DICE - We will always put fun over authentic (Regarding Battlefield V compliants)
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
In Multiplayer, does that really matter that much considering we could use weapons from any faction in BF1?
It was a multiplayer trailer afterall.
If they are going for fun over realism don't make a WW2 game. Set it in an alternate history or something, I'm not a fan of what was shown.
I agree, its lazy. They should've had the appropriate armor for each particular faction
It's unanimous then, Aliens and fucking Elephants are go. Hope the devs are reading this.
As likely as an Italian man wearing a suit of armor carrying this:
Why are we spending all this time arguing about women in the game instead of discussing some of the interesting new features?
- It looks like you can reverse prone (like Rainbow Six)
- I think fortifications will be an interesting way to keep evolving gameplay, rather than all the buildings slowly disappearing throughout the match
- I'm not really sure what "Tides of War" is... does anybody know?
- Added "realism" in ammo/health resupplies may be an interesting change... or it may ruin the game. Only time will tell!
- Rumor is you can drag fallen comrades into cover
- It looks like you can reverse prone (like Rainbow Six)
- I think fortifications will be an interesting way to keep evolving gameplay, rather than all the buildings slowly disappearing throughout the match
- I'm not really sure what "Tides of War" is... does anybody know?
- Added "realism" in ammo/health resupplies may be an interesting change... or it may ruin the game. Only time will tell!
- Rumor is you can drag fallen comrades into cover
They may not have been all together, but each part was a real thing. The British helped with the French Resistance, and some women went over there to help. Douglas Bader lost two legs before the war, then fought in the RAF in the Battle of France and Britain, until he's plane crashed and he survived Colditz. There's many strange and unique stories that come from WW2 which aren't well known about. None of these elements are that inaccurate.
I dunno, that doesn't sound like fun. This is the fun thread.
This is a game series where you run up to tanks with wrenches and drills and slowly destroy them.
It's also one where the US army straps C4 to jeeps and runs them into enemy spawns before detonating them.
In fact, C4 was just regularly carried by snipers as a easy to deploy weapon, like a grenade.
Along with motion sensor balls.
The marketing and the whole idea of a "Battlefield moment" was jumping out of your plane to whip out a large sniper rifle, headshot another pilot, and then land back into your plane and resume flight.
Anyone who sees these games as remotely authentic is nuts. I was a big fan from 1942 through 3 (it's weird to see some kind of progression when numerically you're going from 1942 to 3) when I got tired of them.
Hell, their world war 1 game had pretty much everyone carrying automatic weapons, and everyone having a mortar on their back that they can use as easily as a fold up chair.
Even the style of gameplay doesn't begin to reflect actual combat, with everyone sprinting around willy nilly.
Shits cartoony enough as it is; I'm suprised that they didn't go full Fortnite in terms of looks.
It's also one where the US army straps C4 to jeeps and runs them into enemy spawns before detonating them.
In fact, C4 was just regularly carried by snipers as a easy to deploy weapon, like a grenade.
Along with motion sensor balls.
The marketing and the whole idea of a "Battlefield moment" was jumping out of your plane to whip out a large sniper rifle, headshot another pilot, and then land back into your plane and resume flight.
Anyone who sees these games as remotely authentic is nuts. I was a big fan from 1942 through 3 (it's weird to see some kind of progression when numerically you're going from 1942 to 3) when I got tired of them.
Hell, their world war 1 game had pretty much everyone carrying automatic weapons, and everyone having a mortar on their back that they can use as easily as a fold up chair.
Even the style of gameplay doesn't begin to reflect actual combat, with everyone sprinting around willy nilly.
Shits cartoony enough as it is; I'm suprised that they didn't go full Fortnite in terms of looks.
The plot of the BC2 was about them finding somekind of futuristic weapon that was used in the WW2 and could cause tsunami.
All of the gameplay changes do actually sound great. New squad system with squad points is pretty neat. The new Operations mode especially sounds amazing.
Would you be pro-"war elephants on the western front" then?As likely as an Italian man wearing a suit of armor carrying this:
Are you in favour of locking weapons and gadgets for every faction in the game without a chance to use other stuff?
Pretty sure that the female soldier with the steampunk arm IS from an alternate history or something.
I would. If they were throwing authenticity out the window, they shoulda gone full diesel punk with the game. A full alternate history with crazy war machines would've been awesome.
it's not exactly a good argument to justify new nonsense with previous nonsense lol
Lol, okay I think we're looking for very different things when it comes to this game...
Yes actually, provided the weapons were balanced adequately.
Should the matches be predetermined? Because we know who won each battle. It would be inauthentic if Germany successfully defended Omaha Beach.
I think Tides of War is what they are calling the new content roll out. Since DLC is out it'll be this Tides of War stuff where new content is rolled out for specific scenarios over several months. So 3 months will be Pacific themed, next three Russia, etc.
oh sorry, i thought you talking about bF2, sorry, my mistake xD
I think someone should tell dice that they can stop modeling those ww2 planes and just reuse the F22s from BF4. Also where are the helicopters? Helicopters are fun
I am going to guess the answer is no... "Some sort of robot woman!"
As someone who never played Battlefield, it utterly baffled me that there seems to be a perception of Battlefield being the "grounded" and "mature" shooter out of the two big Modern Military Shooters.
Like...
And I realize this message is going to be lost in the sea, but I find the mix of cartoony bombast and realistic presentation to be pretty appealing, like a pulp magazine cover.
Like...
And I realize this message is going to be lost in the sea, but I find the mix of cartoony bombast and realistic presentation to be pretty appealing, like a pulp magazine cover.
Since authenticity doesnt matter, can we add in helicopters? They existed in WW2 and it wouldnt be much of a stretch by comparison to add weapons on board.
Going back and look at it more closely, I misspoke. I know, I know, that never happens around here. Either way, I find it amusing that so many are outraged about a game that is clearly a work of fiction, meant to entertain.
No worries. BF2 was very serious and realistic if I remember correctly so I can understand your confusion.
Honestly I'd much rather they went all out alternative history (I was actually originally hoping for this) than this weird mishmash. The fact that they described the game as "the most immersive Battlefield ever" then showed that trailer is laughable.
That's actually touching on another philosophical point I dislike about recent Battlefields, or rather this one and BF1 specifically. To me it feels like DICE is adapting the setting to the gameplay instead of adapting the gameplay to the setting. That is not what I want.
Considering 1942 had a secret weapons of WW2 expansion, I could actually see this happen in a similarly themed expansion. It had Jetpacks in it too so why not some of the helicopters that were in development during the period.
It's a mix of this, internet historians whining that this isn't their grandfather's personal account of WWII realized in game form and an extra special breed of moron who think DICE is trying to ape Fortnite by having a colorful art direction and light tone.
BF1942 was pretty much a comic version of WW2. It mixes setting with superhuman feats. Battlefield has always been arcadey and the gameplay has never really taken itself all that seriously. The war it represents is just a backdrop. There's just been different iterations of that over the years. Sometimes the tone is less serious, sometimes the tone is more serious.
Battlefield at its core is all about conquest, classes, and land, sea and air vehicle battles.
Battlefield at its core is all about conquest, classes, and land, sea and air vehicle battles.
Why, tho? That is just limiting gameplay and customization. I didn't see this kind of complaints with being able to use ottoman melee weapons on the British army or using Russian weapons with the French, why now? Surely there were lots of chances since 1942 came out to complain about realism and accuracy.
And then the whiners whining about the whiners. It's like a pyramid scheme. The last one on board is the ultimate looser.
I'm sure you both will be super concerned about accuracy while skydiving out of airplanes, sniping a dude in another plane and then stealing it.
The colorful art direction and light tone is not why people are expressing Fortnite concerns, its the potential for uncharacteristic weapon, vehicle, and infantry skins/customizations
Battlefield has always been campy and over-the-top. Even 1942 let players get up to some seriously crazy shenanigans.
I guess I just think it's weird there's this sudden call for realism when that has NEVER been a major part of the franchise.
DICE chose to lean into the crazy stuff again, just like with Bad Company, but it's not exactly like that's out of character for them.
First of all, you totall overestimate my skill level and secondly this would bring it back to realism ≠ authenticity
Everything we've seen so far (which is admittedly very little), and the bits from interviews/Jackfrags seems to indicate that while the customization will be extensive, they will probably not be overly uncharacteristic (no bright and garish pink or golden guns, for example).
Then what do you think is even the point in implementing a theme if it isn't going to in any way adhere to that setting?If Battlefield 4 added muskets and swords because they exist in modern day, then what would be the justification behind even claiming it's still a modern-day theme in the first place? I don't think taking a theme and diluting it to the point where it lacks any semblance of thematic consistency or cohesion, where it's less "This is a game based on a ____ setting" and more "This is just a game with things from ____ in it somewhere", is a good thing. Obvious caveats are to be expected because it's still a video game that isn't going to be realistic, but there's a difference between attempting to adhere to a setting at a certain level of abstraction and deciding to go against it purposefully and not even trying to make things fit.
I've played it casually myself and I never thought it had a fans that thought of it as the grounded shooter. I did more wackily shit in battlefield games than I ever did with the call of duty series.