Battlefield V reveal- your thoughts?

[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.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

A woman fighting in World War 2, what kind of bullshit is...

http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lyudmila-Pavlichenko-2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Anna_Yegorova.jpg/220px-Anna_Yegorova.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/1c/f0/9d1cf0014f035d7ac8c4ae40259277c2.jpg

http://www.voxfeminae.net/media/k2/items/cache/e4324d2ca70a2a04e4b81994ebc57808_XL.jpg

http://tuscantraveler.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Unknown.jpeg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/04/BookWorld/Images/THEUNWOMANLYFACEOFWARCover.jpg?t=20170517

But otherwise, yea, World War 2, yawn.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Look I can imagine a couple of unlikely but not impossible explanations for Lady Clawhand's presence such as a deep cover agent (who's cover is very much blown), or a British partisan in occupied territory for example.

What confounds me more is the utter loony toons nature of this trailer. Like I'd understand objections to Madam Wolverine Arm if this trailer had the exact same gritty tone as Battlefield 1 for instance. But it doesn't; considering what was going on I would not have been surprised if one of those Messerschmidts turned out to be a goddamn Decepticon and the Churchill tanks were Autobots. This is some historical pulp fiction. Like I will be shocked if we don't kill Hitler in a quickdraw duel.

I'm in fact certain this would be a non-event were it not for it bearing the Battlefield name, because for better or worse that name has certain expectations - and this sucker doesn't conform to ANY of them.

 

[Chewster]

I really should have known better than to comment in this thread.

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.

Lol bruh, I know this ain't a "modern" shooter. What about my post indicated otherwise? I literally included a link to a comic that was commenting on the revisionist nature of media depictions of history the further away we get from it.

Regardless, what difference does the setting make? Did you watch the video? If it plays like every other bonkers modern shooter game, then the setting is nothing more than window dressing. The idea that having women in this game makes the "lore" (lol) less realistic is pretty ridiculous once you realize that Battlefield never really attempted to ever be realistic in any meaningful way.

And yes, I am sure that it's the lore that all these nerds are angry about [https://twitter.com/9_volt88/status/999654166573305857] and not the fact that EA and Dice are "pushing an agenda" for all them dreaded left-wing EssJayDubs.

Protip: none of these angry wieners gives a shit about the fucking Battlefield lore, my man. They're upset that there is the option to play as women. That's it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

I played BF1 almost exclusively with friends and every match was like that, it just sort of came naturally when you spawned as a squad. From last ditch parachutes from burning planes to torpedo boat attacks on the enemies rear most point that ended in insane gas grenade spam or Operations where we would drive an A7V straight onto the objective while firing from every side. The battlefield-series has naturally produced those whacky hijinx when five guys throw anti-tank grenades on the same tank, blowing it up but having the explosion topple the house the sniper was in, collapsing it straight onto a sneaky enemy squad that was flanking the sniper. IF BFV actually rolls with it in MP I'll be a happy camper, because to me the gameplay in BF1 was in a sweet spot somewhere between "utter chaos" (aka Red Orchestra 2) and "mundanely predictable" (ie. CS:GO).

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

It all looked a bit incoherent and I'm not sure what its really about. Some sort of alt-history diesel-punk version of WW2? Either way, its not something that interests me.

 

[anthony87]

A woman fighting in World War 2, what kind of bullshit is...

http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lyudmila-Pavlichenko-2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Anna_Yegorova.jpg/220px-Anna_Yegorova.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/1c/f0/9d1cf0014f035d7ac8c4ae40259277c2.jpg

http://www.voxfeminae.net/media/k2/items/cache/e4324d2ca70a2a04e4b81994ebc57808_XL.jpg

http://tuscantraveler.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Unknown.jpeg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/04/BookWorld/Images/THEUNWOMANLYFACEOFWARCover.jpg?t=20170517

But otherwise, yea, World War 2, yawn.

Yeah and check out all those prosthetic hook arms they've go-

Oh. Oh wait...

I am hoping that they announce that the setting is some sort of alternate history type thing though. Might make it different enough so that it's not just another WW2 shooter.

EDIT: Oooooooooooooh! Maybe the hook arm could be a grappling hook like they had in Dying Light. Fucking loved that thing.

 

[Squilookle]

This and BO4 are what happen when you?re forced to put out yearly iterations of games from IP?s that are driven into an archetype of flashy but shallow game design and narrow ideas, because that?s what somehow still sells.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Always delighted for an opportunity to observe the babyman gamer crowd frantically shitting themselves inside out in a display of impotent internet rage because they saw a female character in a video game.

I was initially bored silly by the idea of another WWII game. But exaggerated comic book version of WWII I can get behind.

Yes, I had to listen to someone rant standing in front of me about her prosthetic being unrealistic until I showed them this one from the 1800's.

If he can have one in the 1800's she can have one many years later.

 

[anthony87]

Always delighted for an opportunity to observe the babyman gamer crowd frantically shitting themselves inside out in a display of impotent internet rage because they saw a female character in a video game.

I was initially bored silly by the idea of another WWII game. But exaggerated comic book version of WWII I can get behind.

Yes, I had to listen to someone rant standing in front of me about her prosthetic being unrealistic until I showed them this one from the 1800's.

If he can have one in the 1800's she can have one many years later.

Can't really picture that guy in a warzone swinging a cricket bat around though can you?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Always delighted for an opportunity to observe the babyman gamer crowd frantically shitting themselves inside out in a display of impotent internet rage because they saw a female character in a video game.

I was initially bored silly by the idea of another WWII game. But exaggerated comic book version of WWII I can get behind.

Yes, I had to listen to someone rant standing in front of me about her prosthetic being unrealistic until I showed them this one from the 1800's.

If he can have one in the 1800's she can have one many years later.

Can't really picture that guy in a warzone swinging a cricket bat around though can you?

He has two prosthetics, she only has one. Though He apparently received his injuries in a war zone. It may surprise you what he is able to do with those.

 

[anthony87]

Always delighted for an opportunity to observe the babyman gamer crowd frantically shitting themselves inside out in a display of impotent internet rage because they saw a female character in a video game.

I was initially bored silly by the idea of another WWII game. But exaggerated comic book version of WWII I can get behind.

Yes, I had to listen to someone rant standing in front of me about her prosthetic being unrealistic until I showed them this one from the 1800's.

If he can have one in the 1800's she can have one many years later.

Can't really picture that guy in a warzone swinging a cricket bat around though can you?

He has two prosthetics, she only has one. Though He apparently received his injuries in a war zone. It may surprise you what he is able to do with those.

You're missing the point. I'm sure he can (could?) do loads, I doubt fighting in a war was one of those things.

As for the woman in the trailer on having one missing arm instead of two, see my previous sentence.

Of course I'm probably talking out of my ass but I'll have you know I've watched Saving Private Ryan dozens of times so I'm practically an expert historian.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Always delighted for an opportunity to observe the babyman gamer crowd frantically shitting themselves inside out in a display of impotent internet rage because they saw a female character in a video game.

I was initially bored silly by the idea of another WWII game. But exaggerated comic book version of WWII I can get behind.

Yes, I had to listen to someone rant standing in front of me about her prosthetic being unrealistic until I showed them this one from the 1800's.

If he can have one in the 1800's she can have one many years later.

Can't really picture that guy in a warzone swinging a cricket bat around though can you?

He has two prosthetics, she only has one. Though He apparently received his injuries in a war zone. It may surprise you what he is able to do with those.

You're missing the point. I'm sure he can (could?) do loads, I doubt fighting in a war was one of those things.

As for the woman in the trailer on having one missing arm instead of two, see my previous sentence.

Of course I'm probably talking out of my ass but I'll have you know I've watched Saving Private Ryan dozens of times so I'm practically an expert historian.

I am sure if he had to fight he would. He was a soldier, and though yes, he would have a much rougher time than others, he still would likely fight in the war if he had to. That is the thing about actual war though. You are often not given a choice. You fight or you die is often the case. He designed his own arms after losing his, I am sure he would create something that would work.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

After checking out some videos talking about the actual gameplay mechanics I'm very excited for this game. For the first in over a decade they are actually adding more depth to the game rather than less. Fixed recoil patterns in place of spread or visual recoil, limited health regen, limited ammo, no more reviving entire squads in seconds, dragging players to safety, towing other vehicles/stationary guns, building trenches/tank traps/mg nest, bullet penetration, etc.

I used to care to some degree about "historical accuracy" or "authenticity" in Battlefield or whatever the people losing their shit pretend to care about, now I care less and less by the second. In the space of a day the weeping manchildren have gotten me to the point where I am completely over the Band of Brothers/Saving Private Ryan aesthetic and I am 100% for seeing something new if DICE can point me in the right direction.

I've been disappointed with BF community for a while now but holy shit I am done with a lot of it now. I can only hope that these people will actually put their money where their mouth is and sit this one out so the rest of us can enjoy the game in peace.

 

[EternallyBored]

It all looked a bit incoherent and I'm not sure what its really about. Some sort of alt-history diesel-punk version of WW2? Either way, its not something that interests me.

I have heard the diesel punk thing a few times, where the heck are people getting that impression from? There is nothing steam or diesel punk in the trailer, the tanks and planes are probably the most historically accurate things shown. The prosthetic is not some diesel powered limb it?s just the standard wood and metal hook that was used at the time. When I think diesel punk I think gas/diesel powered mechs and prosthetics with crazy exhaust pipes.

If we needed to describe the trailer i would say it fits much more into a pulp fiction setting visually, or I guess penny dreadful if we want to use the early 1900?s term. Basically larger than life heroes that dress and act like they are in a corny action movie rather than being in a uniform military service. The visuals do make the trailer harder to link to WW2 as without the planes and tanks you could easily insert the human characters into any number of high action military settings across the 20th century.

Either way, I will agree the trailer is kind of a visual mess that jumped around way too much

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

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.

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.

The best sharpshooters aren't nearly as good as a gamer with a controller in their hands, let alone a KB/M. I could headshot players on the move across the map in MGO in about a second flat along with many other players. That's not possible in real life outside of a super lucky shot.

Publishers don't care if their game sells on marketing and hype, the fact that it sold is all they care about. There are a good amount of alternatives to COD/BF from the CSGOs to the R6 Sieges to the Overwatches along with the big explosion of PUBG and Fortnite. I didn't even find BF the best "battlefield" shooter last-gen, I thought Warhawk was much better.

Making a war game all about suffering isn't going to sell nearly as much as Michael Bay: The Game. Yeah, you don't need the top-notch writing to accomplish that, but DICE or Treyarch or even good Infinity Ward weren't ever make a FPS like that.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

That was just a plain bad trailer.

Jesus Christ its a sad day when Battlefield of all franchises has to rely on bullshot to sell their game. How disappointing.

I do not appreciate this game's aesthetic at all. Having women in the game is a different discussion (seriously tho, if you're gonna have female soldiers, why couldn't they have kept it to at least the Russian or French factions?), but the way she looks... She is so fucking distinct, so if you're planning to have her as a class player model, its gonna look weird as hell. It already looks weird in the trailer. There's a reason why in Battlefield 4 almost all the classes have their faces covered. I'm not a big fan of the super run down and sleeveless look either.

But I think people are focusing on the trailer a bit too much and glossing over the gameplay details that have been released. That's EA's fault for sure, what a terrible first impression. I'm too lazy to list them all down, so if ya'll want just search up the numerous videos on what we know so far about BFV. No more regenerating health, a more in depth revive system, gunplay that at the very least isn't like BF1s (thank God), new vehicle play mechanics, etc. It sounds like DICE is putting in the effort to change up the gameplay, and for the better.

OH, and if this game is Europe-centric AGAIN, DICE and EA can suck my balls, I've been playing BF4 for a few years now and I'm fine with playing it another few.

 

[Squilookle]

Here is the list of changes, for those wondering:

Publishers don't care if their game sells on marketing and hype, the fact that it sold is all they care about. There are a good amount of alternatives to COD/BF from the CSGOs to the R6 Sieges to the Overwatches along with the big explosion of PUBG and Fortnite. I didn't even find BF the best "battlefield" shooter last-gen, I thought Warhawk was much better.

While all but one of those are missing the vehicle variety that really sells Battlefield, if Warhawk ever came to PC I'd be all over it in a flash.