Is good that DICE is creating vehicles for BFV?

iloveBooSTInnG
15 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
In the last Dev Talks video they show some new vehicles coming to BFV at launch wich i consider great. A tank caught my attention was the Valentine MK I AA, it's a Tank with a Valentine chassis and an Bofors in his turret. The same tank in the real life was a Crusader MK I AA, with a crusader chassis.

Is this good for BFV and the franchise?
Why DICE choose this path?
Will they continue creating new vehicles?

Comments

  • EmothicVH
    973 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    It's probably suppose to be a Crusader, but seeing how the developers know very little about the history of the war, they most likely got the wrong tank. This whole game screams make-believe.

    Hell, have you seen the turret rotation on the German tanks? The Pz. IVs turns about 8 times faster then what it did in real life, and the Tiger 1 turret turns about 4 times faster. Not to mention the turret rotation on the Pz 38t.
  • crabman169
    12848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Its possible that they haven't made the Crusader tank yet to make said AA vehicle so they used the Valentine's chassis so that the British side will have a mobile AA tank to use. Its likely if and when the Crusader is modeled etc that this AA tank will be fixed up correctly.

    At this point in time is doesn't actually matter gameplay wise and the chassis do look similar anyhow
  • EmothicVH
    973 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    Its possible that they haven't made the Crusader tank yet to make said AA vehicle so they used the Valentine's chassis so that the British side will have a mobile AA tank to use. Its likely if and when the Crusader is modeled etc that this AA tank will be fixed up correctly.

    At this point in time is doesn't actually matter gameplay wise and the chassis do look similar anyhow

    How would they not already had the Crusader modeled? The game was suppose to release in about 4 weeks from now. What, is this Battlefield 4 again where EA forced DICE to shove the game out 2 - 3 months early to beat out Call of Duty, so some of their assets are still not in the game yet?
  • iloveBooSTInnG
    15 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited September 2018
    crabman169 wrote: »
    Its possible that they haven't made the Crusader tank yet to make said AA vehicle so they used the Valentine's chassis so that the British side will have a mobile AA tank to use. Its likely if and when the Crusader is modeled etc that this AA tank will be fixed up correctly.

    At this point in time is doesn't actually matter gameplay wise and the chassis do look similar anyhow

    I understand your point, but if they not have the real model of the Crusader chassis, why they just not put an anti-aircaft tank for both teams it's simple. Creating vehicles ruins the experience of a game set in World War II.

    I think this game will be amazing anyway, the maps looks wonderful, the game in general is great, but always have a little things that i don't like it.
  • crabman169
    12848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    EmothicVH wrote: »
    crabman169 wrote: »
    Its possible that they haven't made the Crusader tank yet to make said AA vehicle so they used the Valentine's chassis so that the British side will have a mobile AA tank to use. Its likely if and when the Crusader is modeled etc that this AA tank will be fixed up correctly.

    At this point in time is doesn't actually matter gameplay wise and the chassis do look similar anyhow

    How would they not already had the Crusader modeled? The game was suppose to release in about 4 weeks from now. What, is this Battlefield 4 again where EA forced DICE to shove the game out 2 - 3 months early to beat out Call of Duty, so some of their assets are still not in the game yet?

    Maybe because they started work on it at a later date then the Valentine and for the purpose of this dev talk constructed up this AA tank to showcase what the British would have. By launch it could be corrected as well as the Crusader tank being an available option.

    I don't actually know just offering suggestioms instead of kicking the bucket over a chassis which looks similar regardless and for the sake of gameplay will do its intended job just fine.

  • Noodlesocks
    3657 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If this is what is ruining your immersion now, you're in for one heck of a ride.
  • Bossman1794
    1073 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I feel like DICE has always strove for an "authentic" approach to BF games while stretching the truth in order to fit gameplay mechanics. BF1 is obviously a good one to shoe the egregious lengths this can go to.

    I don't really see anything wrong with it because fun and gameplay comes before realism and authenticity 95% of the time IMO. They're here to make a fun game, not a piecemeal historical reenactment in videogame form.
  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    Its possible that they haven't made the Crusader tank yet to make said AA vehicle so they used the Valentine's chassis so that the British side will have a mobile AA tank to use. Its likely if and when the Crusader is modeled etc that this AA tank will be fixed up correctly.

    At this point in time is doesn't actually matter gameplay wise and the chassis do look similar anyhow

    I understand your point, but if they not have the real model of the Crusader chassis, why they just not put an anti-aircaft tank for both teams it's simple. Creating vehicles ruins the experience of a game set in World War II.

    I think this game will be amazing anyway, the maps looks wonderful, the game in general is great, but always have a little things that i don't like it.

    It may ruin it for you but that's an unreasonable position. Putting a bofors on Kettengrad? That's not plausible. Totally understandable being annoyed by something like that. Putting a bofors on a Valentine? That's plausible. It's unreasonable to get all fussed about that as the reason they did that is so that they wouldn't have to create another model just for MAA. Similar to how the USA MAA in BF4 wasn't something that ever really went into production. If I showed you all the files that go into making a vehicle you'd understand instantly. It's an incredibly complex affair which is why you don't see any direct competition to Battlefield when it comes to vehicle combat.

    I'd much rather have them spend extra time and resources refining the vehicle systems rather than create a whole new chasis just to make it historically accurate.
  • EmothicVH
    973 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    I don't really see anything wrong with it because fun and gameplay comes before realism and authenticity 95% of the time IMO. They're here to make a fun game, not a piecemeal historical reenactment in videogame form.

    Yet, the game isn't going to be fun. As we seen in the beta. And the beta was not really a beta, more of a early access verison of the game, because the game was going to launch a month after the beta. Even with 2 months to fix all of the issues that angered the majoirty of their community, it's still not going to be enough time.

    Maybe if the developers spent less time on customization and political BS, and more time on actual mechanics and gameplay ability. It would be a fun game.
  • smokintom214
    1794 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't mind. The mobile AA would be very realistic if the war stretched another 2 years or just a year even. There were so many modifications to many light armored vehicles that were made that are in some way still present today. WW2 was the grandfather of what war is today.
  • Bossman1794
    1073 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    EmothicVH wrote: »

    I don't really see anything wrong with it because fun and gameplay comes before realism and authenticity 95% of the time IMO. They're here to make a fun game, not a piecemeal historical reenactment in videogame form.

    Yet, the game isn't going to be fun. As we seen in the beta. And the beta was not really a beta, more of a early access verison of the game, because the game was going to launch a month after the beta. Even with 2 months to fix all of the issues that angered the majoirty of their community, it's still not going to be enough time.

    Maybe if the developers spent less time on customization and political BS, and more time on actual mechanics and gameplay ability. It would be a fun game.

    Depends on who you are talking to I guess. I had an absolute blast playing the beta and loved a lot of the new mechanics. The game is in for criticism no matter what it does or what direction it goes in because the playerbase has simply become so big that it so many different things to so many different people. I for one love the move towards a more difficult game where one man armying isn't as easy as before.

    DICE seems to be putting in a massive effort to address many of the issue raised out of the Alpha/Beta. They know that they are under pressure from a lot of angles to deliver a quality game. The beta was tons of fun and if DICE actually deliver on even half of the things they said they would then it's going to a great game IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.