[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52579686]It started during WW1 when they were up against people using shotguns in trenches. They loathed people using shotguns and from what I heard shot anybody that they captured who wielded a shotgun.[/QUOTE]
They threatened to shoot anyone captured with one at which point the US turned around and said it would shoot German soldiers caught with flamethrowers. They backed off.
Okay but I still dont understand. What made them choose shotguns over say, grenades or flamethrowers?
At this point, I rarely say a game is directly existing because of another, but holy fuck this looks so half-assed that I can honestly believe that this started development due to BF1.
And, despite being fun, even Battlefield 1 was half assed, that game has so little weaponry and gadgets that they had to remove the attachment system to make it look like they had more weapons and items than they actually did
[QUOTE=MedicWine;52579696]Okay but I still dont understand. What made them choose shotguns over say, grenades or flamethrowers?[/QUOTE]
This was before submachine guns were commonly issued so the Germans were probably pissed the US found a decent trench clearing weapon and wanted it gone. They used the excuse it was inhumane and violated the 1907 Hauge Convention.
This is coming from the nation that invented the man-portable flame thrower and issued it widely.
[QUOTE=download;52579709]This was before submachine guns were commonly issued so the Germans were probably pissed the US found a decent trench clearing weapon and wanted it gone. They used the excuse it was inhumane and violated the 1907 Hauge Convention.
This is coming from the nation that invented the man-portable flame thrower and issued it widely.[/QUOTE]
Okay that makes sense, thanks for the clarification! Pachira too!
I mean it's multiplayer, faction specific guns have been out since like CoD4, getting mad because Germans can use an entire class of weapons like shotguns is kinda missing the forest of weird gimmicky skins and design choices for one very small tree
[QUOTE=Zeos;52579703]At this point, I rarely say a game is directly existing because of another, but holy fuck this looks so half-assed that I can honestly believe that this started development due to BF1.
And, despite being fun, even Battlefield 1 was half assed, that game has so little weaponry and gadgets that they had to remove the attachment system to make it look like they had more weapons and items than they actually did[/QUOTE]
Idk why but the planes really bothered be in BF1. They felt like reskins of the fighter jets from other games. I expected WWI era planes to be slower, have less firepower, break down easier, be less nimble...
But a BF game without sick dogfights would never sell to the mainstream audience so of course it plays exactly like BF3.
That's my worry with this game. That nothing they could ever put in a CoD:WWII game would be satisfying because they're going to have make so many concessions for the AAA audience.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52577850][url]http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Aperture_Sight[/url]
this has been a thing for 9 years its not really a new feature of the cod ww2 games[/QUOTE]
huh, interesting
[QUOTE=bdd458;52578296]what are you referring to specifically[/QUOTE]
The sheer volume of otherwise prototypical and rare equipment that most troops wouldn't even know about, let alone be issued, combined with the volume of tanks, aircraft, armoured cars and such, and the mobility/fluidity of the battlefield especially on maps set on western front undermines any connection to reality. Again, don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that there's a quality game where you can use these weapons and vehicles, but it's more based on the first world war than set in it. It's already fantastical enough in its depiction, so I just find it disappointing that they weren't able to take the next step and get creative with it as they did with 2142 or BF4's Final Stand. Saying its 1920 and the war's still going, because the US didn't get involved or whatever, would do a lot more to justify the inclusion of all this stuff and help the change the theme to fit the BF formula better, without compromising its links to the real WW1 any more than they already have been
battlefield 1.5 looks dope!!!
[QUOTE=Skyguy113;52580263]battlefield 1.5 looks dope!!![/QUOTE]
More like 0.5
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;52576776][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfituOuJBkI[/media]
Also, does this really matter?[/QUOTE]
Didn't they actually keep their parachutes in 1942?
[QUOTE=Sharker;52580945]Didn't they actually keep their parachutes in 1942?[/QUOTE]
That game was too advanced. It even had death animations that were better at being ragdolls than ragdolls in its sequel.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52580188]The sheer volume of otherwise prototypical and rare equipment that most troops wouldn't even know about, let alone be issued, combined with the volume of tanks, aircraft, armoured cars and such, and the mobility/fluidity of the battlefield especially on maps set on western front undermines any connection to reality. Again, don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that there's a quality game where you can use these weapons and vehicles, but it's more based on the first world war than set in it. It's already fantastical enough in its depiction, so I just find it disappointing that they weren't able to take the next step and get creative with it as they did with 2142 or BF4's Final Stand. Saying its 1920 and the war's still going, because the US didn't get involved or whatever, would do a lot more to justify the inclusion of all this stuff and help the change the theme to fit the BF formula better, without compromising its links to the real WW1 any more than they already have been[/QUOTE]
They should've committed to the idea and gone full Codename Eagle with it. Battlefield 1 is trying to have its cake and it too.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52578062]2017, and the 1911 STILL has the original CoD4 reload animation for pistols.[/QUOTE]
I mean, it's the same gun. It makes sense that would be the same way to reload it.
Halo's had the same sniper rifle reload animation since Halo 2.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52580188]The sheer volume of otherwise prototypical and rare equipment that most troops wouldn't even know about, let alone be issued, combined with the volume of tanks, aircraft, armoured cars and such, and the mobility/fluidity of the battlefield especially on maps set on western front undermines any connection to reality. Again, don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that there's a quality game where you can use these weapons and vehicles, but it's more based on the first world war than set in it. It's already fantastical enough in its depiction, so I just find it disappointing that they weren't able to take the next step and get creative with it as they did with 2142 or BF4's Final Stand. Saying its 1920 and the war's still going, because the US didn't get involved or whatever, would do a lot more to justify the inclusion of all this stuff and help the change the theme to fit the BF formula better, without compromising its links to the real WW1 any more than they already have been[/QUOTE]
So for starters that is stuff that aesthetically fit, like sure some of it may not have been used much/at all, but seeing as its all period - it's all aesthetically fine.
Secondly: The battlefields of WWI [i]were[/i] fluid. While the operational theatre as a whole may not have been, what battlefield does with its maps is not outside the realm of history, at all. You're talking Battalion sized fronts, if even that. Especially when all of the maps (with the exception of the French DLC and Russian DLC) take place in 1918. By 1916 what you had were very modern infantry tactics - Platoons and Squads became king on the ground.
The French for example put these tactics to use for great success on July 1st, 1916 on the Somme river (and for the rest of the campaign I might add) making great gains. The British had much more mixed success that day, but by the end of the battle had mastered using Infantry in a more modern fashion - leading to the success seen in September and November 1916, even almost breaking through in September. Eventually this lead to Victory in 1918.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
