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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
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 »