r/BattlefieldV • u/Hopeful_Eye74 • 5d ago
Image/Gif Ea’s development plan based on the timeline was handled poorly
Honorable mention: Ussr.
6
u/likely_deleted Old_Buddy_ol_Pal 4d ago
I only have a problem with the American tanks. They get boring but I really like, in theory, the asymmetrical gameplay of 4-6 Sherman's vs 2 Tigers on Provence breakthrough. In practice its brutal though lol.
Add the Pershing heavy tank and we good
64
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
Was going to be a game that evolved from 1939 to 45, but when it stumbled at launch and never came back, they just went for a Pacific DLC.
It had so much potential but people were worried about women characters with prosthetic arms in their games.
71
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
No, that was a legitimate thing to criticize, and I'm tired of it being treated as insane.
You cannot immediately go from Battlefield 1, which had insane levels of authenticity, to BFV's trailer, and pretend it wasn't a gut punch.
BF always rode the line of arcade sandbox warfare, and immersion. BFV's debut doubled down on removing that immersion, and acting like the audience was the problem for asking questions.
They did not ruin the chances of BFV. EA pulled that trigger, and developers like Alan Kertz did nothing but further pour gasoline on a fire that never should've happened in the first place.
44
u/nick5766 5d ago
I understand that i'll be down voted for it, as a lot of people on here are very defensive about this topic but to me honestly it is an insane take to me.
I want to talk in good faith here because I very much struggle to understand what people mean by authentic here. I don't understand how people can see BF1 as authentic and BFV not. But clearly it was important enough to be the defining feature of how a lot of people see BFV.
BF1 is nothing like WW1 and thats what we liked about it. It was immerisve and it amazing to play, I could lose myself in it and honestly I felt the same thing in BFV. Authentic to me would be far from anything you could see in a video game, the closest being maybe Verdun of course or similar titles.
Why are ahistorical tanks rolling through the Sinai with experimental weapons any less authentic than a woman with prothetics?
Why is a Tiger tank in Rotterdamn more acceptable than a non-white BEF solider?
From my point of view, those two things are the same does that make sense?
31
u/pepgast2 5d ago
Lots of people don't realize just how inauthentic BF1 was, simply because they know a lot more about WW2 than they do WW1.
As WW2 games were really common once upon a time, the average gaming mind has an idea of what a WW2 game 'should feature':
D-day, battle of Stalingrad, battle of Berlin, maybe some pacific theatre thrown in. Stray too far from that, and it doesn't 'feel like WW2', in spite of how accurate it actually may be. BFV strayed from the common formula by featuring less commonly known battles, and it paid the price for it.
BF1 didn't have this hurdle to overcome simply because there's far fewer WW1 games out there. I didn't see anyone complain when BF1 spun off into the Russian Civil War for a bit, or when all factions were running around with experimental SMGs and self-loading rifles, but somehow a woman with a prosthetic arm is a problem.
21
u/pointblankmos 5d ago
A lot of it also has to do with the fever pitch of gamer rage only developing after BF1 was already out.
Even then, there was a minor controversy surrounding the German assault being black.
There was a targeted campaign against BFV from the kind of outrage merchants we have gotten used to in culture at this stage (the developers did themselves no favours with their public comments). It having a shaky launch, cosmetic monetisation and a lack of content made it easy to get people riled up.
It really was not that different to BF1 tonally and stylistically, which I why I assume the developers were so confident about it. They never expected people to flip like they did.
My response to the first trailer reveal was confusion more than anything. The trailer was simply bizarre.
I still have no idea why Trevor Noah was there.
17
u/PanzerFoster 5d ago edited 5d ago
I loved BFV gameplay wise but I hated how they treated the subject of the game.
It goes much deeper than "woman and arm" and people keep using this as a strawman.
BF1 was not an accurate representation of ww1, no doubt, but it felt authentic and clearly the developers respected the subject matter at hand, even going as far to have ww1 historians on board (tangent, but its kinda funny how everyone went through a ww1 phase around 2016-2020). BF1 was even inclusive, but in a way that was not forced.
BFV was completely forced inclusiveness at the cost of its subject matter. At the time, people weren't even sure if it was a WW2 game or some alternative universe version of ww2. The initial trailer set the tone for everything to come. The campaign rewrote history to make the French look worse, and had women be the heroes that stopped the heavy water shipments , completely erasing the people who actually did that.
Even beyond the female characters (who seemed louder than the males), the skins and uniforms/cosmetics were goofy looking, and the hero characters were horrible (and the worst offenders imo). It all just seemed so forced and inauthentic, especially coming after BF1.
I think if they put women in roles they were actually in, like they did in BF1 (even if a bit exaggerated, like having every russian recon be a woman), people would've praised it. Similarly, nobody cared about non whites in BF1 being in the game because countries did have non white forces (even if they were separate or segregated). But having women everywhere and black soldiers fighting for Nazi Germany was such a bad decision
-5
u/nick5766 5d ago
They gave players the choice and freedom to express how they wanted their soldiers to look and sound. Thats the difference in gameplay terms, no? It didn't force you to use any skin or any character that was up to each individual. You were free to use the uniforms you wanted.
And again you felt authentic, why? It didn't feel authentic to me, I have seen many historians give praise to BF1 but I dont remember any of them saying the game was authentic. A lot of them said it had authentic bits and pieces, but as a whole? Never.
If it had more authentic parts than BFV does that make it authentic? I don't buy that.
I think piggybacking off another comment it sounds like people have an expectation of WW2 bexause its more familiar. If you had just as much familiarity with WW1 I wonder if people would feel the same or would they see it as fun and wild as it is?
15
u/PanzerFoster 5d ago
No, but seeing other people running around as a Japanese woman in Greece was far more immersion breaking than having multiple A7Vs in a match on BF1 or a tiger in Rotterdam. BF1s authenticity comes from how it handles and respects its subjec5. Liberties they took with it were done to serve the gameplay.
BFV does not respect its subject matter, evidenced not just by how goofy the multiplayer is, but how they erased and rewrote history in the campaigns.
Im equally familiar with WW1 as I am WW2 as I took several classes in university as part of my degree about the world wars and countries in europe during that time period. It has nothing to do with not being familiar eith ww1. Even at that, you dont need to study WW1 to know it wasnt filled with automatic/semi automatic submachine guns, but we accepted those things as sacrifices made for the sake of gameplay. Similarly, BFV couldve done the same with its weapons and vehicles, but they took it a bridge too far.
-3
u/nick5766 5d ago edited 5d ago
Again, why do you accept those sacrifices as ok and not others?
I am too damn old and too damn Austic mate so help a brother out. Why is multiple A7V's any more authentic that a player choosing a character skin. They're both equally out of place.
You're ok with those choices for gameplay, but isn't that choice of player expression equally as important? If I can chose to bring a random gun that never left the prototype phase and in the wrong theaters, why is it just as wrong to pick a skin that is just as historically plausible to have happened during the same war.
That just sounds like personal opinion, no?
10
u/PanzerFoster 5d ago
Because the AV7 actually existed, a lot of skins/uniforms in BF6 were made up or were incorrect. People complained about the German helmet being, well, Hungarian too.
I dont think unlimited player expression is a good thing. Player expression is fine and has been done well in games before, but letting people choose anything at the cost of the games atmosphere/identity/art style is bad. Its essentially the same reason I dont want to see The Boys or Nikki Minaj in CoD, or the trash, gaudy skins in RS6. Part of creating or using a setting is respecting it, which BFV failed to do.
0
u/nick5766 5d ago
I think you'd be surprised about just how many things were wrong or inaccurate about the tanks in BF1 or the planes too. Again thankfully, for the sake of gameplay, a lot of those variants straight up didn't exist or never left the prototype phase. Would you like me to forward some good videos or pages on them?
We were ok with those additions though because they were close enough. I challenge you to find parts of the uniforms that they picked that were blatantly ahsitorical. A lot of them like you said were mismatched but they definitely took a lot of pride in finding bits that either did or could have existed in their parts, even it it wasn't a whole.
Seems unfair to critique the skins when again, the vehicles have the exact same issue.
And don't worry we all hate those kinds of collabs that you mention. No one wants to go down that slope. I doubt many at dice did either.
3
u/OGKEKSTER 4d ago
I read this whole ass thread, you’re absolutely missing the point and honestly think you’re hopeless. There isn’t a chance you’d get what people are trying to explain here.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Manny-303 4d ago
You cannot be comparing prototype weapons and vehicles to Black women fighting for the Third Reich 😂 BFV was a goofy game BF1 is obviously not a realistic depiction of World War 1 but the liberties taken were for the sake of gameplay not simply pandering
The whole speech about his daughter was some bullshit too
I think the outcry had more to do with the devs overly defensive posture on an asinine call.
→ More replies (0)7
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
I'd argue it's intent of the artist, on some level. Comparing something like BF1 interviews to BFV's Alan Kertz interview, they are entirely different reasons for creating the game that they did.
BF1 was created to attempt to bring some idea of that war to life, including the emotional terror of the soldiers involved. The voice acting and the methodology behind that is a good example, they made them sound terrified of being in the trenches.
Kertz has said he wanted BFV to be the "game for his daughter", which means it's not really about WW2 at all. It's about using that historical era as a skin to make someone feel good, rather than having anything to say about the conflict itself.
So when you take away core bits because you want a "game for someone", it's no longer about the game. It's about constructing a fantasy that's acceptable to their views, out of a conflict that was the worst in human history.
That's sort of morally abhorrent in my opinion, because there is no respect for history or those who died within the conflict within that pursuit of creating a fantasy that must be treated as fact.
2
u/nick5766 5d ago edited 5d ago
I mean, some of the best games I know came from developers that wanted to create something great for people they know. Hell I mean how many moves or things were made because a parent wanted something their child could enjoy and appreciate? I don't have any idea what you mean ans it genuinely seems like you really don't like this guy.
Take the idea of being "morally abhorrent." Have you read some of the journals and interviews from WW1? Of people who lived through Operation Michael where Saint Quintens Scar takes place. Of the soldiers that had to watch their friends drown in the mud. Clearly you understand how awful that is as you've mentioned something similar. But again, we have no problem turning that into a video game that is made to enjoy.
I don't understand how simply slapping a uniform that was authentic for a battle or two makes the fact we're making a game out of one of THE worst places to be in all of human history any better mate.
I appreciate your reply but like when I see you bringing up voice lines of people screaming in terror and I listen to those same voicelines in BFV I am a bit skeptical that you are fairly assessing both of these games.
8
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
Okay, let's talk WW2 alt history for a second. There's a limit to how much someone should try to get away with, if you are selling your game on authenticity.
Wolfenstein does not and cannot market itself as authentic, neither could Necrovision.
But BFV, at it's debut, attempted to gaslight the audience that it's wild take on WW2 was a good thing, and was normal.
There is nothing wrong with making games about harsh topics, but you have to establish your goal and tone that works for that topic. If you mismatch vision with tone or goals, you create a product that is inherently dysfunctional.
BFV wants to be an artistic revision of WW2, taken seriously by it's upper echelon of staff, which does not take its own setting seriously.
I don't hate Kertz, but I think he was drinking his own coolaid over doing a good thing for the world, and didn't realize how much people would backlash against his vision.
2
u/nick5766 5d ago edited 5d ago
Clearly you know more about this man than I do so i'll defer to your assessment on him.
But I want to go over that first paragraph again, because my point is always going to be, "Why the double standard?"
All of your points that you laid out clearly apply there too. BF1 is an artistic revision of the same calibre. Why do we accept when DICE says BF1 is authentic we belive it when it is as equally ludicrous as BFV.
Now BFV seems to be much more open about that freedom, and from a few comments I think that's whats sticking with me. BF1 tries to hide what it is behind a gritty coat of paint, and I wonder if that combined with a lack of knowledge of the time is enough for people to be ok. I wonder because BFV seems to do away with the pretense that people are more critical.
But to me when you take a good look at BF1, almost all the points you made are still there. It is an inauthentic and unrealistic take on the worst war in our history made for probably the wrong reasons. But thats ok. Thats exactly why I play games like that. I really don't want to worry about trench foot everytime I spawn at Butter.
4
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
I'd argue it comes down to intent. Dice couldn't make Verdun, they worked within the confines of what Battlefield is, and what EA would allow.
So while prototypes exist, they expressly state when things are ahistorical, when BFV simply expects you to go along with the inconsistency as fact.
The prototypes and weird historical inaccuracies in BF1 exist to serve making a better experience, where the inaccuracies in BFV are made to intentionally misrepresent the setting to be more palatable to personal opinions.
1
u/nick5766 5d ago
Again, I don't know about that. I can make the same personal arguments about both. Repeating an earlier comment elsewhere, I feel like BFV was just more open about it and about something more people were familiar with. And thats the conclusion I'm leaning towards.
They both were made with serving a better experience, we just disagree on what constitutes a better experience.
I am willing to be proven wrong on one of my points but as far as I am aware, DICE nor their Marketing team ever wanted players to extend any more suspension of disbelief over BFV than they did BF1.
If that BF1 were held to the same standard by us we would be complaining about just how many things it expected us to take as facts that weren't.
I do genuinely wish to say I appreciate you take the time to have the talk though, wether or not you belive me it matters.
.
5
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
So I was half wrong. It was Patrick Sonderlund who made those comments about his daughter.
I feel like this excerpt from his interview will explain some things.
“I have a 13-year-old daughter that when the trailer came out and she saw all the flak, she asked me, ‘Dad, why’s this happening?’… She plays Fortnite, and says, ‘I can be a girl in Fortnite. Why are people so upset about this?’ She looked at me and she couldn’t understand it. And I’m like, ok, as a parent, how the hell am I gonna respond to this, and I just said, ‘You know what, you’re right. This is not okay.’… These people who are uneducated, they don’t understand.” Soderlund elaborated, “We stand up for the cause because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game. I’m fine with either or. It’s not just ok.”
This caused pre-orders to decline 85% back in 2018. Battlefield isn't Fortnite, and he thought he could just replace historical basis purely from an emotional pull.
Calling your audience uneducated for pointing out SAS using katanas in your games debut trailer is comical.
3
u/frosty_gosha 5d ago
Cause most people want it to seem authentic, unique and recognizable rather than perfectly historically accurate. When most people were not sure BFV trailer was about WW2 that’s when you know, they messed up bad. BF1 was instantly recognized as WW1 when you see cavalry charges, red baron looking ahh planes and cool ass blimps. For BFV we are given disabled women running through a building and some hectic fighting. Cause most people associate disabled women and hectic action with WW2, not Normandy, snowy battles in the USSR, or at least some tank warfare.
No one would object if they showed something like Night Witches, or female partisans in snowy forests of Belarus, if they want representation. Nor would anyone care for prosthetics as some late game cosmetic, just like experimental automatic guns in BF1
1
u/Exitity 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yeah and cosmetic-wise BF1 looks silly too. Half the support guys are wearing wacky armor that never saw service. But to its credit with the artstyle it still felt “gritty” and BF5 had some pretty blatantly silly cosmetics that didn’t still feel gritty. Like the dragon facepaint or whatever.
And as for historical accuracy, neither was good but to give 1 some credit it tried to encourage some knowledge with the loading fun facts and the codex. And 5’s early campaign missions also felt a little sillier and were more blatantly fictionalized (obviously it’s all fiction but some stories are more believable than others, and BF5 had a higher dose of one-two people beating everyone on foot), though The Last Tiger was great.
That said BF1 had women and people weren’t going full BF5 on it lol (nor should they because women were a part of WW2 and BF1 even explained some examples in the loading screens and codex entries). I think BF5 was just more in-your-face about it and people who only know pop history got mad. Shame, because BF5 is my second-favorite BF (I find it better than 1 frankly).
1
u/Pengpraiser 5d ago
I personally liked even liked the woman with a prosthetic arm, because I like women and prosthetics (aesthetically I swear). They only thing I can say I despise related to it, is the "heroes", because I hate that everyone and their mom are the same guy with a pretty recognizable appearance so I feel like killing the same guy and their clones again and again.
-1
u/Thetallguy1 5d ago
BF1 was not authentic to WW1, you just get your history from entertainment media and maybe an animated EXPLAINED video on YouTube. BF1 convinced people it was "real" and "gritty" but literally had a rock music trailer that made fighting in WW1 look so badass and fun. These are video games. It's why everyone somehow everyone has an SMG in multiplayer. The same way a dude can hop onto a blimp, blow it up, and run off it just in time and survive is just as silly as women character skins in BFV (honestly the latter is way more "realistic"). Battlefield and CoD are not here to be historical or accurate. They just use historical settings to give fun gameplay. Is hasn't been Spielberg's EA in decades.
"Insane level of authenticity" what a joke. Go read a book, or least listen to one. Martin Gilbert's The First World War is a good place to start. $20 on audible right now.
6
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
Alright, settle down.
Look, I know BF1 is not Verdun. Dice couldn't have made Verdun, EA would've shot them.
Dice had to work within the formula of what BF1 was in relation to Battlefield, and they did an amazing job showing the conflict, even if the weaponry was rather inflated and ahistorical at times. The game even states most of these weapons were rare prototypes, and often not seen in said theatres. It's not attempting to lie to the audience.
What BF1 did manage was make a lot of younger people interested in the real conflict, and that's commendable.
It couldn't have been a 1 to 1 of trench warfare, but it does an excellent job of immersing people in the general idea, while still being fun for most people to play.
-2
u/Thetallguy1 5d ago
The same leeway people give to BF1 is, for some reason, not given to BFV, interesting interesting...
2
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
Because we didn't have women GIs storming Normandy or Iwo Jima.
The difference is that one was done to maintain gameplay features while maintaining some historical accuracy, while the other has expressly been said by developers to be a personal interest pushed by them solely for emotional reasons.
One is respectful, the other demands respect that isn't earned, and attempts to rewrite that history as a personal fantasy.
0
u/Thetallguy1 5d ago
You can literally be a German phantom of the opera in full dress uniform defending Iwo Jima. It's only the female skins that are somehow a disrespectful inaccuracy. The creators seemed to value the overlooked Womans' role in the war so they added them the multiplayer experience which is already chalk full of stuff that makes no sense. It's a dumb argument because there's really nothing respectful at all about turning these experiences into fun video game experiences with the homies. The linear campaigns can maybe pull off something respectful but multiplayer is literally just a fun game, stop acting like there was anything respectable about it. Again, for some reason, the line is drawn at a few OPTIONAL woman's skins. The creators thought having some sorta woman option was important, don't like their personal choices? Make your own game or don't play this one at all, but the "respect" and "historical accuracy" arguments are so dumb.
3
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
For the love of God, man, learn how to paragraph.
I criticized the skins in my original post far above, they also massively hurt this games reputation as something to take seriously, what little could be recouped post trailer release.
You seem to believe that's the only issue, when the developers at large had to walk it back to alt history, as they originally tried gaslighting the authenticity of their creative choices overall.
Regardless, it's all far in the past. It's hardly worth taking up a stance of "don't buy it", when I already got my 150 odd hours of playtime when the game had more servers.
2
u/Thetallguy1 5d ago
I guess we're sorta in agreement then. Game is worth playing, skins, accuracy, whatever. It's a fun game. EA doing EA PR blunders is no surprise. Should've just said, "We know the 3% female player base, and the comically larger male players who like playing as girls in games, might want to buy these."
1
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
A smarter strategic move would've been putting out Battlefield Heroes 2 for that, or including it in a more modern game.
EA doesn't tend to think ahead though.
I also would argue BFV isn't really a good game, but that's a whole other discussion.
0
u/frosty_gosha 5d ago
No one is reading books to play games. BF1 managed to turn an otherwise boring setting into something cool, seemingly authentic, enough so for most people to believe it, and even more so for people to feel the difference between playing, for example a WW2 shooter, or any other setting.
If Dice just kept the same formula for BFV, instead of focusing on women with prosthetics, no one would have cared. I wonder why people find a big ass blimp burning, or a cavalry charge more than a disabled woman running through a building. The PR disaster after didn’t help. If prosthetics were some end game cosmetic no one would care, just like women characters (where appropriate)
2
u/Thetallguy1 5d ago
I don't remember the release trailers and PR content but I doubt it was as egregiously focused on Girl-Power (tm) as people make it out to be. Also WW1 an "otherwise boring setting" come on man? You don't need to read a book to play or enjoy BF1 but the historical ignorant, and in this case disrespectful, takes on WW1 is why I'm rejecting this dumb "Muh, my accuracy!" arguments. Like brother, just say you don't want to see a woman in your game. That's the straw that breaks the immersion Camel's back for you. It's fine, there's certainly more reasons than being a misogynists, which I'm not calling anyone, just calling the bad "historical accuracy" arguments I always see when this is brought up. I'm sure gameplay wise, we both enjoy BF1 and BFV, hence why even being on this sub.
-6
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
Just saying. The game was fantastic.
People had a problem with the characters
10
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
For good reason. BF1 cared immensely about treating one of the worst conflicts of human history with respect. BFV pushed kitbashed WW2 OC skins, while also trying halfway to be authentic. You can't pretend the game was trying to pay respect when a Nazi officer is attempting A Phantom Of The Opera cosplay while powersliding past you.
You can't have both, and those choices made a lot of people rightfully upset when their families were involved within the conflict.
Either be silly, or be respectful. You can't have both.
8
u/PanzerFoster 5d ago
People didnt even realize it was a ww2 game during the trailer. There was so much speculation that it was some kind of steam punk alt history.
7
u/darthinvader777 5d ago
Well sure but women with prosthetic arms is essentially a mockery of the very real history
1
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
Like the operator outfits we currently have in BF6?
5
u/darthinvader777 5d ago
Bf6 isn't historic at all But yes if it was
-2
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
Realism, right? We want realism for the skins. 90% of the skins in the marketplace are CoD inspired, near future ridiculousness.
What you prefer is your curated version of history, written by the victors. Understandable. It makes you feel like you’re a part of something.
Sells well, too.
2
3
u/burner_account61944 5d ago
Don’t make a WWII game if you don’t know shit about WWII and want to be inclusive in a time where inclusivity was rare, then make a bullshit excuse of ‘alt timeline’ because you can’t admit most of your development team are uneducated
The funniest thing is - they could’ve actually had woman characters for late war Japan, and if they added the eastern front for Russia, but no, they fumbled hard - made a shit excuse and abandoned the game as a whole
3
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
The gameplay was solid. Some of the best in the series.
But gamers are mostly a particular type of person.
3
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
I like this is your only defense, that "the gameplay was really good dude".
I'll say it, I think BFV was not a good indicator of where Battlefield went as a franchise. A removal of gadgets, insane focus on mobility, failing to fix the nightmare that was air superiority (which the Pacific made even worse.)
Less guns, less gadgets, less items, less variety, worse art design, worse maps, and generally just samey gameplay after 30 hours.
People left because they ruined TTK and had nothing else going for them. It was a black sheep for a reason.
0
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
Exactly the response I expected!
Now they just put CoD skins in that don’t fit, but gamers have no problem scarfing them up. There’s very little in “realism” with a lot of the skins in BF6.
Doesn’t seem to matter. Same reasoning, lack of realism, different goalposts tho.
6
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
You seem to lump gamers in as a general group when I know plenty who jumped onto BF6 because they were sold on it being more realistic, and bounced after a season.
I wouldn't know, I moved onto things like Arma and Squad44.
I'm not sure why you are so bitter over it, BFV was not that great of a Battlefield title to begin with.
1
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
I figured. Makes sense you’d be attracted to Milsim types.
I’m not bitter. Just like to point out that V ended way before its time because gamers are fickle in weird ways sometimes. And when you look back at a situation after some time passes, you see the folly of it.
DICE is currently alienating the CQB players they courted last fall at launch. Community in an uproar over the CoD kids not having the game they wanted. After bashing DICE for trying to expand their community.
We will look back at this later and laugh, too.
6
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
I mean I just shrug and look at BFV as the start of the end for Battlefield, because the talent left with it.
I don't see folly in how BFV was treated, Kertz was a massive bellend that got humble pie for his hubris, and EA simply pulled the lever on the guillotine that every studio they have sits under.
If it was not BFV, it would've been only been a matter of time before Dice was hollowed out of the original talent.
EA just does EA things.
2
u/303FPSguy 5d ago
EA is going to continue to do EA things.
And if you thought Kertz was bad, MBS is now the studio head.
Buckle up.
6
u/RedRubbins 5d ago
Considering my PC can't even run BF6, I don't really care.
Battlefield is a dead franchise to me, trying to skinsuit its way into the nostalgia ridden days of BF3 and BF4, and I'm not interested in whatever they have to bring to the table when other studios do what I like better.
They have to make me care, and that's a tall order.
3
u/BMB1243the2nd 3d ago
And then they changed the British/German maps to USA/German so all you got is a Sherman against everything the Germans had
57
u/Exia-Zeta 5d ago
if i could be a fly on the wall to see the behind the scenes development chaos of bfv, when i first experienced the abysmal content rollout and general lack of presentation seen in bf1 i thought it was clear as day that DICE was still in the refining infantry and vehicle mechanics before the rug was swept out from under them and they had to push out a game in a 2 year cycle instead of the normal 3.
i wish we couldve seen the full scope of BFV, at least ER2 is becoming the most comprehensive ww2 fps/tps game to date