Battlefield V [PC, PS4, XBone] - V is for Victory

[Snowy]

I don't know the details behind the mission, but I would be surprised if a teenage girl in WW2 single-handedly demolished the German war machine in Norway.

[Jez]

Tis teh game

I'd be surprised if a 4 man crew of Americans ripped up columbia or wherever in GR wildlands

[Snowy]

Bolivia

They did, I was one of 'em. In fairness GRW is an Ubi title, so has their usual "Pleeeeease don't be upset with us" opening - this is a work of fiction created by a multicultural team of every religious group and every possible gender combination, sexual preference, ethnic group, minority, majority, disability, and any other conceivable area that you might be upset with us" so doesn't count

[DjchunKfunK]

I don't know the details behind the mission, but I would be surprised if a teenage girl in WW2 single-handedly demolished the German war machine in Norway.

Men have been doing that for years, time to let the women have a turn.

[Snowy]

Haha true, but I actually agree with Mack on this bit - why does it need to be a solo affair?

Why not have that section in Norway being you as one of several SBS operatives, if the aim is really to show some of the lesser-known theatres of WW2?

[DjchunKfunK]

Haha true, but I actually agree with Mack on this bit - why does it need to be a solo affair?

Why not have that section in Norway being you as one of several SBS operatives, if the aim is really to show some of the lesser-known theatres of WW2?

What do you mean? I'm not sure how playing as a solo SBS operative is any different to every other fps where you play as just the one character.

[Snowy]

Sorry, meant if the task was carried out by a team of SBS operatives, don't make the mission a one-man affair. I really enjoy missions in SP games where you are one of a team and it would be more true to history.

[Mantis]

It's because designing a token single player campaign where you play as a solo person against waves of brainless enemy NPCs is a damn sight easier than creating big scripted spectacles with squads, and leagues easier than making something interesting that doesn't rely on scripts.

People are arguing over whether it should be a man or a woman when the real crux of the issue is that the campaign is just a lazy shooting gallery to tick a bullet point on the feature list for the game. They claim it's the most authentic feeling campaign they've ever made when in reality it's just a stock Battlefield campaign that offers a two hour distraction before everyone moves permanently to the multiplayer.

[Jez]

I'll play the SP stuff at some point just for the completionist aspect especially if it's only a few hours to do so. It's not what I buy the series for really. I did quite like the BF1 campaign so if this is a similar thing it shouldn't be too bad.

[Animalmother]

Bad Company 2 campaign was pretty good iirc.

[Jez]

Don't recall it if I'm honest. I perhaps didn't play that one.

[Animalmother]

That games great advantage is it didn't take itself seriously at all, you had constant silly banter between the 4 characters.

[BoggyB]

Quite good this, isn't it.

[Snowy]

I was reading a review of this the other day, and they hit the nail on the head for me with the difference between this (and BF1 tbh) and 1942. In BF1 and from what I can see this too, you are constantly in the thick of it. In 1942, you took time to get places. You could make your own way to the objectives and often coming in from unexpected directions could yield great results.

Vehicles spawned and could be destroyed empty or taken, with planes able to be taken off and landed.

It is that time that is now missing from the games. You spawn, you have a frantic few seconds or possibly minutes if you are lucky shooting like mad, then die. Spawn, die, spawn, die, while all hell breaks loose around you constantly. That is the turn-off for me, and also what killed BF1 online when I tried it.

Now OK, I have never made any bones about having drifted away from adversarial games, but this point really made me sit up and say YES that's what is missing now. I wonder if the move away from more open play to more focused action-heavy games is what initially turned me off them.

Glad folks are enjoying it though.

[Jez]

I'd disagree utterly with the caveat that yes there is one map where you are somewhat funnelled (aerodrome) the others bar none all have flanking opportunities.

It's also a little dependent on the mode you play. In conquest the whole map is open to anyone, so lots of flanking if you want it. In grand operations you are generally playing a smaller section of that large map for specific objectives. Those particularly demand that you work as a team and when that happens it's gloriously good. I am fickle also when it comes to squads, I'll keep moving until I find one that is working together and when you get in one that's supporting each other it's a fantastic game indeed.

It's a fair position though Ian in your last paragraph, if you don't particularly enjoy MP games then you are starting into them on a back foot as far as enjoyment goes. For me I'm not a pew pew die die die born in the wool MP gamer. But I do enjoy this series and in my own opinion THIS one is the best they've made in many years, it plays a lot differently than BF1 which I also enjoyed as you know.