Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 206

Date of registration
: Apr 5th 2012

Platform: PS4

Location: Here

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

21

Thursday, May 24th 2018, 11:44pm

While I am skeptical of change because I enjoyed the previous Battlefield titles so much, I am intrigued by what the changes that have been revealed will mean for the pacing and feel of the gameplay. I can imagine that this will be a much more front-lines focused title with the addition of fortifications and the game slowing interactions. I presume those interactions will be encouraged through some sort of change to the spawn and respawn mechanics, making it 'worth' the risk of helping team mates. I see this as creating a more immersive feel by making each spawn more precious. Players will likely have to learn to value their virtual lives more as risky behavior will not be so well rewarded as in the past. Since this is entirely new territory, I reserve judgment until actual gameplay becomes available. That said, I am glad to see the risk taking with the franchise and willingness not to be bound by past stigmas of what a 'real' Battlefield game should look like.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

22

Friday, May 25th 2018, 12:12am

I honestly have no idea what to think. The changes are so sweeping based on the lists that have been provided, and there is so much feature kit-bashing from other titles that whatever we get, it'll be dramatically different from from the 1942-BFV-BF2-2142-BF3-BF4-BF1 lineage. It's not even recognizable from the BFBC lineage.

This could be a very good thing, this could also be an absolutely awful thing. The trailer was a fucking dumpster fire that was so incomprehensibly loaded with action that it would embarrass even Michael Bay. However the Jackfrags/Levelcrap listing of feature changes suggest that the devs have been thinking about a lot of the fundamental mechanical flaws in BF and are at least trying to fix them. But again, this could go both ways.

One thing for sure. I'm not spending a cent on this game until I start seeing some gameplay reviews and get to touch the software myself. Under no circumstance will I buy the season pass. This could go either way and I'm not exactly optimistic.

Posts: 943

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2014

Platform: PS3

Location: The Heart of Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

23

Friday, May 25th 2018, 2:24pm

@BleedingUranium

Actually, yeah I only watched the trailer. The jackfrags video has interesting parts, I heard some interesting gameplay changes but I need to watch it a few times...

@VincentNZ
IMHO the trailer itself was just meh. I kinda liked the quick cuts from BF1 trailer more than the one take approach and trying to squeeze everything in with a heretic moving camera angle and the soldier seemingly standing up and falling/crouching to shoot constantly. Kinda pushed me away.

Right now Cod simply looks more attractive, because I couldnt find fun in BF anymore. I guess I need a change and try out something else :/ but i am sure i wont buy it anyway as i know the pc port always sucks and is soon full of cheaters :D

Tbh the WW2 setting in general pisses me off. There is no more squeezed out setting than that. Almost a fetish for many people. I am simply sick of it in general and everywhere. There are also wars after WW2 besides Vietnam. E.G. the Korean War would be a good setting because the outcome is so crucial for recent events with North/South Korea and a well written campaign and operations story can explain the reasons and events without favouring any of the participated parties. IMHO a missed opportunity from an educational historical perspective, simply because WW2 is less politically controversial and a world wide fetish. But yeah, just put a woman in it and it's already controversial <facepalm>
still playin' Motorstorm

Posts: 181

Date of registration
: Dec 14th 2016

Platform: PS4

Location: UK

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

24

Friday, May 25th 2018, 4:19pm

Under no circumstance will I buy the season pass.

There will be no Premium for BFV.

To me, that suggests that AlmightyDaq was right and the following BF Vietnam/ Cold War (being made by DICE LA) will release 12-18 months after BFV. Such that there wouldn't be enough time to fit in a fully-packed season pass between games.

Posts: 778

Date of registration
: Sep 19th 2012

Platform: PS3

Location: Virginia, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

25

Friday, May 25th 2018, 6:12pm



Tbh the WW2 setting in general pisses me off. There is no more squeezed out setting than that. Almost a fetish for many people. I am simply sick of it in general and everywhere. There are also wars after WW2 besides Vietnam. E.G. the Korean War would be a good setting because the outcome is so crucial for recent events with North/South Korea and a well written campaign and operations story can explain the reasons and events without favouring any of the participated parties. IMHO a missed opportunity from an educational historical perspective, simply because WW2 is less politically controversial and a world wide fetish. But yeah, just put a woman in it and it's already controversial <facepalm>



THANK YOU! I've been trying to say the same thing for months now... WWII-based shooters are tired, cliche and have been done to death... I guess if DICE doesn't want to re-enact history they could acquit themselves with alt-history/advanced technology but guess what? THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE TO DEATH, TOO!!

I realize I've got to reserve final judgement until it's released, buti I at least hope they focus on some of the lesser-known battle battles around the globe, and vehicle game play better be through the roof this fall, including real, proper naval battles

Posts: 3,665

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

26

Friday, May 25th 2018, 6:33pm

Erm, we haven't had mainstream WWII games since the early 2000s, with the exception of (the excellent) CoD: World At War, and CoD: WWII if you really want to count it. Games 15 years ago do not qualify for something "being done to death". The last time I played WWII in a video game was the opening mission of Bad Company 2's campaign. Before that, WaW. And... that's it.

If you don't like the setting, don't play it, that's totally fine; I skipped BC2: Vietnam and Hardline because the settings and styles didn't appeal to me whatsoever. But the assertion that WWII has been done to death is absolutely absurd in 2018.
Who Enjoys, Wins

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,795

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

27

Friday, May 25th 2018, 7:42pm

Yeah I am rather through with the setting as well, I would have enjoyed a current setting more, meaning Vietnam era and beyond.

I think WWII is a tad too restrictive, athough not as much as WWI, from a gameplay perspective. From the trailer I also have the fear that they tackle a sensitive era from a completely wrong angle.

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,413

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

28

Friday, May 25th 2018, 11:57pm

Reeing aside from the shoe-horning of immersion breaking inclusion of scenario inaccurate female soldiers...


Yeah! How dare a franchise that since BF1 has chased after the "untold stories of the war" as a primary goal of the storytelling aspects include the rare, but very real female soldiers and amputee soldiers?

What kind of nonsense is this? In a game where a healthy chunk of weapons and gear are prototypes, paper-only theory and in some cases, didn't actually exist during the period, why are they including the rare but actually happened female soldiers?

This completely destroys my immersion, in a game where you can balance multiple flamethrower soldiers on a horse, and that the majority of the teams are using extremely exotic kit with full customisation instead of actually immersive standardised equipment.

This is outrageous!

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,368)

Posts: 2,795

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

29

Saturday, May 26th 2018, 12:46am

Reeing aside from the shoe-horning of immersion breaking inclusion of scenario inaccurate female soldiers...


Yeah! How dare a franchise that since BF1 has chased after the "untold stories of the war" as a primary goal of the storytelling aspects include the rare, but very real female soldiers and amputee soldiers?

What kind of nonsense is this? In a game where a healthy chunk of weapons and gear are prototypes, paper-only theory and in some cases, didn't actually exist during the period, why are they including the rare but actually happened female soldiers?

This completely destroys my immersion, in a game where you can balance multiple flamethrower soldiers on a horse, and that the majority of the teams are using extremely exotic kit with full customisation instead of actually immersive standardised equipment.

This is outrageous!


And there was the guy that landed on D-Day with his bow. And the Korean fighting for the Germans, and whatever bizarre anecdote people come up with. True stories, but totally irrelevant in the grand context of the war. There is a distinction betwenn history and a story. OSS and SOE did employ female agents, but even that is a sidenote. It is fine though to shine some spotlight on this in the singleplayer, so a female Norwegian resistance fighter, not a stretch and puts a woman in the spotlight, that might even be immersive. Female german amputee soldierettes with a Katana, not so much, but I suppose somebody can make a fine anime out of this. It is stupid and immersion killing, because everybody knows that his/her Greatgrandma did not fight in WWII. Nobody knows though that the Sturmtiger never got any real use, neither did the Sturmgewehr. Also Nazis never fled to Antarctica either, but I am sure DICE can fit in a map with some Reichsflugscheiben.

It is just as stupid as the Black German sniper. Yep we know of one black soldier playing the tambourine, but the way DICE did it is just cheap. I am totally happy with including black soldiers in the german ranks, but friggin' go all the way and spend some time making a map in the german colonies, where everybody plays an Askari. That is history right there. But that would have cost more money, wouldn't it, making all new player models? Instead they just segregated races again. Oh the indian is the medic dude, and the black guy is the sniper. Also why are all the Italians obviously Italian, although they had colonies in Libya and Ethiopia?

The stuff is just for show, and that is what is wrong with it. If you really want an impact, make it random, make it according to numbers, so that the one female or the one amputee stick out like a sore thumb. Look for historic precedents, where it makes sense. Create awareness instead of mindless provocation and you might make a difference.

Posts: 3,665

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

30

Saturday, May 26th 2018, 1:05am

And there was the guy that landed on D-Day with his bow. And the Korean fighting for the Germans, and whatever bizarre anecdote people come up with. True stories, but totally irrelevant in the grand context of the war. There is a distinction betwenn history and a story. OSS and SOE did employ female agents, but even that is a sidenote. It is fine though to shine some spotlight on this in the singleplayer, so a female Norwegian resistance fighter, not a stretch and puts a woman in the spotlight, that might even be immersive. Female german amputee soldierettes with a Katana, not so much, but I suppose somebody can make a fine anime out of this. It is stupid and immersion killing, because everybody knows that his/her Greatgrandma did not fight in WWII. Nobody knows though that the Sturmtiger never got any real use, neither did the Sturmgewehr. Also Nazis never fled to Antarctica either, but I am sure DICE can fit in a map with some Reichsflugscheiben.

It is just as stupid as the Black German sniper. Yep we know of one black soldier playing the tambourine, but the way DICE did it is just cheap. I am totally happy with including black soldiers in the german ranks, but friggin' go all the way and spend some time making a map in the german colonies, where everybody plays an Askari. That is history right there. But that would have cost more money, wouldn't it, making all new player models? Instead they just segregated races again. Oh the indian is the medic dude, and the black guy is the sniper. Also why are all the Italians obviously Italian, although they had colonies in Libya and Ethiopia?

The stuff is just for show, and that is what is wrong with it. If you really want an impact, make it random, make it according to numbers, so that the one female or the one amputee stick out like a sore thumb. Look for historic precedents, where it makes sense. Create awareness instead of mindless provocation and you might make a difference.


I guess every WWII game ever should be nothing but Omaha Beach and generic, white US GIs then. Focusing on the untold stories, the unsung heroes, the experimental weapons, and underrepresented locations are the truly interesting elements, and what make it not a clone of every WWII movie, TV series, and video game made between 1995 and 2005. I can look at any of that if I want boring, bland, bog-standard, stereotypical WWII content.

What Battlefield does is it takes all the most interesting and unknown elements from a given time period and mashes them all together to create a wonderful sandbox of tools and locations and characters to use, things most people have likely never heard of or couldn't possibly see or use today. Battlefield games are not documentaries, nor are they intended to be. And the games are richer and more expansive as a result.

If it existed between 1939 and 1945, it's fair game.
Who Enjoys, Wins