How can people be excited for this shit? the last 3 frostbite games have had EA's Rushed Shittery stamp of approval pasted on them, BF4 being the only one that fixed its shit after 6+ months. How will this game NOT feel rush burn?
>>340500952
No one cares, everyone saw WW1 and went nuts for reasons beyond me.
No shit, I was just hoping for BF5 and it taking place in modern day, but I guess I'll just keep with Squad and ARMA 3 with mods.
>>340502043
it is new territory, ill give it that
but given the past 3 fuckups, the hype is kinda undeserving
>>340502043
We have enough modern/alternate universe future shooters.
It's a nice change
Casuals saw that it was WW1 and were jizzing their pants over an actual game set in WW1 even though Verdun and others exist. They only play BF, COD, or Halo but they still know WW1 existed so they are excited that they are """finally""" getting a WW1 game even though it won't be anything like WW1 and will be shit. But they gobble that crap up as always.
3 is still great to play and 4 just needed some maintenance to be top tier.
Also, we need a WW1 shooter
>>340502167
Hardline and Battlefront wasn't from the same DICE that makes Battlefield
>>340502273
>it's a buzzword episode
>>340502273
>hurr durr I'm so enlightened durr muh casuls
Fuck off
>>340500952
No one is. I don't want my history butchered by people who think no one knows WW1 even happened.
>>340502170
Personal preference I suppose. But even out of the conflicts to choose, WW1 I have zero interest in, WW2 I have had enough of for multiple lifetimes, so I guess there's Vietnam, and Desert Storm, which I'm cool with because I played the fuck out of Desert Combat back in the day.
But whatever, they're doing it, people seem hyped for it, so whatever. I just hope we don't see Battlefield suddenly dick around with WW1 or other old as fuck wars for the next 10 years or whatever.
>>340502405
He's right though. Most people who play games don't know of shooters outside of COD or Battlefield. Hell, most of the time it seems like people who play Battlefield seem to have mistakenly walked into it hoping for COD.
>>340502417
That's why you should hope the game is a huge success; it'll spawn knockoffs and renew public interest. In the US, WWI is rarely ever talked about and barely taught in schools.
>>340502376
>>340502405
>hurr durr im gonna buy it curz its finnaly ww1!
I'm not a hardcore gamer but jesus you fuckheads look stupid, ww1 games exist you're only hoping on the bandwagon becausr you only play halo, cod, or bf. Im hating on this shit wreck of a looking game because i love history and it already looks like its going to shit all over that.
>>340502273
it's reach based.
Battlefield and cod and halo appeal to a hell of lot more than "core" gamers. people who buy 2 shooters and 2 sports games a year college and young working pro types who have multiple hobbies. i.e normies. Due to huge ad budgets and good brand association between franchises and developers, a Dice/Battlefield WW1 game has an implication of quality (regardless of end result, see: SW battlefront and recharging sniper rifles)
these people know about ww1 in a vauge historic sense - they knew it was a thing and maybe some of the major players but beyond that, eh. WW2 for this demo was never much better mind you - normies might know what D-day was (thanks Saving Private Ryan) but wouldn't know the day or most of what led up to it / other major battles & campaigns of the war.
Verdun is a greenlight game. The only hype its ever gotten was steam's algorithms and word of mouth. For a buggy, half done game with some serious design issues, the WOM has been fairly appropriate in its uptake.
Sure, BF1 multi will be a shitfest but I'm kind of hype for a single player trench charge / getting the shit shelled out of me
>bf4
>fixed
>>340500952
the trailer was cool i guess.
though kinda dumb at some points
>soldier running straight into mustard gas
lmao
>>340502621
I'm really hoping it's not only because I'd figure if BF1 falls on it's face then they'll just go back to modern warfare, but that's just me.
>>340502649
Oh, hush. It's literally the first AAA WWI game.
Tell us what's really bothering you about the game.
>>340502701
>I'm kind of hype for a single player trench charge getting the shit shelled out of me
You're going to be disappointed, Battlefield has literally never had good single player. Even if this was 10x better than all the other campaigns, it'd only move it up to being mediocre at best.
>>340502701
Except i hope you realize that's not what the game will be like and it'll be nothing like WW1. All the praise this game gets is because it's a WW1 game but no one seems to care that it isn't going to be like WW1. It's just a shit hype fest from people who only play BF, COD, or Halo.
>>340502810
>oh hush
What are you 13?
What bothers me about it is that it will be nothing like WW1 and that's the whole hype behind it.
>>340502898
>>340502967
So what, none of the fucking games have been anything like the actual thing. It's not a sim, it's a pretty casual shooter. It's only slightly more hardcore than COD and Counterstrike, but only a bit.
Do you really think modern wars play out at all like they do in BF3/4?
Do you think BF1942 was some really well researched and realistic take on WW2?
It won't be anymore or less realistic about WW1 than it has been about any other war it's taken as its theme.
>>340502649
>t-there are pleanty of WW1 gaems
Verdun and what else?
>I hate it because it sucks and I hate it
Christ you are the fucking cancer killing /v/
>>340502967
>What are you 13?
Hush your muff.
>muh accuracy
>muh realism
Here's the game for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePv7ZdWVjY4
>>340503184
Idk i don't play those fucking games retard. COD waw was actually decent for a ww2 shooter but cod2 realistic mods were the shit. I also play ro2 and rs to play actual war games. Like i said the shit you like is casual everybody plays shooters and that makes you butt mad for some reason. You're on a video game forum and yet you play cookie cutter games. Congrats. This game is being pegged as ww1 when it should be pegged as mr. Mcdick fuck same fps that have always existed games.
Don't act like its special or any different. Its going to be shit to people who don't enjoy generic crap fest fps games.
>>340503458
For talking a lot of shit about CoD, you type exactly like a stereotypical CoD player.
>>340503313
Go to google and look up ww1 games and eat a fat dick. I don't like it so far because it looks like non ww1 shit.
>>340503430
Lol that's the best you got? You cod/bf/halo kiddos are hilarious. Hopefully mummy will pay for it if you don't throw a fit anytime around it's release.
>>340502739
It is though, after dice sweden massive fuckup dice LA actually saved the game.
>>340503553
Why? You bf/cod/halo fags are all the same.
>hurr you liked one cod game?? You'rr trash because i like bf!
Like it has to be one or the other.
>>340503313
Not that guy, if we dont include mods for other games (including both BF1942 and BF2) which makes this list dozens:
Verdun
Darkest of Days (Half the game at least)
Toy Soldiers
That side scroller recently released (totally forgot the name)
Blue Max (great game)
Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun
The Entente: Battlefields World War I
1914 Shells of Fury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_I_video_games
Those are just ones I played, if you check the list theres dozens more. Also, as mentioned, mods can make this list in low 50's I would think.
>>340503764
Valiant Hearts, that's the one I forgot
>>340502273
>it won't be anything like WW1
This, for example they already confirmned that only the recon class will have bolt actions rifles and other classes have smg's and machineguns
>>340503852
Source? That would be enough to get me to start agreeing with the raging retard in the thread.
>>340503764
cont'
That all said, I would have been interested in a 'well' made WWI game, especially one with single player, but from what I've seen so far, and especially that it's being made by EA, has 100% turned me off. After ME3 (I am still mad over that) I vowed to never give EA games money again, and this will be no exception. I watch a lets play for the campaign and stick to my old copy of BF2 with mods.
>>340500952
>How can people be excited for this shit?
If people can get excited for Watchdogs 2 then people will be excited for this garbage.
>>340503984
>raging retard
Lol did you even watch the trailor?
>hip firing mgs
>no rifles in sight
>battle active blimps
>tear gas throwing canisters
>no trench warfare
But yeah it's totally gonna be like ww1!
>>340500952
Almost everyone except /v/ enjoyed every Battlefield game. Of course they look forward to this one.
>>340504174
Not buying it but that said, battle active blimps were used (they were essentially bombers as well as sort of floating gun batteries), as were throwable tear gas 'grenades,' and MOST of WWI's main combat wasn't in fact in trenches. A few large famous battles but the vast majority of combat (especially the combat NOT in Western Europe) was not so protracted to allow such huge defensive structures to be built. WWI suffers the same problem WWII happens where people think there was like 3 battles (cause those are the 3 they were taught in grammer school) and forget the vast, vast majority of combat. The Eastern front was *very* dynamic, with very little trench building (lines changed, and I dont me forward and back on an hourly basis), the Asian front (for example the famous failed landings at Galipoli essentially resembled Operation Overloard but over the course of months.
>>340504524
I know blimps were used but not the way they are depicted. And gas canisters were used but not typically like a grenade. And it definitely was mainly trench warfare. As in you sat on other sides of trenches. Obviously running out into open areas wasn't trench shit which is why so many were fucked. Also hip firing mgs and not seeing one rifle is still a big issue for me.
It looks like trash. The hype is for ww1 and it doesn't even have a ww1 feel to it watching the trailer.
I really like seeing the FPS setting cycle finally come full circle.
>>340503458
You're the one crying about how this casual ass shooter isn't going to properly represent WW1, like any COD or BF has shown a realistic version of any of them, why are you suddenly asshurt that WW1 is getting the same shaft that all the other 20th century wars got hit with?
And although RO2 and shit is better, you could be playing ARMA with mods, DCS, Steel Beasts, what have you. RO2 although better still does shit like kill feeds and plays on really small compact maps to maintain a quicker steady pace.
>>340504775
Most of WWI wasn't tench warfare though. It was mostly France, that's about it. This is the equivalent of thinking the only kind of WWII operation involved Airborne troops or Russian mad charges cause the only battles you know are Stalingrad, Overlord, Market Garden, and Bulge. Meanwhile there were a VAST array of combat operations and types of combat (including some trench warfare) in WWII. WWI is in the same boat, because Verdun Somme and Marne (and MAYBE a few, in the US at least, know of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which btw did not involve trench warfare and is famous as the first (modern) combat use of portable flame throwers) are the only major battles most people know, most of which involved heavy trench use. But look at Galopoli (no trenches), Flanders, Lorraine, German Spring Offensive, and perhaps most importantly Battle of Amiens which was the absolute end of Trench Warfare for the most part in history as it was the first major tank offensive. To simply go "To be WWI, there can only be trench warfare" is just ignorance to history and its the same reason why BF1 is the first "AAA" game to depict it cause the ex's at Dev's are just as ignorant to history as well and feel that trench warfare would be boring (yet ignore the most iconic mission of COD1 is the Russian offensive at Red Square which amounts to how a trench assault would, in a game, feel).
>>340502894
>Battlefield has literally never had good single player.
Bad Company 1 and 2 beg to differ.
>>340505340
If you thought those were good, there's not much anyone can do to help you.
>>340505416
You be contrary about universally praised games means literally nothing.
>>340505275
cont'
Plus, if you consider since, as usual this game is being made for American consumption and will feature them VERY heavily (as well as wanting to include technologies such as Tanks which were not introduced till very late in the war or SMG's and LMG's like the BAR) the nessesity of Trench warfare is very limited, as by 1917-18, trench warfare had more or less ended as the German military was running out of steam and facing internal rebellions and mutinies, larger than any in war history, and as such building and maintaining fortifications were more or less out of the cards. As such, the campaigns of 1917-18 resemble WWII in a greater capacity insofar as say, how Okinawa looked (a constant, but slog like advance) or Urban warfare akin to the battle of Berlin.
>>340505340
I mean they were 'good' by modern FPS standards, but they played more like a poor episode of the A-Team more than anything, right down to the Black Officer just days from retirement, the dorky tech guy, and such. The Story was awful and forgettable and the gameplay hap-hazard because the SP was more or less an afterthought. But compared to its competitors, yeah they were okay, but a pile of crap next to a bigger pile of crap, while appearing better, is still a pile of crap. And past performance of a developer, even within the context of a series, is the poorest indicator of future quality as, I would be absolutely stunned, if *any* of the writers and coders who worked on BC1-2 still work there.
>>340505461
Bad Company was when Battlefield started going bad. BF2 is the best in the series, and Bad Company was when they started trying to go after the COD audience and shitting things up.
>>340505518
Also for your edification, it will be the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which again did not involve Trench warfare, that will likely feature the most prominatantly in this game, as it was essentially the largest US Battle in History (1+ million *US* soldiers involved) and spawned the American attitude that the US "saved" Europe in WWI due to a comment made by Hindinburge after the fact that credited the US involvement in this battle to causing the end of the war (which completely ignored Scheer's so called "Death Sorte" and the resultant of which was the largest mutinies in history and more than that, caused the end of the war due to the Kaiser, who absolutely prided himself on his navy, being felt completely betrayed and leaving Germany for exile, thus ending the war.
>>340506049
I agree that BF2 is the best, but BF2142 was very fun too. Speaking of Verdun, I could play that map all day every day.
>>340500952
I find it funny how people say "DICE listened to the community and are giving us what we asked for" when WW1 was the least favoured setting for the next battlefield:
http://www.strawpoll.me/6459945/r
Anyone that says we wanted WW1 is just trying to jump on the 'Fuck Call of Duty' Bandwagon.
IT'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT, GOD!
YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
They should revisit Vietnam, so much iconic imagery and sounds. But i imagine theyd fuck that up too and probably make the gooks niggers
>>340500952
Of course it will be broken. Every Battlefield game has been broken at launch. It's been tradition since 1942.
I was excited for Battlefield 1 in principle, but when the stupid inaccuracies started piling up (like a fucking WWII gas mask on a British soldier, also missing the filter and hose because ?????) and I learned that everyone and their mother will get automatic weapons the hype died.
I honestly don't know if I'm going to get it or not; I think I'd rather another modern warfare setting over this game. What's the point of putting it in history if you're just going to throw everything that makes the period unique out of the window just because the contemporary shooter audience can't live without the comforts of modern technology?
