The majority audience doesnt want it. BF has never been realistic. DICE has gone out of their way to make things more arcadey, both due to public demand and because that’s the game they want to make.
So where is this continuous effort to turn BF into a sim coming from?
I think it’s from BF2 gamers who pine for that game with each successive BF release, only to be disappointed.
And then they pine again as the cycle repeats itself.
BF2 was arguably more arcadey than BF3 and beyond.
endless nade spam, insane hipfire accuracy…
look at all that realism.
Because over time, gamers have merged the word authentic and realistic. When people hear authentic, they immediately think realistic, which has never been the case in the history of Battlefield. They use authentic time periods, authentic weapons, vehicles, etc, but they always take creative liberties to make the game fun and balanced (HUD, unlimited sprint, unlimited parachutes, etc) which ALWAYS removes itself from realism
Another thing to keep in mind is that Battlefield is THE MOST realistic war game on consoles that I can think of. For the console audience, there is no “go play Arma” argument. Battlefield’s identity is tied to its realism, even though it still has arcadey elements. The same was true of CoD back when CoD4 released. That game attracted an audience because it was the most realistic war game at the time.
thats really sad if true, because there is no universe in which BF is anything more than mildly realistic.
You have to remember that it’s all relative. Battlefield is miles more realistic than anything on the console market.
People see features like ballistics and realistic looking weapons and vehicles and then they think the game is a mil sim.
Also people have wild imaginations, which is probably why they say older titles where “realistic” because their brain filled in all the wrong blanks where the engine at the time couldn’t.
As long as there is a hardcore mode it will be fine
I agree with OP people are not using their heads. Not to mention if it was realistic that would require team work. We all know that isn’t a strong suit in this community.
Well I agree but…
With realistic some players also mean more hardcore or simple gameplaymechanic
Like squadleader only spawn
Like ammo refill on base for vehicles.
Realistic is a bad chosen word.
How would you describe a gameplay mechanic such as : Refill ammo on base for vehicles only?
as realistic, authentic, hardcore???
no, i have no problem with people asking for those things, even if i disagree with them.
there’s a lot of people who legitimately want BF to be a full sim.
Operation Flashpoint existed on consoles. Both Red River and Dragon Rising were available on the PS3 and 360… they received mixed reviews, though.
Loved those games. although battlefield and Operation flashpoint are different games they could learn from eachother.In operation flashpoint I would love to blow the bridge with c4 whiLe I do a smoking retreat to the evac chopper, but you couldn’t blow the bridge to fend of a search party…
In Battlefield I would like to see a little bit more squadcontrol in a singleplayer.
Even then both games are massivly different
I don’t think people want realism, they want authenticity translated to gameplay. For example, I think that if the Support Class has access to heavy machine guns, the type that would need a tripod, then they should basically have to lug it around like the mortar in BF3, and maybe they deploy it either prone or against a ledge, and maybe in this case the whole team could use it. I don’t want a lack of gameplay, I want rules to make gameplay more elaborate. Turning the WWI setting into another paint-by-the-numbers shooter seems like a waste. It’s not a mil-sim I want, its a shooter with real flavor to it.
“Real flavor” is impossibly vague.
Forcing support to deploy their machine gins would make them easentially useless without slowimg every other class down to a ceawl to compensate.
And for the record…there are and will be tons of people advocating for moving the game in a sim direction.
If some people looked closely at the repacking parachutes and magical defibrillators that resurrect the dead in BF3 and BF4, then they’d realize that BF games are anything but realistic.
I don’t mean light machine guns, I mean heavy ones that would be set up on a tripod, like a maxim gun. The types that in BF would usually be placed in a fixed position on the map and have infinite ammo. I don’t mean their primary weapons.
By flavor, I mean the setting influencing gameplay in a way that opens possibilities you wouldn’t find elsewhere. The elegant integration of gameplay and setting. Machine gun emplacements were a key feature of WWI warfare, so let the support class set up an emplacement. There’s potential for strategy there. Set up somewhere good and have a good defense for rush or place for supporting fire. Stay put too long and you’ll get sniped by a sniper. It’s still that rock-paper-scissors gameplay.
Maybe there’s a misunderstanding here. I just keep seeing people malign any complaints as wanting a mil-sim. Yeah, there’s plenty of that, but I don’t think its all without merit.
Yeah, like the M1918 BAR would be a primary weapon, but the M1895 “Potato Digger” would more-so be a deployable gadget that would be for both personal and teammate use alike.
That’s what the Support’s secondary gadgets should be like, anyways. Ammo as the primary gadgets and secondary gadgets that are defensive/area-of-denial (deployable machine guns, sandbag walls, AP and AT mines, whatnot).
what would be the point of giving them one of the (very few examples of) lmg, only for them to have a gadget thats a medium mg? what’s the point? that’s redundant.
machione guns were important due to the scale and the arms of the general soldier. those compromises are impossible to model without class limits which will never happen.