15 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:
@Gian-Reto, on your points on James Bond etc., as others have pointed out, your opinion is pretty much just that, your opinion. It's pretty subjective to say that a new IP would definitely be better than the evolution of a current IP. And again, your opinion of the new James Bond, etc., is pretty much a moot point considering the overall success/lack of success of the IP in question. James Bond and God of War both have been very successful in their newest iterations. Clearly the markets, at least, at minimum do not care and at best absolutely loved the changes. Coming back to the discussion at hand of Battlefield V, the skins aren't going to have any impact on the bottom line for the game. It'll probably still be very successful, especially given the other gameplay changes that are coming (finally more destruction for environments!).
Sure, I am not trying to speak for everyone. Also, I do recognize the success of the newer Bond iteration.
What I MIGHT not agree on is the reason why they have been moderately to very successfull. Lets get this straight: the last few Bond movies before the Daniel Craig ones were godaweful. They were crap. They were the old Bond movies going down a very bad direction where there was no more return from.
So as said, a Reboot was needed. And THAT probably was the biggest reason why the Daniel Craig Bonds have been received so positively, maybe even by some fans who liked the old, pre-90's Bonds better.
Now, you can certainly say that was a "mission successfull". Sure, yeah, it did what the reboot set out to do, prevent Bond movies from slipping even more into Comic territory.
I still do think a return to the old formula before "need moar gadgets" became the mantras in the 90's would have been the better idea. But sure, that is my opinion, I am not denying that.
Just never, ever go from "It has been successfull" to "it has been successfull because of X" without pouring a whole mountain of salt on the whole thing (Probably should make sure I follow this rule myself 
)
Because else you could go with the "SJW's ruined star wars" and "it was a fan boycott" interpretation of why "Solo" failed so hard... when, as far as I understand it, the biggest contributing factors probably was "5 months after the last SW movie", "Rumours about a troubled production leaking", and the fact that movie apparently wasn't that well received even by movie critiques who often are very forgiving towards big hollywood productions.
And, of course, extensive re-shoots after swapping out the director mid production... which, according to some sources, almost doubled the production cost.
Probably everything contributed to the loss... Just like in case of the Bond movies, probably everything contributed to the success, probably the movies DID strike some modern tastes... but at the same time also didn't had to live up to the same standarts because of a decade of substandart Bond movies lowering expectations.
Trying to emphasize one over the other is then just personal opinion.
As to BF V... well, lets wait and see. Something the hardcore nerds and people to invested in this whole nerd culture infight often forget is that most buyers of a normie-series like BF (which is, like many of the console shooters, not that niche) probably don't watch youtube trailers, don't care about E3, or have any idea of the internet outrage going on at the moment.
So it is going to be interesting to see how the general gaming population reacts. I also don't think the sales are going to be impacted much by the female protagonist, or whatever it is (could be an NPC for all we know). Or by multiplayer skins. Or by cringy moral grandstanding on Twitter or cringy E3 trailers.
As long as the quality of the end product is good, and the game is fun even with whatever has been shoved in there, its going to sell. Especially when the target is the general non-niche audience that will not give a damn about historical accuray and just want to blow up stuff with cool graphics, probably skipping all the cutscenes anyway.
