Battlefield V (2018)

[Osprey]

hmmm. after watching the video it really just feels like a re-skin of BF1 but with updated weapons. JMO though. probably wait this one for a lower price point. I have been pretty slack on getting new releases. just picked up BF1 a few weeks ago on the cheap and I am enjoying it thoroughly.

Graphically, a re-skin of BF1 for WWII appears accurate, since they're re-using the engine, UI and such. I think, though, because they laid that foundation in the last game and didn't need to re-lay it, that they're able to spend more time on the gameplay this time around. The ability to build fortifications to defend flags sounds like a pretty big change to gameplay.

I've been thinking about doing as you did and buying BF1 for cheap. It's always been my intention and it probably won't make much sense if I wait much longer, since people will have moved on to BF5. I need to figure out what to buy, though, since there seem to be multiple editions and multiple DLC/expansions. Which did you buy?

 

[tacogeoff]

Graphically, a re-skin of BF1 for WWII appears accurate, since they're re-using the engine, UI and such. I think, though, because they laid that foundation in the last game and didn't need to re-lay it, that they're able to spend more time on the gameplay this time around. The ability to build fortifications to defend flags sounds like a pretty big change to gameplay.

I've been thinking about doing as you did and buying BF1 for cheap. It's always been my intention and it probably won't make much sense if I wait much longer, since people will have moved on to BF5. I need to figure out what to buy, though, since there seem to be multiple editions and multiple DLC/expansions. Which did you buy?

just the standard version. It is well worth 20$ or less. You get the base maps and then the in the name of the Tsar DLC for free off the PlayStation store.

 

[XX]

More info dump. AJ going over his notes of the closed doors presentation they did that was detailed.

Overall, BFV takes a bit from COD:WW2, R6 Siege, Squad, and previous beloved Battlefield games.

The economy will be very, very similar to R6 Siege from what I'm seeing, which makes me happy. Guns alone have 7 customization slots.

 

[Nickmo82]

The trailer was hot ass. I'll wait for proper gameplay though before judging.

 

[Blender]

I won't defend the sexist remarks (like "women were in the kitchen, not on the front lines"), but I'd say that there is reason for legitimate criticism, just like there would've been if Band of Brothers had included female soldiers. There's a point where trying to be progressive can go too far.

My stance is that they could've fudged history a little and catered to female gamers by including female character models that didn't look conspicuously female (like how modern female soldiers almost look like guys when in uniform), but making them exceedingly feminine and modern in appearance just looks ridiculous.

It's not just the female (who, also, as I've already pointed out, has a prosthetic arm, to boot). Even the bald, bearded white guy wearing the tank top looks nothing like any soldier in WWII. Both characters look cool without any respect for historical accuracy. Others are probably right that EA/Dice's customization monetization strategy is largely behind it, since they seem to want you to be able to customize your character's look to reflect who you are, regardless of whether anyone on the WWII battlefield ever looked like that. It'd be nice if they would provide an option to turn those customizations off, though.

The Red Army had about 800,000 women in it, many in combat roles. Many women fought in resistance groups in occupied territory as well. Yes I'm sure the game will be inaccurate, because of course it will be, but it's sheer ignorance to say no women fought in WW2.

 

[Saskatoon]

I won't defend the sexist remarks (like "women were in the kitchen, not on the front lines"), but I'd say that there is reason for legitimate criticism, just like there would've been if Band of Brothers had included female soldiers. There's a point where trying to be progressive can go too far.

My stance is that they could've fudged history a little and catered to female gamers by including female character models that didn't look conspicuously female (like how modern female soldiers almost look like guys when in uniform), but making them exceedingly feminine and modern in appearance just looks ridiculous.

It's not just the female (who, also, as I've already pointed out, has a prosthetic arm, to boot). Even the bald, bearded white guy wearing the tank top looks nothing like any soldier in WWII. Both characters look cool without any respect for historical accuracy. Others are probably right that EA/Dice's customization monetization strategy is largely behind it, since they seem to want you to be able to customize your character's look to reflect who you are, regardless of whether anyone on the WWII battlefield ever looked like that. It'd be nice if they would provide an option to turn those customizations off, though.

If people want to complain about the historical accuracy of women, they also need to complain about a single person being able to pilot a tank, boat, fighter, bomber and use all enemy weapons with extreme precision. And squads of 30 people having multiple tanks and planes available to them. Or (based on the BF1942) the Tiger Tank and M10 Wolverine having equal armor. I have played Battlefield since the first one and the setting has always been a set piece. The game has never been historically accurate.

 

[filip85]

Missions in Switzerland ?! So alternate history story...

 

[Commander Clueless]

It's a video game, not a documentary. I don't see why we're discussing this again. I was really hoping that discussion was over after BF1.

If they want to make customizable avatars, more power to them.


I'm much more concerned with the game play.

 

[CBJx614]

Missions in Switzerland ?! So alternate history story...

Well Germany did have plans ready to invade Switzerland.

 

[Turin]

The Red Army had about 800,000 women in it, many in combat roles. Many women fought in resistance groups in occupied territory as well. Yes I'm sure the game will be inaccurate, because of course it will be, but it's sheer ignorance to say no women fought in WW2.

The Soviet army was full of women because they were lacking so many men from previous fights. No other nations had women on the front lines or in combat at all.

 

[Turin]

If people want to complain about the historical accuracy of women, they also need to complain about a single person being able to pilot a tank, boat, fighter, bomber and use all enemy weapons with extreme precision. And squads of 30 people having multiple tanks and planes available to them. Or (based on the BF1942) the Tiger Tank and M10 Wolverine having equal armor. I have played Battlefield since the first one and the setting has always been a set piece. The game has never been historically accurate.

Those being gameplay reasons. Identity politics being the reason for this.

 

[Blender]

The Soviet army was full of women because they were lacking so many men from previous fights. No other nations had women on the front lines or in combat at all.

The reason why the Red Army deployed women in combat is irrelevant to the fact that they did. You also glossed over the fact that many women fought in resistance and partisan groups, especially in Yugoslavia where over one hundred thousand fought.

Poland deployed women in combat when they were invaded in 1939. Great Britain and Germany deployed women in defensive roles like manning anti-aircraft guns.

To say that no women participated in combat in WW2 is inaccurate to say the least.

 

[Turin]

The reason why the Red Army deployed women in combat is irrelevant to the fact that they did. You also glossed over the fact that many women fought in resistance and partisan groups, especially in Yugoslavia where over one hundred thousand fought.

Poland deployed women in combat when they were invaded in 1939. Great Britain and Germany deployed women in defensive roles like manning anti-aircraft guns.

To say that no women participated in combat in WW2 is inaccurate to say the least.

There were the odd females who participated in support roles and other important work, but 99% of casualties on the battlefields of WWII were men.

 

[Saskatoon]

Those being gameplay reasons. Identity politics being the reason for this.

More and more girls play video games. It may be politically motivated but it may be business motivated. If your custom avatar is a big source of their post-release revenue (customization, cosmetics) maybe, just maybe they wanted to let their female players be female?

I would bet there are more female gamers out there than male gamers who will boycott because of this. So smart decision all around.

 

[Blender]

There were the odd females who participated in support roles and other important work, but 99% of casualties on the battlefields of WWII were men.

So? You're shifting the goalposts now. The game series isn't and never has been historically accurate. Inflating the number of female character options in the game to appeal to women who want to play as one is stretching the truth as much as most of the game play inaccuracies are. The fact is that it's wrong to claim that having women in any combat role in the game is historically inaccurate as if no women fought in WW2.

 

[Osprey]

just the standard version. It is well worth 20$ or less. You get the base maps and then the in the name of the Tsar DLC for free off the PlayStation store.

Thanks... though I'd be buying the PC version and I don't think that the standard version comes with any DLC.

The Red Army had about 800,000 women in it, many in combat roles. Many women fought in resistance groups in occupied territory as well. Yes I'm sure the game will be inaccurate, because of course it will be, but it's sheer ignorance to say no women fought in WW2.

Nowhere in any of what you quoted did I say that no women fought in WWII.

If people want to complain about the historical accuracy of women, they also need to complain about a single person being able to pilot a tank, boat, fighter, bomber and use all enemy weapons with extreme precision. And squads of 30 people having multiple tanks and planes available to them. Or (based on the BF1942) the Tiger Tank and M10 Wolverine having equal armor. I have played Battlefield since the first one and the setting has always been a set piece. The game has never been historically accurate.

I'd say that there's a big difference between historical concessions made for gameplay balance and fun and those made for marketing, political correctness and monetization. The former are mostly in the gamers' interests; the latter are mostly in the developers' interests.

 

[Turin]

So? You're shifting the goalposts now. The game series isn't and never has been historically accurate. Inflating the number of female character options in the game to appeal to women who want to play as one is stretching the truth as much as most of the game play inaccuracies are. The fact is that it's wrong to claim that having women in any combat role in the game is historically inaccurate as if no women fought in WW2.

I am not, my whole point was the women on the battlefield was exceedingly rare. Outside of the USSR, where 3% of their fighting force was women, there was no substantial amount of women actors in that war theatre. Women working? Sure. Fighting? No.

If women made up 1% of war casualties, it’s egregious to design a WWII game promoting women fighters (title screen) and when describing your game as immersive, have half the classes within a squad be women on the front lines.

And for those whimsical enough to think it’s not about identity politics, f***ing Trevor Noah revealed the trailer. You cannot get more on-the-nose gender politics as a game studio, it’s embarrassing.

 

[Turin]

More and more girls play video games. It may be politically motivated but it may be business motivated. If your custom avatar is a big source of their post-release revenue (customization, cosmetics) maybe, just maybe they wanted to let their female players be female?

I would bet there are more female gamers out there than male gamers who will boycott because of this. So smart decision all around.

I don’t think there’s a big shift in demographic when it comes to Battlefield games. I’d need to see the data to speak on that definitively, but I don’t see anything suggesting it.

 

[John Price]

Six ways Battlefield 5 will change the series’ traditional gameplay

Don't know about them going to lesser known theaters of war like Greece or Rotterdam. Kind of want to re-enact Omaha Beach but that's the 1942 nostalgia talking.

 

[Blender]

I am not, my whole point was the women on the battlefield was exceedingly rare. Outside of the USSR, where 3% of their fighting force was women, there was no substantial amount of women actors in that war theatre. Women working? Sure. Fighting? No.

If women made up 1% of war casualties, it’s egregious to design a WWII game promoting women fighters (title screen) and when describing your game as immersive, have half the classes within a squad be women on the front lines.

And for those whimsical enough to think it’s not about identity politics, ****ing Trevor Noah revealed the trailer. You cannot get more on-the-nose gender politics as a game studio, it’s embarrassing.

That isn't my point though, they are clearly trying to cater towards more women gamers to increase their sales. I'm not debating that and it's smart business if it works. People yelling about historical accuracy and claiming no women fought in WW2, like you claimed earlier, are flat out wrong though. If you want to talk about percentages, how many soldiers drove tanks, flew fighters, etc? How many actual snipers were there in the war? Not many, but people demand to have them as a class so 25% of the player base can be one. These games have never been historically accurate, and giving 50% of the population the ability to play as a character they want won't impact the historical accuracy of the game any more than it already has been impacted by everything else.

 

[XX]

I'm much more concerned with the game play.

Shaping up to be the best since BF2. Fingers crossed they deliver.

 

[syz]

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

I’m sure everybody losing their mind over the ‘historical inaccuracies’ got just as up in arms when Dice added Anzacs to Battlefield 1 who spoke with the standard British voice lines, instead of the proper Aussie/Kiwi accents, right?

Right?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I am not, my whole point was the women on the battlefield was exceedingly rare. Outside of the USSR, where 3% of their fighting force was women, there was no substantial amount of women actors in that war theatre. Women working? Sure. Fighting? No.

If women made up 1% of war casualties, it’s egregious to design a WWII game promoting women fighters (title screen) and when describing your game as immersive, have half the classes within a squad be women on the front lines.

And for those whimsical enough to think it’s not about identity politics, ****ing Trevor Noah revealed the trailer. You cannot get more on-the-nose gender politics as a game studio, it’s embarrassing.

Lay off the Jordan Peterson for a few days.

 

[XX]