Battlefield Vagina
Someone with entirely too much time on their hands.
Are they? The locations, weapons, tanks, outfits, factions etc. follow the WW2 setting very much. It would be hard to describe Battlefield V without mentioning World War 2 to someone who doesn't know anything about it.
They could do that, and such games already exist, like Wolfenstein. Doesn't mean they have to. It's not binary, like you said. Creative freedom doesn't mean the developers have to go all the way to fantasy. In this case it was deemed that adding female soldiers doesn't take too much away from the game and allows for more customization in multiplayer, which is a matter of taste.
r/battlefield was always a shit subreddit but it basically became r/KiA-lite with the whole BFV marketing shit.
Make the game casual tbh.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Howard_Grubb_Reflexvisier_2.jpg
Pictured here: Howard Grubb, the inventor of the reflex sight, testing his design in either 1900 or 1901.
Battlefield, more recently especially, has heavily relied on the experimental and the unusual to fill out its equipment arsenals, but they rarely go completely fictional outside of BF4's final stand and BF1942's jetpacks.
All the campaigns after Bad Company 2 have been shit anyway
BC2 wasn't that good either tbh. The only reason to play it was the humor. The gameplay and story bore me to death back then.
The BC2 campaign was almost entirely "Ramirez clear out that Burger House!", but with characters people actually gave a shit about and destruction physics that were exceptionally novel at the time.
DICE kinda struggle to do solid campaigns in the BF series in general. But they can make some decent characters for those campaigns when they put their minds to it.
If you really want a 'realistic' WW2 Battlefield type game ,there's the shitshow called Post Scriptum.
Expecting a AAA developer to restrict/make realistic/or otherwise remove the arcade elements from their game's historical background because of some sudden sense of realism needed is kind of silly. In addition, if you really want to argue against the idea of women in combat roles in a game like Battlefield V, you don't even need to talk about historical points, just remember that games like COW WW2 had Black Nazi Women.
There's tone deaf and then there's 'I clearly don't give a fuck.' Guess which ones Activision and EA sit under.
When you launch AC Odyssey the game more or less says right at the start "We made the game how we like it, it isn't historical, and we don't care what you think."
The flip side of the coin for this would be, say, Kingdom Come Deliverance, where it's the same, but opposite, espousal of "We made the game how we like it and we don't care what you think.".
People complain about woman avatars in multiplayer Battlefield V, but they don't seem to care about tanks and weapons existing in years when they hadn't been made yet.
They are just video games. They don't actually have to be historical unless that is a selling point. If the racists, sexists and xenophobes of the world want to go and make the kind of game that they like whilst trying to protect themselves under the flag of historical authenticity, they should go ahead and acquire the skills, knowledge and find the market to do so.
Where do you even draw the line when it comes to historical inaccuracies in a video game. Like battlefield takes tons of creative freedoms in every game, so when people pick things like "the game has girls in it" as their hill to die on rather than literally anything else, it honestly just shows more about them as a person than inspiring any real discussion. Especially when they get this pathetically angry over it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDvlO9-dxnE
Having actually seen gameplay footage, it looks like a better BF1, just in World War II, like almost no problems with the in-game presentation. The real problem here lies in the frankly incompetent marketing EA and DICE have provided. Not only did they legit put too much emphasis on "CYBORG WAHMIN WID CRICKET BATS RAPPED IN BARB WIRE" and "DA TOPLESS SAMURAI BRAVEHEART INNA WINTERLANDS" but their way of dealing with the backlash was like they wanted the game to fail.
I mean yeah, there was some spy lady with a named prosthetic limb and a British soldier with a sword but the way EA and DICE focused on these really extreme sorts of cosmetics for their presentations gave the impression that that's the standard we're supposed to expect. Not to mention the goggle redundancy.
I think DICE said they ditched the alternate history stuff from BF1 in favor of focusing on "unknown frontiers of irl WWII" but it's still modern Battlefield so it has almost no fidelity to real history anyway at which point I just have to ask myself why they ditched alternate history to begin with, for all the talk I see about creative freedom, DICE literally took it away from themselves.
Just a comment on Battlefield's "realism" and/or "accuracy"
https://youtu.be/2bwguwsSYV8
If you play the game you basically never notice women unless it's screams. Everyone wears really thick clothing and has short hair with helmets, it is such a non issue.
IMO, the problem is internal consistency, not realism. Battlefield has always tried to feel internally consistent to the time period it's representing. So if you're playing BF1, then everything should be internally consistent with WWI. That isn't the same thing as being historically accurate. It just means it all logically makes sense in the universe. While widespread experimental tech might not be historically accurate, it is internally consistent with the technology at the time.
Having something like women in front line combat in WWII does not fit in the same way. There's absolutely nothing internally consistent about a game trying to present a logically consistent WWII situation while also having women on the front line. It simply didn't happen in the way it's being presented. Did experimental sights get used? Yes, at MUCH lower levels than what is presented in game, but they existed and were used. Did the Allies paradrop women into Europe as grunt soldiers? No, never. It didn't happen. Both things are historically inaccurate, but only one of them is internally inconsistent.
With that said, I think the game is fun, and, as has been mentioned, the female soldiers are almost imperceptible except for really awkward high pitched screams that happen here and there. That, of course, doesn't do anything to justify their inclusion. I think the more weirdly PC thing is something like making the splash art of a woman soldier in a war fought 99% by men, and for a game were 99% of the game is made of battles fought by men. It seems like nothing more than pandering.
Honestly I think a number of things contributed to this game not meeting profit margins for EA that should be looked at first.
Big releases this quarter. You have RDR2. You have Black Ops 4. You have Just Cause 4. You have Fallout 76 (which was also a bit of a flop but don't interrupt me son). Most importantly, you have RDR2. Big release. Think most people would take a great Rockstar game over something by EA
EA is still reeling from negative PR over Battlefront 2. Will BF5 have lootboxes? Consumers may not want to take the risk!
Yeah... elephant in the room... I'll be honest, telling customers "Hey if you don't like our changes to history then don't buy the game!" isn't a smart move.
Honestly on the last point, I don't give a shit about how you can play as a black female Nazi with a prosthetic arm. I remember when character customization was something applauded rather then scolded. No, my problem is this. In one of the trailer shots, we saw an allied solider carrying a Katana.
What the fuck is a goddamn shitting Katana going to do against the third fucking reich? Can it deflect bullets like Naruto or some shit? Katanas aren't even great swords and they certainly don't stack up against an army carrying submachineguns and using tanks.
What bugs me more than any pretence or realism or historical accuracy is the fact that character customisation is implemented not because they think it'll make the game better or more appealing, but because it's just a vehicle for microtransactions.
IIRC there was that one dude in the UK army who carried a sword and managed to score a kill with a longbow. So it's not that big a stretch...
If only the reveal trailer was different and the game would be the same as it is now I bet people wouldn't mind all of this like alot. First impression is a gold key.
You can't play as black female nazi with a prostethic arm. Well, at least for now anyway. You can only be a Caucasian when playing as the Axis.
And I've explained this on the previous page;
"A British soldier with a katana - oh the horror. Every Battlefield since BF3 has had a bunch of cool and wacky melee weapons you could use, but a katana? A katana? One of the things that hints at the pacific campaign later on is shunned to hell."
Battlefield 1 had melee weapons, both sharp and blunt, that were either historically used or could plausibly pass as something that was used. And all factions could use whichever weapon they wanted, including the melee weapons.
Now, obviously, if DICE really adds the pacific campaign later on, that katana won't seem that out of place, will it? You can simply unlock every weapon the devs add to the game and then use it on whichever map you like. It might be anachronistic, but that's the way it's been for a long ass time.
To be completely honest; the reveal trailer was badly made. Although they showed pretty much every new feature, they caused a massive controversy by showing those wacky customizations, but then again, if they didn't choose these extremes, would we even know there was character customization in the game? If all they had in the trailer was just a bunch of soldiers dressed in historically accurate uniforms, would we even notice it unless the devs explicitly told us about it? That's like the only reason for them to do that I could come up with. Anyway, due to all the polarizing politics and all that, *I feel like the alt-right picked up on this fairly quickly and what could've been peacefully resolved without all this controversy around it, they fanned the flames and sown further discord. I truly feel like there's a lot of misinformation going on about the game. People that haven't even played it criticise it for things that aren't in the game and haven't been in it even during the beta. The game's launch has been buggy but from what I've heard before, BF3, BF4 and BF1 all had pretty buggy launches as well. This is the first Battlefield game that I've played from the launch, so I have no idea if it's really true, but I remember seeing videos showcasing many of the bugs in previous games.
It's also been mentioned on Battlefield reddit that the game isn't selling very well compared to Battlefield 1 and that the game can be now bought with massive discounts and DICE is even giving people a chance to play it for free for 7 days. And frankly, I feel like that's the best way to combat all the negative press about the game. If people are complaining that they won't buy the game and that's shit and boring without even trying it, then here's a chance for them to try it for free and let them form their own opinions.
I am not afraid to admit that I didn't buy the game for the full price. I pre-purchased the key, waited for a half a year and now I'm enjoying the game. It's buggy. There's not much content in it yet, but all the recent Battlefield games have been like that. You gotta wait for the DLCs or in this game's case - The Tides of War.
*I base this assumption on the fact that Battlefield reddit has many inflammatory posts from users who frequent The_Donald and other similar sub-reddits.
the thing is it's fiction, and along as it's consistent with itself anything is fair game. in dice's bfv women could fight in combat roles.
big whoop.
Where did you get the first line from? According to a source of mine at playstation EU, the sales are doing just fine. It's not BF1 levels of good, but that's to be expected.
I am guessing this from this video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXQ21BtKXlg
Huh. I was under the impression the game was a flop from stuff like it's quick repricing rather then "Just not being as successful as EA was hoping"
In this case, add a 4. to the list
4: There are way more WW2 games and barely any WW1 games. This is why BF1 was a hit while BF5 is just ehhhh. Like I can only name one or two WW1 games off the top of my head, meanwhile as for the second? The COD before our current one was fucking WW2.
It doesn't really detract or add to the quality of the game. It does take me out of it a little when you hear a female scream across the battlefield or a qt asian britbong fem medic revives me, but that's all stuff that is only there for a moment. Sort of keeps me from getting "into" the game like BF4/1 let me even though they were equally as wacky gameplay wise.
Unless the game was somehow universally better then RDR2, I wasn't planning on getting it anyways. I'm just not a battlefield guy and take the newest COD over it
That's not the only reason BF1 was a hit. It was also the first next gen Battlefield, and was a massive step up in graphical fidelity. Plus it brought a lot of new things, like war stories and behemoths.
this is really something that has been irking me. a lot of people are all of a sudden super worried about historical accuracy in battlefield, it just happens to be when they add women and black people to it.
i honestly do find it kinda dumb and wish they had gone for an actual alt history scenario, but to be quite honest i don't care that much and my chances of playing the game or not are not affected
the incelly racist t_d types are just hopping on that train and making a lot of noise about it in attempt to sabotage a company that tried to be more inclusive (regardless of whether they did it right or not)
You're looking too deep into it. They literally just scream because they're offended, because ugh femoids. Attempting to sabotage anything is beyond the scope of their attention span.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
