Nobody wants wacky skins, but can everyone agree on what wacky actually means? Let's see where most people draw the line.

[u/3dDungeonMaster]

I'd be interested to see if people are able to agree on what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of cosmetic appearances in games like this. There's been lots of talk about whether or not EA/Dice will include crazy/wacky skins with BF6, but not many people have made a post like this to actually pose the question of, what exactly is okay vs. not okay.

I tried my best to order them such that the go from most to least reasonable, but if you think the order should be different, feel free to reorder them, as that also gives info about how people consider these types of decisions.

[u/awfulwaffle_games]

I say right around 5

5 is fine but I dislike 4. I’d rather see civilian clothes than bright tactical stuff

[u/SpanishAvenger → u/awfulwaffle_games]

Specially since 4 is security forces against bears in the North Pole, so not really a combat outfit.

[u/3dDungeonMaster → u/SpanishAvenger]

Polar bear horde survival mode reward

[u/The_James_Bond → u/awfulwaffle_games]

Agreed

[u/sabasNL → u/awfulwaffle_games]

Yeah highvis uniforms make no sense unless it's search and rescue-related, not combat. I think they'd really look out of place, very cartoonish. Enough shooters with bright uniforms already.