Battlefield V reveal- your thoughts?

[Zombie Proof]

As to the other blatant inaccuracies you point out: of course I expect a game to simplify history, what it shouldn't do in all seriousness is contradict it while pretending otherwise.

Then, again, you shouldn't be playing Battlefield (or, in fact, pretty much any game based around WW2). The number of liberties they require is absolutely colossal, and unavoidable if they want to make a game that's an ounce of fun to play.

One requires utterly arbitrary and nonsensical historical blinkers in order to believe that a female combatant is "uncanny", but not to feel the same way about constant action and combat in the field of war.

^^This.

Seriously, if all the "bonafide" fetishists aren't actively and frantically playing Red Orchestra 2 or something like that they need to shut the hell up and let vidya be vidya lol

 

[Squilookle]

As to the other blatant inaccuracies you point out: of course I expect a game to simplify history, what it shouldn't do in all seriousness is contradict it while pretending otherwise.

Then, again, you shouldn't be playing Battlefield (or, in fact, pretty much any game based around WW2). The number of liberties they require is absolutely colossal, and unavoidable if they want to make a game that's an ounce of fun to play.

One requires utterly arbitrary and nonsensical historical blinkers in order to believe that a female combatant is "uncanny", but not to feel the same way about constant action and combat in the field of war.

And yet- the only inaccuracy claims that could be made against the original BF 1942 were composite weapons (like the Japanese using German rifles), the lack of certain uniforms (everyone's an infantry grunt), and the physics being a bit loose to allow everyone to master the vehicles. Fairly few liberties at all, yet that game was an ounce of fun to play. For over a decade. People even still play it today.

I'd say quite a few are more annoyed that DICE had done it before, and done it well, but is this time caving in to a customisation trend currently dominating shooters. Consider the tone of the BF:V trailer to that of the original:


Even with its 2002 graphics, BF1942 feels a lot more authentic (so far) than the promotional material we've seen for BF:V.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And yet- the only inaccuracy claims that could be made against the original BF 1942 were composite weapons (like the Japanese using German rifles), the lack of certain uniforms (everyone's an infantry grunt), and the physics being a bit loose to allow everyone to master the vehicles. Fairly few liberties at all, yet that game was an ounce of fun to play. For over a decade. People even still play it today.

This is an absurd over-simplification. BF 1942 was a good game, one I played a lot back in the days, but it is nowhere near realistic or historically accurate. I could make this post absurdly long while pointing out all the unrealistic or inaccurate aspects (1/4th of all Axis soldiers using StG44s, T-34/85s and Tigers showing up in maps set in 1942, Tanks on Wake Island etc. etc.), but sufficient to say is that BF 1942 was an arcade team FPS first and foremost and it did that really well. No Battlefield or CoD game has been realistic or accurate and that is all fine and well, because a game, as Silvanus has pointed out, has to be hyper realistic to be any fun.

As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, what both BF and CoD sells is the illusion of authenticity, the idea that you can be in the great battles of WW2 and make a difference. That should never be confused for actual authenticity.

 

[Silvanus]

And yet- the only inaccuracy claims that could be made against the original BF 1942 were composite weapons (like the Japanese using German rifles), the lack of certain uniforms (everyone's an infantry grunt), and the physics being a bit loose to allow everyone to master the vehicles. Fairly few liberties at all, yet that game was an ounce of fun to play. For over a decade. People even still play it today.

I'd say quite a few are more annoyed that DICE had done it before, and done it well, but is this time caving in to a customisation trend currently dominating shooters. Consider the tone of the BF:V trailer to that of the original:

Even with its 2002 graphics, BF1942 feels a lot more authentic (so far) than the promotional material we've seen for BF:V.

Sorry to tell you, but BF1942 is not an authentic depiction of the experience of war (and nor should it be). If it were, most players wouldn't be in constant active combat (especially the engineers, anti-tank guys and medics)-- and those that were in active combat would be having a grotesquely unfun time of it. If a game lets you run around shooting the other team and having a whale of a time, then it's not an authentic depiction of war.

To ask for true authenticity is to ask for a very grim, unenjoyable experience. A lot of people complaining aren't really complaining about a lack of authenticity; they're not historians, and other incongruities pass them by. They just don't like one particular characteristic (which is why so many comments on the trailer on Youtube are moaning about feminism and SJWs).

 

[Squilookle]

And yet- the only inaccuracy claims that could be made against the original BF 1942 were composite weapons (like the Japanese using German rifles), the lack of certain uniforms (everyone's an infantry grunt), and the physics being a bit loose to allow everyone to master the vehicles. Fairly few liberties at all, yet that game was an ounce of fun to play. For over a decade. People even still play it today.

This is an absurd over-simplification. BF 1942 was a good game, one I played a lot back in the days, but it is nowhere near realistic or historically accurate. I could make this post absurdly long while pointing out all the unrealistic or inaccurate aspects (1/4th of all Axis soldiers using StG44s, T-34/85s and Tigers showing up in maps set in 1942, Tanks on Wake Island etc. etc.), but sufficient to say is that BF 1942 was an arcade team FPS first and foremost and it did that really well. No Battlefield or CoD game has been realistic or accurate and that is all fine and well, because a game, as Silvanus has pointed out, has to be hyper realistic to be any fun.

As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, what both BF and CoD sells is the illusion of authenticity, the idea that you can be in the great battles of WW2 and make a difference. That should never be confused for actual authenticity.

The key element here is that BF 1942 was filled to the brim with concessions to gameplay that players could see the need for. I'm not disputing the quasi-arcade nature of the game (flight controls were anything but arcade), just that -in general- it aimed to emulate the war as best it could using limited assets. This was followed through on in subsequent patches that replaced German weaponry like the StG44s for Type 99s. It kept things simple, but apart from a few glaring Americanisms (U.S. infantry at Arnhem, Brits flying a B-17 with U.S. markings etc) it was clear that it was making the effort and players generally appreciated it for that.

Just imagine, for instance, what the crowd reaction would have been if BF:V put out a trailer about WW2 like this one:

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The key element here is that BF 1942 was filled to the brim with concessions to gameplay that players could see the need for. I'm not disputing the quasi-arcade nature of the game (flight controls were anything but arcade), just that -in general- it aimed to emulate the war as best it could using limited assets. This was followed through on in subsequent patches that replaced German weaponry like the StG44s for Type 99s. It kept things simple, but apart from a few glaring Americanisms (U.S. infantry at Arnhem, Brits flying a B-17 with U.S. markings etc) it was clear that it was making the effort and players generally appreciated it for that.

But that means nothing. I can see the need for more diversity in multiplayer oriented games, so does that make the concession in BFV ok? It is an incredibly arbitrary line to draw, especially as BF 1942 is neither realistic nor authentic. BF 1942 made plenty of concessions to not portraying the war "as best as it could" in favor of making sure it was a better game, some of them I mentioned in brief, but the totally symmetric sides and balanced maps meant that BF 1942 was essentially a huge team arena shooter with a WW2 decor.

There's nothing wrong with that. BF and CoD are popular and good series because they've always put player satisfaction above realism or authenticity. The problem is that people are alright with totally inauthentic team balancing (Germany did not have Heavy Tanks in North Africa, the Brits did), unrealistic combat loadouts (a platoon in BF1942 would have about an order of magnitude more automatic weapons when compared to a real WW2 platoon), inauthentic battle simulation (1 in about 4,000 bullets hit during WW2, indirect fire caused 70% of all casualties and platoon sized engagements measured in hours, not minutes) and all around gameification (getting one life per player would really fucking suck), but the line is drawn when the in-authenticity is that there are more black people or women on the battlefield. That is a really arbitrary line to draw and it says more about the people drawing it then it does about DICE or EA, who have realized that their games aren't faithful 1:1 recreations of WW2.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

One requires utterly arbitrary and nonsensical historical blinkers in order to believe that a female combatant is "uncanny"

It is in a war that saw no female combatants. Not in that setting and not in that army. What can I tell you. But yeah, samurai swords and robotic arms. Who gives a shit if they throw in women as well.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

This is patently false. Like, it is so wrong it isn't even funny. Go read War Does Not Have a Woman's Face by Alexievich, just so that you get an idea just how diverse the military service of Soviet women during the Great Patriotic War was. She interviews women who were deployed in a wide range of roles ranging from nurses to combat medics to snipers to truck drivers to tank commanders to combat pilots (and a lot of other roles), in all theaters of the Soviet western front. There's an irony to the fact that you are perpetrating post-war Soviet propaganda that was meant to downplay women's contributions to the military war effort.

So yeah, women saw combat action in the Great Patriotic War. Marina Raskova, a famous Soviet flight pioneer, was killed when her Po-2 crashed during a forced landing in 1943. She crashed while leading the combat operations of the 588th Night Bomber Aviation Regiment, which was an all women regiment. Raskova was instrumental in setting up the 586th, 587th and 588th aviation regiments, all initially all women. So that "photo op" unit you are talking about is, to be polite about it, fucking hogwash.

Yes, some women fought in a few, select, segregated military units for the USSR over the course of 3 years, constituting at most 1.5% of their military personnel (a generous estimate based around the 3% total given figure and the fact that "most of them", ie. over 50%, served as nurses). The fact is women in the military during WW2 was an extremely rare, extremely localized phenomenon and to pretend it was the norm rather than the exception is to retrospectively pretend history was way more progressive than it actually was. Maybe we'll get a Battlefield: Meanwhile in Russia game one day. In the meantime we have Battlefield: Samurais, Cyborgs and Women.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Apparently I am expected to believe that depicting women on the frontlines in WWII is "disrespectful to the men who died", but 12-year-olds bunnyhopping across Omaha Beach while screaming into their microphones is perfectly respectful.

 

[gameicreate upload]

BF5 trailer is nice. All characters are playing an interesting role.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Yes, some women fought in a few, select, segregated military units for the USSR over the course of 3 years, constituting at most 1.5% of their military personnel (a generous estimate based around the 3% total given figure and the fact that "most of them", ie. over 50%, served as nurses). The fact is women in the military during WW2 was an extremely rare, extremely localized phenomenon and to pretend it was the norm rather than the exception is to retrospectively pretend history was way more progressive than it actually was. Maybe we'll get a Battlefield: Meanwhile in Russia game one day. In the meantime we have Battlefield: Samurais, Cyborgs and Women.

See, no one is saying they were a common occurrence. What we are saying is that your initial claim that it was all propaganda and photo ops is spurious. And while 1,5-3% might seem like a low number, that has to be taken in the context of the fact that the Red Army mustered over 20 million people during the Great Patriotic War. Which means that 800,000 women fought for the Red Army or that almost as many women were in the Red Army during WW2 as there were people who served in the Waffen-SS (estimated number 900,000 with foreign volunteers and conscripts). No one would say that the Waffen-SS was a rare, extremely localized phenomenon and yet they only had marginally more members then the Red Army had women.

The main problem with your claim was that you claimed it was a propaganda ops, when it was a response to the massive manpower shortage the USSR felt in late-'41 and early-'42 when it was still recovering from the losses of Barbarossa. Most women signed up in the period of 1942-1943, because after that the manpower situation stabilized as the Red Army gained the strategic initiative. These were women who were sent out because the USSR needed every able body it could get under arms and considering how quick the USSR was to diminish and downplay these women's contribution to the war effort after WW2 it was something the USSR leadership wasn't very proud off.

 

[Ninjamedic]

The trailer made it look fucking ridiculous and this is why I'm intrigued by it.

I don't give a fuck it has women in it, nor that people are running around with prosthetic arms. I mean, the fact you can apparently catch a grenade out of the air, throw it back, have someone else shoot it out of the air and take out a plane with the resulting explosion signals to me they're going a bit OTT with it, and that's fine by me if they do go that way. I do eventually look forward to the open beta so I can see if it is actually like that.

I'm fully expecting this to be the exact same as every Battlefield since Bad Company 2 in regard to gameplay. That's what frustrates me the most about this.

 

[Chewster]

I literally posted a link to that exact comic in my first reply to the OP and was promptly accused of not understanding that this game was set in The Second World War. I ninja'd the fuck out of you. THE FUCK!!

Anywho good shit as always, this place.

[small]Aside: it's a good comic, everyone should read the PBF.[/small]

 

[Ryotknife]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

 

[Squilookle]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

 

[EternallyBored]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

 

[Squilookle]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

All of that is true- I'm just saying BF1 didn't get it to the same extent as BFV, for reasons you've described. Only this time, we know how DICE treats a game based on a war from history instead of their imaginations.

 

[EternallyBored]

The whole thing is like WW2 meets Borderlands, as such im fine with female soldier with prosthetic (and all of the other wacky people/stuff). Every movie/game will take SOME liberties in a WW2 setting, so long as said liberty are not too jarring. If that female soldier appeared in Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, yea it would break immersion and ruin the film for me. If she appeared in Captain America 1 or Inglorious Bastards on the other hand, it would be neat.

It seems like the media is very quick to assume the criticism is all leveled at there being a woman in the game- but I get the feeling it's got far more to do with V continuing 1's fast and loose portrayal of a real conflict. After all, the reveal trailer for BF1 had a woman and a black guy in it, and you didn't see the same backlash about them, did you?

As someone that remembers the reveal for BF1, yeah you did have a lot of the same backlash, not to the same extent as far as YouTube dislikes go as most of the ire was being directed at COD infinite?s trailer at the time, but I remember multiple topics spanning hundreds of replies and dozens of pages accross YouTube, GameFAQS, Reddit, etc with people complaining about the Black guy in the trailer, which usually descended into an argument about the Harlem Hellfighters, then complaints about the Black German soldiers later on which then brought in complaints about the British Indian soldiers and Black American soldiers fighting on maps in locations they shouldn?t have been present in. Complaints about the female in the trailer were there and after release a lot of those same people moved on to complaining about the campaign she was featured in.

BF V doesn?t have COD infinite to deflect criticism, and has the added layer of the reveal trailer focusing on goofy multiplayer gameplay and cosmetics rather than BF 1 which had a much more serious tone showing off primarily single player cutscene stuff, so you?ve got a lot more people complaining about things like tone and cosmetics, but the Black guy and woman got backlash in both teasers.

All of that is true- I'm just saying BF1 didn't get it to the same extent as BFV, for reasons you've described. Only this time, we know how DICE treats a game based on a war from history instead of their imaginations.

We?ve always known how DICE treats a war from history, from Battlefield 1942 to 1943, to Vietnam, to Heroes, to Battlefield 1, even Battlefield 3,4 and the Bad Company?s are fake conflicts but based on mostly real setting and modern weapons. Only Battlefield 2142 is based entirely on DICE?s imagination.

DICE has always thrown historical realism to the side in favor of whatever gameplay or story hook they are trying to push, like shoehorning the behemoths in to BF 1 and featuring them in the single player, putting vehicles and weapons that should not have been there in the old 1942, twisting history to get their licensed soundtrack spewing from helicopters for BF: Vietnam, and basically everything they did to Heroes to push micro transactions and cosmetics. DICE has always chosen arcade style gameplay and aesthetic over historical accuracy, BF Heroes showed them how profitable cosmetic micro transactions could be, and BF 1 with its goofy gold and campy weapon skins more than showed they would trash historical authenticity to push cosmetic loot boxes in a numbered BF game. They?ve always done this, and they?ll keep doing, especially with EA Pushing their games as a service model that has been going hard on eliminating DLC season passes and replacing it with micro transactions.

 

[Squilookle]

DICE has always thrown historical realism to the side in favor of whatever gameplay or story hook they are trying to push, like shoehorning the behemoths in to BF 1 and featuring them in the single player, putting vehicles and weapons that should not have been there in the old 1942, twisting history to get their licensed soundtrack spewing from helicopters for BF: Vietnam, and basically everything they did to Heroes to push micro transactions and cosmetics. DICE has always chosen arcade style gameplay and aesthetic over historical accuracy, BF Heroes showed them how profitable cosmetic micro transactions could be, and BF 1 with its goofy gold and campy weapon skins more than showed they would trash historical authenticity to push cosmetic loot boxes in a numbered BF game. They've always done this, and they'll keep doing, especially with EA Pushing their games as a service model that has been going hard on eliminating DLC season passes and replacing it with micro transactions.

Disagree. There were far more limitations when they started than they have now. BF 1942 covered 6 years of war- it makes sense that they couldn't put in all the appropriate weapons and vehicles back then, but even so- they picked the most reasonable that they could, even if the Soviets and Japanese got a bit shafted with other faction's weapons until their own assault class weapons got patched in. Up until the secret weapons expansion pack arrived, all updates to the original game tried to bring it more in line with authenticity (and by that I am not talking about the gameplay- just the equipment). Battlefield Vietnam also made a decent attempt to evoke the era and it's weaponry, within the limited amount it could handle at the time. With Battlefield 4 having over 80(!) weapons, these days that's no longer an excuse for having the wrong weapons/vehicles etc. The fact is that adhering to history is a design decision, and the first two Battlefields held a lot more true to that than subsequent titles. That's why BF1 was such a letdown in that area, and early signs point to BFV mirroring it's lack of interest in the actual battles it's appropriating.

That said, it's still early days, so DICE's vision for BFV's version of WW2 is yet to be fully seen, but BF1's gameplay has people understandably worried.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

<youtube=MfzmCI9-aKY&t=0s>

EDIT: I guess I just don't remember how to link vids anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfzmCI9-aKY&t=0s that's the video.

So... Battle Royale.

Whatever, if the mode isnt good then I'm going to stick with the original modes.

Anyway, the trailer still wasn't as good as it could have been, am I the only who thinks DICE is shooting themselves in the foot by having trailers set in only one location? I thought that was the best part of the Battlefield 1 trailers, we got to see so many different places and things in one go. But it was definitely better than the reveal trailer.

The gameplay they've showcased looks good. I'm liking the added animations for everything that you do, the revives, getting ammo, picking up objectives, etc. The graphics and sound design are on point as usual. The gunplay, well the gunplay I'm going to have to experience that for myself. All I want is the gunplay of BF4, BF1's bullshit random spread deviation killed the game for me. The Stg44 looks good with the iron sights, but the Bren looks way too shakey, which was another thing that turned me off from BF1.