Battlefield V

Akrasia

Pugzilla wrote: »

It will take several years for me to clear my current Steam backlog, so I think it's madness paying full whack for a game at launch, at a time when its likely have lots of bugs.

For multiplayer games like battlefield if you're not in early you won't get to experience the full choice of modes because inevitably some less popular maps and modes are no longer populated after the player count drops, and if you join late you're competing with base weapons against others who have unlocked every gadget and specialisation, and knows all the map choke points and short cuts that give them the edge

The Specialist

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

Dice's stance makes sense when you think how much the customisation options mean to them. It's their sole source of revenue outside of the purchase price for this game so they're going to be pushing it hard. The most basic of customisation options is choosing your gender, it's a no brainer to include that.

The real issue is that the above is completely at odds with creating a visually realistic representation of a historical setting. When people play these games they really think of big epic WW2 films as how they should look, populating the battlefield with female soldiers DOES detract from that. You can argue by how little or that it doesn't matter to you personally, but it's not part of the image people actually associate with that war. Given how much they need the customisation to make money with this, I think WW2 was just a fúcking stupid choice. They should have gone back to modern military and they'd have avoided this issue, WW2 is so iconic that they probably couldn't have picked a worse war to make this stance with. Most of the hardcore player base wanted another modern shooter anyway.

I really hope that guy banging on about being on the right side of history is just distracting from my points above, if not he's a bit deluded. Does he think he's the first game developer to ever offer gender as a playable character choice?

Nail on the head man, great post. Choose another setting for the SJW bull****, but don't dare force your gender equality nonsense (or your prosthetics/katanas etc) in to a very real war where millions upon millions died.

The Dev said he is "on the the right side of history" because he won't have to tell his daughter why she can't play as herself in ****in world war 2. You're on the wrong side of history mate, and it's very clear you haven't a ****ing clue about it.

Calhoun

The other concern I have is they are making a play for the battleroyal builder aka fortrite. You know how it is with devs who tack on stuff it normally doesn't work as well as the guys who already mastered it.

Akrasia

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

On the plus side I've not been buying any other games at all, so it's a great cash saver......I genuinely don't see myself even considering another AAA purchase until BF:V arrives on the scene.

The only games I've actually bought for the Xbox are BF4, BF1 and a few indie games to keep the wife happy.

The battlefield franchise are incredibly good value for money if you're that kind of player. A game like red dead redemption (sorry I'm old) might give you 40 hours for 60 euros. BF1 has given me 200+ hours for 100 euros, and if you really like the game, you can play it for 5 or 6 years before it runs out of active servers

Akrasia

Calhoun wrote: »

The other concern I have is they are making a play for the battleroyal builder aka fortrite. You know how it is with devs who tack on stuff it normally doesn't work as well as the guys who already mastered it.

Nah, this is nothing like fortnight. They're basically allowing you to repair damaged cover and install some defensive fortifications like machine gun nests and foxholes. There'll be timers for how long it takes to build them, not like fortnight where you can build a castle in 30 seconds

Royale with Cheese

I don't think its a sjw issue at all. It's just about prioritising revenue over all else, the customisation options and the revenue it brings are more important to them than the authenticity of the setting. Everything else for me is just noise.

It's interesting that the battlefront 2 pay to win lootbox controversy came about because Disney wouldn't let them create cosmetic items to sell for well known star wars characters. It would detract from the brand and the setting that fans know and love. WW2 isn't a brand but the same idea could easily apply here.

Lukker-

They are moving towards games as a service. I think the war stories will probably be largely true to the source material, and we won't see too many female soldiers/wacky outfits etc.

But for the MP, they are absolutely going after the Fortnite/PUBG model with customization etc and something that goes beyond weapon progression.

There is a quite a large amount of people complaining atm, but if the gameplay is good, and they don't kill the game with premium than I think it will do well. If they keep premium still it shows they've learned absolutely nothing.

I hope the customization revenue replaces the DLC revenue, and they can use that to develop new content instead. Premium just splits the player base and kils the game after a few months. BF1 died on it's feet after a few months because of it.

Akrasia

The Specialist wrote: »

Nail on the head man, great post. Choose another setting for the SJW bull****, but don't dare force your gender equality nonsense (or your prosthetics/katanas etc) in to a very real war where millions upon millions died.

If BF1 is anything to go by, the war stories will be respectfully done and the crazy immersion breaking customisations will be very rare and you'll hardly ever see them.

Having female characters in the game isn't a problem for me. It is only a game. Its not a hundred percent accurate and if the option to have female soldiers allows EA to sell more customisation packs for earrings and jewellery or whatever that helps fund the development of the game then let them off. They know what they're doing. They're hardly gonna spend months getting reload animations just right and then let someone dress their soldier in a Tutu and fairy wings

Akrasia

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I don't think its a sjw issue at all. It's just about prioritising revenue over all else, the customisation options and the revenue it brings are more important to them than the authenticity of the setting. Everything else for me is just noise.

It's interesting that the battlefront 2 pay to win lootbox controversy came about because Disney wouldn't let them create cosmetic items to sell for well known star wars characters. It would detract from the brand and the setting that fans know and love. WW2 isn't a brand but the same idea could easily apply here.

Lucasarts were being dicks though. They wanted everything to be approved by a committee which made it impossible to be creative. There are tonnes of minor details that can be customised to give your soldiers a unique feel and character without compromising the historicity too much. There will be some ultra rare customisation but hopefully most of it will be in scope for the setting

Akrasia

Lukker- wrote: »

They are moving towards games as a service. I think the war stories will probably be largely true to the source material, and we won't see too many female soldiers/wacky outfits etc.

But for the MP, they are absolutely going after the Fortnite/PUBG model with customization etc and something that goes beyond weapon progression.

There is a quite a large amount of people complaining atm, but if the gameplay is good, and they don't kill the game with premium than I think it will do well. If they keep premium still it shows they've learned absolutely nothing.

I hope the customization revenue replaces the DLC revenue, and they can use that to develop new content instead. Premium just splits the player base and kils the game after a few months. BF1 died on it's feet after a few months because of it.

Premium is already confirmed as dead

Varik

The Specialist wrote: »

Nail on the head man, great post. Choose another setting for the SJW bull****, but don't dare force your gender equality nonsense (or your prosthetics/katanas etc) in to a very real war where millions upon millions died.

The Dev said he is "on the the right side of history" because he won't have to tell his daughter why she can't play as herself in ****in world war 2. You're on the wrong side of history mate, and it's very clear you haven't a ****ing clue about it.

Big difference from what they were saying about BF1.

"Really, treating the history with respect and staying true to it while still providing a fun experience "

Lukker-

I think the Fortnite model of Battlepass could work for BFV. All users gets access to extra content/maps etc, but people who buy a battle pass can do challenges to unlock extra cosmetics etc.

Calhoun

Akrasia wrote: »

Nah, this is nothing like fortnight. They're basically allowing you to repair damaged cover and install some defensive fortifications like machine gun nests and foxholes. There'll be timers for how long it takes to build them, not like fortnight where you can build a castle in 30 seconds

Fair enough , still have other concerns as I said won't be a day one or prepurchase for me.

Varik

Lukker- wrote: »

I think the Fortnite model of Battlepass could work for BFV. All users gets access to extra content/maps etc, but people who buy a battle pass can do challenges to unlock extra cosmetics etc.

Isn't that what the special assignments mentioned on the deluxe edition are, not a pass to get them but outright buying the challenge to do each time.

Sanjuro

The Specialist wrote: »

Nail on the head man, great post. Choose another setting for the SJW bull****, but don't dare force your gender equality nonsense (or your prosthetics/katanas etc) in to a very real war where millions upon millions died.

The Dev said he is "on the the right side of history" because he won't have to tell his daughter why she can't play as herself in ****in world war 2. You're on the wrong side of history mate, and it's very clear you haven't a ****ing clue about it.

Jesus christ. It's absolute garbage like this that turns people off gamers and games. What the hell is wrong with you?

TerrorFirmer

Sanjuro wrote: »

Jesus christ. It's absolute garbage like this that turns people off gamers and games. What the hell is wrong with you?

What's garbage about that?

Developer which until now has always developed Battlefield games with a very strong degree of visual historical accuracy now wants to introduce women with robot arms and soldiers with Katanas into WW2.

It's entirely clear they want a massive slice of the Fortnite pie - which generates something like 200,000,000 a MONTH despite being a free game and is the most popular game in the world at present.

After what happened with Battlefront 2, they probably had to change their revenue models and this, to them, is how to best milk the cow.

Then, some of the developers try to dress up what is clearly a financial decision by warping it into a social justice issue.

That's what is really grating on a lot of people.

Rory28

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

What's garbage about that?

Developer which until now has always developed Battlefield games with a very strong degree of visual historical accuracy now wants to introduce women with robot arms and soldiers with Katanas into WW2.

It's entirely clear they want a massive slice of the Fortnite pie - which generates something like 200,000,000 a MONTH despite being a free game and is the most popular game in the world at present.

After what happened with Battlefront 2, they probably had to change their revenue models and this, to them, is how to best milk the cow.

Then, some of the developers try to dress up what is clearly a financial decision by warping it into a social justice issue.

That's what is really grating on a lot of people.

What is the issue with the Katana? Japan were in WW2 as well.

Evade

Rory28 wrote: »

What is the issue with the Katana? Japan were in WW2 as well.

A katana on someone in Europe who isn't from the 442nd RCT is a little too Fonrtnighty.

Rory28

Evade wrote: »

A katana in Europe on someone not from the 442nd RCT is a little too Fonrtnighty.

I would agree if we were only going for realism but in BF1 you could unlock different weapons from different parts of the war and use them on any map. If they put locks on which weapons can and cannot be used based on maps people would lose their sh1t.

The bionic arm looks like an actual prosthetic used at the time but I will hold judgement until I see actual gameplay. the trailer didnt give a clear view of it.

Evade

Rory28 wrote: »

I would agree if we were only going for realism but in BF1 you could unlock different weapons from different parts of the war and use them on any map. If they put locks on which weapons can and cannot be used based on maps people would lose their sh1t.

The bionic arm looks like an actual prosthetic used at the time but I will hold judgement until I see actual gameplay. the trailer didnt give a clear view of it.

Good point. Are DICE bringing in swords as a melee weapon option?

Pugzilla

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Then, some of the developers try to dress up what is clearly a financial decision by warping it into a social justice issue.

That's what is really grating on a lot of people.

DICE teased a gritty, realistic depiction of WW2 . Understandably some concessions have to be made for the sake of fun and gameplay, but people were expecting a serious atmosphere like BF1.



If they wanted to take a completely wacky ahistorical route, they could have picked a fictional conflict. No need to use WW2. An alternate history scenario would work.

Rory28

Evade wrote: »

Good point. Are DICE bringing in swords as a melee weapon option?

They are in BF1. Sabers and I forgot the other because I only use a shovel.

Lukker-

National weapons haven't been in BF for a good while. I personally preferred it, but for balance reasons I can see why they've chose what they have.

TerrorFirmer

Rory28 wrote: »

I would agree if we were only going for realism but in BF1 you could unlock different weapons from different parts of the war and use them on any map. If they put locks on which weapons can and cannot be used based on maps people would lose their sh1t.

The bionic arm looks like an actual prosthetic used at the time but I will hold judgement until I see actual gameplay. the trailer didnt give a clear view of it.

If we have a realistic conversation there's a world of difference between inter-changable weapons and a teaser that introduces a bunch of misfits at the games core with braveheart face paint and wacky getups.

The arm is a valid prosthetic visually but not remotely contextually.

To have someone leaping through buildings, being a deadshot with a sniper rifle, et.al while using one in the 1940's is a trifle ridiculous and, as mentioned previously, a bit too fortnite.

People will say "ah sure, it's only a game", but this is Battlefield and a pretty radical departure for the game based on the reveal trailer.

Would we accept the same if they suddenly introduced the fat man nuke launcher from Fallout in BFV just because they had nuclear tech back then, even if contextually its presence would be radically inaccurate?

Rory28

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

If we have a realistic conversation there's a world of difference between inter-changable weapons and a teaser that introduces a bunch of misfits at the games core with braveheart face paint and wacky getups.

The arm is a valid prosthetic visually but not remotely contextually.

To have someone leaping through buildings, being a deadshot with a sniper rifle, et.al while using one in the 1940's is a trifle ridiculous and, as mentioned previously, a bit too fortnite.

People will say "ah sure, it's only a game", but this is Battlefield and a pretty radical departure for the game based on the reveal trailer.

Would we accept the same if they suddenly introduced the fat man nuke launcher from Fallout in BFV just because they had nuclear tech back then, even if contextually its presence would be radically inaccurate?

When I watched I got the distinct impression of a multiplayer match. The gang of misfits is you and your friends. They even had those "battlefield moments" when he looked out the window and saw a tank then bailed out the the back window.

I think they were just trying to show a conquest map in full swing with the squad revives and the back and forth banter. The game will be judged on its actual gameplay not because their is a woman on the frontline. If its fun we will all love it and if its a stinker we will all slate it.

MadYaker

You do realize that a lot of soilders who fought in the trenches in WW1 didn’t even have guns because there weren’t enough to go around. At most they had semi auto rifles which jammed most of the time. Last time I played BF1 there was people running around with tommy guns, full auto pistols and massive machine guns that realistically would have to be mounted on the ground to be fired. That’s all fine. But then they add a katana and woman with a prosthetic arm to this game set in WW2 and everyone loses the plot? You guys don’t make any sense at all.

And all the right wingers getting angry because there’s a woman in the game should try and relax a bit and not be so sensitive, it’ll be less stressful for you. Some of the reactions I’ve seen on Twitter and YouTube are mental.

TerrorFirmer

I'm not saying nor did I ever that the game will be judged for having the audacity to include a woman. That's now new in games, and even in the context of a war....BF1 has female characters and that's fine. Some license with historical accuracy in that sense is perfectly acceptable.

Even if it turns out to be brilliant fun online, it doesn't mean concern about them taking a more lax approach to visual accuracy isn't a valid concern.

I play a ton of other games that have that approach and that's fine with me....but if Battlefield starts mutating into a Battlenite: WW2 game simply so the dev can make more $$$ and try to poach players from every possible corner of the market, that will, for me personally, harm my interest in the franchise.

It just seems to be that they're eyeing up Fortnite with envy and thinking "how can we make that kinda money?"

Rory28

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I'm not saying nor did I ever that the game will be judged for having the audacity to include a woman. That's now new in games, and even in the context of a war....BF1 has female characters and that's fine. Some license with historical accuracy in that sense is perfectly acceptable.

Even if it turns out to be brilliant fun online, it doesn't mean concern about them taking a more lax approach to visual accuracy isn't a valid concern.

I play a ton of other games that have that approach and that's fine with me....but if Battlefield starts mutating into a Battlenite: WW2 game simply so the dev can make more $$$ and try to poach players from every possible corner of the market, that will, for me personally, harm my interest in the franchise.

It just seems to be that they're eyeing up Fortnite with envy and thinking "how can we make that kinda money?"

We just have to wait. They have not said we will be building like they do in fortnite. I expect it to just be fortifying defences and setting up machine gun nests which honestly sounds amazing. Not one battlefield game has ever had good placement for the machine guns. They are always pointed at places where nobody goes or else in full view of every sniper in the game.

TerrorFirmer

MadYaker wrote: »

You do realize that a lot of soilders who fought in the trenches in WW1 didn’t even have guns because there weren’t enough to go around. At most they had semi auto rifles which jammed most of the time. Last time I played BF1 there was people running around with tommy guns, full auto pistols and massive machine guns that realistically would have to be mounted on the ground to be fired. That’s all fine. But then they add a katana and woman with a prosthetic arm to this game set in WW2 and everyone loses the plot? You guys don’t make any sense at all.

You're mixing up gameplay and visual concessions.

Gameplay concessions in BF1 are the use of full-auto weapons because a Battlefield game that featured realistic trench warfare with bolt action rifles and sitting around waiting to be gassed would not sell millions of copies.

So artistic license is needed with the action - however, almost every, if not ever, weapon in BF1 is a genuine WW1 era weapon and the skins, maps, vehicles etc reflect the era pretty accurarely.

Adding a woman with braveheart face paint and a prosthetic arm that functions like a 21st century bionic - and a dude with a sleeveless shirt with a katana on his back running around 1944 Europe - is 100% a visual concession, nothing to do with gameplay whatsoever.

Lukker-

Most of the most popular guns in BF1 weren't even used in WW1. They were experimental guns that had extremely limited production. The MP and SP are going to be very different things.

The artistic license of using these, is no different to things like facepaint/cosmetics/using female character if you ask me.