Is anyone here just purely disgusted and annoyed at how popular BF1 is...

>why is a big triple A game that focuses on fun gameplay more popular than autism simulators?

oh gee. Did you also throw a hissy fit when BF1942 had BARs for all the allies?

Not even mad desu.
>Great air gameplay
√
>slrs
√
>shooting t*rks in Sinai
√
Day 1 buy for me desu

the armenian genocide happened

Yeah, I know.

K*rds admitted to it, which makes sense since they live on those long lost ancient Armenian lands that the Armenian people will never see again.

>The fronts that they're focusing on are disappointing

Fucking Gallipoli and Bedouin shit when France and Russia arent in

I'm Australian and I can't get enthusiastic about Gallipolli. ANZAC Day and the whole legend of the Gallipolli conflict is a poor excuse for what was a shameful waste of life. T*rks should be pretty proud of how solidly they held on but I personally think the conflict should be forgotten or recognized as the mess it was.

French here
I've seen more foreigners get mad at the lack of France on /int/ (pic related) than on actual French websites
On the biggest French video games forum, most people tell you "lol it's just a game" or "don't be chauvinistic" when you mention it.

This country is so cucked that we give our money to Anglo media when they try to erase us from history
If a game about the Pacific War had left the US out, I'm certain it'd have been boycotted in the US

>French here
Are we talking actual french or a maghrébi?

Actual French maghrebi

Oh my.

Give Solun pls!

It was just so diverse and shiet
Why didnt DICE use it for their cuck fantasies instead of making up shit about the Western front?

yeah I've opted out of playing it because I've been excited for a WWI game and I'm disgusted that BF1 calls itself that.

it's as though they released a civil war gun with people walking around holding gatling guns and throwing fuse bombs around like grenades. you might think that's hyperbole but no BF1 is that inaccurate.

You forgot replacing one of the two major factions with some Indian tribe

Because you'd be lucky to have people know the Eastern Front was a war of movement and that the Italian front was even a thing. Since the effort you'd put in, even as DLC, would be too much for what you could get monetarily, they probably haven't even considered it.

Didn't they say they wanted to depict "forgotten aspects of WW1" or something?

>Then proceed to add a British pilot and Gallipoli

I want to play as a Greek soldier so fucking much.
I'ts gonna be awesone

>-British pilot
>-British tank crew
>-Bedouin woman who fights for Britain
>-Aussie messenger
>-Harlem Hellfighter
Nah. Go watch the single player gameplay. When you die, you get spawned into the body of a totally different soldier, this happens every single time you die, and it tells you your name and age at death.

>Be British soldier
>Die
>Get spawned into another British soldier

Point still stands
And I'm pretty sure the British piilot and tanker are stable characters

>video game about sitting in a trench all day and dying from trenchfoot

I agree with you muchly my man.
So many Australians with badass military history (Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Sudanese, Boar War etc) and we focus on Gallipoli? Pants on head.

it's called artistic license

They could concentrate on the fighting part just like they do in WW2 games
An accurate WW2 game would be about walking/sitting in a truck all day

The "forgotten aspects" were, apparently, "No, Italians weren't complete buffoons in warfare back then" and "Australians did go to war." While as an Italian I am glad those two got added, I wish we could play on the Balkanic Front as an Austro-Hungarian or as a Greek or as a Serbian. Or, even cooler yet, play as a German soldier in China versus the Japanese.

>it's not even available as DLC

> entire WWI was like West front trench warfare

You know they will add new campaigns as DLC right? You'll get a French and Russian on eventually and maybe even German. I bet they aren't planning German but there will be such a demand that they'll do it. DICE are quite good at listening to the community.

And no Serbia either, they've done remarkably well in the first year of the war.

This.

If they wanted to add brown people, they should have used Serbs, who were actually relevant.

the total war series hasn't been that bad though

bait

Almost disappointed about Gallipoli, I can meme STEEL SPRINGS but I would have preferred the Middle-Eastern theatre, Sinai or Palestine, but it does seem the game is including multiplayer maps as well as an Arab revolt character. It has me confused that people seem disappointed about the inclusion of the theatre, even though I understand the disappointment and confusion over the lack of France at launch.

They're slightly tanned, not brown.

right here with you
the thing that pisses me most off though is that anyone criticizing it gets labeled a either a racist or a call of duty fanboy

>Anglo media
>Developer(s) EA DICE
>EA Digital Illusions CE AB(shortEA DICE, formerlyDigital Illusions HBand laterDigital Illusions CE AB) is a Swedishvideo game developerbased inStockholm

This comes up on the reg, apparently EA are an American company pushing Anglo interests through a Swedish company or something. Not sure if /int/posters are retarded or schizophrenic.

Nothing's too clever for the Eternal Anglo user. Britannia rules the waves, the skies, the net and everything else that is or ever will be.

The single player gameplay yesterday was complete trash as well.

>Why did the Germans come out of their trenches when defending?
>Where was all the artillery?
>Why was there a fucking zeppelin in the middle of a battle?
>The ending crap about war being pointless with the two guys not shooting each other.
>Flametroopers running around everywhere.
>There was fuck all communication or tactical skill. They basically just painted 1918 as a fucking fire and bayonet charge. Where was the co-ordinated squad tactics, the creeping artillery barrages or the proper co-ordination with tanks.

The funniest part was that the masses didn't question any of this and many took the footage of how it would have been like in those days...

>gameplay matches nothing like WWI. No trench warfare
I am wondering just what do you think "trench warfare" looked like? In the context of small unit action.

I see the above thrown around as if people thought the soldiers were sitting xxx yards across each other in trenches and exchanging shots 24/7, all the while constantly being under artillery fire, and sometimes they got out of the trench and just died or somesuch nonsense.

You would have small squads of men, taking cover, moving quickly and following the creeping artillery barrage as closely as possible. When this lifts, they assault the enemy trenches.

Planes would be used to spot enemy artillery positions so they could be neutralized. Tanks would be used a breakthrough weapon to clear wire and enemy bunkers.

It's about as historically accurate as Veeky Forums yet you are still here.

except their capital of Al Londonistan.

Because historically accurate WW1 combat wouldn't be fun in an FPS game [spoiler]in the minds of the shitters who still buy Battlefield games.[/spoiler]

>I'll never mow down countless colonials, anglos, frenchies and whatever pitiful rabble they scrounged up to subdue bulgaria

>Small squads of men

Only when the trenches aren't so far from each other. Even just 500 metres is too far for small unit action.

So you would have squads of men moving in cover and firing their weapons. I could swear I have just seen a twelve-minute video that was showing roughly that - with the caveat of being an action video game.

Verdun is trash.
Stop shilling for it.

All part of the master plan, probably.

What's so shit about it?

If thats what you saw then its pointless arguing. Around the 9 minute mark, the level just turns into team deathmatch in no mans land...

I know you have to allow certain inaccuracies for it being a video game, but it didn't look right at all.

makes you really think

it was pretty bad, in fact, awful as fuck in terms of being historical.

But hey, as long as it's not about black german soldiers, nobody's gonna cry about it :^)

Yeah that's why it's such a typical Swedish game, full of Midsommer and Viking sagas.

Oh wait no it's an Americanised game made for Americanised audiences by an Americanised team which has fully assimilated all American cultural memes, including the one about France being an irrelevant piece of shit surrender monkey country.

autistic realism doesn't always make for compelling gameplay.

It's hardly autistic realism, it's arcadey as fuck

>cuckroaches
>white

As it has been said before, it's just a WWII game with WWI assets
I think the worst crime is the fact that the developers can't represent the multiple cultures in it for shit
niggers can't tell the difference between African-american and African

>Yeah that's why it's such a typical Swedish game, full of Midsommer and Viking sagas.
I didn't realise Swedes could only make games about Swedish things.
Fuck I'm sick of identity politics bullshit with all the crap about cultural appropriation.

...

>starts arguing about the guns.

I like them, they're fun even though they're...

>polacking intensifies.

>"No, Italians weren't complete buffoons in warfare back then"
I dunno, Cadorna gave that impression pretty strongly.

I played a little of the beta. Yeah, they basically made another WWII game and called it WWI.

>You know they will add new campaigns as DLC right?

From what I heard it's MP only

if it were ww2 there would still be more bolt action tbqh

Hagrid

Its because its a game for mass sales. Its meant to be more fun than realistic. What you want is more like Arma which is a lot slower paced because that's how actual firefights are. Real combat is a few seconds of shear terror and hours at least of boredom.

>decide to try the demo
>Ottoman army has white Stalhelms and French tanks
>mfw

>stalhelms
Not as stupid as you think, user.
As a huge fan of the Ottos though it seems pretty clear that they've been included solely as fodder for Angloboos and that meme bedouin girl.

>history in video games
That's Racist!

So you're saying warpigs didnt happen? Tell me more.

I think if the campaign does even a half assed job of any major battles I will be happy with highend effects. I do agree though with having so many blacks was dumb. I understand having them show up and even a playable character in a black force isnt a bad thing to give more perspective but they were not intermixed like in the gameplay and trailers.

It's funny because this exact shit has happened to WW2 for 20+ years now.

Now you WW1 autists know how we feel

To be fair the eastern front was all but over by the period we will be starting the game in. They wanted it to be late war to justify the semi auto and smgs better which puts Russia out of the war and 95% of the major fighting on western and other small scale fronts.

I don't get why people are upset about it. Historical accuracy in media is a chimera anyway, especially so in video games.

Will some people form ignorant ideas of WWI because of it? Sure. Bu it'll also create interest in a subject rarely portrayed in that medium, to a demographic otherwise apathetic to it, and some will pick up a book because of it.

They did happen, but having huge flaming pig battalions is an absolute meme. Creative assembly extrapolated a couple isolated instances of lighting animals on fire as desperation tactic to freak out elephants into a full on doctrine.

Largely due to rule of fun I'm guessing. Like how they made Ptolemaic Egypt look like something out of the Mummy movies.

>French tanks in the game
>French army not in the game

France had the best and most modern tank during WW1
Dice definitly needed that one for their WW2 game in a WW1 skin

As for giving it to the Ottomans, they probably thought that since they were going to rewrite history, they may as well do it completely
It's not like the average 12 years old who'll play that game knows where the Renault FT really originated anyway...

This game has gotten a bunch of younger people interested in ww1.

French here

You're lying people on JVC are mad about it.

You might be legitimately retarded if you can't understand the difference between that and BF1

>people that don't like having their history rewritten are stormfags

They're being intentionally divisive is what's happening

I mean honestly, do you people not see this? Are you all autistic?

Checked

I bet every returning soldier could get laid after the massive population drop in European countries after the war.

>Ottomans look like IDF guys, not a single stache in the bunch
>black German troops in Europe
>everyone has smg's
>tanks fly around like it's nothing (sometimes literally, due to EA's shitty bugfix process)
>everything's about Brits, when it was ultimately more a war between France and Germany

I recommend Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger

It really highlighted the difference in mindset of the soldiers of that time, compared to later conflicts, while nonchalantly recalling how horrible the war really was, all the while never getting preachy or whiny, as the British perspective tends to be.

Fuck I'm sick of /int/posters. Everything has to be framed antagonistically; every opportunity made to take a swipe at The Enemy, as if people have started to believe their own shitposting. Whether British, French, German, American, Australian, Canadian etc; every opportunity to shit on their fixation must be made and damn the truth, which is a cancerous attitude to bring over to Veeky Forums.

Robert Graves' Good-bye to All That is probably the most widely read and well known of the British WWI memoirs. The two suicides that bracket his frontline experiences might well be a literary conceit (he originally started writing a novel) but you'd struggle to draft those passages, or the grenade demonstration, or rumours of the killing of prisoners etc, much more matter-of-factly than they are on the page.

>running around like a spastic on ritalin is fun
>somehow over the last 8 years bolt actions have become unfun
???

Explain for the class how a video game in a series that has never been hard on historical accuracy is any different from two popular war movies.

Or if you want something even better, what about Tora! Tora! Tora! and Midway? Are they revisionism too?

because those movies are actually well written and acted instead of being a barely veiled excuse for Mtn Dew addled 13 year olds to scream insults at each other over a mic.

>if a person has a prior history of committing a fallacy it's not a fallacy anymore even though they still keep doing it