DangerDog wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 14:02:
I guess we can already do a "Why did Battlefield V fail" write up.
Have you actually played the game? IMO, it's by far the most battlefield a battlefield game has been for a while. If someone played the beta only, their view of the game is not accurate. I really disliked the beta, but the game on release is vastly different in terms of feel.
"Real world Political Correctness," I can only really take to mean, "you can play women," which I guess could be a problem? It's not accurate, I'll give you that, but it hasn't distracted me from the gameplay at all.
"Too far from the battlefield formula." This I don't get at all. They're very heavily in the battlefield formula. Likely the closest to BF1942 and BF2 that they've been in a long time, including asymmetrical vehicles.
"Rushed to market." They actually delayed release based on beta input to make changes, so I can't say this is founded in reality.
"Taking the setting to lesser known battles." The battles here are primarily pre-American involvement. So perhaps you're meaning, "no D-Day?" and "No battle of Berlin" or "No Stalingrad?" Either way, I have no doubt those will come up as they release more maps.
"Slow release of new content," now you're just guessing.
"Battle Royale mode splitting the community," there have always been different game modes in battlefield, and it hasn't cause problems historically.
In the end, I have to assume you just hate it because of their marketing choices, or you're deeply upset about women being involved. Maybe you played the beta and didn't like it? I hope that you give it a chance, because I suspect that you'd enjoy it, and if you have and don't... well, then not every game is for everyone.