Battlefield V

[Edge-]

IIRC she doesn't even fight on the front lines per se, she's a resistance fighter, and there were definitely women among those in WW2. They were uncommon, sure, but existed, so from a realism point of view it's fine and dandy. The prosthetic does look a bit too advanced for WWII however.

Indeed, I was more talking about the multiplayer since those are "front lines" technically. And you're super right about there being plenty of female resistance fighters throughout Europe.

I'd need to take another look at the arm, but it seemed largely in-line with prosthetic tech I remember for the time in its design. If they take some liberties with the historical accuracy of the tech...meh. They did that in a big way with BF1 and they've done that with past BF entries. The game has never been hyper-realistic in the slightest, and I believe they made it clear that while they're striving for "EMERSHION" for BFV they're not striving for it to be a simulator or entirely historically accurate. They're taking creative liberties, just as they did with BF1. And IMO they were great in BF1.

[Lightwysh]

I dont want another WW2 game... BF1 was neat cause it was WW1.

But I dont feel the need for a 50th WW2 fps.

I want a Battlefield BC, or Dark Ages with catapults, trebuchets, horses, and massive hand to hand combat all while archers are making it rain.

[Manabomb]

The woman is an issue. And so is the arm.

It's not just a prosthetic arm. It's bionic/cyborg/whatever. It moves, it works, it has power.

Ridiculous shit like that ruin the game.

Does it? I actually prefer a more Wolfenstein take to WWII, over the super serious asinine approach that's been taken about 16,000 different times across hundreds of other games many of which are already in this games franchise.

I don't get that about people like you. If you wanted realism there are plenty of representations of those wars in the modern era. There are entire simulation games built off the premise. This is a fucking 64v64 battleground shooter with active ground, naval and air vehicles on most maps. This isn't a historically accurate representation of D-day.

[Puupi]

Does it? I actually prefer a more Wolfenstein take to WWII, over the super serious asinine approach that's been taken about 16,000 different times across hundreds of other games many of which are already in this games franchise.

I don't get that about people like you. If you wanted realism there are plenty of representations of those wars in the modern era. There are entire simulation games built off the premise. This is a fucking 64v64 battleground shooter with active ground, naval and air vehicles on most maps. This isn't a historically accurate representation of D-day.

Sure alternate history is all fine and dandy.

But if you make an otherwise somewhat accurate representation of WW2 you just don't shit on it by adding nazi zombies or bionic women soldiers for shits and giggles.

[Edge-]

Sure alternate history is all fine and dandy.

But if you make an otherwise somewhat accurate representation of WW2 you just don't shit on it by adding nazi zombies or bionic women soldiers for shits and giggles.

Why not? They're not shooting for historical accuracy even if they're largely basing the game off of history.

And as has been noted, the prosthetic arm she used isn't out of place. Those existed in those time, even if it may be more functional than they were at the time.

[McFuu]

IIRC she doesn't even fight on the front lines per se, she's a resistance fighter, and there were definitely women among those in WW2. They were uncommon, sure, but existed, so from a realism point of view it's fine and dandy. The prosthetic does look a bit too advanced for WWII however.

Indeed, I was more talking about the multiplayer since those are "front lines" technically. And you're super right about there being plenty of female resistance fighters throughout Europe.

I'd need to take another look at the arm, but it seemed largely in-line with prosthetic tech I remember for the time in its design. If they take some liberties with the historical accuracy of the tech...meh. They did that in a big way with BF1 and they've done that with past BF entries. The game has never been hyper-realistic in the slightest, and I believe they made it clear that while they're striving for "EMERSHION" for BFV they're not striving for it to be a simulator or entirely historically accurate. They're taking creative liberties, just as they did with BF1. And IMO they were great in BF1.

We also need to take into consideration that Dice dies their homework well, just not with common sense. Much like BF1 featured items and weapons that existed in WW1, these were simply not used or used extremely limited. Think about the suit of armor, yes that was a real "prototype" but it never really saw its way into a battlefield because it wasn't feasible.
Yes that is most likely a real prosthetic, no a resistance fighter in a war torn country where people are barely feeding themselves isn't going to use it if it even worked anymore in the prevailing conditions.

[Edge-]

We also need to take into consideration that Dice dies their homework well, just not with common sense.

Do they even need "common sense"? The fact that they're pulling from history while getting creative rather than just making shit up is actually far more impressive as it shows that despite not striving for realism, they care a helluva lot about the subject matter they're dealing with. They're trying to balance taking creative liberties in the name of fun and creating something a bit "different" with being true to the source material, and that's commendable IMO.

[zealo]

Why not? They're not shooting for historical accuracy even if they're largely basing the game off of history.

And as has been noted, the prosthetic arm she used isn't out of place. Those existed in those time, even if it may be more functional than they were at the time.

Because there's no reason to resort to outlandish shit like that to be able to find plenty of reasons to stick women in a WW2 themed game, but yet they did.

There were hundreds of thousands of them employed in the red army in the east, many in active combat roles such as tank crews, machine gun crews, snipers, pilots and so on, let alone partisans in occupied countries, like Yugoslavia.

[Sorshen]

Alternate reality WW2 seems pretty wild.

[Edge-]

Because there's no reason to resort to outlandish shit like that to be able to find plenty of reasons to stick women in a WW2 themed game, but yet they did.

There were hundreds of thousands of them employed in the red army in the east, many in active combat roles such as tank crews, machine gun crews, snipers, pilots and so on, let alone partisans in occupied countries, like Yugoslavia.

Yes, this has been pointed out. But they didn't want to tell the story from Russia's perspective, which is understandable in the current international climate, and wanted to focus on other major Western powers.

I'm not sure why putting female soldiers outside of the Red Army is "outlandish shit", though. Again, they made it clear, as they did with BF1, that they're not trying to be historically accurate with everything. They're taking plenty of liberties, and I actually really appreciate that.

[Real2016]

Really? We didn't see too much gameplay, but it looks no more like a reskin of BF1 than BF4 was a reskin of BF3, or BF3 of BF2 etc.

This is EA`s chance to overtake COD while it`s at its weakest point. Dont expect a game to appeal to any veteran/older players!

[Edge-]

"Care about subject matter" - Uhhhh what?

This is easily fixed. Just add:

"This game is a fictional depiction of WW2. It is not historically accurate."

Sergeant Hookhand the cricket bat wielding woman is pretty insulting to the millions of people that fought and died in WW2.

I missed the stream itself, but IIRC I read that like BF1, they made it clear that this game was in no way striving for total historical accuracy and that they would be taking plenty of creative liberties with the setting.

And I'm not sure how a fictional character in a largely fictional game based off a real historical even is "insulting" to anyone. At least not unless they're just looking for a reason to be outraged and offended.

This is EA`s chance to overtake COD while it`s at its weakest point. Dont expect a game to appeal to any veteran/older players!

Except it largely looks like more of the same type of gameplay we saw in BF1, which is an extension of their tweaks to the core format from one entry to the next. I didn't see anything that would appeal more to COD gamers than the BF crowd, quite the contrary rather.

Apparently some Youtuber played it already or something and posted about it. If this is legit, this sounds pretty bloody great to me.

[CogsNCocks]

The gameplay bit looks crazy good. I'm not completely convinced it's actually in-game but I really hope it is.

[Zephyr Storm]

Doesn't everyone remember learning about British soldier Sergeant Jennifer "Hookhand" Thompson, the hero of WW2. She struck fear into the hearts of her enemies with her blue warpaint and cricket bat wrapped in spikes! Her squad members included Kratos with blue paint and a Black man wielding a Katana.


Yeah me neither.

- - - Updated - - -



"Care about subject matter" - Uhhhh what?

This is easily fixed. Just add:

"This game is a fictional depiction of WW2. It is not historically accurate."

Sergeant Hookhand the cricket bat wielding woman is pretty insulting to the millions of people that fought and died in WW2.

Wow. Just wow. Complaining that a video game that is made merely to be fun and entertain people (while also not being historically accurate) is insulting to the people that fought and died in a war has got to be one of the dumbest/most ignorant things I’ve read in the past year. Are you really being serious with that shit? Because if you are, then there are far more serious matters in the world that you could be focusing your time and energy on instead.

As for the rest of the thread: I think the game will be fun. I don’t give two shits if the game is historically accurate or not. What I do care about is if the gameplay mechanics are good and it allows my friends and I to have a hilariously good time while playing it. Which Battlefield games are usually pretty good at.

[kail]

Did Michael Bay direct that trailer?

[GennGreymane]

"I want a realistic WW2 game!"

*buys COD WW2 and BF WW@*

"THIS ISNT REALISTIC!!!!"

[McFuu]

Do they even need "common sense"? The fact that they're pulling from history while getting creative rather than just making shit up is actually far more impressive as it shows that despite not striving for realism, they care a helluva lot about the subject matter they're dealing with. They're trying to balance taking creative liberties in the name of fun and creating something a bit "different" with being true to the source material, and that's commendable IMO.

I agree, but it's understandable why people get bent out of shape about it.
It would be like a game set during Iraq and Afghanistan and the release trailer shows that weird gun with the camera bullets that can shoot around corners. Yes it technically exists, but in this context it might as well be a phaser stunner.

[smiteme12]

Day 1 buy at this point.

[Mirishka]

What's funny is, literally everything the butthurt nerds are crying about was real. There were actual, functional prosthetic limbs back then. There were women fighting and killing men (gasp!) back then.

Case in point: a russian woman proved to be one of the deadliest individuals in the entire war, with more than 300 confirmed kills. Meaning, this lowly woman was more of a stone-cold badass than any of the people whining about their video games ever will be.

[minteK917]

The minutes i came back from work, opened my pc. Saw the top IGN picture in the front page BFV with a women in the middle of the picture. I was like here we go, someones gona cry somewhere. Visit MMO-Champ LMAO.