BF1 does not play particularly differently to every single entry before it at least as far back as BC1. In fact I would argue that the emphasis on teamplay is bigger here, and a team not utilizing it always loses.
You personal offense to the historical inaccuracies are obviously fine, they'e personal issues you have with the game as a weapons aficionado, but they don't actually mean anything when it comes to the quality of the game itself, which never pretended to be some historically accurate depiction of WW1.
Personally I mostly just miss when Battlefield and CoD enforced faction weapons and vehicles on you, I can understand why they did the change and I can always just use the proper weapons myself once I unlock them. Just kinda miss that is all, made factions more unique rather than just having a different voice and uniform.
I've enjoyed the latest BF games (not too sure on how CoD's been, haven't played one since Black Ops 1). My only gripe (other than what I've said above) is the premium pass thing, I always get left behind once they start releasing DLC maps and then I just move on to other games. I don't have money to be buying a game and then the premium pass usually.
Exactly, having team play elements and chosing not to use them aren't the same thing. The use of multi crew vehicles is bigger in this game and its almost impossible to solo kill anything other than light vehicles as an infantry man. You also have class specific utilities that didn't exist in 1942 that promote team play. This is just some rose tinted googles bullshit.
BF1942 had some awesome, unique stuff that was ditched in later Battlefield games, especially the large maps with vehcle based warfare naval battles and strategic bombers. On the other hand, I remember some stuff being lazily implemented, even for 2002. Like the USSR not having any Russian infantry weapons at launch (They added the DP as LMG in the final patch, but all other Russian infantry weapons in BF1942 are English and German rifles). Also most of the infantry based maps were pretty barren and played poorly , like Bocage and Berlin, because the gunplay and netcode was pretty wacky, even for it's time.
Heck, most disappointing of all, they didn't even have the M1 Garand for the US.
They very easily could have kept it more authentic to WW1 without destroying the core gameplay. Verdun has similar gameplay and it is the most authentic WW1-era shooter that I know of. Also I wasn't really griping about how the battles took place, sure the campaign was over the top and could have gone for a more authentic feel due to the fact that single player is much easier to coordinate and control than multiplayer, but I did expect the actual fighting to not be very realistic. I was just disappointed by how it feels more like an alternate history style war game than a WW1 game.
I mean BF1942 was pretty authentic in terms of gear and weapons, it's not that much to ask that this one be on par with that.
But hey I'm not saying it's a shit game because of all that, I really enjoyed it and I am admittedly pretty impressed with their knowledge of obscure and experimental weaponry from the era, especially considering how accurate they are to the real things. I just wish I didn't have to suspend my disbelief so much. It is still a really enjoyable game, though.
God no. Verdun/Tanneberg plays nothing like BF1 outside of the fact that there are guns that you can shoot and you move around. Verdun is much smaller scale, and even the larger maps of Tannenberg lack some of the sheer size of some BF1 maps. They have very different gameplay loops, with Verdun focusing much more on attack/defense waves while BF1 is much more fluid.
Right, I'm just going off let's plays and stuff like that so my understanding of Verdun's gameplay is admittedly lacking. I guess it just looked similar.
The whole "everyone having more advanced weaponry than they should for the time" thing is what makes BF1 come across as diesel punk to me, or at least alternate history.
Civil/Napoleonic War and you got me lootboxes or not
I'd be so goddamn hype for a AAA game in that era that it'd honestly compensate for the lootbox bullshit for me personally
That's not what diesel punk is, per definition so I would really hope that people stop parading it around. everything in the game existed. It may not have been wide-spread, but it was around in some form. Literally all of it actually existed. If they were making stuff up then you might have an argument for it being dieselpunk. But it's so clearly not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
