tbh I actually like these changes, at least it tries to bring something new to the table. I mean, it's not like the "factions" actually mattered in almost every recent Battlefield games anyway, as you could go with pretty much any weapon loadout regardless of your team. Battlefield was always kind of a chaotic/crazy shooter game to me, so all these customization actually doesn't bother me that much. My biggest issue is how stupid these characters in the trailer looks but I guess that's simply the case for customization in a multiplayer game.
I hope figuring out who is your ally and who isn't wouldn't be that much of a problem in game after all those customization though. To be honest, even in Battlefield 4 I had trouble recognizing character models without tags sometimes.
Might be fun. Haven't played a bf game since 3. Bf2 is one of my all time favorite games and I've never been able to recapture that feeling in a bf game. If I come into this expecting nothing I feel like I'll leave feeling better than coming in with expectations.
Also to be honest, the reveal trailers for the previous games (3, 4 and 1) doesn't show much actual gameplay as well, so just wait for the gameplay trailer. Meanwhile, this trailer actually showcases quite a lot of the changes despite not having gameplay
I could understand customization if it was third person, so that you can see your character. But you won't see yourself 99% of the time ingame and will only see others.
I think a faceless approach is better suited for this type of feeling and game since you are meant to be one soldier among many.
When I first started watching the trailer I was like "wow cool, alternative history/fictional universe". But nope, that's WW2. Why the fuck? Why even do that? It's Battlefield, it doesn't depend on time period or setting like that since 2142,
it's going to sell regardless. Why not go full alternative "WW2" setting, set in 1946 or the like, bring all of the over-the-top retarded nazi secret weapon stuff, Maus tanks, M26 Pershings (or Super Pershings) as mainline Allied tanks and
experimental thingies, STG44's with nightvision scopes etc? Create a game mode around the Ratte? Why add dumb shit to a historical setting, what does that achieve?
I never had any problems with anything tbh, but then again, I wasn't a diehard fan
To break up the circlejerk over the bad trailer:
• No Season Pass or lootboxes
• Launch locations are France, Africa and Rotterdam and North Africa desert
• Coop Mode called Combined Arms
• Single player War Stories return
• Fortifications are things like sand bags, trenches, tank stoppers. Only supports can build offensively defense fortifications such as machine guns, field cannons and are much faster at building everything.
• Predetermined areas to build such as at flags, can rebuild destroyed buildings
• Attrition system - health bar is in stages, only regen up to closet stage not to 100 anymore
• Physical interactions - every action in the game requires a player interact for things like medkits, spotting, ammo, ledge grabbing (example: healing requires walking over to a health pack, character animation to pick it up, then start healing)
• No more HUD/map spotting, spotting is based on movement/changes around you
• Attrition system - much less ammo on spawn, out of ammo after a few fights, but more ways to resupply ammo in the battlefield from packs, crates, or grabbing small amounts of ammo off of bodies (all requires physical interactions)
• Revive system has a full on animation, takes a few seconds to complete, no more revive trains, takes time to complete
• Ragdolls are server side, can now drag a downed player's body elsewhere
• Any class can do a squad revive, takes longer than a medic revive, does not give full health points
• Can call for help when down such as in the trailer
• Ragdolls (player bodies) effect the environment, push down grass etc.
• Gunplay completely changed
• No more visual recoil
• Each gun has a unique recoil pattern that can be learned and mastered
• Bipods easier to use and setup
• Bullet penetration through thin wood, sheet metal, walls
• Movement change, can now dive froward, backward, left and right similar to R6 Siege prone system
• Diving has a delay to prevent dolphin diving
• Crouch sprinting is in the game
• Can burst out of widows and commando roll, no destroying windows first
• Can catch, throwback or shoot grenades
• Less grenades because less ammo
• Can tow items in the game with vehicles such as previously stationary anti-air guns, teammate can use an anti-air gun while you tow it with a vehicle
• For example, can drive a tiger tank towing a field cannon behind it or a truck towing ammo crate to resupply teammates on the front line
• Destruction explodes inwards or outwards based on where the destruction happens. Throw a grenade inside of the building? The explosion sends things outside of it. Outside of it? Breaks inwards.
• Tank driving into a building slowly destroys a building, walls slowly crack/fall, not instant
• Heavily focused on squad play, instant placed in squad when joining a game
• New squad spawning system, squad deploy system that shows what squad mates are doing in third person in real time before the tactical map screen, so spawning on squad is kicker than spawning on tactical map screen
• Since squad spawning/deploying is faster than tactical map, squad wipes are serious
• Squads accumulate points that can be spent on "squad call-ins", only squad leader can spend them in
• Squad Call-ins are V1 or JB2 rockets as seen in the trailer, supply drops with ammo/health, a smoke barrage, heavy weapon pickups (not hero kits), squad only vehicles such as Churchill crocodile flamethrower tank or the Sturm tiger
• Elite classes are gone
• Behemoths are gone
• Large, non-fatal explosions can knock a player over
• Four classes are back: assault, medic, scout, support
• Create a solider, add them to a company of soldiers, then can customize things like gender, face look, face paint, outfit, accessories, etc. and assign them a class archtype
• Class archetypes highly customizable
• Can be an assault that specializes in anti-tank or anti-infantry only, or a mix of both, etc.
• Highly specialized archetypes called exotics such as a recon paratrooper, stealthy short-range behind enemy lines person who uses a suppressed SMG and silent gadgets like pistols and garrotes comes with silent footsteps and throwing knives
• Can change and add specialization trees such as agility, flak armor, suppressive resistance
• The more you play a class more you get more specializations/archtypes within said class
Just about everything on that list sounds great as a long time BF fan
its a cinematic trailer, its literally announcing the game to the public. these trailer barely ever do, but this one does feature UI elements midway to show that the actual game will look just like it does in the cinematic and convey some of the new elements that were not present before. besides the e3 its just around the corner wich they will probably use to show a gameplay reveal and demo matches. and even then, we already know the changes we'll have on this version.
unless they plan to add a turn based minigame between firefights what kind of gameplay (that its not shown already in the trailer) are you not seeing here? its literally battlefield. the game hasn't changed its core mechanics since basically ever.
Nah.
If it was a game entirely centered on the actions of 1940 with panzer 2s and crusaders driving all over the place that would be awesome. I've never seen a game that exclusively focuses on the early war. It would also have nice variety too!
itt neckbeards get triggered with those get out vibes due to women in their vidya
To this day I'm still asking why they don't do a 2143.
I get the impression that DICE wants to stand out, and considering the future war trend is just starting to die off, they probably didn't want to be lumped together with all those other games, like Planetside 2, Infinite Warfare, Advanced Warfare, Titanfall, etc.
Why is it people who don't mind changes like this have to be complete cunts about it? Can we not have an honest discussion about it, it has to be insults and snipes?
I'm seeing some of the worst comments out there by e-neckbeards being triggered because there's a girl with a prosthetic arm in their game.
I'm a bit tired of the "if they tried to make it historically accurate then it would be more of the same" or "WW2 has been done a million time". Have you seen how the Frostbite engine has evolved over the years? It has really revolutionized first person shooters and to be able to experience WW2 far more realistically, immersive, and authentically than ever before sounds amazing to me. The last time they gave a try at it was 2002.
This idea that you can't give a new take on something that has been done before is kind of absurd. Have you seen how many modern shooters DICE have done with succession and managed to make each one of them unique from the other? WW2 was obviously a big and consequential war and there is still so much not explored about it in games and even movies.
I just hope it's more of BF4 and less BF1 in terms of gameplay
I loved BF4 but BF1 just felt...off
Sniping was a lot better than literally anything else, shotguns were a lot more viable than SMGs, the gas grenades were absolute cancer, but the shit filled cherry on top was the bullshit 'oh, team X is losing, let's reward them and give them a super powerful warship that can be used to spawnkill!'
Random dispersion is being removed, gas is going to be a lot less prevalent if not outright removed, and behemoths (as well as elite classes) are not returning.
this, BF1 was immersive as fuck in operations. Pushing as a wall of soldiers to get through to the next trench/flag was amazing. I loved playing squad leader and using the GO GO GO whistle when charging. All the small effects made the game intense and immersive, but now eh. Ill save total judgement till i see the customization, but if any of that garbage is in the game ill be extremely disappointed.
To be fair, I've never seen a team pull ahead after being given a zeppelin or warship. If a team's losing it's because they have serious coordination issues/bad players, or they're the Italians in Operations.
Seriously, after playing the game for three months, I've only seen the Italians get to the second stage of the Alps Operation twice, and win once, only because the Austrians were genuinely incompetent and got steamrolled.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/189448/68ad6d15-0d18-4756-950c-823055e94ba9/Battlefield Italians Stomped 2.png
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/189448/3fcaa023-9ef4-4844-a64c-155d3005ef60/Battlefield Italians Stomped.png
No? If anything this ridiculous trailer is making me want to reinstall COD2 and play through the campaign again.
This is such a great example of the uncanny valley.
The game is obviously trying to show how immersive it is by throwing planes at your face, which is a classic trait of the Battlefield series.
But then we see some good pals enacting their mutual power fantasy in what should be the closest to hell a human being can ever get to.
And its not even really a thing about sexism, its about Historical accuracy. What DICE or EA could've done to deal with this complaining was possible throwing in a line like this in the trailer.
"This is a Fictional Interpretation of historical events. This should not be taken for granted..."
Ironically these half-assed decisions and complete disregard for historical accuracy for the sake of "diversity" is honestly damaging the idea of "Diversity". Cause most of the time these stupid decisions pretty much fuel the hysteria that drives the alt-right/far-right in the video game industry. And also thats one issue i have nowadays when it comes to pushing diversity in video games and media. It doesn't really feel like the developers/creators/writers aren't actually pushing for diversity most of the time. It feels like a studio board or a bunch of executives are going "How can we make this game as broad as possible with every demographic?". It's sad to say that's the truth, but welcome to the fucking video-game/movie industry. Maybe a clever way of introducing women in combat in a WW2 scenario could've been one of the many resistance groups against the Nazi Regime or in the Red Army where a lot of women were used in sniper positions and occasionally took roles in other combat roles among the Red Army. Which honestly would've been a more appropriate/stronger portrayal of women in the setting, since its basically the first major war where Women were starting to finally get noticed and be viewed as equals among men in the field of warfare.
What i'm trying to say is that they could've done this if they wanted to. Except they should've thought it out and try to portray it as historically as possible, or try to point out their portrayal wasn't historically accurate. I can give less critique towards Battlefield 1 and the presence of Black soldiers on the battlefield cause there were black infantry men in the battlefields of ww1. Albeit maybe not as much as Battlefield 1 portrayed in combat, since most black soldiers were usually support soldiers and used in reserves.
Though there was the Harlem Hellfighters, which saw a large amount of combat on the Western Front. And also two of them received medal of honors. Hell there was one soldier, Henry Johnson who earned the name of "The Black Death" after repelling an attack by 24 german soldiers on is own.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Negro_Troops_in_France._Picture_shows_part_of_the_15th_Regiment_Infantry_New_York_National_Guard_or_._._._-_NARA_-_533488.tif/lossy-page1-1024px-Negro_Troops_in_France._Picture_shows_part_of_the_15th_Regiment_Infantry_New_York_National_Guard_or_._._._-_NARA_-_533488.tif.jpg
In a nutshell. Downplaying the discrimination of a setting to justify "Diversity" is damaging the fight against Discrimination and Racism. Cause we're basically erasing the history of what taught us why Discrimination/Racism is a terrible thing and should be forgotten of completely. If you want to portray minorities and women in warfare, show the discrimination they had to face and the bashing they received while fighting alongside the majority of regular soldiers in combat. To show why the discrimination they receive is bullshit and they can kick as much ass as anyone else.
Yeah, and you're right but my point isn't about winning or losing
My point is that it's so frustrating being spawnkilled and essentially punished for winning the game
Honestly, I think the only reason they're going this route with the multiplayer is because Call of Duty did the same thing with COD:WW2. If people want to customize their avatars to look like a badass representation of themselves, that's A-okay, but it should not cross over into the campaign/war stories unless they make it very clear it's alt-history, which they clearly have said it isn't.
I'm not saying that we should expect 100% authenticity from a Battlefield game, but at the very least there should be an effort to be somewhat authentic where it counts.
I never once thought that it would be "badass" if a WW2 soldier I was playing could have a mow hawk, prosthetic arm, no shirt, and tats on face but maybe I'm in the minority. The default uniforms usually do it for me and the occasional outfit or camo is pretty cool.
One of the War Stories is a female resistance fighter in Rotterdam iirc.
I dunno, I never really had a problem with the Behemoths and always enjoyed the spectacle of a zeppelin looming over the battlefield and come crashing down in a fiery wreck whose skeleton remains on the field. Same with the Dreadnoughts. The trains on the other hand can be a bit of a bitch when they cut through the middle of the map.
Maybe it's just me but the spectacle lasted one, maybe two matches during the beta. 18 months after launch the only thing I see is a monstrous killstreak designed to give 1-3 people easy kills because my team took an early advantage by capping all of their flags and destroying all of their vehicles. I guess they work a little bit better in Operations which is designed to by an asymmetrical map but then I think it's map dependent. Except the dreadnoughts, which I feel do nothing for the attacking team and solely exist for the driver (captain?) to rack up brainless kills a kilometer away from the nearest objective.
The train was only problematic on Amiens, only because that front line can be such a clusterfuck of traffic. At least in Argonne it was easy enough to bypass and flank it.
Can someone explain to me the whole criticism of this game looking cartoony? The graphics look no less realistic and beautiful than Battlefield 1's did. The palette looks a bit nice and colorful but that's way better than the "realistic" palette of shit browns that most mid 2000s games had, and aside from a few lighting effects I can see nothing about the graphics that makes it look cartoony. The tone of the trailer was a bit unserious, with unrealistic events happening such as the guy jumping out of the window, the tanks destroying the building, the shooting down of the plane with an MG42, etc, but I think that was more just trailer fluff that supposed to show off some of the new features of the game than an actual serious consideration in the game. All of it fits with Battlefields usually arcady and really not that realistic feel and it's fine. The dialogue was a bit unserious in some ares such as the "Hello old friend." but I think that was just mean to be a running gag and not the actual tone considering other more relevant things such as the medkit needed and the female soldier taunting the German as she killed him. Overall it doesn't seem any less realistic than any other of the recent Battlefields and even with the new construction system this comparison to Fortnite of all things is just pants on head retarded.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
