Battlefield 1 gameplay footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0QXFtIRSU0
ENJOY
>niggers in WW1
Every time.
>>342352243
>ENJOY
Enjoy what? It looks like complete garbage.
>>342352243
>ENJOY
No thanks, marketer.
>>342352243
Well im going to buy Call of duty this year, fuck DICE, no russian, france, japan, etc. Just nigger and strong womans. 80 $ for call of duty 2 games, 2 multyplayers a nice deal. Plus EA it's going retard again with 15 $ 4 maps.
>BLACK Australian soldiers
As an Aussie this is extremely offensive. Fuck DICE
I'm not gonna buy this game anyway so I can't say "I won't buy it if", but I would be really disappointed if they don't make reference to the Christmas ceasefire somewhere in this game.
Why the fuck is everyone a black guy when WW1 was 99% white male?
Anybody still care about this after they threw historical accuracy out the window?
>>342353623
Because Swedish devs.
>>342352243
the ragdoll physics of the explosions at 2:00 are fucking great
>typical slow consolified shooter witth ironsights
No thanks.
At least it looks nice.
>>342354035
why do pc nerds love twitch shooters so much? they're not even fun
>>342352243
>every class except recon could have SMG
>there could be 64 people running around with SMGs
>in WW1 game
Fuck it I'll rather buy Verdun
Isnt this the fucking E3 game footage, this is old as shit.
>>342353454
>I feel obliged to buy at least one call of duty or bf a year
You're talking as if the CoD deal is /any/ better.
>>342354103
>they're not even fun
Quakecon's an actual thing for a reason, you know.
>>342354103
>>342354214
if they were fun everyone would play it, it's made for autists who think being autistic is fun
>>342354103
>not prefering fast paced shooters that push you to the limit
>prefering this casual garbage
Mom! grab the camera I'm trolling 4chanz
>>342354103
Because summer fags are still trying to fit into muh /v/ culture
>>342354192
Well at least with that you're getting two games.
>>342354341
they are really fun once you become decent at them
the modern player is too scared to try out twitch shooters because they'll know they'll get rekt
the modern player gives up within minutes
>>342352243
oh boy naother battlefield thread i better post it quick
>WW1
>90% of the players are running around with smgs
>niggers everywhere
I'll pass
>obnoxious bong accent
>can't close video fast enough
>>342354520
Sure, if quantity is your forte.
>40 minutes
I clicked randomly about 20 times. I didn't see a single bolt action rifle being used. I caught one bit of dialogue that was pretty much, "The semi-automatic rifles are ok, but fire too slow. The SMGs work so much better."
Is it possible to preorder refunds?
>>342354341
>everyone would play it
There are easily a lot more people playing competitive FPS games on PC than any AAA console shooty mcbangbang game
>ww1
>the most important combatants in ww1 are DLC
>muslim women and african americans fighting in the desert are the focus of the game rather than trench warfare between euros
no thanks EA
>>342353816
No, especially when they said it would be historically accurate.
>There literally isn't a single thing of gameplay with someone using a bolt action rifle with iron sights
Why did they make bolt action rifles so ass.
If they made it so that bolt action rifles 1 shot kill to upper chest and above up to mid range it would change the entire dynamic of the game and make it much more fitting to the time period.
>>342352243
>multiplayer gameplay
yeah, pass
>>342354674
what animu?
>>342355413
But then the game would slow down to soldiers on each side waiting to shoot the other as soon as they popped up. It would alienate their target audience. It would turn the game into some sort of bullshit trench warfare, and no one wants that.
It was the most underwhelming shooter at this year's E3. All that hype for something this bland.
Ridiculously good graphics as usual, though.
>>342355610
Looks like character from the persona 3
Game was garbage, so I doubt that anime is any better
>>342354674
would rather have a game based on this anime, whatever it is
thtis is gonna be the black sheep of BF, isn't it?
>>342355610
Steamboy - Suchîmubôi
>>342354674
source?
>>342356023
thanks!
>>342355816
Random pic, never actually played them. Also fuck you nigger.
People seem to be getting on the whole "Realism isn't fun" bandwagon when the majority of complaints are more about authenticity,
And really, if DICE couldn't think of a way to implement the time period to a fun experience while still being authentic, they really should have just made either an alternative history WW1 game or just not make BF1
>>342355715
Then why bother making a WWI game?
>>342356431
So that the developers can pretend it's original.
>>342353478
>abos
Go read a history book you fucking idiot.
>>342356298
I agree. They chose WWI as the setting to differ from other games but couldn't bear to tinker with their successful gameplay formula. If they chose, say, the American Civil War for a setting you can guarantee it would be everyone running around with gattling guns and the Confederates would be 1/3 black soldiers.
>>342356598
Abos are not African and have very different features
>>342355816
Are you fucking retarded?
>>342356298
I don't even understand the realism complaint from casuals. People have no imagination anymore Red Orchestra has mainly bolt action based gameplay and its far fropm being a simulator the casuals cry about as soon as you say there are too many smgs in it. This just shows that DICE is extremely lazy and doesn't want to work hard to make bolt action based game work but then again don't make a WWI game if you aren't able to make it work.
>>342356636
It is really funny that they chose to go to CSGO for their gunplay mechanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kp8PsgXRGY
>>342356598
Abos don't look like African you fucking idiot.
>>342356686
According to the internet, at least 1000 aborigines served during WWI. To not include them in the game would be historically inaccurate.
>>342352303
>>342352483
>>342353478
>>342353884
It's trigger time.
>be an englishman in 1916
>drafted
>shit, time to pack my things
>"I love you my dearest Veronica, until we meet again"
>"I will never forget you, Reginald, our love will never fade"
>few months later, Battle of Somme
>platoon approaches an abandoned church
>we kneel respectfully at the altar and thank the Lord for being with us in battle
>a shell explodes nearby
>ohfuck.webm
>a wounded frenchman is dragged into the church and bullets begin to whiz by
>he cries something out in french, his hands tremble as he drags out a bloodstained photo of a woman
>"C...Clémence..."
>God bless his soul
>positions are taken and the battle ensues
>take aim through a shattered stained glass window, hands shake as I try to steady my weapon
>platoon leader screams for us to take cover as a metal beast rolls in next to the church
>deafening silence in the church before a grinding sound is heard followed by a loud thud
>strange footsteps echo from outside of the church before moving within the sacristy
>we take aim, ready to unload on those filthy Huns if necessary
>suddenly the footsteps stop
>a shadowy figure emerges from behind the altar
>"GET DEM CRAKAZ"
>all hell breaks loose as strange creatures dance out from behind the altar
>the church suddenly is filled with explosive gunshots, battle cries, and mumbled ebonics
>one creature approaches the wounded frehman and snatches the photograph from his balled fists
>"who be dis cracka biotch"
>he performs unspeakable acts on the image
>suddenly my radio crackles and my ears are filled with the sound of what must be an angel
>"we have taken objective butta"
>what the fuck? where's the grizzled commander? who is this bitch?
>I am dumbfounded as my fellow servicemen drop their weapons and begin apologizing for the slave trade
That concludes your WWI history lesson, sponsored by Digital Illusions Creative Entertainment. You can purchase Battlefield 1 this October for $59.99 or your regional equivalent.
>>342357052
>>342354520
>giving your money for 2 turds is better than giving it for 1
Sounds like a smart investment
>>342352243
>Be Lithuanian
>Waste 4 years studying history in uni
>Read about diverse battles on the eastern front, including a siege of my home city Kaunas with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_cm_Gamma_M%C3%B6rser
>AAA WW1 game
>Expecting something good
>See this
This wouldnt even be so bad THEY DIDNT GIVE FUCKING AUTOMATIC WEAPONS TO EVERY PLAYER
/autism
>>342356020
that's always going to be Hardline
>>342358076
The sad thing is that the game most likely takes place in 1917-8 so the Eastern Front is not going to take that much spotlight with the removal of the Russian Empire.
But that won't stop the power of DLC!
>>342357451
god i wis u wuz mah techur in skool
Im looking forward to a battlefield game where ground forces are the primary means of taking the field. The recent games have had retarded air superiority making land vehicles basically nothing more than quick transport.
Cant wait to roll around in tanks again without being one shotted by a heli strike.
Biplanes seem neat.
Dont really care what skin color the characters are, its a bf game, who the fuck is running around looking at character models?
And for those of you whining so much, doesnt that mean youll just get to kill those pesky blacks?
>>342359668
all they needed to do what make it so the planes couldnt see the 3d spotting (i've never played 3 or 4) and brought back tracers so that they'd be the only thing planes could see
theyd be permanent when they hit a target unless they are removed by an engineer
>>342360735
oh and they also dont allow rocket to home in on targets, they only track vehicles (or people) that are hit with it
>>342355413
Battlefield has an arcade gamestyle. One shot kills that aren't to the head are incredibly annoying and doesnt feel compatible. If it was change to be slightly more realistic, like RO or PR, then it would fit better.
>>342359668
>the recent games
Uhh... So have you not played anything before BC?
What used to make this game fun was vehicular dominance and feeling like a squishy piece of meat with peanut popgun.
It's not until recently people bitch that they can only solo a tank 60% of the time.
>>342356598
Damn look at you. I bet you're all embarrassed as fuck now. I feel bad for your parents kid having to put up with a dumbfuck like you
>>342352243
>Suddenly a wild Snoop Dog appears
what the fuck
>>342357052
So what're you gonna do when Trump wins, fag?
Move to Canada? Good riddance, enjoy your crashing economy.
>If we try to save the economy, ISIS wins
-Trudeau
>>342353454
>no france
This almost makes up for Japan and Russia being cut.
>>342362167
That's an EA marketer. They do it in every BF1 thread when people talk about how god awful the game will be. However, they can counter with "ur jus racis" (which shows how invaded this place has been) and shitpost the thread to death.
>go play arma!
>go back to /pol/
>a wwi game isn't SUPPOSED to anything like wwi!
All marketers. Nobody should be excited for an EA game from the get-go, so any optimism about the game should be suspicious. Furthermore, the game has done everything wrong possible. Nobody should have been excited about this years ago, they really shouldn't now.
I want to see a shooter that would be something like these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQSLrmnqaX4
they went out of their way to force WW1 into their formula and not the other way around, which, being EA, should surprise no-one, but is a good example of why companies this big don't make groundbreaking experiences with their existing IP's - they're too sacred to change.
>>342354035
>Implying old battlefields weren't even slower than this
>>342362648
This T B H
>>342352243
I seriously cannot comprehend how simpleminded you have to be to enjoy these games
>>342356930
Yeah, in their own units and certainly not with British infantry on the Western Front.
>>342357451
>Shadowy figures approach with sidearms held sideways
>>342352243
>Takes place in WWI
>Every gun is an experimental SMG, LMG, or semi auto rifle all with bayonets and sites that didn't exist at the time
Back to Verdun I guess
>>342367059
But it's [alpha/game/fun/Battlefield/not supposed to be realistic/alternate universe]!
>>342367059
Why did they even bother with WW1?
They said they took 'a great risk' doing the whole first world war and all that, but it's just a BF4 reskin with all these automatic guns.
I can forgive fast tanks and the airplanes being what they are but I heard that all classes don't even have bolt action rifles.
At least it doesn't focus solely on western front.
>>342367853
Marketing
Changing setting is enough to justify purchase for the most of fanboys. Also "great risk" meme makes them look like they actually worked on it and it's not just a reskin (when in fact after the first gameplay footage it is an obvious reskin).
Overall, BF fags are no different from CoD fags. They both are stupid enough to buy same game every year
>>342367059
Most of the gameplay we've seen has been streamers admittedly, so they want to be getting as much of the action packed stuff as they can, not shooting someone with a bolt action from far away, that doesn't make good footage.
I don't think it's really indicative of how the balance for the guns will be, bolt actions could be way better, and they have stated at the right range they're a one hit kill to the chest, so that could make up for their slow rate of fire.
Also, if they made it so the only effective weapons were long range, people would just use their pistols and charge in anyway, for gameplay purposes it makes sense to add stuff like SMG's, which aren't completely ahistorical, they did exist, just weren't used much.
Also, this is multiplayer. People have literally never stuck to authentic loadouts in BF multiplayer ever, you have US marines using a chinese rifle, a cold war era russian anti-tank weapon and a civilian grade pistol. I don't think using the selected loadouts of people online is a good way to talk about how realistic the game is, because people are always just going to choose whatever gun they enjoy using most.
Sure, they could restrict it so only bolt action rifles are available, but then people would just bitch that it wasn't anything like Battlefield and should have been a spinoff title, because it'd be much slower paced (that is assuming that people don't just use sidearms and fight in close quarters anyway, like I said).
Game could still be shit, but I don't really think that the loadouts people choose to take is a very good criticism.
I want battlefield 2 back damnit
just remaster that game for fucks sake
>>342368571
Battlefield 2 is still active, and it doesn't hold up that well, it's got way over-powered jets and attack helicopters, and a lot of other dumb design decisions.
Seriously though, you're bitching about how much you want something that even a simple google search would have shown you is available. You clearly don't want it that much.
>>342367853
you underestimate the understanding of WW1 of the masses
trenches and bolt actions which = boring and slow and NOT BATTLEFIELD WAA
The 'risk' is in proving that nothing changed while giving it a nice new coat of diverse paint :)
>>342368743
>active
So a handful of servers with players barely on?
>bloobloo planes hurt
It used to be a trademark of these games that vehicles would rape your ass. Used to be fun as fuck.
Only thing BF2 remake could benefit from is ads and destructible terrain. Everything else could stay and it would be gold.
>>342369427
No, it gets thousands of players a day, at least two full servers whenever I look.
>It used to be a trademark of these games that vehicles would rape your ass. Used to be fun as fuck.
You're looking at it through nostalgia goggles. Jets and attack helicopters were completely unbalanced, as in literally fucking next to nothing you could do against them unless you were in them. No ground vehicles even stood a chance, let alone infantry.
I play 1942 regularly too, and you're full of shit. Vehicles were strong, but a single AT soldier who got the drop on one could kill it with a few rockets, except for the absolute strongest ones.
>Only thing BF2 remake could benefit from is ads and destructible terrain. Everything else could stay and it would be gold.
Okay, I'm sure you don't even slightly remember BF2, because it absolutely did have ADS, it was a toggle which was kind of annoying, but present. It had a lot of flaws.
>>342352243
is that sasha baron cohen in the beginning, what the fuck?
>>342369919
>two full servers
Wow, what an active game...
>next to nothing you could do
Every base had guided aa missiles you could get in. There was also aa vehicles, not to mention your own pilots. Heavy also had rockets you could guide, and 50 cals on every vehicle would shred choppers and sometimes planes that got too close. The air power was very powerful, but not impregnable. It was perfect.
>bf2 ads
Go try it. The spread doesn't change from hip fire, it's not actual ads. Cept the sniper of course. But other wise the only way to improve accuracy was crouch/lay down.
Anybody who thinks trench warfare isn't fun never played Verdun, which does trench warfare very well.
>>342369919
>I play 1942 regularly
Then you realize that the tanks in 1942 had sick aoe splash rounds. Motherfuckers could just land near you and you and your medic were toast. Opposed to modern BFs where you can sprint and bunnyhop all over the place and not die to a tank round. Sort of the case in BF2 as well, but that was probably for the better.
>>342370862
>Wow, what an active game...
Yeah, because you can totally play on more than one server at a time, right? Fuck off, it's active enough to be absolutely playable, you just evidently aren't that interested in actually playing the game, and just want to bitch about how it was perfect and anyone who says differently is wrong.
>Every base had guided aa missiles you could get in. There was also aa vehicles, not to mention your own pilots. Heavy also had rockets you could guide,
These were all useless as a result of the stupid fucking speed of jets, they'd do a bombing run and be gone before anyone could even get close to hitting them. The only way to do anything was to wait in a stationary position with the guided rockets, and hit one that's flying at you. Which isn't feasible when you've also got enemy infantry and vehicles to handle.
>and 50 cals on every vehicle would shred choppers and sometimes planes that got too close.
Except by the time you've even managed to shoot at it, they've already blown you up.
>The air power was very powerful, but not impregnable. It was perfect.
You're fucking delusional mate, the air vehicles were way, way overpowered. It's time to take off your nostalgia glasses.
>Go try it. The spread doesn't change from hip fire, it's not actual ads.
Gee, it's almost like that's how guns actually work? And you are slightly more accurate with most weapons using ads, as you're able to actually aim much easier.
As far as I can tell, you're literally just asking for BF4 with more overpowered jets, because they're pretty similar games, BF4 is just more modernised with stuff like ads and a decent melee system (knives were stupid in BF2, knife rushing in a hallway was a valid strategy).
As I said though, if you want to play BF2, it's right fucking there. It's active enough to get full 64 player games going on.
>>342352243
>WW1 themed
Nobody likes the past, why focus on it? Why relive all of thatd e a t h?
>>342371505
>Then you realize that the tanks in 1942 had sick aoe splash rounds. Motherfuckers could just land near you and you and your medic were toast
They did, yes. Doesn't change the fact that they were still easily managed as long as your strategy was more than just "run at them".
>Opposed to modern BFs where you can sprint and bunnyhop all over the place and not die to a tank round
Not even slightly true. Tanks aren't a guaranteed one hit kill within the range of their shells explosion, but you can't just sprint away and be fine, if a tank shoots at you and is anywhere near accurate, you're fucked. You still have to be able to do more than "just run at it" if the tank player's even slightly competent, like in 2 and 1942, and all of them.
> Sort of the case in BF2 as well, but that was probably for the better.
So what, it sucks in the modern ones, but the exact same thing (which isn't really even true) was good in 2? That's some sick bias there mate.
>>342353454
>no Japan
They literally did nothing besides capture a few ports.
>>342371604
It was a combined arms game, dipshit. No shit sitting alone in the AA didn't rek a jet with air superiority. Sometimes it made pilots fuck off if they were out of chaff. And if you were targeting a jet while your own jet and AA vehicle were gunning for said jet, the pilot was certainly fucking off or dying.
The game was never supposed to be 1v1 ME BRO in every situation. You had to work as a TEAM to make vehicles fuck off or die. If you didn't, you were pink mist bone chips.
There also weren't destructible terrain, so if you weren't diving into a building when you heard a jet coming, you deserve to be ragdolled into space.
This was my original point. Vehicles in the older games were deadly as fuck, and while you could solo them if you were good and the operator wasn't, it wasn't something you planned on.
Last one I played was 3, and vehicles were a fucking joke. I may have been killed by jets like 5 times playing, choppers could be LoS'd or a manpad would make them fuck off. It wasn't a combined arms game anymore, it was CoD with medics and weak vehicles.
>>342363127
This
>>342365393
My great-great grandfather served in WWI, so to not represent my family would be inaccurate.
>>342372685
> No shit sitting alone in the AA didn't rek a jet with air superiority. Sometimes it made pilots fuck off if they were out of chaff.
Hence the claim they were unbalanced. You couldn't do fuck all as a ground soldier, which is ridiculous in a shooter. Saying "they were meant to be unbalanced" doesn't change the fact they were, and getting killed by something that even if you know it's coming couldn't do anything about is frustrating as hell.
>The game was never supposed to be 1v1 ME BRO in every situation. You had to work as a TEAM to make vehicles fuck off or die. If you didn't, you were pink mist bone chips.
This was literally only the case for jets. An AT could take out a tank with some strategy. An AA vehicle even couldn't do fuckall against jets or helicopters. How is that good design? Having to rely on your team also having overpowered elements is just stupid.
>There also weren't destructible terrain, so if you weren't diving into a building when you heard a jet coming, you deserve to be ragdolled into space.
When you hear a jet coming? Do you not remember how fast they moved? I mean, you couldn't remember the game even had ads, so I guess that makes sense.
>This was my original point. Vehicles in the older games were deadly as fuck, and while you could solo them if you were good and the operator wasn't, it wasn't something you planned on.
Which is the case in 3 or 4. If you try to go head to head with any vehicle, you'll just get one hit killed by them. But with some positioning, you can handle them. Which is how the battlefield games have always been, they're not simulators or some shit, they're just online FPS. If you want realistic vehicles that require heaps of thought and teamwork to take down, play ARMA or some shit.
>I may have been killed by jets like 5 times playing
Jets were much better balanced, tended to focus on tanks or other air vehicles, like they should.
cont
![[Mori] Wakako-zake - 06 [16FA8E2B].mkv_snapshot_01.37_[2016.03.25_20.05.26].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/93lloSQ.jpg "[Mori] Wakako-zake - 06 [16FA8E2B].mkv_snapshot_01.37_[2016.03.25_20.05.26].jpg")
>>342357451
Holy shit.
>>342372685
>choppers could be LoS'd or a manpad would make them fuck off
You mean they were balanced? Fucking shocker. They were great in 3 or 4, if they shot a tank or infantry with some rockets, that vehicle was fucked. But dedicated AA or any AT weapons with a guided function could handle them pretty okay, meaning you weren't left completely defenceless.
>It wasn't a combined arms game anymore, it was CoD with medics and weak vehicles.
Fuck off, Battlefield's vehicles have always been the same, not something that you need heaps of strategy and teamwork to take down, just something that you have to think about for a few seconds as infantry.
Battlefield has always just been a pretty casual FPS series, it was never a combined arms military simulation. It was combined arms because it has land air and naval vessels, but no more than that.
>>342354103
>Anything requiring any skill whatsoever is a "twitch shooter"
Fucking Jesus Christ. You play slow shooters with auto aim. It's not even a video game at that point anymore
>>342352243
Why is the airplane collision such utter shit
when you botch a landing a plane is supposed to be fucked, yet they seem to insist that you can mash it into buildings and shit and it'll just fly away again
WE
>>342372069
>They did yes
Okay, so you're agreeing with me? Do you just like shitting out paragraphs to prove you picked up an old game recently?
>so what it sucks in the modern ones
I only mentioned that the 1942 tanks rekt even more shit than modern BF tanks to your response of your "1942 cred."
Seriously not sure what you're trying to argue. I enjoyed the combined arms approach and the rapefest of air, while you think planes are OP in 2. And that 1942 tanks DID hit harder like I said, but you can kill them alone sometimes? Okay?
Sounds like you just want to prove you played the games.
>>342373919
AREN'T DOING THIS
>>342374062
>smacks lips profusely
>>342374026
>Okay, so you're agreeing with me?
Well yeah, you stated something obvious that doesn't actually disprove what I said at all, no shit I'm going to agree.
>I only mentioned that the 1942 tanks rekt even more shit than modern BF tanks to your response of your "1942 cred."
They don't really much more, only difference is that now people just sneak up next to tanks who sit in place and shoot with some C4 and destroy them. But this was in 2 as well.
>"1942 cred."
There is no 1942 cred, I'm just pointing out that the older games are very similar to the recent ones in balancing of vehicles, only 2 had overpowered air vehicles.
>Seriously not sure what you're trying to argue. I enjoyed the combined arms approach and the rapefest of air, while you think planes are OP in 2. And that 1942 tanks DID hit harder like I said, but you can kill them alone sometimes? Okay?
So go fucking play it. Fact is, despite what you enjoy in it or not, most people felt aircraft were OP in it. So a remaster would need a fair bit of changing to make it actually fun compared to the new ones, and even then, it would just be BF5 except with maps we've already seen before. And most of the famous ones have been in DLC packs for 3 or 4.
>Sounds like you just want to prove you played the games.
Fuck off. Talking about the older games doesn't mean I just wanted to prove I played them, especially when it's in context to the discussion, where you claimed the older games were a certain way.
>>342373681
>you actually don't like the old games
>they're the same thing
>just the new ones are better
>it's not a simulation XDD
Nevermind, I get why you're arguing about nothing, Mr. Marketer.
>>342374658
>you actually don't like the old games
Never said this, just that you're bitching about how great they were, while also not playing them despite it being literally a google search away and completely free.
>they're the same thing
They're very similar.
>just the new ones are better
The new ones are better than 2 as far as vehicle balance goes, yes. And you're the one arguing that BF2 would be better if it had the features that the new ones do.
>it's not a simulation XDD
Putting XD at the end of something doesn't make it not true.
>Nevermind, I get why you're arguing about nothing, Mr. Marketer.
Fuck off retard, not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. Also, BF3 is like $10, why would Dice or EA bother hiring shills for it instead of for the new release?
>>342374997
Playing on a dead community isn't the same thing as playing in live.
>they're very similar
>except the maps are way smaller
>there are less classes with more roles making team play less necessary
>the vehicles aren't actual threats
I could go on, but do you think if they were THAT similar, there wouldn't be a core of us saying they're not? The only thing similar is that they're both fps's with vehicles.
>assblasted about being called a marketer
Okay, then you're a munchkin. You didn't disagree with me really about anything, you just had a shitfit when I said that adding some of the decent things from modern shooters to BF2 would make a great game. And if they're "very similar" why are you so confrontational towards my initial statement?
>>342376294
Rightio anon, whatever, you win, the old games are 10/10 perfect because they're old, but you should never ever play them unless they have 10000 people playing at once. It's very important to do things that other people think are cool.
I've stated my case, and you've just denied it being an issue and gone "No it's good because I like it", despite most people thinking it was an issue.
>>342352243
Whats the chance of having actual slow tanks that need tactics to destroy instead of some nascar with a tank model over it?
Whats the chance of getting rid of all the automatic weapons in favor of bolt actions rifles, which pretty much balance themselves, because if you are shit at aiming you wont do shit.
Whats the chance of air combat being fun?
looks fun tbqh
why did people think this was going to be authentic or realistic when BF literally never has been
>>342352243
Holy shit, all those automatics/semiautomatics. I get that all of those were experimental or prototypes during the great war that hypothetically could have been fielded, but some of them are REALLY stretched. One of them shown was a semiautomatic rifle that had only ten prototype models made and never saw regular production.
Let's face it, they shoehorned in all these automatics and such because modern shooter players can't handle thought processes beyond "quickscope at ten feet, bash the trigger until something is dead."
>>342352243
> niggers everywhere
the fuck is this shit?
>>342377443
woah it's almost like it's a Battlefield game
>>342352243
If blacks were just American, that'd be fine. BUt Im pretty sure I saw some black soldiers on the British side, which just seems silly
