Battlefield 5

[kuhla]

source - https://gamerant.com/battlefield-v-reveal-date/

Quote

...

As seen in the tweet below from Trevor Noah’s official Twitter account, the comic states that Battlefield V‘s Live Reveal will take place on Wednesday, May 23, 2018, and fans will be able to watch it streaming on the game’s YouTube channel.

...

 

[Malaphax]

Saw that.  Didn't want to post about an announcement for multiple reasons, not the least of which being I bet this "announcement event" will be a shitshow, complete with various random celebrities attempting to play the game, a handful of very polite games journalists and maybe a few people that actually play battlefield at a decent level. 

Current rumors are:
The game is WW2 setting, and the "V" stands for Victory.  It's expected to be basically battlefield 1942 but with more locations and better looking.  Possible focus on northern africa and/or the pacific. 
Alternative (less likely) rumors:
The V stands for Vietnam, possibly even hints of bad company style campaign (comedic - less serious). 

Unfortunately, the WW2 setting does nothing for me.  While my initial gut reaction is to give this game a hard pass (like BF1), it's been many years now since I've played a new battlefield game and I might just bite the bullet and go in on it.  I've heard battlefield 1 is pretty fun, and I expect that this game will be as well.  I also wonder if they're going to go the same path as Battlefront 2 and stop selling map packs, but rather sell other content like customization options and possibly different class kits, I wouldn't be surprised by that. 

[Malaphax]

Confirmed WW2 - The flags at the top are UK and Germany

 

 

[kuhla]

You can even see it in the thumbnail they chose for the rumor teaser announcement viral reveal leak video don't forget to subscribe like and regurgitate

 

 

I knew this was coming but fuck this. I'm not buying this crap. I'm done with WWII.

 

[Malaphax]

Again, my initial reaction is to give this game a hard pass like I did with BF1.  But seeing as I don't know what other games will release between now and the end of the year, I might end up picking this up if no other shooters catch my attention. 
I haven't played a battlefield game since battlefield 4 (technically battlefront 1) and at this point I might be willing to overlook the completely uninspired setting of WW2 and just play it because it's a battlefield / combined arms game. 

[Malaphax]

 

[kuhla]

[Malaphax]

That's roughly the same reaction as most people on the /r/games subreddit. 

Their announcement event was a an overproduced cringefest, I clicked through some of it.  The highlights are:

• No premium pass, all map packs will be free (we knew this already, especially after Battlefront 2)
• No pay2win*  Supposedly this means everything gameplay related can be earned in game. I expect battlepacks to be pushed very hard.  Character customization will be one of their largest pushes as well.
• Bullet penetration from high caliber weapons like the mg42
• Co-op
• BUILDING STUFF - HEY YOU KIDS LIKE FORTNITE RIGHT? WELL FELLOW KIDS WE HAVE THAT TOO!
• New movement system - this is supposed to explain why the character in the trailer is rag-dolling all over the place.  Also it looks like there are more slides/dives available. 

All that nonsense out of the way.  While I'm no scientist, I can't tell if Battlefield has decided to go more in the "bad company" style of game or if they've just completely jumped the shark.  While I personally don't care about some of the hilariously strange character customization that was in that trailer (dude has a katana, woman has a mechanical arm).  I don't know if this footage was from the single player campaign, a co-op campaign or the multiplayer.  It does seem strange to go from a relatively historically accurate looking BF1 to this game which looks almost like an alternative universe WW2 "punk" style game. 

Again I'm not sold on this game by any means, but unless some really cool stuff gets announced during E3 that's releasing this year, I might jump on this from a pure need for shooter variety. 

EDIT - Here's a much longer link which does a better job describing some of the new features in this game.  It is... extensive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/8ln06b/battlefield_v_new_gameplay_features_and_huge/dzgvi4y/

[Malaphax]

There's some small details being announced and more than a few people yelling about the character models they showed in that "trailer." 

Something far more interesting to me is that Battlefield is now partnering with Nvidia instead of AMD - I wonder how many Nvidia gameworks options we'll see. 

https://wccftech.com/dice-partners-nvidia-battlefield-v-pc/

[kuhla]

source -

Quote

 

I knew this was going to be a fight when i pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don’t want to ever have to answer her question of “why can’t I make a character that looks like me” with “because you’re a girl.”

I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history.

And I think many people will play the game despite their reservations. And maybe learn something about either history or themselves. That is part of the making games art.

 

[Malaphax]

Yea I saw that dev response and nearly detached my retinas rolling my eyes that hard. 

I think the best response that multiple people have posted is to say "We're using WWII as a setting, but customization options may not follow historical accuracy and are not a main focus of this game.  We will take any creative license we feel would make for a better gaming experience." 
There's no need to try and justify anything if you're just using a rough setting or an alternate history setting.  Plus, when it comes down to it, most games have customization that breaks immersion or is downright wonky. 
If you want to get super ugly someone mentioned that there could be additional issues if someone pays to host a server with *REALISTIC - NO FEMALE SOLDIERS ALLOWED* ruleset.  I bet you, they might even shut down servers like that. 

Another alternative proposed is to have a client side option where customization is turned off and all the soldiers appear more generic.  That might appease the more rabid fans that oppose this level of weirdness.  Of course, that would also probably cut into their business model of selling cosmetics if people can simply turn them off...

Personally I don't give a shit about the customization because I don't think the battlefield series has been at the pinnacle of realism, look at Battlefield 1 for a recent example.  Hell, if I buy the game I have a strong feeling I'd create a female soldier myself. 

 

[Malaphax]

 

[Malaphax]

Actual Gameplay

[Malaphax]

 

[Malaphax]

Open Beta September 6.  Pre-order people get it on September 4th.  There is a pre-load period on September 3rd. 

https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/news/battlefield-5-open-beta-announcement

Two maps Novarik (snow map from the alpha) and Rotterdam the map from the recent trailer(s). 

Not to set off the bullshit about "inclusion" again but the developer who called fans "uneducated" and told them not to buy the game recently left Dice/EA. 
As a side note I came across two really good videos on BF1 recently - I don't agree with everything that this "pro" player suggests, but he's a really strong infantry player, and I respect his opinion more than random youtubers.  He has a couple videos from the Battlefield 5 alpha as well. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1_RJ-cHK8I
This is the video he references on the "inclusion" topic and it's fairly well presented. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk4V8xy3ySE

[kuhla]

Open beta? Yeah, I'll try that.

[Malaphax]

This is the perks/customization system. 

 

[Malaphax]

This video is basically what everyone wanted when they first announced the game.  I have a feeling if this was the first major trailer they released I wouldn't be reading rumors about low sales figures. 

 

[kuhla]

One concern I have is too many game modes. Splits the community a bit.

Sidenote: Do we have the theme yet OST? A quick youtube search didn't really pull anything officialish looking up

[T1no]

since i dont own bf1 this list is compared to bf4 and other great fps shooter

I liked

-recoil is more predictable 

-visual is fantastic

-bullet travel faster

-sniping is fun

-movement is better

-gamepace is good imo not to slow not to fast.

-that snow and rotterdam map is good

-tank is slow and powerful

-performance is good on dx11

-no doritus

-more destructions.

I dont like

-im not sure if i like holding to give up. it takes like more than few sec to give up while holding your mouse one. toggle maybe.

-visual is fantastic but its beee zeee. aiming with iron sight sometimes difficult.

-im out of ammo constantly. i suspect playing with friends this wont be a problem.

-related to the ammo thing but people still play like any other bf game. they go all over the place. not enough incentive to stay near your squad. therefor im constantly out of ammo.

-performance is busted on dx12 stuttering and shit fps. could be just my computer.

 

overall the game is good based on those 2 maps and limited guns and unlocks. 

i prob get it if you guys get it. 

 

[Malaphax]

Impending Wall of text

tl;dr The game is good, I'm strongly considering buying it. 

The good

• Gunplay is solid.  TTK seems slightly faster than previous BF games, but still reasonable.  The weapons feel weighty with substantial recoil, but almost everything can be burst fired or switched to single shot for more control.
• Pacing is slower than I would like, but I'm still getting used to it.  It has much more downtime than the meat grinder of previous battlefields, but this game seems much more war of attrition style. 
• Medics aren't useless.  The squad revive is slow and can't be used in combat.  I dislike the SMG options for medics but they're incredibly powerful in terms of healing and providing extra med-kits. 
• Grenade spam is gone.  Haven't seen any problems with this so far.  Grenade launcher seems weak as hell, incendiaries are also very weak.  Smoke could afford to be bigger to allow for more coordinated pushes on objectives. 
• Movement is really good.  The dive and combat roll are really neat looking.  Vaulting is still busted, someone suggested they put vault on a different key other than jump like Pubg handles it... might work. 
• Tanks feel like proper tanks, they are quite a bit weaker than BF4 but that seems ok, especially since in beta very few people are running with panzerfaust, I think they might need a buff at launch but so far they're only slightly underpowered. 

The bad

• The Menus and UI is hot garbage.  I have no idea how they thought it was a good idea to make you leave a match in order to equip assignments, weapon customization or upgrades.  It's a goddamn mess.
• The norweigen map blows.  It's  goddamn sniperfest.  I also hate the plane spawn system it takes an additional 10-20 seconds to get into the action which feel entirely unnecessary.  They need to put a spawn point on the ground once the attackers take one of the first objectives (blow up either A, B, C, D) to speed it up a bit.  Right now defenders seem to have major advantages.  I also think they need address idiots picking up the bombs and camping, they need to reset after a certain time or something. 
• The bleed out mechanic is mostly bad, I've heard there's a bug that if you hold on it doesn't decrease your spawn timer, which I hope they fix.  I'd like to see the option to bleed out faster, but your body is still able to be rezed even if you are sitting at the spawn screen waiting, this allows people who are impatient to bleed out quickly but if a nearby medic decides to bring you back they still have enough time to do so. 
• Limited resources is mostly ok, but everyone is just spamming 3 to poop out ammo and health.  I've also caught myself running back to supplies very often, which I dislike doing, but the devs have said is intended.  I have a feeling once the game is out for a while people will just spam 3 to throw out supplies constantly if they're not shooting at people, I'm not sure if this makes the game more tactical or more teamwork oriented. 
• Leveling seems very odd.  I've got about 6 hours into the game and haven't put in enough time to unlock the support class shotgun.  I need to know how many weapons are in the game and if this is going to be an issue spending forever trying to get access to a weapon I like.  I'd prefer a system of picking which weapons you want to unlock instead of them being tied to specific levels, but this has been an issue with battlefield for a long time. 
• Upgrades seem equally busted and retarded.  You can clearly make a gun more accurate/better with enough upgrades, but you can't swap between the upgrades at all.  I imagine people will wait for someone to do the math on which upgrades are best and then unlock them, I also expect if dice makes the upgrade permanent and you can't switch people will get very mad when certain weapon upgrades get buffed/nerfed. 
• Bugs - I know this is "beta" but considering the game launches in 2 months I really hope they deal with the respawn bug, and falling through floors etc.  I've had both happen, not to mention ragdolls are really buggy.  I hope they polish this game, but I expect a bunch of this jank will make it to the live game - such is tradition. 

Overall the game feels fun to play.  I don't care about the world war 2 setting or the weird disabled women wielding katanas character customization, but from a gameplay standpoint this is a strong battlefield game.  I'd like to see another dev video or post going over all the content that will be in launch, so far we know we're getting 8 maps, but I'd like to see a full weapons list and vehicles list.  I can absolutely see myself playing this game, and this is partially due to be rather burnt out of Overwatch.  I mentioned earlier in this thread that I really want another shooter to play and battlefield 5 seems like a capable shooter. 

[kuhla]

I've spent a little time playing at this point so I think I can start posting impressions.

Summary: Game is mediocre. I will not lead the charge to buy it. If the group buys it and intends to play it then I will too.

Some points in no particular order:

• I'm pretty sure I'm not exaggerating when I say that I spend as much time dead/dying/looking at a menu waiting to spawn as I do actually playing the game and I don't think "because I'm bad" because with a little effort I can stay in the top 1/3 of the scoreboard.
• At first I thought the gunplay was decent but I've changed my opinion. ttk feels all over the place but I'm not sure if weapon unlocks change the feel of this later. Both kills and deaths sometimes feel undeserved.
• Too few vehicles. Usually just 1-2 ground vehicles and 1-2 air vehicles are alive on the map at any one time in a huge 64 person server. This is not what I expect from battlefield title.
• The heavy handed way they are forcing reliance on ammo crates at cap points and supply players is lame. Every class should spawn with at least one more magazine for their primary. I understand wanting to encourage people to play support characters but making it critical to basic gameplay feels like a sucker punch.
• While the atmospheric sound and vehicles sound is good, as it is in many battlefield games, the gun sounds are relatively weak sounding.
• Movement is ok except for vaulting which feels very inconsistent.
• Barbed wire entrenchment should be removed from the game. It stop the enemy but also hurts your team too. Feels like the Overwatch equivalent of "Mei wall".
• UI blows.
• For both medic and supply the spamming the everliving shit out of packs at everybody feels silly.

I'm going to go play some more now. Tired of writing this salty post. See if something can change my mind.

[Jedi2155]

Although I'm probably in the minority here, I hate how your sides doesn't impact weapon choices you have. I know that hasn't mattered since BF2 but in a more historical setting, it bothers me. Same thing in BF1, I don't like that.

[kuhla]

12 hours ago, Jedi2155 said:

Although I'm probably in the minority here, I hate how your sides doesn't impact weapon choices you have. I know that hasn't mattered since BF2 but in a more historical setting, it bothers me. Same thing in BF1, I don't like that.

No no. You are not. Other people noticed that too. It is yet another item in the "You keep calling this WWII but keep giving this cop out answer of 'alternate universe' to get away with whatever you want"

[T1no]

since 2142 isnt it. bf2 have separate weapon choices.