• Battlefield 1 Angry Review (AngryJoeShow
    43 replies, posted
I still don't understand why EA basically neutered servers, removing RCON access so people can't include stuff like limiting people to bolt-action/non-automatic weapons. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that WWI was more than just trench warfare with innovations in the form of new semi and fully automatic rifles but they shouldn't be commonplace.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51270114]I would honestly kinda enjoy if they take War Stories into a DLC thing. It's a great premise but right now what they've got feels too short, and a lot seems to be blatant multiplayer preparation.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly, each DLC will have a war story for the new faction. I.E. French War Story.
[QUOTE=Scorpo;51273246]If I remember correctly, each DLC will have a war story for the new faction. I.E. French War Story.[/QUOTE] I really would've preferred if some of the War Stories had been left for DLC in that case, like the ultimately ridiculous fliers story, or the less so, but still comparatively odd choice in the Italian front. It certainly still happened, but including it at the expense of even a single scene involving the French?
Once again, Angry Joe has hit the nail on the head. :goodjob:
All I can hope is they add some actual iconic WW1 maps / trenches than the stuff we got. Sadly the trenches we see in the operation maps are usually bypassed and more akin to something used in WW2. Maybe we'll see the Somme or Verdun trench warfare operations in some DLC's - but I think BF1 completely looked away from the gritty horror design a lot of people find compelling about the period. If they add the French without bothering to include some famous battle maps I'll be really disappointed.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51283996]All I can hope is they add some actual iconic WW1 maps / trenches than the stuff we got. Sadly the trenches we see in the operation maps are usually bypassed and more akin to something used in WW2. Maybe we'll see the Somme or Verdun trench warfare operations in some DLC's - but I think BF1 completely looked away from the gritty horror design a lot of people find compelling about the period. If they add the French without bothering to include some famous battle maps I'll be really disappointed.[/QUOTE] Well the game takes place in 1918, trench warfare had been largely phased out by that point. The Somme and Verdun were both fought in 1916. I don't think people who think WWI and only think "trenches, Verdun, the Somme" were really compelled by the era, considering they make up a limited amount of time on a limited theatre of the war.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51284157]Well the game takes place in 1918, trench warfare had been largely phased out by that point. The Somme and Verdun were both fought in 1916. I don't think people who think WWI and only think "trenches, Verdun, the Somme" were really compelled by the era, considering they make up a limited amount of time on a limited theatre of the war.[/QUOTE] Trenches had not been phased out by 1918, what are you talking about? Allies were still fighting in the Somme during 1918 and all through-out the Hindenburg Line. Are you referring to the Hundred Days Offensive?
[QUOTE=Vasili;51284812]Trenches had not been phased out by 1918, what are you talking about? Allies were still fighting in the Somme during 1918 and all through-out the Hindenburg Line. Are you referring to the Hundred Days Offensive?[/QUOTE] No, I'm referring to the fact that planes and tanks had reduced the viability of trenches by 1918, and in pretty much every front that wasn't France/Germany trenches were barely used at all. Sure trenches were still used until the end of the war, they were even used in WWII, but the concept of 'hold the line, go over the top and take the enemy's trench' was kind of obsolete when you have tanks, bombing planes, tunnels to destroy trenches, and artillery available en mass. Of course the Hindenburg line was still being fought over, it was an incredibly important military installation which stretched across a huge portion of land. It was not at all a simple trench. I honestly don't get the trench hard on so many people have. The trenches were some of the worst environments in the whole war, it's not exactly the best environment for a competitive multiplayer shooter.
[QUOTE=Covalent;51269717]It really sucks. It happens with every BF game now. Hardline, even starwars. BF1 is going to be split up, until they release the full package at a cheaper price.. Presumably next year or further. It's also REALLY depressing that the base game + season pass is $200 CAD. That's three days of work assuming you do 8 hours and get paid @ $10/hr.[/QUOTE] That's why I'll wait for goty edition this time. I had good fun with BF3 and BF4, but now the CAD price are getting ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51284981]No, I'm referring to the fact that planes and tanks had reduced the viability of trenches by 1918, and in pretty much every front that wasn't France/Germany trenches were barely used at all. Sure trenches were still used until the end of the war, they were even used in WWII, but the concept of 'hold the line, go over the top and take the enemy's trench' was kind of obsolete when you have tanks, bombing planes, tunnels to destroy trenches, and artillery available en mass. Of course the Hindenburg line was still being fought over, it was an incredibly important military installation which stretched across a huge portion of land. It was not at all a simple trench. I honestly don't get the trench hard on so many people have. The trenches were some of the worst environments in the whole war, it's not exactly the best environment for a competitive multiplayer shooter.[/QUOTE] Citation would help here, which open-mobile battles are you referring to in 1918? The Hindenburg line was a vast network of trenches, bunkers, fortresses and 'desert' the Germans made the Allies march through. Trench warfare evolved a lot from 1914-1916-1918 - each period sees different methods used, rather than the trope of waves charging fortified guns. But even with new technology the Allies were still fighting over trenches right until the end of the war on the Western Front; they just were no longer as static. Eastern Front, Middle East, Africa etc is different sure - that's where BF1 could have focused the non trench aspect. It's a shame they entirely tried to avoid it on the Western Front (and you can tell); the only time you get to see the static warfare is during the Friends in High Places (takes place in 1917) - trying to get back to British lines. I'm hoping Battlefield will actually add the iconic battles and trenches of the war later on, because focusing entirely on the last few days of the war comes off as denial. Regardless I don't know why you shrug off trench warfare as bad, games like Verun are popular competitive shooters. If they can do it and make the aspect fun, so can Battlefield. Even then, if you're calling it bad, why bother making a game based on WW1 in the first place? If BF1 can't give the setting justice it should have done something WW2 based.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51285425]Citation would help here, which open-mobile battles are you referring to in 1918? The Hindenburg line was a vast network of trenches, bunkers, fortresses and 'desert' the Germans made the Allies march through. Trench warfare evolved a lot from 1914-1916-1918 - each period sees different methods used, rather than the trope of waves charging fortified guns. But even with new technology the Allies were still fighting over trenches right until the end of the war on the Western Front; they just were no longer as static. Eastern Front, Middle East, Africa etc is different sure - that's where BF1 could have focused the non trench aspect. It's a shame they entirely tried to avoid it on the Western Front (and you can tell); the only time you get to see the static warfare is during the Friends in High Places (takes place in 1917) - trying to get back to British lines. I'm hoping Battlefield will actually add the iconic battles and trenches of the war later on, because focusing entirely on the last few days of the war comes off as denial. Regardless I don't know why you shrug off trench warfare as bad, games like Verun are popular competitive shooters. If they can do it and make the aspect fun, so can Battlefield. [B]Even then, if you're calling it bad, why bother making a game based on WW1 in the first place? If BF1 can't give the setting justice it should have done something WW2 based.[/b][/QUOTE] The difference between Verdun and Battlefield is one is a long established series where people have expectations of what to expect from one game and I don't think a lot of people would appreciate taking the "Battlefield" out of Battlefield just to make it like Verdun, and even then it's not like they completely forgot trench warfare existed when Operations has sections of a couple of maps centered entirely around fighting between trenches without it just being sitting in a trench and shooting someone you can't really see, and still allowing people to do what they want.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51284157]Well the game takes place in 1918, trench warfare had been largely phased out by that point. The Somme and Verdun were both fought in 1916. I don't think people who think WWI and only think "trenches, Verdun, the Somme" were really compelled by the era, considering they make up a limited amount of time on a limited theatre of the war.[/QUOTE] My issue isn't the lack of trenches, but the overabundance of [B]fucking SMGs and semiautomatic rifles in a WW1 game[/B]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51284981]No, I'm referring to the fact that planes and tanks had reduced the viability of trenches by 1918, and in pretty much every front that wasn't France/Germany trenches were barely used at all. Sure trenches were still used until the end of the war, they were even used in WWII, but the concept of 'hold the line, go over the top and take the enemy's trench' was kind of obsolete when you have tanks, bombing planes, tunnels to destroy trenches, and artillery available en mass. Of course the Hindenburg line was still being fought over, it was an incredibly important military installation which stretched across a huge portion of land. It was not at all a simple trench. I honestly don't get the trench hard on so many people have. The trenches were some of the worst environments in the whole war, it's not exactly the best environment for a competitive multiplayer shooter.[/QUOTE] Trench warfare was still a very big part of the war on the western front even in 1918. And trenches were seen pretty widely across the world during the war too; on almost every corner of the conflict troops would sit in trenches during the down-time or during defensive measures, it's just most theaters didn't experience the extreme deadlock the troops on the western front encountered. To say that "every front that wasn't France/Germany trenches were barely used at all" is frankly not true. Also "artillery available en mass" artillery was available "en mass" throughout the whole war and in-fact one of the main purposes of a trench system is to protect the troops garrisoned in a sector from artillery. One of the main advances in technology that really broke the stalemate on the western front was the Tank. [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/255920778/Pics/polygon%20wood%20zonnebeke.jpg[/img] Polygon Wood (above), Second Battle of the Somme, German Spring Offensive are good examples of Trench warfare in 1918. I should specify that I really enjoy BF1 even more-so than Verdun. But it's in no way a accurate portrayal of warfare 100 years ago (on any front), just like how Battlefield 4 isn't a accurate portrayal of modern war. It's not a simulator and I never desired it to be.
Yeah sorry, I didn't mean that trenches stopped existing after 1916. I meant that the fighting became a lot more dynamic once the tank came along. It's just most people who complain about BF1 want the game to be Verdun, when that's never what it was going to be. You're absolutely correct that BF1 isn't a realistic depiction of WWI, but it isn't trying to be and all the complaints like [QUOTE=Géza!;51286412]My issue isn't the lack of trenches, but the overabundance of [B]fucking SMGs and semiautomatic rifles in a WW1 game[/B][/QUOTE] are missing the fact that this is a [i]Battlefield[/i] game. As such it is going to have certain gameplay which suits a particular fronts more than others. Which is why they went with Middle Eastern maps, forests, mountains, and towns rather than the trenches and open fields of central Europe. Battlefield 1 isn't realistic, but the style of gameplay is closer to the kinds of fighting you would see in the theatres the game takes place in than it is to the style of fighting you'd see in Verdun (the location, not the game). Now all that said, I do think a trench map could be cool, especially for Rush and Operations. The problem is they need to make maps which can be played in every game mode. Sorry for misspeaking about the trenches, but you can see how trenches wouldn't make a very good Battlefield experience.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.