Current Events > Battlefield V Trailer... I'm very confused... can someone explain?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dragon239 posted...

All those YT comments about SJWs too, jesus. What, cause there's a girl?

It blows my mind that some people are so up their own asses that they want to blame everything on the SJW bogeyman. Guess what? Dice is a company. They want to make money. If they can convince girls to play or give guys more eye candy, they are going to do it. Not for ideological reasons, but because they want to make money.

That's not even counting the controversy and free publicity it generates. Or the facts that the games have always distilled large complex wars down into simple MP-worthy gameplay. Like, they made each of the Entente troops a different race. Was it to promote those races? No, it's because they didn't want to design segregated battalions for every single group that fought in the war over many different battlefields.

The arguments are always ridiculously stupid and based on a cursory knowledge of history. It's like when they complained and whined about how historically inaccurate it was to have black soldiers in Battlefield I, but completely fucking ignored the obvious other inaccuracies like everyone having automatic weaponry, very little artillery, everyone having access to all equipment, and worse of all, the A7V, which normally required a team of 27 and was only produced in 50 units being everyone and capable of running on a 1 man crew. Like, cry more.

And while I'm sure none of this trailer is indicative of actual gameplay(because DICE's trailers never are), the whole direction seems like "we want the wacky Fortnite audience", which thus far seems like the only reason for the absolute clusterfuck of what they're trying to portray onscreen.

Hexenherz posted...

Apparently they are actually getting rid of health regeneration now so that is becoming a little more realistic.

Oh shit, that's cool. 1 seemed to have the issue of class roles not being super important, so that sort of thing would really help.
---

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

So why is it you can get shot multiple times and keep on going? Doesn't seem very accurate

Totally the same thing
---

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

The developers can do whatever they want

if anyone wants historical accuracy, read a fucking textbook

Game developers can also make Han Solo sing and dance.

Doesn't mean people have to like it, that accuracy will drive people who want it.
---

Infinite 2003 posted...

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

So why is it you can get shot multiple times and keep on going? Doesn't seem very accurate

Totally the same thing

I thought accuracy taking a backseat was bullshit
---

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.
---

giantblimpN7 posted...

Hexenherz posted...

Apparently they are actually getting rid of health regeneration now so that is becoming a little more realistic.

Oh shit, that's cool. 1 seemed to have the issue of class roles not being super important, so that sort of thing would really help.

It's just unfortunately really hard for class roles to ... well, play a role when people are just running around all OFP to begin with. But yeah that should make people slow down a bit and think about what they're doing, in theory.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Dragon239 posted...

All those YT comments about SJWs too, jesus. What, cause there's a girl?

The arguments are always ridiculously stupid and based on a cursory knowledge of history. It's like when they complained and whined about how historically inaccurate it was to have black soldiers in Battlefield I, but completely fucking ignored the obvious other inaccuracies like everyone having automatic weaponry, very little artillery, everyone having access to all equipment, and worse of all, the A7V, which normally required a team of 27 and was only produced in 50 units being everyone and capable of running on a 1 man crew. Like, cry more.

People complained about that shit all the time dude, especially the automatic weapons.

Stop plugging your ears and pretending that everyone is a racist. Try listening for once.
---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

The developers can do whatever they want

if anyone wants historical accuracy, read a fucking textbook

Game developers can also make Han Solo sing and dance.

Doesn't mean people have to like it, that accuracy will drive people who want it.

The problem isn't complaining about a lack of accuracy, though, it's that they only care about accuracy when it means they can exclude a particular group. It's an obvious excuse since there are plenty of other inaccuracies that went over completely fine like;
- LMGs, SMGs, and experimental weaponry.
- Vehicles that didn't see much combat use.
- Vehicles being manned by a single person instead of the massive teams they required.
- Equipment is available to both sides.
- Battles that lasted hours or days are condensed to roughly half an hour engagements, while massive battlegrounds are condensed to smaller maps.
- Etc.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Dragon239 posted...

All those YT comments about SJWs too, jesus. What, cause there's a girl?

The arguments are always ridiculously stupid and based on a cursory knowledge of history. It's like when they complained and whined about how historically inaccurate it was to have black soldiers in Battlefield I, but completely fucking ignored the obvious other inaccuracies like everyone having automatic weaponry, very little artillery, everyone having access to all equipment, and worse of all, the A7V, which normally required a team of 27 and was only produced in 50 units being everyone and capable of running on a 1 man crew. Like, cry more.

People complained about that shit all the time dude, especially the automatic weapons.

Stop plugging your ears and pretending that everyone is a racist. Try listening for once.

Where did a single person complain about the A7V?

Let me guess, all the gametypes will be similar trash like previous Battlefield games
---

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

So why is it you can get shot multiple times and keep on going? Doesn't seem very accurate

Totally the same thing

I thought accuracy taking a backseat was bullshit

This is a really desperate line of argument. Stop
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.

The Soviet Union had some specialized female soldiers, like their snipers (best one had 304 kills)

Although they were still extremely rare.
---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.

The Soviet Union had some specialized female soldiers, like their snipers (best one had 304 kills)

Although they were still extremely rare.

So were 90% of the guns and equipment in BF1 >_>.

Infinite 2003 posted...

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

giantblimpN7 posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

So why is it you can get shot multiple times and keep on going? Doesn't seem very accurate

Totally the same thing

I thought accuracy taking a backseat was bullshit

This is a really desperate line of argument. Stop

he's been having a tough past few days posting, not sure what's wrong with him
---

Call of Duty WW2 did a straightforward campaign and people bitched about how predictable it was

I welcome this style, even if it is a little avantgarde

Y'all gotta chill with the historical accuracy shit, a realistic Battlefield 1 would've been boring as shit and they realized that
---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.

The Soviet Union had some specialized female soldiers, like their snipers (best one had 304 kills)

Although they were still extremely rare.

Fair, they also had female fighter pilots flying WWI planes for reconnaissance.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Where did a single person complain about the A7V?

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2016/10/opinion-the-astonishing-historical-inaccuracies-of-battlefield-1.html

Dash_Harber posted...

The_Ivory_Man posted...

TheMarthKoopa posted...

Infinite 2003 posted...

It's almost like some people don't like historical accuracy taking a backseat to inclusiveness

The developers can do whatever they want

if anyone wants historical accuracy, read a fucking textbook

Game developers can also make Han Solo sing and dance.

Doesn't mean people have to like it, that accuracy will drive people who want it.

The problem isn't complaining about a lack of accuracy, though, it's that they only care about accuracy when it means they can exclude a particular group. It's an obvious excuse since there are plenty of other inaccuracies that went over completely fine like;
- LMGs, SMGs, and experimental weaponry.
- Vehicles that didn't see much combat use.
- Vehicles being manned by a single person instead of the massive teams they required.
- Equipment is available to both sides.
- Battles that lasted hours or days are condensed to roughly half an hour engagements, while massive battlegrounds are condensed to smaller maps.
- Etc.

People complained about the weapons and vehicles all the time, and I still complain about them now.

Time condensing is just for a video game, not many people would want to play a campaign for days at a time.

This is why I'm saying don't act like every person on the other side is going "Man I sure do wish black people and women weren't in this game, because I hate them." People raise those complaints all the time, bring down the strawman you are creating for arguments.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

The_Ivory_Man posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.

The Soviet Union had some specialized female soldiers, like their snipers (best one had 304 kills)

Although they were still extremely rare.

So were 90% of the guns and equipment in BF1 >_>.

I agree, I also don't want them there. Nobody was raising that argument.

I prefer women used like CoD:Finest Hour, a showcase based on some real things during the campaign, not 20% of the people on a multiplayer map.

I find acting like the armies were segregated to be the far more distasteful thing, pushing those aspects under the rug isn't a good thing.
---

KarmaMuffin posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

rather not have them in ww2 games

I just don't get it. You're ok with all other kinds of suspensions of disbelief but women in combat is where you draw the line?

Yeah.

And?

By the way, it's mostly about thematic consistency than logical consistency.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

Call of Duty WW2 did a straightforward campaign and people bitched about how predictable it was

I welcome this style, even if it is a little avantgarde

Y'all gotta chill with the historical accuracy shit, a realistic Battlefield 1 would've been boring as shit and they realized that

I totally disagree with that.

A historically authentic WW1 game based on 1918 (where most of the movement took place) could be extremely fun, Dice just put in no effort and made a game that can barely be considered a WW1 game, you can't even get past the opening without full automatics everywhere.
---

Battlefield 1 was a disappointment, yeah. It ended up basically just being a reskinned Battlefield 4 with less customization.
---

"historical accuracy" lmao
---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2016/10/opinion-the-astonishing-historical-inaccuracies-of-battlefield-1.html

Well, you got me there, someone noticed.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

People complained about the weapons and vehicles all the time, and I still complain about them now.

Time condensing is just for a video game, not many people would want to play a campaign for days at a time.

This is why I'm saying don't act like every person on the other side is going "Man I sure do wish black people and women weren't in this game, because I hate them." People raise those complaints all the time, bring down the strawman you are creating for arguments.

Look, I'm not saying everyone is racist. What I am saying is that maybe these people who think it's so egregious should take a minute to reflect on why this is the hill they want to die on. They complain about things being inaccurate when it's a woman or a black person or a Sikh medic. Sure, they complain about the weapons, too, I'll give you that (though, I honestly think the vehicle complaints are pretty rare), but when there are already so many acceptable breaks from reality and pretty much every decision was actually based on a real existing unit, you have to wonder why their kneejerk reaction is to start justifying it by complaining it's not accurate.

They accept that you can take multiple bullets or that teams share the same types of equipment because 'gameplay', or they accept that a 27 man tank can be run by one guy because of 'gameplay', or they accept that people can just randomly respawn and switch training and equipment, but the minute that someone they don't think should be in the game is in it, they flip shit. It's probably because they don't actually know all that much about the period, but it's still a weird reaction to have.

I'm not sure why anyone would expect a realistic depiction of WWI in the first place; not only was it bloody and awful, but gameplay would mostly revolve around a single player with a single life hiding in a trench or a hole, hoping he didn't get blown up by artillery fire, and firing random pop shots at the people forced to pop their heads up. Not only that, but the very nature of adapting reality to a video game is not accurate. Video games can not function like real life, and it's odd that the breaking point for accuracy is somewhere between automatic weapons and black people in Germany.

BignutzisBack posted...

Let me guess, all the gametypes will be similar trash like previous Battlefield games

what

If anything the Battlefield games have had a great variety of modes, especially 1, moreso than ... well, any other FPS I can think of.
---

Hexenherz posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

Let me guess, all the gametypes will be similar trash like previous Battlefield games

what

If anything the Battlefield games have had a great variety of modes, especially 1, moreso than ... well, any other FPS I can think of.

They have fewer modes than most FPS.

Halo is an example of having many modes.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

A historically authentic WW1 game based on 1918 (where most of the movement took place) could be extremely fun, Dice just put in no effort and made a game that can barely be considered a WW1 game, you can't even get past the opening without full automatics everywhere.

Actually, it wouldn't. The majority of deaths were due to artillery fire. Battles dragged on for days with little action while guys stood around getting sick hoping that someone would stick their head out to get shot. A 'realistic' game would basically have half the players standing in a trench with a single-action rifle, while the other half took artillery pop shots where they thought the enemy was (because, after all, this predates radar). Vehicles were extremely limited, with the 'heavy tanks' existing basically only at the end and only about 50 of them ever saw action. There was also a pretty good chance you would just be maimed by gas weapons (which, despite popular opinion, were not always all lethal or used by one side), resulting in a lengthy stay at a medical facility. In fact, you'd also have to factor in the fact that troops frequently hit themselves with mustard gas because of an unexpected shift in the wind. So yeah, it would make for an awful, awful FPS. Maybe a cool single-player adventure, though.

So that scene where the guy took down that plane with a few LMG rounds... Actually... the guy just threw back a grenade and the LMG guy shot the grenade in mid air as the plane was flying by and destroyed it with that grenade... So... yea... evaluate that as you see fit...
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Hexenherz posted...

BignutzisBack posted...

Let me guess, all the gametypes will be similar trash like previous Battlefield games

what

If anything the Battlefield games have had a great variety of modes, especially 1, moreso than ... well, any other FPS I can think of.

They have fewer modes than most FPS.

Halo is an example of having many modes.

I can't speak to Halo, but compared to Siege, Counter-Strike (default), Call of Duty or Titanfall, Battlefield has more going for it, between Conquest, Domination, TDM, Rush, and the modes they add in each DLC (though those do require DLC). Battlefield 1 offered even more out of the box with modes like Domination and War Pigeons for short matches and Operations if you wanted a longer experience. Most games are limited to a standard 5-10 minute round match and don't scale based on how much time you have to play.
---

DarthAragorn posted...

KarmaMuffin posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

rather not have them in ww2 games

I just don't get it. You're ok with all other kinds of suspensions of disbelief but women in combat is where you draw the line?

Battlefield used to maintain some sense of realism

But women in combat in WW2? Lol no, that just didn't happen

I mean Battlefield has never really been a realistic game at all though

Whens the last time you saw the US deploying marines with Aks and RPGs?
---

Samurontai posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

KarmaMuffin posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

rather not have them in ww2 games

I just don't get it. You're ok with all other kinds of suspensions of disbelief but women in combat is where you draw the line?

Battlefield used to maintain some sense of realism

But women in combat in WW2? Lol no, that just didn't happen

I mean Battlefield has never really been a realistic game at all though

Whens the last time you saw the US deploying marines with Aks and RPGs?

I think someone said it pretty well on reddit when they said it's fine that women are in the game, the most important thing is that they respect the memory of WW2 veterans and the tens of millions of lives that were lost in the war. Right now... they don't seem to be doing that too well.

Also

https://imgur.com/FJbCwyd
---

I think there's a pretty big difference between the over the top style in BFV and Quiet in MGSV.
---

OmegaShinkai posted...

And while I'm sure none of this trailer is indicative of actual gameplay(because DICE's trailers never are), the whole direction seems like "we want the wacky Fortnite audience", which thus far seems like the only reason for the absolute clusterfuck of what they're trying to portray onscreen.

This comes across as most likely.
---

New screenshot look at these graphics: https://i.redd.it/p7bom8ffcwz01.jpg
---

Hexenherz posted...

New screenshot look at these graphics: https://i.redd.it/p7bom8ffcwz01.jpg

I need it

Samurontai posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

KarmaMuffin posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

rather not have them in ww2 games

I just don't get it. You're ok with all other kinds of suspensions of disbelief but women in combat is where you draw the line?

Battlefield used to maintain some sense of realism

But women in combat in WW2? Lol no, that just didn't happen

I mean Battlefield has never really been a realistic game at all though

Whens the last time you saw the US deploying marines with Aks and RPGs?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-commandos-had-a-love-affair-with-captured-ak-47s-87ab1e4ae2c1
---

Hexenherz posted...

New screenshot look at these graphics: https://i.redd.it/p7bom8ffcwz01.jpg

Someone with talent actually put time and effort into this picture.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Well, there were female resistance fighters all over occupied Europe and Russia. So far as actual female soldiers fighting on the front though? No.

The Soviet Union had some specialized female soldiers, like their snipers (best one had 304 kills)

Although they were still extremely rare.

actually she had 309
---