Women, not a problem. Implementation is a problem.

Comments

  • herodes87
    1290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Bf1942, BF2 and BF Vietnam.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Dice have always tried to be historically accurate whenever possible, take for example this YouTube video, they based many maps on real locations, same features on those maps are actually the same, I applaud them for doing so



    Now I realise not everything can be accurate, that can never be the case. But does that mean they just let go and make things up completely? No they should not be doing that. Most of the guns and such that they had to use their imagination with were prototype weapons (i.e. the Hellreigel for example), so their ideas were based on something.

    Regarding the realistic part, they do what they can, they could of course make every gun a 1 bullet kill, and no revives etc but who is going to play that. They try to balance a realistic experience with fun and enjoyment. Remember a video game can never really be realistic, that term should not be taken literally when those who are talking about it say so. They want it realistic FOR A VIDEO GAME, not to mimic the actual events of war

    Yes, that's why there were factions fighting on some of those maps that didn't even fight in the actual battles. Or why a ww1 game was riddled with automatic, literally never used, prototype weaponry. Why one of the base game unlock slrs wasn't even remotely used in the war at all, by any faction whatsoever. We just got the Thompson Annihilator which wasn't even through prototype development until the last year of the war, near the end of the conflict.

    That weapon never saw a day of battle in ww1, but I'm using it as an Anzac on Achi Baba.

    It's hard to say DICE has tried to stay historically accurate when the vast majority of BF games revolve around an entirely fictitious ww2 scenario between the US, China, and Russia, and had nothing to do with history or staying accurate to any semblance of real war.

    You act as if the idea for women or people fighting with prosthetic limbs didn't actually happen, or as if they're basing it off of nothing. A woman fighting in ww2 is about as unrealistic and historically inaccurate as using the Hellriegel or Cei Rigotti in BF1.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    Well bf1 tries too hard to hit you with historical facts so thats one. Other games also have some link to historical accuracy like weapons,vehicled used. Uniforms, symbols etc. Its not a selling point but its there in the games that require it.

    It's just highly nonsensical to me to expect historical accuracy and realism in a game whose franchise has barely embraced those things over gameplay.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ****?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.

    Uh, BF1942 was actually one of the very few BF games with some form of character model customization.

    BF1942 Secret Weapons of WW2 also had jetpacks and prototype helicopters.

    So yes, the first ww2 BF game did have this stuff and was just as unrealistic.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.

    You just thwarted the entire "it's ruining immersion because she's a female" argument by saying the game doesn't have to be realistic to be immersive.

    It's nonsense to insist that seeing a guy get shot in the face by a tank and then revive by a syringe poke is less immersion breaking than seeing a female soldier run by you in a multiplayer match where the Germans you're fighting are using Italian, American, and British weaponry.

    And the lightsaber argument holds up? Are you seriously equating having a woman with a prosthetic arm, to having Darth Vader and lightsaber in a ww2 game? Something that could have actually happened in ww2, to something that is a sci fi creation from a galaxy far, far away?

    You're implying THAT holds up as a legitimate argument? And you want me to take your opinions and stances seriously?

    Immersion isn't the same as realism. You can be immersive without realism, just look at Star Wars Battlefront. However, for a realistic game to be immersive, it has to be realistic. This game, and its devs claim it to be an authentic WWII game, so our brains are going to make logical judgments based on that criteria. The further the game dwells from authentic WWII experience, the less immersive it will be. Simple as that.

    But again, your argument that women break immersion in a ww2 game is based off of the realistic viewing of ww2 as a conflict (which did have women, after all).

    And in that respect it is authentic. And no, I'll save you the hardship of following that up, and point out that authenticism and realism are not remotely the same term, nor do they mean remotely the same thing.

    Women in ww2 is about as authentic as having prototype weapons in BF1. Or having police force weaponry in BF4 when it's a military shooter.

    DICE have proven time and time again that it something that interests them is even REMOTELY used in the setting of the game, they'll add it to the game if they want to.

    That's why the lightsaber and darth Vader example is so ridiculous - because it's neither realistic, authentic, or historically accurate - whereas the women in the game applies to all 3 of those aspects in SOME facet.

    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".
  • MUH_Cwywardwaah
    1083 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Dice have always tried to be historically accurate whenever possible, take for example this YouTube video, they based many maps on real locations, same features on those maps are actually the same, I applaud them for doing so



    Now I realise not everything can be accurate, that can never be the case. But does that mean they just let go and make things up completely? No they should not be doing that. Most of the guns and such that they had to use their imagination with were prototype weapons (i.e. the Hellreigel for example), so their ideas were based on something.

    Regarding the realistic part, they do what they can, they could of course make every gun a 1 bullet kill, and no revives etc but who is going to play that. They try to balance a realistic experience with fun and enjoyment. Remember a video game can never really be realistic, that term should not be taken literally when those who are talking about it say so. They want it realistic FOR A VIDEO GAME, not to mimic the actual events of war

    why a ww1 game was riddled with automatic, literally never used, prototype weaponry.

    Do you want the battlefield community to throw an even bigger fit because theres no ez to spam automatics?
  • SMK_GAMING_2
    775 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Dice have always tried to be historically accurate whenever possible, take for example this YouTube video, they based many maps on real locations, same features on those maps are actually the same, I applaud them for doing so



    Now I realise not everything can be accurate, that can never be the case. But does that mean they just let go and make things up completely? No they should not be doing that. Most of the guns and such that they had to use their imagination with were prototype weapons (i.e. the Hellreigel for example), so their ideas were based on something.

    Regarding the realistic part, they do what they can, they could of course make every gun a 1 bullet kill, and no revives etc but who is going to play that. They try to balance a realistic experience with fun and enjoyment. Remember a video game can never really be realistic, that term should not be taken literally when those who are talking about it say so. They want it realistic FOR A VIDEO GAME, not to mimic the actual events of war

    Yes, that's why there were factions fighting on some of those maps that didn't even fight in the actual battles. Or why a ww1 game was riddled with automatic, literally never used, prototype weaponry. Why one of the base game unlock slrs wasn't even remotely used in the war at all, by any faction whatsoever. We just got the Thompson Annihilator which wasn't even through prototype development until the last year of the war, near the end of the conflict.

    That weapon never saw a day of battle in ww1, but I'm using it as an Anzac on Achi Baba.

    It's hard to say DICE has tried to stay historically accurate when the vast majority of BF games revolve around an entirely fictitious ww2 scenario between the US, China, and Russia, and had nothing to do with history or staying accurate to any semblance of real war.

    You act as if the idea for women or people fighting with prosthetic limbs didn't actually happen, or as if they're basing it off of nothing. A woman fighting in ww2 is about as unrealistic and historically inaccurate as using the Hellriegel or Cei Rigotti in BF1.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    Well bf1 tries too hard to hit you with historical facts so thats one. Other games also have some link to historical accuracy like weapons,vehicled used. Uniforms, symbols etc. Its not a selling point but its there in the games that require it.

    It's just highly nonsensical to me to expect historical accuracy and realism in a game whose franchise has barely embraced those things over gameplay.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ****?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.

    Uh, BF1942 was actually one of the very few BF games with some form of character model customization.

    BF1942 Secret Weapons of WW2 also had jetpacks and prototype helicopters.

    So yes, the first ww2 BF game did have this stuff and was just as unrealistic.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.

    You just thwarted the entire "it's ruining immersion because she's a female" argument by saying the game doesn't have to be realistic to be immersive.

    It's nonsense to insist that seeing a guy get shot in the face by a tank and then revive by a syringe poke is less immersion breaking than seeing a female soldier run by you in a multiplayer match where the Germans you're fighting are using Italian, American, and British weaponry.

    And the lightsaber argument holds up? Are you seriously equating having a woman with a prosthetic arm, to having Darth Vader and lightsaber in a ww2 game? Something that could have actually happened in ww2, to something that is a sci fi creation from a galaxy far, far away?

    You're implying THAT holds up as a legitimate argument? And you want me to take your opinions and stances seriously?

    Immersion isn't the same as realism. You can be immersive without realism, just look at Star Wars Battlefront. However, for a realistic game to be immersive, it has to be realistic. This game, and its devs claim it to be an authentic WWII game, so our brains are going to make logical judgments based on that criteria. The further the game dwells from authentic WWII experience, the less immersive it will be. Simple as that.

    But again, your argument that women break immersion in a ww2 game is based off of the realistic viewing of ww2 as a conflict (which did have women, after all).

    And in that respect it is authentic. And no, I'll save you the hardship of following that up, and point out that authenticism and realism are not remotely the same term, nor do they mean remotely the same thing.

    Women in ww2 is about as authentic as having prototype weapons in BF1. Or having police force weaponry in BF4 when it's a military shooter.

    DICE have proven time and time again that it something that interests them is even REMOTELY used in the setting of the game, they'll add it to the game if they want to.

    That's why the lightsaber and darth Vader example is so ridiculous - because it's neither realistic, authentic, or historically accurate - whereas the women in the game applies to all 3 of those aspects in SOME facet.

    As always, you completely missed the point. Also a lot of what you mentioned there is not true, what encounters did not happen during the war i.e. faction vs faction?

    Very few women were in frontline combat during the war, 500 military women died in service most were through illness and accidents, only 16 were killed by enemy fire, most were nurses. If you have no arm you were sent home from combat, a female frontline soldier with a prosthetic limb is made up.

    I already mentioned that DICE had to use their imagination with some weapons I do not know why you are giving me examples. You are only confirming what I said.

    What are you talking about "a fictitious ww2 scenario" the first part of the game is based on true events surrounding the Germans advance through Europe

    If you fail to see how DICE have tried and to the most part, successfully, made the game historically accurate and realistic then go on with that belief, but its wrong
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    herodes87 wrote: »

    Bf1942, BF2 and BF Vietnam.

    BF1942 had jetpacks and proto helicopters, BF2 is entirely fictitious and was not based on an actual event, and BF Vietnam was packed with unrealistic gameplay mechanics, and was the first BF game with a Spawn beacon.
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    Do you want the battlefield community to throw an even bigger fit because theres no ez to spam automatics?

    Turns out all you have to do to make BF community freak out is put females in the game. It happened with BF1 and this game.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    Suggestion, that majority of players won't pick female soldiers as an option in the game doesn't really solve the stupidity of entire idea of adding that option in the game. It makes it even more stupid, cos why would you, as dev, spend your time and resourses on making something, that almost noone gonna use at all?
  • MUH_Cwywardwaah
    1083 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    Do you want the battlefield community to throw an even bigger fit because theres no ez to spam automatics?

    Turns out all you have to do to make BF community freak out is put females in the game. It happened with BF1 and this game.

    Yeah now imagine 10x that with no autos
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    And if you think the majority of players will pick females,

    If bf was an mmo/rpg yes lol
  • Phat_Helmet
    2164 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    Suggestion, that majority of players won't pick female soldiers as an option in the game doesn't really solve the stupidity of entire idea of adding that option in the game. It makes it even more stupid, cos why would you, as dev, spend your time and resourses on making something, that almost noone gonna use at all?

    Because DICE feel a deep need to “virtue signal”, for some reason.
  • StarscreamUK
    7532 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    the long and short of it is this


    women are in the game, they can be customised

    thats not going to change.
  • The_Gamer_40X
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    To my knowledge there were actually female french resistance fighters during the
    German occupation of france
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    Suggestion, that majority of players won't pick female soldiers as an option in the game doesn't really solve the stupidity of entire idea of adding that option in the game. It makes it even more stupid, cos why would you, as dev, spend your time and resourses on making something, that almost noone gonna use at all?

    No, it was the same woman respawning over and over again. She died two times in the trailer, you can even see her Spawn on the squad list. It was one red-headed female with a prosthetic arm. Or do you think it was multiple females all with the exact same face, hairstyle, clothing, and prosthetic limb?

    lol, and adding a war story about a female French resistance fighter, one of the only fronts to actually HAVE female soldiers, makes it even more ridiculous? Really?

    Also, your comments about the devs taking creative freedom and wasting resources are just too full of BS to even warrant a response.
  • SMK_GAMING_2
    775 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    I must have missed that part but I don't mind that. "Female French Resistance" fighter suggests to me more of a spy and a person engaged in guerrilla warfare type tactics, that's what most female combat soldiers did during the war so is fairly accurate.
  • lLarryLovestein
    33 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    "we want customisation!"
    here you go
    "well this is just silly all these women running round"
    you wanted customisation, they want to play as women
    "well I dont want them to"

    Did you just miss OP’s post altogether or?
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It's just highly nonsensical to me

    Loqtrall what are you hoping to gain from this argument? Because to me, it honestly seems highly nonsensical to invest the time and energy you’re investing into it, for what?
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    Suggestion, that majority of players won't pick female soldiers as an option in the game doesn't really solve the stupidity of entire idea of adding that option in the game. It makes it even more stupid, cos why would you, as dev, spend your time and resourses on making something, that almost noone gonna use at all?

    No, it was the same woman respawning over and over again. She died two times in the trailer, you can even see her Spawn on the squad list. It was one red-headed female with a prosthetic arm. Or do you think it was multiple females all with the exact same face, hairstyle, clothing, and prosthetic limb?

    lol, and adding a war story about a female French resistance fighter, one of the only fronts to actually HAVE female soldiers, makes it even more ridiculous? Really?

    Also, your comments about the devs taking creative freedom and wasting resources are just too full of BS to even warrant a response.

    Small reminder - soviet army also had a lot of female troops in different roles. Besides, I didn't say that existance of that warstory is ridiculous. I just pointed, that producers decided to bring right THAT story to reveal and none other, right with female on the poster and female in trailer. Is that a coincidence?

    And before you call any of my comment "BS" you will have to prove it being BS first, okay? Taking creative freedom doesn't remove from you your responsiblites and limitations, which you working in, and also doesn't give you any cover from critics.
  • MUH_Cwywardwaah
    1083 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »

    No, it was the same woman respawning over and over again

    Ofc it had to be the woman dying over and over again :^)
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    "we want customisation!"
    here you go
    "well this is just silly all these women running round"
    you wanted customisation, they want to play as women
    "well I dont want them to"

    Did you just miss OP’s post altogether or?
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    It's just highly nonsensical to me

    Loqtrall what are you hoping to gain from this argument? Because to me, it honestly seems highly nonsensical to invest the time and energy you’re investing into it, for what?

    Time and energy? I'm responding to comments on a forum I post on literally ever day. I've been doing it the entire time this forum has existed, and for nearly 5 years on Battlelog before that.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    High number of women, some of which are handicaped, fighting on the real frontline in real combat, looking like your everyday women around - where is here anything like realism, authentism or historical accuracy? It goes straightly against all those 3 things and give us no fun or additinao gameplay mechanics or options instead. From all that it can be called "100% pointless".

    A high number of women? There was one woman in that trailer. And if you think the majority of players will pick females, you obviously haven't been reading comments on BF social media. That, or you're delusional.

    One woman? There was 2 or 3 maybe. Add to that woman on game poster, that makes absolutely 0 sense. Add to that the fact, that producers decided to reveal one of the war stories and it was a war story about female french resistance. Ain't that too much for WWII game?

    Suggestion, that majority of players won't pick female soldiers as an option in the game doesn't really solve the stupidity of entire idea of adding that option in the game. It makes it even more stupid, cos why would you, as dev, spend your time and resourses on making something, that almost noone gonna use at all?

    No, it was the same woman respawning over and over again. She died two times in the trailer, you can even see her Spawn on the squad list. It was one red-headed female with a prosthetic arm. Or do you think it was multiple females all with the exact same face, hairstyle, clothing, and prosthetic limb?

    lol, and adding a war story about a female French resistance fighter, one of the only fronts to actually HAVE female soldiers, makes it even more ridiculous? Really?

    Also, your comments about the devs taking creative freedom and wasting resources are just too full of BS to even warrant a response.

    Small reminder - soviet army also had a lot of female troops in different roles. Besides, I didn't say that existance of that warstory is ridiculous. I just pointed, that producers decided to bring right THAT story to reveal and none other, right with female on the poster and female in trailer. Is that a coincidence?

    And before you call any of my comment "BS" you will have to prove it being BS first, okay? Taking creative freedom doesn't remove from you your responsiblites and limitations, which you working in, and also doesn't give you any cover from critics.

    Small reminder - you're proving my point. So you see ONE female in the trailer, hear of ONE war story with a female lead, and see a picture of a chick on a poster - and that's too many females to show off at the reveal? Three?

    And creative freedom is just that, you're totally talking out of your rear end. DICE takes creative freedom while keeping the game authentic. Females are authentic to ww2, they existed at the time and fought in battles. No, authentic and realistic are not synonyms and mean two entirely different things.

    It absolutely does give them cover from critics because it's happened in EVER BF GAME THAT EVER EXISTED, and bringing it up makes critics look like jokes.
  • ESCOBAR1875
    87 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    google nancy wake
  • Mediffs
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    herodes87 wrote: »

    Bf1942, BF2 and BF Vietnam.

    BF1942 had jetpacks and proto helicopters.

    No. Stop making this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ argument again and again. BF1942 did not have jetpacks and helicopters. Yes, Dice made an expansion pack called "secret weapons of ww2" in which they had those, which is fine. Because they appeared only on those scifi expansion maps, not the regular ones.
  • herodes87
    1290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    herodes87 wrote: »

    Bf1942, BF2 and BF Vietnam.

    BF1942 had jetpacks and proto helicopters, BF2 is entirely fictitious and was not based on an actual event, and BF Vietnam was packed with unrealistic gameplay mechanics, and was the first BF game with a Spawn beacon.

    First of all it was a Add-On and you could Just use the stuff in the Add-On and Not at the Main Game. It was called "Secret Weapons".

    Because it is Not based on a real Event so its unrealistic Like Fortnite? What kind of Logic is that?

    You know how a realistic Game would Look?

    You Turn it on, you die and never can Play it again.

    Battlefield was Always somekind of authentic. Except the Bad Company Series.
Sign In or Register to comment.