Historical authenticity is something that’s especially important when a franchise like Battlefield was built around that selling point. It was the reason why people liked battlefield 1942, it was the reason why people liked battlefield 3, and it is the reason why people don’t like battlefield 5 right now. There are many games out there that take a historical setting and twist it to their own creation, such as bioshock. But one of the major appeals to the battlefield franchise has always been its commitment to maintaining authenticity to whatever setting and time period each game took place in, whether it was on the beaches of Normandy in 1942 or on the streets of France on Seine Crossing.
We can readily let this argument slide when it comes to gameplay mechanics. No one here objects to being able to revive players at the press of a button or repair tanks in a matter of seconds, because even though this is not realistic it improves the gameplay and keeps battlefield from becoming a military simulator. As long as it actually improves the game and makes it more fun, most people would be happy to neglect whatever deviations from realism or accuracy it presents.
This is not the case in Battlefield 5. As the general manager of Dice stated, the inclusion of historically inaccurate cosmetics is a way to fulfill some executive producer’s political agenda for inclusion and diversity. In this case, historical liberties were not taken for the sake of gameplay, but rather as a way to shoehorn in some diversity (and most likely a way to sell battlepacks for cosmetics.) This is why players are unhappy - not because we are misogynistic or sexist for “not wanting women in our games,” but because we can blatantly see the political statement being made behind this decision, and that we feel that historical accuracy is being sacrificed for something we don’t agree with. I will always argue for gameplay over realism. However, in this case Dice is not trading realism for gameplay, but rather for some notion that every game needs to be inclusive and diverse nowadays.
The weakest and most common argument I see in defense of the trailer is that at the end of the day, battlefield 5 is only a game. If that’s the case, why stop at historically inaccurate cosmetics? If it’s only a game, why doesn’t Dice go full out and add in whatever they want to this title? I loved the Scar-H in Battlefield 4 and I think it would be great if it returned in battlefield 5. I also think it would be great if we also included the pink zebra camo from Hardline, since we’ve already established that authenticity isn’t an important factor in Battlefield. In fact, I would also like to be able to customize my character so he’s wearing only underwear and a bike helmet, just like how my character is in PUBG.
Clearly the “it’s only a game” argument falls apart pretty easily when you apply it as a blanket statement. A fine line needs to be drawn here to keep a video game from completely losing its identity and vision. This is what the battlefield 5 trailer failed to portray to its audience, and this is why the trailer is currently competing with call of duty for the award of “Most Disliked Video Game Trailer in 2018.” (Battlefield is winning, by the way.)
The jumbled inaccuracies in the trailer is a warning sign that Dice has lost the plot to what made Battlefield appeal to its fans in the first place, which is a dedication to maintaining authenticity. Maybe the trailer wouldn’t have been so poorly received if Dice had simply advertised it as an alternate portrayal to WWII, rather than the “dark and immersive experience” that the developers were so excited to talk about for the better part of an hour. Be that as it may be, Battlefield has a history for having a more serious and realistic tone to its titles, and this unexpected shift in direction is an unwelcome surprise to many. People will most likely put up their strawman arguments of “People who don’t like the trailer are simply sexist bigots”, but at the end of the day, we just don’t want to see Battlefield lose its charm. Historical accuracy and authenticity should be not replaced in favor of shoehorning in customization and diversity where it doesn’t belong.
