Battlefield V ( November 20,2018 )

[Jawehawk]

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.

I didn't say BF1 was trench warfare. My impression is that a lot of people think WW1 was almost exclusively trench warfare, and that as such, you cannot make a fun and dynamic game featuring it while also being authentic. This simply isn't true. That was what I meant. I also never said they had to be 100% accurate. Personally, I question the reasoning behind using a historical period if you're going to throw all authenticity out the window anyway. However, I'm open to the fact that others might like a game that plays like a modern war but with skins that represent WW1 or 2, which is what BF1 and 5 does. All I ask is that if you do disregard all authenticity, which DICE is doing, then at least don't pretend otherwise.

As for female soldiers in WW2, they made up much less than 1% of the combined allied and axis forces that were available for frontline service. The Soviet Union were the only ones to employ females in active frontline units, and even then, it was usually either as auxiliary forces or as specialized units. When female soldiers are included to represent the actual reality, I'm all for it. But when you completely disregard reality and make them an ordinary sight just to better fit in with todays obnoxious political correctness BS, then yeah, it annoys me. I study history. I love history. So it annoys me when people change history to better fit the current political climate. It might be worth noting that, judging from the info currently available, the places where female soldiers were actually present, such as the Soviet Union, or female partisans in Yugoslavia and Poland, will not feature in the game at launch. As such, there is no historical justification for any female soldiers in the game at release.

Then again, judging by the ridicules attire, there aren't any soldiers in the game to begin with.

• 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.

Dolphin diving certainly still looks like a thing in the trailer, and with a heavy MG42 no less. Not only that, but as you say yourself, the abysmal move around while prone and still shooting with pin point accuracy that we've seen in games like Rainbow Six Siege is also in the game. While I applaud them for focusing on enhancing teamwork, the results will likely be the same as what we've seen earlier. No one working like a team. Outside of organized matches, people just don't do teamwork. In terms of genuine new gameplay, the only thing that really pops up as new and exciting is the Grand Operations mode, which I'll concede sounds really cool. The rest is just small changes to the existing formula and the continued evolving of the already excellent destruction engine. None of the features appear inspired by the setting, which brings me back to my original criticism of the game. Why WW2? If you do not plan to actually do anything with the setting, then why use it? if the one and only thing to remind you that you're playing a WW2 game is the skins of vehicles and guns, then what was even the point of going with the setting. It is, in my opinion, a massive waste of the source material.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't say BF1 was trench warfare. My impression is that a lot of people think WW1 was almost exclusively trench warfare, and that as such, you cannot make a fun and dynamic game featuring it while also being authentic. This simply isn't true. That was what I meant. I also never said they had to be 100% accurate. Personally, I question the reasoning behind using a historical period if you're going to throw all authenticity out the window anyway. However, I'm open to the fact that others might like a game that plays like a modern war but with skins that represent WW1 or 2, which is what BF1 and 5 does. All I ask is that if you do disregard all authenticity, which DICE is doing, then at least don't pretend otherwise.

As for female soldiers in WW2, they made up much less than 1% of the combined allied and axis forces that were available for frontline service. The Soviet Union were the only ones to employ females in active frontline units, and even then, it was usually either as auxiliary forces or as specialized units. When female soldiers are included to represent the actual reality, I'm all for it. But when you completely disregard reality and make them an ordinary sight just to better fit in with todays obnoxious political correctness BS, then yeah, it annoys me. I study history. I love history. So it annoys me when people change history to better fit the current political climate. It might be worth noting that, judging from the info currently available, the places where female soldiers were actually present, such as the Soviet Union, or female partisans in Yugoslavia and Poland, will not feature in the game at launch. As such, there is no historical justification for any female soldiers in the game at release.

Then again, judging by the ridicules attire, there aren't any soldiers in the game to begin with.





Dolphin diving certainly still looks like a thing in the trailer, and with a heavy MG42 no less. Not only that, but as you say yourself, the abysmal move around while prone and still shooting with pin point accuracy that we've seen in games like Rainbow Six Siege is also in the game. While I applaud them for focusing on enhancing teamwork, the results will likely be the same as what we've seen earlier. No one working like a team. Outside of organized matches, people just don't do teamwork. In terms of genuine new gameplay, the only thing that really pops up as new and exciting is the Grand Operations mode, which I'll concede sounds really cool. The rest is just small changes to the existing formula and the continued evolving of the already excellent destruction engine. None of the features appear inspired by the setting, which brings me back to my original criticism of the game. Why WW2? If you do not plan to actually do anything with the setting, then why use it? if the one and only thing to remind you that you're playing a WW2 game is the skins of vehicles and guns, then what was even the point of going with the setting. It is, in my opinion, a massive waste of the source material.

I wasn't aware it was been presented as a 100% accurate recreation of the actual period in time? Seems to me it's simply a game.

Odd.

What does raise my eyebrows us that many only start with the 'oh no evil PC has made it innacurate' when it stops being exclusively white, male.

 

[oli440]

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.

Find me a British woman who fought in front line combat during the war. Then the option to play as a female British soldier is historically justified. Until then, I will treat it as political correctness. If people want that option, fine. But I wouldn't say it's worth the community backlash.

Playing as a female Soviet sniper in the multiplayer is hardly going to feel unique and authentic when you can play as female snipers from other countries (which never happened). It undermines the significance of actual female Soviet snipers.

My opinion is not misogynistic or racist. My opinion is historical. I can't see why I should support the idea of player characters that have no historical backing whatsoever. That's just my view I'm afraid. Hence my point the US 442nd fighting against Asian Germans.

I'll say it again. Gameplay and setting are different. Yes, the weapons and vehicles are not distributed in a historically accurate fashion, but weapons and vehicles are not just cosmetic. They have an impact on gameplay, hence why they can be distributed to nations who may not have used them. That dampens the immersion yes, but I'd rather that than have matches which are one sided because a nation has superior firepower. At least with some games like World at War, historical accuracy is maintained where possible (i.e with the player models). As long as the vehicles and weapons are from the war and are integrated into the maps in a logical fashion, that's fine. Also, there's a difference between having something that existed and something that didn't exist at all. We might be able to use German firearms as British soldiers, but at least those firearms existed, unlike British female front line soldiers with prosthetic arms. If they included an AK-47 in the game, that would annoy people for the exact same reason as British female front line soldiers with prosthetic arms, or Asian German soldiers. They didn't exist.

As for giving people 'what they want', that doesn't seem to reside well with the Battlefield community. Sometimes, less is more. In theory, yes. Giving people the choice of more genders and races would increase the appeal in the game. But at what cost? If the setting was fictional, the community wouldn't be divided. But this is World War 2. You have to treat history with great respect, or the community will not approve. Like I said, more people doesn't mean more will like it.

There are bigger problems in the world than video game customisation options, but opinion is opinion. And since this is a thread talking about Battlefield 5, I thought I might as well get involved. I'm not trying to bring the game down. I'm just stating my honest opinion about it. I love the Battlefield franchise and I'm just disappointed that they didn't give us a more historically accurate interpretation. It's a sign of the times I guess....

 

[Scaff]

Find me a British woman who fought in front line combat during the war. Then the option to play as a female British soldier is historically justified. Until then, I will treat it as political correctness. If people want that option, fine. But I wouldn't say it's worth the community backlash.

It's a customisation options, one of plenty that aren't 100% accurate, as such a dog-whistle cry of PC makes no sense. As for the community back lash, the ones it's putting off I will not miss.

Playing as a female Soviet sniper in the multiplayer is hardly going to feel unique and authentic when you can play as female snipers from other countries (which never happened). It undermines the significance of actual female Soviet snipers.

No it really doesn't.

My opinion is not misogynistic or racist.

I'm not a racist, but......

My opinion is historical. I can't see why I should support the idea of player characters that have no historical backing whatsoever. That's just my view I'm afraid. Hence my point the US 442nd fighting against Asian Germans.

Plenty in this and other video games has no exact historical backing, when you only get funny about those involving gender and race bit says quite a bit.

As for giving people 'what they want', that doesn't seem to reside well with the Battlefield community. Sometimes, less is more. In theory, yes. Giving people the choice of more genders and races would increase the appeal in the game. But at what cost? If the setting was fictional, the community wouldn't be divided. But this is World War 2. You have to treat history with great respect, or the community will not approve. Like I said, more people doesn't mean more will like it.

Odd, as the same was said about the current COD, and the backlash didn't happen, and the number of female avatars used online speaks to the popularity of the inclusion.

There are bigger problems in the world than video game customisation options, but opinion is opinion. And since this is a thread talking about Battlefield 5, I thought I might as well get involved. I'm not trying to bring the game down. I'm just stating my honest opinion about it. I love the Battlefield franchise and I'm just disappointed that they didn't give us a more historically accurate interpretation. It's a sign of the times I guess....

A good sign.

 

[Rage Racer]

Have you ever actually played a BF title?

None of them have exactly been ARMA!

They weren't Overwatch, either.

Yes I had played BF series and Bad Company 2 was my favourite. BF3 and 4 were great, too. They did not pretend to resemble any real historical events.

I'm not talking about realism of gameplay. I'm talking about the atmosphere of WW2. The impression I had from this trailer was like I watched a part of some... action movie like Deadpool or X-men. But not a WW2 story. What's okay for Wolfenstein is not for a game said to be portraying World War 2. There were women who fought in WW2 but not like THIS. They made something ridiculous of history for the sake of political correctness™ and diversity™.

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?

The army we see on this trailer is definitely not Soviet, neither it is an OSS unit. That's what.

On a cite note, there were 36 known women in tank crews of the Red Army. For over 35,000 of T-34 tanks produced. Alone. Without counting the T-34-85 version.

Look. When a game resembling historical events sacrifices historical accuracy for something, there's always a reason for it. Including a Churchill GC into multiplayer can be explained by balancing purposes, to give the British side a vehicle identical to the German Sturmgeschutz. If the Churchills are much faster than real tanks, this is probably done for more dynamic gameplay (and again, balance against the German Panzers that are faster). If there are female soldiers with weird face paints in multiplayer - well, players like customization, so let them have it. But a woman with prosthetic arm fighting on the frontline in the British Army in the single campaign - WHAT is this for?? But, wait, I think I know the answer and I told it already.

I'll still see what the multiplayer will be like, but my first impression from the trailer is not good. And I'm not the only one like this, look at the amount of dislikes on YouTube.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Because YouTube dislikes is a good metric

 

[TenEightyOne]

Find me a British woman who fought in front line combat during the war. Then the option to play as a female British soldier is historically justified. Until then, I will treat it as political correctness.

You could start with the 50 or so SOE fighters in Europe?

It seems strange to me that you're okay with three guys on horseback with flamethrowers, you're okay with mysterious squad bonuses for standing near another player, you're okay with instant re-incarnation after taking a fatal wound... but the idea of some players playing as their own gender is anathema to you.

 

[Jawehawk]

I wasn't aware it was been presented as a 100% accurate recreation of the actual period in time? Seems to me it's simply a game.

I wasn't aware it was being presented as completely 100% not authentic. Oh wait, it isn't. In fact, it is being presented as a game that places fun over authenticity, but without completely forgoing it all together. The reality, however, is that the game is grounded neither in World War 2, nor in reality. I ask again, seeing as no one can be bothered answering it, what is the point of placing your game in a historical setting if literally nothing outside of vehicles and guns are made to represent it? And even then, only visibly, as the vehicles certainly do not represent their real world counterparts aside from their outward appearance. And if you're going to go this route, why not be honest about it? Why not be honest and say that the game is only vaguely inspired by WW2, without actually being based on it? Don't sell it as being a WW2 game when it isn't.

What does raise my eyebrows us that many only start with the 'oh no evil PC has made it innacurate' when it stops being exclusively white, male.

Right, so you're insinuating that I would not complain about historical inaccuracy if for instance the 92nd Infantry Division, an all black American division in WW2, were portrayed in a game or movie by white males. I would. Is that the case here? No. So is it relevant? No.

It must be easy to just blindly paint people as "evil privileged white males" whenever someone says anything even remotely negative about women or colored people, or in this case, to do so when they're simply calling out the historical inaccuracy of their portrayal. 2018 everybody. You're now a racist and/or bigot if you so much as imply that a specific gender or race is out of place.

You could start with the 50 or so SOE fighters in Europe?

It seems strange to me that you're okay with three guys on horseback with flamethrowers, you're okay with mysterious squad bonuses for standing near another player, you're okay with instant re-incarnation after taking a fatal wound... but the idea of some players playing as their own gender is anathema to you.

The SOE was not a combat unit. They were a task force primarily set up to support and instigate sabotage of Axis forces in occupied countries. Their operatives were not usually trained to take part in any kind of conventional fighting, on the contrary, their operating procedures usually entailed no contact with enemy forces. If they were making a game about the SOE, then yes, women ought to have a part in it. But the type of conflict handled in the game is not the kind where you'd find SOE operatives.​

 

[inCloud]

The rest is just small changes

Fortifications in multiplayer
Revive in BF5 is not instant anymore, there's an animation now (low profile and can be cancelled at any time). Everything you do in the game now requires an actual interaction
Specialization trees, which are something like perks

 

[Jawehawk]

I'll grant you that fortifications is a genuinely new feature. My mistake. The other two, however, aren't exactly game changing. More animations are nice, certainly won't badmouth that, but ultimately is just a continuation of the trend they started with BF1, where you suddenly opened doors when entering vehicles for instance. As for perk systems... Well, I don't think they have any place in shooters like this. BF2 and 2142 were so much simpler where this was concerned, and that was for the better I think.

 

[Scaff]

They weren't Overwatch, either.

Yes I had played BF series and Bad Company 2 was my favourite. BF3 and 4 were great, too. They did not pretend to resemble any real historical events.

They never have, I've already posted the devs saying as much twice, do I really need to do so a third time?

I'm not talking about realism of gameplay. I'm talking about the atmosphere of WW2. The impression I had from this trailer was like I watched a part of some... action movie like Deadpool or X-men. But not a WW2 story. What's okay for Wolfenstein is not for a game said to be portraying World War 2. There were women who fought in WW2 but not like THIS. They made something ridiculous of history for the sake of political correctness™ and diversity™.

And yet the focus of you issue with reality is women.

However lets look at Virgina Hall, and SOE/OSS/CIA agent who took part in numerous actions in Europe and once escaped the Germans on foot over the Pyrenees. The reason why I mention her specifically, she had a prosthetic foot (well actually leg from the knee down), but that of course can't of happened, far to 'cyborg'. She won the DSC and ended up working for the CIA (in a division know for carrying out active black-ops). oh, the DSC is only given for active combat as well, so that a women, with a prosthetic, given the second highest US medal for combat, in WW2!

Or Nancy Wake, who lead a group of over a thousand resistance fighters in France against the Germans following D-Day?
"She participated in a raid that destroyed the Gestapo headquarters in Montluçon, during which 38 Germans were killed.[13] At one point Wake discovered that her men were protecting a girl who was a German spy. They did not have the heart to kill her in cold blood, but when Wake insisted that she would perform the execution, they capitulated.[14][12]

From March 1944 until the liberation of France, her 7,000+ maquisards fought the Germans by any means they could. Her French companions, especially Henri Tardivat, praised her fighting spirit, amply demonstrated when she killed an SS sentry with her bare hands to prevent him from raising the alarm during a raid."

Nah, not enough of them, so women are out.

The army we see on this trailer is definitely not Soviet, neither it is an OSS unit. That's what.

It's multi-player. That's what.

On a cite note, there were 36 known women in tank crews of the Red Army. For over 35,000 of T-34 tanks produced. Alone. Without counting the T-34-85 version.

More member of the SAS have been killed in COD and BF titles than have ever served, your point is?

Look. When a game resembling historical events sacrifices historical accuracy for something, there's always a reason for it. Including a Churchill GC into multiplayer can be explained by balancing purposes, to give the British side a vehicle identical to the German Sturmgeschutz. If the Churchills are much faster than real tanks, this is probably done for more dynamic gameplay (and again, balance against the German Panzers that are faster). If there are female soldiers with weird face paints in multiplayer - well, players like customization, so let them have it. But a woman with prosthetic arm fighting on the frontline in the British Army in the single campaign - WHAT is this for?? But, wait, I think I know the answer and I told it already.

I'll still see what the multiplayer will be like, but my first impression from the trailer is not good. And I'm not the only one like this, look at the amount of dislikes on YouTube.

Sorry you know that's not multiplayer how?

Certainly some of HUD and scoring that was poping up appeared to be very multiplayer

I wasn't aware it was being presented as completely 100% not authentic. Oh wait, it isn't. In fact, it is being presented as a game that places fun over authenticity, but without completely forgoing it all together.

I know. I pointed that out to you, after you made a claim that was quite the opposite!

The reality, however, is that the game is grounded neither in World War 2, nor in reality. I ask again, seeing as no one can be bothered answering it, what is the point of placing your game in a historical setting if literally nothing outside of vehicles and guns are made to represent it? And even then, only visibly, as the vehicles certainly do not represent their real world counterparts aside from their outward appearance. And if you're going to go this route, why not be honest about it? Why not be honest and say that the game is only vaguely inspired by WW2, without actually being based on it? Don't sell it as being a WW2 game when it isn't.

The guns don;t represent the exact counterparts either, as they have been balanced within class to ensure none have an advantage over the other, yet again its not that you focused on to take issue with initially.

Right, so you're insinuating that I would not complain about historical inaccuracy if for instance the 92nd Infantry Division, an all black American division in WW2, were portrayed in a game or movie by white males. I would. Is that the case here? No. So is it relevant? No.

Nope, which is why I didn't say that.

It must be easy to just blindly paint people as "evil privileged white males" whenever someone says anything even remotely negative about women or colored people, or in this case, to do so when they're simply calling out the historical inaccuracy of their portrayal. 2018 everybody. You're now a racist and/or bigot if you so much as imply that a specific gender or race is out of place.

It must be just as easy to attack everything as being the PC product of SJW snowflakes.

They are calling out historical inaccuracies in one area and claiming it utterly ruins something, and yet have been ignoring historic inaccuracies in other areas. Odd that.

The SOE was not a combat unit. They were a task force primarily set up to support and instigate sabotage of Axis forces in occupied countries. Their operatives were not usually trained to take part in any kind of conventional fighting, on the contrary, their operating procedures usually entailed no contact with enemy forces. If they were making a game about the SOE, then yes, women ought to have a part in it. But the type of conflict handled in the game is not the kind where you'd find SOE operatives.

​

The SOE trained and took part in partisan groups across Europe, and actions they took often involved specific contact with enemy forces. They were also trained (both men and women) in combat, it was a very specific part of the training they carried out, it rather difficult to then train others in something you've not been trained in yourself.

You also seem to not be aware that SOE team when into Holland a few weeks before Market Garden and worked directly with the attacking allied forces, or that they carried out similar roles with Italian partisan forces, or carried out assassinations in the Balkans. I mean one of the levels in the current COD is named after an SOE assassination!

No direct contact with enemy forces my arse.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ive-soe-world-war-women-ngbooktalk/?beta=true

As did the women combatants of numerous Partisan groups and Russian forces.

Did women make up a significant number of front line troops in WW2? No, and no one is arguing that they did. However they did, across numerous locations in WW2 take part in front line operations, as such having them in a WW2 title is not a total break from reality regardless of the fact that some of the uniforms and equipment they end up with is not 100% accurate (nor is it for many others in WW2 titles and I don't see that being complained about by the youtube warriors).

 

[RYAN]

A shame all this rubbish is overshadowing the excitement for the big reveal at EA play. I've gone through all this debating and bother with people who were annoyed about the inaccuracy of some of the gear and weapons in Rainbow Six Siege. Some of who i recognise in this thread...

They just can't comprehend that for the majority of gamers.... Fun factor/extensive customisation/More choices > Complete historical accuracy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The SOE was not a combat unit.

The SOE absolutely saw combat as single operatives, as groups of SOE operatives and as part of larger partisan forces.

If they were making a game about the SOE, then yes, women ought to have a part in it.

How do you know they're not? What we saw of that sequence doesn't really give any clue about the characters or their wider role/mission.

 

[inCloud]

however, aren't exactly game changing

Its completely changing game dynamics and tactics.

 

[Jawehawk]

I know. I pointed that out to you, after you made a claim that was quite the opposite!

You know, the second half of the sentence is equally important as the first half. They're presenting it as balancing authenticity with fun, when in reality, no such balancing is taking place. There is no authenticity. That's fine. They can do that. But they shouldn't pretend to be doing otherwise.

The guns don;t represent the exact counterparts either, as they have been balanced within class to ensure none have an advantage over the other, yet again its not that you focused on to take issue with initially.

I wouldn't expect a complete 1:1 recreation of them, but I certainly want some semblance of realism in their portrayal and who wields them. An American soldiers for instance should not be wielding a German gun as standard. And it's not entirely true that this was not part of my initial complaints, I just chose not to go into depth with it, and instead simply said this...

"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."

I figured this would be enough to make it clear that my concerns over authenticity extended well beyond the game featuring female soldiers. I expressed my concerns over lack of authenticity in BF1 in its respective thread (page 16). Reiterating the same problems I had with BF1, which are very much problems in BF5 too, seemed pointless. In short, the female soldier is simply an additional inaccuracy, further removing the game from the setting it claims to portray.

It must be just as easy to attack everything as being the PC product of SJW snowflakes.
They are calling out historical inaccuracies in one area and claiming it utterly ruins something, and yet have been ignoring historic inaccuracies in other areas. Odd that.

Fair point, however, I don't believe the focus on SJW's to be misplaced. When you portray history through the lens of todays world, rather than the reality of what was, then how can that be anything but political correctness? And where does it stop? Don't give me this nonsense of people wanting to play their own gender in a game where you cannot even see your own character during gameplay, and where the character is ultimately nothing by than an extension of then gun in your hand, rather than the other way around.

​

The SOE trained and took part in partisan groups across Europe, and actions they took often involved specific contact with enemy forces. They were also trained (both men and women) in combat, it was a very specific part of the training they carried out, it rather difficult to then train others in something you've not been trained in yourself.

You also seem to not be aware that SOE team when into Holland a few weeks before Market Garden and worked directly with the attacking allied forces, or that they carried out similar roles with Italian partisan forces, or carried out assassinations in the Balkans. I mean one of the levels in the current COD is named after an SOE assassination!

No direct contact with enemy forces my arse.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ive-soe-world-war-women-ngbooktalk/?beta=true

As did the women combatants of numerous Partisan groups and Russian forces.

Did women make up a significant number of front line troops in WW2? No, and no one is arguing that they did. However they did, across numerous locations in WW2 take part in front line operations, as such having them in a WW2 title is not a total break from reality regardless of the fact that some of the uniforms and equipment they end up with is not 100% accurate (nor is it for many others in WW2 titles and I don't see that being complained about by the youtube warriors).

They were trained in self defense, sabotage and limited combat operations. They were not trained, at least not in general, to participate in full scale combat operations. The people they were training also did not conduct conventional war. The only notable exception here being the partisans in Yugoslavia, who, on numerous occasions, did fight in more conventional ways with various degrees of success.

Even when the SOE took part in major allied operations, such as Market Garden, their job was to act as a liaison between the allied forces and the resistance. They organized, and sometimes took part in sabotage and general subversion in enemy territory. They did not, or at least not ordinarily, fight side by side with soldiers in conventional battle. It simply wasn't their job.

Here's an example...

"SFHQ attached EDWARD to the airborne corps HQ to act as liaison with the local 134 population and to provide an additional communications for the airborne corps with England. In its principle mission as liaison between corps and SFHQ, EDWARD would coordinate the work of its sub-missions with their assigned divisions and act as an additional communications link for these sub missions to SFHQ"

Source: THE ROLE OF JEDBURGH TEAMS IN OPERATION MARKET GARDEN
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b149933.pdf

The same basic task holds true for the other Jedburgh teams participating in Market Garden. They did indeed engage Germans when necessary, but never in the direct head to head engagements that regular army units would.

A shame all this rubbish is overshadowing the excitement for the big reveal at EA play. I've gone through all this debating and bother with people who were annoyed about the inaccuracy of some of the gear and weapons in Rainbow Six Siege. Some of who i recognise in this thread...

They just can't comprehend that for the majority of gamers.... Fun factor/extensive customisation/More choices > Complete historical accuracy.

That's all well and good, but I again have to ask. If the one and only thing that portrays the historical period that you've chosen for your game is the visible models for weapons and vehicles, then why bother with the period at all? Why not just make a fictional setting? If you make no effort to actually portray the period with any authenticity, then surely, choosing it is pointless?​

 

[Scaff]

You know, the second half of the sentence is equally important as the first half. They're presenting it as balancing authenticity with fun, when in reality, no such balancing is taking place. There is no authenticity. That's fine. They can do that. But they shouldn't pretend to be doing otherwise.

Don't re-write what they said to try and suit your own aims, they clearly said they put fun over authenticity.



If you can't form your argument without lying, then you have no argument.

I wouldn't expect a complete 1:1 recreation of them, but I certainly want some semblance of realism in their portrayal and who wields them. An American soldiers for instance should not be wielding a German gun as standard. And it's not entirely true that this was not part of my initial complaints, I just chose not to go into depth with it, and instead simply said this...

"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."

I figured this would be enough to make it clear that my concerns over authenticity extended well beyond the game featuring female soldiers. I expressed my concerns over lack of authenticity in BF1 in its respective thread (page 16). Reiterating the same problems I had with BF1, which are very much problems in BF5 too, seemed pointless. In short, the female soldier is simply an additional inaccuracy, further removing the game from the setting it claims to portray.

So don't play it.

However your still making it out to be something its not.

Fair point, however, I don't believe the focus on SJW's to be misplaced. When you portray history through the lens of todays world, rather than the reality of what was, then how can that be anything but political correctness? And where does it stop? Don't give me this nonsense of people wanting to play their own gender in a game where you cannot even see your own character during gameplay, and where the character is ultimately nothing by than an extension of then gun in your hand, rather than the other way around.

Why can;t someone be the gender the want? Given that its the characters avatar in a game!

That's what it is at the end of the day. A Game.
​

They were trained in self defense, sabotage and limited combat operations. They were not trained, at least not in general, to participate in full scale combat operations. The people they were training also did not conduct conventional war. The only notable exception here being the partisans in Yugoslavia, who, on numerous occasions, did fight in more conventional ways with various degrees of success.

Even when the SOE took part in major allied operations, such as Market Garden, their job was to act as a liaison between the allied forces and the resistance. They organized, and sometimes took part in sabotage and general subversion in enemy territory. They did not, or at least not ordinarily, fight side by side with soldiers in conventional battle. It simply wasn't their job.

Here's an example...

"SFHQ attached EDWARD to the airborne corps HQ to act as liaison with the local 134 population and to provide an additional communications for the airborne corps with England. In its principle mission as liaison between corps and SFHQ, EDWARD would coordinate the work of its sub-missions with their assigned divisions and act as an additional communications link for these sub missions to SFHQ"

Source: THE ROLE OF JEDBURGH TEAMS IN OPERATION MARKET GARDEN
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b149933.pdf

The same basic task holds true for the other Jedburgh teams participating in Market Garden. They did indeed engage Germans when necessary, but never in the direct head to head engagements that regular army units would.

And yet as I have already posted links to, that's exactly what they did.

"She participated in a raid that destroyed the Gestapo headquarters in Montluçon, during which 38 Germans were killed."

"From March 1944 until the liberation of France, her 7,000+ maquisards fought the Germans by any means they could. Her French companions, especially Henri Tardivat, praised her fighting spirit, amply demonstrated when she killed an SS sentry with her bare hands to prevent him from raising the alarm during a raid."

That's all well and good, but I again have to ask. If the one and only thing that portrays the historical period that you've chosen for your game is the visible models for weapons and vehicles, then why bother with the period at all? Why not just make a fictional setting? If you make no effort to actually portray the period with any authenticity, then surely, choosing it is pointless?

​

Why? Because it sells the game, I would have thought that would have been bloody obvious.

Aside from that, why the hell not. They get the choice to do so, and they are portraying the period with a degree of accuracy, just not the degree you want. That doesn't make it pointless, it just make you not part of the target audience, something that seems to affect you to such as degree you have to start throwing insults around (and please don't claim otherwise, PC, SJW, etc. are being used as pejoratives, plain and simple).

 

[Jawehawk]

Don't re-write what they said to try and suit your own aims, they clearly said they put fun over authenticity.



If you can't form your argument without lying, then you have no argument.

Look at post 18 in this very thread. They're very much presenting it as a balancing act. That one twitter post you show does not constitute the entirety of their PR work for the game.

So don't play it.

However your still making it out to be something its not.

I admit I cannot bring hard evidence on it being a case of political correctness. The same applies to you and your viewpoint, however. I can only correlate it with the current political climate, and its effects on the entertainment industry.

Why can;t someone be the gender the want? Given that its the characters avatar in a game!

That's what it is at the end of the day. A Game.

​

Why can't I be an alien? Afterall, it's a game, and customization is great. It's an exaggeration of course, but the same basic principle. It being a game does not exempt it from criticism regarding things that feel out of place.

And yet as I have already posted links to, that's exactly what they did.

"She participated in a raid that destroyed the Gestapo headquarters in Montluçon, during which 38 Germans were killed."

"From March 1944 until the liberation of France, her 7,000+ maquisards fought the Germans by any means they could. Her French companions, especially Henri Tardivat, praised her fighting spirit, amply demonstrated when she killed an SS sentry with her bare hands to prevent him from raising the alarm during a raid."

Actually, your link nicely backs up what I am saying. Staying in the shadows, and learning non conventional fighting techniques.
Do you now know what constitutes conventional battle? A raid on axis installations with the purpose being sabotage and subversion, and where the succes comes down to surprise, is not conventional warfare. Partisans are based on unconventional warfare. The moment they attempt conventional warfare, they lose. Your link only corroborates what I'm saying, that the SOE were focused on organizing and aiding resistance fighters, not conventional warfare.
​

Why? Because it sells the game, I would have thought that would have been bloody obvious.

Aside from that, why the hell not. They get the choice to do so, and they are portraying the period with a degree of accuracy, just not the degree you want. That doesn't make it pointless, it just make you not part of the target audience...

Games that would sell regardless of what time period the developers purported to represent. And when the only thing WW2 about your game are the visuals for your guns and vehicles, then there is no accuracy. The setting has no gameplay altercations, and thus, It might as well be set in modern day or in a fictional world.

… something that seems to affect you to such as degree you have to start throwing insults around (and please don't claim otherwise, PC, SJW, etc. are being used as pejoratives, plain and simple).

Wow. So we cannot call companies out for furthering a political agenda, yet you can go around insinuating that me or others are bigots? And please don't claim otherwise. That comment could serve no other purpose than to insinuate such a thing, as it otherwise would not have been relevant to even bring into the conversation. Might want to add that to the AUP then.

Thou shall not accuse companies of operating under political agendas.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why can't I be an alien? Afterall, it's a game, and customization is great. It's an exaggeration of course, but the same basic principle.

Good question, why shouldn't you be an alien? For now how about representing the two largest groups of gamers - female humans and male humans?

Games that would sell regardless of what time period the developers purported to represent. And when the only thing WW2 about your game are the visuals for your guns and vehicles, then there is no accuracy. The setting has no gameplay altercations, and thus, It might as well be set in modern day or in a fictional world.

Welcome to the weird existential world of imaginary thingsmadeofpixels.

That one twitter post you show does not constitute the entirety of their PR work for the game.

And the case that you've taken up so strongly rests on some non-gameplay footage that doesn't represent the entirety of the (as yet mostly unknown) stories that the devs want to bring to this game.

Actually, your link nicely backs up what I am saying. Staying in the shadows, and learning non conventional fighting techniques.
Do you now know what constitutes conventional battle? A raid on axis installations with the purpose being sabotage and subversion, and where the succes comes down to surprise, is not conventional warfare. Partisans are based on unconventional warfare. The moment they attempt conventional warfare, they lose. Your link only corroborates what I'm saying, that the SOE were focused on organizing and aiding resistance fighters, not conventional warfare.

If you're so unfamiliar with the huge range of operations that the SOE undertook then you should do some more research, you might also consider what happened when units lost their cover or the element of surprise. Shooting and running seems pretty conventional to me. I'd also question whether or not the scenes you've apparently taken such issue with purport to show "conventional" warfare, seems to me they may not.

 

[MeanElf]

Was that a katana I just saw on the Western front?

Katanas weren't unknown in Europe - People were travelling to and trading again with Japan from the mid 19thC. They were quite the cultural acquisition.

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

Cyborg is just the wrong word in this case. The six million dollar man is a cyborg - the 'imaginatively' named Borg too. Simply having a prosthetic wouldn't make the term applicable - strength enhancement is needed for that, therefore hydraulics in this case to give that arm superhuman capability. Sorry, I appreciate that historical accuracy is your thing, word accuracy is mine

 

[Scaff]

Just to annoy a few, here's a black German solider in uniform in WW2.

Lets throw in an Arab in Nazi uniform as well.

The Free Arabian Legion consisted of black and Arab soliders and was a Nazi German army unit that saw action in North Africa and Greece. Where they treated as equals with the white German troops. 100% not, but the same charge can also be made in regard to non-white troops in the Allied forces (a large number of black soldiers fought in the French armies, none were allowed to march in the victory parades post WW2, and the US soldiers returned to a US in which they were still second class citizens.

Look at post 18 in this very thread. They're very much presenting it as a balancing act. That one twitter post you show does not constitute the entirety of their PR work for the game.

Which is the most recent communication from them? That would be the one putting fun over accuracy, but do carry on telling them they are wrong.

I admit I cannot bring hard evidence on it being a case of political correctness. The same applies to you and your viewpoint, however. I can only correlate it with the current political climate, and its effects on the entertainment industry.

Ahh so the moronic view that equality must be the product of political correctness.

​

Why can't I be an alien? Afterall, it's a game, and customization is great. It's an exaggeration of course, but the same basic principle. It being a game does not exempt it from criticism regarding things that feel out of place.

An argument to the absurd, if you can't see the logical fallacy in your (very, very weak) point then sit back and have a good think about it.

Actually, your link nicely backs up what I am saying. Staying in the shadows, and learning non conventional fighting techniques.
Do you now know what constitutes conventional battle? A raid on axis installations with the purpose being sabotage and subversion, and where the succes comes down to surprise, is not conventional warfare. Partisans are based on unconventional warfare. The moment they attempt conventional warfare, they lose. Your link only corroborates what I'm saying, that the SOE were focused on organizing and aiding resistance fighters, not conventional warfare.​

Oh dear, you seem to be involved in some very selective reading here.

I take it from this point that any use of Royal Marine Commandos in BFV will also be out as well (given that they specialised in similar work as well, ditto the LRDP, SAS and SBS?

All these specialised in a similar area (and often worked with the SOE), yet all of them, when needed (and increasingly towards the end of the war) engaged in more and more conventional engagements.

You also assume (based on a sub one minute trailer) that no covert missions will be included.​

Games that would sell regardless of what time period the developers purported to represent. And when the only thing WW2 about your game are the visuals for your guns and vehicles, then there is no accuracy. The setting has no gameplay altercations, and thus, It might as well be set in modern day or in a fictional world.

It may, they chose not to.

Did you make this much of a fuss about Red Dead Redemption? Actually scratch that, do you make this much fuss about every game ever made?

Wow. So we cannot call companies out for furthering a political agenda, yet you can go around insinuating that me or others are bigots? And please don't claim otherwise. That comment could serve no other purpose than to insinuate such a thing, as it otherwise would not have been relevant to even bring into the conversation. Might want to add that to the AUP then.

Thou shall not accuse companies of operating under political agendas.

I'm not insinuating that some are being racist and/or misogynistic about this, I'm flat out saying it.

If people have an issue with games not being exclusively white and male, then yep that's exactly what I am happy to accuse them of, particularly if the game in question is using some historical basis for inclusion. I will be honest and say that many of those whining on youtube about this are the exact same that complained about Wolfenstien being unfair to Nazi's, the same kind of apologist ******** that saw an newspaper article 'In praise of the Wehrmacht' appear this week.

(Oh and once again you have presented no evidence of a the company furthering a political agenda - and even if they are if being inclusive in a game is a political agenda then count me in).

 

[MeanElf]

Guderian mentioned fighting African units in the French campaign too, said they fought bravely and impressed him.

 

[oli440]

It's a customisation options, one of plenty that aren't 100% accurate, as such a dog-whistle cry of PC makes no sense. As for the community back lash, the ones it's putting off I will not miss.




No it really doesn't.


I'm not a racist, but......


Plenty in this and other video games has no exact historical backing, when you only get funny about those involving gender and race bit says quite a bit.


Odd, as the same was said about the current COD, and the backlash didn't happen, and the number of female avatars used online speaks to the popularity of the inclusion.


A good sign.

Real textbook response. Call me a racist and a misogynist when I believe that races and women are being over-represented, despite the fact that I stand for historical fact, not a twisted PC fantasy. You completely misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. You do realise that when people complain about women and certain races being in the game, were not saying they should be completely outlawed, right? We're saying they should be portrayed in a more believable way.

You're suggesting that we just accept the historical inaccuracies because no Battlefield game has been truly realistic. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. Gameplay and setting are totally different things. Most of the fans want a Battlefield game that is fun to play & historically accurate. Just because you can glitch on top of a horse with a flamethrower is not a valid excuse for challenging the gender and race of the soldiers who actually fought in the war. Is it really that hard to grasp?

The game has to be either unrealistic as all hell or ultra realistic. Apparently, it's not possible to create a game that falls somewhere in between....

Are you sure Call of Duty World War 2 didn't get any backlash? Sure, it's nowhere near as much as Battlefield, but that doesn't mean that it didn't receive criticism for its diverse character models. The reveal trailer was well received, because it showed what people wanted. No surprise that it has 1 million likes and only 100k dislikes. The trailer doesn't wave political agenda in your face and instead gets straight to the point. When it came to the multiplayer however, there were plenty of people who were annoyed. I think this dude explains it quite well.

The Battlefield community have spoken. You can't simply dismiss the hate by calling everyone racist or misogynistic. That's hardly a mature way of reacting to the opinions of others. Most of the fans desire an immersive, believable setting, and Battlefield 5 is clearly not achieving that.

You present some very interesting evidence of increased racial and gender diversity. However, 20,000 troops in the Free Arabian Legion compared to the total 13 million that served in the German army shows the insanity of presenting Arabs as equals to the mostly white German troops. Do you think Nazi Germany would even allow that? You can't expect people to just accept a complete disregard to historical fact.

If the developers wanted to increase the diversity of race and gender in the game, why not base the war stories around historically accurate encounters, such as the Free Arabian Legion itself? Imagine playing a mission or two as part of that unit. That would be swell. That would be the historically correct way of increasing racial diversity, without resorting to a politically correct fantasy. Win win if you ask me.

Same goes for multiplayer. Depending on the battle, you could bring in racially diverse units, provided that they are historically justified and not made up on the spot. I'm all for racial and gender diversity, but why should I believe in an exaggerated level of diversity? A manufactured level of diversity? Battlefield 5's racial and gender diversity is complete overkill. It can have diversity yes, but only if it's genuine.

There's a reason the Battlefield 5 trailer is the most disliked in the franchises history, and that reason (for most people at least) has nothing to do with misogyny or racism. We don't want manufactured gender and racial diversity. We want an honest depiction of the Second World War.

'No evidence of furthering political agenda'. Really? The political agenda is blatantly obvious, is it not? They wouldn't call it a 'never-before-seen' portrayal of World War 2 if it wasn't politically correct. Why beat around the bush when you can just flat out call it a World War 2 game? I think you'll find that's because they can't state that. They know for a fact that political correctness has far removed the game from what it could have been.

If you were part of DICE, would you dismiss the massive backlash and continue living in cloud cuckoo land? No.... You'd look into the problem and address it as best as you can. If people want a more believable setting with more realistic customisation options, give it to them. Don't come up with the excuse that X,Y and Z are unrealistic, because no one is falling for that PR bull.

This doesn't even factor in the totally absurd uniform customisation options. That discount Kratos character is a complete joke, almost as if they put him together intentionally to nod to God of War. Now I think about it, I can agree that the weapons and vehicles could be portrayed in a more realistic fashion, provided that gameplay itself does not change drastically. It was always fun playing the Japanese scout in Battlefield 1943, because his melee weapon was the samurai sword. Sometimes I would play the game just to banzai charge out of foliage to ambush the enemy. It didn't work a lot of the time, but when it did, it was amazing! That's appealing, because it was distinct to that theatre of the war and that nation, giving it historical and gameplay value. If everyone's going around with samurai swords regardless of the faction, it reduces the fun and authenticity of playing the Japanese specifically. On that basis, Having weapons that are exclusive to certain factions would be awesome.

It's not exactly a surprise that fun can be achieved through authenticity. Battlefield doesn't have to be truly realistic, but elements of realism can be used for the benefit of the experience.

The biggest mistake you can make is doubting the strength of community. If Battlefront 2 is anything to go by, EA and Dice should be very afraid....

 

[Scaff]

Real textbook response. Call me a racist and a misogynist when I believe that races and women are being over-represented, despite the fact that I stand for historical fact, not a twisted PC fantasy. You completely misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. You do realise that when people complain about women and certain races being in the game, were not saying they should be completely outlawed, right? We're saying they should be portrayed in a more believable way.

However your OK with other stuff not being portrayed in a believable way and just dress it up as gameplay to try and explain it.

You're suggesting that we just accept the historical inaccuracies because no Battlefield game has been truly realistic. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. Gameplay and setting are totally different things. Most of the fans want a Battlefield game that is fun to play & historically accurate. Just because you can glitch on top of a horse with a flamethrower is not a valid excuse for challenging the gender and race of the soldiers who actually fought in the war. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Why isn't it?

The game has to be either unrealistic as all hell or ultra realistic. Apparently, it's not possible to create a game that falls somewhere in between....

I'm not the one complaining about realism balance, you are.

Are you sure Call of Duty World War 2 didn't get any backlash?

Didn't say that.

Sure, it's nowhere near as much as Battlefield, but that doesn't mean that it didn't receive criticism for its diverse character models. The reveal trailer was well received, because it showed what people wanted. No surprise that it has 1 million likes and only 100k dislikes. The trailer doesn't wave political agenda in your face and instead gets straight to the point. When it came to the multiplayer however, there were plenty of people who were annoyed. I think this dude explains it quite well.

I think that 'dude' is a dick who has no idea what he's talking about.

I quote, ' African Americans in WW1 were only given support roles such as maintenance'.

The US unit who spend the longest time on the front line in WW1 and lost the largest number of men was the Harlem Hellfighters, an exclusively African American unit. He mentions the Hellfighters and then immediatly downplays them, failing to mention the facts about time on the front line or casualty numbers.

His next claim, WW1 was a white mans war, yet he British army numbered 8.5 million men (approx), of which over 1.5 million were not white. That's certainly not a white only force by any imagination!

You used a moron who couldn't even get these basic facts right as a source, and if you are willing to swallow that kind of crap blindly its not real surprise you hold the views you do.

I'm going to be blunt and say that if you play 'Storm of Steel' and your reaction is 'too many black people', rather than 'how did anyone get through this', then yes you're a racist.

The Battlefield community have spoken. You can't simply dismiss the hate by calling everyone racist or misogynistic. That's hardly a mature way of reacting to the opinions of others. Most of the fans desire an immersive, believable setting, and Battlefield 5 is clearly not achieving that.

If that's what it is then why can't I?

You present some very interesting evidence of increased racial and gender diversity. However, 20,000 troops in the Free Arabian Legion compared to the total 13 million that served in the German army shows the insanity of presenting Arabs as equals to the mostly white German troops. Do you think Nazi Germany would even allow that? You can't expect people to just accept a complete disregard to historical fact.

Odd that at the start of this discussion many were claiming that these didn't even exist.

The argunet used was that its unrealistic that they were included because they never existed, now its been shown that they did (and in number - the FAL were not alone and not limited to one side) and the goal-posts now move. They can't be used because not enough of them existed is the new 'argument', I do hope that you are going to include that logic and apply it to every part of the title (and all titles for that matter).

If the developers wanted to increase the diversity of race and gender in the game, why not base the war stories around historically accurate encounters, such as the Free Arabian Legion itself? Imagine playing a mission or two as part of that unit. That would be swell. That would be the historically correct way of increasing racial diversity, without resorting to a politically correct fantasy. Win win if you ask me.

The did that for the Hellfighters in BF1 and your 'source' dismissed that as PC appeasement (too many of them - back to those quotas again), so you will have to excuse my if I don't think that will stop the absurd degree of nonsense some are spouting.

Same goes for multiplayer. Depending on the battle, you could bring in racially diverse units, provided that they are historically justified and not made up on the spot. I'm all for racial and gender diversity, but why should I believe in an exaggerated level of diversity? A manufactured level of diversity? Battlefield 5's racial and gender diversity is complete overkill. It can have diversity yes, but only if it's genuine.

So once again your fine with the things not being innacurate, as long as its not gender and race.

And you wonder why soe of us think you might have an issue with gender and race!

There's a reason the Battlefield 5 trailer is the most disliked in the franchises history, and that reason (for most people at least) has nothing to do with misogyny or racism. We don't want manufactured gender and racial diversity. We want an honest depiction of the Second World War.

'No evidence of furthering political agenda'. Really? The political agenda is blatantly obvious, is it not? They wouldn't call it a 'never-before-seen' portrayal of World War 2 if it wasn't politically correct. Why beat around the bush when you can just flat out call it a World War 2 game? I think you'll find that's because they can't state that. They know for a fact that political correctness has far removed the game from what it could have been.

You are honestly making that claim with a straight face after seeing a 60 second trailer!

If you were part of DICE, would you dismiss the massive backlash and continue living in cloud cuckoo land? No.... You'd look into the problem and address it as best as you can. If people want a more believable setting with more realistic customisation options, give it to them. Don't come up with the excuse that X,Y and Z are unrealistic, because no one is falling for that PR bull.

This doesn't even factor in the totally absurd uniform customisation options. That discount Kratos character is a complete joke, almost as if they put him together intentionally to nod to God of War. Now I think about it, I can agree that the weapons and vehicles could be portrayed in a more realistic fashion, provided that gameplay itself does not change drastically. It was always fun playing the Japanese scout in Battlefield 1943, because his melee weapon was the samurai sword. Sometimes I would play the game just to banzai charge out of foliage to ambush the enemy. It didn't work a lot of the time, but when it did, it was amazing! That's appealing, because it was distinct to that theatre of the war and that nation, giving it historical and gameplay value. If everyone's going around with samurai swords regardless of the faction, it reduces the fun and authenticity of playing the Japanese specifically. On that basis, Having weapons that are exclusive to certain factions would be awesome.

It's not exactly a surprise that fun can be achieved through authenticity. Battlefield doesn't have to be truly realistic, but elements of realism can be used for the benefit of the experience.

The biggest mistake you can make is doubting the strength of community. If Battlefront 2 is anything to go by, EA and Dice should be very afraid....

The BF2 backlash was specific to a broken mechanic and a wider issue within the industry to loot-boxes. Something that governments have got involved with due to the issues around gambling, its not even remotely close to the same thing.


Now if this were a book or film that was purporting to be a 100% accurate recounting of the events in question I would agree with you 100% that total accuracy was paramount, but its not. Its not even close to being that, its a video game. However given your reaction here you must have an heart-attack every time Braveheart or U-571 get shown on TV.

 

[MeanElf]

Gods and I though peoples' petty reaction to ONRUSH not actually being a bona fide racer was daft...

 

[Scaff]

Gods and I though peoples' petty reaction to ONRUSH not actually being a bona fide racer was daft...

It seems we have underestimated the power of the Gammon.

People are having a melt down because non-male and/or non-white characters might not be being used in a 100% accurate way in a GAME.

A game for **** sake!

Oh and least I forget, all based on a 60 second trailer.

 

[Jawehawk]

And the case that you've taken up so strongly rests on some non-gameplay footage that doesn't represent the entirety of the (as yet mostly unknown) stories that the devs want to bring to this game.

Strongly? As I've already said, I put the same emphasis on the other historical inaccuracies in the game as I do the inclusion of women where they are out of place. The debate has centered around this issue, so that is the issue I've focused on. That does not make it my sole complaint regarding lacking authenticity. To quote myself...


"I wouldn't expect a complete 1:1 recreation of them, but I certainly want some semblance of realism in their portrayal and who wields them. An American soldiers for instance should not be wielding a German gun as standard. And it's not entirely true that this was not part of my initial complaints, I just chose not to go into depth with it, and instead simply said this...

"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."

I figured this would be enough to make it clear that my concerns over authenticity extended well beyond the game featuring female soldiers. I expressed my concerns over lack of authenticity in BF1 in its respective thread (page 16). Reiterating the same problems I had with BF1, which are very much problems in BF5 too, seemed pointless. In short, the female soldier is simply an additional inaccuracy, further removing the game from the setting it claims to portray."

It's also why I originally called the game another reskin of BF3, because fundamentally, the game still plays the same, despite the setting giving way to some interesting gameplay unique to it.

If you're so unfamiliar with the huge range of operations that the SOE undertook then you should do some more research, you might also consider what happened when units lost their cover or the element of surprise. Shooting and running seems pretty conventional to me. I'd also question whether or not the scenes you've apparently taken such issue with purport to show "conventional" warfare, seems to me they may not.

Conventional warfare is two sides engaging in battle with the purpose of victory through the destruction or surrender of enemy forces, all the while claiming new territory. Unconventional warfare, which the SOE, as well as special forces in general, were engaged in, is raids, sabotage, subversion assassinations and organization of resistance fighters, usually behind enemy lines. They do not engage in frontline warfare, such as conventional forces would. Instead, they rely on covert action, speed and surprise to overpower their enemy before they even know what hit them. Unconventional warfare is all about not facing the enemy in prolonged open combat, because doing so would often mean defeat. So by all means, show me an example of the SOE engaging in conventional frontline warfare with the goal of acquiring territory. Reading about them makes it pretty clear that their overall mission was to liaison with and assist resistance fighters, and sabotage enemy installations through non conventional means, such as infiltration or raids.

I've not made myself clear on this, which I admit is my mistake, but my criticism has been directed to the online portion of the game, partially because we lack info on the single player, and partially because BF has always been dominated by the multiplayer aspect. For these reasons, I did not feel it necessary to stress that I was talking about the online portion. The trailer, showing online play, clearly show conventional warfare, albeit a hyper exaggerated version of it, featuring combined arms and frontline action.

Which is the most recent communication from them? That would be the one putting fun over accuracy, but do carry on telling them they are wrong.

So the most recent twitter post negates anything else having been advertised about the game before it? What logic is this?

Ahh so the moronic view that equality must be the product of political correctness.

Equality is not about being represented in a video game. No one is entitled representation in entertainment. The developers should make the game they want to make, without feeling like they have to appease anyone. That includes me and my push for historical accuracy. But it also includes anyone else. People can voice their complaints all they want, preferably through coherent arguments, but in the end of the day they are not entitled a say in the product. hence why my I would take less of an issue with the game if it was not marketed as a WW2 game, because it frankly isn't. It is about as loosely inspired by WW2 as Valkyria Chronicles is. Actually, scratch that, Valkyria Chronicles is closer to WW2 than this game will be.
​

An argument to the absurd, if you can't see the logical fallacy in your (very, very weak) point then sit back and have a good think about it.

Indeed it is, just like saying "it's a game" is an absurd counter to any complaints. It being a game is not an argument that can be used to negate or discredit criticism that you might not agree with.

Oh dear, you seem to be involved in some very selective reading here.

I take it from this point that any use of Royal Marine Commandos in BFV will also be out as well (given that they specialised in similar work as well, ditto the LRDP, SAS and SBS?

All these specialised in a similar area (and often worked with the SOE), yet all of them, when needed (and increasingly towards the end of the war) engaged in more and more conventional engagements.

You also assume (based on a sub one minute trailer) that no covert missions will be included.

Not at all. The article you linked very clearly mentions that they were involved in sabotage, raids and so on. It does not make mention of them engaging in conventional conflict. Are you under the impression that I'm denying that SOE operatives were ever engaged in battle? Because I'm not. Rather I've explained through evidence that they did not partake in conventional fighting (see my description further up in this post), and thus would be out of place in a game featuring large scale frontline combat, which the trailer clearly portrays. And yes, the SAS, and other special forces units, who are also usually engaged in unconventional warfare, would also be out of place featured alongside conventional army units in a frontline fight.

If, however, you can find an example of this happening, and you implement that into the game, that would be a case of using your source material for the creation of unique gameplay. Gasp! Who knew you could use your setting to create fun! A scenario in the game featuring the Yugoslav partisans desperate fight against one of the several German/Italian campaigns orchestrated to destroy the partisan movements would be brilliant, and would offer historical legitimacy for the portrayal of women, and possibly also SOE operatives in battle conditions. So why not use it? Why not use the damn setting that you chose for your game to fulfill your design goals, in this case, to allow people to play as women?​

Did you make this much of a fuss about Red Dead Redemption? Actually scratch that, do you make this much fuss about every game ever made?

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Red Dead. Not my type of game, so I haven't looked into it. And what fuss? I'm here, debating an issue on a web forum. I'm not waving banners on the streets, starting petitions or anything like that. I'm simply stating my desire for historical authenticity, or, failing that, that the developer at least does not pretend to adhere to any kind of historical authenticity. The topic of my responses reflect what you and others have chosen to focus on. As I've already said multiple times, I place the same importance on the many other inaccuracies in the game.

I'm not insinuating that some are being racist and/or misogynistic about this, I'm flat out saying it.

If people have an issue with games not being exclusively white and male, then yep that's exactly what I am happy to accuse them of, particularly if the game in question is using some historical basis for inclusion. I will be honest and say that many of those whining on youtube about this are the exact same that complained about Wolfenstien being unfair to Nazi's, the same kind of apologist ******** that saw an newspaper article 'In praise of the Wehrmacht' appear this week.

(Oh and once again you have presented no evidence of a the company furthering a political agenda - and even if they are if being inclusive in a game is a political agenda then count me in).

So, at first, you were not insinuating anything, but now, you're not only insinuating, but flat out saying it. Make up your mind. In any case, if you think that I am being presumptuous in calling the game out as SJW pandering, which, I'll admit, is perhaps the case, then aren't you guilty of the same when you automatically assume that everyone who take issue with the portrayal of women in the game is misogynist? Your reaction is a response based on your overall perception of the internet, or perhaps society as a whole, and its response to this. The same goes for me. Our perceptions simply differ. Where you see misogny, I, not always, but at least some of the time, see valid criticism of shoehorning women into roles that they simply did not exist in. I see it as rewriting history to better fit our current day values, which, to me, is a horrible thing to do. If the trend continues, history is easily rewritten.

And that is what I mean about current political climate. You'll say it's only a game, but the game does not exist in a vacuum, and choices regarding representations in entertainment are sometimes politically motivated.

(On a sidenote, I completely agree about the Wolfenstein complaints being nonsense. So at least we agree on something.)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Where you see misogny, I, not always, but at least some of the time, see valid criticism of shoehorning women into roles that they simply did not exist in. I see it as rewriting history to better fit our current day values, which, to me, is a horrible thing to do. If the trend continues, history is easily rewritten.

You are wrong in your assertion that women didn't fight, it's as simple as that. As @Scaff pointed out earlier nobody's suggesting that there were British battalions full of women but nonetheless women did see active combat, particularly in France alongside the Maquis. Accounts of the battles between the maquis and troops heading from the sud to Normandy are well recorded as are the engagements that took place during preparations in France for Overlord.

Conventional warfare is two sides engaging in battle with the purpose of victory through the destruction or surrender of enemy forces, all the while claiming new territory.

That definition is incorrect in terms of new territory - not all conventional military actions are designed to take territory in themselves, they can be to weaken the enemy's numbers, facilities or supplies. There can be more than two sides (and the nature of each of those sides is generally well understood by all participants). As an example WWII had a number of sides who at various times aligned in various pacts... but it was not a two-sided war.

 

[Scaff]

So the most recent twitter post negates anything else having been advertised about the game before it? What logic is this?

That on the subject of fun vs accuracy its most current clarification of the position they hold and have communicated.

Its rather obvious logic, the most current position they have stated is the one they hold.

Equality is not about being represented in a video game. No one is entitled representation in entertainment. The developers should make the game they want to make, without feeling like they have to appease anyone.​

And you know they feel they have to appease anyone based on what?

​

That includes me and my push for historical accuracy. But it also includes anyone else. People can voice their complaints all they want, preferably through coherent arguments, but in the end of the day they are not entitled a say in the product. hence why my I would take less of an issue with the game if it was not marketed as a WW2 game, because it frankly isn't. It is about as loosely inspired by WW2 as Valkyria Chronicles is. Actually, scratch that, Valkyria Chronicles is closer to WW2 than this game will be.​

So an anime styled game about a fantasy fuel source with numerous front line women troops is closer to WW2 than BFV which has shown one women in combat?

OK!

Indeed it is, just like saying "it's a game" is an absurd counter to any complaints. It being a game is not an argument that can be used to negate or discredit criticism that you might not agree with.

Please list the games that have managed to achieve 100% historic accuracy. That should help establish just why its not a suitable counter.

Not at all. The article you linked very clearly mentions that they were involved in sabotage, raids and so on. It does not make mention of them engaging in conventional conflict. Are you under the impression that I'm denying that SOE operatives were ever engaged in battle? Because I'm not. Rather I've explained through evidence that they did not partake in conventional fighting (see my description further up in this post), and thus would be out of place in a game featuring large scale frontline combat, which the trailer clearly portrays. And yes, the SAS, and other special forces units, who are also usually engaged in unconventional warfare, would also be out of place featured alongside conventional army units in a frontline fight.

If, however, you can find an example of this happening, and you implement that into the game, that would be a case of using your source material for the creation of unique gameplay. Gasp! Who knew you could use your setting to create fun! A scenario in the game featuring the Yugoslav partisans desperate fight against one of the several German/Italian campaigns orchestrated to destroy the partisan movements would be brilliant, and would offer historical legitimacy for the portrayal of women, and possibly also SOE operatives in battle conditions. So why not use it? Why not use the damn setting that you chose for your game to fulfill your design goals, in this case, to allow people to play as women?

And yet the SAS, Marine Force Recon and numerous other units that specilise in this kind of engagement have been portrayed inaccurately in titles, and numerous times. Yet the same uproar isn't heard in regard to that (certainly not of the same scale).

Oh and I'm also intrigued to know how you know it will not end up in the final game?

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Red Dead. Not my type of game, so I haven't looked into it. And what fuss? I'm here, debating an issue on a web forum. I'm not waving banners on the streets, starting petitions or anything like that. I'm simply stating my desire for historical authenticity, or, failing that, that the developer at least does not pretend to adhere to any kind of historical authenticity. The topic of my responses reflect what you and others have chosen to focus on. As I've already said multiple times, I place the same importance on the many other inaccuracies in the game.

I'm using another title as an example that based on your standard should be set in a different period (as it makes numerous historical inaccuracies), the problem is unless we turn every title into either a future one (damn that might run into issues with hard science vs soft science) or a fantasy one (bugger we will then get issues with which fantasy version of an Orc is right).

I do however hope you also extend this issue with accuracy to other mediums beyond video games, it must however utterly ruin almost every period based book, film and TV series for you.

So, at first, you were not insinuating anything, but now, you're not only insinuating, but flat out saying it. Make up your mind.

Its quite simple, if I'm flat out saying something I don't need to insinuate it.

In any case, if you think that I am being presumptuous in calling the game out as SJW pandering, which, I'll admit, is perhaps the case, then aren't you guilty of the same when you automatically assume that everyone who take issue with the portrayal of women in the game is misogynist? Your reaction is a response based on your overall perception of the internet, or perhaps society as a whole, and its response to this. The same goes for me. Our perceptions simply differ. Where you see misogny, I, not always, but at least some of the time, see valid criticism of shoehorning women into roles that they simply did not exist in. I see it as rewriting history to better fit our current day values, which, to me, is a horrible thing to do. If the trend continues, history is easily rewritten.

I didn't automatically "assume that everyone who take issue with the portrayal of women in the game is misogynist", I actually set a very specific criteria around it. That being, those who ignore other historical inaccuracies but take issue with women and/or non-white portrayals in a game that are not 100% accurate.

My 'issue' with your position is that I personally think its an absurd standard to hold an entertainment medium to.

And that is what I mean about current political climate. You'll say it's only a game, but the game does not exist in a vacuum, and choices regarding representations in entertainment are sometimes politically motivated.

And sometimes they are not.

Sometimes they are simply done to appeal to a growing part of the video gaming demographic, and sometimes its the 'outrage' that's the politically motivated part of it.

(On a sidenote, I completely agree about the Wolfenstein complaints being nonsense. So at least we agree on something.)

We do indeed.

As I said in another post, if we were discussing a documentary I would be much closer to you in this regard, but we're not. As such in the scheme of period entertainment pieces I am more than happy to accept that some areas are not going to be correct. In the same way that I can overlook the same in the likes of U-571 and Braveheart (both of which take significantly more liberties with historic accuracy than either BF1, COD WW2 or BFV - the later in particular). Odd however that the same kind of outrage didn't take place with these two.

 

[Rage Racer]

Sorry you know that's not multiplayer how?

Certainly some of HUD and scoring that was poping up appeared to be very multiplayer

Looks too scripted to be multiplayer IMO. I'd say it might be co-op campaign, with XP system and squad respawns. And since we see the same characters (including the woman) on more official screenshots/images of the game, I suspect that they'll be the characters of the campaign.

More member of the SAS have been killed in COD and BF titles than have ever served, your point is?

The point is that whoever you're telling about 'female Russian tank crews' should also know this. Just a cite note.
Plus, I'm almost sure there were no tank crews consisting entirely of women. All stories about female tankers I read featured only one woman in a crew. In most cases they were commanders.

Just to annoy a few, here's a black German solider in uniform in WW2.

Lets throw in an Arab in Nazi uniform as well.

Like we didn't know.
I don't mind them being included in the game. But, in the campaign, I would like them to be on the theaters where they did fight in reality.

And, before you ask me - yes, I also tend to get triggered about other non period/place correct things, like Tiger II tanks in Stalingrad in CoD: World at War campaign.

I've already posted the devs saying as much twice, do I really need to do so a third time?

Not really.
A dev said, 'fun over realism'. Fine. But what's fun in a woman with metal arm fighting on the frontline of what's said to be the Western Front of WW2?..

Look. Here is an example of a proper depiction of women in a WW2 game (if it needs gender diversity so much). A mission from Company of Heroes 2 (the very first minutes of the video).

CoH 2 has controversal story of the Soviet campaign, but at least they didn't mess up over here.
In the gameplay, women are also present as partisans, Soviet snipers and nurses. As it was often in the history.

Never thought I would ever refer to CoH 2 as an example of historical accuracy...

So an anime styled game about a fantasy fuel source with numerous front line women troops is closer to WW2 than BFV which has shown one women in combat?

TBH, I was about to say that Kantai Collection might be a game closer to WW2 than BFV...

...but CoH 2 came to my mind.

 

[Jawehawk]

You are wrong in your assertion that women didn't fight, it's as simple as that. As @Scaff pointed out earlier nobody's suggesting that there were British battalions full of women but nonetheless women did see active combat, particularly in France alongside the Maquis. Accounts of the battles between the maquis and troops heading from the sud to Normandy are well recorded as are the engagements that took place during preparations in France for Overlord.

Then it's a good thing that I've never once claimed that women did not take part in fighting during the war. On the contrary, I've mentioned the fielding of women in the Soviet military and in partisans, and have also fully agreed that the SOE had women in their ranks. I've rightly mentioned that the SOE was not a conventional fighting unit and that they did not take part in conventional battles as frontline units. This is corroborated by history. I think I've been as clear as I possibly could be about being perfectly okay with and supporting the game featuring female combatants in scenarios where they have historical legitimacy.

I'm done with discussing the matter of the SOE with you as you seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that they were not a frontline unit formed with the purpose of conducting conventional battle.

So an anime styled game about a fantasy fuel source with numerous front line women troops is closer to WW2 than BFV which has shown one women in combat?



OK!

Exactly. I assume you haven't played it, but the game is heavily inspired by WW2 and it shows throughout the game. Despite not visually representing WW2, the feel of the games setting, the story and the characters better represent WW2 than BF1 did WW1 and than BF5 will WW2. It's a comparison made to illustrate to you just how little DICE cares about portraying the setting they chose for their game. Additionally, I find it amusing how you, who claims that everyone is only focused on the woman in BF5, is immediately fixated on women being in Valkyria Chronicles. Or perhaps you just continue to insist that this is my only issue with BF5 in a continued attempt to deface me... In either case, Valkyria Chronicles, which is heavily inspired by WW2, makes for a more authentic WW2 experience than a game supposedly dedicated to WW2. That was the point.

Please list the games that have managed to achieve 100% historic accuracy. That should help establish just why its not a suitable counter.

Once again you fail to recognize that a game does not have to be either completely authentic or completely not. It can be somewhere in between. The online portion of BF1, as looks to be the case with BF5 too, has forsaken any and all authenticity. It's not a suitable counter because it is a cheap way of discrediting any criticism without actually bringing fourth coherent arguments. A game being a game does not mean that it should not attempt to maintain coherency or be consistent with the setting that it creates, or, in this case, recreates.

Oh and I'm also intrigued to know how you know it will not end up in the final game?

Because we already know the release settings and Yugoslavia is not one of them? They are as follows...
France, Norway, Rotterdam, North African Desert at launch.

I'm using another title as an example that based on your standard should be set in a different period (as it makes numerous historical inaccuracies), the problem is unless we turn every title into either a future one (damn that might run into issues with hard science vs soft science) or a fantasy one (bugger we will then get issues with which fantasy version of an Orc is right).

I do however hope you also extend this issue with accuracy to other mediums beyond video games, it must however utterly ruin almost every period based book, film and TV series for you.

And again you're working off of the assumption that it has to be either 100% accurate or 100% not. I criticized both BF1 and Dunkirk for not being authentic. Simply put, I hold everything up to the same scrutiny unless the creators are being honest about their intentions saying that they are only vaguely basing it on a historical setting. And as I've made quite clear, I make room for it not being 100% accurate.

I didn't automatically "assume that everyone who take issue with the portrayal of women in the game is misogynist", I actually set a very specific criteria around it. That being, those who ignore other historical inaccuracies but take issue with women and/or non-white portrayals in a game that are not 100% accurate.

My 'issue' with your position is that I personally think its an absurd standard to hold an entertainment medium to.

You have no reason of knowing this, but I study history at university. I love it. It's a passion of mine. I don't expect you to sympathize with my position, but surely, you can at least understand why a person who is very interested in history is annoyed at seeing companies pretending to portray a historical period while at the same time making no effort to portray it as it were? Also, are you under the impression that I'm somehow defending what someone else are saying? I ask because you keep bringing up the people who focus only on the presence of a woman soldier in BF5, which I believe I've made abundantly clear is not my only concern with the game, and outside of either coloring me as one of them, or thinking that I am defending what they're saying, I really don't understand what your goal is with constantly bringing it up. I'm here to voice my opinions on the lacking authenticity of the game in a matter serving as a sort of continuation of my thoughts on BF1. Nothing else.

And sometimes they are not.

Sometimes they are simply done to appeal to a growing part of the video gaming demographic, and sometimes its the 'outrage' that's the politically motivated part of it.

​

How many times do I have to admit to the possibility of me being wrong before you drop this?

Over and out!