Battlefield Franchise Megathread V2 - 'The Future of Warfare Is in the Past' Edition - Games

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50514928]Lmao. Rose tinted glasses. You must not remember how the devs were too lazy to model weapons and Americans were running around with enfields and the brits with BARs. Battlefield has always been like this. Would you rather it be like RO where the people with SSDs and fiber internet always get the good weapons at the very start of the round and everyone else is forced to bottom-feed? Would you rather the tanks take [B]LITERALLY[/B] upwards of 15 minutes to get to the center of the map from spawn? What absurd kits exactly? The most absurd thing so far is the rocket gun thing. The planes issue is something i'm fairly certain is contained to the demo build they showed at the livestream. We've seen Camels and F2Bs in screenshots but not in the livestream. [t]http://imgkk.com/i/d08y.jpg[/t] Are you implying the camel pictured above is not in the game because it's not in the livestream? I've been a sperg for this shit since I was a kid and DICE is 100% taking it in the right direction. They could have went down the bullshit crying war poet hollywood "war is hell" route but they instead went for the awe-inspiring industrialized clash of flesh and steel route that was necessary to actually sell this game to a public who's vague perceptions of this war were shaped by [I]fiction[/I] like "All Quiet on the Western Front" and not [I]fact[/I] like "Storm of Steel".[/QUOTE] You're completely missing his point. He's not asking for any of that, and at this point I don't think there's any other way to explain it because he (and myself and a couple others) have just been repeating ourselves every time somebody makes a post like yours.

Didn't the French and Russian armies, the two major forces that aren't included alongside say, Canada, suffer a metric fuckton of casualties and were in like, the vast majority of the larger battles?

I am curious about the lack of artillery. Though I guess I understand why they dont have it from a gameplay standpoint.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50516846]I am curious about the lack of artillery. Though I guess I understand why they dont have it from a gameplay standpoint.[/QUOTE] It was featured in the singleplayer trailer. I think the blimps also can call down artillery. If they still have Commander mode in there, it's probably a commander ability like BF2

[QUOTE=Why485;50516755]You're completely missing his point. He's not asking for any of that, and at this point I don't think there's any other way to explain it because he (and myself and a couple others) have just been repeating ourselves every time somebody makes a post like yours.[/QUOTE] I don't think the condescending attitude is needed, so you can drop that at any point. From my standpoint, y'all haven't seen what the full game has to offer but are screaming and crying that it's not the hyper-realistic-bayonet-through-the-screen game you wanted anyway. Regardless of all that, please, consider the following bit of information that the companies care more about than each individual opinion; the game isn't targeted at people that wan't to get trenchfoot vicariously from the game. It's targeted towards your every day gamer that's played the last few CoDs and BFs and the general market as a whole that's not generally interested in the hardcore WW1 experience because that's where the bulk of their sales are going to come from. I'm sure that's why some lf the officionados here aren't getting their britches twisted, because they knew what we're gonna get. Again, i'm just happy that it's WW1. Is there stuff that i want out of the game? Sure. But tough toodles if i don't get it.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50516774]Didn't the French and Russian armies, the two major forces that aren't included alongside say, Canada, suffer a metric fuckton of casualties and were in like, the vast majority of the larger battles?[/QUOTE] No ANZAC either, though maybe them along with Canada are just lumped in with the British. Also the Eastern Front was really big so maybe they decided to tackle that in DLC and just focus on the other fronts they're doing in the base game.

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;50517184]and crying that it's not the hyper-realistic-bayonet-through-the-screen the game isn't targeted at people that wan't to get trenchfoot vicariously from the game.[/QUOTE] I don't know how many times it needs repeating, but that's not what anybody is asking for. At the end of the day, I concede that I'm complaining about something that's really minor in the grand scheme of things. I'm still happy that they did the research and are pulling in all kinds of crazy obscure weapons that the huge majority of people would never have heard of otherwise. I'll probably enjoy the game like I did Bad Company, and I seriously don't mean that in a bad or condescending way. That game was great, and I'm getting mad Bad Company vibes from everything I've seen so far. It still looks like it'll be a pretty good game that I'll enjoy playing. [editline]13th June 2016[/editline] It's really not as big of a deal to me as I'm making it sound. I've made peace with the fact that faction specific weapons are no longer a thing a long time ago. It's just a pet peeve of mine that I know nobody cares about so I never brought it up aside from a passing reference when it came to BF4. I got a real "return to roots" feeling from the fact that a new Battlefield game was having a historic setting again, so I had a tiny sliver of hope that they would try something different. Anyway, on the topic of the game itself... Watching more gameplay, there's two very positive changes that I'm noticing. It was mentioned before the gameplay videos, but I don't believe marketing until I see things myself. At least in the build they played, assault is the class with the SMGs and shotguns, but no medic bags. Meanwhile, the all important (hopefully) medic class with revives seems to be relegated to semi-automatic and bolt action rifles. That you have to make that kind of trade off to get that kind of ability is a big step in the right direction if you ask me. Assault is also the AT class this time around, which I think is a more natural fit, especially considering there doesn't seem to be an engineer anymore. Snipers will be snipers, but I wonder how they're going to make playing Support appealing.

[QUOTE=Govna;50515572]They're really not going the right way, and fact is and always will be better than fiction when it comes to the First World War. Just as far as Storm of Steel goes since you brought it up, Ernst Jünger (the guy who wrote it) for those that aren't aware was basically a real-life German Indiana Jones. His father was a wealthy chemist, he went to all kinds of boarding schools as a child, and he traveled around Europe as a Wandervogel club member when he was 16 writing poetry. He ran away from home, joined the French Foreign Legion, deserted in Algeria, was caught and eventually wound up back in Germany, went back to school, and then joined the German Army to fight in the war in August 1914. When he was 19. He did all this shit before he was even 20-years-old. That's fucking incredible. As far as his war exploits go, they're legendary. He served for all four years of the conflict and was wounded more than a dozen times (serious injuries too, everything from being hit in the back of the head by a bullet that went through his helmet to getting shot in the fucking chest [i]twice[/i] on separate occasions-- one of which almost led to him dying by drowning on his own blood when the bullet hit his lung), rose up from a private to a lieutenant, led stormtroopers during Operation Michael in March 1918, forced retreating troops on his own side to join in multiple times on holdout efforts (several of which happened when he held them at gunpoint), and he took I have no idea how many prisoners. He was awarded the Iron Cross and the Blue Max, and he filled over a dozen notebooks journaling his experiences during the war. [t]http://66.media.tumblr.com/903973db2684b27f88a3ffd18838dfa3/tumblr_nik3nopyfY1u7vgzzo2_400.jpg[/t] What's not awe-inspiring about this exactly? And this isn't even going into detail about all the incredible things he did after the war in Germany (in science, politics, and the military), nor the fact that he lived to be 102-years-old. World War I is damn interesting, even when you strip away the run-and-gun "ACTION! ACTION! ACTION!" approach that DICE is clearly going for here with BF1. Again, that's the way it is with reality, and more people need to be taught to realize this.[/QUOTE] I'm almost done reading that book right now actually. He did some real sneaky shit like crawling through no man's land at night to get into the British trenches to try to take prisoners for intel. I kinda want to see what Tripwire would do with a WW1 setting, but after seeing how KF2's development is going I'm not too sure anymore. Maybe Antimatter, the Rising Storm devs, could do something with it as their next project after Vietnam What I want out of a WW1 setting is more of an emphasis on single shot bolt action rifles rather than spray and pray weapons. I just hope SMGs don't become too dominant in BF1

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50514314]You missed the point that I'm trying to make: I'm entirely fine with over the top. I'm fine with people walking on top of the zeppelin and shooting. I'm fine with a focus on more mobile warfare. I'm fine with quick melee kills. Hell, if someone can ride on the wings of the biplanes like you used to be able to do in BF1942, I'd find it hilarious. What I'm [I]not[/I] fine with is the lack of authenticity: overabundance of semis and smgs; tanks that move [I]way[/I] too fast; planes being used by nations that normally didn't use them; absurd kits that don't fit the period. Criticize me for being 'an old timer,' but BF1942 and BF2, while not realistic, were entirely authentic. I'd also make the argument that BF3 is kind of authentic, but BF1 clearly isn't trying to be authentic to the WW1 setting -- it's just a quick paced arcade shooter with WW1 as the background at the moment.[/QUOTE] dude it's a fucking game, chill your tits. if every war game was authentic, half of the gameplay would be standing at post, pissing in a bottle and fapping in a corner.

Something else I'm really happy to see the return of is plain old iron sights.

I just noticed there's no vehicle exit animation. Maybe due to gameplay reasons?

At least something I've noticed is that even though we've had few pretty heated debates about the game so far, I've seen all parties have done a great effort of avoiding insults and direct attacks and I just want to say I'm proud of you guys and you should be too. Keep up the civilised conversation regardless of our opinion on the game.

[QUOTE=Why485;50517522]Something else I'm really happy to see the return of is plain old iron sights.[/QUOTE] Shame that it seems like almost everyone will have those weird slightly zoomed in optics.

[QUOTE=StrykerE;50517607]Shame that it seems like almost everyone will have those weird slightly zoomed in optics.[/QUOTE] I honestly see myself playing Scout a lot just using ironsighted bolt-actions with a bayonet.

The best thing in BF1 is probably going to be no heat-seeking missile and smart weaponry

No 313 speed? lol

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50517688]I honestly see myself playing Scout a lot just using ironsighted bolt-actions with a bayonet.[/QUOTE] I hope you still can. They said that they've streamlined the customization system so that there are pre-set accessory loadouts for each weapon that fits into certain playstyles.

[QUOTE=StrykerE;50517735]I hope you still can. They said that they've streamlined the customization system so that there are pre-set accessory loadouts for each weapon that fits into certain playstyles.[/QUOTE] Really? Are you sure that this is for the actual game and not just the livestream event they had? It would be pretty dumb of them to do that for the full game. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] you think they would mention something like that on the website's Q&A but this is what it says [img]https://i.gyazo.com/5ec3ff55284c62060de3806849520b9e.png[/img] I honestly think they just made presets for the livestream event and the actual game with still have normal customization.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50517747]Really? Are you sure that this is for the actual game and not just the livestream event they had? It would be pretty dumb of them to do that for the full game. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] you think they would mention something like that on the website's Q&A but this is what it says [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/5ec3ff55284c62060de3806849520b9e.png[/IMG] I honestly think they just made presets for the livestream event and the actual game with still have normal customization.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Weapon customization is more focused.[/B] We definitely want to allow you to customize your weapons in Battlefield 1, but we also heard your feedback that we should try to find a way to do this without adding hundreds of additional attachments. That's why Battlefield 1 utilizes pre-set Loadouts for each weapon - you're still able to customize your weapons to make sure they work with your playstyle, but in a more focused way. [B]Each weapon has up to three Pre-Sets.[/B] Maybe you want a shotgun that packs a little more punch? Or maybe you'd rather one that trades stability for accuracy? The different weapon Pre-Sets should help you out. Some have up to three, giving you different ways to play with the same weapons. You're able to customize them as well, changing the zoom levels, reticles, and more.[/QUOTE] So at least it sounds like you can change optics

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50517252]No ANZAC either, though maybe them along with Canada are just lumped in with the British. Also the Eastern Front was really big so maybe they decided to tackle that in DLC and just focus on the other fronts they're doing in the base game.[/QUOTE] I definetly saw ANZAC units in one of the trailers with the hats running towards a village, so i am guessing that they are just thrown in as part of the british empire. As they were still at that point. I have to say i am sort of surprised by the lack of french. Maybe they will explain it later on or something. Doesn't make much sense to leave french out but put in italians.

Supposedly there's French websites claiming they've got word from DICE that a French faction will be added post-launch. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;50518140]I definetly saw ANZAC units in one of the trailers with the hats running towards a village, so i am guessing that they are just thrown in as part of the british empire.[/QUOTE] Not ANZAC, they're black troops. You could call them King's African Rifles if you really want to. They never fought in Europe but DICE has already demonstrated that they're not concerned about that.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50516774]Didn't the French and Russian armies, the two major forces that aren't included alongside say, Canada, suffer a metric fuckton of casualties and were in like, the vast majority of the larger battles?[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.worldwar1.com/stats/nwound.gif[/t] I don't wanna sound patriotic, but country that have 12 million people mobilized, 5 million wounded and nearly 2 million dead in WW1 will not be added to the game. [I]Fantastic[/I]. GG, DICE. Well, at least, according to rumors, France will be added in DLCs (i guess).

I'm sure Dice got some plans with this (French and Russians) as either post-launch or DLC. There is a still a lot they need to show, but i'm optimistic. I'm also glad they will have the Italian Army in the MP. Wonder if they will base a map around Caporetto.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50514928]Lmao. Rose tinted glasses. You must not remember how the devs were too lazy to model weapons and Americans were running around with enfields and the brits with BARs. Battlefield has always been like this.[/QUOTE] Which they patched later on. Secret Weapons anyone? [QUOTE]Would you rather it be like RO where the people with SSDs and fiber internet always get the good weapons at the very start of the round and everyone else is forced to bottom-feed? Would you rather the tanks take [B]LITERALLY[/B] upwards of 15 minutes to get to the center of the map from spawn?[/QUOTE] No, I want a Forgotten Hope 2 system where there are different classes that are free to take and for the most part versatile enough for most situations and some specialized classes that are more limited. [QUOTE]What absurd kits exactly? The most absurd thing so far is the rocket gun thing.[/QUOTE] That was exactly what I meant. [QUOTE]The planes issue is something i'm fairly certain is contained to the demo build they showed at the livestream. We've seen Camels and F2Bs in screenshots but not in the livestream.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. [QUOTE][t]http://imgkk.com/i/d08y.jpg[/t] Are you implying the camel pictured above is not in the game because it's not in the livestream?[/QUOTE] Again, I'm basing all of my arguments from what has been shown. DICE could prove me wrong and I'd love to be proven wrong. I am still worried however. [QUOTE]I've been a sperg for this shit since I was a kid and DICE is 100% taking it in the right direction.[/QUOTE] Like someone had said earlier in the thread, it'd be interesting to see which BF game the FPers on this thread was their first and how they would define Battlefield in terms of gameplay. But eh, that's a topic for another time. [QUOTE]They could have went down the bullshit crying war poet hollywood "war is hell" route but they instead went for the awe-inspiring industrialized clash of flesh and steel route that was necessary to actually sell this game to a public who's vague perceptions of this war were shaped by [I]fiction[/I] like "All Quiet on the Western Front" and not [I]fact[/I] like "Storm of Steel".[/QUOTE] ...and I like that. I actually do. I just want it to be somewhat rooted in reality like the originals were. But whatever. [QUOTE=Pops;50517495]dude it's a fucking game, chill your tits.[/QUOTE] First of all, I don't have an invested interest in BF1, so I'm actually calm when discussing this. However... [QUOTE]if every war game was authentic, half of the gameplay would be standing at post, pissing in a bottle and fapping in a corner.[/QUOTE] This confusion between 'authentic' and 'realistic' [I]is[/I] irking me. If I want realism, I play ARMA. If I only want authenticity, I play games like RO2 and FH2. Heck, every now and then I go back into Medal Of Honour just for fun, because it's still authentic.

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50518669] First of all, I don't have an invested interest in BF1, so I'm actually calm when discussing this. However...[/QUOTE] You say you don't have an invested interest, but it seems a large majority of people here don't care about 'authenticity' as much as you do

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;50518698]You say you don't have an invested interest, but it seems a large majority of people here don't care about 'authenticity' as much as you do[/QUOTE] I have a mild interest in BF1 if it is released 'as is'. I'd probably try it out to see if it's any good. However, if it were to be a return to form as it was in BF1942 or BF2 (hell, even Bad Company), then I'd probably end up buying it regardless of any problems. I care enough to hope for that. If it doesn't, then whatever, it's just a new entry with the post BC2 formula. No skin off my nose.

Also i'd like to point out that regardless on how authentic they do or don't make the game, thsre's absolutely going to be servers trying to recreate battles and make things as authentic as possible.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50514928] What absurd kits exactly? The most absurd thing so far is the rocket gun thing. [/QUOTE] Is there any gameplay where i can see what this is?

Levelcap put out a impressions video with new footage and info. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYmQE-trVJg[/media] One interesting thing was that the bomber he's piloting at around 5 minutes in is a 3 seater.

Fun fact, you can actually [URL="https://youtu.be/YE1hndnWpgg?t=365"]climb over walls[/URL]. [editline]14th June 2016[/editline] Also, finally there's some [URL="https://youtu.be/YE1hndnWpgg?t=232"]rocket gun gameplay[/URL].