Well, speak for yourself I had been hoping for a AAA WWI title for ages.
Oh, I did too. But it wasn't on people's minds and yet it was a huge success.
GIVE ME BATTLEFIELD VIETNAM II FFS
I don't get the hate for WWII, it's such a massive conflict and we've only ever seen Normandy or Stalingrad.
What if they did battles during 1940? Or in Burma? Fuck, what about China? Greece? Or the various battles on the eastern front which have fuck all coverage despite lots of cool shit? Finland, who fought both the Nazis AND the Soviets at one point? I mean shit, I'm suprised the various British commando raids on occupied Europe hasn't really been done.
There is endless amounts you can use from WWII, a much more interesting war with tons of armies and equipment we have never seen than Vietnam or even WW1.
A melee focused battlefield with claymores, knights, archers, and kings would be sweet. I want to use a fucking mace Dice c'mon.
Overexposure is the main reason people still have it out for WWII games. It's really hard to overstate just how pervasive it was as a setting right up until 2008 or so and I'd argue there were far more WWII games made during 2000-2008 than modern warfare ripoffs during 2008-2017. Publishers reason that nobody wants a WWII game taking place in Finland or Burma or China because it doesn't involve people from the nations that have the biggest populations that'll pay money to play the game, and publishers also argue that the 18-26 year old fratbro demographic they pursue so relentlessly doesn't give a shit about wars that happened before they were born (WWII being the exception of course).
Can we hope for Axis campaign missions in this one at least?
The only WW2 game I know of that had British Commando raids, Burma, and also Czechoslovakia (which you didn't mention, but hey it's in there too) is Hidden & Dangerous 2.
Great WW2 game.
you forgot Poland
Poland would be pretty awesome too, the siege of Warsaw would be emotional as fuck if done right.
There was that game called Enemy Front but wasn't that great, CI games are known for low quality FPS titles released en masse.
And there was Codename Panzer that start with invasion on Poland (they even mentioned false flag operation by nazis to get excuse for invasion).
Or Call of Duty3 with Polish tank crew (pity it wasn't released on PC).
I've heard someone say that the white horse might be a reference to the Battle of White Horse or the South Korean 9th Infantry Division, nicknamed White Horse. Either one suggesting a Koreran War setting which would be interesting.
I did, and I was pretty hugely disappointed it wasn't more authentic.
They didn't have to stick 100% to the tenets of trench warfare, but they also didn't need to give everyone experimental automatic weapons and man-portable LMG's, making it play almost identically to every other Battlefield game.
Still a fun game, though. I just wanted combat to be more centered around bolt action rifles and pistols/revolvers with mounted machine guns and the occasional guy with a Chauchat or an MG-08/15, instead of everyone running around with weapons that only existed in experimental form that never saw any actual use.
It's going to be shit, calling it
It's going to be amazing in its own right but exhaustion on the genre and tropes it carries will make us hate it anyway, calling it.
Rising Storm 2
thats all the good Vietnam games we've had in recent years
We haven't had enough Vietnam to go back to yet more WW2
Battlefield 2145 is my hope
I wish we could get some AAA games based around wars that didn't principally involve the US. How about the Sino-Japanese war? The Winter War? Any of the major battles in WW2 that didn't involve the US? I mean the US barely did anything in WW1 and there's an entire US single player campaign in BF1, give someone else the stage.
Or if we have to do US-related stuff for some reason, how about the Korean War? For a war that lasted only about three years, it was a pretty huge one.
Korean War please, it's so unexplored in games!
There's also the fact that the best one out of those was BF Vietnam, BC2 Vietnam wasn't that popular, and Rising Storm 2 was really good, but its playerbase took a nosedive fast.
Hopefully we get another one soon, one that isn't just DLC, but a proper Battlefield Vietnam game. I just don't want it to be more "games as a service" bullshit.
There's still lots of people playing RS2, servers tend to be pretty full.
All I want is Battlefield 2043 but I know they're gonna mess it up so I guess I'm cool with the fact that they're never gonna do it.
I thought the gunplay in Battlefield 1 was absolute trash. It was designed by a dude who had a really fat and hard throbbing boner for sniper rifles, which resulted in the game having super accurate DMRs and sniper rifles that killed in one shot on large, open maps. Meanwhile the automatic weapons had serious drawbacks, like insane recoil, very short range, or in the case of the machine guns they were very inaccurate and you would have to fire them continuously for a few seconds in order to stabilize the aim.
I have a ton of friend who played the previous battlefield games to death. They were big fans. Then Battlefield 1 came out and all of them, bar none, hated it. That game was only fun for bushwookies.
Which BF1 are you playing because the one I'm play sounds very different.
Tbh I'm glad they're delaying those games so much. If they come out next gen we'll have a shitload of progression graphically and game design wise. Hopefully. Probably not.
By "will never be the same" what they really mean is "we are going to be using a setting that we've never used before in any other BF game".
Yeah snipers are pretty much the only shitty thing about the gunplay in BF1, otherwise the rest was great and actually made classes actually feel like classes with their own distinct combat roles and effective ranges.
BF1's gunplay is much less mundane than BF4 where you only needed half a brain cell to figure out that to master every automatic weapon, you just have to stand still, microburst and adjust burst timing by a few microseconds per weapon or range engagement and boom, free 40-5 game with either an ACW-R or a Bulldog. BF1's spread mechanics actually force you to confine to a specific range where your class is expected to perform, reducing that random chance you can experience in BF4 where suddenly that Recon who usually uses snipers is now raping you in CQC with carbines and just makes playstyles more varied overall.
There are some things that are undeniably wrong about BF1, but the gunplay is certainly not one of them.
It's a shame since anyone who's actually studied WW1 warfare (besides real early 1914 style) would know that it could work in a video game.
I would sorta excuse BF1 for not including the more obscure fronts since its probably the first modern game to bring WW1 to the front page gaming mainstream and with only 1 year of DLC content, they're in a tight spot to try and shove as much of the 'significant' parts as much as they can with the French, Russian, Gallipoli/navy and hell on earth themed DLCs.
The devs themselves also said that they wanted to include more fronts including Africa, but sadly didn't have time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.