Battlefield V reveal- your thoughts?

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
MC1980 said:
erttheking said:
More like 3%. Which comes out to over 800,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military
"Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II, mostly as medics and nurses, which is over 3 percent of total personnel;"

So not infantry.

It's in the middle of the sentence you're quoting, how the hell you miss it.
"Mostly" =/= "all". Like, keep going down the page.

As far as the British goes, they were parachuting women spies and saboteurs into occupied France as part of the SOE. It wouldn't be unreasonable for them to link up with allied ground forces when they rolled in.

Lastly, y'all want to complain about the rarity of women in combat from a trailer showing a Churchill Gun Carrier, an exceedingly rare tank that was confirmed to have never, ever actually seen combat.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Silentpony said:
To be fair the overwehelming majority of female British soldiers served in AA batteries as spotlight operators, or nurses, or as unofficial prostitutes in the ATS and specifically didn't see frontline European theater action.
The irony is that the same can be said of male British soldiers. For every man on the frontline there were 20 behind him making sure he was clothed, fed and given the weapons and ammo necessary for him to fight. They all contributed vital work towards the defeat of Nazi-Germany, but the simple truth is that the stories about the guys who were at the front and did the physical fighting are more compelling. The same is true for the women, because there were many British women who ended up in combat by chance or choice, especially the many women who were with the OSS and spent a lot of time during the liberation of France leading resistance fighters in attacks on the Germans, acting as scouts and pathfinders for the allied armies etc..

It simply boggles my mind that everyone just readily accepts that we focus on the stories of the exceptional men that fought in WW2 (ie. Audry Murphy) while forgetting that most men who served never fired a weapon in anger. Yet when the same is asked about women during WW2 it suddenly becomes this unthinkable deal breaker that destroys realism and immersion for ever. This from the same trailer where a British soldier hip fires an MG-42 while on his back to hit and detonate a grenade his buddy threw so that the grenade destroys a low flying German aircraft.

It is a very selective interpretation of what's realistic and immersive, is all I am saying.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Silentpony said:
To be fair the overwehelming majority of female British soldiers served in AA batteries as spotlight operators, or nurses, or as unofficial prostitutes in the ATS and specifically didn't see frontline European theater action.
The irony is that the same can be said of male British soldiers. For every man on the frontline there were 20 behind him making sure he was clothed, fed and given the weapons and ammo necessary for him to fight. They all contributed vital work towards the defeat of Nazi-Germany, but the simple truth is that the stories about the guys who were at the front and did the physical fighting are more compelling. The same is true for the women, because there were many British women who ended up in combat by chance or choice, especially the many women who were with the OSS and spent a lot of time during the liberation of France leading resistance fighters in attacks on the Germans, acting as scouts and pathfinders for the allied armies etc..

It simply boggles my mind that everyone just readily accepts that we focus on the stories of the exceptional men that fought in WW2 (ie. Audry Murphy) while forgetting that most men who served never fired a weapon in anger. Yet when the same is asked about women during WW2 it suddenly becomes this unthinkable deal breaker that destroys realism and immersion for ever. This from the same trailer where a British soldier hip fires an MG-42 while on his back to hit and detonate a grenade his buddy threw so that the grenade destroys a low flying German aircraft.

It is a very selective interpretation of what's realistic and immersive, is all I am saying.
I don't think anyone is saying that there weren't women in the war, but what's the ratio to men? 1,000,000/1? Less maybe? So to be realistic and immersive, say 1 player of all the players of BFV gets to be a female soldier, total. If the game sells 2million copies then a second female soldier is unlocked.

So when DICE comes out like 'look here, this unit has 10 female soldiers in it, isn't that great?' a historian goes 'The British didn't even have 10 frontline female soldiers period'

Again no one is saying women didn't fight, but if EA is going for realistic and accurate, it should be that. The ratio should be absurd because the fact women weren't allowed on the frontlines in most nations was absurd.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Silentpony said:
Again no one is saying women didn't fight, but if EA is going for realistic and accurate, it should be that. The ratio should be absurd because the fact women weren't allowed on the frontlines in most nations was absurd.
They rather explicitly aren't. Just like how BF1 wasn't anywhere near remotely realistic, considering that several of the guns you regularly saw in matches were made in less than a hundred copies (ie. most of the semi-automatic rifles) and some of them weren't even on the battlefields of world war 1 or didn't make it past prototyping (the Hellriegel). If you can accept a game that has four British dudes in WW1 charging across no man's land with Hellriegel's after putting a remote detonation explosive atop a zeppelin and parachuting off of it with said prototype SMGs blazing, only to land next to a British squad in an A7V (total number built 20-ish, which is what you see in about five hours of BF1) joining the assault, but feel that the inclusion of women or black people in exaggerated amounts in a WW2 setting is were realism breaks that really does say more about you and your perceptions on realism and immersion then it does DICE or EA.
 

Ninjamedic

New member
Dec 8, 2009
2,569
0
0
Gethsemani said:
a game that is essentially providing light entertainment of the worst conflict in human history, that claimed some 70+ million lives worldwide.
That's actually my main objection to the game myself funnily enough. Well, for the marketing and presentation at least, I;m not going to look down on people for playing it or anything.

I should also say the last Battlefield I enjoyed was Bad Company and Modern Warfare put me off modern shooters.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Bob_McMillan said:
If that lady is the character model for a whole class in the game, then a) you have a way too distinct player model for a class that is going to picked by essentially a quarter of the server and b) every single player using that class is going to have a bionic arm, even if you are a fan of this aesthetic you can't say that won't look weird.

If it's just a customizable thing, then you're essentially turning someone's grave injury into a fucking cosmetic item, that doesn't sound right.

I now have a feeling this lady is just going to be in singleplayer or something.
DICE has said that all soldiers in multiplayer will be customizable, so she, just like the rest of the outrageous crew (seriously, no one has anything to say about the paratrooper with the Katana, the black guy in a weird mix of tanker, paratrooper and infantry gear and two pairs of goggles or the dude running around in a tank top and non-regulation beard?) is probably meant as a showcase of what kind of customization you can achieve in multiplayer.

Besides, getting hung up on a prosthetic as a customization option as distasteful is pretty weird when you are talking about a game that is essentially providing light entertainment of the worst conflict in human history, that claimed some 70+ million lives worldwide.
To add to this, the trailer is definitely multiplayer and as far as we know none of the people shown are in single player. We see people in the trailer get shot and come back as well as the squad spawn notification at one point, the multiplayer UI shows up after the plane crashes showing the conquest control points and tickets up top.

Given the tone of the war stories from BF1 (dogfighting around zeppelins over Britain, and the juggernaut armor charge with a machine gun), the single player characters are almost definitely going to be pretty pulpy compared to more sim games like Verdun, Red Orchestra, or what I've heard about Post Scriptum, but I would guess they are going to be more grounded than the multiplayer customization.

The thing I think is throwing people in this trailer, other than the customization, is likely that the last couple BF reveals have been more about brief glimpses of combat and vehicles or shots from the single player campaign. The BF1 reveal was mostly just brief shots of tanks, planes, horses, and boats. BF 3 & 4 were both just shots of the single player campaign and brief shots of generic modern military action. I doubt people will care much when the actual game comes out, like how COD WWII had an uptick in sales despite complaints about being able to play as a Black female German soldier in multiplayer. It's more a case of the games audience has certain expectations about these types of trailers, so tends to jump the gun a lot when a company defies those expectations.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,464
3,005
118
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Looks like a pre-rendered trailer. Most of the movements in the game don't look like how things move in an fps so it doesn't really tell us anything but that its ww2. Eitherway, it won't be as good as Bad Company 2 was, partially since it won't be on steam so I won't be getting it. Still not gonna fuck with origin, just not gonna do it.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
Night witches don?t count? Also I guess we?re apologists for not grinding our teeth at one historically inaccurate thing in a series that isn?t historically accurate. While naysayers ignore far bigger historical fuck ups
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,464
3,005
118
erttheking said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
Night witches don?t count? Also I guess we?re apologists for not grinding our teeth at one historically inaccurate thing in a series that isn?t historically accurate. While naysayers ignore far bigger historical fuck ups
Count them in, but Russia's stunts were wholly segregated, primarily propagandistic and more often than not the exception than the rule. There were no women fighting on the battlefront on the Western front for the French, British or American forces. And I think that to pretend that they did belittles their actual homefront/sideline service, which was just as valuable.
undeadsuitor said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
If you want to play a historically accurate game you shouldn't be playing a battlefield game
I'm all about dumb fun. I don't even think WW2 is a touchy subject. I liked Inglorious Basterds. I liked Wolfenstein: The New Order, which features tons of female soldiers and officers. But Battlefield has always had a closer relationship to reality and the effect of some choice but very deliberate inaccuracies is uncanny. Context is everything.

 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,175
1,851
118
Country
Philippines
So like, do we just not get notifs anymore when people quote our posts? I haven't been on here in a while, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

Gethsemani said:
DICE has said that all soldiers in multiplayer will be customizable, so she, just like the rest of the outrageous crew (seriously, no one has anything to say about the paratrooper with the Katana, the black guy in a weird mix of tanker, paratrooper and infantry gear and two pairs of goggles or the dude running around in a tank top and non-regulation beard?) is probably meant as a showcase of what kind of customization you can achieve in multiplayer.

Besides, getting hung up on a prosthetic as a customization option as distasteful is pretty weird when you are talking about a game that is essentially providing light entertainment of the worst conflict in human history, that claimed some 70+ million lives worldwide.
I actually just noticed the katana guy and the black dude, although considering how much spotlight they gave bionic lady (they literally zoom in on her claw at some times), you can hardly blame me. The katana thing... what the fuck is that shit.

Anyway, you do have a point. This is a first for me, what other game has ever given you the option to be an amputee with a prosthetic arm? I mean, the obvious reason why most people are okay with WWII is because of the passage of time. But injuries that result in the loss of a limb still happen today, and I wonder what a person with a prosthetic arm would feel about what happened to them being turned into decoration in a video game.


Gordon_4 said:
I didn't notice her using a bolt action, but I agree, that would be difficult as fuck to use with one working hand.
Not really. Any shooter worth their damn, especially of the sharpshooter or sniper variety, will cycle the bolt without taking the rifle off their shoulder. When you do it that way you are using your shoulder as a brace for the rifle, which means that whether you've got a stable grip on the front hand guard or not isn't important. The point of doing it like that is to preserve your aim for a follow up shot and it is pretty basic drill for bolt action rifles.[/quote]

Huh? But how would you keep the rifle braced against your shoulder to cycle the bolt? Also I meant it would be hard to actually aim the rifle. Surely a bionic arm is not at all ideal for accurate sniping.

Besides that, there were part of the trailer where bionic lady was actually carrying the rifle with her prosthetic arm, and I'm no expert on WWII era prosthesis, but I don't think that should be possible?

EDIT: This prosthetic arm is bugging me so much! I've moved on from wondering why it's in the game to how the heck its going to work.

For example, just reloading your weapons. Pistols, I've seen people reload one handed. I even watched a video where a guy reloaded an AK with one hand. But these all involved a reload process that takes way longer than a conventional reload. Is DICE going to take that into account? If they do, why would anyone choose to have it as an option?

I know I'm really overthinking this but I just got on break and I'm really bored.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Johnny Novgorod said:
erttheking said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
Night witches don?t count? Also I guess we?re apologists for not grinding our teeth at one historically inaccurate thing in a series that isn?t historically accurate. While naysayers ignore far bigger historical fuck ups
Count them in, but Russia's stunts were wholly segregated, primarily propagandistic and more often than not the exception than the rule. There were no women fighting on the battlefront on the Western front for the French, British or American forces. And I think that to pretend that they did belittles their actual homefront/sideline service, which was just as valuable.
The French Resistance would like a word with you. Though I concede to you on the technical aspects of your argument for the rest.

As for belittling, Battlefield and Call of Duty kind of belittle everything about the wars they cover, it kind of reached that point where Battlefield 1942 had a map where one side was playing as Nazis gunning down allied soldiers landing on Ohama Beach, or generally just allowing armies to spawn with weapons used mainly by the enemy and aim SMGs with ungodly accuracy.

I mean seriously, come the hell on. It's arbitrary as all hell to call this belittling and not take issue with everything else war shooters have been doing since their inception. Isn't it belittling to everyone who was wounded to imply that you can heal up with just a med kit or ten seconds behind cover? Isn't it belittling to engineers to imply that you can fix a nearly destroyed tank by holding a repair tool on it for twenty seconds? Isn't it belittling to gunners to have people running around and shoulder firing LMGs with pin point accuracy?

Also, Battlefield stopped being anywhere close to historically accurate with Battlefield 1...oh who am I kidding, it was gone long before that.

https://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Amazing+bf4+kill+i+made+this+out+of+a+youtube_0af43a_5164751.gif

Honestly the only game series that I ever saw take the attempt to portray warfare as realistically as possible were Verdun and Red Orchestra.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
Huh? But how would you keep the rifle braced against your shoulder to cycle the bolt? Also I meant it would be hard to actually aim the rifle. Surely a bionic arm is not at all ideal for accurate sniping.

Besides that, there were part of the trailer where bionic lady was actually carrying the rifle with her prosthetic arm, and I'm no expert on WWII era prosthesis, but I don't think that should be possible?

EDIT: This prosthetic arm is bugging me so much! I've moved on from wondering why it's in the game to how the heck its going to work.

For example, just reloading your weapons. Pistols, I've seen people reload one handed. I even watched a video where a guy reloaded an AK with one hand. But these all involved a reload process that takes way longer than a conventional reload. Is DICE going to take that into account? If they do, why would anyone choose to have it as an option?

I know I'm really overthinking this but I just got on break and I'm really bored.
They make attachments for this, otherwise you get the hook wedged towards the front as best you can or open the hook and clamp it around the front, some of those prosthetics have adjustable grip strength, works best with a notch or handgrip you can use to keep the rifle snug against the shoulder, then use your hand to cycle the bolt.

It's possible, though yeah, I doubt any amputee could match the speed and precision of even a moderately a trained shooter.

As for DICE, I seriously doubt the prosthetic will effect anything gameplay wise, like how Sea of Thieves lets you have a hook hand but it doesn't effect anything beyond visuals, the most I would expect would be that they might change some of the reload animations to make them look at least passably believable with the hook involved.

Considering in the past their normal reload animations, especially for heavy weapons, trend towards unbelievably fast and sometimes impossible to pull off moving or standing up, they've never really been concerned about weapon realism in the past beyond, "did it exist as a real weapon or prototype at some point", after that, as long as the weapon obeys archetypes (SMG, shotgun, etc.) they'll adjust distance, accuracy, round capacity, and reload speed with game play rather than any sort of realism in mind. Some of the BF1 weapons would be almost impossible to reload from a standing position, generally DICE has always gone for arcadey game play over simulation level realism.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
The fact that there's a Churchill Gun Carrier seeing combat (and going 2-3 times as fast as a Churchill could) shows just what level of realism DICE is working with.

Seriously, if even a single British secret operative lady from the SOE linked up with allied line troops and shot a nazi, that's one more Nazi than any CGC ever killed.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I like how all the Battlefield V apologists are running around scrounging the same 4 or 5 Russian female snipers to prove a point that, sorry, just isn't true. Aside from that one Russian unit that mostly did photo ops there were no female soldiers deployed on the battlefront, nor did they engage in direct combat during WW2. Most Allied forces didn't even allow it.
If you want to play a historically accurate game you shouldn't be playing a battlefield game
To shamelessly steal a point made in a post on reddit that someone linked me in a discord group, it isn't that the games aren't historically accurate; they never were and never would be. However, the marketing and presentation of the game had the "air" of accuracy, and that is what is important. That supposed "accuracy" was the fantasy being sold. Like, when you watch an add for a sports car they show you attractive people driving around big cities being important; they don't show you the reality, that these things are mostly bought by balding, out of shape, middle-aged guys in a midlife crisis.
 
Nov 9, 2015
323
80
33
erttheking said:
it kind of reached that point where Battlefield 1942 had a map where one side was playing as Nazis gunning down allied soldiers landing on Ohama Beach
Man, that's like everyone's dream back then after watching Saving Private Ryan. MoH:AA did it first, and it was amazing. MoH:AA also did a lot of crazy things like a level where you drive a captured Tiger II. Also in that game you could play as a female soldier in multiplayer.
Also, Battlefield stopped being anywhere close to historically accurate with Battlefield 1...oh who am I kidding, it was gone long before that.
Yeah, you can do ridiculous things in Battlefield, but then again you could also do ridiculous things in ARMA. These aren't really things you are supposed to do, but that's the fun part.


For shooters, there are some concessions that you have to make, for example ARMA has medkits. You want to avoid situations where people blow themselves up with grenades so they can respawn with a new pair of legs.
Honestly the only game series that I ever saw take the attempt to portray warfare as realistically as possible were Verdun and Red Orchestra.
Red Orchestra series was borked after RO2. It's a bunch of nonsense where people run around with OP MG42s and MG-Rambo their way into your base and spawn camp you, and then get 100 kills at the end of the game. The worst part is that the MG42 wasn't even used in Stalingrad, which makes you realize how important historical accuracy and realism is.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,045
1,007
118
I don said:
Did you really just compare obvious mod content against regular content to make a 'Silly thing happen everywhere' point?
You are bad at making points.
 
Nov 9, 2015
323
80
33
Elijin said:
Did you really just compare obvious mod content against regular content to make a 'Silly thing happen everywhere' point?
You are bad at making points.
It looked like in-game objects thrown together in the level editor to me. Silly things do not happen everywhere, just like in Battlefield highlights of trickshots are not representative of gameplay.

Here's something better I guess.