Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Battlefield 5 - going back to WW2

TedNugent

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
6,329
So now they will ruin World War 2, excellent.
The last call of diversity did this already.
The Battlefield 1 rape goes deeper.

Speaking of inclusion:

http://cogconnected.com/2016/11/battlefield-1-black-washing/

Virtue Signalling SJW videogame writer said:
Battlefield 1 ‘Black-Washing’ Controversy Shows Petty Racism is Alive and Well
Back when the initial announcement was made that Battlefield 1 would feature an African-American Harlem Hellfighter on the box art there was an outcry from some gamers that this just wasn’t ‘realistic’. It was largely forgotten (because it’s a stupid thing to complain about) but apparently, now that the game has seen full release, this silly controversy has reared it’s ugly head once more. Now, both EA and DICE are being accused of ‘black-washing’.

As pointed out by this article over on JStationX, choosing any single soldier for the cover whether they be black, white, yellow, brown, male or female could have been considered an oversight of the contributions of any other group that ever had a hand in fighting World War I. It’s a lose-lose situation for EA and DICE because they either pick one or go with a massive group shot that has them being hailed as pandering softies.

Thank God such degenerates as the above were enabled by the release of this game.

The travesty is not that a black person was put on the cover - hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans fought in World War 1, and for European nation states as auxiliary troops - 450,000 alone for France - hundreds of thousands of Indian troops for Britain - but the developers actually strained to depict an African American instead so that they can virtue signal instead of making a little known (and incidentally accurate) historical point emphasized.

They actually made a Harlem Hellcat a playable character and they made France a DLC race. WHAT THE FUCK? A million French soldiers died (in contrast to 100,000 Americans) in World War 1. But they were actually an afterthought to social justice.

Along with the utter eye rape of making machine guns and semi automatic weapons the most common weapon of World War 1, and.....
THIS....FUCKING....CANCER!!!!!



"We were a proud unit. We changed the war for Italy." (puts on suit of armor)

(the Arditi IRL for reference)
300px-Italian_Arditi.jpg
 
Last edited:

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
Yeah i know mate,Russia was also a dlc . But what do you expect from Swedish studio? The only European country that didn't do anything in the second great war. Switzerland doesn't count,it is a bank not a country. The worst thing is that young retards will play that shit and will think that it really happened. I really hope for a full industry collapse,that will make all this idiots homeless. Fucking cancer!
 

LESS T_T

Arcane
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
13,582
Codex 2014
Of course: https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/18/dice-battlefield-v-battle-royale/

Battlefield V battle royale prototype in the works at DICE

EA’s DICE studio is testing a battle royale mode for Battlefield V that features similar gameplay to megahits like Fortnite and PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, according to someone with knowledge of the studio who asked to remain anonymous. In those last player-standing shooters, 100 players drop onto a map and fight until only one person or team is left standing, and that game type has taken over the industry.

And DICE is trying to see if it can get in on the action.

DICE is preparing Battlefield V, which I reported on in March, for launch later this year, but that isn’t stopping the studio from putting together a prototype that could compete with PUBG and Fortnite. Existing battle royale shooters have tens of millions of players, and Fortnite has even reached the nexus where gaming meets wider pop-culture icons like the rapper Drake, who is a huge fan of Epic Games free-to-play battler. So it didn’t surprise too many people when Call of Duty news site CharlieIntel reported that Activision has support studio Raven working on a battle royale for Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, which debuts in October. And again, it shouldn’t shock you to hear that DICE is doing the same thing for Battlefield V.

I asked EA for a comment, and the publisher declined.

So the battle royale gold rush is on, and DICE is investigating how a massive, last player-standing mode would work with its current mechanics. But don’t expect to drop onto an island with 99 other players when Battlefield V launches this fall. The studio has not yet approved its battle royale for release, and it is still in the prototype phase. If DICE does decide that it’s happy with what it has, it won’t have it ready in time for the initial release.

If the mode does get the green light, Battlefield: Battle Royale could end up as a new part of Battlefield V as a free update. EA has provided a huge amount of support for its shooters in the form of regular expansions and downloadable content, and that is where a last-player-standing shooter makes the most sense. Anything is possible, though. EA could cancel the prototype, it could hold it off for the launch of the next Battlefield or a Star Wars: Battlefront sequel, or it could spin it out into its own game.

Battle royale is seismic shift for the shooter space, and DICE doesn’t want to ignore it. If it’s possible that the genre is not settled in terms of a dominant game, then a lot of money is up for grabs. At the same time, the odds are against any game unseating Fortnite. EA will have to tread carefully here if it decides to put significant resources into chasing Fortnite and PUBG. It has done this before with similar genres. Its Star Wars: The Old Republic massively multiplayer online role-playing game is doing well now as a free-to-play alternative to World of Warcraft, but it didn’t start that way. And the publisher ended up canceling its multiplayer online battle arena Dawngate because it knew it couldn’t compete with League of Legends and DOTA 2. Maybe we’ll get to see if it learned any lessons from that past.
 

Spectacle

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
8,363
"Someone is working on something that may never see the light of day". That article could be entirely
fakenews.png
and nobody would ever be able to prove otherwise. Speculating that a major multiplayer shooter may get a new game mode that's currently extremely popular isn't exactly controversial.
If the next BF comes with battle royale he can say "see I was right", if not then it's "They must have decided to scrap it".
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
They are going back to the ticket system and health bars, will this be the first decent Battlefield in years ? (back to BF 1942 ?)

x8xvudln88z01.png
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
Every Battlefield has had health bars, how does that make the game good?
 

Wunderbar

Arcane
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
8,809
Devs said there will be a singleplayer campaign, and I wonder how they are gonna portray eastern front.
I bet russians will be show as evil dudes shooting their own soldiers in the backs and massacring civilians, while nazis are shown as noble dudes who just happened to be on the wrong side of the conflict.
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
Eastern front, lol. WW2 games never show the Eastern front unless it's a fluke like some of the CoD games. Probably a generic Americans/Brits vs Germans story.
 

Egosphere

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
1,909
Location
Hibernia
Devs said there will be a singleplayer campaign, and I wonder how they are gonna portray eastern front.
I bet russians will be show as evil dudes shooting their own soldiers in the backs and massacring civilians, while nazis are shown as noble dudes who just happened to be on the wrong side of the conflict.
They could kill two birds with one stone if they make the eastern front about the POA
 

Makabb

Arcane
Shitposter Bethestard
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
11,753
I think it's pretty sad that every Battlefield after 1942 got worse and not better

 
Unwanted

Bladeract

It's Neckbeard Shitlord. Again.
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 19, 2018
Messages
239
Location
-66.273, 100.984
The Battlefield 1 rape goes deeper.

Speaking of inclusion:

http://cogconnected.com/2016/11/battlefield-1-black-washing/



Thank God such degenerates as the above were enabled by the release of this game.

The travesty is not that a black person was put on the cover - hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans fought in World War 1, and for European nation states as auxiliary troops - 450,000 alone for France - hundreds of thousands of Indian troops for Britain - but the developers actually strained to depict an African American instead so that they can virtue signal instead of making a little known (and incidentally accurate) historical point emphasized.

They actually made a Harlem Hellcat a playable character and they made France a DLC race. WHAT THE FUCK? A million French soldiers died (in contrast to 100,000 Americans) in World War 1. But they were actually an afterthought to social justice.

Along with the utter eye rape of making machine guns and semi automatic weapons the most common weapon of World War 1, and.....
THIS....FUCKING....CANCER!!!!!



"We were a proud unit. We changed the war for Italy." (puts on suit of armor)

(the Arditi IRL for reference)
300px-Italian_Arditi.jpg


It's funny how these white devs always strain so hard to pander as if they are down with the man even when it makes zero sense. On paper there were "a lot" of blacks in WW II but in reality only a few units in US armed forces where they could fight instead of be a cook or something like that, which is what 99% of them did. If they want to make such an inclusive point they should give their jobs up to blacks.
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
Sperging out over the machine gunner armored troops is kinda gay cause it's really not meant to be realistic, although it's lame they had to force automatics everywhere in singleplayer too since you can still do bolt actions primarily and get away with it just fine. Call of Duty did this even until World at War and it made the game more interesting. I don't really see it as an issue though, video games are still games and I don't really feel like barely being able to eat your canned spam before getting trenchfoot in some hyper realism autism simulator.
 

Hellion

Arcane
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
1,582
D4VeAzH.png



gBmdQZZ.png



#INCLOOSIVE

I also think they hinted at missions covering the German Blitzkrieg of 1940, that would be interesting to see.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom