If DICE really wanted to make a "new WW2 game" game, why only British and Germans?

2

Comments

  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    lorenzburg wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    I think the major issue is people approaching a BF game with accuracy and realism as a priority, despite the entire franchise being the opposite of that.

    I know, but the core should be right, then you can give everybody the weapon they want, even prototypes, but at least to match the correct things, in Stalingrad you can't choose the Americans and the Japanese, I don't expect the soviets to win everytime in Stalingrad of course, but at least the correct armies should be in the map. Just think at the great outcry if in a possible battle in the Ardennes you'll have the British VS Germans, I know that in the Ardennes there were also the brits, but the americans played the great role.

    But then you're literally just picking and choosing what should be accurate based on your own personal preference. Meanwhile there are Italian Bombers at Fao Fortress in BF1 when in reality no planes or Italians fought in that battle. They included Anzacs in The Runner war story showing Anzacs storming the beach at Cape Helles alongside British, which never happened, wearing the wrong uniforms.. They entirely made up the Amiens map when in reality no Germans even touched Amiens because they were held off by British and Australian troops in a separate battle...

    The point being that the "outcry" is entirely unfounded, and it's literally happening SOLELY because this game is based on ww2 and people seemingly "care more" about ww2 than other conflicts for whatever reason.

    The mere fact anybody is acting like DICE would have Americans fighting in Stalingrad or Russians In Okinawa just because the British will be in Rotterdam and North Africa (places they actually were) shows how ridiculous some people are acting about accuracy in a video game that belongs to a franchise that's RIFE with inaccuracies and unrealism.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5311 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    @lorenzburd
    You can only expect Soviets, US, Japan and Italy to appear at some point. Everything else is highly unlikely.

    Italy!?? They hardly did anything of note in WW2, that is a minor power majorly overblown in proportion to their achievements. Will they have two uniforms? Twotime turncoats in two wars. Next time things pop off I'm sure Germany won't be asking them to be on their team.

    While you can question Italian achievements during WW2 it still should be obvious that they had a significant role during North African campaign no matter the final result.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1767 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    To be honest though, does it really matter what factions are in the game if all sides can use each others weapons and neither side looks recognizable as an organized army? Battlefield games may as well be red vs blue civil wars.
  • BURGERKRIEG
    848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What About the Indo-Mongolian light infantry brigade?

    For too long have they been ignored.

    My grandfather fought at the battle of KerKandistan and his legacy is being disrespected and ignored.

    It’s a disgrace.
  • lorenzburg
    63 postsMember Member
    edited September 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    lorenzburg wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    I think the major issue is people approaching a BF game with accuracy and realism as a priority, despite the entire franchise being the opposite of that.

    I know, but the core should be right, then you can give everybody the weapon they want, even prototypes, but at least to match the correct things, in Stalingrad you can't choose the Americans and the Japanese, I don't expect the soviets to win everytime in Stalingrad of course, but at least the correct armies should be in the map. Just think at the great outcry if in a possible battle in the Ardennes you'll have the British VS Germans, I know that in the Ardennes there were also the brits, but the americans played the great role.

    But then you're literally just picking and choosing what should be accurate based on your own personal preference. Meanwhile there are Italian Bombers at Fao Fortress in BF1 when in reality no planes or Italians fought in that battle. They included Anzacs in The Runner war story showing Anzacs storming the beach at Cape Helles alongside British, which never happened, wearing the wrong uniforms.. They entirely made up the Amiens map when in reality no Germans even touched Amiens because they were held off by British and Australian troops in a separate battle...

    The point being that the "outcry" is entirely unfounded, and it's literally happening SOLELY because this game is based on ww2 and people seemingly "care more" about ww2 than other conflicts for whatever reason.

    The mere fact anybody is acting like DICE would have Americans fighting in Stalingrad or Russians In Okinawa just because the British will be in Rotterdam and North Africa (places they actually were) shows how ridiculous some people are acting about accuracy in a video game that belongs to a franchise that's RIFE with inaccuracies and unrealism.

    It's true, to me the armies should be correct, I mainly look at plausibility, I don't really care about the correct uniforms, I have never said that.
    I didn't mention uniforms, weapons or vehicles, I have written "you can pick whatever weapon you want, even prototypes" (the same also for vehicles/aircrafts and so on) as long as it is plausible and makes the battle balanced.

    BF1 to me is totally diffrent, some nations didn't have the technologies to be a balanced fight. So even that inaccuracies to me can be overlooked, but could be plausible that brits in Fao Fortress had other allied nations' vehicles just like ottomans having central powers nations' vehicles.

    I see why in BF5 people expect a bit of realism since WW2 has been portrayed in videogames and movies a million times, while about WW1 there was very few stuff, I think that many gamers had an interest in WW1 thanks to BF1 (and that was a good idea!), but the average games knows a bit better WW2 than WW1, so when you could make up something in BF1 and nobody would say anything, in WW2 people is generally more aware of it.

    But again, I'm not saying that BF5 should be as correct as a documentary! I am just saying that the correct faction should fight in the maps, I have exaggerated about Stalingrad but I just wanted to make clear what I was thinking, and I know that DICE won't do it, I'm not stupid.
    I didn't complain about women and all those things mentioned few months ago or also the vehicles in Rotterdam (surely Sturmtigers were never deployed there), since this game is based on a historical period (that I like) I simply want that at least SOME things to be correct, just the armies, the other things are not a problem for me. And I didn't complain about the british being in North Africa :/

    About "The Runner" I don't know since I didn't really know the Gallipoli campaign, but again I don't care about the uniforms, my point was just about the factions, the Australians and New Zealanders were there, so it's ok to me. At least they have given the opportunity for the Anzac forces to appear in BF1.

    And being more general, I'm not denying the german involvement in the north african campaign or the british involvement in the battle of France, I was just pointing that DICE could have made the French and Italian armies at launch because they fit the period and locations, and thus giving more "diversity" of factions in the game (and not being the typical WW2 game with Germany VS UK, USSR and USA) there will be many other possibilities of germany vs britain.

    @lorenzburd
    You can only expect Soviets, US, Japan and Italy to appear at some point. Everything else is highly unlikely.

    Italy!?? They hardly did anything of note in WW2, that is a minor power majorly overblown in proportion to their achievements. Will they have two uniforms? Twotime turncoats in two wars. Next time things pop off I'm sure Germany won't be asking them to be on their team.

    While you can question Italian achievements during WW2 it still should be obvious that they had a significant role during North African campaign no matter the final result.

    Yes, I am Italian and I know that Italy performed badly in WW2, but in this game even Poland vs Germany could be a balanced fight. So I can't see the problem if italians or french are going to be portrayed in BF5.
  • Loqtrall
    12020 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    lorenzburg wrote: »
    I see why in BF5 people expect a bit of realism since WW2 has been portrayed in videogames and movies a million times, while about WW1 there was very few stuff, I think that many gamers had an interest in WW1 thanks to BF1 (and that was a good idea!), but the average games knows a bit better WW2 than WW1, so when you could make up something in BF1 and nobody would say anything, in WW2 people is generally more aware of it.

    This is an attributing factor to the bias I was talking about in my initial response to you.

    The sole reason historical accuracy and realism is being brought up in any regard toward BF5, specifically, is because the game is based on ww2 - and people playing BF or other fps games in general have played a million ww2 shooters, seen a million ww2 movies, and thus proclaim to "know what ww2 is" because of it. It's only with ww2 this happens - it could be a Vietnam War game or ww1 game, be built entirely upon inaccuracies, and nobody would say a word.

    In reality they have a narrow specific view of ww2 that's been over-dramatized and given the Hollywood treatment in games and films for decades, and now they expect every game or movie based on the war to follow suit of everyone else who have basically been copying each other for generations.

    This leads to people saying things like legit ww2 gear shown off in the trailers isn't authentic to ww2 because it's not generic, barebones, standard issue uniforms you see every soldier wear in the movies. It leads to people saying things like Rotterdam doesn't "look ww2 enough", when comparing the map side by side with pictures of the actual city pre-1940, it's almost a frigging direct recreation. It leads to people saying the game looks like Fortnite because the grass is green and the sky is blue and "that doesn't look like ww2". Etc, etc, etc.

    And that is all said while blatantly ignoring that DICE just had the most unrealistic and historically inaccurate ww1 game to ever exist, and that they didn't say a word about it. They're praising older games like BF1942 for being "more ww2" when that game was also super inaccurate in countless aspects.

    I just don't get the emphasis and argument for a stronger focus on accuracy and realism in different aspects of the game, when there hasn't been a single BF game that has been approached that way, and nobody ever complained about it. But now it's a ww2 game, so all of a sudden it's an issue for so many people.
  • VincentNZ
    2581 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    The reason you should not really expect minor factions is that it would be rather difficult to implement. They would "need" their official uniforms, their weapons, vehicles, that's all some major stuff to develop with no real benefit. They can only appear on certain maps against certain adversaries at certain stages of the war.
    What you maybe can expect are special polish, greek, jugoslavian etc. uniform bits and pieces. A hat, goggles, a coat. You get my drift. All along with the major content drops like maps, weapons etc..
  • Noodlesocks
    2650 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Would love to see the French in the game. They fought the Germans, the Italians, USA and the British. The French are too often under-represented in WW2 games.
  • lorenzburg
    63 postsMember Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    lorenzburg wrote: »
    I see why in BF5 people expect a bit of realism since WW2 has been portrayed in videogames and movies a million times, while about WW1 there was very few stuff, I think that many gamers had an interest in WW1 thanks to BF1 (and that was a good idea!), but the average games knows a bit better WW2 than WW1, so when you could make up something in BF1 and nobody would say anything, in WW2 people is generally more aware of it.

    This is an attributing factor to the bias I was talking about in my initial response to you.

    The sole reason historical accuracy and realism is being brought up in any regard toward BF5, specifically, is because the game is based on ww2 - and people playing BF or other fps games in general have played a million ww2 shooters, seen a million ww2 movies, and thus proclaim to "know what ww2 is" because of it. It's only with ww2 this happens - it could be a Vietnam War game or ww1 game, be built entirely upon inaccuracies, and nobody would say a word.

    In reality they have a narrow specific view of ww2 that's been over-dramatized and given the Hollywood treatment in games and films for decades, and now they expect every game or movie based on the war to follow suit of everyone else who have basically been copying each other for generations.

    This leads to people saying things like legit ww2 gear shown off in the trailers isn't authentic to ww2 because it's not generic, barebones, standard issue uniforms you see every soldier wear in the movies. It leads to people saying things like Rotterdam doesn't "look ww2 enough", when comparing the map side by side with pictures of the actual city pre-1940, it's almost a frigging direct recreation. It leads to people saying the game looks like Fortnite because the grass is green and the sky is blue and "that doesn't look like ww2". Etc, etc, etc.

    And that is all said while blatantly ignoring that DICE just had the most unrealistic and historically inaccurate ww1 game to ever exist, and that they didn't say a word about it. They're praising older games like BF1942 for being "more ww2" when that game was also super inaccurate in countless aspects.

    I just don't get the emphasis and argument for a stronger focus on accuracy and realism in different aspects of the game, when there hasn't been a single BF game that has been approached that way, and nobody ever complained about it. But now it's a ww2 game, so all of a sudden it's an issue for so many people.

    I couldn't agree more, BF1's typical battle is far from being a WW1 battle, but it gave the atmosphere of WW1, that's what it got well! I enjoyed playing BF1!

    What I want from BF5 is factions "diversity", as they said that they wanted to explore the uncovered aspects of WW2 why not adding those factions that are generally overlooked?
    I don't mind if they're using the uncorrect weaponry, vehicles, etc., I just want them to be in the game, the interesting thing in BF1 was that you had different armies and every battle more or less had everytime different factions from the previous.
    I think that they should have changed some factions in some maps, to me they should have made the French vs the Germans in Twisted Steel and Arras, while in Hamada and Aerodrome the Italians vs the British, there will be plenty of other possibilities to add the British vs Germans in the future.

    I don't know how many maps we will see in the end, but I think that now the map count could be higher than BF1 since now 8 maps are set in 1940/1941 and many other battles need to come in the new updates, the problem is that if you don't put the French in those two maps there won't be any possibility to have them after it, unsless they will release new maps set in the battle of France.

    VincentNZ wrote: »
    The reason you should not really expect minor factions is that it would be rather difficult to implement. They would "need" their official uniforms, their weapons, vehicles, that's all some major stuff to develop with no real benefit. They can only appear on certain maps against certain adversaries at certain stages of the war.
    What you maybe can expect are special polish, greek, jugoslavian etc. uniform bits and pieces. A hat, goggles, a coat. You get my drift. All along with the major content drops like maps, weapons etc..

    I'm not so pessimistic, I think that the more the factions you have the more the people will buy
    Would love to see the French in the game. They fought the Germans, the Italians, USA and the British. The French are too often under-represented in WW2 games.

    They need to be in a WW2 game, two maps will be ok to me, "Twisted Steel" and "Arras" should be those two maps.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @lorenzburd
    You can only expect Soviets, US, Japan and Italy to appear at some point. Everything else is highly unlikely.

    Italy!?? They hardly did anything of note in WW2, that is a minor power majorly overblown in proportion to their achievements. Will they have two uniforms? Twotime turncoats in two wars. Next time things pop off I'm sure Germany won't be asking them to be on their team.

    Four millions Italians fought in WWII, they fought in France and Greece and the Balkans and on the Eastern Front and most famously in North Africa. Although often hampered by obsolete equipment and poor leadership, they often fought well, Italian artillerymen were known for their tenacity. Once the Italian air force received modern aircraft like the Macchi C. 202 fighter they actually did better than the Luftwaffe in North Africa in terms of their kill-loss ratio. Italian bombers continued to attack Malta and Gibraltar and other targets well into 1943 despite heavy losses. The Italian navy was the fourth largest in the world at the outbreak of WWII, and while hampered by having many older ships and by a lack of modern innovations like radar (and poor leadership similar to the army) they inflicted enough losses on the Royal Navy to keep Britain from being able to dominate the Mediterranean for several years. The famous attack by divers who sunk two British battleships late in 1941 shows the daring the Italian navy was capable of. Italian submarines based in France participated in the battle of the Atlantic and sunk more than 100 Allied ships, and so on.

    The Italian military was handicapped by a lack of natural resources like petroleum, much of their equipment was obsolete, British code breaking meant the Italians rarely had the element of surprise on their side, and leadership blunders like failing to seize Malta had far-reaching consequences. It's also possible many Italians never bought into the fascist fantasy in the way so many of the German people did, they realized sooner that the war was not in their best interests so their heart wasn't really in it. But to claim they did little of note in WWII is to ignore that for several years the Mediterranean was a key theatre for the British and later the Americans, and without Italy putting up a good fight that would not have been the case.
  • lorenzburg
    63 postsMember Member
    edited October 2018
    @lorenzburd
    You can only expect Soviets, US, Japan and Italy to appear at some point. Everything else is highly unlikely.

    Italy!?? They hardly did anything of note in WW2, that is a minor power majorly overblown in proportion to their achievements. Will they have two uniforms? Twotime turncoats in two wars. Next time things pop off I'm sure Germany won't be asking them to be on their team.

    Four millions Italians fought in WWII, they fought in France and Greece and the Balkans and on the Eastern Front and most famously in North Africa. Although often hampered by obsolete equipment and poor leadership, they often fought well, Italian artillerymen were known for their tenacity. Once the Italian air force received modern aircraft like the Macchi C. 202 fighter they actually did better than the Luftwaffe in North Africa in terms of their kill-loss ratio. Italian bombers continued to attack Malta and Gibraltar and other targets well into 1943 despite heavy losses. The Italian navy was the fourth largest in the world at the outbreak of WWII, and while hampered by having many older ships and by a lack of modern innovations like radar (and poor leadership similar to the army) they inflicted enough losses on the Royal Navy to keep Britain from being able to dominate the Mediterranean for several years. The famous attack by divers who sunk two British battleships late in 1941 shows the daring the Italian navy was capable of. Italian submarines based in France participated in the battle of the Atlantic and sunk more than 100 Allied ships, and so on.

    The Italian military was handicapped by a lack of natural resources like petroleum, much of their equipment was obsolete, British code breaking meant the Italians rarely had the element of surprise on their side, and leadership blunders like failing to seize Malta had far-reaching consequences. It's also possible many Italians never bought into the fascist fantasy in the way so many of the German people did, they realized sooner that the war was not in their best interests so their heart wasn't really in it. But to claim they did little of note in WWII is to ignore that for several years the Mediterranean was a key theatre for the British and later the Americans, and without Italy putting up a good fight that would not have been the case.

    I understand your point, I am italian too and I don't like the classic propaganda, just like for any other army, everybody fought bravely, I would know what the British would have done in Egypt, even if they were severely outnumbered, without their Matilda's against the Italians, who merely had fewer tanks than the british and of worse quality (and lacked proper AT guns against the thickest british tanks of that time).
    But in a WW2 game you just can't put the "this army fought bravely", that's not a reason or a thing that can happen in game, or many battles between the soviets and germans probably the soviets should have more tickets than the germans to "recreate" the bloody battles on the eastern front where the germans fought probably harder than the Japanese defending the islands from the US assaults.

    Instead, people should focus first on: Is that an important faction? Did they have a powerful army? Did they participate in some theaters of war or offensives?
    Nobody could have predicted the bad performances of the italian army in 1940 (probably only the Italian High Command and Mussolini who knew that the Italian army wasn't ready for a war until 1942), or very few people could have believed in the soviets to repell the germans from their land.

    It's true that Italy's main issue was resources, this lead to a weaker industry than the big others, so worse equipment than Germany, USSR, USA, UK, France and Japan.
    I don't know what could have happened if the Italians discovered the Libyan petroleum before the war! Probably the italian army wouldn't have had many troubles with supply and probably they could have sold it to the Germans without the urgent need of the Caucasus oil.

    But back to topic, the thing is that haters or people insulting is not my business, I don't care, they won't change my mind, but many "problems" that Italy faced are not even a problem in BFV:
    - no problem with supply or resources
    - the high command is non existent
    - vehicles are balanced by DICE

    Even a battle between the Poles and the Germans would be balanced in a videogame, of course that was not true in WW2.
  • Boats_Of_Somalia
    73 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    exactly! WW2 isnt only about Bloody europe and Germany
  • DiabolicBroccoli
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war. Winston Churchill alone commanded whole armies against the german attackers and pushed them right back to Berlin. That's why mate.

    Besides, TV shows are based on the whole american vs german cliche as if that was the only part of the war... it wasn't honey.
  • staryoshi06
    202 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I assume they didn't want to make entire new sets of cosmetics for factions, so that the game could come out on time.
    Room to add in factions and countries later on in the free DLC. To keep a game alive for 24+ months, you need a constant flow of content now. Most WW2 games hold off to bring in russian, japanese, and american weaponry and forces anyways so this is no surprise to me.. I just hope EA doesn't hold back on what WW2 was about and pander to those who are triggered by swaztikas and the fact that there were a lot of prototypes during the time.

    In time, they could make a standoff DLC for the cold war like they did for BC2 vietnam

    Swastikas are literally banned in several countries. BF 1942 and 1943 didn't have swastikas either. It's nothing to do with people being 'triggered'.
  • SirBobdk
    3925 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @DiabolicBroccoli wrote
    Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war.
    Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific.
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    @DiabolicBroccoli wrote
    Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war.
    Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific.

    You may want to recheck your history on what the US and British were doing between 1942 and 1944 if you honestly believe that.
  • MrCrecer13
    54 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    @DiabolicBroccoli wrote
    Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war.
    Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific.

    You may want to recheck your history on what the US and British were doing between 1942 and 1944 if you honestly believe that.

    I think you should double-check, because 3/4 of the Germans died on the Eastern Front.
  • GrimesSU
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    MrCrecer13 wrote: »
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    @DiabolicBroccoli wrote
    Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war.
    Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific.

    You may want to recheck your history on what the US and British were doing between 1942 and 1944 if you honestly believe that.

    I think you should double-check, because 3/4 of the Germans died on the Eastern Front.

    I wasn't talking about the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia.
    .
    I was talking about his quote of "Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944".
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1767 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    i know you can't have every country who was involved in ww2 represented, but to miss out the French during the fall of Europe or the Italians in the early n.african battles is poor. BFV really should have had the British and French v Germans and Italians in this first part, then introducing the soviets, USA and Japanese as they got involved. I'm guessing it's more to do with the cosmetics side of things and them not having the time, or the willing, to do a whole bunch of cosmetics for the French and Italian armies, as well as those for the other 5 main participants.
  • SirBobdk
    3925 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    @GrimesSU wrote
    I wasn't talking about the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia.
    So what was you talking about.
    The British was fighting in africa, IItaly and far east from 1942 - 1944.

    I commented on this
    Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war.
    Most of the war in Europe until 1944 in terms of trops and casualties was between Russian and Germany and in the Pacific between US and Japan.
    The British took part, but they did not account for 90%.


Sign In or Register to comment.