Battlefield V (2018)

[Suxnet]

Women should be in the kitchen playing Angry Birds on their little phones and leaving the alpha male stuff like playing Battlefield to us guys.

 

[John Price]

Gamers will complain about anything. They took umbrage at that sassy character from Wolfenstein. SHE CAN'T BE LIKE THAT

 

[XX]

Please be balanced... BF1 is the worst in the series in that regard.

 

[Yarborough]

Can we just get a Kursk map please, as that would be amazing. Can you imagine a tank focused map in Battlefield to the extent of Kursk, it would be insane.

 

[Osprey]

According to the developers, the name wasn't just a style choice, but a deliberate referencing of the "V for Victory" campaign. That explains why they didn't just go with "Battlefield 5," which would've been consistent with all of the rest of the games in the series. In fact, come to think of it, I'm not sure if it's even meant to be pronounced "Battlefield Five" or if it's supposed to be "Battlefield Vee." I'm guessing the former, since that's what everyone is going to call it, anyways, but the developers might care to tweet a clarification on that point, too, just to be safe.

This Is Why It's Called 'Battlefield V' - IGN

Edit: Also, I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but I read that October 19th, 2018 is the release date.

 

[Oogie Boogie]

Interesting.
Hoping we can get some details about when the open beta will be at E3 (?)

 

[Carlzner]

I'm sold

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

This is honestly starting to sound pretty awesome. I really really hated BF1 and I hope that this goes back to some older days and be good about it too.

 

[Oogie Boogie]

I'm sold

This is pretty awesome.
Starting to get pretty hyped about Battlefield V now.
Hoping for some good gameplay at E3.

 

[Osprey]

I'm not sure that I like the idea of so many game modes. I prefer the idea of traditional capture the flag with other ideas integrated into it, rather than available separately. For example, Titan assault was like a whole new game mode in Battlefield 2142, but it wasn't separate from capture the flag. You could assault/defend the Titan or you could stay on the ground and capture flags, if that's what you preferred. It was two game modes in one. That's what I've liked so much about Battlefield in the past, that you could choose what you want to do and, then, when you got bored, choose something else. It sounds like, in this Airborne mode, that you're stuck attacking from the air or defending from the ground until the round ends. It does sound fun and I'm open to trying it, but I wonder how long it'll hold its appeal if there's lack of choice.

This is honestly starting to sound pretty awesome. I really really hated BF1 and I hope that this goes back to some older days and be good about it too.

Would you mind sharing a few of things that you really hated about BF1? I'm debating buying it and we seem like we often have similar tastes.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

 

[XX]

 

[XX]

 

[XX]

 

[XX]

Couple more good ones:

 

[XX]

First long video I've found:

 

[XX]

Pretty good interview with the design director with some footage:

 

[tacogeoff]

great videos. I really like the changes they have made and they are quite significant and will force players to work together as a more cohesive unit.

only thing I am not a fan of is the ability to build fortifications in seconds but that will hopefully be a minor gripe and not change the game to significantly.

 

[XX]

Celebrate!

... with 15 minutes of action, no commentary:

 

[Commander Clueless]

Pretty good interview with the design director with some footage:

I'm a little bit nervous about those squad based "killstreak" style rewards to be honest, although at the same time it seems pretty cool.

 

[Burner Account]

20 years later, WWII still a money printing machine for the gaming industry.

 

[XX]

I'm a little bit nervous about those squad based "killstreak" style rewards to be honest, although at the same time it seems pretty cool.

The rocket takes a lot of score to get and takes like 30 seconds to call in, it's fairly easy to dodge.

I'm in the alpha if anyone has any questions. Loving it so far.

 

[Whiplash27]

Game looks good so far, but I'm always cautious with BF games because the launches are always awful. I'll probably get this one after skipping the last few BF games. Personally, I think that the current state of MP FPS games is abysmal right now, so hoping BF5 can change that.

 

[tacogeoff]

Game looks good so far, but I'm always cautious with BF games because the launches are always awful. I'll probably get this one after skipping the last few BF games. Personally, I think that the current state of MP FPS games is abysmal right now, so hoping BF5 can change that.

I personally felt that BF1 MP was pretty well done. Mind you I didn't buy it until a few months ago and now they are giving away all the expansions for free....so it is pretty fresh. I will probably wait for sale before I pick up BF V. Im sure it will be good.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

That isn't my point though, they are clearly trying to cater towards more women gamers to increase their sales. I'm not debating that and it's smart business if it works. People yelling about historical accuracy and claiming no women fought in WW2, like you claimed earlier, are flat out wrong though. If you want to talk about percentages, how many soldiers drove tanks, flew fighters, etc? How many actual snipers were there in the war? Not many, but people demand to have them as a class so 25% of the player base can be one. These games have never been historically accurate, and giving 50% of the population the ability to play as a character they want won't impact the historical accuracy of the game any more than it already has been impacted by everything else.

As a high school social studies teacher, I've noticed recently how much my students know about these wars because of these video games. I had like one of the worst students in the world who aced the ww1 unit because he said he thoroughly played Battlefield 1.

So people's historical world views are being shaped by these games. (Same with Assassins Creed).

Can we agree that it could be dangerous if they started creating an entirely false history that a young generation of kids start to learn? I don't mind games like Wolfenstein who come right out and say that it's an alternate history. But the Battlefield games don't do that.

I'm sure we'd agree that Nazi's flying Dragons during air encounters would go too far, right? So where is the line? I don't think it's farfetched to suggest that creating an entire fake history in regards to women's role during world war 2 is crossing that line, no? And that's the thing with issues like this... we all draw lines at different places, and then get outraged at those that don't draw the same lines as us.

I personally don't think it's a very big deal that the video game may "have more snipers" than what really happened in the war. Or that people learn to operate tanks quicker than the many months training it would take in real life. To me, those issues don't cross the line. But changing social issues (like women contributions to the war) does.

Am I outraged about it? Will I make ridiculous posts saying that "women should get back in the kitchen?" No. Of course not. But people used to say similar things about "Disnified History" even in the 80's, and I think they had a point. As a historian, I find it an alarming trend, but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about it.