It looks good

it looks good

Nice grenade!

oh no you didn't!

I think no one really argued about that.
Same thing with Battlefront

Why even bother setting it in WW1 if you're going to give everyone automatic machine guns to use?

In the fucking trailer there was a guy holding a Lewis gun in the same way you'd hold a rifle.

Becuase they wanted the WW1 setting but not the WW1 gameplay.

It's still a battlefield game, it has to play like battlefield.

Man, the devs must be fucking lazy as hell.

But part of the WW1 setting is the lack of lightweight automatic weapons, what you should've said is they want it to look like WW1.

>Look it's WW1
>Look everyone's running around with full auto rifles

Literally Battlefield 4 with a shitty WW1 filter slapped on it
A pile of shit with sprinkles

> setting
> look
Its the same thing. Just a background for the same old Battlefield gameplay.

It's more like a ww2 game with a ww1 aesthetic. I kind of wish they'd gone with ww2 again, just for all the cool ww2 guns like the Garand.

Looks like shit. Rising Storm 2 will BTFO this game easily.

Man I wish it had the animation system that battlefield games have, would make the movement transitions very smooth.

shhhhh, don't talk sense

I haven't played battlefield since bad company. Could you explain?

Since 3, Battlefield has had the best 1st person animations in the business.

IIRC Battlefield uses the same tech for animation transitions as FIFA, so it looks very good.

>going into Battlefield expecting realism
why do people do this?
it looks like a mix between BC2 and BF3/4 and looks much more fun than 3/4

Explain.

Its so easy to fix and make quasi historical...
lets suppose for a 32 person team...

>Allied team:
>5 shotgun cap
>4 LMG cap
>2 semi-automatic rifle cap
>1 rocket gun cap
>2 sniper rifle cap
>1 heavy/light tank
>1 armored car
>2 planes
>10 NCO's
>4 non-attached players

>German team
>6 SMG's
>3 LMG's
>2 semi-automatic rifles
>2 scoped bolt action
>1 flamethrower
>2 AT rifleman
>1 armored car
>2 airplanes.
>10 NCO's
>3 non-attached players

Where the NCO class handles off-map strategic warfare, is armed with a pistol, non-scoped bolt action rifle, grenade, melee weapon and has a set number of single-player bots attached to him with AI's optimized for multiplayer depending on server settings that don't have a pistol.

Both sides take the historical nerf of having non-perked bolt action rifles in plenty, so I don' tthink balancing issues would be an issue here. Also, they really need to take down the HP of players from that of like a Rhino to something more reasonable.

you realise this is battlefield right?

>You realize this is battlefield

Not purchasing it until either someone does this or mod tools become available so I can spend like an afternoon making this mod.

>Expecting realism

I don't think expecting a game ostensibly based on WW1 to feature the sort of weapons used in WW1 is an unreasonable expectation. Why even make it about WW1 if they're going to change everything that happened?

>WW1 was a highly mobile war fought mostly with submachineguns, spiked clubs and high speed tanks
>Most soldiers were either black, female or both
>The most well-known of all the battles involved a cavalry charge against an armored train covered in hundreds of machine guns in the desert
>Artillery didn't exist

Can't wait to pay $200 to play this totally hardcore and historically accurate FPS!

>just wearing your gas masks

that's retarded

all the weapons existed in WW1

If there's a bolt action only server option or something that'd be nice. All that's preventing me from getting it right now is the fact that it looks like every other Battlefield game.

Miniguns exist today but contemporary war games don't give every soldier a minigun.

The game will be "mostly" whatever people want to play with. Would you complain if everyone went the recon class and used bolt actions?

The tanks are not "high speed". They barely move faster than a sprinting player.

There are no females in the multiplayer.

It's a game so they can make up any scenario they want.

Artillery does exist and you can use it.

Yeah, in like the quantity of tens of thousands to outfit millions of men.

Now, obviously, you're going to push those things to the front to maximize combat power, so the setup mentioned here

is probably the best way to do it.

Call of Duty does.

because miniguns need to be mounted onto a vehicle or stationary turret
it's not like in BF1 soldiers are running around with Maxims

you're beyond delusional if you think BF would ever have faction specific class limits

Like I said, i'll wait and see if mod tools become available so I can spend like an afternoon at most going into a .txt file and moving some numbers around.

you'll be waiting a while

Does anyone know what happened to /bfg/?

>going into Battlefield expecting realism
try looking for authenticity.

and you still won't find it
BF1942 literally had a jetpack in it
BF4 has Rambo's M60

Sucka tried to play me, but you never payed me, never!

BF:1942 expansion pack secret weapons of world war 2 had jetpacks.

the expansion pack is part of the game

I said the same thing about hardline last year

And nukes existed in wwii but if you had a wwii game where everyone had nukes you would think that's fucking stupid

Not really. It's more like a medieval warfare game where everybody has a longbow and a horse they can use together. Justifiable from a "I just want to have fun" standpoint, but it's still stupid.

there is a difference between a nuke and a semi auto rifle

Sure yeah it looks good but here are my predictions
>3 main weapons for each class
>4-5 release maps
>$60 DLC released by Q1 next year

all the classes except assault already have 4 main weapons
more than likely it will be
>6-8 weapons
>10 maps
>$60 premium with free DLC's down the road