[QUOTE=AntonioR;50269248]Iron Storm, Necrovision... that's all I got, and I doubt those would really qualify.[/QUOTE]
there are none that are triple a. there are flight sims, there are indie fps's, there are mobile games, and there are strategy games but there's only like 20 wwi games total and most of them were made in the 90s.
so yeah,
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50269186]I disagree, there's a whole lot of shit that's gone completely unexplored by modern gaming. Not all battles were strictly trench warfare, that's mainly just Western front. If they go the alt-history route it could end up pretty interesting.[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking it's going to play out like an older Medal of Honor game, you start out as an infantryman but you start to do espionage missions behind enemy lines.
[QUOTE=Takuat;50269136][img]https://i.imgur.com/SdJJrSX.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
That infantry regiment mentioned at the bottom was an all black infantry regiment primarily famous for fighting in WW1
It's deffo either normal WW1 or sci-fi WW1
My guess would be normal WW1, nothing on the poster looks sci-fi. That poster probably is the poster for the Hellfighters DLC tho.
[QUOTE=Squad1993;50268937]If it's WW1, the game Verdun is fucked.[/QUOTE]
Strongly disagree. Verdun is a more realistic WW1 FPS like Red Orchestra. Meanwhile this new Battlefield appears to be retro-futuristic and overall not a game about actual WW1.
Where is everyone even getting the retro futuristic thing from?
Kinda glad to see World War I, kinda not glad because it's going to butcher things about a war that few people know anything about. Hell some people forget that it even happened, I'm not kidding.
If it has an alt-history flavor or a Silent Storm sorta deal, then I'm all for it. I just don't want it to be "SLAMBANG ACTION WITH SUBMACHINE GUNS AND AUTOMATIC RIFLES" when the majority of the fighting was bolt-rifles and semi-static MMGs.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50269272]there are none that are triple a. there are flight sims, there are indie fps's, there are mobile games, and there are strategy games but there's only like 20 wwi games total and most of them were made in the 90s.
so yeah,[/QUOTE]
Name five triple A games about the Russian Civil War.
The point is, who gives a shit, it's going to end up exactly like the old Medal of Honor games except with even less creativity on the gameplay front.
I mean by definition it's either going to be boring as shit (trench warfare) or actiony as shit (which is almost indistinguishable from a lower-tech MoH game, and thus have less interesting mechanics in play, and thus again be more boring than the good MoHs).
Honestly it's a pretty big misconception that all WW1 was sitting in Trenches taking pot-shots at the other trench, WW1 was really the first mobile war; you had shit like hopping in a enemy trench lobbing grenades then brutal hand to hand combat with all sorts of makeshift knives, clubs and the like. Not that BF WW1 will be like that it'll definitely be more gun orientated. And that's only talking about the battles mostly in the Western front, the Eastern front was super mobile and was mostly fighting on fields. WW1 was the war to birth modern Team/Squad/Platoon tactics. before WW1 it was mostly all regimental based.
People also forget that WW1 wasn't just bolt action rifles and heavy machine guns, there was sub-machine guns, automatic rifles (the BAR is from WW1) and new tech like flamethrowers and gas shells.
I am honestly really glad they are actually going with the WW1 direction because it's a big departure from the countless Modern and Near-future stuff that is over-saturating the FPS genre at the moment.
Pretty much every argument against WW1 FPS's is based on misconception honestly.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50269879]Name five triple A games about the Russian Civil War.
The point is, who gives a shit, it's going to end up exactly like the old Medal of Honor games except with even less creativity on the gameplay front.
I mean by definition it's either going to be boring as shit (trench warfare) or actiony as shit (which is almost indistinguishable from a lower-tech MoH game, and thus have less interesting mechanics in play, and thus again be more boring than the good MoHs).[/QUOTE]
How would it be like Medal of Honor? WWI and WWII were quite different, it's going to play totally different than WWII games. And I'd say WWI can actually offer more interesting mechanics, stuff like experiencing gas attacks would be really intense.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50269879]
I mean by definition it's either going to be boring as shit (trench warfare)[/QUOTE]
I'll take "Never Actually Learned About World War I" for 500, Alex
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50269879]
I mean by definition it's either going to be boring as shit (trench warfare) or actiony as shit [/QUOTE]
so basically like any war/wargame in any time period ever.
The fact that modern war games are so actiony is hilariously unrealistic if you sit down and think about it
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50269927]The fact that modern war games are so actiony is hilariously unrealistic if you sit down and think about it[/QUOTE]
Mainstream shooters kind of have to be because they're not going to make millions of dollars selling Arma.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50269879]Name five triple A games about the Russian Civil War.
The point is, who gives a shit, it's going to end up exactly like the old Medal of Honor games except with even less creativity on the gameplay front.
I mean by definition it's either going to be boring as shit (trench warfare) or actiony as shit (which is almost indistinguishable from a lower-tech MoH game, and thus have less interesting mechanics in play, and thus again be more boring than the good MoHs).[/QUOTE]
you don't know what you're talking about at all. WWI, by 1915, was fought on the Platoon and Squad level. Even yes, during the big battles. The only difference being that they had a rigidly defined front line on the Western Front.
well, as someone I know wrote earlier (and put it better than I can).
[quote]But… WW1. It was just sitting in the trenches waiting for an artillery shell to murder you, or mustard gas to suffocate you. WRONG! This is the most commonly cited reason against WW1 games, but it’s not exactly true. I will concede that the beginning of WW1 did not see the small unit tactics that make later war games feel more plausible, but even so the claim that it was just running into death is not the whole truth. The Western Front 1915-1916, was, yes, static as fuck in terms of large movements. However, the western front in 1914 was quite mobile, as the modern fortifications were not yet built, and the fortifications of old were being torn asunder by the sheer might of heavy artillery.
After this became more static, yes there were less successful large offensive and horrendous casualties on the Western front. But this static warfare was, in fact, the crucible in which small unit tactics were forged. Armies needed to adapt to the killing power of artillery and machine guns, and so they did. From the early forms of such tactics in Trench raids to the evolution of infiltration tactics pioneered by Sturmbataillon Rohr that loosened thing up. By the time of Operation Michael, things got mobile again.
Even so, strategic stalemate does not matter in a battlefield type game. The Multiplayer in particular is set on predefined maps that don't move anyway. Tactically, battlefields of the first world war contained lots of small scale movements like you would see in a battlefield game. Often ground WAS taken only to be lost in a co-ordinated counterattack a short time later. If you have ever played Conquest, might that sound familiar? So while strategically, everything did seem static, the tactical sphere saw much more movement, especially after small unit tactics began to take hold.[/quote]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50269155]Completely disappointed by that fucking zeppelin picture. All interest lost completely.
Enjoy yet another completely forgettable WW1/2 game.[/QUOTE]
what a confusing post
They don't even bother with 2142 and Vietnam on stream :speechless:
[QUOTE=Niklas;50270172]They don't even bother with 2142 and Vietnam on stream :speechless:[/QUOTE]
Probably not covering them because they're technically spin-offs.
I'm not watching the stream, but did they gonna cover Battlefield Heroes or Battlefield Hardline? Those are spin-offs in a similar position.
[QUOTE=Samson0722;50263509]All you can see is his collar.
That's a really wide collar.
It could be futuristic...[sp]dear god no[/sp][/QUOTE]
No dude, they should. I've always wanted them to go back to making another 2142. Hands down my favorite battlefield game and the only one I was ever interested in
around 12 mins left
[url]https://www.twitch.tv/battlefield/[/url]
get hyped
The host is cringe as fuck.
"Woooo time travel *spins around and throws hands in air*"
Stop. Fuckin. TALKING.
[QUOTE=Treznor;50270702]The host is cringe as fuck.
"Woooo time travel *spins around and throws hands in air*"[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair not everyone can be very relaxed on a stage, he is definitely a bit uncomfortable but they could have get some other guy to do the talking
Wow we just got super cockblocked.
oh my fucking god just fucking show the trailer
christ
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50270734]Well to be fair not everyone can be very relaxed on a stage, he is definitely a bit uncomfortable but they could have get some other guy to do the talking[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right.
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
What the fuck
Why the dubstep
Yep it's WW1.
'PLAY IT AGAIIIN!' :joy:
Oh wow, it's just normal WW1. Cool
[QUOTE=Treznor;50270785]Yeah, you're right.
[editline]6th May 2016[/editline]
What the fuck
Why the dubstep[/QUOTE]
That wasn't even dubstep.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
