‘Battlefield V’ pre-order numbers are "weak", could be next "Titanfall 2" - Sensationalist Headlines

"We know, don't care, still got money hahahaha"

Yeah, borrowing a trick from Wolfenstein would have been cool

I guess my main concern is just this game has nothing "explosive" to it to make it look fun. As weird as it is, I would die for a more subtle WWII setting game like how the original 1942 game was. I mean imagine if they took that concept and ran with it with today's graphics and engines, it would be amazing. I am just not sold on the characters looking like war paint native americans fighting in oversaturated snow blowing maps with nothing to them. I mean I can even see the barricading system being a flop because it's just too lackluster and almost useless (from what I have seen from twitch streams). I wish one company would just take what the community wanted and ran with it, but that's just utterly not a thing in this gaming time.

Imagine all those crazy camos and funky wire prosthetics, but now it's a robotic arm and dazzle-camo, suddenly, it works.

The main problem with the game is that it's got god awful atrocious marketing on top of the already god awful PR following the reveal. Up until 6 or so hours ago, we haven't gotten ANYTHING to get ourselves hyped for the game aside from a relatively quiet reopening of the Closed Alpha. It didn't help that the game had a grand total of 5 or so minutes of E3 screentime spoiled by the polarizing announcement of Battle Royale at the end. While CoD and the rest are busy busting out ads left and right, you can only get BFV material either from the very limited official outlets or via youtubers/streamers where I'm sure the average dudebro gamer won't bother to do the latter. I'm hoping the idea of smarter pre-order management is true, but one can't deny that it's a total 180 from the relatively excellent marketing BF1 had. Hell, they could've even capitalized more on the SJW/feminism fuckery much like how Bethesda did on virgins in Charlottesville with Wolfenstein.

Let me explain. I hate Battlefield 1 and 5. I played probably some of the most bare minium you could of Battlefield one and I can tell you without a doubt that it felt more like a WW2 game than a WW1 game.

I've seen this complaint so many times now. It is an utterly absurd thing to say. It doesn't "feel more like a WW2 game than a WW1 game", it feels exactly how it's meant to - like a Battlefield game with a world war one theme. Saying things like "Well there are automatic weapons everywhere, that isn't accurate to WW1!" entirely misses that the Battlefield games have a core gameplay loop that partially revolves around player choice regarding weapons and equipment, they do not impose arbitrary limitations on you with that sort of thing, so the prevelance of those things is down to that. The games always keep the same style of basic gameplay, with the setting/era implemented and defined by that gameplay, not the other way around; the setting is just a backdrop for the gameplay. BF1 is a Battlefield game with a WW1theme, in the same way every other game in the series was a Battlefield game with a certain theme, rather than being an actual representation of the setting they're in. Do you think combat in the modern day resembles anything like Battlefield 4?

Seeing people getting mad over Battlefield doing WW1 as it did will never get old for me. If BF was realistic about warfare, then BF3 and BF4 would've either just be CAS raping generic Jihad/insurgent group #359 in nowherefuckistan or a total ICBM/missile wankfest between the 3 superpowers.

Actually, if bf3 and bf4 were realistic you'd just be sitting bored on a base for hours on end

SUPER RARE drop from battlepack: pizza mre

I think realistic is the wrong word, some people want the games to look 'authentic', as in it should look and feel like the era it's set in rather than being actually realistic.

While I agree with you, I do sympathize with those who thought it was going to be different with the ww1 theme. I was one of the people who said that it doesn't matter if its not "historically accurate" or whatever. You're right it's a battlefield game and maybe that's the issue, I liked the older battlefield games because they took settings like ww2 and modern warfare, and made its own thing out of it. 64 player warfare was insane back in the 2000s compared to call of duty and the likes, and I thought bad company 2 was awesome and a great predecessor to bf3, but then I guess the series got stale with bf4 and hard-line. Bf1 was gonna switch things up, but really it was just the same old frostbite battlefield with a ww1 theme tacked on it. That's my experience atleast and part of why I'm not excited about the new one.

I absolutely love the Battlefield franchise, I've always thought they had more respect when it comes to art design and they also lead some important innovations mainly in online play (64 player mode was a huuuge step). But BFV is not interesting, it feels incredibly casual and full of micro-transactions. While I was never a fan of season passes, I rather new content than fortnite-tier skins. The women ordeal isn't a huge thing but it feels incredibly ham fisted than respectful. They gave more respect to POC integration in BF1, but seemed to have gone fucking batshit with BFV to the point of disrespect. Toppled with the Battlefront fiasco, consumers are not trusting EA and its big game studios anymore. EA could easily wipe this reputation by going back to season passes where they would make money anyway because diehard battlefield fans will eat that up pronto but they are in too deep

Bf1 sucked though

That's understandable and is actually my main gripe with BFV, but what I'm mainly putting out there is that people were silly to actually expect radical changes to the BF formula just because its WW1. BF1 is still authentic in terms of aesthetics and that's what BF has always been. People being mad for not having their trench bread eating fantasies recreated in Frostbite have no one else to blame except themselves for expecting such an unrealistic design shift on such an established franchise with a signature gameplay style just because its set in a war video games barely touched.

Well I mean a lot of WW1 wasn't fought in trenches so you didn't have to have it all be trench warfare, but having loads of soldiers running around with automatic assault rifles just looks weird as hell. I mean perhaps ww1 is just a bad period to set a battlefield game in, there wasn't much weapons variety and a lot of it was all based around static defences.

I have played the Alphas, and have thus far just found everything to be poor game design. It doesn't even feel like Battlefield anymore, and the whole fact that they are taking a royal shit on the theme of WW2, while trying to pass it off as "realistic~!!!" pisses me off too no end. I will not be preordering this, nor buying it really. I'd rather spend my money on getting a new fishing rod, then bothering with a new EA game. This is coming from someone who has played since the days of BF1942.

I'm fuckin salty that Titanfall has become a benchmark for poor sales, those games are way too good for how they constantly get robbed at every turn

While I am interested in some of the new features and the WW II setting the launch trailer was so absurd it has put me off from wanting to even play the game. I'm still baffled at how the tone of this installment is a complete opposite of BF 1 which, in presentation and single player was very respectful about the horrors of war. But for the WW 2 installment its like the shareholders looked at their kids playing fortnite and decided that the tone must be similar to make more money because that is exactly the feeling I get from watching the reveal trailer.

BF1 had amazing Trailer which really felt like totally new game from previous BF installments (Probably mostly due to it's setting of WW1) When I watched BF1 trailer first time - I just bought it right away without 2nd thought and it was worth it. When I watched BF-V trailer - I don't wanna buy it, it was big disappointment.

it's a literal cash cow to them, founded for that purpose sad tbh

There's only a few seconds to it but seeing this teaser for a full trailer yesterday, this is the sort of tone i expected and wanted for the game. Slightly over-the-top or unrealistic in the usual Battlefield series way, but seemingly still quite a serious and respectful representation of the setting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjbeukF5Tv0 ...but then the actual game has an absurd, nonsensical, uncaring approach that doesn't try to portray the setting in a believable way at all. I don't have a problem with things like the Prototype Jackhammer in Battlefield 2/3/4, the usage of equipment that just wouldn't be used by that particular army with player loadouts (e.g. US army using Russian stuff or the other way around), the Char 2C or prototype weaponss in BF1, the Thompson and Garand in BC2, or even the Churchill 3-inch Gun Carrier in the first BFV trailer etc; those were all integreted into the game in a way that, while ahistorical and unrealistic in their inclusion, were at an entirely different, more reasonable level that didn't make you go "This doesn't fit the tone of portraying the setting in a way that takes itself seriously". Battlefield V has decided to go for "Include anything and everything" in a way that completely ruins the versimilitude of a WW2 theme despite those things being around at the time. The Katana existed, prosethetics like that were made, flight jackets like that were worn, the face paint was a thing sort of etc...but that doesn't mean they automatically fit and add to the feeling of the setting. These wouldn't suddenly fit as cosmetics for soldiers on the Frontline in a serious WW1 depiction despite them existing at the time and being used: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M7iDSsoA6_g/V8jmRT8R6AI/AAAAAAAAK4w/5agLXmyGXYImWKRCs5w_nRAyBnkyZHwGgCLcB/s1600/acoustic_locator_13.jpg It's gone from BF1's "Show the horrors of WW1 in a serious, respectful tone, although still with the usual level of unrealistic equipment and slight cosmetics" to "Maintaining the tone of the setting? What's that mean? If it existed during WW2, put it in the game regardless of if it looks out of place! Just do whatever, doesn't matter!" and it's just such a let down, even more so that some people are being obtuse and unable see the difference between unrealistic aspects because of it being a video game with player agency (the whole "You can jump out of something in the air and get in another thing, that doesn't happen!" stuff a lot have parroted), slight inaccuracies that still keep the feel of the theme and BFVs choice to disregard any attempt at a serious tone to the point that it ends up being closer to mocking the setting. It's entirely down to the level it's gone to, BFV has gone way too far.

Why would an allied soldier fight with a katana anyway?

With the newest trailer and everything so far for this game, there really is a sort of tonal whiplash. We're jumping out of windows, able to customize our soldiers to be ridiculous things, and they play a bombastic cover of House of the Rising Sun, but then people are dying left and right, mass destruction is ensuing, and not a single character in the newest trailer has any real goofy factors or dialogue compared to the first one as if portraying an exaggerated version of the horrors of war. And the brief snippet of the campaign cutscenes from E3 simultaneously seems to be playing itself dead seriously, at least for the one war story they've alluded to. It's one of those cases where I think their previous trailer-design lead quitting is really hitting them hard. The campaigns have always been at odds with the multiplayer, but now I can't even tell what the hell sort of style or mood this game is going for when they don't seem to know themselves. All they know is "make everyone shout random things as shit blows up".

After BF1 (which was ok) and the stain that was battlefront 2 I'm gonna wait until 2143 get announced to get excite about battlefield again

Even in alpha stages at the ~40 FPS the game is fun to play, at least in my opinion, but I'm just not that excited for it for some reason. I don't know if I'm just getting tired of the formula, or the mismanagement of BF1 left a sour taste in my mouth, but this is probably going to be the first Battlefield game in years that I don't buy on release. It's kind of funny that the article mentions Black Ops 4 as well because I went into the recent beta with absolutely no expectations to enjoy it and came out of it wanting more.

I thought the BO4 beta was awful. I don't even know what they are trying to capture with game play and how some of the weapons are set up.

I tried playing the BO4 beta and within 5 seconds of my first round the game crashed to desktop, no errors, just desktop

It feels like elements from the past few years of FPS games cobbled together into one game. Like the devs played Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, and Fortnight and said "Wow lets throw this into our CoD game!".

It's very weird they didn't do that, because obviously they wanted total creative freedom and with an era/timeline that does not even exist they could've literally gotten away with any cosmetic without taking away authenticity