Talk:Battlefield V

Videos and more info

A couple great resources you guys should take a look at: JackFrags' video on tons of new features and design, and Flakfire's trailer breakdown with tons of details. Alex T Snow (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (EDT)

Thoughts?

So, ignoring the elephantess in the room (which, if you're worried about it, bear in mind that the devs do have several months to listen to the community's backlash, so there's that), what are your thoughts on the game so far? I've heard mixed opinions on the gameplay mechanics and changes being introduced, and I'm curious as to what people here think about some of the things to come (e.g. the constructible fortifications, the squad-reinforcement vehicles and rockets, the spotting changes, the limited vehicle ammo, the Hardline-esque TTK, the Grand Operations gamemode, the universal revives, the towable emplaced guns, the reduced reserve ammo and health regen, etc.). What are your thoughts? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

My thoughts are that I love literally everything we've seen and heard so far, everything feels like an improvement. Not really the most in-depth thoughts, but I've got nothing bad to say. Alex T Snow (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2018 (EDT)

Lets see how good the campaign will be... hoping that they will add even the most obscure WW2 guns--Dannyguns (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

I'm just bummed out that we're getting yet another WW2 game.--Aidoru (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Well, is just that both companies had adopted a "Follow the Leader" policy. They care about getting a lot of sales, not original content. Hardline? Original (and I loved it) but didnt sold out well. BF1?? Semi-original. And sold better. CoD WW2 sold because fans got righteously tired of the sci-fi trend and got back to roots. BF:V is trying to do the same. Well in 20th Century alone a lot of war happened from the most famous WW1 and WW2 to the most obscure ones like the Sino-Indian War,The Troubles and the Timor East War. I would kinda like it to see a AAA FPS set in those conflicts.--Dannyguns (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Turner SMLE

The Turner SMLE semi-auto conversion is an odd choice by DICE considering the real gun was rejected by the Canadian Army. I would've preferred the Howell from BF1 or other more successful conversions like the Rieder or even the Charlton. --MJ79 (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

I'm not sure if the Howell saw much use during WWII, though. As for the Rieder and the Charlton, they would have practically gone to the machine guns class. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Anyway, given all the liberties that DICE took for weapon choices in BF1, I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same for the following game. In fact, BF5 currently has the Selbstlader M1916, which I don't think it really fits in it. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

BFV has the M1916 because they needed a British-or-German non-DLC SLR from BF1, for the matching skin set. And it's a neat rifle, I'm happy to see it again; the more the merrier, really. Alex T Snow (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Well yeah, it's a fantastic weapon; my point was just that it doesn't exactly fit in a WWII game. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

I think the Selbstlader 1916 is probably just standing in for another German semi-auto rifle they haven't announced yet, similar to how the MP18 Arras skin is going to be transferred over to the MP28. In a similar vein, I also believe the Steyr m.95 is going to be the 1930 version as well.--AgentGumby (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

Welgun (etc)

Please don't remove it and similar things from the page, it's almost certainly going to be in the first batch of guns added after launch, I'd bet on within the first month. Ditto for the Vickers K, and given we saw the Hi-Power in concept art, it seems likely it'll be an SAS / commando themed set of stuff. Alex T Snow (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2018 (EDT)

Is there a better way to present cosmetic modifications?

Hey Nanomat, I like what you're doing here with the cosmetic modifications, but I wonder if there might be some better way to present them. Having a specific section for Sten Mk V for example isn't very helpful when the weapon doesn't actually appear in-game, just parts of it. --Wuzh (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Well, maybe we should use the CODWW2 method with subsections. --Nanomat (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Well, in CODWW2, the variants are full weapons; here they're just small parts. I think guns that appear as parts and not full guns should be all sorted into a subsection distinct from all weapon classes. --Wuzh (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2018 (EST)

I feel either subsections (like the pistol carbine variants and such on the Battlefield 1 page), or, alternatively, a whole separate section at the very bottom of the page dedicated to parts of guns that aren't actually in the game, but have customization parts (as some movie pages do with giant gun walls and the like) would be best. EDIT: Grease Gun flash hider? Neat. Considering we also have Shermans, including a Calliope variant, in the campaign (as well as that giant mortar German halftrack), we might be getting the Americans sooner rather than later. Alex T Snow (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (EST)

My current format matches with the "whole separate section at the very bottom of the page" format you mentioned. --Wuzh (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted here. >.> Alex T Snow (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Just to point out, almost all outfits for the British team are actually American so technically the US are already in as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the PROPER British uniforms are nowhere to be found :D --Nanomat (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2018 (EST)

I honestly can't tell the difference, pretty much all the gear in the game looks the same to my eyes; helmets (stahlhelm, brodie) and officer uniforms are the only things that look identifiable past "WWII-era gear" to me. :P Alex T Snow (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Scopes and optics

This isn't my area of expertise at all, but if we could eventually get IDs for all the optic options in the game (as BF1's page has), that would be fantastic (I see the 98k has some already). It would be really helpful if wanting to use proper, or at least thematically-appropriate optics, I just have no idea what's what. IIRC the 6x scope for the Enfield is correct for it, though I'm not sure what the 3x scope is. Alex T Snow (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2018 (EST)

We will need photos of the optics or some video showing them all. --Nanomat (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2018 (EST)

I'm happy to take photos of whatever, once I can play again on the 15th (since my 10 hours are up). I'm not sure if we want console screenshots on here though. Alex T Snow (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (EST)

My screenshots are from the Xbox One and I think Highphighs are from the PS4. For the purpose of 600p displayed images, I don’t think 4K/Nvidia Ray tracing enables images have to be the standard...--AgentGumby (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (EST)

...I suppose I had just assumed everyone else here was on PC, I'm not entirely sure why. >.> Alex T Snow (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2018 (EST)

Gun customization screens

Can we use photos like this here from reddit to illustrate the weapon customization items or somebody who has the game is gonna take screens? --Nanomat (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (EST)

New datamine info

From Flakfire, 24 weapons, and a bunch of otber cool stuff too! Alex T Snow (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2018 (EST)

Anachronistic campaign

British paratroopers dropping from a US plane wearing US inspired uniforms on Norway and using Stens a year before they were in full production.

STG44s in the hands of anybody before 1944

The presence of the M1 Carbine anywhere in the war before 1944

A Tiger tank in Africa in 1941 and also in Norway.

British never conducted air raids during the day. That was America. Excalibur01 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2018 (EST)

Storytelling > Year-by-year authenticity. I don't see how what amounts to a rant helps discuss how to improve the page either. Stens are an iconic part of British commando raids, therefore that's what they have; it's intuitive, rather than being strictly technically accurate. The Tiger is present in Africa because it's the same crew that will feature in The Last Tiger, and making them drive a Panzer IV here throws all sorts of wrenches into storytelling consistency. This is also why the Tiger is in Narvik, because, if you somehow hadn't noticed, each section transitions to the next with the same vehicle. For a way this could relate to the actual page, put a blanket note in the introduction that states that (as Battlefield has always done) anything that existed before VJ Day is fair game, and can appear on any map/setting for story and/or gameplay purposes. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2018 (EST)

We always talk about inconsistencies in whatever page. Historical inaccuracy is part of this site. If it states what year it is and a piece of equipment didn't exist at the time, we point it out Excalibur01 (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (EST)

What Excalibur said. I don't understand why some people recently have too much of a problem with the fact that we point out the numerous inaccuracies about weapons in media, when this has always been the purpose of this site. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2018 (EST)

I would personally argue that many people have a point with IMFDB pointing out inaccuracies because IMFDB has a very blunt way of stating these inaccuracies, which gives off an arrogant impression (incorrect this, erroneous that) rather than an educational impression. I personally thinks that while pointing out inaccuracies is a part of IMFDB, we also need to take into consideration why these inaccuracies are made, explain them, rather than just bluntly saying "this wrong". --Wuzh (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2018 (EST)

No harm in being blunt, imo.--Aidoru (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2018 (EST)

There is, in fact, a lot of harm in not understanding the creators' intent and bigger picture. Even the phrasing "being blunt" is already problematic, as it assumes strict adherence to reality is how a work of fiction (not a documentary) and a video game (not a simulator) is supposed to be judged. Acting as if that's how we should go about things will only make us look like a bunch of overly-literal, small-minded people who have no understanding of thematic elements, storytelling, or gameplay. It amounts to the same sort of useless complaining as "why can an adrenaline shot bring someone back who was blasted in the face with a tank shell?" Because it's good for gameplay. We should not aspire to be the sorts of people who ask uninspired, narrow-minded questions like that. If we want to note the Sten is out of place in the Prologue, an appropriate phrasing would be "The Sten is anachronistic for the raid, as it wasn't produced until 1941, however it was likely chosen by the developers as it's an iconic weapon of the British special forces during the war, helping to set the scene for the player.". Or something to that effect. Alex T Snow (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2018 (EST)

Anachronistic stuff is not new in games, remember BO1? BO1 had Soviets in the 60s wearing Afghankas from the 80s and flora camo uniforms from the 90s, in fact the Spetsnaz from BO1 are more appropriate for the Chechen Wars period rather than the 60s. But I understand why they did that, it is clear that Treyarch wanted to steer away from the WW2 period and if they were to add realistic 60s uniforms for the Soviets they would have ended up with very WW2 looking uniforms. Same thing goes for the weapons, realistic 60s guns would be more or less the same stuff from WW2 especially for the Vietnamese, but thanks to BO1 I know of the existence of guns like the KS-23 and the ASP, if it weren't for that game I would never have known of their existence. But back then nobody made any fuss about all that, I presume because the 60s are more obscure period in general.

This problem is further aggravated with modern games where the emphasis is on multiplayer customization. I think that their first priority is to prepare the cool looking skins for multiplayer customization (and lets be honest, the late war US airborne uniforms are far cooler than early war British uniforms) and they just slap them into the single player campaign which is just shoehorned into a mainly multiplayer game anyway. But that's not an issue, i'm pretty sure the proper British gear is coming down the line anyway. It appears that for some reason devs like to reuse assets a lot, probably they can't handle everything in time for example the bridge in Twisted Steel and also reused in the prologue showing the Battle of Nijmegen is actually based on the bridge from the Battle of Remagen. Is it so expensive for a studio like DICE to make different bridge models or different skins for multiplayer and campaign... who knows?

In conclusion, older games like the Medal of Honor series, earlier WW2 COD games until WaW have relatively accurate portrayal of uniforms and weapons but on the other hand newer games provide more variety and are actually useful in that you learn about obscure uniforms and weapons from them. --Nanomat (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Well said, both of you. That's the crux of the issue, really. This site in general has a bad tenancy to come across as elitist and condescending when pointing out errors, rather than informative and educational. We don't exist to nitpick pieces of media, we exist to explain them. And explaining why a certain liberty was taken is equally important as explaining that it's a liberty in the first place. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (EST)

All the thing I said is not being elitist. It's respecting history and the real things troops have done, which the Battlefield franchise has become less and less and becoming more like Call of Duty. There's a difference between taking liberties like if they make a game based on the Son Tay Raiders and it was 4 guys in a coop mission than a bunch of guys, sure. It makes the fight seem more tense and a lot more explody vs say ONE kid did it by himself while doing assasin's creed level of stuff or in the case of Black Ops while wielding an M4 with a fancy red dot that doesn't exist in the time period, absolutely over the top, etc. Call of Duty has never seek to emulate real histories of combat or end missions with paragraphs about the deeds of the real people, but Battlefield outside of the Bad Company games and Hardline has always put a more "realistic" feel in gameplay and feel. That there's a sense of history behind the entertainment. In Battlefield 5. I see a sense of revisionist history Excalibur01 (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2018 (EST)

I... can't disagree more with everything you just said, and honestly parts of that read like talking points from certain less-than-reputable areas of the internet. But I'm interested in less drama, not more, so rather than get into that, I'm simply going to recommend you cool your head off for a bit, and if that doesn't help, then potentially simply staying away from something you don't like would be beneficial to everyone involved. Alex T Snow (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2018 (EST)

I supposed, I'm more passionate some WWII things because I've been reading a lot of the history. There were actual Norwegian commandos that actually did stop the Germans from producing Heavy Water and sunk a boat (not a sub) at the cost of their lives. But in this game, they had 1 girl ninja her way across Norway like Lara fucking Croft by herself and then survive a fall off a bridge, into freezing cold water, almost blacking out and then physically overpowered a German soldier who wasn't in the ice all night...A fully trained adult male commando would of had a hard time, but she shrugged off hypothermia like it was the sniffles.

The SBS didn't recruit from jails but asked for volunteers from the Royal Marines. I mean, what sense does it make for the guy to recruit 1 bomb maker and then deploy from a ship that most likely have a lot of better explosives than home brew stuff that doesn't work? Then, in that same episode, the game completely forgot we came ashore with a whole squad, but the rest of the team was no where to be found by the end of the mission.

The whole "Last Tiger" campaign could of been a separate thing with the same tank commander from the intro mission in Africa of him commanding a Panzer.

The last few COD games that did take place in the past like Black Ops went beyond the rails of taking liberties, so at the point, it's blatant fantasy. They weren't trying to recreate the feel of Vietnam, just how the movies portrayed 'Nam. In Battlefield's case, the developers basically lied about keeping historical authenticity.

We point out the things people don't see in. People want to call it nitpick, so be it. Someone has to tell it correctly Excalibur01 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2018 (EST)

In response to what a couple of users said above, I'm going to say this... you might call me an asshole for it, but I need to get this off of my chest. Guys, today there are enough places filled with people who are too easily offended by choices of words and the like... *cough* Facebook *cough*... please, PLEASE, don't let IMFDB turn into this. If some game developers have a habit of not making decent research and blatantly ignoring simple weaponry basics, we will bluntly say that it is wrong, period. Basically just like we've been doing for years. Now, if there are some choices that are definitely justified, sure, we can be lenient; PUBG is a good example, where the calibers are simplified to 9mm, 7.62mm, etc. to allow several weapons to share ammo with each other for gameplay purposes (or another example: as you all know, BF1 has multiple weapons that were extremely rare, but their inclusion was nice so that the game's pace doesn't become boring and that we don't get limited to bolt-action rifles and the like). But when games repeatedly make incredibly dumb mistakes (yes, Call of Duty, I'm talking about you - and no I'm not spreading hate since that's the franchise that I play the most, but I do have to acknowledge the numerous inaccuracies present in it), we do have to point this out. And regarding the Sten, no, the point about "iconic British weapon" isn't needed, firstly because any idiot with a bit of gaming knowledge easily knows this, and secondly because the devs could have simply made the in-game Brits use M1928 Thompsons instead. Same things goes for, let's say... BO1: during the 1960s there were enough automatic firearms and the like (AMD-65, M2 Carbine, XM177, Sa vz. 23, Beretta M12, Remington Model 1100, etc.), so it wasn't that hard to include more appropriate weapons than the ones present in-game. If some people outside of IMFDB think that we are "overly-literal" or things like that, it's their problem, and we don't need to care about it (in fact, I've seen quite the opposite happening: based on YouTube comments, people have been actually reacting positively to the fact that we're sarcastic about the inaccuracies in CoD and other games). --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (EST)