# Why Historical Authenticity is Important to Battlefield **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [May 27, 2018, 9:05am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687 "2018-05-27T09:05:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TacticulBacon](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/tacticulbacon/32/103690_2.png) [@TacticulBacon](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/TacticulBacon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 9:05am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/1 "2018-05-27T09:05:00Z")
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.](https://twitter.com/ogabrielson/status/1000042210690240512) 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. ---
**Author:** ![crabman169](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/crabman169/32/101567_2.png) [@crabman169](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/crabman169)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 9:38am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/2 "2018-05-27T09:38:00Z")
You need to learn Te difference between Authentic and realistic. Funny you say 1942; the only sniper rifles were SMLE scoped for the allies (British, Yanks, Russians) and k98 scope (Germans, Japanese). Amiens. ---
**Author:** ![Head3masher](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/head3masher/32/102186_2.png) [@Head3masher](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Head3masher)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:11am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/3 "2018-05-27T10:11:00Z")
It’s interesting timing, but this is currently the news here in the UK [dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html) ---
**Author:** ![merlins\_beard\_88](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/merlins_beard_88/32/106938_2.png) [@merlins\_beard\_88](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/merlins_beard_88)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/4 "2018-05-27T10:26:00Z")
> [@Head3masher](#): > > It’s interesting timing, but this is currently the news here in the UK > > [dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html) Clearly the problem was she lacked a prosthetic arm, and a barbed wired cricket bat 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Volvo\_Ingot](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/volvo_ingot/32/107293_2.png) [@Volvo\_Ingot](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Volvo_Ingot)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 10:34am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/5 "2018-05-27T10:34:00Z")
> [@Head3masher](#): > > It’s interesting timing, but this is currently the news here in the UK > > [dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5775737/First-woman-join-infantry-regiment-quits-two-weeks.html) Wait wait wait, so women weren’t allowed to served in British Army combat units until recently? I thought there are already plenty of female British Army infantry in modern times since we have seen female US Army infantry for quite a long time now. Hmm… since there was zero female combat unit in British Army until recent times, who is that badas.s lady Tommy with a prosthetic arm we saw in the trailer?? ??? ??? ![nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.png](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/e/2/e21fbaf32d122c77d653047a39baa04d1ac308aa.png) ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:01am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/6 "2018-05-27T11:01:00Z")
I’ll just leave this here… [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069113/It-I-chose-Extraordinary-story-woman-medic-killed-fighter-¯\_(ツ)\_/¯-ambush.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069113/It-I-chose-Extraordinary-story-woman-medic-killed-fighter-%C2%AF%5C_(%E3%83%84)_/%C2%AF-ambush.html) ---
**Author:** ![Volvo\_Ingot](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/volvo_ingot/32/107293_2.png) [@Volvo\_Ingot](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Volvo_Ingot)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:08am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/7 "2018-05-27T11:08:00Z")
> [@Trokey66](#): > > I’ll just leave this here… > > [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069113/It-I-chose-Extraordinary-story-woman-medic-killed-fighter--ambush.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069113/It-I-chose-Extraordinary-story-woman-medic-killed-fighter--ambush.html) > the first female front-line British soldier known to have killed an enemy fighter in combat > Tal.iban ambush No one is gonna bat an eye about female soldier if BFV is a modern/future shooter. ---
**Author:** ![B30RN130SS](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ce73a5/32.png) [@B30RN130SS](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/B30RN130SS)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:37am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/8 "2018-05-27T11:37:00Z")
“its only a game” is a weak argument. I am pro this game. I am not pro diversity/inclusion I am for authenticity This game so far seems Pro diversity/inclusion not authentic for money reasons (cosmetic freedom = more easy cosmetic creation) Immersive focus on physics, animations, Object interaction. But not Immersive historical accuracy. I care more about game play over game appearance features over cosmetics fun over authenticity And that leads me to want this game regardless of things I don’t like, It’s not just a game, it’s art imitating life, But it’s still a game too. I am not going to let some PC elements take the rest of what is a good game and ruin it, I can keep my politics and historical respect out of games and be fine, the PC culture may be taking your history and art, but it is not taking away the game, the game is still here and could be great fun. I’m totally okay with the game not being exactly how I expected, most of it is improved and exciting features to me, I’m okay with things so far, so long as no more golden tanks or pink camo. at that point I could not take it, Guess it’s a matter of how ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ we are on it. ---
**Author:** ![NAVSPECWARCOM](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/navspecwarcom/32/102929_2.png) [@NAVSPECWARCOM](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/NAVSPECWARCOM)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:44am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/9 "2018-05-27T11:44:00Z")
This is pretty much my thoughts exactly. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkZN3lVr8k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkZN3lVr8k) ---
**Author:** ![SMK\_GAMING\_2](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/smk_gaming_2/32/103534_2.png) [@SMK\_GAMING\_2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/SMK_GAMING_2)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:50am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/10 "2018-05-27T11:50:00Z")
[![Video: FEMALEFIELD V - The TRUTH About BATTLEFIELD V DRAMA](https://battlefieldforum.co/uploads/default/original/3X/7/2/72199a4a93b6fa7d1383e69d0c50654e509d5f1e.jpeg "FEMALEFIELD V - The TRUTH About BATTLEFIELD V DRAMA") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIuYEgxidRY) Similar thoughts to mine, so much good coming with this next game and they choose not to focus on any of that ---
**Author:** ![StahlKrahe](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@StahlKrahe](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/StahlKrahe)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 11:56am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/11 "2018-05-27T11:56:00Z")
> [@TacticulBadger](#): > > 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.](https://twitter.com/ogabrielson/status/1000042210690240512) 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. I agree people did love Battlefield 3 for its historical accuracy… Something I have been wondering why hasn’t Dice just added predetermined winners/losers for MP matches, I mean depending on the map it wouldn’t make sense for a particular faction to win or lose based off of history. ---
**Author:** ![Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/trokey66/32/103889_2.png) [@Trokey66](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Trokey66)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 12:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/12 "2018-05-27T12:30:00Z")
> [@SMK\_GAMING\_2](#): > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIuYEgxidRY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIuYEgxidRY) > > Similar thoughts to mine, so much good coming with this next game and they choose not to focus on any of that This is one of the better ones I’ve seen. He correctly, in my opinion, identifies the poor reveal and trailer as the issue and not necessarily the content of the game. This has lead to the whole absurd focus on one character and ‘immursion’ rather than what the game will actually play like. I remember the Holy Hell that hit the forums around the difficulty and cost of getting that gold Tonk skin but at no point did anyone say “hang on, a gold tank skin…in WW1?”. I strongly suspect that the trailer showed extreme examples of personal customisation possible, but in reality it will be more muted. I will deem the game on how it plays and NOT because I was killed by a woman with a cricket bat (unless of course, that mechanic is borked)! EDIT: A cricket bat as a melee weapon! Can’t get more British than that! ---
**Author:** ![FoxMulder2014](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/foxmulder2014/32/106685_2.png) [@FoxMulder2014](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/FoxMulder2014)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 1:42pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/13 "2018-05-27T13:42:00Z")
Google it. **Several millions of woman fought in combat rules during WW2**. And not just pilots, drivers and snipers. Google "women in WW2’. And if you really interested, PM me I have a bunch reference material if you want to know more. Another tip. Forget 90% about WW2 what you learned in school/movies/documentaries. Trust me on that one. It’s very shallow, missies tons of contenxt, skips turning points (that aren’t D-Dag, The Blitz, Dunkirk, Kursk, Rommel’s exploits (the good ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ myth) and Stalingrad, not the mention when I was in high school I never even learn about Asia, South America and a little bit about sub-sahara Afrika because I’m Belgium and we had colonies there) Most documentaries are rubbish. Oversimplied. Meant as entertainment, not educament, My grandpa fought in WW2 (RAF), he escaped per boat to England and joined up with the British Airforce. He ‘flew’ a Fortress I (RAF version of the B17). By ‘flew’ I mean that he was the navigator or sometimes tailgunner. **It’s a myth** , because American women didn’t do much fighting (except spies and saboteurs with OSS) French resistance also had a lot of them. Yugoslav partisans had 1/3 woman in combat roles. A lot of women were spies behind enemy lines, not just with OSS and SOE. Every country had them. Google "women in WW2’. Most of the countries that were occupied during WW2 had women in combat rules and even some like Britain had women pilots; Some examples: "the Soviet Union created an all-woman combat flight unit, the 599th Night Bomber Regiment or the Night Witches. This group of the Soviet Air Forces, flew harassment bombing and precision bombing missions from 1942 to the end of the World War II.[121] The organization was first formed by Joseph ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ on October 8, 1941 and all of the women were volunteers.[122] The Night Witches flew 30,000 missions and “dumped 23,000 tons of bombs on the German invaders” Most of the countries that were occupied during WW2 had women in combat rules and even some like Britain had women pilots; “Several hundred thousand women in countries such as England, Soviet Union, served in combat roles, especially in anti-aircraft units. The U.S. decided not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it.” “Many women served in the resistances of France, Italy, and Poland, and in the British SOE and American OSS which aided these.” “Many [Australian] women wanted to play an active role in the war, and hundreds of voluntary women’s auxiliary and paramilitary organisations had been formed by 1940. A shortage of male recruits forced the military to establish female branches in 1941 and 1942. Women entered roles which had traditionally been limited to men” ---
**Author:** ![Natetendo83](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/natetendo83/32/102925_2.png) [@Natetendo83](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Natetendo83)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 1:46pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/14 "2018-05-27T13:46:00Z")
> [@FoxMulder2014](#): > > Google it. **Several millions of woman fought in combat rules during WW2**. And not just pilots, drivers and snipers. > > Google "women in WW2’. And if you really interested, PM me I have a bunch reference material if you want to know more. > > Another tip. Forget 90% about WW2 what you learned in school/movies/documentaries. Trust me on that one. It’s very shallow, missies tons of contenxt, skips turning points (that aren’t D-Dag, The Blitz, Dunkirk, Kursk, Rommel’s exploits (the good myth) and Stalingrad, not the mention when I was in high school I never even learn about Asia, South America and a little bit about sub-sahara Afrika because I’m Belgium and we had colonies there) > > Most documentaries are rubbish. Oversimplied. Meant as entertainment, not educament, > > My grandpa fought in WW2 (RAF), he escaped per boat to England and joined up with the British Airforce. He ‘flew’ a Fortress I (RAF version of the B17). By ‘flew’ I mean that he was the navigator or sometimes tailgunner. > > **It’s a myth** , because American women didn’t do much fighting (except spies and saboteurs with OSS) > > French resistance also had a lot of them. Yugoslav partisans had 1/3 woman in combat roles. > > A lot of women were spies behind enemy lines, not just with OSS and SOE. Every country had them. > > Google "women in WW2’. > > Most of the countries that were occupied during WW2 had women in combat rules and even some like Britain had women pilots; > > Some examples: > > "the Soviet Union created an all-woman combat flight unit, the 599th Night Bomber Regiment or the Night Witches. This group of the Soviet Air Forces, flew harassment bombing and precision bombing missions from 1942 to the end of the World War II.[121] The organization was first formed by Joseph on October 8, 1941 and all of the women were volunteers.[122] The Night Witches flew 30,000 missions and “dumped 23,000 tons of bombs on the German invaders” > > Most of the countries that were occupied during WW2 had women in combat rules and even some like Britain had women pilots; > > “Several hundred thousand women in countries such as England, Soviet Union, served in combat roles, especially in anti-aircraft units. The U.S. decided not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it.” > > “Many women served in the resistances of France, Italy, and Poland, and in the British SOE and American OSS which aided these.” > > “Many [Australian] women wanted to play an active role in the war, and hundreds of voluntary women’s auxiliary and paramilitary organisations had been formed by 1940. A shortage of male recruits forced the military to establish female branches in 1941 and 1942. Women entered roles which had traditionally been limited to men” Holy crap there is so much wrong with this post. Either blinded by PC culture or just peddling lies. But to suggest that millions…MILLIONS…of women were in the infantry is just hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![merlins\_beard\_88](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/merlins_beard_88/32/106938_2.png) [@merlins\_beard\_88](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/merlins_beard_88)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/15 "2018-05-27T15:03:00Z")
Oh for gods sake -\_- For the millionth time now WE DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN IN THE GAME The problem is accurate representation why is this so complicated for people. USSR women soldiers yes I want that Polish women soldiers yes I want that Resistance women soldiers yes I want that. Fall of Berlin women soldiers yes I want British and American women soldiers NO at least represent women fairly If there’s ACTUAL historical evidence for frontline women soldiers for that specific faction then I want them in it. What I don’t want is them being added in for the sake of diversity. Otherwise we are going to end up with another andromeda courtesy of EA. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Chompski](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Mister\_Chompski](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Mister_Chompski)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:12pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/16 "2018-05-27T15:12:00Z")
Geez. Everyone is apparently a paid shill or has a secret, corrupting political agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Sir-Praise-a-lot](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Sir-Praise-a-lot](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sir-Praise-a-lot)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:19pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/17 "2018-05-27T15:19:00Z")
> [@TacticulBadger](#): > > Historical authenticity is something that’s especially important when a franchise like Battlefield **was** built around that selling point. Let me stop you right there. “was” as you mentioned is a term of the past. Part of the marketing for BFV is that “Battlefield will never be the same”. Sure it probably has been used before but just accept that BFV might not be what _ **you want** _. End of story. With no premium pass cosmetics are the common way to make extra money and using only authentic stuff limites choices too much I guess. After all DICE wants every character to look unique. Just deal with it (or don’t, you don’t have to play it, there are many WW2 games out there). > [@TacticulBadger](#): > > 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. Weakest? You mean the primal and most solid one? At the end of the day it’s a game and DICE can do as much with it as EA allows it. And the reason why they “stop” at historically inaccurate cosmetics and don’t go much further is pretty simple: they just don’t want to. If they wanted Hello Kitty tanks, lightsabers or whatever they could/would do it. But they don’t because BFV’s cosmetics and all is exactly where they want them to be. They don’t need to go further just to prove to you they can. And who knows there might be pink zebra camos. We just got a glimps of the game after all and there is much more to come than a 2min trailer can show. You just have to accept and deal with the fact that what they’ve shown is the game they want to make, otherwise they wouldn’t make it. And they pretty much have the freedom to do so. DICE doesn’t think BF is losing it’s identity with BFV and many other people like me don’t do either. Some people who can’t accept it won’t play it and some people who like the changes will pick up a BF title for the first time. You win some you lose some. ---
**Author:** ![Dogwoggle11](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dogwoggle11/32/101753_2.png) [@Dogwoggle11](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Dogwoggle11)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/18 "2018-05-27T15:20:00Z")
There’s no such thing as bad publicity. Keep talking about it, boys. ---
**Author:** ![Allegiance26](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/allegiance26/32/101181_2.png) [@Allegiance26](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Allegiance26)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:27pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/19 "2018-05-27T15:27:00Z")
DICE has the right to alter and insert anything they wish to these games. They have every right to decide that if they want women in this game, historically accurate or not, to put them in the game. You as the consumer/customer have every right to criticize and move on if its not your cup of tea. This video games purpose is entertainment. It is not a documentary, it is not a history book, it is not a research paper on the time period. It owes you no such promise of accuracy or realism that you claim that it does, even when their PR and Developers say such stupid and obviously untrue statements about it being realistic and accurate. Battlefield games have never been accurate or realistic. These are words that the community has attached to the franchise to rationalize why they like it so much. Even when neither of those words are true for these games. DICE has artistic license to add what they wish to make the game, from their perspective, more entertaining. I’ve seen a lot of comments, not necessarily here on these forums but elsewhere, that this is DICE pandering to SJWs. As if this is the first BF game theyve created with female protagonists and inserting diversity into their games. Its been a thing since BF4. The market is also a huge reason why we are seeing more women inserted into these types of games. A study done not too long ago showed that women gamers had expanded to 48% of the total number of gamers. Thats almost half of the market. So what is more likely here? DICE deciding to cave to political pressure or DICE deciding to market their games to both men and women now that women share a larger piece of the pie? It used to be that game companys overwhelmingly marketed to men because men were the overwhelming consumer/customerbase. Why would they not begin to market to women if they are almost half of the over all gamer community? ---
**Author:** ![SMK\_GAMING\_2](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/smk_gaming_2/32/103534_2.png) [@SMK\_GAMING\_2](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/SMK_GAMING_2)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2018, 3:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687/20 "2018-05-27T15:30:00Z")
> [@Dogwoggle11](#): > > There’s no such thing as bad publicity. > > Keep talking about it, boys. That’s it, all those dislikes on the trailer. All comments on here and twitter are only promoting the game even further [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/why-historical-authenticity-is-important-to-battlefield/105687.md?page=2)