Also known as Indie Mode.Some gamers using this
Still looks better than Minecraft or Ark on Switch to me.
Battlefield V
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Firestorm Gameplay Trailer
March 21, 2019
March 21, 2019
Every few months I play the title very intensively for a while. Right now it's the case again. I'm surprised they always say Battlefield V is so bad. For me it's one of the best titles in the series along with Battlefield 2 and 3. Probably they are just saturated.
The next Battlefield is scheduled for 2021. Hopefully it will take place in the Vietnam scenario. A game about the Korean War would be something new but maybe the tech would be too similar compared to World War 2.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's because they lost a lot of players that used to be in it for the relatively accurate historical settings.
A bunch of people I watch on Twitch streamed the game for the first time since launch because of the Pacific expansion.
I heard a lot of...
"Well, the gameplay is better in the Pacific map than at launch, but WTF is it with all the women in the Japanese army? This makes absolutely no sense, especially during WW2."
And then they promptly stopped playing the game after that day because it was too weird for them. These are people that had put in hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours into Battlefield games.
Some of them stopped with the ridiculous stuff that DICE put into BF1. More stopped when BFV went even more into fantasy land.
And this is coming from people that almost ALWAYS play female characters in multiplayer games when the option is there for it.
On a side note, what is it with guys liking to play female characters? I wonder if there's as many female players that like to play male characters?
Basically up until BF1, DICE was making inroads into COD territory in terms of sales. But ever since BF1 it's been a downward trend.
Regards,
SB
A bunch of people I watch on Twitch streamed the game for the first time since launch because of the Pacific expansion.
I heard a lot of...
"Well, the gameplay is better in the Pacific map than at launch, but WTF is it with all the women in the Japanese army? This makes absolutely no sense, especially during WW2."
And then they promptly stopped playing the game after that day because it was too weird for them. These are people that had put in hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours into Battlefield games.
Some of them stopped with the ridiculous stuff that DICE put into BF1. More stopped when BFV went even more into fantasy land.
And this is coming from people that almost ALWAYS play female characters in multiplayer games when the option is there for it.
On a side note, what is it with guys liking to play female characters?
I wonder if there's as many female players that like to play male characters?Basically up until BF1, DICE was making inroads into COD territory in terms of sales. But ever since BF1 it's been a downward trend.
Regards,
SB
Battlefield V has the best weapon and movement mechanics in the series, but not the best maps or weapons. I think it's a good foundation for a better game. I haven't tried the pacific stuff yet, so the maps and weapons may be a lot better.
I'd actually prefer a future game be based on a fictitious war. As I've gotten older I feel really uncomfortable with games based on real wars where thousands or millions of people were killed, especially modern ones like ww2, korea and vietnam where some of the combatants, victims are still alive. Jack Frags did a vid about the Pacific maps and said Iwo Jima "lets you live out the beach assault landing fantasy," which struck me as a really fucked up thing to think and say.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I also forgot to mention that many of the people that used to play Battlefield games for their relatively accurate military settings (historical and modern) have moved onto multiplayer battlefield games that focus on accuracy of setting.
Especially Squad (modern warfare on a battlefield) and Post Scriptum (WW2 warfare on a battlefield). Both are excellent recreations of the setting. The audio especially in those games is exquisite. Both games are basically filled with people that used to play the Battlefield games for their relatively accurate settings.
Most people I know that are still interested in the Battlefield games are hoping for a futuristic one again because none of them think DICE can do a modern or historical Battlefield game anymore and still be remotely accurate WRT setting. At least with a futuristic setting they can get as wild as they want with what they put in.
Regards,
SB
Especially Squad (modern warfare on a battlefield) and Post Scriptum (WW2 warfare on a battlefield). Both are excellent recreations of the setting. The audio especially in those games is exquisite. Both games are basically filled with people that used to play the Battlefield games for their relatively accurate settings.
Most people I know that are still interested in the Battlefield games are hoping for a futuristic one again because none of them think DICE can do a modern or historical Battlefield game anymore and still be remotely accurate WRT setting. At least with a futuristic setting they can get as wild as they want with what they put in.
Regards,
SB
It's because they lost a lot of players that used to be in it for the relatively accurate historical settings.
A bunch of people I watch on Twitch streamed the game for the first time since launch because of the Pacific expansion.
I heard a lot of...
"Well, the gameplay is better in the Pacific map than at launch, but WTF is it with all the women in the Japanese army? This makes absolutely no sense, especially during WW2."
And then they promptly stopped playing the game after that day because it was too weird for them. These are people that had put in hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours into Battlefield games.
Some of them stopped with the ridiculous stuff that DICE put into BF1. More stopped when BFV went even more into fantasy land.
And this is coming from people that almost ALWAYS play female characters in multiplayer games when the option is there for it.
On a side note, what is it with guys liking to play female characters?
Basically up until BF1, DICE was making inroads into COD territory in terms of sales. But ever since BF1 it's been a downward trend.
Regards,
SB
The announcement trailer annoyed many players. But also some people from Dice who made unfavorable comments.
I take the women in the role of the sniper if I find the faces of the men too bad. I also don't understand why they bring in women as characters for Japan, US, Germany and GB. There were hardly any women fighting on the battlefield. The Soviet Union would be an exception. Normally women were decisive in the production of armaments etc. in their home country. I prefer it more realistic but in the end it's an entertainment product.
It all depends where you draw the line and I can understand that it can scare some people of. There are also good and bad ways to do this type of scenario. Unfortunately, some even go so far by comparing Pokemon with real animal fights.
Battlefield 1, for example, drew a lot of attention to the rather unknown Great War subject. Suddenly, millions of people knew a rare weapon and how to reload it.
Last edited:
Rarely any people, male or female, respawned as well.
Here you can see what people thought about that.
They even say that they want an immersive experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/8mhkld/bfv_it_appears_eadice_are_the_ones_who_are/dzntoso/
What will the next step be? Will the Japanese faction get American tanks? In Battlefront 2 it also annoys me when Kylo Ren is fighting next to Count Dooku and Darth Maul.
They even say that they want an immersive experience.
https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-5-design-director-says-female-playable-characters-will-put-him-on-right-side-of-history/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/8mhkld/bfv_it_appears_eadice_are_the_ones_who_are/dzntoso/
What will the next step be? Will the Japanese faction get American tanks? In Battlefront 2 it also annoys me when Kylo Ren is fighting next to Count Dooku and Darth Maul.
Last edited:
The largely unknown first world war ... what? Lol, I'm sure younger people may not be too informed about it, which is a pretty big indictment of the school systems, at least in the countries that participated. Not sure learning how to reload old guns is the end goal of historical education though. One of my worries with games, in the absence of proper education is that kids will not really understand how horrific this stuff was, and view it more as a time of action and adventure.I still love Raiders of the Lost Ark, and fully understand the period as a setting for entertainment. I'm just more uneasy about its place in entertainment now. I'd rather see a new BF game, totally fictitious, without any historical baggage.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Obviously as that is completely gameplay related.
Versus something that is almost entirely setting related.
The Battlefield games pre-BF1 and not including BF 2142 (future setting) focused heavily on accuracy of setting while including non-realistic gameplay (although keeping some things like bullet trajectories). Something like Post Scriptum keeps the accuracy of setting while also improving on the realism of the games.
Hell, History buffs used to go into the Battlefield games just to see the vehicles and listen to how they sound and compare them to the actual vehicles used.
What makes things even more odd. They tried to improve the setting and make the game more immersive by including characters crying out in pain while calling for help. But that oddly makes the game even less immersive when you hear all these female combatants screaming out in pain while trying to get someone to revive them.
So, yeah. DICE shouldn't be surprised that they lost a LOT of players due to focusing more on forcing women into historical WW2 settings (among other things) than into the game itself. Especially when up until BF1, historical accuracy of SETTING was #1 on their list of priorities for the games in the series.
BF1 lost a lot of players already just by going too far into adding fantasy elements into the setting. BFV just lost them even more players by trying to force an modern issue into a place where it doesn't belong.
And it's not because these people hate women as the media and forum warriors would love you to believe. After all some of the most vocal people complaining about it are people that prefer playing women in games.
If this was a Battlefield game set in modern day or in the future (distant or close) absolutely no-one would bat an eye at customizable female characters.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
What do you even mean by this? I just recalled some of my many games of bf 1942 and laughed at the idea of accurate setting.
I really miss the mix of realism and obvious gameplay mechanic in BFBC series.
Especially regarding to map design (and explorable area), building destruction, and freedom of using in game physics.
Last BF I bough was BF4 and since bf3, it was a huge let down. smaller explorable area, less physics interaction, less destruction... the game feels less of a sandbox and more of a theme park...
BFBC3 PLZ
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Accurate vehicle models and sounds. For tanks they even had relatively accurate cannon shot trajectories. Accurate uniforms and decals. Attention to detail for maps in trying to recreate scenarios from the war even if the maps themselves were fictional. They even had some rudimentary bullet physics (extremely rare in games of the time). BF1942 was their first effort and it shows, many of the set pieces could be rough but you could see their intention. IIRC, they even tried to faithfully recreate squad roles and weapon loadouts for those roles.
Eventually they went semi-fantasy by releasing Secret Weapons of WWII. But even then it featured weapons and vehicles that existed in WWII, even though they saw either limited use or were R&D only and saw no use in the war. So it wasn't quite the middle finger towards history that BF1 was (with the mechanized suit and its ridiculous gun).
BF2: Modern Combat is where they really came into their own with the attention to detail in recreating accurate settings within which their games were set. Due to this, it attracted many people who weren't into gaming much less FPS shooters but were huge military buffs. Some of my ex-military friends got into gaming because of this one game.
What they didn't have was completely realistic gameplay. Combat being a bit more deadly than contemporary FPS games was a nod towards realism. Dive bombing a plane into a vehicle and parachuting out at the last minute was an obvious nod towards gameplay.
Regards,
SB
Older BF titles had realism of setting.
I still play this game weekly. I have to say that it has come a really long way, but EA has made some horrific decisions surrounding this game and I hope those get rectified with the next one. The pacific maps are fantastic and I hope there's more on the way. Another 6-8 maps over the next year would really help.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Odd that you say that as the older Battlefield games often have more realistic settings (art assets, for example - more accurate vehicle models and vehicle sounds) with similar accuracy in setting compared to military simulators of the time. This isn't coming from me, but from when I used to occasionally frequent forums that were into historical reproduction. In other words, I'm not projecting but basically recalling things that were said there from people that actually used the weapons and vehicles in those games.
Where they differ, again, is in the gameplay. Where simulators not only attempt to accurately model regions in the world, they also attempt to simulate combat as realistically as possible. Realistic combat is something that the Battlefield games have never done even though they do have some nods towards realism.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
