No they haven't. There are ton of visual inaccuracies in the BF games. The authenticity was always at best, surface level, with inspirations from Hollywood movies much more so than what the actual war would've felt and looked like.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
DICE - We will always put fun over authentic (Regarding Battlefield V compliants)
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
Nothing, absolutely nothing about BF has ever been presented as realistic beyond surface level lip service.
The difference is the squad in this trailer was meant to portray multiplayer custom characters and the squad in Bad Company actually had a narrative and were part of the campaign. Different situations.
I said this in the reveal trailer thread but had they portrayed the characters as a group of French resistance fighters (and removed the prosthetics/katanas) I would have had far fewer issues with the trailer.
Besides the fact that the direction and editing of the trailer itself was just plain bad.
Besides the fact that the direction and editing of the trailer itself was just plain bad.
No, I know about WW1. That suit of armour is something that existed at the time, it isn't something that on its own lowers the cohesiveness of the game portraying a WW1 theme. The mission itself is absurd, that suit would not have been used by someone to run up a hill on his own, but there's a difference between the gameplay not lining up with an accurate and realistic version of that thing and something that outright goes against the tone and atmosphere of the setting overall being added without having that gameplay suspension of disbelief.
Both things don't make sense in a realistic portrayal of their setting, but the latter is far more noticeable and takes away from the idea of adhering to a certain setting to a far greater extent.
That's what I said authentic. It's like getting mad at people because they think it's weird that a game is using laser pistols in a medieval setting where everything else /feels/ like it's medieval.
It's a valid opinion.
Yeah it's getting really tiring. I don't know what it is, but it's every community online is just spiteful these days. Everyone is so fucking negative, disrespectful and sometimes just plain mean.
Meh. Makes me sad when I think of "the old days"
User Warned: Personal attack.
Who the fuck are you? I too played BF since the beginning and I'm in no way entitled to justify all this whining you crybabies are coming up with.
Hell, all this whining is coming from man babies who think developers should always listen to their demand (oh amisogynistic pos, too).
Bf1 was shit? Rofl
Grow the fuck up, you entitled idiot.
So the outrage is not as much about women but more so of the context.
As long as it looks like WW2 I don't give a damn about anything else. The sights and sounds need to be on point. Otherwise give me female soldiers and all that bullshit.
It's really not though. Did women exist on WW2 battlefields? Yes. Did prosthetics exist in WW2? Yes. Did some soldiers paint their faces? Yes.
BF games strive for authenticity but not realism. Nothing has changed. Except for more prominently featuring women and minorities I guess.
You're missing that those things being authentic on an individual level doesn't mean that they automatically add to the authenticity of the setting as a whole. Something existing at the time isn't enough to mean it will then feel like it fits in with a given context and helps to realize that setting.
Dude, those suits existed technically, but peeps were not running on the battlefields of world war 1 wearing suits of armor with light machine guns. That's not what happened. BF1 is closer to a WW2 game then it is a WW1 game in terms of authenticity.
Soldiers were fitted with prosthetics. And are you actually going to act like the Pacific front didn't exist?
Half of the things in BF1 were authentic on an individual level but weren't realistic in the larger setting. No different.
BF1 prominently featured a women in the reveal trailer and I don't remember much outrage at all.
You can find plenty of misogyny levied at this reveal, or Battlefield 1, or every time a new female character is announced for Rainbow Six: Siege. Just because you want to dismiss it doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
The "hookhand" is a prosthetic limb, and Jetpacks, dogfighting rocket planes and fighting over nuclear powered reactors were features of later parts of Battlefield 1942. The series has always played loose with its inspiration and drawn from many different and exaggerated elements, even Battlefield 1 did. This is as accurate to the series roots as any of 'em.
Last edited:
I think the trailer was a little TOO over the top, but I'm all for a fun take on the WW2 setting. Just let me put a knife in my prostethic arm for melee
You're wrong on both points which has been posted so many times over the last 24 hours I don't know how you missed it.
Japanese officers were required to carry a Guntō in WW2.
In a single month COD World War 2 made a billion dollars in revenue. Gamers don't care about anything beyond surface level authenticity as they seem to be very uninformed about the specifics of the era.
Case and point.
We are still talking about the game that will reward Axis players for killing as many Allied players as possible right?
The thing is that the sword is worn by a brit who is fighting in the west. The japanese aren't even in the base game. People with prostethics also weren't send into combat
I'm not talking about or defending youtube comment dumbfuckery. I am talking about the threads of Resetera where some spoiled menchildren incapable of adult conversation attack battlefield veterans (or even just fans) for not liking the change from aesthetic realism towards player individualization by either directly of indirectly through implications calling them sexists/racists, prime example from this page even:BF2 didn't advertise diversity like the recent Call Of Duty and Battlefield games have, with promo images, trailers, and playable protagonists.
Gameplay hasn't been shown of BF V so can't talk about the intricate differences yet. Majority of critics aren't downvoting recent Call Of Duty or Battlefield trailers featuring inclusivity because of gameplay or aesthetic differences. Here are the most upvoted YouTube comments:
This IS the discussion because this is what is setting off downvote brigading, not "drastic shift away from aesthetic authenticity". It's about social politics. You make it sound like BF V looks like a cartoon.
Struggling to find a single case of a frontline soldier with an arm prosthetic wielding a firearm during the war. Women existed on the battlefield, yes, but not in the British or American armies. Then you have the katanas and giant paddleboard with nails, call in V2 rockets, etc. There's not much "authentic" about this game so far.
Yes its incredibly depressing. The fact that people seem to see it as some sort of sport is also disappointing.
you'd hope so. No one is buying a TV documentary with battlefield.
surprised it got so many haters. It reminds me of that 2004 steam game which I believe was set in WW1 except bigger and more packed.
surprised it got so many haters. It reminds me of that 2004 steam game which I believe was set in WW1 except bigger and more packed.
Doesn't refute what I was responding to.
They are both era appropriate. Soldiers taking German Lugers or other artifacts/cultural symbols have been plot points in countless WW2 films and stories. I don't know the context for what was shown. It could be just as silly as character customization but saying katanas and prosthetic limbs aren't in WW2 is patently false.
Soldiers moved around different fronts. My grandfather fought in Europe and in South East Asia and I think in Iraq at some point. He was part of the British Army.
It's as authentic as the other Battlefield games. Which if you were silly enough to use as a history lesson, would have you believe that rocket launchers and sub machine guns were heavily used during WW1 the way BF1 portrays the conflict. "Muh authentic experience" doesn't hold up as an argument because of all the inaccuracies you'd have to blatantly ignore when it comes to the other BF games. You can't nitpick BFV for not thing "authentic" without acknowledging the fact that BF as a series has never been truly authentic beyond surface level, and has always taken liberties both for the sake of gameplay AND the aesthetic.
This seem's to indicate otherwise.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvsurgconvoli/DEFAULT.htm
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/pow/pow-jap.html
The Japanese did have swords in WWII.
I'm highlighting why your logic is flawed and inconsistent. You give male characters a wide birth to be portrayed unrealistically, but when a woman character is portrayed unrealistically then she doesn't belong. I'm not referring to everyone who has a problem with the art style, but you specifically. Don't get mad that people are calling you out for your inherent sexism. The fact that you decide to throw a hissy fit instead of being able to explain why it's okay for male character to be shown unrealistically but women can't kinda proves my point.
... What are you doing? Seriously, stop. There were women in WW2. There were black men in WW2. I don't care if the majority were white men, that's not the point. Multiplayer matches of Battlefield aren't trying to be history documentaries and re-enactments of infamous battles.
How many soldiers jumped out of planes mid air, placed c4 on another plane (still mid air), got back into their own plane (still fucking mid air) and watched the other plane explode while still flying?
Honestly find it hilarious when people claim historical accuracy is their main concern when it´s so obvious they just don´t want girls in their big boy games.
I'm a Battlefield veteran and a good fucking player too, so hear me.
Your complaints are unfounded. Wait for real footage.
All these changes are fucking amazing, all my BF friends who have played since 1942 are fucking exited for this game.
"Us BF veterans" hahahaha talk for yourself.
It's an issue of accuracy or realism, not so much authenticity. This is something that's been mentioned several times already but there's a difference between the two ideas.
They weren't running around like that, but it's portrayed in an authentic way - they aren't out of place with the context of a WW1 theme. That's what the battlefield series has always gone for, portraying the overall tone, atmosphere, uniforms, sounds, locations etc in a way that is authentic to the setting. It's the gameplay itself that then causes problems with accuracy.
In the same way here, the Katana, the Jacket, the Prosthetic are all authentic to the WW2 era - they all existed. The difference is in terms of the way they overall add together to create the overall feeling of the setting, it lacks cohesion because of the amount of out of place things.
No, the suit existed, had relevance to the war, and the way it's put into the game tries to justify it being there even though it isn't shown in an accurate way because of that gameplay. That's different from the level of customization BFV is going for where it's "This existed so it doesn't matter if it really fits". It isn't just enough to be put in because it was around at the time, it also needs to be implemented in a somewhat reasonable way.
The aesthetics of it fit the time period and setting, but it was the gameplay didn't fit the real-life version. In this case the aesthetics still fit the era, but not the idea of a cohesive WW2 setting. It's to do with the scale of things and the extent of them coming together to overall affect the setting in a big way.
Last edited:
All I know is, I immediately pre-ordered this game the moment the reveal was done (even though I didn't enjoy the format of the reveal), but I didn't do so for Black Ops IIII, a series I have every game in, have enjoyed immensely, and enjoyed the format of the reveal of.
Battlefield V just looks more fun.
Battlefield V just looks more fun.
I'm "giving a wide berth to male characters"? Where did you pull that out of your ass from? If your way of discussion is making stuff up to put into others mouths and then insult them based on that, you rightfully earned your place on my ignorelist.
Your point is about realism while carrying a katana is about authenticity. That a British soldier on the western front would be wearing that is just incredibly unlikely
