Words censored in BFV's in game chat

[kaz 2,445]

23 minutes ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

Yeah I noticed (and as Angry Joe mentioned in his 23+ min review) that is somehow felt smaller; and realistically in 2018 we should be having larger than 64 player battles. I mean Call of Duty has successfully implemented 80 players in their Battle Royale game, and even mentioned that 100 was possible and tested.

 

Oh, Co-op isn't going to be available at launch, even thought it was a mentioned/hyped feature from months ago. 

 

Ultimately after like day 2 of the game - meaning I didn't just dick around for 3-4 matches and then decide: "Ahh fuck this shit", I was looking at the game going ok, where's my MG34/42 for the support? Where's my Thompson for Assault, Grease Gun for Medic, Browning for Recon? It feels so stripped down, like they sat around in meetings deciding how much of the characters arm should be bionic, and how many visible minorities needed to be represented per side, rather than looking at this like a return to Wolrd War 2 - Where it ALL started I may add; and went alright: Let's ensure we have this, this, and that in the game.

 

I mean you want to add in Asian women to the game, fine put the Japanese side in, and bam, done. Want to add more females, cool. Put them on the French/Russian sides as Sappers/Snipers. Expand the classes, or free them up. Want to go Recon/TNT/Hammer Why not? Seems logical enough to me.

 

 

If you're going to add health/ammo as necessities, why can't I set up my class to toss out Health/Ammo packs simultaneously? I mean you've now just let anyone revive.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that isn't even the issue with the game. Sure, it's a trigger point for a vocal minority within the community, but my whole take on it, is it just seems half-assed and ultimately a disservice to the women who did serve in World War 2, because you've just made shit up to cater to some audience that I'm quite confident never existed in Battlefield.

 

 

 I disagree. The amount of players has something to do with balance and I don't care what fat joe or whatever said it's stupid. 64 players are more than enough.

 

And call of duty isn't as demanding as battlefield games are so that's that. Not to mention they obviously can put more than 100 players on a server. 

 

both maps, rotterdam and narvik, are not only beautiful, they are huge and diverse

Edited September 8, 2018 by kaz

[Cooke 2,041]

45 minutes ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

The more I played BF 5 the less interested I was in it; and where I was on the fence before, I'm now staunchly on the 'Wait for the inevitable sale' approach. There's only like 35 guns, which if you remove the pistols, that's like 5-6 guns per class. the upgrade system/unlock system is quite stupid, as you need to leave a game (and your squad) in order to access your newly unlocked gun. You have to spend in-game currency for any and all weapon upgrades, and for a lot of unlocks.

 

Also, one of the upgrades was 'Fast Bullets" I mean seriously,  

 

It feels weird that it's World War 2, but you only have Germans/British. No US/JAPAN, No Russian/Germany, or US/GERMANY.

 

There's no indication of any large scale Tank/Armour battles (I mean they did this as far back as BF2 with the last expansion for it)

Or any other country involved. Canada,  Italy, France, China, Australia etc. It was called a world war for a reason lol

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

2 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

Or any other country involved. Canada,  Italy, France, China, Australia etc. It was called a world war for a reason lol

Yeah like why not put a Normany defense map in, and the Allies can decide to spawn on one of the five beaches? Juno, Gold, Sword,  Utah, or Omaha.

 

I just feel like this was such a wasted opportunity overall.

 

The reason I mentioned larger than 64 player maps was for something like the Battle of Kursk, a massive tank battle between Germany/Russia - would be epic, and has to be able to be done.