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
Why are we letting men appropriate women's culture of being war heroes and defeating nazis. They should make sure you identify as a woman before they let you select a woman character, no? Otherwise the patriarchy wins again!
 
Honestly i could have tolerated stuff (I wasn't going to buy it anyway) but then they go and be condescending and insuling people? They can fuck off
 
I don't understand why they had to attach the Battlefield name to this. There's a huge market for gritty violent grindhouse style alternate history fiction. They could have named it Cyberfield or something, marketed it as a spin off and avoided all of this. In fact it kills me to agree with the massive faggots at Oneangrygamer but the fact that from the very beginning the marketing for this game was so snide, aggressive, and confrontational makes me think they really did do it just to spite gamers.
 
Ruin said:
I don't understand why they had to attach the Battlefield name to this. There's a huge market for gritty violent grindhouse style alternate history fiction. They could have named it Cyberfield or something, marketed it as a spin off and avoided all of this. In fact it kills me to agree with the massive faggots at Oneangrygamer but the fact that from the very beginning the marketing for this game was so snide, aggressive, and confrontational makes me think they really did do it just to spite gamers.
Click to expand...

Bethesda did it for Wolfenstein 2 as well, trying to appeal to the "punch a nazi" crowd despite the clear implications of the phrase at the time (hint, it meant punching people extreme lefties and antifa disagreed with) the result was shitty and slow sales on Steam and the other platforms.

Now they've gone the opposite way with Doom Eternal, taking the piss out of the SJW and open borders mindset to see what happens. They are playing the opposite side now to see which market is likely to be bigger while making sure the actual "core" of Bethesda's releases are released as neutrally as possible.

The reason the marketing has been so snide for BFV is because of what happened to ME:A where people warned them it was going to be bad and so people didn't buy it. Generally you don't fucking insult your customer base but some dangerhair was probably riding Soderlund's dick so that's why they decided to tell their own customers to fuck themselves. Despite lots and lots of evidence this never ends well for anyone who does this, they did it anyway.

*Deep breath* HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Well+what+do+you+ingdiggityknow+centerbig1httpswwwmarketwatchcomstoryeasharesslumpafterreleaseofbattlefieldvisdelayedforamonth20180830big1center_5d2fb6_6720272.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing footage of the beta and the graphics look really bad. Like incredibly bad. BF1 looks better than this.
 
Medicated said:
View attachment 529365
Click to expand...

Why yes, it must be so empowering to play as a skin which, due to the nature of being an FPS, you will spend 90% of your gameplay experience neither looking at nor acknowledging. Unless you die or spend the entire time in the Loadout menu or spamming voice lines.

This is why I think anyone who says characters like Symmetra - or other FPS skins with no actual storyline - are great, empowering characters should look into having a lobotomy.
 
NotoriousD said:
I know it's hoping but, this is probably going to be a trashfire like Andromeda was.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope so and I also hope investors start barking and biting the companies that insult their customers. It's bad business... or supposed to be anyways, but gamers tend to eat whatever shit is served.
 
Ruin said:
I don't understand why they had to attach the Battlefield name to this. There's a huge market for gritty violent grindhouse style alternate history fiction. They could have named it Cyberfield or something, marketed it as a spin off and avoided all of this. In fact it kills me to agree with the massive faggots at Oneangrygamer but the fact that from the very beginning the marketing for this game was so snide, aggressive, and confrontational makes me think they really did do it just to spite gamers.
Click to expand...
It's the same reason why Call of Duty Advanced Warfare was branded Call of Duty, or why Modern Warfare 2's early marketing that lacked the CoD branding was changed to include it. With MW2 they found out that the brand awareness was better when they slapped the CoD logo on it so while the teaser trailer lacked it, the final boxart had a small Call of Duty logo on it. The same went with Advanced Warfare which was a radical departure gameplay wise that drove off many fans, regardless of the quality of the game. Activision likely assumed it'd sell millions if they slapped a name on it, except the people buying games with said name on it wanted a specific game. This led to a game that sold millions, but had a playerbase that shrank thanks to the fact that the big CoD players (who wanted MW2) hated it. If they had called it something else and maybe move the single player away from a similar setting in a different time (future Earth and some war) then they might have very well had another new IP on their hands, but they didn't want to take the risk.

I see so many game devs making this mistake. Instead of spacing out the releases of these games or letting developers do their own thing by making a new IP, they choose to release games with different gameplay from title to title in a single franchise and this leads to the very mixed quality found in franchises like CoD or EA's Need for Speed franchise (which became notorious for having everything from arcade style racing games like Criterion's titles to racing sims like Shift under the same brand).

It's a stupid business move but it's not the game developers deciding this, it's the marketing people. The same marketing people who come up with genius ideas like "let's take this adventure game and turn it into Star Fox because the main character looks like Fox", or "the kids are buying Fortnite, let's give our game a Battle Royale mode", or "our single player game should have a multiplayer mode at all costs".

NotoriousD said:
I know it's hoping but, this is probably going to be a trashfire like Andromeda was.
Click to expand...
If the bugs aren't fixed it'll be even worse. Remember when BF4 came out and it was unplayable online? When MP games are broken on launch, you can't even play them most of the time. People will spend $60 on a game that pushes multiplayer, only to find out the MP doesn't work.
 
NotoriousD said:
Oh my god, by the third fucking webm in that thread. TITANFALL is fucking censored. What the fuck is this word filter?
Click to expand...
There must be some corporate fuckery afoot. The banning of "6700k " seems like a deliberate reference to the Intel processor, but of course the jokers in the various discussion threads are insisting it must be a reference to 6700k dead Jews in Holocaust.
 
millais said:
There must be some corporate fuckery afoot. The banning of "6700k " seems like a deliberate reference to the Intel processor, but of course the jokers in the various discussion threads are insisting it must be a reference to 6700k dead Jews in Holocaust.
Click to expand...
Actually there WAS one post in that thread in response to the third webm that suggested they were censoring the names of Intel processors, which I assumed was the 6700k bit, on top of them also censuring Titanfall. Just the one far as I could see, but it did give me a clue as to what the 6700k even was for.

Man, between bugs, this shit, the in your face fuck you advertising, the blatant fact that this is becoming more a fantasy warfare setting than a historically accurate one. Fuck this is gonna be an awesome trashfire to witness(I sincerely hope).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom