Yep, people just rat-ta-tatting all over the place. They found any automatic some shop-worker kludged together in their garage and put it in as standard equipment. Presumably so as to not alienate the sprayers, or because close-quarters aiming is a ***** on controllers and a single shot would make melee the defacto fight winner at any range below 5 yards.Darth_Payn said:And they really still have automatic weapons like from WWII for this game? Why not the single-shot rifles they actually had in the war? I've played WWII shooters that had those.
This guy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner]moosemaimer said:Last frame of the video, who is the imp riding?
What's funny is I had kind of the same feeling about Darkest of Days. They go to the trouble of setting up this whole thing where you work for a time travel agency in the future and you go back to historic battles so you have to be careful who you shoot and to use period weapons in order to not change history, except then the game occasionally goes "Fuck it" and your co-worker gives you a future assault rifle and tells you to go to town. It doesn't even lampshade it either. To make it worse, the last mission is in Pompeii just before the town is buried by the Eruption, so all those futuristic bullet casing are gonna look kind of out of place when the archeologists dig them up in about 2 millenia. No changing history my ass.Sheo_Dagana said:Probably one of Yahtzee's more delightful reviews in a while, I am equally baffled at why you would even bother setting a game in World War I if you were going to ape all the weaponry from the future. This is why I usually only play shooters set in the future; you can go as crazy with the weaponry as you want and no one's going to be asking questions. Not that the average Battlefield player probably cares, but I have a hard time getting past it.
If you bought Battlefield for the singleplayer, you did something wrong to begin with.Elvaril said:This was my first Battlefield game because I was really excited about the setting. Was really hoping for some missions as the Central Powers since there was no good or bad side in this war. Instead we got this super short Allied Powers campaign. Consequently this was also my last Battlefield game.
If you'd played Battlefield 1942, you'd know there is a standard another historical Battlefield could at the very least match, which would make it a lot better than the most recent Battlefields, but yeah... nah. They didn't even really go for that either.Bindal said:If you bought Battlefield for the singleplayer, you did something wrong to begin with.Elvaril said:This was my first Battlefield game because I was really excited about the setting. Was really hoping for some missions as the Central Powers since there was no good or bad side in this war. Instead we got this super short Allied Powers campaign. Consequently this was also my last Battlefield game.
But honestly, did anyone really expect anything beyond "it's actually just another shooter with a different coat of paint"? I sure didn't.
I bought it for both single player and multiplayer, but only because WWI is a time period I really like. I've never played any Battlefield before so this was going to be a potential jumping off point to get me into the series as I do generally tend to enjoy fps games. Campaign didn't sell me, so I'll just enjoy the multiplayer for a while then move back to other fps series I enjoy more.Bindal said:If you bought Battlefield for the singleplayer, you did something wrong to begin with.Elvaril said:This was my first Battlefield game because I was really excited about the setting. Was really hoping for some missions as the Central Powers since there was no good or bad side in this war. Instead we got this super short Allied Powers campaign. Consequently this was also my last Battlefield game.
But honestly, did anyone really expect anything beyond "it's actually just another shooter with a different coat of paint"? I sure didn't.
I was kinda hoping this would be worth a try for the campaign. Hell, I enjoy the average CoD campaign despite basically being video game version of an action film, because it does it well. The last battlefield game I tried was Bad Company 2 and it didn't exactly win me over. Instead, I kept thinking "This feels suspiciously like someone at EA saw CoD:MW2 and decided they needed to make the same game but with just enough changes not to get sued".Bindal said:If you bought Battlefield for the singleplayer, you did something wrong to begin with.Elvaril said:This was my first Battlefield game because I was really excited about the setting. Was really hoping for some missions as the Central Powers since there was no good or bad side in this war. Instead we got this super short Allied Powers campaign. Consequently this was also my last Battlefield game.
But honestly, did anyone really expect anything beyond "it's actually just another shooter with a different coat of paint"? I sure didn't.