Remove ads

Battlefield 1: Because the Xbox One and New 3DS weren't enough gamer confusion

ThatZenoGuy said:
Battlefield 5: the quest for more money, is looking pretty good!

Won't buy it, heavens forbid!

But hey, flashy graphics and watered down gameplay, my...Well, not my favourite, but hey, some people like generic franchises which release every year... ;\

;( , , ,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lol "watered down gameplay"

Ah yes, I remember Battlefield 1942 with its complex destructible environ-

Oh wait no that's a much more modern game.

And Battlefield 1942 also had locational vehicle damage which allowed the crippling of t-

Wait no that's also a modern game?

And let's not forget that Battlefield 1942 had tons of complex class interactions and custo-

Wait, 1942 had none of that?

Like, just objectively speaking, Battlefield 1-and the modern Battlefield games in general-have much more complex gameplay than the original game. But we're just going to ignore all that I guess.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
Like, just objectively speaking, Battlefield 1-and the modern Battlefield games in general-have much more complex gameplay than the original game. But we're just going to ignore all that I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But of course. So much of the "wah, modern games are dumbed down" brigade seem to essentially be operating on nostalgia.

After all, they were younger when playing all those "so much better and harder" old games. And oh, new games don't have the misty goggles of nostalgia or the novelty of "I've never played a game like this before" on their side.
 
sapphirenebula said:
There does seem to be some outrage about hearing of female and black combatants. I've seen people complaining that seeing too many of them will break immersion, or be seen as an insult.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'Battlefield 1 is full of rare weapons and historical inaccuracy': That's cool, the game has to cater to what players want, not what is 'realistic'.
'Battlefield 1 features non-white and non-male combatants': HOW DARE YOU! This will break all immersion and realism!
 
Last edited:
Wow... *drools*

Too bad I won't be getting it on release. It's not the game's fault; I do not have confidence that my 3-year-old laptop could run BF1 smoothly, and it'll be a few years out before I would consider getting a new one.
 
So the impression I've been getting from this game is that it's way better to think of it as low-key diesel punk alt-history than actual World War 1. Is that accurate to anyone who's actually played it?

Which isn't really a problem, the core gameplay of the Battlefield games was never the problem. It was the modern/near-future military techno aesthetic dominating FPS's that sucked.
 
Last edited:
Reveen said:
So the impression I've been getting from this game is that it's way better to think of it as low-key diesel punk alt-history than actual World War 1. Is that accurate to anyone who's actually played it?

Which isn't really a problem, the core gameplay of the Battlefield games was never the problem. It was the modern/near-future military techno aesthetic dominating FPS's that was the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it's definitely diesel punk alt ww1.
 
I lol at the idea that people can't internalize that the game is not passing itself off as a simulationist trench zerger. So it cant possibly be...canon? ROFL.

Let's face it, if nerds had made this game the way they wanted it to be it would be Verdun or Red Orchestra and precisely no one would play it and no attention at all would be drawn to the First World War. Only people on the internet can manage to misleadingly pass off that this is what the majority of audiences want thanks to genre identification and infamous buzzwords like "Realism".

The punchline of the joke to me is that the game is not really that ridiculous or inaccurate in its portrayal of the war's battlefields. It's just not consistent with all those terrible histories the British wrote about the war to explain why it was so uniquely violent from previous wars and why they did so bad. Yes they used horses in the Middle East. They used them in the East too and even into the next world war and did not in fact stop using them the day after First Ypres. Semi-automatic rifles did exist before the Garand and oh yes, you should also know that Gallipoli was not the only battle the Turks fought.

I'm loving the effect this game is having on several consecutive generations of thought about the Great War.
 
Last edited:
DocHawkeye said:
I lol at the idea that people can't internalize that the game is not passing itself off as a simulationist trench zerger. So it cant possibly be...canon? ROFL.

Let's face it, if nerds had made this game the way they wanted it to be it would be Verdun or Red Orchestra and precisely no one would play it and no attention at all would be drawn to the First World War. Only people on the internet can manage to misleadingly pass off that this is what the majority of audiences want thanks to genre identification and infamous buzzwords like "Realism".

The punchline of the joke to me is that the game is not really that ridiculous or inaccurate in its portrayal of the war's battlefields. It's just not consistent with all those terrible histories the British wrote about the war to explain why it was so uniquely violent from previous wars and why they did so bad. Yes they used horses in the Middle East. They used them in the East too and even into the next world war and did not in fact stop using them the day after First Ypres. Semi-automatic rifles did exist before the Garand and oh yes, you should also know that Gallipoli was not the only battle the Turks fought.

I'm loving the effect this game is having on several consecutive generations of thought about the Great War.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As someone who thinks BF1 is bad at being a WWI game it is because the gameplay on foot is not good at evoking WWI. In the vehicles it is doing great at giving a different feel than previous battlefield games but the problem is when you aren't in a vehicle.

Defensive play is not rewarded enough. There are no mechanics to set up defensive points or weapons beyond mines and grenades. Call of Duty WWII games did a better job of it hilariously. You could carry around a heavy machine gun but only fire it when it was mounted or while prone. Also since the enemy would be running around with semi auto rifles or inaccurate smgs a lot of the time a heavy machine gun was useful at choke points. Let me set up magically appearing sandbags, let me mount machine guns wherever I want that somehow operate just fine with a crew of 1, let me go 'oh fuck' when a tank rolls over my defensive set up. I am not asking for realism I am asking for gameplay that feels different. If CoD could make gameplay work with mostly semi autos, bolt action rifles, and smgs than BF should be able to do it to.
 
You can sorta Bipod the support's LMG, but it's jank as fuck and really doesn't do much. The lack of fucking with the individual weapons with scopes and such really irks me, but that's moreso a problem with the beta.

What isn't is the fact the said Bipods are shit, as is the trip-mine. Flare gun is crapshoot as well, thought that may be me being shit at using them.
 
So, I've used the trip mine effectively once by putting it directly in front of a cap point in rush. Never after that tho.

Is there a way to aim where the wire goes to? Cause I couldn't find out how...
 
Havocfett said:
Yeah, it's definitely diesel punk alt ww1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Labels can make people feel in control when faced with the anxiety of knowing. The vaguer the label, the more easily the label creates a sense of knowing and truth.

The best part about BF1 not being a 'real' WWI game is all the non-western front shit that's in it. For decades people have believed you couldn't even theme a game on WWI and people even made boring Flanders Mud Simulators and their failure was seen to justify the belief. Just drop in some other theatres and whoops there's fun shit going on.

I wish they'd been brave enough to depreciate automatic weapons more (maybe they will be in full release? The base SMG isn't the starting one) but the WWI theme works well with the return to TTK greater than 0.05s and the wider range of tools and gadgets players can use. It's interesting in play in a way the last three BF games haven't been.

The lack of mounting (especially on the pickup Maxim) is pretty much unforgivable, though. The game is half snipers, there's no fear a mounted MG will be too dangerous.
 
Sublink said:
Labels can make people feel in control when faced with the anxiety of knowing. The vaguer the label, the more easily the label creates a sense of knowing and truth.

The best part about BF1 not being a 'real' WWI game is all the non-western front shit that's in it. For decades people have believed you couldn't even theme a game on WWI and people even made boring Flanders Mud Simulators and their failure was seen to justify the belief. Just drop in some other theatres and whoops there's fun shit going on.

I wish they'd been brave enough to depreciate automatic weapons more (maybe they will be in full release? The base SMG isn't the starting one) but the WWI theme works well with the return to TTK greater than 0.05s and the wider range of tools and gadgets players can use. It's interesting in play in a way the last three BF games haven't been.

The lack of mounting (especially on the pickup Maxim) is pretty much unforgivable, though. The game is half snipers, there's no fear a mounted MG will be too dangerous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What real WWI games are you talking about? The only one that actually involved on foot combat in WWI is Verdun. Verdun has been doing just fine as far as indie multiplayer only shooters go. I mean it is getting a ps4 release when most games in that category are dead 3 months after launch. The only other WWI games I can think off are Necrovision which is a bad Painkiller knock off where you fight german demons because reasons and Ironstorm which is set in the 50th year of WWI and uses that as an excuse of have a corridor shooter where the corridors are trenchs. Tell me of these multiple boring FLanders Mud Simulators cause I would love to know about more games set on the ground in WWI.
 
Luckily, nobody else does. I can only describe the covers; they were zero-budget euro games. One of them may have actually been a sniper game, but it advertised itself as a 'real' WWI game. It was boring and terrible.

The point is that focus is not the entirity of WWI. It doesn't matter if that's boring or wouldn't make a good AAA shooter in a major franchise, because there's all the rest of WWI to use. There's more fluid battles, irregular warfare, amphibious action, minor colonial wars, proxy wars, all kinds of stuff that fits a modern shooter mould better than 'stand in trench for two months, die of infection'. DICE did a good thing by expanding the perception of the war and especially the kind of combat it saw.

Even if it's obviously ahistorical and uses history only as a theme, it is a good thing to remind people that sad British films about mud are not all WWI was. That it's a better game than BF3, BF4 and BF Miami Vice helps, too. :)
 
Sublink said:
Luckily, nobody else does. I can only describe the covers; they were zero-budget euro games. One of them may have actually been a sniper game, but it advertised itself as a 'real' WWI game. It was boring and terrible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Zero budget games that no one remembers don't count against something.

The point is that focus is not the entirity of WWI. It doesn't matter if that's boring or wouldn't make a good AAA shooter in a major franchise, because there's all the rest of WWI to use. There's more fluid battles, irregular warfare, amphibious action, minor colonial wars, proxy wars, all kinds of stuff that fits a modern shooter mould better than 'stand in trench for two months, die of infection'. DICE did a good thing by expanding the perception of the war and especially the kind of combat it saw.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I haven't heard anyone in this thread badmouth Dice for showing the entire war. The comments against Dice have been them being too conservative at changing gameplay to match themes. They didn't have to do anything actually new they just had to steal from 10+ year old WW2 shooters more. Hilariously the game that started the whole battlefield series was an alt history WW1 shooter. Now some other game maker might use a single player campaign to inject more of the WW1 feel of the various fronts into the game. Dice is not one of those game makers. Dice can not into single player even when they pay someone else to do it.

Even if it's obviously ahistorical and uses history only as a theme, it is a good thing to remind people that sad British films about mud are not all WWI was. That it's a better game than BF3, BF4 and BF Miami Vice helps, too. :)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Dice has a BF problem of not pushing gameplay far enough outside of their comfort zone. BF:HL didn't go nearly far enough into cops and robbers and suffered for it. BF3 and BF4 were not nearly different enough from each other. Battlefront almost managed to be something different but most of it's failings were in going to close to the Battlefield gameplay and not enough of the battlefront gameplay. I can respect dice for doing WW1 but it doesn't save it from not doing enough. Though the fact that every other match I would spawn with no gun and had to quit and find a new server to fix it didn't help BF1 much.
 
Yeah, you're the only one upset about it not being more like what you want. I'm just trying to explain why people like it and why I think it's good in a broader sense. The lack of mounts and the cancer of snipers are problems theme wise, but there are a lot of successes.

Like holy cow, they made horses have a niche without it being complete bullshit like quads! The vehicles have actual play variations now! TTK isn't COD-short! Aside from snipers existing and thus immdiately distorting play, it's a fun game about WWI stuff.

Let's hope DICE can balance the ... Haha, yeah right. :V
 
Sublink said:
Labels can make people feel in control when faced with the anxiety of knowing. The vaguer the label, the more easily the label creates a sense of knowing and truth.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alternately, and more likely, you're spouting off (Incorrect) pithy quips without bothering to see why things are being said in the first place.

The best part about BF1 not being a 'real' WWI game is all the non-western front shit that's in it. For decades people have believed you couldn't even theme a game on WWI and people even made boring Flanders Mud Simulators and their failure was seen to justify the belief. Just drop in some other theatres and whoops there's fun shit going on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except that that's not the reason I called it a dieselpunk alt ww1, and I'd give it the same label if it was all about the trenches and wading through the Somme ingloriously. The label is because of the specific shortcuts they used to make a workable (and fun) game, shit like being able to Terminator every machinegun in the support class I've tried out so far, poison gas being a minor annoyance, and the Train seemingly being solely made of MG Cars (Unless there's an artillery version that I just haven't encountered yet). And every soldier in the setting has a case of anemia that shows up solely when they're throwing a grenade, but that's, like, endemic to games not named titanfall. It's like how the Battlefield games (And COD) set in the modern day are all Alt-Modern Days with far more cool toys that all have far fewer issues in the name of a more playable game.

Also, like, Verdun exists but someone else already explained that to you.

EDIT: Also, the Rocket Rifle, which evidently weighed, like, 90 pounds or some shit and is lugged around with minimal issue. At least they make you brace it.
 
Last edited:
Mortars will probably be broken for the same reason nades always get crippled; Griefing. DICE can't solve those kind of problems so I'm not too upset they aren't in there.

Twenty fucking years and developers still suck at indirect fire balance. I mean, dieselpunk indirect fire balance.
 
Last edited:
The thing that worries me most is the submachine guns. Something really needs to be done about them and it's annoying that they're as front and centre as they are.
 
Just make them have terrible range performance and crap damage and give people alternatives that aren't one hit kill weapons. What am I saying, then people would just snipe more with the 1911. :V

Hopefully the full list and full-game progression will give people more options but I think we should all be ready for Assault remain as it is. With luck we'll get a more close-in map and can see how it goes there. At least AT mines are legitimately hilarious regardless.
 
Sublink said:
Mortars will probably be broken for the same reason nades always get crippled; Griefing. DICE can't solve those kind of problems so I'm not too upset they aren't in there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So turning the game into a sniperfest is OK but mortars isn't? Also if anything should be degenerating play in Battlefield it should be this:

Like seriously I kind of assumed that the HMG nest would be a class, perhaps one of those elite classes, which was an interesting idea in it of itself.

Honestly if they were gonna go this route they should've taken a page from MOBAs and have bolt-action rifle dudes be the AI-controlled mooks that get slaughtered in job-lots, while the players get to play the cool stuff like HMGs and Tanks and Biplanes. That way you could have a proper large-scale war without forcing the players to be "nameless mook that charges HMG nest".

the atom said:
The thing that worries me most is the submachine guns. Something really needs to be done about them and it's annoying that they're as front and centre as they are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sublink said:
Just make them have terrible range performance and crap damage and give people alternatives that aren't one hit kill weapons. What am I saying, then people would just snipe more with the 1911. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While CoD 3's singleplayer was so bad I didn't even bother playing it past the first level, I liked the multiplayer a lot. Every gun killed in 1-3 shots, 1 shot if to the head, yet the classes with fully automatic weapons were no more overpowered than the classes with bolt-action rifles.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top