Battlefield V

[moderategamer]

What does everyone think about all the bad press EA is getting over Battlefield V? EA's stock has dropped significantly (almost 10%) after the delayed release and they are way behind pre-order sales compared to Call of Duty (more than 85%) a franchise that was supposed to be dead, People are complaining that there's a woman in the game, EA told people not to buy the game if they didn't want to. There's rumours that the delay could also be in part due to RTX and benchmarks are suggesting with Raytracing enabled at 4K they are barely pushing 30fps, 60fps at 1440p So much press surrounding the game I'd love to hear what your take on it all is.

 

personally I think people should stop being so salty and just accept that it's going to be great, it looks fantastic judging by beta gameplay and let's be real it's a main title battlefield game it is going to be great. I think they're getting back to their roots and it's going to be a big success way better than the IMO poor Battlefield 1

 

article I read for some info on sales

https://screenrant.com/battlefield-5-delay-ea-stock-drop/

[Fasauceome]

There's no reason to assume the game will be great.

Also, EA deserves to die. I hope Dice can escape in the process, and find a publisher that can give them more creative freedom, but EA's business practices are scummy and I hope this decline never ends.

[PlayStation 2]

See, my problem is the way DICE is handling all of it. If they want to put wheelchair-bound women in the game, fine. Just explain why it's in there in a respectable manner.

What upsets me is the way the devs handled the criticism on Twitter, thinking that satisfying an audience that they won't capture while insulting their fanbase will get them anywhere.

[moderategamer]

Just now, fasauceome said:

There's no reason to assume the game will be great.

Also, EA deserves to die. I hope Dice can escape in the process, and find a publisher that can give them more creative freedom, but EA's business practices are scummy and I hope this decline never ends.

I think there is plenty reason to assume the game will be great, first of all it's Dice they make good games second of all we have the Beta and it's fantastic good gameplay, great visuals no trace of any serious bugs. People are spoiled these days trying to pick everything apart and find a reason to not like it. I'm not about that I have faith in Dice and have very little reason to assume that faith Is misplaced just my opinion though.

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, moderategamer said:

I think there is plenty reason to assume the game will be great, first of all it's Dice they make good games second of all we have the Beta and it's fantastic good gameplay, great visuals no trace of any serious bugs. People are spoiled these days trying to pick everything apart and find a reason to not like it. I'm not about that I have faith in Dice and have very little reason to assume that faith Is misplaced just my opinion though.

Well it's great if you like it, but I'm sure you remember what happened to hardline and battlefront

[moderategamer]

3 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

See, my problem is the way DICE is handling all of it. If they want to put wheelchair-bound women in the game, fine. Just explain why it's in there in a respectable manner.

What upsets me is the way the devs handled the criticism on Twitter, thinking that satisfying an audience that they won't capture while insulting their fanbase will get them anywhere.

Agreed they could be handling themselves better but If I were in the same position I'm not sure I would do it any different. They put so much work in to creating a brilliant game and then everyone just shit's all over it for stupid reasons. Like why does anyone care if there's a woman in the game Dice has always said their games are not meant to be accurate there made to be fun and just use the setting to make games that feel good.

[moderategamer]

Just now, fasauceome said:

Well it's great if you like it, but I'm sure you remember what happened to hardline and battlefront

that's why I made a point of highlighting that it was a main title game not a spin of or different game entirely.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, moderategamer said:

Agreed they could be handling themselves better but If I were in the same position I'm not sure I would do it any different. They put so much work in to creating a brilliant game and then everyone just shit's all over it for stupid reasons. Like why does anyone care if there's a woman in the game Dice has always said their games are not meant to be accurate there made to be fun and just use the setting to make games that feel good.

Well that's the thing, it's not necessarily that there's a woman in the game; it's moreso that it feels like a forced inclusion rather than something thought-out.

I wouldn't insult my customers though, that's for damn sure. That's just adding fuel to a fire that could've been extinguished.

[Arika]

they went full HAM on the SJW pandering that they forgot that the types of people they pandered to would not be the kind of people to buy the game anyway.

[RAM555789]

People were excepting a pretty realistic battlefield, but when you throw a cripple regardless of their gender, who can outrun a tank, and do other insane shit, it really ruins the immersion for some people which what I think a large people of the battlefield community crave. I wouldn't mind if this was featured more like an alternate timeline/universe but I think most of us wanted it to be rather historical. No one had big fuss over BF1 females because they were limited to Russian snipers which is historically accurate. WW2 is one of the most well documented wars in our history and so people are going to do their research and criticize the game if they expect it to be realistic and its not. A lot of people also are just overset feeling like the company is only doing this to be "politically correct" and would rather politics be left out of the game.

[Fasauceome]

Just now, moderategamer said:

that's why I made a point of highlighting that it was a main title game not a spin of or different game entirely.

where does the line get drawn for "main game?" Is hardline not main? why not?

[Clanscorpia]

This is the time to buy EA stocks. If I had real money and not just money in my practice account I would totally buy shares now. Theyre at a 1 year low and will almost surely go back up after the release

[moderategamer]

1 minute ago, RAM555789 said:

People were excepting a pretty realistic battlefield, but when you throw a cripple regardless of their gender, who can outrun a tank, and do other insane shit, it really ruins the immersion for some people which what I think a large people of the battlefield community crave. I wouldn't mind if this was featured more like an alternate timeline/universe but I think most of us wanted it to be rather historical. No one had big fuss over BF1 females because they were limited to Russian snipers which is historically accurate. WW2 is one of the most well documented wars in our history and so people are going to do their research and criticize the game if they expect it to be realistic and its not. A lot of people also are just overset feeling like the company is only doing this to be "politically correct" and would rather politics be left out of the game.

I don't think it was political correctness that made them do it. I'd say it was probably pressure to be like other titles which I can't defend but it's just an unfortunate truth that runs the industry people like shit like that. I mean look at the fact that they're tagging on battle royal because it's the in thing atm I don't believe they truly wanted to add it but felt the pressure that's why they have a totally different company doing it so they don't have to take the blame if it flops.

[moderategamer]

5 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

where does the line get drawn for "main game?" Is hardline not main? why not?

Everyone knows and knew hardline wasn't going to be a main title everyone was calling it DLC before it was even released and I agree it was a small side project while they worked on a bigger title.

[moderategamer]

Agreed I wish I had money and understood the market

[mikedrewsmy]

on a side note, i'm really enjoying the beta.

[Fasauceome]

Just now, moderategamer said:

Everyone knows and knew hardline wasn't going to be a main title everyone was calling it DLC before it was even released and I agree it was a small side project while they worked on a bigger title.

That just seems like an arbitrary excuse to forgive a lack of quality. Anyone can claim an entry in the series they like isn't "main." Hey, the star wars prequels aren't "main" movies, just side projects.

[moderategamer]

2 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

That just seems like an arbitrary excuse to forgive a lack of quality. Anyone can claim an entry in the series they like isn't "main." Hey, the star wars prequels aren't "main" movies, just side projects.

Sure you could say that but we both know Hardline was never intended to be a big battlefield game EA and Dice weren't promoting it like it was a main title game, there were no promises made and broken people got what they expected and had a good bit of fun out of it. 

[runfaster]

The battlefield franchise has always been a speculative military scenario morphed twitch shooter.  The single player story line game appeared to drive the content and set-up in the multiplayer maps.  Many military-esk shooters throughout the years allowed player to select male/female custom load-outs like Joint Ops, Unreal Tournament and Planetside 2 to name a few without any social comment.  In Quake we'd set the colors of the players tunic and pants to reflect the colors of the squad to help keep track of who was on what team. 

 

Recently, media has released Star Trek, Star Wars, Wolfenstein 2 Colossus, and BF V as examples implicating a social commentary to name a few touching off mainstream players and fans. If media presents a viewpoint, they shouldn't be alarmist on the feedback either. The pace of social discussion is slower than the social acceptance.  DICE is Swedish and may insert euro viewpoints and I get that. 

 

Anyhoo, having played the BF V beta and the BF series, the two maps don't seem to be much different than previous titles.  They could have uploaded a DLC for BF3 or 4 and would be nice.  Those games looked good too.  I don't look at so much at the characters or attributes, just what is shooting at me and feeble attempts at return fire.  Little hard to pick out the differences in uniforms at any distance.  The game seems to keeps squads closer together more, or I feel I stay with the squad better than I did in previous games. Haven't really seen anything BF V brings to the table other than a different scenario setting but its still a beta and enjoyable.  Love to see community admin'ed servers back.  

[Paranoid Kami]

I prefer modern combat like Battlefield 4. Don't really care for WW1 or 2.

[Spotty]

I don't particularly care about the women in Battlefield thing. It's stupid, but it's the world we live in these days where we need to ignore history and facts and change everything to suit people who may get offended.

What annoys me is the ridiculous censorship that EA has in battlefield chat. Words such as "Nazi" are banned, which is understandable in most games since it's inappropriate it definitely not needed, however when you're fighting either against or as a German Nazi army force, it's a bit weird. You can say "The Allies are at point A", but you can't type "The Nazis are at point A". Unsurprisingly all "Nazi" references are removed from the game as well, including the Nazi flag (swastika). For a while playing I was actually confused about when the game was meant to be set, since the guns and tanks appeared to be WW2 era but the references and images for the German side appeared to be WW1 (due to the older WW1 era flag used, lack of Swastika or Nazi references)

Spoiler

Guess which one EA chose to represent the German forces in Battlefield V - Set during WW2?

"White man" or "while male" is also censored in chat. But phrases like "black man" and "asian man" are not. 

"Why is 'white man' a bad word?" https://clips.twitch.tv/ObservantIronicCheddarImGlitch

 

Gets even weirder. "Titanfall" is censored, as is "DLC" - but you can type "Free DLC" without it being censored. "Lag" and "laggy" are also banned words. I haven't tried it, but apparently "Defend" is also banned.

EA's response is that the chat filter is not working as they intended it to, and that it's an error/bug that is causing those words to be filtered. Which is bullshit because someone at some point must have made the decision to add words like "Titanfall" to the filter list.

 

Quote

Following the discussion among players about the unwarranted censorship, EA DICE has responded to say that the profanity filter isn’t working exactly as intended. Saying that the tool’s primary purpose is still to reduce toxicity in the online environment, EA community manager Jeff Braddock specifically mentioned the phrase “DLC” as one that shouldn’t be blocked by the filter.

“One of the new features we’re working on is a profanity filter in-game to reduce toxicity,” he said about the open beta. “That being said, we have heard some complaints that the filter is blocking words that aren’t profanity or shouldn’t be blocked, like ‘DLC,’ etc. and isn't blocking some words that should be (obviously, I will not be providing examples of these).”

 

The game is rated for mature audiences. It shouldn't need a chat filter at all. If mature audiences can't handle seeing the words such as "cunt", "fuck", "DLC" or "lag" in a chat that can be disabled/hidden, then they shouldn't be playing a mature rated game.

[Shreyas1]

IMO the game feels like a lazy resin of BF1. 

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

What annoys me is the ridiculous censorship that EA has in battlefield chat. Words such as "Nazi" are banned, which is understandable in most games since it's inappropriate it definitely not needed, however when you're fighting either against or as a German Nazi army force, it's a bit weird. You can say "The Allies are at point A", but you can't type "The Nazis are at point A". Unsurprisingly all "Nazi" references are removed from the game as well, including the Nazi flag (swastika). For a while playing I was actually confused about when the game was meant to be set, since the guns and tanks appeared to be WW2 era but the references and images for the German side appeared to be WW1 (due to the older WW1 era flag used, lack of Swastika 

I think that nazi flags in games aren't allowed in Germany ( I may be wrong ) so they probably didn't want to make 2 icons when they could make one.  Still though, I really don't understand the censorship thing. 

[Andreas Lilja]

2 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

IMO the game feels like a lazy resin of BF1. 

I think that nazi flags in games aren't allowed in Germany ( I may be wrong ) so they probably didn't want to make 2 icons when they could make one.  Still though, I really don't understand the censorship thing. 

It's because of Germany's laws concerning the swastika, which changed very recently. 

[Shreyas1]

41 minutes ago, Paranoid Kami said:

I prefer modern combat like Battlefield 4. Don't really care for WW1 or 2.

I would highly suggest you take a look at World War 3, which is coming to early access soon this year. 

[Andreas Lilja]

2 hours ago, moderategamer said:

I don't think it was political correctness that made them do it. I'd say it was probably pressure to be like other titles which I can't defend but it's just an unfortunate truth that runs the industry people like shit like that. I mean look at the fact that they're tagging on battle royal because it's the in thing atm I don't believe they truly wanted to add it but felt the pressure that's why they have a totally different company doing it so they don't have to take the blame if it flops.

Not political correctness, market forces. Plenty of girl gamers now. 

 

Same reason industry is pandering big to China.