Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Play effectively as a squad in #Battlefield V and earn points used to call in Reinforcements, including much-needed supplies, vehicles, or even powerful rocket strikes. Boom.

Looks like it's an evolution of the Commander assets from BF4?

Again, there are multiple historically accurate ways of having battlefield rocket strikes that would look impressive within the game. The V1 is NOT one of those. It was used as a terror weapon against Great Britain, not as a battlefield attack weapon. Rockets were used by both the Axis and Allies in Western and Eastern Europe. So there's nothing preventing the developers from including a non-V1 rocket.

Finally, all sides need support options that are roughly equivalent. Or in other words, if the German side in a multi-player game can call in a V1 attack, then the Allies in that match need something equivalent. But the V1 was a distinctly German weapon. Are US and British players going to call in pin-point accurate B-17 battlefield strikes as their equivalent thing? Or is everyone on both sides going to get V1 attacks as a support option?

The V1 was also, purportedly, going to be used as a testbed for 'precision' munitions and could be launched from large bombers and be radio-controlled.

It's way too early to really be able to say what's what but the V1 being used might have been a scripted sequence as part of a coop mission.

People don't like this because it's not 'historically accurate'. Oh, man. I guess we'll never see a realistic WW2 game, then. Oh, if only we had a franchise that cranked out a FPS WW2 game every three or four years!

I mean, they need to be a little weird with it. What's stopping us from having a Weird War 2 FPS horror game that isn't Wolfenstein? (Which wasn't too 'weird war')

 Zontarz wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Zontarz, the reveal video they did actually had them preface it with the recording/rendering was done in the coop mode with some weird settings active.

Did they? I must've not heard of that part before the trailer, granted my source was pulled from a comment from god knows where, so I'll look into it

There was a half hour of stuff on the livestream they did before they showed the trailer.

Interestingly enough, this jibes with some of the discussion and feedback they said they got from Battlefield One and Battlefront 2. People liked the "elite" kits but disliked that you couldn't start as them. One of the surveys they'd sent out awhile back asked if people would be willing to lose general options in exchange for specialized 'elite' kits.

OP

I've seen a lot of defences of this and they basically fall into two camps:

1) There were women in WW2

2) Video games aren't realistic anyway

Funnily enough, most tend to ardently argue the first point and then as an afterthought concede that well its not that realistic anyway.

With point number 1, they'll usually cite the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army or French Resistance. Which is irrelevant because we aren't shown Russian soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if that had been the case, literally if they had given the woman a French accent that would be enough. We were shown a British woman fighting alongside the paratroopers at the Rhine... Or, they cite that "but my grandmother manned an AA gun during a blitz" or "she was a spy" etc etc. That is not the same as being a front line combatant. I don't know, maybe there were entire regiments of women paratroopers at Arnhem? I will concede the point if that can be proven.

Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.

As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?

Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.

As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?

Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.

Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!

Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.

I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.

 Paradigm wrote:

Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans

I don't think that's going to be the case here. With Battlefield 1, you didn't have much in the way of vehicle options. Germans used captured French or British stuff in a lot of cases and the same went for the Russians and British/French.

or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!

Again, with WWI you just didn't see a whole heck of a lot of stuff out there. It's not beyond the realm of belief for a British soldier to have a Russian weapon though. Some of the guys who made the trip as part of the Baltic Convoys were known to 'acquire' things to sell back home.

Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.

I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.

It's worth mentioning that a cursory read of the preorder stuff would have sorted a lot of this silliness.

Customizations aren't necessarily going to be universal. There's a uniform for the British Special Air Service faction and another for the German Fallschirmjager faction tied to some unique preorder challenges(that are supposed to be made available to everyone else later). So while you might be able to get, say, a prosthetic arm or a bayonet that will be universal for all factions--you might also get a British Commando customization piece that can't be put on a German.

this looks utter utter crap :(

 Paradigm wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Related to this, they usually try to maintain that this woman is just that, one woman, clearly an exception and only meant to be seen in isolation. The problem is that this was a trailer meant to show case all the features of the game like buildable fortifications and the V1 rocket, ergo, the insinuation is that you have full customisation and can be anything you want.

As for the argument that realism isn't important and that we have full customisation because its fun. Does that mean that I can choose to play a black woman fighting for the Nazis? What if I enjoy the idea of playing a big breasted blonde Nazi? Wouldn't that be me ruining other gamers immersion? Or are we going to have a weird double standard where only the allies get full customisation of the character models? I mean I haven't actually seen this query made about if you can customise the German character models as well? Has anybody asked that?

Plus they obviously made the woman British rather than Russian or French because judging from the Bridge, the paras etc I'd assume this is either the Rhine or Arnhem? So they clearly thought, "well, this is a British campaign so we can't have non British soldiers on the allied side". That is a concern for realism and immersion rather than having Soviets on the Western Front with the British army. So why be concerned about that if you are going to argue that "well its basically just a big cartoon" and you can do whatever you want. Frankly they could have put a woman Red army soldier in the trailer and it would have been more plausible.

Given that this game will almost certainly see players on the Axis side able to use Shermans or British armies using Russian rifles or American pilots unlocking Me-109s, I don't see how it's an issue what level of customisation players have access to as far as immersion goes; If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!

Besides, being realistic, how often are you going to get a good enough look at someone's avatar for it to really take you out of the game? You'll see them half a mile away through a scope, or for a split second after you enter a bunker or out the corner of your eye as they come in with a bayonet. 99% of the time, you're going to see someone and be more concerned with how to kill them/not get killed than whether they happen to be a woman or have a prosthetic arm or face paint ect.

I really don't see that there's anything of any great value to be lost by letting people have full customisation of their avatars. As I said in the OP, I'm far more concerned that they make a smooth, slick shooter experience than anything else, and so far, they seem to be on course to do that. If the gameplay is good, everything else is secondary in a game like this.

There are limits. Plus to avoid any misconceptions, I am one of those guys that plays female characters all the time. But doing it in WW2 is bizarre. You can't as a developer talk about how immersive your game is and how it's about the real stories of WW2 if you have British woman paratroopers and mixed race units. The USA and Britain were white supremacist and mysoginist nations. If you care that much about diversity and not telling the time period as it was you may as well do sci fi or modern warfare.

Most of the killing is close quarters and you have executions and sound animations. I will notice if half the team are women, especially if Iam using a pasrticulsarly large shovel.

Well with BF1 I was quite drawn to the look and style of the WW1 setting. Having black awoken with mohawqks and face paint in the German Army
Kind of detracts from that. So it is important.

The reactions to the trailer are entirely understandable, somehow people were expecting, based from BF1 trailer, to see a realistic looking WW2 trailer, they did not get that and teared it apart for every single non historically accurate thing it showed.

It is a usual case of audience expectations and creator failing to expect what those were.

I am shocked to hear from Kanluwen this is a presentation of a 4 player coop mission, I was fully expecting this to be a presentation of some big multiplayer map with full progress and it looks 100% like one such map playing with completely random stuff happening and a full chaos all around, showcasing all the new mechanics people can expect from multiplayer including player spawning (that poor disabled lady dies 3-4 times in that trailer) and the ridiculous level players can customise their avatars.

Are we 100% this is a 4 player coop mission and not a squad of 4 players in a multiplayer map?

I do believe if they showcased first a story trailer and then this trailer there would be no such big reaction.

Two things that personally made me go "huh" on the trailer (I saw it and assumed it shows multiplayer and character customisation from the start) is the Parthenon head horse on the tank, seems completely out of place and the disabled individual, not sure why one would place somebody with a prosthetic arm in front-line combat regardless of gender.

And my personal wacky question, I get they wanted to shove a barbed wire baseball bat in there, but she is British so they made it a cricket bat with barb wire, but can a cricket bat do such hits without breaking?

Well apparently some of the devs have responded in some articles and I honestly don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.

So you put up a trailer and it has 50% dislikes. What EA does is it then comes out and says:

A) Its a small minority of people who they belittle and insult.

B) The game is meant to be inclusive and diverse.

C) The games have never been realistic anyway.

If it was a small minority of people then you wouldn't have bothered to respond to it. Plus, why haven't all the Battlefield fans outvoted the minority trying to sabotage the games credibility? That would imply that a significant portion of fans (read: paying consumer) don't like what you are selling. If you just wanted to bury your head in the sand then you could just do that. Also, what kind of business insults its own customers? Frankly I am probably going to buy the game anyway and probably for the lols end up playing as a sexy Nazi woman. But when I hear developers say really derogatory comments that I feel are aimed at me personally it makes me feel like I shouldn't give them my money.

There used to be this thing called "damage limitation". How is appealing to them going to assuage the doubts raised? Surely they are already on your "side"? The only reason to do that is to essentially browbeat people into silence or it shows that they are more concerned with maintaining a progressive image as a company. To take a quote from the Simpsons "instead of giving people what you want, you're telling them what they want!". In fact the whole statement is framed in a way that excludes the critics. A company should want to sell to as many people as possible, it should not be concerned with moral posturing to people who are presumably already sold on the game. All this does is tell people "if you don't like what you see, we don't want your money and we don't care about you." Plus, nailing your colours to the mast like that means that people could think "oh, so every dollar I give you will push your political agenda?" A company should not have a political agenda.

Which is the point. People wanted a return to historical shooters because they were tired of all the unrealistic and fantastical shooters like Infinite Warefare. People wanted a boots on the ground story and setting. To have a livestream use the word immersion a dozen times and then a few days later back peddle like this is embarrassing and two faced. So your response to concerns over historical accuracy is to tell people that your game is silly and not going to be grounded in reality at all? You are saying that "we're not making a WW2 game" and that we care so little about the setting that we aren't going to bother with things like what people actually wore, the segregation of the army and the role of women.

You'd have actually been better off not responding at all.

TLDR: Waaaaaaaaah.

The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.

It's also worth noting that people were whining about the woman being on the front cover of the Battlefield V box. The box art is always a character from the campaign. We know there's a campaign devoted to the Norwegian Resistance, told through the eyes of a woman.

Don't like this Battlefield and the fact they're actually trying to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to player avatars? Tough. People want customization, whether it's "historically accurate" or not.

 Kanluwen wrote:
TLDR: Waaaaaaaaah.

The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.

It's also worth noting that people were whining about the woman being on the front cover of the Battlefield V box. The box art is always a character from the campaign. We know there's a campaign devoted to the Norwegian Resistance, told through the eyes of a woman.

Don't like this Battlefield and the fact they're actually trying to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to player avatars? Tough. People want customization, whether it's "historically accurate" or not.

They've confirmed that you have full customisation in multiplayer. This is not just one single player story mission. So kinky female Nazis are a go.

Well it straight away means that its not going to look anything like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates. So people who like those films, might be turned off the game. If you have people blinged up in war paint, all bear chested with mohawks (more Apocalypse Now than John Wayne) and beautiful women with their hair and make up done up it will look silly. It will ruin the immersion for people who want an authentic WW2 game.

Yes, inclusivity. Not money. Never that.

 Kanluwen wrote:
TLDR: Waaaaaaaaah.

The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.

There you go, poison that well. They're NAZIS for wanting historical accuracy!

I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow.

As I said the trailer as an depiction of what a huge multiplayer map can be looks 100% authenticate representation.

Everything is wacky, everything looks out of place and random, everything looks fun.

Now I would not put it as the first trailer and would not double down on the complains, or hide behind the "representation" excuse, looks like multiplayer, looks fun, multiplayer was never historically accurate, never will be.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow..

Like I said before, these game companies are fools for not going full Weird War 2 already. I've already seen my fair share of Normandy landings and such.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I think wanting historical accuracy and immersion in multiplayer is a fools errant, especially in the present and future digital landscape, better embrace the wackiness of what it is and go with he flow.

As I said the trailer as an depiction of what a huge multiplayer map can be looks 100% authenticate representation.

Everything is wacky, everything looks out of place and random, everything looks fun.

Now I would not put it as the first trailer and would not double down on the complains, or hide behind the "representation" excuse, looks like multiplayer, looks fun, multiplayer was never historically accurate, never will be.

They did it with Bad Company 2 and BF1. Why shouldn't I expect the same level here?

But the multiplayer is still being sold on the basis of it being the WW2 setting. If it deviates so heavily from that to the point where you have black female Nazis, guys who look like they belong on Apocalypse Now (if it was BF: Vietnam then fine but it isn't) or Mad Max then how is it still a WW2 game? The fun comes from being able to fight out the battles you see on the movies; which means they have to at least vaguely resemble those war films.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
TLDR: Waaaaaaaaah.

The most vocal complainers with this very likely have some kind of trolly in-game created icon. I play BF1. The number of times I see swastikas or other wildly offensive icons is staggering.

There you go, poison that well. They're NAZIS for wanting historical accuracy!

Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.

There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.

PsychoticStorm wrote:The reactions to the trailer are entirely understandable, somehow people were expecting, based from BF1 trailer, to see a realistic looking WW2 trailer, they did not get that and teared it apart for every single non historically accurate thing it showed.

It is a usual case of audience expectations and creator failing to expect what those were.

I am shocked to hear from Kanluwen this is a presentation of a 4 player coop mission, I was fully expecting this to be a presentation of some big multiplayer map with full progress and it looks 100% like one such map playing with completely random stuff happening and a full chaos all around, showcasing all the new mechanics people can expect from multiplayer including player spawning (that poor disabled lady dies 3-4 times in that trailer) and the ridiculous level players can customise their avatars.

Are we 100% this is a 4 player coop mission and not a squad of 4 players in a multiplayer map?

I do believe if they showcased first a story trailer and then this trailer there would be no such big reaction.

Two things that personally made me go "huh" on the trailer (I saw it and assumed it shows multiplayer and character customisation from the start) is the Parthenon head horse on the tank, seems completely out of place and the disabled individual, not sure why one would place somebody with a prosthetic arm in front-line combat regardless of gender.

And my personal wacky question, I get they wanted to shove a barbed wire baseball bat in there, but she is British so they made it a cricket bat with barb wire, but can a cricket bat do such hits without breaking?

I'm not sure what it's pulled from, I've skimmed the Live Stream reveal a few times but haven't seem to found the bit where they claim its co-op or multiplayer, personally it's all very cinematic, and I don't think its really co-op nor multiplayer, but something just made for the reveal on its own.
Out of all the things that you make you go huh, I enjoy its the horse statue head roped to the tank

Totalwar1402 wrote:Well apparently some of the devs have responded in some articles and I honestly don't understand what they are trying to accomplish.

So you put up a trailer and it has 50% dislikes. What EA does is it then comes out and says:

A) Its a small minority of people who they belittle and insult.

B) The game is meant to be inclusive and diverse.

C) The games have never been realistic anyway.

If it was a small minority of people then you wouldn't have bothered to respond to it. Plus, why haven't all the Battlefield fans outvoted the minority trying to sabotage the games credibility? That would imply that a significant portion of fans (read: paying consumer) don't like what you are selling. If you just wanted to bury your head in the sand then you could just do that. Also, what kind of business insults its own customers? Frankly I am probably going to buy the game anyway and probably for the lols end up playing as a sexy Nazi woman. But when I hear developers say really derogatory comments that I feel are aimed at me personally it makes me feel like I shouldn't give them my money.

There used to be this thing called "damage limitation". How is appealing to them going to assuage the doubts raised? Surely they are already on your "side"? The only reason to do that is to essentially browbeat people into silence or it shows that they are more concerned with maintaining a progressive image as a company. To take a quote from the Simpsons "instead of giving people what you want, you're telling them what they want!". In fact the whole statement is framed in a way that excludes the critics. A company should want to sell to as many people as possible, it should not be concerned with moral posturing to people who are presumably already sold on the game. All this does is tell people "if you don't like what you see, we don't want your money and we don't care about you." Plus, nailing your colours to the mast like that means that people could think "oh, so every dollar I give you will push your political agenda?" A company should not have a political agenda.

Which is the point. People wanted a return to historical shooters because they were tired of all the unrealistic and fantastical shooters like Infinite Warefare. People wanted a boots on the ground story and setting. To have a livestream use the word immersion a dozen times and then a few days later back peddle like this is embarrassing and two faced. So your response to concerns over historical accuracy is to tell people that your game is silly and not going to be grounded in reality at all? You are saying that "we're not making a WW2 game" and that we care so little about the setting that we aren't going to bother with things like what people actually wore, the segregation of the army and the role of women.

You'd have actually been better off not responding at all.

Their PR is a bit overloaded right now, some of the backlash from the DICE Devs have been pretty horrendous, others not so much, but personally I can't fault them entirely with some of the personal attacks that must be flooding their feeds 24/7 right now. I'm not sure where you are pulling out 50% dislikes from, the video is sitting at 8 million views, 324k dislikes, and 280k likes, its a lot of dislikes, but the total just barely scratch half a million. Although I have to agree with them on C, BF1 felt immersive, but it was nowhere realistic, tanks were everywhere, Zeppelins/Trains in every major Operation for either side, weapons that never actually saw the light of day outside of a onetime blueprint, I dunno, it didn't affect me in BF1, and it's not gonna affect me here in BF:V

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.

There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.

So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm not sure I can trust EA to not EA it up.

Free DLCs.
Events planned to keep the game going.
Only paid content will be cosmetics.

All reasons to keep on not trusting EA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
"I can't trust EA!" while Activision is planning yet another yawnfest of a COD.

Why bring up COD? Wouldn't it just be easier to ask for help moving the goal posts? The straw men you built to help you don't seem up to the job.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.

There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.

So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.

Kan has provided no evidence that the people with the icons he's describing are the same ones that are complaining about the historical inaccuracies that appear to be in Battlefield V. It appears to be pure speculation on his part until he provides actual evidence to the contrary. It wouldn't surprise me if some of those individuals are included in the list of complainers simply because statistically speaking it's likely that at least a few of them will be unhappy about it. But there's been no evidence provided to suggest that they make up a majority, or even a sizeable minority of the complainers.



In any case, my question is this - where exactly is the line at which a "World War 2 shooter" has too little in common to remain a "World War 2 shooter"? If there were hover tanks and laser rifles, then no one would argue that it wasn't a World War 2 shooter, even if EA and DICE insisted that it was. How inaccurate does it need to be before it's no longer a "World War 2 shooter"?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not saying the people using the icons specifically are Nazis, but the number of times I've seen swastikas, SS runes, or effectively ASCII art of Klansmen is despicable at this juncture. People claim to do it to try to be edgy or to claim that they've been victimized by EA(EULA for the game prohibits "offensive icons created by the player")...but since you can't just create a swastika using in-game emblems combined, it actually requires you to go online and look up how to do it or to import it from elsewhere that kinda falls flat. Whether it's trolling or not, you don't get to complain about "historically inaccurate" when you're doing that garbage.

There was also a hilarious tweet aimed at one of the devs asking about "black nazis" in Battlefield 1. The Austro-Hungarians, like the British Empire, have some colonial troops for some of the classes.

So are these the only people asking for historical accuracy? They sound like childish trolls, and considering the foul-mouthed squeakers I usually hear over a console headset- this doesn't shock me.

I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.

I'm not providing examples, as you can find a lot of them simply by looking at any of the developers' Twitter feeds where they've commented on the introduction of female playable characters for MP.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.

So, you have anecdotal examples, without any evidence whatsoever. So, people who want the games to be historically accurate has no real relation to people who put offensive symbols on their little game dudes. I'd appreciate if you'd stop jumping on the bandwagon that labels everyone doing things and saying things you dislike as some kind of racist, bigot, bully, or Nazi. You're smarter than this and quite frankly it's a childish act.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm sure they're not the only people asking for historical accuracy but that kind of person has been the most vocal examples I've seen on Twitter claiming that there's "no room" for the addition to Battlefield.

So, you have anecdotal examples, without any evidence whatsoever. So, people who want the games to be historically accurate has no real relation to people who put offensive symbols on their little game dudes. I'd appreciate if you'd stop jumping on the bandwagon that labels everyone doing things and saying things you dislike as some kind of racist, bigot, bully, or Nazi. You're smarter than this and quite frankly it's a childish act.

Do you expect me to comb through social media to provide the stuff plus the person's linked EA account? I'm not doing that. Sorry, but it's not happening.

The people that I have seen who are genuinely upset to the point of complaining nonstop about it have been the people that I find are most likely to have something associated with the game in a historically inaccurate way. They're the people who have been complaining that the inclusion of women has been DICE being "SJWs" or appealing to the "femboys" or all kinds of nonsense like that.

That, by the by, is in comparison to the people who I've seen mention that they want the female characters to be restricted to the Russians or the resistance groups. As it stands, that second group did get addressed and DICE has taken some of that feedback and said they're considering 'rebranding' the various Allied factions(British Special Air Service, US Airborne, etc) for the Western Front into just "Allied Forces". It'd be an umbrella of the faction, allowing for the Partisans to be brought in under those auspices without messing with the rest of it too heavily. The German side of things doesn't really have the same opportunity to do so, but it is what it is.

In any regards there's a kind of pattern to the style of complaint out there that makes me comfortable saying that a social media posting with certain keywords is more likely to be associated with a certain type of player than the one you're thinking I'm painting with a broad brush. Someone who talks about DICE being SJWs or libtards or femnazis generally isn't going to be worth paying any mind to, and if you think that it's just a bandwagon to call them out on it--feel free to ignore me, since we're not ever going to have productive discussions.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you expect me to comb through social media to provide the stuff plus the person's linked EA account? I'm not doing that. Sorry, but it's not happening.

No. I expect you to be clear and provide evidence of some absurd claim, not a generalization based on your moments of shooting each other and screaming that you boned one anothers' moms. Someone who wants historical accuracy is not going to be what you say, in the overwhelming majority of situations. Many people, for whatever reason, prefer an accurate historical game. Myself, I cannot understand why, but it is a matter of preference. Regardless of what childish troll you have encountered in some video game, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that all of these individuals are NATZEES IN MY CEREAL.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The people that I have seen who are genuinely upset to the point of complaining nonstop about it have been the people that I find are most likely to have something associated with the game in a historically inaccurate way. They're the people who have been complaining that the inclusion of women has been DICE being "SJWs" or appealing to the "femboys" or all kinds of nonsense like that.

And the people I've seen screaming about the opposite are [insert generalization]. See how this works? I don't even need proof. I can just make things up to smear people that want things I dislike. Anyone who wants female Space Marines is usually a child molester! See? It's stupid.

 Kanluwen wrote:
In any regards there's a kind of pattern to the style of complaint out there that makes me comfortable saying that a social media posting with certain keywords is more likely to be associated with a certain type of player than the one you're thinking I'm painting with a broad brush. Someone who talks about DICE being SJWs or libtards or femnazis generally isn't going to be worth paying any mind to, and if you think that it's just a bandwagon to call them out on it--feel free to ignore me, since we're not ever going to have productive discussions.

Then you're certainly capable of understanding that I feel the same way about someone bellowing "People who want historical accuracy are usually Nazis!"

Because the people screaming about Nazis in my Cereal are usually unhinged elements of society that are best laughed at, just like we do at Nazis.

So what exactly am I supposed to refer to someone who has [SS] as a clan tag and a swastika as their player icon?

People who choose to use garbage like that should be labeled as Nazis, whether they are or not. If they want to 'self-identify' with that nonsense be my guest, they just shouldn't be able to pull back with "lulz it was a joke brah!".

 Kanluwen wrote:
So what exactly am I supposed to refer to someone who has [SS] as a clan tag and a swastika as their player icon?

People who choose to use garbage like that should be labeled as Nazis, whether they are or not. If they want to 'self-identify' with that nonsense be my guest, they just shouldn't be able to pull back with "lulz it was a joke brah!".

And again, I ask you- are these the only individuals asking for historical accuracy? I don't care what you think of some troll in a game. Call them whatever you want. I'm asking if these are the only individuals that want historical accuracy, and if so- please manifest evidence of this.

I think people who are asking for historical accuracy from the Battlefield series are fething idiots, TBH. This is never a series that has in any way or shape claimed or tried to deliver that experience. It's a video game that uses WW2 as a setting to tell a story. Why aren't any of these mouthbreathers complaining you can hide behind a rock for 10 seconds and get your health back, when historical accuracy demands that nearly every individual bullet wound be either fatal or crippling?

Eumerin wrote:

In any case, my question is this - where exactly is the line at which a "World War 2 shooter" has too little in common to remain a "World War 2 shooter"? If there were hover tanks and laser rifles, then no one would argue that it wasn't a World War 2 shooter, even if EA and DICE insisted that it was. How inaccurate does it need to be before it's no longer a "World War 2 shooter"?

It is an interesting question and an almost impossible to answer, because it varies from person to person.

I can generalise that if the weapons/ vehicles, uniforms and locations seem authentic, then the average person will be immersed and experience a WW2 shooter regardless of its actual realism and authenticity, this is true regardless of multiplayer or single player campaign.

Now there is a murky line here, does an X element (woman fighter, soldiers ethnicity, weapon, vehicle, location, ectr, ectr) were no X element existed and it is generally known it did not exist affect players immersion on the game? I feel this is affected both by how well known is the element and how frequent is its encounter and how well the game designer has woven their story, but I feel this affects the single player campaign more than multiplayer experience.

A historical literate player can avalanche on criticism because the many obvious elements will break the "magic circle" of immersion and start nitpick on details less subtle since their immersion has been broken and they see many more subtle details (I remember see people complain that thermite is used wrong and behave wrong in the recent COD game, quite subtle detail really) a less known player will catch the more obvious elements, if any, but since we are in the "information age" any who feels they did wrong will find people criticising the more subtle elements and add to their own criticism.

Now, I still maintain this is a single player campaign issue, it may have been a multiplayer issue in the past, but current iteration of multiplayer has created some standards for players that set it aside from single player, for good or evil multiplayer is both a skill bragging arena and a cosmetic contest, there is no regard to the historical accuracy in multiplayer and now the game companies give more and more emphasis to character customisation there may be given many excuses "inclusiveness", "immersion", "whatever the PR/ marketing guy comes up with" reality is it can be monetised and this is the current financial model companies go for, whatever odd elements exist are there for this reason, "wouldn't it be cool if I played X" this generates sales. more sales than a historically accurate multiplayer, simple as that.

I understand and acknowledge there is an underline "political war" on social media with many epithets for both sides and the usual narrative is "game developer(s) shoves in X,Y,Z progressive elements players react" and trench-lines are drawn and all must be categorised in either side of the no-mans land, I think it is wrong and immoral to toss everybody on two sides, not all game developers are the same, not all gamers are the same, not all critiques critique for the same reason, not all supporters support for the same reason, not all game design decisions are done for political reasons, some are revenue drive, some are because someone felt it was a cool idea, although everything can be political, not everything needs to be political and I think the last years we fall more and more prey in making everything political.

Some people just want to play a black SS officer because they feel it is cool, some want to play a disabled female British commando because they feel it is cool, as far as I am concerned it is fine as long as this is contained in the multplayer and not story campaign of a game that wants to sell it as a game set in a historical period, multiplayer arenas have more important "immersion breaks" in order to have a good and exciting gameplay than a British command having a katana on his back (of all places) or the pixel someone just sniped was slightly darker than it should have been.

So after the wall of text for me I feel a game will be judged (or should be judged) on its "historical authenticity" in the single player campaign and not on the multiplayer experience, multiplayer has evolved to be a different beast and serve a different purpose.