Just how historically inaccurate is this game? It's one of the biggest complaints I've heard...

Just how historically inaccurate is this game? It's one of the biggest complaints I've heard, but I haven't seen anyone mention the specifics

>Just how historically inaccurate is this game?
the otomans are speaking korean instead of arabic, go figure

>but I haven't seen anyone mention the specifics

thats because nobody really knows what they are talking about and are just complaining for the sake of being able to complain.

all the guns are bullshit

the harlem hellfighters are a literally who meme

women in combat

germans literally had NO black people fighting for them in europe, same thing for Australia

What this user said most of the weapons in this game were either never in ww1 or were in the designing phase after ww1

>all the guns are bullshit
How?

>women in combat
They outright said they wouldn't put women in the MP.

Which ones?

pretty racist they didnt put a woman on the cover and a minority. really makes me sick how all these games think black and white males are what gamers want.

It's a fantasy game, who cares?

uhhhh you knhow in bf1 there are screens of the british being women since all those women from the UK died in ww1 racist.

There are FOREGRIPS

ON POST-WW1 WEAPONS. WEAPONS THAT DON'T EVEN BELONG IN THE GAME HAVE FOREGRIPS ON THEM

IN FUCKING WW1

Half the guns in this game are in for the sake of balance, since the Germans would shit all over everyone else if it was accurate.

real gamers want diversity in games, besides were taught in school nothing is more disgusting than white people. As a white person im ashamed of who I am and only hope through diversity we can become a decent people instead of the filth we have become who are destroying the world.

>he thinks the Germans can compete in semi-auto weaponry
>implying their kar98 counts for shit when you have semi and full auto weapons in the game

>not the first post from this IP

And they expect me to choose a side when both sides manipulate constantly.

I do when it's being sold as a WW1 game and it's not WW1

And what he said is that if the game was completely realistic and automatic weapons were practically non-existant, Germany would shit on everyone.

This isn't real war, it's a game, and game balance is a thing, the same reason why if you made a WWII game you can't just make the King Tiger destroy Shermans in one shot.

The guns are almost all automatic or semi-automatic. I mean I'm sure there were a few of those being used by the militaries of the time but I like war games where I'm just playing a regular grunt, not some super special forces with the magic prototype of a gun that won't be mass-produced until 20 years from now.

also, the niggers

Under this logic I can make a game about picking flowers and have the actual gameplay involve blood and dismemberment and shit

even though it has no fucking place in picking flowers

Those australians are the king's african rifles

Bolt-actions were used by over 90% of soldiers in the war, but are relegated to only the sniper class in the game and often have some sort of relatively rare optic attached to them
While all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons featured in the game existed (often in some sort of prototype form), their actual use was extremely limited and having them so prominent ruins the point of a WWI game in the first place

>implying the foregrip isn't the only anachronism

Why not?
We need unique and original ideas nowadays.

pointless inaccuracy =/= unique and original, it's just pointless

Only one of the guns never went beyond the prototype sage, and it far predates WW1. The rest all saw service use in WW1.

You know very well EA wouldn't allow a shooter to be made up of 90% bolt action rifles.
Not only kids like variety of weapons to choose from, most of them hate bolt action rifles because it would make the game really slow and tedious, even more when you are just running constantly and you'd miss 80% of the shots.

It's unrealistic, but anyone who gave it a bit of thought knew this was exactly what was going to happen.

It's not pointless, they just made a game thinking purely of game-balance regarding firearms instead of thinking about being historically accurate in an arcade multiplayer shooter.
The setting is a gimmick?
Yes, it is.

It'll always be, that's what settings have always been in shooters.

Hell, look at COD, there's barely any difference between COD WaW and Black Ops 3 aside from gimmicks like the jetpack.

These games won't change because they are made to make money, they have a established formula, and they are going to stick to it, and if you expect any of these blockbusters to change, you are really naive.

>pointless
to you

...

all the guns existed and were used

who cares about harlem hellfighters?

no women in mp

germans did have niggers fighting for them but DICE aren't gunna restrict skins for certain maps

Can you imagine if DICE had decided to make an accurate WW1 Battlefield game? I don't mean down to the tooth and nail - forget the barren wastelands and trenches, that would make for stale gameplay.

I mean, imagine how much better the game would be doing overall if it hadn't upset people with the inaccuracy? Like really, what the fuck were they thinking?

You could still have intense gameplay with bolt actions and MAYBE a prototype or two thrown in there. There are plenty of ways the prototypes could be balanced, such as overheating or the assault class not carrying that specific ammo, since it's a fucking prototype.

Drop the inaccuracy and you would have a ton more people on board, because if they gave a shit about accuracy at least it would give us the idea that they care about their game to begin with.

It's actually really accurate. Several actual historians (not Sup Forums wannabes) have already picked apart this game and said they were pleasantly surprised.

>I mean, imagine how much better the game would be doing overall if it hadn't upset people with the inaccuracy?
>people
You mean Sup Forums?
Literally no one else outside this place gives a fuck about historical accuracy.
And absolutely no one cares about what Sup Forums thinks.

>It's unrealistic, but anyone who gave it a bit of thought knew this was exactly what was going to happen.
The OP asked what was unrealistic and I answered.
It obviously wasn't going to be a mil-sim or some shit, but EA hyped up a WWI shooter so of course there would be some expectations of a game resembling the period

>making this obvious hooks without baits.

No real gamer would buy a game unless it promotes diversity and womens rights. This game does nothing to show the diversity of women in the military today so noone will buy it.

Everytime someone complains, they're refuted but you still refuse to acknowledge it because it's way more fun to shitpost.

EA hyped up a Battlefield game, which is going to stick to the Battlefield formula, and that clashes with how WWI was.
What do you think they were going to do, make a realistic shooter even thought all their audience has no idea of what WWI was, or even who fought in it, or stick to a formula that makes them cash?

A WW1 game could only be good if they took the RO2 approach of limiting 'classes' and thereby types of weapons and each weapon type having a role it's suited to. That would never appeal to the modern gaming audience beyond a niche and so it won't happen. It's a shame, it could be a good setting but BF1 doesn't use it at all beyond a marketing gimmick.

It's actually really inaccurate. Several actual historians (not Sup Forums wannabes) have already picked apart this game and said they were disgusted.

>unique and original ideas
just add black people

No, i'm saying it because those posts haven't increased the IP count, which means that guy posted in this thread earlier.

>And absolutely no one cares about what Sup Forums thinks
This is the one thing I don't understand how many people in here still don't get.

The main audience of this game imagines WWI as a prelude to WWII where USA fought against nazis.
You think any of them care about historical accuracy, when they don't even know the story it's supposed to represent.

Why even bother calling it a WW1 game if they wanna throw in guns from the future and a bunch of minorities who literally did not fight in WW1?

Like, cool, make your progressive "statement" about what the fuck ever, but don't lie about what it is.

At this point this game has more fantasy elements than FFXV.

itt racists shitposting about how minorities are what make the world better and games are meant as a platform to promote more progressive ideas so children learn what is really important.

At no point did I think EA was going to do anything other than make their usual shit, but as a consumer I have my own preferences for a WWI game that I would actually buy
Personally I'd like a realism-arcade balance similar to what's found in RO2, with class restrictions, heavy use of bolt-actions, and so on

EA will do whatever makes them money, but that doesn't mean I have to think their games are any good

Because it sounds as something new, and they have the advantage that a vast majority of this game's audience, and people in general, have no idea what WWI was about.

They are taking advantage of people's stupidity to earn money.
Welcome to capitalism.

Source?

>people think Battlefield 1942, Battlefield BC2, BF3, and BF4 were all historically accurate

LOL, yes because infantry hopping in tanks and driving them around before bailing out and using a paratrooper's parachute to stop a 10 foot fall all while carrying 50-100 lbs of gear is historically accurate.

>EA will do whatever makes them money, but that doesn't mean I have to think their games are any good
But you can't demand EA to make what you want because this game isn't directed at people like you, this game isn't meant for people who actually know about WWI, it's yet another dumb multiplayer shooter for kids who just want to kill the other team and have cars, tanks and planes in it and spam their automatic rifles.

People wanted a reskin BF4 in WW1. They got a pandering historical revision with casual dumbed down gameplay.

Why is it so hard for DICE to go from point A to B? EVERYTIME they just ditch the good stuff and add random shit that was never needed.

Not to mention the fact that each soldier, no matter which army, can carry any weapon he wants. US soldiers with AKs, chinese with M4s, and Russian's with SMAWs.

>People wanted a reskin BF4 in WW1
That's exactly what they got.
The audience of this game gives no fucks about historical revisions, and the easier the game, the better for them.
EA is only in this for the money, and they do everything from the perspective of benefits.

Hell, they even created a free marketing machine.
Ever since the nigger was shown in the cover, we have had a constant stream of Battlefield 1 threads flooding the catalog, even though Sup Forums has never truly given a fuck about this franchise.

>dice tries to make the game interesting by introducing bullshit full auto stuff
>everyone just uses the bolt action rifles

>dice tries to be progressive and make black germans
>everyone shits on them

man this is gold

the new BF is more realistic since it shows diversity promoting a more multicultural view since this was a world war.

Does everyone forget that Africa is part of the world or something? Your all coming off like raging racists.

>everyone just uses the bolt action rifles
What?
Everyone's running around with the SMGs and MGs.

>everyone shits on them
You mean Sup Forums, nobody outside here cares about the niggers.

Should I just get BC2 or BF 4? Which one is better and has the most active multiplayer

(You)
(You)
(You)

>They got a pandering historical revision with casual dumbed down gameplay.

It's amazing how hollow the gameplay feels. I can't quite describe it, everything is just floaty and off, shit like the hit registration and feedback feels non-existent. I'd be shocked if it didn't go just like Battlefront and be dead as fuck after three weeks.

BC2 is more fun, but BF4 is much more active.
Gets like 10k players every day, while BC2 gets around 600.

>Just how historically inaccurate is this game?
There are more automatic guns in this game than bolt action guns

He's talking about the mountains of snipers every game. They're everywhere and fight at every god damn range.
>tfw see a sniper's glint in a window while riding in a mark V
>fire off a shell after judging distance
>House explodes, get a kill

>it's a Sup Forums thinks anyone outside this place shares their opinions
Keep pushing for that TORtanic 3.0 or No Man's Sky 2.0

>it's a Sup Forums thinks anyone outside this place shares their opinions

When did I say anything about anybody else? I was just sharing my thoughts, faggot.

On Ps4 literally everyone is sniping, feels bad being a support main because the only way to fight back is to set up a bipod but then you're a sitting duck.

I've seen plenty of highly upvoted youtube comments on extremely popular battlefield youtubers butthurt about the blackwashing, it isn't just Sup Forums

>the same reason why if you made a WWII game you can't just make the King Tiger destroy Shermans in one shot

Have you played COH?

>All the guns existed and were used

Not entirely true, some of them were prototypes that never saw combat. Sub machine guns and semi auto rifles were very uncommon and chances are most soldiers would never have encountered them.

6 months from release people will be playing bf4 again kek

I mean multiplayer shooters, they are the genre where balancing is most important.

>6 months from release people will be playing bf4 again kek
-Sup Forums

Which means 6 months after release, BF4 will be dead.

>Implying no cucks sky wasn't a failure

OP obviously cares BECAUSE HE FUCKING ASKED YOU RETARD

>All the complaints about the game I see, or at least 90% are about how the game would be better if you removed "historically inaccurate" stuff and nobody talks about the gameplay itself, as if in their brains Battlefield is some history simulator

Go play Europa you fucking autist. I'm not even saying the gameplay is good. I haven't played a Battlefield since BC2 so I don't give a shit, but you lot are insufferable.

Fraction weapons no longer exist in this game user.

Americans instead of French
Ottomans, but not Austro-Hungarian Empire
SMGs are pretty common, most soldiers had battle rifles
The tanks can go sprinting speed, in reality they had trouble going 5 MPH

I don't really care, it's still fun.

That's what I mean.
You get a TORtanic once every 4 years.

>all the guns existed and were used
this was already proven by a rep at EA who said they were an expert on history so everyone can STFU with thinking they know more than the people who made the game.

who cares about historical accuracy? Fucking alt right.

I have playerd for a god 5-6 hours and haven't played as a dindu once.

>alt right
No, it only matters when it benefits you, no matter who you are.

Ok, name one gun in the beta that wasn't used in combat.

>This was already proven

No it wasn't, a quick google search will show you that most historians claim that there are several innacuracies regarding weapons used and the tanks.

Of course I don't get a response.
But this post will because of my condescending tone.

>using RO2 as an example of good game and good game design

(you)

Does anyone actually use the premium bullshit or is the base game of BF4 enough

well other than the blatant historical revisionism, as a long time Verdun player I tried the beta and it's so different from a real WW1 game.

First of all there's no trenches, and everyone's running around in tanks and shit.

In Verdun, 8/10 people have bolt action rifles, and one or two people in special squads have deployable MGs.

There's one squad with a class that has a prototype SMG, which literally everyone in the assault class in BF1 has. Well, it's a German prototype that was used like in the last 3 months of the war.

Verdun is pretty balanced with weapons on both sides, the central powers who are just Germans have a lot of MGs and automatic weapons as well a flamethrower.

The other side has more boring weapons but the Belgians and French have good semi auto pistols and Americans have the 1911 and the only shotguns, and the UK has probably the best bolt rifles.

It's a pretty intricate balance and your play style basically means you'll play one specific squad on one team. In BF1 everyone just has everything and nothing makes sense.

>No it wasn't, a quick google search will show you that most historians claim that there are several innacuracies regarding weapons used and the tanks.
bunch of whiny cry baby racists.... sorry like most real gamers I dont have time for people who dont support diversity in gaming to promote multiculturalism.

>It's still fun
Every
Fucking
EA
Game

Shills comes in and say it is fun. Game is released. It turns out to be fucking turd. All the anons who say it is "fun" before release are suddenly all gone. But they turn up just in time for the next EA game.

Yeah, there's plenty of servers using it since they gave away a lot of free DLCs months ago, and it adds a shitload of weapons.
Also, search in Origin the two free DLCs, each one has a map and those are in all servers, so you'll need them to play.

You people are idiots, machine guns were common in WW1 which is why their in the game not clumsy old stupid bolt action rifles which are too slow for real gaming or real war. only a loser would use a bolt action rifle when everyone else had machine guns.

Stop pretending Verdun is fun, it's a fucking snoozefest.
There's no good WWI game.

Austria-Hungary is in the game though, they fight against Italy in the Monte Grappa and Empire's Edge maps

They tried to goad you into premium by adding borderline pay-to-win guns, but the only decent DLC is the naval maps. The rest are pretty awful and few are actually populated.

The base game is enough, if you really enjoy it then you can probably get Premium pretty cheap later on, it's frequently on sales.

You provide source first.

How is BF1 a turd?

>had NO black people fighting for them in europe
>in europe

>How is Battlefront a turd

The Cei-Rigotti. And that's it.

It's a reskinned Battlefront, and Battlefront isn't a good game.

>restricting a skin to a map

>Play Verdun
>Get put in squad
>My only weapons are a revolver with a bayonet and a club
>Try and stick with squad
>One shot killed every time I try to get to the other trench despite crawling around through craters and debris
>Eventually make it to enemy trench
>Ease my way forward
>One shot killed and sent all the way back to my trench
>We lose
Ebin