I think you just need to accept you’re in “Steampunk World War One” which admittedly looks cool.
Making do’able gameplay mechanics with the material you have available in WW1 (bolt-action rifles, lots of melee combat, crew-serviced weapons requiring 3+ people to operate and transport) would be hard and not conducive to barfing out a game in 2 years and a DLC every 4 months thereafter.
Ergo, we get Battlefield One. So be it.
Side note, I just picked up BF1 on sale. A la bayonet, mes amis?
Heh, my funny picture was posted a bit too rough.
I love how BF1 looks! Plus all the " let’s play"s really look like it is a game fun to play!
Which admittedly is what counts.
It’s well-polished and well-made. While I seriously doubt I would’ve picked it up not-on-sale, I think I’m going to get my money’s worth out of it.
I would’ve liked more historical accuracy, especially since the best parts of the game are the brutal situations that arise from the old technology (shovel vs. club vs. trench knife melee swarms in poison gas clouds, lobbing a field gun shell at a sniper’s scope glint and leveling his windmill), but I think they did alright considering how unknown the realities of the Great War are to most people.
I’m going to say no. It just never gels. There are massive, unexplained holes in the plotline that never get fleshed out, the story is told in the silliest, pokiest manner and there are huge jumps from one scene to the next so the devs could recycle MP maps in the single player story. At least the single-player of BF3 looked and played differently than the MP, such that it was.
Someone watched a few too many episodes of “Generation Kill” when they made the BF3 campaign. BF4’s campaign is just pure bad action movie.