Top
990°

Battlefield 5: DICE drops the ball with a disappointing reveal event

App Trigger: "During a 30-minute live stream event today, DICE shared the first bit of details for Battlefield 5... And it was rather disappointing."

Read Full Story >>
apptrigger.com
The story is too old to be commented.
chrisx150d ago

it was truly underwhelming that's for sure.

JaguarEvolved150d ago

I don't understand developers not showing actual gameplay of their games .

Lightning Mr Bubbles149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

LOL, these shooters are just so over. I think they are tying to relive the glory days of the shooting era from last gen. Like when Halo and Call of Duty would sell over 20 million copies. I think Call of Duty: WW2 was suppose to be the comeback when they finally listen to the critics and went back to a classic war setting, I think I heard it sold less than 3 million copies. Now Blacks ops 4 is back with the same shit, same crap trailer with shit rap music, like it was still 2007 . And now Battlefield V, chasing the dead ghost of Call of Duty. I thought it was hilarious when I saw the reveal video today had a bunch of dislikes. That era is long gone, thank goodness. Call of Duty should just be thankful it had the success it did, because it sure didn't deserve it. I don't get what people ever found so appealing of these crappy ass wannabe military simulators. I remember before Modern Warfare, Call of Duty was just a crap ass World War II shooter, the name didn't mean anything, you couldn't tell it apart from another mediocre franchise like Medal of Honor. It's just time to move on from this shit.

Lightning Mr Bubbles149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

Watching these franchises trying to recapture the glory days of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is plain out cringey.

Skull521149d ago

Yeah it was super disappointing, why didn't they show the game in action? You don't need to have a 30 minute reveal to show a trailer. Add to that Trevor Noah is probably the least funny person in existence and his commentary was cringe-worthy and he obviously didn't know what he was talking about for being a "gamer." Hilarious when they mentioned co-op and he immediately said it was his favorite in BF1 only to have the developer say 2 seconds later that they hadn't had coop since BF3.

DiRtY149d ago

@Mr Bubbles

"I think Call of Duty: WW2 was suppose to be the comeback when they finally listen to the critics and went back to a classic war setting, I think I heard it sold less than 3 million copies."

I think you heard that wrong. It sold 20 million on Xbox One and PS4 combined. Just RETAIL. Digital sales not included, but 40 million might be an educated guess. Plus whatever the PC version sells.

149d ago
CorndogBurglar149d ago

Me neither. And it's weird because they have released gameplay. There are gameplay videos available on youtube. They were up just hours after the reveal trailer.

So I don't get why they didn't just put some of that in the trailer. Makes no sense to me.

Elit3Nick149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

From what I understand most of the trailer was accurate to gameplay, minus likely some character animations. But based on jackfrags this is what was accurate:

Bullets punching through walls, this depends on weapon caliber, so LMGs will be able to suppress someone hiding behind weak cover.

The garrote is an actual weapon, Jack mentions it being part of an ultra-specialized Assault archetype (called an exotic) called the stealthy paratrooper, which equips you with the garrote, a silenced SMG and quiet footsteps.

You can now jump through windows, no longer requiring you to shoot or melee them first. The roll when he lands is an actual in-game animation as well.

Tanks are able to drive through buildings. Worried that it makes it too easy to raze all cover? The new fortifications system allows you to build cover over different areas of the map.

Trailer-turrets can be connected to vehicles like tanks and towed while being piloted.

Guns can now be fired at anytime the weapon is facing forwards, so that includes sliding, climbing ladders, etc. Just don't expect to be accurate with it.

Grenades can be thrown back and shot to explode early.

The V1 seen here is a squad leader support option, other ones are smokescreens, pickup items and even a flamethrower tank.

Large explosions will throw you backwards.

The animation of that guy saying "SHHHH" is said to have a chance to happen.

gamer9149d ago

Bubbles.. THREE Million?! Lololol thank you for this, this made my day =)

Snakeeater25149d ago

Well it’s all the same so they don’t bother .. call of duty and battlefield they look and play almost the same year after year.

sampsonon149d ago

actually they did show gameplay.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 149d ago
-Foxtrot150d ago

It felt like some alternative steampunk themed WW2 game or something.

3-4-5150d ago

Which might actually be more fun than the real thing. It think it looks awesome even if it's not completely authentic.

ClanPsi1149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

It's the cheap cop-out development we have come to expect from most multi-platform "historical" games as of late, unfortunately. It's significantly cheaper and easier to just take some random designs from history and make your own clusterf*ck than to spend time researching what actually took place.

UltraNova149d ago

I think the whole alien(steampunk) look/feel is because they had to deviate enough with its looks (e.g. character apparel/equipment/prosthetics) in order to facilitate paid skins (loot boxes). I mean how else would they convince us to buy ordinary, realistic (boring) soldier uniform skins from 70+ years ago?

We have to be cautious with BFV for now, we do not know what's EA's true intention yet.

darthv72149d ago

I think that's what makes it appealing. WW2 has been played out so much that having a slight spin on it is trying to keep it feeling fresh. Some say the whole women fighting is inaccurate however France and Russia had women that fought (and died) on the front lines. More Russia than France but it did happen. Same with Asians and Blacks. It may not be historically accurate but it is factually accurate with who they have fighting in the game.

Well maybe that prosthetic arm is a bit of a stretch because in theater of war you wouldnt want to have someone that is physically compromised returning to battle, no matter if they are willing to. I'm not sure.

SharkyMcStevenson149d ago

it feels like they are going for a Bad Company WWII Vibe, which I can dig-the truck falls on the two guys and it looks like they are trying to make light of it. Honestly the trailer was all over the place and disappointing from past BF trailers, but after hearing all the new mechanics they are implementing and going BACK and watching the trailer again, I understand, and im pumped for this game

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 149d ago
150d ago Replies(4)
notachance150d ago

well.. at least it's been confirmed to not have season pass or lootboxes, and MTs are cosmetics only
looks like they take the hit pretty hard with all those BF2 shenanigans lol

morganfell149d ago

Tell me you don't believe that haven't some better, more insidious method planned. After what they told their stockholders last month, you have to realize they are only switching tactics, not abandoning their goals.

notachance149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

I'm not planning to buy it so.. don't actually care. Pretty burned out with standard shooter genre tbh, there's been no innovation in the last few years or so except some gimmicky bits here and there, last shooter I bought was BF1, a great game but all these CTF and deathmatch mode started to get boring real fast, doesn't matter if you change the mode name a little bit, it's still either capturing or kill count racing.

Based on what they said so far about BFV it looks like they've taken some steps back regarding MTs though, so good luck I guess to all of you shooter fans... definitely don't preorder until you know more though.

Aenea149d ago

Plenty of games that only sell cosmetics and do freakishly well, look at Fortnite Battle Royale.

If they make compelling cosmetics there are always going to be people who want to buy them...

Aceman18149d ago

I thought it was meh myself lol

seanpitt23149d ago

I was happy it was ww2 but what I had in my head regarding ww2 and what I actually saw was so far apart I was shocked like what is this.

joab777149d ago

It’s hard for me to believe that anyone thought that that would go over well with gamers.

starchild149d ago

Eh...I liked the trailer a lot. I didn't watch the panel or whatever, but the trailer was great.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 149d ago
crazychris4124150d ago (Edited 150d ago )

Gameplay details sounded good but the trailer was awful. Now that there is no season pass who wants to bet they are going to try something shady to make up for it.

Majin-vegeta150d ago

It's been confirmed that Micros will only be cosmetics bit there will be no loonies

Sgt_Slaughter150d ago

That means nothing when it comes to EA. They'll find a new way to make money at the expense of gamers.

Tru_Blu149d ago

You'll have to use war bonds to buy stuff like in bf1 I'd imagine. Question is how stingy will they get with them trying to get people to pay for them instead.

UCForce149d ago

It doesn’t mean EA is innocent. They will find a way to screw consumer off.

SCW1982150d ago

Love how they played it off as actual gameplay by putting on the hud overlay, do they think we are fools? I believe that was in engine 100% on a super beefed up PC but that was extremely doctored and the animation of the gun moving and character movement was way to "scripted" for that to be what we actually experience in multiplayer. Wish companies would just be transparent about the product we are getting. I also wish they would be tonally a bit more respectful about this tragic event in World History. There is a difference between authentic and immersive and although Battlefield has had some immersive breaking things you can do in past games they have always tried to stay authentic to the time period for the most part (BF 1 automatic rifles was a big stretch.) This looks like they are throwing authenticity to the wind for sake of "Player Choice" (Payable Skins) hard pass for me, cant support EA.

PapaBop149d ago

EA have been doing this for years, check out the original trailer for Battlefront 2 and compare that to what the game looks like in actual gameplay, almost like completely different games.

SCW1982149d ago

I know they have but the demographic for gaming is older, I am 35 and I just think they would have more respect for us than keeping up this bullshit facade and calling it "gameplay." The HUD overlay is really what makes me roll my eyes.

Aenea149d ago

So "Player Choice" is a bad thing? Who the heck cares if the character you're playing as isn't authentic?
Oh wait! Because it can be a woman too? Is that it? Unbelievable...

MatrixxGT149d ago

I can agree with you on this one. It’s a freaking video game not a documentary on the history channel. I play games for fun, but that’s just me.

BlackOni149d ago

Further more, we've already had games, Battlefield games at that, that focused more on authenticity. Why would we basically need ANOTHER exact remake of WW2? Do something different with it. And I'm pretty sure no one wants jetpack futuristic battlefield right now, we have Star wars to fill that void, once they get their ish together.

SCW1982149d ago Show
FunAndGun149d ago

You guys really need to get over this authentic argument. It's a video game, not a historical reenactment of actual war events. How boring would ANY of these war games be if they were authentic. Fun comes before reality. I don't care for the reveal, but you guys are ridiculous. It's a backdrop for the setting, nothing more. If you want authentic go watch the History channel.

princejb134149d ago

agree 100x. Who plays video games for its authencity. Is a game which means anything goes. This generation has a bunch of cry babies

starchild149d ago

Yep, and then some of these people turn around and play something like a JRPG or God of War and somehow don't see the hypocrisy. I can already predict their response, but it's not logical. Just because a game has a semi-realistic or historical setting doesn't mean it has to live up to some absurd standard of authenticity.

battlegrog149d ago

Ummm reality check, bf and cod success originally came from authentic ww2 ganes. Its bizzare they cant separate modern and old now. What a embarrassment the new cod was for ww2. Who wants ww2 setting with perk guns and modern physics .i didn't sell well compared to there's for a reason

PhoenixUp150d ago

Battlefield’s weird naming schemes continue

-Foxtrot150d ago

Yeah I thought they'd keep "V" for Battlefield Vietnam or something

Could have easily called this Battlefield II...it would have separated it's self enough from Battlefield 2 as the II would have came mostly from WWII name

ClanPsi1149d ago (Edited 149d ago )

Some of the character designs are straight out of Apocalypse Now, so there's definitely some Vietnam in it. The MG also makes no historical sense whatsoever, and looks like a simple re-skin of an M60.

badz149149d ago

That's why EA is partnering MS