@gleencross: Are you sure you don't have a defective CPU or GPU? These games, particularly around the time Bad Company 2 released with its destructive environments, needs pretty good GPU and CPU, when most games get by with just a good GPU. I would also look into the speed of your RAM (not just how many GB of RAM you have).
Single player doesn't require as much processing power because in multiplayer you have a lot more going on being processed at once. Single player is largely choreographed. That's why the graphical fidelity seems stronger in most single player games at large compared to their multiplayer modes.
Note that BF4 was rather unwieldy on certain maps. Siege of Shanghai for a long time caused crashes whenever the central building collapsed (but this was eventually fixed).
@mistervulpes: Wtf does the LGBT community have to do with BFV? The only thing I've seen brought up are female soldiers being a thing and the dumb decision to pretend it was somewhat historical.
@mistervulpes: Which is mostly true for pretty much every Battlefield since Bad Company (events that didn't happen or exist). Really when you get down to it, the only thing really at "fault" here are the females. Battlefield was never a simulator, that has always been ARMA and similar games. Battlefield Bad Company 1/2, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4 all took place during fictitious wars. Sure, BF 3 and 4 had battles in the middle east, but they also feature America vs. Russia, France vs. Russia, America vs. China, and so on, none of which is going on at all or has been going on in any modern capacity (and none of these games take place during the cold war, the exception being Vietnam).
BF1 was the exception, but it was also largely historically inaccurate. Anyone who expected BF5 to be a historically accurate representation of World War 2 lives in a strange little bubble devoid of any sense of reality and oblivious to the franchises history. Anyone who is angry at females being in the game I think is missing a few things. For one, Battlefield has never been about historical accuracy, and I doubt it ever will. Battlefield is a video game, and most of its fans do not mistake it as being anything more than that. Battlefield's core objective is to provide a large scale arcade war shooter with vehicles, full of chaos, destructive environments and mayhem. Everything else comes second. Lastly, if you think this is the last time you are going to see females in a Battlefield game, I highly suggest you move on. That is something they won't take back, and if anything future titles are going to offer even more options for customization. It doesn't matter if it's a FPS and you rarely see what your character looks like, people like being able to customize. And yes, people do enjoy playing females.
The real problem is how the PR was handled with this game. The doofus who said people shouldn't buy the game if they don't like it, while that is technically true, should never say such a thing about a product he represents. I also had an issue with the ad that said something along the lines of "be on the right side of history". The only "right" side is the historical side, which definitely is not this game. That said, had the PR just been to advertise the game as nothing more than a game inspired by a WW2 setting, in a fictitious WW2 environment, I think things would (hopefully) have gone along smoother. Though I do believe the guy who said a lot of this stuff got fired.
@dragoonmike: Subscribers to Origin Access can play now. If you have the Basic plan ($4.99 per month), you can play for 10 hours. If you have the Premier plan ($14.99 per month/ $99.99 per year), you can play indefinitely. If you preordered the game you can play it in full on the 14th, otherwise everyone can play the game on the 20th. Also important to note that the game is included in the Origin Access library.
Battlefront 2 doesn't even have loot boxes anymore. They have a daily box with 500 credits, or you can do a weekly challenge which gives you an emote (such as kill 5 dark side villains with Han Solo). Cosmetics can only be purchased with credits.
Perusing the comments and I came to the realization that most people commenting didn't actually read (or comprehend) the article. This new film is only going to acknowledge Terminator 1 and 2. Virtually everything else is at this point essentially fan fiction. They are doing the same thing Disney did to the Expanded Universe for Star Wars.
In other words, all of you saying "another" reboot makes the plot convoluted... Not really. This is not a reboot, and it is not a parallel universe, or an altered timeline, or anything of the sort, because the only thing that happened, as far as this new film is concerned, are the events of Terminator 1 and 2. When/if you see this movie, forget anything else in the franchise exists, because as far as this movie is concerned, they don't.
I'm much more interested in Westworld at this point. TWD has been on a downward spiral for a while now. Too many silly choices made for the sole purpose of shocking viewers, rather than moving the plot in a reasonable direction.
@mrougeau: ah, that is a good idea. I love him, but if you were to remove him that would take away the main line of defence the kids and the Hawkins community has to the scientists and the alternate dimension. It could also expose Eleven.
I actually kind of like that we haven't lost any of the main kids. I get my "no one is safe" fix in a handful of other shows, and my favorites have died or have changed irreparably in those shows that they may as well have died.
I just hope if they do decide to axe one of the 4 boys, I really hope they don't spare a character just because they are popular. I really do not want any of the kids to die though. This doesn't have to be "that" kind of show. This has a very "spielberg" feel for me. I kind of want it to stay that way. The show is fun. It needs to stick to that.
@inferiorego: You said it was a "chaotic mess". Chaos is often difficult to follow, which also means it is easy to get lost. So it is not off the mark to read from your review that you were lost.
As a fellow writer I think you should consider a bit more of a professional response to criticism, or not even respond to it.
carlgrimes' comments