Battlefield 1 showcases modern combat, I know its a video game and has a faster pace but was all of world war 1 dependent on trench warfare?
^ These answers I've given (and more on my wiki page) should be pertinent.
was all of world war 1 dependent on trench warfare?
TL;DR: NO. Trenches were dug in all theatres, often extensively as on the Western Front, Eastern Front, at Gallipoli and Salonika, and in the Middle Eastern Theatre (Palestine, Armenia and Mesopotamia), but this is because establishing trenches and other such field fortifications had pretty much been standard operating procedure in Great Power armies since the 18th century and earlier. The stalemate on the Western Front associated with trench warfare really only prevailed from December 1914 to December 1916. Prior to this period, fighting on the Western Front was quite mobile, involving infantry, cavalry and artillery in maneuvering battles and frontal assaults. With the halt of the Race to the Sea at Ypres in November, casualties, distances, weather and force densities (2.5-3 rifles per yard of front, 1 million men on either side of an approx. 450 mile long front with no flanks), led to the trenches dug all along the front when the fighting moved north, becoming permanent. Insufficient firepower and lack of surprise, as well as the density of forces, meant that breaks in the front were hard to achieve. By the end of 1916 however, Franco-British set-piece attacks had sufficient artillery, and the infantry increasing firepower and tactical efficiency, to break in. 1917 saw a shift away from trenches by the Germans to defence in depth, leading to a tactically more fluid battlefield, and in 1918 German divisions from the east and a growing Allied reserve thanks to American divisions, combined with greater firepower than before, allowed for sustained advances to be made. Cavalry reappeared steadily after 1916, most notably in corps regiments and divisional squadrons for scouting, but British divisions contributed at Arras and Cambrai in 1917, Amiens and Le Cateau in 1918, and French cavalry in Flanders in 1918.
The Eastern Front was 900 miles in length, as the crow flies, probably 1125 miles in total in 1917. Fighting in 1914 was very fluid as in the West, with trench stalemates only setting in in the autumn and winter due to weather, and in the Carpathian Mountains. Offensives in Lithuania and Galicia-Poland in 1915, in Galicia and Romania in 1916, and again in Galicia and at Riga in 1917 were all characterized by maneuver, making use of similar tactics and technologies as on the Western Front. The Middle East was similar, with low force densities in theory due to distance and the size of the armies available, though stalemates were possible on account of local parity of forces and logistics as at Gaza in 1917. In Italy and at Salonika, force densities and terrain above all imposed trench stalemate, though maneuver was made possible in the former in 1917 after the Caporetto offensive, and the Italian offensive at Vittorio Veneto in October of 1918 saw maneuver warfare, with the Italian Cavalry Corps exploiting the successful advance of the allied armies.
In Battlefield One, there are plenty of automatics and semi-automatics that were not used, never used even, in the war, or were but in small numbers. Tanks, armoured cars and airplanes are faster as well, but otherwise I applaud the game for taking WWI "out of the trenches" of the Western Front (even if the French and Russians are DLC!).
Erwin Rommel wrote on his experiences as a company grade officer in the 1910s, and I was struck how fluid his experiences were. He fought a war of maneuver, not attrition.
'Attacks' is still used as a study for modern infantry warfare.
The most striking WWI literature comes from the trenches; (Wilfred Owen Dulce et Decorum Est, Erich Maria Remarque All Quiet on the Western Front, etc) but that clearly wasn't the entirety of the war.