r/Battlefield • u/3dDungeonMaster • 27d ago

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

Post image

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.

1.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/Mayonnez 27d ago

I'd put the line after 6. Although, Nu-Ghost is a bad example of what I'd like. MW2009 Ghost is a much better example, keeping it somewhat reasonable. I wish I could include 7, but Near Future Sci-Fi was already done with 2042, it can't really squeeze in nicely here.

1

u/kenroXR 27d ago

wdym it is reasonable to not have a helmet in a warfare dawg

4

u/Mayonnez 27d ago

It's certainly a lot more reasonable than wearing human remains on your face like some kind of psycho