I believe the way bf1 got WW1 is absolutely adequate. Even if it doesn't show in the gameplay, they still made sure that the setting felt authentic and atmospheric. I personally would always welcome a slightly stronger favor for realism over gameplay in all Battlefield games, but only slightly. The fact, that battlefield often seems relatively realistic to me, makes the game much more interesting and exciting to me.
But you have to admit, they did a great historical job with the battles. All of them are real and they even talk about the battle before and after the game which are all true. I thought the game was very fun and there is no way a video game can be 100% historical accurate even verdun isn’t 100%
The only thing I have a problem is that the assault class, nearly all the weapons are full auto, and the rifles you can use don't have bayonets, but I shouldn't really moan just because what I want, that's why I'm saying this as my opinion.
Battlefield 1 the tanks are so fast it must be slow because it such a heavy vehicle and the machines are not like today and the zeppelins are too low on the ground they are meant to be on the sky and the planes too
I think that it is ok to have an unrealistic mind set, that's fine. But for people like me who want a realistic ww1 game they should make a game mode that is like Verdun but on a much larger scale. I think that would be good because you please everyone, thanks for reading my comment!
Actually it is pretty historically correct says 70% scientists and if it was 100% correct you would be in trenches most of the game because the new machine gun made it the no mans land and everyone stayed in trenches
I tink Battelfield 1 is a nice game ,but i think the Multiplayer havn't some of the flair from the First world war its a game how ol pepole run arround with MG or SMG . I tink i schoud have more semi Weppons in the game . The MP are overpowert nobody will play a semi wapon when he can have a MP without realy havy knockback i tink there schould spawn boxes on the map with some MP inside . When you have fun you schouldnt take a name how Battlefield 1 because was the first modern war and this game is a slap in my Face . I have Verdun its realistic but it dont't become very ads .
I just want to point out some inaccuracies in this game (not hating it I enjoy it)
-The Zeppelin: There’s no fucking way that Zeppelin can go that fucking low.
Zeppelins should be higher than in the clouds to add support or go on enemy lines
Sniping: Ok there’s no fucking way that you can get a headshot like a football field away or shoot a plane in mid air
Too many automatic weapons: automatic weapons were only use in trench raids during WW1 and some city’s
Tanks: I didn’t now that a tank can fly up in the air and back to the ground when your flipped over
-I didn’t know you can jump off a plane and hijack another plane
-I didn’t know you can glitch on the plane and throw Grenades at it
-I didn’t know you can pick up your teammate and he somehow grabbed on without getting shredded
Gore: Where’s the blood and gore I mean I’ve would’ve gave this game a 8 out of 10 if it added gore
The whole game: The game plays itself like a WW2 shooter and you run and gun to adjectives pushing backwards and towards
In WW1 they focus more on trench warfare than run and gun
Gas: Ok there’s got to be more gas in the game because gas played a very huge role during the war
Characters: .....Black German Soldiers....so....we can accept black German soldiers....in BF1.... but can’t accept black women Nazis in COD:WW2.................
Tanks: they are going a bit fast because tanks during WW1 only gone by 4 miles per hour
I think personaly they need to honor the brave "men" (because believe it or not feminists deny it women weren't in WW1) of world war one, imagine you being ordered to go out of your only line of safety that's not even that safe and run into the depths of hell. this war is very underrated but in my opinion is the most interesting war of history.
The game Verdun existing just dismantles your points as that game is insanely fun and is very realistic. In my opinion the main reason BF1 is the way it is, is because EA and Dice are trying to get as many players as possible from the overall market (therefore creating a casual game) rather than working on a game made for the fully devoted veterans of the series as they are a niche market and niche markets are bad in the eyes of big AAA publishers.
The whole battlefield franchise is far removed from realism, authenticity and strategic gameplay and it is supposed to be that way.. Therefore, expecting it to be otherwise is foolish. Therefore I wonder why this is even a discussion. What's next, asking if COD is realistic? The game on the market that comes most close to real military combat is ARMA III. While it's engine is outdated, there is no other game that capture realism in combat as arma.
It simulate military operations very well.
BF3 and BF4 are FICTIONAL WARS, they can do whatever they want with them as they are made by them. But WW1 is a real war, that actually happened, so guess what, people wanted historical accuracy. There are so many things that dice could have done to make the game fun while also keeping the game realistic.
The biggest thing to show to prove that a historically accurate WW1 game can be fun is Verdun. (which is a much better game)
The problem are not specific weapons like in BF4, but more the overall classes of weapons. If an American soldier uses an AK in BF4 it may be unrealistic, but it's not totally out of touch like all of the guys using automatic weapons in a WW1 game, where rarely anyone ever touched anything else but their bolt action rifles.
This drastically changes the gameplay and destroys any WW1 atmosphere. BF1 basically feels like some random steampunk setting.
For the guys who wants realism I recomment verdun. It has not battlefields 1 graphics and there is no single player campaing but its historicaly accurate on landscapes , weapon and battles. But be carefull keep your head down on this game you an die on a single rifle shot.
You forgot the scar h in bf4 scar h is used by spec ops and bf4 multi is spec ops soilder usa us marine force recon russians spetnaz chinease spec ops so yeah us m4a1 m16a4 scar h russia ak 12 ak12u pkp pencheng china qbz 1 AR carbine and lmg bf4 accuracy
Omfg people look if bf1 was a "simulation" then it would REALSTIC. But its not. It is a game that wants to be fun and back then in ww1 they didn't have all the guns we see today. It was basically a rifle or a shotgun. But in bf1 they wanted it to be fun. So they added those un-realistic weapons to add variety into it. All war games do that to make it "FUN." So please stop raving about bf1 not be realistic because all dice wants to do is to make a game that has a little bit of realism into it but not make to realistic.
the devs should embrace the restrictions of ww1 rather than blow them away because they arent creative enough to create a new style of gameplay. verdun (2014) did this really well where the gameplay is about capturing trenches and retreating to defences. when i look at bf1 it just looks so ridiculous, like you could be a german and be on the other side of the map behind enemy lines like wtf that would never happen in ww1..
I really want a triple A ww1 title that is like battlefield but more accurate. Or a game mode in bf1 where it is actually a trench warfare, waves game mode. operations feels very grindy and too much like cod. if they had a version that had a waves system where the battlefield can change and the attackers can be pushed back. more trenched fighting with many choke points. it would add something a lot of the player community are looking for from this game
I don't quite care because I looks amazing and it gives that world war 2 rustic fell and I love it's me to be fun not completely realistic if it was realistic your gun would jam constantly and the game would just be awful I love it except when there's grenade spam but we all do it.
I disagree with the "in modern BFs too there's prototype weapons" argument. Roleplay as a mercenary, problem solved. Want to use a RFB and a Unica alongside your Chinese bros ? You bought them before taking the plane to Lemonland to work under a contract for general ching chong. There you go. One line justify all the weapons represented in BF4.
Helriegels or other proto-guns were NOT produced at all. Maybe one or two were around, but that's all. There's no justification whatsoever.
in the words of Skallagrim, theres a difference between realism and accuracy. Is battlefield one realistic? Yes, the things in the game theoretically could happen. However, they didnt, making it not historically accurate.
"Battlefield 4 isn't historically accurate."
Battlefield 4 takes place in 2020 and it's between three nuclear powers, there's no need for historical accuracy. But Battlefield 1, well, I'm sure it confused a lot of kids, even younger adults, schools don't teach history very well (not anymore at least), I know cause I've learned a lot more from the Internet and Wikipedia than I have in school.
I understand the whole 'fun' and 'variety' thing but the problem is you got skilled players playing historically and using bolt-action while getting gunned down by huge swathes of automatic guns. Not only is it historically inaccurate in that sense but it punishes you for playing that way.
it makes more sense in modern set games because you could just say its in the near future. ww3 hasnt happened yet anyway, so its fine to have prototype weapons being used in it because they might be used in real ww3. you cant do the same with ww1, it already happened.
you can have realistic weapon stats and balance in the same game. you just pick a different gun model to fit the stats. its the reason i hate csgo. the 9mm from the p250 has more dmg than the 5.56 from the m4s. only at valve.
Here would be a good compromise: Have the story mode be mostly historically accurate, and have the multiplayer be all ridiculous and shit. That way, we get the best of both worlds. Because, for me, the fact that they went and crazy with liberties in this game, is what kept me from getting it. I always wanted a WWI game, that really captured the feeling of being there. And this did not do that at all.
just little research shows how wrong you are, only 20 tanks? Britain alone made more then 1,600 tanks and the very first deployment had around 60 mark V heavy tanks. this fuckin video has more historical innaccuracies then bf1
I agree, although I believe the majority of warfare included in battles is unrealistic.
would you have town to town close combat during WW1? No, the majority was trench warfare and the same old tactics of going over the top into no mans land and achieving little in doing so.
Battlefield 1 is a very hands on fast pace type of gameplay and if you really think about it, this kind of fast paced, mobile warfare didn't occur on an immense scale till WW2 when you saw the rise of faster tanks with better armaments, planes flying higher and faster than ever before and infantry more mobile in vehicles than ever.
Yet the game claims all the time to be a great, realistic game which is almost a carbon copy of the war almost 100 years since it ended in 1918. This is a lie due to the massive inaccuracy of gameplay and fashion of warfare which you see within the game and casts a doubt whether the game is really all that it claims to be so much better.
Although do take some consideration that this style of warfare may be hard to achieve and to an average battlefield player who knows nothing of the war may find it a massive annoyance and a bore.
A game although not graphically the best as this game which captures WW1 more is Verdun which captivates more realism from the war than battlefield 1 by a long shot including things such as your player being killed for desertion if not attacking the main objective or retreating without order.
To the average player of battlefield 1, I ask you one thing to question after this when you do go around claiming the games awesomeness and realism, is it what the war was? Was it exactly this style of warfare? Were encounters like the battles people fight in every match ever a thing?
Keep that in mind when claiming the game to be as realistic as you believe it to be.
Well, the looks of BF1, is cool. I would prefer a new WWII BF game, but I have come to truly dislike the chaotic gamestyle BF games has. Start at each side, run, take flag, run more, take new flag, run back, recapture flag, respawn next to enemy, die your ass off without getting chance to fire shot and so on, so on. Just feels chaotic to me.Then again, that is just my opinion:)
And... still easy for people to use cheats in 2017. Ugh!
Nolans Gaming Thank you... And people need to know that this game still has some realistic dynamics, at least more than most other shooters. If only people would 1) quit comparing this to games like Verdun and Arma, and 2) stop confusing realism with historical accuracy
Never did get battlefield fanboys. I mean I play battlefield more than Call of duty (easy when you don't play call of duty). But the one thing that irks me about the fanboys is whenever the fanboy kiddos start to bash call of duty.
They always point out realism. But when you point out how unrealistic it is... They get mad and always go back to "if games were realistic they won't be fun"
tl;dr Battlefield fanboys love to point out realism, but when proven otherwise they complain about it being boring.
They're not true BF fans. Battlefield was never about realism, it was about the game itself. It was about "battlefield". You play BF because you like the scale of warfare, not the authenticity of it.
But you can't really blame the game for having an elitist fanbase. I mean, look at Arma, they have a pretty elitist fanbase as well although the game seems to draw a more mature audience.
this is one the big bess was actually a male tank but the one in the game they said it's a female but it has Canon the difference of male and female male have rockets and females have machine guns and the real big bess is a mark 4 but in the game it's a mark 5 that makes no sense
well not to nitpick but the Ak12 is actually officially adopted by the Russian military # ratnik program, its been issued to elite units however the ratnik program applied to up to 50,000 solders. SO while not standard issue , it may be new, but its very much indeed in vast enough service, and around in very relevant #s.
I really question the thought process of some the people in this comment section. Realism and the Battlefield franchise are not two concepts that really overlap very much. Though i do think a ww1 setting is probably where this is most visible seeing how slow the actual war was. This is why this game elicits such a loud response from the "muh realism" crowd, who when confronted by the argument that this Battlefield is a very arcady series can only responded "muh realism mutherfucer"
Bf1=Bf4 + ww1 skin, It is really uncool to see brittish zeppelins in France with a Iron cross. I thought this game would be the first game for m to buy from origins store but no. Just another bf3 reskin. I come from the Arma world so I know how it should be, slow n steady
What really makes me upset is the amount of shots it takes to kill someone. It should not take me shooting 2/3s of my magazine while getting 5 to 7 hit markers to kill someone. I was using the lewis gun and i literally just get hit markers and if i get lucky an assist counted as a kill. What guns are lethal ? seems like just the shotguns and bolt action rifles.
Battlefield 1 although is unrealistic it still gets the message across. War is Hell.
They have to favor gameplay over historical accuracy or else they won't sell good, Although I thimk dice should have some realistic game mode where all classes get more bolt action or medic weapons and tanks can cut out or parachutes aren't as reliable. It would be a really good twist.
Have people already forgotten this is suppose to be a videogame, And not a history lesson? Who the fuck cares about historical accuracy when you're playing an online Multiplayer game, where you kill players, gain xp and unlock weapons that almost never saw any use in the field. Morons, fucking morons.
I agree with what he is saying. if any Battlefield game. or really any game at all was made to dead extreme realism. Then I don't think anyone would play them. like World War 1 was terrifying. Historically it's been one of the scariest wars of all time. if BF1 was made to be like that. There is no way in hell i would play this.
Our on-going goal with Steam is to improve the service we offer customers. We believe that by sharing this data, well be able to spot problems earlier, improve the Steam service more efficiently, and ultimately build better products and experiences. Let us know what you think. Concurrent Steam Users (most recent 48 hours).
1001 Free Steam Games Worth Playing
The second one balances difficulty and RPG mechanics seamlessly to make the game always rewarding. " Free. Recommended March 6. "Fun and engaging game with a twist that comes out of left field. Not very long, but worth the time, definitely worth a second play through to unlock all its secrets.