Hi,
If the mechanics of the game (BFV) are poor etc., then yes, i get that people get angry, and will not purchase the game.
For the political aspects, or poetic licence, or the devs telling people not to buy because they don’t like the politics, then in the end, you play the game to have fun. I do not think about what the marketing, devs, or other says. If it is a fun game, which has good mechanics, no serious bugs (such as visibility, sound, invisible players) then why not ignore what the software company says ?
I played the BFV Beta - was ok, but could not see the opponents etc., so i did not purchase the game at launch. Same for BF3 - beta was ok, but some really stupid effects, so did not purchase later until the game was in a reasonable state.
I think the political aspects are over stated, but the game is failing to sell based on the games poor mechanics, and the persistent bugs, existing, and new from the latest patch.
DICE/EA predicted 8.3million sales for 2018, yet achieved 7.3million. As of today, my interpretation is that the complaints are due to the mechanics, bugs, netcode etc. The politics of it are 1 year ago.
I hope you managed to read my explanation as well because I understand that it got swamped by comment afterwards, and I hope it help shed some light (i believe its now the 2nd comment below your original post)
And you are right, that sales are def down in part due to the poor mechanics and some thing they added that people dont like, like the capture thing were it shows if an enemy is on the point or not.
But unfortunatly, the politics thrown in simply compounded peoples annoyances. There are countless games out there with poorly implemented or clunky mechanics, but are still loved by their players and played extensively. Look at No Man’s Sky for example, because I cant think of a more Earth shattering one, it had a terrible launch, still has pretty janky controls and a less than wonderfull UI, yet people have turned around to loving the game.
Now imagine if they had embroiled themselves in politics? It would have been a tipping point. There is a point in every human being were annoyance gets so high that rational just flies out the window, so the Dev’s should really have looked at the game, realised they are about to send out a less than optimised game and went ‘hmm, yes, i think this is going to be rough already, best not try to cause further drama’ . But they did not, and hey, I understand, opinions are opinions and some people really want them said out loud, but in this situation they really should have thought more about their brand image, because from now on it will always be refereed to negatively until they make something truly majestic next time.
You are absolute right about BFV, but I do like the idea of the medic having to commit to the revive, if only to prevent medic train abuse. However, I think BF4 did this the right way, by forcing you to charge the paddles and moving slowly if you wanted to restore full health. Instantaneous shock only gave 20 HP, which is a fair trade-off for a rambo revive.
I think revive is fine, and I revive a lot. Smoke helps greatly, and when I know I am in a bad spot I will still go for the revive, since it increases my chances of survival. The animation is a mild nuisance, but I definitely get revived far more often than in BF1 and probably BF4, which is also partly due to the party revive.
I do not mind the ladies in gameplay as much as I mind the ladies in the main menu. It feels wrong to me to have the ladies forced on the main menu or first loading screen prominently as if they are the thing the devs are most proud of on these 2 ww games.
These were done to boost the metacritic scores from reviews by critics who are not real gamers https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-v
Have a look and figure out how many of the critics actually give a review that represents the release state of bfv or instead care about the presence of more superficial elements.
No gamer worth his salt would rate BFV above 70 no matter how they loved the series or the WW2 even if just for the bugs.
Just a note, @Jargon113 and @LinkZeppeloyd - Discussion of Moderation is against the forum rules.
Before you post again, I’d recommend you refresh yourself with the rules of this forum.
If you’re not contributing to the conversation, spamming off-topic stuff in a thread that literally doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand, harassing or abusing others/staff/mods - well, you’re in violation. To avoid that, just follow the forum rules.
They’re pretty easy - and while you may have valid complaints about the game, that’s no excuse to break the forum rules.
We do not delete anything, if a post violates the rules it is either edited out ( which is recorded in the change log ) or it is moved to a section only EA can see.
As far as I can see, none of your posts were removed at all.
You have been asked not to discuss moderation by Braddock, So please stop as the next time will result in a temporary suspension.
after reading some treads here im so happy that im not a game designer or community manager or moderator. ty for your work and i hope you get well rewarded for the services you provide for us. constructive critics are good whiine is just bad. if your only intention to bash on moderation and game community manager dont post at all its like going for the sheriff and the us marshals at the same time not an good ide they will win =D be polite and they might read what we are typing and take it in. if we angry them we will get the horns and we get no where at all.
Forum field is more hectic then some of my military servis and i spent some in Bosnia and Afganistan not that ppl die her but the anger and conflict seeking is really some thing els..
I think that most of the regulars here are quite thankful of what the yellows and especially the volunteer blues do. Especially those who have been on other public forums before.
This particular post from @firechickenfan had a quote in it from a post I had before his, and even the quote in his post is gone. It looks like he is talking to nobody now.
Where did the quote go, or the post that I had there.
