Your one stop shop for Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Bethesda, EA, Ubisoft, and Indie Game goodness!
AusGamers@E3 - All of our Showcases
E3 has come and gone, with many new exiting games to look forward to. Here, we cover the stuff we didn't see.
The E3 2017 No-Showcase aka 9 Things We Didn’t See
We return to the island of Vvardenfell as The Elder Scrolls Online rekindles some of that 2002 Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind magic
Mushroom Kingdom - The Elder Scrolls Online: Morrowind Reviewed!
Formerly known at Project Scorpio. Coming November 7, Priced at $499 USD or $649 AUD.
Introducing the Xbox One X, Microsoft's 4K Capable Xbox
War Fuel - Battlefield 1 Frontlines Previewed
Post by Joaby @ 07:00pm 13/03/17 | Comments
Frontlines again takes the ideas from Conquest and Rush and mashes them together — although Frontlines mercifully has a place in the server browser as well.

Battlefield One's first expansion pack is nearly upon us and it brings with it a brand new way to play, Frontlines. Let's take a look.

Dice has taken a shine to the idea of mashing up their two most popular modes, Conquest and Rush. Operations, for example, emphasised a Rush Style march across the map while removing the necessity for teams to plant bombs on objectives - instead capturing points the conquest way, via proximity. It still wallows locked behind matchmaking, BF1's best new mode played by very few in regions where player numbers don't always play nicely with less than transparent MM.



Frontlines again takes the ideas from Conquest and Rush and mashes them together — although Frontlines mercifully has a place in the server browser as well. The mode uses Conquest points to dictate a sense of progress across the map until finally allowing one team to finish off their opponents using the Rush style explosive system, where they plant bombs on A and B respectively.

For example, the game begins with a battle over point B. Your team captures the point, so we move to point C. Being strong of spirit, my team captures point C, and then quickly takes B, so the front shifts to point A. An entire squad on your team rage quits, and the numbers advantage allows my team to capture A. Your team now defends two Rush objectives A and B (denoted by different icons) while mine attacks. We blow up objective A but we run out of tickets before we can destroy B — the front is pushed back, and my team needs to Capture A again to make another push on the objective. This back-and-forth persists, until eventually my team, with its superior numbers and having the advantage of my presence, wins the game.

This creates interesting tactics and strategy as teams attempt to take the entire map off their enemy. Even during our short amount of playtime — 12 ish hours — we still saw teams actively gaming the system when they knew they had the advantage. Sometimes when capturing point B and knowing that they would immediately then need to capture point C, squads with linger at point C while the rest of the team took point B. This means as a defender it's also in your interest to clear out the next point — especially if the other team has all but captured the zone.

During the zoning phase of the game mode the back and forth was as involved as it ever is in Conquest although it follows an entirely linear progression. The frantic traversal across the map as both teams battle over a single point is classic Battlefield — the only thing missing is the option to abandon an offensive that isn't working and try something different.



The Rush phase is also classic Rush, as it should be, and the defenders are forced to hold out the attacking team until they have bled all the attackers tickets. Last ditch, all or nothing defences seem par for the course here, which is also classic battlefield. A few times I switched to support to bombard the Rush objectives with mortar shells — forcing the attackers to come find me so they could secure the plant.

In execution it feels uniquely Battlefield, even if I know it isn't as a mode. Other games, like Homefront or… well, Frontlines: Fuel of War, obviously leaned heavily on the concept of the moving front. The truth is, I was a fan of this in both of these games — I think the moving front is a wholly compelling concept, even if I'm obviously a fan of the conquest model as well. It works well in Battlefield because it leans on familiar concepts — the core of what I think Battlefield 1 has done so well is lean on ideas meted out over the course of the game's history and then combined it in satisfying ways.

If it has any drawbacks, it's that it is pretty susceptible to one team tilting and the game being over too quickly. It can definitely feel lopsided, especially if one team outnumbers the other. The other issue is that with singular objectives, snipers have even more excuses to pitch tents — there are even fewer places they need to look at across the map than usual.

All up though, it feels like a very satisfying addition to a game I already thoroughly enjoy, and I'm looking forward to playing it when the DLC drops — which is tomorrow for Premium Pass holders — a business model I'm very much not crazy about — and two weeks from tomorrow for the rest of us.
Read more about Battlefield 1 on the game page - we've got the latest news, screenshots, videos, and more!



Latest Comments
HurricaneJim
Posted 07:08pm 13/3/17
You do realise that Gallipoli was not all about the ANZACs. Especially when the Brits had 345,000, the French 79,000 and the ANZACs only 65,000...
Joaby
Posted 07:11pm 13/3/17
I know these things, but
A: they have the British Army already
B: the French army joins the game with this expansion pack (should have been there from the get-go)
C: it's a pretty important cultural event in the history of a relatively young nation
D: I said it was possible that the Anzacs wouldn't be added
E: I want it to happen
BladeRunner
Posted 07:56am 14/3/17
I haven't played BF1 in a couple of months. I should update the client so I can play again when I want to. Would be nice if the ANZACs got a look in, Perhaps we will see or hear some there in the game if we don't play as one.
Khel
Posted 10:53am 14/3/17
There's Anzacs in the single player campaign isn't there? Makes sense they'll show up in multiplayer at some point
Joaby
Posted 11:42am 14/3/17
vito
Posted 07:04pm 14/3/17
"C: it's a pretty important cultural event in the history of a relatively young nation "

Two relatively young nations, mate.
Joaby
Posted 10:25am 15/3/17
"C: it's a pretty important cultural event in the history of a relatively young nation "

Two relatively young nations, mate.

Right you are Ken
infi
Posted 12:45pm 15/3/17
I know these things, but
A: they have the British Army already
B: the French army joins the game with this expansion pack (should have been there from the get-go)
C: it's a pretty important cultural event in the history of a relatively young nation
D: I said it was possible that the Anzacs wouldn't be added
E: I want it to happen


Spicy!

This will be moist.
FSCB
Posted 10:49pm 15/3/17
Hurricane Jim with those hard earned facts straight from the Wikipedia article.
Good stuff...
Yeah there were heaps of Brits there and French but Gallipoli wasn't a pivotal moment for those nations. It was just a s*** fight...that they lost.

For Australia it had a lot more effect on the national identity.

And for the dude who says it was a defining moment for two young nations...The Ottoman EMPIRE was young???
Khel
Posted 04:05am 16/3/17
And for the dude who says it was a defining moment for two young nations...The Ottoman EMPIRE was young???


No, but New Zealand was
Joaby
Posted 08:50am 16/3/17


No, but New Zealand was

That's what I figured he meant as well. Although the happenings in World War 1 were directly responsible for the creation of Turkey as a nation so maybe that's where confusion kicked in.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now!
11 Comments
Show