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."
it was truly underwhelming that's for sure.
I don't understand developers not showing actual gameplay of their games .
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.
Watching these franchises trying to recapture the glory days of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is plain out cringey.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Bubbles.. THREE Million?! Lololol thank you for this, this made my day =)
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.
actually they did show gameplay.
It felt like some alternative steampunk themed WW2 game or something.
Which might actually be more fun than the real thing. It think it looks awesome even if it's not completely authentic.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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...
I thought it was meh myself lol
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.
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone thought that that would go over well with gamers.
Eh...I liked the trailer a lot. I didn't watch the panel or whatever, but the trailer was great.
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.
It's been confirmed that Micros will only be cosmetics bit there will be no loonies
That means nothing when it comes to EA. They'll find a new way to make money at the expense of gamers.
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.
It doesn’t mean EA is innocent. They will find a way to screw consumer off.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
agree 100x. Who plays video games for its authencity. Is a game which means anything goes. This generation has a bunch of cry babies
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.
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
Battlefield’s weird naming schemes continue
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
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.
That's why EA is partnering MS
No season pass is a go for me but....whats the catch EA?
Best comment yet. I'm sure BF V will be a good game, but will EA let it be great without letting the greed ruin it?
They should have used a very different trailer. From the details that people seen behind the scenes, the game sounds awesome.
Going for a past WW setting limits the game tremendously.
There's very little WW in this game. It's modern day with a simple re-skin.
Sjw and WW2 was the real disappointment here. They trying to go down the codww2 route even when that game fails
Where the fuck are you people getting this SJW shit from?
Anytime marketing puts a female or PoC front and center on it's display it's considered SJW because it's diversity for the sake of diversity. It'll probably just end up like Battlefield 1 where you only played as the black man on the cover for the 3 minute tutorial mission and the rest of the game was just British and an American.
My guess is because it has female military in it. Even so I don't understand why people give a shit if it does or doesn't. It'a s a video game meant for enjoyment.
The fact that there is a female on the front lines or in a conflict in a battle using a gun... duh... I'm no War expert but I'm pretty sure that never happened in World War II, and even if it did, it's not necessary to include... EXCEPT for SJW reasons.
Not in the US or British militaries, but plenty of European resistance forces had female fighters. Especially Russia.
@Rachel As a woman you shouldn't be so ignorant, women fought in WW2 its a historical FACT and since when has BF been 100% historically accurate? Like in which game? lol its always been about over the top gameplay with realistic settings as in the environments, who the characters are
@kavork "and even if it did, it's not necessary to include" Whoa there buddy! I could understand you having objections to such a thing when you claim 'authenticity', not that I agree with it, but I would understand. But this part of your post baffles me! I mean, what the heck do you want? No women in your games at all unless they are an object of your 12 year old fantasies? Unbelievable... ------- @Bruh Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order here instead? She's merely explaining the idiotic way of thinking of many men around here and elsewhere...
@Bruh As a woman as well, I did not at any point make a single claim that women did not fight in WW2. That's a straw man claim you're using. I also did not claim BF or any other shooter was 100% accurate as well I have just stated that marketing likes to push things that don't have such a big relevance in the actual game. I mean you only played as the black man on all of the marketing of BF1 for a 3 minute tutorial mission, and even the woman they later changed it to is just some russian sniper model from multiplayer. I approve of female characters but other things Dice may do that really break the line like possibly censoring Swastikas is something that shouldn't happen. @j-blaze Oh it definitely is both diversity and inclusion. I can tell just by the marketing repeating what they did with BF1. It's kinda worse now just because of the prosthetic arm. The war stories for BFV will just be the female in the tutorial mission and then followed by more accurate depictions of WW2. They know how to pull a bait and switch for brownie points with liberals, so at least they're smart about the current climate.
I don't remember seeing any single Japanese women.
I don't like SJW crap anymore than anybody else, but this complaint is odd to me. BF can have Megalodons and all kinds of crazy, unrealistic stuff. But throw in some female characters and suddenly everyone cares about the game not being authentic. I just don't get it.
Easter eggs =/= Accurate representation
It doesn't matter if it's an easter egg though. You either care about historical accuracy or you don't. There's no in-between with something like that, it's either accurate or it isn't. I mean we're taking about a series of games where you can jump out of your plane, snipe someone while mid-air, then jump back into your plane. Yeah, I remember that happening all the time in WWII.
@porkchop You're using video game mechanics as an argument. Nobody is arguing for 100% accuracy they're arguing for a line to be drawn at what is and isn't acceptable. Women were in WW2 yes and most aren't looking at that. They're looking at a combo of checkboxes of representation being checked off and getting pissed at it because it's just signaling that the company does not care and only wants as much money as possible. Marketing is just fooling everyone though.
Lol fragile masculinity much?
THANK YOU, I didn't like it and it's not new engine which they are saving for bad company 3 or next year. I'm very mad!
BC3 will never come because DICE doesn't make good games any more.
And also because most of the people responsible for the BC games left DICE ages ago. EA had even put out a bad press release once stating that they had no idea what it was that people liked about BC, which I'm sure was an inadvertent moment of self-awareness for them.
The game looks great. Grand Operations sounds awesome. Character Customization is always nice. No P2W crap No season pass Destruction is back and building it back could be interesting. War Stories were great in BF1 so they are a welcome return Oh, that's right the big manly gamers are scared of gorlz, can't have those in vidya gamz! Honestly, besides the typical EA conference style of reading bullet points for half an hour the game looks great but EA will never know how to give an interesting panel.