolutely no grounds in reality what so ever.

    I really wanted to like the game, I love war history and have always loved the BF series. But this game is in my opinion the worst BF game in years, if not ever.
    I was bored of the gameplay in 5 hours, and with the GPU crashes every 10 minutes in multiplayer I just refunded it (At least Origin actually has good CS and a fair refund policy).

    If you love the game, that is fine, I am glad you do, but to me this is not a Battlefield game, much less a WWI game.
    I have hopes of maybe a good WWII game next, praying for 1944/1945, DONE RIGHT.

    I feel like this is going to pull a hardline and die off in weeks.    … Expand
  2. TixyLix
    Oct 21, 2016
    5
    They had the chance to use the setting to do something new with Battlefield... instead they made the same game again and just made a mockery of WW1. Any other time I'd think it is fine, but we've had so many of these games, this should have been the time to bring it back to basics and get that raw combat down.

    It's a missed opportunity and it doesn't feel like WW1 at all... people whine    They had the chance to use the setting to do something new with Battlefield... instead they made the same game again and just made a mockery of WW1. Any other time I'd think it is fine, but we've had so many of these games, this should have been the time to bring it back to basics and get that raw combat down.

    It's a missed opportunity and it doesn't feel like WW1 at all... people whine on about COD, but man DICE have been strumming the same tune since BF2, when will they finally change things up? Also when will they ever deliver a good Single Player? Surely they could hire someone to pull it off? Until then, we'll continue to get the same old MP with the same old bad SP campaign.    … Expand
  3. DuncanIdahoTPF
    Oct 21, 2016
    5
    I decided to return this game after a combined total of about 15 hours single player and multiplayer gameplay.

    The primary reason: the game engine is watered down garbage. It's the same one used by Star Wars: Battlefront. The gameplay is surprisingly similar SW:BF. When you shoot, it just doesn't feel satisfying. The optimal range feature ends up being very frustrating. I.E. You shoot    I decided to return this game after a combined total of about 15 hours single player and multiplayer gameplay.

    The primary reason: the game engine is watered down garbage. It's the same one used by Star Wars: Battlefront. The gameplay is surprisingly similar SW:BF. When you shoot, it just doesn't feel satisfying. The optimal range feature ends up being very frustrating. I.E. You shoot someone with a support machine gun at 50-100 yards, and it does 10-15 damage. Really? Am I shooting a .22lr at them? I wanted the game to be more like the gameplay of Battlefield 4. The bullet physics seem much more realistic. I feel like they could have pulled that off, but went with the super watered down cartoon-ie feel of SW:BF.

    The secondary reason: no joystick support. You can fly planes in single player and multiplayer. But this is yet another Battlefield / Battlefront game that gives the middle finger to joysticks. Judging by the complete lack of joystick support for every BF in the past 10 years, I'm certain they will never add support. It's super frustrating to super awkwardly try to fly a plane with the keyboard only and make longing glances at the perfectly functional joystick sitting on your desk.    … Expand
  4. mr-NachoMen
    Aug 19, 2019
    7
    Battlefield 1 tried something a little bit more different... returning to it's roots (even that the original games were center on ww2, but, ok). It didn't bother to compete with COD (in settings i mean), and it succeeded to be more "original" if we can say that.
    But even still, Battlefield didn't manage to be a great game, the end product is a kind of mixed experience.
    The games is    Battlefield 1 tried something a little bit more different... returning to it's roots (even that the original games were center on ww2, but, ok). It didn't bother to compete with COD (in settings i mean), and it succeeded to be more "original" if we can say that.
    But even still, Battlefield didn't manage to be a great game, the end product is a kind of mixed experience.
    The games is divided into chapters or episodes, each one has a different hero and takes place in a different part of the world. Some missions will be on foot with your gun and some others controlling a vehicle can be a tank or a plane. As well some missions will have some large scale battles like the introduction level which is great but then the rest of the games are about infiltrating enemy lines and not being detected (if you want), that end up being boring.
    Visually the game looks gorgeous, the Frostbite engine manage to do a good gob at rendering large scale maps with full detail and destructible environments.
    Take on mind that Battlefield 1 is a CPU hungry title so... it will consume 100% of it's usage, in case you don't have a really capable CPU you will struggle with some FPS here and there.    … Expand
  5. Adrien2423
    Mar 14, 2021
    5
    It is fun game and all, but completely ruined by open maps and no sniper limit... It is only sniper/dmr/mg camp... Also infested by cheaters, they don't get banned. EA is so **** Meanwhile they are selling copies on NBA each year for 60$, just to get new player names. Oh they forgot to change 2019 to 2020 ops... EA is scumest scum on the planet earth, this company needs to be regulated andIt is fun game and all, but completely ruined by open maps and no sniper limit... It is only sniper/dmr/mg camp... Also infested by cheaters, they don't get banned. EA is so **** Meanwhile they are selling copies on NBA each year for 60$, just to get new player names. Oh they forgot to change 2019 to 2020 ops... EA is scumest scum on the planet earth, this company needs to be regulated and **** to the ass hard!!! **** EA!

    **** EA they will even ban for even writing word cheating. They don't do **** meanwhile collecting money from microtransactions... Yet they have audacity to ban their community, if people are fed up that every BF game is infested with cheaters... **** EA SCUM!!!    … Expand
  6. IHATEHACKERS
    May 23, 2021
    5
    The campaign is good but the multiplayer is a big heap of trash, it sucks. I'm always put inside empty lobbies and when actually put in a full lobby, it's infected with sweats and hackers. I legit saw people flying with aim-bot, it's not fun at all. DON'T BUY!
  7. WhiteBoa11
    Mar 16, 2022
    5
    Mediocre at best, the story isnt that touching its a quite bulky size and the gameplay is subpar. Fps franchises like Call of Duty that offer much better gameplay and story. The disk space isnt worth it, reconsider before buying.
  8. PixelKiller
    Nov 6, 2016
    6
    Certainly looks and sounds nice, like always from Dice.

    Had hopes for a reasonably histrocially correct game, and perhaps dialing back of the pacing a bit this time around. But historically this is way off. As someone else wrote, could've just as well been another WW2 shooter. It also feels very artifically chaotic, and the pacing is just like the previous games, over-the-top and    Certainly looks and sounds nice, like always from Dice.

    Had hopes for a reasonably histrocially correct game, and perhaps dialing back of the pacing a bit this time around.

    But historically this is way off. As someone else wrote, could've just as well been another WW2 shooter.

    It also feels very artifically chaotic, and the pacing is just like the previous games, over-the-top and everything-in-you-face-at-once. Michael Bay did this.

    Sound design is wierd. For some reason you can hear battle from far far away, but not the heavly equipped guy running up beside you. Or a tank for that matter, until it's driving over your corpse..

    You don't automatically spot someone you shooting at, you have to press another button just to do that. Which honestly is ridiculous, and contributes to that artifical feeling.

    And that naging feeling that what you see is NOT quite what you get, like with previous BF-games, is here as well. You dying long after taking cover, etc, etc. Maybe these games needs to be this chaotic to prevent this from becoming too glaringly appearant.

    Have played it for some 20-30 hours. Have now uninstalled it.    … Expand
  9. lbtaylor1984
    Nov 28, 2016
    5
    I'm not going to waste ages writing this as it can be summed up very quickly.

    First up it's another cash grab by EA. Frankly the content included in the base game is rubbish. There is very little weaponry and most of it is a variation of a gun you already have. Maps are generally uninteresting and mix CQB and Open fileded warfare, unfortunately iit doesn't work, Whether you have    I'm not going to waste ages writing this as it can be summed up very quickly.

    First up it's another cash grab by EA. Frankly the content included in the base game is rubbish. There is very little weaponry and most of it is a variation of a gun you already have.

    Maps are generally uninteresting and mix CQB and Open fileded warfare, unfortunately iit doesn't work, Whether you have raw talent or not the map design means your likely to be gibbed travelling from CQB to open warfare you'll have the wrong class/gear meaning you can't defend yourself properly, bearing in mind the objectives mean you have to travel or face losing the match.

    Audio is for the most part OK, music is nice. Weapons to me sound all very similar, nothing as distinctive as the M1 from WW2 with the ping as the clip flys out the receiver.

    Graphics think Star wars Battlefront, set in antique weapons. Nothing really to say here, it looks fine, still suffers the same old problems where you can see a head on top of a wall but you get shot through said wall as the models don't line up with logic, (long term problem of many FPS)

    Respawn times are far too long in my honest opinion.
    Hardcore mode missing.

    I've gone back to playing BF4 as I think it plays far better than BF1. If your looking for a new FPS I would recommend Titanfall 2 as soon as the hackers are banned under the new patch coming the 30th Nov,    … Expand
  10. Val-835
    Oct 27, 2016
    5
    The Good:
    -Stunning visuals, great sound
    -Great maps -Brilliant idea for armored trains and zeppelins The Bad: -Cheaters galore. Wallhackers especially. Fairfight is not enough. The game needs a client-side anti-cheat as well. Battleye maybe. Otherwise, it will suffer the same fate as Rainbow Six Siege. -Unbalanced weapons. No stopping power. With some weapons, you need to shoot    The Good:
    -Stunning visuals, great sound
    -Great maps
    -Brilliant idea for armored trains and zeppelins

    The Bad:
    -Cheaters galore. Wallhackers especially. Fairfight is not enough. The game needs a client-side anti-cheat as well. Battleye maybe. Otherwise, it will suffer the same fate as Rainbow Six Siege.
    -Unbalanced weapons. No stopping power. With some weapons, you need to shoot the daylights out some guy to bring him down. The same goes for guys on horseback.
    -Bad respawns. On some maps it's not an issue. On others, it's terrible.
    -Aerial combat is a joke. Poor visibility, poor mechanics.
    -No penalties for friendly fire. Ridiculous. Grenades are being lobbied regardless. I've seen flamethrowers walking into a building and torching the place with lots of friendlies around. How silly. Same goes for Sentry Bots.

    DICE needs to address ALL these issues with some patch. Otherwise, frustration will drive many players away. I, for one, will stay away.    … Expand
  11. ppmalachowski
    Oct 24, 2016
    6
    I am playing Battlefield 1 but thinking about Battlefield 4. Before when I was going back home from work I was thinking about my game (Battlefield 4), even at work, I could make changes to the game using Battlelog.(battelfield companion is very poor). With Battlefield 1 I am missing something, do not really know what. The game is like a simple shooter, with lots of small and tiny roomsI am playing Battlefield 1 but thinking about Battlefield 4. Before when I was going back home from work I was thinking about my game (Battlefield 4), even at work, I could make changes to the game using Battlelog.(battelfield companion is very poor). With Battlefield 1 I am missing something, do not really know what. The game is like a simple shooter, with lots of small and tiny rooms that you go into and someone is waiting there to kill you, hundreds windows, people are simply waiting there to shot at you. Graphics is lovely but the new menu is horrible the maps are kind of boring.
    Maybe the simplicity of the gameis something I don't like. Do not know.    … Expand
  12. Majinvash
    Jan 9, 2017
    5
    There is just something missing from the game that makes me want to play it like i did with BF2.
    Its beautiful but feels empty of tactics and certainly needs a balance wave.
    I have played it for maybe 20 or so hours over a couple of weeks with a bunch of different friends but none of us feel the call to go back. Once you had done the maps a few times and experienced the meat grinder game    There is just something missing from the game that makes me want to play it like i did with BF2.
    Its beautiful but feels empty of tactics and certainly needs a balance wave.
    I have played it for maybe 20 or so hours over a couple of weeks with a bunch of different friends but none of us feel the call to go back. Once you had done the maps a few times and experienced the meat grinder game player, there is nothing new or exciting to be found.
    So year, its probably worth the money, you will get some fun out of it but you will soon get bored and meh, each Battlefield game just seems to be getting more and more casual. Instant action, less tactics and teamwork.    … Expand
  13. Kannibal
    Nov 5, 2016
    6
    **6.5** This is a enjoyable game and the single player is enjoyable but short, so why only 6?

    Well the game is generic and feels like a reskin but must of all, for me, the liberties taken with the weapons really bothers me I don't understand the thinking here at all why in the would take a new idea and then try as hard as possible to make it feel as unoriginal as humanly possible. The    **6.5** This is a enjoyable game and the single player is enjoyable but short, so why only 6?

    Well the game is generic and feels like a reskin but must of all, for me, the liberties taken with the weapons really bothers me I don't understand the thinking here at all why in the would take a new idea and then try as hard as possible to make it feel as unoriginal as humanly possible. The game is like playing a would war 1 mod of a good world war 2 game if that makes any sense.    … Expand
  14. Nerocz1
    Nov 20, 2016
    7
    Single player:

    Chapter one: Long, boring with bad characters. I was really angry that i even turned the single player on. Chapter two: Absolutely amazing with great characters, what is even going on?! Chapter three: Very short, with cliché characters, but very entertaining Chapter four: Gallipoli (amazing of course, it is Gallipoli!!!) Chapter five: Chapter six: Multiplayer:    Single player:

    Chapter one: Long, boring with bad characters. I was really angry that i even turned the single player on.
    Chapter two: Absolutely amazing with great characters, what is even going on?!
    Chapter three: Very short, with cliché characters, but very entertaining
    Chapter four: Gallipoli (amazing of course, it is Gallipoli!!!)
    Chapter five:
    Chapter six:

    Multiplayer: Fast paced, but with a lot of "unfair" factors. Most of the people are camping (because of the middiocre map design). Do not expect anything realistic :)    … Expand
  15. anhduc114
    Aug 13, 2021
    5
    a very good and in-depth in terms of strategy game, music is incredible, but now every servers have aimbot/invi hackers so its unplayable, and seems like EA have done nothing more against those hackers. U want to play BF 1 in 2021 because its free now, not recommended, because of what I mentioned above, u wont have a good online gaming experience because of those in-game cheaters.
  16. antonelli3573
    Nov 8, 2016
    6
    Battlefield 4 is better, deeper and offers more possibilities. BF1 has no veichles, no map destruction, no attachments (very few). It is just a casual shooter. If you want rapid action and shot anything that is moving without thinking twice, BF1 is the game for you. If you are a BF4 player, dont waste your money. It is just as bad as hardline.
  17. zelloxy
    Nov 21, 2016
    5
    I loved the game. Then the "fall update" came and I was eager to play HC, but they broke it. Aweful, I loved playing HC in BF3 and 4 but now they went with "more HC" but it is now way too slow and everyone plays sniper and nothing else. Putting this game on the shelf now because of a really bad implementation of HC.
  18. Robinjhoe
    Oct 28, 2016
    7
    Well. How should I put this.
    It is fun. I mean it is extremely fun. But what do we like the most? Exactly! Lists!
    Pros: + Finally a nearly complete polished game at launch. + The Graphics and the Sounddesgin are so extremely good. It will give you orgasms. + Atmosphere. Its really nice for people who like FPS with a good War-like Atmosphere. + A EA Game without Micro-transactions.    Well. How should I put this.
    It is fun. I mean it is extremely fun. But what do we like the most? Exactly! Lists!

    Pros:
    + Finally a nearly complete polished game at launch.
    + The Graphics and the Sounddesgin are so extremely good. It will give you orgasms.
    + Atmosphere. Its really nice for people who like FPS with a good War-like Atmosphere.
    + A EA Game without Micro-transactions. I am not kidding. I was shocked too.

    Cons:
    - The Campaign is only 5 to 6 hours long and the Story parts have no connection at all. After the last Mission of every Part, it just pulls out and just throws some anti-war sentence at you.

    - There are very few Weapons and Gadgets. There are only 3 to 4 Weapons each with 2 to 3 variations, with seemingly no differences at all.

    - It is as close to WW1 as Wolfenstein was close to WW2. They used many experimental Weapons and there are nearly only automatic Weapons and only the Medic and the Sniper have semi-auto Weapons.

    As I said above it is very atmospheric and makes a lot off fun, especially the Operations are fun to play.
    But then again there are some Design choices which are very strange. It cannot be unseen that they took some things from Battlefront.    … Expand
  19. maartendc
    Nov 2, 2016
    7
    I like the game so far, about 20 hours in, with a few caveats.

    I am having a lot of fun with it, and the game looks and sounds amazing. Sadly though, the WW1 setting is being done injustice by having too many automatic weapons and having too fast of an infantry movement speed. This makes the gameplay very arcady and COD-like. The weapons and vehicles feel more like WW2 than WW1, and the    I like the game so far, about 20 hours in, with a few caveats.

    I am having a lot of fun with it, and the game looks and sounds amazing. Sadly though, the WW1 setting is being done injustice by having too many automatic weapons and having too fast of an infantry movement speed. This makes the gameplay very arcady and COD-like. The weapons and vehicles feel more like WW2 than WW1, and the gameplay is even faster than it was in the good old BF1942 back in the day. Still, it captures a lot of the fun that I used to have with BF1942 in a contemporary game. Just a shame that the developers are compromising the look and feel of WW1 to the mainstream. I wish they would have just made a WW2 game if they were going to put so many automatic weapons in it. Sure, they existed towards the end, but 95% of the war was fought with bolt-action rifles.

    Special shout out to the Operations mode in multiplayer, which is less chaotic than Conquest, and is more of a simulation of real warfare, making you push towards enemy lines. Stringing together multiple maps in a narrative is a nice touch, and makes you actually learn something about the history of some of the WW1 campaigns.

    I have not touched the singleplayer campaign much, but the cinematics and voice acting seem very good. Sadly again, the WW1 setting is being executed poorly in making you an invincible supersoldier (except for the intro sequence). I know its still a video game, but it would have been nice to have you rely more on squad cooperation to complete the missions, rather than gunning down whole armies Rambo-style. A missed opportunity.

    Finally, the game is pretty buggy. Many people experience frequent crashes, judging by the forums, and DirectX12 doesnt work at all for me, and many people. At least it doesnt have major server problems like BF4 had, but it is still not great technically. Hopefully they will issue some major patches soon.

    PRO'S:
    - graphically amazing
    - sound design is great
    - Fun gameplay, Operations mode is great
    - Good amount of multiplayer maps
    - Campaign cinematics and voice acting are great

    CONS:
    - Buggy! (doesnt work at all in DirectX 12 mode for many people)
    - Movement speed is too fast, which makes it too COD-like.
    - WW1 is being done injustice by both single player and multiplayer gameplay.    … Expand
  20. gizmo2501
    Nov 20, 2016
    6
    Rather overrated, sadly.

    The presentation is outstanding - graphics, sound - as to be expected by DICE now. However, the game is let down by the map design and the UI. Flags are so close together that this game feels more like COD than Battlefield. The maps - as seems to be the trend - are smaller than ever. Gone are the days of large BF2 and large-ish BF3 maps. Sinai Desert is    Rather overrated, sadly.

    The presentation is outstanding - graphics, sound - as to be expected by DICE now.

    However, the game is let down by the map design and the UI.

    Flags are so close together that this game feels more like COD than Battlefield. The maps - as seems to be the trend - are smaller than ever. Gone are the days of large BF2 and large-ish BF3 maps. Sinai Desert is meant to be a large map, but all the control points are so close, there is no point to the rest of the map. You can no longer stealth your way around the map to take a point as you WILL get seen from somewhere. I would love to see a stat for average time before death. this game is very much spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die. Many maps are Metro all over again.

    The UI is TERRIBLE. The main menu is awful. It take sages to spawn as you have to wait for the map to zoom out, centere itself, then choose where to spawn. Game selection is unclear.

    Further, DICE is listening to the loud few again by nerfing mortars when, if anything, they needed a buff. Supression is non-existent, as you can empty 100 rounds from a support gun at a sniper and they will headshot you without blinking.

    And, of course, bugs bugs bugs.    … Expand
  21. imagesetal
    Dec 5, 2016
    6
    The game looks and runs great! But that doesn't count for anything when this is the most "Call of Duty" like Battlefield yet, it's far too spray and prey. The starting weapons are under powered, the random unavoidable deaths (Star Wars Battlefront-esque) are ridiculous and I just can't ever feel like there's a team effort going on at all. Stick to Battlefield 4 with the expansions andThe game looks and runs great! But that doesn't count for anything when this is the most "Call of Duty" like Battlefield yet, it's far too spray and prey. The starting weapons are under powered, the random unavoidable deaths (Star Wars Battlefront-esque) are ridiculous and I just can't ever feel like there's a team effort going on at all. Stick to Battlefield 4 with the expansions and save your money until they seriously balance this game, or add more tactical maps.… Expand
  22. daftshadow
    Nov 2, 2016
    7
    Very fun game. The graphics are gorgeous. Glad that EA is using the Frostbite 3 engine on many of their future games. But as much like all other FPS games, they're all the same. Rush, kill, rush, kill. The singleplayer campaign is quite short. The war stories campaign style I couldn't really get around to liking it. Would have preferred a single story through the entire play through.
  23. Kuarinofu
    Nov 6, 2016
    6
    + nice graphics
    + good atmosphere
    + some good maps
    + fun to play with friends
    + not infinite warfare

    - horrible solo experience
    - awful weapon balance
    - bad unlock system
    - no hardcore
    - worst menu interface ever created (PC version)
    - laggy/buggy at times
    - overpriced
  24. gamer2death
    Oct 25, 2016
    5
    Well the campaign was fun, a little too easy and AI are dumb as hell as usual but somehow I still really liked the campaign.

    Unfortunately can't say the same for the multiplayer. I couldn't get any kills at all in this game and I'm generally pretty good at shooters. Then I figured out it's Star Wars Battlefront code with 'ranges' that you have to be in for each weapon, is why the guns    Well the campaign was fun, a little too easy and AI are dumb as hell as usual but somehow I still really liked the campaign.

    Unfortunately can't say the same for the multiplayer. I couldn't get any kills at all in this game and I'm generally pretty good at shooters. Then I figured out it's Star Wars Battlefront code with 'ranges' that you have to be in for each weapon, is why the guns feel so bizarre. Once you get used to the ranges you'll get a lot better but I just don't like the feel of it. I should never be too close for a sniper rifle to work, and shotguns are absolutely useless at surprisingly short distances (like 30 feet or so and suddenly it does nothing). And support LGMs should take more time to pull up to ironsights and make you run slower but should be devastating as hell when hit. Instead they feel weaker than a little SMG which is too weird to describe. I just don't like the 'feel' of it.

    Also there's a lot of cheaters you see kicked every round. OMG it's only been out for three days!

    Anyway I guess it has potential if they fix the cheating and tune the guns a bit. But definitely not my favorite shooter out of the box.    … Expand
  25. Simulacra_53
    Oct 22, 2016
    7
    Although graphically a very good looking game with a lot of love for detail I'm ultimately frustrated by the game play that Battlefield 1 offers. Tactical shooter sure, fun factor sure, but although inspired by WW1 it leaves any semblance to that conflict far behind. In the end combat is Battlefront Star Wars with WW1 skins, only the power ups and jet packs are missing to complete thisAlthough graphically a very good looking game with a lot of love for detail I'm ultimately frustrated by the game play that Battlefield 1 offers. Tactical shooter sure, fun factor sure, but although inspired by WW1 it leaves any semblance to that conflict far behind. In the end combat is Battlefront Star Wars with WW1 skins, only the power ups and jet packs are missing to complete this comparison.

    The game actually plays like WW2 on steroids where the majority of players uses either sub machine guns or automatic weapons, add very effective tanks an abundance of anti tank ordinance even at infantry level and aircraft, including heavy bombers, that have the agility and power to weight ratio of modern fighters, and the end result is cognitive dissonance.

    This feeling is only enhanced by the misguided attempt to make BF1 a multi cultural experience, driving this to such high level that in multi play your German squad can Be comprised entirely by black men. Now black men did serve in the Imperial army, but in Africa. If you want to offer a multi cultural experience at least give the player some choice.

    In multiplay I try to stick to rifles and only specific light machine guns, out of some historical sense of duty, but as the majority embraces exotic sub machine and light machine guns, this only increases the frustration I am having with BF1.

    I hope there will be some hardcore more WW1 oriented game play offered in the future - even it was just a single server it would redeem BF1 in my eyes.    … Expand
  26. Buttpuncher
    Oct 30, 2016
    6
    The graphics are excellent, the sound effects are top notch, the gameyplay is very good. Yet, Battlefield 1 is clearly a step backwards from BF3 and BF4. Features from previous games have been removed and there is an obvious lack of content. Where are the plethora of guns, equipment, assigmnemts and awards that the previous games had?
  27. Manjin1
    Oct 25, 2016
    7
    Weapon balance don't exist, bayonet charge is more retarded than commando perk in MW2. The new feature like zeppelin, armored train or dreadnought can help even the weakest team win and I don't think it's good for this game and fair play.
  28. OpenMindedMan
    Aug 22, 2017
    5
    It's far from perfect, but easily my favorite Battlefield game. The animations in particular are the best in the business. Good vehicle balance and shooting mechanics, and a wide variety of weapons including melee weapons.

    EDIT: reduced my score because of anti-consumer business practices.
  29. prossnip42
    Dec 3, 2016
    7
    Holy crap! Am i dreaming or did EA manage to make a decently entertaining game.Well we'll see. Onto the review then.

    Pros: -The game looks absolutely stunning. This might be the best looking FPS I've ever played and if i had to rate the game on the graphics alone it would be a 10 out of 10. -The gameplay (while incredibly unrealistic) is very fun. It's your classic battlefield set in    Holy crap! Am i dreaming or did EA manage to make a decently entertaining game.Well we'll see. Onto the review then.

    Pros:
    -The game looks absolutely stunning. This might be the best looking FPS I've ever played and if i had to rate the game on the graphics alone it would be a 10 out of 10.
    -The gameplay (while incredibly unrealistic) is very fun. It's your classic battlefield set in WW1. And come on guys stop complaining about the realism. If you want a realistic WW1 game then the biggest enemy to you would be rats and mud. Trench foot simulator 2016

    Cons:
    -Now here's my only but still big con about this game. The singleplayer. I know,i know nobody cares about that but i do. The singleplayer is embarrassingly short...lasting about 5 hours at best. That is inexcusable for 60 dollars.

    So there you go. It's definetly one of the better battlefields in recent memories but that isn't saying much. Still...it's worth a rental at least    … Expand
  30. ReviewScope
    Jan 4, 2017
    7
    It's a pretty solid Battlefield game, but it is absolutely not the WW1 experience I was looking for. It honestly feels like Battlefield 4 with a WW1 skin and less verticality. The campaign is also a very lacklustre WW1 campaign, does not capture the time at all. One of the biggest let downs of 2016 IMO.
  31. Neng-
    Dec 17, 2016
    6
    This game has been a disappointment in a certain way, as the thing I disliked the most about battlefront is also here as well, I'm talking about these huge maps with so many objectives that basically keeps you either dying at the respawn or walking 5 minutes without finding no one, it just kills all the fun for me.

    I really liked the rush and tdm maps from bf3 and bf4, and i don't find    This game has been a disappointment in a certain way, as the thing I disliked the most about battlefront is also here as well, I'm talking about these huge maps with so many objectives that basically keeps you either dying at the respawn or walking 5 minutes without finding no one, it just kills all the fun for me.

    I really liked the rush and tdm maps from bf3 and bf4, and i don't find this battlefield to have that level at all. Gun variety has also been reduced and the uniqueness that the guns of the other games had.

    Graphically is fantastic and sound wise is flawless, but it has nothing that I would look for in a shooter at this moment.    … Expand
  32. therealstorey
    Dec 4, 2016
    5
    Enjoyed at first and then ran into the glitches. Weapon will stop firing all of a sudden, you have to switch to sidearm and back to fix. All engagements end up you and the otherguy sidestepping, this doesn't affect your aim for some reason and lets you matrix bullets. You have to play for days to get decent weapons ensuring the more you play the more advantage you have. The longer youEnjoyed at first and then ran into the glitches. Weapon will stop firing all of a sudden, you have to switch to sidearm and back to fix. All engagements end up you and the otherguy sidestepping, this doesn't affect your aim for some reason and lets you matrix bullets. You have to play for days to get decent weapons ensuring the more you play the more advantage you have. The longer you hold down the mouse the more accurate your machine gun becomes. Cheating is rampant as usual, just look at the videos, you will be head shotted constantly. The anti-cheat mechanism is too slow to catch players and provides no reporting mechanism. I think they've destroyed the quality of the product to maximize profit, no surprise here. Because of all these issues, I would not recommend buying the game.… Expand
  33. rq123321
    Dec 13, 2016
    6
    Best FPS Game ever, used to be fun, but the SLI issues and crashing issues for non directX12 Nvidia Graphics totally ruined this game. Never get solved even after several update. Wanna my cash back.
  34. FoggyDerby
    Feb 7, 2017
    6
    After I played the open beta for this game, I was SUPER excited for the release; the graphics were awesome (compared to anything I had seen at the time), and the gunshots didn't sound like you were playing air-soft. I was also really glad to see the building destruction I hadn't seen since Bad Company 2, and also the removal of the "gain skill to unlock" system as seen in BF4.
    After the    After I played the open beta for this game, I was SUPER excited for the release; the graphics were awesome (compared to anything I had seen at the time), and the gunshots didn't sound like you were playing air-soft. I was also really glad to see the building destruction I hadn't seen since Bad Company 2, and also the removal of the "gain skill to unlock" system as seen in BF4.
    After the novelty wore off, I began to see things. Many times, I've shot invisible boundaries while lying prone with my LMG. It is also quite difficult to spot enemies. The spotting range is quite small.
    Also I it is extremely irritating that the SMG is more useful than the LMG, since the SMG fires faster and does practically the same damage. The LMG's purpose is to be able to suppress the enemy, but without realistic damage, the ability to wound and knock the enemy off their feet, LMGs are practically worthless.
    I hadn't noticed until I bought the full game, but there is almost no splash damage. Also, a direct hit with an anti-infantry mortar shell does 65 damage. Mortars were often used like artillery to shell an area. It shouldn't be that hard to kill with them. Also, what's with the lack of anti-tank weaponry available to the support class?
    Speaking of support, Battlefield 1 does very little to reward the supportive. A normal kill, if kept to yourself, is worth 120 points. The max a spotter can get is 20, and it is very hard to be effective with a mortar without a spotter. And there is no reward for holding down a point. And in the off chance someone does come to attack, you rarely have the opportunity to put enough bullets in them before they grab their rifle and kill you one shot.
    Now about the Behemoths. I must say, these monsters are very impressive. Until you try to use them, They are VERY slow. They don't have enough armor or firepower to go that slow, if you're talking balance. They last about 3-5 minutes in a game and generally by the time they're destroyed the your team's score has gone from 400 points behind to 350 points behind. Hell yeah!
    The balance of the game is terrible. I have always been auto assigned to the losing team, which can never turn the tide, by the way, since the enemy team has all the high-ranking players and is also full, compared to our 3/4 full team.
    The only part of this game that is any fun is the campaign. Which is also very short.
    So overall, there are much better games to spend $60 on. I have standards on how much entertainment or use my money should give me. Didn't really make the cut.    … Expand
  35. HappyPhilXD
    Nov 29, 2016
    5
    At Release better than Bf3,4 or Hardline but still too many bugs to call it a good Release. Still Netcode problems, bugs and other things that mess the Battlefield series up.

    As a game,one of the best shooter 2016, and one of the best WW1(2) Shooter in the last 5 years.

    Graphics are good. Modes standard.
    Long way to go, but maybe the next Bf is a better game.
  36. Derrik4999
    Mar 24, 2017
    5
    Pros:

    Game looks amazing Can be played in 6+ hour sessions easily Different,varying maps Cons: Very Few maps Very few guns for each class (mostly classes have aprox 5 guns and 5 different variations,still,only 5 or so guns.) Netcode **** as always sadly Singleplayer really boring Game feels like Star Wars Battlefront for whatever reason and the hud reminds me alot of it,too.    Pros:

    Game looks amazing
    Can be played in 6+ hour sessions easily
    Different,varying maps

    Cons:
    Very Few maps
    Very few guns for each class (mostly classes have aprox 5 guns and 5 different variations,still,only 5 or so guns.)
    Netcode **** as always sadly
    Singleplayer really boring
    Game feels like Star Wars Battlefront for whatever reason and the hud reminds me alot of it,too.
    WW1 Setting doesn't make sense,there were not this many people running around with full auto guns ,could have just gone with WW2 but it was "too mainsteam"... *facepalm*

    Biggest "conflict" of ww1 will be DLC? What the ****

    I'll still give it a 5 because its fun    … Expand
  37. Crackfarmer
    Nov 8, 2016
    5
    To be honest it's a let down compared to what Trailers and the community was waiting for.

    Gameplay is meh, All weapons feel same.
    Graphic style is totally not mine, i hate that SW Battlefront ripped graphic style.

    It doesn't really feel like an battlefield game tbh.

    Wouldn't buy, played beta wasn't that amazing.

    20€ worth, at most.
  38. andrewbrown
    Nov 16, 2016
    5
    I'm only in it for the single player experience. I never played Battlefront, and I haven't touched a Battlefield game in what feels like a decade.

    Its not accurate to WW1, The AI is dumb as bricks as usual. Its not immersive.

    Now we'll have to wait another 10 years till someone makes another WW1 and a shame since I wanted to be engrossed in the WW1 era now.
  39. Cieloman
    Dec 18, 2016
    7
    The game is very beautiful and covers a very difficult time to be worked on a FPS, the graphics are great, however, the historical inaccuracies are terrible, as the exaggeration in racial diversification and the immense amount of machine guns in the WW1 appearing to be the WW2. Something terrible is selling the rest of the game in DLC's, it's like not buying the full game, forcing us toThe game is very beautiful and covers a very difficult time to be worked on a FPS, the graphics are great, however, the historical inaccuracies are terrible, as the exaggeration in racial diversification and the immense amount of machine guns in the WW1 appearing to be the WW2. Something terrible is selling the rest of the game in DLC's, it's like not buying the full game, forcing us to buy the DLC's so we can experience France and Russia in the game. Another bad thing is the amount of equal weapons in the game, with few changes between them.

    O jogo é muito bonito e abrange uma época muito difícil de ser trabalhada em um FPS, os gráficos são ótimos, porém, as imprecisões históricas são terríveis, como o exagero em diversificação racial e a quantidade imensa de metralhadoras na primeira guerra mundial parecendo a segunda. Algo terrível é vender o resto do jogo em DLC's, é como se não comprasse o jogo completo, forçando-nos a comprar as DLC's para podermos experienciar a França e a Russia no jogo. Outra coisa ruim é a quantidade de armas iguais no jogo, com poucas mudanças entre elas.    … Expand
  40. MRBeanJoga
    Jan 14, 2022
    6
    Battlefield 1 is not that fun of a game after you play it for a while and i cant think exactly why that is, its pretty damn fun when you first play it then it starts to get boring and annoying pretty fast for a while.
  41. antanaka
    Feb 3, 2018
    5
    Дано: 10

    +1 за ванилу, +1 за оптимизацию, +1 за картинку, +1 за In the Name of Tsar, -4 за Turning Tides, -2 за стоимость этой фекалии, -3 за "Пехотинец", "Оптика", "Серийный", "Artillery", "Trench" и тому подобный сблёв отсутствия кастомайза; Итого: 5/10    Дано: 10

    +1 за ванилу,

    +1 за оптимизацию,

    +1 за картинку,

    +1 за In the Name of Tsar,

    -4 за Turning Tides,

    -2 за стоимость этой фекалии,

    -3 за "Пехотинец", "Оптика", "Серийный", "Artillery", "Trench" и тому подобный сблёв отсутствия кастомайза;

    Итого: 5/10
  42. Cz3rw0ny
    Feb 9, 2021
    6
    Unbalanced gameplay, rather boring gun-fights and weapons and being not very true to the times of 1st WW. Passable, but nothing special.
  43. MoaningMinnie
    Nov 17, 2016
    6
    While it's nice to look at it doesn't really innovate that much, and unfortunately alot of the ridiculous aspects of Battlefront like dumbed down mechanics, RNG bullet spread and silly "Hero classes" have made it into the game which just ruins it for me. And it's way too fast paced, I don't understand why the soldiers have to be parkour athletes in a Battlefield game, it doesn't feelWhile it's nice to look at it doesn't really innovate that much, and unfortunately alot of the ridiculous aspects of Battlefront like dumbed down mechanics, RNG bullet spread and silly "Hero classes" have made it into the game which just ruins it for me. And it's way too fast paced, I don't understand why the soldiers have to be parkour athletes in a Battlefield game, it doesn't feel right.

    Also, they should have gone for a WW2 theme instead because this doesn't resemble WW1 the slightes, it's a joke.    … Expand
  44. ffsjake
    Oct 22, 2016
    7
    Overall a good experience, but i felt that the campaign was way too short.
    With all the different scenarios and battlefields in WW1 it really had potential to dish out a larger campaign.

    Good multiplayer game, good graphics, awesome sound design, only experienced 2 or 3 non-game-breaking bugs
  45. kingzardoz
    Oct 23, 2016
    6
    Graphics and graphical options are 10/10, performance on nvidia 970 gtx is 10/10, sound is 10/10, netcode is 8/10

    Now to the bad stuff Game Modes: Every game mode except conquest and operations is 12v12... You have this great engine that is very well optimized with the capability of 32v32 but you're not using it? This brings me to my next point Custom Servers: Where are they? Why    Graphics and graphical options are 10/10, performance on nvidia 970 gtx is 10/10, sound is 10/10, netcode is 8/10

    Now to the bad stuff

    Game Modes: Every game mode except conquest and operations is 12v12... You have this great engine that is very well optimized with the capability of 32v32 but you're not using it? This brings me to my next point

    Custom Servers: Where are they? Why can't people host servers with custom features

    Stat tracking: Compared to BF3, stat tracking doesn't exist in BF1

    Gunplay: I have no idea what they were thinking with these guns, a perfect FPS shooter will strive to make every gun relevant for specific purposes, no gun should be good at everything and no gun should be absolute garbage with no reason for existing. In BF1 each class has 1 or 2 guns that are superior in 80% of all situations, the remaining guns are useless or frustrating. It's like they had 4 teams working on the weapons, each team not knowing what the other was doing until launch day, just horrible. I didn't play BF4 or Hardline so I don't know how far DICE has fallen since BFBC2 and BF3 but they are currently setting new lows in FPS gun mechanics.

    Team balancing: Where is it? Maybe its because it's release weekend, their ranking algos don't have enough data yet but I highly doubt it. Why are level 5's playing with level 40's? And no these are not God Tier level 5's, they are how do I use my medkit level 5's.

    RE-skin of Battlefront: If you love Battlefront you don't need to play this game, unless you really like WWII games that are skinned to look like WWI games.

    That pretty much covers it. There are some bugs but not nearly as many as Beta so I think they did a good job of cleaning up the game. Overall I hope they keep adding a lot of features to the game so I don't get bored and uninstall. I'm very happy I didn't purchase the game + DLC because these guns are going to get boring fast.    … Expand
  46. blackmorth
    Jan 5, 2017
    7
    First of all, I have to say that I believe this is the first or second time I write a review. I love Battlefield series and I'm a BF Veteran. I played all the BFs (even BF Heroes) since BF 1942. My favourite games of the series are BF2 and BF4 (yes, BF4, am I the only one that really love that game?)

    Pros: - Beautiful graphics and immersion with that WW1 theme - Amazing sounds - Guns    First of all, I have to say that I believe this is the first or second time I write a review. I love Battlefield series and I'm a BF Veteran. I played all the BFs (even BF Heroes) since BF 1942. My favourite games of the series are BF2 and BF4 (yes, BF4, am I the only one that really love that game?)

    Pros:
    - Beautiful graphics and immersion with that WW1 theme
    - Amazing sounds
    - Guns and the gameplay feels very good
    - Now you can climb high walls and higher rocks
    - Nice melee combat
    - Weather changes and their impact on our weapons
    - Realistic animations
    - Destruction
    - Slower pace than Hardline
    - Airships, trains, etc

    Cons:
    - Gun scheme with duplicated weapons and zero customization totally ruined what they did on BF3 and BF4
    - **** customization options on vehicles, I want to choose, no to have a predetermined tank profiles
    - The bayonet idea is good, but it's very bad implemented, it's bugged most of the times
    - Maps are boring, too mainstream and too lineal, nothing impressive
    - They still copy-pasting the same buildings on all maps
    - They destroyed the boat system of BF4, almost zero water combat
    - Lack of accesories and gatchets (good they finally added a crossbow)
    - Crashes even more than BF4 on launch with latest GPU drivers
    - Battlepacks are just for weapon and vehicle skins
    - Battlefrontish style, looks like they copy-pasted some things. Looks nice, works bad
    - The new "spawn on vehicle" system totally ruined the immersion of Battlefield
    - They killed battlelog to make an ingame system with lack of options comparing to battlelog
    - Point-click-kill weapons, hip shooting sometimes is even more effective than aiming, lmao
    - Less bullet fall than modern weapons of BF3 and BF4, lmao too
    - Lack of character customization: no skins/cammos for your character. Cmon, we are on 2017

    It's ok most people think BF4 was **** on launch, but currently for me it's a far better game than Battlefield 1. For me Battlefield 1 is one of the most overrated games I played, I give it a 7/10

    If you don't believe I played both games, just search me on battlelog or origin, my id is: PriceBlack    … Expand
  47. Prais1980
    Oct 22, 2016
    6
    I want to write a huge Review, but i want to make it very short, feels like a reskin of Star Wars battlefront...
    The Gunplay is the worst, the movement is weird and the mousemovement (in the open beta it was oookay, but still weird) is the worst i have seen in a shooter...
    This game is a totaly console port, you can even see the RB- and LB-Buttonicons on top of the menus... DICE shame    I want to write a huge Review, but i want to make it very short, feels like a reskin of Star Wars battlefront...
    The Gunplay is the worst, the movement is weird and the mousemovement (in the open beta it was oookay, but still weird) is the worst i have seen in a shooter...
    This game is a totaly console port, you can even see the RB- and LB-Buttonicons on top of the menus...
    DICE shame on you! Bad Company 2 was epic, Battlefield 3 was great, Battlefield 4 was okay, but Star Wars battlefront and now Battlefield 1 are the worst BF-Games i have ever played...
    Buy a cheap key if you want but you will notice a LOT of cheater, the only anti-cheating is Fairfight and it still bans people, but if you google about a hack, you will see there already Fairfight proof hacks...they just cost money.
    Battlefield RIP    … Expand
  48. NEWater
    Oct 24, 2016
    7
    The game is objectively fine. Pretty looking game, great sound, interesting take on SP, etc.

    But let's get into the MP. The worst part of the game is the people who play it. In almost every match, at least 50% of the team will be Scouts attempting to be the next Vassili Zaitsev while all 7 flags are capped by the other team. Meanwhile, I'd be the lone Assault with the AT rocket gun out    The game is objectively fine. Pretty looking game, great sound, interesting take on SP, etc.

    But let's get into the MP. The worst part of the game is the people who play it. In almost every match, at least 50% of the team will be Scouts attempting to be the next Vassili Zaitsev while all 7 flags are capped by the other team. Meanwhile, I'd be the lone Assault with the AT rocket gun out attempting to shoot at armor while two enemy heavy tanks roll together re-enacting the Ottoman genocide of Armenians.

    This problem of overpopulation of snipers has been extant since Bad Company 2, and EA/DICE have clearly not bothered to solve it. I don't think EA/DICE would fix this anytime soon - it's a shame when the game allegedly promotes itself as a team shooter. There's not even a class quota to address this.

    -3 for this design flaw.    … Expand
  49. NoWanga
    Dec 18, 2016
    7
    To preface, I do not read responses to my posts; so don't write one.

    Like all battlefield game I start off loving it. The immersion, the graphics, the destructible terrain all draw me in immediately. Having said that, now rounding my 100 hour in game i find myself continuously frustrated. Like all DICE and EA games, there are definitive classes and weapons that are just better than    To preface, I do not read responses to my posts; so don't write one.

    Like all battlefield game I start off loving it. The immersion, the graphics, the destructible terrain all draw me in immediately. Having said that, now rounding my 100 hour in game i find myself continuously frustrated. Like all DICE and EA games, there are definitive classes and weapons that are just better than everything else on certain modes and maps. Each time the mode or map changes, a different class gets to step on everyone; its never balanced.

    So, as always I find myself wondering why I ever give my money to EA or DICE.    … Expand
  50. Talbis
    Oct 26, 2016
    6
    It's Battlefield. Again. World War I my ass... Automatic weapons... It's fun, but not unique. Buy it at a discount if you have to, as there's no difference between this and Battlefield 4. Unfortunate disappointment.
  51. BatmanIsLyfe
    Apr 30, 2017
    6
    I've played the game quite a bit now, and I'm sad to say I've never gotten that "this is amazing!" feeling that I got in Battlefield 4. The game is beautiful, and a wonderful ode to the first World War, but the gameplay feels impossible from mid to long distance. Of course, weapons were less accurate back then, but when has Battlefield been about complete historical accuracy? When I pointI've played the game quite a bit now, and I'm sad to say I've never gotten that "this is amazing!" feeling that I got in Battlefield 4. The game is beautiful, and a wonderful ode to the first World War, but the gameplay feels impossible from mid to long distance. Of course, weapons were less accurate back then, but when has Battlefield been about complete historical accuracy? When I point my damn gun at someone, and it's a semi-auto weapon, I want the shot to hit them!

    The game is dominated by smg's and lmg's. Lmg's are the most accurate weapons in the game (unless you're at a dead standstill with a sniper) which makes no sense. Playing this game just makes me want to jump back into BF4, which is what I've been doing.

    Many people will say I'm just bad, but I'm one of those players that makes it into the top 3-5 players every match when I'm trying. I'm also rank 83.

    To sum up: the game is beautiful and intriguing, but it's too annoying and luck/explosive-based to be a lot of fun.    … Expand
  52. Karvahattu
    Dec 29, 2016
    6
    It's ok but not good. This BF1 is only for PS4 and XBOX1 not for pc. Too much arcade. Maybe these games are only for those funnyboxes and not anymore pc-gamers.
  53. muzmuz
    Apr 3, 2017
    6
    Extremely beautiful graphics, animation and sound effects, the Battlefield franchise always blow gamers away with its top of the line eye candies and ear-gasmic audio work. However, Battlefield 1 (unlike the previous titles) failed to hook me with its short hollow mini campaigns and unexciting gameplay.
  54. Caerleon
    Dec 25, 2017
    5
    Let's start with the positive.
    The game looks amazingly beautiful. Weather phenomena make an impression. Of course, a new era can be highlighted as a huge plus. Have you ever played a game about the First World War?Total destructibility of buildings is delighted.
    Now about the bad moments in the game. Poor balance and domination of aircraft and tanks. If in the past parts one engineer    Let's start with the positive.
    The game looks amazingly beautiful. Weather phenomena make an impression. Of course, a new era can be highlighted as a huge plus. Have you ever played a game about the First World War?Total destructibility of buildings is delighted.

    Now about the bad moments in the game.
    Poor balance and domination of aircraft and tanks. If in the past parts one engineer could destroy the tank at a long distance. Now the anti-tank gun deals funny damage. The repair of armored vehicles is too fast. Aircraft can be brought down only from a stationary antiaircraft gun. Therefore, if your team does not have experienced pilots, then the enemy in the sky will feel invulnerable. Damage from anti-aircraft guns is too small and has a limited shooting pleasure. Poor customization of weapons. In fact, we have one weapon and 3 its modifications. Interesting? No! In the past, you could customize weapons as you like    … Expand
  55. redyar
    Mar 28, 2017
    6
    Very good game. Very nice gameplay, love it! Unfortunately the game is not finished at all but already sells dlcs. Played against several hackers but you cannot do anything against them. Custom server options seem to be a joke compared to the previous games.

    Currently I have about 150h in multiplayer (over 1000h in previous battlefields).
  56. Vertoghen
    Oct 21, 2016
    7
    It's between COD and BF4, a Battlefront reskin imo.
    Simple enough for a casual and fun enough for a pro.

    The fantasy wwi is ridiculous but not so important in a chaotic game.
  57. inkblowout
    Oct 22, 2016
    6
    It's better than battlefield 4 at least and on par with battlefield 3. It fails to grasp the concept that this game is a "battlefield" game, but it doesn't deliver like Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2142 and Battlefield Bad Company 1. As for the gameplay, it feels like battlefront or battlefield 4 slapped on with a world war 1 skin. Gameplay doesn't even feel really authentic especiallyIt's better than battlefield 4 at least and on par with battlefield 3. It fails to grasp the concept that this game is a "battlefield" game, but it doesn't deliver like Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2142 and Battlefield Bad Company 1. As for the gameplay, it feels like battlefront or battlefield 4 slapped on with a world war 1 skin. Gameplay doesn't even feel really authentic especially for a WW1 setting, if it were to be WW2 I would kinda understand. But World War 1 was just a bunch of dudes in trenches lined up and firing at one another... not jumping around running and gunning smoking 6 guys in a row with a automatic rifle. And also spawns are horrible. If someone is controlling gunship.... they can easily spawn camp the enemy team and the people below couldn't do anything about it unless they had an Anti air weapon. It really makes me wonder if anyone at DICE knew anything about World War 1.

    Also the fact people are ripping on Call of duty keep in mind the amount of times I've been quickscoped more times by scouts in BF1 than I've had in Call of Duty 4... and that's really embarrassing & quite annoying actually. And 80 Bucks for this game!!! (For me I had to pay 90 dollars) This game doesn't feel it even deserves to be 60 bucks.... the game is worth at most 40 bucks, and that's being generous. And the fact EA had the balls to charge people 160 Dollars for this mediocre FPS.

    Honestly the game isn't bad yes, they have taken a step forward after the trash from Battlefield 4, Battlefield hardline, and Battlefront. But it's not a huge improvement or a huge innovative process. It's just a bunch of dudes running around playing the game like call of duty. It essentially is call of duty but with vehicles. I personally enjoyed Battlefield 3 more than this game. Battlefield 1 feels like it doesn't offer too much for it what could have been, wasted potential and refunded. It's just your generic, cookie cutter FPS... nothing to see here folks.    … Expand
  58. Vasot
    Oct 30, 2016
    5
    The game has an awful campaign with very stupid enemy A.I and missions do not feel epic at all very dissapointing. The game feels like a g military shooter with good graphics and focusing to multiplayer than anything else
  59. EasternUNO
    Apr 9, 2017
    5
    There are couple of things I like on this game. First of all it's beautiful graphics and very good performance optimization. You can play this game even using 2 cards in SLI mode, I like the idea about the WW1, but that's pretty much all.

    And now about cons: First of all I was very disappointed after finishing ridiculously short Single Player. Where are those old times with very long    There are couple of things I like on this game. First of all it's beautiful graphics and very good performance optimization. You can play this game even using 2 cards in SLI mode, I like the idea about the WW1, but that's pretty much all.

    And now about cons: First of all I was very disappointed after finishing ridiculously short Single Player. Where are those old times with very long and entertaining Single player like Medal of Honor, older Call of Duty series, even Battlefield 4 had amazing SP, but this one is ridiculous. I don't also like the Multiplayer, because when you got killed, you have to wait a long time before you can respawn again and that's what I hate mostly about it. I like games full of action and not something like this where you have to wait all the time.

    I can't understand how this game can have one of the best ratings... I rate this game 5.5 / 10 and I regret buying it.    … Expand
  60. ivan7788
    Dec 9, 2017
    5
    The game engine is not polish at all, it might look good on pictures or trailers but it looks bad on movement, the optimization is trash because after some matches the game starts to use 100% of the hard drive. The game is too demanding for what it offers.

    The gameplay is rubbish and lacks polish, the match making is by far the worst thing in the game, 9/10 times matches are unbalanced    The game engine is not polish at all, it might look good on pictures or trailers but it looks bad on movement, the optimization is trash because after some matches the game starts to use 100% of the hard drive. The game is too demanding for what it offers.

    The gameplay is rubbish and lacks polish, the match making is by far the worst thing in the game, 9/10 times matches are unbalanced heavely. And too add the last drop the game is full of people hacking killing players while flying and stuff like that.    … Expand
  61. mrrader72
    Oct 24, 2016
    7
    If your looking for an authentic WWI experience, this game is for you. It really does capture the grit and the grime; the horror of war. Turns out WWI wasn't very fun. You rarely are engaged with the person that kills you. The map is so cluttered with the debris of war, it can be very difficult to spot enemies. There are supper cool moments. The game looks amazing! It's just notIf your looking for an authentic WWI experience, this game is for you. It really does capture the grit and the grime; the horror of war. Turns out WWI wasn't very fun. You rarely are engaged with the person that kills you. The map is so cluttered with the debris of war, it can be very difficult to spot enemies. There are supper cool moments. The game looks amazing! It's just not super fun. I'm a huge BF4 fan. Loved it! Put in over 400 hours in it. This game, though laid out the same way, just isn't as fun. The equipment used during the period was crude, and difficult to use, and it shows through in the game. Some of the guns own sites obstruct your vision. Almost every gun solely uses iron sites. It's worth checking just to experience it's authenticity. I wonder if it has any staying power.… Expand
  62. sherkborg
    Oct 22, 2016
    6
    Not impressed at all. After being serious annoyed with 'Butters', apples, butters, apples you really get to experience the game.

    The weapons lack depth, the gameplay lacks depth and honestly I enjoyed the launchs of the other battlefields much more then this one. The weapons seem poorly balanced, the squad system lacks usefulness and it honestly feels like a solo multiplayer game. Its a    Not impressed at all. After being serious annoyed with 'Butters', apples, butters, apples you really get to experience the game.

    The weapons lack depth, the gameplay lacks depth and honestly I enjoyed the launchs of the other battlefields much more then this one. The weapons seem poorly balanced, the squad system lacks usefulness and it honestly feels like a solo multiplayer game. Its a weird sensation but I feel the game doesnt feel as interactive as the previous Battlefields. Its like everything is more picture then useable in the environment and the kill system is very unrewarding I feel. Overall I dont think this game is a great addition to this years game lineup.    … Expand
  63. 998817268
    Oct 23, 2016
    6
    I'll probably get some hate from people who idealize this game, but it is by no means perfect. I'm really enjoying some aspects of this game - my review is focused on the multiplayer since I have no interest in the campaigns. It feels fresh, the weapons are generally balanced, the maps all look great, flying planes and driving vehicles is fun - I could not stop laughing as I rolled a heavyI'll probably get some hate from people who idealize this game, but it is by no means perfect. I'm really enjoying some aspects of this game - my review is focused on the multiplayer since I have no interest in the campaigns. It feels fresh, the weapons are generally balanced, the maps all look great, flying planes and driving vehicles is fun - I could not stop laughing as I rolled a heavy tank full of people down a mountainside without taking any damage on one map. That said, what is up with horses? Why can't you use regular weapons on them? Why is the trample detection so janky? I ran over a guy laying in front of me three times in a row with my horse and he just shot me off, which made me feel like a total idiot. Also, why did DICE make the rear facing machine guns on planes so powerful on planes? Those machine guns do so much more damage than the actual machine guns on the fighter planes that it is nearly impossible to destroy a plane you're chasing if that plane has even a decent gunner on board. Why do you have to unlock pistols for every class, and why do different classes have different pistols? They're just pistols. Let me get a decent pistol for the scout class; the class is already bad enough for close quarters combat. Anti air guns, even if they don't hit your plane cause it to bounce around as if it is entering a sharknado. I'm sure I could go on, but as I've indicated, the game is not perfect; and some of the 'balancing' Dice has done since the beta (the light tank, it shoots so incredibly slow and is so much weaker now that I personally find it nearly useless) has actually made certain features that were overpowered so underpowered that they've become useless.… Expand
  64. JBG84
    May 12, 2018
    5
    Sadly a poorly optimised game for PC. Simply loading the game and leaving your PC idle on the Game Menu screen, an Intel quad-core @ 4.5Ghz you will experience 40-50% CPU load. This compares to 5-10% similar FPS games (as an optimised game should). What this means for the user is up to half their CPU capacity is already expended on game engine, leaving only 50-60% of your remaining CPUSadly a poorly optimised game for PC. Simply loading the game and leaving your PC idle on the Game Menu screen, an Intel quad-core @ 4.5Ghz you will experience 40-50% CPU load. This compares to 5-10% similar FPS games (as an optimised game should). What this means for the user is up to half their CPU capacity is already expended on game engine, leaving only 50-60% of your remaining CPU capacity to actually play the game.… Expand
  65. RustyJames
    Jan 31, 2021
    6
    Decent and enjoyable shooter, even now. Good single player stories. At least half of maps are pretty balanced and playable, and beautiful of course. Tanks and planes aren't OP. No SJW contents and way better than BF V and even BF4. Speed of the game is acceptable for most players. But cheaters, unbalanced teams and remaining maps, which is not playable make this game average and awful sometimes.
  66. BlueSmileyBE
    Dec 8, 2016
    6
    Battlefield 1 is fun at times, but the lack of team play is a shame.
    Battlefield has always been one of my favorite franchises, but I miss the real fun since DICE started to make games for the casual players (Battlefront, hmmmm?). The graphics, physics and sound effects are excellent, but the gameplay is poor.
  67. Hack
    Aug 16, 2017
    7
    I got to try it thanks to Origin Access and it's a decent game but not my cup of tea. I did enjoy the "campaign" though, which was five separate stories told from different perspectives of the war, it was well told and interesting and looked gorgeous, the cut scenes were photo-realistic. I tried a little of the multiplayer but it's really not my style, I prefer a faster, more arcadeI got to try it thanks to Origin Access and it's a decent game but not my cup of tea. I did enjoy the "campaign" though, which was five separate stories told from different perspectives of the war, it was well told and interesting and looked gorgeous, the cut scenes were photo-realistic. I tried a little of the multiplayer but it's really not my style, I prefer a faster, more arcade shooter which BF1 definitely isn't.… Expand
  68. game2002
    Jun 6, 2017
    7
    Great but awfully over hyped Battlefield game. The game looks and runs pretty good, I should've been able to play on ULTRA with my gtx 970, but just because I don't have an i7 processor but an i5 4690k it stutters when buildings are collapsing :/ Considering the game is not really that good looking (looks good because of some kind of filter and post effects), I will say I'm disappointedGreat but awfully over hyped Battlefield game. The game looks and runs pretty good, I should've been able to play on ULTRA with my gtx 970, but just because I don't have an i7 processor but an i5 4690k it stutters when buildings are collapsing :/ Considering the game is not really that good looking (looks good because of some kind of filter and post effects), I will say I'm disappointed since it looks like BF4 in those terms.

    However, the game is lacking in terms of content, only 9 maps on release day and the 10th was added later (EA is fooling people to believe they are releaseing free DLC to make them stand out as angels). Way too few weapons, and the LMG's are like sniper rifles. The game sold well because of hype surrounding the WW1 setting (which is FAR from historically correct anyway...). The campaign takes 2-3 hours to beat and it's nothing special, only there because it had to have something...

    But the worst part is Premium friends. I bought premium pass to be able to play all the new maps, since I got bored of the old ones after 30 hours. Now (after me and thousands of others have bought it already) EA announces Premium friends, which means that if one friend in your party owns premium, everyone in that party will be able to play all the premium maps. As you might hear, I feel ripped off.    … Expand
  69. GblPower
    Mar 23, 2017
    6
    Никаких особых наворотов по сравнению с предыдущими частями не добавилось. Зданий и разрушений стало меньше. (сеттингом это конечно оправдывается, но тем не менее).
    Картинка приятная, все по-прежнему динамично, драйвово и т,д. Сама игра держит марку, тут не докопаться.
    Только одно НО, которое я не хочу обосабливать от игры - с читерами никто не боролся и не борется и по сей день. И    Никаких особых наворотов по сравнению с предыдущими частями не добавилось. Зданий и разрушений стало меньше. (сеттингом это конечно оправдывается, но тем не менее).
    Картинка приятная, все по-прежнему динамично, драйвово и т,д. Сама игра держит марку, тут не докопаться.
    Только одно НО, которое я не хочу обосабливать от игры - с читерами никто не боролся и не борется и по сей день. И из-за этого оценка не 9, а 6.
    Всем хорошего коннекта и честных оппонентов. :)    … Expand
  70. rosnk30
    Nov 8, 2016
    7
    Storyline of Battlefield 1 is good anyway, but too much short.......the multiplayer is good like ever was, BUT nowadays has a little issues about performance and dont run smooth.

    Anyway, its a great game....wait the price bottom up and dont think twice
  71. KeNT_
    Sep 20, 2018
    5
    Столько чито-дрочеров даже в CS:GO нет. Неплохая кампания, с небольшими сюжетными историями, оставляет положительное впечатление, но в мультиплеер играть невозможно.
  72. juliiouse
    Aug 13, 2017
    7
    Battlefield 1 is easily the strongest Battlefield release since the likes of Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 way back in the early 2000's, but don't be fooled by the First World War setting. If you've played (and didn't enjoy) the past few Battlefields, this is essentially a very similar game, only adapted for a historical setting.

    I really enjoy the First World War setting of the game.    Battlefield 1 is easily the strongest Battlefield release since the likes of Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2 way back in the early 2000's, but don't be fooled by the First World War setting. If you've played (and didn't enjoy) the past few Battlefields, this is essentially a very similar game, only adapted for a historical setting.

    I really enjoy the First World War setting of the game. As a lover of history, it's a period that really doesn't get enough focus outside of the realms of dreary English Literature classes that focus on poetry. Battlefield 1 expands the vision of the First World War, focusing on more than just the muddy trenches of France and Belgium and depicting fighting across the world. This diversity give the game a great variety of colour palettes and maps. However, this game is NOT a realistic depiction of the First World War in any way. It borrows the uniforms, conceptual weapons and settings of the period, but it feels more like a multiplayer sequel to Bioshock Infinite than anything. If you want a realistic First World War shooter, pick up Verdun.

    Graphically, the game is very strong. Colour palette diversity aside, everything looks very crisp. The character and vehicle models are beautifully done, and many of the levels start with an almost idyllic landscape that quickly degenerates into a war torn hell as a game goes on. To top this all off, the game is insanely well optimised. Using a 2012 i5 CPU and an R9 290 GPU, I was able to clock around 50-60 FPS during intense firefights with Ultra graphics.

    The sound design and direction is also brilliant. There are varying filters put over the sounds of gunfire and shouting depending on the environment. Shots in external fields areas ring off mountainsides in the distance, gunfights in houses have a thudding bass to them, and rainswept trenches give off an eerily muted sound. In addition to some brilliant sounds for the weapons, it lends a great authenticity to proceedings.

    The gameplay-- whilst very much still a Battlefield game-- has gone through a revision to adapt it to the period. This has been met with mixed success. The main improvement is that the infantry combat in the game is the best the series has ever seen, a necessity given the move away from combined arms to primarily infantry combat with the odd vehicle. Vehicles are rarer but have much more impact due to the fewer means for infantry to destroy them. Previous Battlefield games always suffered from vehicle combat becoming it's own game and ignoring the actual battle being played out. The main failing of DICE on this outing was the questionable balancing of the class equilibrium. The loss of the assault rifle hasn't really been compensated for. Assault rifles in FPS games serve a very distinct purpose in gameplay. They are a jack of all trades, master of none weapon that are capable of engaging at all ranges. They ensure that SMG and Shotgun users don't wipe out swathes of people by keeping them out of range and they stop snipers getting comfortable. Without a range of mobile mixed ranged automatic weapons, changes should have been made. Without them, close quarters combat has become incredibly chaotic whilst snipers can only really be countered by cover or other snipers.

    The issue of balance is sidelined by the actual end product of all the effort DICE have put into the game though. Many minute to minute moments of mulitplayer combat could almost pass as scripted set pieces due to the dramatic feel of everything. For example, earlier today I was rushing a point with a few friends. As we approached the point, an enemy light tank appeared and fired at us. I dived into a house with two friends, only for another tank shell to blow the side of the house off and leave me stunned and wounded. At this point, an enemy soldier ran in with a shotgun to finish us off, only for my friend to kill him with a knife. The lighting cast the killing in shadows on the wall and it looked great.

    As usual, some modes work and others don't. Strangely, Conquest-- the staple of the series-- is probably one of the weakest modes on offer here. There never really feels like a frontline and games quickly degenerate into chaotic sprints from point to point. Frontlines and Operations are easily the best ways to play the game, and are luckily quite populated. These modes focus on only two points at a time, similar to Team Fortress maps like Dustbowl. It encourages teamwork and gradual progression across the map. and ensures that firefights are coherent but intense.

    Finally, the single player is not great. Although it has much more heart than the modern plots, most stories are only two chapters long and fall back on tired storytelling tropes. It doesn't even serve as a means to learn how to play the multiplayer game as two campaigns feature vehicle combat that plays out vastly differently to the multiplayer and one focuses on stealth mechanics that are absent from the multiplayer.    … Expand
  73. royben14
    Apr 26, 2017
    7
    Captures the feelings of the chaos of WW1 with brutal bayonet charges and gas grenades but you get battle fatigue pretty fast at the game, i come back to it once in a while but its just for some light fun. i also want to address the massive loading times. but i cant not praise all the research care love time and resources making this game capture the WW 1 feel.
  74. mrmcawesomechaz
    Feb 2, 2017
    7
    This is another great game ruined by bugs and glitches. I'm sick and tired of developers, or in this case publishers *cough*EA*cough*, rushing out an unfinished game and hoping to patch it later. I would MUCH rather have to wait a few months to a year longer if it meant that the game wouldn't be this glitchy. I keep getting teleported under the map where I can just run around and not doThis is another great game ruined by bugs and glitches. I'm sick and tired of developers, or in this case publishers *cough*EA*cough*, rushing out an unfinished game and hoping to patch it later. I would MUCH rather have to wait a few months to a year longer if it meant that the game wouldn't be this glitchy. I keep getting teleported under the map where I can just run around and not do anything. I also cant kill myself since my grenades don't work, so I either stay there until I quit, or until the match ends. Now, I'll give credit where credit is due. DICE has really capitalized on portraying the essence of WWI with stunning visuals and fun intense gameplay, but unless you have at least 2 other friends to play it with and none of you mind ridiculous amounts of bugs, then I can't recommend it. I don't hate the game by any stretch, but I wish that they would have taken more time to make sure that this game had less bugs and glitches at launch.… Expand
  75. Xxdaniels751xX
    May 15, 2017
    7
    Let's say that since I saw his trailer at E3 was quite Hypeado but after more than 400 hours played I still like but not as much as before.

    One of its great problems is the lack of content; We have almost reached the year since it came out and the useful life of the game depends on how much new content you put on the title to grease it and the community does not abandon it. If EA and    Let's say that since I saw his trailer at E3 was quite Hypeado but after more than 400 hours played I still like but not as much as before.

    One of its great problems is the lack of content; We have almost reached the year since it came out and the useful life of the game depends on how much new content you put on the title to grease it and the community does not abandon it.

    If EA and DICE do not put the batteries to give free content for all, NOT ONLY THE PREMIUM because I think the "Hardline syndrome" will not play Battlefield 1.    … Expand
  76. GoofNewf
    May 11, 2017
    5
    This game is trash. I happen to have several hundred years of military experience under my belt (even though there wasn't belts when I first started) and I can personally say that this game is completely unrealistic. After all, everybody knows that the main enemy in WWI was the Swahili, not the Germans. And guns didn't even exist! We fought with rocks and spears, and the occasional bow andThis game is trash. I happen to have several hundred years of military experience under my belt (even though there wasn't belts when I first started) and I can personally say that this game is completely unrealistic. After all, everybody knows that the main enemy in WWI was the Swahili, not the Germans. And guns didn't even exist! We fought with rocks and spears, and the occasional bow and arrow (but those were only for the rich nations). The fact that they dare bring guns into such a serious military conflict is awful.… Expand
  77. Truethertis
    Sep 7, 2017
    6
    When I played BF 1 bêta, I'd rate it a 7/10. The game is stunningly beautiful, the sound effects are amazing and it has a lot of details. But it was glitched.

    Of course, I pre-ordered it. Well, I've played BF 1 for a few months now. Less than a year tho. But I'm disappointed. The servers are too often laggy. Some classes (let's say Medic) have been nerfed but offer more stability and    When I played BF 1 bêta, I'd rate it a 7/10. The game is stunningly beautiful, the sound effects are amazing and it has a lot of details. But it was glitched.

    Of course, I pre-ordered it. Well, I've played BF 1 for a few months now. Less than a year tho. But I'm disappointed.

    The servers are too often laggy. Some classes (let's say Medic) have been nerfed but offer more stability and shooting rate than any sniper rifle. 2-3 bullets are usually enough to kill anybody.

    Still, the snipers lack anti-tank means. The K Bullets deal almost zero damage, and you can't carry more than 6.

    But that's not what disappoints me the most. It's not the lags. Not the messed up netcode. Not the never-banned cheaters you come accross sometimes. Not the lack of weapon customization. No.

    What really pisses me off is the fact that I pre-ordered an empty, unfinished game and paid 60 € (yes, I'm European) for it. To get the Standard Edition. The fact that you can now buy the Revolution Pack for the same price and get a full Premium Access to the game.
    And that, if I want to play the DLC, I get to pay 50 more **** €.

    Why, EA ? Just WHY are you punishing your trusty fans ?

    The community is dying. Battlefield 1 is dying. Players are deserting the game... and still, you won't offer us the ability to benefit the "Premium Friends" access to the new DLCs. Or even the ability to just pay, let's say.. 5 or 10 more € to get a Premium Pass. Nah.

    Well, let's hope for you that you don't **** up with Battlefront 2. Coz this will be the LAST time I offer you a chance to NOT disappoint me.

    Considering I've played every game since Battlefield 1942...    … Expand
  78. cem12
    Nov 9, 2017
    7
    En grandisimo juego, una calidad gráfica nunca antes vista y unos mapas muy bien hechos. El fallo que le veo, es que apenas hay jugadores en los servidores debido a la gran opción de búsqueda de servidores. Deberían simplificarla a fanático y normal El modo fanático es impresionante
  79. TheSquidgyFetus
    Aug 6, 2018
    5
    A very pretty game, those Swedes can really make a great game engine.
    But in a game so heavily reliant in its multiplayer experience its a shame we run into the same problems which hurt the previous installments. Mass grenade spam, spotting system an unbalance in vehicles, with short respawn times to have you question why it is you even attempt to destroy them. Most frustrating of all    A very pretty game, those Swedes can really make a great game engine.
    But in a game so heavily reliant in its multiplayer experience its a shame we run into the same problems which hurt the previous installments. Mass grenade spam, spotting system an unbalance in vehicles, with short respawn times to have you question why it is you even attempt to destroy them. Most frustrating of all being planes vs infantry, as unless you're next to an AA gun, there's not a lot to be done.. other than explode.

    The 64 player mode Conquest lends itself great in the more open maps, where others smaller in size can feel like a meat grinder, where you can find each team at either end of a choke point. To then be pushed back to deployment where LMG's sit stationed with bi-pods and ammo crates.
    This problem could easily be fixed with map specific player counts.

    The game in its current state and most likely final state as we await the release of bf5, is pure chaos. Its a shame it doesn't cater to the competitive scene.    … Expand
  80. 4125MakeItSo
    Feb 2, 2022
    7
    Game servers with no scope, no shotguns, no machineguns, just with simple bolt action rifle with iron sight are really good, and make sense of WW1. But standard servers are not interesting,
    Good physics and environment action by the way.
  81. samstrummer90
    Mar 5, 2022
    7
    LO PRIMERO Y MÁS IMPORTANTE: NO COMPRES JAMÁS ESTE JUEGO NI NINGÚN BATTLEFIELD POSTERIOR.

    EA se ríe de los usuarios permitiendo a los "cheaters" campar a sus anchas sólo para crear una comunidad tóxica y forzarnos a que compremos sus nuevos juegos a aquellos que aún queremos disfrutar de Battlefield 1. Aunque un server entero reporte, EA no hace nada. Y si bloqueas al "chetto" EA se    LO PRIMERO Y MÁS IMPORTANTE: NO COMPRES JAMÁS ESTE JUEGO NI NINGÚN BATTLEFIELD POSTERIOR.

    EA se ríe de los usuarios permitiendo a los "cheaters" campar a sus anchas sólo para crear una comunidad tóxica y forzarnos a que compremos sus nuevos juegos a aquellos que aún queremos disfrutar de Battlefield 1. Aunque un server entero reporte, EA no hace nada. Y si bloqueas al "chetto" EA se vuelve a reír de ti emparejándote de nuevo con él la siguiente vez que buscas partida. Vergonzoso. Si bloqueo a un jugador lo mínimo es que no tenga que volver a verlo en el juego. Por esta vergonzosa política unido a los micro pagos es por lo que no debemos comprar ningún producto con el sello de EA hasta que empiecen a valorar más a los jugadores y menos al dinero.

    En cuanto al juego, es entretenido porque no hay muchos juegos similares. Visualmente es bonito y sigue siéndolo en 2021. Pero es un juego muy mediocre. El juego está lleno de misiones absurdas que debes completar si quieres tener todas las medallas. Las misiones no requieren de ninguna habilidad y sólo consisten en "grindear" cosas como 1500 reanimaciones o destruir un coloso móvil con una Kolibri (WTF?). El armamento es absurdo e insultante, sin ningún realismo ni fidelidad histórica. Todos los ejércitos tienen acceso a todas las armas y vehículos además de que dentro del armamento encontramos prototipos y armamento irreal que convierten el campo de batalla en un conglomerado de gente corriendo mientras dispara ametralladoras automáticas. Todo muy WW1 oye. Además de incluir vehículos y armamento "cáncer" para "tryhards" que permiten hacer cosas como aparcar un vehículo fuera del mapa para bombardear a placer a los enemigos que aparecen en tu radar. Muy justo y equilibrado todo.

    En fin, que no lo compres. Que le den por saco a EA.    … Expand
  82. Lyronn
    Feb 9, 2021
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The only game I play in the Battlefield games is the first world war and it tells it beautifully, but not exactly because the whole story is not complete, but it can be taken lightly because it is a game.… Expand
  83. AgentLvi
    Dec 27, 2022
    7
    Decent game. The story is so --so, scoring is great, visual is amazing, the voice & sound is also amazing
  84. rotagen
    Jan 16, 2022
    7
    I'm not a fan of first person shooters, for some reason I can never really buy into being a soldier in a game and I'm more interested in machines, specifically planes and tanks.

    I've done a lot of searching but I cannot find the answer - does battlefield 1 give you any decent amount of content for driving tanks in tank sim fashion and using terrain as strategy? Thanks.
  85. jeanphilt
    Dec 23, 2017
    6
    I'm a big fan of Battlefield but I don't like BF1 so far so I've asked for a refund, until I see the DLCs.
    People in my clan are already back to BF4.
    Here are a few cons : - The "Rock, paper, scissors" gun scheme has absolutely ruined the game : 64 players mandatory + automatic weapon high recoil don't help - Level progression is not rewarding (it should be more obvious when you    I'm a big fan of Battlefield but I don't like BF1 so far so I've asked for a refund, until I see the DLCs.
    People in my clan are already back to BF4.

    Here are a few cons :

    - The "Rock, paper, scissors" gun scheme has absolutely ruined the game : 64 players mandatory + automatic weapon high recoil don't help

    - Level progression is not rewarding (it should be more obvious when you level up, etc)

    - Boring slow tanks gameplay with limited visibility (same for boats, planes, even horses are not as fun as motorcycles in BF4)

    - No custom server at launch, then useless custom servers since admins can't change much

    - Most expansive game ever (160$ CAD for Game + Premium)

    - Too many bad maps, especially since tanks are boring : Suez, Fao Fortress, Sinai Desert

    - No real great maps (while Amiens and St. Quentin's Scar are OK)

    - Feels more like Battlefront 2 than BF5

    edit : 6 months later, I've played it for the free 10 hours, players population has dropped but it's still OK, the DLCs have been slowly released but they made a few improvements to the game that makes it a little better

    edit : 12 months later, the player population continued to drop, now only 25k on PC compared to 15k for BF4 currently, I wanted to try the new game mode Incursions (beta), waited for 10 minutes to get in a game but not enough player so I left then I come back and get a warning for "abandoning matches" ... come on EA ...    … Expand
  86. ChoicestGames
    Feb 15, 2019
    7
    DICE is to be commended for taking the risk and returning back to historical wars as a setting for their Battlefield games and Battlefield 1, for all intents and purposes, is a solid FPS: it has beautiful graphics, a glorious orchestral score and multiple gameplay improvements. The single player campaign also reminds us why World War I was so important to the evolution of warfare yet alsoDICE is to be commended for taking the risk and returning back to historical wars as a setting for their Battlefield games and Battlefield 1, for all intents and purposes, is a solid FPS: it has beautiful graphics, a glorious orchestral score and multiple gameplay improvements. The single player campaign also reminds us why World War I was so important to the evolution of warfare yet also shows us personal tales of courage, loss and sacrifice. Unfortunately, the game does have minor issues (e.g. laggy cutscenes, dumb AI, poor level design, etc.) and it seems to be even less authentic or realistic than previous Battlefield games in terms of pacing, the battles and the weapons – so much so that it's the first Battlefield game I really didn't get into.… Expand
  87. Klewer
    Nov 15, 2022
    6
    On the surface a pretty solid modern FPS. If you are fan of these type of games there is nothing wrong with it and has good enough gameplay. Where it falls down for me is the branding of it being a WW1 game when it's completely ahistorical and really just a WW2 game with some tweaking.
  88. Jorchking
    Nov 1, 2020
    6
    Un poco decepcionado. Desaprovecha mucho la temática de la Guerra Mundial con esa pésima decisión de historias distintas por fascículos.
    Puntos positivos:
    -Gran calidad sonora -Doblaje al español hispanoamericano en PC (Call of Duty siempre elimina ese doblaje en el port de PC en Steam) -En la campaña, no hay Eventos de Tiempo Rápido (QTE), algo que se valora mucho excluir. -Multijugador    Un poco decepcionado. Desaprovecha mucho la temática de la Guerra Mundial con esa pésima decisión de historias distintas por fascículos.
    Puntos positivos:
    -Gran calidad sonora -Doblaje al español hispanoamericano en PC (Call of Duty siempre elimina ese doblaje en el port de PC en Steam) -En la campaña, no hay Eventos de Tiempo Rápido (QTE), algo que se valora mucho excluir. -Multijugador activo. -Cargas rápidas y optimización excelente en PC.
    Puntos negativos:
    - Temática desperdiciada: Se tomó la decisión de poner 5 mini historias de 1 hora c/u que desaprovechan la temática de la Guerra Mundial, ya que cada una dura muy poco y no termina de tener inmersión. La campaña es cortísima y mediocre. Pésima decisión. -Cinemáticas a 30fps. -Imprecisión histórica y sobredimensionamiento de mujeres y negros, los hacen ver como si fueran casi igual en cantidad que los soldados más representativos. Pasa algo similar en Battlefield 5. Aquí la portada es un negro, en el 5 una mujer... Cuando las portadas deberían de ser del tipo de soldado más representativo (un blanco, y un nazi o ruso, respectivamente). Este es un error muy típico de la actualidad para imponer su agenda de "diversidad e igualdad", una falacia enorme. En el multijugador no te sorprendas si ves más afros o mujeres más que cualquier otro tipo de soldado.
    -Gráficas e interfaz que me hacen pensar que es más un Battlefront que un Battlefield. No me convenció a pesar de ser un gran salto gráfico.
    -Multijugador con poca variación de armas y mapas estándar muy sencillos. Retroceso respecto a Battlefield 4.

    En resumen: Battlefield 1 posee grandes saltos en lo sonoro y visual, y llegaba muy prometedor con la temática de Guerra Mundial pero que se queda en multijugador como, especialemente, el modo campaña donde desperdicia de manera categórica la temática de Guerra Mundial. Una temática con mucho potencial tirada a la basura, al igual que pasaría con Battlefield V. Gran parte de esa culpa es la introducción de personajes forzados, de querer imponer una agenda, y, sobre todo, de la pésima decisión de poner mini historias que no te terminan de llegar nunca, que son cortas y no tienen la inmersión necesaria como para exprimir la historia de la Guerra Mundial. He prejuzgado mucho al Call of Duty WWII, pero creo que aprovecha mucho mejor la temática de la Guerra Mundial que la combinación de Battlefield 1 y 5. Cualquier campaña de los últimos Call of Duty creo que es mejor que el modo historia de este juego.

    La nota es entre un 5 y 6, pero seré generoso y le daré un aprobado por los pelos.    … Expand
  89. valsaven
    Apr 7, 2020
    6
    > I rate only offline company. <

    Pros:
    * Good graphics
    * interesting World War I setting

    Cons:
    * Stories of heroes don't cling.
    * Terribly boring stealth missions.

    If you think that the Battlefield series can't have an interesting offline campaign, take a look at Battlefield: Bad Company.
  90. PaulJazz24
    May 31, 2022
    5
    Hackers-infested multiplayer. It would be a great game without the usual hacker problems.
  91. Maksim47
    Jan 31, 2018
    6
    6/10 boring battlefield game. Used to be a BF fan back in the day. I don't like this version at all. Think twice before you buy.
  92. rockon
    Jun 2, 2020
    5
    This game had so much positives from critics that I gave it a whirl. I haven't gotten to the multiplayer yet and I don't think I will because I think the weapons and gun play in this game kind of suck. I got the Revolution version on Ebay for $10. Glad I didn't pay any more because the game is disappointing. The lavish backgrounds and graphics are meaningless if the game play isThis game had so much positives from critics that I gave it a whirl. I haven't gotten to the multiplayer yet and I don't think I will because I think the weapons and gun play in this game kind of suck. I got the Revolution version on Ebay for $10. Glad I didn't pay any more because the game is disappointing. The lavish backgrounds and graphics are meaningless if the game play is stupid. There's no strategy and the maps are highly restrictive. It's basically straight at your opponents up the gut. Only in stupid zombie games and Call of Duty do you see maps more restrictive as to where yo can move. And the gun play is ridiculous. You can only pick up certain enemy weapons. You run out of ammunition easily because even on Easy setting you some times must shoot an enemy 5 times to bring them down. The two sniper rifles I've seen so far are garbage. With one of the sniper rifles II shot an enemy in the chest with with open sights from about 20 feet away. And he didn't go down. Whether or not you get kills seems to be completely haphazard. I'll shoot a guy like 9 times with a rifle and he won't go down. Then I'll get 4 one-shot kills in a row from about the same range. I'll shoot directly at an enemy's chest and he won't go down. But then I'll just aim in the general direction of another enemy and he goes down right away. It makes no sense. There are explosions going on all around you with no indication of where the fire is coming from. I was hoping for a more realistic shooter. If you want satisfying gun play try Sniper Elite 4. The multi-player is really stupid but the campaign and co-op are great. And where's the co-op in Battlefield 1? Oh, that's right. No co-op. Most people will play this game for a little while and then quit. I finished my first campaign section and said to myself, is that it? Really, that's it? It lasted like 30 minutes or less. That means you can probably finish all of the campaign sections in several hours. Pretty content, but not much of it. Critics talk about how great the campaigns are but don't mention that they are so brief. No wonder EA started giving this game away. Shallow eye candy is a good description.… Expand
  93. TsukasaHiiragi
    Dec 1, 2017
    6
    As of 12/2/2017 review

    Pros: Engaging single player war stories which tell the horror, although fiction these stories could be pluasible considering how brutal World War 1 really was; the biggest problem I personally have is the fact the single player campaign is a measly 4 - 5 hours long which sends a clear message that EA doesn't care about single player. I think this could    As of 12/2/2017 review

    Pros:

    Engaging single player war stories which tell the horror, although fiction these stories could be pluasible considering how brutal World War 1 really was; the biggest problem I personally have is the fact the single player campaign is a measly 4 - 5 hours long which sends a clear message that EA doesn't care about single player.

    I think this could have been a really special single player experience if it actually was the length of a proper campaign. Some of the missions involving stealth, capturing points and infiltrating bases work exceptionally well, and are really fun to play - the shame is the fact there are so few of these its almost insulting and disappointing.

    Multiplayer, Loot crates for skins...roughly 90% of the playerbase has moved on to Battlefront 2 so unless you pick this up for free, or as part of the EA All Access program, then simply don't bother.    … Expand
  94. fernando8biondi
    Oct 12, 2019
    6
    Excellent graphics, and a great starting sequence.
    Too bad it's just another predictable FPS, little chance of catching your attention.
  95. REEDDLES
    Jul 19, 2019
    7
    Main evaluation criteria:
    -Story: 6
    -Atmosphere: 7 -Characters: 5 -Graphics and design: 10 -Gameplay: 8 -Sound and Music: 10 -Bugs: 8 -Interface: 9 -Balance (Multiplayer): 7 - Donates influence on the game (Pay to win): 10 Аdditional evaluation criteria (Do not really affect the assessment): -Freedom of choice: 0 -Coop in Story mode: 0 -Multiplayer: 8 -Mods and the ability    Main evaluation criteria:
    -Story: 6
    -Atmosphere: 7
    -Characters: 5
    -Graphics and design: 10
    -Gameplay: 8
    -Sound and Music: 10
    -Bugs: 8
    -Interface: 9
    -Balance (Multiplayer): 7
    - Donates influence on the game (Pay to win): 10

    Аdditional evaluation criteria (Do not really affect the assessment):
    -Freedom of choice: 0
    -Coop in Story mode: 0
    -Multiplayer: 8
    -Mods and the ability to change the game: 0

    Scores from 1 to 10, the higher the better

    Singleplayer: 7/10
    Multiplayer: 8/10    … Expand
  96. Demon2017
    Jun 18, 2022
    7
    Последняя хорошая часть Батлфилда. Мне не нравится эта тема с войной в прошлом, но игра хотя бы играбельна и имеет не самую плохую сюжетную компанию.
  97. FURack
    Oct 24, 2017
    7
    Perfect in technical section; graphic, sound, music. Has a great and involving history in most of the campaigns. BUT is an EA game, campaign too short, for the other half you need to buy a DLC, so stupid. A game with 6 hrs of campaign and a multiplayer that is the same thing, shoot, run, shoot, die, respawn, run, shoot, die, respawn... Well, I don't like the multiplayer of any game.
  98. skeletorone
    Jan 4, 2018
    7
    Battlefield 1 is a good Multiplayer-Shooter with emphasis on Teamplay. BUT if you are a longtime Battlefield player like I am you probably suffer of "franchise fatique" like I do. Yes, Battlefield 1 has an interesting setting but that can't mask the fact that the gameplay is pretty much the same as always since Battlefield 3. The DLC politics are very bad and result in a two classBattlefield 1 is a good Multiplayer-Shooter with emphasis on Teamplay. BUT if you are a longtime Battlefield player like I am you probably suffer of "franchise fatique" like I do. Yes, Battlefield 1 has an interesting setting but that can't mask the fact that the gameplay is pretty much the same as always since Battlefield 3. The DLC politics are very bad and result in a two class playerbase.

    Battlefield needs a break. A long break.    … Expand
  99. JamEater
    Jul 9, 2018
    7
    Very fast, adrenaline pumping shooter with beautiful graphics. It is much faster than Battlefield 4, and in my opinion it's not a good change.
  100. Yelov
    Jul 22, 2018
    7
    Very nice visuals and sound design, but not enough maps without buying DLCs.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

11
#11 Best PC Game of 2016
5
#5 Most Discussed PC Game of 2016
18
#18 Most Shared PC Game of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 54 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 54
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 54
  3. Negative: 0 out of 54
  1. PC PowerPlay
    Dec 18, 2016
    80
    Has DICE made the Great War Great again? Well, it's certainly delivered a fresh-feeling shooter in a very saturated market. But the missing modes are felt. [Issue#257, p.58]
  2. Edge Magazine
    Dec 14, 2016
    90
    Battlefield 1 is better than its predecessors in almost every way. [Christmas 2016, p.102]
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Dec 12, 2016
    100
    Battlefield is back in shape and more so with fresh theme of the first Great War! After a long time, the campaign is successful and multiplayer is traditionally excellent. So, this year your choice is set! [Issue #269]
See all critic reviews »