These games are proof that companies should never directly listen

>>388843450
They are just badly done, battlefield 1 is dumbed down a lot and barely has any weapons. I thought it was going to be like Ro2 gun selection but they put in all these experimental guns so it just feels like a modern shooter, so they should have added more

cod ww2 just seems to be following the trend after battlefield 1 sold extremely well. It's the same as any other cod game, doesn't even look like ww2

File: IMG_2994.gif (2MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x250px

Ok
Doesn't change the fact that 20th century warfare is an objectively more interesting setting than some shitty "sci-fi" meme

>>388843848
Near future with soft Sci-Fi elements is by far the best setting for the kind of games Call of Duty and Battlefield are today.

It allows the game to have one foot planted in modern conflict with real weaponry while still taking creative liberties with sci-fi that makes for a more fun video game.

>>388843450
>Normalfags say they want "realistic shooters back", how they want it to be real and gritty again
That's not it at all, though.

People want different aesthetics, even if the gameplay is more or less the same. BF1 is a pure arcadey shooter, and isn't all that different from BF4 or Hardline in that regard. But what it does have is a sort of stranger-than-fiction angle to it that makes it far more compelling than another game about guys with M16s fighting guys with AKs. The guns are impractical and weird, bayonets and horses are tactically viable, and everything is low-tech and funky. It makes it more engaging on a base level than going against a bunch of enemies with weird stupid sci-fi motives.

It also mostly removes the ass-backwards part of recent CoD games where the more you play, the better guns and gear you get.

Though none of that matters. You're just mad because they have black people in them.

The problem with IW wasn't the setting; it was that the gameplay was trash. The boost and wallrun mechanics were a joke especially compared to a game released around the same time in TF2 that did it competently.

>>388844508
I would be ok with them if they were in some black war
CoD Zulu when?

>>388844616
>The problem with IW wasn't the setting

To the majority that was totally the problem.

People shat on Advance Warfare as well despite being the most mechanically interesting Call of Duty in years.

>>388844791
There's only black dudes in the multiplayer for both, anyway. Who gives a shit?

Sci-fi wars would be really interesting if they bothered to really explore all the consequences of the technology they're talking about instead of just setting up set pieces and generic mechanics. I would punch a baby to get a good war shooter that had the wars with the equipment and tactics described in the Mass Effect codex.

bf shouldve done ww2. and cod shouldve just kept doing shitty sci fi

battlefield needs mod tools back, as well battlerecorder
fuck you ea

nobody asked for WW1 in BF1 and CoD WWII is shit no matter what time period it takes place

I recently replayed WaW mp and it was perfectly fine and would hold its own even today, WWII will suck because it's shit game, not because WW2

Late cold war to early 2000s is the best era for shooters, this is fact

>realistic shooters
>black women nazis