- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Battlefield 1 Multiplayer - Not impressed--yet
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:24 am to Cdub_tiger
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:24 am to Cdub_tiger
My son plays this game, and I was initially interested in playing it myself... until I saw all the automatic weapons in a WWI game.
Come on, man. I get that portable machine guns are fun, but a WWI game should have waaaaay more single-shot bolt action rifles than fully automatic weapons for infantry. At least regulate the number of them per side.
There's not much difference between this "WWI game" and any other Battlefield iteration, as a result. It's just run around, spray bullets, and get sprayed. Die in 30 seconds. Respawn, repeat.
I just don't get how that is fun. This is exactly why most multiplayer games are bullshite. There's no real consequence to anything. Which leads to no strategy. Which leads to mindless chaos. I really think Battlefield missed an opportunity here to create something different, as opposed to something that just looks different.
Come on, man. I get that portable machine guns are fun, but a WWI game should have waaaaay more single-shot bolt action rifles than fully automatic weapons for infantry. At least regulate the number of them per side.
There's not much difference between this "WWI game" and any other Battlefield iteration, as a result. It's just run around, spray bullets, and get sprayed. Die in 30 seconds. Respawn, repeat.
I just don't get how that is fun. This is exactly why most multiplayer games are bullshite. There's no real consequence to anything. Which leads to no strategy. Which leads to mindless chaos. I really think Battlefield missed an opportunity here to create something different, as opposed to something that just looks different.
2
Posted on 11/30/16 at 9:46 am to SpqrTiger
quote:
Come on, man. I get that portable machine guns are fun, but a WWI game should have waaaaay more single-shot bolt action rifles than fully automatic weapons for infantry. At least regulate the number of them per side.
If you have a problem with this, I can kiiinda understand. They have to walk a line between being historically accurate and having a fun game that people will buy and play for a long time.
quote:
There's not much difference between this "WWI game" and any other Battlefield iteration, as a result. It's just run around, spray bullets, and get sprayed. Die in 30 seconds. Respawn, repeat.
I just don't get how that is fun. This is exactly why most multiplayer games are bullshite. There's no real consequence to anything. Which leads to no strategy. Which leads to mindless chaos. I really think Battlefield missed an opportunity here to create something different, as opposed to something that just looks different.
But this is just not true at all. Knowing that you havent even played the game really just makes all of this a pretty ignorant statement.
Posted on 11/30/16 at 2:59 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
It's just run around, spray bullets, and get sprayed. Die in 30 seconds. Respawn, repeat.
Sounds like your kid is just bad. Probably should ground him.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News