BF5 WWI Confirmed

[jooni]

talking about the military here, not about attacks on civilian

if we discount the armenian genocide, WW2 was a way worse time to be a civilian

but WW1 was worse for the soldiers

uh you realize that the soviets and the nazis captured each others forces and literally made them sit in concentration camps right?

 

[liew]

sounds fun for a video game!

mate, I was referring to the real life conflict. Ofc you aren't going to get all that in a video game... Well, most of the time, but I was just stating a point.

 

[ruben slikk]

uh you realize that the soviets and the nazis captured each others forces and literally made them sit in concentration camps right?

rather take my chance in a concentration camp than the aforementioned horrors in the trenches

 

[Black Rain (1989)]

google the rape of nanking

or what about the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki

or the holocaust

in the introduction of his book the first world war, John Keegan cites that every shot fired at the battle of Verdun was a shot fired at the battle of Stalingrad - every death at the Somme taken was a death at Auschwitz - they are essentially the same prolonged conflict with a twenty year armistice - ww1 is a the direct cause for the second

and also, good job comparing massacres to actual combat - but i would be inclined to agree that some aspects of ww2 caused more casualties but that is simply due to the fact that technology was more advanced and more countries / people participated

and okay - the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki - 170'000 killed if we combine both attacks?

they were done with an intense weapon unimaginable to the people of the early 20th century

now imagine ten times the losses (Verdun) over the period of 11 months or so - with people murdering each other with artillery, gas, bayonets and rifles - absolutely terrifying stuff

to be fair i think it is rather petty and disrespectful to be having a dick measuring competition with casualty statistics; especially with someone who is clearly just trying to get a response - but i am just trying to prove a point to others who may not be as informed to the actuality of the first world war

 

[PEGG LEGG]

uh you realize that the soviets and the nazis captured each others forces and literally made them sit in concentration camps right?

Yeah, we get it. Nanking, Hiroshima, war crimes, the holocaust. It all happened, and mostly to civilians. WW1 was literally sitting in a trench getting bombed day in and day out, gas attacks, the machine gun, the flame thrower, and the world's introduction to planes and tanks in war. WW1 literally set the future of front line warfare in motion. You're upset because you didn't get your generic run of the mill shooter, so what? Don't bring everyone else down for getting excited for one of the first (if not the first) triple A games on WW1.

 

[jooni]

in the introduction of his book the first world war, John Keegan cites that every shot fired at the battle of Verdun was a shot fired at the battle of Stalingrad - every death at the Somme taken was a death at Auschwitz - they are essentially the same prolonged conflict with a twenty year armistice - ww1 is a the direct cause for the second

and also, good job comparing massacres to actual combat - but i would be inclined to agree that some aspects of ww2 caused more casualties but that is simply due to the fact that technology was more advanced and more countries / people participated

and okay - the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki - 170'000 killed if we combine both attacks?

they were done with an intense weapon unimaginable to the people of the early 20th century

now imagine ten times the losses (Verdun) over the period of 11 months or so - with people murdering each other with artillery, gas, bayonets and rifles - absolutely terrifying stuff

to be fair i think it is rather petty and disrespectful to be having a dick measuring competition with casualty statistics; especially with someone who is clearly just trying to get a response - but i am just trying to prove a point to others who may not be as informed to the actuality of the first world war

I'm well aware of what happened during the first world war, I still think it's a horrible place to have a video game. I'm also quite angry that DICE chose it because I felt like they were pandering really heavily to what people wanted than going with 2143 which they had been teasing for literally years.

Also both wars were brutal but I still think that WW2 was more impactful and overall brutal compared to WW1, adding to what you said that it was essentially the conclusion of a single world war with a 20 year armistice. That isn't to downplay the atrocities committed against soldiers in WW1, which was incredibly brutal.

It's just not my cup of tea and I was honestly venting frustrations in the thread earlier, my apologies for that. I just feel really cheesed atm.

 

[Black Rain (1989)]

I felt like they were pandering really heavily to what people wanted

i honestly dont think anyone was expecting a world war one game - like at all; and to be honest everyone is doing future warefare shit now, i mean just look at the new COD

If you really want a future shooter - go play that.

 

[Roosebud]

Hey guys what's going on in this threa-

Seriously though, I'd like to give it a shot. BF4 was fun but nothing new

 

[Deleted member 225]

guaranteed you it's bullshit. even dice is smart enough to know a WW1 setting would completely flop

 

[Expax]

guaranteed you it's bullshit. even dice is smart enough to know a WW1 setting would completely flop

why will it completely flop?

 

[Thy]

guaranteed you it's bullshit. even dice is smart enough to know a WW1 setting would completely flop

Granted it'd most likely be difficult to make a good WW1 game that appeals to the wider playerbase, but if they manage to pull it off it will just be even more awesome in the end.

 

[jooni]

i honestly dont think anyone was expecting a world war one game - like at all; and to be honest everyone is doing future warefare shit now, i mean just look at the new COD

If you really want a future shooter - go play that.

My main thing that I hate with COD though is that it's extremely over the top, it's why I hate the new halo as well. you literally fly up and fight in space battles in the case of COD, Halo 5 MP looks okay but it's honestly not halo anymore and it doesn't have the scale of warfare that a battlefield game has. I genuinely want 2143 because it wasn't over the top, it felt extremely constrained in reality. Soldiers didn't have jetpacks, they weren't super speed freaks. They were infantry with better gear, in terms of gadgets I'd actually argue BF4 has a lot of gadgets that mimic 2143 pretty hard. There is also the cool vehicles it added that again, were constrained in reality. The walkers were the furthest thing out besides the titans, but it still felt constrained in reality. The titans were interesting, and siegeing them was loads of fun.

In my opinion, futuristic warfare was perfect in 2142, it was a really good balance of futuristic technology but it still felt grounded in reality.

 

[Deleted member 225]

why will it completely flop?

because trench warfare is boring and repetitive as fuck, who wants to fight over a plain dull piece of dirt over and over again. It has a very limited selection of weapons and generally wouldn't appeal to many people.

 

[Expax]

because trench warfare is boring and repetitive as fuck, who wants to fight over a plain dull piece of dirt over and over again. It has a very limited selection of weapons and generally wouldn't appeal to many people.

ok so driving tanks, being in zeppelins, amazing dogfights, fighting in other areas than trenches and being on a horse with a sword went completely over your heard in the trailer?
ok

 

[Black Rain (1989)]

because trench warfare is boring and repetitive as fuck, who wants to fight over a plain dull piece of dirt over and over again. It has a very limited selection of weapons and generally wouldn't appeal to many people.

'world war one was just trench warfare'

 

[Deleted member 225]

'world war one was just trench warfare'

the majority of it being fighting in fields in france or some shit. Like why would you wanna do that when you can go for a more appealing WW2 setting that spands across the whole world, Africa, the pacific, france, italy, russia, germany etc.

 

[REDACTED]

looks alright but its a trailer so.......


although i like ww1 shit so this is good news for me

i hope its good because it looks alright

 

[Deleted member 225]

wow ok im dumb it's not bullshit, but still doubt it will be any good

 

[Expax]

the majority of it being fighting in fields in france or some shit. Like why would you wanna do that when you can go for a more appealing WW2 setting that spands across the whole world, Africa, the pacific, france, italy, russia, germany etc

smh

 

[REDACTED]

ok so driving tanks, being in zeppelins, amazing dogfights, fighting in other areas than trenches and being on a horse with a sword went completely over your heard in the trailer?
ok

tbh its not that

its how they deliver the final product
you could have all this amazing shit but in the end its all rubbish