since its historically wrong in so many ways it should be considered a steam punk shooter. tanks played almost no role in ww1 for example.
You are completely right!
I never noticed how much BF1 resembles Dishonored until you posted that there weren’t any tanks in WW1.
Howcome nobody else has noticed this yet?!?!?!?
smh
oh dear , i wish they hadn’t even opened up these bf1 forums till bf1 comes out … the amount of foolish supposition , stupidity and haters on here ( before they’ve even played it ) is mind boggling.
fyi steampunk is a sci fi genre that uses designs and technology inspired by 19th century steam machinery
i saw nothing in the info provided so far that coincides with your spurious claim
Nobody ever said it was going to be 100% a WW1 simulator. Its a ww1 themed battlefield game. As long as it is a blast to play, I could care less what anybody thinks it should be classified as. As far as I am concerned…Its a WW1 shooter/game.
Because there were tanks in WW1. They were in there infancy, but they were there.
+1
Vischa.Win15.exe has stopped working please reboot
They never marketed this game as a WW1 documentary, so why did you expect it to be that?
And FYI, battlefield has never gone for historical accuracy or realism. It takes a certain era and then build the game’s main pillars around it.
if you want 100% WW1 game, go play Verdun.
They produced thousands of tanks of each type during WW1, except for the A7V which was an experimental field test by the German Empire. Only 20 of them served in battle.
But yeah, I mean, I guess tanks had almost no role in the war. /sarcasm
the proportion between infantry and tanks look so much better. and it appears more authentic and less console arcadey
well you are right but this made me curious since i’ve always wondered what would steampunkish Ottoman Empire would look like
This is ridiculous.
By your logic, every single BF title ever released is a “steampunk” shooter because it doesn’t realistically depict exactly how the era of warfare portrayed in the game played out.
This statement is about as logical as those in other threads saying the game would be better if everyone was running around with bolt-actions, because it would “better depict the war”, instead of better depicting a BF game.
I’d rather have it steam punk then completely accurate. Where u can use nothing but bolt action fack dat. If your so hard up on accuracy play Verdun. Use common sense it would immediately go from most populated hyped game to an Indy audience. Dice would never allow this under any circumstance all ea care abouts is its cheddar they will not get that if it was 100 percent accurate.
you are a special kind of stupid.
You say its historically wrong but you’re wrong in saying that. The game will be authentic - everything you see in this game was present between 1914 -1918. Only the manner in which battles took place will be an alternate history and for a game, I don’t see that being an issue. If this was a simulator, then i’d understand but this is a game. You might as well make it biased and have the British win every round of conquest if you want it to be historically right. (I don’t know of any battles and their outcomes).
I hoping DICE adds some sort of FIFA add on for christmas day
lol.
but on point, tanks were involved and played a good part in the end of the war.
Your point being? As long as it’s balanced and has well designed maps I frankly don’t care if its historically accurate. I am interested in history. I read books, audio books, articles and documenentries. I play video games for enjoyment.
Lol…its hard to convey sarcasm in text, no tone or inflection of voice.