The trailer gave me the vibe of one of those asian Counter Strike trailers, full with over the top action and really weird player models. Feels really off for a Battlefield game.
I still think from time to time how fucking good bc2 was.
Bear in mind you are talking about a series where some people jump out of their plane to kill an enemy who is on their tail before landing back in their own plane. Part of Battlefield's appeal is the crazy chaotic shit some people can pull off, it's not surprising that they have decided to incorporate that into the marketing.
I still think from time to time about how people were really bummed about the scale and scope of the Multi-player. I see a lot of players yearning for a sequel to a game they couldn't stop bitching about for 5 minutes.
it's kind of frustrating that the models and the general art direction rims taint, because dudes like JJ Armes and Gotz von Berlichingen are cool, and some fusion of them with a French resistance fighter is roughly plausible considering it's the same war that fucking Jack Churchill fought in. so they just took a cool concept and fucked it up with this terrible overdesigned PUBG art style
The game might be good but that trailer is migraine fuel
If that's the case then they should pretty up some footage of actual playtesters instead of whatever this is
Marketing that tries to showcase pre-rendered/scripted CUHRAZEE moments are so fake it's cringeworthy
basically just do the "Only in Battlefield" from BF4's marketing again.
Or V for Victory, kind of like how you could read BF1 as Battlefield Won because they apparently still care about their rivalry with Call of Duty.
It's a reveal trailer, they very rarely have actual gameplay. It's not like this is all we are going to get before release, just have some patience and you'll get your gameplay trailers.
But without the unnecessary narration and put together as an actual trailer
Not to beat the "female soldiers reee" horse again, but I feel like less people would have complained if the trailer showcased a setting where female soldiers would actually show up like the eastern front. But it looks like the eastern front will be DLC and the base game will focus on the overdone western front.
Women soldiers don't bother me it's just all the costumes look fucking lame - it looks like a modded CSS server.
I would actually welcome the change if the customisation was stuff that the soldiers could realistically have, like playing cards under the band on their helmet, drawingslike hats, gloves, scarfs - stuff from the period , not a shiny golden katana and a prostetic arm.
Yeah, then your reveal trailer for a game like this should actually make sense and not be a tonal mess. You shouldn't open with fake gameplay bullshit that is a completely confusing mess that conveys little other than, "I think its a Battlefield game that might be set during World War 2."
The one confirmed War Story so far takes place as a part of the Norwegian Resistance. The base game will include maps from France, Rotterdam, Norway, and North Africa. The first "wave" of content will be focusing on the Fall of France. Also, DLC is free, no more premium pass.
I would counter with a quote from Mark Twain:
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
People getting mad at female soldiers has to be some sort of viral marketing. There's no way anyone is actually legitimately mad at something so trivial when COD already did it in European Assault without even a whimper.
I can definitely see how EA and DICE could look at BF1's relative quick drop-off from it's massive height as a fault of the drab and boring visuals. They probably think that the key to a long lasting game is player customization and wacky zany antics; like every single other game that is "long lasting" now.
A shame that developers can succumb to such pressure.
For all we know this was just a segment from the coop part of the game and it'll basically just be bad company WW2.
A man can hope.
Its funny you say that because the visuals were one of the things I liked best about BF1. I dropped off because the game balance was utterly fucked.
You gotta keep in mind that if you're someone who cares about game balance as a concept whatsoever; you are in a pretty small minority compared to a vast array of post-purchase spenders who quite literally don't care about anything besides the visuals and who else is playing the game too.
Fucking skyrim facepaint, this craps on everything ww2 was for and about.
As many other people have said in this thread, the trailer is too chaotic/all over the place. It's sensory overload.
Also with the debate of realism, if video game mechanics are a valid excuse to throw whatever you want into a "Historically accurate" WWII FPS then I want the next WWII FPS to have ninja cyborgs. Let's go full Metal Gear Rising Revengence up in here.
In all seriousness, if one is going to deviate heavily from historical accuracy (ex: having non period accurate weapons), then as other people in this thread have said, just make the game an alt-history thing like Wolfenstein.
the more i watch that trailer the more it makes sense. they actually incorporated (almost)every single new/reworked element to the franchise, from towing vehicles to ragdolls affecting the world, to reload animations being actually part of using each weapon, even the new way in wich ammo and grenades are handled. hell even the new health and explosive knockback and probs how airplanes can be shotdown but you can still survive if you crash land apropiately. even the customization aspect is shown in detail.
I mean its not a ww2 simulator and thank god it isnt, because that topic has been done to death and beyond. I'd rather have it as a context instead of as a setting, it probably gives everyone far more creative freedom to work with, wich is more or less the same process that went through BF1 not being just "run from trench to trench until you smell the mustard gas on your grave".
Yeah, this just screams EA wanted to put in BF all these features kids love these days and the result seems like a clusterfuck. And here I thought after COD BO4 clusterfuck BF couldn't mees this up.
The only thing that sounds interesting are the actual gameplay changes so maybe it is just a bad trailer.
To be fair, CoD had (and I never thought I'd say that) a lot more tact in representing women and blacks in the war.
Imagine if they made a WW2 game with campaigns about one of the African-American tank battalions that served in NW Europe during the war, or the all-black infantry division that served in Italy. Their performance during the war ultimately contributed to the scrapping of Jim Crow in the US military. I think it would be cool to have campaigns around the stories of those units.
If it was realistic WW2 everyone would complain it's jut another WW2 game and Battlefield should adapt and change.
If it's something new people complain it doesn't look like Battlefield.
Personally, I share the opinion that it's freaking awesome of them to take WW2 and create their own unique world around it. When CoD tried to create a unique world we got the future games.
Given the V was the Resistance's public symbol, pretty much.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, which is probably why they're changing the gameplay up so much to try to compensate. Problem is the trailer doesn't showcase real gameplay at all, so they botched the landing attempt.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
