that's what I mean, I literally don't see it.
Is it because it's not washed out like Saving Private Ryan? Color "correction" like that really boils my blood because the past had just as much color as today did, so why wash it away with greys and blues?
zepps were made of paper (i know ironic), dreads were always, and i mean fucking always, piloted by some dickhead 12 year old who just points the ship right at the shore so only his guns can reach anything, train was neat and worked the best at what it was supposed to do (unless its that one fucking map, and you know which one im talking about). Overall majority of the behemoths were cool, but if a team focused any of them down they would drop like flies before your team can do anything. because like someone said before, its mostly team comp that fucks games, not kills.
One thing im so happy to see changed is now medics have to personally pick up to revive instead of running a wall of medics to constantly pump each other's asses with the lazarus solution to eternal life.
Compared to BF1 where characters looked like grounded, conventional soldiers of the time, this game's characters are unorthodox and unconventional: the British commando carrying a katana on his back; the woman with a prosthetic arm carrying a cricket bat wrapped in barbed wire; the guy wearing a tank top with a full beard and Braveheart-like face paint. They look like fan-fiction character inserts or WW2-themed mercenaries than the "anonymous soldier" that Battlefield has usually depicted. Additionally, as many suspect (myself included) this may be a preview to the customization which could have far more odd items. The characters seem to contrast the "immersive WW2 experience" the developers claim.
Alright I can actually understand that a bit, sounds like they just went overboard in trying to show the customization and such, but the point remains the same. Saying the game is cartoony and comparable to Battlefield Heros or worse, Fortnite, is absolutely stupid.
yeah how dare Battlefield does not portrait war conficlts in an historically accurate manner like that one time in ww1 where you wore 100kg of armor and ran uphill while gunning down an entire battalion on your own.
https://youtu.be/szGA33UIYvA
#notmybattlefield
except that armor was real:
https://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2014/02/soldiers-exhibiting-body-armor-after-firing-test-P.jpeg
https://youtu.be/kNVfe5Et9-I
The warstory was fantasy (as all of them were), but at least there's evidence of said armor being used/experimented on in WW1. Same with every single weapon/gadget in the game. No where did I read crippled people being fit to serve while being armed with cricket bats covered in barbed wire or nails.
TheVoidDragon's quote (I understand if you glanced over it completely due to its length) explains that even much of what was historically inaccurate or unused actually during the war still felt fitting to the era and the overall game to a certain extent and wasn't that far out of the realm of plausibility.
Putting women in your game makes all criticism of it null.
I'm going to make one of those shitty Unity-games that doesn't even lock your cursor and put women in it and then call you for help when it gets shat on like it should.
On-topic:
The trailer is a clusterfuck and none of it feels like actual gameplay.
Looking at Jackfrags comments about it though, I'm very interested in seeing gameplay / playing beta or something like that myself.
Hey Mike, I think most people are upset over a lot more and a lot bigger problems.
You can't argue with journos, they'll ignore the actual criticisms and just say we all hate women or something. It happens every time.
EA pioneered that shit ages ago. I remember one, I think around the time or just after Sims 4 came out, there was a scandal or something over EA doing their usual shady and underhanded shit. Within a couple of days they suddenly had put together a crappy video showing off characters in their games in gay/lesbian relationships and were trying to push how progressive they were and EA reps were talking about how they were just getting criticized for their LGBT support. And they've done that further back. They leech of progressiveness to protect themselves from criticism. Like, you can see that kind of deflection shit all the time with EA scandals.
https://youtu.be/Vdkx9heY8Kw
https://youtu.be/19hohCtdJ4Y
again, e-neckbeards getting triggered about female characters in videogames as if it was some sort of holy land that now has been desecrated because developer decided to punch in even more fantasy in an already war-themed fantasy simulator.
"oh no, people didn't use tanktops with mohawks in ww2 my ancestors must be burning in their graves!"
"there were way too many things on the cinematic trailer i couldn't see any gameplay on it"
"dude is wearing a katana thats historically unfitting! my experience is completely ruined!"
Metaru, mate, pal, buddy. I don't care all that much about the changes that DICE is putting in either and I think people are blowing it out of proportion, but you should lose the smug bullshit in your posts. I'm getting second-hand embarrassment being associated with you.
Im pretty sure most here dont give a shit about women being in the game, its the whole outragous character design and shit like fucking cricket bats or prosthetic limbed people serving. This is the first battlefield since heroes that has had this level of silly shit, but at least heroes was a spinoff. Look at the whole picture before you hop on the misogyny train.
Okay, so I thought it was historically inaccurate to put women or black people in the resistance in the game. Apparently it's not, okay my bad ( @ASparkle ).
But what about the resistance fighting on the front lines? Wouldn't the Resistance avoid fighting in the open to prevent being identified or captured?
Besides, there are ways to be subtle and convincing about having women fight on the front lines.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd6jl5zUQAAzEqu.jpg
This is not it.
I'm not an "e-neckbeard" or whatever retarded noun has been thrown around in this thread, but this looks like nothing I'd associate with WW2. Which is a shame since I really enjoyed BF1's believable, though "Hollywood-like" WWI campaigns.
Of course if you tell me that this woman is actually heavily inspired by a real resistance fighter woman, then I'd be pleasantly surprised and very much interested. But it would have been mentioned by now, right?
I have a feeling DICE was inspired by Virginia Hall. Virginia Hall was an OSS and SOE operative who had an amputated leg, her prosthetic leg even had a codename. OSS and SOE operatives, while operating with the French resistance, often saw combat.
Alright, you got me. Still doesn't justify the attire, the war paint and the spiked bat though.
If that's the case, then I hope we can get a Scottish broadsword and bow and kilts.
OSS/SOE operatives operated behind the lines, so continuing on with that train of thought it doesn't seem all that unlikely for someone operating with the resistance to dress like that. It's a bit silly of a weapon, but again if she was actually based on SOE operatives like Hall then I can see them using improvised weapons like that.
There were a number of OSS/SOE operatives who were women as well, not just Hall. A number of them were captured by executed by the Germans too.
How in the heck are they going to work around character silhouettes being ruined by character customization?
Like it wasn't difficult enough at times in BF1 with the vast array of different factions.
I stopped caring about historical accuracy in Battlefield games once weapons stopped being faction specific.
Who the fuck even came up with the idea of treating loadouts in a faction-based team game like it was Deathmatch
I would imagine it was done to make progression more streamlined and make balancing easier while they're at it. Doesn't mean I don't fucking hate it, but I kinda-sorta get the reasoning and make peace with it. What I don't like is the
fact that EA-DICE has made a habit to fuck up the authenticity much further than that, turning characters into the worst kind of tacticool airsofters, and for that there's no discernible reason. A trend that was broken in BF1, but judging
from the trailer it might appear again in BF5.
Balance, playability, and probably most importantly shifting opinions from the audience. Video games nowadays are seen much more for how much "content" they have to offer, and creating weapons that a player can't use unless they are on a specific team isn't worth the effort. In terms of balance you had cases like BF2 where the AK-101 was clearly better than the M16, or BF3 where the Mk11 was clearly better than the SVD at release. Easier to just have everyone start with a generic rifle then include faction specific ones as options. Personally I like the flavor faction-specific weapons add to a game but I really wouldn't have enjoyed Battlefield 3 or Battlefield 4 as much if I wasn't able to use the M4 unless I was on the American team, or the AEK if I was on the Russian team.
I don't really see what the point of making a WW2 shooter when you can't even recognize that it is a WW2 shooter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
