Current Events > I think Battlefield 5 is a good example of "careful what you wish for"

(+) Yeah! (+)

80/80

This time last year I was telling anyone who listened that CoD shouldn't have bothered with WW2 because a WW2 Battlefield would blow it out of the water. Now we're about less than two months away from release and all I can think of is "Ugh, aren't they gonna be fatigued coming from Battlefield 1? I know I would."

At this point I feel kinda bad for hoping it flops and they go back to modern warfare, considering this is basically what I've been wanting for years now and it's covered in unrecognizable battles and maps and coated in hubris.
---

Is that where the fatigue is from?

The trailer had a woman with a bionic arm

Milkman5 posted...

Is that where the fatigue is from?

The trailer had a woman with a bionic arm

The bionic women of the 55th "cyber recon and nanotech squad" or CyReNS were critical to defeating Hitler's forces in the underground battles of neo-Warsaw. How dare you trivialize their contributions.
---

WW1 and 2 are just boring for games
---

See a sci-fi or steampunk ww2 fps would have been interesting

This isn't
---

Highwind07 posted...

The thing is that the games in the series were never really historically accurate as far as I know. They're much better off making it be set in modern times where they can invent almost anything as long as it is relative to our own timeline.

I mean, we'll have to wait and see how EA handles things, but if we have bionic commando women on the front lines and no mention of the holocaust in a WW2 game then we've gone a bit past "historical accuracy" and into "revisionist historical fiction"
---

hyperpowder posted...

WW1 and 2 are just boring for games

Thank you. It's so overdone, especially considering that the historical outcome doesn't change.

"Oh boy, I get to storm Normandy's beach again"

Sure, CoD might have outdone the futuristic thing as well, but at least that is only limited by imagination. And you have a much wider scope. You can do slightly near future. You can do far future. Etc.

You can be inventive with new guns. This past CoD every single SMG felt and looked the exact same.
---

Bring Tribes back. The world is ready, and HiRez didn't so thoroughly kill the franchise that it can't be revived.
---

BlameAnesthesia posted...

hyperpowder posted...

WW1 and 2 are just boring for games

Thank you. It's so overdone, especially considering that the historical outcome doesn't change.

"Oh boy, I get to storm Normandy's beach again"

Sure, CoD might have outdone the futuristic thing as well, but at least that is only limited by imagination. And you have a much wider scope. You can do slightly near future. You can do far future. Etc.

You can be inventive with new guns. This past CoD every single SMG felt and looked the exact same.

That's because call of duty fucking sucks. Even the future games blow. Every gun sounds like an airsoft gun with some wacky neon on it.

You can do a historic game right and bf1 is proof of that. You have the historic locations and battles with the history told to you. You have the real guns used at the time, so you can immerse yourself in the game. But for those wanting some wacky guns that are outliers, they have that too. They looked at extremely rare and even prototype guns and put them in the game for people to use. All of which acted differently.
---

Milkman5 posted...

Is that where the fatigue is from?

The trailer had a woman with a bionic arm

Heh heh

But nah that wasn't my biggest problem like most people, Battlefield 1 had a black man on the cover and machine guns everywhere and it was still great

Highwind07 posted...

I think that they mentioned something about showcasing the "lesser known conflicts" during WWII and avoiding most of the bigger and main ones on purpose.

The problem is that no1curr about the Norwegian Resistance or North Africa, at least not as the initial maps

They'd be cool for campaign but as multiplayer maps it's hard to get excited because DICE and only DICE wanted these in the game

We finally have the technology for 64 player Omaha Beach or Battle of the Bulge and they're intentionally blueballing us on it

Or Operation Market Garden or the Rhine Crossing or even fucking Dunkirk

NOPE

NORWEGIAN SNOW FIGHTS
---

Why include that in the game when they can sell it to you later
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Why include that in the game when they can sell it to you later

Because they already said there's no season pass

Going off of Battlefront 2's airtight road map I doubt we'll be seeing those anytime soon if ever
---

Highwind07 posted...

The thing is that the games in the series were never really historically accurate as far as I know. They're much better off making it be set in modern times where they can invent almost anything as long as the setting is relative to our own timeline. Alternative history often makes people upset when they don't play it by the books like some people want them to.

The frustrating thing is that Battlefield 3/4 have fictional modern conflicts but give you real weapons and gadgets so you always feel grounded in reality

Battlefield 1 had more flexibility because most World War 1 weapons were just rifles and experimental shit

But Battlefield V is probably the safest game for historical accuracy and they're literally getting out beaten by CoD WW2 in that regard
---

I just want anti-tank to be fun again, that's all.

It was so much fun in BF 3 and 4. Good gun that can kill at range, good nice rocket launchers, etc.

Then BF1 comes along, and they give you shitty guns that suck at range, and a shitty rocket launcher that you have to use lying down. It's just not fun tank hunting in the new game.
---

spanky1 posted...

I just want anti-tank to be fun again, that's all.

Best anti-tank weapon in the series is the BF2142 orb cannon thing.
---

I dont get the "historical accuracy" stuff

I've never thought to myself "wow this game is so historically accurate, this really ups my enjoyment so much"
---

hyperpowder posted...

WW1 and 2 are just boring for games

Not true at all.

WW1 and WW2 are great for things.
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

I dont get the "historical accuracy" stuff

I've never thought to myself "wow this game is so historically accurate, this really ups my enjoyment so much"

It's not crucial to my enjoyment either

But in the case of Battlefield 5 it's better to be as sterile as possible because people have waited a long time for an Frostbite 3 take on World War 2 Battlefield, and they're making it so left field when nobody wanted that to begin with

All I want is my 64 player iconic battles. 64 player Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc, Market Garden, Dunkirk, etc. That's literally all they had to say and I'm sure people would've been way more balls to the wall excited than they are now

I have no problem with gender/race inclusion but for fuck's sake did you have to attempt it in a war fought by majority white males, even the all black US divisions would've been more fitting cause at least those weren't made up
---

I'm excites for it and beyond hype. No fatigue here
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

But nah that wasn't my biggest problem like most people, Battlefield 1 had a black man on the cover and machine guns everywhere and it was still great

I guarantee there was at least 1 black man who fought in World War 1.
I guarantee you there was not a single SJW bat-wielding female British combat soldier with a bionic robo-arm that fought in World War 2.

It's funny how some people see that bionic commando lady and think SJW. I don't think that at all. When I see stuff like that, I think Heavy Metal magazine. I think nerdy fantasy stuff, with hot women in crazy outfits. I don't mind it at all. It's fantasy to me.
---

The problem isn't that it's SJW nor did that occur to me when I saw it

Hell even the first console CoD had you playing as a girl and nobody batted an eye

Battlefield 1 had a single woman playable character and she was great

Nah, the problem is that she pretty much encompasses everything wrong with Battlefield 5 right now, from the inaccuracy to the misfocus
---

Battlefield 5 is the first Battlefield I have next to zero interest in (I have played since 1942), and yes I even enjoyed Hardline for a time.
---

Middle hope posted...

BlameAnesthesia posted...

hyperpowder posted...

WW1 and 2 are just boring for games

Thank you. It's so overdone, especially considering that the historical outcome doesn't change.

"Oh boy, I get to storm Normandy's beach again"

Sure, CoD might have outdone the futuristic thing as well, but at least that is only limited by imagination. And you have a much wider scope. You can do slightly near future. You can do far future. Etc.

You can be inventive with new guns. This past CoD every single SMG felt and looked the exact same.

That's because call of duty fucking sucks. Even the future games blow. Every gun sounds like an airsoft gun with some wacky neon on it.

You can do a historic game right and bf1 is proof of that. You have the historic locations and battles with the history told to you. You have the real guns used at the time, so you can immerse yourself in the game. But for those wanting some wacky guns that are outliers, they have that too. They looked at extremely rare and even prototype guns and put them in the game for people to use. All of which acted differently.

I didn't like BF1 either. I just think I don't enjoy that setting.
---

Milkman5 posted...

Is that where the fatigue is from?

The trailer had a woman with a bionic arm

Its not a bionic arm

Its literally just a shitty prosthetic
---

Milkman5 posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

But nah that wasn't my biggest problem like most people, Battlefield 1 had a black man on the cover and machine guns everywhere and it was still great

I guarantee there was at least 1 black man who fought in World War 1.
I guarantee you there was not a single SJW bat-wielding female British combat soldier with a bionic robo-arm that fought in World War 2.

Yeah the Harlem Hellfighters were cool and France has plenty of good examples.

BF1 is just dumb.
---

of course milkman is one of those nerds lmao

Battlefield 1's problems were...

1 - It felt like a total conversion mod of Star Wars: Battlefront - even the interface didn't have a vintage feel to it, and the aircraft had the exact same controls (which feels weird, since in Battlefront you're flying spaceships and in Battlefield 1 you're flying prop jobs). Not to mention that bomber basically played like an AC-130, where the best strategy was to just circle around a spot and let your gunner rain fire down on people below.

2 - Bullet spray was conical, not recoil-based (increases the luck factor in getting kills and reduces the skill factor).

3 - There wasn't much to try to achieve. From a stats perspective it was a drastic step back from what we had in Battlefield 3 and 4. There were no ribbons at launch, and the medal system was (and I think still is) broken. There is only a handful of weapons per class, with the unlocks being lame variations of base weapons. Instead of scopes and muzzles and other attachments you could use for your weapons, Battle chests contain uninspired cosmetic items that you can't even really see. Honestly this is part of a big reason why I stopped playing I think. I just felt like it didn't matter that I was playing because I was just going to unlock an inferior version of a gun I already had. In Battlefield 4 I had goals, I was trying to get certain numbers of kills with each gun and it made me try out different weapons because of that.

4 - The lack of variety in vehicles. Three tanks, three planes, a horse, and some paper thin jeeps. I understand they were constrained by the technology that existed at the time. But that doesn't necessarily make for a good game.

5 - Over-reliance on matchmaking. And in its current state you oftentimes get "matched" into empty servers because the populated servers are over the defined ping limit.

It did a lot of things right - Rush was improved, War Pigeons was interesting and of course if you had the time that ... War Operations or w/e it's called mode wasn't bad.

They did a great job setting up Battlefield 2143 with that Battlefield 4 expansion pack. Then they decided to go back in time, and that's just not exciting for people. People are over the historical battles that have been played to death a thousand million times over.
---

Rush was actually simultaneously upgraded and downgraded in Battlefield 1 tbh

Sure the M-Com stations finally did something but what compelled them to make it 24 players only
---

oh I didn't even notice the player count.

The stations were also useless if nobody on the team actually took the time to spot the enemy >_>
---

WW2 has been done to death. Give us the Vietnam War or something.
---

The only WWII game that could possibly work is a prequel MGS game about The Boss and her cobra unit.
---

The Wheelman1 posted...

WW2 has been done to death. Give us the Vietnam War or something.

Vietnam would be meat grinder maps and while the community loves those I'm not really interested in playing those again
---

It's time for BF 2143. Nothing EA has done since has matched Titan mode.
---

I just find it funny how EA says they're all about telling untold real stories of both world wars and here's a British female commando missing an arm fighting on the front lines.

The female recon for Russia in BF1 and the black French assault were at least based on reality, but what the fuck is this

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The Wheelman1 posted...

WW2 has been done to death. Give us the Vietnam War or something.

Vietnam would be meat grinder maps and while the community loves those I'm not really interested in playing those again

Did you ever play BF V? It was amazing. You could transport boats and tanks with helicopters, you could blast NOWHERE TO RUN TO BABY, NOWHERE TO HIDE! and drop napalm on villages and plant dynamite on the enemy jets and then blow them up when they took off >_>

edit: shit I can't even call it BF: V any more cus people will think I'm talking about 5.
---

OmegaShinkai posted...

but what the fuck is this

a video game

I just want Battlefield 2143.
---

s0nicfan posted...

It's time for BF 2143. Nothing EA has done since has matched Titan mode.

Carrier Assault in Battlefield 4 was pretty close
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It's time for BF 2143. Nothing EA has done since has matched Titan mode.

Carrier Assault in Battlefield 4 was pretty close

Similar concept, too much emphasis on naval combat and the carrier design wasn't as good as that of the Titans imo.
---

Hexenherz posted...

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The Wheelman1 posted...

WW2 has been done to death. Give us the Vietnam War or something.

Vietnam would be meat grinder maps and while the community loves those I'm not really interested in playing those again

Did you ever play BF V? It was amazing. You could transport boats and tanks with helicopters, you could blast NOWHERE TO RUN TO BABY, NOWHERE TO HIDE! and drop napalm on villages and plant dynamite on the enemy jets and then blow them up when they took off >_>

edit: shit I can't even call it BF: V any more cus people will think I'm talking about 5.

I know the V in Battlefield V is supposed to mean Victory/V-Day but MGSV also had the same meaning and that game was fucking trash so why did they decide to try and emulate that trash title

Never played Vietnam but I had hundreds of hours in Battlefield 2, love that game. Bad Company 2 Vietnam was fun too but I wouldn't want a whole game about it.
---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

s0nicfan posted...

It's time for BF 2143. Nothing EA has done since has matched Titan mode.

Carrier Assault in Battlefield 4 was pretty close

The fact that you spawned parachuting above the carrier absolutely ruined it.