DICE - We will always put fun over authentic (Regarding Battlefield V compliants)

Ac30 · May 24, 2018

Messofanego said:

Oh my GOD

thevid · May 24, 2018

TheVoidDragon said:
Again, another post missing that authenticity and realism/accuracy are two separate things.

Care to explain the difference, and why seeing people do Battlefield things in game does not hurt the games authenticity?

RoninStrife · May 24, 2018

Bookoo said:
Because that's next year.

Also here was a list of all of the changes that Jackfrags highlighted in his video that make this game sound great.

• Launch locations are France, Africa and Rottedam and North Africa desert
• Coop Mode called Combined Arms
• Single player War Stories return
• Fortifications are things like sand bags, trenches, tank stoppers. Only supports can build offensively defense fortifications such as machine guns, field cannons and are much faster at building everything.
• Predetermined areas to build such as at flags, can rebuild destroyed buildings
• Attrition system — health bar is in stages, only regen up to closet stage not to 100 anymore
• Physical interactions — every action in the game requires a player interact for things like medkits, spotting, ammo, ledge grabbing (example: healing requires walking over to a health pack, character animation to pick it up, then start healing)
• No more HUD/map spotting, spotting is based on movement/changes around you
• Attrition system — much less ammo on spawn, out of ammo after a few fights, but more ways to resupply ammo in the battlefield from packs, crates, or grabbing small amounts of ammo off of bodies (all requires physical interactions)
• Revive system has a full on animation, takes a few seconds to complete, no more revive trains, takes time to complete
• Ragdolls are server side, can now drag a downed player's body elsewhere
• Any class can do a squad revive, takes longer than a medic revive, does not give full health points
• Can call for help when down such as in the trailer
• Ragdolls (player bodies) effect the environment, push down grass etc.
• Gunplay completely changed
• No more visual recoil
• Each gun has a unique recoil pattern that can be learned and mastered
• Bipods easier to use and setup
• Bullet penetration through thin wood, sheet metal, walls
• Movement change, can now dive froward, backward, left and right similar to R6 Siege prone system
• Diving has a delay to prevent dolphin diving
• Crouch sprinting is in the game
• Can burst out of widows and commando roll, no destroying windows first
• Can catch, throwback or shoot grenades
• Less grenades because less ammo
• Can tow items in the game with vehicles such as previously stationary anti-air guns, teammate can use an anti-air gun while you tow it with a vehicle
• For example, can drive a tiger tank towing a field cannon behind it or a truck towing ammo crate to resupply teammates on the front line
• Destruction explodes inwards or outwards based on where the destruction happens. Throw a grenade inside of the building? The explosion sends things outside of it. Outside of it? Breaks inwards.
• Tank driving into a building slowly destroys a building, walls slowly crack/ fall, not instant
• Heavily focused on squad play, instant placed in squad when joining a game
• New squad spawning system, squad deploy system that shows what squad mates are doing in third person in real time before the tactical map screen, so spawning on squad is kicker than spawning on tactical map screen
• Since squad spawning/deploying is faster than tactical map, squad wipes are serious
• Squads accumulate points that can be spent on "squad call-ins", only squad leader can spend them in
• Squad Call-ins are V1 or JB2 rockets as seen in the trailer, supply drops with ammo/health, a smoke barrage, heavy weapon pickups (not hero kits), squad only vehicles such as Churchill crocodile flamethrower tank or the Sturm tiger
• Elite classes are gone
• Behemoths are gone
• Large, non-fatal explosions can knock a player over
• Four classes are back: assault, medic, scout, support
• Create a solider, add them to a company of soldiers, then can customize things like gender, face look, face paint, outfit, accessories, etc. and assign them a class archtype
• Class archetypes highly customizable
• Can be an assault that specializes in anti-tank or anti-infantry only, or a mix of both, etc.
• Highly specialized archetypes called exot-ics such as a recon paratrooper, stealthy short-range behind enemy lines person who uses a suppressed SMG and silent gadgets like pistols and garrotes comes with silent footsteps and throwing knives
• Can change and add specialization trees such as agility, flak armor, suppressive resistance
• The more you play a class more you get more specializations/archtypes within said class

Can races be customized / changed?
It states gender, does it include race?
I hope it does.

Rygar 8Bit · May 24, 2018

Messofanego said:

"Get most of their historical information from games"

Goronmon · May 24, 2018

Khanimus said:
The funny (in a depressing way) part about the "authenticity" argument is that it shows just how disturbingly narrow and ill-informed peoples' image of history is, and just how damaging it is that they can look at any prior WW2 Battlefield or Call of Duty game and claim there has ever been a modicum of success at achieving that realism. It's like these games are literally their only education on something like this.

Good post here.

TheVoidDragon said:
That isn't the case with the trailer. It overall lacks a cohesive representation of the setting, that's why it's different - it goes well beyond the typical way the out-of-place things are done, to the point the setting doesn't quite feel like it's taken seriously.

Wow, it's impressive the lengths people will go to to convince themselves that their anger is justified.

Khanimus · May 24, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
For example, even with it's cutscenes and core gameplay. BF1 completely misrepresents what warfare looked like at the time:

Why? Because a 32vs32 MP match where you sit down and wait in trenches for weeks isn't very "fun."

I wish this video was longer. Thanks for sharing that.

Concessions in representing eras will always be done for narrative or mechanical convenience, but at the core, it will always be "Are we making something fun?" Battlefield's particular brand of fun is so diametrically opposed to any form of realism or wartime accuracy, BFV saying "Fuck it" is atleast honest. Hell, I said this before but the moment in the trailer when someone asks for a medic and someone just says "Nope sorry" is like the most true-to-life thing I've seen in a game trailer, because whether or not that's in-engine or whatever, that's an honest pitch for the gameplay experience. And considering the artifice and forced drama we see in so many reveal/cg trailers, that was honestly just so refreshing.

Plidex · May 24, 2018

Rygar 8Bit said:
"Get most of their historical information from games"

lol knowing that fact it's not really surprising that they think that way.

Deleted member 11093 · May 24, 2018

Gonna bet 10 bucks that some of these dumbasses will rent EA's BFV servers and put messages like "NO WOMEN, NO SHOTGUNS, NO PLANES, NO FRAG GRENADES OR BAN" on the loading screen.

TheVoidDragon · May 24, 2018

thevid said:
Care to explain the difference, and why seeing people do Battlefield things in game does not hurt the games authenticity?

It is something i have explained quite a few times now.

The difference between them:

TheVoidDragon said:
This is what a lot of people appear to be missing. The complaints to do with gameplay mechanics not being accurate are a seperate thing, not being realistic is fine - it's still a video game so suspension of disbelief has to apply for that sort of thing. What the Battlefield series has always done is been authentic in terms of tone and atmosphere and in regards to uniforms, sound etc, that's not the case here where despite those things being authentic at an individual level, they aren't authentic to the tone or creating the setting overall. The game can be authentic and genuine in the theme it goes for without being realistic, that's what the other Battlefield games did. It no longer feels like it's grounded within a WW2 setting in terms of atmosphere and cohesiveness when the customization goes to this extent and allows very noticeably out of place options.

Basically those customization options definitely fit the context of WW2 - the prosthetic is one that would have been around at the time, for example - but something simply being authentic to the time period or setting itself doesn't mean it automatically helps to create an authentic feeling tone and atmosphere for that setting. It's the lack of adhering to a specific context when compared to previous games that is the problem.

Why there's a difference between how this game portrays things when compared to other games:

TheVoidDragon said:
There's a big difference. They're on two entirely separate levels.

The Battlefield series has always taken some artistic liberties in the way things have been portrayed. In BF1 the Sentry with the MG08 running around wouldn't have occurred in WW1. The weapon options had a large amount of prototypes. The term Panzer wasn't used during WW1. Aircraft-mounted rocket guns weren't carried around. With the games like BF4 real-life soldiers don't use any weapon they like in a pre-defined Battlefield while aimlessly running around on their own or in small groups driving or piloting whatever they want while fighting over arbitrarily placed flags. Those are all things included in the games that are unrealistic, inaccurate and ahistorical - they simply are not things that fit in with a true portrayal of their chosen setting. The difference is in how they are integrated into whatever setting the game goes for and the extent to which they fit in with a consistent theme.

Despite those issues the games still always showed their settings in a serious manner, outside of gameplay and silly things as the result of player agency. Battlefield One was still a gritty, atmosphere portrayal of a WW1-based setting, Battlefield 4 still had a noticeable underlying basis of being a Modern-day themed setting despite the plot and locations and such being fictional. The way they realized those settings and the effect the inconsistencies with realism or accuracy had on them is at a whole different level with Battlefield V from what we've seen of it so far.

In those previous games, the issues were not as noticeable on a surface level. They were not an aspect of the game that had been specifically implemented with disregard to the theming of the game and maintaining the feeling of a consistent setting. Despite being unrealistic in how they were put into the game, it all still felt like it had a place - the Sentry with MG08 didn't exist in that form, but he still felt like something from WW1, the gasmasks were entirely different fro WW1 era gasmasks but they weren't some obvious out of place design, the Char B1 tank despite not being made or used in WW1 still matched the theme and tone of the setting the game was going for. Regardless of those ahistorical inclusions in the game, it still maintained a consistent feeling of being the setting it was claiming to be, outside of the decisions like regenerating health or reviving palyers which were for the sake of it being a video game. The Battlefield games up until now have always been this way, realizing their settings in a way that come across as a believable abstract of the setting they try to be, they've all felt grounded within that theme in aesthetic and tone.

The games always made an effort to integrate those things which didn't quite fit the theme in a way that made them feel like they fit the theme. Reviving players instant makes no sense in terms of accuracy, but they still used the equipment that would have been available at the time. Repair tools don't magically fix vehicles, but they still looked like their real-world counterpart and made sense with the theme. Ammo or medical boxes don't cause those things to spontaneously appear, but they still matched something you'd expect from the time period. BF3 or BF4 or BC2 had planes and helicopters that didn't behave in the slightest like real versions would, but they still looked, sounded and had equipment that would make sense. The unforms would be similar to those worn at the time. The camouflage or vehicle colours aren't outlandish and brightly coloured. The weapons that are chosen to be in the game are from the time period and have relevance to the setting. The Battlefield series has always made a big attempt to make sure that even when things that don't accuracy fit a setting are included, they are still authentic feeling to that setting. Those things didn't always make sense, but they weren't shoved into the game with disregard for keeping a consistent, cohesive theme. Any historical liberties taken were integrated into the theme in a way that was at the very least an attempt to make them fit and had a justification for not being entirely correct.

That isn't the case with the BFV trailer. Those in-authentic elements are now front-and-centre. They're no longer integrated into the theme in a way that feels like they complement and are something that adds to the overall feeling, it's the oppisite - they now detract from the feeling of having that WW2 theme. By all means give players customization options, but it should still be done in a way that doesn't take away from realizing that setting. Give a Soldier playing on a map set in the Pacific a Katana or one in Normandy a more fitting type of sword, give a pilot character a flight jacket or have characters in Africa shirtless or in tank tops, or let players choose a variety of different camoflage, smocks, pouches etc. By all means do that sort of thing in the game, but do some in a way that still fits the setting and theming and is not out of place in the context given. Don't just give a katana to a British commando in Normandy for some reason. Don't just have a character with a biker jacket show up. Don't just shove these things into somewhere that it knowingly does not fit the theme to the extent that it'll feel extremely out of place even if it is something from the time period. Again, put the effort into making it feel like it fits, rather than having been thrown ontop with disregard for keeping a consistent feel, do it in a meaningful, nuanced way rather than something that's so apparent as being against the settings cohesion.

It's a bigger problem than those inconsistencies in previous games because of how it very clearly is jarring in the context the game is going for and how there has been little or no attempt to adhere to the theme with their inclusion. Rather than the usual approach of taking something that might not quite fit but then making it still feel like it fits with the rest of the games setting, this time it's done in a way that dillutes the overall consistency and claims of being the setting it tries to portray. It's simply down to the amount of these things being done in this way making the theme of the game feel like it isn't there, like it's gone from "This is a WW2-themed game" with a certain level of abstraction to portray the setting at, to just a mix of all sorts of different things from the time without context or even an attempt at fitting them into the overall theme - it's just "This existed? It must fit then!".

As said many times, these things fit the broad context of WW2. The Prosthetic exists, the Katana was used in WW2, there were jackets like that - but the fact that they existed in itself does not mean they have been integrated into the games chosen setting in a way that doesn't detract from it. The historical liberties and inconsistencies regarding the customization system are this time without the gameplay reasons for being like that, without the player agency that results in things like standing ontop of vehicles as they move and without the attempt to at least make it feels like it fits the context they're shown in.

The games have never been realistic, accurate or an entirely perfect portrayal of their chosen setting, but they have shown their setting in a way that at least wanted to try to represent it in a way that looked and felt serious. The tone and atmosphere of them and what was included in them for the most part still matched what it was trying to be.

That isn't the case with the trailer. It overall lacks a cohesive representation of the setting, that's why it's different - it goes well beyond the typical way the out-of-place things are done, to the point the setting doesn't quite feel like it's taken seriously.

The things that happen in the game that are the result of players actions aren't an issue in the say way, as those are the result of players rather than the extent to which developers decided to adhere to the theme of the game and they don't create as much of a disconnect in tone and atmosphere usually, because the things that don't fit the setting if it were a real-life context are usually still implemented in a way that at least tries to make them fit the tone and atmosphere - for example the planes going far slower than they should do in BF3/4 doesn't lessen the feeling of the game still being a modern setting.

Cheat Code · May 24, 2018

Messofanego said:

To be honest this is almost definitely satire. /v/ isn't bigot central on 4chan, /pol/ is.

Although anyone that does get offended about women in World War 2 games is a degenerate. Call of Duty WW2 didn't get anywhere near this much slack did it? Unless it was just because the female soldiers weren't main characters in the trailer.

VariantX · May 24, 2018

This is what happens when people get their history only from Hollywood instead of...actual history. Hollywood is only concerned as far as what they think they can sell and that's mostly been white men. Crying about historical accuracy in a game series that never even attempted to be a war sim boggles the mind.

Stealth X Hawk · May 24, 2018

Khanimus said:
The funny (in a depressing way) part about the "authenticity" argument is that it shows just how disturbingly narrow and ill-informed peoples' image of history is, and just how damaging it is that they can look at any prior WW2 Battlefield or Call of Duty game and claim there has ever been a modicum of success at achieving that realism. It's like these games are literally their only education on something like this.

That's because every single thing in history is documented as a photo or an account by another. Soldiers never once took off their helmets or jackets in battle. Ever. /S

Crossing Eden · May 24, 2018

Khanimus said:
I wish this video was longer. Thanks for sharing that.

Concessions in representing eras will always be done for narrative or mechanical convenience, but at the core, it will always be "Are we making something fun?" Battlefield's particular brand of fun is so diametrically opposed to any form of realism or wartime accuracy, BFV saying "Fuck it" is atleast honest. Hell, I said this before but the moment in the trailer when someone asks for a medic and someone just says "Nope sorry" is like the most true-to-life thing I've seen in a game trailer, because whether or not that's in-engine or whatever, that's an honest pitch for the gameplay experience. And considering the artifice and forced drama we see in so many reveal/cg trailers, that was honestly just so refreshing.

And that's not to say that the SP trailer won't have the usual pretensions. You know they will, but they were quite clearly simulating the MP experience here.

Kenpachii · May 24, 2018

MiraculousSwidge said:
V

Video games were a mistake.

People have opinions that can differ from yours.

This trailer they released looked ridiculous to me. It almost felt like a super hero movie. Having a female at the front of the cover also is pretty much nothing more then a statement to trigger the right and cater towards left and let them go at it. Rather backslash talk then no talk at all. It's EA after all.

Nobody would have complained if they would push females in the game, i am pretty sure BF1 had them in the compaign and it had a metric ton of muslims in it. Nobody really cared because they also where part of the conflict. But to really go out of your way to make it look like a girl power type of arcade game just feels completely anti battlefield. Specially with the over the top arcade type of reveal trailer where everything just felt like a scripted galore vs a real battlefield fight.

Obviously the devs push statements like this in order to push more fuel on the fight to make people talk and trigger people to watch there reveal trailer and promote there game that normally wouldn't play it.

Orochinagis · May 24, 2018

Rygar 8Bit said:
"Get most of their historical information from games"

Well, its kind of true for the younger audience

Crossing Eden · May 24, 2018

Kenpachii said:
This trailer they released looked ridiculous to me. It almost felt like a super hero movie.

This is literally the last Battlefield game:

This is how Battlefield portrayed World War 1, a literal iron man with a suit that can tank aircraft fire.

Kenpachii said:
Nobody would have complained if they would push females in the game

Citation needed considering that people complained about PoC being featured in BF1

Enilced2 · May 24, 2018

TheVoidDragon said:
The Battlefield series has always taken some artistic liberties in the way things have been portrayed. In BF1 the Sentry with the MG08 running around wouldn't have occurred in WW1. The weapon options had a large amount of prototypes. The term Panzer wasn't used during WW1. Aircraft-mounted rocket guns weren't carried around.

Despite being unrealistic in how they were put into the game, it all still felt like it had a place - the Sentry with MG08 didn't exist in that form, but he still felt like something from WW1, the gasmasks were entirely different fro WW1 era gasmasks but they weren't some obvious out of place design, the Char B1 tank despite not being made or used in WW1 still matched the theme and tone of the setting the game was going for.

As said many times, these things fit the broad context of WW2. The Prosthetic exists, the Katana was used in WW2, there were jackets like that - but the fact that they existed in itself does not mean they have been integrated into the games chosen setting in a way that doesn't detract from it. The historical liberties and inconsistencies regarding the customization system are this time without the gameplay reasons for being like that, without the player agency that results in things like standing ontop of vehicles as they move and without the attempt to at least make it feels like it fits the context they're shown in.
.

So your argument that stuff that didn't exist is okay in BF 1 but stuff that did exist doesn't work for BF V because a guy in Normandy wouldn't carry a sword. Greater chance of the dude carrying a sword then the tank that was never made being used.

Goronmon · May 24, 2018

Kenpachii said:
Having a female at the front of the cover also is pretty much nothing more then a statement to trigger the right...

A) The implication that the only reason females are featured in video games is to anger people is just tremendous.

B) The implication that "the right" hates women so much that calling attention to their existence in a video game is a "trigger" for them is also tremendous.

Is tremendous the right word here?

Kenpachii · May 24, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
This is literally the last Battlefield game:

This is how Battlefield portrayed World War 1, a literal iron man with a suit that can tank aircraft fire.

Citation needed considering that people complained about PoC being featured in BF1

I was based this on the earlier battlefields, i didn't play much of BF1 or watched any trailer for that matter. I think they just slowlee start to move more into the arcade type of deal then with over the top combat. Then this game makes a lot more sense. and i can see how people find people complaining about it specially from newer battlefields weird.

I guess its just a generation clash then.

grosbard · May 24, 2018

Goronmon said:
A) The implication that the only reason females are featured in video games is to anger people is just tremendous.

B) The implication that "the right" hates women so much that calling attention to their existence in a video game is a "trigger" for them is also tremendous.

Is tremendous the right word here?

No sarcasm, I really like this post.

Enilced2 said:
So your argument that stuff that didn't exist is okay in BF 1 but stuff that did exist doesn't work for BF V because a guy in Normandy wouldn't carry a sword. Greater chance of the dude carrying a sword then the tank that was never made being used.

I believe his argument is that the stuff that didn't exist in reality was ok to include in BF1 because those items fit the tone and theme of the game.

IfSleepoversCouldTalk · May 24, 2018

Kenpachii said:
Having a female at the front of the cover also is pretty much nothing more then a statement to trigger the right and cater towards left and let them go at it. Rather backslash talk then no talk at all. It's EA after all.

Or it could be because they wanted a female on the cover and had way too much faith in the gaming community to not be fucking morons.

MagnusGman · May 24, 2018

Battlefield Heroes taken before its time.

;-;7

Crossing Eden · May 24, 2018

Kenpachii said:
I was based this on the earlier battlefields, i didn't play much of BF1 or watched any trailer for that matter. I think they just slowlee start to move more into the arcade type of deal then with over the top combat. Then this game makes a lot more sense. and i can see how people find people complaining about it specially from newer battlefields weird.

Older Battlefields were just as arcadey:

This series didn't get popular because of historical accuracy or realistic sim elements. This is how it was described by Gamepot in their 1942 review all the way back in 2002:

Rex Griswold · May 24, 2018

I love historical accuracy complaints. I love it when people argue with me about infantry tactics and the use of small arms in WWI, especially the use of specific small arms that are EVERYWHERE in game, and numbered in the single to double digits in real life. Someone tried to tell me that the Ribeyrolles was a successful automatic carbine, even though it's documented that of like 70 something rounds fired in testing, it had 50 something stoppages. Arguing about guns with internet randos is a guilty pleasure because it's amazing how much people base their knowledge on video games and how little they know about the real deal.

But women and people of African descent on the front lines, that's a travesty. Nevermind the documented existence of both. Or the many resistance cells in many occupied countries that had many women fighting for them. That's all inaccurate.

lovecatt · May 24, 2018

I probably wouldn't have used that language when talking about something that takes place in WWII but i agree with the sentiment.

Rygar 8Bit · May 24, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
Older Battlefields were just as arcadey:

My grandfather was a wing walking sniper during WW2.

i20bot · May 24, 2018

I hope we get laser guns. That would be fun in a WW2 theme.

IfSleepoversCouldTalk · May 24, 2018

l

Crossing Eden said:
Older Battlefields were just as arcadey:

This series didn't get popular because of historical accuracy or realistic sim elements. This is how it was described by Gamepot in their 1942 review all the way back in 2002:

L o L

TheVoidDragon · May 24, 2018

Enilced2 said:
So your argument that stuff that didn't exist is okay in BF 1 but stuff that did exist doesn't work for BF V because a guy in Normandy wouldn't carry a sword. Greater chance of the dude carrying a sword then the tank that was never made being used.

Did you miss the part where i said that despite certain things not being accurate to their real-life portrayal they were still integrated into the setting in a way that feels like it belonged within the abstract the game was showing the setting at? I don't know how you could have missed that considering it's in the same sentence where i said why that tank is fine despite not existing.

The tank and similar things in BF1 is a situation where something that realistically wouldn't be seen in that way is put into the game in a way that makes it feel like it belongs and maintains the overall tone of the games setting. The other is the opposite, putting something into a context where it feels out of place in itself - it existing doesn't mean it suddenly looks normal to have characters running around with biker jackets or katanas in Normandy. The tank example keeps the cohesive setting despite that inconsistency of it not existing at the time, while the customization involves doing something that makes the setting less defined because of out of place things, regardless of them existing.

It existing doesn't make it fit on its own. Those plane-listening headsets i posted earlier wouldn't suddenly look perfectly on one of the soldiers in the game despite being something from the time. Things should be integrated in a way that makes them not feel out of place.

Blade Wolf · May 24, 2018

Plidex said:
lol knowing that fact it's not really surprising that they think that way.

Joke aside I love your Koji-moss avatar.

Crossing Eden · May 24, 2018

TheVoidDragon said:
Did you miss the part where i said that despite that certain things not being accurate they were still integrated into the setting in a way that feels like it belonged within the abstract the game was portraying the setting at?

You'd still be wrong, because the action movie cliches absolutely contradict the "We're so scarred by this devastating war" theme of the narrative, and only ONE of the campaigns has the self awareness to point out the discrepancy.

VariantX · May 24, 2018

Kenpachii said:
I was based this on the earlier battlefields, i didn't play much of BF1 or watched any trailer for that matter. I think they just slowlee start to move more into the arcade type of deal then with over the top combat. Then this game makes a lot more sense. and i can see how people find people complaining about it specially from newer battlefields weird.

I guess its just a generation clash then.

Slowly?? Its been this way for nearly forever. At least since BC1 when they went full on arcade/Hollywood blockbuster.

ThisIsMyDogKyle · May 24, 2018

Messofanego said:

99% sure this is satire, like "Get most of their historical information from games"? come on you would have to be painfully detached from reality to actually think that was a good point to make.

DigitalOp · May 24, 2018

Gamers are fucking pathetic...

Not only are they intolerant as fuck, but their creatively bankrupt mentally...

Now colors, swords, and prosthetic limbs don't belong in games now? fucking morons

Van Bur3n · May 24, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
This part specifically is so patently untrue it hurts btw. If this feels like something from WW1 then please go retake your history courses.

This isn't grounded, or believable, this is completely over the top. And completely at odds with the theming of the game and the costs of war and the things it does to people.For every sad music cue paired with a mournful expression, there are at least twenty elements that contradict the theme. Stop being disingenuous.

The Great War's Master Chief!

Weltall Zero · May 24, 2018

B_Spooky13 said:
I seriously cannot believe people are still arguing about authentication in this game.. Seriously people?

Well, authentication is a very serious issue; it should be handled only by experts in security and cryptography. :)

Crossing Eden · May 24, 2018

Van Bur3n said:
The Great War's Master Chief!

Like literally armor that can tank aircraft fire. "Ah yisss, muh authentic Battlefield experience." lmfao

Messofanego · May 24, 2018

ThisIsMyDogKyle said:
99% sure this is satire, like "Get most of their historical information from games"? come on you would have to be painfully detached from reality to actually think that was a good point to make.

I just read posts from users here that say all their information about WW2 came from movies (SPR, Dunkirk, etc) and games. So there's a grain of truth there, especially for younger peeps.

thevid · May 24, 2018

TheVoidDragon said:
Did you miss the part where i said that despite certain things not being accurate to their real-life portrayal they were still integrated into the setting in a way that feels like it belonged within the abstract the game was showing the setting at? I don't know how you could have missed that considering it's in the same sentence where i said why that tank is fine despite not existing.

One of those is a situation where something that realistically wouldn't be there is put into the game in a way that makes it feel like it belongs and maintains the overall tone of the game. The other is the opposite, putting something that did exist into a setting where it feels out of place in that context.

All I'm getting from your arguments is that you don't like the tone and direction of Battlefield V. Which is fine. I'm wondering why you keep using authenticity as an excuse, because Battlefield games have never been authentic experiences.

Seeing people run around like soldiers unconcerned for their lives is not authentic, no matter what you think. Hell, your own quote from that HBO person said "What you CAN be is authentic, by which I mean you can try to get the details right: gesture, hair, costume, architecture, color, movements, dynamism and interaction, performance."

Are you seriously going to argue that player movements, dynamism, interactions and performance approach anything even remotely authentic to a WW1 battlefield? So of course, you dismiss the player actions because reasons. Even though it's an essential part of an authentic experience.

If you want an authentic experience, try Squad or Hell Let Loose. Games that actually strive to create an authentic battlefield experience, and have the game mechanics to back it up.

Yopis · May 24, 2018

Not really into this but hope people waiting for it have fun. Enjoyed Vietnam games from years back, both tries. Best of luck to them.

Suede · May 24, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
Older Battlefields were just as arcadey:

This series didn't get popular because of historical accuracy or realistic sim elements. This is how it was described by Gamepot in their 1942 review all the way back in 2002:

I really miss this kind of realism in Battlefield.

ArmsofSleep · May 24, 2018

It's really weird seeing this company position themselves as woke for positive press when they could've done this years ago, but seeing people get super mad about it is worth it anyway

Deleted member 887 · May 24, 2018

People really love showing their ass

Buran · May 24, 2018

Mmmm... I think that the last year and half showed how unfun (and irrelevant) both mega-franchises (Battlefield and Call of Duty) have become.

Battlefield never have a weight in the competitive e-sport landscape (their game modes, map a weapon design is crap for competitive team oriented gameplay) and since Bad Company 2 they have such declive in quality gameplay that no wonder Battlefield 1 was desd 3-4 months after the release.

Call Of Duty was always about to try to milk the cow with repetitive iterations year after year, but sometimes they had a decent pruduct (not as good for enjoying a match as a Bad Company one, but at least was wachable on twitch). But they fell asleep in the success while the competence released Overwatch and Battlegrounds and Fortnite, and now they are nothing (specially in PC).

Would any of two (Battlefield V and Black Ops IIII) be able to compete at any range in popularity with Overwatch, Battlegrounds of Fortnite? If in 5-6 months they fail to get something groundbreaking for the release they are dead on arrival, specially Battlefield V which will lack any Battle Royele or e-Sport game mode for that date.

Enilced2 · May 24, 2018

TheVoidDragon said:
Did you miss the part where i said that despite certain things not being accurate to their real-life portrayal they were still integrated into the setting in a way that feels like it belonged within the abstract the game was showing the setting at? I don't know how you could have missed that considering it's in the same sentence where i said why that tank is fine despite not existing.

The tank and similar things in BF1 is a situation where something that realistically wouldn't be seen in that way is put into the game in a way that makes it feel like it belongs and maintains the overall tone of the games setting. The other is the opposite, putting something into a context where it feels out of place in itself - it existing doesn't mean it suddenly looks normal to have characters running around with biker jackets or katanas in Normandy. The tank example keeps the cohesive setting despite that inconsistency of it not existing at the time, while the customization involves doing something that makes the setting less defined because of out of place things, regardless of them existing.

It existing doesn't make it fit on its own. Those plane-listening headsets i posted earlier wouldn't suddenly look perfectly on one of the soldiers in the game despite being something from the time. Things should be integrated in a way that makes them not feel out of place.

Sorry I am failing to see how a man in a full suit of armor shrugging off hits from aircraft isnt considered as out of place as a flight jacket. Given we have under 2 minutes of footage it's hard to accurately guage what the games tone is. But what we are presented with it fit

sca · May 24, 2018

BoukObelisk said:
Isn't the complaint that it's "females in my video games" once again?

that or that there's an amputee fighting in the frontlines

Khanimus · May 24, 2018

i20bot said:
I hope we get laser guns. That would be fun in a WW2 theme.

Captain America got you covered.

Razgriz-Specter · May 24, 2018

Buran said:
Mmmm... I think that the last year and half showed how unfun (and irrelevant) both mega-franchises (Battlefield and Call of Duty) have become.

Battlefield never have a weight in the competitive e-sport landscape (their game modes, map a weapon design is crap for competitive team oriented gameplay) and since Bad Company 2 they have such declive in quality gameplay that no wonder Battlefield 1 was desd 3-4 months after the release.

Call Of Duty was always about to try to milk the cow with repetitive iterations year after year, but sometimes they had a decent pruduct (not as good for enjoying a match as a Bad Company one, but at least was wachable on twitch). But they fell asleep in the success while the competence released Overwatch and Battlegrounds and Fortnite, and now they are nothing (specially in PC).

Would any of two (Battlefield V and Black Ops IIII) be able to compete at any range in popularity with Overwatch, Battlegrounds of Fortnite? If in 5-6 months they fail to get something groundbreaking for the release they are dead on arrival, specially Battlefield V which will lack any Battle Royele or e-Sport game mode for that date.

COD WW2 has sold nearly 20+ million copies
Infinite Warfare sold around 15 million despite being the most hated in the series
Black Ops 3 sold nearly 30 million copies.

Black Ops 4 preorders post reveal already higher and outpacing WW2's from last year which were already a series high.
Neither series is in trouble.

COD preorders going to skyrocket after that E3 BR reveal.

Horp · May 24, 2018

I want a pure war sim like BF1. Showed it to my granddad and he thought it was a body cam from the actual WW1. The hud was different back then, though. All black and white and stuff.

Vipu · May 24, 2018

Next page ->

DICE - We will always put fun over authentic (Regarding Battlefield V compliants)

Puzzle Master

User requested account closure

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer

Game Developer

Puzzle Master

Gotham's Finest