• Surprisingly, WWI is exactly where Battlefield belongs
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;50997636]So you mean to tell me this is an accurate depiction of the war?[/QUOTE] Name me one accurate Battlefield
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;50997636]So you mean to tell me this is an accurate depiction of the war?[/QUOTE] Do you mean to tell me 1942 is a realistic depiction of that war? Bad Company 2? Vietnam? 3/4? Were those accurate depictions of the world's wars? Are snipers without spotters realistic? Are pilots that eject from their jets, snipe an enemy pilot, and land in the enemy plane's cockpit realistic? What about people throwing C4 all over a jeep, driving it directly at the enemy, bailing out, detonating it, and running forward just to raise a flag? How about the massive battles with total non-communication with no ranks or chain of command minus one person becoming squad leader? People diving off skyscrapers and opening their parachute 10 feet off the ground and surviving with minimal damage? What about driving fucking motorbikes around ramping them off shit? What about people getting shot in the chest and being fine a minute later? What about people who die, get brought back via defib, and repeat that cycle until eventually they get killed too quick after being revived? If you're not holding those games to the same standard you're currently holding BF1 to, you've moved the goalposts by expecting a game called "Battlefield" not to be Battlefield. Plus, it doesn't help that your post is straight-up putting words in his mouth. He just mentioned that WW1 wasn't a bunch of people in trenches wearing gas masks losing limbs thanks to diseases. When in that post did he call the game realistic?
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;50997636]So you mean to tell me this is an accurate depiction of the war?[/QUOTE] I did not say that. I just said you were wrong. You are factually wrong. The war was much more than rigidly defined sides and trench warfare. This game isn't accurate but why you [B]believed[/B] it would be is baseless.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;50997636]So you mean to tell me this is an accurate depiction of the war?[/QUOTE] Do do you think in reality a soldier would grab whatever vehicle they can and drive/fly off on their own, only to abandon that in the middle of nowhere so they can sprint around randomly doing whatever they like, using a random assortment of impractical equipment and weapons that they shouldn't even have, with no sort of organization or leadership, while the enemy does the exact same thing? You're saying that is an accurate depiction of WW2, or Vietnam, or the modern day? Battlefield 1 is a Battlefield game, so it plays similarly to the other games. There has not been any entirely accurate battlefield game before, so you had absolutely no good reason to expect this one to suddenly change everything battlefield is about and represent WW1 in a completely realistic manner.
[QUOTE=simkas;50990506]They marketed as a WWI [i]Battlefield[/i] game. Did you really expect them to suddenly rip out the whole core of Battlefield and completely redo how it plays? To turn it into a proper WWI game, you'd have to change it to a point where it wouldn't be even at all similar to any classis Battlefield games.[/QUOTE] then clearly WW1 is not exactly where Battlefield belongs, though??
Y'know, the biggest counter-argument to people whining about accuracy in BF1: Where were you to whine about the accuracy in [I]ALL OF THE OTHER GAMES[/I]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50999168]Y'know, the biggest counter-argument to people whining about accuracy in BF1: Where were you to whine about the accuracy in [I]ALL OF THE OTHER GAMES[/I][/QUOTE] it's a different kind of inaccuracy
[QUOTE=elowin;50999199]it's a different kind of inaccuracy[/QUOTE] i don't see how it is at all
I still can't believe people are saying that this game isn't good because of how it isn't "accurate", in a series that had Secret Weapons of WW2 as an expansion for the first game, and for something more recent there is the Final Stand DLC from BF4 that had hover tanks, but suddenly it's now a problem for some reason.
[QUOTE=elowin;50999199]it's a different kind of inaccuracy[/QUOTE] So US soldiers carrying the AEK-971 and using the Carl Gustav, and having the ability to defibrillator people to bring them back to life is SUPER DIFFERENT than British soldiers carrying the Carl Rigotti and using the PzB18, and having the ability to stab someone with a syringe to bring them back to life.
[QUOTE=Joshii;50999265]I still can't believe people are saying that this game isn't good because of how it isn't "accurate", in a series that had Secret Weapons of WW2 as an expansion for the first game, and for something more recent there is the Final Stand DLC from BF4 that had hover tanks, but suddenly it's now a problem for some reason.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, I have issues with the game, but they don't stem from the historical inaccuracy. They didn't market it as a historically accurate game, therefore I'm not going to judge them on it.
[QUOTE=elowin;50999199]it's a different kind of inaccuracy[/QUOTE] no it fucking isn't
[QUOTE=Novangel;50997913]Name me one accurate Battlefield[/QUOTE] Definitely Battlefield 2142. The thing is a game doesn't need to be realistic or depict war with utmost historical accuracy, but it just needs to be authentic. Insurgency and Red Orchestra are not the most realistic games but they feel very authentic because it conveys the right atmosphere for the appropriate setting., even if they don't nail the realism. Nevertheless it works for those games and I'm afraid that BF1 doesn't convey any atmosphere, at least to me. Sure it looks and sounds amazing but as for the rest it doesn't do much for me. Feels more like a reskin, I'm aware that BF will still remain BF to some extend but if you compare BF1942, BF2, BF Vietnam or BF2142, they all felt slightly different with a different emphasis. This game feels a tad to homogeneous to the prequels.
[QUOTE=junker154;51000508]Definitely Battlefield 2142.[/QUOTE] none of them are even remotely accurate. They're all very acradey versions of combat. BF4 is very unrealistic. BF1 is equally unrealistic. Acting like one was a good portrayal while the other is terrible is stupid and baseless.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51000520]none of them are even remotely accurate. They're all very acradey versions of combat. BF4 is very unrealistic. BF1 is equally unrealistic. Acting like one was a good portrayal while the other is terrible is stupid and baseless.[/QUOTE] I think you might just not take this stuff to serious, there is no point in arguing. Especially not about 2142 lol.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51000520]none of them are even remotely accurate. They're all very acradey versions of combat. BF4 is very unrealistic. BF1 is equally unrealistic. Acting like one was a good portrayal while the other is terrible is stupid and baseless.[/QUOTE] How would you know 2142 was inaccurate if it hasn't happened yet huh??
[QUOTE=junker154;51000527]I think you might just not take this stuff to serious, there is no point in arguing. Especially not about 2142 lol.[/QUOTE] because I bother to post about it in response and opposition to you, you say I "care too much"? I honestly don't care, i'm typing words into a fucking screen, where is the "care" in doing that. I disagree with you and you haven't given any thought process or reasoning as to it, I assume because you don't care you think you can just say and think whatever you want without anyone saying shit back to you. I'm bored at work on a slow sunday, yeah, I "care" so much
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] Feels like WWI with some steampunk
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51000659]because I bother to post about it in response and opposition to you, you say I "care too much"? I honestly don't care, i'm typing words into a fucking screen, where is the "care" in doing that. I disagree with you and you haven't given any thought process or reasoning as to it, I assume because you don't care you think you can just say and think whatever you want without anyone saying shit back to you. I'm bored at work on a slow sunday, yeah, I "care" so much[/QUOTE] I think you just look like a massive twat when posting. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming -- should know better by now" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=junker154;51001294]I think you just look like a massive twat when posting.[/QUOTE] "Hurr durr i was only pretending to be retarded :scream:"
[QUOTE=junker154;51001294]I think you just look like a massive twat when posting.[/QUOTE] So you can't come up with any good counter arguments for his points?
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51001407]So you can't come up with any good counter arguments for his points?[/QUOTE] Nah, I did explain my thoughts and feeling towards the game and previous entries. It just feels like a lot of people defend this game in a very fanatic way without being somewhat critical. For someone who doesn't care, he did write a lot in a aggressive way. But that's pretty funny say from someone who called someone a twat.
[QUOTE=junker154;51001434]Nah, I did explain my thoughts and feeling towards the game and previous entries. It just feels like a lot of people defend this game in a very fanatic way without being somewhat critical. For someone who doesn't care, he did write a lot in a aggressive way. But that's pretty funny say from someone who called someone a twat.[/QUOTE] He was writing in an "aggressive" way because you acting like a snide jerk. It honestly sounds like you're the one who can't deal with other's opinions here.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51001441]He was writing in an "aggressive" way because you acting like a snide jerk. It honestly sounds like you're the one who can't deal with other's opinions here.[/QUOTE] Well, I meant before I started posting in a hostile way. But honestly there is no point in arguing now. The damage has been done.
My sole point is that all BF games are similar in terms of "realism" and "authenticity", as in, there is very, very little of it. BF1942, BF2, BF2142, BF3, BF4, BFHardline, BF1, they all require an equal level of "Suspension of disbelief" because they're filled top to bottom with frankly, totally unbelievable shit from the first game, to the last game. Does anyone remember being on a 40 foot tall building in BF2, and pulling a parachute 10 feet above the ground? That requires a complete suspension of disbelief in the "Realism" and "Authenticity" of the world. And that's a staple of all the games. I could go on. But I don't want to be a "Massive Twat" for having thought about this as much as I have.
[QUOTE=Naught;50990458]yea, it does. they marketed it as a ww1 game but it just feels like a reskin of bf4 with less stuff. they could have done so much more with this game. im not talking about trench warfare and shit. but they put in barely any effort into making this game feel like a world war 1 game, with half the soldiers out there using lmg's and smg's, super fast tanks, the sterile UI and announcer...[/QUOTE] The tanks are basically just BF4 tanks except the turrets can't swing 360 degrees. That's made up for by the fact that there's no bazookas in the game. I've always hated tanks in Battlefield mostly because have no interest in driving them so they just become a hassle. Now the only way to kill them is pretty much planes/C4/other tanks. It's pretty lame.
I mean, tanks even when being impractical most of the time, were the big thing back then. People feared them for being mobile fortresses (when not running out of fuel or getting stuck in trenches). A testament to their usefulness in dar is the constante pursuit of better tanks since then, with a great technological peak in WW2. If they hadnt worked out in WW1 things would have been very different in terms of warfare since then. So what im getting at is that it makes some sense that tanks are OP.
[QUOTE=junker154;51001454]Well, I meant before I started posting in a hostile way. But honestly there is no point in arguing now. The damage has been done.[/QUOTE] Yeah no shit, you actually genuinely resorted to "oh yeah? well, you look dumb!" as your argument. You're not even arguing about the fucking game anymore.
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51001884]The tanks are basically just BF4 tanks except the turrets can't swing 360 degrees. That's made up for by the fact that there's no bazookas in the game. I've always hated tanks in Battlefield mostly because have no interest in driving them so they just become a hassle. Now the only way to kill them is pretty much planes/C4/other tanks. It's pretty lame.[/QUOTE] Nah, the tanks in BF1 are much more limited than the tanks of other games. A significant portion of your view on the top and bottom is blocked off, they move a lot more slowly, they have more trouble going up hills, the firing speed seems slower but that might be a placebo effect on me, the light tank doesn't get a support gunner, the heavy tank has severely restricted aiming ability.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50994877]I don't quite get the whole "everyone is running around with guns they shouldn't have!" There's plenty of people using semi-autos, bolt actions wouldn't be fun for everyone to have. And it's not like the ww2 games had accurate gun representation either, you think everyone got an MP40? Hell no.[/QUOTE] No but there were enough MP40's to equip all 64 players of a server with one. This game has rifles that have more people in one game of conquest using than there even existed in real life. Basically this is Battlefield 4, meshed with some Battlefront mechanics (And not the bad ones, mind you), and given a World War 1 skin. Battlefront has a lower time to kill than this game. Probably by a large margin. And when you compare to BF3 or 4, there's a lot less content to play with. Right now, just choosing the Scout as an example, there's 8 weapons to choose from. Except there's 2 versions of each so there's 4. And 3 of the 4 (6 out of the 8) share the exact same stats, so really there's 2. And one does less damage PERIOD, so why use it. I think given a hardcore mode that's like BC2, BF3 and 4, and NOT like Hardline will go a long way to make this game enjoyable for me, but without it I'm going to pass. Hardcore, and a 98K with iron sights is going to be me all day I'll also be getting it on PS4 because fuck cheaters. Already being sniped with tanks from across the map during a sandstorm
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.