Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

Deemphasizing bolt action is a little disappointing but I can see why they did it being a more action-y game.  I liked bolt actions in RO2 but I could tell I was in the minority, semi-auto and assault classes were cleared out almost immediately.

I wasn't expecting a realistic game so I probably won't be disappointed by lack of realism.  We'll see.  Dieselpunk sounds cool even if I hate steampunk (I think steampunk should emphasize the culture of the era instead of being about sticking a stopwatch onto your hat, modern scientific pace combined with the industrial revolution's complete lack of morals and foresight.  Sell your kid to underground biologists to keep bread on the table kind of thing)

[Dostoevsky]

By the by, did they fix bayonet charges post-beta? They always felt weird and didn't work half the time.

I don't do bayonet charges too often so I'm not the best source, but: they still feel weird, and work about 75% of the time.

I'll second/third the battlefield destruction working well in this one. Craters large enough to take refuge in can make a big difference, and occasionally wrecking a building to get someone hiding inside (or having the roof fall in on your head) does help the dynamics a bit.

[Cthulhu]

Did you know war's bad?  This and other shocking revelations in battlefield 1.

I did two bayonet charges in the intro.  The first straight up failed and I got shot in the face, the second was interrupted by a scripted sequence.

I don't like the aeroplanes.  I usually like aeroplanes, but this is so far from anything I don't know what the fuck is going on.  The planes are UFOs and half the controls I should have don't work.  I'm piloting this UFO by pulling a string in front of it.

[Dostoevsky]

I haven't done the campaign yet (probably the first time I haven't done the campaign first in a big budget shooter, to be honest) but from what I've read the plane controls in the campaign are entirely different from multiplayer (plane controls in multiplayer are the usual roll/tilt/etc setup).

[Cthulhu]

Good.  Not that I'll ever find out cause playing multiplayer is like being inside a clothes dryer.

[Dostoevsky]

The Operations mode might be worth a shot - still chaotic, to be certain, but the 'one side assaults, other defends' gameplay gives it a bit more structure as opposed to the sometimes whirligig nature of Conquest.

(I still miss Assault mode from the Unreal Tournament series... the vaunted Operations mode in BF1 just seems like a lower-budget Assault mode. Ah well, still can be good fun outside of Monte Grappa.)

[Cthulhu]

I'm refunding it.  Got too many things to play already, not sure why I bought it in the first place.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

...the plane controls in the campaign are entirely different from multiplayer (plane controls in multiplayer are the usual roll/tilt/etc setup).

...Why would they do that?

[Retropunch]

...the plane controls in the campaign are entirely different from multiplayer (plane controls in multiplayer are the usual roll/tilt/etc setup).

...Why would they do that?

Multiplayer plane controls are really, really hard to get used to if you've not done it before - especially for (and sorry if this sounds elitist) casual gamers. I sat with a few of my friends who aren't big gamers, and absolutely none of them could do the plane at all. Like max air time 2 minutes.

However, it's how it's always been for BF planes, so I guess they had to make a compromise.

[Flying Dice]

True, the helicopter backflip is a rite of passage.

[Iceblaster]

You know, perhaps I'd like Battlefield 1 more if it felt like it was actually committed to the idea of being a historical war FPS? It feels so goddamn gross and not at all WW1 to me.

muh historyboner

I'm gonna mention that not all of WW1 was depressing trenches. Especially near the end where small squad tactics began to rise.

Also, if they ever do an eastern front, that was basically no trenches and tons of mobile warfare. I mean, I can't really argue that it's historically accurate, but it is at least moderately accurate in going against the stereotypes of WW1

[Retropunch]

I really don't get the complaints on lack of realism (here and elsewhere) - they set it out to be 'epic battles' and that doesn't translate to horrible diseases and crawling around with frostbite in flooded trenches. WW1 was just pretty dismal all round (all war is, but this one more so I imagine) so they went at it pretty much in the only way they could.

To me, they've got it thematically correct even if it it's not accurate, and that's the most important part.

[Flying Dice]

It's mostly to do with the fact that they've got a WWI game in which maybe 2-3% of the players are using unscoped bolt action rifles. That's the single greatest factor that can set a WWI game apart from the usual fare and they didn't even bother trying. What it honestly should have been was for that to be the standard on all classes, with assaults also getting access to trench guns, the LMG class also getting access to those (built in a way that makes them useful as LMGs, rather than very inaccurate assault rifles). Recon get their scopes (and I'd also give them the semi-automatic carbines, sans large scopes, to let them fill the role without camping at the edge of the map, but drop the damage so that their TTK is higher than an accurate bolt action shot), medics get rifle grenades (and maybe also give them and recon better pistols).

There. You've now got >50% of the players using bolt-action rifles, most without scopes. I'd bet most people wouldn't even bitch too much about it. They certainly didn't back when Coddlefield games had unscoped bolt actions before, those saw plenty of use.

As it stands they really should have just made it an alt-history steampunk game if they wanted everyone in "WWI" to have submachine guns and semiautomatic rifles. Or made another WWII game. :V

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

As it stands they really should have just made it an alt-history steampunk game if they wanted everyone in "WWI" to have submachine guns and semiautomatic rifles. Or made another WWII game. :V

You know, I really wonder what the stigma is of large differentiation from reality basically needing a Middle Ages or Far Future setting.  Seriously, think of just how many games that don't fit into those two categories that don't take our reality and add a bit, then compare it to the number that are.

[KingofstarrySkies]

It's mostly to do with the fact that they've got a WWI game in which maybe 2-3% of the players are using unscoped bolt action rifles. That's the single greatest factor that can set a WWI game apart from the usual fare and they didn't even bother trying. What it honestly should have been was for that to be the standard on all classes, with assaults also getting access to trench guns, the LMG class also getting access to those (built in a way that makes them useful as LMGs, rather than very inaccurate assault rifles). Recon get their scopes (and I'd also give them the semi-automatic carbines, sans large scopes, to let them fill the role without camping at the edge of the map, but drop the damage so that their TTK is higher than an accurate bolt action shot), medics get rifle grenades (and maybe also give them and recon better pistols).

There. You've now got >50% of the players using bolt-action rifles, most without scopes. I'd bet most people wouldn't even bitch too much about it. They certainly didn't back when Coddlefield games had unscoped bolt actions before, those saw plenty of use.

As it stands they really should have just made it an alt-history steampunk game if they wanted everyone in "WWI" to have submachine guns and semiautomatic rifles. Or made another WWII game. :V

FUCKING THIS
AAUGHGG WHY I JUST WANTED TO BE A SADBOY WITH A BOLT ACTION