- Nov 6, 2008
Not when:Zykon TheLich said:I'm not a fan of Captain Katana, but...Kreett said:oh and the guy with a Katana, how did a brit get a bloody katana?
Not sure how likely it is they'd transfer someone from the Pacific to European theatre, but definitely plausible.
a) Every single one of those battles happened long after Narvik/Rotterdam
b) Burma and Timor aside, pretty much all Allied soldiers in those battles were either captured or killed.
c) Armies are not in the habit of letting soldiers take war trophies with them into combat.
d) And they certainly wouldn't let regular soldiers bring such miscellaneous weapons when transferring them to another front.
I'm not saying DICE did poor research here while trying to get it right. I'm saying they simply didn't give a crap altogether.
Agreed- 'trying less and less' is not the answer. It sure as shit wasn't the answer with Battlefront, and neither would it be for Battlefield.erttheking said:Well I can't make you care if the game has a SP or not, but I and quite a few other people don't think the best approach to making a game is trying less and less with iconic parts of a series before eventually dropping it for shallow trend chasing. Also I'm fairly certain they could make a good SP campaign. It would just require them to, you know, try.
Why would you? All preorders do is tell you how many stupid idiots are willing to pay for something they haven't even seen released yet. For years Battlefield faffed about with fictional wars that didn't mean anything. The solid marketing for BF1 promised a return not only to the historical wars of Battlefield's past, but to a real war virtually untouched in gaming. It wasn't until it released that people saw first hand what an utter shitshow it was, and by then the preorders had all been cashed in.erttheking said:And I didn't hear any news about BF1 having a massive drop in pre-orders the way V did. Which makes me concerned that the mainstay of Battlefield fans are going "Historical inaccuracy is ok except when it's with women, in which case it's the most important thing in the world." We're certainly seeing some of that in this thread.Squilookle said:Oh people gave a crap alright- we hounded BF1 from its first day until its last about the stupid prevalence of auto and semi auto guns dominating the "WW1 era" game. There was a common line of 'if they wanted to make a WW2 shooter so badly they should've just made it a WW2 shooter' In the end DICE tried to silence the crowd when they realised they could jerry-rig a mode from existing weapons quite easily. Hence the Standard Issue Rifles mode. But make no mistake, people were pissed about all the prototypes and weren't afraid to let it be known.erttheking said:the last battlefield had automatic weaponry everywhere and no one gave a crap.
BFV doesn't have the same luxury. People have played BF1 enough to see how DICE is now treating historical wars, and how it's treating Battlefield gameplay in general. Fast and loose with a big middle finger to anything approaching the actual 'immersive' war experience that they won't shut up about. The trailer comes out and lo and behold, it's the same old crap, dialled up to 11. They're still treating it as 'immersive' and pretending it's some deep experience that will open our eyes to what the war was like.
Fuck off. It's just COD with vehicles at this point.
I won't pretend there aren't a whole bunch of utter deadshits out there getting all uppity about women being in the game. They're certainly the most vocal of the game's detractors. But I don't think they have as big an impact on sales as they like to believe. Remember, women were in the trailers for BF1 as well. The reveal, the multiplayer AND the singleplayer trailers. Didn't seem to hurt pre-order sales all that much for that game though, did it?