Battlefield V will be released on 19th October

[HEXUS]

Series will present "a never-before-seen portrayal of World War 2". No premium pass.

Read more.

[aniilv]

Nope. Not again EA, you done f... up

btw, how is "open beta" open when it's only for preorders. I think EA shows just how lost cause it has become

[EvilCycle]

Oh EA you have me torn now, after reading about the sports games gambling I vowed to never buy an EA game again, but the fact they finally got rid of the premium pass so everyone has all the same maps etc. makes me tempted to dive into this, I really enjoyed BF1 despite the cash milking, but give them credit where it is due, they have actually done what we asked for this time.

[Fury559]

I'll need to upgrade my 3570k in time for launch, Intel need to release that 8c/16t mainstream!

[CustardInc]

Sounding pretty great.

Must... not... pre-order

[Tabbykatze]

My only thoughts were that they tried to cram so much into the trailer i didn't know really what i was looking at. With BF1, it was gritty, got the message across and was brilliantly stitched together under a cover of seven nation army. Whereas this was a messy orgy of action sequences interspersed with a Doom movie esque badly executed First Person Shooting segment. Make the trailer cinematic or a gameplay, not both!!!

I'm not particularly interested in this as I'm completely exhausted from BF still and am very bored of WW2 games. I am still eagerly awaiting a successor to 2142 but alas...still no DICE (narf!)

[MrJim]

I'll need to upgrade my 3570k in time for launch, Intel need to release that 8c/16t mainstream!

It will be interesting to see what the recommended system requirements are. I'm also on a 3570k (overclocked to 4.5Ghz), and on a 1070 @ 2560x1440p medium settings on BF1 I'm still GPU limited (getting 70-90 fps). Six years on the same CPU is quite some going though - I feel like I've had my money's worth! I'll probably upgrade my system in the next month or two...

[Biscuit]

"a never-before-seen portrayal of World War 2"

Well at least the description is accurate. This bares almost zero resemblance of any kind of realism in pretty much every metric measurable.

[outwar6010]

I haven't seen the trailer yet but I really hope this one is a fun game more akin to the bad company ones.

[Tabbykatze]

"a never-before-seen portrayal of World War 2"

Well at least the description is accurate. This bares almost zero resemblance of any kind of realism in pretty much every metric measurable.

It's caused a few arguments in my friendship groups already about this. Some are on the side of "Women were in war, it's sexist not to include them" whereas others are "History is history and it is neither sexist nor racist (although the actions within history could be), you can't just twist it to what you want it to be". I sit on the latter side, however I don't think EA have actually mentioned that this game is aiming to follow historical accuracy, just historical setting so I don't really care.

Now if we're being picky:

But if they said it was meant to be as close to historically accurate as they can make it, then they have picked a tiny niche of history. The chances a lady would be on the frontline battering someone with a cricket back whom has lost a limb and is using one of the most advanced prosthetics of the 40s is slim to nil. The vast majority of soldiers who lose a limb are immediately purple hearted and honourably discharged back to home unless they can still provide operational or tactical assistance without adding extra pressure to the support lines. That, and the prosthetic is crazy expensive and unlikely to be provided to a frontline soldier and that it was shown to be used with better dexterity and capabilities than most prosthetics of our current time. There were female soldiers and tbh, that ladies regalia looks more like rebel/guerilla/special forces-esque which were quite common/not unheard of...

But it's a game! And until it's a BF2143 I will not buy it!

[Biscuit]

It's caused a few arguments in my friendship groups already about this. Some are on the side of "Women were in war, it's sexist not to include them" whereas others are "History is history and it is neither sexist nor racist (although the actions within history could be), you can't just twist it to what you want it to be". I sit on the latter side, however I don't think EA have actually mentioned that this game is aiming to follow historical accuracy, just historical setting so I don't really care.

Now if we're being picky:

But if they said it was meant to be as close to historically accurate as they can make it, then they have picked a tiny niche of history. The chances a lady would be on the frontline battering someone with a cricket back whom has lost a limb and is using one of the most advanced prosthetics of the 40s is slim to nil. The vast majority of soldiers who lose a limb are immediately purple hearted and honourably discharged back to home unless they can still provide operational or tactical assistance without adding extra pressure to the support lines. That, and the prosthetic is crazy expensive and unlikely to be provided to a frontline soldier and that it was shown to be used with better dexterity and capabilities than most prosthetics of our current time. There were female soldiers and tbh, that ladies regalia looks more like rebel/guerilla/special forces-esque which were quite common/not unheard of...

But it's a game! And until it's a BF2143 I will not buy it!

It's not sexist to include women in the game, but it also wouldn't be sexist to exclude them from the game given the genuine historical numbers. Its similar to BF1 and the black people/racism topic. Sure, there was black people involved in WW1, but the historical numbers really don't paint the picture the game portrays. They're trying to be inclusive for the modern age of society and the way people think, or what they expect... which is largely fine.

TBH I also don't care too much about the realism, it all depends on if its actually a fun game. BF1 kinda was... kinda wasnt. So the jury is out.

The thing that annoys me most about the arguments that go on are the people who say, "its a game get over it", as if we aren't even allowed to discuss the historical inaccuracies. Well sorry, but wind your neck back in and let the adults talk please.

[darcotech]

It's caused a few arguments in my friendship groups already about this. Some are on the side of "Women were in war, it's sexist not to include them" whereas others are "History is history and it is neither sexist nor racist (although the actions within history could be), you can't just twist it to what you want it to be". I sit on the latter side, however I don't think EA have actually mentioned that this game is aiming to follow historical accuracy, just historical setting so I don't really care.

Now if we're being picky:

But if they said it was meant to be as close to historically accurate as they can make it, then they have picked a tiny niche of history. The chances a lady would be on the frontline battering someone with a cricket back whom has lost a limb and is using one of the most advanced prosthetics of the 40s is slim to nil. The vast majority of soldiers who lose a limb are immediately purple hearted and honourably discharged back to home unless they can still provide operational or tactical assistance without adding extra pressure to the support lines. That, and the prosthetic is crazy expensive and unlikely to be provided to a frontline soldier and that it was shown to be used with better dexterity and capabilities than most prosthetics of our current time. There were female soldiers and tbh, that ladies regalia looks more like rebel/guerilla/special forces-esque which were quite common/not unheard of...

But it's a game! And until it's a BF2143 I will not buy it!

It's not sexist to include women in the game, but it also wouldn't be sexist to exclude them from the game given the genuine historical numbers. Its similar to BF1 and the black people/racism topic. Sure, there was black people involved in WW1, but the historical numbers really don't paint the picture the game portrays. They're trying to be inclusive for the modern age of society and the way people think, or what they expect... which is largely fine.

TBH I also don't care too much about the realism, it all depends on if its actually a fun game. BF1 kinda was... kinda wasnt. So the jury is out.

The thing that annoys me most about the arguments that go on are the people who say, "its a game get over it", as if we aren't even allowed to discuss the historical inaccuracies. Well sorry, but wind your neck back in and let the adults talk please.

For me, the actual problem is not the sex/gender/race but how it is presented like that things were normal in WWII.

As for women, there are women in top 5 snipers of the WWII. The female character portrayed in BF V would be also nonsense if it was a male. Its just stupid.

And also, it looks like COD-like action, again stupid. Some people like BF, some people like COD. If they blend to be too similar, many players will be left out.

Its not about to be politically correct, its about to be simply correct regarding whatever that game should represent (WWI in this case).

PS: At the moment there are 141K thumbs down on official trailer. That speaks something.

[Biscuit]

For me, the actual problem is not the sex/gender/race but how it is presented like that things were normal in WWII.

As for women, there are women in top 5 snipers of the WWII. The female character portrayed in BF V would be also nonsense if it was a male. Its just stupid.

And also, it looks like COD-like action, again stupid. Some people like BF, some people like COD. If they blend to be too similar, many players will be left out.

Its not about to be politically correct, its about to be simply correct regarding whatever that game should represent (WWI in this case).

PS: At the moment there are 141K thumbs down on official trailer. That speaks something.

Pandering will win you no fans when your core audience is strongly against pandering.

[Iota]

very bored of WW2 games. I am still eagerly awaiting a successor to 2142 but alas...still no DICE (narf!)

I'd settle for a solid successor to 2142 or a solid Bad Company. What I will not go for is WWI or WWII titles, been done plenty of times and giving it shiny new graphics and a slight slant on the story isn't going to entice me to part with my money. Shame because I still like the games DICE create, just they need to get out of the world war tropes at some stage.

[Biscuit]

Some pretty interesting analysis of thr vehicles in the game:

[Xlucine]

That trailer reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKmhtkbjn4

Just a bit more modern-shooter flavoured. I prefer the game-with-a-WW2-skin approach over trying (and failing) at ULTRA GRITTY REALISM like BF1. It's got me half interested