Will you buy even inspite of this?
Are you so disenfranchised that you refuse to pick it up?
I think I would personally only get it for the multiplayer
English
#Gaming
-
The news for BF5 is bad because of a lot of things. DiCE's last game was Battlefront 2(I don't need to explain why that is a bad thing) EA has been getting a ton of bad press since Battlefront 2 and even more than usual. It doesn't seem like people actually wanted another WWII game. While it's Call of Duty, it being a Black Ops games seems to still carry some weight in terms of potential sales. RDR2 is coming out. EA said don't buy the game if you don't like it and called their fans dumb. The fact that this WWII setting feels more fantasy themed. A woman being on the cover is probably the smallest reason why it's doing bad in pre-orders. No one really cares about game covers anymore.
-
5 Replies2013: “CoD is so lame, battlefield is what real gamers play, battlefield is life.” 2018: “Battlefield is trash, anyone who wants to play it is trash, CoD is what cool people are preordering.”
-
I don’t get why people cared about women in the game. That’s what you’re going to complain about out of all the unrealistic things in the series?
-
Edited by GH0STLIKEST0AST: 8/21/2018 8:25:14 PMI don't care what's hurting the sales of Battlefield V. I'm just happy that EA is taking another hit.
-
Edited by Pinky: 8/24/2018 10:12:55 AMI am getting cod instead bf is dead to me. -blam!-ing one armed british sniper lady's on the front lines in WW2😂😂 Not my kind of game
-
Yes SJWs have tried to ruin bfV but i will buy it for the same reason as i watch films such as the last jedi. Because they look good. I don't give a -blam- about political messages hidden in them and historical accuracy and supporting anit-immigration policies. If you sit there and see those sides to games, films and tv shows then you seriously need to look at yourself in the mirror because it is incredibly sad to think that way
-
2 RepliesWhat does sjw mean?
-
1 ReplyI don't know what's more impressive, the idea that latest game in an increasingly bland series can be "ruined" before it's even out by marketing material or that the practice of deliberately creating outrage to be back peddled on later for free publicity isn't transparent to the supposed media watch dogs that claim to be queued in on these sorts of things.
-
It looks fun, but the reveal trailer was wack
-
9 RepliesEdited by Furiously Dashing: 8/20/2018 1:23:45 PMIt looks crazy fun to play, but being the history nerd that I am, I couldn't force myself to buy it. It's not so much "muh wamens and minoreetees" as it is about getting an authentic experience that actually tells the battles like they happened. The British were never near Rotterdam in the first place. The Dutch resistance held off Jerry. It was against army policy to allow [u]ANYONE[/u] on the battlefield that had a prosthetic limb. The Churchill tank towing the AA gun was moving like Sanic the Hedgehog, everyone is wearing multicolored flight jackets and no helmets (the war paint was actually surprisingly accurate), that one guy using a katana when the only army that had them was the Japanese (should've been a broadsword so at least the weapon's point of origin would've been slightly believable), and you can carry around an MG42 and not get sent flying backwards from the sheer recoil. I'll pass on this one, thankyaverymuch.
-
Edited by GTLargo21: 8/22/2018 12:59:22 PMIf they had any effect at all, it was minimal at best (or worst depending your viewpoint). The EA dev saying what he said was pretty major and it's also up against many other games for the season... most notably black ops 4 and Red Dead 2. [spoiler]There are too many variables and factors to blame any one thing for its imminent lack of pre sales (as well as the fact that preorders and their bonuses need to stop since it promotes selling an unfinished product).[/spoiler] Personally, I'm not a big military shooter fan so I simply don't care for it.
-
No wouldn’t say so they said in the begining it wasn’t meant to be realistic just themed. The war stories are their attempt to be accurate. It’s just character customization which everyone loves
-
1 ReplyEdited by Soupreem: 8/19/2018 6:34:35 AMIn terms of setting, yes, if they wanted females, there's resistance movements out the wazoo on top of the Soviets (need I mention that a lot of the SJW groups seem to worship Marx and Lenin, the people who inspired/ignited the founding of the USSR). But from what I've seen, BFV looks like CoD WWII with 64 players in the Frostbite engine in terms of gunplay and the like. That is what turns me off from BF, it isn't a happy medium of arcade and simulation, it's now mostly arcade without any elements of simulation.
-
13 RepliesLmao. I can't believe people are so butthurt over black people and women being in a video game.
-
2 RepliesI think I missed the controversy, what happened?
-
I think its failing because of what EA said about the history stuff an telling fans don't buy the game then. Should no grown ass ppl cry over a female the robot arm idc for as for history as long as ik my own history an can identify some parts in the battle field ill be fine.
-
13 RepliesIf this is still about females being in BF5 as a playable option.. I hope no one really ever cared about that lol. Holy shit though, we have actual issues like P2W ruining great franchises and amazing (and somewhat original) games.. people who call themselves journalists but care more about the money than they care about the subject they were reporting on (ie that plagiarized Dead Cells review from an IGN employee).. total uninvolvement of gaming devs with their respective communities (ie devs saying no one wants good SP games anymore, shows a clear disconnect from the public considering sales of games like God of War 4 and Octopath Traveler).. all that BS. And we have people actually mad about females in BF5? AND is there not any merit in including females regardless? It [i]was[/i] bigotry and sexism alone that kept women out of the armies of the world at the time. "Women shouldn't fight, they exist to hold our seed and bear us new men" The men in charge of our armed forces back then would never think of letting women on a battlefield outside of the occasional field nurse. Why SHOULD we honor that close-mindedness by making a [i]videogame[/i] that is not at all representative of reality (mechanically) "historically accurate".. by not letting already rare female gamers chose an avatar that represents who they are?
-
Edited by WILLtheKILLA5: 8/21/2018 3:50:15 PMI’m personally think it looks like shit, it looked like a complete mess of what you should be doing. I bought B1 to get a feel of how WW1 was like in a game. I want the immersion, and I mostly got it. Now I played ww2 games to death and it’s even more off putting watching a amputee slinging a sniper rifle at anything that moves. Not to mention the jarring effect of her dying and spawning back, I mean cool you show it’s a game but hell it was hard to tell with all that shit going on. I’m not going to pay money nor am I really going to support ANYTHING EA owns because what they did to my Command & Conquer.
-
No, at least not for me. When it comes to cod and battlefield I will always get them. It’s a collection for me at this point.
-
Bad marketing killed BFV.
-
Edited by whiteLI0N: 8/21/2018 3:49:42 AMI couldn't stand the 15 minute wait between matches in BF1. That, and the lame loot box animation.
-
3 RepliesThe problem is that it was being touted as historically accurate up to the reveal, where you than saw all that nonsensical crap. Now, if the devs straight-up said it's an alternative history, feathers aren't going to be ruffled, but they didn't. Is it "ruined"? No. Do they have a good amount of people rightully pissed? Yes.
-
Crippled women in war is realistic
-
1 ReplyWhat the hell did Skeleton Jazz Wizards do to BF5?
-
Don't know, don't care.
-
I don’t care. If it’s a good game I’ll play it. If not I’ll get my money back from losers at the poker table...