They did. It will be available in October. Some just don’t like or can’t handle where they decided the line fell. There are two choices: Buy it or don’t. Everything else is personal opinion and semantics about the game they made.
It’s obviously unreleastic from the very offset. The fact that after you die you’re able to respawn or start a new match, in this game or any other, is unrealistic and should be removed everywhere! I’m sure a lot of people would love to play an FPS game in which respawning or starting a new match is not possible after your first death! /sarcasm
So yes it’s unrealistic, inaccurate or exagerated to the extend of allowing interesting forms of gameplay and allowing us to visit locations in the world we’d otherwise not see. But all that directly relates to gameplay and how it is experienced, cosmetics don’t really do that with an exception for camoflage maybe.
As far as the Secret Weapons of WW2 DLC goes yes parts of it are inaccurate (though the helicopter, I assume you mean the Flettner Fl 282, was used in the war but they never got around to arming it). However, that DLC much like the weapons featured in Final Stand are there to allow new ways of experiencing gameplay. Besides it’s not even 2020 yet and the US navy has actually developed a functional railgun (though at the moment it doesn’t meet demands) so atleast some of the aspects in Final Stand aren’t way beyond reason or what may be expected to be achieved in the next few decades.
Given the earlier section of your reply you certainly are mixing things up. Does being able to respawn, heal, resupply etc. (gameplay & mechanics) or not being able to do so alter the way you play the game? Yes it does. Do the looks of your character or vehicle (cosmetics & aesthetics) seriously affect the way you play? No it doesn’t. Those are two very different things.
The reason why SMGs all dumped all over the Assault class in BF1 is actually quite simple, it’s got everything to do with gameplay and making the Assault class stand out from the other classes. If it, or any other class aside from the scout, was largely confined to bolt-action rifles (although historically accurate) people would have been moaning about all classes being the same with exception of the gadgets.
So saying these categories (gameplay & mechanics vs. cosmetics & aesthetics) can be combined as one because they supposedly have the same effect is plain false.
Lastly I didn’t say I expect there to be no option for gender choice if a multi layer player customization is implemented. I only said I (and probably others) would appreciate if that option was within the confines on reasonability.
Why so much hate for women in game? I understand that it was something so rare to meet a find a woman on the battlefield, especially outside the Eastern Front or partisans formations. I agree that the woman in the trailer is the stereotypical badass veteran who could kill somebody even blindfolded (because ordinary women holding weapons do not exist, there’s something that changes in the hormonal system …) but I don’t hate the trailer just for this, instead I didn’t like the trailer that much for the lack of WW2 atmosphere.
But really, in the heat of the moment would you really recognize a woman in the uniform unless she has no helmet? In BF1 would you ever recognize the russian sniper as a woman without hearing her voice? As a male, did you feel uncomfortable playing as the sniper? I felt no difference at all, it’s the same class as the others but with a different voice.
Also the “black german sniper/knight issue”, I believe that it would have been even more rare to find a black german soldier in the European front than a woman, historically speaking is a punch in the face but when you’re playing is that making that difference?
From a historical point of view it’s true that women were very rare on the battlefield, instead I wouldn’t have made the classes so much customizable, I would make the uniforms and the helmet impossible to change (just changing depending on the enviroment such as summer coats, desert/colonial or pacific, and for the helmet if that class has the helmet or just a side cap you can’t remove/change it) but you can change some stuff such as watches, bandaging (for eyes, arms, legs, …), tattoos, facepaints.
I wouldn’t mind even if they make the gender of the class unchangeable.
The only thing I’m a bit undecided is prothesis since nobody would send a “disabled” soldiers to the field unless it’s strictly necessary, the Germans “recruited” them only when they “ran out” of able-bodied men, at least prothesis could be used only by non-combat troops.
And I hope that BF5 won’t be similar to CoDWW2 and its colourful and mixed army. There’s a reason why soldiers wear a “UNIFORM” and not like in medieval times when they wore depending on the noble they’re serving, so I really hope that uniforms won’t be customizable that much to keep the uniformity of the army you’re playing with/against.
Lol, even though it’s beside the point, BF4s rail gun (which was a handheld rifle) is nothing similar to the electromagnetic rail guns the military uses today, which are primarily mounted on heavy vehicles and can’t be welded and operated by a single infantryman.
But I digress.
You keep repeatedly bringing up that I’m ignoring that some unrealistic things are for gameplays sake - but I’m not.
Again, I’m combining these things because in the end, whether they affect gameplay or not, they result in the loss of immersion - which is what people are so up in arms about when it comes to the woman in the trailer.
Let me post it blatantly - I do not care whether or not it affects gameplay, they still result in the exact same affect on the player that’s being complained about
The fact that cosmetic customization allowing females has no affect on gameplay is not grounds for something unrealistic not being featured in the game. Females are still authentic in reference to who participated in ww2, despite not being REALISTICALLY or ACCURATELY depicted compared to the actual war.
If anything (this being the crux of my point), BFs history for unrealistic and historically inaccurate features is grounds for gender selection to stay, and actually makes sense. The primary argument, despite how many ridiculous circles you or anyone else want to argue around the issue, about women in this game pertains to being unrealistic and historically inaccurate, thus leading to a decrease in immersion.
That sentiment is thwarted, by default, by the fact that BF has always been unrealistic, over-exaggerated, and over the top.
Of course its something personal… when i think in a game that its described by the developers as a “authentic WW2 experience” i expect a minimum of historical accuracy, and its my taste (and im not the only one who thinks the same). Thats why if after watching gameplays or playing the beta im going to decide what i do.. if it is like what the trailer depicts… im not buying the game..
For me it will feel totaly off and immersion breaking if i see games where from 64 players will be 20-40 women soldiers.
And watching them running around with bazookas, driving tanks, reparing and building fortifications and fighting like a Rambo.
That is simply too much for WW2 game where this has no place at all and there is really no way to defend implementation like this.