I just find the reaching for historical precedents to justify what is an intentionally anachronistic cast funny. It makes me think of Monkey Dust's "Hollywood Anne Frank" sketch.Gethsemani said:
Analysts say Battlefield 5 may put EA's financial guidance at risk.
- Thread starter Dreiko_v1legacy
- Start date
Once you look past the whole "get woke" ideas you can see why there is a really good reason pre orders are low. EA Origins premiere is a $15 monthly or $99.99 yearly deal that grants you access to BFV. Along with the Fifas and the Maddens and a 100 or so games from the vault.
I don't understand why you're talking about Activision and CoD. We were talking about BF5. I don't know who is rewarding who for what and frankly don't really care about CoD, or even Battlefield. This game is already a disaster and mired in controversy.Hades said:
From an exec telling people not to buy it, to the same exec being fired and terrible pre-orders, people are voting with their wallets overwhelmingly against this drivel. It has nothing to do with having women in a game (there are plenty of fantastic games with great female characters in them), it has to do with forced "diversity" in a game where it doesn't belong. I would even go further as to call it downright offensive and disrespectful to the men who fought and lost their lives on the front lines of WW2, diminishing the sacrifice they made in order show how "progressive" EA is. It is further utterly disrespectful to the women who *did* participate and contribute to the war effort, by saying the jobs they *did* do were lesser than that done by the men.
Removing "single player" isn't anti-consumer. Overwatch doesn't have a single player campaign either. Multiplayer shooters have been around for two decades. And further, the same rule applies to one as the other: If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't like CoD, nor do I like Battlefield. I won't buy either. And in the case of BF5, I predicted that other gamers, least of all the ones defending the "diversity", wouldn't pre-order it either [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/cowen-predicts-eas-battlefield-v-will-be-a-serious-disappointment-citing-weak-pre-orders.html]. Hopefully EA will learn the lesson Inquisition and Andromeda clearly haven't quite taught them yet. 🙄
But you know what? Even if they don't learn the lesson it's still okay. If they really commit to doing the Social Justice/Progressive thing in all their games, it makes it a) easy for normal gamers to avoid and b) gives the SJW/feminists the games they apparently want (tho clearly aren't buying). I have no objection to a thing existing, I believe every game should make or break based on merit alone. I also have no objection to "niche" things (in fact, I wish we could return to niche/cult titles instead of "mass market appeal" vapid crap that Ubi/EA are now famous for) so making games that only appeal to a small number of players (whether it be because it's an isometric "old school" RPG or a leftist-ideology fuelled crapshow like this, is fine. Maybe the SJWs will stop complaining about Kingdom Come Deliverance or whatever other thing didn't pander to them now that they have a title that does. 😁
COD and Battlefield are rivals that each seeks to dominate the most lucrative market in the industry. Comparisons between the two is inevitable and if Battlefield gets its ass kicked by a controversial game that furthers the anti single player agenda and has anti consumer DLC practices then EA might start thinking on why that is, they might come to the conclusion that all those things COD got away with would be perfectly acceptable as long as they don't follow a ''leftist agenda'' And that's the wrong conclusion to make and the wrong game that fails. Like I said, this whole agenda thing for battlefield is an annoyance at worst, popularising the removal of single player and furthering scummy dlc practices is a danger.KingsGambit said:
Me not buying COD doesn't take away this danger because Activison isn't sustained by people like me but by a more casual set of gamers. The market might deem the removal of single player absolutely correct from a money making standpoint but the market would be wrong. If everyone starts removing single player because Activision became a successful trend setter in this regard then the medium as a whole starts to degrade.
Yeah, that's not gonna fly. I can respect the argument that it is disrespectful to actual veterans and survivors of any war to make video games or other entertainment media about it. However, if you want to use that argument you should employ it directly, because using it once the game/movie/cartoon crosses some arbitrary line ("M.A.S.H was a comedy! PEOPLE DIED IN KOREA! REEEEE!") isn't you taking a principled stance against exploiting the pain and trauma of veterans. It is you using veterans and survivors as ammunition in an internet argument and that's really unbecoming.KingsGambit said:
You can get back to me with this argument once people actually think that nurses, washing women, Rosie the Riveteers and farmers are actually held up as the same kind of heroes as Richard Winters, John Basilone, Erich Hartmann or Vasily Zaytsev. Because they generally aren't. You don't see movies made about the women who washed and repaired tons of dirty laundry or baked hundreds of kilograms of bread every day to keep the rest of the army clothed and fed. Shit, in just the other thread about BFV there were people who argued that female nurses, washing women and signalists weren't real soldiers.KingsGambit said:
In itself no. In a game that's the annual release of a game series that for the last one and a half decade has been renowned for its bombastic, well produced single player? Yeah, that's anti-consumer. It is taking away a massive chunk of the experience while asking the same price for what remains. People should be as up in arms about this as they were against On-Disc DLC or micro transactions back in the days. Compared to 'including diversity options', it is the Hiroshima of anti-consumer practice to BFVs firecracker (also, there's an irony in people thinking adding features is anti-consumer, but hey...).KingsGambit said:
So if you employ the don't like it, don't buy it argument, does that mean you'll shut up about BFV now? Because you can't really employ that argument without coming off as a massive hypocrite.KingsGambit said:
As Hades said, there's a real danger in getting caught up in the culture war nonsense here. BFV is getting lambasted for adding a feature that's "pandering", while CoD is going unchallenged with a massive cut in content and still asking the same price as previous installments. That so many "gamers" are unable to correctly assess the relative risks to the gaming hobby because they are too busy being convinced that SJWs will steal their games to see that Activision is making a blatant attempt at decreasing the value of the product they sell without lowering the price is a pretty damning indictment of gamers.
They are just replacing the 4-5 hour mediocre campaign with a battle-royale mode, I wouldn't call that ''a massive cut in content''. I know I'll be getting better content and more game-time than I had with most COD games.Gethsemani said:
You're forgetting that the criticism of the token nature of the single player modes of the CoD and Battlefield games post MW2/Bad Company 1 has been a long standing discussion. Not to mention EA already pulled the stunt of not having single player with the Battlefront reboot and it worked. The line of single-player being an afterthought was crossed 7 years ago.Gethsemani said:
Also, "lambasting", really? Are there any substantive voices taking shots at game's cast makeup? Are we acting as if the two biggest FP shooters to hit the market in the past 3 years (Overwatch, Siege) don't have the same diversity with no criticism but rather being embraced?
You know some of us liked the campaigns back when they were still good. Originally they were a huge part of the draw. But they seem to have been discarded in favor of shallow trend chasing, after the slow erosion of effort that they used to get. They?ve been trying less with campaign, true, but the solution to that is try more, not give up entirely.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
EA and DICE did. Through Twitter and their teases they kept teasing us with BFV as the "most authentic and immersive Battlefield yet" and kept showing all these super-detailed authentic looking concept and game design docs/art.erttheking said:
They spend a good chunk of the original BFV reveal talking about it too;
Then they go and reveal....BFV. And it all goes downhill from there.
Last Battlefield one that was good was in 2008. We lamented it back then and no one cared. It's a bit strange now to doomsay over it especially with Doom, Wolfenstein and Ion Maiden to look at.erttheking said:
erttheking said:
Why advance their game engine and develop tools to create something technically advanced or artistically compelling when they make billions yearly on a shallow gameplay loop of recycled mp content? It?s a genius strategy for the time being, but also isn?t doing the medium any favors in the long run. It only proves that competition is like a drug habit, and that?s a slippery slope when considering what?s sacrificed along the way.
More down to the circumstances.Gone Rampant said:
If the rationale is "I'm not pre-ordering Battlefield V because I don't like EA, pre-order culture, and/or I want to wait and see how the game turns out," that's fine.
If the rationale is "I'm not pre-ordering because females are present in multiplayer," then while that's technically fine as well, it's a motivation that will understandably make some uneasy.
Right, so...KingsGambit said:
-Turning WWII into a game to be played = fine.
-Taking liberties with historical technology = fine.
-Replacing historical forces with a-historical forces = fine.
-Letting people play as girls in multiplayer = not fine.
Curious how you feel about Wolfenstein (mecha Hitler and SS sorcerers) or Medal of Honour (insertion of OSS agents into British/Soviet-only operations) then. Apparently they're less disrespectful because hey, no girls (except the SS).
Not sure how you reach that conclusion.
Overwatch never had a singleplayer campaign, Call of Duty has.
Also, Overwatch operates on the basis of "buy the game, get every piece of additional content free." Call of Duty isn't nearly as generous.
Except clearly you're wrong, because it has been pre-ordered, and you've already been caught out twice on this thread by saying no-one on this site pre-ordered it.
Then again, BF5 isn't even an example of diversity. Least not in multiplayer, where any "diversity" is down to player choice. The "diversity" I actually do like is that it's showing theatres of war that are rarely explored, such as Norway and Denmark, and 1940 Europe (and North Africa, though that's been shown a few times). I'm a bit uneasy that Norwegian and Danish forces are completely absent in those theatres, and are replaced by British ground forces, but nup, it's "dem wominz" that are the real issue.
Um, what lesson?
Inquisition didn't fail. It had a mixed reception, but criticisms levelled against it can mostly be boiled down to following an MMO-lite/open world template that doesn't match BioWare's traditionally narrative-focused approach.
Andromeda failed because of a nightmarish production cycle.
And yet BF5 isn't being judged on that.
Not that anyone can judge it based on merit alone at this point.
And let me guess, right-wing ideology is fine.
Also, not sure how the presence of girls in multiplayer is "leftist," but hey, that's the world we live in.
I'd be happy for both SJWs and SQWs to stop whining. Just that SQWs whine much louder, and much more viciously.
Also, KCD and BF5 aren't 1:1 examples. The whine in KCD was a lack of black people in a setting designed to invoke a period of time where black people were rare in Europe. KCD sold itself as being historically accurate, and was a singpleplayer game.
The whine in BF5 is less convincing when put in the context of "historical accuracy" because SQWs have entirely focused on only one element of history (lack of women serving in frontline positions), while giving every other historical gaff/alteration a free pass. Also, unlike KCD, you can just choose NOT to play as a girl. The multiplayer of BF5 is morphic in terms of who and what appears. The singleplayer if KCD isn't.
Define "worked." Battlefront sold well, but was panned for its lack of singleplayer, especially since the previous Battlefronts DID have singleplayer.Ninjamedic said:
Not sure about Siege, but Overwatch was blasted for being "SJW" from the outset. It was blasted for "Tracergate," blasted for Tracer being gay, blasted for Blizzard giving context to the Thunderbird set, blasted for Zarya's overall appearance, blasted for "catering to minorities" given its roster. The "SJWwatch" meme actually predated the "Onlywatch." That Overwatch wasn't sunk by the outrage against it can be attributed to a number of things (Blizzard has better standing than EA, Blizzard tends to cross-cultivate its IPs, game is pretty fun by most accounts), etc., but it doesn't change the fact that it's been accused of being "SJW" since day 1.
It's a fair point, but what's baffling (to me) is that the female option (again, OPTION) is the historical liberty being singled out. It's like deja vu with Battlefield 1, where everyone was up at arms about the Harlem Hellfighter on the cover, while I was wondering "wait, where's the French and Russians?" Difference is I didn't get up in arms about it, because the simple reason for having the US as a base faction is that a sizable chunk, if not outright majority who play Battlefield are American. It makes more sense to pander to them than Frenchies or Ruskies (similarly, France is also relegated to war stories and potentially DLC in BF5, despite the game focusing on the 1940/41 period). Same reason why Medal of Honour always had you playing as an American OSS soldier (bar Manon in one game), even in operations that the OSS never partook in (Stalingrad and Berlin for instance).Paragon Fury said:
If "hisorical accuracy" was really the issue people had with BF5 (and 1), that argument would be applied equally, not at an optional cosmetic in multiplayer.
It's not being singled out at all, it's just by far the loudest voice, on both sides. There are plenty of us, just like there were back with BF1, who are all for women being there, who are just fed up with the faux "immersion" they keep pedalling officially while making an utter Sucker Punch level circus of a game. Not launching BF1 with the French was just as bad as the abundance of automatico spam, and the fact BF5 is now taking customisation to the extreme just to attract the Fortnite crowd is no less pathetic than their idea that the right way to portray women in a conflict they were a very real part of is to... slap war paint and prosthetics on them and send them all gung ho out into a battle with an army that wasn't even there, using tanks that never saw combat, and getting hit by vengeance weapons from nearly half a decade into the future.Hawki said:
Dude I loved the Modern Warfare campaigns, even 3. I think MW3 was the last COD campaign I thought was great, every SP after that have ranged from meh to straight up awful. It's obvious that they're incapable of making a good singleplayer game since it's been 7 years since the last good one, at this point I don't care if the game has a SP or not, at least they're replacing it with a game mode that I greatly enjoy so I can't complain.erttheking said:
As long as people like Call of Duty then I don't see the problem, they're obviously doing something right when their games are among the most selling every year.hanselthecaretaker said:
Oh boy it's the ''Blame Fortnite for everything'' segment! Because yeah, Fortnite was the first game with ''extreme customization'' and therefor every game with customization options must have copied it.Squilookle said:
Come on.
Who's blaming Fortnite itself? Fortnite is a fantastic game.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
Get off your high horse, buddy.
Not everything is connected to Fortnite, to me it sounds like you're blaming Fortnites existence for BFV's customization options.Squilookle said:
I'm not on any high horse, friend, I'm just sick of people seeing connections between Fortnite and ''bad decision'' for a game when there's none.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. BF5 not only has a battle royale mode, but the push to have the "extreme!" cosmetics (not just talking about girls, I'm talking about everything does make it seem like it's trying to ride Fortnite's coattails.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
It worked? As Hawki said, Battlefront (2015) was panned for its lack of single player. In fact, it was such an oft repeated criticism that EA made a huge deal about Battlefront 2 (2017) having a single player campaign. Considering that, Battlefronts lack of single player should be seen as an ultimately failed attempt at EA to downsize content.Ninjamedic said:
For comparison, BFV retains its single player campaign and introduces a battle royale mode.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:
The omission of single player in CoD is not about the total playtime of the campaign though, because CoDs campaigns have been some of the finest spectacles around for years. Not only do they tend to include a bunch of high profile actors (Gary Oldman, Kevin Spacey, Kit Harrington etc.), they also contain some of the best set pieces in FPS gaming. All of it baked into a very sleek package of high production values. Considering that estimates generally put the CoD campaign as taking up most of the development budget, this is a huge cut in content and value for the gamer, because it is being replaced with a cheap to develop battle royale mode. I can get my battle royale in lots of places today, I can't get the spectacle of a CoD campaign anywhere else.
Actually, I think it was more a case of rushing the game to meet the release of The Force Awakens.Gethsemani said:
Don't know if that was ever confirmed, but it's the impression I got.
Poor Kit Harrington - he was wasted in Infinite Warfare (or so I've heard, but from what I've seen, that seems to be the case).
Then again, if Jon Snow utters "death is no disgrace" half a dozen times to the forces of Westeros in the battle against the White Walkers, then I suppose that's a win?
It could well be that too. My point was that EA backtracked on the decision to omit single player from the Battlefront/Battlefield series, and that players were vocal about their discontent with the decision to omit it in the first place.Hawki said: