Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Battlefield V

Options
12357…49

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Spear wrote: »
    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.

    No they will just sell the cosmetics like they do in fortnite, less RNG but a higher price tag. Then people cant whine about the gambling aspect as they have choice over what they're purchasing.


  • Options
    #123
    Lukker-
    Registered Users Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭Lukker-


    The reveal trailer put me off, but the JackFrags video has me hopefull:



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xegBXGaFrOU&t=687s

    Funnily I was incredibly hyped for the BF1 trailer, but the MP was in my mind the weakest entry of the entire series. What was initial enjoyment, quickly tapered off when you realised how shallow the gameplay was.


  • Options
    #124
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Spear wrote: »
    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.
    I'd Say that depends on how well the cosmetics sell. If they make money selling skins, they're motivated to increase the base player count so they'll reduce the sales price.


  • Options
    #125
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    I'll take that business model any day over the old 1. Overwatch has the perfect business model for games imo.


  • Options
    #126
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    It sounds like they're adding an awful lot of new stuff from day 1. Most BF games tend to be a bit of a mess at launch with bugs n such, could be a cluster f*ck?

    The game sounds promising though despite the awful trailer


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    jonski
    Registered Users Posts: 6,389 ✭✭✭jonski


    €60 for the Standard Edition €80 for the Deluxe on pre-order on origin .


  • Options
    #128
    jacksie66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,988 ✭✭✭jacksie66


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #129
    Lukker-
    Registered Users Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭Lukker-


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    I'm trying to decide whether to get this for my ps4 or wait until I build my gaming PC during the summer..

    Where do your mates play?

    Honestly I'd wait for the PC version, if you are building a PC this current summer that is.


  • Options
    #130
    Pugzilla
    Site Banned Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭Pugzilla


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    I'm trying to decide whether to get this for my ps4 or wait until I build my gaming PC during the summer..


    Game won't be out until October, so don't see how this is a problem?

    First person shooters are much better with a mouse and keyboard.


  • Options
    #131
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    Game won't be out until October, so don't see how this is a problem?

    First person shooters are much better with a mouse and keyboard.

    I always hated flying vehicles with a mouse and keyboard in battlefield games though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I'd definitely get BFV on a PC....simply because the framerate on consoles in 64p conquest is god awful in BF1 so I can only imagine BFV will be the same. Slightly better on PS4 Pro/XB1X but still not great.
    I always hated flying vehicles with a mouse and keyboard in battlefield games though.

    You can use a controller for flying on PC though, kb/m for everything else. I never bothered in BF1 though....aerial vehicles have become something I just don't touch in the franchise! Used to fly helicopters with kb/m in BF2....not a great experience.


  • Options
    #133
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    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.
    The reveal was OTT, but I'd say they were just trying to cram in as much craziness into the clip as they could. In BF1 and BF4 there are gold plated vehicle skins but I have hardly ever actually seen them on the battlefield.

    If the really crazy stuff like robot hands are very rare or very expensive then you'll hardly ever see them and they'll not affect your experience of the game.

    And there'll almost certainly be a back to basics or realistic mode that turns off these skins completely.


  • Options
    #134
    Grumpypants
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    It's not a robot hand. It's a pretty basic prosthetic arm from WW2 with a string to clamp the claws to hold stuff.

    http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvsurgconvoli/Figures/fig41.jpg


  • Options
    #135
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I don't think people were denying that prosthetics existed but more that the way it's represented in the reveal is semi-bionic/magically 'powered' in aiming, shooting and in general action.

    They should've just left it out altogether.


  • Options
    #136
    Grumpypants
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭Grumpypants


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    I don't think people were denying that prosthetics existed but more that the way it's represented in the reveal is semi-bionic/magically 'powered' in aiming, shooting and in general action.

    They should've just left it out altogether.

    They prob wanted to represent disabled gamers in the game as actual characters that are as bad ass as everyone else and not relegate them to novelty side acts.

    If that means stretching the reality a little i'm all for it, if the end result is more people are enjoying the game.

    But sure let's not get upset about "reality" being stretched in a game where you can magically heal from multiple bullet wounds by hiding behind a rock


  • Options
    #137
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭Evade


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    But sure let's not get upset about "reality" being stretched in a game where you can magically heal from multiple bullet wounds by hiding behind a rock
    Gameplay concessions versus aesthetic consistency. You can be fine with little concessions to make the game fun and still not like anachronistic or stupidly wacky things in your game. Sometimes one trumps the other. I skipped BF1 because I didn't like all the automatic weapons in the WWI setting.


  • Options
    #138
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Evade wrote: »
    Gameplay concessions versus aesthetic consistency. You can be fine with little concessions to make the game fun and still not like anachronistic or stupidly wacky things in your game. Sometimes one trumps the other. I skipped BF1 because I didn't like all the automatic weapons in the WWI setting.
    But BF1 did cater to you, they had a back to basics mode that banned automatic weapons.

    BF1 offered a lot of amazing gameplay. A realistic ww1 game would involve sitting in a trench 400m from your enemy, dying randomly from disease, artillery shells and trench foot waiting for orders to go over the top to rush the enemy line fortified with machine guns.

    BF1 took some liberties and embellished how common certain weapons were, but the game is richer for it. There are more 'realistic' ww1 games out there that nobody ever plays anymore because they're interesting to play but not fun to play


  • Options
    #139
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Will there be dance emotes?


  • Options
    #140
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭Evade


    Akrasia wrote: »
    But BF1 did cater to you, they had a back to basics mode that banned automatic weapons.
    I honestly had no idea that existed. Was it in the game at launch?

    Akrasia wrote: »
    BF1 offered a lot of amazing gameplay. A realistic ww1 game would involve sitting in a trench 400m from your enemy, dying randomly from disease, artillery shells and trench foot waiting for orders to go over the top to rush the enemy line fortified with machine guns.


    BF1 took some liberties and embellished how common certain weapons were, but the game is richer for it. There are more 'realistic' ww1 games out there that nobody ever plays anymore because they're interesting to play but not fun to play
    Part of the concessions for fun gameplay I mentioned. It doesn't have to be a simulator but straying too far away from your setting is off putting for me. They don't have to make it a historical game, they could come up with an alternate history or purely fictional world like Valkyria Chronicles.

    I'm on PS4 and we don't have any of those more realistic games as far as I know.


  • Options
    #141
    MiskyBoyy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,798 ✭✭✭MiskyBoyy


    Evade wrote: »

    I'm on PS4 and we don't have any of those more realistic games as far as I know.


    https://store.playstation.com/en-ie/product/EP1662-CUSA03395_00-VERDUNPS40000000


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Pugzilla
    Site Banned Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭Pugzilla


    I don't mind sacrificing some historical accuracy for the 'Rule of Cool', but samurai swords and robot hands are too much. Looks like a wacky alternate history similar to the Red Alert series.


  • Options
    #143
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Developer tries to turn the negative reaction around including Furiosa from Mad Max in BF:V into a social justice issue.

    I wish they would just address the real, legitimate concerns - that the series might be going a new, slightly whacky direction - instead of deliberate misdirection.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/8mopvw/bfv_design_directors_comments_on_controversy/


  • Options
    #144
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    Developer tries to turn the negative reaction around including Furiosa from Mad Max in BF:V into a social justice issue.

    I wish they would just address the real, legitimate concerns - that the series might be going a new, slightly whacky direction - instead of deliberate misdirection.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/8mopvw/bfv_design_directors_comments_on_controversy/




    He might want to do a case study of how the Ghostbusters reboot panned out when its director tried a similar approach - genuine concerns were downplayed as the detractors just being sexists or women haters. We all remember what a box office smash that was as a result. Dice would do well putting a muzzle on him and his virtue signalling - do the talking with trailers and gameplay.


  • Options
    #145
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,483 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    The Specialist wrote: »
    He might want to do a case study of how the Ghostbusters reboot panned out when its director tried a similar approach - genuine concerns were downplayed as the detractors just being sexists or women haters. We all remember what a box office smash that was as a result. Dice would do well putting a muzzle on him and his virtue signalling - do the talking with trailers and gameplay.

    Feig, and all involved were coming from some previous success leading up to it. Whereas Dice have had a number of issue over the last few years, with BF1 player counts dying and Battlefront lootboxs.


  • Options
    #146
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Varik wrote: »
    Feig, and all involved were coming from some previous success leading up to it. Whereas Dice have had a number of issue over the last few years, with BF1 player counts dying and Battlefront lootboxs.

    This is the big concern i have, BF1 died on its feet very fast. Myself and the mates that play it were big into operations and for EU servers past 11PM it became increasingly unlikely you would find anything worth playing on.

    When you look at it objectively, there are what i would think a small hard core bunch of clowns who are completely against woman being in a game like this. Then there is everyone else voicing objection to it, its not the fact that there is a woman in it (the had woman in the russian expansion and there are many example of female combatants in WW2) but because the focus seemingly from the original launch trailer is on social justice and being on the "right side" of history. We have even had the same tired old crap of calling the player base, sexist and racist (LA dev who deleted his tweet about how people only want a white skin option for the game).

    You have to wonder if that is the primary focus of the game (to make a political statement) then what are the missing in the actual core game mechanics.

    At the end of the day though money talks, people can bitch and moan all the like but if they have a really big objection and they still purchase they are idiots.

    Personally i am waiting and seeing, i went all in on the last one and bought the most expensive pack at launch (over 100 euro) and while i got a certain return on it the game for a long time was very buggy and there was no longevity to it.


  • Options
    #147
    Pugzilla
    Site Banned Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭Pugzilla


    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.


  • Options
    #148
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    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.

    Yah i was quite salty over it, more so because i bought a brand new pc. Was top of the range at the time and should have been able to handle it no problem.

    The game was un-optimized as hell and the proc was bottlenecking it, so i had to upgrade again to just enjoy playing it.

    Needless to say i learnt my lesson, but i also understand why people do it. I wasnt just buying it to play alone, myself and 10-15 or so mates online were doing it so we could all play together. Out of the 10-15 of us only 3 got to max rank, the rest dropped the game and never came back.


  • Options
    #149
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,483 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Calhoun wrote: »
    This is the big concern i have, BF1 died on its feet very fast. Myself and the mates that play it were big into operations and for EU servers past 11PM it became increasingly unlikely you would find anything worth playing on.

    When you look at it objectively, there are what i would think a small hard core bunch of clowns who are completely against woman being in a game like this. Then there is everyone else voicing objection to it, its not the fact that there is a woman in it (the had woman in the russian expansion and there are many example of female combatants in WW2) but because the focus seemingly from the original launch trailer is on social justice and being on the "right side" of history. We have even had the same tired old crap of calling the player base, sexist and racist (LA dev who deleted his tweet about how people only want a white skin option for the game).

    You have to wonder if that is the primary focus of the game (to make a political statement) then what are the missing in the actual core game mechanics.

    At the end of the day though money talks, people can bitch and moan all the like but if they have a really big objection and they still purchase they are idiots.

    Personally i am waiting and seeing, i went all in on the last one and bought the most expensive pack at launch (over 100 euro) and while i got a certain return on it the game for a long time was very buggy and there was no longevity to it.

    Firstly for the cosmetics, Dice aren't going to back down as this is all they've got for additional monetization. People spend €10 on a skin or dance for Fortnite, and without lootboxes they're going to be selling them directly so they're going to be charging a decent amount for them.

    The female characters in BF1 was class based, as you said the Russian had their sniper being a woman as well as sikh and black soldiers for certain class. You could easily do the same for V, and when appearance is set it helps for class identification.


  • Options
    #150
    Royale with Cheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,982 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Calhoun wrote: »
    This is the big concern i have, BF1 died on its feet very fast.

    Even though I bought Premium and didn't even play the last two map packs, I had a lot of time for BF1. Think I put about the same time into it as I did BF4 (about 200 hours, I think) so that was definitely money well spent and I have to say I found it just as dynamic and exciting as BF4, just in a different way.

    What killed BF1 stone dead for me was actually Overwatch. I only started playing it a few months ago after resisting it for years as 'not my sort of thing' and I already have 200+ hours logged and I'm still obsessed with it.

    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.


Advertisement