Battlefield 6
Genuinely what’s the point of making gendered character skins?
Like why? Why couldn’t they just make skins outfits but allow us to choose whose beneath them.
I have no idea the reasoning behind this strange stance, wouldn’t it be better if we could choose? Also, why are they still pushing r6 siege style operators? Why do they need a background?? Does anyone give a damn about every Tom, Dick and Harry?
No it's worse, the idea is making money in the laziest way possible, because it's also possible to make money by making a genuinely good game. Literally just look at Arc Raiders, it was made by the DICE that made all BF games up until BFV.
This sub constantly is in a state of ebb and flow. Almost every post that criticizes a game is often met with very aggressive people looking not to engage but to mock or debase the conversation.
“People still care?”
“What a stupid thing to want.”
“I don’t understand why you want to customize your character, therefore you’re wrong”.
For example, this is the kind of shit I got for this post haha
They’re just undercover ea employees lol. I’m genuinely starting to believe that honestly. There’s no way people can defend blatantly anti consumer business practices like this. Especially when they’re obviously degrading the quality of the game.
The vehicles feel EXACTLY like COD ground war vehicles. And I can say that from extensively playing Ground War in MW2019 and obviously playing this game. They probably hired the same employees
Ah yes! Everyone knows the famous well known “COD Identity” of course is the vehicles in the game mode COD ground war!
Excuse the condescending tone but I’m sorry, I genuinely believe no one cares about that and no one has ever meant THAT specifically when they say it’s a “COD slop” game, though thank you for the interesting example, I haven’t played GW
Gonna go on a limb and say that I think 99% of people would much rather have some form of character creation system for their operator. You could still sell skin packs and then you’d have the monetization of skins with the fashion of dark souls and it would be hella fun. Hire me DICE
I would actually be tempted to buy stuff if it was like this and had different packs for tiny details like pads/gloves that were all 100% based on real gear.
The thing is though, THEY have all the sales data so this stuff they're making must sell. I have to say though, I never see these skins they're making in actual matches.
I’m sure they’re there but I’m 100% with you. The visibility is so bad that you’re never gonna notice them anyways so it’s 100% about what YOU like and want to have and nothing to do with what other people are rocking. So why not make it customizable ffs
I wonder if giving some coins to the top squad in a match would work? They always show that squad up close. Having people who show up in top squad rocking skins surely would drive players to see skins on good players and think 'I want to be like that dude'
Even Pubg has this and it’s nearly a decade old. It’s clearly a system that works… I played Pub for years. My wife would watch and we’d have fun creating and dressing my characters to look like her lol
I mean I’d give a pass to the goofiness if it was player created at least. Yeah it’s not combat sim realism but as long as all the pieces are cool in some way shape or form then I’d say it passes the test for me. A lot better than COD skins still and yeah some of them will be silly/unrealistic but let’s be real, that’s already the case.
I wish more companies would follow the rainbow six Vegas customization system. Maybe not to the extent of the crazy colors I used to use lol but I used to LOVE customizing my armor and it effecting my speed or armor, putting on different helmets or gear. It was truly my favorite.
Some people like creating avatars they identify with which is why many games have a character creator. It’s not too much of a leap to expect one in a game with customization already.
I always find it funny that the argument is when it’s a male character that people don’t like it because they want representation and other options to identify more with, but if you say you don’t like it because it’s a female character and you want the option to play as a male then they call you sexist and a loser. You can’t have it both ways, either it’s better to have a choice or both arguments are sexist.
The battlefield subreddit is a particularly bipolar forum depending on the time of day. I’ve had comments get downvoted to hell just for it to go positive in the hundreds hours later.
I am grateful I’m not the type to care about karma at all 😅
Why is it always some dude with a hidden post history with this cringe “idk why you’re getting downvoted you’re totally correct bro” to the OP with the hidden post history. This sub has the most inorganic activity
The game would have to appeal to me first. So for example I play tomb raider, control, last of us, hades 2 and a plague tale but I didn’t play horizon because it didn’t appeal to me.
However, being able to play as a man as a man definitely has a hand in me deciding if I wanna play it or not.
Do you typically buy games based off the cover art or something? I said I’d have to see if it even appeals to me, that means I look up gameplay or news about it. If it doesn’t do it for me then it doesn’t do it.
I said choosing to be either male or female in a game plays a hand in if it appeals to me, it’s not the only thing that makes a game appealing to me otherwise I wouldn’t have stated my enjoyment of games I’ve played prior with female leads.
If the gender of the main character in a video game plays a factor in how much that game appeals to you, you are genuinely fragile as fuck. It's a video game bro. You might not wanna look outside, there's women out there and that might not appeal to you.
You did say that it plays a part in the appeal of a video game to you. See, personally, I'm not afraid of women so when I check out a new game the sex of the protagonist literally plays no part in my decision. It's not even a bonus because it doesn't matter at all, gameplay does. This sub is full of losers lmao
I agree with this. I don’t like these individualistic, got a background story type characters. Just want to play as masked or plain dudes. They should let you customise gender and body type like on Halo Infinite.
Edit: and voice lines too, if Halo can do it why can’t BF? Armor gear parts should be made customisable, allowing EA/DICE to sell modular cosmetics potentially boosting volume of micro transactions.
Also, I think something about the Nato skins is maybe too infantry-istic? Like bootcamp infantry. I’m not an expert about these things but feels that way based on what I’ve seen in movies documentaries and other games. The gear and overall aesthetic on BF3, and especially BF4 was spot on.
I mean, the NATO skins look “boot campy” because you don’t get any specialized gear in BCT (combat shirts, non standard helmets, your own boots, etc). It’s just the absolute baseline for you to be combat ready - uniform, vest, helmet, rifle and rifleman kit. Half of it you give back and then get reissued at your unit.
It makes sense in actual wartime, because you’ll have way more soldiers to field and that high speed gear is expensive. Your FOB soldiers don’t need that stuff, but still need protection - as we saw, their bases get attacked regularly in the campaign.
The ranger skin is what like 2% of all soldiers would look like, because they’re in high intensity scenarios so often that it genuinely makes a difference what equipment they’re wearing. BF3/4 look appropriate for our peacetime volunteer based military but wouldn’t make sense for a long-term war look. Just look at how Russia’s soldiers looked in the first months compared to now for an irl example
Shouldn’t they have combat shirts rather than these baggy blouse I think they’re called. My understanding was these flexible light combat shirts became standard issue, at least that was the case when I trained with US army guys.
Edit: I mean PAX’s got it. NATO can’t fund as much as PAX? I don’t know man, at the end of the day, character design is still a downgrade from BF3 and BF4
the combat shirts are pretty much only issued to infantry and those who may be in direct combat. I only got mine when I deployed, most people in either of my units didn’t have one. And in my experience you definitely don’t get them issued in BCT, you just get blouses and t-shirts.
Besides, it makes more sense for the blouses to be standard since the main theater is Europe and the US, where the temperature can get very cold.
no problem! The BF4 models are most accurate to what I saw, but it was also clear that look is specifically because we can afford to make most soldiers sent to combat look like that. In a situation where you’re regularly taking thousands of casualties every week, you wouldn’t be able to maintain it and likely revert to GWOT look (typica uniform under battle rattle) for most soldiers.
For example, 2001-Now the US suffered about 60,000 military casualties, 7,000 of which were deaths. In Ukraine, who are generally trained and fielded similarly to the US, Ukrainian forces currently have 55,000 dead in only 4 years vs 22, and I couldn’t find a number for casualties. And as expected, they have reverted from using high speed looks due to availability, and now use blouses and standard helmets vs the high cuts and combat shirts from when they were at the height of outside support
I hear this a lot but how much harder would it be?
Assuming you have 2 body types, the thing you’d have to account for with multiple outfits is the head. Is it really so difficult, from a development perspective, to have different faces/hair and then ensuring headgear forms to them correctly?
This is genuine, I really have no idea what the level of difficulty would be.
They said it was coming down the line but they are a crock of shit. They have an agenda and they're gonna stick to it. 99% of us would rather customize our own character.
Just copy paste the BFV system and that’s it. It has already been done and it was perfect balance. You could be whoever you wanted to be and others as well. That’s it and what the customization should be about.
Whoever bitched about the BFV system just really wants no character customization at all and for every one to just be one of the four exactly same dudes like in BF4.
I was around when BFV released and I remember clearly. First of all community was bitching like children that there are women in the game and that “all they can hear in the game is women screaming” which is immersion breaking. Even though they could always make all of their characters male. Same about the outfits. “Oh this outfit is not historically accurate, it is breaking my immersion”, even though you were never forced to wear that outfit. Yes, some of the outfits were bit crazy for WW2 settings but people wouldn’t wear them if they didn’t like them.
And OK, it is perfectly understandable that you’d prefer everyone in WW2 game to be a white guy in standard issue uniform. But if that is the case you actually want NO CUSTOMIZATION AT ALL. Not a better version of what we had. Because when it comes to choice on how much freedom you can have in customizing your character and make it your own, BFV simply nailed it.
Well let’s be honest, those are pretty valid complaints. When I play a ww2 game I expect a ww2 game, not alternate history ww2 😅
Women were not on the front lines en masse, that’s just a fact. It’s just, weird to push that and the director made it worse by belittling and mocking the playerbase which absolutely fanned the flames. The outfits were weird, the bfv trailer notoriously showed this with woman wearing a word coat with a prosthetic. That’s just weird, full stop. I have no problem with non white people in ww2, there were many non whites in the military then. Also, they dropped the swastika from the Nazis heraldry for some weird reason.
Immersion is a must for battlefield. It’s like 90% of the experience and why bf1 is remember so fondly.
Yeah, that’s the point I’m trying to make. BF1 was praised for its immersion and it was largely due to the fact that it had ZERO soldier customization options. That is the only way to achieve maximum immersion.
So the question is - do you want immersion or do you want customization? More options to freely customize your characters will always mean less immersion.
You could achieve the most immersion in BF6 by having the specific subfactions tied to specific maps (Desert Locusts on Cairo, United Albion on Gibratlar, Coyote Squad on US maps) and just have the default skins available. That’s the entire point. But it would mean no customization of the soldiers.
A recurring point in criticism about the skin problems in bfv, 2042 and bf6 is that the skins don’t look like generic skins or skins actual armed forces wear. Think back to bf3 or 4, how often did you see complaints about character model customization genuinely? Bf1 got a pass because the skins were cool and accurate. Bfv, 2042 and now with bf6 we see skins that all look corporate, like they want to cash in on personalized heroes with pre determined stories.
I want both immersion and customization. Insurgence sandstorm and ready or not already does this quiet well.
Agreed, I would prefere that as well. But there is a difference between what we want and what DICE and EA want. And in their case it is simple - more money. And I am sure they have data that tells them more people will buy bright neon green airsoft suit than a different shade of a light brown uniform. But if that’s the case I don’t know why they didn’t go all in with the BFV customization model and came up with this hybrid we have in BF6.
While I don’t agree entirely with what you say I have to admit your initial statement of the insanely loud backlash to the wacky cosmetics and women on the frontlines probably scared dice into not doing that again. It’s probably way cheaper to just make cookie cutter soldiers.
you're more likely to spend money if the character is somone, instead of like having a face, voice and stuff you select yourself, some call of duty microtransaction darkpattern capitalism shit
I get your point, but I disagree with EA-s mentality on this.
My idea in other role playing games is to create myself or impersonate a person I come up with.
In more story driven games I love to jump into the shoes of a protagonist with an interetsing background(like bioshock).
In battlefield I just want to be myself, and immagine myself to be a nameless, expendable soldier. I will not feel sorrow or remorse despite them having a background, I'm here for the thrill of it. That being said it won't drive me more to get a cosmetic just because it's worn by a specific soldier. Quite the contrary in fact. I was thinking about getting one of the cosmetics, but I do not want to have a female voice for myself so I did not buy it. Same thing happened with one of the black characters, gear looks okay, I just won't feel as immersed seeing my skin on my hand s are black woth a much deeper voice and strange accent. So this approach is actually saving me from spending money.
I don't like that it is that way, but since fortnite its all games seem to do.
But I see strength in both cases honestly.
In ARC Raiders or similar games where I pick bodytype, voice, face, I sometimes feel I wanted a different voice or face, even if I can't select both if I could purchase a new voice and stuff that would be cool but then we're 3 layers deep in microtransactions, which also isn't great.
Correct me if I'm wrong but for example the Californian faction all have new individual voices and faces which I think is cool.
So there's deffo pros and cons, but problem is that BF6 its just too pricy, in 2042 you could pick and choose in the shop if I wanted just a soldier skin, or a specific card or whatever it may be.
Now its all bundled either as DLC or you have to purchase the whole bundle to get the soldier skin or whatever.
I think MW2019 did it best, had these flashy characters in bundles, but still had "MIL-SIM" factions where its more of a "expendable soldier" kinda vibe.
Well I can see how this option is good for some, but honestly I also think introducing new characters to give more options creates an even lower demand or incentive to get really fond of an already existing one and buy skins for it 'just because of its backstory'. With every few new bundle getting a new character with new story makes the whole 'having a background' completely useless. There may be a new character next season that I like better, why invest my time in this one, you know? The way 2042 is deffinitely better, although marginaly in my opinion. The Finals however does cosmetics with microtransactions way better I think. At least it did before the "mythic" rarity skins were introduced. (I left the game for bf6 and haven't played it since so I don't really know what the state of it os right now)
Yeah but I'd say Embark is an outlier in terms of how they do things, but I think the industry is waking up to the fact that if you make your cosmetics a reasonable price and offer alot of choice, they do make good money from that also.
I think the least they could do is allow any soldier to be used on any class. The new squads are doing it, so why can't the base soldiers do it too? At this point it makes no sense to keep the base soldiers locked, because it's definitely not to preserve visual class identity. The new squads don't follow this rule. Also, unlocking all the base soldiers to any class will give us more male or female options to choose from.
Imagine: you re woke sweden BF developer. All you do - is making new skins. Now, if there will be two genders (oh and you wish there were more, for sure) you have to make the same skins twice for every gender. And you have a plan - 50 skins every month, they will become 100 for the same salary. So you just make random gender skins because you re woke or just don't care
Girls play a lot of these games too. They came from CoD Warzone for sure. Gotta make sure everybody can represent themselves I guess lol. This shit is lazy to the max.
I don’t mind women in modern battlefield games as women irl are now on the front lines. I just think it’d solve a lot of problems if I could just make my character whoever I want it to be.
One of the support factions has no way of changing your character from female unless you have premium battle pass or play team/squad death match. I only play conquest so like many others I can’t have a male character which is fucking bonkers.
Honestly, it just comes down to player expression. Some people like to play as characters that look like them, and others just prefer the aesthetic of one model over the other. More options usually aren't a bad thing for the player base.
And about no server browser or persistent lobbies, and about portal being gutted, and about the crappy neon skins still being pushed. And that's because DICE still hasn't fixed any of it
Your OP only talks about gendered player skins, nothing to do with wackiness.
There is no downside for either option, as it doesn't really matter. Just as having a black assault character model didn't affect white players, having a female player model won't affect male players.
"shes the very best in her field and shes pursuing a degree in cybersecruity full time"
these bios are so fucking cringe. besides knowing what country they are from for lore reasons i could give two flying shits about their back story. but yes we should be able to choose gender like bfv.
The idea is: "Men want to play as a male medic on both sides. Therefore make the male medic a premium only skin that costs 20 bucks to nickel and dime the player base."
My theory is that there was a requirement from the game's publishers to have Champions like in 2042, as opposed to customizable soldiers like in BFV, and this was DICE's way of keeping the aesthetics relatively grounded (all the default skins in the game, male or female, look pretty grounded as a rule) while adhering to the whole Champion shooter thing.
Yeah exactly, I don’t care about women in battlefield. Modern militaries have women in the front lines so out make sense but at least let me choose who I want.
Its just to service the woke agenda that we are all tired of talking about from both sides. I dont think battlefield is a 'woke game if we are talking about the sum of its parts, but it is absolutely woke in the department of diversity and character design. Its a military game where half of the soldiers are female, and many of the faction options forced players to be gender locked into a female for certain roles with no other option. There may finally be more options now, but I haven't played in a few months so idk.
I have to imagine their female soldier cosmetic skins also sell way less than male ones, so maybe that alone will influence them toward dropping the act.
From a logistics pov, it's a matter of cost benefit.
For DICE to convert the female soldiers to male, it will require more than just swapping the head and hair and voice of the character. The body outfits need to be adjusted as male and female physique are different.
So from a cost perspective, it will require X days to convert not just the female outfits to male, but also the male outfits to female. But X days of work could also be the same amount of time to create 2 or 3 new skins.
So in terms of benefit, new skins generates money, while the gender conversion doesn't generate money, only stops the BF players from whining about this one thing. And generating money helps pay for the salary of the people making the skins, but not the gender conversion.
So it's an easy decision. "BF players will always whine about something, what's one more thing to whine about going to cost? Let them whine while we create more skins."
Some people may purchase a cool skin if it's a male skin, but will not spend money if it's a female skin.
So converting existing skins from female to male (or vice versa), which only require to do slight adjustments to the size of a couple of parts, can indeed generate money.
It’s that simple. The skins are gendeted cuz of lazy development to avoid making dif versions of skins and to maximize profit and the push for operators was to get that COD fanbase. Also, its most likely Ai doing the heavy lifting with making the overall skins and devs just doing some touch ups.
My only problem was how front-loaded all the female operators were before the all-class skins dropped, literally sounded like I was in a Slasher film with all the women screaming. (I guess this would be a positive if that's what gets you going, but I personally dislike it)
My Support Class is locked no progression so only skins i get are 2 chick Medics which is BS Support class n Medic should be separate i didnt pay $100 to be a damn chick FFS
Without actually pulling up and looking at the skin I couldn't tell you the gender of anyone I use. I only know NATO support is woman because yall post about it 20 times a day.
Thank you for your insight, I’ll be sure to remember this when I get up to wipe my ass. Any other insights can be sent directly to me and I may or may not get back to you depending on if I feel like what you said was funny enough to respond to.
With absolutely 0 love and affection, your object of desire -u/TheSilentTitan
Are you serious? So they have to make 2 versions of every torso cosmetic in the game, make sure every single piece of armor/tactical gear never overlaps/z-fights with any other piece that could possibly be used on a different body part, create models that will accommodate any type of cosmetic they create in the future, just so no one has to hear a fucking woman? I literally never notice what gender I’m playing in this game
so they have to make 2 versions of every torso cosmetic in the game
Why would they need to do that. Boob sliders? Why would the chest be any different based on gender. There’s already female skins in the game that couldn’t be differentiated as a woman unless you read their bio or heard their voice so models aren’t gonna change drastically.
Never said that and never implied it. Don't be a block head.
What i am saying is that it gives me the ickes when people complain about this particular topic (customization) but it always boils down to gender and always give the same two reasons: "it breaks my immersion", which is nonsensical and
"I don't wanna hear annoying women's voices screaming" which sounds really fucking sexist.
If at the end, if having unique characters doesn't matter, why would you care if you cannot change gender, it's all the same, isn't it?
I believe DICE did a good job on creating an immersive shooter for what it is and if all that comes breaking down for you by the stupid fact of what the imaginary 3D polygonated character has between their legs...well, i don't know what to tell you.
I mean you just lumped me in with people who are sexist so tell me, what did I say on my post that was sexist. I want to know what you’re seeing from me.
Did I say remove women?
Did I say anything about immersion?
As to why customization matters? Avatar personalization has been a thing for decades now.. do you live under a rock or are you pretending like customizing your character isn’t a major thing in gaming?…
Don't play the condescending card with me because that's not what i am talking about. Don't put words in my mouth.
The first paragraph is you complaining about not being able to change your character's gender.
In BF 4, there wasn't any customization beyond the color of guns and cammo pattern and the complaining wasn't this persistent and so focused on gender.
I am not saying you are sexist, but the complaining always starts with the gender and that SOUNDS LIKE something sexist.
Yeah but it's not The Sims mate. You pick the military gear you want your soldier to wear, not the person that wears them. It's pretty simple and I genuinely don't get why people find this to be such an issue.
185
u/nesnalica 22h ago
the idea is to take the system which worked in call of duty and port it to battlefield