I do remember, that there were controversiers about that aswell. But in the end of the day, noone cared about that noname “Zara”. Handsome T.E. Lawrence was a main superstar there.
I just want character models to be somewhat grounded in reality. You could have a whole team of women characters and I wouldn’t care if they looked like the women on the box art and splash screen, they looked cool and looked like actual soldiers.
Its not “gynophobia” if it was these people would have problems with women in other games like Fortnite, PUBG, CoD, or GTA, but they don’t. They have issues with history being represented inaccurately, and they see including women on the frontlines (that aren’t Soviet) as a move to pander to the left side of the political spectrum by including multi-culturalism in European history where it was not. There is a new paradigm in Western Society to refuse to accept any form of history that was masculine or white as simply just that. I’d imagine a TV series like Band of Brothers would never be made today, because it didn’t include minorities or women as lead roles during the entire series.
What is or isn’t acceptable is everyone’s personal opinion but I get the feeling the subject isn’t even debateable the way some people have responded to those criticising the trailer and what DICE has in store for BF V.
As far as BF2142 goes it’s set so far in the future we’re probably not going to be around to see it unless life expectancies are going to increase dramatically in this century.
With that in mind its more of a fictional setting, more so than BF4, which also allows for limits on what is or isn’t acceptable to be pushed further than the limits of what is acceptable in a historic setting such as BF V for which their are historic accounts and facts.
Again you seem to mixing up immersion breaking elements that have a direct effect on gameplay and those that do not. Respawning, reviving, resupplying, having a HUD, being able to take multiple hits (over time) without dying, the speed of vehicles and so forth fundamentally alter gameplay (hardcore vs non-hardcore for example). What your character looks like however does not and only allows people to be their own special snowflake. Personally I don’t mind the customisation elements (including gender choice) but would appreciate if there was more regard for historic authenticity especially in a historic setting. One such example, as mentioned above and what’s basically the point of this whole thread, is that although many women served in the armies they weren’t really ever used directly on the frontlines but generally in supporting roles or a bit further behind the lines (take the Soviet Union example with snipers, pilots, AA crews etc.) and I’d appreciate if that is reflected in the game one way or another. But apparently just bringing up the matter is to much to handle for some.
As far as gender customisation goes, see above. As for clothing / weapon / vehicle customisation, I really couldn’t care less as long as I can tell friend from foe.
Okay, if we’re going to be petty–it DOES have fingers that move. The two hooks can clamp together to grasp things. We all know it’s not actually a cyborg arm
What you’re missing is the unrealistic and even illogical expectations of many in relation to what BF has always been. It’s always been an unrealistic, historically inaccurate, over the top, all out war fps. Even the representation of combined arms warfare in BF games is grossly over-exaggerated. It’s filled to the brim with unrealistic aspects - from armies fighting in battles they never fought in, to factions using weapons they’d never use or that weren’t even developed for military use, all the way to people spawning out of thin air, being revived by defibrillators, and walking away from 4 shots to the chest.
But people are acting as if putting the female gender as a customization option is going too far. Like its beyond the unrealistic BS dice has been putting in games. Acting as if it’s worse than other aspects, despite having the EXACT SAME EFFECT, just because it’s not strictly for the sake of gameplay.
People are arguing for historical accuracy in a game belonging to a franchise that had jetpacks and helicopters in 1942, that had railguns and hover tanks in a game set in 2020, that had a ww1 title mainly played with full automatic weapons barely used in the conflict. Games where I can use a prototype German GSG 9 rifle when fighting for the Chinese military. A franchise that had a game (Hardline) that was so ridiculously out there and over the top that people try to act like it’s not even a BF game.
It’s obvious who’s acting illogical to the situation.
I’m not mixing those things up, I’m grouping them together because they have the exact same affect we’re discussing.
Again, women are authentic to ww2. They sevved and fought in the war to some extent - they’re being used in this game to the same extent smgs were used in BF1. Having them readily available as troops on the front line of every faction may not be realistic or historically accurate - but I emphasize for the millionth time that BF is not and has never been realistic or explicitly historically accurate, even in its few games based on a historical war.
If they added full on, multi layer player customization and you expected them to not have a gender option, that’s being a little naive. Especially when it’s involving a war that women took an active part in.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that gameplay mechanics that are necessary for fun are not related to an overall aesthetic designed to give the illusion of being in a particular place?
We spawn out of thin air because video games, that doesn’t mean we want flying cats, cyborgs, and other things that don’t fit a WWII aesthetic (in this case that includes almost everything in that trailer).
I think that having the option of playing with womens in a WW2 game is really cool. But im a little bit dissapointed with some other stuff… i mean, ¯_(ツ)_/¯ are boring. Lets put the British and the US armies to fight against the Soviets, thats ok. Because, you know, its just a game. Its great to have the freedom that videogame gaves to the players and the developers, and i hope they use it to make the best ww2 game ever. I mean, playing with a black japanese soldier, who is also jewish, with a rail gun, in the Wehrmacht against the (why not) mexican army… of course its not historical, but… its a game, right??
Of course im exagerating. What i want to say with this is that developers need to draw a line in what its really acceptable in a game. If youre going to take all the freedoms you want, why doing the game about a specific era, a specific war? I hated when the same stuff happened to BF1 (full auto experimental guns, tanks in battles that never had tanks, for not talking about other things), and i hate it now. I was hoping a ww2 game in this generation, a game that aproaches the war from a serious perspective… but we get this.. and its not going to change, im afraid.
Its limits what we need if we want a “historically realistic” game (as realistic as a game could be). Draw a line and say "ok, this is the limit between an historically accurate game and a completely different universe. The same happened to BF1.. it was not a WW1 game, it was a game inspired in WW1… But im afraid we need to get used to this.. this is the future of videogames, at least of the mainstream ones… BFV is not a WW2 game, is a game inspired in that war, nothing more than that, and im really dissapointed.
They’re just doing it to sell cosmetics. As I recall, DICE rejected the idea of letting soldiers be female in BF1 for reasons of history; but if they’re not gonna do Premium this time, they’ve gotta get EA their money some other way, and that means MAXIMUM COSMETIC OPTIONS even if the soldiers end up looking nothing like WW2 soldiers.
Having sides that didn’t fight in the battle fighting the battle is one thing.
Having robot wielding katana women is another thing.
There’s a difference and if you cant spot it than this game is exactly for you end of story.
There’s nothing wrong with this game. It’s a sci fi game. I want a ww2 game.
Secret weapons of ww2 was at least based off prototypes and stuff at the time. If something is possible but didn’t happen I’m fine with it in the game.
Katana wielding robot armed women were not in the realm of possibility during ww2. Therefore I do not like this game.
You do realize it was just a guy with a Katana melee weapon (used on the Pacific front of the war) and a woman with a 1940’s era prosthetic arm, right?
You’re saying my arguments are terrible, and then follow that up with over-exaggerated drivel.
You look at that and see a Sci fi game? Are you on another planet right now?