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.
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 »