Battlefield 1 Shows Off 64-Player Gameplay

Battlefield 1 [official site] was one of only two games EA had much of to show during their E3 annouce-o-rama, the other being Titanfall 2. Along with your traditional sound-and-fury E3 trailer (which was pretty swish, to be fair), they also showed a heck of a lot of actual gameplay. Two celebrity-studded teams squared off in 32v32 Conquest mode action, and it’s preserved online for your war-watching wonder.

First, here’s your regular E3 trailer, showing off basic manshoots as well as newly-revealed ‘Behemoth’ class vehicles – air ships, armoured trains, and battleships.

DICE also used the event to announce dynamic weather, which can see maps played in different weather conditions – changing mid-game too. A sunny day is not the same as a foggy one on the WW1 battlefields. Also newly blurbed up, Operations:

“Operations introduces a completely new way to play multiplayer. In Battlefield 1 will you play a series of interconnected battles across multiple fronts. Play a sequence of battles where your actions have consequences beyond a single match, as you try to conquer territory or push back your attackers.”

Now here’s the real stuff, the preserved 64-player action. I hope EA will split their steam and put videos on YouTube because otherwise, well, I’m left saying skip to 2:01:40 in this archived Twitch stream:

Sorry if that autoplays – Twitch’s player is a wreck. Dang, it looks wild when the air ship is downed and crashes to the ground, leaving its skeleton draped over the ruins of buildings it wiped out.

Battlefield 1 is due in October 21st.

Do check the rest of our E3 2016 posts, previews, odds, ends, and gubbins.


  1. pennywyz says:

    Actually looked more fun to me than it seemed “on paper”

  2. Sundance123 says:

    Snoop Dogg smoking a zoot at 02:08:18.

  3. Clavus says:

    So far my expectations are holding up, it looks phenomenal. The dynamic weather and ability to pilot the larger vehicles shows that they’re finally pushing back against all the scripted stuff they put in BF4, which just gets old after the 10th time you play the map. Much like Bad Company 2, this looks like a playground of destruction. Looking forward to it!

  4. TR`Ben says:

    Well, it’s the Battlefield we all know and lots of us love. The same formula plus some new features. Looks cool and fun. The game is defenitely taking advantage of the WWI setting. Guns, gear, environment, everything looks goreous. It’s nice that EA showed the actual live gameplay.
    It was also fun to watch all these celebs being “excited” about the game.

  5. Lord Zeon says:

    I have to admit that Battlefield 1 has turned out extremely disappointing. I was really hoping that they would be focusing on something a little slower – more Red Orchestra than CoD. Those tanks are moving just as fast as a modern tank in BF4, which is ridiculous. The rate of fire for all of the small arms is outrageously fast – reload times are the same as modern magazines.

    This is Battlefield 4 ghoulishly wearing the skin of the Great War without even trying to act like anything but a zombie.

    • DarkLiberator says:

      Thing is they never claimed it was going to be realistic game like say RO2. Their first priority is that its a Battlefield game.

      Though in hardcore mode, if its anything like BF4, bolt actions would destroy everyone.

      • Little_Crow says:

        The quotes in a previous article on RPS do suggest that they are aiming for a certain amount of realism, though.

        I can’t see them taking anywhere near the risks the original Red Orchestra mod gameplay did though, which is understandable considering the amount of money that will have been sunk into BF1’s development – it needs to be a commercial success first and foremost.
        I remember when BF1942 was released as a free multiplayer demo, if it can be anywhere near as much fun as that – they’ll have a winner.

        If they also release it so that people can run their own servers with ‘realism’ options turned on to tweak vehicle speeds, bullet drop, bullet velocity, no crosshairs, no HUD/minimap it may help quieten any discontent over the inevitably arcadey gameplay it will have by default

      • cutechao999 says:

        I think what you want is Verdun. Only the most well known of the WWI battles, but still, more RO than this.

  6. Stargazer86 says:

    Yeah, I was actually kind of annoyed by the gameplay. I just kept seeing lots of automatic weapons. The only bolt action rifle is a sniper rifle? Really? In a game based on WW1?

    • Tomhai says:

      This! Despite all the big effort to make it look WWI, it still feels like a regular BF. Running and gunning.

    • DThor says:

      Yeah – I really think one of the reasons you don’t see a lot of WWI shooters is because the tech was just beginning to emerge from the ranks of soldiers marching across open expansive fields and basically the nightmare was mustard gas, artillery shells, Gatling guns and slow biplanes buzzing overhead. It was the dawn of new terrible ways to kill people but it was disease-ridden, tedious and ultimately not a “fun” thing to simulate,it’s for sim fans that want less fun and more sim. I see here they got around that by making it completely unrealistic in just about every way. This isn’t the nightmare your great grandfather lived, it’s the next Battlefield. That’s OK, I wasn’t really expecting accuracy, just curious if the references to Battlefield 2 are anything more than PR.

    • Sulpher says:

      There are a multitude of weapons, many being unique to a class. There’s no reason to think bolt action and semi-auto will be limited at all. More like they are standard issue across classes during weapon selection, with the option for SMG, LMG, and shotguns for Assault, Support, etc.

  7. Dunbine says:

    Those are some brave soldiers in that trailer. Charge right into the teeth of the enemy, with nary a concern! Damn the torpedoes… and shells… and bullets…

  8. Kollega says:

    When I read about the “Operations mode”, my first thought was that the game is still going to feature the same battles for all eternity because it’s a multiplayer FPS… which is startlingly appropriate, given the usual depictions of World War 1.

  9. Cross says:

    Gotta say, it’s an unusual show of confidence for EA to go straight for live gameplay. It bodes well for the polish and competence of the game when it comes out.

    • Jackablade says:

      Assuming there’s anything real about it.

      • PoulWrist says:

        Real? Like having 60 or so youtubers invited to play the game live and having even more come in and be allowed to record footage of them playing the game for their channels over the course of E3? :p

        Yeah, I can see how that makes monetary sense, creating all that fake gameplay and then paying off hundreds of people to put it on their channel talking about how it’s a game they played.

        Are you going to tell us about how nuclear power and atomic bombs are hoaxes, and how the moonlandings and holocaust never happened while 9/11 was an inside job next?

        • syndrome says:

          hm, maybe it’s not fake but.. problematic?

          maybe this is the way things are presented to you people, before you start throwing your wallets at it.

          I’m not amused.

  10. PoulWrist says:

    Here is a lovely video on the weapons seen in the latest trailer – and a nice, balanced viewpoint from a guy who is a weapons historian. Who is not at all upset about the absurd inaccuracy of the idea, but rather seems to be looking forward to it.

  11. ROMhack2 says:

    Okay, I used to say Assassin’s Creed was history-porn but it looks like we’ve got a new champ.

  12. botty says:

    Can we please talk about the absence of Ze French ?

  13. ninjapirate says:

    They should have gone with “Battlefield I”.