Biggest fear just became real.

Comments

  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I will mirror what others have said.

    If you want historical accuracy and a complete 100% accurate timeline of events, read a history book about it or watch a documentary on the subject, there are plenty of historically accurate documentaries on the history channel.

    Videogames based on history are never going to be 100% accurately depicting the wars they are attempting to recreate.

    There are always going to be inaccuracies no matter the game or developer, Certain elements are always going to be changed because videogames are meant to be fun and fun will always trump realism.

    I have yet to see a 1:1 recreation of ww2 that is accurate to the finest details.. And I'm kinda doubting I'll ever see one simply due to the fact that realism only really pulls in punters if the game is actually intended to be a simulator from the outset.

    Most players don't even want a simulation, Most players ( in my opinion ) want a game they can fire up, relax and enjoy.



    I never said I wanted it to be a WWII simulator. I only argued they should at least get stuff historically accurate. You are right that games and movies can never be 100% accurate, but they can at least be authentic about it.
    DICE didn't market the game as being an alternate timeline of WWII.
    .
    Why does wanting stuff to be historically accurate, somehow make the game 'not fun enough' and you can only get it if you read a history book or watch a documentary.
    Especially since DICE was pushing this game to be an immersive WWII experience.
    .
    .
    From EA/DICE's own website...

    DOFfKuD.png?1
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Carbonic wrote: »
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Yes, it's a game...a game that wants to tell stories of WWII.
    Simply put, it's an insult to veterans who fought and died in battles across the world. It's a direct insult to their memory, especially when it concerns actual battles that took place.
    The game isn't taking simply a WWII setting to make a game, it is trying to portray actual battles that took place.
    I'm sorry, but I just don't get your point of view. If, unlike most other media, Battlefield has focused on locations and conflicts not usually portrayed in media and that for you somehow is insulting, I don't see why.

    Except they focused on only the name of these "locations and conflicts not usually portrayed in media".
    They in no way tried to portray the actual conflict itself.
    .
    I'd be like if they had the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.
    For those who don't get the reference.

    .
    Rewriting history in what was marketed as a historical game is an insult to those who actually were there.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm only for premium if they make it cheaper than 60 bucks. I am not interested in paying for a game twice again. It should be like 10-20, so a mass amount of people will buy it.

    Have we already forgotten how utterly hated BF1 was for the whole separated community ordeal? Don't be tempted. It's the same poison apple every time.

    But my biggest concern is more about class imbalance. The STG and the sten were pretty much the easiest guns to use in the beta, by a lot. I am more worried about the other guns being more like tokens than viable weapons.

    If paying for a game twice means I in effect get three games for the price of two, okay, where do I sign? BF4 started off with ten maps, ended up with more than thirty, along with scores of new weapons and vehicles and even new game modes. All that, for forty or fifty bucks, how is that not a good deal? It isn't like we're talking about huge sums of money here, Premium was the equivalent of an XL pizza and a six-pack of good beer. Thousands of hours of entertainment for that little money, I don't see the problem.

    So now future content depends on enough clowns buying cosmetics, we're depending on fashion victims who consider the appearance of their character in a video game to be important to keep this game viable. Somehow I think the old business model was better.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13486 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    But it is authentic.

    It has time period authentic weaponry, vehicles and locations.

    Even the character customisation has been dialled back to make it more reflect the ww2 theme.
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    But it is authentic.

    It has time period authentic weaponry, vehicles and locations.

    Even the character customisation has been dialled back to make it more reflect the ww2 theme.

    Time period authentic and historically authentic are two entirely different things.
    Like I said before, the game didn't market itself as an alternate history of WWII, like Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1596 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm only for premium if they make it cheaper than 60 bucks. I am not interested in paying for a game twice again. It should be like 10-20, so a mass amount of people will buy it.

    Have we already forgotten how utterly hated BF1 was for the whole separated community ordeal? Don't be tempted. It's the same poison apple every time.

    But my biggest concern is more about class imbalance. The STG and the sten were pretty much the easiest guns to use in the beta, by a lot. I am more worried about the other guns being more like tokens than viable weapons.

    If paying for a game twice means I in effect get three games for the price of two, okay, where do I sign? BF4 started off with ten maps, ended up with more than thirty, along with scores of new weapons and vehicles and even new game modes. All that, for forty or fifty bucks, how is that not a good deal? It isn't like we're talking about huge sums of money here, Premium was the equivalent of an XL pizza and a six-pack of good beer. Thousands of hours of entertainment for that little money, I don't see the problem.

    So now future content depends on enough clowns buying cosmetics, we're depending on fashion victims who consider the appearance of their character in a video game to be important to keep this game viable. Somehow I think the old business model was better.

    I would prefer to have premium back also. It was set, we knew roughly how much content we were getting and roughly when. Banking on cosmetic sales is madness, I just don't see skins making enough to keep content flowing. The time period really limits cosmetic creativity especially considering the reactions to the more out there inclusions in the reveal. How on earth could dice create skins that would make us want to pay and keep it within the acceptable WW2 theme.
    I don't see it happening, I really don't.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Carbonic wrote: »
    An insult, really? It's a game that has decided to take a look at the often overlooked locations of WWII, not a history book. I would imagine that if they had to implement every single battle army and location, with the right weapons to boot, then there would be no time to do anything with the gameplay to actually make the game fun. I really don't find it an insult to anyone if they are not represented in a game, it's extra fun if you are and that's about it. I'm Danish but I'm not insulted that the invasion of Denmark is not there (would probably also be the most boring content for the game ever).

    Yes, it's a game...a game that wants to tell stories of WWII.
    .
    Simply put, it's an insult to veterans who fought and died in battles across the world. It's a direct insult to their memory, especially when it concerns actual battles that took place.
    The game isn't taking simply a WWII setting to make a game, it is trying to portray actual battles that took place.
    .
    It'd be like in BF1 if they had the British and Germans at Fort Vaux.
    .
    .
    Reading about the Invasion of Denmark, I highly doubt it would be boring as this excerpt is from just one battle during it.
    Bolstered by retreating units, there was an approximate total of 400 Danes defending the town. Three roadblocks were set up; one consisted of dumping wagons, two were made of spare lumber.

    At about 07:50 the southern outskirts of Haderslev, a Danish 37 mm anti-tank gun with a crew of five attacked the approaching armour. Two tanks lined up adjacent to one another and opened fire. The Danes landed all three of their shots -one in a tank's tracks- but two of the gun crew were killed and the rest wounded. One tank then drove over the gun. Just around the bend the wagon roadblock on Sønderbro Street covered by two 20 mm cannon and a machine gun put up resistance. The Germans laid down heavy fire and a Danish soldier was killed and two more wounded, but the Germans were effectively pinned down. The fighting continued for ten more minutes until the order to surrender was received from Copenhagen by telephone. The Germans were then allowed to proceed into the town of Haderslev, but the Danish garrison stationed there had not received the order to surrender and fired on the Germans. Two German tanks and a motorcycle proceeded unsuspecting towards the barracks, which were defended by the anti-tank unit from Lundtoftbjerg. They opened fire, killing the motorcyclist and blowing the tracks off one tank, sending it crashing into a house. However, the Danish garrison capitulated at 08:15 when the order to surrender from Copenhagen finally came through. One Danish soldier was killed while defending the barracks; three Danish civilians were killed in the crossfire

    Carbonic wrote: »
    Yes, I do imagine some compromises had to be made to ensure a good variety in guns for the release and I believe that the guns that will be introduced later might be the ones that have something to do with the areas and armies of the war that Tides of War will take place in. I'm not saying I believe the weapons introduced will have perfect chronological order - I'm just saying that if you miss some weapons right at release then Tide of War is probably the cause. Also, I'm not really that worried about not having as many guns as BF4 and BF1, I care more about weapon variety to spice up the gameplay, not having 2 almost identically playing guns that look different.

    Having weapon variety to "spice up the gameplay" means they'd have to add more weapons. Just because 2 weapons are similar, doesn't make choosing only 1 is the only option for a developer. I actually liked the variety in BF4 as even though some stats were similar, I enjoyed playing with a weapon I'll probably never get to hold.
    Carbonic wrote: »
    I think there's a difference here between telling "a story in WW2" and telling "the story of WW2". I don't see either direction being "the easy route" though.

    The problem is DICE wants to do both, and it can't.
    They opted for the easy route of telling a story in a WWII setting.
    .
    It's easy to tell a story, it's hard to tell the truth and could actually teach something while being fun.

    So then every game that starts with the invasion of Normandy must be an insult too.
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Carbonic wrote: »
    An insult, really? It's a game that has decided to take a look at the often overlooked locations of WWII, not a history book. I would imagine that if they had to implement every single battle army and location, with the right weapons to boot, then there would be no time to do anything with the gameplay to actually make the game fun. I really don't find it an insult to anyone if they are not represented in a game, it's extra fun if you are and that's about it. I'm Danish but I'm not insulted that the invasion of Denmark is not there (would probably also be the most boring content for the game ever).

    Yes, it's a game...a game that wants to tell stories of WWII.
    .
    Simply put, it's an insult to veterans who fought and died in battles across the world. It's a direct insult to their memory, especially when it concerns actual battles that took place.
    The game isn't taking simply a WWII setting to make a game, it is trying to portray actual battles that took place.
    .
    It'd be like in BF1 if they had the British and Germans at Fort Vaux.
    .
    .
    Reading about the Invasion of Denmark, I highly doubt it would be boring as this excerpt is from just one battle during it.
    Bolstered by retreating units, there was an approximate total of 400 Danes defending the town. Three roadblocks were set up; one consisted of dumping wagons, two were made of spare lumber.

    At about 07:50 the southern outskirts of Haderslev, a Danish 37 mm anti-tank gun with a crew of five attacked the approaching armour. Two tanks lined up adjacent to one another and opened fire. The Danes landed all three of their shots -one in a tank's tracks- but two of the gun crew were killed and the rest wounded. One tank then drove over the gun. Just around the bend the wagon roadblock on Sønderbro Street covered by two 20 mm cannon and a machine gun put up resistance. The Germans laid down heavy fire and a Danish soldier was killed and two more wounded, but the Germans were effectively pinned down. The fighting continued for ten more minutes until the order to surrender was received from Copenhagen by telephone. The Germans were then allowed to proceed into the town of Haderslev, but the Danish garrison stationed there had not received the order to surrender and fired on the Germans. Two German tanks and a motorcycle proceeded unsuspecting towards the barracks, which were defended by the anti-tank unit from Lundtoftbjerg. They opened fire, killing the motorcyclist and blowing the tracks off one tank, sending it crashing into a house. However, the Danish garrison capitulated at 08:15 when the order to surrender from Copenhagen finally came through. One Danish soldier was killed while defending the barracks; three Danish civilians were killed in the crossfire

    Carbonic wrote: »
    Yes, I do imagine some compromises had to be made to ensure a good variety in guns for the release and I believe that the guns that will be introduced later might be the ones that have something to do with the areas and armies of the war that Tides of War will take place in. I'm not saying I believe the weapons introduced will have perfect chronological order - I'm just saying that if you miss some weapons right at release then Tide of War is probably the cause. Also, I'm not really that worried about not having as many guns as BF4 and BF1, I care more about weapon variety to spice up the gameplay, not having 2 almost identically playing guns that look different.

    Having weapon variety to "spice up the gameplay" means they'd have to add more weapons. Just because 2 weapons are similar, doesn't make choosing only 1 is the only option for a developer. I actually liked the variety in BF4 as even though some stats were similar, I enjoyed playing with a weapon I'll probably never get to hold.
    Carbonic wrote: »
    I think there's a difference here between telling "a story in WW2" and telling "the story of WW2". I don't see either direction being "the easy route" though.

    The problem is DICE wants to do both, and it can't.
    They opted for the easy route of telling a story in a WWII setting.
    .
    It's easy to tell a story, it's hard to tell the truth and could actually teach something while being fun.

    So then every game that starts with the invasion of Normandy must be an insult too.

    I thought that last game that portrayed the Normandy landing (MoH:Allied Assault or MoH:Frontline) had a pretty good authentic landing scene.
    As far as the paratrooper drop, there was Brothers in Arms.
    .
    Both games had actual historians working with the developers, Brothers in Arms being the more authentic of the two.
  • von_Campenstein
    6571 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Rumbl33 wrote: »
    I know it doesn't mean anything in the scope of things. But, hell after the beta and most of my co-workers finding the content will be free and just buy skins. Basically everyone has preordered the game. I imagine this is drawing back a lot of people who got sick of the DLC game. I'm one of those guys.

    Anyone who wastes their money on game skins is a fool.
    .
    How does it go..."A fool and his money are soon parted".
    .
    .
    Enjoy another SWBF lack of content.

    I wouldn't mind buying a cool custom skin if reasonably priced, as much for it in itself as to support the games further development. Then again my chief concern isn't likely to be addressed so that's support from the sideline.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Carbonic wrote: »
    An insult, really? It's a game that has decided to take a look at the often overlooked locations of WWII, not a history book. I would imagine that if they had to implement every single battle army and location, with the right weapons to boot, then there would be no time to do anything with the gameplay to actually make the game fun. I really don't find it an insult to anyone if they are not represented in a game, it's extra fun if you are and that's about it. I'm Danish but I'm not insulted that the invasion of Denmark is not there (would probably also be the most boring content for the game ever).

    Yes, it's a game...a game that wants to tell stories of WWII.
    .
    Simply put, it's an insult to veterans who fought and died in battles across the world. It's a direct insult to their memory, especially when it concerns actual battles that took place.
    The game isn't taking simply a WWII setting to make a game, it is trying to portray actual battles that took place.
    .
    It'd be like in BF1 if they had the British and Germans at Fort Vaux.
    .
    .
    Reading about the Invasion of Denmark, I highly doubt it would be boring as this excerpt is from just one battle during it.
    Bolstered by retreating units, there was an approximate total of 400 Danes defending the town. Three roadblocks were set up; one consisted of dumping wagons, two were made of spare lumber.

    At about 07:50 the southern outskirts of Haderslev, a Danish 37 mm anti-tank gun with a crew of five attacked the approaching armour. Two tanks lined up adjacent to one another and opened fire. The Danes landed all three of their shots -one in a tank's tracks- but two of the gun crew were killed and the rest wounded. One tank then drove over the gun. Just around the bend the wagon roadblock on Sønderbro Street covered by two 20 mm cannon and a machine gun put up resistance. The Germans laid down heavy fire and a Danish soldier was killed and two more wounded, but the Germans were effectively pinned down. The fighting continued for ten more minutes until the order to surrender was received from Copenhagen by telephone. The Germans were then allowed to proceed into the town of Haderslev, but the Danish garrison stationed there had not received the order to surrender and fired on the Germans. Two German tanks and a motorcycle proceeded unsuspecting towards the barracks, which were defended by the anti-tank unit from Lundtoftbjerg. They opened fire, killing the motorcyclist and blowing the tracks off one tank, sending it crashing into a house. However, the Danish garrison capitulated at 08:15 when the order to surrender from Copenhagen finally came through. One Danish soldier was killed while defending the barracks; three Danish civilians were killed in the crossfire

    Carbonic wrote: »
    Yes, I do imagine some compromises had to be made to ensure a good variety in guns for the release and I believe that the guns that will be introduced later might be the ones that have something to do with the areas and armies of the war that Tides of War will take place in. I'm not saying I believe the weapons introduced will have perfect chronological order - I'm just saying that if you miss some weapons right at release then Tide of War is probably the cause. Also, I'm not really that worried about not having as many guns as BF4 and BF1, I care more about weapon variety to spice up the gameplay, not having 2 almost identically playing guns that look different.

    Having weapon variety to "spice up the gameplay" means they'd have to add more weapons. Just because 2 weapons are similar, doesn't make choosing only 1 is the only option for a developer. I actually liked the variety in BF4 as even though some stats were similar, I enjoyed playing with a weapon I'll probably never get to hold.
    Carbonic wrote: »
    I think there's a difference here between telling "a story in WW2" and telling "the story of WW2". I don't see either direction being "the easy route" though.

    The problem is DICE wants to do both, and it can't.
    They opted for the easy route of telling a story in a WWII setting.
    .
    It's easy to tell a story, it's hard to tell the truth and could actually teach something while being fun.

    So then every game that starts with the invasion of Normandy must be an insult too.

    I thought that last game that portrayed the Normandy landing (MoH:Allied Assault or MoH:Frontline) had a pretty good authentic landing scene.
    As far as the paratrooper drop, there was Brothers in Arms.
    .
    Both games had actual historians working with the developers, Brothers in Arms being the more authentic of the two.

    But it didnt have the invasion of Poland....that was your baseline of insulting.
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    But it is authentic.

    It has time period authentic weaponry, vehicles and locations.

    Even the character customisation has been dialled back to make it more reflect the ww2 theme.

    Time period authentic and historically authentic are two entirely different things.
    Like I said before, the game didn't market itself as an alternate history of WWII, like Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

    What's alternate about it?
  • YourLocalPlumber
    3122 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13486 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.
  • YourLocalPlumber
    3122 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.
  • LOLGotYerTags
    13486 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.

    Jabbing people with a needle to revive them is not authentic either....
  • von_Campenstein
    6571 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.

    Jabbing people with a needle to revive them is not authentic either....

    I saw that in Pulp Fiction, it's fact!
  • YourLocalPlumber
    3122 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.

    Jabbing people with a needle to revive them is not authentic either....

    It actually is.
  • Callahan44er
    5062 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.

    Jabbing people with a needle to revive them is not authentic either....

    Other then asian women on the british side its a gameplay mechanic thats been in the game for ages.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    But it is authentic.

    A very authentic looking British squad from 1940s.
    47xCoPj.jpg

    You're kinda missing the fact that in both Alphas and the Beta, The option to select specific character models per side was unavailable.

    Nice try though.

    It doesn't change the fact that its not authentic. If you can can have a team of Asian women as British, already takes authenticity and throws it right outta window.

    Jabbing people with a needle to revive them is not authentic either....

    It actually is.

    Not when they are riddled with bullets.
    There are plent more:

    Running and gunning with a stationary weapon like in BF1

    Deploying a parachute to safely jump off a 2 story building

    Russian heavy bomber in ballroom blitz

    Using french tanks for any side...

    The list can go forever....
  • TheGremmel
    16 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Less is more. Scientifically proven even. Just because you think it's bad doesn't make it so. Not being overwhelmed is better than nonsense. Like 10 gamemodes and none play 8 of them after a week. A lot of effort for no value.
  • ProAssassin2003
    3552 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Like BF3 to BF4. All rehash. Game will be awesome.
Sign In or Register to comment.