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

[QUOTE=bdd458;50510173]I mean to be fair the main weapons of normal soldiers were grenades and bolt-actions so they have every right to be peeved. It's kind ridiculous when you see the kind of research that went into it but then you've got Brits running around with MP-18s.[/QUOTE] I think it's possible to have Brits with MP18s but they should be limited in my opinion, and only on certain maps. This of course will not happen because of the post-BF2 progression system, and locking out certain weapons goes against that system. Personally I think that we could do away with that progression system and just have it be mostly cosmetic progression. FH2's system is not perfect but good enough of a base to draw inspiration from. Just add in some cosmetic unlocks at different ranks while keeping certain weapons limited and I'd say that would satisfy both the history purists and grinders.

fucking lack of historical accuracy, why isn't everything in black and white like it was back then?!?!?!?

[QUOTE=bdd458;50510173]I mean to be fair the main weapons of normal soldiers were grenades and bolt-actions so they have every right to be peeved. It's kind ridiculous when you see the kind of research that went into it but then you've got Brits running around with MP-18s.[/QUOTE] How else do you balance it then? AFAIK the brits didn't have a SMG in WW1, so that would be a massive balance issue if only germans had one. Real war isn't balanced, you have to make these kind of authenticity sacrifices if you want your game to actually be balanced.

[QUOTE=simkas;50510301]How else do you balance it then? AFAIK the brits didn't have a SMG in WW1, so that would be a massive balance issue if only germans had one. Real war isn't balanced, you have to make these kind of authenticity sacrifices if you want your game to actually be balanced.[/QUOTE] Verdun gets by just fine with the Entente having access to the Madsen and BAR.

[QUOTE=Kill001;50510137]I have reenactor friends already complaining about the abundance of semi and full-auto weaponry :v: I think this image sums up their angst well [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YIakM8B.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I don't really get the issue since the series was never meant to be realistic. If they hyped it up as a realistic shooter then showed what they did, I'd understand.

[QUOTE=spekter;50510327]I don't really get the issue since the series was never meant to be realistic. If they hyped it up as a realistic shooter then showed what they did, I'd understand.[/QUOTE] When I told them that they replied BF1942 went by with giving everyone bolt-action rifles still in a historically realistic manner the game introducing a ton of semi-auto rifles is possibly because EA/DICE didn't want alienate the audience coming in from BF3/4 by giving them slower paced boltguns (that's what I'm guessing)

[QUOTE=Kill001;50510340]When I told them that they replied BF1942 went by with giving everyone bolt-action rifles still in a historically realistic manner the game introducing a ton of semi-auto rifles is possibly because EA/DICE didn't want alienate the audience coming in from BF3/4 by giving them slower paced boltguns (that's what I'm guessing)[/QUOTE] Or because there was quite a few semi-auto rifles developed during WWI? If they only had all the main weapons, that'd be a pretty limited selection. And it's way more interesting to see weapons that don't usually appear in stuff rather than only seeing stuff that's seen in all other WWI media.

[QUOTE=Kill001;50510340]When I told them that they replied BF1942 went by with giving everyone bolt-action rifles still in a historically realistic manner[/QUOTE] :v: The soviets and the americans both have Lee Enfields in BF1942, how is that historically realistic :v: ?

[QUOTE=simkas;50510347]Or because there was quite a few semi-auto rifles developed during WWI? If they only had all the main weapons, that'd be a pretty limited selection. And it's way more interesting to see weapons that don't usually appear in stuff rather than only seeing stuff that's seen in all other WWI media.[/QUOTE] Semi-auto guns that aren't really/wasn't issued is the key thing here. Sure, I personally think it's cool to see hipster guns but it isn't really historically accurate which is what my friends were griping on [QUOTE=Hauptmann;50510355]:v: The soviets and the americans both have Lee Enfields in BF1942, how is that historically realistic :v: ?[/QUOTE] I swore they had mosins and springfields? Or was I thinking of FH or something regardless though, I remember all sides getting boltguns and not weird semi-autos for riflemen (with the exception of that Japanese engineer with the garand copy prototype)

I'm just holding out hope for iron sight bolt actions only servers being common.

[QUOTE=spekter;50510327]I don't really get the issue since the series was never meant to be realistic. If they hyped it up as a realistic shooter then showed what they did, I'd understand.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between realistic and authentic. I never really expected BF1 to be realistic, not even coming close to Verdun. Hell, Forgotten Hope 2 and Red Orchestra 2 aren't really realistic either because you can spawn onto your Squad Leader. The thing is that all of the previously mentioned games (with the obvious exception of BF1) are [I]authentic[/I] as they replicate most of the conditions of the periods that they're set in, and they tend to involve a slower pace of combat. But from what we've seen of BF1, it's not like that. It looks and feels like an alternate history of the Great War where the Western Front was far more mobile, scopeless bolt-action rifles are [I]not[/I] the norm, and tanks pretty much fly at ludicrous speeds. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great game, but it takes some absurd leaps from reality considering just how much DICE has researched; and boy did they nail their research! I never thought that I'd see a Beretta Mod. 1918 in a videogame outside of singleplayer and maybe a very niche multiplayer map. We've got Cei-Rigottis for fuck's sake. Notes on that weapon are few, sparse and contradictory.

Inverse sniper limits?

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50510395]There's a difference between realistic and authentic. I never really expected BF1 to be realistic, not even coming close to Verdun. Hell, Forgotten Hope 2 and Red Orchestra 2 aren't really realistic either because you can spawn onto your Squad Leader. The thing is that all of the previously mentioned games (with the obvious exception of BF1) are [I]authentic[/I] as they replicate most of the conditions of the periods that they're set in, and they tend to involve a slower pace of combat. But from what we've seen of BF1, it's not like that. It looks and feels like an alternate history of the Great War where the Western Front was far more mobile, scopeless bolt-action rifles are [I]not[/I] the norm, and tanks pretty much fly at ludicrous speeds. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great game, but it does some absurd leaps from reality considering just how much DICE has researched; and boy did they nail their research! I never thought that I'd see a Beretta Mod. 1918 in a videogame outside of singleplayer and maybe a very niche multiplayer map. We've got Cei-Rigottis for fuck's sake. Notes on that weapon are few, sparse and contradictory.[/QUOTE] Ian from ForgottenWeapons stated it quite well in his [URL="https://youtu.be/19hohCtdJ4Y?t=414"]video identifying a bunch of the guns[/URL] from a gameplay standpoint, it's meant to be a fun and action packed game which is what'll get people to buy it and play it I doubt most people coming into BF1 from fast paced shooters would want to plink at other players with an arsenal of slow bolt action rifles

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50510395]There's a difference between realistic and authentic. I never really expected BF1 to be realistic, not even coming close to Verdun. Hell, Forgotten Hope 2 and Red Orchestra 2 aren't really realistic either because you can spawn onto your Squad Leader. The thing is that all of the previously mentioned games (with the obvious exception of BF1) are [I]authentic[/I] as they replicate most of the conditions of the periods that they're set in, and they tend to involve a slower pace of combat. But from what we've seen of BF1, it's not like that. It looks and feels like an alternate history of the Great War where the Western Front was far more mobile, scopeless bolt-action rifles are [I]not[/I] the norm, and tanks pretty much fly at ludicrous speeds. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a great game, but it takes some absurd leaps from reality considering just how much DICE has researched; and boy did they nail their research! I never thought that I'd see a Beretta Mod. 1918 in a videogame outside of singleplayer and maybe a very niche multiplayer map. We've got Cei-Rigottis for fuck's sake. Notes on that weapon are few, sparse and contradictory.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but if they tried to put that kind of authenticity into BF1, they'd have to completely change the basic gameplay and at that point it wouldn't really be Battlefield anymore.

If they wanted the standard Battlefield gameplay they should have did a WWII game instead of half assing the WWI setting to the point where it's not authentic at all. I remember playing Medal of Honor as a kid. That game was authentic and got my interested in history by showing me authentic WWII. It pains me to think kids are going to play BF1 and think that's what WWI was really like.

Well to be fair, the period of the war they are covering - the Western Front was mobile. Not to mention the middle east and Italy had their periods of great movement as well. Hell, even prior to that it was on the grand scale it wasn't mobile. Unit tactics had evolved to squad/platoon level by 1915. It's just the overabundance of Semi-Autos and lack of bolt actions that is really, really killing me because DICE did their research

[QUOTE=Kill001;50510439]Ian from ForgottenWeapons stated it quite well in his [URL="https://youtu.be/19hohCtdJ4Y?t=414"]video identifying a bunch of the guns[/URL] from a gameplay standpoint, it's meant to be a fun and action packed game which is what'll get people to buy it and play it I doubt most people coming into BF1 from fast paced shooters would want to plink at other players with an arsenal of slow bolt action rifles[/QUOTE] There's a reason why the latest game from the BF franchise that I thoroughly enjoyed was Bad Company 2. I didn't mind the arcadey gameplay (relative to the previous entries) because it wasn't supposed to be serious. I'm still a BF1942 and BF2 veteran and I hold those games close to my heart. Sure they're arcadey when compared to games like RO2 and FH2, but they did set the standard and were, at the time, pretty authentic. BF3 was where I stopped enjoying the game because it was just [I]too[/I] fast-paced, which I'd argue was not what the series was originally. But that's a discussion I'd rather not have here. Suffice to say that there [I]is[/I] an audience perfectly willing to play a game that would slow down and primarily use bolt action rifles. The FH2 community's long been dreaming of a Frostbite port of the mod and I can tell you for certain that they'd buy it in a heart beat. I'm still hoping for a mode that I described earlier, but I'm not holding my breath for it. [QUOTE=simkas;50510451]Yeah, but if they tried to put that kind of authenticity into BF1, they'd have to completely change the basic gameplay and at that point it wouldn't really be Battlefield anymore.[/QUOTE] Battlefield once wasn't the fast-paced arcadey FPS that a lot of new BF players came to know. So that argument really isn't valid.

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50510508]Battlefield once wasn't the fast-paced arcadey FPS that a lot of new BF players came to know. So that argument really isn't valid.[/QUOTE] BF1942 wasn't that fast paced but it wasn't exactly slow either and even than, that was more of an indication of the time rather than the game itself. BF2 was already quite fast paced.

Battlefield has been going on a very long time, and it's changed a lot over its run. I think all these discussions are fascinating because it's bringing to the forefront that people have very different views of what they think a Battlefield game is and how it should play. It's something I've noticed a lot recently with people discussing what they were hoping the next Battlefield would be and it was very interesting.

[QUOTE=simkas;50510523]BF1942 wasn't that fast paced but it wasn't exactly slow either and even than, that was more of an indication of the time rather than the game itself. BF2 was already quite fast paced.[/QUOTE] BF2 is faster-paced compared to BF1942, yes. But you have to keep in mind that back in WWII, you really didn't have MBTs and IFVs that could do 60 mph and the jets that they did have were primitive and few and far between.

[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50510016]Fair enough. Seeing a big lack of bolt action rifles in favour of portable LMGs, SMGs, and semi-automatic rifles paints a very clear picture: this game ain't gonna be historically faithful. Which is a shame, especially since I'm a big fan of games like RO2 and FH2. Here's hoping that the game'll include a hardcore or 'realism' mode where it does away with the enemy and friendly icons, and limits equipment according to faction and period.[/QUOTE] Expecting realism and that type of effort into a Battlefield game looking back at Bf3, Bf4 and Hardline really makes you look dumb. I am super hyped for BF1 and if I want a more hardcore realistic game in that nature that you describe there is other games for that purpose.

I think a cool compromise with the whole team-specific weapons deal would be that weapons from other teams are locked until you capture them from fallen enemies yourself (i.e. by picking up kits as before, and when you do, the weapon would be unlocked from then on).

[QUOTE=Anglor;50510770]I think a cool compromise with the whole team-specific weapons deal would be that weapons from other teams are locked until you capture them from fallen enemies yourself (i.e. by picking up kits as before, and when you do, the weapon would be unlocked from then on).[/QUOTE] What ends up happening in reality: "Hey Josh, you're on the opposite team?" "Yeah?" "Well in that case come over here with the German rifle, I haven't unlocked it yet."

-snip- thought this was the E3 thread :v:

[QUOTE=theobod;50510712]Expecting realism and that type of effort into a Battlefield game looking back at Bf3, Bf4 and Hardline really makes you look dumb. I am super hyped for BF1 and if I want a more hardcore realistic game in that nature that you describe there is other games for that purpose.[/QUOTE] There isn't much in the way that offers the plethora of vehicles and combined warfare like Battlefield so that's why there's plenty of people that cling onto the hope that Dice will someday do a 180 and reintroduce some 'classic' features while still retaining the fun arcadey but authentic aspect. Now my judgement may be clouded with those rose tinted nostalgia lenses but I feel like 1942 was a great, hardcore (for its time), and had the right balance of arcade and realism I for one am excited that they (sort-of) brought back ships/titans in the form of zepplins and I hope they eventually reintroduce more of that little something that made the original games magical. Next big step would be full-on naval warfare I think.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;50510920]What ends up happening in reality: "Hey Josh, you're on the opposite team?" "Yeah?" "Well in that case come over here with the German rifle, I haven't unlocked it yet."[/QUOTE] Lol yeah you're right. However, even if it would be easy to obtain everything it would at least serve some kind of explanation to why every weapon is available to everyone

Good to see they're using era appropriate orchestra music in the actual game.

Fucking xbox players get to play it on the 13th. :cry:

[QUOTE=Avager;50505235]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.[/QUOTE] You can do that in Red Orchestra 2 after hours and hours and hours of gameplay, it was quite a bad system to unlock weapons and such.

Honestly though, even with my gripes it still looks fun as hell and such a breath of fresh air. It's basically my Dream Game coming true.