Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube First Person Shooters (Games) Media PlayStation (Games) The Internet XBox (Games) Games News Technology

'Battlefield 1' Trailer Most Liked In YouTube History, 'Infinite Warfare' Trailer Most Disliked (gamespot.com) 131

Posted by BeauHD from the statistical-data dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The Battlefield 1 reveal trailer has officially passed 20 million views, with around 1 million likes and just 18,500 dislikes. Meanwhile, Infinite Warfare's announcement trailer has passed 14 million views, but with only 273,819 likes and a staggering 1.3 million dislikes. The Battlefield 1 trailer is YouTube's most liked trailer of all-time, while Infinity Ward's trailer is YouTube's most disliked trailer of all-time. How is that for a statistic? Battlefield and Call of Duty have been direct competitors in the FPS space for quite some time now, but the differences between each developer's upcoming game has never been more apparent. We can only wait and see if these likes/dislikes provide any insight as to how well each game will sell when they're released later in the year. Battlefield 1 comes out first, launching on October 21, while Infinite Warfare is slated to debut on November 4. In addition, Infinite Warfare has become the 8th most disliked video ever on YouTube. What do you think of each trailer?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Battlefield 1' Trailer Most Liked In YouTube History, 'Infinite Warfare' Trailer Most Disliked More

'Battlefield 1' Trailer Most Liked In YouTube History, 'Infinite Warfare' Trailer Most Disliked

Comments Filter:

  • Because I read somewhere that the Ghostbusters trailer was the most disliked in history.

    • COD trailer is most dislike videogame trailer. GB trailer is most disliked movie trailer. Both don't even come remotely close to Bieber though (over 6 MILLION dislikes, over 10X either of these light weights).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trogre ( 513942 )

        That's primarily because, deserved or not, it is presently very fashionable to express hatred towards Justin Bieber.

        There have been plenty before him though - One Direction, Rebecca Black and Barney the Dinosaur come to mind.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
        The CoD trailer is actually up to 1.4M dislikes, so Bieber's video is now just 4x as much, but the CoD video's been out for a week. At the current rate, it might actually become the most disliked video on YouTube.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      Because I read somewhere that the Ghostbusters trailer was the most disliked in history.

      That was then, this is now. 1,392,091 IW vs 770,958 (Ghostbusters).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Infinite war has been subjected to a campaign by misogynists.. the roaming gangs of women-haters who patrol the internet driving women away. #Gamergate

      Oh wait. What do you mean I can't play the "evil sexist nerds card" to excuse the massive dislike of my shitty half-baked cash-in product.

      That's not fair! If women can always claim to be the victim to cover up mediocrity and incompetence... why can't everyone else?

  • but I give a fuck about how popular some game trailer is on youtube. I can understand why somebody likes the popularity of a video, and I can understand people being fans of video games, but I doubt anyone reasonable cares about how popular some trailer video for some game is. I like youtube for many areas of videos, but trailers are not one of them.

  • So I have no comment. I do have a question though. Do they still have the wheels on them?

  • Banking in Space (Score:3)

    by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @06:35PM (#52079895)

    Infinite Warfare gets a thumbs down for ships banking in space.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      They don't need to bank due to aerodynamics moving through air, but they may need to bank for the relative comfort of occupants.

      Ok... I'm grasping at straws... I admit but still, I do think at least some 'banking' is plausible to make vector changes more comfortable; you'd be pushed 'down' into the flight seat during a turn instead of laterally out the side of the seat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        If nothing is holding them up (ie in free fall if they turn off their engines) then the proper bank would be at 90 degrees, not some smaller angle. Also (more importantly) the engines need to fire exactly outward from the turn (basically it will make a circle around some point the engines are pointing toward and cannot do anything else).

        Best design for a ship would have the engine firing straight down when the humans are in a comfortable position. A highly maneuverable ship would fly "sideways" during mane

        • Agreed. Inertial dampers and gravity generators make stories easier, so even a little bit of physics shows the writers are trying harder. The fictional Starfury of Babylon 5 probably addresses the force and acceleration issues. I think the ideas of modern aerial combat (e.g., drones, missiles) have passed by the N-Dimensional Fighter [google.com] of the early 1990's, but it's a neat idea.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Man, if that's enough for you to give a thumbs down to an entire product I cant imagine you watch any sort of modern action movies

    • Obviously not pro enough for Flight Assist off.

  • Hollywood has released some awesome movies and giant turds too, I'm sure they all seemed like a good idea at some point. Just launch both and let the market decide, the pre-hype wars are just tedious.

  • To be honest it's just trailers. It seems like the "Mob" of the internet is a bunch of kids that just like to yell what they think about EVERYTHING on the internet now. It's like an informed opinion after playing the game, demo, beta, whatever, but not just watching a TRAILER is illegal now. If you're not a fan of the direction of where the game is going vote with your dollar.

  • Why do they hate the CoD trailer? (Score:3)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @06:49PM (#52079979)

    Forgive my ignorance, since I’m not a gamer, but what is it that people hate so much about the Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare trailer? I’m just curious.

    • Because the internet told us to.

    • Re:Why do they hate the CoD trailer? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2016 @07:13PM (#52080073)

      The more recent games in the series introduced a lot of sci-fi into the mix - they take place in the (near) future and you get stuff like automatic sentry guns and "advanced movement" (double jumps, wall running, etc.) because your character is using some sort of futuristic exoskeleton or something like that. A lot of the players are becoming increasingly fed up with that direction, and I've heard quite a few people say they'd like to see the series come back to its roots, and they'd like to play at least a game set in present (without all the sci-fi BS), or even better, a modern CoD set in WWII.

      And then this trailer comes out, and they're obviously doublin down on the sci-fi parts of it, stuff in the trailer straight up reminded me of Halo and Mass Effect. And at the same time, DICE/EA, possibly hearing the CoD community complaining, release Battlefield 1 set in the trenches of WWI, and people seem to be loving it. I can see why, it's definitely something new and interesting. Looks like EA took Activision's cake... assuming they don't royally fuck it up, which they probably will.

      • [The] Battlefield 1 [is] set in the trenches of WWI, and people seem to be loving it. I can see why, it's definitely something new and interesting.

        There is an excellent multiplayer FPS available on Steam. It's called Verdun , and aims for realism of the actual weapons used. It is foot-soldier, trench-warfare only.

        The game is HARD – due to the realism – and that is a "Good Thing". Bomb-pocked and denuded moonscapes lie between trenches, with almost nowhere to hide when your team attempts an advance. And clearing out a trench without dying is terrifyingly tough. It feels like what fighting in WW-I was quite probably like.

        The Battlefie

        • There is an excellent multiplayer FPS available on Steam. It's called Verdun , and aims for realism of the actual weapons used. It is foot-soldier, trench-warfare only.

          WWI games have generally sucked, because it wasn't really a fun war. There wasn't a clear-cut bad guy and the fighting was slow, sloppy and disease-ridden.

          But when I'm president, we're going to have wars so terrific it'll make your head spin. I'm talking about tremendous, tremendous wars.

    • I'm not a serious gamer (Heck, I have a Mac--how serious can I be?), but I did look into it because I liked Call of Duty back when it took place in WW II.

      One of the things that supposedly made Call of Duty a great game was the realistic environments and scenarios. You didn't find BFG-9000s sitting in a corner that could take out an enemy pillbox with one shot.

      But with "Infinite Warfare," it seems that the folks at Activision are coming out with sci-fi weapons and spaceships and scenarios that aren't partic

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 )

        Another Mac user here (and I really enjoyed CoD 4 on the Mac as well as Modern Warfare 2). I agree though... the whole CoD franchise was about paying enough homage to real warfare so people appreciated it for the elements of realism. Not saying they didn't bend some rules about how easy it was to run with a particular weapon or what-not, for the sake of keeping the game fun to play. But yes, it was good enough so folks who served in the military could play them and feel like it respected what they did and

      • I'm more into the Battefield series that sacrifice some realism to make the game easier / more fun (i.e. appeal to a different crowd). And of the series I think I enjoyed the WW2 one (BF 1942) the most: simple weapons and vehicles, enjoyable dogfighting in airplanes, and so on. Combat was mostly up close and personal. The later BF editions are still good but with modern weaponry they have lost some of their charm... and you can't fly your jet in a straight line for over 5 seconds or you're off the map.

        • I loved Battlefield 1942 and things just went downhill from there. The original was simple, fun, and well balanced. WW2 is a great setting for these games because the weaponry is limited and crude. When you have an automatic weapon with 20 rounds and fires inaccurately as all hell while running it takes some actual skill to use it effectively. Modern weapons all fire much faster and more accurately.

          The other reason to hate on the new games is all the "upgrades" that you can buy and special bonuses. In BF194

          • BF4 is my multiplayer FPS at the moment and I think it's pretty good. There's no huge imbalance in weaponry; the better ones are not insanely more powerful than the basic set, and while you will not do nearly as well if you're stuck with just ironsights instead of modern optics, it doesn't take much effort to earn a couple of upgrades to even the odds. You'd have to be utterly mad to actually pay for battlepacks, and doing so isn't going to give you much of an edge.

            With that said, I do look forward to

          • I loved Battlefield 1942 and things just went downhill from there.

            Agreed but there was nothing quite like stealing an enemy chopper in BF: Vietnam and tuning the in-cockpit radio to "I Fought the Law" while raining down rockets from above. :)

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by clubby ( 1144121 )
              Battlefield: Vietnam was a masterpiece. I still remember messing up a hard bank in a helo and half-crashing onto my landing skids as the chopper screeches to a halt in front of a building with a collapsed wall, full of enemy troops. They blink. I blink. Then, as one, they turn their weapons towards me. Too damaged to fly, and too pinned-down to run, I just held down the trigger and fired a rocket salvo straight forward. I only killed one of them, but it kicked up enough dust and debris to cover my has

    • > what is it that people hate so much about the Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare trailer? I

      Jim Sterling, aka Jimquisition, does a decent job explaining the problems with COD:
      Modern Warfare Rebastard (The Jimquisition) [youtube.com]

      TL:DR;

      * DLC [imgur.com]
      * FPS Map Design [imgur.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guises ( 2423402 )
        See, I'd buy this if it weren't for the fact that Battlefield is published by EA. Have they suddenly done an about-face on the DLC crap? I doubt it.

        Also, this isn't new: DLC has been a problem for years now. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the entire player base has all of a sudden realized that it's detrimental to gaming. The people saying that it's gotten too sci-fi, away from its roots, seem more likely to be right.
        • I don't mind DLC if companies don't get too greedy. Sure, companies use it to milk customers and charge $50 for a game + $20 for the first expansion pack or two that should have been included in the $50 game itself. But you can often get an early bird "deluxe" edition that gives you the game plus the first 5 expansion packs for $70 or so... which is a decent deal if the game actually turns out to be enjoyable. And releasing the packs later gives the publisher an opportunity to include findings from the fi

      • FPS Map Design [imgur.com]

        In all fairness, the Far Cry series (1, 2, 3 and 4) don't have linear maps interspersed with cutscenes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
      Two things, mainly: it's yet another future CoD game and those haven't been received all that well (it's super generic boring gruff sci-fi so not particularly charismatic or memorable), and more importantly they're bundling the Modern Warfare remaster with Infinite Warfare. You cannot get the remaster without buying IW, which is sitting pretty at $80.

    • It's different and I don't like it and now get offa my virtual lawn!

      You think you have to get 60 for this attitude? Get with the times, 16 is closer to the proper age for this stance today.


    • We have tired of FPS set in the future much as we were burnt out on WWII 10 years ago. COD is (and has been for a while) giving us more of the same while Battlefield is doing something that few even thought they wanted. It's going to pay off for EA. Stay tuned for a COD time reversal next year or so.

      BF is arguably the better platform though the charm of both series is seriously diminished by masses of non-objective caring players competing for bragging rights over virtual ranks and items.

  • Am I showing my age? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zibodiz ( 2160038 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @07:04PM (#52080039) Homepage
    I gotta be honest, I don't get it. They both show lots of intense action with a theatrical setup, the COD game appears to be more like a competitor with Halo than with the Battlefield game, which appeared to be set in the early 20th century, but they both looked like engaging, well developed games. The COD gameplay actually looked more interesting to me, as it had space combat elements (something I enjoy), whereas Battlefield appeared to be more strictly FPS.
    That having been said, I'm not a fan of either game. I've never played either one. My taste leans more towards character-driven stories than straight combat, which makes both of these look rather boring.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Both games were 20th century styled war games. The kind we could kind of relate to. Battlefield stayed true to that as you can see (and the trailer looks amazing). COD went more futuristic with every release. The last one had jet packs, smart mines that fly, swarms of robotic bugs or whatever BS. We've all given them negative feedback about that for years and they never cared. Now they've gone insane and made it into a scifi game pretty much. Most of it seems to happen in space. It's more like halo/mass eff

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      Wow its like you read my mind.
      From a purely technical appreciation perspective they both look impressive, so I really don't get all the hate on Call of Doody,

      That said I am never going to buy either since its pretty obvious both are just yet another formulaic braindead FPS that we've seen so many times before.
      Here's to the new boss same as the old boss.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Players were primed to hate COD Infinite Warfare because the previous near future based games have been seen as the weak ones in the series. The set piece bits in the trailer look good, but aren't representative of the main gameplay. Players have been tricked by this before.

      • The set piece bits in the trailer look good, but aren't representative of the main gameplay.

        Wow so you already played CoD:IW? Interesting since it releases ~6 months from now.

    • I haven't played a game from either series in years, but here's the gist of the opinion swing: Battlefield's new offering is doing something that hasn't been really covered yet. Only a few indy titles are set in or around ww1, and zero AAA titles. It's a departure, and shows that maybe the dev team there is actually going to give us something new and interesting. COD meanwhile, looks almost precisely like the LAST game in the series. On top of that less-than-inspiring tidbit, at the very end it shows a
    • The trailer worked against the game highlighting poor visuals and bland color palette. Worst of all it was too long, excess of 3 mins. In contrast Battlefield trailer clocked at just around 1 min.

  • /sarcasm Obviously Quantity is more important then Quality and McDoanalds is better then gourmet food, right? Oh wait ...

    Quantity != Quality.

    * List of most view YouTube videos [wikipedia.org]
    * List of most disliked YouTube videos [wikipedia.org]

    i.e. Anaconda [youtube.com] has 587,510,111 views, 2,532,957 likes (0.4%) and 1,160,130 dislikes (0.19%). Yes < 1%. This tells us fuck all about quality.

    WRT to games, Zero fucks are given about latest-fps-fad. In 4 years the hype will begin again for the latest Battlefield and COD. Repeat ad nausea

    --
    Why a

    • All I canbtell you is that all the independent modders that made BF2 so great are boycotting BF1, Bad Company, and BF3. Why? Because they are unmoddable. DICE games ship with lots of bugs, and now nobody at all can fix them... so really gamers stopped playing Battlefield 2142, which was the last great moddable game invthe series. Nobody can do anything in the mod community to glfix these braindead unplayable broken Frostbite engine based games.

  • Well, to be honest I don't like trailers very much, tent trailers doubly so. Nothing beats a truck camper because backing up with a trailer is a lot of trouble.

  • People love old, I guess (Score:3)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @08:07PM (#52080329) Homepage

    So how come Battlefield 1, which came out in 2002, has nicer graphics and more YouTube likes than Battlefront 4? Is this another retro thing? YouTube wasn't even a thing when this title came out.

    Mind you, it came out just a few months after its target platform, the XBox 1.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by guises ( 2423402 )
      Battlefield 1 at least has a bit of an excuse. A bit. It's set in World War One. ... 1. Get it?

      Yeah, that might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the first game was called Battlefield 1942. This should should obviously be called Battlefield 1917 or something.

  • Might be a dumb question, but ... (Score:3)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @09:27PM (#52080767) Journal

    Is the new Battlefield still going to use a web UI as the "main control panel / console" like they've done with the others?

    For some reason, I really dislike that. I know you can play the game itself full-screen so it shouldn't really matter, but there's just something about it I find jarring? I guess I'm used to 2+ decades of games designed so everything having to do with the program is part of the program. Feels like they took shortcuts just launching my browser and doing some of the stuff in there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      I never did like that browser launcher thing but I've always guessed its a more to do with DRM/copy protection than their shitty idea of usability.

  • "But every night all the men would come around and lay their money down"
  • Nice to see that the viral marketing is working

    Don't forget to buy the latest generic fps, guys
  • Toxins are poisons made by living organisms. Last time I checked, cars weren't living organisms

    Is there anything the media doesn't insist on calling poisonous, toxic or deadly anyway?
  • Battlefield 1 makes you feel like you are kicking ass. Call of Duty make it feel like your ass was kicked.
  • I don't recall flamethrower heavies from my WWI history books. I wonder if this game intends to be authentic to the period or if it'll just spin off into some exaggerated steampunk BS.
  • I liked this debate better when it was Quake 3 vs. Unreal Tournament. Of course we all know Quake won.

  • Sounds like both war simulators are very popular with small children to me. Maybe CoD vs. Battlefield can become an ideological war someday, when it grows up.

  • A modern war is BORING. (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @12:22PM (#52084431)

    Simple as that.

    There is a pretty good reason why flight sims, at least in player-vs-player scenarios, are pretty much relegated to the second World War. Modern plane fights are not really interesting. You have weapon systems that pretty much double as aimbots. That makes for a pretty efficient war, but in a simulated environment it also means a very poor experience. It's not interesting. It's mostly a matter of luck rather than skill who kills whom first. This isn't what people want, People want an exciting game, maybe with a hint of a strategy element to it, but mostly it should be about seeing the enemy and hitting him better and faster than he hits you. And, and this this absolutely crucial, the player has to have the feeling that he won because he and his ability matter.

    That's simply not the case with automated turrets and guns with a billion rounds firing a million thereof per second.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's mostly a matter of luck rather than skill who kills whom first.

      Slight correction: it's not luck. It's a matter of informational warfare and having an encyclopedic knowledge of what threats you may be facing, what their capabilities are, and then making good decisions based on that information. e.g. If your threat indicator shows a flight of enemy aircraft that you outrange, then obviously you'd want to move inside your own engagement envelope while remaining outside of theirs. But then maybe they know you're out there looking for them and have positioned themselves suc

      • Perfect for a real war scenario. And now for a game: You have two sides, evenly matched, that have to have pretty much evenly matched equipment or else it gets mighty boring for one side REALLY fast. Plus on both sides you have essentially people with the mindset of suicide bombers, i.e. "If I kill 5 people before I die, I come out ahead".

        All the things you mention simply don't come into the equation when we're talking about a player-vs-player, X-vs-X players, scenario, i.e. the staple of today's multiplaye

  • Fans: we're sick of this futuristic crap, jumping off walls, etc
    Infinity Ward: Hey look, it's super cool spaceships! We thought spaceships were cool so we made them.
    Fans: *DISLIKE*
    That is the best summary of what happens.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close