By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - All Things BATTLEFIELD V

I don't get the dislikes in the video. I get FPS games for mindless fun, and the trailer showed that in spades. Also don't get the women woman outrage. Yeah, I get that there were no soldiers with prosthesis fighting in the war, but maybe she isn't even enlisted and she's just a woman fighting for her country.



Around the Network
Hiku said:
CuCabeludo said:
If EA want stop upsetting people every WW game, they just need to put before every video something like: Attention: this is a fantasy inspired by reality.

Sounds like a good idea.
There are people who haven't realized that they take some gigantic liberties with the story for the sake of entertainment. This isn't World War Simulator.

 

Hiku said:
shikamaru317 said:

Wow, just watched the reveal trailer. That was really cringeworthy. Why is there a woman with a prosthetic arm fighting in WW2? Less than 2% of those who served in WW2 were women, and those that did didn't serve in combat roles except for the Russian army and the various resistances, in the other armies they served as nurses or cooks primarily. And they sure as heck didn't have people with a prosthetic limb out there fighting.

No wonder the trailer has far more dislikes than any previous Battlefield trailer, nearly the same like/dislike ratio as Black Ops 4, which has a futuristic setting that CoD fans don't want and no campaign. 

For the same reason things like crash landing on top of a zeppelin and walking on top of it had it's own cutscenes and story written for it in Battlefield 1.
Because they've always taken big liberties with the the events that the stories are based around. Some times they don't even care if the story is unrealistic, let alone based on reality. Entertainment is the primary focus.

The major plot points are going to revolve around true events, as per usual. Anything in between that cannot be expected to follow that trend.
The fact that this is what people get riled up about, but not all the other bogus stuff that happens in BF's campaigns, is pretty concerning to me when it comes to people's priorities.

I totally get it if someone says "I don't like this because I prefer playing as a male", but don't give me this argument about immersion and realism in the story.

go watch the full reveal. the devs flat out said IMMERSION is what they are aiming for. so putting a female character in that context, with a prosthetic arm none the less is flat out immersion breaking and goes against what the devs have said they want to do. 

 

and an unrealistic event is different from an unrealistic aspect of world building. the setting here is WW2, the devs said they want to explore that and explore the stories that WW2 had to tell. while the stories arent real they are clearly aiming to set the setting as a realisitic WW2 setting. this isnt a fantasy game nor do Dice want to make a fantasy game based on WW2, they flat out said this is a WW2 game. so when people complain about an wrong aspect of WW2 world building they do have a point and it has nothing to do with their view about gender equality.

the reality of the situation is that the female solider in the trailer, with a prosthetic arm (i mean seriously?) is clearly there to help push a political agenda and has nothing or little to do with proper world building and story telling. and THATS whats got people riled up. its not because the character in question is a female and they hate females. 

 

they can tell WW2 stories with awesome female characters involved and they can do it in a realistic way that doesnt seem ridiculous or makes one pause and say "umm what?", they dont need to add "badass female character number 9473" to represent women in the game. a prime example would be RDR2, it clearly wasnt a realistic story but they had amazing female characters like bonnie in the story, with actions that represented that time era accurately, its called good story telling and world building. 



So MS’s logo is in this trailer, which is standard, since MS have the marketing rights. The odd thing is, CoD’s trailers just released, and they did NOT have Sony/ps4 logos in any of the trailers. Anyone else find this odd? Could MS really have marketing rights for both BF AND CoD? This would seem to make the most sense, bc MS could be waiting to announce this for E3.



I get why people are mad at women in the game, I think they have a perfectly good reason to be mad if this game was marketed as a realistic and authentic take on WW2. I don't follow the games nor have I followed this game, so i I do not know what they've been touting to people via developer interviews and other gaming journalists.

If this wasn't touted as an authentic WW2 experience then handicap weird female makes sense if thats the case.



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

shikamaru317 said:
jason1637 said:

It wont. All  3 games should do quite well but they won't stomp each other.

Op: The trailer didn't do it for me but I'll try it on EA Access and if I like other I'll buy it. For now I'm definitely get Black Ops 4 and maybe BFV.

It might not stomp them, but it will definitely outsell them. RDR1 sold at least half of what GTA 4 sold (15m vs 25-30m). Does that mean RDR2 will sell half of what GTA V sold(47m)? Not necessarily, but I'd put my money on it selling at least 35m lifetime. Black Ops 4 and Battlefield V won't even come close to 35m lifetime. 

Lifetime yeah RDR2 will probably outsell them but if we are talking 2018 only I think Black Ops 4 is gonna come out on top.



Around the Network
bananaking21 said:
Hiku said:

Sounds like a good idea.
There are people who haven't realized that they take some gigantic liberties with the story for the sake of entertainment. This isn't World War Simulator.

 

Hiku said:

For the same reason things like crash landing on top of a zeppelin and walking on top of it had it's own cutscenes and story written for it in Battlefield 1.
Because they've always taken big liberties with the the events that the stories are based around. Some times they don't even care if the story is unrealistic, let alone based on reality. Entertainment is the primary focus.

The major plot points are going to revolve around true events, as per usual. Anything in between that cannot be expected to follow that trend.
The fact that this is what people get riled up about, but not all the other bogus stuff that happens in BF's campaigns, is pretty concerning to me when it comes to people's priorities.

I totally get it if someone says "I don't like this because I prefer playing as a male", but don't give me this argument about immersion and realism in the story.

go watch the full reveal. the devs flat out said IMMERSION is what they are aiming for. so putting a female character in that context, with a prosthetic arm none the less is flat out immersion breaking and goes against what the devs have said they want to do. 

 

and an unrealistic event is different from an unrealistic aspect of world building. the setting here is WW2, the devs said they want to explore that and explore the stories that WW2 had to tell. while the stories arent real they are clearly aiming to set the setting as a realisitic WW2 setting. this isnt a fantasy game nor do Dice want to make a fantasy game based on WW2, they flat out said this is a WW2 game. so when people complain about an wrong aspect of WW2 world building they do have a point and it has nothing to do with their view about gender equality.

the reality of the situation is that the female solider in the trailer, with a prosthetic arm (i mean seriously?) is clearly there to help push a political agenda and has nothing or little to do with proper world building and story telling. and THATS whats got people riled up. its not because the character in question is a female and they hate females. 

 

they can tell WW2 stories with awesome female characters involved and they can do it in a realistic way that doesnt seem ridiculous or makes one pause and say "umm what?", they dont need to add "badass female character number 9473" to represent women in the game. a prime example would be RDR2, it clearly wasnt a realistic story but they had amazing female characters like bonnie in the story, with actions that represented that time era accurately, its called good story telling and world building. 

If they really wanted realistic immersion there would be perma death, and you would not be able to randomly spawn into planes etc.



I can no longer tell the difference between "SJW" people and "Anti-SJW" people.



EA need to start the damage control process and remove the prosthetics from the roll of customizations.



Why is the delux edition out before the standard edition?
What kind of shit is EA trying to pull???



pitzy272 said:
So MS’s logo is in this trailer, which is standard, since MS have the marketing rights. The odd thing is, CoD’s trailers just released, and they did NOT have Sony/ps4 logos in any of the trailers. Anyone else find this odd? Could MS really have marketing rights for both BF AND CoD? This would seem to make the most sense, bc MS could be waiting to announce this for E3.

Who cares at this point? xb1 is 50 million units in the hole, no amount of BF and COD marketing is gonna get them outta that hole.