Battlefield V ( November 20,2018 )

[AudiMan2011]

If historcal accuracy isn't going to be relevant in the game, then I'd like to see DICE go mad and make mad tanks like the Panzer VIII Maus and the Landkreuzer P.1000 "Ratte" as playable vehicles.

 

[Rage Racer]

If historcal accuracy isn't going to be relevant in the game, then I'd like to see DICE go mad and make mad tanks like the Panzer VIII Maus and the Landkreuzer P.1000 "Ratte" as playable vehicles.

The Ratte would be completely insane.

The Maus at least existed, was driven and tested.

 

[Sage Ages]

I feel like they were trying to shove as much stuff into the trailer as possible. Certain things like the sword doesn't really make sense in the Western Front but would be appropriate in other areas.

 

[Scaff]

To me, she looks like a cyborg when fighting like this with a prostethic that barely allows the arm to function in normal life.

Do a bit of research and you will find people from the period using similar prosthetics to work metal, roll cigarette's, etc.

It's not quite as odd as want to make out, but feel free to keep moving those goal posts.

And easy to carry in combat? Where's her knife?..

Did you miss the improvised part of my post?

P.S. Some more notes:

Katana? On the Western Front? RLY?
It's not an anime game...

Churchill Gun Carrier (the left one, behind):

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/a22d-churchill-gun-carrier

Very authentic. Apperently Dice did extensive research, right, @DesertPenguin ?

It would be explainable if they added this version of Churchill to the multiplayer to be a British counterpart of the German StuG III / IV.

Have you ever actually played a BF title?

None of them have exactly been ARMA!

Oh and the dev's disagree with you, but what the hell would they know about the series.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

IIRC, a lot of the tanks, planes, and some weapons in BF1 never actually saw combat in WWI either

 

[RYAN]

I'm a real big BF fan and I was rather let down by the trailer. the small details that people get hung up on isn't what bothered me, Just that it was just a mashup of explosions and fancy animations that showed little of the flair and atmosphere of BF1s trailer and even games before.

Its funny how people complain about things like prosthetic's, Swords, Certain vehicles and weapons being not accurate and unrealistic, Yet didn't complain that we had magic healing and resupply boxes for years. Even more funny when they are just plain wrong, Like someone above quite rightly stated, Prosthetic's of that type were around at that time and regarding swords in combat? Read about "Mad Jack" British army soldier who went into battle with nothing but a bow and a Sword.

Anyway, Im still really excited for the game. The bit of the reveal where they talked about the Fortifications and Company elements of the game were really interesting and looked great.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Also, the katana is literally just a melee weapon that that particular person chose for their loadout. Jackfrag's video detailing the trailer gives extra information about things. The prosthetic arm is also just an option for the arms, another thing you can customize like your hair, face, or weapon.

 

[Scaff]

IIRC, a lot of the tanks, planes, and some weapons in BF1 never actually saw combat in WWI either

I'm a real big BF fan and I was rather let down by the trailer. the small details that people get hung up on isn't what bothered me, Just that it was just a mashup of explosions and fancy animations that showed little of the flair and atmosphere of BF1s trailer and even games before.

Its funny how people complain about things like prosthetic's, Swords, Certain vehicles and weapons being not accurate and unrealistic, Yet didn't complain that we had magic healing and resupply boxes for years. Even more funny when they are just plain wrong, Like someone above quite rightly stated, Prosthetic's of that type were around at that time and regarding swords in combat? Read about "Mad Jack" British army soldier who went into battle with nothing but a bow and a Sword.

Anyway, Im still really excited for the game. The bit of the reveal where they talked about the Fortifications and Company elements of the game were really interesting and looked great.

Also, the katana is literally just a melee weapon that that particular person chose for their loadout. Jackfrag's video detailing the trailer gives extra information about things. The prosthetic arm is also just an option for the arms, another thing you can customize like your hair, face, or weapon.

Exactly.

The most obvious (and easily overlooked) is that you can pick a load out that mixes weapons from all sides. Take BF4 in which you can load out a US Marine with a nice mixture of non US kit, from small arms upwards and then pop on a Russian camo package!

BF has never been accurate in this regard in MP, and nor would most want it to be (as it would limit things considerably).

Yet up pop BFV and apparently now unless your limited to the exact kit for the exact side, year and location it's all ''cyborg' and for some odd reason now not BF. Which is to be blunt patently absurd, which to me based on a good amount of the comments on YouTube actually seems to be Muppets being triggered by the sheer horror of the idea of a woman being represented.

 

[baldgye]

I've not been hyped for a BF game, really since 2 (though I enjoyed 1943 a lot).... but for some reason the trailer for V got my pretty excited to play a BF game again. I think WW2 is good for a BF game in terms of classes and balancing due to how those weapons actually where...

It's been a while since 1943, so I think I'm ready!

 

[SestoScudo]

I know the British soldier holding a Katana looks wacky but in Battlefield 1 all the factions can use the Ottoman Kilij which looks pretty weird if your not playing the Ottomans or using the Russian Cossack Dagger as a French soldier is also just as wacky for example.

 

[Jawehawk]

Another reskinned Battlefield 3, this time with extra political correctness to appease the SJW's, and just like BF1, doesn't make any attempts to be even remotely authentic regarding the historical period that it is supposed to take place in. So basically just more trash from a company who has fallen down a long way since the greatness of BF2 and 2142...

 

[SestoScudo]

Another reskinned Battlefield 3, this time with extra political correctness to appease the SJW's, and just like BF1, doesn't make any attempts to be even remotely authentic regarding the historical period that it is supposed to take place in. So basically just more trash from a company who has fallen down a long way since the greatness of BF2 and 2142...

Only way a World War 1 game would work as a FPS would be acting like World War 2 under its skin.

World War 1 is indeed a boring war if its done historically accurate in a videogame.

 

[Jawehawk]

Only way a World War 1 game would work as a FPS would be acting like World War 2 under its skin.

World War 1 is indeed a boring war if its done historically accurate in a videogame.

It being different from other shooters does not have to make it boring. Besides, unlike what many people seem to think, WW1 was not exclusively trench warfare, especially not the eastern front. BF1 just flat out isn't a WW1 game. Most people run around with semi and fully automatics with red dots that were never fielded in any kind of real numbers, using tanks and planes that behave much like their modern day equivalents in BF3 and 4. DICE shouldn't spout nonsense about "being authentic", when they clearly have no interest in being so. The same will be the case here.

 

[Scaff]

DICE shouldn't spout nonsense about "being authentic", when they clearly have no interest in being so. The same will be the case here.

They don't.....



.....but please do carry on being triggered.

Oh no, a video game that attempts to attract the widest audience it can by not being 100% accurate. The horror.

Oh and BF1 isn't just trench warfare either, so I have no idea how that sprung up. A good number of the maps are not even close to being trench warfare.

 

[SestoScudo]

Most of world war 1 was either bolt actions or machine guns mounted so how is that going to make it fun eapecially for a person who likes world war 2 games or modern warfare games??

Or how about those slow tanks.

World war 1 was a pretty primitive compared to World War 2. But it was the beginning of modern warfare.

 

[Scaff]

Most of world war 1 was either bolt actions or machine guns mounted so how is that going to make it fun eapecially for a person who likes world war 2 games or modern warfare games??

Or how about those slow tanks.

World war 1 was a pretty primitive compared to World War 2. But it was the beginning of modern warfare.

I wouldn't worry about it, as if the rest of the web is anything to go by, most don't give a **** about historical accuracy or realism in general until a woman pops up.

That's despite the fact that women did fight in WW2, not in great numbers, but during Stalingrad and as resistance members they most certainly did.

 

[inCloud]

Another reskinned Battlefield 3

• WW2 multiplayer (France, Norway, Rotterdam, North African Desert at launch)
• Coop + Singleplayer
• Own Company of soldiers/vehicles
• No Premium Pass
• Fortifications in multiplayer (Vehicles and locations that you can build in a map, like foxholes, sandbags etc.)
• Every class can build basic ****, support is the builder class (only class that can build offensive ****)
• Attrition and Physical Interactions only. You no longer fully regen (stages), Everything you do in the game now requires an actual interaction. If you want to heal, you gotta walk up, press F and let your soldier pick it up.
• Ledge grab requires a key-press. No auto-spotting. No more 3D icons.
• Much less ammo for new spawns. (Attrition)
• Requires way more squad play, due to attrition (run out of HP/Ammo very easily)
• Revive in BF5 is not instant anymore, there's an animation now (low profile and can be cancelled at any time)
• Ragdoll are server-side and you can drag the persons' head, leg, w/e and revive them in cover.
• Any class can now revive your own squad (buddy-revive is WAY longer and doesn't revive to full HP)
• Being "dead" lets you look around 360 degrees and call for help (sticking hand out)
• Gunplay is COMPLETELY changed:
• No visual recoil, unique recoil for each gun that is learnable and counter-actable
• If your hand is on the trigger and you're facing forward you can ALWAYS shoot it. (one-handed vault over something, for example)
• BULLET PENETRATION!
• Movement completely overhauled. You can now dive left, back, right, etc. and you can stay on the ground and move + shoot (think Arma or Rainbow Six)
• No Dolphin dive (you can't shoot for a "long time" after diving)
• Crouch Sprint is IN
• 3rd person interacts with the environment (reeds will be knocked down, etc.)
• Throw back grenades (even catch them mid-flight and also shoot them to explode them earlier)
• You can tow things with vehicles (stationary AA-Guns, no longer stationary. And can also be used while driving)
• You can tow a field cannon with a tiger tank
• Destruction:
• Revamped and way more drawn out. Shell inside the building = doors and windows explode OUTWARDS
• If a tank drives through a building, the walls will crack and bend based on the tank, it won't just go through all the stages at once like in BF1
• Squads:
• HEAVILY focused on teamplay/squadplay
• New squad spawn system
• Squad deploy screen (before tactical map deploy screen) you get a nice fullscreen 3rd-person preview of what that squad mate is doing, so you can make better decisions on when to spawn on them
• Spawning on squad is quicker than tactical map screen
• If you're the last squad member you get a notification, so you can hide to get your squad revived faster
• Rewards for squad play are squad call ins, like squad-based point streak rewards, but ONLY squad lead can use those
• Example: Rockets, Supply Drops, Smoke Barrages, Heavy Weapon pickup (NOT HERO pickups), Squad-Only vehicles. (Flamethrower tank, Tiger tank)
• No behemoths or Hero classes
• Large explosions can knock you over
• 4 Classes will return!
• Create a soldier (then add them to your company, gender customization, etc.)
• HIGHLY customizable class archetypes, with skill-tree type system.
• Each archetype can specialize in something. For example assault: Anti-Infantry or Anti-Tank.
• You can get Exotic archetypes, like the Paratrooper Recon, who is short-range, stealthy who uses a silenced weapon and silent gadgets. (Also perks)
• You can change and add specialization trees, which are something like perks
• Similar system for guns.
• Each gun will have 5-7 elements, that are customizable that do NOT effect visual stuff. ONLY the specializations affect the stats
• Tank/Vehicles have the same system
• There are asymmetrical vehicle choices. For example Russians have weak tanks, but more. While the german team they're fighting against have stronger tanks, but less of them.
• New 64-Player mode "Grand Operations"
• Takes place over 4 fictional days. Each day is one full map and you always advance to the next day.
• Different objective PER DAY. First day you might attack from an airborne position, trying to pick up explosives to destroy artillery. Second day you might breakthrough like from BF1, sac and capture flags.
• Depending on how well you did the previous day, impacts the next day. If you only take out 1 artillery gun, there might be less respawns or less vehicles.
• Day 4 only has a potential to be played. 'Final Stand' game mode. You spawn in with 1 life, with significantly reduced resources (like 1 magazine), you gotta fight to the last man standing to win.
• The Grand Operations are super modular and EA can change stuff from day to day, like one day everyone spawns with 50% ammo, the next (real life) day, there's no tanks, etc.(edited)
• All the logic in the game can be controlled server-side. No need for big-patches, more hotfixes
• All new content will be free
• New progression arcs are called "Tides of War" with quest lines and unique cosmetics etc.
• Confirmed gamemodes: "Grand Operation", TDM, Conquest, Domination
• Takedown Animations
• Transport vehicles are live on the map
• Combat vehicles spawn from Tactical Maps

Looks like most innovative Battlefield since Vietnam.

 

[Scaff]

• WW2 multiplayer (France, Norway, Rotterdam, North African Desert at launch)
• Coop + Singleplayer
• Own Company of soldiers/vehicles
• No Premium Pass
• Fortifications in multiplayer (Vehicles and locations that you can build in a map, like foxholes, sandbags etc.)
• Every class can build basic ****, support is the builder class (only class that can build offensive ****)
• Attrition and Physical Interactions only. You no longer fully regen (stages), Everything you do in the game now requires an actual interaction. If you want to heal, you gotta walk up, press F and let your soldier pick it up.
• Ledge grab requires a key-press. No auto-spotting. No more 3D icons.
• Much less ammo for new spawns. (Attrition)
• Requires way more squad play, due to attrition (run out of HP/Ammo very easily)
• Revive in BF5 is not instant anymore, there's an animation now (low profile and can be cancelled at any time)
• Ragdoll are server-side and you can drag the persons' head, leg, w/e and revive them in cover.
• Any class can now revive your own squad (buddy-revive is WAY longer and doesn't revive to full HP)
• Being "dead" lets you look around 360 degrees and call for help (sticking hand out)
• Gunplay is COMPLETELY changed:
• No visual recoil, unique recoil for each gun that is learnable and counter-actable
• If your hand is on the trigger and you're facing forward you can ALWAYS shoot it. (one-handed vault over something, for example)
• BULLET PENETRATION!
• Movement completely overhauled. You can now dive left, back, right, etc. and you can stay on the ground and move + shoot (think Arma or Rainbow Six)
• No Dolphin dive (you can't shoot for a "long time" after diving)
• Crouch Sprint is IN
• 3rd person interacts with the environment (reeds will be knocked down, etc.)
• Throw back grenades (even catch them mid-flight and also shoot them to explode them earlier)
• You can tow things with vehicles (stationary AA-Guns, no longer stationary. And can also be used while driving)
• You can tow a field cannon with a tiger tank
• Destruction:
• Revamped and way more drawn out. Shell inside the building = doors and windows explode OUTWARDS
• If a tank drives through a building, the walls will crack and bend based on the tank, it won't just go through all the stages at once like in BF1
• Squads:
• HEAVILY focused on teamplay/squadplay
• New squad spawn system
• Squad deploy screen (before tactical map deploy screen) you get a nice fullscreen 3rd-person preview of what that squad mate is doing, so you can make better decisions on when to spawn on them
• Spawning on squad is quicker than tactical map screen
• If you're the last squad member you get a notification, so you can hide to get your squad revived faster
• Rewards for squad play are squad call ins, like squad-based point streak rewards, but ONLY squad lead can use those
• Example: Rockets, Supply Drops, Smoke Barrages, Heavy Weapon pickup (NOT HERO pickups), Squad-Only vehicles. (Flamethrower tank, Tiger tank)
• No behemoths or Hero classes
• Large explosions can knock you over
• 4 Classes will return!
• Create a soldier (then add them to your company, gender customization, etc.)
• HIGHLY customizable class archetypes, with skill-tree type system.
• Each archetype can specialize in something. For example assault: Anti-Infantry or Anti-Tank.
• You can get Exotic archetypes, like the Paratrooper Recon, who is short-range, stealthy who uses a silenced weapon and silent gadgets. (Also perks)
• You can change and add specialization trees, which are something like perks
• Similar system for guns.
• Each gun will have 5-7 elements, that are customizable that do NOT effect visual stuff. ONLY the specializations affect the stats
• Tank/Vehicles have the same system
• There are asymmetrical vehicle choices. For example Russians have weak tanks, but more. While the german team they're fighting against have stronger tanks, but less of them.
• New 64-Player mode "Grand Operations"
• Takes place over 4 fictional days. Each day is one full map and you always advance to the next day.
• Different objective PER DAY. First day you might attack from an airborne position, trying to pick up explosives to destroy artillery. Second day you might breakthrough like from BF1, sac and capture flags.
• Depending on how well you did the previous day, impacts the next day. If you only take out 1 artillery gun, there might be less respawns or less vehicles.
• Day 4 only has a potential to be played. 'Final Stand' game mode. You spawn in with 1 life, with significantly reduced resources (like 1 magazine), you gotta fight to the last man standing to win.
• The Grand Operations are super modular and EA can change stuff from day to day, like one day everyone spawns with 50% ammo, the next (real life) day, there's no tanks, etc.(edited)
• All the logic in the game can be controlled server-side. No need for big-patches, more hotfixes
• All new content will be free
• New progression arcs are called "Tides of War" with quest lines and unique cosmetics etc.
• Confirmed gamemodes: "Grand Operation", TDM, Conquest, Domination
• Takedown Animations
• Transport vehicles are live on the map
• Combat vehicles spawn from Tactical Maps

Looks like most innovative Battlefield since Vietnam.

None of that counts, because women or something to do with that.

Personaly I think it looks great and it's my pick for FPS next because of it (and honestly if the inclusion of women helps keep some off it then that's just another positive).

 

[SestoScudo]

So North Africa will be in to be honest I actually might be interested now. I always loved the Afrika Korps uniforms.

They are my favourite uniforms of WW2.

Any chance of seeing Italy in too perhaps since they were a big part of North Africa.

 

[oli440]

Since watching the trailer and the live reveal, I've given the whole situation some thought. I can't say I was that impressed with the trailer. It lacks cohesion and is way too staged. It's a shame, because had it been to the standard of Battlefield 1's trailer, there might not have been as much backlash. People don't like confusion and the BF5 trailer is the very definition of confusing....

The customisation options, in my opinion, go way beyond the boundaries of what a World War 2 game should be. It's not just the female solider, it's the male soldiers too. I can see why people have been comparing the characters to those of Fortnite.

As for female soldiers, there's nothing wrong with having them in the game, but ONLY if you can back them up with solid historical context. Female Soviet snipers are a prime example. I always think of Call of Duty Finest Hour, where one of the playable characters is a female Soviet sniper. Undoubtedly one of the more interesting characters in the COD franchise. The woman featured in the BF5 trailer however is absurd, simply because there were no British female soldiers in front line combat.

When people say it's about the fun rather than the authentic, that's only true from a gameplay standpoint. No Battlefield game has been realistic in terms of gameplay. Jumping out of a plane to shoot someone in the face with a sniper rifle and jumping back in the plane midair is not realistic, but it's so damn fun that we don't care about the logic behind it. Even so, people still expect the setting to be represented in as a realistic way as possible, without affecting the gameplay. Battlefield 1 did this quite well. Visually, it was fairly authentic to the First World War (although, the political correctness started to surface in that game), but the decision to include a wide arsenal of automatic weapons was done for the sake of fun gameplay.

Cosmetics generally are not gameplay elements, so in a World War 2 game, it is essential to make the cosmetics as authentic as possible, so the player can clearly identify it as a World War 2 game. Without visual cohesion, the sense of immersion is broken. It's concerning that a lot of people in the comments for the BF5 trailer don't initially realise that it's a game set in World War 2, because the soldiers are so far detached from that setting.

Fun Gameplay.

Authentic Setting.

There's a difference.

I'm still excited for Battlefield 5, and will probably play the hell out of it, but I feel that such radical customisation options achieve nothing but confusion. Nonetheless, being able to pilot a Spiftire on the Frostbite engine is a sensation I have been eagerly awaiting years for.

I love the new gameplay changes and cannot wait to try them out. As for the removal of the premium pass, that on it's own is worthy of applause. I adore the concept art too. If the game itself can achieve the same level of grittiness and chaos shown in the concept art then I'm sold. It is certainly going to be one of the most innovative Battlefield games in years. Here's hoping they won't get too greedy with the microtransactions though. This is EA after all....

 

[SestoScudo]

Call of Duty 2 also had female soldiers mainly in the soviet campaign they usually held sniper rifles or sometimes occasionally a sub-machine gun or a bolt action rifle.

 

[Scaff]

As for female soldiers, there's nothing wrong with having them in the game, but ONLY if you can back them up with solid historical context. Female Soviet snipers are a prime example. I always think of Call of Duty Finest Hour, where one of the playable characters is a female Soviet sniper. Undoubtedly one of the more interesting characters in the COD franchise.

What about the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of female partisan and resistance fighters, what about the female Russian tank crews, what about the three Russian fighter and bomber units, what about the 1077th AA brigade, who engaged Panzer battalions and then ground troops? What about the numerous OSS members?

I can keep going if you like.

The woman featured in the BF5 trailer however is absurd, simply because there were no British female soldiers in front line combat.

I do hope you are also calling for an end then to the use of any uniform, weapon, etc that is not 100% period, unit and location correct to every other part of the title.

When people say it's about the fun rather than the authentic, that's only true from a gameplay standpoint. No Battlefield game has been realistic in terms of gameplay. Jumping out of a plane to shoot someone in the face with a sniper rifle and jumping back in the plane midair is not realistic, but it's so damn fun that we don't care about the logic behind it. Even so, people still expect the setting to be represented in as a realistic way as possible, without affecting the gameplay. Battlefield 1 did this quite well.

But not for women right?

Visually, it was fairly authentic to the First World War (although, the political correctness started to surface in that game), but the decision to include a wide arsenal of automatic weapons was done for the sake of fun gameplay.

BF1 is politically correct? Do go on.....


Personally I hope that BFV has a massive focus on the US 442nd, as it will be joyful to watch the outcry among the Dude-Bro, Proud Boy morons of having Japanese-American troops fighting in Europe in American uniforms (despite that's the reality, and in doing so managed to be the most decorated unit in American history).

 

[SestoScudo]

Another awesome war story to look at would be that Korean man who fought for 3 armies. Imperial Japan, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Burma campaign too where the British Indian army fought the Japanese.

 

[oli440]

What about the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of female partisan and resistance fighters, what about the female Russian tank crews, what about the three Russian fighter and bomber units, what about the 1077th AA brigade, who engaged Panzer battalions and then ground troops? What about the numerous OSS members?

I can keep going if you like.


I do hope you are also calling for an end then to the use of any uniform, weapon, etc that is not 100% period, unit and location correct to every other part of the title.


But not for women right?


BF1 is politically correct? Do go on.....


Personally I hope that BFV has a massive focus on the US 442nd, as it will be joyful to watch the outcry among the Dude-Bro, Proud Boy morons of having Japanese-American troops fighting in Europe in American uniforms (despite that's the reality, and in doing so managed to be the most decorated unit in American history).

In response to Battlefield 1 being politically correct -

Gameplay and setting are separate. They can influence each other, but just because one is unrealistic, does not mean the other has to follow suit. Keep that in mind.

I will re-iterate - Women can and should be included in the game, but only if they represent believable historical context. Find me evidence of a British female soldier who fought in front line combat, better yet, with a prosthetic arm.

I don't believe the gender identity or race of your character is a gameplay element. So for the sake of immersion, the character models should be made to represent their respective nations as accurately as possible. Customisation of these characters should be period uniforms and not completely made up. The prosthetic arm is an interesting inclusion, and does indeed have some historical context, but even so, it's not very believable in a front line combat situation.

As for weapons and vehicles. They should be made as authentic as possible, provided that gameplay is not compromised. Guns differ from a gameplay standpoint, so if people want to use a Thompson for all factions, so be it. That in itself is not historically accurate, but because weapon characteristics are a gameplay element, this freedom should be provided. Although, I wouldn't appose the idea of providing certain weapons and vehicles only to the teams that used them. Battlefield 1942 did this, and although certain nations would get advantages from this, it helped to further increase the immersion.

Granted, using V1 rockets as squad call in is indeed a stretch historically, since they were never used in combat, rather attacking the UK. Ultimately, it is a gameplay feature and has (albeit light) historical context.

There's always compromise between gameplay elements and historical accuracy, but there's also a limit to how far you can bend history. My argument being, Battlefield 5 stretches history a bridge too far (pun intended).

And no, only the historically inept or genuinely racist would cause such outcry against the US 442nd being in the game, because they were real people and represent history. Should they be included in the game, they would be historically justified. By all means, make the game as diverse as you want. I'd love to experience more of the niche conflicts which have never been covered in WW2 games before, as long as you have strong historical evidence to back it up.

We don't complain about the race and gender of the characters in BF5 to be racist. We complain because they are over-represented. If the developers weren't so PC then perhaps they would have made a greater effort to portray the soldiers in a more historically accurate way, regardless of how unrealistic the gameplay elements are.

You can't create a game that is 100% realistic. There will inevitably be inconsistencies. However, that doesn't mean to say you can throw historical accuracy completely out the window. You make it authentic in whatever ways you can. And if that means not providing female soldiers for the nations they were never historically represented for on the front lines, then so be it.

I'm not suggesting that EA Dice change the game in any way. What's done is done. The game is too close to release to make any drastic changes anyway. I'm suggesting that the game could have had a completely different tone. War is not a celebration of racial and gender diversity. In war, there are allies and there are enemies. With this being said, the least EA Dice could have done is represent the nations the way they were truly represented in as an accurate way as possible, because why do it any other way? That doesn't mean make the game 100% realistic, but I at least want to feel like the conflict is believable (i.e. grounded in history), not manufactured for the sake of political agenda.

I understand the direction BF5 is going for. Even so, trying to appeal to a wider audience, only to annoy a huge chunk of the fan base doesn't seem like a wise trade off. Judging by the response to the trailer, they're going to lose fans more so than gain new ones.

If you interpret BF5 as an alternate history WW2, then you might be able to accept the huge leaps in historical inaccuracy. I can certainly see the appeal in the idea. But no one asked for an alternate World War 2. No one asked for a World War 2 game tainted by such blatantly obvious political correctness. This is why so many fans disagree with the new direction. We're not questioning the realism of the game itself. We are questioning the setting. Is it really worth changing the setting this much just to appeal to more people? Putting political correctness above historical fact? Just because it's more people doesn't mean more will like it. In this case, more people seem to hate it than like it.

Put it this way. Give me a reason why there are black, female German soldiers in Call of Duty World War 2, other than political correctness. Likewise, give me a reason why there are British female soldiers with prosthetic arms in Battlefield 5, other than political correctness.

The irony is, by making player characters more diverse, it does nothing but desaturate the racial identity of the people that actually fought in the war. How would representing the US 442nd be significant if you were fighting against Asian Germans? One is based off historical truth, the other complete fiction. Where are the boundaries?

You can design a sports car to achieve speed and fun. You can try to design a sports car that's also a pickup truck, people carrier and off-roader, but don't be surprised when you find the speed and fun suffers as a result.

 

[DesertPenguin]

give me a reason why there are British female soldiers with prosthetic arms in Battlefield 5, other than political correctness.

It's a gameplay element. Plain and simple. Are you going on just what you saw in the trailer or have you watched any analysis videos as well that explain why she looks how she looks? It's just a gameplay customization. Deal with it. Or don't. I don't care, just know it's just a gameplay element.

 

[oli440]

It's a gameplay element. Plain and simple. Are you going on just what you saw in the trailer or have you watched any analysis videos as well that explain why she looks how she looks? It's just a gameplay customization. Deal with it. Or don't. I don't care, just know it's just a gameplay element.

I don't call a purely cosmetic item a gameplay element. If there is a gameplay mechanic to it, I'd like to know more. I'm not saying cosmetics are bad, but there are limitations to what you can do with them in the realms of the games setting.

And yeah, you're right. In the grand scheme of things, the visual customisation is only a small part of the game. I'm more impressed by the innovations in the gameplay itself like the more limited ammo, the revised movement system etc.

BUT, visual identity in the game is still very important, hence my point.

 

[SestoScudo]

I actually I do wish Battlefield 1 had more diverse troops.

Germans should have gotten Askaris and Pacific colonial troops

Austro-Hungarians should have gotten Bosniaks, Croats, Czechs and the Polish Legion

Ottomans should be getting Arabs and Kurds along with some troops from the Caucasus like Circassians.

Russians should get non Russian troops from its empire.

British and the French should have gotten colonial troops from their respective empire.

Diversity should have been done right to be honest. I guess its a videogame rather than a history lesson.

 

[Scaff]

In response to Battlefield 1 being politically correct -

Gameplay and setting are separate. They can influence each other, but just because one is unrealistic, does not mean the other has to follow suit. Keep that in mind.

I will re-iterate - Women can and should be included in the game, but only if they represent believable historical context. Find me evidence of a British female soldier who fought in front line combat, better yet, with a prosthetic arm.

I don't believe the gender identity or race of your character is a gameplay element. So for the sake of immersion, the character models should be made to represent their respective nations as accurately as possible. Customisation of these characters should be period uniforms and not completely made up. The prosthetic arm is an interesting inclusion, and does indeed have some historical context, but even so, it's not very believable in a front line combat situation.

As for weapons and vehicles. They should be made as authentic as possible, provided that gameplay is not compromised. Guns differ from a gameplay standpoint, so if people want to use a Thompson for all factions, so be it. That in itself is not historically accurate, but because weapon characteristics are a gameplay element, this freedom should be provided. Although, I wouldn't appose the idea of providing certain weapons and vehicles only to the teams that used them. Battlefield 1942 did this, and although certain nations would get advantages from this, it helped to further increase the immersion.

Granted, using V1 rockets as squad call in is indeed a stretch historically, since they were never used in combat, rather attacking the UK. Ultimately, it is a gameplay feature and has (albeit light) historical context.

There's always compromise between gameplay elements and historical accuracy, but there's also a limit to how far you can bend history. My argument being, Battlefield 5 stretches history a bridge too far (pun intended).

And no, only the historically inept or genuinely racist would cause such outcry against the US 442nd being in the game, because they were real people and represent history. Should they be included in the game, they would be historically justified. By all means, make the game as diverse as you want. I'd love to experience more of the niche conflicts which have never been covered in WW2 games before, as long as you have strong historical evidence to back it up.

We don't complain about the race and gender of the characters in BF5 to be racist. We complain because they are over-represented. If the developers weren't so PC then perhaps they would have made a greater effort to portray the soldiers in a more historically accurate way, regardless of how unrealistic the gameplay elements are.

You can't create a game that is 100% realistic. There will inevitably be inconsistencies. However, that doesn't mean to say you can throw historical accuracy completely out the window. You make it authentic in whatever ways you can. And if that means not providing female soldiers for the nations they were never historically represented for on the front lines, then so be it.

I'm not suggesting that EA Dice change the game in any way. What's done is done. The game is too close to release to make any drastic changes anyway. I'm suggesting that the game could have had a completely different tone. War is not a celebration of racial and gender diversity. In war, there are allies and there are enemies. With this being said, the least EA Dice could have done is represent the nations the way they were truly represented in as an accurate way as possible, because why do it any other way? That doesn't mean make the game 100% realistic, but I at least want to feel like the conflict is believable (i.e. grounded in history), not manufactured for the sake of political agenda.

I understand the direction BF5 is going for. Even so, trying to appeal to a wider audience, only to annoy a huge chunk of the fan base doesn't seem like a wise trade off. Judging by the response to the trailer, they're going to lose fans more so than gain new ones.

If you interpret BF5 as an alternate history WW2, then you might be able to accept the huge leaps in historical inaccuracy. I can certainly see the appeal in the idea. But no one asked for an alternate World War 2. No one asked for a World War 2 game tainted by such blatantly obvious political correctness. This is why so many fans disagree with the new direction. We're not questioning the realism of the game itself. We are questioning the setting. Is it really worth changing the setting this much just to appeal to more people? Putting political correctness above historical fact? Just because it's more people doesn't mean more will like it. In this case, more people seem to hate it than like it.

Put it this way. Give me a reason why there are black, female German soldiers in Call of Duty World War 2, other than political correctness. Likewise, give me a reason why there are British female soldiers with prosthetic arms in Battlefield 5, other than political correctness.

The irony is, by making player characters more diverse, it does nothing but desaturate the racial identity of the people that actually fought in the war. How would representing the US 442nd be significant if you were fighting against Asian Germans? One is based off historical truth, the other complete fiction. Where are the boundaries?

You can design a sports car to achieve speed and fun. You can try to design a sports car that's also a pickup truck, people carrier and off-roader, but don't be surprised when you find the speed and fun suffers as a result.

They are included to give people the customisation options they want, something you seem fine with until it comes to gender.

You've been given example of women who did fight in front line positions in WW2, yet because then then extends into customisation options it's suddenly politically incorrect.

Sorry but the selective manner your doing this with in regard to what is simply customisation in a video games comes across in a very specific manner.

Oh and the Harlem Hellcats were the US regiment that suffered the most casualties and spent the most time on the front line. The inclusion of them has nothing at all to do with political correctness.

 

[SestoScudo]

In ww2 both the Allies and Axis actually fielded diverse armies.

The Germans even had non Germans in the army like the Arabs, Africans, Indians. Despite them being a small number it is still interesting to see the Germans following a racist ideology able to recruit non whites into the army.

Japanese also used Taiwanese and Koreans in the Imperial Army. They also used Indonesian and Chinese collarborators.

The Italians used Libyans, Somalis and Eritreans.

There is even pictures of Central Asian Turks fighting in the Soviet army. Soviet army not only had Russians but Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Jews, Ukrainians, Kalmyks and many non Russians.

The sheer scale of people mobilised for both Ww1 and Ww2 is mind boggling.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Heh, I guess you'd say it really was a world at war