• Surprisingly, WWI is exactly where Battlefield belongs
    98 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/surprisingly-wwi-is-exactly-where-battlefield-belongs[/url]
I think WW2 and beyond is a better place for an fps like battlefield. the lack of care about history from the devs compounded by things like overpowered tanks and barely any ways to fight against them isn't really where battlefield belongs.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990400]I think WW2 and beyond is a better place for an fps like battlefield. the lack of care about history from the devs compounded by things like overpowered tanks and barely any ways to fight against them isn't really where battlefield belongs.[/QUOTE] Yes, Battlefield shouldn't be like this because of historical inaccuracies. Right, that makes total sense.
[QUOTE=simkas;50990430]Yes, Battlefield shouldn't be like this because of historical inaccuracies. Right, that makes total sense.[/QUOTE] yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...
My only real complaints are that ground vehicles like tanks have performance waaay over what they should have, and that basically everyone and their dog get either autos or semis with basically no bolt actions short of snipers. (@Tanks: also, the ever persistent "instantly do a 180 aim" thing seems to be still be around. Drives me nuts but games like warthunder are probably to blame for having gotten me used to the pain of slow turret traverse.)
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] I actually love the UI The game is battlefield. It feels like Battlefield. It feels like BF set in WW1, literally the only thing you should ever have expected from [B]any[/B] Battlefield game. [editline]2nd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheMrFailz;50990487]My only real complaints are that ground vehicles like tanks have performance waaay over what they should have, and that basically everyone and their dog get either autos or semis with basically no bolt actions short of snipers. (@Tanks: also, the ever persistent "instantly do a 180 aim" thing seems to be still be around. Drives me nuts but games like warthunder are probably to blame for having gotten me used to the pain of slow turret traverse.)[/QUOTE] In my time playing, it feels like everyones sniping
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] They marketed as a WWI [i]Battlefield[/i] game. Did you really expect them to suddenly rip out the whole core of Battlefield and completely redo how it plays? To turn it into a proper WWI game, you'd have to change it to a point where it wouldn't be even at all similar to any classis Battlefield games.
[QUOTE=simkas;50990506]They marketed as a WWI [i]Battlefield[/i] game. Did you really expect them to suddenly rip out the whole core of Battlefield and completely redo how it plays? To turn it into a proper WWI game, you'd have to change it to a point where it wouldn't be even at all similar to any classis Battlefield games.[/QUOTE] you really dont need to do that at all, though. make tanks slower in every way. make less people use lmg's and smg's. its not like the tanks need to be moving at 2-5 mph like they actually did during ww1. but right now they just feel like bf4 tanks copy pasted into the game. and thats honestly what it all feels like, bf4. the weapon designs are cool, and the reduced accuracy and such is nice and fitting. but what isnt fitting is a group of 15 people running around with their 30+ pound machine guns. they could have easily taken that bit out, or made it so that the class only has a couple of machine guns to work with, but a majority of the weapons are going to be bolt action or semi automatic. its basically like if they made a new bad company but instead of having a bunch of AR's and automatic guns in general, they just had a bunch of bolt actions. there would be no point in it even being in a modern setting. and thats like how it is here. its not a proper ww1 game, no, but it doesnt even feel anything like a ww1 game outside of the look of the models.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990534]you really dont need to do that at all, though. make tanks slower in every way. make less people use lmg's and smg's. its not like the tanks need to be moving at 2-5 mph like they actually did during ww1. but right now they just feel like bf4 tanks copy pasted into the game. and thats honestly what it all feels like, bf4. the weapon designs are cool, and the reduced accuracy and such is nice and fitting. but what isnt fitting is a group of 15 people running around with their 30+ pound machine guns. they could have easily taken that bit out, or made it so that the class only has a couple of machine guns to work with, but a majority of the weapons are going to be bolt action or semi automatic. its basically like if they made a new bad company but instead of having a bunch of AR's and automatic guns in general, they just had a bunch of bolt actions. there would be no point in it even being in a modern setting. and thats like how it is here. its not a proper ww1 game, no, but it doesnt even feel anything like a ww1 game outside of the look of the models.[/QUOTE] It also has to be, like, you know, fun to play. Tanks being incredibly slow and basically useless would not be fun and would not feel like Battlefield. And it does use the WWI setting, all the weapons that aren't bolt action are either pretty inaccurate, slow to fire or slow to reload, tanks are waaaaaaaay more fragile than any tanks in any other Battlefield and then you've got stuff like the super fragile planes that are fairly primitive, the use of horses. All of those things only fit if it's a game set in WWI.
Even then the tanks are slow, like wtf are people smoking. you dont see them ripping around at 60mph lmao, its more around 15 if I were to guess.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] 90% of pc players are snipers because the auto weapons are inaccurate unless you use a bipod or burst it, when you can easily use the bolt action to get headshots/instakills.
tho the light tank is pretty OP, mainly because of the healing ability. other than that tbh they nailed the setting while still keeping it as battlefield. really excited for the full release.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50990609]Even then the tanks are slow, like wtf are people smoking. you dont see them ripping around at 60mph lmao, its more around 15 if I were to guess.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the fastest "tank" vehicle is the artillery truck and even then it feels slower than any tanks in BF3 or 4 and on top of that it's super lightly armored and only has a machine gun and a slow firing cannon that you have to stop to use.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. [/QUOTE] Which is funny to say, considering how many BF4 players are complaining that they changed too much :v:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50990502]In my time playing, it feels like everyones sniping[/QUOTE] I don't really mind that there are so many snipers because it makes it feel more like world war 1 your average guy is supposed to be some dick with a bolt action and not much else, not an elite commando with an incredibly rare semi auto rifle/smg/hip-fired lewis gun I've seen people complain that it feels more like a WW2 game than a WW1 game and I can totally understand where they're coming from [QUOTE=Raidyr;50990912]Which is funny to say, considering how many BF4 players are complaining that they changed too much :v:[/QUOTE] I definitely think it feels different from BF4 but I can't place precisely how; it DOES feel weird that they would change a lot considering BF4 is probably one of the most mechanically sound shooters ever made. Everything's just tight.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] The whole "Why are there all these non bolt-action weapons in the game?" complaint is just absurd to me. Giving players multiple classes that play differently to each other is one of the main features of the Battlefield games. It is the players that have chosen for there to be that amount of those types at a time, Dice aren't responsible for what class people decide they want to play. No one complained about how you could have an entire team as the support class or recon in Battlefield 4 (or Any of the Battlefield games at all) despite that being entirely inaccurate compared to reality, it's the same situation here but suddenly it's not alright. The only way to fix the 'problem' is either add class limits, or simply not let so many players use those things. Either way, it takes away player choice and would go against what all the Battlefield games up until now have done.
to say this is a reskin of bf4 really isn't cutting it. they flat out copied and pasted baddlefront and gave it a world war i skin. that's literally it. and i hate that they used world war i. if you tackle a real war, show some fucking respect to the setting and don't shit on the memories of those who actually fought and died in it.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;50991160]to say this is a reskin of bf4 really isn't cutting it. they flat out copied and pasted baddlefront and gave it a world war i skin. that's literally it. and i hate that they used world war i. if you tackle a real war, show some fucking respect to the setting and don't shit on the memories of those who actually fought and died in it.[/QUOTE] Explain how it is any way other than the UI even slightly similar to Battlefront. None of the problems with Battlefront apply to this game. You also seem to be entirely ignoring that Battlefield games have had at least 6 games/expansions set in WW2 or Vietnam before this, one of which was Battlefield: Heroes - an extremely cartoony and silly game yet there weren't any complaints about it "not showing respect". So it makes absolutely no sense to be fine with all those other games having a historical setting but then decide there's a problem when a new Battlefield game plays like a Battlefield game.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;50991160]to say this is a reskin of bf4 really isn't cutting it. they flat out copied and pasted baddlefront and gave it a world war i skin. that's literally it. and i hate that they used world war i. if you tackle a real war, show some fucking respect to the setting and don't shit on the memories of those who actually fought and died in it.[/QUOTE] There is precisely zero things about the gameplay that is anything like Battlefront. The UI is kinda similar but that is where any similarities end.
[QUOTE=nightlord;50991166]Explain how it is any way other than the UI even slightly similar to Battlefront. None of the problems with Battlefront apply to this game. [/QUOTE] no recoil, high ttk, no headshot damage multiplier, boosts given to loosing teams, fraction of the content of past games, etc etc [QUOTE=nightlord;50991166]You also seem to be entirely ignoring that Battlefield games have had at least 6 games/expansions set in WW2 or Vietnam before this, one of which was Battlefield: Heroes - an extremely cartoony and silly game yet there weren't any complaints about it "not showing respect". So it makes absolutely no sense to be fine with all those other games having a historical setting but then decide there's a problem when a new Battlefield game plays like a Battlefield game. [/QUOTE] world war i was always treated with some respect and decency before. dice has neither and will draw players who have equally little respect for the setting
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;50991241]no recoil, high ttk, no headshot damage multiplier, boosts given to loosing teams, fraction of the content of past games, etc etc[/QUOTE] All the guns have plenty of recoil you just don't feel it as much because you're not always running around with full-auto assault rifles, TTK is pretty much the same as other BF games, there absolutely are headshot multipliers, it's a beta so no fucking shit there's less content and what the fuck is wrong with a boost that's given to a losing team? [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] And I'm still not seeing how they're disrespecting the period.
Because beta nowadays means glorified limited time demo most of the time.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;50991241] world war i was always treated with some respect and decency before. dice has neither and will draw players who have equally little respect for the setting[/QUOTE] if by respect and decency you mean never used and misrepresented in popular culture, sure. But even then, when some of the only games about WWI that aren't strategy games to be released is a 2D Puzzle game filled to the brim with ahistorical stuff, or a game where you kill demons and zombies your argument still doesn't have a leg to stand on.
In terms of op tanks let's not forget we are in beta and there are obviously still going to be balancing issues and also a lot of weapons not available
Y'all should be bitching more about horses, they make the tanks and planes look like a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] For the sake of accessible gameplay to the general gamer. Yes it sucks, but it HAS to be done. Otherwise people would never buy it and our first real WWI AAA game is thrown in the garbage.
[QUOTE=9millmeeter;50991241] boosts given to loosing teams, fraction of the content of past games, etc etc [/quote] Those boosts are specifically there [I]because [/I]that team is loosing, it gives them more of a chance. There's nothing bad about that. As for the content, what are you comparing it to exactly? In what way does it have less content? Regardless, other than the content lacking in Battlefront, those weren't what made Battlefront a pretty poor game overall. [quote]world war i was always treated with some respect and decency before. dice has neither and will draw players who have equally little respect for the setting[/QUOTE] Explain in what way this new game isn't respectful, beyond it just being a WW1 video game. The only reason you haven't had a problem before is because there[I] weren't any WW1 video games[/I] as no one thought it would be a good idea for a setting before now. Just look at the closest things we got before now and explain how the majority of these "show respect and decency" any more than Battlefield one: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKKYDSJ-mfM[/media] Verdun does, but that isn't the style of game Battlefield is. Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with WW1 or Vietnam games.
[QUOTE=Pops;50991330]Y'all should be bitching more about horses, they make the tanks and planes look like a fucking joke.[/QUOTE] I galloped up to a 3 person jeep yesterday and killed all three of them while they were still in the jeep with my sabre I know horses will get nerfed but shit i really hope they dont they are so fun
So how does BF1 disrespect the people who took part in the War? Is this some asinine way of people saying "not realistic therefore not respectful!" which is a fucking terrible argument. The franchise was always made to be fast paced, accessible and a lot less tactical than other shooters.
[QUOTE=spekter;50991447]So how does BF1 disrespect the people who took part in the War? Is this some asinine way of people saying "not realistic therefore not respectful!" which is a fucking terrible argument. The franchise was always made to be fast paced, accessible and a lot less tactical than other shooters.[/QUOTE] It's die hard Historians that probably expected Battlefield 1 to be more like Verdun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.