Follow TV Tropes
Speculation has now turned into confirmation: the upcoming Battlefield title for 2018 is going to take place in World War II again.
The proof of this has come from a very short teaser, that while only a few seconds long and not even showing any actual combat, did give us an idea of what to expect.
In particular, notice the Iron Cross and British flag on the ticket counters for the factions? The HUD has been revamped to be even cleaner than the one used in BF 1, which is saying something... though they could just simply be hiding HUD items for now.
We'll all find out more come this May 23rd.
Kinda interesting that Battlefield V is going back to WW2 right after Call of Duty: WWII
edited 21st May '18 5:36:06 PM by jormis29
Which went there after DICE went back to World War I
Count me out of this one. After the Battlefront II fiasco and their absolutely HORRIBLE handling of Battlefield One in the past 6-7 months, I have absolutely zero faith or trust DICE will deliver anything worth a damn that isn't buggy, broken, unreliable or horridly unbalanced.
Battlefield One has become a far inferior product compared to what it was just a year ago.
edited 21st May '18 6:46:02 PM by MajorTom
While CoD followed BF in going back to older wars, the differences in the WWI setting as opposed to the ever popular WWII setting was used as selling point
I'm betting that all the reviews will be comparing it to CoD: WWII even more for good or for ill
edited 21st May '18 8:21:05 PM by jormis29
Unless they refer to unexplored parts of WWII, I'm not believing the claims of being set in WWII given that DICE said it will be set in a new setting, and judging by the guy, it seems to be something akin to Steampunk, Dieselpunk, Pre-World War II 1930s or even Post-apocalyptic.
What, just because of the goggles? We've got nothing else to go on so far, and aside from BF 2142 the franchise has yet to take any weird turns into alternate realities or science fiction. Plus given the symbols of the German and British army appearing as the faction tickers, it's almost certain that it's a WWII setting.
And sadly I'm with Major Tom on this one, though not for the failures of BF 1 (which I happen to think is at least doing OK for the moment) or Battlefront 2 (which... yeah, EA's greed screwed the pooch pretty damn hard, no avoiding that fact).
Rather, my key complaint lies with how there are now several competing online PC FPS titles that share the WWII setting and are also attempting to recreate a multiplayer format similar to the Battlefield franchise, only with more of a difficulty curve and tactical depth. Don't believe me? just log in to Steam, type in "WWII FPS multiplayer", and get ready for a bunch of results that are sometimes indistinguishable from each other. Here's a few of the more notable ones with a decent reputation you can find:
Worse yet, all of the above listed titles have established communities and reputations, something that EA is now going to struggle to win back. Best case scenario, their greater media presence versus the competition will win them some buyers, but come worse case, people are gonna start migrating to those other titles instead.
edited 22nd May '18 2:02:55 AM by SgtRicko
Unless said symbols are actually placeholders.
Live stream is up
Here is the full press release.
This has to be one of the more confusing Battlefield reveal trailers out there. It's clearly scripted and polished up to look pretty and cinematic, yet at several points they pretend that this is taking place in the chaotic course of a typical Conquest match... which is total bull.
Unless their intention was to imply that the Conquest mode is going to be fused together with the campaign, akin to the older Star Wars: Battlefront titles, but that risks coming off as cheap and rushed.
Still... nice to hear that DICE isn't going to be making the stupid mistake of constantly segregating the community with the DLC packs anymore, that never made sense and only made it harder to find matches in certain modes (like, why is the Naval Strike DLC for BF 4 so utterly dead now? I never even had the chance to play it!)
EDIT: OK, the additions seem like they're taking some inspiration from Battlefield Heroes and Fortnight. One of the bigger additions is the greatly expanded role of engineers; you're now given the ability to rebuild demolished structures and manually place various turrets, defensive emplacements and traps. DICE also really wants squad members to stick together now, because they're giving any squad mate, regardless of class, the ability to revive downed teams back up at less than full health.
edited 23rd May '18 5:34:55 PM by SgtRicko
My reaction to the trailer...◊
Aimless, structureless, randumb random, it looks like Fortnite and COD only they ran out of Doritos, Mtn. Dew and Ritalin and it was all cobbled together by a 5 year old.
I mean it's not just the lady with the robot arm that's the problem. It's everything! The random vehicles everywhere (Allied Tiger I? WTF!), the ridiculous Far Cry godmoding, the nuclear missiles on the V1(?), the poor color palette, the ridiculously blinding everything, the katana, the (literally!) blue faced guy doing his worst Braveheart impression, the impossibility of telling what the actual fuck is going on, the suddenly random multiplayer HUD elements, and everything else!
Am I getting too old for modern gaming? Is it too much to ask for that my trailers (and subsequent games) ya know, MAKE SENSE?!?!?!?
I Need a Freaking Drink.
Yeah, it was a pretty bad reveal in terms of showing what the game was all about. When I first saw it, I thought it looked like just a glossed up, slightly more colorful, and obviously scripted Battlefield 1 trailer. But there are a bunch of new gameplay features kinda hidden within. Unfortunately, due to the scripted nature of so much else it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that said gameplay features were just cinematic flourishes, in typical in-engine bullhuckey fashion.
The actual gameplay features sound pretty cool, and have me more interested than I've ever been (got tired of BF 1 long before BF 4 or even BFH) but the trailer did a bad job of showcasing them.
People blowing their tops over a woman being front and center are just embarrassing reminders of the world we live in.
That's the thing, it's pigeonholing in modern concepts of "inclusivity" and "diversity" into history, history that I might add is neither diverse, nor inclusive. It's pure unadulterated SJW crap historical revisionism.
It's Battlefield One all over again. My great-grandfather fought in WW 1, I highly doubt he ever saw a black German (wouldn't know either way, he died before I was born) and now they wanna shoehorn in this cyborg lady as a front line combatant when every history book on the planet says not only no but HELL NO? History isn't diverse, it's often downright racist. It's a chronicle of what happened and why, not a chronicle of what you'd like or want. Trying to shoehorn in things like this is only going to offend people regardless of whether or not the offended party is racist, sexist or whatever.
If that makes me closed-minded on the subject, so be it. But that honestly adds nothing.
edited 23rd May '18 6:58:20 PM by MajorTom
I'll concur in being surprisingly disappointed by the trailer. It just seemed very underwhelming. I'll reserve final judgement until an actual multiplayer trailer shows up but it's not looking good. I'm not sure why it was half scripted half multiplayer either, that seemed weird.
As far as the diversity/historical accuracy angle, I struggle to care either way. I do find the appeal to historical accuracy extraordinarily disingenuous, considering the nature of these games, but to each their own.
Battlefield is a regularly over the top military themed arcade shooter that barely pays lip service to historical accuracy. The creators of the series are not beholden to history, and they've chosen to allow players to express themselves as they like. I don't know what else to say but try to get over it?
They're doing whatever they can do to make things look cool.
While I have no doubt that women were part of the French Resistance and stuff, I doubt they ever fought unless they had no other choice.
...Wait, the lady has a prosthetic arm?!
I dunno, the over-topness depends on the Battlefield game in question. 1942 definitely wasn't at a glance, ridiculously Selective Historical Armory aside. Neither was 2...I think, I never actually played it. 2142 being a sci-fi one absolutely went further along that scale. Bad Company too since under-barrel grenade launchers tore apart ten-metre diameter holes in houses while just shaking up direct hits on people, you could put like 10 bullets into people's chests, RPGs could home in on vehicles...Bad Company 2, 3 & 4 went more back into a vaguely realistic veneer. I'm sure we all remember where One is on the scale easily.
If you just shoved in women into a Bad Company 2 but as WWII mostly from the British Tommy perspective, it'd be different. Their inclusion in that would be a more proportionately significant tick mark on a checklist for "Things that feel unrealistic".
You know, like Resident Evil healing yourself with, uh, sprays? Definitely most jarring if you plopped those into Red Orchestra, not quite as much of a difference to RE and, well, many other zombie games.
And after all, our redhead amputee took a bullet, fell out cold against a wall and is apparently fit as a fiddle (arm aside) about 15 seconds later. Definitelllllyyyyyyy over-the-top-er, this entry.
I'm totally wondering about WW 2-era prosthetics now though. My first assumption is definitely manage to control a rifle with a false hand like that would be hell.
I always like a realism angle since it's the road less traveled, but I can't complain for things clearly not going for that which V very clearly isn't already.
I think it might be just a hand, but I can't see the forearm well enough to be certain. It kinda looks like there's a cover over the forearm for separately attaching a line (probably not the right word) to the prosthetic hand for more control.
edited 23rd May '18 9:06:38 PM by VutherA
Even on the more realistic entries there's an inherently unrealistic aspect in the fact that they're designed for enjoyment, and therefore subject to things like game design and competitive balance.
The appeal to realism often appeals to the veterans of said war, but even if the game is on the more realistic end you're still turning the single most horrible event in most of those men's lives into a fun game.
Honestly, the real concern I've got is how bad are the load times going to be? They've been all kinds of dreadful in Battlefront 2 and Battlefield 1. In both games, it takes longer to quit a match than it does to join.
If you're getting your history lessons from video games, you have much, much bigger problems than a chick with a prosthetic arm.
And it doesn't make you narrow-minded, it just makes you a numpty. That's not anything particularly unique in the cross-section of conversation about gaming and women, which in and of itself is depressing.
edited 24th May '18 2:50:26 AM by math792d
The new gameplay features look promising so far. Being able to drag teammates into cover before reviving them is something I wanted for years.
Now that everyone can revive and medics don't need to equip a syringe for that anymore I wonder what other gadgets medics will get since before you where pretty much limited to Syringe + your favored heal gadget.
Throwing back grenades is also potential for endless comedy gold.
To be fair, female soldiers aren't completely ahistorical. My history in the war is somewhat rusty, so a may be off base but:
The soviets for example, definitely had women as frontline combatants, including famous ones like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a female sniper who actually set a record for the number of enemy combatants killed.
Even India allowed women into combat roles (albeit, it was the potion of India that sided with the fascists).
Even Britain allowed women to volunteer for certain combat units (mostly anti-air, but still). That's not to mention that the Special Operations Executive (a WWII black ops organisation) recruited and trained female agents in both armed and unarmed combat. It then sent these female agents behind enemy lines to perform acts of sabotage, assassination, and information gathering.
In fact, there was a lot of disappointment among women and minorities post-war, as the British army went back to its old ways, after having become increasingly egalitarian over the course of the war.
Point is, racist and sexist sentiment didn't keep women or minorities from performing important tasks during the war; it just kept people from recognizing it afterwards.
Really the thing that bothered me the most about that trailer is the over-saturation of all that grass, I barely could see anything and had no idea what was going on. Well the actual gameplay won't be so bloomy as this was obviously just a game play mook-up but still.
As for the diversity, meh, women and blacks did fight in WW 2, the brave-heart-esque face paint and not!Kratos-running around the battlefield in a tanktop is by far more absurd.
Community Showcase More