Anyone else also thinks Verdun is better than BF1 ?

[Animal Mother]

As tittle says, i've played BF1 since closed alpha and with EA to release ranked up to 50.

Graphics ,maps ,animations indeed are pretty well made and nice in BF1 , but armory and WW1 Gameplay is missing big time in general , especailly Trench Warfare is almost non-exist.

Only 1 mode keeps me playing BF1 and that is Operations.

In Verdun, graphics are maybe not that good , there are no horse or tank/aircraft/ship play,
but Verdun seems and feels like provides more accurate historical WW1 Gameplay with intensive tactical trench defence and assault along with very nice feel of no man land rushing .

Verdun also provies much better armory in general especially much better bolt action rifles.

Wish Devs of Verdun had more funds or supported by AAA publisher, then maybe game would be run on much better and powerful engine and provides more , it would be top WW1 Game i think.

What you guys do think?

[kikin032]

BF1 is ♥♥♥♥

[Cocobear]

I do

[KekecDrekec]

for me that is true but battlefiled 1 is good but not as good history as verdun. Well as you sayd real trench wars, no man's land and soo on. Meaby adding tanks would be good. but again not overpowerd slow as ♥♥♥♥ they should be as the real ww1 and that you actualy have to move to every machine gun (becose there was no rotation machine guns at that time if you know what i mean) but making games and updating them is very tought especialy if you aren't a professional at this. I still think battlefield 1 is good for messing around and verdun for seriously ww1 fun and real historial fighting. sorry for english

[XOskeletal]

Verdun stole me away from the Battlefield franchise, because of frontline mode. If another shooter had that mode and was better optimized, I'd probably play that.

[Shallot]

What the hell are you guys on about? The only two things these games have in common is that they take place in the same war. Battlefield is not supposed to be realistic, or historically accurate, it's goal is look gun and be fun. And they did a damn fine job at that. Comepltly different games, I like them both

[Animal Mother]

Originally posted by Onion Ninja (mr. C):

What the hell are you guys on about? The only two things these games have in common is that they take place in the same war. Battlefield is not supposed to be realistic, or historically accurate, it's goal is look gun and be fun. And they did a damn fine job at that. Comepltly different games, I like them both

Well, even if you compare BF1 with BF2 still lacks of proper gameplay. Seems they've gone full arcade and insist keeping it like that after BF3.

Lets not compare the Gameplay with Verdun vs BF1 then, but what about the armory? Verdun has much better versatile rifles , while BF1 has very limited selection.

Shooting bolt-action rifles or semi-auto rifles feels much better in Verdun due to design, while shooting those in BF1 doesn't give that much of satisfaction.

Having lewis gun in Verdun or any other MG actually provide suppression , in BF1 these mgs can't even supress enemies at all in distance due to game mechanics.

Squads actually work together in Verdun, BF1 Squads are not functional at all.

Here some guy's comment on Reddit regards of BF1 https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/4u3jzk/bf1_if_battlefield_1_sucks_its_your_fault/d93ikzl/

interesting and got some valid points though.

[RSW2002]

Completely different games aimed at different audiences. The only thing they share is the setting, which BF1 barely adheres to outside of emotional manipulation in the form of displaying real dead soldier's names while Verdun is very true to its setting. (Which is not the same as "historically accurate" gameplay)

If you swapped out most of the skins/models in BF1 for WW2 weapons while keeping all of their stats, people would hardly notice.

[BigBoss]

Originally posted by RSW2002:

Completely different games aimed at different audiences. The only thing they share is the setting, which BF1 barely adheres to outside of emotional manipulation in the form of displaying real dead soldier's names while Verdun is very true to its setting. (Which is not the same as "historically accurate" gameplay)

If you swapped out most of the skins/models in BF1 for WW2 weapons while keeping all of their stats, people would hardly notice.

+1

[xBCxRangers]

That's a WW2 game. And not much of a replay value. I think it's already going on sale lol.

[Omega]

BF1 is a steampunk shooter in a great war setting.

[vyrago]

I bought Verdun some time ago during a sale. I didnt play it much but then I bought BF1 and after a few hours I shut if off now i'm playing Verdun every day. BF1 is like a Michael Bay movie. All style and no substance.

[Kermit the Frog]

Originally posted by Omega:

BF1 is a steampunk shooter in a great war setting.

How the hell is it steampunk? All the weapons were real (either experimental or just very rare). They did use zeppelins in ww1 as well as tanks.

[Kermit the Frog]

Stop these petty circle jerk threads! I have to agree with Zab these are getting old

[Coom Dimmadome]

Verdun and BF1 have little in common. It's like comparing Verdun and RO2. Apples and oranges.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Omega:

BF1 is a steampunk shooter in a great war setting.

Yes, it is a great fantasy shooter.