-
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.
Battlefield V - Reveal trailer - October 19th
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
It seems like people on ResetEra are going though and cherry picking the worst and most toxic examples of dissatisfaction while ignoring legitimate concerns with the game's customization options. Anyone who is upset that the game features women, or any race other than white is delusional and should be criticized; however, I think a fair argument is people looking to participate in classic battles with some semblance of the real thing. Any battle's that featured women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Indians, or whoever else should have their participation honored by including them as a dedicated class much like how Battlefield 1 paid homage to the Woman's Battalion the Russian's had in World War I; they made the entire Russian sniper class female which was an awesome tribute. What's more, I think the inclusion of all these new customization options is more insidious than "We wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion, so our players can fully customize the way that they want their soldiers look and play". The real reason all these options exist is the same reason the game does not have paid DLC, or a season pass. EA intends to make its money though customization options and a big fear of the community is how outlandish these options could be. The trailer left people extremely dissatisfied with the cast akin to the Expendables including Kratos in a tanktop, the women with the prosthetic arm and spiked cricket bat with a chain on it, and the man with a katana fighting on what is definitely the Western Front (which I believe has been confirmed as events prior to the 'Evacuation of Dunkirk'). EA looks at Fortnite which made $300 million in the month of April alone and wants to replicate that success by offering in game cosmetic items, but they fail to appreciate that Fortnite is a free to play game on a multitude of different platforms and the fans of each franchise like the respective games for different reasons. One of Battlefield's traditional selling points has always been its ability to portray historical conflicts with a degree of accuracy while still being an enjoyable class based FPS experience. When the franchise returns to modern / 2142 I hope they do allow complete character customization including gender and race, but I feel such options have no place in a game portraying a historical conflict like this. If you fight the Japanese military on Wake Island and their team is a mix of various races and genders you're not really fighting the Japanese and the game becomes more of a cosplay event rather than casting the illusion of fighting actual battles from history. I'm not at all against inclusion where it's warranted and was very impressed with how it was handled in Battlefield 1. Their are plenty of opportunities to include and pay homage to the women and the races other than white that fought in the war, (Soviet female snipers for Lyudmila Pavlichenko and the many like her, black American engineer class for the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, P-51 Red Tail skin for the Tuskegee Airmen, Native Americans for the Navajo code talkers, and so on). Certain liberties will have to be taken with weapons and vehicles for game-play purposes; however, in a war that revolved so heavily around ethnicity and gender it would be especially obtuse to encounter black female soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht and be analogous to having black female soldiers fighting for the Confederacy in a game featuring the American Civil War. If the game is meant to be an alternate take on World War II then you have to appreciate fans dissatisfaction that the franchise is moving from a tonally more serious take on historical conflicts like Battlefield 1 to Battlefield V's more stylistic approach. Additionally, the .gif floating around of the flamethrower & machine gun class piggy backing on the horse is obviously hilarious, but that is also not the norm of a battlefield match. It's a game and will obviously have funny little glitches and moments that makes players chuckle; however, maybe 1 out of every 20 matches has something odd or funny like that and it's definitely not the norm. The franchise definitely has serious game play elements like playing Battlefield 1 without a hud on hardcore, and a lot more people play Battlefield that way than the number of wacky, crazy, or funny stuff I see in a match. Games like Bad Company are firmly part of the Battlefield franchise, but I'd consider them to be more of a spin-off series and not part of the mainline installments which have been more tonally serious. The craziest Battlefield gets on purpose is usually the end of life-cycle DLC. Battlefield 1 is getting some crazy weapons now that they're showing off BFV. 1942 had its Secret Weapons DLC at the end of its life as well.
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
A fair amount of people have been pretty disgusting regarding the trailer, but lots of people are concerned about period accurate representation and cosmetic items which doesn't translate into sexism, or racism. Hopefully I don't get demolished for this post since its a standing concern I have with the game and I think many other long term fans of the franchise share it. If it wasn't such a divisive issue than the trailer reviews would be far less contested. In actuality many players will buy the game regardless of what happens, but that doesn't mean they can't let their concerns be heard. A potential solution that has been circulating is a toggle which enables / disables seeing other player's cosmetic items which I'm personally in favor of, (I'm really not interested in seeing shirtless white dudes with cricket bats fighting for the Japanese in the Pacific theater).
This is really well thoughtout. Just because there are sexist and racists upset doesn't mean everyone that is upset is upset about the inclusion of different people. The issues are with the tone, a prosthetic arm that moves, Japanese swords by British soldiers and such. I don't really care about these issues but I do atleast acknowledge it.
Holy Shiiiiii!!!!! Looks amazing!
This makes me even more excited for Anthem tbh.
Dude,it's Frostbite engine. It's going to look exactly like that on high end pc.
I will have to see some live gameplay cause that right there looked like a load of bullshot pre-rendered material. The character movements, the moment-to-moment "gameplay", the voice quips feeling a bit too acted, all of that looked really off.
This makes me even more excited for Anthem tbh.
Let's take this time to remember how Gamespot praised 1942 back in 2002 for presenting fun over authenticity.
It's all about fun in the end, friends.
It's all about fun in the end, friends.
You know what I hope happens half way through the game? A portal opens up and some modern weapons fall out. That will really whip these hardcore historians into a frenzy.
Fun > historical accuracy
Battlefield one was dark and gritty and guess what, it got boring after a month in a half.
I welcome all the changes, we needed something fresh and new.
Fun > historical accuracy
Battlefield one was dark and gritty and guess what, it got boring after a month in a half.
I welcome all the changes, we needed something fresh and new.
will you limit weapon selection only to battles they were used in also? no? just women and minorities?
just more words, not better words.
Good post, i agree.
You should have a custom character per side, so you would have a japanese male/female fighter for the Pacific theatre for example.
Prosthetics for both limbs and cosmetic prosthetics for injuries have been around for way longer than you think. Functioning legs prosthetics with working locking knees date to the 1500s.
I'd rather they make a fun game for as many people as possible than appeal to some arbitrary historical restrictions I've never heard anyone complain about with Battlefield before. There are historically accurate games people can do battle reenactments in if that's what they want. Getting rid of paid map packs and adding tons more customization are both great steps forward for the franchise.
they should add a historically accurate MP mode where the side that won IRL always wins in-game
Unless you also want gameplay limitations this amount of "concern" about "historical accuracy" in a battlefield game, something that's never prided itself on being an accurate portrayal of conflicts, is completely vapid.
FWIW, BF1942 had faction specific weapons and no way around that.
I would laugh my ass off, if playing with the Russians only the squad leader and 2 squad members only got weapons maybe the other only got some tools.
If im not mistaken the Russians were severely under equipped.
On XBox, the deluxe edition preorder is 20% off if you buy it through the ingame menu in BF1. Probably requires EA access.
The concerns as to historical accuracy are hilarious - this is the series of games where you can jump out of a plane, shoot the pilot of a pursuing plane, climb into his plane and continue flying. Yeah this is realism :P
This isn't Red Orchestra, battlefield is not an ultra - realistic shooter. There Is no reason to not let people play as women if they want.
This isn't Red Orchestra, battlefield is not an ultra - realistic shooter. There Is no reason to not let people play as women if they want.
So by this definition since it's never been ultra realistic, it can be absolutely anything. No holds barred, no limits, lines can never be drawn, expectations invalid. Got it.
okay but the fact that you're drawing the line behind women is pretty telling bruh
Did you just slander me of being a misogamist? Can you please clarify, thanks.
I feel like I need to tell you before you embarrass yourself even more: it's misogyny. Not monogamy. You just look foolish.
You're right, I misspelled it. But you can't read it turns out because I didn't write "monogamy". Poor spelling or inability to read, not sure which is more embarrassing.
But you haven't answered my question, are you accusing me of poor spelling, poor grammar and off being a misogynist? Can you please state your accusation very clearly, it's very important.
I mean...I don't have any idea what you're saying and that is partly because your poor spelling and grammar makes reading your sentences difficult. Also the misuse of words, constantly changing tone, and constant debating fallacies also don't help.
I'm sure MiraculousSwidge will answer you but to double down on it. Yes, I do consider you a misogynist for taking such offense over the idea of the fact that a women is shown here. And then I will go a step further and accuse you of being a troll more interested in whataboutisms than actually having a point. I then accuse you of hiding behind "historical accuracy" when the things you have said people "ignored" (garish colors, blue facepaint, samurai swords) are in fact things that WERE there in WWII.
User Banned (Permanent) Trolling, long history of similar behaviour.
Oh my, that's quite offensive to me personally. Especially when I never once focused or mentioned the sex of any of the characters. I don't think your slanderous attitude is acceptible, sorry.
Last edited:
Like I clarified on the next page, poor choice of words and should have been "scripted" as in "pre-animated", that it is in-engine doesn't surprise me as DICE are bloody masters at it, what I did have doubts on was that it was actual gameplay as in "that is how it's gonna look when played". I've seen a ton of gameplay trailers over the years and many times they have had certain tells for when it is actual gameplay vs. a pre-animated character pretending to be gameplay. As it turns out though listening to Jackfrags video that is close to actually what it looks like, so I will wait and see for actual live gameplay demonstration at E3.
All in all, it was still a pretty awful reveal that told us basically nothing and required Youtubers to step in and actually give us the details of how the game worked without all the annoying market buzzwords that plauged the reveal stream. :P
I should have guessed some people would be up in arms about the girl in the trailer...
For fuck sake...
It's just one of the many customisation options we'll get for multiplayer. I'm sure we'll have one war story with a girl MC, just like BF1, but we probably won't see hordes of soldier girls in singleplayer.
It's just a customisation option... Nobody will force anyone to play with this skin and if we can get custom servers, i'm sure there will be ways for the "i don't want gurls in muh games" crowd to gather and not see a single girl skin around.
Apart from that. It looks relatively good. The trailer is super hectic but i guess the actual game wil be a different shitshow in actual gameplay.
For fuck sake...
It's just one of the many customisation options we'll get for multiplayer. I'm sure we'll have one war story with a girl MC, just like BF1, but we probably won't see hordes of soldier girls in singleplayer.
It's just a customisation option... Nobody will force anyone to play with this skin and if we can get custom servers, i'm sure there will be ways for the "i don't want gurls in muh games" crowd to gather and not see a single girl skin around.
Apart from that. It looks relatively good. The trailer is super hectic but i guess the actual game wil be a different shitshow in actual gameplay.
Well, in addition to your 4chan-like spelling and trolling, you also are quite good at pretending to act like you don't know what you're doing. But I guess that's what happens when the idea of women in a video game angers you so much to do nothing but troll and then pretend you are on some higher ground.
I didnt say it can be 'anything, no holds barred, no limits' just that it's not a war simulation game like people are suggesting and their can be artistic license - in any event, what is more realistic for you? A woman on a battlefield or jumping out of a biplane, 720 degree quickscoping the pilot from a pursuing plane, then jumping into and piloting their plane as it is falling? It seems pretty obvious to me that the exploits possible on battlefield are already more strange than woman fighting on a battlefield (you should read into the Russian women who fought for red army on the eastern front by the way)
I'd say let them run the experiment and see where it lands them in a month or two from release. A part of me thinks it's just that; an experiment, based on the gathering of a lot of feedback over the years. The community have been vocal about the inclusion of females since BF3 (or maybe earlier?) and BF1 was criticized for its lack of customization and player freedom. Of course this is going to please EA in the sense that they can create a similar model to Fortnite. And just as you say it's problematic when the game has a $60 price tag, because that's the major difference from a classic F2P model. But it's also problematic to call for a compromise where people get to choose how the reality in the game is perceived with various filter settings. It's then partially gonna be used to exclude unwanted genders and minorities from the game, no matter the argument. And that is something that they also would have to take into consideration as a potential controversy. I think they've gone through this a lot with the development of BFV. The design director of the game seemed very passionate and outspoken about their mentality surrounding the many changes of the game. Ultimately I believe they all said that it was worth the risk to explore these things and just go all-in with many of the requests over the years. A part of that is admirable I think, but it might also be a bit naive. Time will tell how it plays out exactly.
It's going to be weird seeing red-headed Caucasians running around in the uniform of the Imperial Japanese Army.
In all honesty I really don't care if there are women, face paints, swords, or mohawks. What I do want is uniformity in teams so I can tell who the hell I should be shooting. In that trailer I couldn't tell who the fuck was who. You want a giant metal arm? Fine, just wear the same colour clothes as me and not some gold jumpsuit with dollar signs and weed leaves all over it! What is this? COD?
I also kind of liked the anonymity in BF1 that you really didn't know who was who on the enemy team so you couldn't harass or target certain people on sight.
I also kind of liked the anonymity in BF1 that you really didn't know who was who on the enemy team so you couldn't harass or target certain people on sight.
Well, if they were actually going for historical accuracy, the game wouldn't have any multiplayer and singleplayer would feature permadeath when killed.
Accuracy in presentation and realism in gameplay are separate things. You can want the latest Aston Martin to be rendered in painstaking detail in a racing game without also wanting the game to require you to put fuel into it.
It seems like such a disingenuous argument to me. Wanting a game that looks like a photo come to life and wanting a WW2 game that has you fighting dysentery more than people are different things. You can want a faithful, well researched take on Ancient Egypt's aesthetics and simultaneously enjoy clambering around it in completely unrealistic ways.