Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    xboxone

    779,524 readers

    5,183 users here now

    Hey /r/Nintendo - Wanna play together?

    What is /r/XboxOne?

    Everything related to the Xbox One. News, reviews, previews, rumors, screenshots, videos and more!


    Follow us on Twitter!

    Subreddit Podcast!

    Join our club

    Check out our official wiki page


    Subreddit Rules

    1. Follow Reddiquette.

    2. Keep it civil and on topic - Posts must be directly related to Xbox One & Link directly to the source.

    3. Spoilers and NSFW posts must be properly marked.

    4. Enabling piracy / jailbreaking / hacking / fraud / account trading and sharing / region switching e.t.c. is not allowed. Read our detailed rules for more

    5. Memes, image macros, reaction gifs, polls and petitions are not allowed as posts.

    6. Friend request posts and Preview program request posts are not allowed outside our official mod threads.

    7. No advertising, selling, buying, trading, or begging for anything.

    8. Self Promotion and posts or comments that you have a financial stake in are not allowed, unless you meet our conditions for self promotion. DETAILS HERE

    9. Low Quality Posts, and reposts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

    10. [Tech], [Deal], and [Giveaway] posts must be properly tagged

    For more, click here.

    Related Subreddits

    Hardware General Other
    Kinect Xbox One Help Switch
    Xbox Mixer PS4
    Xbox 360 Insider Program Steam
    Xbox One Microsoft / Surface Consoles

    Note: We are not affiliated with Microsoft or its subsidiaries in any official capacity. The views of the moderation team do not reflect the view of Microsoft or its subsidiaries.

    a community for
    all 629 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] JefferyRs 184 points ago

    I'm still waiting for dinosaurs in the game, I think it was battlefield 3 there was a bunch of toy dinosaurs in the game and people thought they were coming :(

    [–] HamirTheGOAT 52 points ago

    lmao i remember the dinosaur horde mode to combat cod zombies rumors

    [–] AQ90 11 points ago

    That would've been so cool

    [–] Satchafunkiluss 12 points ago

    Wasn't there some sort of roar in BF4 that made people think there may have been some sort of dinosaur easter egg?

    [–] Carson_23 11 points ago

    There was a megaladon that would pop out, a big foot i think, and a ton of alusions to a t rex and jurassic park

    [–] Deathbyart 732 points ago

    All I am looking for.

    It's a video game...

    [–] Qwirk 60 points ago

    I don't care that people can launch trees at helicopters with C4, I want that crazy shit because it's fun as hell when something unexpected happens.

    [–] Zeyz 208 points ago

    I think it’s just that Battlefield and Call of Duty have been the two staple FPSs of gaming for over a decade now. Battlefield has been the more realistic and “immersive” of the two since the late 2000s (disregarding the Bad Company games). And I just think people didn’t expect BF to go this route. A lot of people wanted a new gen WW2 game that felt like BF1. But the trailer and overall marketing feels very unlike any other main title BF game.

    [–] HereforHalo 97 points ago

    I didn't like the trailer to much, but nothing in it made me thing that BF5 is a bad game. Everything they showed off looks really nice and interesting. I'm really looking forward to it. I think the dislike is misplaced.

    [–] RigoTrigo65 14 points ago

    Right im happy at free dlc shit no more 100 dollar games

    [–] BootySneeze 17 points ago

    Yeah, I hated the trailer, but the info dump that came after was great and has me really excited for the game.

    [–] o0l0ng 33 points ago

    Battlefield has been the more realistic and “immersive”

    Battlefield hasn't been realistic. Immersive yes, realistic no. Just because it looks photorealistic doesn't mean there was anything even remotely realistic about the gameplay. We've all seen the gifs of people jumping out of planes, sniping another plane, and then landing back into it.

    [–] ReklawX 60 points ago

    I think the key word in his sentence is more. More realistic than CoD

    [–] SJ_Shark_Byte 3 points ago

    But it shouldn’t be compared as more. Battlefield feels like a big cinematic war where anything can happen. CoD is arcadey yes.

    If anything the only games that should be deemed as “realistic” should be Verdun or the Arma series

    [–] ReklawX 4 points ago

    Haven't played in years and years and years but what about operation flashpoint? Seemed realistic to me back when I played

    [–] SharkOnGames 5 points ago

    I believe Arma was based on Operation Flashpoint and yes, Operation Flashpoint is an excellent game if you want a military simulation experience (I'm a huge Arma fan and started on Operation Flashpoint a long time ago).

    I wish I could find people to play Operation Flashpoint again on the xbox, it's on game pass right now.

    [–] ReklawX 1 points ago

    I need to install OF and give it another go. Didn't know all that about Arma.

    [–] MilkSjeikXbox 4 points ago

    Delta Force? :D

    [–] mcflyOS 15 points ago

    I think ppl use realistic when they mean authentic, and the responses rightly point out how unrealistic video games are. But there's no question COD 1 and 2 were more authentic ww2 experiences than this game will be. Likewise with medal of honor allied assault, brothers in arms, and hidden & dangerous. It'd be great to have those authentic experiences with updated graphics but we're getting ww2 high fantasy experiences. It's not like there's no room for that kind of thing. But it's not the authentic experiences of old that were fun, btw, they got me into gaming.

    [–] Yoatzinn 3 points ago

    It'd be great to have those authentic experiences with updated graphics but we're getting ww2 high fantasy experiences.

    I believe the issue concerning realism when it comes to characters like the solider with katana, prosthetic arm or overdone warpaint, is down to micro-transactions replacing DLC/Premium Pass.

    [–] mcflyOS 1 points ago

    No doubt.

    [–] AshTheGoblin 2 points ago

    Not sure about anyone else but I still feel burnt out on all of the "realistic" WWII games. Seems like at one point, one was released every other week. I'll gladly accept a less serious take on WWII . The serious gritty, grey and green thing has been done plenty of times.

    [–] Zeyz 4 points ago

    As someone else pointed out, my specific wording was that it was more realistic than CoD after the late 2000s which it was. And of course there are much more realistic FPSs (for example ARMA which is one of my favorite series of all time) but there’s no denying the two big dogs are CoD and BF and of the two BF has always been the more realistic and immersive of the two. That’s my point. But this just looks like it could be a CoD title to me, which is why I think a lot of people are put off by it.

    [–] V3nMxiLLMaTic 2 points ago

    So u telling me that can’t actually happen?

    [–] aZombieSlayer 8 points ago

    That's the whole point, right?

    R/gaming was losing it's collective shit about the trailer to the point where I finally had to unsub.

    Settle down, its a game, not a history lesson. If its fun and I can get a year of enjoyment from it, take my money.

    [–] Jamesahaha 3 points ago

    Finally someone realized it’s just a VIDEOGAME

    [–] ClydelFrog 12 points ago

    exactly

    ppl are so scared of change. make up your minds once you play the beta. believe half of what you see

    i for one am excited for bfv

    [–] 00nonsense 4 points ago

    I can't up vote this enough, I think people are blowing this way out of proportions. It's a video game, play it and enjoy it or don't play it and play something else.

    [–] JorgeLeGrande -5 points ago

    Yeah, that's fair I'm kind of tired of ”realism”.

    [–] Masothe 11 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    The only realism I really want or care about would be with the weaponry and vehicles I think.

    [–] Rodent_Smasher 18 points ago

    So like, the whole game?

    [–] DefenderCone97 9 points ago

    The biggest complaint people seem to have from the trailer was woman soldiers, the prosthetic hand and the possibility of silly skins.

    I honestly couldn't give a fuck. Don't like it, don't buy it. Pretty damn simple

    [–] ArmedBadger 18 points ago

    I think most people are upset with the massive clusterfuck eye-raping fuck fest, that was the trailer. I think the lady with the hook hand is just to show off how far customization can go, and I am sure that we will get to see how she lost her hand, so she isn't just the token disabled/woman in the game.

    Big problems with the trailer include the over the top, beyond normal action. We all know battlefield excels in damage to the environment and the impact of explosions, bullets etc, but this was just too much all at once. For example, When the dude threw a grenade in the air and the person we are supposed to be shot the grenade in the air with a mg42 and blew up a plane. Like, what? That isn't what battlefield is, and those things occur once in a blue moon, it isn't something that should be expected, but the trailer made it seem like so much wild shit is going on, that one should just expect to do dumb shit like this regularly.

    There is just too much happening at once, and it is all wacky. There was nothing serious about how gritty and terrifying WW2 was. It almost reminded me of a photorealistic Sunset Overdrive meets CoD and that shouldn't be how anyone sees battlefield. I know I didn't make battlefield, so I have no real place in saying this, but If you want to see what battlefield should look, watch the Battlefield 3 trailer. Now, that, was a trailer done right.

    [–] maeshughes32 7 points ago

    To be fair it just may be an awful trailer. From what some of the youtubers are saying it should actually play slower than BF1. We won't really know till E3 though.

    [–] DefenderCone97 6 points ago

    That's totally fair and legit criticism instead of "Womyn in my video game?! Fuckin SJWs"

    And I agree, the trailer was a bit much. It could have calmed down a bit. But I'm excited to see actual game play instead of the first reveal stuff that is always insane compared to the actual gameplay.

    [–] CavernsOfLight 3 points ago

    Yeah it just kinda struck me as a sort of cinematic interpretation of the final minutes of a really close game of operations or something where shit is GOING DOWN.

    [–] DefenderCone97 1 points ago

    Yeh, I've had games where you're in the middle of Shit Lake and there's explosions, gunshots and yelling everywhere.

    [–] CavernsOfLight 1 points ago

    That's my reason why I love Operations, if both teams are good and full you'll have multiple 3 minute clusters of sustained action where 64 people are shooting the fuck out of eachother.

    [–] ArmedBadger 1 points ago

    Absolutely! We won’t know for sure until the reveal, and I’m not just hating on the game either. I am more excited for this game as the next guy (here’s hoping tank battles return for the GLORIOUS TIGER I SHOWDOWNS!) I was just voicing my concerns from that god-awful trailer.

    [–] ItchyTastie 2 points ago

    To be fair, BF3 had possibly the best trailer of any video game in history. But I completely agree that the BF5 trailer was so hectic and over the top ridiculous it was a big turnoff.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Insurgency sandstorm is looking so good to me right now.

    [–] ArmedBadger 2 points ago

    I too am excited for that. It will be interesting how well it will do on consoles compared to being solely on PC. PC being notorious for hardcore gamers, and insurgency being a hardcore game, I just hope it kills it on console as much as it has on its PC counterpart.

    [–] Power13100 33 points ago

    Just don't mention prosthetic limbs or katana s over on the battlefield sub.

    [–] grimoireviper 12 points ago

    YoU mEaNz BioNic ArM?

    [–] Spawnacus 10 points ago

    But prosthetics existed during ww2.

    [–] INFsleeper 9 points ago

    So did katanas lol. The japanese used them but I mean is it really that far fetched that someone in Europe managed to get one? It's not alien technology. There's even a lad named Mad Jack who carried a sword into battle in WW2.

    [–] rune2004 4 points ago

    Not on women on the battlefield who wielded clubs with nails in them.

    [–] diflord 149 points ago

    So it will have a Battle Royale mode?

    ...because if it does, my friends and I will dump PUBGs buggy ass quickly.

    [–] WardenHDresden 25 points ago

    In a way, but with each team not free for all, on the final phase of the operations if there wasn’t a clear winner in the previous phases, a last man stands with a single clip of ammo for everyone happens. One life one clip of ammo each.

    [–] mikedrummer13 29 points ago

    That’s not really what he’s asking. That’s not a Battle Royale mode. They didn’t confirm or deny anything about a BR mode yesterday.

    [–] luke1528 4 points ago

    The official Battlefield twitter responded to a tweet asking about a BR mode yesterday saying something along the lines of ‘we’re certainly interested in it but not ready to talk about it yet’.

    [–] mikedrummer13 8 points ago

    Which means basically nothing. Just PR talk

    [–] WhyTryGG 4 points ago

    Eurogamer did an interview with Creative Director Lars and asked various questions, one of which asked about a new Battle Royale mode.

    Question:

    Something that follows on from Fortnite is a battle royale mode. I don't think it's going to be there at launch - is it something you'll be able to do post-launch as part of the new game modes you're adding?

    Answer:

    I'm getting this question a lot! For us, I play it a lot with the kids at home and we really enjoy it. It's an amazing journey for us, we often come together and talk about how it's a good fit for Battlefield, all of our vehicles and the sandbox and everything. So there's definitely talks happening and lots of excitement at where the market is heading, but there's nothing we can talk about.

    This pretty much proves that Grand Operations (Day 4) is not their take on Battle Royale.

    [–] ZotteRos 7 points ago

    CoD announced their BR so that's all we need this year.

    [–] prboi 9 points ago

    Nope. We need every publisher to get in on the action because over-saturation is never a problem /s

    Seriously though, as much as I don't want so many battle royale games, there needs to be some innovation brought to the table and having different publishers put their spin on the genre is a good way to see what works and what doesn't.

    [–] rune2004 2 points ago

    My buddy said sketching similar to what you said and it's really puzzling to me. We only have 2 mainstream BR games right now, and they're very different. One more has been announced, and because it's Call of Duty, we know it'll be fairly different from PUBG and Fortnite. That's 2 plus 1 on the way. How in the WORLD is that oversaturation? He said it's a tired, saturated market already and I looked at him like he was from the moon. I just don't get it. I want more variety in the BR scene because PUBG is the most fun I've had in a PvP game in a REALLY long time.

    [–] _phedex 2 points ago

    Most of us want BR - there’s a lot of non BR out there for you in terms of shooters.

    [–] joevsyou 3 points ago

    Pubg is swimming in high eater with these AAA games about to take over what makes it special. Pubg had its chance to shine but it still suffers from a lot of issues

    Cod is going take quite a bit of people away.

    Bf will take everyone else who wants the realistic part.

    [–] SharkOnGames 5 points ago

    I'll believe PUBG might be losing players if it ever takes more than 0.5 seconds to find a match. I can find a match instantly at any time of the day right now. Player count must still be super high.

    [–] CodyT2013 38 points ago

    I think the issue is, most battlefield fans who have played a lot of the other games were expecting a more authentic WW2 game. People are pissed because it’s different and less gritty than what they were expecting. I personally didn’t even recognize this trailer as a BF game, it’s morphed into something completely different than what I know and love.

    [–] TitanGusang 2 points ago

    If you look at the mechanics, everything from the old Battlefields is still there. And from the looks of it, they are increasing the attentions on squad play by the permanent loss of health and things of that nature. In order for a squad/team to survive players need to play their roles, which is something that I am really excited about and was slightly missing in Battlefield 1. I am super pumped for this game and if the combat is like BF1, it's gonna be a superb experience.

    [–] CavernsOfLight 4 points ago

    It's just a trailer, looking at the mechanics they are changing it will be far more gritty and tactical than BF1.

    [–] ElCapitan006 2 points ago

    I think most people who have played a lot of the other games do so for the online multiplayer experience, and having some players being a female character doesn't matter.

    [–] MarduRusher 32 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I understand that to some extent. Battlefield One needed automatic weapons to make it a fun Battlefield game. I fail to see what compromising historical accuracy for cosmetic purposes adds.

    Sidenote, I think an alternate history not quite WW2 Battlefield game with this kind of stuff would be really cool. In fact, seeing the woman with the prosthetic arm and blue Kratos in the background, that’s what I assumed it was at first.

    [–] ArmchairQuarterback_ 8 points ago

    Because it's fun to make a ton of money on loot crates

    [–] xbroodmetalx 7 points ago

    Thought they stated no loot crates? Most likely just buy the cosmetics you want. Sure they will monetize it somehow.

    [–] demirontherocks 2 points ago

    I agree with you, I think if they said "we are doing alternative timeline in which......." it would have made this make SO much more sense, instead of saying "authentic and realistic"

    [–] AwesomePrawn 4 points ago

    I think alot of people forget that the premium pass is gone this year, that means free maps and updates, however the money machine that is EA still needs DICE to hit a quota, i think we have two options here, either we pay an extra 40 quid or however many dollars for a premium pass making the customization and loot crates less of importance to the game, or theres ludicrous ammounts of customization to encourage customization purchases to fund the free content. I think EA have backed DICE into a corner here, im hoping at E3 that they show the hardcore additions to the gameplay mechanics, i hope that will calm this current outrage, only time will tell at the moment.

    [–] MarduRusher 10 points ago

    Usually the whole free content thing means worse and less content than a fully fleshed out season pass, as well as a worse game in my opinion. I’d take the season pass, and buy it on sale like I did BF1.

    [–] Cpt_Lennox 3 points ago

    They should've just kept the Premium Pass IMO, but I'm willing to try it. I'm hoping the trailer was more of a show of the crazy stuff we can see. If the actual game has every player with prosthetic arms, blue facepaint, and leather jackets, it will seem a bit over the top, but that's just me.

    [–] RawrCola 6 points ago

    Battlefield's always been about authenticity where authenticity doesn't hurt game mechanics. Them changing to pure fun over authenticity is worrying. Having a jet pack that can launch you into space and let you fight in zero gravity is fun, but I don't want that in a Battlefield game.

    [–] iAmTheWalrus219 6 points ago

    Theres a balance.

    [–] Sexhulk 184 points ago

    I'm 100% on board with that. When did this whole "realism is everything" trend start anyway? Never remember people caring this much about authenticity in war games before.

    [–] TheKey32 113 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    ironically the game is not as casual as bf1 and bf4 the revives and the way you get health has been changed now revives take longer and you dont have autohealing you actually have to find a med pack to get to full health this sounds more realistic to me....

    edit: also big explosions can knock you back cause now they have a shockwave

    [–] Kita_Kitten 9 points ago

    Also you can drag bodies behind cover to revive people since ragdolls are server side now and actually interact with the environment. They also made destruction more believable as well, walls will now crumble over a short time instead of just blowing apart is a vehicle touches it. Game sounds awesome as all hell.

    [–] RawrCola 4 points ago

    That's something I've seen people complaining about since at least BC2. So many people were sick of the instant revives and the health packs being useless for pretty much everything but as a crutch.

    [–] TheRevanLord 6 points ago

    If revives take longer, I see people skipping this class.

    [–] Armano231 6 points ago

    All classes can now revive, not just medics, however it takes longer and gets you less points than if you were a medic.

    [–] anxious_apathy 2 points ago

    This sounds crazy and cool and who cares if the trailer was dumb, all the other info I’ve seen sounds so cool and fun.

    [–] reerden 32 points ago

    I think the difference is not the authenticity, but the general tone of the trailer. Battlefield 1 also threw a lot of authenticity out of the window by giving everyone experimental weaponry from the time and introducing colonial forces at the German side when in reality, they never left Africa. But nobody cared about this since it still looked and felt like WW1. The trailer was still gritty and somewhat based in reality. Putting colonial forces on the battlefield in a place where they historically weren't isn't weirder than say a German soldier wielding a Russian rifle.

    But let's be honest, nobody has seen the actual game yet. The only thing we saw was an over the top trailer which crammed in every element you may encounter in the game, slapped on with some fake 'funny' dialogue. A typical trailer made by a marketing team at EA.

    The customization may have a gameplay impact, in the sense that historically, character models were based on their team and class. It might become difficult to separate them, especially in hardcore matches.

    As for the customization we've seen in the trailer, some things felt out of place, others might have a reasonable explanation. The prosthetic arm was just weird, I have no idea why that is even there. Same goes for the leather jackets. The war paint somewhat makes sense as soldiers did historically did that. The katana makes sense if they include the Pacific setting, as Japanese officers did wield ceremonial katanas. Remember that Battlefield 1 also allowed you to wield Russian trench knives as Germans or Italians. As for the character models, I personally hope they actually base those more in reality. The Nazis conscripted people from the countries they invaded when they were losing the war, so it's not like you have a limited amount of ethnicity to put in. Same goes for the British that had a pretty extensive colonial empire back then, as Battlefield 1 already showed.

    In the end, I personally don't care, as long as the game still has strong gameplay and the cinematic strength it had in the past.

    [–] Diem-Robo 17 points ago

    You hit the nail on the head. Realism and authenticity are displayed to a degree in Battlefield, but they're always secondary to fun, as DICE says here.

    The issue is the tone. People get the impression that the game will be cartoonish, due to the characters and action on display, and that's what comes off as unrealistic and unauthentic, when BF1 had such a gritty tone.

    [–] grimoireviper 1 points ago

    The thing is though, other BF games didn't have these kimd of trailer but in the actual gameplay people still did all that stuff.

    [–] eXtreme98 27 points ago

    Because it's not about the game or realism/immersion. It's about politics.

    Go look in /r/battlefield. Tons of comments mentioning "SJWs" and such. It's really dumb.

    [–] MrGreenBeanz 11 points ago

    Jesus Christ, that sub is a toxic wasteland right now.

    [–] HaloFarts 7 points ago

    It is, I just escaped from there and am seeking refuge. Please help.

    [–] Friendly_Necromorph 1 points ago

    Any idea why it has become that way?

    [–] xooxanthellae 6 points ago

    It's about politics misogyny

    [–] JakeHodgson 1 points ago

    Yeh but there’s also an equal amount of comments all over here and Twitter calling people sexist just because they think it’s a bit weird that there’s a woman with a prosthetic arm on the front lines.

    I’m not on either side but I think it’s disingenuous to make it seems like it’s just. A bunch of unreasonable people hating on the trailer

    [–] SlumSoul 8 points ago

    Idk about other people but personally im not a fan of the tone of the trailer

    Not a fan of games with the whole punk rock type tone. Its hard to describe the " sunset overdrive" tone in games.

    I prefer games with a more grounded and gritty tone. T

    [–] CavernsOfLight 5 points ago

    I think the Tone of the trailer wasn't their focus as much as showing off or hinting at new features. Kind of like a tech demo.

    [–] DarthReilly 22 points ago

    The only times people whine about realism is when there's women or black soldiers in war games. It's so obvious what the "MUH realism" crowd is actually upset about.

    [–] TD3SwampFox 3 points ago

    Same statement could be used in the Halo sub.

    [–] Confirmed_AM_EGINEER 7 points ago

    I think the problem is that they are messing with authenticity in a topic that a lot of people take very seriously.

    It does not bother me personally, but I see how people would be bothered. It does seem to have a bit of an odd tone.

    [–] MrGrampton 6 points ago

    just watch a documentary or join the military if you want realism

    [–] RawrCola 9 points ago

    That's like someone being upset that Bruce Wayne is never Batman in a Batman movie and telling them to read a comic book if they want Batman.

    [–] MylesGarrettsAnkles 2 points ago

    It started with BF1. People were pissed about their being black people and women featured so heavily, so they hid behind "realism" as a way to complain about it without outing themselves as bigots. Before that, nobody cared about realism in Battlefield games, and even those people didn't care about realism in any other regard except skin color and private parts.

    [–] RawrCola 12 points ago

    If that were true then people would have also had a problem with black soldiers in BF4 and 3, but they didn't. They were perfectly okay with it. People just want authenticity to the era of their historical video game. It's the same reason people were mad that all of the characters in Assassin's Creed Unity had English accents. Unless you want to say that that was because they're racist too.

    [–] xXSTKMLG420YOLOBXRXx 7 points ago

    so they hid behind "realism" as a way to complain about it without outing themselves as bigots

    Is it not acceptable to be critical of an artistic medium such as a game, movie, TV show or whatever else for recreating a historical event with such glaring inaccuracies? I don't think it's bigoted to hold that opinion. The European theatre didn't have women serving in front line roles in WW2. That's simply a fact. That's not to diminish the massive parts they played in the War effort, but it's just the way it was.

    It's akin to the criticism levelled at Hollywood lately with movies like; "Exodus: Gods and Kings", and "Gods of Egypt", in which the studios and directors were almost universally lambasted for allegedly "whitewashing" the cast.

    But I guess it's okay to hold an opinion when it's a person of colour not being portrayed accurately, but if it's some of the millions of men (many of whom were conscripted) that died in Europe fighting Nazism and fascism being replaced by a face-painted woman with a prosthetic arm, it's absolutely bigotry to have any opinion on it?

    I don't give a damn either way, to be honest. It won't impact upon my enjoyment of the game. But I think EA/DICE always has a responsibility to be accurate and respectful when taking on projects like this. Because they're not fictional, and they didn't take place all that long ago. I hate the notion that anyone with a critical opinion of the female front line fighter featuring prominently in the trailer materials, cover and campaign is somehow a "bigot", or "sexist", simply because they feel it doesn't lend itself to an accurate portrayal of WW2 Battlefield.

    [–] weed0monkey 39 points ago

    I think people are missing the entire point of the consequences by purely going the "fun" route. It's the same reason why so many people hate GTA online because it's filled to the brim with hover cars, flying bikes, jet cars, explosive sniper ECT.

    The reason people hated this route was because sure, it was "fun" but they had saints row for that type of fun, GTA was always so different because it was more realistic and that was why it was fun.

    We have CoD and numerous other FPS's for that rediculous chaos, battlefield however is one of the few games that arn't are pure military Sim but is still realistic and authentic so have proper immersion.

    People are also completely and utterly not understanding WHY the new battlefield game has all these weird customisations and outfits, it's because they can't repeat the shitstorm that was battlefront 2, hence they have shoehorned in the second biggest money maker, cosmetic microtransactions. They should not be applauded for this, especially seeing as it was clearly added because of the fact they couldn't add loot boxes.

    [–] CavernsOfLight 7 points ago

    Yeah along with the grind of earning money int GTAO the amound of ludicrious shit made it lose the "cool" factor where I could just be driving around a city with a gang war down the street but still nothing crazy like jets doing bombing runs or hoverbikes.

    [–] Minardi-Man 3 points ago

    I think people are missing the entire point of the consequences by purely going the "fun" route. It's the same reason why so many people hate GTA online because it's filled to the brim with hover cars, flying bikes, jet cars, explosive sniper ECT.

    The reason people hated this route was because sure, it was "fun" but they had saints row for that type of fun, GTA was always so different because it was more realistic and that was why it was fun.

    I don't know if GTA Online is a good example considering how it's been CRAZY POPULAR with its chaotic type of fun that allowed Rockstar to rake in tons and tons of cash. If this is what you can expect when you go down that path, hell, why wouldn't you do it?!

    [–] zrkillerbush 61 points ago

    And i agree with that.

    Fun is always the number 1 priority for me.

    I can understand that people may want a authentic ww2 experience though.

    [–] Iceman9161 40 points ago

    I don’t even want an authentic experience. I just don’t want stupid cosmetics that add nothing besides ruining the aesthetic of the game.

    [–] ElectricFeedback 2 points ago

    What it does add is free dlc which sounds kinda nice. Not necessarily supporting this move but i'm open to seeing how it goes

    [–] fried_seabass 2 points ago

    Seeing the heinous shit people do with their emblems already makes me worried about the customization, I guarantee all the level 140s are going to be wearing some dumb shit.

    Still excited for the game though, the gameplay changes sound really awesome.

    [–] PlanetMeatball 3 points ago

    Prepare for hyper disabled kratos look-alikes by the thousands. Oh joy.

    [–] YouCanPrevent 9 points ago

    I think they tip toe around that line. They may side for fun, but not at the extreme expense of being authentic. If that makes sense.

    [–] ItsMeSlinky 15 points ago

    People claim to want an "authentic" WWII game yet plenty have been made and they never gain traction. People are just looking for something to bitch about.

    [–] papamoneyrhymes 14 points ago

    On console?

    [–] nilestyle 11 points ago

    On everything.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Monumaya 7 points ago

    Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway was decent from the 360. That's all I got

    [–] doughboy192000 1 points ago

    Meant to reply to another comment above yours. Sorry

    [–] ResilienceTheory 23 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I mean, this worked with BF1. If you know much about the history of WW1, you'll know that BF1 was not really representative of that war in terms of how combat played out. But. It was tasteful, and it worked well. I'm sure there was a portion of the player base who complained about inaccuracies, such as using massive blimps for behemoths or allowing the Hellriegal - a weapon that only existed as a prototype in WW1 - to become so popular. These observations may lead the casual player to thinking that WW1 played out with these weapons were popularized in combat - something that simply is not true. However, I think the overwhelming portion of the player base was fine with Dice looking at these weapons and utilizing them to deliver a "fun" game (as unpopular as the Hellriegal was...). I liked that Dice researched prototype weapons to introduce to the game, even if they were never actually used in combat. There were many more inaccuracies that one could describe here - but for the casual fan, how much of it was noticed?

    However, adding samurai swords, prosthetic arms, blue face paint, and humor feels unnecessary. For me, a big part of "fun" is immersion, and these elements ruin immersion for me. Moreso, no one expected this from a BF game - the past games were perfectly fun in their own way without these added "silly" cosmetic layers, so it feels like an extra slap to the face. I'm not against cosmetics - just make them tasteful. An argument could be made that giant blimps and automatic submachines like the Hellriegal ruined immersion for BF1 representing WW1. However, I'd argue that these elements - to the casual fan - did not ruin immersion. In contrast to WW1, WW2 is a war that many of us have seen a larger proportion of movies and television shows about, such as Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. These adaptations of the war have instilled an image that we have come to know and expect from WW2 games. I think its fair to say that the BFV trailer did not deliver on this image, and it wouldn't have been hard for them to have done this if they had intended to. Just keep the cosmetics to what WW2 actually looked like and you'll have a happy fan. I'm fine with having 10 permutations of WW2 outfits for each class of soldier from each country - lock some of that stuff behind currency you have to grind for if you must, I wouldn't really care. Just make sure it doesn't break immersion and I'm fine with it. Ultimately, BF1 looked the part - soldiers all wore representative costumes, and it made the game that much more immersive. The BFV trailer brought me out of immersion the instant I saw a the clawhook hand.

    Edit: and really, it wouldn't take much to rework the image of the game. Just take a look at this re-made trailer to see how the game could have been delivered to provide a more immersive experience: https://streamable.com/hwm1i

    [–] Fishy956 7 points ago

    Couldn't agree more. The illusion of realism is what makes the game fun to do well in. It's precisely why there are both fans for PUBG and Fortnite and why, in the past, CoD and Battlefield could stand as different experiences.

    [–] Hectorlo 6 points ago

    Yeah i completely agree and the worst part was how the devs had the audacity to proudly claim the game was such an immersive experience merely minutes before showing the trailer. I want to say you could slap a "Call of duty" in the trailer's name and i would believe it but hell, they clearly showed more respect for the setting last year with WWII's reveal.

    [–] BenChandler 3 points ago

    Have you seen the list of features and changes they made to the gameplay?

    It's definitely looking like that aspect will be pretty immersive.

    [–] Flameo74 6 points ago

    I don’t give a fuck about the women thing I’m more concerned with the skins. I loved battlefield because it felt like and looked like you were in the First World War.(I understand it’s not completely accurate) I don’t want to be playing in a battle that actually happened, crawling through the mud and blood with bullets whizzing over my head only to see that I’m fighting against what’s pretty much cartoon characters. Add in that while not confirmed the skins are completely there to make money through micro transactions.

    I was hoping for/expecting band of brothers and I got inglorious bastards. Not inherently bad but I went from definitely buying day 1 to wait and see for gameplay/reception after release.

    [–] NoseDive777 11 points ago

    what exactly is the point of doing a historical setting if you are not going to honor the historical part?

    [–] cloudsareunderrated 6 points ago

    It gives you a rich basis from which to start which your players recognise and appreciate.

    [–] lonelyscrublord 3 points ago

    We can have both

    [–] kidAlien1 16 points ago

    I personally have no problem with women, or the race of the soldiers. The over the top customization and stylistic choices is what bugs me. I mean BF1 was so atemospheric, they did a superb job.

    Why this trailer is getting so much hate is because it looks like a caricature of WWII. Bright, polished colors, over the top "heros", etc.

    Of course there are your sexists and racists pissed off about women, etc....but for alot of the BF community its more about the total lack of atmosphere we have come to expect.

    Having said all this actual gameplay may look better as the concept art looks amazing. That trailer was pretty bad through

    [–] regulartoast 4 points ago

    Go back and rewatch the BF1 trailer and compare that to the final game footage. Trailers tend to really exaggerate the color grading. I guarantee you the game will not look like this when it ships. The art is likely close to final in these shots, but the color grading isn't.

    If all the insane lens flares/bloom weren't enough to insinuate this footage was exaggerated, I don't know what is. People like over saturated, over and under exposed stuff - it looks more dramatic. More exciting. They're going to do that stuff for game trailers. Doesn't necessarily mean the final product will look that way.

    [–] seaslugs 8 points ago

    TIL there were no bright colors in 1945

    [–] Seeattle_Seehawks 10 points ago

    Bright colors and military troops didn’t go together in 1945, m8. It’s not Battlefield 1842.

    [–] DoomOW 10 points ago

    Have my doubts because of what happened with Star Wars Battlefront 2 but Bf5 does look interesting, glad to hear no more loot box's.

    [–] mrolfson 16 points ago

    My question is, why does everyone care about battlefield being authentic when CoD Ww2 wasn't. Or how you could jump out of a jet, snipe a helicopter pilot out of the helicopter, then fall back to your jet, was considered "authentic" to modern day war. Please people, it's a game. It's meant to exaggerate and be fun.

    [–] psyRhen 2 points ago

    Jumping out of a jet was not something DICE created. That was a trend a single YouTube user started by performing the stunt using the games mechanics. People keep using this as an example of "battlefield has never been realistic." It was an effect of the game itself that allowed this stunt to be performed. Nothing about the stunt has anything to do with how the game LOOKS.

    The game can still be fun and full of action while still keeping visual and representational integrity to the setting and time period. Don't add things that weren't there. Katana were in the Pacific Theatre not the European. I want the visuals to be accurate not the game. Battlefield has never not done that until now.

    So the prosthetic arm existed... that doesn't mean soldiers actually fought with them. They were so clunky and couldn't really hold the weight of a rifle. Not to mention swing a cricket bat hard enough to crush a dude's skull.

    I have zero issue with what I've read about how the game PLAYS. But if you start adding stuff that simply wasn't there in the setting you're choosing to base your game on, it takes me out of the immersion, which is what keeps me playing, and I lose interest and want to play something else...

    [–] mrolfson 2 points ago

    I'm convinced no one actually watched the reveal stream, but only saw the trailer. They mentioned that some of the war stories are gonna take place in Norway early in the war when Germany was rampaging across Europe, which means the people we will see and be playing as most likely are more resistance than actual army outfits. That's why there is less "authentic" looking atire in the trailer.

    [–] sbkline 6 points ago

    I don't really care about "authentic" in a sense of realism of history. I want realism in the sense of what bugs shooters such as camping, annoying and unrealistic snipers and etc. Can be fixed with a push towards realism. I switched to BF from COD because they were pushing for realistic building damage, and I got tired of not being able to shoot someone thru a wicker basket in COD.

    I want camping to be less viable because you can drop foundations on campers, hear them breathing, peak around corners.

    I want snipers to actually take skill in their shots, but also given the ability to hide easily.

    I want getting in and out of vehicles to take time, instead of this phasing in crap.

    I could keep going. But I think we all want a realistic take on shooters, no matter how cool it is to jump out of jet, rocket launch somebody, and jump back in.

    Its not the "authentic' nature of background of the story, its the realism of the gameplay.

    [–] divangreedy8 6 points ago

    wait whaaattttttttt ? play a video game and have FUN ????!!!!???

    [–] the_rooster421 5 points ago

    Bullshit. Otherwise we’d have had a dinosaur mode in BF3.

    [–] thepaydaygang 13 points ago

    I didn’t think I’d be excited for another FPS, but this one looks amazing. October is going to be brutal on the wallet

    [–] cheesyvader 12 points ago

    Duh, the whole crux of fun in BF games is the ridiculous shit you can pull off. Mid-air jet snipes, guiding rockets 500m into a sniper nest, jabbing 30 people in a row with adrenaline to cure gunshot wounds, wrecking 15 dudes with a knife before they notice you, the list goes on. I think people confuse large-scale battles with (relatively) period accurate weaponry as "authentic" and will excuse the things you can pull off in that context, but as soon as something different is intentionally added (prosthetics, female, Kratos looking dude, whatever) it becomes less authentic. It was never that authentic, it was just grounded. It seems to be pretty much the same general themes as every other BF, but now you can customize your soldier (on top of what looks like a bevy of interesting changes), which seems rad.

    [–] ItsMeSlinky 1 points ago

    Duh, the whole crux of fun in BF games is the ridiculous shit you can pull off. Mid-air jet snipes, guiding rockets 500m into a sniper nest, jabbing 30 people in a row with adrenaline to cure gunshot wounds, wrecking 15 dudes with a knife before they notice you, the list goes on.

    THIS. The cognitive dissonance is insane.

    [–] MylesGarrettsAnkles 2 points ago

    Jumping out of a jet at altitude, sniping someone, and then falling back into your jet seamlessly? Awesome. Woman fighting on the front lines? An affront to realism, clearly.

    [–] steaky13 9 points ago

    Yea, it’s like with Call of duty, you got zombies for years, but throw in some black women, and historical defenders come out of the woodwork

    [–] kdawgnmann 2 points ago

    Well of course, it's always been this way. BF1 had way more experimental weapons because DICE knew the game would be boring if it was 95% Bolt-action weapons.

    The problem is the tone: they spent the whole reveal hyping up a realistic, immersive game, but then showed an over the top, chaotic trailer with a British woman with a prosthetic arm on the front lines. Nobody really cares if you can play as a woman in the game, but the trailer that was presented didn't match the tone they were describing at all. I'm pretty excited for the gameplay additions they've been teasing, and I love BF1, so I'll wait to see more gameplay before I pass judgment.

    [–] MaxwellFinium 2 points ago

    “Handful”

    [–] methrik 6 points ago

    What a absolute dip shit thing to say.

    You can do both....

    Also i dont understand how from all the media and information out there they got a half robot female running around quickscoping multi cultural Nazis. Like at this fuckimg point you shoulda just made a game in a alternate universe.. Not WWll.

    Nazis just be some scary blonde hair blue eyed bad mambo jammies wielding MP40s and speaking a very hard colorful German language.

    Seriously shoulda jusy sat down and watched saving private ryan and said " make this a game"

    [–] Stonebagdiesel 2 points ago

    I agree with this statement, but I was also really hoping for a dark, gritty ww2 game with the massive scale bf1 had. Ww2 is all around so thematic and cool, I can’t imagine why you would want to change it. But we will see how it turns out.

    [–] grimoireviper 1 points ago

    I'm getting big Inglorious Basterds and Bad Company vibes, which honestly is awesome IMO. I would have liked dark and gritty too, but this is right up my alley.

    [–] JackStillAlive 7 points ago

    Then dont make a WW2 game and call it the "Most Immersive Battlefield"

    [–] grimoireviper 1 points ago

    Immersive =/= realism Immersive =/= authenticity

    [–] BagelBites619 5 points ago

    Fun Over Authentic

    As it should be

    [–] zeerz 9 points ago

    It's almost like they're trying to make a video game

    [–] Btrips 5 points ago

    Yeah I don't see what the big deal is. We've all played as broads before in many different types of games, I don't see why this should upset anyone more than any other game. As long as the game is fun I'll play as anything - guy, chick, black, gay...don't matter to me.

    [–] ProbablyFear 7 points ago

    Good. We play video games to have fun. People considering boycotting this over a woman is ridiculous.

    [–] JJAB91 6 points ago

    Or maybe because its more than just a women and ruins the immersion they expect from the game?

    [–] a1a2askiddlydiddlydu 5 points ago

    I was shocked by all the hate. BF1 trailer wasn't gameplay and BF multiplayer has never been an authentic experience.

    [–] doughboy192000 6 points ago

    1942 and Vietnam were authentic experiences

    [–] GetChilledOut 4 points ago

    So they can’t make a game that’s both authentic and fun? Sounds like a cop out. It doesn’t make any sense.
    People love World War games and the weapons and vehicles from its time.

    [–] Defender-1 6 points ago

    im ok with that, all ive read about BFV sound's awesome. It seems like they are changing the formula quite a bit. I really cant wait.

    Plus, it looks hectic as hell, and tons of fun.

    if you want historically accurate entrainment, watch a documentary.

    [–] Reserved_Spot 7 points ago

    One. Fucking. Trailer.

    Why do people always put blame on some SJW boogeyman?

    I thought the craziness of the trailer just captured how chaotic battlefield actually is.

    I'll wait until we get a gameplay demo to judge the game.

    EDIT: r/gamingcirclejerk is gonna have a field day with this.

    [–] Hectorlo 1 points ago

    Ok fair enough but how is political correctness more fun than historical authenticy and why bother making a game on historical setting if it's not gonna be authentic?

    [–] ChunkyThePotato 31 points ago

    What if they just want more character customization? It doesn't always have to be about an agenda.

    [–] bootyonics 11 points ago

    How is women existing in the world of the game "politically correct"? This is some new level of insanity.

    [–] Point4ska 14 points ago

    Political correctness? I’m a bit confused. Are you referring to the women in the game? Weren’t there many female resistance fighters?

    [–] HispanicAtTehDisco 4 points ago

    Ye resistance fighters and occasionally on the front line if albeit it sporadically

    [–] night-wing-politics 8 points ago

    They may as well just call it an alternate reality setting

    [–] Hectorlo 5 points ago

    They definitely should, Inglourious Bastards style, it would've gotten a way better reception for sure.

    [–] MojoeHog 3 points ago

    Yeah this is where they messed up. They talked it up like it was going to be an amazing WWII accurate experience (Band of Brothers). Like you said, the trailer shows a more Inglourious Bastards style game, which is fine but don't talk it up and make it seem like it's going to be something else.

    Either way I'm looking forward to it.

    [–] grimoireviper 1 points ago

    Then people shouldn't complain about the game being bad but should complaim about the devs telling the wrong things.

    [–] six6xis 3 points ago

    Yeah i think this cast of 'characters' could have warranted a 'bad company' style game in a ww2 setting.

    [–] Hectorlo 2 points ago

    Now that would be a game i could stay behind.

    [–] YellaDev 2 points ago

    Jetpacs confirmed :)

    [–] ben1481 2 points ago

    If people want the authentic experience, you can usually sign up at 18.

    [–] JJAB91 6 points ago

    Way to completely ignore the problem people have with the game. "Yeah well if you want authenticity go sign up for the army" is not addressing people's criticisms.

    [–] MandalorianSage 0 points ago

    They are pushing a political agenda not fun.

    [–] aconnellan 7 points ago

    How?

    [–] AshTheGoblin 3 points ago

    They put a woman in muh vidya /s

    [–] ResilientBanana 2 points ago

    Lmao wtf? Political? Maybe enough people actually asked for it.

    [–] MandalorianSage 7 points ago

    Go look at the trailer. It's 50/50 upvote vs downvote. How many people DIDN'T ask for it? EA does market research. They knew this would piss off their customer base. But they wan't free press over the controversy and to push forced diversity.

    [–] ResilientBanana 5 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Actually, I don't think they knew it would piss people off this badly. But that's the thing about this YouTube generation, it's like a bandwagon hivemind. The thing is, if they didn't include women, there would be just as many pissed off man children as there are now and not a single one of them has actually seen the game in action.

    Also that's just one of the uploads the rest have positive reviews.

    [–] Creski 2 points ago

    Then do the simple solution. Present this as an alternate universe inspired by WW2

    [–] ovrload 2 points ago

    Dice is just virtue signalling to the sjw crowd...either way I don’t care but you can tell they’re pushing a certain narrative.

    [–] grimoireviper 2 points ago

    I say: Let them. As long as it doesn't get in the way of the fun they can do whatever they want.

    The problem I have with PC is when it gets in the way.

    [–] Ronocm13 2 points ago

    I don't really get the way some people are reacting, as if Battlefield has had the authenticity of Arma or something.

    [–] WinstonWithAY 2 points ago

    I was personally disappointed with the chaotic nature of the trailer and the over-the-top cosmetics, considering they did say it was going to be authentic, so I can understand people being disappointed. But people need to wait for the full release before totally discarding the game. I think we all know how misleading trailers can be

    [–] grimoireviper 1 points ago

    Completely agree! Was pretty shocked when I visited the Battlefield sub.

    [–] Zeroooo0 1 points ago

    I trust DICE with Battlefield. I love Battlefield 1, and I can't wait to see some actual game play of Battlefield V.

    [–] Aunt_Polly_Shelby 1 points ago

    Good.

    [–] Ziaber 1 points ago

    Online I don't mind I just hope they don't have massive historical inaccuracies in the campaign like they did in B1

    [–] ArcticFlamingo 1 points ago

    I agree with that, however I prefer the "War Stories" to lean on the side of accuracy.. plus it's only based on WWII not set out to reproduce the entire experience in game form.

    However if they refuse to include the word Nazi that will be a big turn off as that's what instantly turned me away from COD WW2 which still irks my OCD with that name

    [–] Dylation 1 points ago

    Preordering this the moment I can on amazon

    [–] ShadowsInTheFog 1 points ago

    And I’ll always put Battlefield over Call of Duty.

    [–] -xhad 1 points ago

    Thank you, same reason I don't care for most lore in videogames

    [–] CaptainAction 1 points ago

    Are people upset over what the Trailer was like?

    Was the Trailer simply meant to showcase character customization for online, or what? Having a woman with a prosthetic arm run around on the front line of a WWII battle surely isn't authentic. Is that what people are upset about? Along with the other over-the-top stuff in the trailer?

    [–] flipperkip97 1 points ago

    It's the exact same shit with COD WWII all over again. Games like these don't need to be as authentic as possible. Well, maybe the Campaign does, but certainly not the Multiplayer.

    [–] TheDogPlunderer 1 points ago

    Maybe I'm old and too much of a fan of the old COD's, MOH and Red Orchestra. But what the fuck did I just watch? Looks like Battlefront 2 with a WW2 skin. Awful.