Cease Fire: Battlefield 1 Open Beta Ends On Thursday

When DICE launched the free Battlefield 1 [official site] open beta test last week, they didn’t say how long it would run for. Now we know. If you want to check out DICE’s arcade-y FPS take on World War 1, you’ve only got until Thursday. Or heck, if you’re happy living vicariously, you can read what happened when we sent Brendan trotting into the beta on his pony.

Look, here’s the news in tweety-twoo format:

DICE also dropped a wee update yesterday:

And while the beta servers did recover from the attacks, they might be a bit wonky due to stress testing:

The beta only has one map with two modes but DICE have been pointing players at the forums to suggest new maps so maybe they’ll add something in these final days.

Player progression won’t carry over from the beta to the full version when it launches on October 21st. Still, players can get a special dog tag to remember their beta time.

If you fancy a crack, you can download the beta through Origin. It’s a 7.1GB download, which hopefully is a size you can download in time to play if you want to? If not, hey, there are always Brendan’s horsey adventures.

From this site

31 Comments

  1. Cinek says:

    Dumbed-down, but fun. Especially trains – trains are amazing. Landships are also really fun. And overall it’s surprisingly well balanced. But I hope that there will be much more to the game than what we see – choice of weapons is not particularly impressive, same with number of vehicles and their customization options. It really does feel like a beta, though knowing EA betas – it’s more of a demo than anything else.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cross says:

      I’m curious: Why do you regard it as dumbed down? It seems to me there’s a much greater emphasis on teamwork, and reliance on others to cover your weaknesses, than in previous games.

      • cutechao999 says:

        I didn’t see any of what you’re talking about in the game. I would also call it dumbed down, because your options for roles are, guy with machine gun, guy with larger machine gun, medic, and sniper. The vehicle game is stronger though, which is ironic, for a game about WWI

        • BobbyDylan says:

          Different classes are better at different ranges (except for Support, which is always useless). Drivers get a separate class (so using planes as taxi’s should reduce) and vehciles don’t magically autoheal, you have to disengage to repair them.
          Compared to BF4, where assault rifle>all and class specifics were overrode by carbines which everyone could use. Vehicles healed themselves. Destruction was toned down to set levelruination sequences.
          BF1 seems to be a step up from bf4 in every way.

          • syndrome says:

            Support isn’t useless, it’s just that it requires a more patient and attentive player, and is best used defensively.

            BF1 is in my opinion identical to BF2142, for which I’m grateful. Support is used as a rear-line spotter / kill-zone mower, in a situation with low cover and greater open areas, or from a window down the alley.

            Essentially a typical “MG42 setup”, relying on suppression mechanic instead of hard kills, the support player who knows what he’s doing is basically a personified distraction for the entire opposing team, delaying on-foot advance and denying open areas.

            During down time, he’s ought to support the team by giving ammo, and to cover up any flanks with tripwires (whether people like them or not, these are still very tactical and contribute to smart play).

            It’s just that noone has patience nor taste, and I haven’t seen many people that understand bipods in this game, to play support as good in this beta (perhaps a couple of guys, JackFrags, and I’m not sure about LevelCapGaming, but would highly recommend ImAnderZEL), but I am surely going to change that as soon as I hop in.

  2. Frank V. says:

    Although I was previously a fan of the Battlefield Franchise, I’ve really lost interest in it. Can’t quite say why but I do know the constant bugs are a factor. Could be my memory but this beta seemed more buggy than BF4 Beta and that was quite buggy…. The only game that competed with the BF4 beta bugs was the release itself.

  3. Premium User Badge

    Elusiv3Pastry says:

    Player progression won’t carry over from the beta to the full version when it launches on October 1st.

    As much as I’d prefer the 1st, I believe the release date is Oct 21st.

  4. ButteringSundays says:

    After playing Verdun this just looks like a Disney theme park attraction in comparison. That of course doesn’t mean it’s more/less fun to play, but it takes a lot away from what was a pretty gritty and horrible war.

    I think this is exacerbated by the unusual choice of environment in the beta. I appreciate that they say they’re trying to highlight different, lesser known aspects of WW1; but desserts, open spaces and horses doesn’t say WW1 to me (or most people, I’d imagine). It just comes across as a more generic shooty game.

    • TheRaptorFence says:

      Other than the Western Front, static warfare was used a lot less than people imagine in World War I. Eastern Front, Mesopotamia, Mediterranean, and East African fronts were all much more mobile, reliant on cavalry and bayonet charges. So I can somewhat forgive that.

      BF1 still irks me though. At least Verdun shakes up the weaponry options by making the bolt-action and pistols the “main battle rifles” for the game. While it seems clunky at first, it does capture the spirit of WWI much better and does wonders for the meta. As you said, I find BF1 to come across like a reskin of Battlefront.

      • cutechao999 says:

        The weapon choice is what irks me the most. Not the lack of any sort of real WW1-era tactics, not the anachronistic additions, maybe not even the fact that they are pushing so hard the narrative that this is a “historically accurate” game. The weapons are so uninspired that the setting change feels wasted. They could have at least put in a little effort in weapon selection, they seem to have just found every gun that they can technically claim is from the period, that’s similar to what they’ve already used in BF 3-4, no matter how badly it doesn’t fit, slap some random bayonets on them, and that’s it. Even some of the vehicles feel like reskins.

        • syndrome says:

          Why is all of that so important to you?

          Battlefield was never a historical game, it was simply a Battlefield game, a game of 32v32 matches that mix specialized infantry with vehicles in large maps.

          WWI is just a setting for such a game, it’s not this invisible landscape in which you have to roleplay every single Ottoman soldier to revive the spirit of the times.

          Why are you even expecting this? If you want to run from one trench to another, whistleblowing in futility, run Verdun.

          I sincerely expect from Battlefield to be “a game of 32v32 matches that mix specialized infantry with vehicles in large maps” and I’m very happy with how it looks and plays. What I ask from it is that they preserve the logic and feeling that was there before BF4.

          • zetruz says:

            I don’t mind that it’s still essentially a silly Battlefield game, and I disagree with much of the criticism. But the inclusion of so many full-auto weapons does rob it of much of its sense of place. Had they dared ti go the “mostly bolt-action” route, I think the game would have been more special and no less fun. You can have the game be silly fun and still differentiate it from earlier BF games in the weapon aspect. I don’t think they went quite far enough in doing that.
            Mind you, I’m having a blast in the beta and I firmly believe it’s been a long time since a BF game has been this enjoyable and special. But it isn’t perfect. =)

          • cutechao999 says:

            Were you even reading what I was saying? I don’t care that it’s

            “not this invisible landscape in which you have to roleplay every single Ottoman soldier to revive the spirit of the times…
            …If you want to run from one trench to another, whistleblowing in futility, run Verdun.”

            You just listed something I literally said that it doesn’t irk me the most. I don’t like games like this as much these days, but it is low on my list because I know the type of game it is. Die hard supporters of this game like you pull that accusation on every critic you see.

            I’m talking about the absolute waste of the setting in terms of the weapons. It feels lazy that they just picked out the (experimental and limited used) SMGs and Autorifles to put in there, and then boasted about how brave and bold they were for choosing a time period with such different and unique weapons, and crowing every video on how meticulous they were to bring “real” weapons from WWI into the game.

    • BillyBumbler says:

      If people enjoy being spammed by artillery/mortars, and getting sniped every few yards, then go ahead and play unpolished Verdun. Battlefield has never been about realistic gameplay, because they’re focused on large sandbox maps and strapping explosives to every type of vehicle. People play video games for “fun” and entertainment value, not to be traumatized by real war.

      • Jason Lefkowitz says:

        This comment reads ironically given my experience in the BF1 beta, which consisted of mostly of spawning and then getting immediately sabered by a man on horseback, shot by a sniper or run over by a tank.

        • Distec says:

          Squad spawns and vehicle spawns seem to have a 70% change of being death traps. It’s quite irritating, especially since I seem to have no way of knowing if a particular Deployment spot is under siege.

          I accept that this always going to be a little bit of an issue when you can be potentially attacked from halfway across the map. But there have been plenty of situations where I’ve spawned into an APC only to be immediately blown up by a neighboring tank just ten feet away. I seem to have no way of telling if the vehicle I’m going to spawn into is one shot away from turning into a burning wreck or even if there’s enemies surrounding it.

          • wengart says:

            Really you need to analyze what information they gave you when you spawn and died and then work out what “tells” there are.

            The biggest one is friendly blips and the context of those.

            A single green blip at an area where there are probably enemies is a risky bet. So enemy cap point, a friendly cap point where you know there are enemy, or in a high traffic area. These are all bad places to spawn.

            Friendly green blip with several other green/blue blips around it and you have a much higher chance of surviving the spawning process.

          • syndrome says:

            @wengart
            Exactly, thank you for writing this in my place.

            So here are three main reasons why people dislike BF1:
            – mechanical misunderstandings of it
            – unimaginativeness (is this a word)
            – comparing its setting to what we gather from a history book, as if this was somehow a measure of a good game

      • wengart says:

        “realism shooters” like Verdun tend to value the same skills that make someone good at Battlefield. Aggressive play, map awareness, quick movement, etc.. Its just that they reduce the margin of error. So if you happen to be a casual player who is going to spawn and gawk your gonna get killed at a much faster rate than in BF. Although you’ll be killed by the same players.

        • syndrome says:

          gawk
          ^ this hahaha

          I swear when I watch the videos, it’s easy tell who is going to dislike the game the most. I always feel sad for the gawkers, they are hopeless, and they will rant, and they will get on my and DICE’s nerves, and that’s how it goes.

          BF was always a bit elitistic, what can I say — there is no joy in it if you don’t own some people who aren’t enjoying as much.

    • Premium User Badge

      Elusiv3Pastry says:

      I love me some WWI history, but oddly enough I bounced hard off of Verdun because even though I love the source material and the attempt to be less of an arcade shooter, games about trench warfare are about as fun as the real thing (for me anyway). BF1’s change of scenery is a good thing, and I have no doubt they’ll have a “BattleHallway” map or two that’s just a single trench for the Metro 24×7 crowd.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cross says:

      Battlefield has kinda always been a theme park war game, and that’s the point. Give us the most exciting scenes, kit and situations of the war, and let us go nuts. Battlefield 1 has not taught me WW1 history, but it has inspired curiosity in me that has made me go and learn it myself, and that’s probably the best way of doing it.

  5. yogibbear says:

    Game is awesome. Literally every class and weapon and vehicle I’ve had a ball with. Especially in love with the calvary and assault. mainly because whatever everyone else seems to spam I try to counter. Namely pesky snipers (calvary) and tanks (AT mines and AT nades).

  6. The Algerian says:

    Great game if you love BF3-4, awful if you’re tired of them.

    Plays and feels basically the same, despite all of their talk of “taking risks” and bragging about how bold they were for going with WW1.

    • Koozer says:

      Call me mental but BF1 has some of the spirit of Bad Company, aka the last good one. Maybe it’s the extra silliness, the lack of jets, or no annoying near-future tech of 3 and 4.

      • syndrome says:

        No, it’s the more deliberate technical design that considers the lighthearted approach to team play (aka the inflow of CoD and console players, and the rest of the similarly impatient younger audience without any situational awareness whatsoever).

        It plays good because it scales good with the player. So it’s as good as you are. BF3 and BF4 weren’t like that — BF3 inadvertently shifted toward the mediocrity (the userbase it drawed in ruined the intended design, and that’s a slight mistake in product placement, suggesting the EA management behind the brand positioning and its subsequent marketing; though technically it was an engineering milestone so pretty damn important), while BF4 raced further down this lane (which is a telltale sign of an alt dev team at work).

        BF1 is a master reboot toward the core principles of the franchise in my opinion, but some major compromises had to be made to keep its established userbase BUT ALSO to re-attract older users like me, which is a clever way to climb to the top.

    • cutechao999 says:

      yeah, that was what I got from my time playing. The setting change makes everything look more different than it actually is. Same old SMG warfare that they’ve done for years. Even some of the vehicles handle disappointingly similar. I do like the landship though, it shows a glimmer of a much more exciting direction, where they actually try something new for once.

  7. Premium User Badge

    Cross says:

    I’m looking forward to seeing what the other maps bring to the table. Sinai Desert is a *very* open map, which has seemingly excacerbated the sniper problem. I don’t mind that much, though, because hopping in a fighter and clearing the skies is the most fun a game’s given me in a long time.

  8. cutechao999 says:

    I got to playing the beta tonight. Kinda disappointed. It feels like they played it too close to home, and stuck with the same SMG n’ Sniper formula they’ve had since BF3, they pick weapons that are pretty much old versions of the same guns they’ve had in every game, and even the planes feel like jets with traditional machineguns and bombs.

    The worst part of it all though, the part that annoys me to no end, is how much they’ve pushed this narrative that they’re being so true to WW1 because they have period weapons and accurate maps, and people fell for it. The game is anachronistic as sin. I’ll give them some stuff, the Landships are a good addition, and its nice that they are covering the globe accurately, but their ‘period’ weapons are laughable. The starting weapon is the MP 18 (with random bayonet attachment. Why anyone would bother to put a bayonet on a SMG is beyond me), a submachine gun used at the very end of the war by German special Assault squads, for clearing trenches. Hardly a weapon representative of the war. I have no idea why this is a starting weapon. I suppose they’d have to step out of their comfort zone then, instead of everyone having SMGs, which is what they’ve done forever. There’s worse examples, but that one frustrates me the most. I wish they would have just come out and just said that the game “has weapons designed from the most revolutionary weapons introduced during the great war”

    • cutechao999 says:

      Unfortunately you can’t edit comments here, but I’ll update this one. I was misremembering what they said. They actually use very careful language to AVOID this. What they do push, is how unique and how many risks they took with this game and etc, but I don’t see that, at all. Only slightly with the vehicles. But as I discovered, people who like the new iterations of the series won’t really care, so why bother? As long as no one claims what I thought they did.