Forums - Gaming Discussion - All Things BATTLEFIELD V

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 with no intentions to reproduce facts.

 

Then people  can get used to the idea of facing it like a fantasy as Metal Gear or Wolfenstein.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 23 May 2018

Around the Network

it was a painful reveal, i unfortunately watched the whole thing to get to the trailer at the end. it was brutal, jokes akin to the 2016 VGAs, just terrible. and i dont know if it was worth it or not.

yes it looked good but it wasnt game play. i am still buying it, not day one as they have notorious online issues first week. plus while the trailer was playing while the person was trying to run through the street, i said if it was game play he would have just been sniped or sniped at. :)



 

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.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 May 2018

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 paramilitary resistances, in the other armies they primarily served in backline non-combat roles such as nurses, drivers, mechanics, or cooks, with some also serving in anti-aircraft divisions. 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. How could both CoD and Battlefield screw up so badly this year? Thank God for RDR2, RDR2 is going to stomp these 2 games into the ground in October. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 23 May 2018

I have to admit, the reaction a lot of people are having to women being shown fighting in the game is pretty much exactly what I expected it to be, and its just as stupid as I thought it would be. Just get over it. The game is a work of fiction that uses historical events as a backdrop to tell a highly fictionalized story. I don't get why people even expect them to be historically accurate in anything but the most significant details and events that most people know anyway.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

2. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

Around the Network

Well reading more infos the number of women in campaign mode will be small trying to reproduce the amount of women who fought on the war. Maybe people will not be upset after a proper campaign gameplay.



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.

Last edited by Hiku - on 23 May 2018

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 happened in the story of Battlefield 1.
Because they've always taken 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 thing is, Battlefield didn't used to be like that. While it was never exactly Arma in terms of realism, most of it's fanbase flocked to Battlefield starting with Battlefield 3 because it aimed for more realism than CoD did at the time. Nowadays though, it feels like Battlefield has evolved into something much less realistic, like DICE is trying to fight the Call of Duty studios at their own game, instead of doing their own unique middle ground approach between arcade and realism like previous Battlefield games did. While the move away from realism towards CoD-like over the top action sequences did favors for the campaign imo (BF1 had a better campaign than any previous mainline Battlefield), this move away from realism is not doing any favors for the multiplayer, the Battlefield fans don't like it one bit. Each Battlefield's multiplayer manages to feel more arcadey and less realistic than the last. There's a reason why one of the top comments on the reveal trailer today is "it's like Battlefield and CoD had a baby and it miscarried", that really is what it feels like. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 23 May 2018

shikamaru317 said:
Hiku said:

For the same reason things like crash landing on top of a zeppelin and walking on top of it happened in the story of Battlefield 1.
Because they've always taken 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 thing is, Battlefield didn't used to be like that. While it was never exactly Arma in terms of realism, most of it's fanbase flocked to Battlefield starting with Battlefield 3 because it aimed for more realism than CoD did at the time. Nowadays though, it feels like Battlefield has evolved into something much less realistic, like DICE is trying to fight the Call of Duty studios at their own game, instead of doing their own unique middle ground approach between arcade and realism like previous Battlefield. While the move away from realism towards over the top action sequences did favors for the campaign (BF1 had a better campaign than any previous mainline Battlefield), this move away from realism is not doing any favors for the multiplayer, the Battlefield fans don't like it. Each Battlefield's multiplayer manages to feel more arcadey and less realistic than the last.

That would have been cool if we saw the same kind of outrage/backlash towards Battlefield's shift in focus towards elements of fantasy. Or even if that was mentioned in the same paragraph as some of these complaints about females.
But when you don't see a whisper about that, but people up in arms because the character has a vagina, the issue people are having here doesn't come across as genuine.



Hiku said:
shikamaru317 said:

The thing is, Battlefield didn't used to be like that. While it was never exactly Arma in terms of realism, most of it's fanbase flocked to Battlefield starting with Battlefield 3 because it aimed for more realism than CoD did at the time. Nowadays though, it feels like Battlefield has evolved into something much less realistic, like DICE is trying to fight the Call of Duty studios at their own game, instead of doing their own unique middle ground approach between arcade and realism like previous Battlefield. While the move away from realism towards over the top action sequences did favors for the campaign (BF1 had a better campaign than any previous mainline Battlefield), this move away from realism is not doing any favors for the multiplayer, the Battlefield fans don't like it. Each Battlefield's multiplayer manages to feel more arcadey and less realistic than the last.

That would have been cool if we saw the same kind of outrage/backlash towards Battlefield's shift in focus towards elements of fantasy. Or even if that was mentioned in the same paragraph as some of these complaints about females.
But when you don't see a whisper about that, but people up in arms because the character has a vagina, the issue people are having here doesn't come across as genuine.

I personally take more issue with the prosthetic limb than with the fact that she's woman. At least a woman serving in a combat role is somewhat plausible. I know one of the campaigns in Battlefield V that has a playable woman is about a Norwegian Resistance fighter, that is historically accurate and therefore I have no problem with it (in fact I welcome it because I enjoy playing as women in games). However, the woman in the reveal trailer seems to be British, and though British women did see some combat in anti-aircraft divisions, they didn't see front line infantry combat like the trailer depicts. That coupled with the fact that she has a prosthetic limb (the British military would never send an amputee out into front line infantry combat, much less a female amputee), makes this trailer where I draw the line.

The reason that so many people are complaining about the women is because it's the straw that broke the camel's back for many of them. These last few years there has been a massive push for minority representation across all forms of entertainment; from tv, to movies, to games. In a way, it's admirable. Problem is, that this push for minority representation is counter-intuitive to authenticity in many cases. For instance, a tv show set in rural America, that has main cast members of every race. That just doesn't feel realistic, several races have very tiny populations in many parts of rural America, less than 1% of the total population, so it feels kind of unrealistic  to have main cast members of those races. Another example would be Call of Duty WW2 last year, where it was possible to play as a woman in multiplayer in Armies where women didn't serve in combat roles. At one point, Sledgehammer Games even showed a black soldier on the Nazi Team, I don't know if that made it into the game at release, but it caused a pretty big backlash before release when it was discovered. 

This movement for inclusivity even at the cost of realism has been so extreme the last few years, that it was only natural that a counter-movement would form against it. 

Edit: I also take issue with the fact that Battlefield V, much like Call of Duty WW2 last year, has no Nazi Iconography out of fear of offending somebody. People are much too easily offended nowadays, and I don't like it when fear of offense gets in the way of historical accuracy. As a history buff, I really hate it. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 23 May 2018