Battlefield V |OT| Battlefield Heroes 2If people have suggestions for a OT name, either PM me or quote me so I will see it.
If people have suggestions for a OT name, either PM me or quote me so I will see it.
It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
Dude,it's Frostbite engine. It's going to look exactly like that on high end pc.
I will have to see some live gameplay cause that right there looked like a load of bullshot pre-rendered material. The character movements, the moment-to-moment "gameplay", the voice quips feeling a bit too acted, all of that looked really off.
Excellent post.It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
No
It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
Good post, i agree.It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
I'm confused about the era, it's WW2 but the lady had a robot hand ? is this past-sci-fi in the vein of Wolfenstein ?
I'd rather they make a fun game for as many people as possible than appeal to some arbitrary historical restrictions I've never heard anyone complain about with Battlefield before. There are historically accurate games people can do battle reenactments in if that's what they want. Getting rid of paid map packs and adding tons more customization are both great steps forward for the franchise.It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
they should add a historically accurate MP mode where the side that won IRL always wins in-gameI'd rather they make a fun game for as many people as possible than appeal to some arbitrary historical restrictions I've never heard anyone complain about with Battlefield before. There are historically accurate games people can do battle reenactments in if that's what they want. Getting rid of paid map packs and adding tons more customization are both great steps forward for the franchise.
Seeing those ppl in a game would be extremely annoying lolDay 1 buy if they make the nazis all MAGA-hat-wearing white males. And Hitler some orange buffoon with tiny hands.
Unless you also want gameplay limitations this amount of "concern" about "historical accuracy" in a battlefield game, something that's never prided itself on being an accurate portrayal of conflicts, is completely vapid.A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism.
FWIW, BF1942 had faction specific weapons and no way around that.will you limit weapon selection only to battles they were used in also?
will you limit weapon selection only to battles they were used in also? no? just women and minorities?
just more words, not better words.
So by this definition since it's never been ultra realistic, it can be absolutely anything. No holds barred, no limits, lines can never be drawn, expectations invalid. Got it.The concerns as to historical accuracy are hilarious - this is the series of games where you can jump out of a plane, shoot the pilot of a pursuing plane, climb into his plane and continue flying. Yeah this is realism :P
This isn't Red Orchestra, battlefield is not an ultra - realistic shooter. There Is no reason to not let people play as women if they want.
"Robot hand" good godI'm confused about the era, it's WW2 but the lady had a robot hand ? is this past-sci-fi in the vein of Wolfenstein ?
okay but the fact that you're drawing the line behind women is pretty telling bruhSo by this definition since it's never been ultra realistic, it can be absolutely anything. No holds barred, no limits, lines can never be drawn. Got it.
Did you just slander me of being a misogamist? Can you please clarify, thanks.okay but the fact that you're drawing the line behind women is pretty telling bruh
I feel like I need to tell you before you embarrass yourself even more: it's misogyny. Not monogamy. You just look foolish.Did you just slander me of being a misogamist? Can you please clarify, thanks.
You're right, I misspelled it. But you can't read it turns out because I didn't write "monogamy". Poor spelling or inability to read, not sure which is more embarrassing.I feel like I need to tell you before you embarrass yourself even more: it's misogyny. Not monogamy. You just look foolish.
You're right, I misspelled it. But you can't read it turns out because I didn't write "monogamy". Poor spelling or inability to read, not sure which is more embarrassing.
But you haven't answered my question, are you accusing me of poor spelling, poor grammar and off being a misogynist? Can you please state your accusation very clearly, it's very important.
I mean...I don't have any idea what you're saying and that is partly because your poor spelling and grammar makes reading your sentences difficult. Also the misuse of words, constantly changing tone, and constant debating fallacies also don't help.
I'm sure MiraculousSwidge will answer you but to double down on it. Yes, I do consider you a misogynist for taking such offense over the idea of the fact that a women is shown here. And then I will go a step further and accuse you of being a troll more interested in whataboutisms than actually having a point. I then accuse you of hiding behind "historical accuracy" when the things you have said people "ignored" (garish colors, blue facepaint, samurai swords) are in fact things that WERE there in WWII.
Like I clarified on the next page, poor choice of words and should have been "scripted" as in "pre-animated", that it is in-engine doesn't surprise me as DICE are bloody masters at it, what I did have doubts on was that it was actual gameplay as in "that is how it's gonna look when played". I've seen a ton of gameplay trailers over the years and many times they have had certain tells for when it is actual gameplay vs. a pre-animated character pretending to be gameplay. As it turns out though listening to Jackfrags video that is close to actually what it looks like, so I will wait and see for actual live gameplay demonstration at E3.Holy Shiiiiii!!!!! Looks amazing!
Dude,it's Frostbite engine. It's going to look exactly like that on high end pc.
This makes me even more excited for Anthem tbh.
Oh my, that's quite offensive to me personally. Especially when I never once focused or mentioned the sex of any of the characters. I don't think your slanderous attitude is acceptible, sorry.
Oh my, that's quite offensive to me personally. Especially when I never once focused or mentioned the sex of any of the characters. I don't think your slanderous attitude is acceptible, sorry.
So by this definition since it's never been ultra realistic, it can be absolutely anything. No holds barred, no limits, lines can never be drawn, expectations invalid. Got it.
It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
It's going to be weird seeing red-headed Caucasians running around in the uniform of the Imperial Japanese Army.AS far as I know, the only faction in the war that used women soldiers at a large scale was the Soviet Union. I don't care at all if Batlefield V ignores this.
Unless you also want gameplay limitations this amount of "concern" about "historical accuracy" in a battlefield game, something that's never prided itself on being an accurate portrayal of conflicts, is completely vapid.