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

[QUOTE=sa2fan;50504965][video=youtube;MkRcvtGE90Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkRcvtGE90Q[/video][/QUOTE] You can enter the field guns and walk on top of the airships. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] I feel like I shouldn't be so amazed that you can actually use field guns but I expected them to cut out so much instead of adding [I]more.[/I]

According to the website, the map Monte Grappa will feature the Austro-Hungarian army and the Italian army.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;50505032]You can enter the field guns and walk on top of the airships. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] I feel like I shouldn't be so amazed that you can actually use field guns but I expected them to cut out so much instead of adding [I]more.[/I][/QUOTE] Walking on top of stuff is actually a really big deal and gives me hope for the return of ship to ship naval combat like in Battlefield 1942. Based on what we've seen I doubt that'll be in the game on launch. Maybe they'll do it as DLC. Honestly all this stuff is getting me excited at the prospect of a new Battlefield 1942 in 3 years with all this tech.

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/usii.jpg[/img] This guy is a tanker. Has the face mask and all that.

Was anybody able to tell whether weapons were team specific?

[QUOTE=markfu;50505081]Was anybody able to tell whether weapons were team specific?[/QUOTE] They're not. I noticed guns on both sides during the stream. I saw German MP18s being used by British and American Msomething shotguns being used by Germans. It's what I was expecting, but not what I was hoping.

Were there deployable MGs? Thought I saw some in the weapon scroll list but might have been trip mines also.

[QUOTE=spekter;50505109]Were there deployable MGs? Thought I saw some in the weapon scroll list but might have been trip mines also.[/QUOTE] I noticed that too. I don't recall anybody doing it during the stream, but there was an icon that looked like some kind of deployable MG.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50505023]For those curious, the entire 1918 British Phonetic Alphabet is as follows[/QUOTE] Pretty much everyone in the comment section doesn't get why it said objective Apple.

[QUOTE=Why485;50505095]They're not. I noticed guns on both sides during the stream. I saw German MP18s being used by British and American Msomething shotguns being used by Germans. It's what I was expecting, but not what I was hoping.[/QUOTE] Arent the Light Tanks Russian? T-18's if im not mistaken.

[QUOTE=Highwind017;50505142]Arent the Light Tanks Russian? T-18's if im not mistaken.[/QUOTE] The FT-17s? They're French, produced by Renault. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] The T-18 wasnt produced until a decade later, but was based on the FT-17

[QUOTE=Why485;50505119]I noticed that too. I don't recall anybody doing it during the stream, but there was an icon that looked like some kind of deployable MG.[/QUOTE] That was the "rocket gun" they talked about, a deployable anti-vehicle weapon. Probably something like those french 37mm infantry guns.

[QUOTE=Why485;50505095]They're not. I noticed guns on both sides during the stream. I saw German MP18s being used by British and American Msomething shotguns being used by Germans. It's what I was expecting, but not what I was hoping.[/QUOTE] I don't know why people keep hoping weapons would be team-specific. It hasn't been the case in 6 years. Also, what's wrong with being able to use my favorite weapon when I want it and not because I was lucky enough to be on the "right" team? This ain't Red Orchestra, yo. This is a figgin' arcade game. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] Seems like it's gonna be the same with tanks too, not enough different types for a single team so all the different types of tanks will be usable by both side it seems. Ditto with Airship.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50505211]I don't know why people keep hoping weapons would be team-specific. It hasn't been the case in 6 years. Also, what's wrong with being able to use my favorite weapon when I want it and not because I was lucky enough to be on the "right" team? This ain't Red Orchestra, yo. This is a figgin' arcade game. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] Seems like it's gonna be the same with tanks too, not enough different types for a single team so all the different types of tanks will be usable by both side it seems. Ditto with Airship.[/QUOTE] But you can use "any" weapon in Red Orchestra (2) anyway... Why make it faction specific? Immersion is a nice thing to have, adds more depth plus some asymmetry to the game, which is always welcomed. Otherwise, factions are nothing more than glorified reskins of each others.

I hated not being able to use cop guns as criminals in Hardline.

[QUOTE=Avager;50504939]I'm also a bit worried for how common semi-autos and full-autos were in that stream... I was hoping for a lot more of bolt action plays... It really felt like late WW2, or even post Post WW2 battles.[/QUOTE] Seriously, they could have made it a WWII game and it would play EXACTLY the same and us history purists wouldn't be so mad about the SMG/semiautomatic rifle spam. I'd say they could have made a Korean War game too but that was mostly static like WWI so they would have fucked that up just as badly.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50505211]I don't know why people keep hoping weapons would be team-specific. It hasn't been the case in 6 years. Also, what's wrong with being able to use my favorite weapon when I want it and not because I was lucky enough to be on the "right" team? This ain't Red Orchestra, yo. This is a figgin' arcade game. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] Seems like it's gonna be the same with tanks too, not enough different types for a single team so all the different types of tanks will be usable by both side it seems. Ditto with Airship.[/QUOTE] I am freely allowed to hope for unlikely things as long as I'm aware of how unlikely they are. I prefer each side getting its own weapon because then it feels like you're actually playing a side and not just changing skins. It's an element of the military shooters that I've missed ever since Modern Warfare normalized the practice.

Last game that had each side getting its own weapon was BF3.

Even without this being what's basically an entirely new potentially industry-changing setting, what they've shown of the game looks to be a huge step forward that i didn't expect at all. Weather, vehicle enter/exit animations, multiple different armies rather than just 2 as usual, large vehicles that aren't on rails (except the train, obviously!), tanks that actually need more than 1 person....it all looks great so far.

[QUOTE=sa2fan;50505258]Last game that had each side getting its own weapon was BF3.[/QUOTE] I said this earlier in the thread, but BF3 was a decent compromise. In the long run it was completely meaningless because everybody eventually unlocks the opposite's weapon, but at least it was something.

Nothing about Premium yet? I'm surprised.

Speaking of RO, Operations sounds a lot like the MP campaigns in that. I'm really looking forward to seeing Monte Grappa and Amiens. The mountain fortresses with controllable fortress guns and the armored train in an urban setting sound great. From the concept art I was hoping Monte Grappa was the map we would be seeing live today. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sa2fan;50505271]Nothing about Premium yet? I'm surprised.[/QUOTE] Me too, pretty disappointed. I'm waiting for a premium announcement to preorder.

[QUOTE=nightlord;50505262]Even without this being what's basically an entirely new potentially industry-changing setting, what they've shown of the game looks to be a huge step forward that i didn't expect at all. Weather, vehicle enter/exit animations, multiple different armies rather than just 2 as usual, large vehicles that aren't on rails (except the train, obviously!), tanks that actually need more than 1 person....it all looks great so far.[/QUOTE] The overall atmosphere is great. It's what Battlefield has always been to me. It's why you want 64 players duking it out in big maps, because it's so alive and embeds you in the game. Battlefield 1 looks like is reeking of atmosphere. I'm just going to stay weary of the more technical aspect of the game. Things like net code and such. However it seems like this might have been built off Battlefield 4's framework which is pretty solid now.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50504858]*sigh* I know future warfare is a saturated genre right now and going for WWI was a bold move but I still wish we had 2143.[/QUOTE] Take notes. [QUOTE=Techbot;50504854]repost from e3 thread [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc3zZyEUKxA[/media][/QUOTE] The Airship is essentially a proof of concept new age Titan. They are very clearly thinking with 2143 in mind in some form or another. And depending on how this game flies, it will effect what that game will look and play like. And frankly after this showing, if the game proves to be all it's cracked up to be (and for the most part it does, personally I think the vehicle changes are fantastic ideas and I want to get my hands on this fucking game.) The way will be clear for DICE to do what the fuck ever they want in the aftermath. And I was worried about them cocking up a 2142 sequel after the kind of bland and disappointing BF4 and the utter disaster that was Battlefront. Now I'm not so worried, and hopefully that will be all gone by release.

[QUOTE=sa2fan;50505258]Last game that had each side getting its own weapon was BF3.[/QUOTE] I will have to disagree on this, as you would unlock it for other faction very quickly anyway. That's now how faction locked weapons work, as the only way for you to to be able acquire one would by picking it up from a dead body of your enemy, which was a lot of fun to do in older games. Killing someone with inferior weapon, picking up other gun, that you thought was better than yours then killing enemies with it, it just feels GOOD. Same thing should goes for vehicles. Each faction would play differently and you would have to adapt... A-D-A-P-T, a thing that was required a lot in gaming, right now it seems every developer just wants you to be held by a hand and have everything on a silver plate :( Though, this is just my humble opinion, not a fact. Now this all thing made me remember MoHAA (Medal of Honor: Allied Assault), in multiplayer each faction had their own weapons, that was super damn fun. Allies had M1 Garand while Axis had K98, as you can imagine, Garand was a semi auto rifle with lower damage but way higher ROF and K98 was a bolt action with low ROF and high damage. There were plenty of times where players on both sides switched their weapons for these dropped by enemies and surprised others, when they were expecting their opponents to use a certain weapon. This was a fun thing that I miss in current games...

[QUOTE=AdrianTheShep;50505011] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/HzZ50yD.jpg[/IMG] srsly?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://youtu.be/MhvPlzelj9I?t=2m6s"]WITNESS ME BROTHERS, I'M GOING TO DIE HISTORIC ON THE BELGIAN BATTLEFIELDS[/URL]

Ian from forgottenweapons just put up a video quickly talking about some of the weapons for anyone interested [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19hohCtdJ4Y[/media] Good channel if you want to check out more ww1 weapons

[QUOTE=Why485;50505264]I said this earlier in the thread, but BF3 was a decent compromise. In the long run it was completely meaningless because everybody eventually unlocks the opposite's weapon, but at least it was something.[/QUOTE] This is a genuine question. Have you really played a Battlefield in the last few years and truly got pulled out from the experience because that one American soldier killed you and you noticed he was using an AEK-971 instead of an M16A4? Not every soldier being able to use a parachute, not that one guy being riddled with five 5.45×39mm bullets to the torso and being brought back to perfect health by a defibrillator, not main battle tanks being repaired by a wrench or a blowtorch over a matter of seconds, not with supports being able to supply an unlimited variety and quantity of ammo. No, the fact that an enemy soldier is using the "wrong" weapon (even though realistically soldiers used to use captured weapons ALL THE TIME and irregulars these days STILL do) THAT brings you out of the experience. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion on the matter. At the end of the day it's just a video game and your opinion on the game design is just as good as mine, really. It's just that for me it seems like the most utterly BIZARRE aspect of the game to get hung up on.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50505404]This is a genuine question. Have you really played a Battlefield in the last few years and truly got pulled out from the experience because that one American soldier killed you and you noticed he was using an AEK-971 instead of an M16A4? Not every soldier being able to use a parachute, not that one guy being riddled with five 5.45×39mm bullets to the torso and being brought back to perfect health by a defibrillator, not main battle tanks being repaired by a wrench or a blowtorch over a matter of seconds, not with supports being able to supply an unlimited variety and quantity of ammo. No, the fact that an enemy soldier is using the "wrong" weapon (even though realistically soldiers used to use captured weapons ALL THE TIME and irregulars these days STILL do) THAT brings you out of the experience. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion on the matter. At the end of the day it's just a video game and your opinion on the game design is just as good as mine, really. It's just that for me it seems like the most utterly BIZARRE aspect of the game to get hung up on.[/QUOTE] You are comparing realism to authenticity. Everyone knows that you can sacrifice realism if it makes up for a better gameplay. Following that logic, we could also allow T-90 to spawn in US bases, just because it is a game and some people want to use T-90 instead of Abrams, while they were "unlucky", as someone said before, to be stuck on that team.

[QUOTE=Avager;50505456]You are comparing realism to authenticity. Everyone knows that you can sacrifice realism if it makes up for a better gameplay.[/QUOTE] Oh don't worry there's plenty of idiots who assume being realistic as possible suddenly makes things better.