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?

[cruiser]

Well I consider Verdun to be arcadey, it is not as arcadey as either Battlefield or Planetside, soldier. That is a false claim.
The TTK alone is proof of that fact.

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by ♠کεɑмυى♠:

Well I consider Verdun to be arcadey, it is not as arcadey as either Battlefield or Planetside, soldier. That is a false claim.
The TTK alone is proof of that fact.

If you think about it, the TTK in Verdun is about 10 times faster in Verdun. :P And with that, I present to you the latest COD games with their insanely fast TTK.

[Nedly Dedly]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

@Rangers
Actually, if you watch the video, you failed to notice that Levelcap does say he really enjoyed the Through Mud and Blood campaign - and as I keep on saying, play or watch through that. Most of his critisisms were due to how short it was (and some of the honestly less good ones, like Nothing is Written because it was just on an MP map), and that's it. But in the end, for me, the campaign isn't too much of an issue because I play MP 99% of the time - but to have a couple nice War Stories was a good refresher from the honestly crappy campaigns of past Battlefield games where you're shoved in a scenario and told to "go do that". Levelcap also shares that sympathy with me.

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Actually, I remember in one interview DICE devs saying that they are gonna stay close to history, though they have made some alternations for the sake of gameplay.

Aye, but close to history in what way? In the same way that the previous BF games are "close to history" with their weapons? The "close to history" statement is purposely vauge I think for that purpose - I never expected anything like Verdun, or RO2, and my expectations were proven right. Don't know what anyone else was expecting - look at my posts above for reasoning.

Well, I think weapons are part of the things in cases of which they stepped away from realism/historically accuracy, since just running with rifles that were used back then wouldnt make gameplay at least in MP too interesting or catchy for players.

[Sharpe's Sword𓅣𓃠]

Am I the only one that finds bolt actions (and flintlocks) to be far more interesting than smgs?

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Well, I think weapons are part of the things in cases of which they stepped away from realism/historically accuracy, since just running with rifles that were used back then wouldnt make gameplay at least in MP too interesting or catchy for players.

There's nothing inaccurate about the weapons at all - maybe aside from the MP-18 Experimental and it's 3-round burst - but most of them could have existed at some point. Maybe not used in war, but the same exact reasoning goes for the previous BF games. No change there, like I said before. If you were expecting that, then you haven't played a BF game before. :P

@Sharpe's Sword
Nope, I find them interesting as well. Being a mechanical engineer, I rather like the simplicity of a bolt action over an SMG. But from a pure interest standpoint - well, that's just personal preference. :)

[Sharpe's Sword𓅣𓃠]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Well, I think weapons are part of the things in cases of which they stepped away from realism/historically accuracy, since just running with rifles that were used back then wouldnt make gameplay at least in MP too interesting or catchy for players.

There's nothing inaccurate about the weapons at all - maybe aside from the MP-18 Experimental and it's 3-round burst - but most of them could have existed at some point. Maybe not used in war, but the same exact reasoning goes for the previous BF games. No change there, like I said before. If you were expecting that, then you haven't played a BF game before. :P

@Sharpe's Sword
Nope, I find them interesting as well. Being a mechanical engineer, I rather like the simplicity of a bolt action over an SMG. But from a pure interest standpoint - well, that's just personal preference. :)

I just find them a bit more fun to play with.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

If you think about it, the TTK in Verdun is about 10 times faster in Verdun. :P And with that, I present to you the latest COD games with their insanely fast TTK.

Yes that's what I meant, Verdun has lower TTK.

Low TTK is a sign of less arcadey gameplay, because it promotes slower, more cautious, and more tactical movements. Run & gun arcade shooters have higher TTK.

COD games have high TTK. Takes around 3 assault rifle bullets to kill someone.

[Nedly Dedly]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Well, I think weapons are part of the things in cases of which they stepped away from realism/historically accuracy, since just running with rifles that were used back then wouldnt make gameplay at least in MP too interesting or catchy for players.

There's nothing inaccurate about the weapons at all - maybe aside from the MP-18 Experimental and it's 3-round burst - but most of them could have existed at some point. Maybe not used in war, but the same exact reasoning goes for the previous BF games. No change there, like I said before. If you were expecting that, then you haven't played a BF game before. :P

@Sharpe's Sword
Nope, I find them interesting as well. Being a mechanical engineer, I rather like the simplicity of a bolt action over an SMG. But from a pure interest standpoint - well, that's just personal preference. :)

Yes, nothing inaccurate like using some guns that werent used in huge ammounts or werent used at all back then, or weapons from different countries, like Russian ones, that any other faction can use.

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Yes, nothing inaccurate like using some guns that werent used in huge ammounts or werent used at all back then, or weapons from different countries, like Russian ones, that any other faction can use.

There's nothing inaccurate about that. It's not historical, if that's what you're interested in. If that IS what you're interested in, then why the hell are you playing a BF game in the first place?

Originally posted by ♠کεɑмυى♠:

Yes that's what I meant, Verdun has lower TTK.

Low TTK is a sign of less arcadey gameplay, because it promotes slower, more cautious, and more tactical movements. Run & gun arcade shooters have higher TTK.

COD games have high TTK. Takes around 3 assault rifle bullets to kill someone.

Oh, so now you're pulling that? Well then, BF1 itself has a lower TTK than Verdun. Takes longer to kill someone, normally 5+ bullets with SMGs. Verdun, everything takes 2 bullets or less. So, with that logic, what corner have you backed your precious Verdun into now, huh? Everything you just listed now applies to BF1 in greater quantity than you thought even in Verdun with that.

[Nedly Dedly]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Yes, nothing inaccurate like using some guns that werent used in huge ammounts or werent used at all back then, or weapons from different countries, like Russian ones, that any other faction can use.

There's nothing inaccurate about that. It's not historical, if that's what you're interested in. If that IS what you're interested in, then why the hell are you playing a BF game in the first place?

Originally posted by ♠کεɑмυى♠:

Yes that's what I meant, Verdun has lower TTK.

Low TTK is a sign of less arcadey gameplay, because it promotes slower, more cautious, and more tactical movements. Run & gun arcade shooters have higher TTK.

COD games have high TTK. Takes around 3 assault rifle bullets to kill someone.

Oh, so now you're pulling that? Well then, BF1 itself has a lower TTK than Verdun. Takes longer to kill someone, normally 5+ bullets with SMGs. Verdun, everything takes 2 bullets or less. So, with that logic, what corner have you backed your precious Verdun into now, huh? Everything you just listed now applies to BF1 in greater quantity than you thought even in Verdun with that.

Please, explain, how Brits and others being able to use stuff like Russian guns or overall having weapons that werent used too much or werent used at all is not inaccurate? And that's what are we talking about, historical innacuracy, weapons and their use are also part of the history if you didn't know. Also, I am not even complaining, I am just saying that usage of weapons and some other stuff at least in MP seems to be one of the cases where they stepped away from historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay, I am not saying its bad. Seriously, I don't hate BF1, but stop being so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ defensive over this game, you look more like one of these ignorant toxic fantards who will defend EVERYTHING in the game or other stuff they like, no matter what.

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Please, explain, how Brits and others being able to use stuff like Russian guns or overall having weapons that werent used too much or werent used at all is not inaccurate? And that's what are we talking about, historical innacuracy, weapons and their use are also part of the history if you didn't know. Also, I am not even complaining, I am just saying that usage of weapons and some other stuff at least in MP seems to be one of the cases where they stepped away from historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay, I am not saying its bad. Seriously, I don't hate BF1, but stop being so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ defensive over this game, you look more like one of these ignorant toxic fantards who will defend EVERYTHING in the game or other stuff they like, no matter what.

Inaccurate in what way? Those guns existed in real life. Like I said before, if it's historical accuracy you're after, the BF1 (or any of the BF games that is) is not for you.

Oh, you don't hate BF1? From a ♥♥♥♥ ton of previous posts, on this thread and in others, you've shown yourself to be pretty damn against it for illogical reasons.

People here...dislike...BF1 because it's not historically accurate - which is perfectly fine, considering the nature of Verdun as to BF1 (being as historically accurate to World War One as possible while keeping the game in a playable state). Battlefield 1, as is it's namesake, is not meant to be historically accurate - but based on history with twists added to make it more enjoyable. But when those people who hate something start to hate it for what it's not (or for being just plain ignorant about it) is when I get defense and make walls of text. You so far have no done that (I haven't subjugated you to one of my walls of text, but Rangers has in one of the other threads, and has been turned to modesty after it), but I'm considering it with your attitute towards it now because you fail to recognize any of the reasons I've posted again and again that answer your challenges.

[Nedly Dedly]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by Sigmund Freud:

Please, explain, how Brits and others being able to use stuff like Russian guns or overall having weapons that werent used too much or werent used at all is not inaccurate? And that's what are we talking about, historical innacuracy, weapons and their use are also part of the history if you didn't know. Also, I am not even complaining, I am just saying that usage of weapons and some other stuff at least in MP seems to be one of the cases where they stepped away from historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay, I am not saying its bad. Seriously, I don't hate BF1, but stop being so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ defensive over this game, you look more like one of these ignorant toxic fantards who will defend EVERYTHING in the game or other stuff they like, no matter what.

Inaccurate in what way? Those guns existed in real life. Like I said before, if it's historical accuracy you're after, the BF1 (or any of the BF games that is) is not for you.

Oh, you don't hate BF1? From a ♥♥♥♥ ton of previous posts, on this thread and in others, you've shown yourself to be pretty damn against it for illogical reasons.

People here...dislike...BF1 because it's not historically accurate - which is perfectly fine, considering the nature of Verdun as to BF1 (being as historically accurate to World War One as possible while keeping the game in a playable state). Battlefield 1, as is it's namesake, is not meant to be historically accurate - but based on history with twists added to make it more enjoyable. But when those people who hate something start to hate it for what it's not (or for being just plain ignorant about it) is when I get defense and make walls of text. You so far have no done that (I haven't subjugated you to one of my walls of text, but Rangers has in one of the other threads, and has been turned to modesty after it), but I'm considering it with your attitute towards it now because you fail to recognize any of the reasons I've posted again and again that answer your challenges.

Yes, I do hate their approach on the game, but I don't hate the game itself overall. "These guns existed/exist in real life" 10/10 argument. Let's add weapons from WW2 and Cold War era into it then and say it's not historically inaccurate cause these weapons exist/existed overall. Also, being historically inaccurate can be forgivable and understandable since you can't do everything 100% perfect and accurate just like that, it's a really hard thing, but there is a different between not being really historically accurate and just pulling ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, especially after all the talks and promises in various interviews (its pretty typical these days though). Proper customization and things that were promised/confirmed got scrapped in final version. They promised that you will meet French durning the main campaign, but their role in the game is laughable. They appear only once, and have very very small and minor role in prologue mission about Harlem Hellfighters (plus this mission gives you false impression of what game is gonna be). SP itself is full of various inaccuracies like characters oftenly being Ramboids who take everyone out by themselves. ♥♥♥♥ like parachutes and battle armors with heavy machine guns and other stuff like this. And from what I heard and seen only some of the stories are actually interesting and touching. And MP, it's just laughable, for example, back to stuff about models of classes, I will remind about another thing, BLACK GUY in German cavalry on European Front! Were they ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ high when making this game!? And other crap, some of which I am pretty sure me and some other mentioned it in previous comments. Many things just seem pretty weird, unnecessary and some even seem like let downs after all the talks and promises (like customization). Not to mention that they said that they WILL stay close to history, but will make some alternations for the sake of gameplay. Okay, some of these step aways at least in MP can be understandable, but it still seems to be so darn twisted that it seems more like something that came off fantasy comic books. Heck, I have even read that they had 92-years old specialist with a lot of knowledge about WW1 who assisted them in development (most likely as consultant), but I am not sure how they listened to him or if they listened at all, if I see what I see. I am not even mentioning stuff like technical problems and balance problems, and so on. And YOU!? Provide arguments and challenges here!? HAHAHAHAHA! All you do here is constantly ♥♥♥♥ on Verdun and praise BF1, being over-defensive over it, you just refuse to accept any criticism and in response throw crappy excuses and kiss all over EA's and DICE's ass. That's the main problem here. I am not saying you can't like the game, but you act like it's an absolutely perfect game without any flows or problems, that and pathetic excuses you constantly bring up are some of typical signs of pure ignorant and blind fanboyism. And don't say this "BUT ITS BATTLEFIELD! ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REALISTIC OR HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!" crap or other ♥♥♥♥ like this, I don't even wanna hear these garbage excuses ever again! It is understandable that they can't go really 100% accurate or realistic, and in SP, and in MP for obvious reasons, but again, there is a DIFFERENCE between not being realistic/historically accurate and pushing ridiculous ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥! THERE IS A LINE ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥! Especially after all their talks that for the most part turned out to be false as usual! And believe me, there is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of people who point out or complain about various problems with the game, even same Battlefield forums, the thing is, ass-kisserish mods and fanboys (or even EA/DICE themselves depending on what let's say place are we talking about) just love coming to defense, and a lot of threads get locked/deleted, and various comments getting removed, even if criticism is constructive. Also, for your info, I am not even pro-Verdun, I don't thinks it's better than BF1 (even though yes, I personally would prefer to play in this), I am not saying it's a perfect game, or anything like that, Verdun is not a bad game, but it's not without flaws of course, I am just extremely tired of crap you pull here. Take your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ pink glasses off already.

[CrashToDesktop]

Pretty dissapointed with you, Freud. I didn't get angry with you, and I didn't start using harsh langauge in any amount like that. I'm not even going to start arguing with this because a wall of text written by an angry man contains errors. You've lost your sense of logic and rationality with this. So many things here can be explained by "it's a Battlefield game" because that's the kind of stuff you'd expect from a Battlefield game if you've played it in the past.

One inaccuracy in your wall of rage I wish to challenge, though - where have I called Verdun out on? Have I said "Verdun is terrible because - " anywhere in anything I have posted? I may have said that Verdun has arcadey aspects to it, but I have never said it was inferior (nor do I wish to) to Battlefield 1. I do not wish to change your mind of the subject matter, either. The only thing I want to do is make sure youir opinion is based on facts, not the stuff that Rangers, for example, throws out. If it doesn't change, then that's fine, it wasn't my goal.

So, in an attempt to figure out why you dislike BF1, can you explain (more rationally, and hopeully with paragraphs) why you dislike BF1? And what about Verdun you like over BF1? If it's related to historical accuracy (such as the black dudes on the German side, as you mentioned) issues, I might as well drop the discussion, since it's not my goal to make you like BF1 for what you don't like about it. All I see in that wall is a bubbling pot of rage, mostly aimed at me mixed with BF1. Hard to decipher my anwer from that.

[Shady Giraffe]

Its 10 times better
Its more immersive
Its accurate
there isnt a paywall of dlc
its just more fun

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by thehdoug:

Its 10 times better
Its more immersive
Its accurate
there isnt a paywall of dlc
its just more fun

Strikethroughs are personal preference. The first and last are also the same thing.

It's more accurate - yes, Verdun is more historically accurate. That's what it's built for. BF1 sacrifices accuracy for more variety among other things.

Yes, there is a paywall for DLC. However, there's already a lot of solid content (that point cannot be contested). Don't forget that Verdun planned paid DLC at one point with the other fronts - but then again, that never came.