Battlefield 1

[lars573]

Tragedy is the least of my concerns. Apparently, they are not going to reproduce the biggest contributors of Entente, either. Russia and France are not in the game, which is a historical disgrace or a DLC, another form of disgrace.

I know it's just a game, but I'm becoming a bit fed up with Anglosaxonic egocentrism.

Never played a Battlefield game then? You don't play as a faction on maps. You play maps that have factions on them. So if they just leave engagements that include France and Russia out for later DLC's then they won't be in at launch. Also you really need to build a bridge and get over the fact that the gaming industry runs on DLC and other forms of Micro transactions.

After all the gameplay footage and all that fun stuff I'm a little disenchanted so far. Everyone is using SMG's, Semi-automatic Rifles, and every gun seems to have a scope, for-grip, and/or bayonet attached.

What did you expect? This game uses the exact same engine that Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront use.

[Husar]

What did you expect? This game uses the exact same engine that Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront use.

Does that mean FIFA 17 will also have lots of SMGs and foregrips?

[Crandar]

Never played a Battlefield game then? You don't play as a faction on maps. You play maps that have factions on them. So if they just leave engagements that include France and Russia out for later DLC's then they won't be in at launch. Also you really need to build a bridge and get over the fact that the gaming industry runs on DLC and other forms of Micro transactions.

Well then it is a historical disgrace that the Eastern Front was ignored. And I am really curious to learn what maps they found where only British and Americans, but not a single Frenchman, fought. DLC is the norm and shame on the consumers for that, but I am not seeing why I should stop protesting.

[lars573]

So never played a Battlefield game then, got it. As this series has always made you buy content packs for new armies. And protesting DLC (as a concept) at this point is like moaing about de-colonization.

National armies had responsibility for specific sections on the front. So it's ludicrously easy to focus in on a specific action that only has one entente or central powers army on each side. As the maps in a BF game cover maybe 5-10 square km. And focus on one specific action, like the battle of Wake island or the capture of Caen.

[Crandar]

De-colonization is not a current phenomenon, so not a very apt comparison. The fact that Battlefield and EA are very proud of spamming DLCs is irrelevant, unless you believe that complaining about Nazi gangs beating up foreigners is nonsensical, because Nazi gangs always attacked foreigners.

Even if Battlefield maps have a size of 20 square meters, not adding 20 square meters, where French and Russians fought and died in WWI is ridiculous history-wise and very shameful, if they are sold later as DLCs.

[lars573]

De-colonization is not a current phenomenon, so not a very apt comparison. The fact that Battlefield and EA are very proud of spamming DLCs is irrelevant, unless you believe that complaining about Nazi gangs beating up foreigners is nonsensical, because Nazi gangs always attacked foreigners.

Oh but it is. As your complaining about something that's not only over and done (digital DLC being the norm). But has been done for quite sometime.

Even if Battlefield maps have a size of 20 square meters, not adding 20 square meters, where French and Russians fought and died in WWI is ridiculous history-wise and very shameful, if they are sold later as DLCs.

In Battlefield 1942 the Italian army, Free French forces, and sub-factions like the USMC, SS, SAS, RAF, Luftwaffe were only available through the expansion packs. Where's your butthurt for that? It's the exact same situation as France and Russia being held back for DLC later.

[Crandar]

Oh but it is. As your complaining about something that's not only over and done (digital DLC being the norm). But has been done for quite sometime.

If it is over and done, it a bit difficult also being the norm. I really can't explain it more simply. I won't whine about Hitler, who is over and done, but I will protest about Nazi thugs who aren't over and done. It's not rocket science.

In Battlefield 1942 the Italian army, Free French forces, and sub-factions like the USMC, SS, SAS, RAF, Luftwaffe were only available through the expansion packs. Where's your butthurt for that? It's the exact same situation as France and Russia being held back for DLC later.

Yeah, not really the same, but I would still complain, if I was a member of the forum in 2002 and that was a thread about Battlefield 1942 and not about Battlefield 1.

[Husar]

I absolutely get the frustration about DLCs *buys a DLC*, but they're so pretty...

Actually I often buy games later as a complete package with Season Pass or all DLCs included because I just don't think a Tomb Raider or so is worth 90 bucks even with a few cave-DLCs tacked on. If the DLCs are more like smaller addons similar to what we had ages ago, then I think they can be justified, although usually DLCs are way overpriced if you compare the work required to make a full game and the work to make a few assets and then compare the prices...

I still buy some depending on the company, the contents and so on, but I also leave a lot of other games for sales and then sometimes for when they are 10€ or less on the other hand, because my overall budget for games does not change much just because they want more money per game now...