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

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50518669] That was exactly what I meant. [/QUOTE] Can you please explain what you find absurd about the rocket gun? It's a real thing. The one in the game seems to be a Vickers-Crayford rocket gun. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/1.59-inch_Crayford_gun_photograph.jpg/300px-1.59-inch_Crayford_gun_photograph.jpg[/img] There isn't anything I've seen so far that seems completely out of place in terms of weapons/vehicles, just some a few changes made for obvious gameplay reasons.

Not too fond of regenerating health for soldiers. Glad to see vehicle self-repair has some compromises to it at least

They'll probably have a classic mode without the regenerating health like in BF4.

I think I've come up with a better reason as to why I'm not such a fan of the direction BF1 went with the weapon choices beyond MUH HISTORICAL ACCURACY I'm not a fan of the direction BF4 went, that is the person with the most accurate gun with the highest rate of fire wins, no exceptions. It became more of a twitch shooter, which isn't something I enjoy nor am I good at. I don't remember even BF3 or the Bad Company games being nearly this bad with spammy weapons being the best with no exceptions. I was hoping the WWI setting would slow things down and maybe not totally remove the spammy spray and pray gameplay, but at the very least present a viable alternative to it beyond sniping, which is something I never have fun doing in any video game. As it stands the game might still do this and slow things down a bit because it looks as if only two classes get access to fully automatic weapons, and from the gameplay it did look like the automatic weapons and even the pistols were harder to keep on target. I guess I'll just have to wait for more gameplay on different maps and the beta to make real judgement on how I think the game is going to play. I wasn't hoping for Verdun or Red Orchestra type gameplay, I was just hoping for something a little bit slower paced than the previous few Battlefield games because to me, they've gotten progressively less fun the faster paced they've become.

Ya' know, I'm honestly wondering if DICE will make something related to Pancho Villa. The whole Mexican Revolution could make for a pretty awesome game/DLC. Oh and after doing some research: French, Russian, ANZAC, and Canadian forces are supposedly getting their own DLCs. Moderators on Reddit from DICE have confirmed.

If the singleplayer campaign is made up of vignettes starring a character from each country seen in the multiplayer, it might be interesting if the DLC each include a singleplayer mission/missions focusing on a character from country the DLC focused on in addition to the usual multiplayer additions.

[QUOTE=nightlord;50520173]Can you please explain what you find absurd about the rocket gun? It's a real thing. The one in the game seems to be a Vickers-Crayford rocket gun. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/1.59-inch_Crayford_gun_photograph.jpg/300px-1.59-inch_Crayford_gun_photograph.jpg[/img] There isn't anything I've seen so far that seems completely out of place in terms of weapons/vehicles, just some a few changes made for obvious gameplay reasons.[/QUOTE] Judging by the Wikipedia page, that is a gun that wasn't even used by ground forces (though that was the original intent) and was barely used by air forces to limited effect; far from something which every fourth soldier would have had at their disposal. I don't think anyone is saying the guns shown thus far did not exist in the period; rather, it's the fact weapons that were rarely, if ever, actually used in the context depicted are common weapons that, in theory, every player in the game on both sides might be using. It's unauthentic, and some--myself included--would prefer a more authentic approach. Personally, I think FH2 is a good example of what I would have liked to see; a generally authentic approach in terms of equipment while maintaining the arcade nature of Battlefield. It's a shame modding support is a lost language to a lot of developers.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50521054]Ya' know, I'm honestly wondering if DICE will make something related to Pancho Villa. The whole Mexican Revolution could make for a pretty awesome game/DLC. Oh and after doing some research: French, Russian, ANZAC, and Canadian forces are supposedly getting their own DLCs. Moderators on Reddit from DICE have confirmed.[/QUOTE] It's still kinda mind boggling how the French are DLC in a World War 1 game. That better be some baller ass DLC. Like Schneider CA1s and Saint-Chamonds out the ass. Also [B][I]Where the fuck is the Whippet?[/I][/B] Yeah I know it's only armed with machine guns but still [quote] British losses were so high however that plans to equip five Tank Battalions (Light) with 36 Whippets each had to be abandoned. In the end only the 3rd Tank Brigade had Whippets, 48 in each of its two battalions (3rd and 6th TB). Alongside Mark IV and V tanks, they took part in the Amiens offensive (8 August 1918) which was described by the German supreme commander General Ludendorff, as "the Black Day of the German Army". The Whippets broke through into the German rear areas causing the loss of the artillery in an entire front sector, a devastating blow from which the Germans were unable to recover. During this battle, [B]one Whippet – Musical Box – advanced so far it was cut off behind German lines. For nine hours it roamed at will, destroying an artillery battery, an Observation balloon, the camp of an infantry battalion and a transport column of the German 225. Division, inflicting heavy casualties.[/B] [/quote] The first recorded instance of Blitzkrieg, by the British, in 1918, at 13 km/h.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50521054]Ya' know, I'm honestly wondering if DICE will make something related to Pancho Villa. The whole Mexican Revolution could make for a pretty awesome game/DLC. Oh and after doing some research: French, Russian, ANZAC, and Canadian forces are supposedly getting their own DLCs. Moderators on Reddit from DICE have confirmed.[/QUOTE] Source?

[QUOTE=markfu;50519898]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.[/QUOTE] Sure hope Dice does not listen to him. I would really not want to see the automatic weapons be good at all ranges, the more people are encouraged to pick bolt actions the better.

I think the standpoint he's coming from is that he wants personal skill to play the major factor in winning in gun battles as opposed to them, based on another video I watched, returning to the sort of cone of fire of BF2. I can see how it could be frustrating to have to deal with basically lucky shots outside of effective range, since its taking control away from the player. On the other hand, if the machine guns performed well by tap firing, pretty much everyone would run support. Until I get to play the beta myself, I'm not sure where I'd stand on the issue, but right now the changes don't seem too bad.

It's funny how DICE still can't make a foregrip animation :v: Hopefully there will be some on release.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50522550]It's funny how DICE still can't make a foregrip animation :v: Hopefully there will be some on release.[/QUOTE] Huh?

[QUOTE=markfu;50522434]I think the standpoint he's coming from is that he wants personal skill to play the major factor in winning in gun battles as opposed to them, based on another video I watched, returning to the sort of cone of fire of BF2. I can see how it could be frustrating to have to deal with basically lucky shots outside of effective range, since its taking control away from the player. On the other hand, if the machine guns performed well by tap firing, pretty much everyone would run support. Until I get to play the beta myself, I'm not sure where I'd stand on the issue, but right now the changes don't seem too bad.[/QUOTE] With how Battlefield works, I wouldn't really call "shots outside the effective range" lucky. You have a lot more freedom and opportunities when it comes to positioning

[QUOTE=Niklas;50522388]Sure hope Dice does not listen to him. I would really not want to see the automatic weapons be good at all ranges, the more people are encouraged to pick bolt actions the better.[/QUOTE] I haven't watched the video yet, but Levelcap has always had an intensely xXxMLGxXx infantry tryhard focused opinion. If it were up to him, Battlefield would be Modern Warfare era Call of Duty with slightly different weapon handling. While I think he has opinions worth considering when it comes to straight up infantry vs infantry combat, he doesn't seem to think about the greater context that said gameplay takes place in. His thoughts on what a BF5 should be really showed that he thinks about infantry combat in isolation and seems to want a game that best supports infantry only 24/7 Nosehair Canals ith M16A3s. The guy knows what he likes.

[QUOTE=theobod;50522633]Huh?[/QUOTE] Just like in BF3/4, you don't hold guns equipped with foregrips by the foregrip. At least in that build.

After watching the video, I'm super happy with the repair mechanic. I was worried that it could be cheesed in a lot of ways, but it has a ton of sensible restrictions on it. Only the tanker class can repair, getting shot interrupts repair, and you can't move (or shoot?) while you're repairing. If you just get into a tank with a normal kit you can't repair the tank, and the only way to get the tanker kit is to spawn as a driver in a tank. That's fantastic. I was surprised that he said tanks seemed hard to kill, because in the gameplay videos it seemed like the AT grenades that every class can carry did about 1/3 damage to tanks with each grenade. It seems like if anybody actually tried to kill a tank, it wouldn't be that difficult. I really like where they're going with each of the classes being more defined in their roles and gameplay styles. It's something he doesn't seem to like and I wouldn't be surprised if DICE homogenizes everything by release, but I hope the game stays like that. Like I said before, I'm also really happy with the split of assault and medic. It creates a really interesting dynamic that didn't exist in BF3/4.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50521581]Judging by the Wikipedia page, that is a gun that wasn't even used by ground forces (though that was the original intent) and was barely used by air forces to limited effect; far from something which every fourth soldier would have had at their disposal. I don't think anyone is saying the guns shown thus far did not exist in the period; rather, it's the fact weapons that were rarely, if ever, actually used in the context depicted are common weapons that, in theory, every player in the game on both sides might be using. It's unauthentic, and some--myself included--would prefer a more authentic approach. Personally, I think FH2 is a good example of what I would have liked to see; a generally authentic approach in terms of equipment while maintaining the arcade nature of Battlefield. It's a shame modding support is a lost language to a lot of developers.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why this is suddenly a problem now. Battlefield games have never been 100% accurate in regards to equipment usage. Real soldiers don't go around carrying a random assortment of whatever weapons they like, along with gadgets like drones, while having their weapons & vehicles painted in outlandish colours that don't fit where they are. I don't overly like it either and would prefer to have things like the other sides weapons be a bit more limited and go back to the class-restricted system of BF2, but it's been like this since BC1/BF3 (although you could really say BF2 since that allowed you to choose different weapons that didn't fit that army, and things like the Jackhammer weren't even used in reality), so expecting it to suddenly change now doesn't make much sense. There has to be some obviously not entirely authentic choices made for gameplay reasons. The important thing is that they did exist, and they were used. If you're going to take the stance that it's not authentic because not every soldier would have had access to them, then that's been a problem since BF1942 and every game since then. There are no class limits. It's entirely possible for every single player to go around with AT weapons in every Battlefield game, despite them not being that common; that's pretty much the exact same situation as this.

suddenly now that BF is doing a different time period, everyone is hyper critical of the levels of realism and authenticity when in the last game no one gave a shit like in BF4 no one gave a shit that everyone, no matter if they were American, Chinese, or Russian were using Italian or Israeli weapons. But now this inaccuracy is a heinous crime.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50522898]suddenly now that BF is doing a different time period, everyone is hyper critical of the levels of realism and authenticity when in the last game no one gave a shit like in BF4 no one gave a shit that everyone, no matter if they were American, Chinese, or Russian were using Italian or Israeli weapons. But now this inaccuracy is a heinous crime.[/QUOTE] The last game had the near future excuse to do whatever they wanted, including a railgun, plus after BF3 they needed to start pulling in (and making up) random shit so that they would have more content and not just have exactly the same equipment but on different maps. The reason it's coming up again is because it's a historical setting for a change. Also, I cared about the weapon stuff, and when I play BF3/4 I tend to use whatever weapons I "should" be using, but I admit I'm a crazy person and in the minority.

Does anyone know where this supposed livestream going on right now is?

[QUOTE=Why485;50522910]The last game had the near future excuse to do whatever they wanted, including a railgun, plus after BF3 they needed to start pulling in random shit so that they would have more content and not just have exactly the same equipment but on different maps. The reason it's coming up again is because it's a historical setting for a change. Also, I cared about the weapon stuff, and when I play BF3/4 I tend to use whatever weapons I "should" be using, but I admit I'm a crazy person.[/QUOTE] I did the same thing in BF3/4 when it came to using faction specific weapons, but I didnt blame the game for not forcing that, its just what I expected coming from a Battlefield game. I honestly didnt expect anything different from BF1, and I guess thats why I'm not as outraged as some people.

[QUOTE=Wulfram;50522932]I did the same thing in BF3/4 when it came to using faction specific weapons, but I didnt blame the game for not forcing that, its just what I expected coming from a Battlefield game. I honestly didnt expect anything different from BF1, and I guess thats why I'm not as outraged as some people.[/QUOTE] I didn't expect faction specific weapons from BF4, and I wasn't expecting it in Battlefield 1, but that didn't stop me from wishing it had them. I'll just quote the last post I made on this for the rest of this post. [QUOTE=Why485;50517286]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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Why485;50522910]The last game had the near future excuse to do whatever they wanted, including a railgun, plus after BF3 they needed to start pulling in (and making up) random shit so that they would have more content and not just have exactly the same equipment but on different maps. The reason it's coming up again is because it's a historical setting for a change. Also, I cared about the weapon stuff, and when I play BF3/4 I tend to use whatever weapons I "should" be using, but I admit I'm a crazy person and in the minority.[/QUOTE] The near-future stuff was only the last expansion for it, but that doesn't change that the rest of the game was unauthentic. It allowed a random assortment of weapons and equipment available no matter what team you were on, things that real soldiers would not use. That's been something all games in the series since BF2 have done, so why is a Battlefield game not being completely authentic suddenly considered a problem 10 years after that started?

[QUOTE=Why485;50522942]I didn't expect faction specific weapons from BF4, and I wasn't expecting it in Battlefield 1, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it had them. I'll just quote the last post I made on this for the rest of this post.[/QUOTE] You never know, they could still have faction specific starting weapons like BF3 had. The chances are slim, but its still a possibility.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50522741]Just like in BF3/4, you don't hold guns equipped with foregrips by the foregrip. At least in that build.[/QUOTE] Actually, they DO hold the weapon by the foregrip, it's just that they are not using the "broom handle" technique Sometimes the animation does glitch out though, having the character's hand completely ignore the foregrip

[QUOTE=markfu;50519898]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.[/QUOTE] "Waaaah, I can't go on my epic M16A3 killstreaks anymore." I really hope DICE don't listen to people like him. This is a WW1 game, you shouldn't be allowed to run and gun with an automatic weapon and be effective at all ranges. Also I still want to know if there's a limit to the amount of tanks a team can have. What's stopping everyone from being in a tank?

[QUOTE=nightlord;50522960]The near-future stuff was only the last expansion for it, but that doesn't change that the rest of the game was unauthentic. It allowed a random assortment of weapons and equipment available no matter what team you were on, things that real soldiers would not use. That's been something all games in the series since BF2 have done, so why is a Battlefield game not being authentic suddenly considered a problem 10 years after that stated?[/QUOTE] [B]Warning: This post is way too long, but I really feel like it needs to be because I want to use precise language to get my point across. I hate replying in Tweets.[/B] I already answered your question. It's because BF1 is a historic setting again for the first time in 12 years. 7, if you include Battlefield 1943. 1942 had its inaccuracies, but the game was pretty accurate for its day, and the more egregious examples like Japanese StG-44s and K98s got patched out with time. BF Vietnam went even further with the asymmetry and that's a lot of what gave that game its flavor. That game would not have been the same if Vietcong were flying around in Hueys and shooting M16A1s while US soldiers carrying RPG-7s strafed Sheridans with MiG-17s. Battlefield 2 was also very good about all that with each side having its own unique weapons, with each faction also tending towards a specific playstyle. The all-kit weapons were something that had to be unlocked with [B]a lot[/B] of game time, to the point of them being extremely rare in the wild. It was actually kind of a status symbol more than anything else, because for example, if you saw somebody with a Jackhammer that meant they were really dedicated to the Engineer class. The expansions pack changed that up a bit by making universal weapons available by default, but to be honest I didn't play the expansion stuff all that much, so I rarely saw them. I keep trying to find ways to explain this in a way that isn't just "muh realism" because that's [I]really[/I] not what this is about. Not for me anyway. It's not only about having a big variety of weapons and vehicles, but also about actually feeling like you're fighting in a faction with a unique identity. I like game where you can't just pick the meta gun/vehicle and go to town. I like games where teams and classes have to work together and where each team actually feels like a different team. You can crate some really interesting dynamics by having different factions simply [I]play[/I] differently. Each side has to adapt and play to their strengths while trying to exploit the weaknesses of their enemy. Forgotten Hope gets brought up a lot because it's exactly the kind of setting, weapon/vehicle distribution, and attention to historical authenticity that I wish we could have. Forgotten Hope changed [B]nothing[/B] about the base mechanics of Battlefield. The gameplay was essentially the same as vanilla, with only some very minor tweaks. What they did do though, is add in a ton of vehicles and weapons so that you could recreate battles that actually happened. Not only did you get an awesome feeling of the history behind it all because it was a match of GERMANY versus the UNITED KINGDOM with authentic weaponry and vehicles, but it also allowed for a huge variety in gameplay because a Panzer III is not a Crusader. An MG-34 is not a Bren LMG. An MP-40 is not a Sten. Each of these vehicles and weapons played differently and that arose naturally from the advantages and disadvantages they had in real life. None of this involved introducing more realism, as again I stress that Forgotten Hope played very similarly to vanilla 1942. All they did was shuffle around some weapons, introduce more countries and time periods, and add new maps, each with the appropriate forces and balanced for fun gameplay. Unfortunately, Battlefield modding doesn't exist anymore, so this isn't a problem that can be solved the way it used to for the people that want that experience. I don't want to just talk about mods either, because I can in fact name you an official DICE produced Battlefield game that not only had authentic weapons and vehicles, but was as bombastic, unrealistic, silly, and over the top as [I]Bad Company[/I]. That game was Battlefield 1943. It had the same over the top destruction as Bad Company. It had the same over-produced but amazing sounding audio engine. It had the same satisfying, punchy, and similarly paced gunplay. It did it all while still having Corsairs, Zeroes, Shermans, Chi-has, M1911s, and Nambu pistols. 1943 even had prototype guns that never went into service as main weapons, [I]and I was completely okay with that[/I] because those weapons were uniquely Japanese, and in fact I learned something I wouldn't have otherwise. 1943 is a great game, and it's a shame it never got the PC port it deserved. It was a vision of Battlefield 1942 through the lens of what has become modern Battlefield. I loved it for all the reasons I loved 1942, and I loved playing it for all the reasons I like playing modern Battlefield. [I]That's[/I] what I wish Battlefield 1 was. That's what I think Battlefield 1, in its departure from the norm back to a historical setting like it used to be, actually had a reasonable chance of being. That's why I'm annoyed that BF1 has a disregard for authenticity, especially when it's very clear they did their research and are showing their work. At the end of the day, even if you disagree with me, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from, and for people to stop dismissing my own, and comments like mine, for reasons that are entirely misconstrued. [sp]I also admit to making mountains out of molehills because despite my nitpicky annoyances, all of which are more endemic of modern Battlefield than BF1 in particular, the game looks kickin rad and I can't wait to play BF1.[/sp]

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;50523086]Actually, they DO hold the weapon by the foregrip, it's just that they are not using the "broom handle" technique Sometimes the animation does glitch out though, having the character's hand completely ignore the foregrip[/QUOTE] I've never noticed an animation change when using a foregrip in those games. It has been awhile since I've played them, but from what I remember the animation stayed the same and it wasn't just they were using it as a handstop or something. I know that Hardline has an animation, but it also looks stupid as hell when you're using an AFG.

[QUOTE=Why485;50523262]Big post[/QUOTE] Sadly, now that Battlefield is a major flagship title for EA they probably weren't allowed to do more authenticity. A World War 1 game is already a risk, but making it so the factions were distinct in weaponry and vehicles could have possibly alienated their casual audience. We should be happy they're even allowed to do Battlefield 1. Even in the press conference they noted that it was having a hard time being greenlit. I hope it turns out alright, wish it did have modding though as it would just solve the problem.