Question from a Veteran Player - Since when was Authenticity > Fun

1235»

Comments

  • DonSharkito
    798 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Just a small question - why do you think, that you may tell to people what to do and what to play or not to play in? Who are you, bro? Maybe that's you, who shouldn't actually play in BF and try something else, specially if you have such a low standarts for a history based wargame FPS with big history and very good reputation?

    Who am I? Certainly not your "bro".

    Then play a game you don't enjoy. Fine by me. And certainly fine to EA as well.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Lol. There is nothing to get for me in your poor argumentation and completely poor examples because they completely miss the point. They are so far from what is being discussed that I believe you are clueless and completely lost .

    And it's not for you to chose if I should gtfo.

    If you are not happy with people voicing the concerns on the future BFV or want to discuss some aspects of it, you should probably invite yourself to gtfo.

    By all means, please, keep crying about a pair of boobs in your manly, manly videogame.

    Yeah as I though you have no clue what you are taking about. If you reducing this whole debate about a pair of boobs then you have completely missed the point, at least from my end.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Just a small question - why do you think, that you may tell to people what to do and what to play or not to play in? Who are you, bro? Maybe that's you, who shouldn't actually play in BF and try something else, specially if you have such a low standarts for a history based wargame FPS with big history and very good reputation?

    Who am I? Certainly not your "bro".

    Then play a game you don't enjoy. Fine by me. And certainly fine to EA as well.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Lol. There is nothing to get for me in your poor argumentation and completely poor examples because they completely miss the point. They are so far from what is being discussed that I believe you are clueless and completely lost .

    And it's not for you to chose if I should gtfo.

    If you are not happy with people voicing the concerns on the future BFV or want to discuss some aspects of it, you should probably invite yourself to gtfo.

    By all means, please, keep crying about a pair of boobs in your manly, manly videogame.

    Yeah as I though you have no clue what you are taking about. If you reducing this whole debate about a pair of boobs then you have completely missed the point, at least from my end.

    Good, because you haven't presented any kind of argument (unless salt is considered argument these days), so I'm glad to put an end to the discussion - on your end.
  • DonSharkito
    798 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Just a small question - why do you think, that you may tell to people what to do and what to play or not to play in? Who are you, bro? Maybe that's you, who shouldn't actually play in BF and try something else, specially if you have such a low standarts for a history based wargame FPS with big history and very good reputation?

    Who am I? Certainly not your "bro".

    Then play a game you don't enjoy. Fine by me. And certainly fine to EA as well.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Lol. There is nothing to get for me in your poor argumentation and completely poor examples because they completely miss the point. They are so far from what is being discussed that I believe you are clueless and completely lost .

    And it's not for you to chose if I should gtfo.

    If you are not happy with people voicing the concerns on the future BFV or want to discuss some aspects of it, you should probably invite yourself to gtfo.

    By all means, please, keep crying about a pair of boobs in your manly, manly videogame.

    Yeah as I though you have no clue what you are taking about. If you reducing this whole debate about a pair of boobs then you have completely missed the point, at least from my end.

    Good, because you haven't presented any kind of argument (unless salt is considered argument these days), so I'm glad to put an end to the discussion - on your end.

    There is no discussion to end because it has never started to begin with, at least with you.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Just a small question - why do you think, that you may tell to people what to do and what to play or not to play in? Who are you, bro? Maybe that's you, who shouldn't actually play in BF and try something else, specially if you have such a low standarts for a history based wargame FPS with big history and very good reputation?

    Who am I? Certainly not your "bro".

    Then play a game you don't enjoy. Fine by me. And certainly fine to EA as well.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Lol. There is nothing to get for me in your poor argumentation and completely poor examples because they completely miss the point. They are so far from what is being discussed that I believe you are clueless and completely lost .

    And it's not for you to chose if I should gtfo.

    If you are not happy with people voicing the concerns on the future BFV or want to discuss some aspects of it, you should probably invite yourself to gtfo.

    By all means, please, keep crying about a pair of boobs in your manly, manly videogame.

    Yeah as I though you have no clue what you are taking about. If you reducing this whole debate about a pair of boobs then you have completely missed the point, at least from my end.

    Good, because you haven't presented any kind of argument (unless salt is considered argument these days), so I'm glad to put an end to the discussion - on your end.

    There is no discussion to end because it has never started to begin with, at least with you.

    Then I will be ending the conversation.

    You have a good day now.
  • DonSharkito
    798 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Just a small question - why do you think, that you may tell to people what to do and what to play or not to play in? Who are you, bro? Maybe that's you, who shouldn't actually play in BF and try something else, specially if you have such a low standarts for a history based wargame FPS with big history and very good reputation?

    Who am I? Certainly not your "bro".

    Then play a game you don't enjoy. Fine by me. And certainly fine to EA as well.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    Dude, argument of "It's just a 2 mins trailer, you can't really say much about the game from that" doesn't work. Such trailers exist only for the purpouse of giving some limited info about the game to the audience and be sure, people, who make such trailers think properly and carefuly, what info shold people see from that. So, that trailer was a message to us from devs and we have a full freedom to discuss about everything we saw there, what devs wanted us to actually see, and there is no need to quesion it.

    Authentism is one of the thing, that causes media product being or not being immersive, as well as a lot of other different elements. For game, which is based in fully fictional setting role of authentism in building immersive experience is much lesser, than for a game, which is based in fully real and historical setting, with solid frames and rules in it.
    Don't mess it up, pls.

    Another example. Assassin's Creed games were immersive. And, historically, they were based on real events.
    But they weren't authentic.

    Look, if you didn't get the difference by now, you are not getting it.

    Keep complaining, but a WWII videogame isn't the actual WWII. Get over it.

    The game is what it is, and it probably isn't changing. Play it or not.
    The devs didn't promise it would be authentic. They didn't say: "guys, we are making the game version of Saving Pvt. Ryan all over again".
    They said it would be immersive. As in, you need to do the animation to pick up the ammo, you will build the barricades, the environment will be destroyed in a much more realistic way, graphics and sound will be top notch as always, etc.

    So you can already stop using the argument "but they promised it would be authentic". Because they didn't.

    Well, how about having something reasonably in between "Saving Pvt. 2007" and "Handicaped women and viking cosplay team runnin around WWII bashin the fash all day long"? I mean... it shouldn't be just either 2 of those, you know...

    So... now you gonna interpretate "immersion" as if it only up for gameplay issues, and visuals, deisgns, style, atmosphere and attiutude of the game have nothing to deal with it? Boy oh boy... It's obviously easier to reinterpretate some obvious to everyone basic terms, instead of actually assume, that you are wrong. What else terms we can redo for the purpoues of making excuse to some bs moves of DICE and EA?

    And they did promise it to be immersive, which means it should only play like a WWII game, it also should look as WWII game as much as it possible, and it should move away from that pattern only if devs really have to do that, not for to make some "individualistic customisation experience" in the game, about war and times, where individualism wasn't even a thing.

    Again, you are basing your precious opinions on a 2 minute, scripted, non-multiplayer trailer. I told you already - be patient before peeing your panties.

    Here, I have a counterargument.

    Do you know the Metro videogame series? Good stuff. It's about people living in Moscow's subway because the big bombs fell and destroyed the land ontop. You live there and you have to explore this underground world, as well as parts of the outside.

    Now, if the game was authentic there wouldn't be creatures such as 'the dark ones', or mutated giant rats. There wouldn't be ghost trains or giant radioactive balls that basically destroy your **** in D6 (**** those balls man).
    Probably, people would be dead because of radiation, lack of food and water.

    The same happens with games like Stalker or Fallout.

    But hey, the game is immersive. You have to change your gas mask filter, the sounds and graphics are awesome, the maps are dark and some of them terrifying, the weapons animations and mechanics work very well, and the whole story in general is well narrated and well driven.

    So there is a big difference between being authentic and being immersive.

    A game can be immersive inside a world full vampires and werewolves. But it can't be authentic.

    ????

    You are comparing works of fictions to WW2.

    ????

    You are comparing a WWII videogame to the actual WWII.

    Sure, cos if it is a WWII game, but it doesn't really look like a WWII, then why someone calls it WWII game in a first place? Just call it a wannabe WWII fantasy FPS and trust me - literally noone will have any problem with any possible bs, that devs will want to create inside of such field. Noone has a problems with Wolfenstien being ridiculous most of the time, you know...

    I think you have the curious assumption that a Battlefield game should be some kind of milsim - all realistic.

    Battlefield was never historically accurate, never claimed to be, and never meant to be.

    If that doesn't match your expectations, you should find another franchise to play.

    Given your examples I think you completely missed the point.

    Like I said, if you didn't get it by now, you are not getting it.

    #notyourbattlefieldgtfo

    Lol. There is nothing to get for me in your poor argumentation and completely poor examples because they completely miss the point. They are so far from what is being discussed that I believe you are clueless and completely lost .

    And it's not for you to chose if I should gtfo.

    If you are not happy with people voicing the concerns on the future BFV or want to discuss some aspects of it, you should probably invite yourself to gtfo.

    By all means, please, keep crying about a pair of boobs in your manly, manly videogame.

    Yeah as I though you have no clue what you are taking about. If you reducing this whole debate about a pair of boobs then you have completely missed the point, at least from my end.

    Good, because you haven't presented any kind of argument (unless salt is considered argument these days), so I'm glad to put an end to the discussion - on your end.

    There is no discussion to end because it has never started to begin with, at least with you.

    Then I will be ending the conversation.

    You have a good day now.

    kthxbi
  • Loqtrall
    12306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Wow, glad that's over.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Wow, glad that's over.

    :D:D:D
  • DonSharkito
    798 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Wow, glad that's over.

    :D:D:D

    How cute you are both complimenting each other like true jail mates! Hope your cell is not too cold.
  • Loqtrall
    12306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Wow, glad that's over.

    :D:D:D

    How cute you are both complimenting each other like true jail mates! Hope your cell is not too cold.

    Well aside from your continuation of OT pointlessness, I actually got jailed because I was defending someone from a trolls blatant insults. I was accused of baiting because I asked him if he was salty and told him to ease up on the insults instead of just reporting him.

    But have fun with your meaningless pointing out of people's posting habits.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I got jailed for saying "weakest comebacks 2018".

    It hurts, man... Oh f*ck :'(
  • DonSharkito
    798 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Wow, glad that's over.

    :D:D:D

    How cute you are both complimenting each other like true jail mates! Hope your cell is not too cold.

    Well aside from your continuation of OT pointlessness, I actually got jailed because I was defending someone from a trolls blatant insults. I was accused of baiting because I asked him if he was salty and told him to ease up on the insults instead of just reporting him.

    But have fun with your meaningless pointing out of people's posting habits.

    Says the guy who is deliberately posting OT stuff... No one cares why you are both being jailed.

    Back on topic. After having read many posts I am happy to see that many are concerned the way all of this cosmetic customisations might go and how it could break their investment in the game or immersion.

    To see some trying to deny that or considering that their point of view bs for various reasons is a bit low and irrelevant, because everyone has a different view on what makes a video game immersive to them. But for many it is certainly not over the top cosmetic stuff (which may be authentic or not, that is not the question) in a WW2 game.

    So let's how it plays it in a few weeks when some gameplay footage will be revealed and hopefully everybody will be happy with what they will see.
  • Rogue-Mike
    296 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    Been around since BF Heroes if that counts as a Veteran. Trailer looked more geared to Co-op or multiplayer and didn't bother me in the slightest, in fact the way it progressed reminded me of BFBC2's Squad stories trailers with elements taken from BF4's opening scene when you load up the game with it jumping all over the place to BF Heroes with outfit customization. The prosthetic limb did catch my eye though as I thought it was pretty cool. I hold more value in core mechanics, game play mechanic flow and stable support. Battlefield V is based within the WWII era so people, the weapons or items have existed somewhere in that period at some point so I'm not worried about the non 100% authenticity nonsense and is something I NEVER look for in videos games, which is pretty stupid to do in the first place. I have some good faith that BF V is going to be lit, just not for the ones stuck in 02 or overly sensitive.
  • STAR_6_G
    34 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Authenticity is not opposite to fun. In fact, authenticity is one of the biggest parts in war games, that makes them fun.

    So, in reality isn't not like

    *Authenticity > Fun*

    It's actually like

    *Authenticity -> Fun <- Good Gameplay *

    Right on the money. Authentic history we can relate as if a game is real but also just a game. It’s fun playing the role and yes there are lots of simulation war games but Battlefield is the only battlefield and the title Battlefield is sound massive, original,authentic,masterpiece,and hand made well handcrafted by professional. The soundtrack alone makes me sing it like wolf of the Wall Street movie when Mathew mccunthay and Leopard DiCaprio was drumming their chest. Umhaa..umhaa.umhaa. Battlefield is da. Rat. Dat. Dot da. Rat dot. Da rat dot dot da rat dot. Lol

  • naitch44
    666 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    "Post launch support is on point and efficient"

    lmfao
  • EA_Cian
    822 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, EA Staff (retired), Battlefield V
    Let's please not necro threads, tyvm~
This discussion has been closed.