Battlefield V

tripperman · 24-05-2018 11:58am

Wasn't sure on the trailer to be honest, didn't get me excited as the BF1 did that got me into the game, but it was eplay the multiplayer that got me to buy it, so I'll wait to see footage from there in two week's,
but I'll buy it as it has some good improvements going by what they said in the talk before the trailer, I like the sound of the new operations that could be epic trying to dig into to hold ground and still preserve ammo as your low,

squawker · 24-05-2018 12:00pm

Battlefield has jumped the shark years ago

If you want realism take a look at

http://postscriptumgame.com/

super_furry · 24-05-2018 12:04pm

5uspect wrote: »

My problem with Battlefield of late has been that MP gameplay has descended into farcical chaos without any balance unless you’ve poured hundreds of hours into the game. There’s just so much going on that it’s just a meat grinder for people like me with busy lives who are cannon fodder.

That's pretty much where I stand. If they can do something to change the "spawn, run for two minutes to a firefight, get sniped, respawn," gameplay loop then I don't really care about much else.

MadYaker · 24-05-2018 12:21pm

That trailer was pretty hilarious. Not as hilarious as all the people getting angry because there woman in the trailer :O I have to say it didn't make me want to rush out and pre order the game.

Korvanica · 24-05-2018 12:42pm

Watched Jackfrags video explaining all the features he was shown - game does sound amazing.

I love the toolbox idea and the changes to spotting should be interesting.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 24-05-2018 12:56pm

super_furry wrote: »

I love the look of it, just kind of wish that they went further with it and set the game in a Wolfenstein kind of setting. Say 1955 with WWII still going on and all kinds of experimental weapons and vehicles.

Still really encouraged by what I've seen so far though and this will most likely be a day one buy for me.

TBH, after my first watch, I thought they were going for some sort of Alternate history effort similar to Wolfenstein. It was a bad trailer though, they've done so much better in the past. I get that they're trying to show off all the crazy stuff that can happen in the course of a multiplayer match but it just seemed very forced. I'm looking forward to seeing proper gameplay footage though, this didn't really do anything for me ( I couldn't warm to BF1 either).

MiskyBoyy · 24-05-2018 1:03pm

I'm a massive Battlefield fan going back 15 years or so. I was deeply disappointed by that reveal trailer.

I've wanted DICE for years to release a WW2 game. I was initially disappointed when BF1 was WW1 not 2. However, I was left very excited after the BF1 reveal trailer and curious as to how they could make a WW1 game that wasn't just slow paced, trench warfare.

When the rumours started about BFV being WW2, I was expecting a Band of Brothers style game using Battlefields amazing engine. Going by that confusing reveal trailer, it couldn't have been further from that.

Even COD, which I've not bothered with in recent years released a much truer to life, gritty WW2 trailer with hints of Band of Brothers from it:

However, I shall wait until EA Play to see more footage and see how the game really shapes out. It might be initially disappointing but end up being an excellent MP experience.

TLDR: Initially disappointed but keeping an open mind.

Grumpypants · 24-05-2018 1:16pm

squawker wrote: »

Battlefield has jumped the shark years ago

If you want realism take a look at

http://postscriptumgame.com/

If you want realism take a look at http://www.military.ie/army/join-the-army/

TheValeyard · 24-05-2018 1:20pm

Female front line soldiers make sense for the Soviet army as they did fight on the front lines.

I was really hoping for another Battlefield Vietnam, ah well, some day!

Varik · 24-05-2018 1:44pm

If they want diversity how about a "war story" where you play one of the Axis counties.

Falthyron · 24-05-2018 1:45pm

Varik wrote: »

If they want diversity how about a "war story" where you play one of the Axis counties.

Falthyron · 24-05-2018 2:01pm

141_Oscar_Mike wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BFBulletin/status/999598190755278848

Nice.

Just need that Battle Royale reveal now and all will be well with the world.

As for those taking issue with the authenticity or realism in Battlefield V, I present Exhibit A:

https://twitter.com/NickCapozzoli/status/775034129175818240

Rory28 · 24-05-2018 2:17pm

I see nothing unrealistic about flamethrower horse crew. Neither do i see anything unrealistic about flying a fighter jet, ejecting from it, sniping someone while flying through the air and landing back into the jet all before it crashes. This is what happens in war people not girls. girls have coodies and cant be at war.

TheDoc · 24-05-2018 2:30pm

Big fan of the series and the trailer left me massively disappointed. But then it's just a reveal trailer, I know myself its down to the multiplayer footage and then the beta test.

I've pre-ordered every BF that I can remember, so this won't be any different. New features sound cool, the change to bullet dynamics is welcome, and the "feel" of the array of content that will be available and customisation sounds great. Removal of premium pass obviously a good shout.

I thought the BF1 push of female soldiers and characters along with black soldiers and the likes felt peculiar and like a decision based reaction to issues that had surfaced in the buildup to that game for the developers and company to promote their point of view and inclusion. And that was cool.

I do think the concept art and visuals thus far, and it's not just the female characters or different races/ethnicity on show, but its starting to feel like its not taking itself serious. Battlefield has always been the choice for me over COD because it takes itself serious, its realistic and true to form. I did cringe at some of the stuff in the reveal trailer, but then I'm not going to get overly fussed about it.

Gameplay, balance, competitiveness and enjoyment. Those are the key to BF and always have been.

I was hoping this iteration would go back to the modern theatres of combat and weaponry, but when I heard it was going to be WW2 I was pretty excited, thinking back to the great multiplayer games I played in that setting, BF1942 being one of the main ones.

Noxin · 24-05-2018 2:43pm

Overall, that reveal was done very badly as they didn't give any of the actual information that was needed. So, here's a quick summary:

TerrorFirmer · 24-05-2018 3:12pm

TheDoc wrote: »

I do think the concept art and visuals thus far, and it's not just the female characters or different races/ethnicity on show, but its starting to feel like its not taking itself serious. Battlefield has always been the choice for me over COD because it takes itself serious, its realistic and true to form. I did cringe at some of the stuff in the reveal trailer, but then I'm not going to get overly fussed about it.

This is the real, valid reason most people are divided about the reveal trailer, but for some reason others can't see to accept it as valid criticism.

There's a world of difference between unrealistic game-play and unrealistic aesthetics and context, for those trying to somehow prove that this latest reveal is nothing new for the franchise.

Soldiers carrying samurai swords and women with robotic arms leaping through windows on the Battlefront in 1944 are pretty wildly unrealistic, cartoon concepts at odds with previous games.

It's clear they're taking a leaf out of the Call of Duty's book - WW2 with it's wacky custom skins (also not a fan) - as well as the rise of games like Fortnite in the hope of developing a huge 'catch all' game that'll hold onto core fans and entice even more from other franchises.

But sure, let's keep pretending that people who take issue with the radical shift for a Battlefield title are actually just sexist individuals who can't handle the concept of a women in video games.

For the record, I'm not writing the game off at all, I'm sure it'll be loads of fun, but I'm disappointed at what direction they've gone based on the trailer.

I didn't particularly want a Battlenite: Call of WW2, but so far that appears to be what we're getting as they try to capture every corner of the market with one title.

Noxin · 24-05-2018 3:15pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's clear they're taking a leaf out of the Call of Duty's book - WW2 with it's wacky custom skins (also not a fan

How do you know the custom skins will be wacky? Could be very in line with the era..? I've not seen anything on what the skins will be like yet.

Also:
https://twitter.com/Alekssg/status/999545829475090432

TerrorFirmer · 24-05-2018 3:31pm

I would say a deadshot sniper with a semi-bionic prosthetic arm during the second war world is a pretty good indication that they're embracing a whole new direction in that regard in fairness.

Battlefield has always put fun before realism. In fact, Battlefield has never really been a 'realistic' game, just aesthetically so.

For example the gameplay in BF1 is not remotely 'realistic' in the context of WW1, but the skins, vehicles, battlefields and weapons are all pretty accurate/faithful.

A female solider with a bionic arm during WW2 is just really pushing it a bit much for a lot of people and it's not hard to accept it's a valid criticism of the reveal.

At this point I suppose we don't really know - the game may end up being overwhelmingly a pretty standard Battlefield game visually - but it's just a bad start for a lot of people to focus on these new visual departures and more whacky concepts instead of focusing on what's changed from a gameplay perspective.

The reveal trailer for BF1 was incredible - I remember the second I saw it knew I would be buying it on day one. After watching the reveal for BF:V I was just left feeling confused and unsure of what I'd even just watched.

Falthyron · 24-05-2018 3:35pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I would say a deadshot sniper with a semi-bionic prosthetic arm during the second war world is a pretty good indication that they're embracing a whole new direction in that regard in fairness.

Battlefield has always put fun before realism. In fact, Battlefield has never really been a 'realistic' game, just aesthetically so.

For example the gameplay in BF1 is not remotely 'realistic' in the context of WW1, but the skins, vehicles, battlefields and weapons are all pretty accurate/faithful.

A female solider with a bionic arm during WW2 is just really pushing it a bit much for a lot of people and it's not hard to accept it's a valid criticism of the reveal.

At this point I suppose we don't really know - the game may end up being overwhelmingly a pretty standard Battlefield game visually - but it's just a bad start for a lot of people to focus on these new visual departures and more whacky concepts instead of focusing on what's changed from a gameplay perspective.

The reveal trailer for BF1 was incredible - I remember the second I saw it knew I would be buying it on day one. After watching the reveal for BF:V I was just left feeling confused and unsure of what I'd even just watched.

One major absence from the trailer was music. Battlefield 1 used 'Seven Nation Army' in a really clever way and it greatly added to the trailer. I really wanted to hear the 1942 theme music throughout the trailer or a modern iteration of it.

Maybe a lot of this comes down to the game being revealed a little too early? I am still holding out for a Battle Royale announcement (E3, I think), so maybe they weren't ready to reveal that mode just yet or haven't had the time to prepare and will add Battle Royale in the post-launch. All of this, however, suggests the game, maybe, wasn't far enough into development to be revealed, but pressure from COD forced their hand.

Also, I want to add that this game would have been in development for about two years now (probably more) and they would have followed a development path that imitated Battlefront 2 (as it was also in development during this time). It wouldn't be hard to theorise that Battlefield V was going to have a P2W system like Battlefront's, but then all of that has blown up since, forcing DICE to redesign much of Battlefield V's progression and gameplay systems. This could have knocked back development somewhat and could be a reason as to why BV looks a little undercooked?

Grumpypants · 24-05-2018 4:17pm

A girl....in a war....with a prosthetic arm....totally ruining the realism the series is known for...........

People accept a giant prehistoric shark that went extinct years ago popping up, but lose their marbles over a player being able to select a female character in a video game. but totally not sexism...........

Royale with Cheese · 24-05-2018 4:33pm

Jesus, some of the criticsm of people's concerns with the style choices are just...

That shark was a seldom seen easter egg on one map, not the main playable character of the game. Other videos highlighting lack of realism are clearly from bugs providing unintentional bits of gameplay. Main series Battlefield games have always been focused on fun gameplay but grounded in realistic aesthetics/settings. The trailer clearly shows a move away from that so that they can sell you whacky skins and it's fair enough if long term fans want to take issue with that.

Making a WW1 tank faster than it actually was in real life or providing automatic weapons that never actually saw service on the frontline adds to the fun experience of the game. The stylistic route they appear to be going down here is at odds with what the series has been so far, and it's just there so they can have microtransactions everywhere. This is EA we're talking about here so it's not exactly surprising.

I'll reserve judgement until the gameplay videos are out though, it is just a trailer after all.

BloodBath · 24-05-2018 4:34pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

A girl....in a war....with a prosthetic arm....totally ruining the realism the series is known for...........

People accept a giant prehistoric shark that went extinct years ago popping up, but lose their marbles over a player being able to select a female character in a video game. but totally not sexism...........

An easter egg that requires a long chain of activation that only a tiny percent of the player base ever got to see. Way to hyperbole.

Calling it sexist is just stupid. Now run along to Kotaku or Polygon or wherever else you pick this crap up from. Maybe it's not what people expected or wanted for a WW2 game? The same as people who don't like the last jedi aren't bloody sexist.

The trailer sucks. Hopefully the game is better. Dropping paid dlcs is a big plus in my book. It splits the player base up too much and I don't want to drop €150 for every new BF.

Pugzilla · 24-05-2018 6:57pm

#NotMyBattlefield

TheDoc · 24-05-2018 7:46pm

Judging by replies this far and just general reaction it seems there isn’t really a way to outline or describe a valid issue or concern without being labeled sexist or racist so will just let it be.

In terms of reference to the character with a bionic arm. It looks just a normal prosthetic limb to me that is fine. Fact it’s there in the first place yeah it’s clearly obscure. The characters are fictional as per the reveal info, and are supposed to be British paratroopers but are actually a mix of allied forces.

Look that’s all fine. They want to make their own story and characters that’s totally ok. I can’t say I’ve ever played a single player campaign in BF so likely won’t even impact me.

I’m just hoping for authenticity in the weapons and vehicles and hopefully a bit more freedom in terms of choice.

I didn’t like in BF1 how assault, a generic soldier class for years, was forced into only having cqb style machine guns and shotguns. Was nonsense. Thought BF1 destroyed the assault class

If I pick assault in this , I should be able to have a selection between various types and categories of weapons. If I play as an American soldier and somehow can’t have access to either a Thompson or m1 garand, that’s going to be pretty rubbish.

Pugzilla · 24-05-2018 7:51pm

Which class gets robot hands? I'll play as that one.

BloodBath · 24-05-2018 7:58pm

The campaigns in all of these multi player focused fps games are awful. I don't play them either. It's usually bad writing/story, bad acting with bad lip syncing, terrible ai and Michael Bay directed action sequences. No thanks.

BF was and is all about the multiplayer. If they get that right combined with the removal of the usual gouging 5 paid DLC's then it will be first BF I buy since BF3 despite my initial reservations based on that trailer.

Varik · 24-05-2018 8:05pm

General BF thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTrPOlFLEl8

Some of the vehicles that were seen, and their details.

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

Pugzilla · 24-05-2018 8:29pm

BloodBath wrote: »

The campaigns in all of these multi player focused fps games are awful. I don't play them either. It's usually bad writing/story, bad acting with bad lip syncing, terrible ai and Michael Bay directed action sequences. No thanks.

BF was and is all about the multiplayer. If they get that right combined with the removal of the usual gouging 5 paid DLC's then it will be first BF I buy since BF3 despite my initial reservations based on that trailer.

BF1 actually has good, if short, singleplayer. The best since Bad Company 2.

Spear · 24-05-2018 11:37pm

It occurs to me that if they're not selling DLC or lootboxes, then they'll still want to ensure a steady revenue stream continues after launch. Which leads me to think they'll charge full whack for the game for a long time, with little hope of any significant discounts.

Akrasia · 24-05-2018 11:55pm

super_furry wrote: »

That's pretty much where I stand. If they can do something to change the "spawn, run for two minutes to a firefight, get sniped, respawn," gameplay loop then I don't really care about much else.

That's what they're doing with the scarce ammo mechanic. Snipers get a clip of 2 before they have to go get more.

There is a risk that this turns the game into a running around like headless chicken sim though. But hopefully it encourages squad play

Battlefield V

Comments