Surprised no one is talking about this here already. DICE recently revealed that this year's Battlefield is going to return to a WW2 setting, and so far, I have high hopes.
While it does seem that they're fully embracing the disregard for actual history that crept into Battlefield One, I actually don't mind that. These games have never been 'realistic' and I'm far more interested in a slick, fun shooter with a WW2 paintjob on it than I am a true simulation of that period of history, and assuming they're building on what was achieved in BF1, they should certainly deliver that.
BF1 is still the best FPS on the market for my money (closely rivalled by Titanfall 2, it's a matter of taste as to whether you want to run 40 yards before being clobbered by a tank or by a giant robot... ) and I like the sound of some of the upcoming changes, such as a new response/animation set allowing for things like diving sideways while going prone or more dynamic movement through rough terrain, and so long as it doesn't go to silly extremes the combination of a returning 'Bad Company' style destruction feature and the ability to deploy your own cover via sandbags ect should offer a nice tactical element without going to Forenite extremes.
Further good news includes the ditching of the season pass/paid expansions, while they have since been offered cheaper/even free (the Russia DLC pack for BF1 is currently free on Xbox, incidentally) the paid DLC maps/modes did split the player base of BF1 significantly, so hopefully it should have a little more longevity if everyone has access to the same content.
There's also a ton of rumours about a PUBG-esque Battle Royale mode, though purportedly it's coming after the launch in October. Honestly, I reckon that could end up being the king of that genre if done well; Battlefield already handles large player counts well and has top-notch gunplay and vehicle mechanics, so as long as they get the pace/tone right we could get something far more polished than PUGB. The new CoD also has one, but unlike Battlefield, there's no track record of large player counts there, whereas BF has been handling 64-player maps with ease for some time, and could probably push closer to the standard Battle Royale 100 with the latest tech.
Here's the trailer in case anyone hasn't seen it, and an article with a compilation of what we know so far.
Absolutely am. Just in case anyone wants to whine about it though, the trailer isn't showing campaign or MP stuff. It's showing the coop--where 4 players are acting as 'pathfinders' for an invasion force.
Grand Operations make a return for MP proper, with varied game modes being the order of the day rather than "It's all conquest!" which is great. They learned from BF1's issue with that, where they had all these cool things like the Naval mode(each side got a pair of Dreadnoughts they had to defend while you also had Conquest going on) that would have been awesome for Operations, but didn't make an appearance there.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not sure I can trust EA to not EA it up.
Free DLCs. Events planned to keep the game going. Only paid content will be cosmetics.
"I can't trust EA!" while Activision is planning yet another yawnfest of a COD.
To put things into context a bit more: Battlefield is looking to take what they learned from Titanfall 2's MP. Hence the free DLCs and cosmetics. It looks to be taking from PUBG in that "people want to mess around with their character's look". There's a lot of stuff to unpack right now for the game and the trailer was just some of the marketing team picking random stuff and going from there. They didn't show off any MP or Campaign details(aside from saying there's a number of them--including one based around a Norwegian resistance fighter; the woman on the cover of the game).
LordofHats wrote: Battlefield: We Saw Call of Duty went back to WWII so we thought we should 2
Totally in agreement here. I was really bummed that they didn't opt to do something truly unexplored(which is what they hinted at as their objectives) and start spinning us out into the timeframe between Now and 2142.
At least the development team is genuinely excited over it, that bodes well with DICE. They weren't too enthusiastic over Hardline and BF1943(the polishing up of 1942 that was an Arcade title for Xbox) and both of those were just awful.
Hey! I'm totally interested in how this game plays out, the trailer was.... well, hectic and less than pleasant, but in about 2 minutes they fit in as much details as they could into the features they are working on. I'm pretty stoked, and had to jump out of the Battlefield subreddit as its literally a ship on fire with rage and tears.
So let's break this trailer down and see what we can spot in this and what they talked about in the live reveal.
0:10 - A horse head, a teddy bear, and some bottle strapped to what looks like a Churchill tank, talked about in the live reveal, this is part of the personal customization you can do to your vehicles and shortly your soldiers in just a moment
0:19 - Stumbling off the tank, this is also something they mentioned, all bodies are now client side, so when they fall, jump, land, wade through water, theyll have custom animations in third person which other can experience and notice
0:20 - A female soldier with prosthetic arm, man oh man, this is currently quite the rage on the subreddit and twitter, I never took Battlefield for its historical accuracy, so I don't really mind, it looks believable, the arm looks like prosthetic from its time, so it fits, it fits, and I am pleased
0:24 - A guy explodes in the kitchen, possible hint of either claymore/mines/booby traps?
0:26 - the female gets shot while distracted, and just as mentioned before, the body falls, and interacts with the environment, which we will see in a few seconds when the body of the german falls down the stairs and knocks over a painting, that can all happen in game with their new ragdolls
0:29 - Bullets start entering through the small cottage, this can happen in game now too, most noticeable they mentioned the mg42 is perfect for ripping through light cover to hit the juicy people behind
0:32 - Soldier noticeable calls out for aid, also mentioned in the live reveal, soldiers when wounded either die outright or lay on the ground and call towards nearby allies to pick them up, bodies can be dragged back into cover if its too risky to heal them in the open, and only your SQUAD can revive you, with the squad revive being noticeable longer with less health on revive, and the medic being quicker, with full health on revive
0:35 - Takedown, looks like a piano wire or something, also all the rage is the sword on the back of the one soldier that looks like he's supposed to be in WW2. That much I get, the katana seems a bit much, but it could also fit in with their unique weapon and takedowns akin to BF1
0:40 - Jump and rolling out windows, as mentioned in live reveal, its part of a movement overhaul revamp, you can now dive left, right, or back, and promptly fire shortly after, as well as jump out windows,
0:45 - Churchills! They break through the building, buildings have been a little overhauled as well, rather than instantly being destroyed, they have a small progressive system where youll see it crack, break, bend, and eventually collapse
0:53 - We can see a flak cannon being towed by another customized tank, with the view being from the British Female riding the kettengrad, all of this is doable in game, you can now tow defensive building to designated areas on the map, driver has a netted M1 and a slick leather jacket
1:07 - Plane crashlands, is this now possible in game rather than breaking into bits and causing no visible impact? Only time will tell
1:20 - Alright, finally, the juicy bits, the soldier picks up the MG42, might not seem like much, but this is intentional, and so is the soon to be thrown ammo pack, everything now must have a physical input for response, no longer are there imaginary auras for bullets and health, you have to press a button to get what you need. Here we also see the toolbox in action, long gone are the days of the gasmask from BF1 and instead we have the toolbox, all classes have it, you can build sandboxes, sandbags, barbed wire, mg nests, tank traps, foxholes, etc etc. Support class gains additional defense and offense emplacements it c an build and can build everything quicker. Also noted is the anti-tank gun, the soldier with a PIAT launcher on his back, and the broadied soldier on the far left.
1:27 - Again, showcasing the new diving animation and mechanics, also noticed is how low ammo the guy has, thats intentional, ammo has been significanlty lowered to promote teamplay, the use of supports, and also now supply depots and the such can be built
1:30 - Hectic firefight, I'm not even sure whats going on, but you can see a sturmtiger in the backgroud, thats a special squad call-in, so to promote teamplay, when squads work together they can accrue points that only the squad leader can use to call in certain abilities, V1 Rockets, Sherman Crocs, Smoke Barrage, Supply Drops, etc etc.
1:35 - Grenades can be tossed back! And additionally they can be shot in the air, see here as the plane goes down after the 'nade explodes right next to it
1:43 - Random firefight, showcasing some more weapons, the broadie, the bren, looks like a bazooka on the back of another, plus reiterating how scarce ammo is when he need to use a sidearm
1:50 - V1 Rocket, squad call in, also showing two new things in the process, one being that the impact would leave behind a noticeable divot in the earth, and the other being that explosions that are non lethal will actually knock you on your arse, as seen here
1:57 - A unique takedown as a result of the shockwave? This was the shot teased the other day too, they also made mentioned that before you'll be getting up close with other player characters avatars in certain animations like take downs and revives
2:05 - Final shot, another screengrab that people use to start churning their pitchforks, personally I don't get it, I think she looks cool as hell, but it seems like I'm in the minority
Whew! There's a lot more out there, if you want to find the most tidbits, I'd turn to Jackfrags, and Angryjoe, both who were very pleased with the private showing they were both giving along with a handful of other game influences, they said this teaser didn't give what they were shown ANY justice at all.
Oh and last thing, my favorite of course, fully customization characters, face, features, face paint, hair, clothes, etc etc. They have little to no impact on gameplay rather than how you look.
Guns too! Each gun has four to five different parts that can be swapped out to personalize the look of your guys, want the Tommy with the drum mag? Do it! They as well have no effect on how the gun handles/performs.
Initially thought that they'd finally dropped trying to go for any historical pretext and were setting it in a steampunk world. Unfortunately not. Queue the comments sections of Forgotten Weapons videos being flooded with spam, again.
Zontarz wrote:
0:20 - A female soldier with prosthetic arm, man oh man, this is currently quite the rage on the subreddit and twitter, I never took Battlefield for its historical accuracy, so I don't really mind, it looks believable, the arm looks like prosthetic from its time, so it fits, it fits, and I am pleased
The rage, from what I can tell, is stupidity gone amok. The video shown was (as I've mentioned) the marketing team playing with customization options and playing the new coop mode. The coop has four players serving as pathfinders for the main invasion.
It also stems from the people assuming that the woman on the cover of the game is the woman from the reveal trailer which she's not--the woman on the cover is one of the War Story(campaign) characters. It's a fictionalized account of Norwegian resistance fighters going after the heavy water manufacturing facilities associated with atomic weapons programs.
New leaked screenshots of Battlefield V, the most authentic and historically accurate WW2 game of all time! https://i.imgur.com/vmtMDLz.jpg
In all seriousness, it's another BF game, what do people expect? It's going to be lowest common denominator sparkly lights for the Call of Duty Shoot-a-Man generation in order to milk the consumer, with a dash of the ever present identity politics thrown in.
One can only hope this helps continue the collapse of this kind of business model, the way Disney's Star Wars is causing the model of "any old gak and slap a licence on it" of film to collapse in on itself.
About the lack of historical accuracy; is it possible this is set in an alternate history? The soldiers seem particularly ragged and the equipment seems cobbled together, such as the american vehicle riding along with Churchill tanks. War amputees on the front line would also be a strong indicator of armies in short supply of fresh manpower. I also don't remember V1 rockets being used so accurately in the real world, but that would have changed if Germany had more time to research rocket technologies.
Mr Nobody wrote: About the lack of historical accuracy; is it possible this is set in an alternate history? The soldiers seem particularly ragged and the equipment seems cobbled together, such as the american vehicle riding along with Churchill tanks. War amputees on the front line would also be a strong indicator of armies in short supply of fresh manpower. I also don't remember V1 rockets being used so accurately in the real world, but that would have changed if Germany had more time to research rocket technologies.
Thoughts and theories?
I've said it several times now:
This has nothing to do with historical accuracy or inaccuracy. This was something that the marketing team did to show off the customization that is available in the game. The game mode shown was specifically called out during their hour long live reveal as being for the cooperative mode which is 4 players serving as 'pathfinders' for an incoming invasion force and then completing an objective.
Wyrmalla wrote: They released a picture of a German tank painted grey in 1944. Historical accuracy!
As far as I'm concerned, that's an acceptable break from reality where a video game is concerned. I do expect certain short-cuts to be taken in the interests of keeping costs and resources manageable. The fact that, for instance, Americans in a World War 2 game get an apparently inexhaustible supply of Pershing tanks is a non-issue for me, generally speaking.
The V1 is another matter, though. Off the top of my head, I don't think those were targeted at anywhere other than British soil, let alone onto a battlefield. Even Kanluwen's argument really doesn't apply here because the fact that the V1 exists within the game assets suggests that it's going to show up at some point on the battlefield. And I can't think of a reason why they couldn't have just done something similarly impressive using assets to recreate a more appropriate Panzerwerfer barrage instead.
Unless they're implementing an alternate history Operation Sea Lion?
Wyrmalla wrote: They released a picture of a German tank painted grey in 1944. Historical accuracy!
As far as I'm concerned, that's an acceptable break from reality where a video game is concerned. I do expect certain short-cuts to be taken in the interests of keeping costs and resources manageable. The fact that, for instance, Americans in a World War 2 game get an apparently inexhaustible supply of Pershing tanks is a non-issue for me, generally speaking.
The V1 is another matter, though. Off the top of my head, I don't think those were targeted at anywhere other than British soil, let alone onto a battlefield. Even Kanluwen's argument really doesn't apply here because the fact that the V1 exists within the game assets suggests that it's going to show up at some point on the battlefield. And I can't think of a reason why they couldn't have just done something similarly impressive using assets to recreate a more appropriate Panzerwerfer barrage instead.
Unless they're implementing an alternate history Operation Sea Lion?
I think it's kind of dropping a nod to the whole "Secret Weapons of WWII" expansion pack they did back in the day. One of the things in there for the Axis was that they could use radio-guided V1s as an emplaced weapon during games.
They did mention during the live reveal that while they want to be "historically accurate" where they can be, they're also doing fictionalized accounts set during real operations and bringing stuff that never really saw production into it.
It's going to kinda be necessary to do that bit, since they want the "Tides of War"(month long events that will be giving unique skins/customization options for participating in them) to span from the "fall of Europe"(this is supposed to be the first one--it deals with the Axis powers taking over Europe. Launches in November/December and continues until February 2019. Tentative dates) to the end of the war. Then they'll reset the events and go anew.
The following was just posted in regards to the V1:
Play effectively as a squad in #Battlefield V and earn points used to call in Reinforcements, including much-needed supplies, vehicles, or even powerful rocket strikes. Boom.
Looks like it's an evolution of the Commander assets from BF4?
I've skipped the last couple of Battlefields. I think the last one I played was Battlefield 3. Battlefield 4 was released at a time when I wasn't much into Battlefield games, I wasn't a fan of Hardlines Cops and Robbers feel, and I wasn't sold on Battlefield 1's WW1 setting.
But a new WW2 Battlefield? I'm in. I love some of the new stuff they're doing, especially with customization.
The issue with the grey German tanks is that its something almost all main stream video games covering video games do, and they really need to stop it. The game's supposedly set in 1944-45. The Germans stopped painting their tanks grey in 1943. The Sturmtiger didn't see service until mid 1944. Why is the Sturmtiger painted grey?
Personally my concern for the series isn't to play it. I played one of the supposedly "good" game's single players and it was cringe for the hour I could bear it. The story and gameplay were horrible. Its about waiting on the Forgotten Weapons videos where Ian pokes fun at how ridiculous the series is where the value real comes from.
I would love seeing stuff like the Ratte and Maus, the USSR's IS-6 and Brits weapons as well as stuff like the Horton. Yeah, it's not "really" accurate, but it makes for an awesome game. And that's what it should be about, cinematic scenes and really making gameplay fun.
I was excited for this prior to the release of the trailer.My enthusiasm dropped when it turned out to be another WWII game. The overly busy trailer didn't excite me for the game either. Listening to some commentators it sounds like that the pace of the game is meant to be slower than previous titles with more limited ammo, the option to fortify locations (pre-designated only it seems), limited health regeneration, actually having to interact for health and ammo pick ups. That sits at odds with the trailer (shooting grenades to blow up planes sliding down a hill and shooting, a crashing airplane taking people out and causing a vehicle to fall off a bridge and land on a soldier, an AA gun firing while being towed at speed), so it may be that the trailer is not representative of the game. Then we have ridiculous things like barbed wire covered baseball bats and a katana wielding British soldier jumping out the window of a second story building with little to no harm.
I'm reserving my final judgement until I see some gameplay footage. For now my paintbrushes are rejoicing that their abandonment is not imminent.
I'm pretty sure there'll be an public beta coming up over the summer, there was for BF1 and the Deluxe Edition mentions early access to a beta, so there should be ample opportunity to try before you buy.
I don't mind the implied slower pace, so long as the game as a whole allows for it (in the last few, it's be quick or be dead). I do like the idea of medics being able to drag injured players into cover to heal them, but equally in BF1 I play Medic a lot and even when it's just a simple sprint>revive people often seem to go for the faster respawn rather than waiting for aid, so slowing that down might make players even less interested in playing that class (or waiting for one). Of course, this could be easily countered by the inability to fully heal without a Medic, and/or longer respawn cycles, we'll have to wait and see.
Conversely, Support seems to benefit from the reduced ammo count, and equally Scouts (with their already limited ammo supply) might have to be a bit more mobile if they only have 2-3 magazines before needing a resupply. I can see Assault getting more appealing as tanks will presumably be a bit more prevalent and AT options will likely be a bit more interesting as well, I expect more portable AT weapons where BF1 only really had the rocket gun in that capacity (and, of course, lobbing dynamite )
I'm also interested to see how they handle air combat... In BF1 it's great as the planes are slow enough to realistically operate over a battlefield space on the larger maps, but from what I recall of BF4 jets were almost ludicrously slow to let them fit in the available airspace... WW2 should hopefully allow for a mid-point where the planes are faster/more manoeuvrable but not to the extent of feeling cramped. I do hope they keep it at least somewhat reasonable, I'd rather see things like Typhoons, Stukas, Mosquitos, BF109/10s, P-47s ect rather than trying to shoehorn a B-17 or Lancaster into some kind of interdiction role (though equally, I could go for a mode like Battlefront has that's all aircraft, then they'd fit as mission objectives ect)
All in all, the changes sound appealing, but I do look forward to trying it out before ordering if possible, I love BF1 but didn't really get on with BF4 when I picked that up a few years ago.
From people that were present at the event:
Medics get to revive people quicker than others.
Scouts can spot without gadgets, others need gadgets like binoculars.
Support are able to not just deploy fortifications, but can deploy mountable AA guns or AT guns(the toolbox must be a TARDIS ).
Assault get access to more grenade types at once it looked like. Some of the devs said this one is still in progress, as they think it could be a bit crazy. The intention right now is you can have a smoke grenade and a damage grenade.
Ah cool, so it's less 'each class gets a specific thing that only they can do' and more 'anyone can do anything, but the classes do it better'. Seems like a good approach, and while I find it very helpful, I agree that letting everyone spot with no penalties in BF1 got a bit much at times.
Support being able to throw down gun emplacements is an interesting one, I imagine the big drawback will be that they take time to set up leaving you vulnerable/needing cover, so you can't just throw down an AT position the moment an enemy tank shows up.
From what was being hinted at, it's less that you build the item yourself and more that you're requesting it be built. Hence the AI Allied troops we saw putting up sandbags during the trailer. Edit: Also, Support deploys normal fortifications quicker than the other classes. Sandbags, tank traps, etc.
Oh--other bit I've clocked is supposedly the Scout can call in off-map artillery for less points and it's a bit more accurate? That will need to be confirmed 100% though.
I think it's a bit silly trying to garner anything from the trailer - it's hectic for a reason; they want you to care about the bright lights and big noises.
That said, meh. Battlefield games were a blast when I had thirty hours to waste on a 6k ticket game. Or before hardcore made my blood pressure sky rocket. I'll watch a playthrough of the SP though, because BF singleplayer is always awesome.
Mr Nobody wrote: About the lack of historical accuracy; is it possible this is set in an alternate history? The soldiers seem particularly ragged and the equipment seems cobbled together, such as the american vehicle riding along with Churchill tanks. War amputees on the front line would also be a strong indicator of armies in short supply of fresh manpower. I also don't remember V1 rockets being used so accurately in the real world, but that would have changed if Germany had more time to research rocket technologies.
Thoughts and theories?
I've said it several times now:
This has nothing to do with historical accuracy or inaccuracy. This was something that the marketing team did to show off the customization that is available in the game. The game mode shown was specifically called out during their hour long live reveal as being for the cooperative mode which is 4 players serving as 'pathfinders' for an incoming invasion force and then completing an objective.
Ring-a-ding-ding! This basically covers my thoughts exactly, although I don't think this specifically covered any one gametype, but instead of a pre-rendered video with a HUD overlay tacked to make it "feel" like gameplay.
Zontarz, the reveal video they did actually had them preface it with the recording/rendering was done in the coop mode with some weird settings active.
Kanluwen wrote:Zontarz, the reveal video they did actually had them preface it with the recording/rendering was done in the coop mode with some weird settings active.
Did they? I must've not heard of that part before the trailer, granted my source was pulled from a comment from god knows where, so I'll look into it
Kanluwen wrote:
Play effectively as a squad in #Battlefield V and earn points used to call in Reinforcements, including much-needed supplies, vehicles, or even powerful rocket strikes. Boom.
Looks like it's an evolution of the Commander assets from BF4?
Something like that, I mentioned it above but they are really emphasizing on squad play, you have less ammo, so you rely on your support more, dying requires either a Medic, or a Squadmate to revive, with the latter taking longer to do so.
They talked about how working together as a squad will help accrue "squad points" which the Squad Leader, can then spend for call-ins, resupplies, special vehicles, smoke barrages, and in the trailers instance, a V1 (or V2 rocket)
I found this image somewhere off the subreddit, which gives a good impression of the different sub-classes within a class, in this instance, the Scout class currently has three, and in the future probably far more.
Play effectively as a squad in #Battlefield V and earn points used to call in Reinforcements, including much-needed supplies, vehicles, or even powerful rocket strikes. Boom.
Looks like it's an evolution of the Commander assets from BF4?
Again, there are multiple historically accurate ways of having battlefield rocket strikes that would look impressive within the game. The V1 is NOT one of those. It was used as a terror weapon against Great Britain, not as a battlefield attack weapon. Rockets were used by both the Axis and Allies in Western and Eastern Europe. So there's nothing preventing the developers from including a non-V1 rocket.
Finally, all sides need support options that are roughly equivalent. Or in other words, if the German side in a multi-player game can call in a V1 attack, then the Allies in that match need something equivalent. But the V1 was a distinctly German weapon. Are US and British players going to call in pin-point accurate B-17 battlefield strikes as their equivalent thing? Or is everyone on both sides going to get V1 attacks as a support option?
The V1 was also, purportedly, going to be used as a testbed for 'precision' munitions and could be launched from large bombers and be radio-controlled.
It's way too early to really be able to say what's what but the V1 being used might have been a scripted sequence as part of a coop mission.
People don't like this because it's not 'historically accurate'. Oh, man. I guess we'll never see a realistic WW2 game, then. Oh, if only we had a franchise that cranked out a FPS WW2 game every three or four years!
I mean, they need to be a little weird with it. What's stopping us from having a Weird War 2 FPS horror game that isn't Wolfenstein? (Which wasn't too 'weird war')
Kanluwen wrote:Zontarz, the reveal video they did actually had them preface it with the recording/rendering was done in the coop mode with some weird settings active.
Did they? I must've not heard of that part before the trailer, granted my source was pulled from a comment from god knows where, so I'll look into it
There was a half hour of stuff on the livestream they did before they showed the trailer.
Interestingly enough, this jibes with some of the discussion and feedback they said they got from Battlefield One and Battlefront 2. People liked the "elite" kits but disliked that you couldn't start as them. One of the surveys they'd sent out awhile back asked if people would be willing to lose general options in exchange for specialized 'elite' kits.
I've seen a lot of defences of this and they basically fall into two camps:
1) There were women in WW2
2) Video games aren't realistic anyway
Funnily enough, most tend to ardently argue the first point and then as an afterthought concede that well its not that realistic anyway.
With point number 1, they'll usually cite the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army or French Resistance. Which is irrelevant because we aren't shown Russian soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if that had been the case, literally if they had given the woman a French accent that would be enough. We were shown a British woman fighting alongside the paratroopers at the Rhine... Or, they cite that "but my grandmother manned an AA gun during a blitz" or "she was a spy" etc etc. That is not the same as being a front line combatant. I don't know, maybe there were entire regiments of women paratroopers at Arnhem? I will concede the point if that can be proven.
Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.
As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?
Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.
Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.
As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?
Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.
Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!
Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.
I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.
Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans
I don't think that's going to be the case here. With Battlefield 1, you didn't have much in the way of vehicle options. Germans used captured French or British stuff in a lot of cases and the same went for the Russians and British/French.
or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!
Again, with WWI you just didn't see a whole heck of a lot of stuff out there. It's not beyond the realm of belief for a British soldier to have a Russian weapon though. Some of the guys who made the trip as part of the Baltic Convoys were known to 'acquire' things to sell back home.
Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.
I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.
It's worth mentioning that a cursory read of the preorder stuff would have sorted a lot of this silliness.
Customizations aren't necessarily going to be universal. There's a uniform for the British Special Air Service faction and another for the German Fallschirmjager faction tied to some unique preorder challenges(that are supposed to be made available to everyone else later). So while you might be able to get, say, a prosthetic arm or a bayonet that will be universal for all factions--you might also get a British Commando customization piece that can't be put on a German.
Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.
As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?
Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.
Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!
Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.
I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.
There are limits. Plus to avoid any misconceptions, I am one of those guys that plays female characters all the time. But doing it in WW2 is bizarre. You can't as a developer talk about how immersive your game is and how it's about the real stories of WW2 if you have British woman paratroopers and mixed race units. The USA and Britain were white supremacist and mysoginist nations. If you care that much about diversity and not telling the time period as it was you may as well do sci fi or modern warfare.
Most of the killing is close quarters and you have executions and sound animations. I will notice if half the team are women, especially if Iam using a pasrticulsarly large shovel.
Well with BF1 I was quite drawn to the look and style of the WW1 setting. Having black awoken with mohawqks and face paint in the German Army
Kind of detracts from that. So it is important.
The reactions to the trailer are entirely understandable, somehow people were expecting, based from BF1 trailer, to see a realistic looking WW2 trailer, they did not get that and teared it apart for every single non historically accurate thing it showed.
It is a usual case of audience expectations and creator failing to expect what those were.
I am shocked to hear from Kanluwen this is a presentation of a 4 player coop mission, I was fully expecting this to be a presentation of some big multiplayer map with full progress and it looks 100% like one such map playing with completely random stuff happening and a full chaos all around, showcasing all the new mechanics people can expect from multiplayer including player spawning (that poor disabled lady dies 3-4 times in that trailer) and the ridiculous level players can customise their avatars.
Are we 100% this is a 4 player coop mission and not a squad of 4 players in a multiplayer map?
I do believe if they showcased first a story trailer and then this trailer there would be no such big reaction.
Two things that personally made me go "huh" on the trailer (I saw it and assumed it shows multiplayer and character customisation from the start) is the Parthenon head horse on the tank, seems completely out of place and the disabled individual, not sure why one would place somebody with a prosthetic arm in front-line combat regardless of gender.
And my personal wacky question, I get they wanted to shove a barbed wire baseball bat in there, but she is British so they made it a cricket bat with barb wire, but can a cricket bat do such hits without breaking?
Well apparently some of the devs have responded in some articles and I honestly don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.
So you put up a trailer and it has 50% dislikes. What EA does is it then comes out and says:
A) Its a small minority of people who they belittle and insult.
B) The game is meant to be inclusive and diverse.
C) The games have never been realistic anyway.
If it was a small minority of people then you wouldn't have bothered to respond to it. Plus, why haven't all the Battlefield fans outvoted the minority trying to sabotage the games credibility? That would imply that a significant portion of fans (read: paying consumer) don't like what you are selling. If you just wanted to bury your head in the sand then you could just do that. Also, what kind of business insults its own customers? Frankly I am probably going to buy the game anyway and probably for the lols end up playing as a sexy Nazi woman. But when I hear developers say really derogatory comments that I feel are aimed at me personally it makes me feel like I shouldn't give them my money.
There used to be this thing called "damage limitation". How is appealing to them going to assuage the doubts raised? Surely they are already on your "side"? The only reason to do that is to essentially browbeat people into silence or it shows that they are more concerned with maintaining a progressive image as a company. To take a quote from the Simpsons "instead of giving people what you want, you're telling them what they want!". In fact the whole statement is framed in a way that excludes the critics. A company should want to sell to as many people as possible, it should not be concerned with moral posturing to people who are presumably already sold on the game. All this does is tell people "if you don't like what you see, we don't want your money and we don't care about you." Plus, nailing your colours to the mast like that means that people could think "oh, so every dollar I give you will push your political agenda?" A company should not have a political agenda.
Which is the point. People wanted a return to historical shooters because they were tired of all the unrealistic and fantastical shooters like Infinite Warefare. People wanted a boots on the ground story and setting. To have a livestream use the word immersion a dozen times and then a few days later back peddle like this is embarrassing and two faced. So your response to concerns over historical accuracy is to tell people that your game is silly and not going to be grounded in reality at all? You are saying that "we're not making a WW2 game" and that we care so little about the setting that we aren't going to bother with things like what people actually wore, the segregation of the army and the role of women.
You'd have actually been better off not responding at all.
The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.
It's also worth noting that people were whining about the woman being on the front cover of the Battlefield V box. The box art is always a character from the campaign. We know there's a campaign devoted to the Norwegian Resistance, told through the eyes of a woman.
Don't like this Battlefield and the fact they're actually trying to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to player avatars? Tough. People want customization, whether it's "historically accurate" or not.
The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.
It's also worth noting that people were whining about the woman being on the front cover of the Battlefield V box. The box art is always a character from the campaign. We know there's a campaign devoted to the Norwegian Resistance, told through the eyes of a woman.
Don't like this Battlefield and the fact they're actually trying to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to player avatars? Tough. People want customization, whether it's "historically accurate" or not.
They've confirmed that you have full customisation in multiplayer. This is not just one single player story mission. So kinky female Nazis are a go.
Well it straight away means that its not going to look anything like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates. So people who like those films, might be turned off the game. If you have people blinged up in war paint, all bear chested with mohawks (more Apocalypse Now than John Wayne) and beautiful women with their hair and make up done up it will look silly. It will ruin the immersion for people who want an authentic WW2 game.
The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.
There you go, poison that well. They're NAZIS for wanting historical accuracy!
I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow.
As I said the trailer as an depiction of what a huge multiplayer map can be looks 100% authenticate representation.
Everything is wacky, everything looks out of place and random, everything looks fun.
Now I would not put it as the first trailer and would not double down on the complains, or hide behind the "representation" excuse, looks like multiplayer, looks fun, multiplayer was never historically accurate, never will be.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow..
Like I said before, these game companies are fools for not going full Weird War 2 already. I've already seen my fair share of Normandy landings and such.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow.
As I said the trailer as an depiction of what a huge multiplayer map can be looks 100% authenticate representation.
Everything is wacky, everything looks out of place and random, everything looks fun.
Now I would not put it as the first trailer and would not double down on the complains, or hide behind the "representation" excuse, looks like multiplayer, looks fun, multiplayer was never historically accurate, never will be.
They did it with Bad Company 2 and BF1. Why shouldn't I expect the same level here?
But the multiplayer is still being sold on the basis of it being the WW2 setting. If it deviates so heavily from that to the point where you have black female Nazis, guys who look like they belong on Apocalypse Now (if it was BF: Vietnam then fine but it isn't) or Mad Max then how is it still a WW2 game? The fun comes from being able to fight out the battles you see on the movies; which means they have to at least vaguely resemble those war films.
The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.
There you go, poison that well. They're NAZIS for wanting historical accuracy!
Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.
There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.
PsychoticStorm wrote:The reactions to the trailer are entirely understandable, somehow people were expecting, based from BF1 trailer, to see a realistic looking WW2 trailer, they did not get that and teared it apart for every single non historically accurate thing it showed.
It is a usual case of audience expectations and creator failing to expect what those were.
I am shocked to hear from Kanluwen this is a presentation of a 4 player coop mission, I was fully expecting this to be a presentation of some big multiplayer map with full progress and it looks 100% like one such map playing with completely random stuff happening and a full chaos all around, showcasing all the new mechanics people can expect from multiplayer including player spawning (that poor disabled lady dies 3-4 times in that trailer) and the ridiculous level players can customise their avatars.
Are we 100% this is a 4 player coop mission and not a squad of 4 players in a multiplayer map?
I do believe if they showcased first a story trailer and then this trailer there would be no such big reaction.
Two things that personally made me go "huh" on the trailer (I saw it and assumed it shows multiplayer and character customisation from the start) is the Parthenon head horse on the tank, seems completely out of place and the disabled individual, not sure why one would place somebody with a prosthetic arm in front-line combat regardless of gender.
And my personal wacky question, I get they wanted to shove a barbed wire baseball bat in there, but she is British so they made it a cricket bat with barb wire, but can a cricket bat do such hits without breaking?
I'm not sure what it's pulled from, I've skimmed the Live Stream reveal a few times but haven't seem to found the bit where they claim its co-op or multiplayer, personally it's all very cinematic, and I don't think its really co-op nor multiplayer, but something just made for the reveal on its own.
Out of all the things that you make you go huh, I enjoy its the horse statue head roped to the tank
Totalwar1402 wrote:Well apparently some of the devs have responded in some articles and I honestly don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.
So you put up a trailer and it has 50% dislikes. What EA does is it then comes out and says:
A) Its a small minority of people who they belittle and insult.
B) The game is meant to be inclusive and diverse.
C) The games have never been realistic anyway.
If it was a small minority of people then you wouldn't have bothered to respond to it. Plus, why haven't all the Battlefield fans outvoted the minority trying to sabotage the games credibility? That would imply that a significant portion of fans (read: paying consumer) don't like what you are selling. If you just wanted to bury your head in the sand then you could just do that. Also, what kind of business insults its own customers? Frankly I am probably going to buy the game anyway and probably for the lols end up playing as a sexy Nazi woman. But when I hear developers say really derogatory comments that I feel are aimed at me personally it makes me feel like I shouldn't give them my money.
There used to be this thing called "damage limitation". How is appealing to them going to assuage the doubts raised? Surely they are already on your "side"? The only reason to do that is to essentially browbeat people into silence or it shows that they are more concerned with maintaining a progressive image as a company. To take a quote from the Simpsons "instead of giving people what you want, you're telling them what they want!". In fact the whole statement is framed in a way that excludes the critics. A company should want to sell to as many people as possible, it should not be concerned with moral posturing to people who are presumably already sold on the game. All this does is tell people "if you don't like what you see, we don't want your money and we don't care about you." Plus, nailing your colours to the mast like that means that people could think "oh, so every dollar I give you will push your political agenda?" A company should not have a political agenda.
Which is the point. People wanted a return to historical shooters because they were tired of all the unrealistic and fantastical shooters like Infinite Warefare. People wanted a boots on the ground story and setting. To have a livestream use the word immersion a dozen times and then a few days later back peddle like this is embarrassing and two faced. So your response to concerns over historical accuracy is to tell people that your game is silly and not going to be grounded in reality at all? You are saying that "we're not making a WW2 game" and that we care so little about the setting that we aren't going to bother with things like what people actually wore, the segregation of the army and the role of women.
You'd have actually been better off not responding at all.
Their PR is a bit overloaded right now, some of the backlash from the DICE Devs have been pretty horrendous, others not so much, but personally I can't fault them entirely with some of the personal attacks that must be flooding their feeds 24/7 right now. I'm not sure where you are pulling out 50% dislikes from, the video is sitting at 8 million views, 324k dislikes, and 280k likes, its a lot of dislikes, but the total just barely scratch half a million. Although I have to agree with them on C, BF1 felt immersive, but it was nowhere realistic, tanks were everywhere, Zeppelins/Trains in every major Operation for either side, weapons that never actually saw the light of day outside of a onetime blueprint, I dunno, it didn't affect me in BF1, and it's not gonna affect me here in BF:V
Kanluwen wrote: Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.
There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.
So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.
Kanluwen wrote: Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.
There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.
So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.
Kan has provided no evidence that the people with the icons he's describing are the same ones that are complaining about the historical inaccuracies that appear to be in Battlefield V. It appears to be pure speculation on his part until he provides actual evidence to the contrary. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those individuals are included in the list of complainers simply because statistically speaking it's likely that at least a few of them will be unhappy about it. But there's been no evidence provided to suggest that they make up a majority, or even a sizeable minority of the complainers.
In any case, my question is this - where exactly is the line at which a "World War 2 shooter" has too little in common to remain a "World War 2 shooter"? If there were hover tanks and laser rifles, then no one would argue that it wasn't a World War 2 shooter, even if EA and DICE insisted that it was. How inaccurate does it need to be before it's no longer a "World War 2 shooter"?
Kanluwen wrote: Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.
There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.
So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.
I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.
I'm not providing examples, as you can find a lot of them simply by looking at any of the developers' Twitter feeds where they've commented on the introduction of female playable characters for MP.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.
So, you have anecdotal examples, without any evidence whatsoever. So, people who want the games to be historically accurate has no real relation to people who put offensive symbols on their little game dudes. I'd appreciate if you'd stop jumping on the bandwagon that labels everyone doing things and saying things you dislike as some kind of racist, bigot, bully, or Nazi. You're smarter than this and quite frankly it's a childish act.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.
So, you have anecdotal examples, without any evidence whatsoever. So, people who want the games to be historically accurate has no real relation to people who put offensive symbols on their little game dudes. I'd appreciate if you'd stop jumping on the bandwagon that labels everyone doing things and saying things you dislike as some kind of racist, bigot, bully, or Nazi. You're smarter than this and quite frankly it's a childish act.
Do you expect me to comb through social media to provide the stuff plus the person's linked EA account? I'm not doing that. Sorry, but it's not happening.
The people that I have seen who are genuinely upset to the point of complaining nonstop about it have been the people that I find are most likely to have something associated with the game in a historically inaccurate way. They're the people who have been complaining that the inclusion of women has been DICE being "SJWs" or appealing to the "femboys" or all kinds of nonsense like that.
That, by the by, is in comparison to the people who I've seen mention that they want the female characters to be restricted to the Russians or the resistance groups. As it stands, that second group did get addressed and DICE has taken some of that feedback and said they're considering 'rebranding' the various Allied factions(British Special Air Service, US Airborne, etc) for the Western Front into just "Allied Forces". It'd be an umbrella of the faction, allowing for the Partisans to be brought in under those auspices without messing with the rest of it too heavily. The German side of things doesn't really have the same opportunity to do so, but it is what it is.
In any regards there's a kind of pattern to the style of complaint out there that makes me comfortable saying that a social media posting with certain keywords is more likely to be associated with a certain type of player than the one you're thinking I'm painting with a broad brush. Someone who talks about DICE being SJWs or libtards or femnazis generally isn't going to be worth paying any mind to, and if you think that it's just a bandwagon to call them out on it--feel free to ignore me, since we're not ever going to have productive discussions.
Kanluwen wrote: Do you expect me to comb through social media to provide the stuff plus the person's linked EA account? I'm not doing that. Sorry, but it's not happening.
No. I expect you to be clear and provide evidence of some absurd claim, not a generalization based on your moments of shooting each other and screaming that you boned one anothers' moms. Someone who wants historical accuracy is not going to be what you say, in the overwhelming majority of situations. Many people, for whatever reason, prefer an accurate historical game. Myself, I cannot understand why, but it is a matter of preference. Regardless of what childish troll you have encountered in some video game, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that all of these individuals are NATZEES IN MY CEREAL.
Kanluwen wrote: The people that I have seen who are genuinely upset to the point of complaining nonstop about it have been the people that I find are most likely to have something associated with the game in a historically inaccurate way. They're the people who have been complaining that the inclusion of women has been DICE being "SJWs" or appealing to the "femboys" or all kinds of nonsense like that.
And the people I've seen screaming about the opposite are [insert generalization]. See how this works? I don't even need proof. I can just make things up to smear people that want things I dislike. Anyone who wants female Space Marines is usually a child molester! See? It's stupid.
Kanluwen wrote: In any regards there's a kind of pattern to the style of complaint out there that makes me comfortable saying that a social media posting with certain keywords is more likely to be associated with a certain type of player than the one you're thinking I'm painting with a broad brush. Someone who talks about DICE being SJWs or libtards or femnazis generally isn't going to be worth paying any mind to, and if you think that it's just a bandwagon to call them out on it--feel free to ignore me, since we're not ever going to have productive discussions.
Then you're certainly capable of understanding that I feel the same way about someone bellowing "People who want historical accuracy are usually Nazis!"
Because the people screaming about Nazis in my Cereal are usually unhinged elements of society that are best laughed at, just like we do at Nazis.
So what exactly am I supposed to refer to someone who has [SS] as a clan tag and a swastika as their player icon?
People who choose to use garbage like that should be labeled as Nazis, whether they are or not. If they want to 'self-identify' with that nonsense be my guest, they just shouldn't be able to pull back with "lulz it was a joke brah!".
Kanluwen wrote: So what exactly am I supposed to refer to someone who has [SS] as a clan tag and a swastika as their player icon?
People who choose to use garbage like that should be labeled as Nazis, whether they are or not. If they want to 'self-identify' with that nonsense be my guest, they just shouldn't be able to pull back with "lulz it was a joke brah!".
And again, I ask you- are these the only individuals asking for historical accuracy? I don't care what you think of some troll in a game. Call them whatever you want. I'm asking if these are the only individuals that want historical accuracy, and if so- please manifest evidence of this.
I think people who are asking for historical accuracy from the Battlefield series are fething idiots, TBH. This is never a series that has in any way or shape claimed or tried to deliver that experience. It's a video game that uses WW2 as a setting to tell a story. Why aren't any of these mouthbreathers complaining you can hide behind a rock for 10 seconds and get your health back, when historical accuracy demands that nearly every individual bullet wound be either fatal or crippling?
In any case, my question is this - where exactly is the line at which a "World War 2 shooter" has too little in common to remain a "World War 2 shooter"? If there were hover tanks and laser rifles, then no one would argue that it wasn't a World War 2 shooter, even if EA and DICE insisted that it was. How inaccurate does it need to be before it's no longer a "World War 2 shooter"?
It is an interesting question and an almost impossible to answer, because it varies from person to person.
I can generalise that if the weapons/ vehicles, uniforms and locations seem authentic, then the average person will be immersed and experience a WW2 shooter regardless of its actual realism and authenticity, this is true regardless of multiplayer or single player campaign.
Now there is a murky line here, does an X element (woman fighter, soldiers ethnicity, weapon, vehicle, location, ectr, ectr) were no X element existed and it is generally known it did not exist affect players immersion on the game? I feel this is affected both by how well known is the element and how frequent is its encounter and how well the game designer has woven their story, but I feel this affects the single player campaign more than multiplayer experience.
A historical literate player can avalanche on criticism because the many obvious elements will break the "magic circle" of immersion and start nitpick on details less subtle since their immersion has been broken and they see many more subtle details (I remember see people complain that thermite is used wrong and behave wrong in the recent COD game, quite subtle detail really) a less known player will catch the more obvious elements, if any, but since we are in the "information age" any who feels they did wrong will find people criticising the more subtle elements and add to their own criticism.
Now, I still maintain this is a single player campaign issue, it may have been a multiplayer issue in the past, but current iteration of multiplayer has created some standards for players that set it aside from single player, for good or evil multiplayer is both a skill bragging arena and a cosmetic contest, there is no regard to the historical accuracy in multiplayer and now the game companies give more and more emphasis to character customisation there may be given many excuses "inclusiveness", "immersion", "whatever the PR/ marketing guy comes up with" reality is it can be monetised and this is the current financial model companies go for, whatever odd elements exist are there for this reason, "wouldn't it be cool if I played X" this generates sales. more sales than a historically accurate multiplayer, simple as that.
I understand and acknowledge there is an underline "political war" on social media with many epithets for both sides and the usual narrative is "game developer(s) shoves in X,Y,Z progressive elements players react" and trench-lines are drawn and all must be categorised in either side of the no-mans land, I think it is wrong and immoral to toss everybody on two sides, not all game developers are the same, not all gamers are the same, not all critiques critique for the same reason, not all supporters support for the same reason, not all game design decisions are done for political reasons, some are revenue drive, some are because someone felt it was a cool idea, although everything can be political, not everything needs to be political and I think the last years we fall more and more prey in making everything political.
Some people just want to play a black SS officer because they feel it is cool, some want to play a disabled female British commando because they feel it is cool, as far as I am concerned it is fine as long as this is contained in the multplayer and not story campaign of a game that wants to sell it as a game set in a historical period, multiplayer arenas have more important "immersion breaks" in order to have a good and exciting gameplay than a British command having a katana on his back (of all places) or the pixel someone just sniped was slightly darker than it should have been.
So after the wall of text for me I feel a game will be judged (or should be judged) on its "historical authenticity" in the single player campaign and not on the multiplayer experience, multiplayer has evolved to be a different beast and serve a different purpose.
PsychoticStorm wrote: So after the wall of text for me I feel a game will be judged (or should be judged) on its "historical authenticity" in the single player campaign
That's only a reasonable expectation if the game advertised itself as being historically authentic. Battlefield has not.
It's like complaining Battlefield: Hardline was a bad game because after making an arrest you didn't have to go back to the station to write up a report or testify at a trial. It's a setting to tell a story in, not a historical re-enactment or recreation.
WORLD WAR 2 LIKE YOU’VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE
Enter mankind’s greatest conflict with Battlefield™ V as the series goes back to its roots in a never-before-seen portrayal of World War 2.
Can be interpreted in any direction, but I would assume consensus would be that a game advertised as set in WW2 would try to be "historical accurate" at least in a pop culture movie way.
Again we know and seen nothing from actual story campaign and I still maintain this is were any hope and criticism of historical accuracy should be directed at, multiplayer, no, it is an entirely different beast.
Ouze wrote: I think people who are asking for historical accuracy from the Battlefield series are fething idiots, TBH. This is never a series that has in any way or shape claimed or tried to deliver that experience. It's a video game that uses WW2 as a setting to tell a story. Why aren't any of these mouthbreathers complaining you can hide behind a rock for 10 seconds and get your health back, when historical accuracy demands that nearly every individual bullet wound be either fatal or crippling?
I don't know if it's occurred to you, but I think they mean historically accurate weapons, units, and other aesthetics- not mechanics like having injuries, needing to shave, digging fighting positions, and pooping in the woods and telling dick jokes to pass the time over stale cigarettes. Hardly worth childishly calling them a 'mouthbreather'. It's one thing to have different taste, and I for one have no love of historical shooters or games and I enjoy embellishing the fantastic. But I would not appreciate someone calling me a 'mouthbreather', and I wouldn't call them one for liking a different style of aesthetics.
Curious, what do you call people who don't share your taste in music, food, or television?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't know if it's occurred to you, but I think they mean historically accurate weapons, units, and other aesthetics- not mechanics like having injuries, needing to shave, digging fighting positions, and pooping in the woods and telling dick jokes to pass the time over stale cigarettes. Hardly worth childishly calling them a 'mouthbreather'. It's one thing to have different taste, and I for one have no love of historical shooters or games and I enjoy embellishing the fantastic. But I would not appreciate someone calling me a 'mouthbreather', and I wouldn't call them one for liking a different style of aesthetics.
Super cool takedown of a point I didn't make. If you actually read what I wrote, which you should, I'm not denigrating people who like games with high historical accuracy, or whatever. Different strokes for different folks, right?
What I am denigrating are these morons who are 2x butthurt that women and black people are in these games because muh historical accuracy. All of a sudden, this is a problem! This has literally never, at any point, been a game that is historically accurate. They use a real-world inspired setting to tell a story, like when a nuclear weapon was detonated in Paris, which didn't actually happen, or when China, Russia, and the US had a 3 way war, which also is notably not historically accurate. Where were these guys when people were ejecting from jets, hitting the parachute, using an pistol to shoot the pilot of a jet that is coming at them, and then hopping into and hijacking that oncoming jet? I bet not once anywhere in the entire internet did anyone write up a post and complain that a US pilot probably can't fly a mig, or fit an RPG into a cockpit.
If you go to Burger King and order a McMuffin, you won't get it, and the rest of the people in line will make fun of you. It's not Burger King's fault that you imagined, in your head, that they made McMuffins despite the fact they never claimed to.
Ouze wrote: If you go to Burger King and order a McMuffin, you won't get it, and the rest of the people in line will make fun of you. It's not Burger King's fault that you imagined, in your head, that they made McMuffins despite the fact they never claimed to.
So, it never has been 'accurate' in terms of appearances? Or at least 'realistic' in the aesthetic department? I find it hard to believe.
Why are you dropping the "historical" from "historical accuracy" to try and make your square strawman fit in a round argument?
The appearance of weapons, vehicles, and locales is an essential part of establishing realistic settings in which fictional stories are told. It's a setting, not a reenactment or a reproduction.
Ouze wrote: Why are you dropping the "historical" from "historical accuracy" to try and make your square strawman fit in a round argument?
The appearance of weapons, vehicles, and locales is an essential part of establishing realistic settings in which fictional stories are told. It's a setting, not a reenactment or a reproduction.
Probably for the same reason people aren't painting black guys in their Bolt-Action SS armies. Some people want things as authentic as possible. And since we're generalizing- I've found the people crying hardest for women avatars in these games are generally just losers that think it'll somehow magically draw in the women that don't want to play with losers. And it doesn't, so it's just some guy with his hand in his pants as he models his 'respekt for wahmen'.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Probably for the same reason people aren't painting black guys in their Bolt-Action SS armies.
Yes, and that is an open platform in which you can tell whatever kind of stories you want. Battlefield has never been that platform, except kind of for multiplayer and even then not really. For the SP campaign, you're playing a story they want to tell. This is how they want to tell it, a fictional story across a backdrop of WW2. If you want to project what you think Battlefield is onto it, you're on a bad track and will be disappointed.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Probably for the same reason people aren't painting black guys in their Bolt-Action SS armies.
Yes, and that is an open platform in which you can tell whatever kind of stories you want. Battlefield has never been that platform, except kind of for multiplayer. You're playing a story they want to tell. This is how they want to tell it, a fictional story across a backdrop of WW2. If you want to project what you think Battlefield is onto it, you're on a bad track and will be disappointed.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
GLHF
Odd, Battlefield appears to be more of a 'use historically accurate and realistic aesthetics for fictional stories'. I would imagine some people would want that.
It's one thing to tell a story about Knights of the Papal Army. It's another when one of them is a Chinese fellow using a Katana.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
I hope they embellish the weirdness and oddball stuff. I really just wish developers would stop being scared of it. Put some Lovecraft, some classic horror monsters. Frankenstein's monster with a Machine gun? Dracula's Strigoi holding off the Soviets? Yes. Please.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
Sure, that's absolutely fair.
I've always thought the campaigns in Battlefield were not that great anyway TBH. COD had, I think, better stories (Whiskey Hotel!), but Battlefield had way, way better multi; and the best parts of it, IMO, were always doing weird gak like killing people with logs that had C4 attached to it, launching vehicles, and things like that.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
Sure, that's absolutely fair.
I've always thought the campaigns in Battlefield were not that great anyway TBH. COD had, I think, better stories (Whiskey Hotel!), but Battlefield had way, way better multi; and the best parts of it, IMO, were always doing weird gak like killing people with logs that had C4 attached to it, launching vehicles, and things like that.
100% agreement. If they got the developers from both sides to work together, you'd have the ultimate FPS.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
Sure, that's absolutely fair.
I've always thought the campaigns in Battlefield were not that great anyway TBH. COD had, I think, better stories (Whiskey Hotel!), but Battlefield had way, way better multi; and the best parts of it, IMO, were always doing weird gak like killing people with logs that had C4 attached to it, launching vehicles, and things like that.
Did you play Battlefield 1? Because the campaign stuff there was closer to the original COD than COD is these days.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
Sure, that's absolutely fair.
I've always thought the campaigns in Battlefield were not that great anyway TBH. COD had, I think, better stories (Whiskey Hotel!), but Battlefield had way, way better multi; and the best parts of it, IMO, were always doing weird gak like killing people with logs that had C4 attached to it, launching vehicles, and things like that.
Did you play Battlefield 1? Because the campaign stuff there was closer to the original COD than COD is these days.
I didn't like it at all. Mileage may vary I guess though. To me, the FPS bar setter for single player campaign was the Modern Warfare trilogy.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I think I need to say it again but, to my understanding we have not seen anything from the campaign yet.
Sure, that's absolutely fair.
I've always thought the campaigns in Battlefield were not that great anyway TBH. COD had, I think, better stories (Whiskey Hotel!), but Battlefield had way, way better multi; and the best parts of it, IMO, were always doing weird gak like killing people with logs that had C4 attached to it, launching vehicles, and things like that.
Did you play Battlefield 1? Because the campaign stuff there was closer to the original COD than COD is these days.
I didn't like it at all. Mileage may vary I guess though. To me, the FPS bar setter for single player campaign was the Modern Warfare trilogy.
See, I liked that the campaigns were self-contained. It was nice to be able to sit down and get a single cohesive story without having to jump around.
BF1 got lauded quite a bit because of it. They didn't have to worry about how to cut between the different stories or anything. It was just--hey, want to play Gallipoli? Play Gallipoli! Want to play as a British tanker? Play as a British tanker! WW1 fighter ace? We got a campaign for that too!
djones520 wrote: To me, the FPS bar setter for single player campaign was the Modern Warfare trilogy.
Yes, I think i would pick the exact high point as the SAS insertion and extraction from that ship in the storm. The sniper shot near Chernobyl was also a close contender.
Ouze wrote: They use a real-world inspired setting to tell a story, like when a nuclear weapon was detonated in Paris, which didn't actually happen, or when China, Russia, and the US had a 3 way war, which also is notably not historically accurate
The items quoted above aren't an issue. They're part of the story. Things change - for instance, Paris gets nuked - and we see the result of that. Or, more likely, results. The story is about the things that are different. It's why we have a story. If you wanted to write a WW2 story in which Paris gets nuked, then by all means that would be perfectly fine so long as why Paris got nuked, or what changed as a result of Paris getting nuked, was a key part of your story. If you wrote a story set in WW2, happened to mention that Paris got nuked, and then never touched on it again, then people would rightly call foul over what you had done. Similarly, when I see a video that has a V1 rocket slamming into a battlefield, it makes sense that I wonder just what is going on. If the campaign storyline has a good explanation for why a V1 rocket is being fired at a battlefield, then no problem. DICE has successfully confronted the issue and dealt with it. But if they don't (and to be blunt, I doubt they will), then they shouldn't be surprised when people complain about it.
And I have complained about some of this stuff (privately, not online, mind you). The intro to COD: Ghosts, for instance, had so much stupidity in it that it was a struggle to keep my eyes from rolling their way out of my head (the idea that the crew of a near-future military satellite orbiting Earth would have no idea that the shuttle approaching said satellite wasn't friendly is flat out absurd).
This has people worried considering the fiasco that happened with Star Wars Battlefront 2, and how support for the game post-launch essentially dropped off the face of the earth, EA being EA, I understand their sentiment, but this really seems like poster child for DICE as a team, and I want to believe they wouldn't drop support so rapidly.
Frankenberry wrote: In before 'War Bucks' becomes a thing where you'll need to grind/pay for your factions and their loadouts.
You realize that you don't need to do anything remotely like that in Battlefront 2 or Battlefield 1, right?
Battlefront 2 has credits that are for customization options only at this point. It used to have Salvage that was used to upgrade ability cards and Credits that were used for battlepacks. And that's even before the constant whining from people who never played the actual game and had no fething clue how to unlock things, just going off youtube videos and reddit posts. Battlefield 1 has War Bonds that are earned for leveling up until you reach a point where you have every weapon and gadget unlocked that aren't associated with challenges. Past that, the only things to get are customization options via battlepacks which (shock! gasp!) have a currency that is only associated with playing the game itself.
DICE isn't in the habit of doing things like Warframe or Neverwinter.
Zontarz wrote: This has people worried considering the fiasco that happened with Star Wars Battlefront 2, and how support for the game post-launch essentially dropped off the face of the earth, EA being EA, I understand their sentiment, but this really seems like poster child for DICE as a team, and I want to believe they wouldn't drop support so rapidly.
Barring an utter and complete public relations disaster (in which case who knows what form the damage control might take), I suspect that they'll follow the Battlefield 1 model - i.e. paid DLC expansions that are thematically focused on new nations. Buy the DLC, and get both multi-player maps that focus on that nation, and customization options for troops from that nation. Officially you'll be paying for the maps (which is pretty normal for the genre), and the customization options will be a bonus.
BFV is a strange take on WW2. But I guess they did advertise it as a "never-before-seen" take on WW2 and I indeed have never seen this before. Nor do I necessarily want to see it. While I don't really expect historical accuracy to the individual button on a German soldier's tunic I do care about authenticity and the tone of the trailer doesn't capture the feel of WW2 to me. Maybe the gameplay will do a better job of it but we'll have to see.
Zontarz wrote: This has people worried considering the fiasco that happened with Star Wars Battlefront 2, and how support for the game post-launch essentially dropped off the face of the earth, EA being EA, I understand their sentiment, but this really seems like poster child for DICE as a team, and I want to believe they wouldn't drop support so rapidly.
Barring an utter and complete public relations disaster (in which case who knows what form the damage control might take), I suspect that they'll follow the Battlefield 1 model - i.e. paid DLC expansions that are thematically focused on new nations. Buy the DLC, and get both multi-player maps that focus on that nation, and customization options for troops from that nation. Officially you'll be paying for the maps (which is pretty normal for the genre), and the customization options will be a bonus.
One of the first things they announced was that they're doing away with the Premium pass and paid map packs. It's the same way they did Titanfall 2 and Battlefront 2; everything's free.
Zontarz wrote: This has people worried considering the fiasco that happened with Star Wars Battlefront 2, and how support for the game post-launch essentially dropped off the face of the earth, EA being EA, I understand their sentiment, but this really seems like poster child for DICE as a team, and I want to believe they wouldn't drop support so rapidly.
Barring an utter and complete public relations disaster (in which case who knows what form the damage control might take), I suspect that they'll follow the Battlefield 1 model - i.e. paid DLC expansions that are thematically focused on new nations. Buy the DLC, and get both multi-player maps that focus on that nation, and customization options for troops from that nation. Officially you'll be paying for the maps (which is pretty normal for the genre), and the customization options will be a bonus.
One of the first things they announced was that they're doing away with the Premium pass and paid map packs. It's the same way they did Titanfall 2 and Battlefront 2; everything's free.
Correct, what they're calling it is Tides of War
Similar to say, seasons in Rainbow Six Siege and Fortnite, there'll be weekly/monthly events revolving around a particular moment in history, I think their first example was the fall of Europe, and as the game progresses over the years, we will see additional maps, factions, weapons, event exclusive cosmetics/weapons etc etc.
They released an article going over the major gameplay changes that Youtubers Jackfrags and Angry Joe listed in their videos which I've copy and pasted down below
Spoiler:
Battlefield™ V is a vast game. It will have many improvements to the classic formula, as well as new additions and features. Following the reveal of the next chapter in the Battlefield saga, we know you’ve been eager to get a lot of gameplay questions answered.
Let’s jump right in to the core gameplay changes and improvements that are coming in October. Remember, we are still working on the game, and the specifics of many features will evolve over time.
Two Key Elements: Immersion and Squad Play
A lot of ground will be covered in this post, but it will all center around two common denominators of the Battlefield V gameplay philosophy: immersion and squad play.
Now, immersion can mean many things. For Battlefield V, it spans visuals and sounds, your soldier’s movement, combat situations, how you will shape the environment and vice versa, and how players will act and react more naturally than before.
Let’s start with how you, as an infantry soldier deploying into battle, will maneuver through the battlefield.
IMMERSION
Improving Soldier Movement
Our revamped soldier move set will affect both how Battlefield V will play and look. As you may have seen in the reveal trailer, you’ll be able to backpedal when lying down, jump through windows, and throw back grenades. Sprinting while crouching will be possible – and so will rolling, diving, and firing from positions you haven’t been able to fire from before.
You will react to the world, but the world will also react to you. Move through tall grass, and the vegetation will move around you. This kind of thing is not just a neat effect – it will also affect gameplay; you may, for instance, notice a hidden sniper thanks to this. If that newly discovered Scout gets killed, you’ll see our heavier and more physical ragdoll system kick in. A body tumbling down a hill will kick up dirt and if it lands in a puddle, mud will splash.
You’ll also see a lot more variation in the third-person movements of other soldiers. Previously, when running towards a Conquest flag with your teammates, you saw a group of people sprinting with the same basic move set. In Battlefield V, you might see one soldier stumbling when running up a hill or slipping if running through mud.
Gun Play and Removing Random Bullet Deviation
Where you aim is where you’ll shoot. This will always be true in Battlefield V. Disregarding bullet drop over longer distances, the bullet will go where you have your sights. There will be no RBD (random bullet deviation).
Weapon handling has been given a huge overhaul in general, all designed to crank up the immersion. For LMGs, for instance, you’ll find it easier to go in and out of the bipod positioning.
We’re also bringing back bullet penetration in a big way. So, if you’re wielding an LMG, a stationary weapon, or similar and see an enemy dashing to cover – just rip it. Keep firing and tear that wall or fence down. This will give an extra utility to the Support class who, as you may know, is the class that gets to wield LMGs.
Ramping up the Destruction
Developing Battlefield V, we’ve put a lot of effort into crafting the destruction – a true staple for the franchise – and it will be more dynamic than ever. As the battle rages on and structures collapse, you won’t see pre-determined animations – but dynamic sequences based on physics, materials, and the hardware being used. If you shoot a projectile that blows up inside a house, the walls will crack from the inside, making debris fly outwards.
Drive a tank into a building, and the debris will instead move inwards. No matter how a building is destroyed, different parts of it will crack, move, and then crumble in a more time-extended way than in previous titles, where the fun of destruction ended quicker. Each match in Battlefield V should and will be different, and destruction is no exception.
By the way, this will all sound spectacular. Trust us.
Use Fortifications to Shape the Battlefield
Going hand-in-hand with destruction, the new Fortifications system is up next. This is something we’re particularly excited about, and having had the system in place for a while, it’s hard to imagine Battlefield without it. You can build various types of military assets thanks to Fortifications: foxholes, sandbags, barbed wire, tank stoppers, and more. You can reinforce buildings that have been destroyed. Remember playing Operations as an attacker, seeing the map being leveled throughout the match, leaving no cover left? That can now be countered thanks to Fortifications.
This will all lead to much more dynamic gameplay. If you want to hold a flag, you can use Fortifications to close entrances to control points and funnel enemies towards you. This adds a tactical layer and more choice on the battlefield.
In Battlefield V, everyone is equipped with a toolbox and everyone can use Fortifications – although the Support is the best at it. Play as this class, and you’ll also be able to build and repair stationary weapons.
SQUAD PLAY
Moving on to Squad Play, there’s one key thing to know about Battlefield V: your squad will be more important than ever. Staying close to your squad, communicating with it, and playing well with it – this will all pay off. To facilitate this, you’ll be automatically placed in a squad when jumping into Battlefield V (though you can leave it if you want). We’re improving the communication options, so regardless of where you are – in game or in a loading screen – you’ll be able to chat with your squad mates.
A More Intense and Personal Revive System
Bringing a downed team mate back into action with a revive has always been an exciting move in Battlefield, but for Battlefield V we hope to make this action even more intense – and personal.
One key change: the non-Medic Classes will also be able to perform revives – if they’re done on a squad mate. Staying close to your squad will thereby be even more helpful. These squad revives won’t mean the Medic will be devalued though – quite the opposite. Revives by a Medic are much faster, can be used on all team members, and will bring a teammate back to full health, which squad revives won’t.
We’re also adding a short physical interaction to the revive, meaning that you will be face-to-face with your teammate – no matter which end of the syringe you’re on. Seeing the face of your buddy (not to mention seeing each other’s visual customizations) will hopefully be a cool little moment. You’ll be able to revive from many angles, meaning you’re putting yourself less in harm’s way.
Speaking of revives brings us to another new addition: dragging a teammate to safety. Say you’re playing on a high-octane map and a downed teammate is calling for help from a meat grinder area. Going for a revive in this situation has historically been a suicide mission. Your odds will be a lot better in Battlefield V. Run to your teammate, drag him to safety, and revive behind cover. You’ll feel like a hero (and score some more squad points).
Scarcity and War of Attrition will Give You More Strategic Choices
Attack a point – take damage – heal – rinse and repeat. In previous Battlefield games, your strategies were often quite similar from attack to attack. Full health regeneration and a high availability of ammo are two reasons for this. In Battlefield V, we’re adding a layer of scarcity of health and ammo. This will create new challenges when you approach new situations and more player choice.
Let’s say you spawn into a Battlefield V Conquest match. Now, you can still head straight to the point you want to attack, but you may want to bring a Support player with you to not risk running out of ammo. Alternatively, if you want a well-prepped attack, you can gear up at one of your control points’ resupply stations, which can be built through the Fortification system.
Then, after you’ve attacked, taken damage, and spent ammo, you find yourself behind cover, planning your next move. Your health will regenerate to some extent, but you won’t fully heal like in previous Battlefield games. Now, you have several options. You can try to flank the enemy point, you can rush the battlefield and loot downed enemies for ammo, you can find a Medic, or you can find a resupply station.
The scarcity element can of course be used offensively as well. Do your enemies have a tight grip on a flag your team is fighting for? Destroy some enemy supply stations on other flags to make your foes sweat and change their tactics. Overall, we want you to be mindful of resources, and add a new meta layer of strategy.
This will by no means make the game slower, though – this is still the hi-octane, fast gameplay that you know from Battlefield. And you can still be a lone wolf, just stock up in the resupply station or loot enemies. It’s all up to you.
If You Work Together, You Can Unleash the Squad Reinforcements
Another cool addition that will make you want to stick with your squad is Squad Reinforcements. Here’s how it works: when you’re working together as a squad, you’ll accumulate resources. Eventually, you will have gathered enough to give the squad leader the possibility to call in various reinforcements – which might be very powerful and turn the tide of the battle.
In the reveal trailer, you saw a V1 rocket bring mayhem to the battlefield, and there will be other reinforcements at launch, like supply drops, smoke screens, and a certain tank with flamethrowers mounted on the sides. More reinforcements will be coming with the stages of Tides of War.
Thanks for making it through this vast piece – I hope you’ve got some of your questions answered and that you’re as thrilled as we are for the gameplay innovations of Battlefield V.
Some more info posted over on the reddit about what exactly your "Company" is as well as a better look into Tides of War
Spoiler:
An evolving Battlefield for all players, as explained by our Engagement and Core Gameplay Producer, Ryan McArthur .
With Battlefield™ V, we want to take you on a true journey through World War 2. But what do we mean by that? Instead of just showcasing new locations, we want to immerse you in this epic conflict and evolve the gameplay, just as tactics and weaponry evolved throughout the war.
This entire journey is called Tides of War – and it starts with your Company.
Customize Your Company – And See it Evolve over Time
The Company reflects you. It is your collection of customized soldiers, weapons, and vehicles developed and modified as you progress through the Battlefield V journey – and you can bring it to all multiplayer modes and the cooperative Combined Arms .
You can create one personalized Company per faction , each containing a set number of soldiers, vehicles, and aircraft. In multiplayer, you'll be able to play as the British and German armies - the initial two factions of the game. More armies will be introduced through the Tides of War after the launch of Battlefield V.
The soldier classes – which consist of the four staples of Medic, Scout, Support, and Assault – can be customized to accommodate your playstyle. You can alter their appearance by changing aspects like outfits, gender, helmets, skin color, and war paint.
You can of course also change loadouts to best suit your upcoming fight. The more you use your weapon in battle, the more you open additional customization options such as skins, receivers, stocks, barrels, muzzles, and more. This goes for vehicles too: customize your tanks with paint jobs, sand bags, leaf camos, and more to really stand out. This personalization will also build a name for yourself – both squad mates and enemies will remember you based on what they see on the battlefield.
Playing the game is the best way to progress your Company and unlock more customization options and abilities. Whether you take on multiplayer or cooperative Combined Arms, all your efforts grant XP that goes to leveling up your Company.
As you gain XP, you unlock new Archetypes for your soldier classes. An Archetype is a class specialization developed to fit a particular playstyle. For example, as a Support, you may be able to choose from the Engineer or the Machine Gunner – among other Archetypes. These specializations create clearer team roles and greater gameplay depth. The available weapons, gadgets, and attributes vary between Archetypes. You can switch between Archetypes during matches, so you always have the right tools – and skills – for the job.
Through Tides of War, we’ll be introducing new Archetypes that support new playstyles. You can even choose exotic Archetypes like the Paratrooper Recon, a Scout that uses stealth and silenced weaponry to take out enemies.
Bring your Company on a Journey through the Tides of War
Our players have been very vocal about paying for premium content that separates the community. Our answer to this is Tides of War. Gone are the days of Premium Pass and paying for expansion packs. As time goes on, we are going to grow the world and gameplay of Battlefield V.
Tides of War will be an evolving journey featuring a new narrative every few months. Each chapter of Tides of War will focus on a particular aspect of the era, with unique gameplay experiences to drive players forward. We will use content, soldiers, visuals, and narrative to immerse our players deeper into the gameplay.
Tides of War brings you and your personalized Company into themed experiences of the war, starting with the Fall of Europe, that span several months and are filled with timed events. These can include a multi-week Grand Operation, Special Assignments, and new Missions. The timed events will push further into the unexpected and influential battles of WW2 over the course of Battlefield V.
The Battlefield V you play at launch will evolve over time. Our goal is to continue to surprise the community by adding new content and making you want to revisit existing battlefields. We can’t wait to share more details on this.
Along with the various experiences available in Battlefield V, Tides of War will give you the best opportunity to further shape your Company by collecting custom location- and event-specific gear. You’ll enter as a band of fighters – and return as kin. Your Company will never be the same.
No Unfair Gameplay Advantage
We are committed to making sure that you’ll always be rewarded by playing the game. Players cannot pay to get any unfair gameplay advantages. Delivering a path through WW2 where your Company grows and learns is our mission.
Battlefield has always been about a balanced rock-paper-scissors gameplay, and it still is.
There will be no Premium Pass. Your Company will evolve side-by-side with Battlefield V. We want to keep the entire community together through this journey.
As a producer, this has been the most exciting time for me, creating an experience that is built to grow. We will get to go on this journey with you, looking for opportunities to continually surprise the community with the unexpected. This is truly a living Battlefield.
Experience the Tides of War with your Company on Xbox One, PlayStation® 4, and PC – starting on October 11 for the EA Access and Origin Access Play First Trial*, October 16 for Battlefield™ V Deluxe Edition early enlister access, and October 19 for the Battlefield™ V Standard Edition. Pre-order here to secure your copy of Battlefield V.
*CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS APPLY. SEE ea.com/ea-access/terms AND origin.com/store/origin-access/terms FOR DETAILS.
Il admit like most when I first saw the trailer I was like wtf, but if it’s a big play ground that i can loose myself in and have over the top fun then i think il be in.
Always loved the bf series. I didn’t really get in to battlefield 1 though But what i did play i really enjoyed.
Frankenberry wrote: In before 'War Bucks' becomes a thing where you'll need to grind/pay for your factions and their loadouts.
You realize that you don't need to do anything remotely like that in Battlefront 2 or Battlefield 1, right?
Battlefront 2 has credits that are for customization options only at this point. It used to have Salvage that was used to upgrade ability cards and Credits that were used for battlepacks. And that's even before the constant whining from people who never played the actual game and had no fething clue how to unlock things, just going off youtube videos and reddit posts.
Battlefield 1 has War Bonds that are earned for leveling up until you reach a point where you have every weapon and gadget unlocked that aren't associated with challenges. Past that, the only things to get are customization options via battlepacks which (shock! gasp!) have a currency that is only associated with playing the game itself.
DICE isn't in the habit of doing things like Warframe or Neverwinter.
You do realize that I wasn't talking about Battlefront 2 or Battlefield 1, right?
Well they defined what "immersion" means for them, not necessarily what someone would expect the word mean in a "WW2" game, not wrong either.
Looks like they try to improve on the visual and gameplay aspects of their engine and improve their gameplay design, all sound interesting multiplayer ideas, not much talk about single player campaigns though, except maybe the "custom company"? not sure what I make from this.
PsychoticStorm wrote: except maybe the "custom company"? not sure what I make from this.
Yeah, that's a bit vague. I'm guessing that it's the term for how they handle the customization templates that you use when you play. But I'm not sure.
PsychoticStorm wrote: except maybe the "custom company"? not sure what I make from this.
Yeah, that's a bit vague. I'm guessing that it's the term for how they handle the customization templates that you use when you play. But I'm not sure.
From the way it sounds:
Each faction will let you build a company for it It will number however many customized versions of a kit/vehicle/whatever you have.
So you can have a British Company with all of your various customized Scouts, Assaults, Medics, and Supports all gaining XP at the same time while you're using a kit that you're not actively playing as the British.
You can do the same for the Germans and other future factions(which we know are going to be added via Tides of War).
DICE have confirmed that the first two factions for the game will be the British and Germans, and that more will be added as Tides of War progresses. While it is more realistic ( a term DICE have admittedly not used) to limit the forces it seems like a lazy way to limit content, and released an unfinished game to market with the vague promise that more content will be added later.
I can't say that I'm excited to hear that, but I'm still going to be cautiously optimistic until I see gameplay footage and get a better sense for the game.
Really looking forward to this, and really not understanding the controversy around this game either. It's 2018, OF COURSE a big budget shooter like this is going to have millions of shiny buttons and needless bells and whistles to make your avatar as customisable as possible. Anyone who expected otherwise was pretty heavily deluding themselves.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: DICE have confirmed that the first two factions for the game will be the British and Germans, and that more will be added as Tides of War progresses. While it is more realistic ( a term DICE have admittedly not used) to limit the forces it seems like a lazy way to limit content, and released an unfinished game to market with the vague promise that more content will be added later.
I can't say that I'm excited to hear that, but I'm still going to be cautiously optimistic until I see gameplay footage and get a better sense for the game.
I think it's important to remember that the reason they're announced this stuff now is because it's to make damn sure people comprehend the idea isn't to hold stuff back for money, but rather to ensure that the game stays alive.
EA and DICE/BioWare found that when paid DLCs dropped, player usage spiked. After a few weeks, it dropped rapidly. Enter BioWare and Mass Effect 3/Andromeda MP, where they did free small content drops every few months rather than paid DLCs. They found that the MP activity stayed relatively static and at a healthy pace.
I'd, personally, rather they do these things this way and keep the game alive than have a booming game every few months because people wanted their achievements/perks and then shelved the game again.
Like I said, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic until I see some gameplay footage. I played a lot of BF4 but skipped BF1 so I am on the fence about this game.
DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Like I said, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic until I see some gameplay footage. I played a lot of BF4 but skipped BF1 so I am on the fence about this game..
Yeah, same. In my cause I played the BF1 beta and it just felt a lot like BF4 gameplay to me, and I was still playing that. It's been a while though so I think I am ready for whatever this is, pending initial reviews after release.
That's also something I learned from BF4. I'd like to skip that 2 months of the game where it's broken, ideally
Ouze wrote: Yeah, same. In my cause I played the BF1 beta and it just felt a lot like BF4 gameplay to me, and I was still playing that. It's been a while though so I think I am ready for whatever this is, pending initial reviews after release.
That's also something I learned from BF4. I'd like to skip that 2 months of the game where it's broken, ideally
But it was a totally different game because there was no 3D spotting
Good point too, DICE never has properly working servers on launch. So between that and buying a content limited game at launch this is looking less and less like a day 1 purchase for me unless the gameplay footage is actually outstanding.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.
Don't be mistaken. They *are* holding back for money. But it's in a more indirect fashion. In this case they're not making money through charging for DLC. Instead, they're using the stream of DLC to ensure that people keep logging in to play the game. And enough of those people will pay for microtransactions to justify the expense of assembling the DLC content and releasing it for free.
Actually, "holding back" probably isn't the right phrase, since I also suspect that at most one bit of follow-on content might actually be in a state where release could be theoretically possible.
As to why you might want to play at launch (or when servers are stable)? The basic gameplay elements are going to be the same regardless of whether or not the Soviets are available. It's highly unlikely that any of the Tides of War releases will add a radically different playstyle change to the game.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.
Don't be mistaken. They *are* holding back for money. But it's in a more indirect fashion. In this case they're not making money through charging for DLC. Instead, they're using the stream of DLC to ensure that people keep logging in to play the game. And enough of those people will pay for microtransactions to justify the expense of assembling the DLC content and releasing it for free.
Actually, "holding back" probably isn't the right phrase, since I also suspect that at most one bit of follow-on content might actually be in a state where release could be theoretically possible.
As to why you might want to play at launch (or when servers are stable)? The basic gameplay elements are going to be the same regardless of whether or not the Soviets are available. It's highly unlikely that any of the Tides of War releases will add a radically different playstyle change to the game.
So how will this work in terms of content delivery schedule and quality? There is no premium, so for each game that would otherwise have been bought as a premium edition DICE are losing $40. For each DLC pack DICE are losing $15 (so $60 for each player that would purchase them separately). Are DICE counting on recouping up to $60 per player from cosmetic items? If so that seems pretty high, and makes me wonder about how they will prioritize paid content (chargeable cosmetic items) against the expansion updates.
Your point about the basic gameplay elements remaining the same does not really help sell this as a day one purchase. If the core gameplay is not going to change between launch and the peak of the expansions why would I pay $60 at launch for two factions and their weapons when I could pay $60 (but likely less given that game value depreciates after launch) and get more factions and weapons, as well as more maps?
So how will this work in terms of content delivery schedule and quality? There is no premium, so for each game that would otherwise have been bought as a premium edition DICE are losing $40. For each DLC pack DICE are losing $15 (so $60 for each player that would purchase them separately). Are DICE counting on recouping up to $60 per player from cosmetic items? If so that seems pretty high, and makes me wonder about how they will prioritize paid content (chargeable cosmetic items) against the expansion updates.
Don't look at the way DICE does things, rather look at the way EA partners do things. Titanfall 2's DLCs, for example, were all free--but only provided a small number of maps, a new gametype, few new weapons, and a few $3-$4 packs of customization stuff(icons, banners, and weapon/pilot/titan camos). After awhile they added premium customizations for the Titans and a special execution for them to perform, basically letting you do the "prototype" versions of them that had been in the art book(this was done from fan demand, by the by) for $8-$10 per. I don't remember the exact numbers.
That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.
Your point about the basic gameplay elements remaining the same does not really help sell this as a day one purchase. If the core gameplay is not going to change between launch and the peak of the expansions why would I pay $60 at launch for two factions and their weapons when I could pay $60 (but likely less given that game value depreciates after launch) and get more factions and weapons, as well as more maps?
If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.
We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.
Kanluwen wrote: That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.
That makes sense for the small community that was involved in Titanfall, but does that translate well for BFV?
Kanluwen wrote: If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.
I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am asking what the incentives are for buying on day one if we are getting a very limited game. Right now from the slow drip of information coming from DICE it sounds like holding off until the game has been around for a while, and cheaper, is best for the player. If I bought BF4 on day one then I had all the core content and was just waiting for the DLC. If I buy BFV on day one I get two factions with the rest coming later.
Kanluwen wrote: We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.
The communication from DICE on this game has not provided a lot of details, but has instead given the community a lot of chance to speculate (and argue over realism vs. authenticity vs. immersion). After the confusing trailer I was hoping that DICE would have followed up with more concrete information to share with the community about the game.
Kanluwen wrote: That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.
That makes sense for the small community that was involved in Titanfall, but does that translate well for BFV?
Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.
Kanluwen wrote: If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.
I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am asking what the incentives are for buying on day one if we are getting a very limited game. Right now from the slow drip of information coming from DICE it sounds like holding off until the game has been around for a while, and cheaper, is best for the player. If I bought BF4 on day one then I had all the core content and was just waiting for the DLC. If I buy BFV on day one I get two factions with the rest coming later.
Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.
From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".
The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.
Kanluwen wrote: We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.
The communication from DICE on this game has not provided a lot of details, but has instead given the community a lot of chance to speculate (and argue over realism vs. authenticity vs. immersion). After the confusing trailer I was hoping that DICE would have followed up with more concrete information to share with the community about the game.
To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.
I guess the main reason to get the game at launch is that you get to play and thus enjoy it earlier than if you wait...
I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just strikes me that given how the enjoyment of a game like this comes from the core gameplay, rather than the customisation or variety or what have you, you'll get to enjoy that earlier/longer than if you wait. This obviously has other benefits, like getting ahead on progression/learning the early maps ect so that you're in a position to take enjoy the expansions when they come as well. If you like the gunplay and the game structure and the driving and piloting ect, you'll enjoy that on the starting maps as much as the later ones.
I also don't think the game is going to be 'small' at launch. BF1 launched with 9 big maps (I think) and there was plenty of variety there between those, the various game modes and 10 ranks' worth of weapons/equipment for each class. I didn't pick up any of the DLC until a couple of packs were free recently and still got easily a year's worth out of just the core game. More content coming after launch doesn't necessarily mean significantly less is being shipped than previously.
Kanluwen wrote: Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.
So how big was the community?
Kanluwen wrote: Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.
From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".
The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.
It is very different from the paid method. Paid DLC from DICE for BF4 and BF1 did not expire after a certain amount of time, and did not have microtransactions built in for cosmetic items. If I want to play the Last Stand DLC for BF4 I can do that right now years after launch, and use all the items I have unlocked from that and I can work on unlocking any remaining ones. I cannot do that with BFV.
The game is going to be smaller at launch because there is just two factions. They are adding factions later, so the number of factions will be larger after release.
Kanluwen wrote: To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.
The reason for the confused trailer is because E3 is coming? Based on previous releases from DICE and those release trailers I find that a strange departure from their prior marketing strategy.
Paradigm wrote: I guess the main reason to get the game at launch is that you get to play and thus enjoy it earlier than if you wait...
I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just strikes me that given how the enjoyment of a game like this comes from the core gameplay, rather than the customisation or variety or what have you, you'll get to enjoy that earlier/longer than if you wait. This obviously has other benefits, like getting ahead on progression/learning the early maps ect so that you're in a position to take enjoy the expansions when they come as well. If you like the gunplay and the game structure and the driving and piloting ect, you'll enjoy that on the starting maps as much as the later ones.
I also don't think the game is going to be 'small' at launch. BF1 launched with 9 big maps (I think) and there was plenty of variety there between those, the various game modes and 10 ranks' worth of weapons/equipment for each class. I didn't pick up any of the DLC until a couple of packs were free recently and still got easily a year's worth out of just the core game. More content coming after launch doesn't necessarily mean significantly less is being shipped than previously.
I get to enjoy a small part of it that then gets expanded with episodic releases. I do not get a full game. I get the prospect of a full game, with timed content that will expire. For BF4 I got a full game, plus released DLC with no time limit before DICE took it away.
True I will be able to get some progression started, but like most BF games that does not make or break the experience and the weapon attachments lock with casual play.
Again, I am not saying that the game will be small at release. What I am saying is that compared to the later planned content it will be smaller.
And I would argue that you *do* get a full game. Quite literally the only reason that anyone is calling it anything other than a full game is because DICE has revealed that stuff will be added to the game later on - FLC, in the Warhammer: Total War terminology.
Kanluwen wrote: Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.
So how big was the community?
Don't know numbers offhand, but you can find games within 5-10 seconds on the Xbox right now. A bit longer if you get picky with filter details.
Kanluwen wrote: Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.
From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".
The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.
It is very different from the paid method. Paid DLC from DICE for BF4 and BF1 did not expire after a certain amount of time, and did not have microtransactions built in for cosmetic items. If I want to play the Last Stand DLC for BF4 I can do that right now years after launch, and use all the items I have unlocked from that and I can work on unlocking any remaining ones. I cannot do that with BFV.
Why do you think content is going to 'expire'? Because the events have a set timeframe? They've said that once they basically 'run through' WWII, they'll restart the Tides of War stuff again. And we're not talking little week long events--we're talking about them lasting months. The only stuff that they've said will be tied only to the Tides of War events as they go are customization. Once weapons, vehicles and kits get introduced--they're in the game.
The game is going to be smaller at launch because there is just two factions. They are adding factions later, so the number of factions will be larger after release.
Right, they're adding factions later. And those factions are actually slated to be fleshed out--with faction specific uniforms, vehicles(and their accompanying camos) and equipment. They're also going to be doing playlists where factions actually matter with weapons being locked to specific time periods and factions--just as a part of the whole 'historical accuracy' aspect.
Would you rather just have everyone getting the same guns and faction not meaning a damn thing?
Kanluwen wrote: To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.
The reason for the confused trailer is because E3 is coming? Based on previous releases from DICE and those release trailers I find that a strange departure from their prior marketing strategy.
The reason for the announcement trailer(which is what the whole event that this trailer was for--remember it was a 30 minute panel hosted by Trevor Noah, showcasing tidbits of the game, where this trailer aired 21 minutes into it) was to let people know that "This is what we're doing, here's a snapshot of some of the features in action in the game engine! More details at E3!". They even ended the event with "We'll be showing this off at E3 and our EAPlay booth will let you guys go hands on!".
I get to enjoy a small part of it that then gets expanded with episodic releases. I do not get a full game. I get the prospect of a full game, with timed content that will expire. For BF4 I got a full game, plus released DLC with no time limit before DICE took it away.
You get the prospect of a full game, same as anyone who buys a game with DLC announced beforehand. The difference is that part of this game is that there will be in-game events, which will have limited time cosmetic rewards, that are tied to the release of permanent content as well.
True I will be able to get some progression started, but like most BF games that does not make or break the experience and the weapon attachments lock with casual play.
Again, I am not saying that the game will be small at release. What I am saying is that compared to the later planned content it will be smaller.
You can say this about virtually any game that announces their DLC in advance.
Paradigm wrote: If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!
See, this is a thing that's only really true since Battlefield 1.
Nobody's claiming the prior games were full-on rivet-counting "milsim" affairs, they were never "accurate" per se because some concessions had to be made for the sake of gameplay and the limitations of the technology of the day, but they very much were intended to be authentic. They were intended to evoke a sense of immersion in the setting, whether that was WW2, or Vietnam, or vague near-future Red Scare paranoia stuff. People bring up the Secret Weapons expansion, but the key point there is expansion - it was an addition, at the end of the natural lifecycle of the game, to be a bit of fun for those that wanted it, and if you didn't want it you didn't have to buy it and so it was never imposed on you. Riding across the dunes in a tank, or coming in low on a cap point in a Huey blasting out CCR, or acting out your wee "special forces" fantasy in one of the "modern" settings all felt like the real thing even though when you sit down and think about it carefully they obviously weren't.
But that's the key difference, like the difference between a film that you have a great time watching which carries you along with it for the runtime but falls apart a little later under the weight of its own fridge-logic, and a film that has you sitting there in the theatre actively thinking how dumb it is, completely taken out of the experience.
It's also a thing that's a little bit sad IMO, because it's very much a case of both "right-on" politics and the more general "hey's it's just, like, a game brah" sentiment that a lot of people have being weaponised by EA to defend their monetisation strategy. Because make no mistake, that's why this is happening. It's not about "player choice", or "representation", it's about EA knowing they will make more money selling cosmetics if dudebros and hyperactive kids can run around wearing an eyepatch and a metal claw arm and their "favourite" uniform on every map.
Hey, in the end, if you like it, have at it. I just don't see the point in pretending it's a game in a historical setting if you're not even going to try and evoke that setting in anything but the most superficial ways, and if you're going to go for the gonzo "feth history, it's about fun" angle why not do it properly and do Weird War 2 or some other alt-history setup?
I was glad to see some of the gameplay footage from E3. The animations to pick up items are not as intrusive as I thought they might be.
Like BF1 though I am not a fan of the optical sights on the firearms, or the V1 rockets as in game support. **edit** for balance I would like to see the flakk guns have a greater upwards firing arc at the expense of targeting infantry.
I would word it as multi stage battle not multi day battle, but I think you are right.
As they said it I though ok its a worldwide campaign, games of day one feed to day 2 and so on, but a multi stage map is more logical, has its own flaws if it does not reset, but oh well.
I've seen a lot of defences of this and they basically fall into two camps:
1) There were women in WW2
...(snip)
With point number 1, they'll usually cite the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army or French Resistance. Which is irrelevant because we aren't shown Russian soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if that had been the case, literally if they had given the woman a French accent that would be enough. We were shown a British woman fighting alongside the paratroopers at the Rhine... Or, they cite that "but my grandmother manned an AA gun during a blitz" or "she was a spy" etc etc. That is not the same as being a front line combatant. I don't know, maybe there were entire regiments of women paratroopers at Arnhem? I will concede the point if that can be proven.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and you're assuming that video was Market Garden. (the bridge is wrong to be Arnhem, it's too long and passes over a swampy area)
I can point to a WW2 scenario where British women would have been fighting on the front lines. Operation Seelow. The British government not only drew up plans for women on the front, but also plans for suicide bombers to attack the German beachheads. Not planes, men in explosive vests, Arab style.
The crashed 109 and the tanks also make this 41-43 as well. The MKIII and Gun carrier that crash through the house are late 42 and the Matilda II is pulling an early Oerlikon 40mm towable mount, The 109 is actually a bit older, it's markings date to examples from 41 and 42. The only real fly in the ointment is that doodlebug, since that's a late war thing, but it makes sense if we're covering a German push into England.
That and the para officer with the Japanese Guntō slung over his back. History, wot wot?
With point number 1, they'll usually cite the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army or French Resistance. Which is irrelevant because we aren't shown Russian soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if that had been the case, literally if they had given the woman a French accent that would be enough. We were shown a British woman fighting alongside the paratroopers at the Rhine... Or, they cite that "but my grandmother manned an AA gun during a blitz" or "she was a spy" etc etc. That is not the same as being a front line combatant. I don't know, maybe there were entire regiments of women paratroopers at Arnhem? I will concede the point if that can be proven.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and you're assuming that video was Market Garden. (the bridge is wrong to be Arnhem, it's too long and passes over a swampy area)
I can point to a WW2 scenario where British women would have been fighting on the front lines. Operation Seelow. The British government not only drew up plans for women on the front, but also plans for suicide bombers to attack the German beachheads. Not planes, men in explosive vests, Arab style.
If I had to guess, it's in Scandanavia - probably Norway, since rumor is that some of the single-player content will include a Norwegian partisan.
the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army
Ultimately, the historicity of women in the Soviet Army is irrelevant to the argument at hand. The Soviets exclusively used women in roles such as fighter pilots, tank drivers, snipers, and other roles in which the soldiers weren't expected to come to grips with the enemy. The Soviet line foot soldier - the guy with the rifle and bayonet who was expected to advance on foot toward the enemy - was male. That's not to say that the positions that women filled aren't also represented within the game. But let's not pretend that the Soviet Army was a fully gender-integrated service.
Sure, partisans didn't follow that. But partisans by their very nature took who they could (and at least some of the bands shot any of their women who got pregnant as those women were suddenly a liability and security risk).
But having said that, arguing over it is pretty pointless. It is what it is, and it won't be changed. I'll save my complaining for the other ahistorical silliness, like the battlefield (no pun intended) V1s.
If I had to guess, it's in Scandanavia - probably Norway, since rumor is that some of the single-player content will include a Norwegian partisan.
No, the house is wrong for that, and the Germans werre dressed mostly as Fallshirmjager, but I did see a trailer for what looked like Trondheim
Nancy Wake was an SOE agent who strangled Germans with her bare hands on Maquis raids, and was a Commonwealth citizen so maybe they're going for something like that. If you notice, she's not in uniform, so, possibly.
Me, that Gunto just gets under my skin, since it would have required him to be in two separate theaters at once. Or maybe we'll have eastern and Western Theaters?
The exact locations aren't meant to be 100% accurate to specific operations that really happened.
The whole "Tides of War" thing does point towards us getting the Pacific campaign however. As the game progresses, they'll be giving us new factions. There was a comment that "not all the factions will be considered adversarial"--meaning that we won't always see an "Allies v Axis--FIGHT!" style of releases.
Me, that Gunto just gets under my skin, since it would have required him to be in two separate theaters at once. Or maybe we'll have eastern and Western Theaters?
Maybe he was from the German training mission to China, and either looted it off of a Japanese body, or traded it from some Chinese troops who had (more likely - I doubt any members of the mission saw actual combat in China), before the mission was recalled back to Germany?
Me, that Gunto just gets under my skin, since it would have required him to be in two separate theaters at once. Or maybe we'll have eastern and Western Theaters?
Maybe he was from the German training mission to China, and either looted it off of a Japanese body, or traded it from some Chinese troops who had (more likely - I doubt any members of the mission saw actual combat in China), before the mission was recalled back to Germany?
Except it's a British para officer. So, no, this one would require two places at once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: The exact locations aren't meant to be 100% accurate to specific operations that really happened.
I'm fairly certain it's a specific place, but it's not one that the war happened. At least, not as seen here. There used to be a bridge over the Stour (IIRC) north west of Folkestone, that looked sort of like that. I remember seeing the map when I researched Seelowe, as Folkestone was one of the major landing zones in the plan and the Luftwaffe had planned to drop fallschirmjager there. So what we might be seeing is the initial withdrawal following the planned response to the German landings, where the home guard and everyone else made for the Stop Lines.
Me, that Gunto just gets under my skin, since it would have required him to be in two separate theaters at once. Or maybe we'll have eastern and Western Theaters?
Maybe he was from the German training mission to China, and either looted it off of a Japanese body, or traded it from some Chinese troops who had (more likely - I doubt any members of the mission saw actual combat in China), before the mission was recalled back to Germany?
Except it's a British para officer. So, no, this one would require two places at once.
Ah. My bad. I'd thought you'd said it was one of the German officers carrying it.
My biggest problem with the customization-stuff is that it's, yet again, just sitting down between two chairs.
They could've gone full "We're doing alternate History", or outright Fantasy, and then have all the extensive customization they wanted (And I would've actually liked that a lot, since WW2 is about as stale as you can be at this point).
Or you try to keep the series on track with the things you know people play them for, and try to innovate in other areas.
Far as I can tell, the game is doing neither. Of all my friends who played all or at least several BF's, who were so excited about BF1 that they even tried to convince me to make an exception on my EA-Boycott, most of them were pretty unimpressed for a while with the announcements. It balanced out somewhat with more Gameplay-Trailers, still looks like Battlefield is "supposed" to look after all.
Made for a nice bit of twitter drama, Dev's pretending to suddenly care about inclusivity, and the usual riot of "I'm totes gonna not buy this one, vote with your wallet you guyse", but the game's gonna do fine either way.
Here's a cool little image I found of some customization options and what they will look like in game
Trying to recall what else I've learned over the past couple of days:
Fortifications can be built in solely predetermined spots, things like HMGs, Sandbags, Tank Traps, Foxholes and the like, there was a video I recall seeing where a completely destroyed building was given fresh life with a good amount of sandbag fortifications.
Plane Resupply by flying over a marked location at their proper home spawns, as oppose to landing on an airstrip, or the current flying circles seen above random locations on the map.
Flare gun seems pretty OP right now? Jackfrags video showed that it stays in the air pretty long, and gives constant feedback on minimap spotting of enemy positions in realtime, so you can practically fire the thing, track their movement indefinitely as long as you constantly resupply. Hopefully this will see a change in the final game where maybe it will just give up more delayed spotting? Like an update to the map every 5-10 seconds rather than every second?
The "Sweet-Spot" mechanic from BF1 is removed, so you can no longer one-hit KO people from certain ranges depending on the marksmen rifle. Overall, I think its a good change, wasn't a big fan, plus with the way you can no longer autoregen health fully without a medic, people will invariable be one-hit KO as a result of people walking around with less health.
Here's a snippet about vehicles
And last but not least there was a German "Gamechanger" who broke the NDA and leaked this image.
There was a blog post somewhere about a confirmed list of weapons, but nothing about the blog tells me that it's anything legit, could be just pure speculation as far as I know, nonetheless, here it is:
Got to play about 4 hours over the last two evenings.
So to start, it is battlefield - it moves, sounds and looks like battlefield.
Graphics are what you'd expect i.e. top notch. Im running an oldish machine but have it at high settings and everything runs and looks great. I will say however I feel at certain times theres almost too much going on - too much detail. Snow flutters around, seagulls swoop this way and that, debris explodes etc. I just wondered sometimes were they trying to hard to push the gfx detail. Sometimes a nice open, plain old snowpatch isnt a bad thing!
Sound is terrific - really atmospheric, multi directional, accurate.
Some players reported lag issues or performance issues. I did not however. Logging in, finding a game, squading up, gfx and engine performance were all fine for me.
Vehicles / weapons. Im less convinced here. They seem accurate (in so much as the time they are set in) but overall I felt they were clunky and a bit underwhelming. Bullet drop is reeeeal for snipers (like or dislike as you may), accuracy is harder imho and vehicles clank along rather frustratingly.
Its hard to sum up but the actual "feel" of the weapons and vehicles I was not convinced on. However Im a prescribed modern BF nut (BFBC2/BF3/BF4) so ymmv.
Kill times seem ok, I had a couple of nice little fire fights against players - I recall at one point in bf3 kill time was almost insta-kill which sucked. This seems a bit more balanced but probably still needs tweaking.
The map we played on was Norway - 6 objectives overall with two spawn points per side. It was detailed and fairly balanced but not exactly enthralling - I would hope there is better to come. It reminded me of a mid tier fun map ala Noshahr canals from bf3 or dawnbreaker from 4. Ok but not the best.
One notable point is around the kill/revive animation. Boy must it go. And fast. Its tedious, not fun, dosent really work that well and breaks the flow of the game too much.
Spotting is also gone in the classic BF sense which I genuinely disliked. If it isnt broken, dont fix it is my motto here. Its replaced by a sort of a quick "ping" system which I still dont get.
Vehicles available on the map were light tank, howitzer/AA/HMG emplacements, ground attack plane, air to air plane, tracked transport and car type thing. I'd echo again they all felt a bit clunky and with the heavy detail and terrain in on this map, it felt like a bit of a struggle getting from A to B.
Class loadsouts were basic as they didnt unlock much but most of the equipment worked.
To sum up: it was ok-good but nothing as mind blowing as my first plays of bfbc bf3 or bf4. It may well be that the WW2 setting is just not for me in terms of the speed/slickness/relative simplicity of the other games.
I recorded some footage so will try and get it up next week.
If I had to guess, it's in Scandanavia - probably Norway, since rumor is that some of the single-player content will include a Norwegian partisan.
No, the house is wrong for that, and the Germans werre dressed mostly as Fallshirmjager, but I did see a trailer for what looked like Trondheim
Nancy Wake was an SOE agent who strangled Germans with her bare hands on Maquis raids, and was a Commonwealth citizen so maybe they're going for something like that. If you notice, she's not in uniform, so, possibly.
Me, that Gunto just gets under my skin, since it would have required him to be in two separate theaters at once. Or maybe we'll have eastern and Western Theaters?
Nope not Trondheim, the town is Narvik if they have chosen to use their heads, as no major Battle took Place in Trondheim. But however in Narvik the figthing was fierce, same goes for the Battle of Midskogen when German Paras tried to detain the Norwegian king and the members of goverment. but where beaten back by the Royal Norwegian Guard.
So it seems that pre orders of this game are at around 85% less than call of duty, BF1 was actually ahead in pre orders, I wonder what has caused this massive drop off
Nope not Trondheim, the town is Narvik if they have chosen to use their heads, as no major Battle took Place in Trondheim. But however in Narvik the figthing was fierce, same goes for the Battle of Midskogen when German Paras tried to detain the Norwegian king and the members of goverment. but where beaten back by the Royal Norwegian Guard.
Since the plot is partially supposedly about the Norwegian resistance and betrayal, Trondheim was an obvious idea, since it was the base and main area of operations for Sonderabteilung Lola .
Though Narvik is fine. It's just sort of irrelevant since the decision to withdraw pretty much annulled the earlier victory.
Nope not Trondheim, the town is Narvik if they have chosen to use their heads, as no major Battle took Place in Trondheim. But however in Narvik the figthing was fierce, same goes for the Battle of Midskogen when German Paras tried to detain the Norwegian king and the members of goverment. but where beaten back by the Royal Norwegian Guard.
Since the plot is partially supposedly about the Norwegian resistance and betrayal, Trondheim was an obvious idea, since it was the base and main area of operations for Sonderabteilung Lola .
Though Narvik is fine. It's just sort of irrelevant since the decision to withdraw pretty much annulled the earlier victory.
Well yes, I am for one glad that they did not include Henri Rinnan and his Companions. If that was the case I think not many copies of the game would be sold here. but it is non the less a important if painfull part of the wartime history of my hometown. And well yes I agree there but for a location for a run and gun game it Works well.
DICE wrote:Today, we’re announcing that Battlefield V will have a new launch date – November 20, 2018. I wanted to give you a little bit of insight into how we arrived at this new date.
Over the summer, we’ve had tens of thousands of players get their hands on the game during our Closed Alphas and at E3 and Gamescom – where we were honored to receive the awards for Best Multiplayer Game at both shows.
You have told us that you are seeing an increased focus on squad play come through, you are also feeling the difference in our revamped player movement and we are getting a lot of positive feedback for our improved weapons handling.
You’ve also spurred us to make some meaningful improvements to the core gameplay experience, including adjusting the gameplay tempo, improving soldier visibility and reducing player friction. You’ll see a lot of these reflected in our Open Beta that starts on September 6.
We believe we have one of the best Battlefield games ever on our hands. A game that will deliver on an emotional journey through the return of unseen single player War Stories, a deep multiplayer experience, Battle Royale, along with our new live service, Tides of War - a journey across multiple theaters of WW2 and designed to keep our community together.
With the Open Beta just around the corner, we are excited about the millions of you who will join us and experience the game. And we fully expect to see even more feedback coming our way.
And that’s why we’re moving our launch date. We’re going to take the time to continue to make some final adjustments to core gameplay, and to ensure we really deliver on the potential of Tides of War.
We know moving the launch date means that we all have to wait a little longer. But we’re going to take our time to make sure we get it right.
Thank you for your continued passion and support. We can’t wait to see you on the battlefield in just a few days.
You’ve also spurred us to make some meaningful improvements to the core gameplay experience, including adjusting the gameplay tempo, improving soldier visibility and reducing player friction.
Very interesting. Quite similar to my view of how I felt things were playing in the closed alpha. I hope they work on the vehicle "feel" too. Good to hear however.
I can say that the gaming community continues to remain extra toxic over this title.
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
BaronIveagh wrote: I can say that the gaming community continues to remain extra toxic over this title.
Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
It's important to remember that it's not "the gaming community" itself that is being extra toxic over this title.
It's the ridiculous manchildren who think that EA is pushing some kind of SJW agenda. It's the people who probably won't buy the game and it's the people who outright will sometimes admit that the only reason they follow/tweet at the devs and community team for the game is to troll and to try to make the team feel bad about what they're working on or to get burnt out over it.
BaronIveagh wrote: Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
Pardon?
Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.
BaronIveagh wrote: Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
Pardon?
Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.
I wasn't talking specifically this thread, but over all. If you want to see what I'm talking about, feel free to visit any number of you tube videos, game sites, and game reviews ranting about it. I've tried to engage some of these people in discussion on the subject, and all they actually seem to (think) they know is 'No wimminz on der front!'
And it's now time to close this thread, and many others, as politics is now verboten.
Personally I would have preferred they said they are releasing an Alternative WW2 game and go on with it, it would have been, in my opinion, widely accepted and not much controversy would be about it.
What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Personally I would have preferred they said they are releasing an Alternative WW2 game and go on with it, it would have been, in my opinion, widely accepted and not much controversy would be about it.
What is definite is preorders are really low that shows that for many reasons the buyers base is not sold to the product, shame.
The only numbers I've seen regarding preorders are basically just Amazon's preorders--which while low, aren't factoring in that there is no real 'exclusive' benefit for preordering in general nor is there one for specific retailers.
People keep comparing the numbers to Call of Duty--which has extensive preorder perks that give you a headstart on leveling and unlocking equipment. Battlefield doesn't. The deluxe edition gives you some uniforms right off the bat, but most of what would normally be the 'preorder perks' for a game like Battlefield are part of the "Road to Battlefield V" events being run on the Battlefield games.
And those require you to play Battlefield 1 or Battlefield 4, acquire a certain amount of points and you get exclusive weapon skins in BFV.
Another thing to consider is the launch of Origin Premium, which gives you full access to any new EA titles from launch. Probably doesn't account for a huge amount of the drop, but, for instance, if you wanted this year's FIFA and BFV you might be better off subscribing to that than pre-ordering either/both.
I'm looking forward to trying out the Beta next week. Shame it launches the day before Spiderman really, as that'll probably divert most of my attention. Still plan to give it a good old go though, as the BF1 beta was enough to hook me on the whole game.
Personally I feel it is a combination of everything happened so far that drives the sales down, I do not think they could have managed it worse than they already did, I guess we will have a better picture after launch the fact they delay it probably shows
they do not feel that confident with the current window and wisely decided to change it.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Personally I feel it is a combination of everything happened so far that drives the sales down, I do not think they could have managed it worse than they already did, I guess we will have a better picture after launch the fact they delay it probably shows
they do not feel that confident with the current window and wisely decided to change it.
What's the point of preordering a digitally available product if there's no benefit?
This really isn't rocket science. Battlefield doesn't have anything that will help or hinder you for preorders--this affects preorder numbers. Amazon also only counts physical copies for their preorders.
To be honest, I don't really see the pushing back of the release as a bad thing; I'd much rather get a better game a month or two later than something less that it could be at launch. I think quite a lot of games over the last few years have released in such a situation and could have benefited from just a bit more work being done before launch.
Not to mention that the original launch was slap bang between Red Dead Redemption 2 and CoD: Whichever One It Is This Year. The latter is a direct competitor for sales and the former is one of the most anticipated games of the last half a decade. Makes sense to move your release away from that if you can.
That said, the push back does mean it's now releasing after most of the other big autumn releases (Spider-man, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, RDR, CoD) so I wonder if that might hurt its sales among the audience that doesn't necessarily buy new games that often. I know it pushes me towards buying AC:O at launch and waiting for BFV at Christmas, even though I'm still looking forward to it immensely. Before the move, it was a straight toss between the two for me.
To be fair, they were also smart by making it so Battlefield was one of the 'bundle' titles for a new Xbox console. There's a whole special Battlefield Xbox console that some people might opt to get for Christmas.
BaronIveagh wrote: Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
Pardon?
Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.
BaronIveagh wrote: Hilariously, claiming over historical inaccuracy' while ignoring any inaccuracy that does not involve breasts anywhere near the battlefield. Despite that it's actually, and sadly a little known fact, that, yes, British women, mainly SOE agents, did end up in shootouts with Nazis.
Pardon?
Complaints have been made *throughout this thread* about historical innacuracies within the game that have nothing whatsoever to do with women on the battlefield. Reducing it all to just "they just don't want chicks" while completely ignoring the other complaints is a cute way of slandering everyone who complains about innacuracies as a misogynist.
You do remember this is DakkaDakka right?
I'm reminded of it every time someone fails to read the response before posting.
Aside from the network issues that come with the territory of a server test, I'm liking what I see in the beta. The feedback loop on the guns isn't quite as satisfying as it was in BF1, perhaps due to the proliferation of automatics rather than the rifles I tended to stick to in BF1, but it's not far off. The movement does feel a little sticky at times (something I think they've said they'll address in the final release based on feedback) and the changes to spotting will take some getting used to, but on the whole, it's got most of what I liked about the last entry.
One thing I do hope makes a return in the final release is the non-cosmetic customisation to guns. Things like changing the zoom levels for weapons within the range the sight/scope allowed and the various reticle options on snipers. There seems to be plenty of cosmetic options but none of this that I can find.
Oh sweet! I just saw the firestorm Ranger set alone on their Instagram page, but so far looks great!
I'm enjoying the beta so far, its almost bored me out now, but thats because its so little content and I can't be upset over it really. I love the more tactical element and it almost feels like they turned on "hardcore" mode for the entire game with limited health, limited ammo, and a bigger focus on squadplay.
Only complaints as of right now is that its REALLY quiet in the game, I can barely hear the screaming of the guys dying on the ground next to me, but apparently its a bug they are working on a fix for at the moment, so hopefully it'll better. Also 5 is the key to self heal with the pouches and currently can't be rebound in the beta... hopefully that gets fixed for release because its a pain to reach and press.
Other than that.... the revive icon is SUPER small, and light blue/green which often blends in so well into the Narvik map I can barely see it. Speaking of which, same goes for Objective Flags, I can't see them to save my life because they fade so well into the background since they are grey-toned.
I'm not sure I like pre-ordering. Not really much use for it, they should just call it like it is- 'give us money now and we'll give you extra stuff'. Not like they're gonna run out of digital copies.
DICE/EA has seemed to have turned their marketing around, from all hush hush and little to no info to full blown WIP pics of maps and vehicles over Twitter to build hype.
Those of you who played Rotterdam during the Open Beta will know of White House, or the B site, going over a second pass they made it possible to further reinforce and barricade an already heavily defensible position.
Spoiler:
The Staghound is currently being worked on vehicle wise, a WIP from another kind DICE dev
Spoiler:
New pictures from the map Arras and Hamada as well as a comparison for size of exactly how big Hamada is.
Hamada:
Spoiler:
Aras:
Spoiler:
Beta Wise I think they stated that Spawn Protection would be removed upon full launch of the game and they've increased the lighting to reflex sighting to make it easier to see.
Thought this was a cool thing to see! Recon class counting headshots!
Also I think this is the best video in terms of information I've seen so far, especially with the concept art
Continuing on with more information, they recently released their second Dev Talk which overview a lot of the gameplay changes, mechanics, maps, etc etc they are looking at and adding.
For those who don't wanna watch I grabbed a TL;DW from Reddit
Tweaking attrition: Devs want to nudge attrition in the right direction but still want it to be fully part of the game.
More ammo on spawn.
More max ammo capacity.
Ammo tweaking will be weapon specific (not all weapons may be affected, some more than others).
Medpack on spawn.
Improving visibility: Adding a haze to the background to make enemies stand out.
Fixing some lighting issues (notably in Rotterdam).
Fine tuning lighting in specific locations.
Death experience and pacing: Devs agree with the community that current death timer made the game feel too slow.
Devs want highs and lows moments in the game, but find that the high moments are not high enough (this is partially caused by soldier downtime). They want moments of pure chaos.
Tweaking "bleeding out" timer, you are not punished anymore if you decide to hang on, respawn timer will be reduced accordingly.
Audio immersion: Fixed the audio bugs which contributed to make the game too silent. Audio should feel like war once again.
Time to kill and time to death: Trying to find that sweet spot to cater to both players who love it or hate it.
From the data, players have learned to move closer to cover to avoid getting killed too easily.
Certain weapons stand out (more effective at most engagement distances), "won't name specifics *cough*STG*cough*". Those are gonna be tweaked to "bring them into the fold".
Confirmed Netcode issues in regards to Time to death, "you receive more damage than you should be in one update, which is due to packet loss, netcode, delays and high rate of fire weapons". Currently looking into fixing this.
Vehicles (Tanks): Beta testers felt that the tanks were too slow/heavy and not offensive enough against infantry, but dev says the more agile/anti-infantry tanks weren't in the open beta, as well as anti-aircraft vehicles.
Devs were happy with the tuning on the new turret system on the heavy tanks, but plan to make the turret turn faster on the medium and lighter tanks. Light tanks will have a "very fast" turret turning speed.
Devs want the tanks to be the "dragons of our game", once they show up on the field, "everyone should relate to that". If you see a friendly tank, you should push alongside it, if you see an enemy tank, you should cower in fear.
Heavier tanks are robust, hard to take down, but slow, less effective against infantry, more effective against other vehicles, and the opposite is true for lighter tanks, more agile, used to kill infantry, harass and flank.
Tweaked systemic damage (such as canon disabled or track disabled), they want to reward players who chip away at tanks without necessarily destroying them, but don't want to penalize tank drivers too much, leaving them with nothing to do. Added turret damage which slows down turret turning speed, as well as engine damage, which cripples its movement.
Vehicles (Airplanes): Beta feedbacks tell that the difference between the two fighter planes was too great and people didn't like it. Devs are taking step to make them much more similar and better than they were in open beta.
Overall players found fighter planes not agile enough.
Not being able to acquire ground targets as easily as in previous titles.
Players most happy with the BF 109 plane, but devs say even that one wasn't were we needed it to be.
Tweaked visibility for pilot and gunner, extended spotting range. "We want planes to participate in the ground combat".
Dev excited about the broader spectrum of vehicle classes in BFV, says it was a bit lacking in BF1.
Talking about anti-aircraft tanks, such as the Flakpanzer and Valentine MK 1 AA, they have "tons of canons and tons of bullets flying through the sky".
Pictures!
Fresh of the press is two depictions of the Assault class, one for Axis, and one for Germans, warning, these pictures are HUGE, so I went ahead and put them in the spoilers.
Spoiler:
Turret Rotation speed for lighter tanks is much faster than heavier variants
Souleater wrote: I note that the game comes with a varying amount of "Special Soldier Sets" depending on the version you buy.
I've tried a bit of Googling to see if these will be unlockable during the course of play but can't find anything about it.
Lacking Twitter/Instagram is there something I've missed or is this just an unknown at the moment?
Firestorm Ranger is the "preorder" set. We don't know if/when it will be available outside of that. The Paratrooper sets seem to be exclusive to deluxe...but it's been heavily implied they're going to be coming with the first Tides of War event and you just get them immediately unlocked/pulled from the reward pool.
While I cannot say for sure, some of the SJW declarations may stem from the negative reactions Dunkirk received for not including women soldiers or non whites, despite being a period piece. At some level, griping about this is somewhat of turn about is fairly play in that regards I suppose, but I haven't read the comments and cannot say for sure. Merely noting there is always some level of pot calling kettle black in these sorts of things.
Overall I thought the gameplay was pretty good in the beta. I liked the reduced ammo count, the ability to toss ammo to team mates, etc. I also like the more fluid motions of the characters and some of the reloading mechanic changes. I would have prefered the KAR, Garand, Einfield as the standard weapons to start with. It worked just fine for Day of Defeat or the early Call of Duty titles. However, this fits more into the battlefield mold from the last few years with some nice changes to mechanics.
Souleater wrote: I note that the game comes with a varying amount of "Special Soldier Sets" depending on the version you buy.
I've tried a bit of Googling to see if these will be unlockable during the course of play but can't find anything about it.
Lacking Twitter/Instagram is there something I've missed or is this just an unknown at the moment?
Ooh! They just answered this the other day in an AMA on Reddit
I believe the parts are also interchangeable, together they form a unique look, but that doesn't stop you from using a helmet from the Desert Medic for the Phantom Major or vice versa. You also SELECT which sets you want, rather than randomly obtaining them in a loot box, so if you want two sets for Axis and two sets for Allies, or four for one, or all of them, it's however you decide.
Road to Battlefield right now only allows you to unlock the "Arras" weapon skins for the Lewis Gun, MP-28, and one more I can't quite recall, I imagine the two sets will come as we near closer to release date.
Anyone played this yet? I managed to squeeze in a half hour of game time Tuesday night. Way too early for me to give impressions, but I'd like to hear what others have to say about the game.
Multiplayer is in a decent spot from the outset. Biggest issue is, as usual, Assault and Medic kits' weaponry compared to Recon's Sniper Rifles.
Assault gets semi-auto rifles(M1A1 Carbine, G43, Turner SMLE and likely another one I can't remember off the top of my head) and Assault Rifles(STG-44 notably) that all get the same quality of optics as the Recon's sniper rifles without the bullet drop or scope glint.
Medic has SMGs. They're basically lasers in some cases.
Having played the game a little more now, I gotta say I think I actually prefer 1. I really miss the old spotting system, I find it really hard to actually see enemies in V before they start shooting at me. I also feel that 1 looked sharper and sounded better, everything in the new game just sounds muted by comparison. I'm hoping I just need to get used to the new game, but so far it's not really clicking with me.
I have to say that I am really enjoying it, I always knew I would to be honest I have been a sucker for Battlefield games since 1942.
The complaints about historical inaccuracy amused me if I am honest, none of the others were 100% historically accurate. I like how they have finally nerfed the snipers as well, IMO so many BF games are ruined by half the team choosing to play recon and just sitting at the back ignoring all the objectives, its about time they did something about it although I can help but think simply limiting the amount of each class allowed per team would have been a better way of doing it.
Rayvon wrote: I have to say that I am really enjoying it, I always knew I would to be honest I have been a sucker for Battlefield games since 1942.
The complaints about historical inaccuracy amused me if I am honest, none of the others were 100% historically accurate. I like how they have finally nerfed the snipers as well, IMO so many BF games are ruined by half the team choosing to play recon and just sitting at the back ignoring all the objectives, its about time they did something about it although I can help but think simply limiting the amount of each class allowed per team would have been a better way of doing it.
Yeah, now they just play Assault and do the same thing...but better. Since the Assault's Semi-Auto Rifles have the same quality scopes as Recon's bolt-action rifles but without the scope glint.
Rayvon wrote: I have to say that I am really enjoying it, I always knew I would to be honest I have been a sucker for Battlefield games since 1942.
The complaints about historical inaccuracy amused me if I am honest, none of the others were 100% historically accurate. I like how they have finally nerfed the snipers as well, IMO so many BF games are ruined by half the team choosing to play recon and just sitting at the back ignoring all the objectives, its about time they did something about it although I can help but think simply limiting the amount of each class allowed per team would have been a better way of doing it.
My norwegian mate is livid about this game as his great grandfather was on one of the missions featured in this game, EA literally wrote him and the norwegian commandoes out to play politics, he sent me this video that explains his feelings quite well, and I cannot blame him and others for finding this kind of revisionism distasteful.
Rayvon wrote: I have to say that I am really enjoying it, I always knew I would to be honest I have been a sucker for Battlefield games since 1942.
The complaints about historical inaccuracy amused me if I am honest, none of the others were 100% historically accurate. I like how they have finally nerfed the snipers as well, IMO so many BF games are ruined by half the team choosing to play recon and just sitting at the back ignoring all the objectives, its about time they did something about it although I can help but think simply limiting the amount of each class allowed per team would have been a better way of doing it.
My norwegian mate is livid about this game as his great grandfather was on one of the missions featured in this game, EA literally wrote him and the norwegian commandoes out to play politics, he sent me this video that explains his feelings quite well, and I cannot blame him and others for finding this kind of revisionism distasteful.
I should have phrased my post a bit different I guess, I cant blame them for that either, although personally I expect that from any mainstream media nowadays, they have been messing with the truth for years to make a bit of money reagrdless of who they upset most of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the subject of the game though, I asm loving the new map, really takes me back to the days of battlfield 1942, I hope they give us more big maps like that.
Alright the game has grown on me a great deal in the last few days. I absolutely love the new map Panzerstorm. Feels like Heavy Metal meets Harvest Day from Bad Company 2. Really happy to see that tanks have skins now, though I'm very sad that the one I want for the Tiger costs 20,700 scraps to unlock. How are you guys liking the vehicle play? I've spent more time in the Tiger than anything else. I've read that the HEAT-T and APCR rounds do the exact same dmg as the regular shell but with less splash, so I did S mine launcher for my final perk instead.
) and I like the sound of some of the upcoming changes, such as a new response/animation set allowing for things like diving sideways while going prone or more dynamic movement through rough terrain, and so long as it doesn't go to silly extremes the combination of a returning 'Bad Company' style destruction feature and the ability to deploy your own cover via sandbags ect should offer a nice tactical element without going to Forenite extremes.
).
