Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
SiccDicc said:
America also put their women into factories and so did Russia. That's completely different than frontline duty, although Russia actually had a female sniper squad if I remember right.
Click to expand...
I explicitly said Axis power for that reason, as a direct contrast to Japan's co-belligerents in Europe. Russia also operated T-34 crews of nothing but women, and women were frequently assigned crew-served weapons like machine guns and mortars, where their reduced physical strength is less of an issue than front-line infantry combat, especially of the close quarters sorts the Russians favored thanks to numerical superiority.
 
Snekposter said:
I explicitly said Axis power for that reason, as a direct contrast to Japan's co-belligerents in Europe. Russia also operated T-34 crews of nothing but women, and women were frequently assigned crew-served weapons like machine guns and mortars, where their reduced physical strength is less of an issue than front-line infantry combat, especially of the close quarters sorts the Russians favored thanks to numerical superiority.
Click to expand...
I just looked this up, but Germany had 41% of their women in the workforce by time their economy shifted towards the war effort.
 
Citizen Calamity said:
View attachment 2222143
Looks like they're going back to Battlefield 3/4 type game. Here's to hoping for that snow in Hell so it doesn't suck.
Click to expand...
I'm somewhat apprehensive about what sort of wacky cosmetics will be in the game.

After everything they tried, and did, push into a WWII game, I'm morbidly curious about what they'll do this time.
 
ShortBusDriver said:
I disagree on the Battle Royale, at the time it was the most dominate genre and to some degree still is.

That problem is the game launched without it and it showed up half finished over a year later. Combined with all the other problems with the game it was just too much to overcome.
Click to expand...
that's like asking for a battle royale in sims "because it's popular".
not every game needs a BR mode, nor should it be a criteria. yes, battlefield is more arcade than realistic, but they went out of their way to tell "authentic" stories for their idpol drivel instead of going full alt-history where no one would've batted an eye, you honestly believe that demographic wants a battle royale, especially when there are a dozen games who do it better and cheaper?
the only acceptable case would've been to say "what could we come up with to distinguish ourselves and improve on the formula", and fail on that merit, but this is fucking dice, shit game design is their MO. radical heights was probably better than whatever dice shat out, on top of what most people think is the worst battlefield in history.
 
ZMOT said:
that's like asking for a battle royale in sims "because it's popular".
not every game needs a BR mode, nor should it be a criteria. yes, battlefield is more arcade than realistic, but they went out of their way to tell "authentic" stories for their idpol drivel instead of going full alt-history where no one would've batted an eye, you honestly believe that demographic wants a battle royale, especially when there are a dozen games who do it better and cheaper?
the only acceptable case would've been to say "what could we come up with to distinguish ourselves and improve on the formula", and fail on that merit, but this is fucking dice, shit game design is their MO. radical heights was probably better than whatever dice shat out, on top of what most people think is the worst battlefield in history.
Click to expand...
I mean I think a lot of people would say that about Call of Duty as well both both of their Battle Royale modes have become huge hits.

Large maps are the antithesis to what COD has historically been, small maps and tight three lane attack / defense.

If anyone could have done this I would have expected it to be Battlefield because the game was a 'sandbox' game going back to BF2.

I don't think BFV was a bad game, I think it needed another year of development and going to WW2 after coming off WW1 was a huge mistake.
 
ShortBusDriver said:
I mean I think a lot of people would say that about Call of Duty as well both both of their Battle Royale modes have become huge hits.

Large maps are the antithesis to what COD has historically been, small maps and tight three lane attack / defense.

If anyone could have done this I would have expected it to be Battlefield because the game was a 'sandbox' game going back to BF2.

I don't think BFV was a bad game, I think it needed another year of development and going to WW2 after coming off WW1 was a huge mistake.
Click to expand...
The problem wasn't them doing a WWII game, that setting was one of the most popular settings for shooters.

The problem was them botching the setting so spectacularly in comparison to how they portrayed WWI. From the overly fast & loose approach they took to cosmetics, missing iconic battles like D-Day (although the Pacific update did sort of make up for that), their failure to include the Italians and Russians, and the elite characters that felt just as out of place as the reveal trailer's soldiers, BFV felt more like a WWII theme for Fortnite.

DICE has shown that they can handle the setting well in the past, so I don't know what the hell happened this time.
 
charlieintel.com

Former General Manager of Call of Duty joins EA to lead Battlefield franchise

With all the hype surrounding the new Battlefield, EA have employed an ex-Call of Duty executive to help boost the franchise.
charlieintel.com charlieintel.com

This just enforces my entire theory on how EA is coping hard with the failure of BFV and how COD had a second resurgence with Modern Warfare 2019. EA is seemingly copying every step Activision took in the lead up to Modern Warfare 2019

  1. Release a mobile game that was basically "the best" of every COD give players an tolerable grind for actual gameplay affecting (weapons, classes) but charge out the wazoo for cosmetics
  2. Hype the newest release of the year as a "return to form" a soft reboot of the franchise itself
  3. Advertise the game has being near realistic and modern day with amazing gun porn and operators
  4. Wait and launch a F2P battle royale based on the game a couple of months later
Thats how I am seeing it as much as I like BF3, Bad Company 2, and BF4 you can tell they ditched the design ideas of the refractor era Battlefields and went hard on marketing agasint call of duty.
 
ShortBusDriver said:
I mean I think a lot of people would say that about Call of Duty as well both both of their Battle Royale modes have become huge hits.

Large maps are the antithesis to what COD has historically been, small maps and tight three lane attack / defense.

If anyone could have done this I would have expected it to be Battlefield because the game was a 'sandbox' game going back to BF2.
Click to expand...
more people have complained about blops4 ditching the campaign for blackout than playing it. BR really only got big with warzone, and warzone is free.

large "sandboxy" maps only exist in 2 places in nu-battlefield, conquest and operations, for anything else it's either TDM, rush or locker/metro spam. conquest was pretty much shit in bf3 due to consoles being limited to 24 players, meaning points were in spitting distance to each other, and it hasn't really improved since then. the biggest issue is that it's a clusterfuck of circlejerking countercapping and hide&seek because apparently understanding why it worked in bf2 is too difficult for the diverse team at dice sweden. people stick mostly to modes where there are fronts, which are nothing like BR.

ShortBusDriver said:
I don't think BFV was a bad game, I think it needed another year of development and going to WW2 after coming off WW1 was a huge mistake.
Click to expand...
you could've given it 5 years, wouldn't chang anything unless you close off the dice sweden office, fumigate the place to get rid of braindead retards, and hand over the franchise to a competent studio.
this is even more important when you want solid support for BR, in normal BF getting aimbot-sniped by a handgun from the enemy spawn sucks but you can just respawn and don't lose anything. and that's on top their technical and design abilities which have always been dogshit to the point the community had to disable shit for weeks, and that's only if they shelled out for a rented server. official servers were a clusterfuck during those times.
 
ShortBusDriver said:
I disagree on the Battle Royale, at the time it was the most dominate genre and to some degree still is.

That problem is the game launched without it and it showed up half finished over a year later. Combined with all the other problems with the game it was just too much to overcome.
Click to expand...
The Battle Royale mode has no place in Battlefield. BF has always been about 2 teams on a big map, not a free-for-all.

ShortBusDriver said:
I mean I think a lot of people would say that about Call of Duty as well both both of their Battle Royale modes have become huge hits.

Large maps are the antithesis to what COD has historically been, small maps and tight three lane attack / defense.

If anyone could have done this I would have expected it to be Battlefield because the game was a 'sandbox' game going back to BF2.

I don't think BFV was a bad game, I think it needed another year of development and going to WW2 after coming off WW1 was a huge mistake.
Click to expand...
CoD has changed and has been chasing trends since it went into esports. The BR formula works for CoD because CoD has turned into a sweatfest where no one cares about the objectives.
 
Miller said:
The Battle Royale mode has no place in Battlefield. BF has always been about 2 teams on a big map, not a free-for-all.


CoD has changed and has been chasing trends since it went into esports. The BR formula works for CoD because CoD has turned into a sweatfest where no one cares about the objectives.
Click to expand...

And like no one sweats in battlefield? I fucking hate sweat as a complaint it’s like you admit to being a shitter.
 
Vault Boy said:
The problem wasn't them doing a WWII game, that setting was one of the most popular settings for shooters.

The problem was them botching the setting so spectacularly in comparison to how they portrayed WWI. From the overly fast & loose approach they took to cosmetics, missing iconic battles like D-Day (although the Pacific update did sort of make up for that), their failure to include the Italians and Russians, and the elite characters that felt just as out of place as the reveal trailer's soldiers, BFV felt more like a WWII theme for Fortnite.

DICE has shown that they can handle the setting well in the past, so I don't know what the hell happened this time.
Click to expand...
I think the doors been open and the horse has escaped that barn.

2017's COD WW2 had beautifully detailed and authentic uniforms that really aided the immersion of the game.

Then within six months you're fighting against zombie skins with neon pink guns.

The Fortnite crowd has ruined the historical shooter.
 
Last edited:
Bad Company 3 would've been a smarter decision. Character expression and caution to the wind would make for a change of pace from our serious military shooters.

This looks bland, even compared to BF4.
 
iceteayo said:
And like no one sweats in battlefield? I fucking hate sweat as a complaint it’s like you admit to being a shitter.
Click to expand...
meanwhile I'm in the top 3 with 4 kills and win the match while the sweaty vehicle whore made his team lose by never pushing because MUH K/D.

The Last Stand said:
Bad Company 3 would've been a smarter decision. Character expression and caution to the wind would make for a change of pace from our serious military shooters.

This looks bland, even compared to BF4.
Click to expand...
they could've done steam/dieselpunk for fucking ever, I'll never understand why they didn't go all out with DLC. give me war of the worlds for BF1 fighting tripods, give me dust or any other alt history setting for V and so forth.
cod having no qualms going this way is one of the reasons for it's popularity.
 
The Last Stand said:
Bad Company 3 would've been a smarter decision. Character expression and caution to the wind would make for a change of pace from our serious military shooters.

This looks bland, even compared to BF4.
Click to expand...
I was a huge BF2 fan, I probably played that game more than any other up until that point.

Bad Company and all of the later Battlefields gave me motion sickness within 10 minutes of playing so I never got much time with them.

I was excited when Battlefield V came out because it had a FOV slide even on the console version so I could change it to something more inline with COD and problem solved.
 
Last edited:
1622864663317.png

1622864678678.png

1622864694984.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom