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

[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] Uh, I guess we agree then? [QUOTE=Avager;50505456]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] Except in BF3 and BF4 vehicles were meant to be statistically identical. There were a few differences here and there but people weren't complaining because 99% of the time it didn't matter. All vehicles shared the same weapons and most of the same characteristics. There were only different vehicles because it didn't change gameplay AND added some flavor to each faction so there was literally no downside at all.

[QUOTE=kirderf;50505389]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] I second this. I love Ian and Forgotten Weapons is a great channel, even if you're not that big into guns. Its just neat seeing interesting mechanics and history. Seeing all the wacky and weird mechanisms turn of the century automatic pistols had since there was no standard on what worked. And being able to see the same thing with military rifles and how they lagged behind what was available to civilians because of how stringent their requirements were, or even just ignorance on the part of the ordinance departments. Also a lot of time they have really cool stories attached, like the one of the guy who was taking his gun around to try and find an interested buy and ended up being kidnapped by a Chinese warlord and being told he would get his freedom if the warlord got his gun design. TL;DR Watch the channel and support Ian, hes a cool guy.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50505517]Uh, I guess we agree then? Except in BF3 and BF4 vehicles were meant to be statistically identical. There were a few differences here and there but people weren't complaining because 99% of the time it didn't matter. All vehicles shared the same weapons and most of the same characteristics. There were only different vehicles because it didn't change gameplay AND added some flavor to each faction so there was literally no downside at all.[/QUOTE] No, we don't agree at all. -US soldier using AEK-971 instead of M16A4 is a problem with authenticity. US soldiers issued with weapons of other nations feels more like 3rd party mercenary stuff than nation's army. -Taking multiple bullets to down someone is a problem with realism. However it is authentic that bullets kill and body can take multiple shots before stops working. -Defibrillator reviving someone to a perfect health is another realism issue. However it is used for medical reasons, such as... bringing someone to life after cardiac arrest. -Magically repairing vehicles by pointing blowtorch or smacking it with a wrench is also realism thing. These are tools used by mechanics, used both in construction and maintenance. Now the vehicles, no, they are not the same at all. First of all, in BF4 (don't really remember BF3 stats anymore) vehicles differ from each other and were much more different in older versions (older patches). Scout helis, little bird is the fastest and most agile one with lowest hitboxes, meanwhile other are a bit slower/less agile and bigger hitboxes doesn't help. Other choppers also differ with hard protection for the pilot, which can come in handy, thus they are not the same at all. Abrams was one of the worst tanks for some time, having the worst acceleration resulting in being stuck a lot of times in weird situations (example would be Siege of Shanghai's B point when going underground and trying to leave through stairs - Abrams would not have enough power to do so, that's not a case anymore though). One of the tanks also had very obvious weak spot on the top of the tank that could be easily hit from the front, resulting in the critical hit, not sure which one it was. MAA has this too, LAV-D is probably the best MAA, due to how mobile that thing is, you can't say that mobility isn't important. For sure their agility isn't statistically the same. Just to make something clear. You don't need to make something totally asymmetrical or have totally different stats from another one to make it feel different and unique. Factions could basically have just reskins of each others weapons but have them locked to their sides, that would make it somewhat more authentic and immersive (if you are into that stuff), meanwhile leaving some weapons to be accessible for all nations. It's a poor's man solution, but still works to retain some sort of authenticity for people like me, who loves that sort of thing. I just like to have some logic behind stuff and having access to all weaponry of all nations seems kind of weird for me, totally out of place. Can't really force myself to think that every soldier just picked it up before the battle from fallen enemies... It is already hard to imagine that this game takes place in an alternative universe, where WW1's tech was more abundant with full-autos and semi rifles, to justify how frequent they were in the stream.

[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] The first one, specifically the US Marine using an AEK does actually bother and annoy me, but I deal with it. The rest are ridiculous points because this isn't about realism. Battlefield is a game. It's always been a game where the mechanics are inherently unrealistic because they make for good gameplay. [I]Why[/I] does that bother me? Battlefield used to have an air of authenticity to it. There was an interesting historical aspect to the games (even Battlefield 2, which introduced me to a lot of stuff I wouldn't have known about otherwise at the time) in addition to just being really fun games. Avager actually already mostly covered what my spiel on this was going to be, but authenticity is not realism. To use WWII as an example, having Wehrmacht troops in authentic uniforms carrying authentic weapons fighting alongside authentic armor is [I]cool[/I]. You might even accidentally learn something, and that's [I]really cool[/I]. And not only is it cool and immersive for the people that are into it, but it creates interesting asymmetries in gameplay. A great example is the dichotomy between a powerful bolt action rifle and a fast firing semi-automatic rifle. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and each side would adapt to that style and take try to take advantage of the weaknesses of their opponent. Keep in mind 1942 didn't actually go that far, but other games of its day like MoH and CoD did. It wasn't until Modern Warfare, (which is a great game, don't get me wrong) that faction specific weapons in mainstream military shooters stopped being the norm. I absolutely love when games are authentic to their setting, but maybe that's just me. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]Just to make something clear. You don't need to make something totally asymmetrical or have totally different stats from another one to make it feel different and unique. Factions could basically have just reskins of each others weapons but have them locked to their sides, that would make it somewhat more authentic and immersive (if you are into that stuff), meanwhile leaving some weapons to be accessible for all nations. It's a poor's man solution, but still works to retain some sort of authenticity for people like me, who loves that sort of thing. I just like to have some logic behind stuff and having access to all weaponry of all nations seems kind of weird for me, totally out of place. Can't really force myself to think that every soldier just picked it up before the battle from fallen enemies... It is already hard to imagine that this game takes place in an alternative universe, where WW1's tech was more abundant with full-autos and semi rifles, to justify how frequent they were in the stream.[/QUOTE] I didn't see your post before I posted mine, but this is something that I forgot to mention and I'm glad you did. Even in Battlefield 1942 there wasn't really [I]that[/I] big of a difference between factions. The differences typically just amounted to different magazine sizes or other slight and appropriate changes to weapon stats. That was completely fine with me, because everything still looked and felt right.

Battlefield 2 had faction specific weapons BUT it also had weapons available to all factions that weren't specifically used by that faction. I honestly dont see anything wrong with using not faction specific weapons though. It would be pretty frustrating to be stuck using one gun if you're a specific faction, especially its a gun you dont particularly like. So now you're stuck spending the rest of the game scouring the ground for the other factions gun, cursing when you die because you know its going to be another couple of minutes of searching When it comes to a game like Battlefield, Gameplay > Authenticity imo. At its core its still an arcadey team based shooter, not something like Verdun or RO

I would have preferred that they had the starting weapons be faction specific, but not the unlocks like BF3 with the final unlock being the other factions' guns. I still hold out hope that scopeless bolt action rifles will be all-class weapons

Has there been any naval footage released yet? I really want battleships, destroyers, submarines, etc. back in the way they were in 1942.

[QUOTE=Govna;50505750]Has there been any naval footage released yet? I really want battleships, destroyers, submarines, etc. back in the way they were in 1942.[/QUOTE] no naval footage yet. looks like they are still working on a lot of aspects of the game, notice how the biplanes were crashing into the ground and either being perfectly fine or disappearing without an explosion?

[QUOTE=AJ10017;50505768]no naval footage yet. looks like they are still working on a lot of aspects of the game, notice how the biplanes were crashing into the ground and either being perfectly fine or disappearing without an explosion?[/QUOTE] that was funny to see on the stream, but that's typical battlefield can't count the amount of times my jet has hit a tree, spun round it like dancers arm in arm, and flown off again perfectly fine

[QUOTE=Beacon;50505782]that was funny to see on the stream, but that's typical battlefield can't count the amount of times my jet has hit a tree, spun round it like dancers arm in arm, and flown off again perfectly fine[/QUOTE] Haha, yea, the moment an airplane hit a windmill's blade and stopped for a moment in the air, then continued on its merry way was when I said to myself "Yep, that's battlefield.".

I think you're mixing up authenticity with verisimilitude. [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]No, we don't agree at all.[/QUOTE] Your words: [QUOTE=Avager;50505456]Everyone knows that you can sacrifice realism if it makes up for a better gameplay.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]-US soldier using AEK-971 instead of M16A4 is a problem with authenticity. US soldiers issued with weapons of other nations feels more like 3rd party mercenary stuff than nation's army.[/QUOTE] So what do you make of the weapons that aren't supposed to be used by the US, RU or CN like the F2000? What about gadgets like the XM25 which is an EXPERIMENTAL weapon used exclusively by the US? It's a super cool gadget yet if it was a question of authenticity I guess 2/3 of the time you wouldn't have access to that cool gun because reasons mumble grumble. All of this could easily be handwaved with an explanation of those weapons being captured and still retain verisimilitude. [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]-Taking multiple bullets to down someone is a problem with realism. However it is authentic that bullets kill and body can take multiple shots before stops working. -Defibrillator reviving someone to perfect a health is another realism issue. However it is used for medical reasons, such as... bringing someone to life after cardiac arrest.[/QUOTE] In practice don't count on a wounded soldier to fight, but again verisimilitude dictates that it "feels" like you should still be able to fight and verisimilitude dictates that critically wounded soldiers should be able to get revived. The defibrillator tool is just used because its immediate function is evident, not because it's "authentic". [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]-Magically repairing vehicles by pointing blowtorch or smacking it with a wrench is also realism thing. These are tools used by mechanics, used both in construction and maintenance.[/QUOTE] Again, vehicle aren't repairable because it's authentic or realistic, but because it feels like they "should" or it makes sense for a gameplay perspective. Again, verisimilitude. [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]Now the vehicles, no, they are not the same at all. First of all, in BF4 (don't really remember BF3 stats anymore) vehicles differ from each other and were much more different in older versions (older patches). Scout helis, little bird is the fastest and most agile one with lowest hitboxes, meanwhile other are a bit slower/less agile and bigger hitboxes doesn't help. Other choppers also differ with hard protection for the pilot, which can come in handy, thus they are not the same at all. Stats for all of these choppers in terms of maneuverability isn't the same. Abrams was one of the worst tanks for some time, having the worst acceleration resulting in it being stuck a lot of times in weird situations (example would be Siege of Shanghai's B point when going underground and trying to leave through stairs - Abrams would not have enough power to do so, that's not a case anymore though). One of the tanks also had very obvious weak spot on the top of the tank that could be easily hit from the front, resulting in the critical hit, not sure which one it was. MAA has this too, LAV-D is probably the best MAA, due to how mobile that thing is, you can't say that mobility isn't important. For sure their agility isn't statistically the same. Just to make something clear. [/QUOTE] In every aspect except mobility (god knows why, yet DICE has patched it so vehicles have gotten more similar so that probably tips you off as to their original design decision) and hitbox (it's either have a hitbox that makes matches with the model or confuse people everywhere) the vehicles are all functionally identical. In environments where those tiny differences actually matter (like competitive play or just strict server owners) people just set both faction to the US. Fact of the matter is, the INTENT has always been that ALL vehicles should be approximately equivalent. [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]You don't need to make something totally asymmetrical or have totally different stats from another one to make it feel different and unique. Factions could basically have just reskins of each others weapons but have them locked to their sides, that would make it somewhat more authentic and immersive (if you are into that stuff), meanwhile leaving some weapons to be accessible for all nations. It's a poor's man solution, but still works to retain some sort of authenticity for people like me, who loves that sort of thing.[/QUOTE] I appreciate the sentiment, but I prefer having all the weapons feeling unique rather that having the same weapon with different models for each side. Because I prefer the "authenticity" of using a german or british weapon that I know differs from all others even if I'm using it on the "wrong" faction. Because you know what? I care more about my gun than what faction I'm on. [QUOTE=Avager;50505652]I just like to have some logic behind stuff and having access to all weaponry of all nations seems kind of weird for me. Can't really force myself to think that every soldier just picked it up before the battle from fallen enemies... It is already hard to imagine that this game takes place in an alternative universe, where WW1's tech was more abundant with full-autos and semi rifles, to justify how frequent they were in the stream.[/QUOTE] I don't get how people can get hung on such a specific detail. Having captured weapons is EASILY the best, easiest and most logical explanation you could have for it ESPECIALLY compared to ALL the crazy shit and weapons that have been going on ALWAYS in Battlefield. In the long run the desire for authenticity is quickly replace with the need for variety and diversity. People have always complained in Hardline that it took WAY too long to unlock the opposite side's guns.

I'm surprised they showed what they did. I figured they might do an infantry-only map and leave vehicles out but show off the battlefield pickups/hero characters stuff. They didn't touch that at all. And even if we did get vehicles, I was sure they weren't going to show off the large ones. There's still so much to see! Though, probably not much more for normal-sized ground vehicles, Motorcycles probably, and horses of course, possibly more traditional trucks, but the tanks are probably all we're getting at release (which is fine, not much of anywhere else to go other than Whippets and LK IIs if they wanted to include them). Notice how the Rolls Royce AC isn't referred to as anything other than "Armored Car". It's probably the only armored car. [QUOTE=Avager;50505789]Haha, yea, the moment an airplane hit a windmill's blade and stopped for a moment in the air, then continued on its merry way was when I said to myself "Yep, that's battlefield.".[/QUOTE] There were animation issues with the Halberstadt's rear gunner and stuff as well. It's probably an older but more stable build for demonstration purposes.

Team Snoop Dog is kicking some major ass.

Alright, Operations sounds really awesome. Very WW1-esque. [url]https://www.battlefield.com/news/article/battlefield-1-operations-mode[/url]

Holy shit, looking over some videos, buildings actually can be flattened with giant craters inside of them. Yes, DICE. You will get my money for going back to Bad Company style destruction. Stop bullshitting the destruction, and go all in.

Fucking called it zeppelin titan mode.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50505828]I think you're mixing up authenticity with verisimilitude. Your words:[/QUOTE] I think I said it clearly. But let me do it again. One is realism, bending physical rules of our world to make it work in a video game for a better gameplay. Another is an authenticity, and I will just copy wikipedia here, as it describes it better than I will ever do it: [I]Authenticity (living history), in a living history presentation, or in a historical reenactment, a measure of how close an item of material culture, or a person's action, is to the known records concerning what was used or done in the time period being depicted[/I] Verisimilitude could be used to anything, dunno why you have brought it up. That thing could lead to stuff like WW1 having plasma technology, because it could happen due to some events in research and so on... The gadgets things As said in the 2nd last thing you have quoted, it could be either a reskin or a substitute of another similar technology. Now, back to the topic. What are confirmed factions in the game already?

[QUOTE=Avager;50505975] Now, back to the topic. What are confirmed factions in the game already?[/QUOTE] A pessimistic part of me thinks they'll leave out the french, and that makes me sad. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] I also like that the AT "rocket launcher" that they said they have can only be fired while mounted somewhere.

So far you have Germany, Britain, Ottoman, Italy, Austro-Hungary.

I wonder if we're going to get uncut, full matches recorded from the streamers at EA Play, or if EA told them they only got to show off around two minutes total or something. The videos we've gotten from them so far have been about the same length and format, which is kind of suspicious. Of course, maybe they just haven't had time to edit full videos yet. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/d9xa.png[/img] That's that, then.

[QUOTE=sa2fan;50506199]So far you have Germany, Britain, Ottoman, Italy, Austro-Hungary.[/QUOTE] And the Americans since they're featured on the cover and in the preorder DLC pack. It'd be really unfortunate if the French aren't in the game considering that a good number of maps take place in France and there are a number of French weapons in game

The Gotha (heavy bomber) has a 20mm autocannon on the front gunner's position. [t]http://imgkk.com/i/gtie.png[/t] These were fun in Rise of Flight. The Handley-Page in RoF also had the option of a recoilless rifle on the front but the footage shown today didn't include an HP, only a reskinned Gotha for the British. There didn't seem to be a unique scout plane for the British either. I'm hoping they'll get their own aircraft by release. They do have their own fighters at least, and I think they had their own scout in the initial reveal trailer cinematic. [editline]12th June 2016[/editline] Bit more gameplay. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mizPP-wYJCM[/media]

The lack of french soldiers is causing a massive shitstorm.

[QUOTE=Hauptmann;50508145]The lack of french soldiers is causing a massive shitstorm.[/QUOTE] Rightfully so.

So, here's a point: the "behemoth" vehicles are awarded to the underperforming team, seemingly only once per match. The battleships are behemoth vehicles. Unless there's an intermediate class of naval vessel between the torpedo boats that are assumed to be in and the full sized battleships (destroyers or cruisers for instance), wouldn't there be no possibility for naval combat between larger ships?

Oh yes, I already imagine some smartass on a horse loaded with TNT sticks stopping next to the tank and blowing it up. I mean come on, this is Battlefield series, I still remember giving boost to a friendly jet with grenades in BF 2, this shit just MUST work.

Really good full-length video showing some more of the interface and what not. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iJVTHMZ6EY[/media] Some more gameplay here. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1RUNPEZHQc[/media] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/j6f5.png[/img] Neat.

[QUOTE=sa2fan;50505932]Alright, Operations sounds really awesome. Very WW1-esque. [url]https://www.battlefield.com/news/article/battlefield-1-operations-mode[/url][/QUOTE] Finally another game does the idea of changing the map with each round while still being in the same general area. Except it really seems like by the end of Operations matches, the maps are just gonna be utterly devastated.

Well i kinda like what i saw so far. I just hope the hitreg won't be shit DICE-style.

Levelcap spawns with an Enfield with just the aperture sight in that video, by the way.