- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
Sorry, I meant that bolt-action should have been the main weapons, not randoms running around with SMGs.
Battlefield General - Discuss the series here
- Thread starter Nazi vegeta
- Start date
-
⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Screamer_2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2022
I don't pay enough attention and haven't played regularly for a few months. I just jump around to different ones. It's like other battlefields. I seem to recall the Martini-Henry being good.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
been a while, so no idea anymore what name of which gun was good where.
usually I pick one after I get a feel for them depending on the stage, attack/defense and how lazy I am. sitting in some trench messing with rushing tards and a 200 bullet mag is great for some d-day feeling. lower mag for mobile (since the smaller size is offset by faster reload etc.).
also depends what the enemy team is up to, sometimes LMG is just tedious. it's one of the issues battlefield has that most people never want to counterplay/switch to whats needed, like anti-infantry or sniper. 3 LMGs of the right kind can pretty much fuck any plane, but people rather get bombed for the 27th time. most of the time they don't even use the FLAKs because they're too lazy or tunnelvisioned to go there. denying planefags their k/d whoring is absolutely worth it.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Would a preferred compromise be to have a couple SMGs as obtainables and have one per map as a pickup like how Hardline did? How many bolt action rifles existed during WW1?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
it's already balanced that most SMGs have shit range from what I remember. trying to bumrush with a SMG, then get picked off while trying to cross a field makes the SMG pretty much moot, some stages it's like people imagine ww1.
SMGs only win out in CQC, but then again a bolt action has still more single punch then a smg and it mostly comes down to who spots who(m?) first. just look at the killfeed:
edit: ah fuck, after watching it I'm getting the itch again...
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
If I might ask another question; what do you guys think about Battlefield V? I've seen some videos on it myself, wasn't all that impressed, but what do you guys think? Worth a try, or no?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
"who?"
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Here's an in-depth review of V written by yours truly.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I bought it and it was utter diarrhoea on a disc. The lads and I played Battlefield 3,4 & 1 to death, literally hundreds of hours per game, and it was 5 that made us decide to skip the next games in the series. All they had to do was make the game like the last 3 with some upgrades now that it was next gen, despite how easy it would've been they still managed to shit all over it like a pile of wrist tapping spastics. I had a little hope that maybe they'd realise they had missed the mark with 5 and that BF 2042 would bring the series back to it's roots, especially since the trailers seemed to suggest they understood where they went wrong. Once I saw they were going the operators and battle royale route I knew the franchise was dead.
Never played it, never will
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Did the controversy with "female soldiers" have anything to do with it? Outside of that, it's certainly less polished than previous entries. I never outright hated it. Actually, it's THE Battlefield that I invested the most time in. At least enough to finish the campaign and progress far in the online.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
The disabled, female soldier pish only caused a bit of concern simply because it indicated that they were focusing more on "inclusion" instead of the actual gameplay. I know people were getting pissed that it was breaking "immersion" but it's Battlefield for fuck sake, it's hardly immersive in the first place. How realistic is it when you can explode a tank into the air so it can shoot down passing jets? It was the gameplay itself that made us chuck it. Too many tweaks and wee fuck ups in the gameplay that made it feel like we weren't playing a BF game. I can't even remember if I finished the campaign which shows how much I disliked playing it as I usually finish campaigns even on games I dislike.
Did you play BF2042?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
No, I haven't. I don't plan on it soon. The game released in a buggy state with stupid design choices.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
the word you're looking for is authenticity. that's why it's ok to fly a helicopter with the push of a button, not having to go through a DCS routine to start it. but you still expect the helicopter to look and behave like a helicopter, not a plane or boat, and "makes sense" appropriate to the setting (as in, no black hawks during WW2).
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
That has been my take away of the game too. I was curious if maybe others felt different but it seems to be a fairly universal opinion.
Aye that's the gist of it. You can suspend your disbelief in a lot of ways, like your example of proper start up procedures, some things however just snap you right out of your immersion. Battlefield is the type of game I would class as arcade like that isn't exactly "authentic" in the first place so it's a wee bit daft to get too bent out of shape about certain things while ignoring the others. Battlefield 1 for example had weapons that were never used in actual service or in the case of a least one of the guns hadn't even been manufactured en masse. They literally had to wing it and guess how it worked because the OG weapon had barely been produced into double figures and there was zero documentation on how it actually functioned.
Ughubughughughughughghlug
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
That said, and @Brigadoom is making this point too, you can technically hew to accuracy while in practice getting so far away from how things really were that it starts to feel like pure fantasy. I loved Battlefield 1, but it actually got me interested enough in WW1 (something I was interested in as a kid, read about trench warfare and knew how the war started, but not like I am now) to the point where now I can't really enjoy it. And I play things like Isonzo. Battlefield 1 is authentic in the sense that every gun existed, but 99% of the soldiers are running around with experimental weapons that never entered service. Instead of 1 in 40 having an SMG, it's 1 in 4 using an actual bolt action rifle.
And I don't give a fuck about the specific gun, it would make little difference to me if everyone had access to shotguns, but the huge amount of automatics and the ahistorically fast and effective tanks mean it feels, not like a WW2 game (because WW2 games have the same inauthenticity), but like a modern war game.
It's still a great game but I'll liken it to something I've said about Assassin's Creed before, it actually gets worse the more I know about the real subject matter.
It is a shame that nobody has made a game like BF1 with the design philosophy of Rising Storm, where the loadouts are limited. The WW1 Game Series whores a different game per front (so all but the newest are dead) and Beyond the Wire shot itself in the head by aiming for massive playercounts that would inevitably leave its servers empty.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
That's unfortunately a problem that can be hard to shake off. Knowledge of the real circumstances on which the games are based really can fuck with your ability to enjoy it. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to weapons, vehicles and settings however when they start sprinkling in disabled women soldiers running around it starts to strain that disbelief. Battlefield's marketing has always been focused on *realism* - despite the gameplay being otherwise - so it's majorly hypocritical of them to start getting annoyed because people didn't want 1 armed lesbians running around the map. Having black soldiers made some sense at least because you had units like the Harlem Hellfighters but women, other than a miniscule minority, have never been front line troops. You'd have the same reaction if people could skite around the map in Humvees or an Abrams MBT.
You're doing the right thing.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
that was actually the one thing that put me out of the game once. I don't really care about /k/ autism, gameplay > 100% historical accuracy, which sounds ironic but once you're in the mindset you're at some bumfuck russian front during WW1 and suddenly there's a black dude next to you, I was literally going WTF for 2-3 seconds, even when I shouldn't be surprised.
the gun thing is more like my autism where it flares up when you see lit torches in an undisturbed ruin (who the fuck lit them?!) or unrealistic in a realistic environment (how the fuck did that bigass crates fit through the door?!).
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I feel you, it's not easy to pick and choose what you can and can't ignore. Personally I don't mind the weapons even though I'm a firearms autistic tit. The torch thing is a good example of why you need to have a suspension of certain beliefs to enjoy games. I imagine for some the torch thing would 100% cause some mongoloid out there who would then end up not playing the game. Just gotta do your best to focus on the good parts and have fun with it. I mean take Battlefield 3&4, despite being some what focused on realism you could literally fly across the map in a jeep if you and your mates put down enough C4. Not in any way realistic but fun as fuck.
