Activision Logic

@AcidBurn "Yeah, we spent a whole hour on it, we could've spent that time on trying to figure out what this thing called balanced gameplay is, we still haven't figured it out"

@Fangirlsarah1996 Sheesh, it's like you expect them to be pros at this or something.

@AcidBurn 😂

@Fangirlsarah1996 Oh, COD! Lacking realism!? XD I think the problem we've run into with WW2 games, is that they've been approached from every angle by now, it's getting worn out. It's gotten to the point that in order to make a good one, it takes great effort in research and craftsmanship to develop a game that stands out for all the right reasons, and doesn't seem like a hollow clone of what has come before. So basically the exact opposite of EA and Activision.

@Xuan12 Well...no, EA and DICE actually did a pretty good job with the realism for Battlefield 1, for a Battlefield game of course.

@Fangirlsarah1996 Kind of. The weapons and uniforms look close to the era, but many of them were quite rare on the battlefield actually, or even experimental. Automatic weapons in particular were in their infancy and very prone to jamming and overheating, something they chose to leave out for the sake of gameplay. And of course the role of blimps has been highly dramatized. Not to mention the perennial medic mechanics, which really can't be realistic if you want "medic" to be a playable class at all. And the extensive urban warfare. I haven't played around with the tanks much, but I'm willing to bet there's a slew of things there too.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the game, but it has of course taken liberties from reality for it's design and play. Of course, the types of errors Battlefield seems to make are more deliberate, details for gameplay and balance, so I can give them that, and in relative terms to other titles who herald their "accuracy" I do think it's better than most.