I personally don’t mind the mobile LMG bit, as that has always been something that has been unrealistic in BF games. But I really hope the army composition is heavily based on bolt action iron sight rifles, and other single shot rifles, as opposed to automatics. That is a case of authenticity, and not realism. For instance, it is entirely realistic for a group of soldiers to be able to all use SMG’s, LMG’s, and primitive AR’s. But it is entirely unauthentic for them to do so in the context of this game. Tech and availability needs to play a heavy role in the factions’ composition or this game is going to fall flat for many of us.
Talking about flawed logic, shall we discuss the fact that someone wants to turn BF1 into a simulator and not an online FPS? How can the game work as a proper multiplayer experience if there are only two guns for each faction and no attachments? In real life everyone had standard issue rifles, people didn’t have different attachments…how rubbish would BF1 be if there were no attachments or the like?
All this authenticity and realism nonsense- everyone (you) treating it like it’s either completely realistic or not at all: there has to be a middle ground. Yes, we want authentic weapons and vehicles (and that’s what we’re getting), but no, we don’t need them to perform, be used as commonly, or handle exactly how they did.
If that is what you want however, go enjoy your trench-camping-only-ironsights-rifle-sniping-no-gadgets-boring-war-simulator-4000. Yeah, what a fun game that is. Good day Sir.
I really don’t understand this logic. I would like to think I am reaching for a middle ground, not a war simulator. I think a lot of people who throw around that term really don’t understand how far off a simulator is from the Battlefield many of us are asking for. I don’t understand how it’s wrong to want extremely limited selections due to authenticity. Why must a “proper multiplayer experience” tick off a bunch of check boxes by having dozens of guns and attachments? Why are guns and attachments seen as implicitly “fun” to you? That is entirely subjective, and to me, the volume of tools in the game has absolutely no bearing on the fun factor, just the authenticity of those tools. Of course they don’t have to behave completely realistically (simulator), but it should at least FEEL LIKE YOU ARE IN WW1. Picking and augmenting your class with a huge variety of experimental technology does not feel like that. Most oldschool BF players hated BF4 specifically because of how bloated it was. Why are gamers these days so concerned with ticking off check boxes for content that does not add value to the game?
I also don’t get the obsession with sights and attachments. I think what some people want is just the same old shooter experience a reskinned set of weapons still functioning as the M16 and everything else seen in modern shooters, and blaming any objection to that on a slavish devotion to realism. Battlefield has bullet drop and doesn’t use hitscans, so why can’t there be other concessions to authenticity for the sake of a little challenge? Challenge is a real source of fun in a game, and you can’t have challenge without some kind of restriction, and authenticity, realism, or whatever can be a source of that.
