Battlefield V

Spear

I can easily see EA backing down on the extreme customization options. They backpedalled far harder with Battlefront, and they cost them a major revenue stream and developer time to do so. Turning off a few face paints or a prosthetic would be trivial to do.

nix

I'ts good to see Tracer landed a new gig after losing her arm :pac:

But eh, i wouldnt be worrying about the inclusion of a woman character be the thing to lower your expectations about a new game, the fact that EA are creating should be enough :pac:

Pugzilla

I typcially hate COD, but I'd be glad to see them batter Battlefield this year.

Varik

Spear wrote: »

I can easily see EA backing down on the extreme customization options. They backpedalled far harder with Battlefront, and they cost them a major revenue stream and developer time to do so. Turning off a few face paints or a prosthetic would be trivial to do.

Think Disney had more to do with that.

nix wrote: »

I'ts good to see Tracer landed a new gig after losing her arm :pac:

But eh, i wouldnt be worrying about the inclusion of a woman character be the thing to lower your expectations about a new game, the fact that EA are creating should be enough :pac:

BF1 had women in MP and it's was appropriate as it was nation and class based.

Calhoun

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.

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.

You can equally say all the liberal snowflakes are up in arms as well, making it into a SJW project and how gamers are bad. There was an lead dev from LA who basically went straight to "we want white people only playing" and came out and apologized afterwards.

Its funny to see the left using the same tactics they used with kingdom com deliverance on why the dev should have put in black people. When it didnt work they just called him a racists.

What doesn't make sense is the blanket bandwagoning and virtue signalling in response to any criticism that is leveled at the game because it ticks a few boxes from the lefts perspective, but hey i suppose there are folks out there who will buy anything as long as it ticks certain boxes.

My concern and most of the concerns i have seen from folks is that they could have put in period specific female combatants like they did with the russian DLC but they were so focused on being seen to be on the right side of history that they had to make it into a statement. If they are mainly focused on a social justice message how well will the game fair in the long run.

nix

Varik wrote: »

Think Disney had more to do with that.



BF1 had women in MP and it's was appropriate as it was nation and class based.

Cool, I've no problem with women being in the game by the way.

TerrorFirmer

They've indicated that they're strongly considering a client side option to turn off customization ala War Thunder. I think that'd solve 99% of grievances people would likely have in multi-player (based on the reveal and what we know of customization), wish COD: WW2 had the same feature. Everyone's happy this way.

Varik

nix wrote: »

Cool, I've no problem with women being in the game by the way.

Wasn't throwing any shade your direction, just saying they've had women in game before in a way that didn't piss people off already. BFV customisation is different to that.

TerrorFirmer

They've also said at launch it will just be UK and Germany to begin with....so no US faction/maps until later.

MiskyBoyy

TerrorFirmer wrote:

They've also said at launch it will just be UK and Germany to begin with....so no US faction/maps until later.

Somebody pointed out on Reddit, the Instagram account that said that wasn't the official one.

Calhoun

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They've also said at launch it will just be UK and Germany to begin with....so no US faction/maps until later.

Not sure it would overly solve it as the concerns aren't females being in games but the design concepts from developers.

Maybe they will have made a decent game behind all the political messaging, but they have allot to do to ensure things dont go the way of BF1.

I say this as someone who played allot of nearly 600 hours of BF1, if it wasnt for my mates playing it i would have given up on it in the end.

Lukker-

Dunno how anyone manage do more than 100 hours of BF1. Was just a frag made, choke point, revive Andrew healing spam game for the most part. Weakest entry ever.

I’m not overly bothered by cosmetics. I’m not jumping into MP for a history lesson. If the gameplay is tight and everything is well balanced I’ll play.

Rory28

Lukker- wrote: »

Dunno how anyone manage do more than 100 hours of BF1. Was just a frag made, choke point, revive Andrew healing spam game for the most part. Weakest entry ever.

I’m not overly bothered by cosmetics. I’m not jumping into MP for a history lesson. If the gameplay is tight and everything is well balanced I’ll play.

I came in to BF1 late and am still enjoying it. Hardline is by far the weakest entry but even that game had its moments. Overall its one of the strongest franchises ever.

Calhoun

Lukker- wrote: »

Dunno how anyone manage do more than 100 hours of BF1. Was just a frag made, choke point, revive Andrew healing spam game for the most part. Weakest entry ever.

I’m not overly bothered by cosmetics. I’m not jumping into MP for a history lesson. If the gameplay is tight and everything is well balanced I’ll play.

Played for longer than should have because friends were playing it. Also operations were nice to an extent.

I don't think anyone plays for a history lesson but after such a weak entry from BF1 a focus on being on the right side of history is concerning as game could be another weak entry.

We shall wait and see but will hold off on purchasing this time around for sure.

Korvanica

Lukker- wrote: »

Dunno how anyone manage do more than 100 hours of BF1. Was just a frag made, choke point, revive Andrew healing spam game for the most part. Weakest entry ever.

I’m not overly bothered by cosmetics. I’m not jumping into MP for a history lesson. If the gameplay is tight and everything is well balanced I’ll play.

Agreed, managed maybe 15-20 hours of BF1 before I was done with it. Back to BF4 for me then. Really looking forward to the changes though. I joined the Battlefield at Bad Company, so i'm looking forward to the changes that will bring the new one closer to the older battlefields (from what ive read / heard from vets of the series) and not just a run, gun, die repeat simulator.

I'm sure a lot of people will hate the new features as they seem to require teamwork.

Dcully

Lukker- wrote: »

Dunno how anyone manage do more than 100 hours of BF1. Was just a frag made, choke point, revive Andrew healing spam game for the most part. Weakest entry ever.

I’m not overly bothered by cosmetics. I’m not jumping into MP for a history lesson. If the gameplay is tight and everything is well balanced I’ll play.

BF1 was a joke on release but its a very solid experience now after many many patches.

Lukker-

Dcully wrote: »

BF1 was a joke on release but its a very solid experience now after many many patches.

I have close to 90 hours. I've played as recently as 2 weeks ago. I dunno maybe I'm missing something, but it's just not for me. Everything is spam nades, replenish ammo, spam nades, die, revived, silly choke points, poor map design etc.

Operations was decent enough, because at least there was a reasonable structure, I just found the mechanics in BF1 extremely poor. There was nothing dynamic or fun about the gameplay, everything just got bogged down.

BC2, BF3 and BF4 were much stronger entries (BF4 was poor at launch).

The only thing I even mildly enjoyed was the gunplay. Even that was a bit too laser beamey for my liking.

Calhoun

One of the better you tube vids i have seen on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAB02nOltu4

Pugzilla

Battlefield 2 was the best of the series.

Rory28

Pugzilla wrote: »

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was the best of the series.

FYP

Pugzilla

I liked Bad Company 2, but missed the big 64 player maps. The jets in BF2 were OP though, basically invincible in the hands of a good pilot. BF2 also had grenade spam, but it was the first modern combat BF.

Calhoun

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9darzoM6H-k

Good video but he falls short on it as he basically glosses over the pimping the social justice message in order to sell cosmetics. Kinda looks like he doesn't get where allot of people are coming from or why they are annoyed.

He is making a follow up video where he will look at the cosmetics ect

Mtx

I'll give V a miss and go back to bf3 and 4.

Noxin

lol, without even testing it?

Can't wait to test it out personally. Features are making it sound quite promising.

Dcully

Noxin wrote: »

lol, without even testing it?

Can't wait to test it out personally. Features are making it sound quite promising.

Likewise and i dont get all the hate [nobody has played it yet so many have made up their minds, deluded or what] , ffs in the heat of multiplayer shooters i dont care who im shooting at or shooting as once the gameplay,netcode and hitreg are solid who cares?

Honestly people would moan about anything these days.

Calhoun

Dcully wrote: »

Likewise and i dont get all the hate [nobody has played it yet so many have made up their minds, deluded or what] , ffs in the heat of multiplayer shooters i dont care who im shooting at or shooting as once the gameplay,netcode and hitreg are solid who cares?

Honestly people would moan about anything these days.

I take it you haven't played the series that much? to say people who are engaged in a particular hobby are moaning about anything is ridiculous.

Considering the **** show that was BF1 at launch and how the optimisation, hit reg, net coded ect were all pretty much in bits there is worry that the focus on getting those parts of the games right is not there.

When you essentially pimping a social justice message in order to sell cosmetics it remains to be seen the quality of game you put out.

I do believe people should try it but i can understand after BF1 why allot wont.

Lukker-

I actually thought performance, hit reg, net code etc were all fine at launch for BF1. Just the game itself was sh*te. Now BF4 was a different story. Good game, terrible issues with performance and hit reg at launch.

Calhoun

Really that's interesting to hear, i had so many problems at launch. I was more forgiving of the game play as i play the role of a soldier more so than anything else. I did dislike the matchmaking though.

My friends who were big into vehicles ect were not as happy.

We also really fell for the operations, i think out of all BF1 that game mode was the best ever and why we played it for so long. However i will admit some of them were basically pushovers because the maps were not balanced, this never stopped a good team though.

Lukker-

Calhoun wrote: »

Really that's interesting to hear, i had so many problems at launch. I was more forgiving of the game play as i play the role of a soldier more so than anything else. I did dislike the matchmaking though.

My friends who were big into vehicles ect were not as happy.

We also really fell for the operations, i think out of all BF1 that game mode was the best ever and why we played it for so long. However i will admit some of them were basically pushovers because the maps were not balanced, this never stopped a good team though.

Operations was definitely the best thing about it. The whistle going/charging as pretty satisfying and historically it kind of fit in. It also had a proper structure, conquest often felt like maps weren't designed with it in mind.

jonski

Calhoun wrote: »

I take it you haven't played the series that much?

Yeah , I'd say that Cully fella is only a blow in , BF1 was probably his first time .