And when World War 2 games were about World War 2.
I miss MoH. I was just thinking that yesterday.
And when World War 2 games were about World War 2.
I miss MoH. I was just thinking that yesterday.
And zombies, ghost knights, giant nutcracker robots, and cars driven by dogs.
You mean the WWII where Lyudmila Pavlichenko was credited with 300 kills? That WWII?
WWII was a total war. And if noted historical stickler franchise Battlefield - known for every moment being super historically accurate down to the very statistical composition of every engagement - wants to nod towards the genuine reality of women fighting in it, that is fine by me.
Yeah, American women had little part in active fighting, but European partisans and Soviet troops were a different matter. And even then, look up Virginia Hall and genuinely bitch about a disabled woman being front and centre.
Ok, I’m clueless as usual. Are there REALLY people getting riled up about female soldiers in this game, or is this just a handful of idiots with the media making a big deal of it for clickbait headlines? (kinda like the Dr Who supposed “backlash”)
Search _#NotMyBattlefield to see.
Personally I feel it’s more of a reaction to the overt zany wackiness of the trailer – previous trailers have been operatic, epic and thematically kinda military-serious. Compare BF4 and BF1 trailers.
I wish they had made it clear they were going for a Battlefield Bad Company 2 kinda vibe here, rather than trying to have it both ways and pleasing nobody.
So, I don’t know who you’re debating with here? Certainly not me, because I haven’t been bitching about Women in this title. I merely miss MoH. And think Battlefield is a mess overall and a letdown to the genre. But not because of women in the game.
I do think DICE is close to making a “Dogs on Venus” version of a WW2 game but that has zero to do with women in the game.
This whole thing really is starting to feel like other, righteous, criticisms of the game are all getting lumped into some phony war with GamerBros on Women being represented in the game. Kind of an EA version of what Sony did with a certain movie two years ago:
Any time any of the gaming sites post an update on this game, the comments are filled with just vile comments. j
I finally saw the trailer though and that certainly looks chaotic. I stopped playing BF years ago when they killed the AI bots in MP, but it still amazes me how far the genre has gone.
If that’s the case, apologies.
The horrible trogdolytes fouling up gaming and the rest of nerd culture ruin everything. So many people that would down with fighting Hitler’s zombie army are suddenly having conniptions about historical accuracy for some very mysterious reason. It makes it hard to take kvetching about historical historical accuracy in good faith.
Accepted. I play Sniper Elite. Because COD and DICE’s offerings are ahistorical diaper-filled dumpster fires. And I miss MOH.
When a friend who plays CoD + Battlefield style FPS games every year asked me “What do you think of Battlefield V going back to World War 2?” I said: “eh, I don’t get excited by the idea of buying a Battlefield game every 2 years, and uh this one has like strange women in it, and it all looks a bit odd, I don’t know what to think really, and I’m not excited by/have no need of the mainstream WWII game”. For the record, I have played Red Orchestra/2. To which the person replied “Call of Duty WWII has women in it also”, and I basically said “Ye, but you know I’m not interested in annual Call of Duty releases either”.
So, moral of the story is that the formula of these games is wearing thin, hence it is much more interesting to court sexist controversy than it is to talk about or reinvigorate an ailing or stale annual or bi-annual franchise. I haven’t even got around to buying or playing Battlefield 1 yet.
An analysis of the Art style/Marketing materials that make up the Modern Battlefield franchise, since BF3, to follow…
… which will hopefully answer the question as to why people actually had a problem with the BF5/V trailer & announcement.
… Not to mention all the bugs, glitches and net code issues that have plagued the series since BF3, 4 etc. Did they fix these issues for BF1?
It will be a fun arcade game that appeals to everyone. That’s what AAA needs to be these days. I don’t have a problem with this.
but the attempt to bowdlerise this as accurate representation of the norm by po-faced chatterati has an element of the Emperors New Clothes about it. I don’t think lauding the Soviet women fighters is wrong, but brushing over their minority status removes focus from the realities of what was a male army, and one that committed largest mass rape in history once the Red Army left Russian territory, including any Russian women who were held by the Germans. I don’t think EA/Battlefield devs are even trying to pretend this is historical, nor should anyone else. This is diverse, inclusive, universally appealing AAA fun.
The minority that want “historical accuracy”, for whatever reason need to look away from AAA, they are a minority, not the market.
Indeed! I agree completely. I think the AAA titles have become Cheeto-fudgsicle nonsense. All are welcome to have as many Cheeto-fudgesicles as they please. I fully embrace that I am not the likely target of any AAA mass-marketing attempts.
I’d also add I am not merely seeking some pristine holy grail of historicity either; in addition I prefer a more-deliberate gameplay experience overall, a single campaign mode and a more deliberate, strategic MP mode (not a frenetic kill-fest), as well as the freedom to not be marketed to incessantly in-game. Hence Sniper Elite (again).
The problem with FUN and WORLD WAR 2 is that they don’t seem to do well in the same sentence.
Do we watch a depressing film to have fun? Probably not, since that is not how people would describe the experience.
So why does the climate of modern video games (now about World War 2 again) allow people to so easily argue that mainstream games must abide by SUGAR RUSH FUNTIME!™ above all else?
This was the best response to claims of historical accuracy and realism in Battlefield games:
I mean, I’ve only played a couple, but stupid shenanigans were always the order of the day. Discussing whether it was appropriate given the real world conflicts they are based on seems to be an argument long lost.
There are plenty of fastidiously realistic ww2 games that embrace the tedium of war. I don’t know why they all need to take that tack.
There are one or two FPS that take that tack. Most now are, as @preciousgollum1 says,“SUGAR RUSH FUNTIME”.
The other problem is that we haven’t seen a situation before where video games are mainstream. When big budget AAA etc etc developers stopped tackling World War 2, they weren’t as mainstream or important as they are now.
In this current climate, people are content to write off the same game design as some sort of interesting tour through gamedom or ‘gamer culture’. The best analogy I can come up with is that people are getting excited (or annoyed) about Battlefield being in WWII in the same way that a famous musician announces where they are going to tour next.
RobZacny wrote about how Call of Duty: WWII looks as though it, and by extension the genre/medium, is willing to forget about history, and is therefore content to internalise ‘greatest generation’ myths topped with copying & recycling what are now OLD examples of how the movies portrayed WWII, and sprinkled with video game fun.
If believed, and that Cod: WWII represents the point where, with the dwindling numbers of living primary sources, that history becomes hazy, then Battlefield V/5 etc may end up being the point where WWII history ends up looking like a drug-fueled fever dream.
And… in talking about the new box art, besides it looking like said fever dream, and ignoring the ‘triumph’ of having a women on the cover - nothing about the box art communicates World War 2 in the slightest. People who don’t follow video game news etc wouldn’t know what era it is set in - I’ve tested that theory. Battlefield 1 was bad enough, since it had a character on it that a friend said it looked like the adventures of Count Blackula, and did, at best extremely hazily, communicate World War 1.
Generally speaking, while CoD pertains to act ‘seriously’ about the subject (and arguably too much so) Battlefield marketing screams edgelord underground club vibes, or a fashion show; More ‘Fight Club’ than Battlefield. EA borrowed its dad’s (Activision) movie collection, and then proceeded to edit them with modern music and scenes made to look more COOL!
I remember watching a recent Polish WWII film, which also tried, 3/4ths of the way through, this ‘edgy young people modern flair Call of Duty’, and unfortunately it was the point where that movie (cannot remember what it was called) Jumped.The.Shark.
Concur. As well the “Triumph” and arguements with imaginary (or few and far between) “Troglodyte Man Trolls” seems to be the marketing strategy. Every Kotaku, or Polygon, or IGN…EVERY article about “GamerBros being hopping mad about women in the game” start with an EA exec talking about it, the writer taking it at face value, and then it being a stepping off point for EA to talk about how courageous they are.
So it’s this as the marketing strategy:
SUGAR RUSH FUNTIME.
And if you call them on that and hold the opinion that the game ahistorical diaper trash (and that BF 1 is no excuse, that was as well), they talk about how empowering they are with this title.
Thus endeth the strategy.
I can’t help but laugh at the notion that serious WW2 fps games don’t get made. Post Scriptum just hit open alpha, Red Orchestra/2 were big games, Darkest Hour, etc. They’re all there.
I think the FPS is a really poor choice of game to do a realistic take, the mechanics don’t mesh. The games are tiresome slogs, and even they are a joke in terms of realism.