Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[Agonizel]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

they don't, cause bj is a man

Well, yes, You saw the point I was making.
The only disturbing variable is obviously the woman, but it's always masked under that historical inaccuracy pretext.

It's absurd, everybody is an avid historian now?

[maartendc]

23 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

What about battlefield bad company 2 which is reputed as one of the best campaigns in Battlefield history although being lighthearted?
What about Wolfenstein?
What about Aldo's squad in Inglorious Bastards?

Do you feel the same way about all those?

Never played any of the Bad Company games, so cannot really comment.

 

Wolfenstein, yes it is making light of WW2, BUT: they go so far over the top with zombies, paranormal activity, etc. etc. that it becomes such a caricature, it is okay again. You are not supposed to take it seriously, and that is clear.  Same with Inglorious Bastards, they make such a parody (shooting Hitler in the face repeatedly) that nobody will mistake it for something historically accurate.

 

The real problem is: Battlefield V seems to be in that middle ground where they pass it off as a somewhat realistic depiction of WW2, while infusing it with so many non-accurate elements as to make light of it.c

 

Battlefield V seems to want it both ways: They talk about how their "war stories" mode gives you a good sense of how the war really was, what kind of incredible "stories" were in the war (yes they actually said this in interviews after the reveal), but then they make light of it with cosmetics and "fun badass action" on the other hand. 

 

I either want Verdun/Battlefield 1942 (total realistic) or Wolfenstein (totally over the top parody). This middle ground rubs me the wrong way and is realistic enough that kids will think that is actually how the war was. Kind of rewriting history. Which is dangerous and not cool.

 

^{(and I am not talking about having women in it, I couldnt care less, I actually like that they had some female scout class in BF1).}

[maartendc]

18 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Well, yes, You saw the point I was making.
The only disturbing variable is obviously the woman, but it's always masked under that historical inaccuracy pretext.

It's absurd, everybody is an avid historian now?

At the end of the day, if you want to believe people are really only upset about there being a woman in the Battlefield V trailer, I cannot convince you. And it is definitely possible that this is the real reason why some or many people are upset about it.

 

I can only say that for myself, I was disappointed in the trailer because it was like a Michael Bay or Transformers movie with a WW2 skin on it. Besides not being historically accurate, as a fan of Verdun,  BF1942, etc. it just seems like a very different type of game, and I am not looking for that. Also from a gameplay perspective.

[ravenshrike]

32 minutes ago, maartendc said:

What bothered me was the apparent heavy leaning on "cosmetic customization" instead of just having everyone wear standard uniforms.

Gotta make up that loot box money somehow. I want 17th century pirates. In fact, go the whole hog and license Barbossa and Sparrow from Disney.

[maartendc]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Gotta make up that loot box money somehow. I want 17th century pirates. In fact, go the whole hog and license Barbossa and Sparrow from Disney.

Sadly, yes.

 

I would prefer if they did the Battlefield 1 model: paid Season pass, and have some cosmetics, but keep it very light. The cosmetics in Battlefield 1 were only on the guns, and even then not very noticeable. The uniforms were all standard. Not a fluorescent "death dealer" logo on the soldier jackets

[crystal6tak]

I'm part of the people that are just disappointed by the trailer in general. There being a women is the least of my concern. The trailer was just a jumble of mess.

 

There was no iconic music to build up tension (present in basically all previous battlefield trailers), it was incoherent, and gave us zero gameplay footage. What's worse was they tried to use cinematic scenes with an HUD overlayed as if it was in-game gameplay. What on earth were they thinking...

[maartendc]

37 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

I'm part of the people that are just disappointed by the trailer in general. There being a women is the least of my concern. The trailer was just a jumble of mess.

 

There was no iconic music to build up tension (present in basically all previous battlefield trailers), it was incoherent, and gave us zero gameplay footage. What's worse was they tried to use cinematic scenes with an HUD overlayed as if it was in-game gameplay. What on earth were they thinking...

Agreed.

 

Here is the list of things that annoyed me in the trailer:

 

- Jackets with fluo lettering saying "death dealer"

- Blue face paint?

- Jeeps falling out of the sky for no apparent reason

- explosions, explosions explosions

- more explosions

- 1 squad seemingly taking on the entire German army?

- hooks for hands? Comon, you would be sent home or to a hospital, not in the front lines.

- complete chaos, can't even tell how any of this would translate into gameplay.

 

I have to say, Battlefield 1's trailer was also pretty over the top, showing the horses, behemoths, etc. The biggest difference is that in this trailer they crammed too much action into 1 scene. Let's hope the trailer is not a reflection of the final product.

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

You two make me sad.

 

 

215B 183 best arty NA. Pls don't take my HESH.

did you even play  during the great age of fv 215b (183)?

[Centurius]

4 hours ago, EPENEX said:

If Battlefield 5 was a successor to Battlefield 4 and took place shortly in the future and they decided to have female characters, I wouldn't care. I was actually kinda confused as to why Battlefield 4 didn't have a female character, you'd think all these modern Battlefield's would have at least one female. For them to add a female character in a setting that doesn't historically make sense is just SJW pandering. It ruins the game like how BF1 had semi-auto weapons everywhere. I was really hoping for a modern battlefield, but instead we get this shit. That's the third Battlefield in a row I won't be buying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_II

[Kamjam21xx]

Wth is wrong with all of you?

 

Coulda just played the game and never paid attention to this, then it would never have even been a thought

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

did you even play  during the great age of fv 215b (183)?

I loved it before the speed nerf. Took forever to get my 3 marks in that RNG bucket

[GoldenLag]

13 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I loved it before the speed nerf. Took forever to get my 3 marks in that RNG bucket

im talking pre pen-nerf and HD model update

[mynameisjuan]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

im talking pre pen-nerf and HD model update

I know, speed nerf was what...a year before a pen adjustment. It was an ok tank. 

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

It's absurd, everybody is an avid historian now?

It isn't that at all, others and I have explained tons of things wrong with the trailer but all you've done is ignore it just to accuse people of being "sexist" to keep the thread going in circles because we aren't accepting all the COD copy bs EA keeps shoving down our throats. I'm disappointed in the trailer overall and will wait for some actual gameplay footage and reviews from people that aren't being paid off by EA to give it a positive spin.

And it seems more like a lot of hardcore battlefield fans would rather have a game even with a tiny bit of overdone cliche'ed play like allies easily beat the axis powers rather than history being torn apart and re-written in a overly cinematic sense that casual players are likely going to believe it for fact and just to appease certain groups that get offended from everything yet don't even play video games.

[Agonizel]

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

-snip- 

I think it's sexism overlapped by a cognitive dissonance. The latter deflects the first into incoherent excuses such as concern for history.

 

I also think it's also the need for affiliation, so people jump on the band wagon.

[Hunter259]

53 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

did you even play  during the great age of fv 215b (183)?

No and it makes me sad. I played on a friends account when it had 275 and did like 5 or 6k with it. I like mine now that I have it but it's definitely not as insane.

[GoldenLag]

BF5 trailer was not as over the top in terms of historical innaccuracy. By that i mean everything shown in the movie excisted in some way. Either in prototype or as actual things that happened. 

 

Women, prostetics, and so fourth excisted. If you use that argument: " it was rare and one offs"

 

Well have fun in late world war 2 on the allied front. A lot of planes never saw a single interceptor. 

 

Realistic isnt what battlefield is or will be. They are within the realm of possibility for their timeline. And if you want more realism. Play "post scriptum". 

[MilitantCro]

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

They've been doing this for decades it isn't a new SJW thing.  Captain Marvel was originally Shazam, Marvel sued the shit out of DC over that, and from there they created their own Captain Marvel aka Mar-Vell back in the 60s.  Now, back in the 60s a female named Carol Danvers first appeared in Mar-Vell's storyline and she was Ms. Marvel.  She became Captain Marvel recently, not for SJW reasons, but to continue a storyline.  It has nothing to do with SJW crap, but most people don't read comics who bitch about this stuff.  DC and Marvel have multi-verses, and these are just to add to current lore or for the multi-verse expansion.   People bitched when the new doctor was a woman, but what they don't know is that back in the late 70s and early 80s the writers wanted to make the doctor a woman for a storyline.  BBC shut the idea down because they felt people would whine before listening to the reason why.  It wasn't until recently that BBC stopped caring as much, so that story is now taking place.  Oh, btw did you know that Thor also has a horse version named Beta Ray Bill?  He's an alien, just looks like a horse.  They're not changing the characters as the characters still exist in the lore it's the job title that changed for the sake of lore and multi-verse expansion.  They've been doing this since the 60s.  e.e

I actually read more comics then i should, but I only read DC, so im not fully informed about marvel stuff.

[ARikozuM]

33 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Supergirl[his cousin]

"the last Krytonian". 

 

Also, he has a cousin.

 

'cuz reasons.

[TacoSenpai]

Theres no helicopters in the game.  Game is heliophobic.  #triggered.

[veli2501]

[Noctus]

So they caved to the "BuT We WaNt FeMaLeS In Bf5 EqUaL RiGhTs" yadda yadda

 

gotcha.

[plsno]

So if they wanted to do a different WW2 game why didn't they just focus on the Japanese invasion of China and India? Instead, we get this retarded abomination of a game. 

[Cole5]

Fuckkk i cant wait to play, I want my MG42, the MG4 is a nice toy but its just a big AR, this is a buzz saw baby!

[SpaceGhostC2C]

21 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

To be fair, just saying "It's a video game" doesn't mean you can do anything and all will be forgiven. 

Actually, it does. You can make a Crusades game where an army of christian Plutos travel to Middle East to take Disneyland from Sultan Goofy.

 

11 hours ago, MMKing said:

50 000 000 to 80 000 000 people died. Millions of people still remember this war, million of people still live with injuries related to the war. EA is using, by far the deadliest conflict in human history, as set dressing, with no consideration or respect to historical accuracy i might add.

 

I'm not just referring to the presence of a seemingly British woman on the battle field. Almost everything about the trailer is in very bad taste in my opinion. The second world is now represented as an arcade shooter.

 

Have you heard of Wolfenstein 3D?  

But really, I'm puzzled by your last line. The whole point of this game, and a long list of other Doom clones, is to make a WW2 arcade shooter. I mean, arcade shooter is their genre, so if you choose WW2 as the setting... what are you going to get...?

 

10 hours ago, maartendc said:

Wolfenstein, yes it is making light of WW2, BUT: they go so far over the top with zombies, paranormal activity, etc. etc. that it becomes such a caricature, it is okay again. You are not supposed to take it seriously, and that is clear.  Same with Inglorious Bastards, they make such a parody (shooting Hitler in the face repeatedly) that nobody will mistake it for something historically accurate.

 

The real problem is: Battlefield V seems to be in that middle ground where they pass it off as a somewhat realistic depiction of WW2, while infusing it with so many non-accurate elements as to make light of it.c

I watched the trailer, and I couldn't find this middle ground you speak of. For all I know, one of the characters in the trailer could have been Blazkowicz himself...