Battlefield V reveal- your thoughts?

[Chewster]

I literally posted a link to that exact comic in my first reply to the OP and was promptly accused of not understanding that this game was set in The Second World War. I ninja'd the fuck out of you. THE FUCK!!

Anywho good shit as always, this place.

[small]Aside: it's a good comic, everyone should read the PBF.[/small]

 

[Ryotknife]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

 

[Squilookle]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

 

[EternallyBored]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

 

[Squilookle]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

All of that is true- I'm just saying BF1 didn't get it to the same extent as BFV, for reasons you've described. Only this time, we know how DICE treats a game based on a war from history instead of their imaginations.

 

[EternallyBored]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

All of that is true- I'm just saying BF1 didn't get it to the same extent as BFV, for reasons you've described. Only this time, we know how DICE treats a game based on a war from history instead of their imaginations.

We?ve always known how DICE treats a war from history, from Battlefield 1942 to 1943, to Vietnam, to Heroes, to Battlefield 1, even Battlefield 3,4 and the Bad Company?s are fake conflicts but based on mostly real setting and modern weapons. Only Battlefield 2142 is based entirely on DICE?s imagination.

DICE has always thrown historical realism to the side in favor of whatever gameplay or story hook they are trying to push, like shoehorning the behemoths in to BF 1 and featuring them in the single player, putting vehicles and weapons that should not have been there in the old 1942, twisting history to get their licensed soundtrack spewing from helicopters for BF: Vietnam, and basically everything they did to Heroes to push micro transactions and cosmetics. DICE has always chosen arcade style gameplay and aesthetic over historical accuracy, BF Heroes showed them how profitable cosmetic micro transactions could be, and BF 1 with its goofy gold and campy weapon skins more than showed they would trash historical authenticity to push cosmetic loot boxes in a numbered BF game. They?ve always done this, and they?ll keep doing, especially with EA Pushing their games as a service model that has been going hard on eliminating DLC season passes and replacing it with micro transactions.

 

[Squilookle]

DICE has always thrown historical realism to the side in favor of whatever gameplay or story hook they are trying to push, like shoehorning the behemoths in to BF 1 and featuring them in the single player, putting vehicles and weapons that should not have been there in the old 1942, twisting history to get their licensed soundtrack spewing from helicopters for BF: Vietnam, and basically everything they did to Heroes to push micro transactions and cosmetics. DICE has always chosen arcade style gameplay and aesthetic over historical accuracy, BF Heroes showed them how profitable cosmetic micro transactions could be, and BF 1 with its goofy gold and campy weapon skins more than showed they would trash historical authenticity to push cosmetic loot boxes in a numbered BF game. They've always done this, and they'll keep doing, especially with EA Pushing their games as a service model that has been going hard on eliminating DLC season passes and replacing it with micro transactions.

Disagree. There were far more limitations when they started than they have now. BF 1942 covered 6 years of war- it makes sense that they couldn't put in all the appropriate weapons and vehicles back then, but even so- they picked the most reasonable that they could, even if the Soviets and Japanese got a bit shafted with other faction's weapons until their own assault class weapons got patched in. Up until the secret weapons expansion pack arrived, all updates to the original game tried to bring it more in line with authenticity (and by that I am not talking about the gameplay- just the equipment). Battlefield Vietnam also made a decent attempt to evoke the era and it's weaponry, within the limited amount it could handle at the time. With Battlefield 4 having over 80(!) weapons, these days that's no longer an excuse for having the wrong weapons/vehicles etc. The fact is that adhering to history is a design decision, and the first two Battlefields held a lot more true to that than subsequent titles. That's why BF1 was such a letdown in that area, and early signs point to BFV mirroring it's lack of interest in the actual battles it's appropriating.

That said, it's still early days, so DICE's vision for BFV's version of WW2 is yet to be fully seen, but BF1's gameplay has people understandably worried.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

<youtube=MfzmCI9-aKY&t=0s>

EDIT: I guess I just don't remember how to link vids anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfzmCI9-aKY&t=0s that's the video.

So... Battle Royale.

Whatever, if the mode isnt good then I'm going to stick with the original modes.

Anyway, the trailer still wasn't as good as it could have been, am I the only who thinks DICE is shooting themselves in the foot by having trailers set in only one location? I thought that was the best part of the Battlefield 1 trailers, we got to see so many different places and things in one go. But it was definitely better than the reveal trailer.

The gameplay they've showcased looks good. I'm liking the added animations for everything that you do, the revives, getting ammo, picking up objectives, etc. The graphics and sound design are on point as usual. The gunplay, well the gunplay I'm going to have to experience that for myself. All I want is the gunplay of BF4, BF1's bullshit random spread deviation killed the game for me. The Stg44 looks good with the iron sights, but the Bren looks way too shakey, which was another thing that turned me off from BF1.

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

I don't think the trailers at this point is gonna affect sales.
They'll keep releasing footage, and people will either get on board or they won't, regardless of first impressions.

What bothered me was the gun sounds. I really miss the sharpness of Bad Company 2 and some BF3 sounds.
The new ones sound pretty dull. No loudness to them.