Battlefield 1 Trailer Mixes Old Timey Weapons With Modern Warfare

Battlefield 1 [official site] got a fresh trailer this week, this time showcasing the game’s arsenal. I’m not usually one for realistic military shooters, but even I was impressed by the amount of behind-the-scenes info DICE managed to pack into this two minute trailer. It covers everything from the design of the weapons to the actual history behind World War I’s battle tactics.

According to DICE, Battlefield 1 is going to feature a huge range of weapons that reflect World War I’s transition into modern military tactics. The medieval war club features just as heavily as the machine gun, meaning combat goes from sniping from windows to hand-to-hand very quickly.

The development team took great care to make sure that the sound and feel of the weapons are as accurate as possible, firing real life versions of the classic weapons for research. We also get a look at quite a few of the in-game weapons in action, too, as we learn that each was designed to have a different personality.

Battlefield 1 launches on EA Origin on October 21. Folks who purchase the “Early Enlister” edition get three days of early access to the game starting on October 18. If you’re really itching to get an early look at the game, DICE is planning a beta test some time after this year’s Gamescom.


  1. zxcasdqwecat says:


  2. USER47 says:

    It’s funny how they are always talking about how different that WW1 setting is to usual modern games…and then it cuts to the gameplay and it’s full of the usual 360noscope full auto mess with slightly different weapon skins and 5.9% better graphics than last instalment. Meh.

    • Stargazer86 says:

      Was hoping for somewhat slower gameplay mainly featuring bolt action rifles. I lost interest once I saw the majority of weapons were automatic.

    • Gwilym says:

      The whole video comes across as mocking satire. At first it seems like someone’s added in the game footage to undermine what they’re saying, but after a while their words get so bizarre that the footage isn’t even needed.

      Still, if you’re going to be tasteless, you might as well go all-in.

      Which they won’t, of course. I’m kind of excited to see what token ‘horrors of war’ material they slip in, just to make the tone of the whole thing utterly impossible to parse.

    • eqzitara says:

      5.9% better graphics is pretty high considering the highly destructible environments.

      Texture resolution is not everything.

    • Turkey says:

      It would’ve been cooler if they went full on dieselpunk with it. Like with crazy WW1 looking mechs and jetpacks and stuff.

      • NukeWithG says:

        I’m betting that that’s what they’ll do with the DLC, kinda like what they did with the final BF4 DLC (futuristic weapons like a remote controlled jet engine thing with a gun attached to it and hover tanks).

      • MrUnimport says:

        I’ve been honestly thinking of it as a dieselpunk fantasy rather than a historical shooter, not that Battlefield has ever been realistic.

  3. Collieuk says:

    I always wondered how they were going to take the WWI scenario and make it appeal to a younger audience who have grown up thinking Call of Duty type games are historically accurate, right down to the perks soldiers at the time bestowed upon themselves to gain extra abilities in battle. Seems they’ve just reskinned every Battlefield game so far and pissed about with the accuracy/reload stats. There’s nothing in that trailer that remotely makes you think that’s how your grandad/great grandad might have fought. It’s another throwaway Fps. Call of Duty have gone to space, Battlefield back to WWI but ultimately its all the same. Shoot, level up, unlock new guns, be accused of cheating, rage quit. Millions of pounds for happy investors.

  4. Pizzzahut says:

    Cool, glorifying war is fun. Especially if it’s a different era.

    • TheRaptorFence says:

      I think this is what bothers me the most about Battlefield 1. As a history teacher I find World War I to be a complete moral mess-with nationalism at a feverish pitch going into the war, it’s mind- boggling that every major country came out of the war with shattered spirits. It’s a full reversal from the zeitgeist 5 years before, and its impact can still be felt on all the major powers.

      It’s the sort of war that you’d expect to be handled with care, highlighting the ideological clash between enthusiastic and optimistic beliefs walking into the trenches and the bitter reality of the situation walking out of them. This is the war that broke entire nation’s spirits.

      This should not just be a COD/Battlefield-reskin. At every new dev video I think to how I’m going to have to engage this in the classroom, and how it’s going to be a nightmare re-tooling a bunch of 15-year-old brains to not treat WWI like an Early Access version of WWII.

      • w0bbl3r says:

        From everything I have seen so far most people seem to think this looks awesome.
        The more I see the more disgusted I am. They used the hundred year anniversary of the somme to make sure the young kids know about WW1 just at the right time for their game to come out.
        A game that makes a complete mockery of the horror show this war was.
        I wasn’t hoping for realism from this. I expected it to be nonsense. But I didn’t expect just a reskin of the last 3 BF games.

        And people saying “BF is fast paced and has to have all these rapid-fire weapons”; I think they should go back and look at the original, BF1942. That was not only fun, and fairly fast paced, but still took it’s source material seriously enough to not come off as mocking and satirising it.

        • TheRaptorFence says:

          I loved the original BF1942 and its pacing. Quick TTK, yet because of long sight lines and fairly bare maps the de-facto weapon became the bolt actions (either on the sniper or engineer). The only time I used automatics was for assaulting buildings or ship boarding. That arcade feel still remains the highlight of the series for me.

      • ThornEel says:

        I found Verdun to be an interesting middle ground here.
        Sure, it is a team shooter with respawn and unlocking, with all the concessions to gameplay that it entails.
        On the other hand, it still at least tries to get weapons somewhat correctly, you won’t 360-noscope you way to history, in fact you will die from an unseen gun or under the kill cone of a machine-gun pretty often.
        Interestingly, the game mode is interesting for a recreation of the trench warfare in spirit: endless charges against trenches that are taken or lost, with many, many, many many many deaths, with nothing really gained or lost but a few hundreds of metres and a ridiculous amount of dead soldiers.
        And then, there are the maps. Some are nice enough, but most are blasted, depressing hellscapes with the occasional horse rotting in the no man’s land. One in particular is a rainy mud plain that feels so dirty I keep wanting to take a bath afterwards.
        They even drove the point further home with the last expansion, where now (depending on your settings) soldiers (including you) will scream in agony for what feels an eternity instead of cleanly dying when taking a fatal (but not instantly so) bullet.

        I feel it impossible to play it and think anything that the whole thing was a horror no one should have had to live through.

        But even then, after watching the series, it is hard to play anyway.

      • snowgim says:

        hm, here’s the thing, you’re worried about 15year old brains not treating WWI with respect. So is it better that they forget that it ever happened by tuning out in a boring classroom? Or maybe that they actually become engaged (and god forbid, interested) in the topic by playing a (not entirely accurate) game about it.
        No one plays these game believing them to be 100% accurate, not even 15 year olds, and even if they do at least you’ve got something they’re interested in to compare to, where you can point out the mistakes and tell them about the real war.

        And I will never understand a war with 20 million deaths deserving more respect than a war with 60 million deaths. Or in fact any war with any amount of deaths deserving more or less respect than any other. Where was that argument for the rest of gaming history?

        • w0bbl3r says:

          Yes, better they forget than think this is how it was. Or that this is even CLOSE to how it was.
          Either they forget, because they never learned properly in school, or they learn this nonsense from a videogame franchise that is catching up with CoD for stupidity.
          I say that forgetting is the lesser sin, yes.

          • Distec says:

            I don’t know why you think it is Battlefield 1’s duty to play the role of an educator.

            If kids end up thinking that this game is a realistic depiction of WW1, then that is a damning indictment of a failing education system. Not EA.

          • snowgim says:

            Wow. I never expected anyone to actually think that way. You’d rather erase an event from history than have the mere possibility of someone learning false information about it, that’s low.

            Also hypocritical, since unless you’re pushing 120 years old, then all your knowledge of WWI is second hand and you are in no position to judge how anyone else learns about it.

  5. Son_of_Georg says:

    The trailer makes me feel like this game couldn’t be more different from Verdun, a WW1 game that I enjoyed very much (with friends) while constantly thinking it was giving me a tiny glimpse of the real horrors of the Great War. In Verdun you rarely make progress alone, and even when you’re winning a lot of the game consists of charging out of trenches and immediately dying. It’s the kind of game that made my friends and I debate just how realistic a war game should be before we’re too sad to have fun (for example, we’ve been hesitant to play it since they added “realistic” gore and persistent bodies). Battlefield 1 might provide a fun time, but it looks like another shiny Hollywood version of war.

  6. w0bbl3r says:

    The more I see of this the more disgusted I become.

    And they used the anniversary of the somme as free advertising basically.
    They knew the 100 year anniversary was coming up, and decided that would be the perfect opportunity to make a game that has pretty much nothing to do with that war other than the skins on the weapons.
    And only the skins. Nothing else is accurate about them other than how they look.

    WW1 was perhaps the most horrific war of all time in terms of atrocities committed. I’m not usually sensitive to this kind of thing, because games are just games.
    But coming on the heels of the centenary of the battle of the somme is just in very bad taste. To then follow that with this nonsense that has little to nothing to do with WW1 is just a bit of a dump on the memory of the people who fought these battles, lived in those trenches, and were subjected to those horrors.

    • Eightball says:

      >WW1 was perhaps the most horrific war of all time in terms of atrocities committed.

      Don’t look up the sequel mate.

      • w0bbl3r says:

        I mean in terms of the warfare. How people treated their enemy, how the battles were fought, how their OWN troops had to survive, in trenches covered in mud and shit, at the point of starvation a lot of the time, eating what they could catch, grow or kill in the trench, just waiting to be sent into the gunfire to gain a few metres of ground.
        Or throwing around that lovely mustard gas.
        Or putting people into little plywood biplanes with a survival rate lower than a very drunk lion tamer.

        • Rich says:

          While I’m not suggesting that WWI was any less horrible than you’re saying, the wars of the 19th Century were often just as bad.

          • mechanixis says:

            It’s pretty widely accepted that WWI was orders of magnitude worse than any 19th century war. Mostly because new technology available made it possible to kill far more indiscriminately and efficiently than ever before.

    • Gibster says:

      I could apply that logic to literally any war and game about it and criticize it for not being accurate enough to honor its source material. Why it is somehow not okay when it comes to WWI eludes me. I guess because it is a more morally ambiguous war, but that could also be applied to Vietnam and Iraq, yet I see no complaints about games about those wars.

      • Son_of_Georg says:

        The moral ambiguity is part of what makes WWI so interesting, in my opinion. Everyone agrees that Hitler was a nasty guy, so it’s easy to make games about killing Nazis as if they aren’t real people (even though many people fighting on the German side didn’t agree with the Nazis). But you can’t put such a simple face on WWI.

        One good thing that even a bombastic game like this can do is teach people a little about the history. Even if the game isn’t at all accurate, they’ll learn a little about the battles, the weapons, and they might be interested enough to do a little real research.

        • Kelvin says:

          I think it would be nice if they had an Australian as the protagonist. Really.
          Please correct me if I’m wrong, and my perspective from here in Pennsylvania leaves plenty of room for that; but from what I understand, WWI was a very defining war for the Australia as a country because it was really the first war they participated in to a great extent. They weren’t one of the prime combatants, but it was their first, and it left an impression on them that was different from the other nations involved.
          What I heard was that for them it was a sort of national coming-of-age; 1914 was their 1066, or 1863, the year they felt Australia “grew up”.

          • Troubletcat says:

            WW1, and especially Gallipoli are indeed pretty important to Australia’s national identity. Not just because of their involvement in a major war meaning there was a certain feeling that Australia was really standing up and being counted on the global stage, but also because of the massive number of casualties relative to the population – Over 60,000 killed and more than 150,000 wounded or captured from a population of less than 5 million. So roughly 1 in 25 people were either killed or wounded. If you’re interested in what the war meant for Australia, you could do worse than watching this: link to . Shows its age in many respects, but nobody finishes highschool here without seeing it.

          • Kelvin says:

            Thanks! It’s gotta be online somewhere; I’ll put it high on my “to watch” list.

            Also, with regards to the war being a “horrific waste of human life” and such, I feel this is a very modern perspective on the issue.
            Most contemporary sources I’ve seen say that the majority of the soldiers felt little in the way of cynicism or disillusionment when the war was over. Many died yes, but the survivors tended to be of the opinion that they did their duty in an honorable way, and accomplished what they set out to do.
            Except for the Germans. The Treaty of Versailles was for them a national betrayal and embarrassment, and it made them willing to turn to -anyone- who would promise a return of German nationalism.

        • w0bbl3r says:

          That’s right, this is what I meant by it being the worst in terms of atrocities. Because they were just blatantly committed by all sides. There was such a callous and ignorant disregard for human life.

    • BillyBumbler says:


      Sure, selectively pick what wars you want to be disgusted and angry at. I have relatives that lived through the Vietnam War and some from WW2. The terror and atrocities they experienced from those wars were just as horrific as the ones from WW1. Lost of lives were lost, period. Just because other wars don’t fit your criteria for “most horrific war of all time” doesn’t mean they’re not worthy of the same honor and respect too.

      So what if a company is doing their interpretation of a historical war period that doesn’t agree with your perspective and beliefs. Perhaps, DICE might actually get some of the younger generation to learn and care more about WW1, better than schoolbooks or teachers will ever be able to. My growing respect and interest in learning everything related to WW2 history came from playing WW2 video games, not from any world history teacher.

      If I only had enough fingers to count all of the television, movie, and video games that have done poor interpretations of war that I didn’t agree with.

      • w0bbl3r says:

        I didn’t say other wars weren’t disgusting or that there weren’t atrocities in other wars.
        But WW1 was just despicable on all fronts, from all sides, in almost every way.
        Not many wars have that.
        And BF already did vietnam AND WW2, and they did them with far more respect than they are giving here, surely you see that?

        • Koozer says:

          Please tell me where the respectful parts of BF Vietnam are, between the napalm strikes and spike pits?

  7. fearandloathing says:

    I gather the game is such a mockery of the WWI, people finally began to think it may not be okay to glorify&gamify killing? Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t have disregarded our humanistic inheritance just to have some good ol fun?Human civilization, in general, is in such a decline, and to think that the next generation will be a bunch of cod-addicted immature adolescents, ugh.

    • Kelvin says:

      Ugh, Colonel, the human race is like, getting under my skin. All these wars, all these nukes. Colonel, what should I do?

      Snake, it’s 3:00AM. Go back in your box.

      Good idea Colonel, ugh. I’ll wait in my box until the human race regains its humanity. Snake out.

    • Antongranis says:

      Right, the middle ages were so much better.

      You are coming of as a elitist dick. People have always glorified war in fiction, dosent matter if it is a poem or a game.

      • pistachio says:

        Of course it was different in medieval times. In medieval times wars were much smaller scale and armies consisted mainly of professional soldiers although especially the losing side would suffer many civilian casualties. Not to mention the invention of the Gatling gun.

        • RandyButternubs says:

          Sorry, that’s nonsense. Pre-industrial armies were made up in large part of people who were conscripted into barely trained and armed militias. If they survived the war they went back home to their farms. Professional soldiers were the elite core of an army, not the majority.

        • Antongranis says:

          I was unclear, my point was that our human civilisation has not declined, but improved since then.

          I dont, however, think you can make any arguments against a ww1 game whitout making the same argument against ALL war-games.

    • Arathorn says:

      Human civilization has been in decline at least since Plato’s days. It’s a miracle this generation isn’t killing, looting and raping all the time.

      Or perhaps the entire “civilization in decline” yarn is just bullshit and always has been? Most kids do grow up. Don’t pretend you were a better person as a teen than the CoD kids are these days.

      As a kid, I thought Command and Conquer was awesome (scratch that, I still think it is!) and I’m pretty sure I would have enjoyed Battlefield 1 if it was released then. Now I’ve grown up and I think it’s a pile of crap. I’m sure I’m not alone.

    • RandyButternubs says:

      Human civilisation is not in decline! It has literally never been better! The 21st century is the safest, most peaceful, and most prosperous period in all of human history. In just about every metric you could care to measure, across every demographic, life for the average human is currently better than it has ever been before.

      link to

      • fearandloathing says:

        Wow a ted link to save our civilization, fair point asuhdfuasdhfuadshf.

        • fearandloathing says:

          oh god someone really did that, I can’t even

        • RandyButternubs says:

          It’s a well sourced talk about how violence has been in decline across every timescale in human history, you should check it out.

      • w0bbl3r says:

        Really? Never been better?
        In a society where people see someone hit by a car and their first reaction is to start filming on their phone rather than go and help or call an ambulance?
        Yeah, society is doing GREAT.
        In a world where a 14 year old girl will walk into traffic to catch a pokemon, get hit and almost killed and then have her parents claim it’s the game makers’ fault and that they are going to sue for compensation.
        Yep, doing great. Never better.

        It was better when I was a kid, in the 70’s and 80’s. And we had Maggie Thatcher, the miners strike and poll tax riots. But it was still better than this hell we live in right now, and people were still more civilised and cared more about each other.

        • patrickpeppers says:

          Things are definitely better than they were. There are 7 billion people on earth at this point and you pick a handful of idiots to lambast an entire generation. Take your self-righteous attitude and stuff it up your rear were it belongs.

        • RandyButternubs says:

          Your examples are all anecdotal. The data shows that war, genocide, and person-to-person violence is at an all time low in the 20th-21st century (despite spike in homicides in the ’60s). Rights for non-white or LGBT people have certainly improved since you were young, too.

    • fearandloathing says:

      So as you’re being deliberately stupid, I’m just gonna be a little rude. Dude, have you ever really read a book, or watched a movie? IT’S QUITE DIFFERENT TO PRESENT THE ACTUAL ACT OF KILLING AS ENJOYABLE, geez, it’s like talking to a gamesgater. Never claimed I was better, but I am obviously better than illiterate jerks since I’ve heard of something called philosophy (check that out it’s great). I’m just saying the videogame culture, with all preceding and accompanying consumerism bullshit devalues the human civilization. Not that I’m a humanist, or particularly care for human life, but still this would be quite frustrating for philosophers of Enlightenment etc.

      • Antongranis says:

        Written work can also “entertainify” horrible acts such as killing. My point is that humanity has a long history of glorifying horrible things across all kinds of media.

        In the case of videogames, i dont think that is a problem. They are to far away from being realistic whatsoever. Advanced VR however, might present a problem on that front.

        And yes, i do read quite alot.

  8. Ham Solo says:

    Still can’t get my head around how they could exclude the french and the russians, both major factions in the first world war. Bloody hell that makes me mad.

    • aepervius says:

      It is the usual anglo-saxon shenanigan market. That’s also why the Heroe in saboteur was a Irish guy, not a french one, and the french guy, if I recall correctly, was a collaborator/traitor. Or why in that ubisoft game recently, the french guy was executed by superiors. Well anyway , this look so much like a WW2 reskin it is unfunny. Everybody and their grandma have automatic weapon.

      • Otto Lidenbrock says:

        Though in case of the Saboteur the man the character was based on was actually French/ English with an English father (he spent at least some of his early life in England. I guess they thought having a lovable Irish rogue was an easier story instead of the combination of Englishman (stereotypical villain) and Frenchman (stereotypical arsehole).

  9. Premium User Badge

    Earl-Grey says:

    I died in hell, they called it awesome.

  10. Nauallis says:

    Yay, I can continue to casually ignore this. Especially with Civ6 releasing the same day.

  11. Bum Candy says:

    Battlefield hasn’t been a truly great game since Bad Company 2. Each release since then has only served to disappoint.

  12. yonsito says:

    At least they seem to have the medieval clubs and knives that were used to kill in the trenches.

  13. LewdPenguin says:

    Whilst taking advantage of the anniversary may be a teeny bit crass it’s not hugely unsurprising, and the general charge of glorifying war/violence when it’s anything but can be leveled at so very many games it doesn’t even warrant mentioning. If you feel that way then this is no different than pretty much any other fps/rts/action game made.
    The part that irks me is their insistence on focusing on how realistic it supposedly is, despite all evidence being to the contrary. If they’d announced a WW1 BF game and after everyone went “Well that’s not going to be realistic in the slightest” they’d just gone “We know right? But it gives us a chance to use some different skins and level design and shit so lets just roll with it” everything would make so much more sense. Instead they have to focus on this false realism marketing angle all the time, I guess because they have no new ideas or things to show about the game actually being good in of itself, and it just grates. Ultimately it doesn’t because those of us with a tiny bit of historical knowledge are likely the gross minority of their target audience now, those who are likely have no idea that most of the stuff being shown either saw incredibly limited use or never got past prototype stage, and will happily lap up the CoD with different skins.
    Also another shoutout to Verdun, I haven’t even played it since a very early browser based prototype version of it, but even then as others have said it better served up a WW1 trench warfare/machinegun massacre experience than it looks like BF1 ever will.

  14. Rumpelstiltskin says:

    Moral issues aside, what are the most atrociously unrealistic things in the trailer, and how would one design a proper WW1 game instead (if it makes any sense to make one to begin with)?

    • w0bbl3r says:

      To make BF as a WW1 game all they would have to do is go the same route they did with BF1942. Use ACTUAL authentic weapons, used at least something like they were in the conflict.

      You can pretty much guarantee here that they will do the same as they have done with the last 3 BF games, and have all sides running around using the same weapons, regardless of make, model, year or place, or which army actually used that weapon.

      And here they keep talking about authenticity and realism.

      They just need to make it more like BF1942 than BF3/4/HL/star wars.

      • Antongranis says:

        BF1942 was not realistic with the weapons. Wrong weapons with the wrong factions at the wrong time a plenty.

        Example; the japanese using the walter pistol as opposed to the nambu, the japanese not using the arisaka, the stg 44 appering to early.

        And then we have the secret weapons expansion.

      • GiantSquid says:

        The BF series has never been realistic, for example in BF1942 you could ride on the wing of a plane for christ sake, so 1942 was never realistic. But it was a slower pace than other BF games.
        I think the way BF4 plays at the moment is fine for its time period and “story” it all makes sense within the game and doesn’t feel like you’re doing things too far away from the reality of that universe.

        BF1 however I think the issue I have with it isn’t so much its realism as it is its accuracy. Im fine with someone skydiving out of a plan 100 feet up and living through it, but I was hoping BF1 was going to slow down the game play and have people rely almost entirely on bolt-action rifles.

        This looks like it could have just been a WW2 game just as easily as a WW1 game. Its WW1 only in name.

  15. Dave3d says:

    Man, I hope this game is going to be a SP experience as well as the MP.
    It looks so frikin awesome!
    Its like they are going back to the old days of MoH and BF (when they first came out).
    This is the only game I am looking forward to this year.

  16. sysdefect says:

    No, they’re not. Why do you think the F2P game featured wing riding? It was homage, not that it was specifically intended in BF42.

    BF42 didn’t glorify war so much as it glorified hopping around like an idiot. The standard assault class jumped around with no recoil LMGs and believe it or not being a standard rifleman was not the focus, almost like nothing has changed.

    Why do people expect anything different from Battlefield games at this point? The only move toward “realism” has been the level of grit and tension but fundamentally it’s still the same series.

    • LewdPenguin says:

      I don’t think most of us expect hyper realism from a BF game, that’s part of what makes so much (pretty much all) of the promo material focusing on DICE’s idea of ‘realism’ seem so stupid.
      It’s always been something that sat in a space somewhat more realistic than CoD, but still a long way short of trying to be actually realistic, at least so far as I’m concerned. People look back (usually at BF1942) with nostalgia and long for that experience again because the series has increasingly moved towards a faster more CoD pace of play over time, or so it seems to me, and in doing so has lost what made it feel both different, and more realistic simply because it was slightly less over-the-top than CoD was. I don’t think anyone wants BF to try and become a Red Orchestra or even ARMA kind of game, they just want it to take a few steps back and be something closer to the game they enjoyed playing a few years ago. A good start would be to stop pretending it’s something realistic when it’s anything but, but it seems new weapon/vehicle/character models and maps are about all they have to show off, because the actual gameplay looks kinda meh again.

  17. Uberwolfe says:

    Looking forward to it.