I haven't touched the campaign yet, but Operations is fantastic and I am really digging the maps in Conquest. I also feel like this time around there's a lot more reason to switch up your class once in a while depending on the need of the situation. I have even gone medic for the first time in forever. I think if there's one thing I'll maybe criticize the game for it's those weird moments when it's dynamic resolution fucks up and it looks like you're playing original Doom for 2 seconds.

I was in a bomber and noticed something hit my plane. I looked through my scope and there was an enemy plane hooked under me. Being the genius that I am I let my bombs go and I blew up but the enemy didnt...right away. I saw him go down, still hooked to my plane as they both crashed into the ground.

10/10

I blew myself up because i forgot i was inside i pillbox, so i pulled out my mortar.

10/10 would blow my self up again

So does this game actually respect the subject matter or teach the player any real history? I'd be more interested in it if so, otherwise it just seems like a reskinned Battlefront to me (mainly referring to UI and presentation here, not gameplay necessarily).

Yes actually. If you play Operations you get backgrounds on every battle, and explanations on what-if scenarios if the IRL losing side wins. I didn't know anything about WWI and I feel like I'm learning a lot of stuff about it. Made me look up some videos on YouTube.

You can get some satisfying kills with the planes in this. My finest moment was when I had another guy in a plane chasing me. I dived down baiting him to follow me, and then dropped my bombs and killed him in the explosion.

All those hours playing il2 are finally paying off.

@robocopswitch: Sounds good, thanks for the reply. Any thoughts on the campaign in this regard or is it still kind of an afterthought?

@dharmabum: I've not played the game other than the Beta that ran a month or two ago but from what I've read and heard the campaign is supposed to be pretty well done. I few sites mention that they definitely capture the somber tone of just how awful and terrible World War 1 rather than glorifiying the violence.

As a guy who loves to get his glorified violence fix from games like Doom or GTA, I think it's great Dice decided to not go that route and instead point to the more realistic emotion of war is fucking terrible.

BF4, and even BF3 had too much bloat with their number of often confusing attachments and impractical gadgets.

They dumbed it back down to BC2 levels where everything made sense and the customization was easy to understand and the overall experience is so much better for it.

The maps this time around are top-notch too compared to BF4. I hope we see more historic Battlefields from Dice in the future. They do the historic settings better than the modern ones in my opinion.

@dharmabum: They took a different turn with the singleplayer and have multiple theaters of war each with their own characters and story. Only played the pilot story so far and it can be cheesy, but it's pretty theatrical and fun as well, although... there are some bs moments where other planes, friendly or foe, crash into you and you basically die immediately, so that can get annoying and it sucks you don't have the full simulation control of the plane either for some reason. It reminded me of Rogue Squadron with shorter missions. I imagine the other sections are probably more fun and engaging since they deal with ground combat and that seems to be where the graphics and gameplay shine the most, but what I've played so far was pretty interesting even if it wasn't probably the best place to start.

All the comparisons to BC2 are making me buy it :/ Man, that was some great multiplayer...I hope this one really does live up to it.

Feels like the first true evolution since BC2 (and equally the most fun since that wonder). The weapon balance is nice. All classes have a purpose.

Destruction and UI are great. Utility items are all purchasable within 2 hrs of play. Great stuff.

I can understand people don't feel like the progression is there, but BF2 was always my fav, and that had no progression. BF for the BF-fans, not trying to eat CoD's lunch, but it probably will.

A really fun time, and I get less salty than in Overwatch.

I saw a zeppelin land on about 40 people all on a single point and cover the map with skulls.

This game is great.

I just played through the beginning episode thing and I'm already loving it. It feels like they're respecting the war and I couldn't help tearing up at the end there where the two opposing soldiers drop their weapons.

I'm having a real tough time getting into it. To me, it feels like I'm constantly trying to run through deep mud, I experience input lag an awful lot on the PS4, have also encountered some steep framerate drops, and every team I've been on has been full of mutes. This is one of those games where being socially inept does not work out so well. Communication is an absolute must. Too many people also seem to think it's all about the K/D ratio. The scout is quite popular and it's also annoying to encounter a map where the majority of the players are using that class.

@ikilledthedj said:

@rubberbabybuggybumpers I think the reason why people are using scouts is that the class seems much more effective than they were in bf4. The skill level when it comes to aiming with scout rifles seems lower than in the previous battlefields. Also according to levelcapgaming ( a pretty well known battlefield youtuber) dice made it so that scout rifles can actually kill people with one shot if the distance between players is less than 20 meters or so. And you dont even have to aim for the head according to him.

On the other hand the machine guns and lmg´s are much less accurate than the more modern versions of them. Also due to the open nature of many of the bf1 maps it is pretty much an open hunting season for scouts. The minus side with scouts is that people tend to snipe people even while the node close to them might be captured. I have had a few occasions where the node was captured and the sniper or snipers stayed at their spot instead of trying to recapture it by doing some close combat.

Jumping between Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 1 really highlights what a great job DICE did with BF1. Just feel they nailed the experience in multiplayer, whilst BF4 is still a lot of fun it feels inferior as a Battlefield game to BF1.

I have honestly found myself stopping and taking in the chaotic sounds and sights in multiplayer Operations, the sound work is a masterpiece as all hell breaks lose. Sort of reminds me of my time playing Day of Defeat when I was younger. Only come across one reloading bug, other than that it's been very smooth. Having it set in an historical setting makes a big difference I think to.
*Should note, playing on PC. Game looks stunning at ultra*

I'm loving it. For whatever reason I'm hooked and feel like I'm going to put as much time into this as I did Halo 3 and StarCraft II. Which is to say literally thousands of hours

A few friends have been asking me about my thoughts on the game so I wrote up this brief review (I opted not to get into the specifics about weapons and vehicles etc etc as I just don't have the time to be more thorough at the moment). Figured I would share it here as well:

The single player campaign is the best one included in a Call of Duty/Battlefield type FPS in years. It doesn't always hit its mark and periodically veers too close to the typical, superhuman heroics found in single-player FPS campaigns, but overall it does an excellent job of, at least viscerally, conveying how horrific WW 1 was. The choice to break up the campaign into 5 vignettes was a smart one, expertly conveying how global WW 1 was while managing to imbue each vignette with a surprising amount of heart considering how little story there is in which to firmly establish an emotional connection between the player and the protagonist they are playing. Not every story hits its mark. Personally I found the vignette about the Italian brothers rather uninspired in regards to the narrative while the action itself is devoid of suspense and rather bland in comparison to the rest of the game. That being said, the vignettes that do hit the mark are exceptional. The mini-campaign involving an American who narrates his tale of conniving his way into piloting a plane for the British and the ensuing heroics on his part is not only great fun but it perfectly highlights how the narrative of this war, more so than most, is highly dependent upon your personal point of view.

The multiplayer is the strongest it's been in a long time, easily comparable in quality to Battlefield 1942 and Bad Company 2. It has all the classic trademarks of Battlefield game play (they didn't reinvent the wheel here, nor did they need to), but altered just enough due to the war in which it is set to make the game feel fresh. I would argue WW 1 is the perfect setting for the game. The slightly slower pace of the combat, due to technology of the time, makes the chaos of the Battlefield series feel manageable and deliberate, while the setting inherently makes the perpetual chaos feel far more natural. Where the modern combat of previous entries resulted in a understandably cold and clinical feel, Battlefield 1 is more immediate and personal, dirty and harrowing, contributing to an experience that's far more immersive than what's typically found in the multiplayer of modern AAA shooters.

Battlefield 1's multiplayer has several modes. I've only played the series standard Conquest, which is as strong as ever, and the new mode, Operations, which is sure to be the new favorite. The basics of Operations are simple. A narrative is constructed around a series of battles that are waged across several different arenas. In the course of the Operation, one team plays as the country launching an offensive, while the other is tasked with defending their front. The assaulting team is given three attempts to overrun their opposition, with a limited amount respawns for each attempt. If the offensive is struggling the team is granted the use of a super weapon (an armored train with heavy artillery, the gargantuan zeppelins capable of raining destruction down on the hapless souls below) that mostly does a good job of ensuring the matches are fairly even. As the team on the offensive takes over control points, the defending army is forced to fall back a number of times (each time creating new control points for the attacking team to take over) until finally the defense is overrun. At that point the match is over and the campaign moves to the next arena while continuing to provide a narrated story about the conflict. If the attacking team, however, fails at any point to achieve victory after its three attempts for the match, the entire campaign is over. This has the unfortunate side effect of making the duration of Operations campaigns vary wildly, coming in anywhere from twenty minutes to well over an hour depending on how the attacking team fares.

Finally, there is the matter of historical accuracy. It should be noted I'm personally fascinated by World War 1 and as such have studied the period fairly extensively for an amateur (I highly recommend the 6 part, 25+ hour series Dan Savage did on his Hardcore History podcast), or at least when compared to the average American. This is, at the end of the day, a video game. As a result, its not surprising that DICE and EA have taken a healthy amount of liberties when it comes to historical accuracy. It can, at times, be a bit hard to swallow if you are well versed in this period of history but at the end of the day the inaccuracies aren't so egregious as to ruin the game, more often that not making understandable concessions for the sake of game play. Also, while the cynic in me suspects a vast majority of people that play Battlefield 1 will never look at them, the fact Dice included an impressive amount of codex cards that provide a healthy amount of basic historical facts about the war is praiseworthy. Again, this is a game and not an educational tool, but there's enough here to believe Battlefield 1 might inspire some players to actually learn more about the war on their own.

Overall, I'm quite impressed with Battlefield 1 and I'm really looking forward to diving back in and trying out the other modes. It's not perfect, and there are certain things that are curiously missing (that there isn't a dog fighting mode based off of the mode that was the best thing about the gorgeous, but ultimately misguided effort that was Star Wars Battlefront is a glaring omission) but it had been so long since a pure FPS (as opposed to variants like the MMO-lite Destiny) had completely sucked me in I thought it no longer possible. Battlefield 1 has proved that theory wrong.

I was going to hold off at least till Titanfall 2's release later this week, but bought it anyway. And I'm glad I did. Really, really, liking it so far and it confirms my opinion that WW2-ish (because come on, this pretty much plays like a WW2 shooter) is the best boots on the ground setting for a shooter. How much I don't miss those shitty helicopters from BF3 and 4! Like others already said, this puts the fun back in Battlefield which it kinda lacked since BC2.

I might actually have to put Overwatch and DOOM away for a bit if Titanfall 2 also turns out to be good. What a year for FPS games!

I wish they would have gone with something new and had more rifle combat. It just feels like I paid for any other battlefield game. I get it's more fun the way it is but honestly I think more rifles would be just as intense. OMG You actually have to pick your shots?????

I like the pigeon mode!!

Red Orchestra 2 will see you now. (Lots of bolt-action action, love it!)

@nardak: I definitely see your points. I finally submitted to the scout's popularity and began to use that class late last night. It went pretty well as long as my internet connection remained stable. I also made use of the support class. Assault feels extremely gimped and the medic doesn't get enough love from people. Personally, I've never been a fan of being a healer/rez type of player. I do have appreciation for those who play that class, and I do refrain from respawning until it becomes obvious there won't be anybody to rez me. SMGs are total bullshit. How in the fuck does an SMG out damage an LMG, and how does the shotgun manage to be the worst fucking firearm in the entire game?

As for the other things, I think I'm done with this game. There are too many annoyances in its current form for me to continue playing. The worst annoyance is my unreliable ISP. I don't claim to be a god or anything at first-person shooters or anything but I know I'm not that awful. I died way too many times last night due to lag. There were times where I was about to knife somebody in the back, they disappeared, and then shot me to death from halfway across the general area.

I 've been thinking a lot about it, I just can't point out what was the problem with 3 and 4.

Specially BF4, it had all the bullet points you want in a BF game, but it was just not as fun

@donpixel: Indirect combat. A lot of BF3 and 4 was engaging via weapons that auto-targeted for you or gadgets like drones. The other thing being spotting was too good which caused way more "where the fuck was I shot from? Oh right through 30 trees and over 5 buildings."

I remember the early days of BF3 Spotting was ridiculous, though they tuned it down

but yeah, BF4 was a lot of ... no idea why I just died

I'm surprised to see that the game is being so widely praised by most. I definitely do not think this game is as good as Bad Company 2. The destruction is decent, although there are still spots that are not destructible and it's kind of inconsistent. The map design is possibly the worst in the series imo. It feels more like a sandbox than a crafted map. I know battlefield maps are often like this, but usually there is at least a little structure. The maps in this game give me constant anxiety as snipers can be almost literally at any angle.

Haven't play BF since BF3 really enjoying this game the graphics are amazing I hope every game starts using photogrammetry. The gameplay is fun and the setting is a nice change I never thought I be hooked on a BF game again. The only thing I don't like is the speed of the game I prefer a slower pace with stamina bars like BF2 other than that this game really impresses me definitely a GOTY candidate.

Just finished Through Mud and Blood. Thoroughly enjoyed everything about it. Kind of reminds me of Fury, which I really liked. I also played a couple matches of team deathmatch last night and had a blast. Finding a flamethrower kit and then laying waste was both horrifying and exciting. Battlefield 1 has a kind of gravity that I feel like I haven't seen in a game like this in a while.

@razzuel: As a WWII Reenactor, I have anxiety about the mud. It's just inside everything :o

It's a bit of a shame that none of the other war stories seem as good as through the mud and blood

Only did the first bit of the first war story so far but I liked it. My multiplayer experience was fun. Solo it's just like most of my other Battlefield experiences, but with my friend it became hilarious and awesome. Making our own squad and both using support + Mortars on the War Pigeons game mode was dumb but surprisingly effective, we could wreck shop and keep the enemy team from holing up in a position as well as cover each other in explosions when we had the pigeon. Twice in a row one spawned right behind me (same house both times, literally right after the first pigeon was released), and both times I was able to fill both avenues of attack with gas and he would shell the area to keep the enemy away.

The last match we did was on the desert map in Conquest, flying in a bomber, which was really fun as well. I don't think we actually did much but it was amusing both hitting some poor guy with the front machine gun and then him dropping the entire bomb payload on him right after. Also flying in that sandstorm was fucking terrifying and I don't know how he didn't crash the entire time (lasted until the match ended). After a minute we were flying pretty much solely based off the icons.

Solo was similar to most other Battlefield experiences but having the squad leader issuing orders was surprisingly effective, both following someone and being squad lead. Mortars seem less effective in general on Conquest except for certain situations.

As for the game itself, the weapons seem alright, the vehicles are fun and those heavy support vehicles at the end of a match are pretty cool. Gameplay is battlefield as you'd expect, especially the bit where enemies seem to be all around you no matter how you approach some area. Advance to a point and start holding down an area with your team and immediately get shot in the back from three blocks behind you. Also I always found my team loved to over extend hard if we managed to get one objective further than the middle, so we would end up losing three objectives behind us as like 1-3 people start taking areas and nobody goes back to defend. Still, overall it's been an enjoyable time. I just wish my first two days with it hadn't been during game maintenance, and the next having xbox live go down.

I like it a lot, even if the World War 1 authenticity is at an all time low, it still feels really good to play, and reminds me a lot of WW2 games, since it feels a lot like those.

Just referring to the campaign here. I thought it was pretty good, though could have used more vignettes. I'm surprised, because I hadn't seen anyone compare the campaigns gameplay to Far Cry, which it feels like the most to me. Also, the soundtrack has some good tracks in it, be it more action oriented, but more so the emotional side of it, like this song which is featured on the main menu, as well as specific sections of the story. People say the game is respectful, and yeah, it's doesn't do the U.S. Ooh Rah typical war shooter thing, but playing it, it really isn't realistic basically at all, so I think 'respect' is a strong word for it, because with all the characters you play as, there's at least one section where you can sneak (or not sneak) and kill every single character like you're a super spy. It is somewhat powerful though in a section where you're in the trenches and able to sneak, you hear men cry in pain in the distance from above as bullets wiz past your head hitting the environment around you. I like the fluid movement, be it sprinting to slam doors open fast similar to Mirror's Edge, as well as being able to climb and clamber over small as well as surprisingly high areas, or just the simple and quick prone to cover if need be. Anyways, here's that song.

I like the first part, but I think the woman's voice in the second half is beautiful.

Yeah, after playing them all I agree with this. Friends in High Places came pretty close but the others weren't as good... the presentation in those stories is really good but the gameplay kinda falls flat.

BC2 still reigns in the single player department. BF3 and BF4 had some great set pieces, but the rest of the game was boring. BF1 has some of the most interesting characters and themes but it still feels like a stripped down multiplayer, or a kinda bad stealth sim.

If the DLC includes more war stories (French/Russian) I hope they're more ambitious in terms of gameplay.

It feels great to be shot by a regular old firearm again, I think the last time I was shot by anything other than a laser guided homing tripwire UAV smart bomb rocket launcher was Bad Company 2.

I will say that it's really strange that the campaign lacked a story that encompassed life/death in the trenches, the fact that there was no "going over the top" moment is really pretty bizarre.

@ntm: I love that song.

I haven't finished the first War Story yet but I have 40 hours in the multiplayer and it's extraordinary. Easily the best in the series. I've never played a multiplayer game as dynamic, intense, and cinematic as this. So happy they nailed it.

Is the map-design in the final game any good? The one they had in the beta was so completely terrible I abandoned any thought of getting the game. I might still buy it once they release the full version with all DLC and such for 20 bucks in a year or so if the beta map just happened to be an outlier.

I'm absolutely loving the multiplayer way more than I expected to. I really like chasing after the various medals you can achieve it makes for a fun and rewarding challenge, it is definitely a better game when played with friends because team work goes a lot further in this game than i think any other Battlefield game I've played.

@huelarl: 7/9 maps in BF1 are very good but Suez which is basically Metro in the desert doesn't really work and Sinai desert (beta) is properly my least favorite map in the game.

I agree with this man's opinion. You don't need a gazillion unlocks in a multiplayer game, you need good gameplay and enough variety that gives developers enough room to make everything distinct. Hell, I liked the original Battlefield2's way of doing unlocks.

It's poorly designed and frustrating. I loved BC2 because the balance and destruction and shooting were all superb, and the maps really allowed you and your squads to maneuver with tactics to make a difference in the game. All the classes had cool abilities and there were enough nooks and crannies around to allow you to conceal yourself while you made your way to a new objective. BF4 was a mess when it came out but ended up having a very similar vibe by the time DICE LA had worked on it for a while and IMO it wound up being one of the best BF games ever with interesting maps and great classes/vehicles/methods for countering them.

Battlefield 1 is not on par with those games. I can appreciate simple game design, but this isn't just simple, this is shallow in the same way Battlefront was. I don't mind that the weapon upgrades are limited, but the weapon unlocks are better than the base weapons (upgrades rather than sidegrades), and I don't personally feel that they have much character. The maps are poorly designed feel like a couple of small CoD-scale levels rammed into the same space rather than a single large map with its own flow and character. They favor sniping and blindly running into firefights when you're not a sniper because you will never stay alive long enough to properly survey the battlefield and choose your approach, which makes sneaking around and tactically tackling objectives a chore rather than a puzzle. The spawns are completely absurd in a CoD LOLOLOLOL ENEMIES SPAWNING BEHIND YOU sort of way, and they don't even pretend to care about balance with the ridiculously overpowered train/blimp/warship (ATAT in Battlefront, anyone?) that lets one player rule the battlefield regardless of skill with limited options for counterplay by the other team. At the end of the day, whereas in BC2 and BF4 each life offered a chance to meaningfully impact the game if you were smart and played well with your squad, in BF1 each life offers an opportunity to run to your death and get annoyed because the other guy happened to have a better gun, or happened to be in an OP vehicle, or happened to be already behind you when you spawned at your flag. It has limited and unbalanced gun variety with limited and uninteresting vehicles that offer limited and uninteresting counterplay. It has a poor man's CoD-like shooting without the focused level design, and ultimately just feels like a similar clusterfuck to what Battlefront was, with an added guise of depth because you can vie over the control points a little more. I am not saying it's wrong for people to like this game - if you do, I am happy for you...but it's so much less than it could have been and represents a deterioration of the Battlefield franchise to me. What this game offers (great visuals and destruction, fast and highly maneuverable gunplay, with light squad/teamwork elements) is not what I want from Battlefield and it's not what Battlefield used to be about (thoughtful map design, deliberate but arcade-y movement and shooting with a little sim thrown in for realism, and lots of emphasis on tactics and map control with your team).

I bought Battlefront at full price and I felt robbed. I thought surely they would listen to criticism about that game and build BF1 out to be a more complex game. I bought BF1 at full price and again I feel robbed. Is it terrible? No. It's inoffensive and perfectly marketed bubblegum pretending to carry the flag of one of my favorite game franchises. I guess this is what we can expect from now on. RIP Battlefield.

Operations is the way to play this game. If you (like me) get irritated by being on the losing team only to get a behemoth at the last second and lose anyway in the other game modes Operations fixes that entirely. The attacking team is only given behemoths after failing to capture an objective and only get 3 chances to push through at least 2 different maps. This creates great a great push/pull mechanic as defenders get distracted taking down behemoths and fail to hold objectives. This is the mode it feels like the developers wanted people to be playing and it shows.

@andrewtanner: That's one take...my take is that the behemoths just reward the losing team for not playing as well as the winning team, and then punish the winning team by raining hell down on them without providing the infantry with any way to counterplay it. I find it infuriating, and for what it's worth I don't generally get mad at games.

For those who are becoming interested in WWI due to the game (it's odd to me that WWI is not really studied in the US, it makes historical sense of course, it's just such a big part of the History Curriculum here in Australia), I recommend the following Youtube series: The Great War. I would also look up: "World War I in Colour" on Youtube - there should be 4 or so episodes of this good series.

Excellent fiction books about the war include: All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque (it's a fictional story but Remarque served on the Western Front so you could see it as non-fiction as well) and A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway (Hemingway also served in Italy during the war)

Great non-fiction books (and I'll show my Australian bias here) are: The Great War by Les Carlyon, The First World War by John Keegan, The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Alistair Horne

Film wise I would recommend: Gallipoli (starring a young and pre anti Semitic [maybe] Mel Gibson), Joyeux Noel (about the 1914 Christmas truce, starring Diane Kruger), Beneath Hill 60

@Downloaded that's what I mean when I say Operations is where the best gameplay happens. They only have so many tickets across the entire campaign so for them to even get a behemoth means they can't capture the objectives and chew through their own tickets too fast. As for the strength of the behemoth's, it is entirely in the skill of the gunmen and pilot. The blimp is by far the easiest to take out since snipers/ assault classes can one shot the people on the turrents as well as flack cannons that'll chew it up in no time. The train is easy enough to snipe out with cannon emplacements/ rockets/ morters and the battleship is more of an annoyance than a game winner. They don't play as well in the other game modes I'll admit but they bring an awesome dynamic to the Operations.

@downloaded: The only behemoth that ever seems to be much use to me is the train. I've never seen the Dreadnought really do much even if it's firing away constantly, and you just need to get some people in AA emplacements for the Zepplin or have your pilots not be terrible (which is asking a lot from random internet people, to be honest).

Last time I saw one I was gunning in a heavy tank and saw a guy firing at the blimp from an AA gun. Came back a minute later to see the guy get dropped by the blimp, so I just waited for a few seconds, got on it myself and fired about 2/3 cooldown cycles into it and blew it up. Obviously that's not every time but I rarely see the blimp making a difference. It mostly just shows up and dies or gets ignored in my experience.

As for the train, it's probably just that I have no idea how to effectively deal with it without being turned into mist immediately after I get a hit on it, but damn those things never seem to die. The train will definitely give a good push back for the losing team, but I've never actually seen really any behemoth turn the tide and win a match.

@capum15: The airship is probably the least useful, and buggiest, Behemoth in the game. It seems unstoppable for newer players who get murdered by it over and over but here's my experience with it, as a rank 49

A) The pilot skirts the objectives, and is thus only able to effectively get fire onto a couple at a time. This is the "smart" choice but it also means its pretty easy to just work around the behemoth

B) The pilot makes a beeline for the other side of the map to take your team's remaining territory. The only real advantage of this is that when it dies, hopefully more enemy troops will die than friendly ones. Flank around it and back capture, ideally with your squad

C) The pilot drives right into the middle of the map in an attempt to cover everything possible. This is the worst option as even 2 people on AA (emplacements, arty trucks, attack fighters) will LOCK down the main turrets and blow them up. Over and over.

D) The airship cannot move from its initial location because anyone who spawns there immediately dies. This has only happened on Operations, but I've seen it twice.

I still get killed by the airship once in awhile, but at most it's 2-3 times a match. I find airburst mortars far more annoying and even then I don't get mad about it...

@capum15: I agree with you for the most part. The behemoths don't really add to the game or turn the tide of battle (at least not in a fair way). Most of the time if the opposing team is better they will still win regardless of the behemoth, but the majority of the infantry players suffer because they are doing their best to play the game while relentless death rains down upon them in addition to the standard death-fest that naturally unfolds due to the CoD-like shooting mechanics and map design that seems to combine wide open spaces as well as critical-path-like choke points. I dunno man, this game seems to care more about one player's power fantasy and satisfying run-and-gunners than it cares about tactics and teamwork. Previous Battlefield games have felt like a sandbox, while this one feels like a scripted encounter much like Battlefront did. Still quite disappointed by it :(.