Finland and Poland are not coming to HLL anytime soon. The latest dev brief has stated they will be focusing almost exclusively on bug fixes and fixing other game issues created by update 13 and 14. So the road map is basically thrown out right now. This is large part due to the total uproar the fan base is in and rightfully so.
I've said this since the very beginning. It's unlikely Verdun and Tannenberg will ever be merged with Isonzo due to the fact that Isonzo is a different engine and plays very differently from their past two games. But hopefully their future games can be merged in with Isonzo, because I do really love Isonzo. More so than the two previous games simply because the graphics and gameplay feels so much nicer. It will be very sad if I have to abandon it for their next project which I do still look forward to.
@@thekraken1173 Well Verdun and Tannenberg are on a completely different game engine so that would take time. And considering the dev team is made up of anywhere from 3-5 people from what I've heard that would taken even more time than usual. And you know what they say. Time is money. So I can understand why they wouldn't do such a thing for their previous entries.
@@SlySkydiver They can at least move the maps. Maps are 3d models after all. I get that they are a small indie team but if they are charging people AAA prices than they should at least provide an AA game.
@@thekraken1173 I feel like if it were as easy as you think it would have been done considering how much people ask for it. The devs made it clear just before Isonzo game out that Verdun and Tannenberg would not be receiving any ports or 2.0 versions (like Verdun did when Tannenberg released) due to these differences. All three games use Unity but Isonzo clearly looks, feels and plays differently from Verdun and Tannenberg. Like I mentioned before, I feel like if it were as simple as moving stuff over they would have. But personally I don't even know if it's worth if it's just going to be the same Verdun and Tannenberg. Let's be real it would be very jarring to go from a map in Isonzo to a map from Verdun that uses weapons and models from the game as well. The level of quality would need to at least somewhat equate to Isonzo and that would need a lot more than a simple map move over and lightning change for Verdun and Tannenberg. Also, I don't mean to sound rude but if $30 is AAA price for you I think you need to go and look at what some AAA developers are actually charging for their games. No offense.
@@SlySkydiver Yes it is easy. I have moved countless 3d assets between games as mods. And I am a single guy. They might have to refine them but they can also use assets from isonzo to refine the old maps. You are right on the price point. But there are AAA quality indie games for and less than 30 dollars. Most of the people and I am not going to pay 30 dollars for a game that only features one theatre of ww1.
yeah, in a full server Verdun is constant action, regardless of whether you are defending or attacking. And in non-organized gameplay, there was not a whole lot of following orders going on.
7:00 This whole point shows that you weren't really around the WW1 game series for very long as its just wrong. Verdun started with only 2 squads (Regular German and French) and now we have 5 German squads and 8-9 Entente squads. With those new squads came new maps and new weapons all for free. Same thing with Tannenberg. This series at this point has ran its course and if you ask my the upgrades in both gameplay and graphics should've came in with Tannenberg. Also, the whole point about merging the games together I can only see that being possible with Verdun and Tannenberg as they're basically the same mechanically. Unless they were to upgrade the previous two games up to Isonzo it just wouldn't be possible.
Verdun and Tannenberg as they're basically the same mechanically. - they are absolutely different by design, forests for manoeuvres and trench fields where you can only go forward. However both could be fitted into Isonzo mode.
Ive been playing Verdun since beta they did add free new factions and maps as the game was coming out all for free. The main thing is Verdun is just too old now its naturally dying.
To be fair, HLL is having some massive issues rn. The devs have had to scrap the roadmap (so no Finns and Poles) in order to actually work on fixing bugs and such. They released the British in such a poor state that it seems as if they didn’t even bother internally testing the faction. And oh man…that whole run speed thing…with players being able to run faster than tanks lololol After the shitstorm that started when T17/HLL released that god-awful trailer, Team 17 finally seem like they’re listening to the community. I’m sure some revisionists will try to say things like “only the neckbeard haters didn’t like the changes and/or posted bad reviews on HLL’s Steam page”….well that’s simply not the case.
truth. they lost over 10k players out of a max of 18,500 due to those 2 last updates. so it doesnt matter what the pro faster run speed and dive to pro fans say. the figures are there. and those who prefer that faster movement style already have other fps games that do it a lot better tbh. HLL has its own little fan base that was slowly increasing over time even with the legacy bugs. If T17 aren't capable then they should contract the work out to those who are.
Speed buff wouldn't be a problem if vehicles can also move faster, more vehicle options and also larger maps, Also a little bit of hot take but I'd argue it'll be easier and simpler to balance if equipment stats are made closer to irl
The British update was basically a just the kill switch for this game. I love hell let loose I really do. The community is just something else and I’ve met a lot of great guys on there. But the fuck were they even thinking with this update? I tried real hard to pretend this update was even a little fun but I know it wasn’t deep down. The British are under powered. The maps are boring. And even the gun tank and soldier models look downgraded from Russians German and American models. Add all that and a whole new set of bugs for the devs to spend the rest of the summer fixing and you get the shitstorm that was the British Update.
Tannesburg isn’t a different type of move on how the developers made gameplay, the eastern front was just a lot more mobile and fortified rather then entrenched, skirmish over large objective attacks, it was unlike the war in the west which was made by breakthrough and excessive heavy fire, it was one of elastic constant moving fronts over a space that was mainly determined by who was there first and who could get what where In contrast for the western everything was static and the only real way is to breakthrough Izonso is very similar but the terrain makes it a lot more seclude and allows creative placement over hiding and hold ing in trenches
It wouldn't have no sense, since is the essence of the series, if they release a game with all fronts in one, it wouldn't be WW1 game series, also three of them have different mechanics and characteristics.
In all fairness, aren’t these games priced pretty cheap? I think Isonzo’s like 30 bucks and that’s the newest one. If you look at battlefield (60 bucks + 4 times 15 bucks for DLCs) it comes out to being cheaper. Not sure it’s a totally fair comparison but just to give a point of reference
@@degustablegerbilSo you call 30 dollars cheap for a mediocre game? Every english speaker doesn’t earn USD as income. For me 30 dollars is expensive. 30 dollars for a mediocre game is very very expensive. It is the same price as Insurgency Sandstorm. A masterpiece of a game. Comparing Insurgency Sandstorm to it is like comparing apples to pears as their content are very different but at least it is not ripping you off.
5:29 Another point to go with Battlefield going Call of Duty was that working as a team wasn't as beneficial as it was in older games. Especially when compared to Battlefield 2. (Not Bad Company 2 no. I'm talking about what Battlefield was like before it ever touched a console system)
heres to the hope that the WW1 Game Series can merge into one big game, and also WW1 has a lot of interesting locations it could explore! Like the African Front, the small german port city of Tsingtao, the german pacific islands taken by japan, the deserts of arabia and the shores of Galipoli, the North Sea where dreadnaughts slug it out and even wars AFTER WW1. like the russian revolution or the german civil war with the Freicorps. theres SO MUCH to be seen.
The aftermath of WW1 has so much potential. BF1 was able to cover some parts of the Russian Revolution, but there’s still more interesting stories like the Revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion and the American Expeditionary Forces in Russia. Moreover, there’s also the Irish War of Independence, the Rif War, the Mexican Revolution, the Turkish War of Independence, the Warlord Era in China, and so on.
@@Habiyeru EXACTLY! theres SO. MUCH. STUFF. and if the devs decide to put all of that into a single game. it could be the greatest ww1 game to grace our consols and PCs.
If you haven't played Verdun I highly recommend it you can get a cheap key online, the main reason is you can add a bot count of 240 which is freaking insane to play even if theres only yourself or 4 off your buddy's playing it feels like your part of one the major battles on the western front
Isonzo is the size of many AAA games and is graphically and technically superior. It even has a conpletely different class system, handles weapons completely differently, officers are completely revamped and the game has a large number of maps still coming. In fact I would argue that it has a completely different game flow and strategy involved. Im sorry but Isonzo is no DLC. You could have maybe argued that was the case with Verdun and Tannenburg but Isonzo ultimately changes everything except for the core premise of the game.
Isonzo is probably the best multiplayer FPS I’ve ever played, it’s hardcore enough to make you actually feel immersed in the atmosphere of the Italian front without being hardcore enough to be impossible to navigate .
I've never played these titles but love the theme of them. I find it such a shame that Beyond The Wire never made it, along with Post Scriptum too. They were the greatest WW1 and WW2 games out and the devs seemed to just give up on them.
Basically, the WW1, Heroes and Generals: WW2, and Hell let loose, share the same curse by design. It's a realistic games, with realistic open maps, so you need to be smart and know something about tactics to succeed. Basically, the FPS audience doesn't want that. They want to have a Counter-Strike-inspired map with 2-3 paths and one camping spot. So to sell such projects companies need to spend a hell amount of money on advertising to reach their potential audience of 10-20 thousand active online max. Which is an extremely bad deal.
P.S.: Battlefield 1 - pop FPS in WW1 setting still has bigger online than WW1 combined, and even bigger, than Hell Let's Loose. So it's not a setting problem.
Verdun had a lot of players in the beginning I believe because you could play for free on an internet browser. You had access to the entire game but no level progression. that's how I found the game
Fr, all i remember that i was like 7 and just played, i didn't know jackshit about it and always TKd everybody, and i played sniper with a bad computer, and one time i switched from the scope to the iron sight, i never used scope from then because i didn't know how to change it back
I think if they bring Verdun and Tannenburg up to the graphical fidelity and gameplay of isonzo, and then combine them all into one title, it would be a more popular option
And explain how they would do this? Verdun and Tannenburg are on a different version of Unity than Isonzo. All three games have very different mechanics. And the team that makes these games is 5 people strong
I believe all the WW1 game series games got additional support (Verdun got a couple of faction's in the horror's of war update, along with two map's, it also got a upgrade for the new generation of consoles) Tannenberg got a few map's as well, Ukraine being one of em. I just think people don't wanna run around with a bolt action getting killed from miles away repeatedly or occasionally getting a kill up close. WWII allow's for those epic moment's where you and your boy's blow up a tank or make a last stand. WWI doesn't really allow for that. The draw of the WWI series of games for me was the slow push into someone's line's, the bullet swapping when ya get into a unexpected gunfight, being in the enemies lines and knowing your surrounded but still fighting on, is really fun for me. However the lack of variety is admittedly something that hold's the games back, and not much can be done about that, it's just the time period. verdun has stayed alive because of it's sheer variety, Tannenberg died because it lacked any, we will see about Isonzo.
Isonzo really changed the WW1 game series by adding in dedicated classes and making the battles nations specific. If they could go back to Verdun and Tannenberg and add in the class system and make it so battles only had certain nations, it would really change up the games. Like seeing the Romanians in the Baltics dont make sense on Tannenberg.
Isonzo is a propper game with content equal to other more expensive games. The devs are very communicative and free updates come in. I guess its the problem, that people tend to stay away from things they dont know. An indy-dev-team with a game set in a rather unknown historic theater where you only get a bolt action rifle? People go to the stuff they know. the Xst COD/BF-clone. And the first 30 minutes you constantly keep dying. So the lazy masses pass. As long as you got one or two servers. The game is alive.
For me personally, I'm someone who logged a good number of hours in verdun, was hyped for tannenburg and disappointed, and was hyped for isonzo but disappointed again. Idk what it was, maybe the game feeling too smooth? Or just more repetitive than verdun somehow? Anyways, I don't know why but I haven't gotten into the games since verdun in the same way, but I've still supported the devs by atleast buying the games and giving em a good try
As a verdun/tannenburg player (who hasn't found the time to buy izonso), I do agree with your points, and I have a few predictions on what the future looks for the series: The next game of the series will be focused on the Turkish/African front, maybe titled Galipoli, and then move on to different goals however once released they remaster all their previous games, or perhaps they do something similar to your statements; Release Galipoli, gather all 4 games, and remaster their older ones with new mechanics and updates under one title: The Great War.
You realize this would annihilate competition and would be illegal by European law to be anti competitive? I'm joking. Just saying how great of a package such a game would be.
I would buy a remastered merged game. Holy moly that would be awesome. I still play Verdun and Tannenberg from time to time but the lack of real players does not make it really fun. I hope the devs remaster and rerelease them as one game.
@@VinnyUnion if the competition is crap like Cod and BF im fine with it. But for god's sake dont make the game MP only. Make a single player campaigns as well...
@@linkfreeman1998 i mean, i get your point but ... This franchise, did this ever have a singleplayer to begin with? I think for some franchises it's needed by default to have a SP but as far as i know this franchise isn't one of those. They probably wouldn't be able to pull it off properly anyway when all they do is MP.
@@VinnyUnion exactly, the devs apparently not smart enough to realize that they should've focused on making user-customizable SP content first before MP. That's what is lacking for World War 1 games.
Personally i really enjoy all 3 in the WW1 series, now i'd love to see them make the next set in the Gallipoli campaign & that would give them the opportunity to add the Ottoman's to the mix
yes the Anzac theater of operations, needs to be addressed, three countries earned their birthright from Dominion to the world stage Aus\Nz ,and Turkey as a Republic ,left to wither by other European powers. but proved their worth in defending their homeland and bringing a leader forged by the conflict to modernize The old Ottoman empire Kemal attaturk.
I remember when verdun first came out and how much I ejnoyed playing it, even join a few clans. Now its sad to see all these games dead, and when i feel like giving it another try I never know which one to install.
This generation of players...what do they want, or, have been exposed to? FPS with tons of fancy "tacti/techti-cool" weapons/gadgets, skin/camo gachas, battle-royale game mode, everything "new!", "cool!","in-fashion!"... I respect and support devs making games like Verdun, Isonzo by buying and playing them. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is these kind of games are meant to be unpopular from the beginning: it's not the games' fault, it's the society. Hech, the kids nowadays do they even know WHAT ww1 (or ANY war) is?
All these people complaining about how these games are separate games really dont understand that this is a small indie studio that has massively improved each game from the first. They would have to entirely redo tannenberg and verdun to function in isonzos engine. You cant expect AAA work from these people. They cant just slap all the games under one title easily. Its not fair to hold them to that standard. I play all the games, they are excellent even with just bots. Verdun is like 20$ Isonzo is likely a little more but none of these games are the 70$ that AAA games are selling for these days.
Verdun and tannenbergs class/squad system sucks so much, and not to mention the small player cap that removes the entire mass of a ww1 setting. Isonzo did great with the new way they implemented classes, but it still suffers from a small player cap.
I payed versus very shortly on its release and while I wish I could give it another try these games don’t seem to capture what I consider one of my favorite parts. in battlefield 1 the destruction and mayhem was ever present and overwhelming. Every time I was in a game the bullets, explosions, men shouting and yelling, it all added to my immersion and emotional connection to the game. The details such as destructible environments, craters, and how explosions would pick up the dirt, dust, and grime gave me such an intense experience. All I see in these games feels a bit too clean
Battlefield 1 is, by far, probably my favorite multiplayer FPS. Operations was practically a whole entire experience. The start of the round with whistles blaring, soldier's screaming, the amazing music blaring and even the occasional bagpipes? Christ it was awesome. Battlefield 1 got that immersion and atmosphere down so damn well, sort of why it always bothers me when people say it's more "WW2 game". No, it's a Battlefield game, that just so happens to be set in WWI.
Verdun got a winter update that added winter uniforms back in 2018 or 2019. And those same winter uniforms are still stuck on everyone regardless of time of year.
They segmented the community by making these games entirely separate from one another instead taking the more conventional path of Expansion Packs/DLC's. This fractures the playerbase and potential newcomers will become weary of jumping in for fears of it being a "dead game". It was a bad business decision and I understand the developers behind Verdun are small, but they should have focused on one title, like Tannenberg, and build on it like Hell Let Loose, Insurgency, or Red Orchestra 2 did. This way you don't fracture the playerbase across multiple games and ensure a single dedicated community. This could still charge money for expansion packs/dlc even, but like RO2 did, allow you to play a limited amount of the new content (in RO2's case, you could play the Rising Storm Expansion, but were locked to only Rifleman).
Since tannenberg eas announced I thought it was a stupid idea do release what should have been a DLC as a full game. “We barely have 100 players playing our game. How about we divide the playerbase with a separete game?”. Seriously are the devs really that short-sighted?
Great memories playing Verdun in early access in 2014-15, as someone who owns all 3 titles and only really sunk hours into Verdun (like 30hours into Isonzo and maybe like 20 in Tannenberg) I shared the same sentiments, all feel like DLCs that should've been tied into ONE title, rather than spread the playerbase across 3 shallow self titled projects.
All brilliant points Resonant, apart from suggesting that they should switch to WW2, there is a vast amount of people who DO want WW1 games, BF1 was sold entirely on the premise of being an unknown frontier for FPS games and despite what people think, 80% of its weapons were used, though obviously in specialist roles. However, WW1 can be done realistically, I think you're right, perhaps boosting Verdun and Tannenberg to Isonzo's level and then pushing forward into newer games with a good graphical basis is the way forward. For every WW2 game that releases, there's manyyyyyyy WW1 enthusiasts that sigh knowing that WW1 is a far more varied and nuanced period that gave the world Titanic battles that would translate to spectacle really well.
I've played Verdun for years, and it got me to buy Tannenburg and preorder Isonzo on console. I gotta say that they're without a doubt my favorite 3 FPS games of all time, probably in the order they released too. In spite of the graphics and less than intelligent bots running around the immersion is incredible. No game has come close to the intensity of your trench being gassed, and holding off waves of enemies. Shooting the ones you can, and when your magazine runs empty, resorting to your bayonet and trusty shovel. As you said, all the new battlefields and COD's set in the world wars are just modern shooters with a coat of old paint on them. The quick TTK of the WW1 game series makes the gunplay feel satisfying even with the robot-like animations at times. Honestly, I find it difficult to play the aforementioned arcade shooters now. Even with the animations and graphics the guns never feel like guns, just a thin veil over a laser that deals X-damage per second. HLL is absolutely GOATed when it comes to a casual combined arms warfare game, but it's gameplay suffers from people who don't know or don't care about the supply and spawn mechanics. It can ruin the experience for other players especially on console. I am definetly one for the popular opinion, the Black Mill should recreate Verdun and Tannenberg in Isonzos engine and sell them as one game, but the pessimist inside me, as much as I love these games, just doesn't see people bothering to buy it.
I purchased each title because I really support having WW1 games, it's insanely rare, but honestly I don't play them. Played quite a bit of Verdun until the buzz wore off, but now you're basically playing against a bunch of bots with maybe 5-10 players on the other team. I'd much rather just play on a server with 20 people in it without all the bots.
This is the same thing that killed Post Scriptum and Beyond the Wire, both of which were really just expansions for Squad, and is indicative of a bigger issue that is becoming worryingly more prevalent throughout the gaming industry. Companies keep releasing "sequels" for full price when the amount of content and changes are so minimal that they really are just expansions or even patches. To me the biggest offender is Total War after the Sega acquisition. Ignoring the complete neutering of gameplay mechanics from previous titles, Atilla was just a Rome 2 reskin with minor fixes, the 3 Warhammer titles are literally the exact same game in different locations, 3 Kingdoms is just Warhammer, and now Pharaoh is just a reskin of Troy, which itself was not well received.
M2H is so much smaller than Team 17 that it is completely unreasonable to just ask them to make loads and loads of free content with absolutely no way to monetize it.
Honestly a merge would be great. All 3 settings, and they can add more, into one big game would be perfect! They should of gone with this plan from the beginning instead of making 3 different games.
Verdun is a simple game but it works perfectly for trench warfare. Graphics are showing their age, but still acceptable. A couple of new maps would be great though, or maybe an overhaul of existing ones. Douamont in particular is frustrating
Such a shame to see the dwindling player base. I played these games religiously back in the day, especially Verdun. I still play Isonzo but there’s usually only a game or two available at a time.
Nah man these games deserve they’re own standalone titles to give each front the proper respect. Each front was its own. Also this is one of the very few games that work completely offline
I played a decent bit of verdun when it first came out and was popular, and then my friends got me to play tannenberg since it had come out and verdun died and all i could think of is, why is this a separate game? Why did i have to buy what feels like a DLC as an entirely new title?
Combining them into singular game is just a hair unrealistic given of how mechanically different the games are , and the fact of that they would essentially have to rebuild the old games in the new engine. This is on top of the fact of that Blackmill probably still has more theatres they would like to cover (the largest being the Balkan and Middle Eastern).
the big brain move of diluting an already small playerbase with two new titles (tannenberg and isonzo) , heh i remember playing verdun back in like 2013 or 2014 when it was still in beta and both teams used the same guns and you could play the game on ˝˝3d games˝˝ websites back in the day
the thing the ww1 devs dont realize is that none of these games ever have the scale that ww1 battles have, player counts should be very large and maps should be more narrow or have more chokepoints. That;s what ww1 is all about, not ww2 with less machine guns, the ww1 devs also employ stupid gimmicks like the time period level up and having each nation possess a different perk instead of just one unique nation (because you didnt have 5 nations fighting concurrently with one another as portrayed in the game) with different squad types in every map.
Tbf I think a lot of these arguments come from the less historically accurate side of the spectrum. Other than the obvious economical reasons I think the games are split so they can individually focus on the nitty gritty of historical accuracy, allowing them to add equipment that'd never been seen in any other game before
I am a WW1 nut. So when Verdun came out it became a quick joy of mine. I quickly got it and loved it. Though when tannenberg I want sure, then it died and it set it stone I wouldn't get it. So when isonzo came out I'm not entirely sure of getting it along with how different it is from Verdun.
I still think that Tannenberg was the superior game to Verdun. I remember fondly so many moments in Tannenberg and only a few in Verdun. But the playerbase of Tannenberg always seemed much smaller than Verdun's and these days its just empty and sad. I had refunded Isonso due to rather unstable performance, even though my rig was supposed to be quite okay with it. Btw Hell Let Loose got a lot of negative reviews on Steam lately, anyone knows whats exactly going on and why the playerbase started hating on the game (or so it seems from the reviews).
I mean Verdun and Tanneberg are both 3.99 right now and I think those are both steals. It would help playerbase if they merged the games or if they could sign a deal with gamepass and playstation plus and throw all three on there and let everyone just pick which theater supports their interests.
Verdun is almost 10 years old. Runs on one of the oldest of Unity's versions. It's gameplay is the most realistic out of the 3 and it has a different playerbase. Tannenberg is like a lesser BF1. Can be really fun but in general everyone runs around like headless chickens. I wouldn't call it worse than Verdun but even if it takes place on the east where operations where much more on the mobility side of approach rather than static warfare it really feels run 'n gun. Finally Isonzo is the reborn form of the two. New graphics, animations, sounds etc. It combined the frontline mode with the several keypoint style of Tannenberg and I actually liked it packed with destructable enviroments. Unfortunately the progression revamp is like hodge-podge. They replaced the simple level up point and combined squad xp systems with a COD/BF like abomination with thrash challenges to keep you at grinding for essential items which without your are going to struggle for your first few weeks of playing. The WW1 series has degraded overtime but did not become a bad franchise. Simply the quality and the new design choices made it appealing for modern gamers who need fancy visuals, skins and shitty grind to keep themselves captivated otherwise they declare the game as dead. Mentioning Hell Let Loose is a mistake after the takeover by Team 17. And even comparing the two games where Verdun created something unique while HLL in the end just proven to be a more casual Post Scriptum (RIP) and Squad 2.0 mish-mash although a really nice one with great community. And in the end, combining is still not possible and shouldn't be done anyway. @SlySkydiver has already described the details about it. WW1 series are 3 DIFFERENT games! If you already read my first paragraph you know why. Even if M2H would be crazy and obliege to the whining everyone would want the rotation to play their favourite gamemode-era-map-progression combo. In the end we would probably get BF1 - Demake of the Year Edition just to appeal to everyone. As far as I remember around 2016 there was a forum post about combining Verdun and Tannenberg. While merging those two would have been much more convenient than doing the same with the trio, the players were absolutely against it. 2016 was the golden era for Verdun and many people saw Tannenberg as a great addition but even before the release they knew it won't fit along with Verdun. Probably M2H knew this too when they announced it, remember Verdun sales were just starting to rise after 1 year of steam listing so I highly disagree that greed led them. I highly refuse the merge and even if only 100 people would play Verdun, Tannenberg or Isonzo each I would rather play them separately with their own uniqueness, perks and disadvantages instead of playing with a combo-whombo with no identity.
at least from my point of view, a good idea would be to make a new game set in some theater they haven´t visited yet or expand on a already visited one, and then port the maps and guns from the old games to that make that the "definitive" ww1 game that they could work on, as isonzo is a good advancement of the series but as we can all see, its a bit dead at the moment. this way you can bring the new people in with a big promise and big marketing, and bring the old guard back by promising if you own one of the old games, you get that particular theater for free when it comes out.
Hell Let Loose is not a casual game. There's a lot of communication and teamwork involved if you don't want to run across an empty field for ten minutes only to get domed by an enemy sitting somewhere in the grass, perfectly still. Even if you're working together there's a big chance that you'll catch an invisible bullet and die really fast. It's not particularly catered to any casual gamers and I don't think it's trying to be. Verdun, as I have played it, is way more fitting for the casual gamer. TTK is fast for sure, but you can respawn much closer to the action and either you are pushing the enemy or the enemy is pushing you. Even sitting in a trench you could peek over and take pot shots at the approaching wave of enemy soldiers before ducking back down.
It would be just awsome if they made third game like merging Verdun and Tannenberg into one, with the isonzo engine. But its just nice to think as its not gonna happen
I think the MP only thing and lack of modding support is what makes this game has its problems. If you look at very very old games thats noted for their MP, they also have SP games and even some level of modding. Take Quake 1996 for example. Yes, this is the game that fundamentally popularized deathmatches, yet this has single player campaigns (4 chapters in fact, not counting the most likely bundled expansion packs if u bought it digitally) and u can even make ur own levels. Had Verdun and other games got these things, I bet it will live much longer than it is now. Also really wonder what is with devs nowadays preferring to go MP instead of SP... I dont want to play a game that fundamentally need two or more people to play damnit, I want to play a game to be involved in a story. And too bad the devs of these games apparently doing the opposite, no matter if its indie or AAA.
I feel that even if they were able to port all the Verdun and tannenberg into isonzo, the move itself wouldn't be a hit on the table strong enough to keep the attention, as updates are just not as impactful as a whole full release, which makes me think that had they done this with isonzo from the very start the landscape would be veeeery different
Are we still getting Poland and Finland in Hell let loose I thought the 2023 roadmap was scrapped. And as for the "one year of the war for each game calendar year" plan laid out by the devs I don't think that's happening either.
I played Verdun way back and really liked it, but I’m Aussie and am cursed with tiny player bases for niche games, so that I never played the other 2 Another game that tried ww1 but didn’t survive long for some reason was “beyond the wire” and it was good. Same devs as Squad and Post scriptum
I don't really see your point here. You're saying that if the series was just one game, and the sequels were just free dlc than it would bring more players in? I don't think so. I myself can find multiple full lobbies on weekends on all the games with the exception of Tannenberg - but i think that is because of the gameplay not being as well recieved as the other two games. So the fact that these games are dead in terms of players isn't true. And yes, Verdun and Tannenberg aren't getting new content updates, but that is because there isnt much more to add. Verdun has pretty much all of the nations and sectors that fought on the Western Front as well as all the equipment and uniforms being on point. This goes for Tannenberg too. Those games aren't getting more content, because there isn't anything to add. They are complete. Isonzo is the most popular right now and is getting regular, full sized updates as we speak. Battlefield 1's DlC's are similarly priced to Verdun and Tannenberg but the WW1 Game Series games, if compared to Battlefield's DLC's, are way more content packed. I am positive that more WW1 games will be made by Blackmill. I think that the reason the games aren't getting as big a playerbase as other tactical shooters is simply down to the setting. It is exactly the same reason why Beyond the Wire is sparsely populated - but that game is abandoned because it isn't getting more content. The devs of WW1 Game Series are still pumping new content into their current game. People prefer automatic weapons, capture-the-flag style game modes, tanks, planes and generally the look and feel of WW2 to the modern day. The only reason BF1 was popular was because it played like a WW2 game. Verdun, Tannenberg, and Isonzo aren't aiming for that, even if it isn't grabbing the wider audience of gamers, It is certainly eye-catching to the niche community of WW1 enthusiasts, and that is what is important.
I think the bots and the switch from 32 to 64 player servers killed Verdun. In many of the maps in Verdun 32 was plenty, and I think the biggest maps would have been fine with 48. once a game needs bots, it is truly over. The game peaked in late 2015 imo.
It seems after your video there seems to be a big influx of players, and compared to V+T Isonzo has more maps and they're more unique too. Hopefully if they make another game they combine all 3 of these titles too.
i hate to see somebody slander my beloved but… you’re completely right 😔 starting with verdun and just updating it with new content over time would have really helped build and grow not just a healthy player base but also a community for the games, there’s barely any fans left :/
there was some changes in Verdun a bit into it's lifecycle, that just made it feel worse in a lot of ways compared to when i first played it. I have seen one review talk about this and thats pretty much it. i remember coming back to the game and it just feeling off. its been so long now that i couldnt tell you what it was, but i never went back after that.
I dont know how much of a difference it would have made if they were dlcs. Servers would likely be seperated by these games and only the most popular (or free one) is really played. We can see that with the non-GT3 class DLCs for Assetto Corsa Competizione. Good new content, but nobody actually plays it.
Hell let loose has a huge problem that I hated. The resource system is boring as hell. The maps are oversized with tiny servers. Walking to battle can take about 10 minutes. Verdun has perfectly sized maps for a 100 player server.
I don't understand your comment about having to wait 5 minutes to see action in Verdun. I have played since 2018 even as recently as last night, and have not once had to wait any amount of time for action save about 30 seconds at the beginning for the enemy to spawn in and charge the trench. After that, it's full-throttle trench warfare the duration of the game. Seems like you have a very limited experience with Verdun and possibly got into some bad servers dominated by sniper types who don't actually want to play the game, just do a deathmatch.
look, first of all those are 3 different games with different modes. Isonzo concept is close to what is right, but it took many years to get close to it. After all under Isonzo concept all other games can be more or less adapted into 1 game with play mode fit to everyone. I personally prefer Tannenberg with that manoeuvre mode where not only firepower decide the victory as well as making epic comebacks - but such gamemode is not fit into Western Front for example unless you will make huuuuuge maps. Imagine what will be if all 3 games will be the same as Verdun - it's death of the series. Btw: logically there should be one more game since Turkey wasn't introduced in the series yet.
No free updates? Dude they literally added every country that participated in ww1, Belgians, Canadians, USA, Australia, Scotland, Austria, French, Germany and all the crowns colonies, Africa, Saudi Arabia, India. They constantly updated this game. Player count, map sizes and layout, graphical updates...and their updates never broke the game unlike. Feels like I'm playing on dial up in HLL.
