Battlefield V reveal- your thoughts?

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I don't know if Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142 were considered cluttered though...

I don't count the old ones. Hell, I don't even count Bad Company. Those games were great. But the series has been crap since BF3.

 

[Squilookle]

As someone who's been wanting another WW2 Battlefield since 2003, watching the heartbreaking trend as Battlefield strays further and further from the potential it first displayed by going modern time and time again, I can happily say to those disappointed by a return to WW2 to kindly shut your traps. You've had your turn for the last decade and a half. Now it's our time again.

Personally, I much prefer this zany comic book take on WW2 to another gritty shooter that still has no resemblance to actual war.

I can't speak for BF3 and beyond, but the earlier titles, most notably Battlefield 1942, already had a good balance between arcade and realism that was quite comic book-like. This was even pointed out in reviews. Right in the headline, no less.

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/battlefield-1942-review/1900-2880344/

And yet, while it wasn't as gritty as say, MOH: Allied Assault or the original Call of Duty, it didn't enrage everyone for being so flippant either, because it had enough attention to accuracy to hold water. It's BF:V's complete disregard of depicting the era as it would have actually appeared that is what, I'd imagine, is getting everyone's knickers in a twist.

WW2 is boring, not because it's been done to death, because most WW2 shooters are lesser games in the stepping stones to the modern fps.

Aaand you lost me there. Any setting, whether real or fictional, has the potential to make for a great gaming experience. But historical conflict has an advantage in that since it really happened, every action made on an individual right up to strategic level is believable because... you know... it actually happened. Battlefield is a combined arms series that pits footsoldiers against each other alongside a vast array of land, sea and air units. Of all the wars in history, only the World Wars provided such a prolonged period of cutting edge technology constantly tested in the field against those of a competing nation. Everything was competitive. Evolving. Balanced. If you're going to have historical vehicles why not go grand scale? What's a war that used giant battleships actually fighting each other for the last time? One that had the biggest aerial dogfight in history? The biggest tank battle? Largest naval battle ever? What's a war that was fought by a whole range of nations, all over the world? Jungle, snowy tundra, desert, ocean, forest, beaches, mountains, tunnels, villages, cities, coastlines, sewers... the whole lot. One that had pitched battles, surprise victories by smaller forces, all kinds of ambushes, prison escapes, commando raids, espionage, survival, and hit-and run guerilla campaigns. Best of all, let's pick a war back when all weapons still had to be aimed manually. No heat seeking missiles, no sonar-guided torpedoes. Just raw skill in placing that ordnance on target.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- there will never be a better setting for a Battlefield game than the Second World War.

I just hope they don't make an utter mess of it like they did with WW1.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The "realism is boring" meme has become very irritating, with arguments to the extreme like saying "respawning is unrealistic!" Yet fps games have been gradually become more and more realistic to the point where nobody wants to play Quake style arena shooters anymore.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this part. It is true that most FPS games today have embraced the mechanics that were invented in the early 00's (CoDs iron sights, Halos regenerating health etc.), but this has a lot to do with the fact that these mechanics are necessary for a shooter to play well on a console. Console shooters are, by necessity of their less precise control inputs, slower affairs then PC shooters.

However if you look at the dominant shooter games right now, you still have CS:GO which is a round based arena shooter for all intents and purposes, you have Rainbow Six: Siege which is at the other end with plenty of realism mechanics. Then you have PUBG which also goes to great lengths to be realistic, with gun specific bullet speeds, bullet drops etc.. But PUBGs main competitor in the BR-genre is Fortnite: Battle Royale, the game where a valid tactic to being shot at is to throw up a wall between you and the shooter and people regularly make huge staircases to get the drop on people.

I'd argue that the arcade-style shooter is still alive and well, it just hasn't been very present in the yearly release schedule of the AAA-studios. Probably for the simple reason that CS:GO has had that particular genre nailed down for the last decade and it is a form of gameplay that doesn't lend itself very well to the AAA-development schtick, which is bombastic campaigns and shock-and-awe multiplayer with huge explosions, big vehicles and tons and tons of people playing together.

Considering how somber and serious both BF1 and CoD:WW2 were, I'm happy that DICE has the guts to strike out towards a lighter more comics-inspired tone for BFV, if only because it meshes better with how most multiplayer rounds in Battlefield games tend to play out ("And then a plane crashed into the tank and it blew up but the other team attacked and there was flamethrowers and an artillery strike and I had to pull out my knife and knifed three guys before a jeep ran me over before hitting a mine and blowing up, killing everyone alive on the other team. It was A.W.E.S.O.M.E")

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Ok sooo my first viewing thoughts through that, if anyone cares.

Some British soldiers? I think , storm a house in what felt like 2 to 3 seconds. They're dressed fucking weird though...Their modes of speech sound relatively modern...that para...is this set in Ireland in the 70's?! I fucking hope not...

Building almost immediately run over by a load of what look like Churchill tanks at a speed that would make modern tanks proud. Ok, so is this some Weird War 2 shit? Like what if the war dragged on till the 1950's or later? or had weird sci fi shit in it? Maybe I was wrong about them being Churchills...

Nope, that's a Messerchmitt crashing into a gun emplacement...is this guy helping me? Huh...he's now been hit with a manga sized club wielded by a woman with a prosthetic limb, who is apparently on my side, in fact I think it was the woman from the start...was that following the same bunch of soldiers all the way through? I really have no idea what just happened.

Maybe the game will be great, but fucking hell, that trailer was not. Maybe they were taking the advertising principle of piquing peoples interest but leaving them confused about what the hell it was actually about enough to get them to look into it more.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Looks like your average mp game of Battlefield tbf, except prettier and, uhm, single player. Here's hoping the woman gets some sort of grenade launcher upgrade for her arm; If Snake (Big boss? Wasn't that invested at the time to commit) can get a remote-controle missile attachment for their replacement extremities, then surely this would be hardly much of a push.

 

[KuroMadoshi]

Here's a breakdown of the trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fzUDX5CZaU

 

[Hawki]

I will say this, I'll give the game credit for giving spotlight to Norway (where is where the heroine features in as a resistance fighter). This is a front of WWII that I don't think I've ever seen explored except for 'The King's Choice'.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Oh EA, of course you had to go and do an EA...with 3 separate release dates depending on how much money you like to give them; https://stevivor.com/news/battlefield-5-three-separate-release-dates/

In brief: 11th October for EA/Origin access subscribers, 16th Oct for the deluxe edition, while the 19th Oct for the 'normal' edition.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Eh? All these hype action FPSs look the same to me. Not that other genres dont have samey games, but Battlefield and Call of Duty games are interchangeable as far as I can tell

 

[Erttheking]

Looks like just another FPS with too much shift going on. I seriously had no idea what the crap was going on for most of it.

Though I expect people to ignore that just to complain about womenz being in the game. Even though Battlefield hasn?t really given a crap about historical accuracy for some time now.

 

[Chewster]

Manbabies shitting their diapers over how "unrealistic" a front line woman is in a game series is where you can revive someone with a defibrilator after they fall out of an airplane or fix a tank by hitting it anywhere with a wrench an bunch of times is quite possibly the best part of this. When the hell are gamers gonna actually grow the hell up?

Doubt I'll buy it though because all modern war shooters look the same to me. Just a frenetic mess. Last one I actually liked was maybe Modern Warfare. This also looks like we are halfway to being in this Perry Bible Fellowship strip. [http://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-showing/]

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Dramatic Gasp Women?! In MY Battlefield!?!?!?! Well, I'd never!

I might have been interested in this game, trailer be damned. WW2 is a setting I like and I don't particularly mind Battlefield games. I wont get this, though, because...

Oh EA, of course you had to go and do an EA...with 3 separate release dates depending on how much money you like to give them; https://stevivor.com/news/battlefield-5-three-separate-release-dates/

In brief: 11th October for EA/Origin access subscribers, 16th Oct for the deluxe edition, while the 19th Oct for the 'normal' edition.

Fuck EA. Let the boycott continue!

 

[Foxcubwendigo]

Looks terrible. Absolutely worst potrayal to ww2 game i have evwe seen. Seem like they are apealing to feminist while not historically acurate.

OP: Looks fun. But then I don't care about historical accuracy.

 

[Hades]

Manbabies shitting their diapers over how "unrealistic" a front line woman is in a game series is where you can revive someone with a defibrilator after they fall out of an airplane or fix a tank by hitting it anywhere with a wrench an bunch of times is quite possibly the best part of this. When the hell are gamers gonna actually grow the hell up?

Doubt I'll buy it though because all modern war shooters look the same to me. Just a frenetic mess. Last one I actually liked was maybe Modern Warfare. This also looks like we are halfway to being in this Perry Bible Fellowship strip. [http://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-showing/]

To be fair gameplay mechanics are another matter than lore and the willing suspension of disbelief can be taxed to much if things get to wacky.

Though I actually don't mind. Unlike most of those ''manbabies'' I'm more concerned about it from the point of historical accuracy rather then those eeeeeevil woman intruding on ma games. But that's also exactly why I'm willing to give it a pass this time. WWII has been done so much that its an incredibly stale conflict to portray. Going out of your ways to be wacky and non historical may be exactly what the setting needs. I also don't think anyone really believed EA was interested in creating a historical accurate game. They aren't trying and so I don't see the need to judge them for failing.

 

[Saelune]

Oh look, they are copying Call of Duty.

Ya know, what if like, we just had a variety of settings for shooters? We do not have to do one setting all at once until people are sick of it.

So far I've seen people think the game copies Call of Duty, Fortnite and Gears of War, either this game must be the weirdest combination of games or people have no idea what they're talking about hmmmmm....

Why? is Gears or Fortnite doing WW2 also?

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Oh look, they are copying Call of Duty.

Ya know, what if like, we just had a variety of settings for shooters? We do not have to do one setting all at once until people are sick of it.

So far I've seen people think the game copies Call of Duty, Fortnite and Gears of War, either this game must be the weirdest combination of games or people have no idea what they're talking about hmmmmm....

Why? is Gears or Fortnite doing WW2 also?

I don't see how it's copying Call of Duty just because it's WW2. CODWW2 was revealed in April 2017, I doubt they started developing BFV after that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Haha, it seems some people are acting like DICE would ever make a masterpiece of a single player campaign that would have some sorta meaningful storyline and themes if it wasn't for those meddling SJWs, Scooby-Dooby-Doo!!!

But yeah, ANY kind of twist on WWII is needed at this point especially in these BF/COD Michael-Bay-esque blockbusters.

That was me wasn't it?

I came in this thread wanting no panzerfausts in panzershreks until 1943, unlike BF1942. Then I could run over the Wehrmacht with a tank, some carryover feelings from the fake balance in RO2. Instead what I got was like I said, BF1 on crack.

The "realism is boring" meme has become very irritating, with arguments to the extreme like saying "respawning is unrealistic!" Yet fps games have been gradually become more and more realistic to the point where nobody wants to play Quake style arena shooters anymore.

These game journos have it all wrong, you don't build a better game by making a AAA modern military shooter into a WW2 game, or WW1 like the regression that was BF1. You don't want to make a game so devoid from reality, you could change the models to exoskeleton fighters and it would feel the same.

WW2 is boring, not because it's been done to death, but because most WW2 shooters are lesser games on the stepping stones to the modern fps. All this cosmetic nonsense, katanas, cybernetic augmentations, and experimental weapons is just compensating for a game that has to have the niceties of the modern fps we have grown accustomed to. Otherwise it's a vapid stripped down version of Battlefield 4. Furthermore, this type of gameplay has gotten tiresome, and options are just a reprieve from inevitable boredom.

High stakes and difficult shooting mechanics have exploded. Otherwise CS:GO, PUBG, and Fortnite wouldn't have taken over the PC shooter market. People don't want ARMA, but they certainly don't want Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor: the Video Game as much as they don't want that atrocity that was Battlefront 2.

People have already mastered CoD's cone of fire, so much that apparently this new Battlefield is going to have spray patterns instead. It's clear the formula is being left in the dust, adding comic book nonsense isn't the solution. Now that they are adding buildable fortifications, buildable field guns, more movement and leaning options, less regenerating health, more serious squad wipes, draggable bodies, basically they are imitating things from RO2, R6:S, Squad, and whatnot, but more casual and fun. I'm expecting that sort of evolution, something that was hinted at since BC2, I'm not expecting battle line simulations. That's stuff the trailer didn't show, and I am embarrassed about my rant earlier.

And my rant about shitty stories? Who else but DICE and Treyarch are in that market and have the funds to actually make such a single player campaign like that? I certainly hope they don't listen to games journalists and actually make a pathetic attempt, but whatever.

I have nothing against realism. Sometimes being more realistic makes for better mechanics and balance but sometimes it doesn't. Stuff like recoil is great, but realistic bullet damage on the other hand is kinda stupid when you can aim in a shooter so much faster than the best gunman in the world (on a controller let alone KB/M) making TTKs far lower than what is realistic. The reason I don't play the CODs and BFs is because I don't find the gameplay good, I want at least a slide or lean mechanic in every FPS. I think COD at one point added sliding but you couldn't shoot while sliding. I remember trying, I think BF4 beta, and there was a half-assed lean mechanic that only worked with your face up against a wall. Medal of Honor Warfighter was easily the best MMS multiplayer of last-gen because it had both leaning and sliding while also having pretty good balance and the right TTK; the campaign was complete shit.

Do people really not want Michael Bay: The Shooter or Battlefront 2? Because they both sell millions and millions of copies. I agree that I don't want them either and I don't buy them but again, they sure as hell sell copies even with the PR nightmare of Battlefront 2.

Everyone raves about Spec Ops The Line, I didn't play it even though I got it for free on PS+ because the gameplay was pretty bad. You really doesn't require a $100 million budget to make a good campaign. 4A Games has put out the Metro games and those stories are supposed to be good, I haven't played them myself, but they do it on a much smaller budget than DICE and Treyarch. A developer can put out a quality looking game for a fraction of the price of the AAA studios. The main problem with writing in games is that very few good writers work in the industry to begin with coupled with the fact that games are developed backwards where the levels are usually designed first and the writer has to string the levels together. Even Naughty Dog with the Uncharted games does this and it's pretty damn obvious in a fluffy and popcorn-y action plot let alone a game trying to tell a deep and meaningful war story.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- there will never be a better setting for a Battlefield game than the Second World War.

I... might have conveyed the wrong message. My apologies. I was saying that WW2 in our mind was a game with simpler mechanics from 10 years ago. When you think WW2 now, you probably think about all those MoH games, or that one time people were complaining that WaW was coming out that year instead of MW2.

One of the most fun and immersive multiplayer experiences was playing the anti-tank role in RO2. This one role was a completely different game. You had a useless pistol, a PTRS that only worked exactly 90 degrees to the side of the enemy tank, and anti tank grenades. Since seeing the front of a tank mean instant death, you would wait for the tank to come to you, and when you heard the sound of the tank engine, it was nerve-wracking. Maybe that doesn't happen, and you start hearing German and realize you are about to die.

The WW2 setting is filled with things like this. There are so many things that deserve their own game, and so many imbalances. Historically speaking the Wehrmacht didn't have the luxury of having a anti-tank rifle that could penetrate a T-34. In fact do you know what their anti-tank grenades were? Amusingly the same thing from BF1, a bunch of grenades tied together.

Of course that will never show up in Battlefield V, a game that may have everyone running around with unlockable assault rifles and prototypes resembling an AK-47. I agree with you, and the game I wanted was remastered Battlefield 1942 + some historical realism mod. You don't even have to care about history, the game is more interesting for the fact that teams are strategically imbalanced. Obviously my Battlefield V was never going to happen, and I came into this thread just to get mad.

I'd argue that the arcade-style shooter is still alive and well, it just hasn't been very present in the yearly release schedule of the AAA-studios.

Okay, I agree. Arcade isn't going anywhere, but simplicity is probably going out really quickly. I think most games have accepted that guns have to be reloaded, and shooting someone who keeps jumping around in a circle for 10 seconds isn't fun anymore. Sure, there is a gigantic amount of complexity juggling 20 weapons, having near aimbot accuracy, and having prediction skills close to a wallhack, but most people can't appreciate that. I think most people are getting into simple to understand but high stakes, the extreme being Battle-Royale, where you if you die you lose. Anything competitive is high stakes in the fact that losing will make your rank go down.

I also think CoD and BF cant keep things up for long if they rest on their "perfected" gameplay. Activision's solution is to add futuristic elements to keep things fresh, and people buy it and complain how bad it is. Same with Battlefield. BF3 couldn't decide whether it wanted to be BF2 or BC2. Most of the gameplay came out as BC2, but the maps were larger and jets were back so everyone would be hyped that the old Battlefield was back. Well that sort of happened, but since everyone plays Metro and Locker it is apparent that either there is an issue with large maps and the current gameplay, or that BC2's pacing of constant action is just simply more interesting than the older battlefield titles.

Considering how somber and serious both BF1 and CoD:WW2 were, I'm happy that DICE has the guts to strike out towards a lighter more comics-inspired tone for BFV, if only because it meshes better with how most multiplayer rounds in Battlefield games tend to play out ("And then a plane crashed into the tank and it blew up but the other team attacked and there was flamethrowers and an artillery strike and I had to pull out my knife and knifed three guys before a jeep ran me over before hitting a mine and blowing up, killing everyone alive on the other team. It was A.W.E.S.O.M.E")

I think Battlefield was 5% of that. Maybe if I played with friends it would be like that 100%. I don't really remember Battlefield being that really, but I am opening up to the idea of a wackier comic book WW2 version, as long as they fix the gameplay.

 

[Squilookle]

most FPS games today have embraced the mechanics that were invented in the early 00's (CoDs iron sights, Halos regenerating health etc.), but this has a lot to do with the fact that these mechanics are necessary for a shooter to play well on a console. Console shooters are, by necessity of their less precise control inputs, slower affairs then PC shooters.

This is going off topic, but I completely disagree with that. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, the Turok and Timesplitters series, and other console FPSes from EA and others at the time proved that console shooters can work perfectly fine without either of those. They even briefly flirted with crosshairs not fixed to the centre of the screen as it is on PC, a really novel feature they really ought to go back and explore more of.

Manbabies shitting their diapers over how "unrealistic" a front line woman is in a game series is where you can revive someone with a defibrilator after they fall out of an airplane or fix a tank by hitting it anywhere with a wrench an bunch of times is quite possibly the best part of this. When the hell are gamers gonna actually grow the hell up?

Doubt I'll buy it though because all modern war shooters look the same to me. Just a frenetic mess. Last one I actually liked was maybe Modern Warfare. This also looks like we are halfway to being in this Perry Bible Fellowship strip. [http://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-showing/]

To be fair gameplay mechanics are another matter than lore and the willing suspension of disbelief can be taxed to much if things get to wacky.

Though I actually don't mind. Unlike most of those ''manbabies'' I'm more concerned about it from the point of historical accuracy rather then those eeeeeevil woman intruding on ma games. But that's also exactly why I'm willing to give it a pass this time. WWII has been done so much that its an incredibly stale conflict to portray. Going out of your ways to be wacky and non historical may be exactly what the setting needs. I also don't think anyone really believed EA was interested in creating a historical accurate game. They aren't trying and so I don't see the need to judge them for failing.

I'm with Hades here- while it is pretty stupid complaining about a game including women in WW2 (a conflict with many, MANY examples of women taking active part in the war including combat), Chewster has sort of completely missed the point there, not only with the distinction between gameplay and lore, but also for somehow failing to realise this.... isn't a modern war shooter. It's pretty obvious it's not modern. I mean... just look at it.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I have nothing against realism. Sometimes being more realistic makes for better mechanics and balance but sometimes it doesn't. Stuff like recoil is great, but realistic bullet damage on the other hand is kinda stupid when you can aim in a shooter so much faster than the best gunman in the world (on a controller let alone KB/M) making TTKs far lower than what is realistic.

I'm pretty sure the fastest gunman, who has thousands of hours of practice, can do crazier things than me with a mouse and keyboard. Realistic shooters tend to increase the distance of engagement and mess up sight alignment when firing, making it difficult to kill people. Then they throw in things like suppression, and lots of breathing and sway to make it more difficult. Sure you can still 360 no-scope people, but at least they put in measures to make it as difficult as possible.

Do people really not want Michael Bay: The Shooter or Battlefront 2? Because they both sell millions and millions of copies. I agree that I don't want them either and I don't buy them but again, they sure as hell sell copies even with the PR nightmare of Battlefront 2.

These games are sell on marketing and hype. People buy it because there aren't other games to play, or it's a game parents buy for their kids for the holidays, or it comes bundled with a special edition console. Then they feel burned or get bored quickly, and the player base dwindles, and repeat every year.

A developer can put out a quality looking game for a fraction of the price of the AAA studios. The main problem with writing in games is that very few good writers work in the industry to begin with coupled with the fact that games are developed backwards where the levels are usually designed first and the writer has to string the levels together. Even Naughty Dog with the Uncharted games does this and it's pretty damn obvious in a fluffy and popcorn-y action plot let alone a game trying to tell a deep and meaningful war story.

I was going to say COD:WW2 shouldn't even bother trying if they don't have the guts, but then I remembered that COD always has that edgy scene in every game recently, COD:WW2 too. I don't know what kind of commentary they are trying to make, if any, but that's laudable, I guess. I don't think just show bad things happening requires much writing skill, but if you wanted to make a commentary about it then maybe. If you think about it, making a game that is all suffering isn't all that difficult, and it's impressive when in reality it barely has any discussion value, other than historical context. It's meaningful, not really because it's deep and thought provoking, but rather emotional and keeps you up at night.