Battlefield V [PC, PS4, XBone] - V is for Victory

[DjchunKfunK]

Nowhere do I say it is a majority. To me the authenticity angle is just cover as there were women fighting in the second world war so it's not much of a leap to make them a playable character even if that means they end up being on the front-line. Battlefield is a series that has always married authenticity with silliness from the start and saying your game is going to be your most authentic yet and adding women are not mutually exclusive. Why does it matter if Dice are trying to broaden the appeal of the game and make it more inclusive? In no way does it shatter the illusion of the game being historically accurate, there are plenty other things in the game that you could point to that do that on their own.

[Mantis]

I didn't say you'd claimed it was a majority.

I think the authenticity angle covers far more than there just being women in the game. I think that for many people the argument stems from worries that these additional customisation options are going to make the game look like a silly WW2 version of Fortnite, where characters have hooks for arms and all manner of other things. Coupled with the general feeling that the gameplay and combat is moving away from the slightly more realistic style that the series is known for towards a more arcadey feel and that is likely the crux of the issue for a lot of people.

Certainly for the people on here, it's not about the women at all. Nobody is arguing against inclusiveness.

[Raid]

I'd just like to point out that, if it isn't obvious already, I don't think anyone here is saying that women don't belong in games; that's just not the crowd I think Preys-World and now GA attracts. I do however think that a good number of people adding to this debate elsewhere are the type that would rather women stayed out of this hobby. I made the mistake of looking at the BFV subreddit a few months ago, and there, dotted amongst the commenters simply saying that women on the front lines was an unrealistic depiction, were people saying that "SJWs are ruining gaming" and similar. I'm not going to claim anything about the relative proportions of these two camps on the same side of the argument because nobody can know them. Add to that the unbelievably toxic misogyny I've seen from other online shooter communities (namely Overwatch), the type of stuff that truly makes a person lose faith in humanity, you can hopefully see why my viewpoint on this debate is perhaps overly cynical.

This whole thing just feels like a stylistic choice on EA's part. I don't think that the choice is motivated by hoping for positive change, I think it's motivated purely by money, because this is EA we're talking about so of course it is. Avatar customisation is a money maker, Overwatch proved that quite dramatically, and having female avatars has the potential of attracting women to the game. EA, I suspect, sees women as something of an untapped market, one that I think Overwatch has proven exists, and they want to capitalise on that. They don't give a single shit about authenticity if it's not going to improve their bank balance. The developers may well do, but the developers aren't the ones holding the purse strings.

I haven't followed this game much in all honesty, so if anyone from EA has claimed that the game is realistic, then that person is lying. It just isn't - it's a twitch shooter with elaborate window dressing. So why does it matter if the men and women featured aren't realistically dressed, or indeed present at all? The gameplay is not going to give you anything close to authenticity, so I fail to see the reason why people expect it of the game's aesthetic.

[Pew-Pew]

Whilst I really don't like it when people are all 'Ooh the evil SJWs are ruining everything!', I don't think that statement in and of itself means that they don't want women in games/are necessarily misogynists. It means that they think an agenda is being pushed onto a series they like (and prioritising that agenda to make it less faithful to the time period). I'm sure some of them are misogynists too, though.

I guess the 'elaborate window dressing' is of different importance to people. To me, if I'm playing a FPS set in WW2, even if it has some silly arcadey elements to it, I prefer it to at least look vaguely authentic and in some way represent the war/war films you grow up watching, etc etc.

[DjchunKfunK]

Battlefield isn't Arma, it's always had an arcadey feel to it, that's why it's been so popular. Putting women in isn't going to make the game play differently, neither is the cosmetic options you talk about Mantis. The guns will still shoot the same, the levels will still fall apart the same.

Whilst I really don't like it when people are all 'Ooh the evil SJWs are ruining everything!', I don't think that statement in and of itself means that they don't want women in games/are necessarily misogynists. It means that they think an agenda is being pushed onto a series they like (and prioritising that agenda to make it less faithful to the time period). I'm sure some of them are misogynists too, though.

What exactly do people think these supposed SJWs are trying to do? Even if there was an agenda to put more women into games how is that a problem exactly? Putting women into games is by no means a detriment to the game itself, the same way putting ethnic people into games wasn't.

This whole thing shouldn't even be an argument honestly.

[Mantis]

Battlefield isn't Arma, it's always had an arcadey feel to it, that's why it's been so popular. Putting women in isn't going to make the game play differently, neither is the cosmetic options you talk about Mantis. The guns will still shoot the same, the levels will still fall apart the same.

You're really stretching in terms of what point I'm even making here. First off, I said the 'slightly' more realistic, I know it isn't Arma; but on the scale of popular shooter franchises it's still a fair way from being like CoD. And there have been concerns from the various reveals that the guns and levels don't look like they shoot the same and that it is in fact being made to feel even more like an arcade game than it has done previously. It was certainly an impression I got from the little I've seen of the pre-release stuff so far. At no point have I linked those concerns with the fact that they have put women into the game.

You're right, this shouldn't even be an argument.

[Pew-Pew]

Battlefield isn't Arma, it's always had an arcadey feel to it, that's why it's been so popular. Putting women in isn't going to make the game play differently, neither is the cosmetic options you talk about Mantis. The guns will still shoot the same, the levels will still fall apart the same.

Whilst I really don't like it when people are all 'Ooh the evil SJWs are ruining everything!', I don't think that statement in and of itself means that they don't want women in games/are necessarily misogynists. It means that they think an agenda is being pushed onto a series they like (and prioritising that agenda to make it less faithful to the time period). I'm sure some of them are misogynists too, though.

What exactly do people think these supposed SJWs are trying to do? Even if there was an agenda to put more women into games how is that a problem exactly? Putting women into games is by no means a detriment to the game itself, the same way putting ethnic people into games wasn't.

This whole thing shouldn't even be an argument honestly.

I guess they probably just think something similar to what I have said here, except they think there is some sort of agenda guiding it. I don't know about that (or really care, TBH).

Do you not think that some enjoyment in gaming comes from the immersion within the game itself, and not just the pure gameplay experience? Hence why developers keep trying to increase the graphical quality etc. in games. I agree that the core gameplay (good or bad, whatever your opinion of it is) is unchanged - but the customisation affects the experience of playing the game. There would be no reason for having it in there if it didn't change anything (again, whether the change is good or bad). I don't really see what you don't understand about this.

[DjchunKfunK]

Do you not think that some enjoyment in gaming comes from the immersion within the game itself, and not just the pure gameplay experience? Hence why developers keep trying to increase the graphical quality etc. in games. I agree that the core gameplay (good or bad, whatever your opinion of it is) is unchanged - but the customisation affects the experience of playing the game. There would be no reason for having it in there if it didn't change anything (again, whether the change is good or bad). I don't really see what you don't understand about this.

Yes immersion is part of it, but if we are talking about mutliplayer, playing as a women or seeing women running around the battlefield is no less immersion breaking than seeing three people riding a camel or someone wing walking on a plane. We can live with the latter without complaining about immersion being broken, why not the former?

[Pew-Pew]

Both of those things are 'possible', but essentially never happen. Same with all of the 'jumping out of jet and blowing up enemy with RPG' shit. They are not part of the normal gameplay, they are exploits. They are also immersion breaking!

Japanese army full of white/black men/women with facepaint on? Immersion breaking.

EDIT: If those exploits were part of normal gameplay in this game, I would complain too btw. This isn't BF: Heroes.

[Lee]

I like all the points shown but I am with Pew-Pew in the thinking a war theme from the past should be reflecting that. Doesn't make me a misogynist for giving them criticisms over how they have done this either.

And Raid yup I just see it as a way about introducing them as a money grab than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if the clothing choices is split that you need the female version of said garment that looks like the same as the men version. I know I detest EA and everything it stands for in gaming but the amount of cash grabbing going on, things don't look like that far fetched with them.

[Mantis]

New trailer, includes a little snippet of their Battle Royale mode at the end with a ring of fire closing in and shrinking the map.

[Jez]

Good trailer. Oct 19th is my birthday an all

[Achtung Englander]

Preorders are down. EA are blaming the fact it is sandwiched between COD and RD2

[Jez]

Pre orders are difficult things to gauge on I think. There could be any number of factors here. I don't think EA have properly handled the marketing of this so far. The initial stuff in July was very oddly presented i felt and they have struggled a bit since. From what i saw of the alpha gameplay it looked solid and fun to me. The only thing that annoyed me was it didn't "seem" very WW2 in itself. It seems quite modern in many ways.

[Mantis]

I assume that the Battlefront 2 controversy has put a lot of people off, or at least that is the most significant factor impacting the low numbers. People are going to find it very difficult to trust them on it.

Irritating video, listening to two people generally inanely ramble around the subject, but the comments on the Youtube video are quite enlightening.

I'm not buying because of the forced "gender inclusive" revisionist history. Also we were rudely told "Accept it, or don't buy it", which as a capitalist is fine by me.

You see, kids? This is what happens when you pander to social justice warriors.

Get woke, go broke. People are tired of the social justice rampage.

A paraplegic women fighting for Britain's Royal Army and using a Cricket Bat to kill a German Soldier...Pure Fantasy and not Historical at all. I doubt it'll take the fun out of the Game only take out the Realism

There're a few valid comments in there about the other customisation aspects making the game seem too daft, like the claw-hands and killing people with cricket bats etc. but then there's also a pretty healthy dose of over the top "We hate SJWs" going on too.

It pains me that people are so keen on having overly hysterical reactions to absolutely everything nowadays. The time of the measured response is dead.