[video removed due to profanity contained within]
Great video
No, I’m actually asking.
Also, this:
and this:
…kind of “in conflict” don’t you think?
Answered already…
Authentic to Battlefield 1942 and 1943
Authentic to WW2
@HARDG0RE
Keep it constructive, And please don’t attack others here, That will get your account actioned quicker than Jeremy clarkson pulling out a hammer to “fix” a car
My comment was constructive until the Dice Police came on and twisted my comments. Not everyones comments are gonna smell like roses and look pretty.
Dice have annoyed the community.
Its time to make things right
As soon as you start attacking others and begin namecalling ( this isn’t pre-school you know ).. It violates the rules.
So bear this in mind if you wish to continue using the forum as a platform for discussing all things battlefield.
The forum rules are here
Please abide by them moving forward.
Thank you.
Your quick at issuing threats arent you?
Is it any wonder the community is angry at dice!
My initial post highlighted what i think is missing from Battlefield V and recommendations on how to Keep it authentic to the franchise and ww2.
The replying post was an attempt to undermine my opinion.
Do you think that’s acceptable?
The reply
Story mode, how long it will be BF V?
Will reach at least 7-8 hours?
I would enjoy a long and enjoyable campaign, I liked BF1 campaign but I think it was very short!
It is not a threat, It is a promise of action if you continued to violate the rules we have here on the forum.
Discussion of moderation is one such rule, Namecalling ( flaming and baiting others ) is another 2 separate rules you violated in your previous response.
You can be angry or frustrated to your heart’s content, This however is not a free pass to violate the rules without consequence.
And that’s fine.
That post has been dealt with.
As above, It is now dealt with.
Now let’s get back on topic without the hostility.
Cheers.
A realistic, well-tested, and working product is better than rushing out junk for the sake of timescales. First impressions will stick - a delay will soon be forgotten. My first impressions of the Closed Alpha were that this is a brilliant game. 
PS the new date is my birthday!
- Strange then that so many women were killed in Russia, Norway, Belgium and France etc
- It’s a game!
- “Authentic” would be a thin, reedy, narrow frequency, rendition - I prefer the modern technology version
- I’d prefer to have more new material - not a reissue of previous games.
“Band of Brothers” - this is a film, based on a book, based on interviews of people actually involved - but not sure liberating the death camps is suitable game material. A game is always going to be a game - not a military simulation - although realism is always a factor.
Oh so BF5 must be Perfect then?
The pre order sales must be at an all time high
Lmao is this how you argue?
The guy literally said none of that, nor did he even imply something similar. If you’re going to present an argument and, after someone refutes your points, come right out of the gate with a blatant strawman, you may as well not waste your time.
Because people here, like myself, are gonna call you out on it.
As for your points, you are definitely mixing up authenticity with realism. Being authentic means the subject of discussion is of undeniable origin. Like the prosthetic arm, it is undeniably from the 1940s era and no doubt used on soldiers who lost limbs in the war.
That arm is authentic to the time period the game is set in.
Whereas realism is the attribute of being true to life or real life events, or the act of portraying a subject in a way that is true to life.
Your issue is actually that things are not being presented in a REALISTIC fashion. Just like women, they were authentic to the ww2 time period, women definitely fought in ww2 - but the game uses them in an unrealistic manner.
This is justifiable as literally the entire game presents ww2 in an unrealistic but authentic fashion. From weapons to vehicles, to character models and game mechanics - the WHOLE thing is unrealistic as hell.
But it’s not like that’s a negative, because literally every single BF game ever made was approached this way.
Even the modern era titles still use weaponry and vehicles that are authentic to the time period they’re set in, despite the entire war in those games, a WW3 between US, CN, and RU, being completely made up and featured in locations all around the world that are equally as made up.
BF1, the only other full BF game featuring a historic setting in recent memory, is about as historically inaccurate and unrealistic of a ww1 game anyone can play. But it still ONLY uses things authentic to the time period. It’s not like people are running around with an m16 in the fields of France.
So IMO the entire argument for more historical accuracy and realism (which is what all of them boil down to) are completely pointless and needn’t be brought up if we consider the history of literally the entire franchise.
It’s sort of ironic really - people will lambast DICE for not respecting the history of ww2, as they simultaneously disrespect the history of the game franchise in question.
These numbers are really interesting; feel free to add any others I’ve missed
Verdun
https://steamcharts.com/app/242860
Tannenberg
https://steamcharts.com/app/633460
Rising Storm/Red Orchestra 2
https://steamcharts.com/app/35450
Day of Infamy
https://steamcharts.com/app/447820
Day of Defeat: Source
https://steamcharts.com/app/300
Post Scriptum (this is the most ironic one personally)
https://steamcharts.com/app/736220
Battalion
https://steamcharts.com/app/489940
I couldn’t find charts for Hell Let Loose
~
Call of Duty: WW2
https://steamcharts.com/app/476620
~
I mean the writing in on the wall. As much as the vocal “angry majority” scream and Carry On (the irony is not lost on me) they ARE in fact the minority else why would these more realistic and historically accurate titles of both ww1 & ww2 struggle for players. Hell even all together they don’t even equal anywhere near the “dislikes” on the bfv reveal trailer; I don’t even think it would equal 100k if we count every single number ever as an individual player (when we now for a fact that’s not true)
Jesus who would’ve thought adding a female gender OPTION would get so many people in a twist; because I don’t see anyone getting lathered up over total freedom of weapon choice regardless of faction or date, I don’t see anyone demanding that matches should be a fixed result based of the battle e.g. British always winning Norway operations but always losing Rotterdam etc etc.
It would’ve made some sense if those same people if not number of people have been complaining about historical accuracy, realism and general accuracy (regarding modern titles) since 1942 or at least their first battlefield title; alas that’s a negative.
I never EVER had anyone or even seen anyone bring up the Runner war story complete and total fiction of two ANZACs being there and leading attacks let alone being 50% of attacking force at Cape Helles and Archi Baba yet are nowhere to be seen in places they actually fought such as the Somme, Ypres, St Quentin, Amiens (which the battle is made up in bf1), Suez and Sinai.
I brought those up and got nothing back but “shut up and be thankful the ANZACs are even in the game you ungrateful git”.
So if that’s okay; the option to be a female and the ability to customise your soldiers should be totally fine.
Nah, mate - didn’t you hear?
They’re allowed to pick and choose what they deem acceptable as being historically inaccurate, and what they think is over the line, based entirely on thier own mind-numbingly narrow knowledge of history.
If you bring that up, they say it’s obvious you just “don’t understand thier point”, while they ignore they’re being blatant hypocrites.
EDIT: As an aside to this:
Did you guys know that all over Reddit and YouTube a lot of the same people arguing for historical inaccuracy had no idea that reflector optics and fluorescent signs existed during the 40s?
There are literally people saying things like “how is there a modern holo sight in a ww2 game”, or “the lights in this screenshot looks like BF vice city, ww2 was dark” - while simultaneously insisting BF5 should be more accurate to history.
These people don’t want a historically accurate ww2 game, they want a ww2 game that fits thier incredibly narrow view of ww2 they’ve gotten from movies and other games over the years. Thinking those representations are somehow “more accurate” despite being filled to the brim with inaccuracies.
The dislikes on the reveal trailer says it all. Nobody wants to see british women with claw arms in the game as it’s historically inaccurate.
A WW2 game based on what we seen in the media and movies sounds good, at least it’ll be more accurate and authentic.
Yeah 12 million views, 464k dislikes with many being the typical hatewagon mob method of “Simon says Press the dislike button on a YouTube video that will show them”
Laughs in IW
So you want bfv then? Because the movies and media also are filled with errors and total fluff or does a woeman threaten your ‘masculinity’?
And yet the other videos the likes overpower the dislikes.
Kinda throws that out the window doesnt it?
If that’s the case what’s the point in this thread? Why does Dice wan’t the communities feedback?
I’d say there is more negativity surrounding Battlefield V than Dice contemplated!