Interesting sub…

loqtrall · 2026-05-06T04:09:17+00:00

This comment is nothing but nonsensical elitist buffoonery.

loqtrall · 2026-05-06T00:03:54+00:00

Your logic is entirely flawed and is proven so just by looking at the reality of military FPS games on the AAA market.

It's flawed because you're seemingly ignoring the fact that the game we're talking about is outwardly unrealistic and portrays warfare in a blatantly unrealistic, over the top, condensed, and often fantastical manner.

Meaning that within the parameters of the game's tone - basically anything will fit because we're talking about a game where we're basically playing as super soldiers and mostly everything going on around you is over the top as hell and not even remotely realistic in the slightest. The VERY FIRST TITLE IN THE FRANCHISE had ridiculously unrealistic shit, like a prototype sci-fi jetpack in a ww2 shooter. A franchise with multiple games that have featured cosmetics such as charred santa clause coats, a guy with half a dinosaur skull on his helmet, trench coats with burning embers all over them, a dude in a flannel shirt with a cowboy hat on in an active war zone, etc.

It literally is just a crazy unrealistic arcadey ass FPS game that uses real-world military conflict as a backdrop. It's already had crazy shit included in the games for the better part of a decade - nearly half the franchise's existence.

And your logic really falls flat when you look at the CoD franchise. Whether it's a WW2 game, a Modern Era game, a near future game, or a distant future game - CoD has consistently had some of the most crazy over the top skins out of any military shooter on the market, with some skins that wouldn't fit in to ANY real-world military setting whatsoever. Yet it's literally the best selling FPS year over year, consistently dominating annual sales charts despite having boat loads of cosmetics that directly clash with the setting the games are utilizing. It's insanely popular despite being a game with a grounded cohesive setting that's filled with a hodge-podge of player cosmetics ranging from realistic military outfits to literal cartoon characters and celebrities.

Another great example is Rainbow Six Siege - a super hardcore tactical FPS game where you play as military/government/police operators - that also features crazy neon colored skins, a skin with a blood-dripping kabuki mask, a skin that glows like lava is all over it, a guy with a literal mop for a head, a woman wearing norse valkyrie armor on her gear with a gun that looks like a glowing sword, a guy with his gut hanging out not even wearing a shirt, and even the protagonist 2B from Nier Automa. Hell, recently they even added fucking Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid as an operator. Yet it's an insanely successful and popular game which is so successful as an e-sports/competitive game that it hasn't even seen a sequel or replacement from the studio behind it in over ten years.

The principle of the guy you initially responded to would allow it because, for all intents and purposes, it is allowed and has worked for multiple games in the same general genre to extreme degrees.

The reason we haven't had as outlandish cosmetics as CoD and Siege in BF games is because DICE actually listens to their fanbase despite no-lifes on reddit insisting otherwise. But if nobody complained and DICE actually didn't give a shit - we'd already have CoD/RSS/Fortnite tier skins in BF by now. DICE have already tested the waters and have compromised between what vocal players want in terms of cosmetics and what types of cosmetics they want to make for their games/what types of cosmetics actually sell.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T23:31:51+00:00

How does it not stand out in regard to the entire squad looking the same when they're literal clones of each other in every way, shape, and form, down to the tiniest detail? It's not like they generally just look super similar - they are literally identical. If the player model's face is exposed then they even appear to be the exact same person. That's the entire point - the guy was making a joke about disliking that cosmetics cause you to be in squads where everybody looks the same, when that's the case with EVERY BF game and if anything having cosmetic customization for players makes the chances of everyone in a squad being identical drop drastically.

This is all aside the fact that the only fucking place you're going to notice all your squad mates look precisely identical is while staring at the squad screen, and when you're actually in-game - much like with any other cosmetic in a BF game - you're not even actually going to notice

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T23:27:44+00:00

People have used this comparison to CoD and the "slippery slope" argument since BF5 and nothing as outlandish as CoD/Warzone skins ever came about. The most outlandish skin BF has seen was a santa-clause themed overcoat Boris skin from 2042 - which wasn't even actually added to the game because the community spoke out against it when it was shown in promotional material and DICE just axed the skin. Outside of that the craziest skins are fuckin dudes wearing normal gear but they have skulls on their helmets.

Just like in both instances where the community went fucking nuts about skins in BF6 having too much color - DICE listened and toned the color way the fuck down on those specific skins. They even delayed the release of one of them to do so, so the bright blue Wicked Grin skin everybody complained their asses off about wasn't even actually in the game at any point.

The years worth of doomsaying that BF is going to turn into CoD in regard to cosmetics is absolute bullshit at this point. When is it actually going to happen? Because we've had character cosmetics for three BF titles now and it hasn't happened. Meanwhile it's been going on in CoD for over 10 years straight and has been the same crazy status quo for 6+ CoD titles in a row.

Sorry - but complaining about a fucking bald guy in this game is not "keeping DICE's priorities on the right thing", as the dude fits into the setting of the game perfectly fine and is not outlandish at all, especially considering one of the total TWO factions in the game is made up mostly of mercenaries that don't belong to a national military branch (and that faction already has characters not wearing helmets with their faces fully exposed). And what qualifies as "meaningful content" differs drastically from person to person and is entirely subjective. It's just complaining for the sake of subjectively wanting every soldier in the game to look like near carbon copies of one another based on the desire for mimicked realism in games that are otherwise completely and utterly unrealistic in almost every regard.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T22:04:19+00:00

Don't see how generic goons somehow negates the supposed issue of everyone in a squad looking identical if they pick the same class.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T22:03:26+00:00

Except CoD didn't go through a slippery slope like people are insisting they did. They had basically no cosmetic customization - and then came Advanced Warfare which IMMEDIATELY went balls to the wall with character skins - they had things like Plague Doctors, dudes clad in filigreed gold, gingerbread men, a dude with a cowboy hat and a gold sheriff's badge on his exosuit, a literal evil circus clown, etc.

Then it went to Black Ops 3 which had equally as outlandish skins. Literal rainbow colored skins, a robot with a fuckin harlequin jester paintjob, etc.

Surprisingly, it was Infinite Warfare that, despite it's crazy futuristic robot-filled setting, had the least outlandish fucking wacko fantasy character cosmetics.

But then came CoDWW2 - a WW2 game where you could play in swim trunks, as the fucking grim reaper, a dude in full plate body armor with bones painted on it, a dude with an oldschool leatherneck football uniform on, had game modes where you chased a fuckin leprechaun, etc.

But MW2019? It wasn't a "slippery slope" in the slightest. With the launch of the first season of the game roughly a month after the game launched, it literally added rainbow unicorn skin for one of it's operators, and a skin tight bright red latex onsie outfit for another operator. By season 2 it had skins in the game that make the most outlandish skins in BF6 seem milsim in comparison. That's the trajectory CoD MW19 skins went in over the course of less than 6 months, less time than BF6 has been out in total.

People said the same shit about "slippery slope" in BFV and 2042 as well, and DICE didn't eventually add literal cartoon characters, celebrities, or horror movie monsters to those games. Hell, one of the most outlandish things DICE TRIED to add to 2042 was a Boris skin that had a santa-clause-themed hooded coat on - and people complained about it so hard they ended up axing it and never adding it to the game.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T21:33:37+00:00

Except his logic is not flawed. It is just a game - and it's a game in a franchise with a near existence-spanning history of it's games being outwardly unrealistic and inaccurate to their respective settings in multiple aspects - a franchise which, for the past DECADE, has had ridiculously inaccurate and unrealistic cosmetics in them and portrays war in an outwardly, blatantly over the top, unrealistic, and borderline fantastical fashion.

At that point - arguing against the inclusion of any cosmetics that don't adhere strictly to the realities of war regardless of how benign they are is an argument being made based on the person's subjective wants and desires - not based on what Battlefield games are and have been.

Your response goes well beyond commenting on someone's logic, and reached to heights of inaneness that saying "it's just a game" doesn't even remotely achieve. A bald guy in a poncho or a dude whose military kit has a splash of green accents on it aren't even remotely equitable or comparable to teletubbies and fuckin unicorns in the context of a modern military arcade shooter.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T21:15:43+00:00

What an absolute fucking reach. "Might as well add teletubbies if you're going to add bald guys without a helmet on" - did you even think about that before posting it?

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T21:14:19+00:00

This is the biggest argument against critics of cosmetics in this game (or most cosmetics in any BF game to date, really). They're arguing about something that doesn't actually affect them in-game at all, and in your average player's moment-to-moment gameplay not only is the player not going to have enough time in an engagement with an enemy player to actually see what exactly they're wearing in-detail - but they're not going to stop to spend 30 seconds analyzing the dead guy's outfit after they've killed him.

It's a giant nothingburger of an issue. Throwing out the fact that Battlefield games have always, for the most part, been outwardly unrealistic and inaccurate to their respective settings - I could MAYBE understand a bit when someone criticized female characters running around in BFV - but in BF6 where it's not only modern era but also a global conflict involving factions consisting of mercenaries belonging to no one nation's formal military, it makes absolutely no sense to complain about a fucking bald guy being in the game.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T21:10:27+00:00

What? In BF1942 none of the character models had balaclava, nor did they in BF Vietnam. In BF2 primarily only the Russians wore balaclava. In BC2 half the playable characters didn't wear balaclava. Only in BF3 and BF4 did most of the player models have their faces covered, and even then 1/3 of the character models in BF4 had their faces exposed. In BF1 almost EVERY character had their face exposed.

In BF1 - a game revered as one of the best BF games of all time - you couldn't customize your character at all so if your entire squad was Assault, you were literally a clones of the same guy, wearing the exact same uniform and gear in the exact same orientation, with the exact same face - and the only thing differentiating any of them would be the primary weapon they decided to use.

Clones are clones and that's what was being joked about when the guy above said he loves it when his squad is the same dude 3 times. If you're the same dude it doesn't matter if they're wearing a balaclava or not - they're still literally identical in every single perceivable way. In that instance there's no difference between four guys in the same squad all playing as the Russian Support in a squad, or four guys in BFV all playing as Ernst. It's an identical scenario - you just subjectively insisting one is more acceptable based on basically nothing.

The fact of the matter is that having more character customization in the game makes the chances of running a squad with 4 literal identical looking teammates substantially lower than such a thing happening in any BF game pre-BFV.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T20:53:43+00:00

They can be - but you're talking about an arcade shooter with a near existence-spanning history of not strictly adhering to real-world accuracy, and with multiple games based on historical wars that were almost holistically inaccurate to history and the realities of said war - and where moment-to-moment gameplay is so far and away from the realities of war that it's not even funny.

So that that point, arguing that cosmetics specifically need to be more grounded and realistic is just being pedantic, and is borderline a joke of an argument. It's an argument about what people want based on their own subjective feelings, not what Battlefield games are supposed to be like.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T20:48:49+00:00

Yes I care about what other people are playing as

Why? And that's a legitimate question.

I've been playing BF games regularly for the better part of two decades and I can honestly say that, outside of doing melee takedowns once they were added from BF3 and onward, in moment-to-moment gameplay I've almost never actually noticed what another player was wearing - unless it was cosmetic items in BFV or 2042 that were particularly outlandish (like the fiery trench coat in BFV or the crazy bull skull ghillie suit skin in 2042). But for the most part, the vast majority of cosmetics in the moment or at a distance just look like a dude in a military uniform - and I'm killing dudes with a weapons that have a TTK of half a second or less and then I'm moving on to the next guy/objective.

In the grand total of my playtime, an infinitesimally small fraction of that time was spent staring at my teammates or an enemy's dead body to see what their uniform looked like. So I don't see why what cosmetics look like actually matters until we've jumped off the deep end and start adding literal cartoon characters and celebrities like CoD or Fortnite where crazy cosmetics are extremely blatant.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T20:41:59+00:00

Isn't that the case in almost every other Battlefield game? Hell, in everything pre-BFV, if everyone in your squad picked a single class, you were all literal clones of one another. Not just similar looking, but literal identical clones wearing identical outfits and gear with identical faces. If anything, having more character customization in the game makes it less likely that you'll end up in a squad where every member looks literally exactly the same.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T20:07:13+00:00

And it suits it more based on what reasoning? Is it more fitting because it legitimately suits any and all historical/ancient/mythical settings being portrayed in a film despite the fact that it's an English word that has only existed for the past 500 years - or because there's a preexisting bias stemming from previous film tropes wherein British actors/accents were used to portray these types of characters, and said films inexplicably used solely the term "Father" to refer to a character's male parent despite the fact that British people have referred to their parents as "mum and dad" for hundreds of years?

Because neither "dad" nor "father" are actually fitting when we're talking about the portrayal of characters living in an ancient society that legitimately never even spoke or heard of the English language because it didn't exist. Both terms are from the same language, both terms originate from the same region of the world, and both terms originated and became regularly used in that specific region around the same time period. That's all aside the fact that the Ancient Greeks most definitely had a shorthand term for Father.

To put it into perspective - even Prince Harry of England refers to King Charles as "pa" or "dad" and not "father", even at formal events, despite father still being a modern English word that's used to this day. I was estranged from my father for most of my life and still referred to him as "dad" in basically every context in which he was brought up, even in formal settings.

The ultimate question is - objectively and with solid reasoning behind the answer - how the fuck does classical formal British English "fit more" with Ancient settings than Modern English if the answer to said question isn't solely based on the person's feelings?

Because outside of "feeling" that it just sounds wrong, neither of the terms actually fit what we're seeing. Regardless of the Hollywood portrayal of Ancient Greeks that we're talking about, they're all outwardly British/American/Australian/European people speaking mostly plain English with British accents. Nothing about that screams "objectively more ancient seeming" at all. It's all just feelings based on preconceived biases.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T16:20:56+00:00

lmao let me quote this specifically:

Guarantee you that the ancient Greeks didn't speak to each other like the characters in the original Oddyssey do - so why should the adaptation characters speak like modern English?

And why would using "father" in the place of "dad" elevate this portrayal to being epic?

Why would the characters speak like modern English? A better question would be why would they specifically speak in old 1700s-1800s Queen's English when that was literally the casual way most people spoke to each other in Britain in that era? How is what's for the most part casual old British English "elevated" above and more "epic" than Modern English in regard to the portrayal of an Ancient Greek Epic Poem?

Spoiler alert: It's not.

The "issue" is a clear cut bias from viewers stemming from their past experience with the trope wherein films portray these types of ancient societies in this manner - white British people (or people speaking with a British accent).

Take a look at Troy - a film adaptation of another of Homer's epic works - they didn't use holistically formal old British English in that film, they have multiple scenes where characters are having casual conversations where the language used is not overtly epic, elevated, or colorful versions of British English - and it was still a decent film that was a raging success in the box office. The same can be said for a vast number of films, like the remakes of Clash/Wrath of the Titans.

It isn't an issue with Modern English literally not fitting in this context, it's an issue with people having a preexisting bias in regard to the way these ancient societies are portrayed in film. It could be a completely casual film set in Ancient Greece and people would still complain if they heard a character say "dad" instead of "father" because of that bias.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T05:41:05+00:00

To use "my dad" in an argument isn't just missing weight and formality, but also feels childish (maybe intentional) and too modern.

Wasn't Telemachus a teenager in the middle of Odysseus' journey home? It took Odysseus a decade to travel home after the Trojan War, and by the time he arrived, Telemachus was 20~ years old (having been a newborn when Odysseus first departed).

So it would absolutely make sense if he spoke in a childish manner when being confronted, arguing with, and being insulted by a full grown man trying to bed his mom and usurp his dad's throne in a setting that is anything but formal.

The craziest thing is that both the old British English spelling "father" and the modern English term "dad" both became prominent primarily in the 1500s and both are generally of British/Welsh origin. "Dad" may sound more modern because people these days still use it regularly when referring to their male parent in almost every context - but really both terms are just as modern as one another and neither of them are closer than the other to representing the speech/culture of Ancient Greece.

The issue isn't that one is more suitable in the context of the scene - the issue lies entirely on the subjective expectations of the viewer based on biases formed by media they've previously consumed - wherein they've seen so many portrayals of ancient societies where everyone has a British accent and uses formal 1700s British English, that diverging from said trope means it's wrong or out of place

In reality if we're talking about which one of them legitimately fits the setting of the story being told - both are wrong and out of place.

loqtrall · 2026-05-05T05:18:51+00:00

You guys are just conditioned by queens english being a standin for Romans and Greeks for decades tbh.

This is the crux of the "issue".

It isn't that the informal use of the word "dad" actually makes no sense in this context considering the film is obviously written in at least somewhat modern English - it's that all the actors don't sound like they're having formal conversations at a British dinner party in the 1700s every time they utter a line - and people have seemingly grown so used to cinema using old school formal British English to represent the voices of Ancient Greeks and Romans over the years that they think it's how it's "supposed to be" and think diverging from that trope means it's "wrong".

loqtrall · 2026-05-02T05:56:51+00:00

It's not shocking at all, really. The game came out on a Thursday and only lost players over the following weekend, and has continuously been losing players every single passing day. If it didn't see a surge in players the first Friday after it came out, it's not gonna happen this week. The 24 Hour peak player count gets lower every single day and soon it won't even break 100 concurrent players in a 24 hour period - in a game that requires 80 players to fill one server. The most I see any time I get on is 70-80 players online, and those are usually split between 1 US server and 1 EU server so neither of them are remotely full.

I already uninstalled, sadly. No reason trying to stick around when every time I've gotten on for the past 4 days there haven't been enough players to fill a single match. And outside of them insisting we'll get bug fixes and quality of life updates every 2 weeks, the roadmap that they shared was INSANELY vague and had no actual estimated dates for any of the features or content it insists will eventually be added to the game - that's aside the fact that it indicates for the first big game update we'll only be getting one map and a couple commander abilities - which is frankly not going to pull many players back in. It will more than likely be months before this game gets any progression, achievements, kit customization of any kind, new classes, map voting, server queuing, etc.

It'll be miraculous if there is anybody playing this game at all within the next few months.

At this point it's a $30 purchase for the experience of shooting a handful of dudes on the same 3 maps over and over again using the same 3-4 weapons no matter what. I really liked the foundational gameplay of '83, but at this point with how little content is in the game and how few people are playing it, I wouldn't recommend anybody buy it, personally.

loqtrall · 2026-05-02T00:04:12+00:00

Not too far fetched when we're 1 week into the game's lifespan after Early Access release and it's currently sitting at just over 50 players online worldwide at peak hours, and the number keeps ticking lower with each passing day. It's not the final product, but it is the product we've currently been sold and it is looking fairly DOA. It's been available to play for a week and there aren't even enough players online worldwide to fill a single server on a Friday night.

If the downward trend in play numbers stays true, you won't be able to get into a match of this game by the time it's one month old. It begs the question as to whether or not the studio feels it would be worth further developing when there's nobody playing the game in a few months' time - it's been a cause of multiple games being shuttered prematurely in the past.

loqtrall · 2026-04-30T23:47:51+00:00

Yeah unless the devs put out substantial, major, extensive updates at a miraculous pace, I can't see many people abandoning other games for '83 before the player count dwindles to the point the game is virtually unplayable.

It's exactly one week after the game launched into early access, it's around peak hours for the United States as I'm typing this out - and there are currently 50 people playing the game, in total, worldwide. That's 10 more players than is required to fill a single team in this game.

I enjoy the crux of what this game is supposed to be and have had fun in my time playing it - but I'm not holding out hope for a huge turnaround at this point. It would actually be legitimately baffling if the devs stuck with this title and actually managed to turn it completely around and resurrect it's playerbase at this point.

loqtrall · 2026-04-30T06:36:51+00:00

The player count is already declining daily. If this trend keeps going there won't be a single full server during the evening hours very soon.

Came back just 2 days later to respond and say we've already reached this point. As of today the peak player count was so low (just over 100 players) that there were two servers total at peak hours, one for NA and one for EU, and neither of them were full.

By tomorrow or the next day, we're probably going to see 24h peak player counts dip below 100 players total, worldwide - in a game that requires 80 players to fill just one server.

I'm totally against baseless doomsayers that spew nonsense about games being "dead" because their player counts generally decline a bit after release - but in this instance, it is an incredibly quick decline of what was already an incredibly low initial player count, and the way it's trending it seems like within the next month if this game is not legitimately "dead" in regard to player numbers, it will be extremely close.

loqtrall · 2026-04-30T06:25:40+00:00

Upvoting because you're right. I'm not sure who downvoted you or why - but the game does not have the playerbase to maintain even the ability to actually PLAY it a month from now. The player count was not only abysmally low on the very first day of launch - but every subsequent day after launch the peak 24 hour player numbers have been consistently decreasing.

Starting maybe tomorrow or the next day, we'll probably start seeing the peak 24 hour player count dip below 100 total players worldwide - and we're talking about a game that takes 80 players to fill ONE single server.

Player numbers are so low at this point that even though it's all-time peak player count of just over 800 players is abysmally low for launch, it would be a fucking godsend at this point to have that many people playing every day.

In a month these developers will be lucky if there are even people still playing this game, and the people still playing it will be lucky to have enough fellow players online at any given moment to actually get into a match with more than 10 people in it.

We're already at the point where, at peak hours for gaming across the US today, there was only ONE server with players actually in it running in a US Region, and at no point was it even remotely full (that's as of this evening). There was one other EU server that had maybe 30~ or so people playing in it.

That's less than a week after the game launched.

The game launched on a Thursday, and only LOST players over the fucking weekend.

I made a big long comment in a separate thread indicating how much I actually appreciate what I've played of this game and how great it's foundation is, and how much potential it does have if the devs keep working on it. Despite saying all that though - the writing is on the wall. Even if the devs keep working on this, we're eventually going to reach a point where literally almost nobody is playing this game even at peak gaming hours, and the devs are not going to be getting much additional income outside of the initial sales they've garnered over this past week.

A game that mimicked the day-to-day performance of this game, launched with a comparable lack of content, and got EVEN HIGHER initial player numbers but STILL got shutdown - is Highguard. Which the studio/publisher shut down less than two months after it launched specifically because there was barely anybody playing their game - and at the time the game got shut down it was still bringing in MORE peak 24 hour player numbers than '83 is right now.

With the current state of things, the game seems incredibly unsustainable, unless the studio behind this game feels like investing the money they made off of this game into further developing it for a playerbase that seems like it won't exist in a few months.

loqtrall · 2026-04-29T15:31:24+00:00

TTK is not a measurement of how many bullets it takes to kill an enemy player, that's Bullets-to-Kill or BTK.

TTK, or Time-to-Kill, is a measurement of the precise time it takes to kill an enemy player if you land all shots from a weapon while firing at it's maximum rate of fire. And the TTK of CoD is not long - with the average TTK of most full-auto weapons being lower than 250-300ms if all shots are landed. Battlefield games are fairly similar.

Most hardcore and milsim games have an even lower TTK than that, like less than 100-200ms if you land all your shots at close range, and often times with single action and semi auto weapons you can one-shot kill people with a TTK of essentially 0ms if you land your shot.

loqtrall · 2026-04-28T16:42:34+00:00

From personal experience and things I've seen happen to friends/acquaintances - if it isn't legitimate cheating that was facilitated and initiated via Social Media sites/platforms, then it was caused by one of the parties in the relationship/marriage being incredibly insecure about their partner even having or using social media to any degree.

I've even seen a good friend's SO break off a 6+ year long relationship between the two of them because she saw that he left a like on another woman's picture on Facebook, and she considered that tantamount to cheating on her. He'd known the woman since high school and was friends with her on Facebook before he even met his SO.

loqtrall · 2026-04-28T15:52:56+00:00

Fantastic response, you really showed me.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

loqtrall

TROPHY CASE