Analysts say Battlefield 5 may put EA's financial guidance at risk.

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Zykon TheLich said:
Kreett said:
oh and the guy with a Katana, how did a brit get a bloody katana?
I'm not a fan of Captain Katana, but...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borneo_(1941%E2%80%9342)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Timor

Not sure how likely it is they'd transfer someone from the Pacific to European theatre, but definitely plausible.
Not when:

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.

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.
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:
Squilookle said:
erttheking said:
the last battlefield had automatic weaponry everywhere and no one gave a crap.
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.
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.
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.


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?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Squilookle said:
I agree with you, pre-ordering is kinda dumb. I only do it with games I know for a fact that I'll like, and because I have Amazon Prime, meaning I get a discount and get a physical copy delivered to my house the day of release. Any pre-order that comes with a bonus, I don't touch, and I would be glad to hear that consumers are rebelling against this.

But let's be frank man. People aren't not pre-ordering BFV because they suddenly got fed up with pre-ordering or Battlefield's formula. They saw the historical inaccuracies of BF1 coming from a mile away, and outside of people like you, the only complaining I saw was the on presence of *deep gasp* BLACK PEOPLE! And while there was a woman in the BF1 trailer, it was a woman who was hard to pick out as a woman in the first trailer (I know I didn't) not prominently featured, and only ended up being one character in the single player.

I would like to be proven wrong, but seeing how many people are fucking celebrating this (With the whole "I'm all for women in games except for when I'm not" rhetoric), it's not giving me much hope.
 

Paragon Fury

The Loud Shadow
Jan 23, 2009
5,161
0
0
I feel like part of BFV's problem is the tone that BF1 set.

While BF1 was incredibly action-orientated and movie-like and took a lot of liberties with things like loadouts etc., it also presented and took itself very seriously about the nature of the setting and war. Only ONE of the campaign stories is halfway upbeat, the game never stops reminding you about the horrors soldiers and civilians faced during the war, and it spends the entire time mostly embracing the idea that WW1 was a horrible, bloody, brutal conflict that traumatized everyone involved.

Hell, this is the trailer for one of their DLCs even;


And the first thing we see of BFV and it's WW2 setting? They make the game look like it's a jokey action movie, or a comedy. It's a massive amount of tonal whiplash.

Which would've been great if they were trying to go for the Bad Company vibe....but they gave everyone the impression and still maintain that they're going for a similar tone as BF1...which the game obviously isn't.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
Squilookle said:
Not when:

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.
I'm sure they don't. My point was more regarding the incredulity that the British might have been fighting somewhere where a soldier could get his hands on one, as if the Pacific theatre was just the yanks and japanese.


And just to do the usual...

a) Half the weapons in the game were invented long after Narvik/Rotterdam.
b) So not all of them then...
c) Pretty sure Mad Jack Churchill wasn't supposed to take a Longbow and a Broadsword with him.
d) Because no squaddie has smuggled any illicit item ever.

To be clear, I don't like what they've done with the game, I'd have preferred something a lot more grounded, reading your posts I think what we would have wanted from the game are pretty similar. But I'd say it was certainly plausible, if not likely or thematic.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
I feel like part of BFV's problem is the tone that BF1 set.

While BF1 was incredibly action-orientated and movie-like and took a lot of liberties with things like loadouts etc., it also presented and took itself very seriously about the nature of the setting and war.

And the first thing we see of BFV and it's WW2 setting? They make the game look like it's a jokey action movie, or a comedy. It's a massive amount of tonal whiplash.
I'd say the opposite- the tonal whiplash happened in BF1, after people actually sat down to play the singleplayer. Marketing did a great job making it look like it would be a serious look at the war. Then you start playing and you're just... steamrolling everyone in an Italian Terminator suit or shooting down entire waves of enemy fighters from a bomber or blasting everyone away with guns they never even had with 900rpm fire rates. The cognitive dissonance could not possibly have been higher.

Now they're trying to make lightning strike twice by doing the same thing for BFV. They're still pretending the game will treat the war seriously, when we can already see that the gameplay just pisses over all of that. Again. It's just the same bullshit they pulled with BF1, times two. Fool us once...

Zykon TheLich said:
I'm sure they don't. My point was more regarding the incredulity that the British might have been fighting somewhere where a soldier could get his hands on one, as if the Pacific theatre was just the yanks and japanese.


And just to do the usual...

a) Half the weapons in the game were invented long after Narvik/Rotterdam.
b) So not all of them then...
c) Pretty sure Mad Jack Churchill wasn't supposed to take a Longbow and a Broadsword with him.
d) Because no squaddie has smuggled any illicit item ever.

To be clear, I don't like what they've done with the game, I'd have preferred something a lot more grounded, reading your posts I think what we would have wanted from the game are pretty similar. But I'd say it was certainly plausible, if not likely or thematic.
Was anyone incredulous about the British fighting in Asia though? I've never heard anyone doubting it. Hell the Brits were fighting the Japanese before the U.S. was! Far as I can tell the complaint is how a Japanese officer's sword ends up in use by a British infantryman in Rotterdam before the two countries are even fighting one another. Also for completeness:

a) Yes, which is why it's crap. Though I'll admit a bit of leeway for multiplayer for balancing reasons.
b) No, but Timor involved the Australians and Dutch infantry, not British, and Burma went right up to the end of the war. Due to it's nature, for most who were there the only way to get home was by getting invalidated or outright finishing the war itself.
c) Jack was a Captain with previous war experience at the outbreak of WW2, so he had a bit of clout in what he took. Notice as well that everyone called him 'Mad Jack' for a reason. Carrying weaponry such as his was simply not cricket. Now, if that specifically had been Churchill in the trailer, I'd have more truck with it, but that'd also mean I'd expect useable longbows and bagpipes in the game.
c) Yeah good luck not only smuggling a katana sword back home from wherever you found it, but also through retraining, deployment, and onboard whatever vehicle would directly take you into combat without it being noticed and confiscated. Picking up the enemy's weapons in the field and using them there and then is one thing- taking it to use in a different theatre is something else entirely.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Zykon TheLich said:
d) Because no squaddie has smuggled any illicit item ever.
It doesn't even need to be illicit. The US military allowed soldiers to legally take war trophies home, if they filled in the proper paper work. What constituted a war trophy and how large it could be would get increasingly harshly defined as the war went on, but that is the reason why so many US families have katanas, luger pistols, Hitlerjugend knives etc. in their possession. As a side note the US also allowed servicemen to purchase their own service weapon when they were de-mobilized, so a lot of US soldiers ended up coming home and hunting with the same M1 rifle that they used in the war.

To that we should add that both Germany and Russia were quite into the habit of taking the enemies weapons and using it against them. In the case of Germany, it went so far that by 1944 most units on the Atlantic wall didn't even have German weapons, but were equipped with a mish-mash of equipment from Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and the Soviet Union. The iconic picture of a German soldier on the Eastern Front carrying around a Soviet PPsH sub machine gun or the less iconic picture of Red Army conscripts training for air attacks with a captured MG34 are cases in point here.

In the end, the Katana for me falls under much the same category as the StG 44 in Narvik 1940 (or the British paratrooper with a FG 42 in Rotterdam): Concessions to gameplay and fun. It is not realistic, but it is unrealistic in the same way as a Japanese soldier on Wake Island in 1941 using a StG 44 (BF1942 reference!), because it makes for a better game for some reason. And personally, in a shooter that plays like Battlefield I'll take customization over authenticity any day. If I want the premier WW2 experience in a game, I'll play Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm and be forced to use a Type 99 rifle against Americans that have automatic weapons coming out the wazoo.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Squilookle said:
Paragon Fury said:
I feel like part of BFV's problem is the tone that BF1 set.

While BF1 was incredibly action-orientated and movie-like and took a lot of liberties with things like loadouts etc., it also presented and took itself very seriously about the nature of the setting and war.

And the first thing we see of BFV and it's WW2 setting? They make the game look like it's a jokey action movie, or a comedy. It's a massive amount of tonal whiplash.
I'd say the opposite- the tonal whiplash happened in BF1, after people actually sat down to play the singleplayer. Marketing did a great job making it look like it would be a serious look at the war. Then you start playing and you're just... steamrolling everyone in an Italian Terminator suit or shooting down entire waves of enemy fighters from a bomber or blasting everyone away with guns they never even had with 900rpm fire rates. The cognitive dissonance could not possibly have been higher.

Now they're trying to make lightning strike twice by doing the same thing for BFV. They're still pretending the game will treat the war seriously, when we can already see that the gameplay just pisses over all of that. Again. It's just the same bullshit they pulled with BF1, times two. Fool us once...

Zykon TheLich said:
I'm sure they don't. My point was more regarding the incredulity that the British might have been fighting somewhere where a soldier could get his hands on one, as if the Pacific theatre was just the yanks and japanese.


And just to do the usual...

a) Half the weapons in the game were invented long after Narvik/Rotterdam.
b) So not all of them then...
c) Pretty sure Mad Jack Churchill wasn't supposed to take a Longbow and a Broadsword with him.
d) Because no squaddie has smuggled any illicit item ever.

To be clear, I don't like what they've done with the game, I'd have preferred something a lot more grounded, reading your posts I think what we would have wanted from the game are pretty similar. But I'd say it was certainly plausible, if not likely or thematic.
Was anyone incredulous about the British fighting in Asia though? I've never heard anyone doubting it. Hell the Brits were fighting the Japanese before the U.S. was! Far as I can tell the complaint is how a Japanese officer's sword ends up in use by a British infantryman in Rotterdam before the two countries are even fighting one another. Also for completeness:

a) Yes, which is why it's crap. Though I'll admit a bit of leeway for multiplayer for balancing reasons.
b) No, but Timor involved the Australians and Dutch infantry, not British, and Burma went right up to the end of the war. Due to it's nature, for most who were there the only way to get home was by getting invalidated or outright finishing the war itself.
c) Jack was a Captain with previous war experience at the outbreak of WW2, so he had a bit of clout in what he took. Notice as well that everyone called him 'Mad Jack' for a reason. Carrying weaponry such as his was simply not cricket. Now, if that specifically had been Churchill in the trailer, I'd have more truck with it, but that'd also mean I'd expect useable longbows and bagpipes in the game.
c) Yeah good luck not only smuggling a katana sword back home from wherever you found it, but also through retraining, deployment, and onboard whatever vehicle would directly take you into combat without it being noticed and confiscated. Picking up the enemy's weapons in the field and using them there and then is one thing- taking it to use in a different theatre is something else entirely.
No word of a lie, I'd probably pick up the game if Longbows and Bagpipes were something I could use in-game. I just love the idea of that.
 

ebalosus

New member
Mar 14, 2011
56
0
0
Regarding your original post OP, I don't think the underperformance of BFV will hurt EA, as it's market cap is around $40 billion dollars; but it'll probably hurt the management at Dice quite a bit. At best we can hope that EA finally stops blindly copying CoD and makes Bad Company 3 like everyone wants, or at worst Battlefield will be put on ice for a while.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,231
240
68
They lost mainstream respectability from the Battlefront 2 outrage. No surprise the public is more wary on looking before jumping again on the EA pre-order train.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
8,489
1,530
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISOwjyOQwOc

So, is it just me, or is the whole men vs. women kinda moot since you can barely see any kind of customization with those models, and when you do, it's for less than a second on average?
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Hawki said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISOwjyOQwOc

So, is it just me, or is the whole men vs. women kinda moot since you can barely see any kind of customization with those models, and when you do, it's for less than a second on average?
You would think so, and yet in PUBG you cover yourself up with the biggest and most encapsulating armor and helmets you can find on sight, and you'd think that would also render customisation moot, and yet it remains a roaring trade for some bizarre reason.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Battlefield 5 is being delayed apparently now. Maybe they're trying to get it to come out after CoD after seeing the difference in preordering.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
9,534
4,822
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Dreiko said:
Battlefield 5 is being delayed apparently now. Maybe they're trying to get it to come out after CoD after seeing the difference in preordering.
I imagine sitting next to CoD and RDR2 on the release schedule isn't doing it any favors. November is still plenty of time for people to buy it in time for Crimmis anyway, since that's apparently the reason October and November get so crowded with big budget releases.

Speaking of which, didn't November used to be the AAA release month? When did get pushed to October? That's a good 2-3 months before Christmas(and I'm assuming that's why they tend to drop at the end of the year).
 
Nov 9, 2015
294
52
33
Hawki said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISOwjyOQwOc

So, is it just me, or is the whole men vs. women kinda moot since you can barely see any kind of customization with those models, and when you do, it's for less than a second on average?
This actually looks like the sequel to BF1942 I would daydream about as a kid. It looks pretty good.

Unfortunately I already played this when I played BF3, so that sucks. EA boycott still going strong.