Battlefield V

[Rune]

I've found people far too often use the word immersion incorrectly.

[Paranoid Kami]

13 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

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

Thanks, never knew about that game. Looks promising

[xAcid9]

23 hours ago, moderategamer said:

I think they're getting back to their roots

What roots?

[FMJSniper]

On 9/10/2018 at 5:22 AM, Raskolnikov said:

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

Nah, Germany changed their laws this year allowing them now.

 

I don't mind that they're putting chicks in the game etc. But they then can't label the game historically accurate, as they are trying to do.

 

The whole profanity filter thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Yeah filters aren't new to games, but this is to a whole new level. To top it off, EA is lying to its fans about how it operates. They are saying its automated and based on an algorithm. My ass. Someone programmed that otherwise 'black man' and other variations would be banned alongside 'white man'. But then, if you banned the others, it would be racist. It's fine just for 'white man' though. EA justifies this with a bullshit statement on "for what reason do you need to say white man in the chat?". Really EA?

 

This game has potential.

But there is a downward trend with the Battlefield series. Map sizes are about a quarter of the size they used to be. You also get about a quarter of the weapons and vehicles you used to. Not as many unlocks, nothing to really work towards etc. Just look at battlelog for BF3 and BF4 and compare it to BF1 and BF5. Then there's this whole arcade look and feel to the game. It feels more and more like CoD. DICE are saying they're are trying to back to their roots, but in reality, they're trying to steal some of the CoD fanbase and the only way to do that is to make the game more like CoD. Then there's the things that people didn't like about either Battlefronts. EA/DICE said they've listened to their fans and are addressing their concerns, only to find the exact same features that were complained about in BF5. Go figure, no wonder BF5 pre-orders are only 8% of what BF1's were.

 

I've played the game for 19 hours, and I can see its potential, but I'm already bored. These games should make me wanting to come back for more like BF3 did. I had 600 hours in that thing same with BF4. I have 120 hours in BF1. They've switched to this oversimplistic overview akin to Battlefront, and it is horrible. How does EA/DICE address that? They tell their fan base to fuck off and not buy their game.

 

I used to buy and play Battlefield because of the huuuuuuge maps and open warfare with chaos all around the map. Not any more.

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, FMJSniper said:

I used to buy and play Battlefield because of the huuuuuuge maps

What you mean? BFV map is huuuuuge too. 

Spoiler

huuuuuuuuuuuuuge disappoinment

 

Another BF title to skip for me and maybe the last BF game that i'll gaf. I'll give Post Scriptum a try and looking forward for Hell Let Loose. 

[FMJSniper]

2 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

What you mean? BFV map is huuuuuge too. 

  Hide contents

huuuuuuuuuuuuuge disappoinment

 

Another BF title to skip for me and maybe the last BF game that i'll gaf. I'll give Post Scriptum a try and looking forward for Hell Let Loose. 

No where near as big as they used to be. They only seem big because of all the tight nooks you have to fly around. Someone had an overlay of the BF2, BF3 and BF4 maps and compared them to BF1 and BF5. They are a quarter of the size.

 

From the spawn to the furthest objective in BF5 is 400m. In BF3, that was almost 2km. So numbers wise, not huge.

[andreboy70]

I miss the big maps...

 

But I mean BF V is still a fun game. some people are complaining but keep in mind that this is where a beta is for.

The extended amount of time that dice has now can easily be used to tune the game to how we like it.

I just hope Dice can improve the game massively. I'm still hyped like for every battlefield (Battlefield 1 turned out to be a flop, in my opinion, gunplay was just garbo)

I played BF V alpha's and beta and I can say that they are already going for whatever the community wants. Quite a lot of things have changed.

 

We will see on the 13th of November what they changed.... Can't wait! (who knows they might do a second open beta?)

 

-André

[xAcid9]

59 minutes ago, FMJSniper said:

No where near as big as they used to be. They only seem big because of all the tight nooks you have to fly around. Someone had an overlay of the BF2, BF3 and BF4 maps and compared them to BF1 and BF5. They are a quarter of the size.

 

From the spawn to the furthest objective in BF5 is 400m. In BF3, that was almost 2km. So numbers wise, not huge.

Yup, 1942 is my 1st BF game and map size in that compare to BFV is pathetic. 

 

Imo they want to attract new customer, the younger gen that's why they went for COD-like shooter, samurai sword, prosthetic arm. BF6 probably will feature RGB lighting. 

[moderategamer]

15 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

What roots?

Dice has stated that they've changed the gunplay up so that it's more similar to BF3.

 

https://mp1st.com/news/battlefield-5-gunplay-improvements-detailed-by-dice-cites-bf3-as-inspiration

[AngryBeaver]

The open beta for it ended this morning, but I gave it a try. Running it at 1440p on a 1080ti I was pushing 100+ fps pretty much the whole time.

 

One of my kids was playing it on a 980ti at 1080P and easily pushing 100+ fps

 

A nephew who was also playing on a 780ti was also pushing 85+ fps on 1080p

 

It looks good, it runs good and honestly it is just more of the same BF we have played for over a decade.

[maizenblue]

Ea wanted wonen to be able to play as women, which is all well and good. What i dont understand is if that was a priority, why make a ww2 game. People are already sick of ww2 and bf1 already gave us a historical game with antiquated weapons. So why butcher historyfor no reason. 

 

Just make a modern game and u can see all the women playing soldier if thats your thing. 

[Ok243]

These social issues are complex and have multiple layers to understand before reaching even a decent conclusion on what's right or wrong but you know what doesn't? Not buying from fucking EA. This is a given doesn't matter if their social viewpoint is right or wrong EA doesn't deserve a penny of consumers especially when they incorporate shitty practices into nearly every single fucking game they release in addition to the essay worth of garbage they have pulled and continue to pull.

[JZStudios]

On 9/9/2018 at 6:46 PM, 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.

DICE doesn't really make great games though. They make a game with a great premise that people like enough to play despite it's massive flaws and gaping holes. A very large part of the fanbase very much enjoyed the amount of realism and military tactics that Battlefield had to offer. Even the future title was still fairly grounded in reality.

Hell, all things considered, if they want to toss cyborg, amputee, shaved head, steampunk women on the frontlines, they should've done 2143 and not a single person would've given a shit.

 

Going back to WW1 when literally no one asked for it, then tossing unrealistic characters on the frontlines flying in the face of accuracy or realism betrays the series and the fans that play it for the realism. The beta also seems to be getting pretty chastised and people aren't really liking it much, saying it's starting to converge more with Call of Duty. All because some head honcho couldn't tell his daughter that women were spared from getting slaughtered on the frontlines in WW2. Add on top of that when people get upset quoting the inaccuracies EA and Dice call them misogynistic idiots and invites them not to purchase their game, which they're more than happy to do.

 

Let's also not forget Battlefield 4, which required the use of DICE L.A., formerly Danger Close to fix all of their problems that Stockholm said wasn't fixable.

If another startup company with a big budget tried to make a move on the Battlefield series I wouldn't doubt that they'd come out on top. Currently that potential lies on the shoulders of the World War 3 team, who are liable to get a metric fuckton of cash if their game comes out halfway decent.

 

DICE were incompetent and shot themselves in the foot. If they go down it's their own damn fault. I kind of hope they do since it's the last brick in the wall for EA if you really think about it. I didn't purchase BF1 because the setting didn't interest me at all, and they went way arcade with it, and I won't purchase BFV for the same reason, on top of them calling customers misogynists and telling them not to buy the game. 

[JZStudios]

On 9/9/2018 at 6:52 PM, 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.

When I saw the reveal trailer I legit thought it was an alternate history steampunk game, which I would've been fine with. Only to find out that it's in fact just... some BS form of WW2.

What really disappoints me is that with Danger Close being dissolved into DICE L.A. and the game being set in WW2 the Medal of Honor team could've made some absofuckinglutely incredible campaign missions about real MOH recipients among the allies. Hell I wouldn't even mind seeing the Axis forces represented either, but for some reason playing as a German or Taliban is unacceptable.

On 9/9/2018 at 6:59 PM, 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.

Hardline was made by Visceral, probably forced by EA after they destroyed the Dead Space franshise, and then EA closed their doors.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:43 PM, Paranoid Kami said:

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

Which is another thing, the most logical conclusion to reduce fatigue in genre setting would be to swap between modern and historic combat. If they want to do future then make it a 3 title dev process. Historical, modern, future. A lot of people are already burnt out on WW2 because of BF1 which focused more on weapons that didn't actually exist, and even COD. Now there's BFV for a third WW2 game.

On 9/9/2018 at 9:13 PM, Spotty said:

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)

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

This is really odd to me, but maybe it's because the Swedes are making it. DICE L.A. made the MOH reboots and they flat out call the enemy Taliban. The multiplayer was supposed to bu U.S. and Opfor forces against the Taliban until everyone freaked out about playing as Taliban against Americans in the multiplayer. How did we get to a stage where a WW2 game can't use the word Nazi or show the German flag or propaganda? What's next? They won't even mention Hitler? Are the enemies not Germans?

When MOH released I applauded them for not being too chickenshit to call them Taliban like COD was. Now they won't even show the national flag of the obvious enemy.

 

[Praesi]

Battlefield 5 :

2 sides clash in tiny areas. *pewpewpewpew*.

 

This lightyears away what BF3 was. Battlefront 2 with WW2 skin.