Being we have only seen maybe 10% of what might be in this game through the trailers and the Alpha test so far, I don’t understand how you can call Dice lazy. Looks like an extremely ambitious project to me.
I am willing to give this game a chance but the changes they made to conquest ticket bleed along with gun spread mechanics does not give me great hope. Plus the novelty of ww1 would probably wear thin after a month or two. I can’t imagine people playing this game for thousands of hours like they did in bf3/bf4. All I can hope is bf5 returns to form. Taking the best elements of newer games (better textures, no blue tint, 60hz tick rate) along with the best elements of older games (vehicle dynamics, gun handling and map design) to make a solid game. Probably hoping for too much from dice tho.
i want OP to take some business economic classes , cause he does not understand what impact BF1 flopping will have on the next BF…
I
quite a lot actually. ea milks game studios (such as dice) for money, and when not enough money is generated, they just close them down
If bf1 is a smashing success this means future bf games will be even more casualized. I want a return to form of bf3 but with better graphics and no suppression.
Well - you can’t judge in a way that says “where’s trench warfare, or artillery?” because we haven’t even seen all of the game yet. For all you know, there could be a map focused primarily on trench warfare and No Man’s Land, and in almost every trailer there has been some form of artillery present, so we don’t know if or how it will be implemented in multiplayer or not.
Judging the entire game solely off of a closed alpha doesn’t get anyone anywhere. It’d be like judging the entirety of BF3 based solely off of the Metro open beta, when most of the maps in that game didn’t pan out like Metro at all.
If I were you, I’d reserve my judgments about the full game, for when the full game actually comes out.
Its not weather the novelty of WW1 wears of or not that will keep people playing, its weather the game is fun or not. I was lucky enough to participate in the Alpha test, and I can honestly say that the game is an absolute hoot! It looked, sounded, and felt like WW1, at least to me it did, but played like the Battlefield we all love. I had sooo much fun. I can hardly wait for the Beta, I actually miss playing the game…lol I’m going through withdrawals and that’s no lie.
+1
Smfh…you need to do some more research on BF1 then mate. BF1 is FAR less casualized than BF3 was. The gunplay mechanics alone speak to that. AN-94 in BF3 was a God Tier weapon. I regularly out sniped snipers with that gun. And that’s just one gun. There were MANY other guns in BF3 that were completely OP. Were you not around for the USAS-12 with Frags debacle in BF3??
you have absolutely no idea what is and isn’t casual, just get lost already. rng weapon spread is casual, and it only exists in bf4/bf1
Reality of the game not lasting long video.
…RNG existed in all BF’s…
You can be biased if you want. Doesn’t matter to anybody else.
bf3 didn’t have this much random spread, nor weapons with tons of horizontal recoil. it wasn’t as terrible as bf4/bf1 where it’s absolutely abysmal
I get the message that people send and i share similar concerns but i have a gripe with people misusing words realism, authenticity and skill when what they mean is strategy, tactics, teamplay and sandbox.
@Red_Spider :
Ah the propaganda, how authentic. (On the other hand did you even watch the videos you posted? Because the first one seems to point out that bf1 is bloody inauthentic if anything. Maybe you’re sending a hidden message?).
“I want BF1 to flop”
Nice b8 m8.
skill is not only tactics, but also the gunplay aspect, which in case of bf1 seems weak af, with dreadful rnb and overpowered melee.ticketbleed removal also heavily favors rushing objectives and constantly redeploying
i’ve also said that i want the game to be authentic (not realistic), as in atleast use the proper firearms for the time. before some fanboy jumps down my throat, that doesn’t mean removing automatic weapons. just making them more situational and less abundant
Yes, all this think that EA/DICE would then do something new again 555 they will go back to their most successful game and do the mechanic of that again in some form which is BF4. So it would have more spotting not less.
Link to section: You are correct.You are correct.
And that’s why accuracy trumps realism when it comes to gameplay considerations for video games.
I’m confused…
Less random spread (easier to aim and hit target) is skillful yet more random spread (harder to aim and hit target) is less skillful?
If a player is bad, they are bad, if a player is truly good then increased random spread won’t matter. If however, they just THINK they are ‘good’ then I can see why this would be of concern.
Whatever the mechanic, the ‘cream will always rise to the top’.
You’re not confused. Different gamers have different definitions as to what constitutes “skillful”.