Fellow BF fans, don’t be afraid to make sew suggestions. Don’t let other scrubs shy you away from giving us new ideas. Don’t worry if they say we want military sim. They should know that we don’t want a military sim either.
You see, they are afraid of change, they got used to current game mechanics, they don’t want extra depth.
So they attack us. Saying we want real life, and start making extreme examples like we want to drink water in the game, boots gets stuck in mud , dirt gets in our eyes…etc.
Don’t lets them stop you. We want BF to keep evolving! to grow and add fresh new mechanics! New ways to fight and survive!
So what if 3D spotting is gone? SO what if Parachutes are gone? So what if unlimited sprint is gone? SO WHAT? you are so afraid of change, you want the game to revolve around what you want, no changes allowed? no new depths? no new challenges? HELP you all the time? Give you magical powers and never take it away?
Give change a chance! allow your self to face new ways to play, to learn new mechanics!
Lastly, ask your self, what happens if game developers stopped innovating?
Am all for changes and innovations, I think you can do to many at once and make the game unrecocnizable as a game from the same series, but otherwise am entirely okay with them.
What I’m not really okay with, is when people use “realism” as a reason to make changes. If people could use other reasonings to suggest the same changes, what are the gameplay pros of these changes? That’s fine with me.
For example “I want limited sprint because you can’t run forever in real life” or “I want limited sprint because I feel the game needs slower gameplay.” I’d still probably disagree with the idea, but one I can actually give gameplay reasons to support my thoughts where as the other one the only response is “it’s not a sim”
This thread is not about arguing any change or suggestion.
I made this thread to point out how some fans just oppose change. If you say you are with change as long it is a positive then you have my respect.
I never suggest something just cause it is real.
Here is a guide I follow when thinking of any change.
There is nothing black or white, its all a scale of several values:
1- What value/benefits does it add to gameplay? Pros vs Cons?
2- If implemented, what is the expected level of players frustrating to adjust to it?
3- How much does it change core gameplay model?
4- How much does it interfere with game balance?
5- How this suggestion affect the Authenticity Level desired by the developer?
6- How easy is it to code and develop?
You see, nothing is simple with game like BF. All ideas must be evaluated properly. We can make suggestion, and DICE can evaluate it.
So why are we able to sprint at all in game? It can’t be because we can sprint in real life, that would make BF a mil sim.
This mil sim logic if flawed. Ofcouse Fps based around war and a battlefield simulates military to some degree. And most ideas for changes don’t make it any more of a sim than it already is. So gtfo will this “it’s not a mil sim”
The answer to the last question is call of duty. And you are absolutely right[/quote]
Call of duty has both innovated a lot AND never been afraid to change things drastically. and sometimes it doesnt work in the most obvious ways.
people who say CoD doesnt change or innovate stopped playing when Mw2 was announced.
exactly this.
you completely missed the point. he wasnt arguing for or against sprint, he was comparing two ways to argue for a feature (here, sprinting, which is purely used as a hypothetical situation to illustrate his point). When you argue that you want a feature “for realism”, you dont make a real argument. You’re not qualifying what purpose it servers to improve the game.
except a lot of the ideas DO push them over more to the sim side. and youre trying to argue semantics about “mil sim” as a term when it already has an accepted definition that you’re conveniently ignoring.
Call of duty has both innovated a lot AND never been afraid to change things drastically. and sometimes it doesnt work in the most obvious ways.
people who say CoD doesnt change or innovate stopped playing when Mw2 was announced.
exactly this.
you completely missed the point. he wasnt arguing for or against sprint, he was comparing two ways to argue for a feature (here, sprinting, which is purely used as a hypothetical situation to illustrate his point). When you argue that you want a feature “for realism”, you dont make a real argument. You’re not qualifying what purpose it servers to improve the game.
except a lot of the ideas DO push them over more to the sim side. and youre trying to argue semantics about “mil sim” as a term when it already has an accepted definition that you’re conveniently ignoring.
@ Sir-Xer Actually you seemed to have missed BF1 helicopter’s point. You are fixated on why we (the community) would/should argue for changes. But he countered by reminding us to fixate on why Dice placed Sprint into the game in the first place, which likely has nothing to do with gameplay reasons.
And yes OP, I agree completely. What’s sad is that people on this forum are using the “it’s not a milsim” argument to oppose changes that they specifically would not like. I actually notice far more people using the “it’s not real life” argument solely for defending certain mechanics than I see people wanting change for realism’s sake. 3D spotting is a good example. People seem to be against removing it solely because “it’s not a milsim.” This also goes for most of the crutch/newbie/casual additions that have piled onto the franchise since after BF2. I think a lot of people are throwing around this anti milsim jargon to oppose the removal of these mechanics because they secretly want the game to be much more mindless and less strategic than BF has been in the past.
I wouldn’t mind if HC was modified to be more realistic in the sense of weapon and vehicle damage/HP. Stamina limits would be fine as well. Just don’t do it to the Classic preset. I’ve already played a more realistic BF back in 2005. It was a BFV mod and it kicked . Most of the cupcakes asking for more realism would get wrecked and cry it was too hard.
i didnt miss his point. he responded to another poster, and in that context, he made a stupid post.
He missed that poster’s point in the first place. my point is Bohunk’s point. I’m not missing BF1helicopter’s point, HE is missing Bohunk’s point.
that also isnt what he argued. he wasnt reminding us to fixate on why DICE placed sprint in the game. all he did was try to lampoon bohunk’s sprint logic without realizing that bohunk wasn’t arguing about WHY sprint was in the game or whether it should be. Bohunk was simply using FAKE sprint arguments to illustrate the difference between supporting your opinion with a real reason or just falling back to using realism as a crutch argument without mentioning how it impacts the gameplay. no one is arguing about sprint. it was merely an example. in turn, you missed Bohunk’s point too.
for the record though, sprint as it exists now was put in the game directly to alleviate the size of the maps as an on foot combatant. it blatantly has a gameplay reason.
I did not miss OP point. His first point was to encourage people not worry about other people calling their ideas mil sim ideas.
I’m also encouraging people to do the same. I explained why these people’s mil sim logic is flawed. I went on to remind people that we are not playing a lasertag fps. We are playing a fps that “simulates” a battlefield with military weapons. We also have medkits, repair tools, and suppression effects. If we didn’t have these things in BF and someone on here proposed them; we would get this very same "this is not a mil sim reply.
