I was more reffering to the vanilla game having only 1918 themed maps and gameplay.
i wonder how profoundly different this one will be
perhaps the guns will have new shapes!
slightly
where's my wallet
Honestly I don't give a shit what it is. My only ask is a god damn working fucking server browser, preferably IN GAME
They already have it
I find this to be a really silly complaint. I don't think it's valid at all. I can perfectly understanding wanting such a under-represented setting to be done properly, but thinking that might come from an already established series that has core gameplay already well defined is absurd. The series has always allowed player choice as a big aspect, letting you choose your roles and equipment without any specific limitations with things like class limits or weapon limits. They wouldn't change that and implement something like a limit on certain weapons because hat sort of thing would go against one of the important elements of the Battlefield games.
The game was always going to be a Battlefield game with a WW1 theme, using elements, locations, battles, armies, equipment etc from the time period - the same thing every other game in the series does. Real soldiers on a modern Battlefield don't behave anything like they're shown in the Battlefield series - they don't randomly run around on their own within a perfectly defined battle area while carrying and using a random assort of weapons and equipment that aren't even in use by their country or in some cases any country at all, while wearing whatever camouflage pattern and colour they want with whatever colour weapon they want, driving or flying anything they can find and overall doing anything they want. None of the games are accurate. The Battlefield games have always been a core style of gameplay with the theme constrained and established by the gameplay, not the other way around. Hoping BF1 was suddenly going to change all that and be a realistic game for once does not make sense. None of them portray their setting in a realistic way that adheres to what the real-life version is like.
You're basically asking for a Battlefield game to not be a Battlefield game.
I dont think thats true at all. People have been craving a WWI shooter since the military shooters were popularized.
People arent craving modern day action shooter game, and theyre definitely not craving future day action shooter after Infinite Warfares comparatively abysmal sales.
Go play Verdun then.
The last time I played a Battlefield game in WW2 was BF1942.
I unironically hope they pull a BF1 and fill the game up with experimental, limited production weapons. I disliked it at first in BF1 but goddamn some of the guns were just cool as shit and I
would love to see what kind of retro-futuristic bullshit they could dig up.
Also, WW2 had way too many cool goddamn vehicles and I wanna see them all.
And if they're doing a story campaign, they could use a similar format to BF1 and show off some of the less represented wars. The Finnish-Soviet war would be a big ask for a map pack but
cool as shit as a short little campaign with unique mechanics.
They already did that actually
Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WW2 has a bunch of neat things in it
Aw hell yes that's exactly what I mean! Though I'm sure there's wilder shit on the infantry front ant tamer-but-still-cool shit on the vehicle front (Hs 129 with the 75mm cannon DICE PLEASE).
The thing that killed BF1 for me, aside from the complete lack of teamplay elements that have been present in battlefield games since BF1942, was the weaponry.
They included all these dumb bullshit prototypes that never saw combat or did in the last 37 seconds of the war which completely threw off the vibe of the game. If they had stuck to bolt action rifles, pistols, and a very limited variety of submachine guns, the game would have been a lot more fun. As it is, BF I just feels like BF4 reskinned to WWI era with a lot less features.
It's dumb to give the game a historical theme but then to add in non-historical weapons to give it an equivocal feel to modern day weaponry. Whats the point if the game isn't going to actually stick to it's theme?
The game would've been closer to history and harder to complain about, but that's got little to do with actual fun.
Also, Battlefield is really not the game for bolt action rifles. It's much too flashy and fast paced to really work all that well. There are other games that focus on bolt rifles like Red Orchestra and numerous others and they're alright games, but they play very very different than what we've come to expect from Battlefield.
Hey that shit is actually pretty fun With Fire and Sword pulled off a half assed version of it without cannons or galleons and It still is a blast to play.
I do, don't your worry pal. I just want something like Verdun but not super janky, the DOI mod is looking like that replacement (if it ever decides to come out).
You're really not going to find anyone to agree with your "if it had less variety it'd have been more fun" statement.
Then it wouldn’t really be a battlefield game.
I’d love, love a super well made authentic WWI FPS but BF1 was never going to be that, and that’s OK!
Not my point. My point is that if the game is going to force a theme on it that doesnt fit or feel authentic, then whats the point? BF WWI feels more like a diesel punk shooter than a WWI shooter and it didnt play like a battlefield game even with its dumb additions.
They should have just chose another setting all together.
Nah BF1 is not really a reskin when it clearly does utilize the WW1 setting for gameplay like how;
Controversial elite classes being a way to shoehorn weird WW1 shit like the body armor, madlads with melee only, flametroopers and to some extent, artillery spotters.
Behemoths being another way to shoehorn the big vehicles of the war without fucking with balance too much.
Tanks being completely different thanks to their irl design making it that way with no turrets and more emphasis on crew play overall.
Planes actually murdering people now instead of just wanking around in the sky like BF4.
The initial low amount of weapons in the time period actually forcing DICE to make an actually interesting gunplay system instead of just copy pasting the same code for all automatics.
Abundance of shit like gas and incendiary and melee combat even if they were toned down with recent patches.
Also the fact that a lot of the maps are modelled way too closely to the battles they depict IRL which makes snipers uncomfortably effective a lot of times.
I mean, the lack of one man army medics murdering everyone at every range with his moonrock prototype Bulldog/AEK is already enough to make anybody notice that the game is not a reskin of BF4. Even if you were to remove all the prototypes like the Hellriegel, you'd still end up with similar gameplay, except with much more shotguns and only 2 or 3 weapons available for medic as Battlefield is not Red Orchestra that has class limits.
Battlefield 1 had an immense cultural impact on the younger generations, it sparked interest about WW1 into a lot of people and now that war is back in the spotlight, the BF1 subreddit is filled with people saying that BF1 made them interested in the history of the World Wars, or History in General. Your skill is even rewarded with codex entries about the First World War and DICE tried to cram as many obscure WW1 trivia left and right. This is all that matters when it comes to BF1's setting.
Hell, it's not like BF1 is the only WW1 FPS. As said many times before, there's still Verdun and Tannenberg to fill the void of authentic WW1 shooters. BF1 is meant to be a fun experience and the 1914-18 Series FPS is meant to be authentic, you have the choice to pick the one you prefer so what's the problem with BF1 taking liberties?
This is all coming from a huge WW1 nerd.
I think people generally wanted the Battlfield games to slow back down after the cracked up 3, Hardline, and 4 games with WW1 providing an excuse to do so. As evident in this thread there's a lot of people who miss the slower paced and longer range gameplay of Battlefield 1942-BC2.
Another source: Battlefield 1 players unlock a door leading to Battlefield 2018’..
I said it feels like a BF4 reskin, not that it was one. It very clearly isnt. The lack of proper team play classes and other elements is evidence of that alone.
Shoehorning in armor plate and flamethrowers isnt proper utilization of the setting.
how on earth is the modern shooter trend dying.
people have been saying that since 2005. I remember. The death never happened, these established FPS series still sell millions of copies on their opening weekends.
you what m8
the series has "always" done this? BF1942, BF vietnam, BF2 and BF2142 all had distinct class based system with limited weapon selection. A given "kit" would usually have 2 weapon options, max, a primary kit and an alternate kit. There absolutely were specific limits.
I meant in the sense that no one wants to make "just another shoot the North Koreans/Russians/Chinese/whatever in yet another modern jingoistic setting of an action movie world war" right now, not literally the modern shooter design philosophy.
You're completely missing the point. The games don't give arbitrary limits on weapon or equipment choices - they may have only only been 1 - 3 weapon options per kit in BF1942/BF2/2142 but that was not a limitation to players in the way that saying "You can only have 1 automatic weapon per squad, too bad" or something like that would be - They still allowed you to do something like have an entire team as Anti-tank or support if you wanted to, something that went against the historical accuracy just as much as the prevelance of certain weapons in BF1 that you're complaining about.
The limited weapon selection is not the same as specific limits, it does not say "you can't have this" like the suggestion of limiting certain weapon types in BF1 does - that sort of limitation would go against what the series is about these days. The limited kit choices in the first few games were from a time when the large variety was simply not a big feature of the series, but as the series went on more and more was added - it was heavily expanded with BF2 offering several weapon choices before 2142 moved to the more customization role system, before BC1 enhanced that to the now well established customization system which is an expected feature of the series now. That isn't the same at all as "make it so you have to use this thing in the game", which would be a step backwards for the series.
The games make no statement on "there were this many of weapon this in WW1", the prevelance of those types of weapons is down entirely to the need for player choice. It is not meant to be some accurate representation of the setting, it's an authentic representation - meaning the things that are in the game, feel like they fit and come from the time period and are from around the correct timeframe (in this case, late WW1 or slightly after). That's how every Battlefield game has worked.
I think it's absurd to say "There are prototypes? This is slightly out of the timeframe? This didn't see combat? They all ruin the setting!" when every Battlefield game has done or included things that would not be used in the real life equivalent of the setting, or are out of place with that theme. 1942 allowed things like an entire team being able to choose Anti-tank or support or some other role that wouldn't be that prevelant (which is something that applies to every Battlefield game) or the prototype and made up things in the Secret weapons of WW2 Expansion, the Jackhammer (a Prototype) and DOA-12 in BF2, the entire loadout system in BC1/2/BF3/BF4 revolving around "Choose whatever you want, doesn't matter if that country doesn't use it or it doesn't even make sense to have it". What BF1 does is no different - every Battlefield game choose a certain theme and then adds in things that wouldn't realistically make sense with that theme.
What i said in the upper half of this post also applies to what you're saying; limiting choices for players is not something the Battlefield series does. None of the choices in the game were added to make it feel like modern-day, they were added as they fit because they are all historically authentic - that means they existed in some form and are from around the correct sort of time period - when taken individually they feel like something that could be seen in a WW1-based setting and have a reason or good enough justification to be there (such as it not being very far outside the timeframe in the case of the Thompson), and that's what matters even if that isn't entirely accurate to have them. The series does not go for realistic representations of it's setting, it simply goes for something authentic. The difference between BF1 gameplay and WW1 itself is no different from how BF3 or 4 portray modern combat and how it actually is.
The games are an a certain system of gameplay, with an abstraction of the theme put ontop of that - the gameplay always constrains or implements the theme more than the theme affects the gameplay, expecting BF1 to suddenly drop all that and do the complete opposite of what the other games do was never going to happen.
Except like majority of ww1 researchers have said, late era ww1 was basically ww2. Mechanized warfare was becoming more common, and soldiers relied on blitz and rush tactics to overwhelm the enemy.
Like I said in a later post, Bf1 does not feel or play like a WWI shooter. It feels and plays like some odd ball diesel punk shooter. The addition of all the bizzaro weaponry completely throws off the theme of the game.
Yea, BF1942 didnt care if you had an entire team of snipers, but they werent using magazine fed M1 Garands because a prototype of that gun existed. Everything within BF1942 existed and was used extensively hold for the type 4. BF1942 even felt like a WWII shooter because it has no prototype weaponry, hold the type 5.
Comparing BF1 to a late-game BF1942 expansion meant to turn the game into a bizarro mess doesnt help your case. BF3&4 arent based on any actual wars or settings. Its based on just modern weaponry and nothing else. It doesnt have rules or themes to follow.
Limiting choices is what Battlefield WAS built on. The addition of weapon swapping between factions is a recent thing. The addition of weapon choices all together is also a recent thing. The removal of teamplay elements, reduction of classes, and additions of factionless weapons are not things Battlefield was built on or known for. These are all recent things made to make the game more accessible by non teamplay focused players.
Bottom line is that BF1 does not feel or play like a WWI game, and it does not feel or play like a battlefield game. If DICE makes BFWWII, Ill bet good money it will be the same as their last dumpster fire.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
