- EA is a bad company in general, regardless of its games and should take full responsibility for its actions.
- The game has become nothing more than a yearly cash grab like CoD. Besides, it comes after BF1 which is still quite played and so lots of people aren't willingly to spend 50+ eur again. There's also the fact that Battlefront 2's launch was terrible, so low preorders for BFV is understandable.
- The "Women" shitstorm. I don't care about representing women and minorities in the industry, but when you declare BFV to be (actual quote) "a realistic simulation of a WWII battlefield" being realistic is... kind of required, i guess? I don't know what EA was expecting after all.
- Buy, play and enjoy whatever you want, regardless of politics and shitstorms. It won't change how it will affect your experience.
Comment has been collapsed.
They were expecting people to be educated enough to at least know that women fought on the front line in WW2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/home_front/women_at_war_11.shtml
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but not in the same degree of men, not in all front lines (the franco-prussian line was populated by sparse women fighters after all, but not the italian front, for instance) and certainly they'd be in actual condition to fight. Unless the protagonists of BFV are russians i don't think it could be called "realistic" in any way.
But that doesn't mean that i'm against women fighters (as when possible i always pick a woman in fact), but that EA's move was more for pandering purposes than an actual desire of representing women in war contexts. From an evil company like EA, i assume they just wanted to avoid the same criticism Ubisoft got for their lack of women protagonists in the Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series.
Comment has been collapsed.
Women have served in military conflicts since the American Revolution, but World War II was the first time that women served in the United States military in an official capacity. Although women traditionally were excluded from military service and their participation in the Armed Forces was not promoted at the outset of World War II, it soon became apparent that their participation was necessary to win the war.
Beginning in December 1941, 350,000 women served in the United States Armed Forces, during WWII. They had their own branches of services, including:
Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (later the Women's Army Corps or WAC),
the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), and
the Women Accepted for Volunteer Military Services (WAVES).
Women also served in the Marines and in a branch of the Coast Guard called SPARS.
About seventy percent of women who served in the military during World War II held traditionally "female" jobs. They worked as typists, clerks, and mail sorters. Although these jobs may have been less glorified that those of the men fighting on the front lines, women were essential in maintaining the bureaucratic mechanisms that are necessary in warfare. Also, by filling office jobs that would otherwise be held by men, women freed more men to fight. Women were not permitted to participate in armed conflict but their duties often brought them close to the front lines. One way that women participated in dangerous work was through their work in the Army and Navy medical corps.
Several Minnesota women made great contributions to the U.S. war effort during World War II. 15 Minnesota women participated in WASPS. Pearl Gullickson from Donnely, Minnesota, served in the Coast Guard as a SPAR. Anne Bosanko Green took time off from her studies at the University of Minnesota and joined the WAC where she worked in a hospital as a surgical assistant.
So yes, you're correct. But statistically, animals were much more represented:
The German Army entered World War II with 514,000 horses, and over the course of the war employed, in total, 2.75 million horses and mules; the average number of horses in the Army reached 1.1 million.
So if anything, animals are the really underrepresented minority here. If we're going off the argument that they served and played a role, then this should be higher up your list.
I'm down for women being in this game. I don't care. But I hate the notion that women played a huge role on the battlefield. They were a huge part in the industry and almost any domestic issue since most men left. Women were more important than people give them credit for during WW2. But it's just total pandering to have them be included. Again, I'm fine with it, but a plank's a plank after all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well true, But, EA does not make games, DICE is the developers, EA is the publisher, it's just really really bad promotion, and as to my knowledge, women did in fact fought in the ww2, it just feels unjustified that dice get all the **** while EA is at fault, and I agree with play it or don't, but mostly it feels like people are just following the current trend.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA is killing DICE just like they did with Maxis, Westwood and Visceral. I don't know what people expects, really.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only EA was as good to their studios as Sony is to theirs. Sony is completely ok with long development cycles (see 'The Last Guardian'), and doesn't even care that much if a game is successful or not (see most of Studio Japans releases), so long as it's good and works to diversify their portfolio. Large layoffs also seem to be rather rare, something that certainly can't be said for EA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, i really respect that, they should do what ubisoft does/did with AC, just lay off for a while and comeback with such a great new game rather then yearly cycle games
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, the gaming community is just really immature. They see character customisation focused on fun instead of accuracy as a slight against thier "realistic," "adult" game, forgetting the point of the series has always been fun, and not realism. *And being told to deal with it or stuff it, having their games npt catered to them makes them even more pissed of.
And dislikes don't mean shit, it will still be bought and played, gamers never boycott shit.
BF has been meh to me for a while, but and I don't have a gen 8 console or good enough pc so the decision is made for me anyway.
I really want a game were you play as soe, or resistance, or of operation gunnerside. (And soe and resistance did have women, thogh let's be honest, they'd still bitch) or an actual realistic ww1 game. That war was slow horrible and brutal, not an action packed movie like thr game made it out to be.
Edit - added*
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, I don't mind the character customization, I think it's a great addition, well, it doesn't matter much since its first person, to me bf always has been on the more arcade-ish side instead of "actual realism", as for the "woman" in a bf game, who actually cares? They are a part of the world too, its about the actual game-play and fun one can have, seeing a woman should be the very very least of any ones concern.
Comment has been collapsed.
BF4 was the last dissapointment I wasted money on. Quit the game half season pass through. Never pre-order... These new BFs look the same as bf4 to me, so why bother. I don't care about all this drama, the game itself is bad for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, Battlefield V complainers are just uneducated and skipped the well-known history lesson of when they were taught about the famous battles of World War II fought by women using cybernatic implants.
Or the numerous battles of World War I when the German forces employed the bipedal battle tanks equipped with napalm throwers to fend off the batallions of machine-gun wielding Brits. It was also a great deal of historical accuracy. Meticulous, even.
Or maybe, just maybe, this series is made by a bunch of enthusiastic man-children living their 12-year-old historical power fantasy battles with robots and cyborgs battling a mecha-Hitler, and now sell it to other 12-year-olds who do not have to imagine it but play it. And some twat at marketing who never saw a video game in their lives tries to now sell it as an educational experience knowing that it is not their intended audience who buys the game but their parents.
As a side note, who wanna bet that they will not include the actual female batallions who fought in WWII, because they were Russian?
Comment has been collapsed.
Should buy Wolfenstein instead then.
I hear it's quite fun... the first one anyway. The second, don't hear much good about that one.
(Or just go straight to 3D and battle Mecha-Hitler for real)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm still baffled some people complaint about Battlefield, stating that it misrepresents actual historical facts. Because we all know Battlefield games are 100% accurate in every way and that soldiers attach C4 explosives to quad bikes and launch them into helicopters in real life.
Also, this goes for the publisher/developers who claim video games to be "realistic". No video game is realistic, because if it was it would be the worse video game in history.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree 100%. Saying it lacks real realism is the worst possible argument. Combat medics didn't actually run around giving every dead person an injection to get 150 points and have them resurrected and running at full speed within seconds.
If people are looking for actual realism go play a game without respawns, maybe something like DayZ or ARMA?
Now if the main complaint was EA and their marketing... That'd be a whole other story.
Comment has been collapsed.
ARMA is probably the closest you'll get to "unforgivably realistic" but even then, it's not absolutely accurate in every way for the sake of actually making the game playable. Battlefield games however, are so far away from ARMA that there's no arguing there - ARMA is miles ahead in terms of realism, being borderline simulator.
Comment has been collapsed.
People always complain about historical inaccuracy or realism
But no one plays the "real" hardcore shooter, everything still there is niche
even something like ARMA 3 is not played as it was intended (just Mods, 90% is Altis Life^^)
and then they yell at Battlefield which has always been just a blockbuster action movie
The first trailer was pretty shitty, but the gameplay I've seen so far through Lets Plays was pretty okay,
has definitely made more appetite for the game than in the last 3 games of the series
And the women shitstorm is more such a drop on the hot stone, people are generally annoyed that in the meantime everything is changed or added as far as this topic is concerned
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course there where a women at WW2 and they fought like hell in French Resistance or for instance in Red Army but there wasn't soldiers that looked like clowns from Borderlands wasteland. Its ridiculous and stupid reaction from EA to brand misogynists anyone who dislikes that flashy stupidity disguised as "customisation".
Comment has been collapsed.
First, there is a difference between "historical accuracy" and throwing the kitchen sink in the game. I can care less that there are women in the game, in fact I'd expect that nowadays. It can't be that hard to contrive a story to include women even if their participation in the war on that front was extremely rare. I'm sure there were female fighters in the French resistance for example.
But where I draw the line is the out-of-period prosthetic arm which couldn't possibly let one effectively shoot a rifle not to mention help swing a cricket bat. And then there is the katana on the Western front. I think it's a fair criticism that many elements of the trailer look silly for a WW2 game. Then EA doubles down by daring to call their critics "uneducated" and telling them "not to buy the game" if they don't like it. The irony is EA calling people uneducated when we see cricket bats, katanas, and unrealistic prosthetics in the trailer. Maybe they are the ones who need to "educate" themselves a bit more on what really happened in WW2.
There are other factors of course. A lot of hate toward "loot boxes" extending to a greater dislike of EA. The clear sign they are going to push the cosmetic items (katana, cricket bat, mechanical arm). And while every year they compete against CoD, this year there is also Red Dead Redemption 2. Yet, the latter alone should hurt CoD as much as Battlefield V, yet Battlefield is supposedly 15% of the pre-orders of CoD, which is even more surprising since CoD won't have a single-player this time around which means some players might be moving away from CoD.
Comment has been collapsed.
damn, the game has women!
it might corrupt the minds of young kids! 😵
better stick to anime visual novels with little girls in lingerie, much more "historically accurate" ❤️️
these ignorants don't even know a thing abour history. 🤦♀️
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't care less about the historical accuracy, hell I'd prefer arcade-like dynamic gameplay to a realistic shooter anytime. I simply reject to buy any EA games. I won't give them a dime ever again. I'll lose a lot in the process, if EA goes down FIFA and BF might go down too but that's a risk we must take. EA has to be stopped.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. Great words to live by.
Good riddance, EA and DICE
Comment has been collapsed.
DICE also made the affront known as Battlefront 2... so don't feel too sad if people give them the finger for that finger in return.
You can only flip off your customers that much until they realise... hey, we got the power to spend our money on people far more deserving.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not buying this shit...
But I think I'm gonna to preorder that new DOOM thing..
Comment has been collapsed.
Battlefield was never a realistic simulation. It was always just a fun multiplayer game. EA's statement may have been silly, but demanding realism was silly in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only BF I really enjoyed was Bad Company 2. Really hated 3 and decided not to play 4 after beta. Am playing a bit of BF1 but it's... eh... ridiculous.
That said, my grandma was in first lines in WW2, lost several toes to frostbite, even more siblings and friends to Nazi collaborator's in ISoC and barely survived crossing some rivers, but lived to see her country free and got bunch of medals and written thank you notes from the president and whatnot. Then lost all of it in civil war in 1990s.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never quite understood the appeal of the Battlefield series, to me it feels like a clusterfuck of people in a massive map with bullets flying from all directions but I do have a few real life friends that are fans of the series and tried to explain to me what the point of the games is so I'm aware that its followers are quite loyal. Still to me they all look very same-y.
I've seen around the internet the whole mess that the fact that they promenently feature women in the promotional material cause and I'm just baffled by it, I don't follow the series and the first thing I heard about BF V is that they were taking a few liberties and having a looser approach to historical accuracy for the sake of doing and interesting game, yet the fans seem to be royally pissed by the fact that this isn't a perfect reproduction off how WW2 actually went down. Who cares? The game never claimed to be accurate and games and other works of fiction do semi-realistic representations of historical events all the time. It honestly feel like the SJWs and anti-SJWs just saw a fertile ground for a shitstorm and jump in on the oportunity create missguided and pointless drama, people, it's called battlefield but not THAT kind of battlefield.
Judge a game by it's own merits, not because you see it as a personal attack because it doesn't agrees with your worldview on every single thing. And I'm deffending this game only on that front, I won't buy it nor play it, I just think that a piece of work at least has the right to be judged AFTER it's out and available to be properly observed instead of being condemned by it trailers. I mean, it's EA, they'll probably fuck up something else anyway if all people want is to hate on it.
Well, that was an unexpected rant, at least to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been a long term bf fan, I'm excited for the newest installment, what i don't understand is all the hate from the community, yes i get it, what the EA executive said wasn't the best move, but he said: “EA's chief creative officer, Patrick Soderlund, says this gets the facts wrong. “These are people who are uneducated -- they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario,” “The common perception is that there were no women in World War II. There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war.” “His team stands by their choice, and won't “take any flak” for the decision to include women in the game. As for the game's detractors? “Well,” he says, “you have two choices: either accept it, or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either”; it feels more like people just jump on the hate bandwagon, personally it looks amazing, as i felt that bf1 didn't live up to my expectations, the guns felt off and never quite right, bf5 seems to solve that issue as well as no lootboxes and only cosmetics, i hope the game succeeds at launch and the people come back to it, and make up their own minds instead of being mindless drones that follow the masses. Its sad because DICE gets “punished” for the comment EA made, as a result of people not buying/supporting the game, i really hope this whole debacle with EA will someday be resolved.
Comment has been collapsed.