Gone back to BF1

2

Comments

  • Jokerdef
    56 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I just went back to BF1 last night and I don't imagine I'm coming back to BF5 at all.
    .
    There are no noticeable glitches - at all.
    It's noticeably slower, soldiers do not run as fast as they do in BF5, this is a big deal for me, it's only slight but it makes a huge difference. BF5 is too much like COD in this regard imo.
    The map design and modes feel very well planned out, I can strategically and carefully position myself  facing an objective knowing no enemy will randomly pop up behind me. In BF5 with people rushing all over the map with no apparent strategy and just hoping to run into people by running everywhere, well it has a massively different feel to the game. 
    The graphics are not a step down, they are equally as good.
    All the game modes are there, I played rush for hours. I can be certain that when I play later today, no modes will be removed without any given reason like constantly happens on BF5. This here really finished me for BF5.
    The lobbies are well populated, like extremely well populated - the same as if not more than what we see on BF5.
    No disappointments or endless delays, the game is solid and there's no constant nerfing and boosting, just a great game without any of the nonsense that goes on around BF5, none of it.
    .
    Now I can take BF seriously again, I can't recommend enough to others that they give it a try as well. 

    Ditto. Waaaayyy better game in every respect. The gunplay in BF V was better, but 5.2 completely destroyed it. What a shame.
  • Jokerdef
    56 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Was surprised to see how populated BF1 still was when I tried it a few days ago. Only loaded it up to test something but then I just kept playing. The difference in quality and gameplay is insane.

    It’s really not even close. The 2nd year of BFV with all its patches still won’t hold a candle to BF1. I honestly think DICE put their heart/soul into BF1. Not sure what their inspiration for BFV was?

    Can't say for certainty that even they knew what their inspiration for BFV was. Lack of soul is a good way to describe BFV, it's such a shallow, empty game.

    True. BF V is a mix of weird arcade like characters, strange costumes and now (after 5.2) childish gunplay. But then it has historic battlefields, historically (rather) accurate single player games, historic equipment and a kind of WW2 feel to it. But its just a mess of everything and good at nothing. And on top of all this the bugs, flaws, insanely stupid changes (yep 5.2 again) and firestorm that's a separate game in it's own that should not be in Battlefield (IMO) in the first place. 
    I gues it LOOKED like a good idea for making money this game, but the completed product is an utter flawed mess. And nothing like the previous BF games we so love to play.


  • R1ckyDaMan19
    554 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I went back to bf3 yesterday, apart from the limited server choice the game is better in every way apart from graphics which actually works in its favour because you can see stuff more clearly.
  • Loqtrall
    12417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 22
    I'm sorry, but I just find it funny that people here consider bf1 a great ww1 game and then turn around and insist BF5 has an identity crisis and doesn't know what it wants to be.

    BF1 is whollistically the most inaccurate and inauthentic portrayal of ww1 to exist. Its almost as if DICE attempted to amalgamate a ww1 and ww2 game together in one game and just call it a ww1 game. It's literally inaccurate and inauthentic in the exact same ways BF5 is in regards to its setting and "atmosphere", and in some ways its even moreso inaccurate and inauthentic then BF5.

    It's got immensely inaccurate uniforms that can't be customized, it's got black guys in the German army that can't be customized and are forced there by default, it's got weapons that were legitimately never used by anyone in the war ever, it's gameplay is dominated by the least used types of weapons in the war, it has maps that altered what kind of battle happened in those locations (like having an all out warfare experience with tanks and planes on Fao Fortress when in reality it was a raid where the Ottomans got bombed into submission and not one British soldier even got shot), it has weapon and vehicle skins covered in gold and engraved metals and painted colors, it has totokia/grappling hooks/etc for melee weapons, it had portable versions of humongous machine guns that took teams of people to use (mmgs in BF5 are at least SOMEWHAT more accurately and authentically handled), it has glaring inaccuracies in its war stories, etc, etc - the list goes on and on.

    And there are also things it does more egregiously than BF5 toward its setting - like vehicles not being faction locked so everyone and their mom are flying around in a Red Baron Fokker or a German tanker is rolling around In a French tank painted red white and blue. They also completely made up locations to have maps, like Amiens - where a battle never actually happened because British and Aussy troops held the Germans back at Villers-Brettanaux and prevented them from even entering the city.

    The only conclusion I can legitimately come to is that people within this community don't actually know jack squat about ww1 and thus don't actually care whether or not the game is faithful to its setting. They embrace their ignorance toward the subject merely to further their stance that this game actually provides an atmosphere that does its setting justice, and then turn around and claim BF5 doesn't know what it wants to be and has an identity crisis despite BF1 doing the exact same things. They seem to have this incredibly specific vision of ww2 and what it was all about and wanted the game to adhere to the realities of ww2 despite no other BF game in the history of the franchise doing that, including BF1.

    What does it stem from exactly? What about this game makes BF5 less ww2 than BF1 was ww1 in terms of atmosphere? Soldier customization? Actually having brighter colors that actually exist in real life and that world wars don't magically suck out of the world when they happen?

    It's a complete mystery to me. BF5 is just like any other BF game - over the top, inaccurate, inauthentic, over-dramatized, large scale, combined arms, fps experience. The atmosphere I got from the immensely inauthentic and inaccurate BF1 is essentially the exact same I get from BF5. But, then again, I'm not treating either of them like they're actual faithful representations of warfare and am not acting like any BF game had some semblance of that.
  • Loqtrall
    12417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You are running against the grain here and IMO missing the point. 

    I'd say its is reasonable well established that the popular view is that BFV is asinine and not as atmospheric. No-one here was alive during WW1 or WW2 so the benchmark for people's EXPECTATIONS is based on what they have experience in the media over lifetime......movies, documentaries etc.

    BF1 largely meets these expectations: trench warfare, tick, gas tick, etc etc. 
    BFV does NOT meet these expectations as the expectations are based around the large battles of WW2: Day, no tick, Stalingrad, no tick..... etc Slightly improved by Pacific (Iwo Jima etc)

    It's not about actual realism.,,,,its about whether a game meets a mass view of expectations and BFV has failed to deliver on MOST expectations, and BF1 delivers on many many more. 

    Your point is based on some sort 'faux academic' snobbery about the detailing in the game. Most people want what they have experienced before and they are not interested in all the details, just the wide brushstrokes. 

    Well then insisting BF5 lacks any and all ww2 atmosphere is absolutely nonsensical if you're basin it entirely on subjective viewpoints stemming from ww2 media that varies substantially from person to person.

    The game is either ww2 or its not. It isn't somehow less of a ww2 game because it doesn't feature *insert battle here*. Personal subjective viewpoints don't dictate what a ww2 atmosphere is, yet I see droves of people insist BF5 isn't ww2 at all and doesn't provide a ww2 atmosphere in the slightest.

    My point is how can BF5 be perceived like that when BF1 handled ww1 in essentially the exact same way?

    I could easily sit here and say:

    Tiger tanks? Check. Germans and British? Check. Ww2 locales? Check. Authentic weaponry? Check.

    What does that prove? Is that somehow less valid than someone insisting BF5 doesn't meet par because it doesn't have D-day?

    I mean, Ffs - this community isnt interested in details? There have been multiple threads across all social media since wake islands release criticizing how the Americans are attacking there. There have been threads on the BF subreddit critiquing COLLAR TABS on uniforms. There's plenty of people within this community who are interested in the details and bring them up every single chance they get.

    I'm not missing the point - I'm debating it. BF1s atmosphere in regards to ww1 is essentially on par with BF5s atmosphere to ww2, and I'd bet cold, hard cash that most who praise bf1 for its atmosphere know very little about the conflict and had seen very little about it in media before bf1 released, and thus don't care about it as much. I'm coming to that conclusion because when BF1 launched there were a myriad of community members more knowledgeable about ww1 who were pointing out a ton of inaccuracies and were upset about it - I even saw one guy bring up how the numbers on a sight were drawn in the wrong direction. And now people who are knowledgeable about ww2 and have preconceived notions about it based on films and video games alone are critiquing every little inaccuracy in this game as if it hasn't happened in past BF games.

    I mean, really - can you honestly sit there and tell me that if DDay and Stalingrad were in the game that you'd feel BF5 represents ww2s atmosphere more faithfully? Because it seems like you're insisting BF1 having portions of trenches on various maps and gas grenades makes it more atmospheric despite the rest of the game near whollistically going against what ww1 was.

    I just don't get it, as someone who is knowledgeable and passionate about both world wars and who tries to approach BF titles as objectively as possible - I don't get some overtly ww1 atmosphere from BF1, even compared to portrayals of it I'd seen in media and films before bf1, the game still doesn't compare and is outright different than the realities of the war, it's like it's portraying ww1 in an alternate universe - which is ironic because that's exactly what sort of criticisms this community has given to BF5.

    Imo it's absolute nonsense to expect a game to be developed around the subjective preconceived images of completely random people, and it's a relief that we finally got a ww2 shooter that isn't exactly like every other ww2 shooter that's ever been on the market. I could care less if it's against the grain when the grain is based entirely on personal opinion toward a video game. Bf1 handled its setting just as BF5 has, neither of them are remotely similar or authentic toward the real world conflicts they're using as a backdrop. At that point everyone is literally arguing over which was least inaccurate and inauthentic and subjective levels of acceptance toward inauthenticity and inaccuracy. My point is they're both inaccurate, they're both inauthentic, and they both have the same over the top, over dramatized, inauthentic atmosphere - arguing over which objectively did it better is moot because the games are either accurate and authentic or they're not, there is no in-between.
  • Loqtrall
    12417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 22
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You just continued in the same with the same intellectual minutae. I'm talking about the GENERAL view, the broad consensus and you bring into play a single post about a guy that didn't like a collar. I'm pleased you have that opinion. Of course there is a small minority that do care about the details. YOU think BFV is as WW2 and BF1 is to WW1. That's cool. It works for you. Sadly, for the majority (that are less interested in the minutae) there is something missing. In my opinion, the fact that the Pacific was so well regarded (pre TTK patch) was a function of the fact that for the first time people were getting what they expected.

    At the end of the day, the broad consensus is that BFV has missed the mark and BF1 did not. Whether you like the reasons why; however pathetic you find them(and you posts come across as full of intellectual snobbery, (but hey, I'm not perfect either ;-)), its the reality for a lot (the majority?) of players.  

    No, I pointed out how flawed the "general view" is in regards to what constitutes a ww2 "atmosphere"

    Sorry but in the real world, ww2 was an actual event, it actually happened, and there's actually history behind it. A ww2 "atmosphere" is not a subjective topic based on what people personally consider authentically ww2.

    People can feel ww2 was all about DDay, Stalingrad, and the Pacific - but it's not. It was a world war, not a handful of major battles.

    So insisting it has no ww2 atmosphere at all is absolute BS. A better argument or statement would be "it doesn't have the specific ww2 atmosphere I wanted it to have" - but that's not the argument people put forth at all, nor is it the argument people put forth when speaking about how BF1 nailed ww1s atmosphere so well. BF5 definitely and objectively does give off a ww2 atmosphere regardless of whether or not a uniform looks like some random guy wants it to look, or whether or not a D Day map is featured in the game.

    That's the point I brought up initially - you're responding to my argument, not the other way around. It makes no sense to insist BF1 did a ww1 atmosphere better than BF5 did ww2 because they're both so unlike the actual wars its not even funny.

    I mean really, the most you said about how BF1 nailed the ww1 atmosphere is it had trenches and gas. But there was a BLATANT complaint when BF1 came out that there WASN'T enough Trench warfare, and it's gas spam was incessantly complained about while simultaneously being portrayed in an immensely inauthentic fashion. Now you're calling them staples that make BF1 more atmospheric and thus more enjoyable when gas grenades are the only gas in the game and Trench warfare is lacking from more maps than its actually featured in.

    What else does BF1 do right in terms of atmosphere that BF5 doesn't? A friggin color pallette because supposedly all war is grainy and dark? Is that another completely imagined preconceived notion based on films and black and white documentaries?

    This has nothing to do with intellectualism, it has everything to do with people insisting BF1 was done better in terms of atmosphere because they have less exposure to what ww1 was compared to ww2. This is about people having preconceived notions as to what ww2 was like, and not having any in terms of ww1 and thus not caring at all if a ww1 game actually had a ww1 atmosphere - because BF1 doesn't. It plays, literally, like a ww2 game with a haphazard ww1 aesthetic slapped over it. There was simply not as much outrage over its atmosphere and inconsistencies as there is for BF5 because nobody actually cared about ww1 in this community. I know it for a fact, I was there from day one on these formus and read and posted in threads every single day.

    It blew my mind when BF5 came out and people were complaining up and down that it wasn't ww2 enough or ww2 at all, because we had just gone through 2 years of the least ww1-like ww1 game in existence and there wasn't even a murmor about it not being ww1 enough. People complained about having blacks on the German team in the beta to the extent DICE removed them before the launch of the game, but there was barely a dull roar over the uncustomizable blacks in several factions in BF1. People complain about inaccurate uniforms in BF5 with people running around in gas masks and rare gear, but didn't say a word about BF1 having unchangeable default uniforms that were covered head to toe in non standard and rarely used tacticool gear, like tbe US Support running around in an armored helmet that looks like a Knight's helm that was still in prototype phases after the war and was used by nobody. People complain all the time and have been since day 1 that the British uniforms don't look like standard issue British garb and aren't the right color, but didn't say squat about the Ottomans in BF1 wearing 1917 off duty officers uniforms made by the Germans in every map they're featured on. People have repeatedly brought up Americans attacking on Wake Island as a complaint, but didn't say anything about multiple battles in BF1 being completely made up.

    The hypocrisy of the community between games is what I'm talking about. You can't just chalk up what constitutes atmosphere to a sole, guesstimated reason as to why the majority of the community incessantly insist BF5 doesn't have a ww2 atmosphere and isn't a ww2 game and has an identity crisis. People have expressed myriad reasons as to why they feel that way, it doesn't just boil down to "iconic battles". All the minutae adds up to what many consider the "atmosphere" of the game and people bring up the small details and glaring inaccuracies all the time in this community and have been doing so since day 1. You can't boil down the consensus of the entire community when there blatantly isn't one, people dislike how this game approaches its setting for a whole list of different reasons.

    At the end of the day the majority simply don't care about how inauthentic and inaccurate BF1s atmosphere is (or any other BF game for that matter) and seem to care a hell of a lot more about BF5s being truer to the real thing or what they've come to expect from ww2 based on other, separate media - that much is apparent and has been since the damn reveal trailer dropped and everyone lost their minds over seeing a female, a katana, and a prosthetic arm.

    If BF5 missed the mark I have no discernable clue as to how BF1 didn't, and absolutely nobody has given me a legitimate reason to clarify how BF1 hit the mark. All I get, usually, are answers pointing out inauthentic and inaccurate aspects of BF5 that BF1 is also guilty of, thus leading me to the conclusion that people don't actually care about ww1 and couldn't actually tell me what BF1 had toward its atmosphere that BF5 lacks. Come on, Ffs - the only answer I got from you is insisting bf1 did it's atmosphere better because of trenches and gas, and BF5 didn't because it doesn't have major battles. How do those things even dictste overall atmosphere? Bf1 didn't even launch with any major ww1 battles outside of Suez, most of the major battles in the game now came well after launch via dlc, and multiple maps are based on completely fictional battles. What did BF1 have in terms of a ww1 atmosphere that BF5 doesn't have in terms of a ww2 atmosphere?

    Can anyone actually give me a straightforward and thought out answer, or will the retort forever be "because it wasn't exactly what we wanted"?
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6181 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I don't think people at this point complain about historical inaccuracy of BFV. It's all about gameplay and enjoyment. And it doesn't look like players like those both.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:

    No, I pointed out how flawed the "general view" is in regards to what constitutes a ww2 "atmosphere"

    Sorry but in the real world, ww2 was an actual event, it actually happened, and there's actually history behind it. A ww2 "atmosphere" is not a subjective topic based on what people personally consider authentically ww2.

    People can feel ww2 was all about DDay, Stalingrad, and the Pacific - but it's not. It was a world war, not a handful of major battles.

    So insisting it has no ww2 atmosphere at all is absolute BS. A better argument or statement would be "it doesn't have the specific ww2 atmosphere I wanted it to have" - but that's not the argument people put forth at all, nor is it the argument people put forth when speaking about how BF1 nailed ww1s atmosphere so well. BF5 definitely and objectively does give off a ww2 atmosphere regardless of whether or not a uniform looks like some random guy wants it to look, or whether or not a D Day map is featured in the game.

    That's the point I brought up initially - you're responding to my argument, not the other way around. It makes no sense to insist BF1 did a ww1 atmosphere better than BF5 did ww2 because they're both so unlike the actual wars its not even funny.

    I mean really, the most you said about how BF1 nailed the ww1 atmosphere is it had trenches and gas. But there was a BLATANT complaint when BF1 came out that there WASN'T enough Trench warfare, and it's gas spam was incessantly complained about while simultaneously being portrayed in an immensely inauthentic fashion. Now you're calling them staples that make BF1 more atmospheric and thus more enjoyable when gas grenades are the only gas in the game and Trench warfare is lacking from more maps than its actually featured in.

    What else does BF1 do right in terms of atmosphere that BF5 doesn't? A friggin color pallette because supposedly all war is grainy and dark? Is that another completely imagined preconceived notion based on films and black and white documentaries?

    This has nothing to do with intellectualism, it has everything to do with people insisting BF1 was done better in terms of atmosphere because they have less exposure to what ww1 was compared to ww2. This is about people having preconceived notions as to what ww2 was like, and not having any in terms of ww1 and thus not caring at all if a ww1 game actually had a ww1 atmosphere - because BF1 doesn't. It plays, literally, like a ww2 game with a haphazard ww1 aesthetic slapped over it. There was simply not as much outrage over its atmosphere and inconsistencies as there is for BF5 because nobody actually cared about ww1 in this community. I know it for a fact, I was there from day one on these formus and read and posted in threads every single day.

    It blew my mind when BF5 came out and people were complaining up and down that it wasn't ww2 enough or ww2 at all, because we had just gone through 2 years of the least ww1-like ww1 game in existence and there wasn't even a murmor about it not being ww1 enough. People complained about having blacks on the German team in the beta to the extent DICE removed them before the launch of the game, but there was barely a dull roar over the uncustomizable blacks in several factions in BF1. People complain about inaccurate uniforms in BF5 with people running around in gas masks and rare gear, but didn't say a word about BF1 having unchangeable default uniforms that were covered head to toe in non standard and rarely used tacticool gear, like tbe US Support running around in an armored helmet that looks like a Knight's helm that was still in prototype phases after the war and was used by nobody. People complain all the time and have been since day 1 that the British uniforms don't look like standard issue British garb and aren't the right color, but didn't say squat about the Ottomans in BF1 wearing 1917 off duty officers uniforms made by the Germans in every map they're featured on. People have repeatedly brought up Americans attacking on Wake Island as a complaint, but didn't say anything about multiple battles in BF1 being completely made up.

    The hypocrisy of the community between games is what I'm talking about. You can't just chalk up what constitutes atmosphere to a sole, guesstimated reason as to why the majority of the community incessantly insist BF5 doesn't have a ww2 atmosphere and isn't a ww2 game and has an identity crisis. People have expressed myriad reasons as to why they feel that way, it doesn't just boil down to "iconic battles". All the minutae adds up to what many consider the "atmosphere" of the game and people bring up the small details and glaring inaccuracies all the time in this community and have been doing so since day 1. You can't boil down the consensus of the entire community when there blatantly isn't one, people dislike how this game approaches its setting for a whole list of different reasons.

    At the end of the day the majority simply don't care about how inauthentic and inaccurate BF1s atmosphere is (or any other BF game for that matter) and seem to care a hell of a lot more about BF5s being truer to the real thing or what they've come to expect from ww2 based on other, separate media - that much is apparent and has been since the damn reveal trailer dropped and everyone lost their minds over seeing a female, a katana, and a prosthetic arm.

    If BF5 missed the mark I have no discernable clue as to how BF1 didn't, and absolutely nobody has given me a legitimate reason to clarify how BF1 hit the mark. All I get, usually, are answers pointing out inauthentic and inaccurate aspects of BF5 that BF1 is also guilty of, thus leading me to the conclusion that people don't actually care about ww1 and couldn't actually tell me what BF1 had toward its atmosphere that BF5 lacks. Come on, Ffs - the only answer I got from you is insisting bf1 did it's atmosphere better because of trenches and gas, and BF5 didn't because it doesn't have major battles. How do those things even dictste overall atmosphere? Bf1 didn't even launch with any major ww1 battles outside of Suez, most of the major battles in the game now came well after launch via dlc, and multiple maps are based on completely fictional battles. What did BF1 have in terms of a ww1 atmosphere that BF5 doesn't have in terms of a ww2 atmosphere?

    Can anyone actually give me a straightforward and thought out answer, or will the retort forever be "because it wasn't exactly what we wanted"?
    You seriously do not understand marketing and sales ... and should stop thinking in facts ... it is about perception and association.
    Those things give people the "feeling" they want.

    You know games where one person has to name some words that are related to a different word and the other has to guess the word?
    (like 30 seconds)

    Facts don't matter, you can even tell facts that are wrong, but the other person is still able to guess the word as long as you mention one of the "keywords" that is associated with the word.

    Things like WW1 and WW2 have some "keywords" and BF1 has them and BF V (before the Pacific) does not have them ... or has "words" that are not associated to WW2 for the majority of potential buyers ...

    "Facts" are irrelevant ...
  • Loqtrall
    12417 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You seriously do not understand marketing and sales ... and should stop thinking in facts ... it is about perception and association.
    Those things give people the "feeling" they want.

    You know games where one person has to name some words that are related to a different word and the other has to guess the word?
    (like 30 seconds)

    Facts don't matter, you can even tell facts that are wrong, but the other person is still able to guess the word as long as you mention one of the "keywords" that is associated with the word.

    Things like WW1 and WW2 have some "keywords" and BF1 has them and BF V (before the Pacific) does not have them ... or has "words" that are not associated to WW2 for the majority of potential buyers ...

    "Facts" are irrelevant ...

    And again, are you going to give me the "keywords" BF1 has in terms of atmosphere and that BF5 doesn't, or are you just going to sit there like everyone else in the community and insist BF5 just doesn't have whatever it is despite not being able to narrow down and list what that is for BF5, and vice versa for BF1?

    Because as of yet I've not gotten a straight answer despite asking multiple times. All I get in terms of a legit response boils down to "whatever it is, BF5 doesn't have it and BF1 did" with essential it zero explanation or expansion on what "it" is and a baseless claim that everyone shares the view for the exact same reasons.

    I'm not spouting off opinion here, I'm comparing both the game's objectively and am looking at how both games handled their settings compared to reality, objectively - and I don't see one single thing that BF1 had in that regard that BF5 doesn't. But I see plenty of things pertaining to atmosphere that BF1 suffers from which people complain incessantly about in BF5, and that they didn't complain about at all in BF1.

    Out of these hypothetically and entirely subjectively important "keywords", what is BF5 missing in terms of Ww2 That BF1 didn't miss in terms of ww1? I'd love to know, because I'm unaware at this point.
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    No - because you are too pedantic and caught up in your own argument to see the big picture. You pick on the specific example that I provided off the top of my head, when I was talking consistently the views being formed about the big picture. the overall view. This being shaped by personal experiences.

    Whether you like it or not people are free to come to their opinions based on their own realities and their own experiences. Just because they are less rich than yours does not invalidate their opinions or views. My point still stands. People had exceptations as to what the game would deliver and generally people have found BF1 to be a more atmospheric and immersive experience.  Just because you disagree does not invalidate their opinion. In fact you are the one swimming against the tide here. You are very much in the minority in forming the view that you have. 

    Sure, people are free to form and express their own opinions, but I'm equally as free to dispute their opinions when they seem to lack any objective logic whatsoever and shift rapidly between glaringly similar game releases.

    I never said anyone's opinions are invalid, I'm actively arguing against the opinions of others. If I felt they were invalid or worthless I wouldn't respond to them at all. I'm merely attempting to find out why a group of people see two fps games based on real world historical wars that are equally as unbelievable, inaccurate, inauthentic, unrealistic, and other the top as one another, and insist one is unacceptable and the other is great in terms of atmosphere when they're both completely and utterly unlike the wars they're portraying and do things "wrong" in essentially the exact same ways.

    So far nobody has given me a legitimate reason outside of "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", and nobody has even remotely expanded on how BF1 nailed its atmosphere and BF5 didn't. All I get is "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", when I ask how people came to that conclusion I get retorted with "BF1 nailed what people thought about ww1, BF5 didn't do the same for ww2", again not expanding on what "it" even is. And I can't seem to figure it out on my own, because any time I objectively compare the two games I come to the conclusion they're all "wrong" in the same ways, they're both unbelievable in terms of atmosphere, they both feel like any other large scale, combined arms BF game, of which I've played every single title in the franchise.

    Really, you're the only one who has even remotely given me a straightforward answer and even you admitted the reasons you gave were off the top of your head and adhered solely to what you perceive the majority to feel, but all you brought up was gas and trenches, one of which is portrayed unlike its role in ww1 and the other which is absent from most maps in the game to this day. Even the reasons you gave as to why BF5 lacks in terms of atmosphere (major and well known battles) makes no sense to me, as a ww2 atmosphere isn't dictated by whether or not a battle is well known.

    All I'm looking for is a well thought our and logical answer, and all I'm getting are people saying "Do you know nothing? Nobody agrees with you, the majority wants what they want". I could care less if people disagree with me, I'm not saying anyone isn't free to post their opinions or that what they think is invalid. Sheesh.
  • TEKNOCODE
    11591 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You seriously do not understand marketing and sales ... and should stop thinking in facts ... it is about perception and association.
    Those things give people the "feeling" they want.

    You know games where one person has to name some words that are related to a different word and the other has to guess the word?
    (like 30 seconds)

    Facts don't matter, you can even tell facts that are wrong, but the other person is still able to guess the word as long as you mention one of the "keywords" that is associated with the word.

    Things like WW1 and WW2 have some "keywords" and BF1 has them and BF V (before the Pacific) does not have them ... or has "words" that are not associated to WW2 for the majority of potential buyers ...

    "Facts" are irrelevant ...

    And again, are you going to give me the "keywords" BF1 has in terms of atmosphere and that BF5 doesn't, or are you just going to sit there like everyone else in the community and insist BF5 just doesn't have whatever it is despite not being able to narrow down and list what that is for BF5, and vice versa for BF1?

    Because as of yet I've not gotten a straight answer despite asking multiple times. All I get in terms of a legit response boils down to "whatever it is, BF5 doesn't have it and BF1 did" with essential it zero explanation or expansion on what "it" is and a baseless claim that everyone shares the view for the exact same reasons.

    I'm not spouting off opinion here, I'm comparing both the game's objectively and am looking at how both games handled their settings compared to reality, objectively - and I don't see one single thing that BF1 had in that regard that BF5 doesn't. But I see plenty of things pertaining to atmosphere that BF1 suffers from which people complain incessantly about in BF5, and that they didn't complain about at all in BF1.

    Out of these hypothetically and entirely subjectively important "keywords", what is BF5 missing in terms of Ww2 That BF1 didn't miss in terms of ww1? I'd love to know, because I'm unaware at this point.
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    No - because you are too pedantic and caught up in your own argument to see the big picture. You pick on the specific example that I provided off the top of my head, when I was talking consistently the views being formed about the big picture. the overall view. This being shaped by personal experiences.

    Whether you like it or not people are free to come to their opinions based on their own realities and their own experiences. Just because they are less rich than yours does not invalidate their opinions or views. My point still stands. People had exceptations as to what the game would deliver and generally people have found BF1 to be a more atmospheric and immersive experience.  Just because you disagree does not invalidate their opinion. In fact you are the one swimming against the tide here. You are very much in the minority in forming the view that you have. 

    Sure, people are free to form and express their own opinions, but I'm equally as free to dispute their opinions when they seem to lack any objective logic whatsoever and shift rapidly between glaringly similar game releases.

    I never said anyone's opinions are invalid, I'm actively arguing against the opinions of others. If I felt they were invalid or worthless I wouldn't respond to them at all. I'm merely attempting to find out why a group of people see two fps games based on real world historical wars that are equally as unbelievable, inaccurate, inauthentic, unrealistic, and other the top as one another, and insist one is unacceptable and the other is great in terms of atmosphere when they're both completely and utterly unlike the wars they're portraying and do things "wrong" in essentially the exact same ways.

    So far nobody has given me a legitimate reason outside of "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", and nobody has even remotely expanded on how BF1 nailed its atmosphere and BF5 didn't. All I get is "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", when I ask how people came to that conclusion I get retorted with "BF1 nailed what people thought about ww1, BF5 didn't do the same for ww2", again not expanding on what "it" even is. And I can't seem to figure it out on my own, because any time I objectively compare the two games I come to the conclusion they're all "wrong" in the same ways, they're both unbelievable in terms of atmosphere, they both feel like any other large scale, combined arms BF game, of which I've played every single title in the franchise.

    Really, you're the only one who has even remotely given me a straightforward answer and even you admitted the reasons you gave were off the top of your head and adhered solely to what you perceive the majority to feel, but all you brought up was gas and trenches, one of which is portrayed unlike its role in ww1 and the other which is absent from most maps in the game to this day. Even the reasons you gave as to why BF5 lacks in terms of atmosphere (major and well known battles) makes no sense to me, as a ww2 atmosphere isn't dictated by whether or not a battle is well known.

    All I'm looking for is a well thought our and logical answer, and all I'm getting are people saying "Do you know nothing? Nobody agrees with you, the majority wants what they want". I could care less if people disagree with me, I'm not saying anyone isn't free to post their opinions or that what they think is invalid. Sheesh.

    The only things that are inauthentic about bfv:

    - lack of a prosthetic,
    - lack of a kimono and
    - post five point oh changes to ttk.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You seriously do not understand marketing and sales ... and should stop thinking in facts ... it is about perception and association.
    Those things give people the "feeling" they want.

    You know games where one person has to name some words that are related to a different word and the other has to guess the word?
    (like 30 seconds)

    Facts don't matter, you can even tell facts that are wrong, but the other person is still able to guess the word as long as you mention one of the "keywords" that is associated with the word.

    Things like WW1 and WW2 have some "keywords" and BF1 has them and BF V (before the Pacific) does not have them ... or has "words" that are not associated to WW2 for the majority of potential buyers ...

    "Facts" are irrelevant ...

    And again, are you going to give me the "keywords" BF1 has in terms of atmosphere and that BF5 doesn't, or are you just going to sit there like everyone else in the community and insist BF5 just doesn't have whatever it is despite not being able to narrow down and list what that is for BF5, and vice versa for BF1?

    Because as of yet I've not gotten a straight answer despite asking multiple times. All I get in terms of a legit response boils down to "whatever it is, BF5 doesn't have it and BF1 did" with essential it zero explanation or expansion on what "it" is and a baseless claim that everyone shares the view for the exact same reasons.

    I'm not spouting off opinion here, I'm comparing both the game's objectively and am looking at how both games handled their settings compared to reality, objectively - and I don't see one single thing that BF1 had in that regard that BF5 doesn't. But I see plenty of things pertaining to atmosphere that BF1 suffers from which people complain incessantly about in BF5, and that they didn't complain about at all in BF1.

    Out of these hypothetically and entirely subjectively important "keywords", what is BF5 missing in terms of Ww2 That BF1 didn't miss in terms of ww1? I'd love to know, because I'm unaware at this point.
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    No - because you are too pedantic and caught up in your own argument to see the big picture. You pick on the specific example that I provided off the top of my head, when I was talking consistently the views being formed about the big picture. the overall view. This being shaped by personal experiences.

    Whether you like it or not people are free to come to their opinions based on their own realities and their own experiences. Just because they are less rich than yours does not invalidate their opinions or views. My point still stands. People had exceptations as to what the game would deliver and generally people have found BF1 to be a more atmospheric and immersive experience.  Just because you disagree does not invalidate their opinion. In fact you are the one swimming against the tide here. You are very much in the minority in forming the view that you have. 

    Sure, people are free to form and express their own opinions, but I'm equally as free to dispute their opinions when they seem to lack any objective logic whatsoever and shift rapidly between glaringly similar game releases.

    I never said anyone's opinions are invalid, I'm actively arguing against the opinions of others. If I felt they were invalid or worthless I wouldn't respond to them at all. I'm merely attempting to find out why a group of people see two fps games based on real world historical wars that are equally as unbelievable, inaccurate, inauthentic, unrealistic, and other the top as one another, and insist one is unacceptable and the other is great in terms of atmosphere when they're both completely and utterly unlike the wars they're portraying and do things "wrong" in essentially the exact same ways.

    So far nobody has given me a legitimate reason outside of "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", and nobody has even remotely expanded on how BF1 nailed its atmosphere and BF5 didn't. All I get is "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", when I ask how people came to that conclusion I get retorted with "BF1 nailed what people thought about ww1, BF5 didn't do the same for ww2", again not expanding on what "it" even is. And I can't seem to figure it out on my own, because any time I objectively compare the two games I come to the conclusion they're all "wrong" in the same ways, they're both unbelievable in terms of atmosphere, they both feel like any other large scale, combined arms BF game, of which I've played every single title in the franchise.

    Really, you're the only one who has even remotely given me a straightforward answer and even you admitted the reasons you gave were off the top of your head and adhered solely to what you perceive the majority to feel, but all you brought up was gas and trenches, one of which is portrayed unlike its role in ww1 and the other which is absent from most maps in the game to this day. Even the reasons you gave as to why BF5 lacks in terms of atmosphere (major and well known battles) makes no sense to me, as a ww2 atmosphere isn't dictated by whether or not a battle is well known.

    All I'm looking for is a well thought our and logical answer, and all I'm getting are people saying "Do you know nothing? Nobody agrees with you, the majority wants what they want". I could care less if people disagree with me, I'm not saying anyone isn't free to post their opinions or that what they think is invalid. Sheesh.
    You think like a fact obsessed scientist and not like an average potential buyer ...

    I am sure when I call just opne of the things that should not be in the game or that is in the game that shouldn't (to make it feel like WW1 / WW2 for the average buyer) you start throwing around with facts again and that 5 soldiers actually had/were like that ... so it is useless to do that ... you just don't understand marketing/sales and perception/association ...
  • trip1ex
    5183 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE said:
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    NLBartmaN wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You seriously do not understand marketing and sales ... and should stop thinking in facts ... it is about perception and association.
    Those things give people the "feeling" they want.

    You know games where one person has to name some words that are related to a different word and the other has to guess the word?
    (like 30 seconds)

    Facts don't matter, you can even tell facts that are wrong, but the other person is still able to guess the word as long as you mention one of the "keywords" that is associated with the word.

    Things like WW1 and WW2 have some "keywords" and BF1 has them and BF V (before the Pacific) does not have them ... or has "words" that are not associated to WW2 for the majority of potential buyers ...

    "Facts" are irrelevant ...

    And again, are you going to give me the "keywords" BF1 has in terms of atmosphere and that BF5 doesn't, or are you just going to sit there like everyone else in the community and insist BF5 just doesn't have whatever it is despite not being able to narrow down and list what that is for BF5, and vice versa for BF1?

    Because as of yet I've not gotten a straight answer despite asking multiple times. All I get in terms of a legit response boils down to "whatever it is, BF5 doesn't have it and BF1 did" with essential it zero explanation or expansion on what "it" is and a baseless claim that everyone shares the view for the exact same reasons.

    I'm not spouting off opinion here, I'm comparing both the game's objectively and am looking at how both games handled their settings compared to reality, objectively - and I don't see one single thing that BF1 had in that regard that BF5 doesn't. But I see plenty of things pertaining to atmosphere that BF1 suffers from which people complain incessantly about in BF5, and that they didn't complain about at all in BF1.

    Out of these hypothetically and entirely subjectively important "keywords", what is BF5 missing in terms of Ww2 That BF1 didn't miss in terms of ww1? I'd love to know, because I'm unaware at this point.
    HuwJarz wrote: »
    (Quote)
    No - because you are too pedantic and caught up in your own argument to see the big picture. You pick on the specific example that I provided off the top of my head, when I was talking consistently the views being formed about the big picture. the overall view. This being shaped by personal experiences.

    Whether you like it or not people are free to come to their opinions based on their own realities and their own experiences. Just because they are less rich than yours does not invalidate their opinions or views. My point still stands. People had exceptations as to what the game would deliver and generally people have found BF1 to be a more atmospheric and immersive experience.  Just because you disagree does not invalidate their opinion. In fact you are the one swimming against the tide here. You are very much in the minority in forming the view that you have. 

    Sure, people are free to form and express their own opinions, but I'm equally as free to dispute their opinions when they seem to lack any objective logic whatsoever and shift rapidly between glaringly similar game releases.

    I never said anyone's opinions are invalid, I'm actively arguing against the opinions of others. If I felt they were invalid or worthless I wouldn't respond to them at all. I'm merely attempting to find out why a group of people see two fps games based on real world historical wars that are equally as unbelievable, inaccurate, inauthentic, unrealistic, and other the top as one another, and insist one is unacceptable and the other is great in terms of atmosphere when they're both completely and utterly unlike the wars they're portraying and do things "wrong" in essentially the exact same ways.

    So far nobody has given me a legitimate reason outside of "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", and nobody has even remotely expanded on how BF1 nailed its atmosphere and BF5 didn't. All I get is "BF1 nailed it and BF5 didn't", when I ask how people came to that conclusion I get retorted with "BF1 nailed what people thought about ww1, BF5 didn't do the same for ww2", again not expanding on what "it" even is. And I can't seem to figure it out on my own, because any time I objectively compare the two games I come to the conclusion they're all "wrong" in the same ways, they're both unbelievable in terms of atmosphere, they both feel like any other large scale, combined arms BF game, of which I've played every single title in the franchise.

    Really, you're the only one who has even remotely given me a straightforward answer and even you admitted the reasons you gave were off the top of your head and adhered solely to what you perceive the majority to feel, but all you brought up was gas and trenches, one of which is portrayed unlike its role in ww1 and the other which is absent from most maps in the game to this day. Even the reasons you gave as to why BF5 lacks in terms of atmosphere (major and well known battles) makes no sense to me, as a ww2 atmosphere isn't dictated by whether or not a battle is well known.

    All I'm looking for is a well thought our and logical answer, and all I'm getting are people saying "Do you know nothing? Nobody agrees with you, the majority wants what they want". I could care less if people disagree with me, I'm not saying anyone isn't free to post their opinions or that what they think is invalid. Sheesh.

    The only things that are inauthentic about bfv:

    - lack of a prosthetic,
    - lack of a kimono and
    - post five point oh changes to ttk.
    you forgot respawning and playing on the same tiny map over and over.  And eating a bag of cocopuffs everytime you are almost dead to miraculous recover to perfect health.  

    also panning your head up/down left/right every time you get in a vehicle like your eyeballs are permanently frozen and mounted to a tripod controlled by a 5 yr old. 
  • FatherDed
    291 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 22
     In BF1 when we are battling it out over a flag things are chaotic, things blowing up, action everywhere. In BFV things never get this way, sometimes it seems relatively quiet and quite honestly boring.
    Are you playing mostly Conquest? I did for a long time and at times found it the same - just going from flag to flag. If you are, give Breakthrough a try, the battles over each flag are intense, it's more focused, there's a real sense of 2 sides fighting for control. I don't know if it is by design but it almost feels like the game and maps are made to be played in Breakthrough rather than conquest.
  • MogwaiWarrior
    967 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    FatherDed wrote: »
    (Quote)
    Are you playing mostly Conquest? I did for a long time and at times found it the same - just going from flag to flag. If you are, give Breakthrough a try, the battles over each flag are intense, it's more focused, there's a real sense of 2 sides fighting for control. I don't know if it is by design but it almost feels like the game and maps are made to be played in Breakthrough rather than conquest.

    I only play Breakthrough in BFV. Doesn’t hold a candle to BF1’s Operations.
Sign In or Register to comment.