I’m seeing A LOT of complaints about the game being “unrealistic.” And I just have to ask… why? Why do you want a realistic WW1 game? It would have been incredibly boring,(subjective, but I feel this statement would hold true for most of the BF community) and would have played nothing like a Battlefield title. But ultimately you’re right, it is incredibly unrealistic. But is this a bad thing?
Now, is the game"Authentic"?, I think the answer is both yes, and no. Yes, because everything in the game is visually accurate. The game looks incredible, and everything seems to have been pulled straight from credible, historical references. However, the game also needs to be fun, so some creative liberties were taken with the behavior of the tanks and other vehicles. Sure, there are some players who would love it if it took them 30 minutes to putput across the battlefield in a small jeep in order to get to the action, but most people would not, it simply wouldn’t be fun.
And that’s really the main point here. The game is designed to be fun, first and foremost. call it “Casual” all you like, but that isn’t a bad thing. What we have is a shooter set in the past with modern gameplay principles applied to it. All that really matters is that it works, is balanced, and keeps you coming back for more.
I suggest watching this recent video from Levelcap. He makes some excellent points.
What people needs to understand is that NONE is asking for fully realistic simulator game: theres an huge difference between demanding a MORE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE game and a realistic game
None expects to play Battlefield with no vehicles, or with trench camping, or with no weapons variety etc etc… BUT its also important to understand that you cant pick a WW1 era and consider THE ONES AND ONLY WEAPONS of that time (semi/bolt rifles) to be the usual snipers/DMRs of modern BFs where they dont stand a chance when competing with fullauto kings
All they should do is to do some gameplay changes and balances so that semi/bolt rifles can be picked EVEN at short/medium range and not limited to sniper class, slow down a BIT vehicles and gameplay… easy like that
Comparing it to BF4 it could be like this:
Semi/bolt rifles being the new assault rifles/carabines available to all BUT support class
SMGs being the new PDWs
LMGs being LMGs but less accurate and heavier to carry while moving, more deadly when standing
Sniper class being the only class with the option to use zoomed optins on semi/bolt rifles
Vehicles being a LITTLE slower and harder/heavier to drive
Gameplay speed a LITTLE slower
That’s being realistic? That’s killing Battlefield features? That would make game uber boring? NO , its just little NATURAL changes due to the fact they picked WW1 era
When you guys and DICE will understand this, then everyone will be happy to play a PROPER WW1 Battlefield game
Funny you say that since DICE games havent been either since Bad Company 2 days. And dont bother post e-celebs videos like it add some gravitas to your opinion. It just proves you cant think for yourself and have to shill for famous casuals.
The whole retro futurism wouldnt be an issue if DICE would learn how to balance a game but I can guarantee you it will 99% people running with smgs 0.5% people in a tank and 0.5% camping in spawn with a 1000x magnified sniper.
The changes you’ve outlined aren’t bad, but they are also so small, I don’t think they are what would make it a “proper” WW1 Battlefield game. In fact I think it’s already a “proper” WW1 Battlefield game.
How is it a proper WW1 game already? What main WW1 aspects does it have?
When i think of WW1 i think of bolt rifles being the one and only weapon on the battlefield both at long range or close range with that mounted bayonet fighting other people with same kind of weapon, i think of heavy first ever tanks moving slow as causing heavy dmg and requiring lots of people to take down… when i see BF1 gameplay its fullauto weps all around run n spraying, super fast vehicles like they are some sports cars etc etc
So i repeat, how is it a proper WW1 game already?
And how are my small changes? They are not gamechanging cause people wouldnt welcome a serious change in Battlefield (as you can see from all those DICE whiteknights around) BUT at least they promote the semi/bolt rifles usage and they slow down the game a bit because seriously, at the moment, its just seems a big WW1 expansion to BF3/4 (like Vietnam was for BC2)… not a new Battlefield game
But that’s where you are wrong Bolt rifles were not the only weapons of WWI at long/medium or close range there was a wider diversity of WWI weapons than people think, heavy tanks were slow yes but there were also light tanks and medium tanks both faster than heavy tanks. Armoured cars (Rolls Royce had one in WWI) infinitely faster than tanks.
As WWI progressed so did technology new guns/gadgets and vehicles all appeared (there was body armour like the nights of old had) there was a Semi Auto shotgun (there were incendiary/explosive rounds) horses were used and will be in the multilayer side of this game.
WWI was fought all around the world from France to Africa/middle east and so on,
To assume that WWI was slow and 1 dimensional with just trenches/mud and only 1 type of weapon 1 type of vehicle and only in one area. is insane at best.
So what you think of WWI was very different to what actually happened.
Did both of you actually read my first post? I WANT weapons diversity, i DO NOT WANT semi/bolt rifles only game BUT i WANT them to be somehow THE WEAPON OF CHOICE like assault rifles/carabines were in recent BFs… but thats not the case in BF1 because DICE is building a game where THE REAL WW1 weapons are just the usual useless snipers we are used too
Is that asking for a realistic game? No
Is that asking for a more history accurate game? Yes
Will game be as fun if even us “WW1 lovers” are able to pick what we’d like to pick in a WW1 game without being destoryed by default by some uncommon fullauto weps? Yes it will because everyone will play what they want without limiting eachother
Seriously is it so hard to understand? Or yall dont even bother to read and start replying with default answers that have nothing to do with what we talking about? Because thats what it seems when you ask around for bolt rifles to have bigger role than just being the useless snipers camping far away
I know what i want, 3 hits kill for semi rifles and 1 hit kill for bolt action rifles at every range for head and chest and available for all classes… that would def make semi/bolt rifles more viable
But i am sure yall who are too in love with current gameplay wouldnt like it and wil lstart to cry when people wil lstart to OHK you so i hope DICE can find another solution to make them the weapon of choice, that’s why “somehow”
You could reply go play “Hardcore”… sure i could but we both know there arent many Hardcore servers for all modes plus id like to have the other features from normal mode like minimap, spotting, no friendly fire, etc
And from the videos you can see snipers got bolt action rifles, medics got semi auto rifles… both of them stand no chance in short/medium range as you probably saw
If every class had the bolt action rifles, what would be the point in classes?
And what does the damage model have to do with anything? It seems you’re unaware that I have always advocated for BF having higher damage on weapons. But this is irrelevant to the conversation.
Graphically the game looks great. The dirigible airship destruction is gorgeous. But the notion of WWI soldiers all having machine guns is ludicrous. It’s not realistic (which I don’t expect since this is a game) but it’s not authentic either.
As a game, it may be fun. But as far as immersion, if I wanted fantasy I would play Overwatch instead.
Classes got different gadgets and tools that changes they way you play them, not just the weapons they are given
You asked me for a solution and i gave you one: whats better to promote bolt/semi rifle usage than making them available to all classes with iron sights? (which is what actually happened in WW1)
Also dmg model is very important cause in a close combat if you have the chance to OHK an enemy with single shot weapon you will have no problem to go close combat… if you know you dont stand a chance even if you hit before you die then why bother to go vs fullauto enemy in close combat? Better stay far and go for headshot or kill with 2 hits anyway
And yes i am not very active on forums, this is first time i am so often on BF forums cause i finally got reasons to after 6 years
Not gonna lie - this sounds horrible, and I absolutely love and am dedicated to all things bolt-action in Battlefield, and literally ONLY play in CQB with them.
I was in the middle of making a video on this when I found out Levelcap made one, too. Still rendering mine anyway since I feel like I brought up some points that he may have overlooked
Edit: However, I won’t post it here because I feel like it crosses a line that I don’t want to cross for self-promotion
Yeah, there’s a huge distinction between the two terms that a lot of people either can’t grasp even though they’ve read/seen the difference, or don’t even know about.
I wish a huge “NOTICE” was plastered at the top of every thread that mentions “Realism” in the OP.
