Honestly very disappointed with BF1.....

Comments

  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    Thorvall95 wrote: »

    Selection of weapons in BF 1 is not authentic ;) a lot of them are prototypes and were not even used in WW1 . What would make Battlefield 1 authentic is: Fraction diversity (Just like in Bf1942 and BF2) Germans can use only German weapons and the British will use only British weapons etc. Vehicles will also be restricted to specific fractions ( now British and Germans are using same tanks) and no parachutes pls! When you die in plane you DIE! What would make Battlefield 1 realistic? No unlimited stamina, no running and shooting with machine gun and no HP and tank will be very very slow!

    It is authentic, just about as authentic as every other BF title. They're not the weapons that were solely used by militaries in the game - but they are weapons that existed during that time period. Just like the AEK971 is a prototype Russian police force weapon, but it's one of the most popular weapons in the game.

    Again - what you're arguing for is in terms of realism. The game is chock full of weapons that are authentic WW1-era weapons - they're just not all weapons that were REALLY used in the war to a significant extent. This is akin to weapon selection in BF4, BF3, and BC2 - which were full of weapons not used at all by the militaries present in the game, including civilian and prototype weaponry.

    Also - in past games, Assault Rifles, which are the main, standard-issue weapon type of CN, US, and RU, were not the "main" weapon type. They, again, were only available to one class - as prominently represented in the game as bolt-actions are represented in BF1. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that - I never saw anyone advocate for ARs to be all-kit weapons in BF4 because "That's what is used the most in modern day military engagements".

    The "unrealistic" aspects of Battlefield aren't only those of mechanics like unlimited stamina and how gadgets function. The general amount of use of various types of weaponry in BF compared to actual warfare is and always has been incredibly unrealistic.

    BF4 is a mixture of alt history and future, considering China and Russia are shown to be capable of symmetrical warfare with the US. Also the Final Stand DLC gives it a backstory that suggests it's even farther ahead than the point in time that is being shown.

    And again, fun or interesting/unorthodox weapons aren't what anyone is arguing against. My top weapon in BF4 is the 6 Unica ffs. Nothing against unique guns.

    It's when unique, unproduced, completely absent from the war weapons take the place of accurate functioning equipment that it becomes a red flag. There's no reason they shouldn't be there.

    And lol, everyone has been saying this is the exact same game play as BF4. Both games dance to the same beat, they just wear two different skins and an abundance of content is only found in one.

    And what about past games like BF3, which was set in 2014? It was set in a time period 2 years ago from our current, real-life time - and it, again, featured a free choice of weapons, including prototypes and civilian weapons that none of the militaries in the game used. It doesn't matter the time period - what matters is that it's been done before in this franchise several times.

    There have been very few to almost no BF titles where the main used weapon type of the era was the "main" weapon. Especially consdering that the main weapon type is usually secluded to one class - just like in BF1. Bolt-actions in Battlefield 1 are as equally represented as Assault Rifles in BF4 and BF3, which is the main weapon type of the militaries in that era (modern). Hell, they're as equally represented as ARs in BF2.

    You saying that fun/unorthadox weapons don't need getting rid of is indicative of the game not changing no matter what suggestions you make in terms of how weapons should be.

    Even if you put bolt-action rifles in the Assault class and SMGs in the Scout class - everyone is just going to use Scout. Wherever you move the automatic weapons, that's where people are going to migrate, because most people who play these games like using automatic weapons. Bolt-actions in current and past games are rarely used (especially effectively) as it is.

    Those weapons didn't "take the place" of more-used WW1 weapons like bolt-actions - they're equally represented in the game. There's literally 2 classes with automatic weapons, and two with semi-auto and bolt-actions weapons - it's just that people PREFER automatic weapons.

    So short of getting rid of them - people are going to use them more than bolt-actions regardless of what class they're a part of. You could make 3 classes sport bolt-actions and 1 class sport LMGs, and everyone's going to use the class with LMGs.

    Lastly - that's true, everyone HAS been "saying" that BF1 is a reskin of BF4 and that they play "exactly the same" - but that's why I've specifically asked (especially yourself, several times) people to LIST the similarities between the two games, and explain WHY they believe it's a "reskin" - Rather than just proclaiming it's a reskin with no explanation and parading around like it's fact.

    I'm willing to bet that Movement Speed is the #1 answer on that list for no matter who answers it, and that the similarities between the two games are few and far between.

    Again - in terms of overall theme, gameplay, weaponry, etc, etc, etc, (everything) - what are all these similarities between BF1 and BF4 that seemingly indicate that BF1 is a "reskin" of BF4? Because I've been playing BF a while, and when I look at both games, they seem to be incredibly different in a myriad of aspects, and I see very few similarities aside from automatic weapons being a fan favorite, and movement speed and animations being similar.
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited August 2016
    Hahahaha I seriously do appreciate it when @Loqtrall and @Sir-xer21 drop bombs, reality, different perspective on topics, so that I don't have to do it. I'll handle the code base logic and shizzle. Keep up the good work.

    You enable me to do work work. Thanks tons.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6639 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    OP, every discussion about whether BF games should be realistic should take note that parachutes do not magically repack themselves after being deployed nor do gadgets resurrect those shot dead in real life.

    And radio beacons that operate like Star Trek transporters.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Nobel83-9 wrote: »
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    OP, every discussion about whether BF games should be realistic should take note that parachutes do not magically repack themselves after being deployed nor do gadgets resurrect those shot dead in real life.

    And radio beacons that operate like Star Trek transporters.
    ^^^^
    I do not recall a transport flying over, nor a line to wait in for the next flight....
    Gurgle, Gag ...swallow muppet.
  • MarxistDictator
    4843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    Equally as represented as other battlefield games?

    The other titles have the standard infantry rifles of the time available to all standard rifleman and medic classes. Except this one.

    There is a very clear break in 'what past battlefield games have done' right here. Instead of having service rifles, we have self loading rifles which were mostly intended as aircraft weapons after they performed woefully in combat due to precise machining and complex function dependant on recoil forces and tight tolerances on fit parts. However, by the time the game takes place, technology had obsoleted these rifles as machine guns could be mounted on more powerful aircraft. It's not the same at all. That's why rifles seen later do not borrow much if at all from these designs. Several were not even in prototype form until after the war like the Cei Riggoti.

    That's not like previous battlefield games, where standard rifles are the rifles you use as standard infantry.

    Rifles are there, as snipers because it's a stand in for one class only. Which as you admitted would have the upper hand even if the rifles are available in soft nerfed version for all.

    You also just said they wouldn't hurt other classes, since only dedicated players would bother. I don't see how that's any different from regular battlefield design, where the wide range of choice always covers viable and unviable options for any and all kits. Especially considering way back the idea behind all kit guns was as suboptimal equipment.

    If it works, does not hurt the balance and improves the value as a WW1 game, why not add it?

    And the movement system and physics are what makes the game. Giving an animation to prone diving and letting us climb walls are not substantial changes like the physics from BC2 to BF3 and even again to BF4. You can't say it's just a totally different game because the skins are different and they made different guns. I'm sure even the less known but no less unsavory glitches will still exist too.
    Post edited by MarxistDictator on
  • snakeheadinvade
    2659 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Lordmang4 wrote: »
    In that case, I agree. But I get the sense that DICE has already added lots of authentic items to BF1. So, I'm still happy with where BF1 is headed.

    Adding some authentic (and mostly prototype) weapons to the game does not make the game authentic.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Except the selection of weapons in the game is authentic - you just want them represented in a realistic way - or in a way that closely resembles that of real life. Essentially, you want full auto weapons to take a back seat to semi-auto and bolt-action weapons because it will more (not 100%) realistically represent the WW1 era - not because it will make things more authentic.

    You seem to have more of an issue with the way weapons are represented in comparison to actual WW1 - that's a case of realism, not authenticity.

    All I've seen with making the semi-autos/machine guns as main weapons has turned it into a CoD style run-and-gun.
    .
    .
    So Yes, I believe they should have taken a more authentic approach to the weapons. Bolt guns should have been a main focus, but they have been pushed to sniper roles.


    ohh so i guess bf2, bf1942, and well every battlefield ever is made for cod players because they have auto weapons.
  • MarxistDictator
    4843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It isn't anyone's argument that automatics should not be present, more is more content not less authentic. In the game weapons can actually function. Some things can actually live beyond the infeasible and exceedingly low deployment they actually saw, or they can be made available when they weren't even in production at all.

    Some of my favorite guns in each battlefield game are the weird or unorthodox extras, like the mammoth/6 Unica/F2000.

    But the obvious omissions should be added to the game. As said before they would not appeal over the intended weapons of any class, nor would they encroach on the scout's role. They harm nothing while improving the quality of the game as a WW1 title.

    I would also enjoy a Fosbery revolver on the subject of weird rare guns of the era.
  • onkruid26
    590 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Just found this line in a video on Reddit : DICE employee Christofer Brandtieng, vehicle/ weapon animator states, "We're not recreating the past, we're taking that (WW1) as inspiration, and then we're trying to take this (BF1) into a modern perspective."

    Its said in the latest BF weapons video.
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Sno0bs wrote: »
    Just found this line in a video on Reddit : DICE employee Christofer Brandtieng, vehicle/ weapon animator states, "We're not recreating the past, we're taking that (WW1) as inspiration, and then we're trying to take this (BF1) into a modern perspective."

    Its said in the latest BF weapons video.

    Yeah, that pretty much translates to, 'Today's gamers can't handle the complexity and history of the authentic WWI experience, they are too dumb and can't sit still, so we said screw history and made lots of fast paced combat and fast firing weapons to sell more copies.'
  • S1ngular1ty
    801 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    I wasn't expecting a combat sim like Red Orchestra, but I was at least expecting a certain degree of realism when they announced WWI.

    All I feel is a WWI themed CoD, where everyone is running in circles with SMG's or LMG's. It's like DICE/EA felt WWI was all fast firing semi-autos/machine guns, and standard infantry weapons were only for elite units, not the other way around.


    Screw actual history I guess though, in lieu of lots of explosions and fast paced fighting.

    Is this seriously what teen/teenagers these days only want? A fast-paced shoot-em up that requires little to no skill or teamwork, where you are a one man army?



    I like the fact they added obscure semi-auto's and machine guns, but I'm honestly disappointed how this is being handled with them being the main weapons.

    It just seems to have even gone away from BF4 type gameplay.


    In b4 fanboys come in and say......

    -It doesn't matter to most gamers
    -OP is ignorant
    -OP is old and history needs to be rewritten for fast paced action
    -It would be boring without main weapons being machine guns (I.E. needs little to no skill)
    -These semi-autos/machine guns existed, so it doesn't matter
    - I'll buy whatever DICE/EA puts out because I'll buy it anyways along with DLC

    You are not alone OP. I am disappoint.
  • Lordmang4
    2063 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Sno0bs wrote: »
    Just found this line in a video on Reddit : DICE employee Christofer Brandtieng, vehicle/ weapon animator states, "We're not recreating the past, we're taking that (WW1) as inspiration, and then we're trying to take this (BF1) into a modern perspective."

    Its said in the latest BF weapons video.

    Yeah, that pretty much translates to, 'Today's gamers can't handle the complexity and history of the authentic WWI experience, they are too dumb and can't sit still, so we said screw history and made lots of fast paced combat and fast firing weapons to sell more copies.'

    That's music to my ears. Love how DICE/EA understand what the majority of us gamers want.
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    Equally as represented as other battlefield games?

    Yes - equally as represented.

    For one - when's the last time this franchise had a rifleman class, that was 100% dedicated to an "assault" role? Like what - Battlefield 2 back in 2005? That's the last game I remember having an Assault class that wasn't also the Medic class. But so far - none of the games have ever actually had a class titled "Rifleman" - and no classes have ever been dedicated 100% to being a "rifleman" since maybe 2005.

    There is no "standard infantry" role in these games. Everyone has a very specific role to fill, there's no infantry role centered solely around killing enemy infantry.

    Secondly - what does a medic have to do with anything?

    This is REALLY funny - because you keep bringing up the fact that Battlefield 1 is following directly in the footsteps of past BF games, and you keep bringing it up in a negative light - and then your argument against this game's weaponry is that it doesn't follow in the footsteps of past games. You literally called the game a reskin of BF4, and are now complaining that it didn't do something BF4 did.

    Third - it doesn't matter how the weapons function or how reliable they are in real life. This is a video game. Nobody wants to shoot two mags and have their gun jam and be full of mud so it's worthless until they die and respawn.

    I mean, seriously - what is the difference between the standard issue weapons of that time period being in the Scout class - or the Medic class? That you just don't like the Scout class? Because that's the only reasoning I can come to. Is the Medic/Assault class what you consider "standard infantry" because they're the classes you like using the most? Not to mention the fact that bolt-action rifles have been exclusive to the Scout/Recon class in the franchise for the past....oh, I don't know....TWELVE YEARS of the total 14 years that the franchise has existed.

    Tell me, flat out - if iron-sighted bolt-action rifles were part of the medic class, and DMRs were part of the Scout class - do you actually think more people would use bolt-action rifles? What about Assault - do you think people would use Assault class as much as they do now if bolt-actions were in the class and SMGs were a part of the Scout class?

    I don't think so - I think people would gravitate to Scout because it has the weapons they want to use.

    And really - "rifles are there, as snipers"? No - they're not. First off, it's the Scout class, not the "sniper class" - and it has weapons that are not made for long-range sniping, and are tailor made for closer ranged combat.

    In the latest trailer, we got a glimpse of the Gewehr 98 with roller-coaster iron sights, so obviously there will be the ability to use iron sights on those rifles - but calling the class "Sniper" because there will be people using the class to do so is about as logical as calling the Assault class "the shotgun class" because they can use shotguns.

    And I never said that all-kit bolt-actions would ruin all other classes, nor did I say that it would RUIN the Scout class. I simply said that it would tread on the Scout class' turf (with the balance system the way it is, it definitely would) and that they would be an absolutely pointless addition to the game because barely anybody would use them over the weapons already available to other classes. I'll say it again as I've said it to you countless times - if nobody uses all-kit bolt-actions, how does that make the game more closely represent real World War 1? How does having all-kit weapons as an available option that barely anyone uses a worthwhile change to the game?

    I said it would UNDERMINE the Scout class because everyone else will have to option to use SMGs, LMGs, DMRs, Shotguns, AND bolt-actions at their will - whereas Scout would still only have the option to use bolt-actions.

    Lastly - Again - make a list of the similarities between the games.

    Frankly, I find you saying that movement speed and physics "make a game" completely ridiculous. There's so much more than that when it comes to making Battlefield the game that it is - and implying that Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 4 are "the same exact game" solely because the movement speed and physics are similar just, to be blunt, makes you seem stupid.

    Battlefront also had a similar movement speed and physics to BF4 - are we now going to say that Battlefront was a reskin of Battlefield 4? Because it's not, at all, in any way, shape, or form.

    And neither is Battlefield 1. The list of significant to even small changes is fairly vast. And there are changes that will make the game play out incredibly different compared to matches in BF4. I mean, for God's sake - Helicopters aren't even in the game anymore, nor are LAVs, MAA, or anything of that sort. That changes vehicular gameplay substantially (which seems to be something you're interested in). Not to mention guns are balanced completely differently, and an entire (and the most popular) class of weapons has been removed from the game, because ARs didn't exist during that time period.

    All of those changes will effect how differently BF1 plays to BF4, and all of those changes are in direct correlation to the game being set in the WW1 time period.

    And that's not to mention all the other changes - I mean, I'll list them again:

    No helicopters
    No LAVs
    No MAA
    No lock-ons whatsoever
    No rocket launchers
    No assault rifles
    No underbarrel attachments, lasers, target detector, range finder, silencers, etc, etc
    No thermal optics
    Plane speed and firepower are nowhere near what jets were in past games
    Nearly 95% less optics to choose from
    Main vehicles have their own classes
    Most tanks require more teamwork to be 100% effective
    Vehicle class players can self-heal vehicles without exiting the vehicle
    There's no auditory minimap spotting
    3D spotting has been changed so the person only stays spotted if you can see them
    3D spotting range is limited when certain weather occurs
    There will be "kit pickups"
    Dynamic weather system
    Behemoths
    There's no scope glint when it rains or is foggy
    You can vault over anything that's the height of your soldier
    Increased environmental destruction
    Defined class roles based on gadgets AND weaponry
    Medics get the repair tool
    Engineer has been replaced by Assault and is now focused on anti-vehicle play
    DMRs are a class-primary
    SMGs have random spread to prevent tap firing outside range
    Revamped melee system
    Melee weapons now have stats
    Bolt-actions are balanced entirely differently
    There will be NO all-kit weapons
    There are now mounted anti-aircraft guns
    There's bullet drag for all weapons now
    Small arms can damage planes
    Regular grenades can damage tanks
    The deploy screen is a real-time zoomed-out version of the game map
    You don't need to charge revives anymore
    The spawn times are much shorter
    CQL has no more ticket bleed and the "tickets" now accumulate
    There's no Commander Mode

    And that's just what I can list off the top of my head, I'd wager that there's even more changes. And some of those aren't minor changes, whether they have to do with the setting or not. A lot of those differences will change how the game plays out significantly compared to the more Modern BF titles. For instance - an entire plethora of Helicopter Pilots will be pretty much screwed in terms of their favorite vehicle - and people who hated helicopters in BF4 won't even have to deal with them in BF1. That's a very, very significant change, as choppers have been a hallmark asset of this franchise for the bulk of it's existence - and that's just ONE change.

    If the best you can do on similarities is "movement speed" and "physics" - I'm just going to ignore this part of the discussion, because you haven't proven to me at all how Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 4 are "the same game" because they have similar movement speed and physics. From where I (and several others with logic) stand, the games look very, very different, despite movement speed appearing to be similar to BF4.

    I mean seriously - do you even hear yourself - you just implied that a core reason as to why you think BF1 is a reskin of BF4 is because the soldiers move a similar speed and have similar animations. How does that diminish the fact that the games are significantly different in a ton of other aspects? Is movement speed really that important to you, that it literally makes or breaks the game for you?
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
  • Trokey66
    8168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Sno0bs wrote: »
    Just found this line in a video on Reddit : DICE employee Christofer Brandtieng, vehicle/ weapon animator states, "We're not recreating the past, we're taking that (WW1) as inspiration, and then we're trying to take this (BF1) into a modern perspective."

    Its said in the latest BF weapons video.

    Yeah, that pretty much translates to, 'Today's gamers can't handle the complexity and history of the authentic WWI experience, they are too dumb and can't sit still, so we said screw history and made lots of fast paced combat and fast firing weapons to sell more copies.'
    Serbian kills Austro-Hungarian Royal Prince, Austro-Hungarian empire declared war on Serbia, Europe picks sides, trenches are dug across vast swathes of the continent.

    Artillery barrages blow the hell out of each other for days then when soldiers go over the top, withering machine gun fire decimated them. (An entire British Regiment of over 300 men was decimated in 20 yards).

    This went on for some 3 years until the stalemate was eventually broken.

    How do you make a fun to play game with the 'battlefield formula' out of that?

    Also bare in mind, we have only seen ONE map in Alpha form, what else is coming?
  • B3ANTOWN__B3A5T
    4364 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    If Trump gets elected he needs to hire my man loq to build a wall of text across the mexican border
  • MarxistDictator
    4843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    OK, another 5000 word essay missing the point.

    Initially we didn't have assault, we had rifleman who became assault and tagged along his buddy medic who used pretty much the same gun. As a combat role assault is the standard rifleman in any game.

    There's your history lesson. So, you totally are wrong. In this game, rifles of the period are not used by standard infantry. We have auto loading rifles that were intended as airman weaponry, which by the late-war period (1918) time this game takes place were totally obsoleted by machine guns as aircraft engine development advanced to provide more powerful planes.

    So yeah. You totally are wrong.

    And no, the rifles are used in a marksmen role and thus can be argued to be totally different from conventional infantry rifles. As weapons used in a marksmen role have always either been different produced standards altogether or are only the most accurate of line production models. So yeah, there is a huge marked difference between a rifle used by a sniper and a rifle used by standard infantry. For instance, if they had the Canadians the Canadian sniper would use the Ross rifle while the infantry would use the Lee Enfield.

    You seem to be constantly backpedaling between 'rifles would be useless and unused!' and 'they would hurt scout' depending on how far along your block of incoherent thought is. Just an observation. How can they be useless and imbalanced at the same time?

    And yes, it is a very simple addition that improves the immersion for other players. You know, the ones who actually want WW1. Here's my question for you - why do you want to play this game when you have confessed to me before that you don't think WW1 would be fun? Why does that mean we can't improve the value of the title to those who would?

    And lol, nice screen stretch a stupid list of gadgets and guns that are different between each games as that's the definition of making a different game.

    When the foundation is the same, the game is the same too. The nuances of each are just peanuts.

    When I play BF1, I'm not going to notice a huge difference from how BF4 is structured, even if there are no MAVs or UCAVs the basis is the same. The structure is the same. Weapon function is the same beyond the addition of very simple mechanics like invert spread increase and first shot spread multiplier tacked on.

    But nope, according to you because we're not on Flood Zone any more we're in a totally different universe....Lol, fanboys.

    So try advancing beyond this point. And please keep the pointless ranting to a minimum and actually respond to what I post and the reasons behind them.
  • Trokey66
    8168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    OK, another 5000 word essay missing the point.

    Initially we didn't have assault, we had rifleman who became assault and tagged along his buddy medic who used pretty much the same gun. As a combat role assault is the standard rifleman in any game.

    There's your history lesson. So, you totally are wrong. In this game, rifles of the period are not used by standard infantry. We have auto loading rifles that were intended as airman weaponry, which by the late-war period (1918) time this game takes place were totally obsoleted by machine guns as aircraft engine development advanced to provide more powerful planes.

    So yeah. You totally are wrong.

    And no, the rifles are used in a marksmen role and thus can be argued to be totally different from conventional infantry rifles. As weapons used in a marksmen role have always either been different produced standards altogether or are only the most accurate of line production models. So yeah, there is a huge marked difference between a rifle used by a sniper and a rifle used by standard infantry.

    You seem to be constantly backpedaling between 'rifles would be useless and unused!' and 'they would hurt scout' depending on how far along your block of incoherent thought is. Just an observation. How can they be useless and imbalanced at the same time?

    And yes, it is a very simple addition that improves the immersion for other players. You know, the ones who actually want WW1. Here's my question for you - why do you want to play this game when you have confessed to me before that you don't think WW1 would be fun? Why does that mean we can't improve the value of the title to those who would?

    And lol, nice screen stretch a stupid list of gadgets and guns that are different between each games as that's the definition of making a different game.

    When the foundation is the same, the game is the same too. The nuances of each are just peanuts.

    When I play BF1, I'm not going to notice a huge difference from how BF4 is structured, even if there are no MAVs or UCAVs the basis is the same. The structure is the same. Weapon function is the same beyond the addition of very simple mechanics like invert spread decrease and first shot spread multiplier tacked on.

    But nope, according to you because we're not on Flood Zone any more we're in a totally different universe....Lol, fanboys.

    So try advancing beyond this point. And please keep the pointless ranting to a minimum and actually respond to what I post and the reasons behind them.

    What I got from all this is 'the next Battlefield game will be rubbish because it is basically a Battlefield game and I want to play a game that is different to a Battlefield game!'

    There are other games that are not Battlefield you know......
  • MarxistDictator
    4843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    And all I see is yet another person who doesn't even want to play WW1 saying 'stop wanting anything new I'm content to buy the game + season's pass for a rehash tyvm'

    shoo
  • WriteToRopox
    159 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Member
    dear trokey
    fun is subjective. i never thought that euro truck simulator could be fun, but it is. for me this casualized ww2 shooter marketed as ww1 shooter doesn't seem fun. i could be wrong, but my predictions for battlefront and hardline happened to be true, so i don't have much hope
  • MarxistDictator
    4843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    I don't get why no one would enjoy playing a skill based game of rifles. Or to even have that as an option. People can still have their autos and self loading semis. I would enjoy an infantry rifle myself and I'm sure others would even if it's not as effective. I'm no stranger to playing a much harder game.

    Is this literally the modern shooter player? Incapable of sitting still and only able to use bullet hose autos even if they totally destroy the supposed setting of the game?

    May as well add 25 years early STG44s to appeal to all those 'competitive' players too. No scrub left behind!
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 2016
    OK, another 5000 word essay missing the point.

    Initially we didn't have assault, we had rifleman who became assault and tagged along his buddy medic who used pretty much the same gun. As a combat role assault is the standard rifleman in any game.

    There's your history lesson. So, you totally are wrong. In this game, rifles of the period are not used by standard infantry. We have auto loading rifles that were intended as airman weaponry, which by the late-war period (1918) time this game takes place were totally obsoleted by machine guns as aircraft engine development advanced to provide more powerful planes.

    So yeah. You totally are wrong.

    And no, the rifles are used in a marksmen role and thus can be argued to be totally different from conventional infantry rifles. As weapons used in a marksmen role have always either been different produced standards altogether or are only the most accurate of line production models. So yeah, there is a huge marked difference between a rifle used by a sniper and a rifle used by standard infantry.

    You seem to be constantly backpedaling between 'rifles would be useless and unused!' and 'they would hurt scout' depending on how far along your block of incoherent thought is. Just an observation. How can they be useless and imbalanced at the same time?

    And yes, it is a very simple addition that improves the immersion for other players. You know, the ones who actually want WW1. Here's my question for you - why do you want to play this game when you have confessed to me before that you don't think WW1 would be fun? Why does that mean we can't improve the value of the title to those who would?

    And lol, nice screen stretch a stupid list of gadgets and guns that are different between each games as that's the definition of making a different game.

    When the foundation is the same, the game is the same too. The nuances of each are just peanuts.

    When I play BF1, I'm not going to notice a huge difference from how BF4 is structured, even if there are no MAVs or UCAVs the basis is the same. The structure is the same. Weapon function is the same beyond the addition of very simple mechanics like invert spread decrease and first shot spread multiplier tacked on.

    But nope, according to you because we're not on Flood Zone any more we're in a totally different universe....Lol, fanboys.

    So try advancing beyond this point. And please keep the pointless ranting to a minimum and actually respond to what I post and the reasons behind them.

    So Assault/Medic qualifies as the "standard infantry role" just because you say it does? Really? That's just about as logical as me saying "I prefer playing with bolt-action rifles, so Scout is the standard infantry role".

    Assault is not "standard infantry" in BF1. It's for blowing up tanks. The last game, again, that had an Assault class solely created for infantry combat was Battlefield 2, and that was over a decade ago. The primary role of the general class for the past 10+ years has been as a combat medic.

    "Initially" we didn't have rifleman. There's never been a "rifleman" class in the game, the closest we've gotten is the Assault class in the first 3 games, but Assault and Medic were merged to create what's known today (BF4) as just the Assault class, now known as Medic in BF1.

    Again - how does preferring where weapons are placed in terms of classes indicate what is "standard infantry"? Obviously, there is no "standard infantry" class in BF1 - they all have specified roles beyond just killing people. And again - the "standard issue" weapons of the eras have ALWAYS been restricted to being used in one class - WHY does it matter what class it's in?

    I'm wagering, again, because you don't like the Scout class. If not - why not just use the Scout class? What's the difference between using an iron-sights bolt-action in the Scout class, and using one in the Assault class? What's the difference in experience there? Will the rifle somehow not qualify as a bolt-action rifle with iron sights just because you're playing as a Scout?

    Bringing up "these weapons were meant for airmen" holds no grounds in any argument about this game because it's just that - a game. The most popular Assault Rifle in Battlefield 4 is a prototype weapon designed for Russian police forces. Bringing up what the real-world weapons were actually designed for doesn't prove anything in terms of these games.

    And no to you as well - because the rifles in the Scout class are not solely used in a Marksman role. One of the most widely used rifles out of all the gameplay I saw - the Russian 1895 TR - is a close-range rifle with iron sights. And, again - there's an iron sights version of the Gewehr 98, so we don't know which rifles can have iron sights or not, or if they're all able to use them.

    Again - bringing up how or what the weapons are produced for in real life holds no grounds in this game. Again, it's just a game - not a realistic representation of WW1 and everything about WW1.

    Saying bolt-actions are "only used in a marksman role" because there are people that use them in that way is about as logical as saying RPGs in BF4 were made for destroying aircraft because there are people that use it in that way.

    There is no difference between those iron sights bolt-action rifles being used by a Scout or an Assault player. Or do you really think that Assault players with bolt-action rifles wouldn't camp at longer ranges with them? Really? In a community where the average bolt-action accuracy per user is below 30%?

    And I didn't say they were imbalanced, or useless. I just said that people wouldn't use them because there's automatic weapons to use - and that it would UNDERMINE (not make useless) the scout class because everyone will have a larger selection of weapons, while scouts will still only be able to use bolt-action rifles.

    And obviously if I don't think a TRUE WW1 experience would be fun - that should be indicative of why I want to play this game. Because it's still a Battlefield title that takes liberties with the setting to make for a fun BATTLEFIELD experience - not a true-to-life WW1 experience. Just like every other game in the past has done. It's kind of dumb that you say BF1 isn't like WW1 at all, and then ask me why I want to play it if I don't think a true WW1 experience would be fun. That answers itself.

    And as for people who did want a true WW1 experience - obviously BF1 wasn't the game you wanted it to be, in any regard - all of you that feel this way about WW1 have made that expressly clear on multiple occasions. I could just as easily ask you - why do you want to make the game more accurately represent real-world WW1 despite the mass amounts of people who are fine with how the game is panning out thus far? We're essentially doing exactly what you're doing - advocating for a game that we want to play. We're not somehow "wrong" for doing it just because it doesn't match up with your opinions pertaining to the game.

    And no - it wasn't a "stupid list of gadgets and guns that are different every game". Tell me - when's the last time there was a BF game without helicopters? 2003? When's the last time there was a Battlefield game without Assault Rifles? Never? When's the last time there was a Battlefield game without rocket launchers? Never?

    When's the last time there were dedicated vehicle classes in the game? Or vaulting over walls? Or a BF game without an Engineer class? What about a BF game with a Conquest mode where tickets accumulated? Or where medics got the repair tool? Or no minimap spotting? or dynamic weather? or where a tank's treads and guns can be disabled by explosives?

    There are a ton of changes to Battlefield 1 that have never happened in any other BF title, and a lot of them happened because of the setting.

    Again - since when is "player movement" and "physics" the base of the game? Since when has Battlefield been defined by how it's players moved and what physics it's using?

    Because so far, again - those are the only similarities you've been able to list. Sorry, but those two similarities don't somehow thwart the huge list of differences between the two games.

    Battlefield 1 isn't Battlefield 4 in a WW1 skin just because player movement is similar - that just makes you sound dull.

    Lastly - I respond to listerally every little **** thing that you say. Literally every point that you make - I read and answer it separately. That's including this post and the last post I made in this thread. Go through your post and my post in chronological order and you'll see that I answered literally every point that you covered in your comment.

    I do this with everything I reply to in a debate - I never skip a point and I address everything. I have no idea where you see something I didn't respond to, or where I was "missing the point" - because I am and have been replying directly to what you've been saying, one paragraph at a time.
Sign In or Register to comment.