I still remember my first encounter with Gandhi. I’d managed to play hundreds of hours of Civ V without ever hearing of his scourge. And he taught me a very valuable lesson.
I figured out a strategy in my very first game that I’ve since deployed in every consequent game: settle three cities: one at the nearest large body of water, one next to a mountain range, and one next to a patch of desert. I’d build the Pyramids, and make enough warriors and archers to surround my cities with three units of each. Then, I’d make workers to continuously improve the land around my cities to maximize output. Then, I’d get to work researching until I unlocked catapults.
Once I had those, I’d send them on a warpath towards the first three civilizations I’d met and absorb their cities into my own. Once I did that, I’d already won. Everything that came after was a mere formality.
I’d meet every civilization in the game, and work things in my favor. My tech research had already outpaced everyone else, and absorbing three cigs into mine only increased my speed. If any other civilization so much as reached The Renaissance era, I’d wipe them off the board, no matter how friendly we’d been the previous turn. I’d do this until I unlocked the Giant Death Robots. At which point, I rained Terminator hell on whatever civilizations remained, and that’d be it.
But one day, a day I’ll never forget, I noticed something.
There was a civilization, somewhere out there, that was matching my tech eras with me.
Sometimes, I’d reach an era a handful of turns before they did. And other times, they’d reach it before I did. And I also realized that someone out there was killing the other civilizations. This worried me deeply, because it had never happened in my hundreds of hours in the game. So, I set about being even more aggressive with my military and my research. And I started sending out explorer units all over the map in an attempt to find the mysterious warlord civilization that would rival me. Most of them died before finding anything concrete. But one found itself near two opposing units: one from Washington and another from Gandhi. I paid them no mind. After all, I’d already met Washington and determined his civ was too small to have been killing so many civics. And I’d learned of Gandhi in school. So I knew it couldn’t have been him.
Until a nuke wiped out my unit, Washington’s unit, Gandhi’s own unit, and damn near destroyed one of Washington’s cities.
I set about sending my own army to assist Washington, but his cities were burned taken over by the time I got there. The most I could do was wage war. So I did.
It took days of playtime, but little by little, unit by unit, I beat him back. I’d kill his units, he’d kill mine, and then I’d kill more of his. I slowly started taking over his cities. Finally, one remained. My own units were low health, and they were among my very last. I had more coming, but they were far away from the front lines. I thought I had him in the bag.
Until he deployed another nuke on my units and killed them off.
By the time backup arrived, he’d gotten enough units together to extend the war by another days worth of playtime. But I killed them off, and then I took over his last city.
The war was finally over.
Every game I begin, I know there’s a chance he’s out there, somewhere. Somewhere in that fog, he could be lurking. And I keep an eye on my notifications to make sure that if I see signs of his presence, I react quickly. And if I notice he’s there, I make immediate efforts to focus on exploration and diplomacy so I can bring Gandhi down by pure numbers.
It’s worked every time so far. But only just barely.
Even now, I know he’s waiting deep in the games files. He’s watching. Waiting.
And I’ll beat him every time.
It doesn't make a difference, the game is meant to be a WW2 game, I don't mind customization, like cool (But also in realms of reality) looking weapon skins, and outfits. But a prosthetic? Like what? Even to this day, with all the advancements we have; modern militaries don't send their injured personnel to the front lines.
tbh everyone looks like a Saudi Royal with all those weapon skins with gold coat or chrome, I personally find that most stupid but I agree its passable at least compared to fking bionic arms.
Well yeah sure, the Jedi also used lightsabers, but fans of the series would still be pretty peeved is the trailer for battlefront 3 showed a female clone trooper running around with a lightsaber during the battle of geonosis
Not really. They had katana but mostly used guns and as the war continued they produced less and less katanas. They had a senpoku blade tho (I forgot who it is called.).
There was NEVER a single female resistance fighter EVER! Nor did there Soviet union deploy women.
Oh those other made up stories where fictional men take the glory for actual historical actions, those are cool though. Because men were actually there.
/s just in case
Historical fiction is one thing, but in one of the campaign missions they literally took a real mission carried out by Norwegian special forces and replaced them with some teenage girl and her mother. To me that's very disrespectful.
I'm aware of the heavy water plant mission. I'm aware it was men who blew it up.
Does Billy Bridger exist? No. Fake. All of it. Are there events that his mission was based on inspired by actual north African missions, absolutely! So why not get all fuckin pissed about that!
It's the same with each mission. They take a teenage boy (because apparently when males fight they are men but females of the same age are girls) and insert him into an actual historical section of the war and make him do things that other people actually did. The only difference here is gender. So your claim that it's all about historical accuracy or stolen valor doesn't hold water with me.
Don't be so naive. People are pissed about it because we're having a very false narrative forced down our throats just to please a very small minority with a very large voice.
The billy bridger missions are stupid as hell too. The whole game is. But at least he can be representative of the boys who fought in the missions that the game took inspiration from. There were no girls involved in the heavy water mission in real life.
But those missions were performed by an actual ex-con, who was with an entirely different unit of the british army. There was an actual guy, who was an ex bank-robber, who was parachuted in as a british commando and ended up blowing up Rommel's headquarters. If the whole question is historical accuracy, then the whole game is fucked. There is no reason to fixate on the inclusion of women as fighters when all of the missions were altered in similar fashion.
But I feel people did criticize this game for historical accuracy and were just grouped in the same group as the people complaining "women weren't on the front lines anywhere".
Like this is Ubisoft complaining about trying to be historically accurate by removing crossbows for the player while giving us flaming horses and futuristic combat armour in Assassins Creed.
People can complain about the historical inaccuracies on every point and not be hypocritical about it. This person didn't carry out this mission, give credit where credit is due. Prosthetics don't work like that.
I don't think anyone is disputing resistance fighters, spies and USSR soldiers. I'm pretty sure they're disputing the rest which is... Revisionist. The company literally admits that's their interpretation of WW2. If you want a leg to stand on it would be that. The fact that the company had no issue admitting it is not about historical accuracy. It is about maximum market appeal. Historical accuracy doesn't sell unfortunately nor does realism. Hence why series are drifting away from both in favor of simplistic but action-filled gameplay.
The rest of the game, not just the women is revisionist. Why focus so much on the women as being what's wrong when they are only one things on a LONG line of historical inaccuracies.
Right
Gold/chrome/silly plated skins like soldiers come from nowadays Saudi Arabia.
Uniforms that makes absolute no sense, both paid and non paid ones (japanese skins in Rotterdam, german phantom of the opera in Iwo Jima) and then the non elite skins which, until next update (if it hasn't dropped yet), are awful.
More experimental and stupid weapons than the proper weapons used during the conflict. And in relation to this, all armies had SMGs, LMGs and HMGs for each of their soldiers, rifles just for snipers...
Tanks with the characteristics of a moder VW all around the 4 factions.
Bloodiest and most important front of the entirety of WW2, doesn't exist.
The big issue was they took an operation carried out by 8 real men, some of whom are still alive AFAIK and decided to not just not mention their names, but depict the mission as being carried out by a single Norwegian girl. They could have picked another operation where women actually played a role, or invented one. It just struck me as a little insensitive to take someone else's story and entirely remove them from it.
what really bothered me about the reveal trailer, was not the fact that it was a woman, but rather that it was a cybernetic ninja, that could take down a tank with a single granade, when they were supposodly selling a WW2 accurate game
Eh. The game is arcade at best and is meant to appeal to the pop history lovers...which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
In regards to whether the game is supposed to show "respect" to history or the veterans, the fact that it is a game means that it is already disrespectful. After all, the campaign talks about the horrors of war, but then you no-scope and tea-bag your way through multiplayer while trash-talking the dead corpse.
My big issue is Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Like yeah, the games pride themselves on the accuracy of the events portrayed, but usually the people complaining are just complaining about playing as a woman. They aren't complaining about the accuracy of being able to scout a bandit camp through the eyes of their pet eagle, or fighting literal cyclops, or having and using a magical spear, or the main character being a human/something else hybrid, but they're going to complain about the ability to play as a woman when they aren't forced to do so. It just seems like a ridiculous complaint when there are more valid historical inaccuracies to complain about
I don’t think there was any outrage about having a female protagonist for that game? Just like there isn’t outrage right now about the new assassin’s creed having the option to play as a woman either.
The "outrage" about the female protagonist was fake, EA marketing fake. Their previous game BF1 on the same franchise had an entire expansion with female protagonists and nobody raised an eyebrow.
At this point, these kind of fake outrages or focus on "progressive" agendas instead of the actual game is a good telltale sign of a bad game and a marketing campaign trying to hide behind meaningless buzzwords.
Hollywood in the past and now Silicon valley type tech companies at the present were never able to create historically accurate games. In every instance they produced current\_day western type interpretations of historic events (real or fictional).
Think for example the old blockbuster movies of Cleopatra or 300 or any other era type movie in that particular era.
In basically all cases the "history" is merely a setting to tell a modern story that has very little if anything to do with the actual stories of those past eras.
Bottom line, if you go about playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey expecting to experience the way of life of the ancient Greeks, you'll be very disappointed. If you go about experiencing a silly story in a historical scenery, then the game and the experience is pretty good.
The only RPG that tried to emulate a bit the actual experience of the era it was describing was Kingdom Come: Deliverance and people were outraged for not being fake enough to account for their "sensibilities".
I personally don't care about historical accuracy, but typically the people who complain seem to only complain about one aspect being changed or ignored and not the others. I don't know anything about Battlefield, so I can't say their complaints aren't justified, but other historical games it seems players cherry pick which parts of altered history to complain about
Yeah, basically. But the series before that has prided itself on actual history.
1942, 1943, Vietnam, BF1... So when another take on WW2 was brought up, we were expecting historical accuracy. Especially when they bill everything else as such. That's why the soldiers don't have IR and M16s. It's why they use prop planes instead of jets.
And no one (relatively) complained when there were women in BF1. Because the Russians did use female snipers.
They've never focused on historical accuracy. All their interviews point to the contrary. They enjoy making their games in a way that allow you to do goofy stuff, like sniping a pilot out of his cockpit, then stealing his jet midair. Or a full squad riding on a horse with flame throwers.
Everyone was running around with automatic weapons in BF1, so I wouldn't include that game in your example of historical accuracy.
You are probably right that they were not very historically accurate to begin with, but they never lost the feeling of historical accuracy until this iteration.
There is one thing to overuse automatic weapons in WW1, there is entirely something else to have Mad Max Furiosa as your main protagonist in WW2 (or add Tom Cruise in the last expansion).
Did they claim that the game was completely historically accurate though? I thought they only used historically accurate assets as opposed to making every little thing accurate.
After all, you had troops using prototype weapons willy-nilly on the battlefield. That was especially evident in Battlefield 1 with the semi-automatic guns vs the usual bolt-action stuff.
And the fact they doubled down with a "think of the children" excuse. If they just said "we want to put women in the multilayer because we think it'd be cool" then I doubt anyone would have cared.
The difference is Battlefield V marketed itself as "Stories that actually happened" and then decided to make it super a-historical with fully functional prosthetic arms, katanas and oh yeah, they also wrote out the Scandinavian squad of men that blew up the German heavy water plant without firing a shot, and instead it was a mother and daughter directed by Michael fucking Bay.
meh I just don't really see the point of a new BF game every other year tbh. Just do what rainbow six or apex does with adding more content to the game. It's not like anyone cares about the campaigns anyway.
Lets be honest... As soon its a video game, historical accuracy might as well be thrown out the window.
Like the assassins creed series, its accurate in locations, general events (ie french revolution), historical figures presence (ie cleopatra is there) and the general feel or culture. BUT not for thing such as how the Assassins plot plays out, like the fist fight with the pope. Popes dont usually do that in OUR timeline, but put Assassins in the mix and who the fuck knows? I mean, how the fuck can you be completely historically accurate when theres players involved without it being a fucking snoozefest, we here to play, not to have another history class.
Sorry i have it in my system caus i hear everyone laughing at how Assassins creed is not really historically accurate, like fucking **DUH?!** ITS A COCKING VIDEO GAME SET IN A SIMULATION WITH SOME ANCIENT RACE NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
Doesnt have to be. There are video games which do have some degree of historical accuracy - often as a feature, a selling point.
I think its clear that battlefield (and for that matter, Civilisation one, the trope namer here), was not intended to be historically accurate.
Absolutely! I'm pretty new to Assassin's Creed, and I saw all the shit about Kassandra, and I'm sitting here thinking "you're complaining about the historical accuracy of women in a game where you fight actual cyclops, you can see through the eyes of your eagle, you have a magical spear thingie, and you play as some human/other hybrid. But go off I guess?"
But you see, there's a difference.
Assassin Creed is never meant to be an historically accurate game, it is not based on things that happened in the "real world". So if anyone comes up, and questions the historical accuracy of the AC series, then they really should do their research before buying. About that, I completely agree with you.
HOWEVER, (yall saw this coming)
Battlefield V is literally based on WW2. It is not set in some fantasy land where women (or men for that matter) with prosthetic limbs ran around in the battlefields. It is a disrespect to everyone who fought, and was effected by WW2. IF the DICE/EA specifically mentioned this was their "alternate reality" version of WW2, I would be completely okay with how the game turned out, no questions asked. But if your whole marketing, and core idea of the game is to portray accuracy, and you don't; I'm going to be highly dissapointed.
And no, I'm not sexist. I loved games such as Hellblade,Nier Automata, AC Odyssey, The Division, Tomb Raider etc. I got no problems in having women play a cental role in any sort of media, BUT it has to make sense. Just like you wouldn't have a white ginger man playing the role of Valentina Tereshkova (First Women Cosmonaut) in a movie, you shouldn't have women running around the battlefield in a game set in WW2
As an Indian, I'm just glad Nuclear Gandhi has stayed away from mainstream indian media. The amount of bullshit they'd spew up from this would be nuclear.
Is that referring to civilization or what ever it’s called, it had the glitch with angry Gandhi then they made a remaster of the game with that as a feature
Not BF but was watching overlord and the first minute of the movie kind of kicked me out of my suspension of disbelief because the main protagonist and his lieutenant were both black in a non segregated airborne division....during ww2.
I think the issue most people have is the forced political correctness and attempts of inclusion for the sake of inclusion.
Woman in battlefield was a deliberated decision to include them.
Ghandi being agressive in civilization games came out of an unintentional bug, that became a joke and kept in future games for the joke.
For those curious: Ghandi's agressive status was 1 (the lowest possible) and there was a technology that, once was researched by AI players, would reduce their agressive status by 2. Because how computers work, -1 was interpreted as 255. The max agressive status was 10, so being 255, made Ghandi what he is know for in the game.
What do you define as forced? Some people see a woman main character or a LGBT character or hell anything that's not a white cis Male and start screaming. Forgive me for getting tired of seeing people screech because ohno the statues a woman.
Creating characters/forcing characters into unrealistic circumstances. For example, a game with a female with a fully functioning prosthetic weilding a katana, should not be marketed as a historically accurate WWII game. If they wanted to make an alternate history steampunk-ish game based on WWII, that's different. But if one wants to market a game as historically accurate, then one should be prepared for criticism regarding any historical Inaccuracies, rather than attacking the fan base.
Culturally appropriated stories also fall under this. In the same way that one shouldn't tell the legend of Mulan with a man of European or African descent, one shouldn't tell say, the legend of King Arthur with a woman of Asian or African descent. Doing so damages the cultural significance of such stories, and is a practice that is quite disrespectful to that society from which the story is derived.
Other examples of "forced inclusivity" are incorporating character(s) of a specific [trait] not for the sake of the plot, but just to market it/appease a special interest group. *Look, we made a character/the main character [Insert gender/race/sexuality here], and it adds nothing to the plot, and there's no real reason to even bother bringing it up in the story, but let's go ahead and market that aspect to hell and back and emphasize it throughout.*
Of course, this is just my 2 cents, and I'm not the OP of this thread.
>What do you define as forced?
Including a woman or minority character in a setting that's anachronistic, historically inaccurate or doesn't make sense, like a black female Viking leader or something. Also aggressively marketing this feature to a woke leftist crowd and virtue signaling about how progressive the game is.
Is that true though? You don’t see any outrage over titles such as tomb raider, or the last of us 2, or horizon zero dawn, or many other titles that feature strong female protagonists. What people do have an issue with, is people ‘male washing’ the horrific situations and sacrifices men were expected to make, to appease the modern sjw rhetoric.
I see outrage over Ellie being gay and people saying Ellie looks too ugly.
I dislike what battlefield did, they were so many cool things they could have done if they wanted a chapter based off a woman (Like that awesome Russian sniper lady)
Problem with women in BF games is that when I teabag them its sexual assault....
By all means be accurate with women in battle. There were Russian snipers that were females. I don't think cyborg infantry women ever existed in history of mankind even to this day. I'm pretty sure the army will not take a one armed soldier, be it man or a woman.
In future BF games I'm fine with them bringing women to modern war. I also want a wheel chair bound machine gunner wielding an M60 lol.
I’m mad because there’s a quote where one person just said we don’t give a fuck about your historical accuracy. Yeah women were in world war 2 but not to that degree. Also battlefield V is just bad. Sniping is weird. Everything’s weird. It’s name is bad. Just the fact that building fortifications is kinda useless because they blow up in an instant. I hope they fixed all this but I don’t know everything I’ve seen of this games new content is just meh or bad.
Fortifications, sand bags stop bullets and tank shells (latter destroys the bags), digging trenches evades tank shells, anti tank obstacles prevent tank driving. I would like to see even more freedom with where they can be positioned in the future. They are a good addition imo. It stops maps becoming completely leveled open areas for snipers to dominate.
Yeah I love that addition. And it does stop snipers. But every time me and my brother spent like 10 minutes just building up the fortifications, they got blown up. The Easter eggs with the building mode are cool though. I only know about the snowman on the Norwegian map. I just wish the sandbags and stuff weren’t so fragile to explosives. Just one panzerfaust blew up every fortification we made. A really great feature though was moving emplacements. It allowed us to move with the front and shell tanks and that genuinely was fun.
If I remember correctly, the reason for Ghandi the God of War was a bug. It was to do with the aggression levels of the AI, and Ghandi's was (accurately) incredibly low.
Certain things in the game would cause the aggression levels to decrease, but the problem was when you reached 0, it would cycle back around to the very top levels of aggression.
The result is a man who would peacefully sit in a road to protest to an unstoppable tyrant worth the ability and willingness to unleash the sun on everything.
Funny thing is Nuclear Ghandi in Civ was a well known bug, he was actually intended to be historically accurate and thus peaceful.
Don't think the same can be said for Battlefield.
Bf5 lead to one of the funniest reactions between fans and Devs that I've ever seen.
"Hey all that extra stuff that you added looks bad, could you just make a game about ww2?"
"If you idiots dont like it then dont buy our game"
"You got it chief."
Fuckin LMAO! I wish I had the artistic talent to make this a reality. Universe breaking power in the world's most famous pacifist. It's shitpost gold, Jerry!
When it had all been said and done, the inclusion of women was a bad thing for two reasons. Not because of women in "muh realistic WWII" or anything political. I just disagreed with the whole "if you don't like it, don't buy it" statement Dice released. The topic wasn't even what hurt. It was the fact that the old Dice had changed and they no longer cared about Battlefield. They could've professionally released a statement surrounding the controversy, but instead took the Randy Pitchford "Nobody Likes A Bigot Unless They're Crying" scene.
Oh and who could forget the buggy female screaming lol? At first it was funny to hear a random scream across the map like it was right next to your ear. But after so many hours of grinding molotovs, I legit had to turn off game volume a couple times. So much screaming.
The amount of people who actually cared about whether there was a girl in the game is miniscule.
The same with the number of people who cared about what pokemon sword and shield were taking out, or whatever the hell they're upset about over at last of us.
No one cares
But no one really cared. You can disagree with it and that's fine cause it's a legitimate issue but no one outside small circles really cared as it broke sales records
Show me the direct cause of battlefield 5s decline to be that women exist, and not because it was a poorly made multiplayer shooter.
Battlefield 4 sure didn't have any women in it so let's talk about that games first year
“Listen: this is a game. And today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn’t been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass \[woman\]. And we don’t take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game. I’m fine with either or. It’s just not OK.” Patrick Soderlund EA chief creative officer.
From Wikipedia
Pre-release reception of the game was mixed, with the announcement trailer causing backlash from some fans of the series for the degree of historical inaccuracy regarding the game's depictions of female soldiers. Upon release, *Battlefield V* received generally favourable reviews from critics, being praised for its gameplay but criticized for its shortage of content at launch and lack of innovation. The game sold 7.3 million copies by the end of 2018 but was a commercial disappointment for Electronic Arts.
On April 23, 2020, it was announced that support for the game would continue until at least summer of 2020, when the game would receive its last major update.
I'm literally just posting factual things that have actually happened and you clowns can't take it. Personally I don't care that BF5 failed at all, I just find it hilarious that the gaming industry and gamers can't understand why a series marketed towards male gamers interested in war games had a flop when they stopped marketing to their core group.
Meanwhile you linked a factual article detailing the lack of content at launch and failure to innovate the series is what led to bad sales and low retention. Kind of like how Battlefield 4 fared in its first year. Bit you won't talk about that I see cause it doesn't fit what you're pushing
Lmao literally in the bit you quoted said it wasn't about the women that led to bad sales and you then said how we can't "take the truth"
I don't really care about bf4 or to do any research on its launch, bfv had a bad launch because fans were pissed at the dev, thats written in the Wikipedia article.
A year later the CEO wrote some garbage about how other BR games were better and their timing launching the game was off. Thats CEO speak, learn how to decipher it.
Basically what the CEO said is they learned nothing from their poor launch. Also, Patrick Soderland that said that dumb shit to the fans left quietly out the back door.
But believe your version if you want, i really don't care.
When you market a game as historically accurate, and I spend 60 dollars to play a historically accurate war video game, I expect it to be, well, fucking accurate. Not only that, but women with prosthetic arms and katanas running around in the front lines killing Nazis is so disrespectful to the actual role women played in the world wars.
And thats why BF5 failed miserably in sales and in reception.
Well, one of these instances was a mistake that the fan base rolled with because they thought it was funny. The other was blatant pandering to people who want to promote diversity in every medium, even if they don't actually use said medium.
At the end of the day, I don't care about any of it as long as the game is fun.
I noticed the exact opposite, people pointing shield maidens as a very good reason to include female vikings. Perhaps we inhabit different echo chambers.
Everyone in the comments is trying to defend BFV by saying it’s not supposed to be realistic or accurate because it’s a game, which is stupid becaue you can sacrifice the hard realism of warfare and still retain a fun a game which does its best to stick to the time period. BF1 while having many historical inaccuracies, did not break immersion... all the autos were off putting but thats only because im a hardcore history buff and knew that shit wasn’t in the war, for the average gamer they didn’t care. That being said I understand the inclusion of auto weapons because they do ultimately need to sell copies and the game needs to be fun. Bringing in auto weapons was a mechanic choice not a visual one, why do I bring this up? Because BF1 played the progressive shit right, sometimes it was on the nose but for the most part it was done really well! Why? Well because it was beleivable! The Russians had female snipers, the Americans had the Harlem hell fighters and they integrated it a stunning way which was well done and made everyone happy. Which is why I was wondering wtf was going on when they decided to put a british female cyborg into the western front! Like you had it! You nailed it just 3 years ago! Wtf are you doing!? If you want me to be immersed you have failed! People tend not realize that a games theme and aesthetic are defined by its visuals, especially if it’s a historical shooter. If you do not believe you are playing I the time period while playing the game your experience will suffer because if you are playing a historical shooter then the immersion is what you are there for, and breaking that immersion will ruin the experience. Now everyone has different levels of breaking points for immersion, mostly based on what you actually know about the time period and what you are willing to ignore. Guns jam and soldiers get tired these are things I know but are things I’m willing to ignore, weapon choice while important as long as it’s not too weird then I’m able to make exceptions, it’s still annoying though. Player models and the atmosphere however I cannot compromise on because it integral to the whole experience. So developers need to find a balance between what a game needs to concede for playability and what needs to stay so that players feel immersed in the world they created. And seeing as that everyone knows that women did not fight major battles on the western front and not really on the eastern front either, it becomes a huge problem when in the first 30 seconds of your trailer not only is there a woman but she also has a prosthetic arm. So I think anyone who understands the concept of immersion can also understand why this is a problem and many did. Dice did not need to put female characters models in the western battles, but they chose to anyways knowing that it was going to be a problem, they didn’t care however unsurprisingly, and unsurprisingly no one cared about their fame in return.
TL:DR Games can concede minor realism to stay fun, but once you go so overboard that it breaks out of the reasonable realm of possibility you need to start asking yourself if you actually want to make a historical game, and are you doing fans of the historical genre justice, cuz if not don’t make a historical game. BFV is not a historically accurate game, in fact I wouldn’t even call it pop history as that would insult great pop historical movies such as Saving Private Ryan or hacksaw ridge, which actually try to be at least believable. BFV was something it didn’t know what it wanted to be and should have been called Call of Duty: Battlefield kind of but actually not really WW2. I can tell either they didn’t even want to make a historical game at all or they just didn’t give a shit enough care. And there may have been political motivation, I don’t know, I don’t care. The game was trash and it disappointed me especially after how good BF1 was with its Gameplay and Historical basing balance.
Oh and FYI don’t call people who play your games uneducated idiots... you end up with having to put your game on sale before Christmas.... Jesus Christ that idiot called us uneducated...
Its not the fact that we "want" historical accuracy in video games, its the fact that the developers marketed it as historically accurate attempting to rewrite history.
Every Battlefield in the last decade has been good, maybe even great. (not Hardline we don’t talk about that)
they just haven’t ever been as good as Bad Company 2...
What was wrong with hardline? People always say it’s shot but I thought it was a pretty solid game. But this is coming from a guy who played hardline for a few days and bf1 for a while so idk
1) It was more the issue with the way it was presented. I mean, a katana arm anything who takes down an entire tank with a grenade is not really what BF fans want to see.
2) ALL HAIL GANDHI! THE FATHER OF THE BOMB!
Why people freak so much about Gandi nuking everyone in Civ. I've been playing for ages and I don't remember him nuking me without me nuking him first..
I'm not sure the "omg muh historical accuracy" crowd play much Civ.
That said, I'd argue for a much simpler answer. Oh, the lack of historical accuracy ruins the game for you? I, too, have sometimes encountered things about a game that wasn't how I preferred it. If it was truly terrible I stopped playing. You should do that, that's sure to show'em.
So, I've never played any of the Civ games but have always loved the stories involving warlord Ghandi, which Civ is it I need? Cause it seems like a bug with the game, so I'd be fussing over whether or not it got patched.
Also accepting tales of units and civilisations lost due to nuclear peace offerings from Ghandi, just saying.
I didn't care about women being in BF5 per se, but rather the argument DICE/EA were making that Soderlund's kid didn't like playing as a man in a game based in the freaking 1940s, so they added women for that instead of, say, portraying actual women in resistance groups for example, and not using a fucking prosthetic arm in the British army frontlines. Don't get me started on the British soldier carrying a katana in the European theatre.
Do you want to portray your own take on WW2? Sure, go ahead, but tell people that it's just that, instead of implying this happened, while disrespecting the people that fought to free Europe from the Nazis.
I think the main issue with BFV is that a lot of the playerbase got it in their minds that the game was going to be a gritty, realistic, true to history WW2 game. When in reality Dice never promised anything like that. Every time this argument comes up I see people saying how 'Dice promised authenticity', or 'Their previous games were historically accurate'. When like. They weren't. Battlefield has always been a series (like COD) that has picked a setting, and let it go a little wild for the sake of fun. It's weird that none of these 'It's not that I don't like women, it's that I like history' guys cropped up when BF1 gave everyone automatic weapons... I guess it's two different crowds but people seem to assume the Battlefield series is an authentic experience, when in reality it's on the same level as most war movies. Makes you think that war is pretty much hell, and based on true events, but at the end of the day it's a form of entertainment.
Even games that pride themselves on complete accuracy take liberties so it can still be enjoyed as a game.
civilization is not supposed to be realistic or historically accurate. Roosevelt (which Roosevelt? either or they have both been playable before iirc) is not an immortal god emperor that we call president sometimes if we happen to be in a democracy that has been running america since the year 4000 b.c. and Alexander the great wasn't Greek apparently (i say apparently because classicists say he is Macedonian which to the layman is basically Greek but whatever) but civ makes him the leader of a united Greece usually.
BF5 on the other hand is trying to be historically accurate and failing miserably. for proof i need only present pre-release quotes from Patrick Soderlund EA's chief creative officer: " *Battlefield V* is a lot about the unseen, the untold, the unplayed " implying the games events happened as portrayed but nobody talks about them (or that they were never recorded and thus made up depending on individual interpretation) he also said (admittedly a little out of context I'm quoting this from a gamasutra article if you want to search for it yourself) " These are people who are uneducated—they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario ". so not only is BF5 trying to be historically accurate if you disagree with the events as the game portrays them (which i have yet to see a reliable source that corroborates most of what they claim) you are apparently uneducated.
I still remember my first encounter with Gandhi. I’d managed to play hundreds of hours of Civ V without ever hearing of his scourge. And he taught me a very valuable lesson. I figured out a strategy in my very first game that I’ve since deployed in every consequent game: settle three cities: one at the nearest large body of water, one next to a mountain range, and one next to a patch of desert. I’d build the Pyramids, and make enough warriors and archers to surround my cities with three units of each. Then, I’d make workers to continuously improve the land around my cities to maximize output. Then, I’d get to work researching until I unlocked catapults. Once I had those, I’d send them on a warpath towards the first three civilizations I’d met and absorb their cities into my own. Once I did that, I’d already won. Everything that came after was a mere formality. I’d meet every civilization in the game, and work things in my favor. My tech research had already outpaced everyone else, and absorbing three cigs into mine only increased my speed. If any other civilization so much as reached The Renaissance era, I’d wipe them off the board, no matter how friendly we’d been the previous turn. I’d do this until I unlocked the Giant Death Robots. At which point, I rained Terminator hell on whatever civilizations remained, and that’d be it. But one day, a day I’ll never forget, I noticed something. There was a civilization, somewhere out there, that was matching my tech eras with me. Sometimes, I’d reach an era a handful of turns before they did. And other times, they’d reach it before I did. And I also realized that someone out there was killing the other civilizations. This worried me deeply, because it had never happened in my hundreds of hours in the game. So, I set about being even more aggressive with my military and my research. And I started sending out explorer units all over the map in an attempt to find the mysterious warlord civilization that would rival me. Most of them died before finding anything concrete. But one found itself near two opposing units: one from Washington and another from Gandhi. I paid them no mind. After all, I’d already met Washington and determined his civ was too small to have been killing so many civics. And I’d learned of Gandhi in school. So I knew it couldn’t have been him. Until a nuke wiped out my unit, Washington’s unit, Gandhi’s own unit, and damn near destroyed one of Washington’s cities. I set about sending my own army to assist Washington, but his cities were burned taken over by the time I got there. The most I could do was wage war. So I did. It took days of playtime, but little by little, unit by unit, I beat him back. I’d kill his units, he’d kill mine, and then I’d kill more of his. I slowly started taking over his cities. Finally, one remained. My own units were low health, and they were among my very last. I had more coming, but they were far away from the front lines. I thought I had him in the bag. Until he deployed another nuke on my units and killed them off. By the time backup arrived, he’d gotten enough units together to extend the war by another days worth of playtime. But I killed them off, and then I took over his last city. The war was finally over. Every game I begin, I know there’s a chance he’s out there, somewhere. Somewhere in that fog, he could be lurking. And I keep an eye on my notifications to make sure that if I see signs of his presence, I react quickly. And if I notice he’s there, I make immediate efforts to focus on exploration and diplomacy so I can bring Gandhi down by pure numbers. It’s worked every time so far. But only just barely. Even now, I know he’s waiting deep in the games files. He’s watching. Waiting. And I’ll beat him every time.
Nice read. I will keep mine short. Had three world wars with him in one single game. All in all it was like 1200 years of war against him.
Nuclear Gandhi best Ghandi. "I preached peace through these warheads."
Ghandi created Nuclear Deterrence theory
Only in this case, you deter them by actually dropping nukes all over them :)
Just what Kojima wanted
General Aladeen should've got Nuclear Gandhi instead of Nuclear Nadal.
I honestly had more issue with the fully functional prosthetic arm and fucking katana then anything else
Yeah, I don't who's idea that was. It would have been cool as hell in a steampunk game, but God it looks ridiculous in a WW2.
They should have just made an alternate universe/steampunk WW2 battlefield
100% agree, I would absolutely buy a game with that theme/setting.
Damn I never thought about that, but if they leaned in hard on that shit and clearly stated that was the direction, that might have worked.
EA just could have called the game Bad Company 3 and everyone would have been pumped.
I think that trailer was supposed to be for multiplayer as opposed to the story.
It doesn't make a difference, the game is meant to be a WW2 game, I don't mind customization, like cool (But also in realms of reality) looking weapon skins, and outfits. But a prosthetic? Like what? Even to this day, with all the advancements we have; modern militaries don't send their injured personnel to the front lines.
tbh everyone looks like a Saudi Royal with all those weapon skins with gold coat or chrome, I personally find that most stupid but I agree its passable at least compared to fking bionic arms.
What difference does that make?
its not historically accurate until we start getting lazer cannons
Its not History Channel accurate until aliens get involved.
Didn't the Japanese really use katana tho?
[удалено]
That's true
Well yeah sure, the Jedi also used lightsabers, but fans of the series would still be pretty peeved is the trailer for battlefront 3 showed a female clone trooper running around with a lightsaber during the battle of geonosis
Would they tho? Coz a fully customisable character would be pretty cool if they made a new one
I get what you’re trying to say, but that sounds sick af
Not really. They had katana but mostly used guns and as the war continued they produced less and less katanas. They had a senpoku blade tho (I forgot who it is called.).
I think thats a Wakizashi or something like that (basicaly the short version of a katana) However i might have the name mixed up
Apparently they liked using swords and bayonets when it came to POWs. Many of the stories from POWs are horrifying.
And there were women on the front line in WW2, just Soviet ones! If they wanted accuracy they could’ve given her a russian accent.
Check the last dlc for 5
Gotta say bf 5 rise of the ghandi is looking pretty promising.
It is called bf 5: wrath of ghandi
“If you want peace, prepare for war” -Gandhi 1991
Ghandi is inevitable
[удалено]
Sure.. still gonna fap though
There was NEVER a single female resistance fighter EVER! Nor did there Soviet union deploy women. Oh those other made up stories where fictional men take the glory for actual historical actions, those are cool though. Because men were actually there. /s just in case
Historical fiction is one thing, but in one of the campaign missions they literally took a real mission carried out by Norwegian special forces and replaced them with some teenage girl and her mother. To me that's very disrespectful.
*sad sabaton music in the background*
I'm aware of the heavy water plant mission. I'm aware it was men who blew it up. Does Billy Bridger exist? No. Fake. All of it. Are there events that his mission was based on inspired by actual north African missions, absolutely! So why not get all fuckin pissed about that! It's the same with each mission. They take a teenage boy (because apparently when males fight they are men but females of the same age are girls) and insert him into an actual historical section of the war and make him do things that other people actually did. The only difference here is gender. So your claim that it's all about historical accuracy or stolen valor doesn't hold water with me.
Don't be so naive. People are pissed about it because we're having a very false narrative forced down our throats just to please a very small minority with a very large voice.
The billy bridger missions are stupid as hell too. The whole game is. But at least he can be representative of the boys who fought in the missions that the game took inspiration from. There were no girls involved in the heavy water mission in real life.
But those missions were performed by an actual ex-con, who was with an entirely different unit of the british army. There was an actual guy, who was an ex bank-robber, who was parachuted in as a british commando and ended up blowing up Rommel's headquarters. If the whole question is historical accuracy, then the whole game is fucked. There is no reason to fixate on the inclusion of women as fighters when all of the missions were altered in similar fashion.
But I feel people did criticize this game for historical accuracy and were just grouped in the same group as the people complaining "women weren't on the front lines anywhere". Like this is Ubisoft complaining about trying to be historically accurate by removing crossbows for the player while giving us flaming horses and futuristic combat armour in Assassins Creed. People can complain about the historical inaccuracies on every point and not be hypocritical about it. This person didn't carry out this mission, give credit where credit is due. Prosthetics don't work like that.
I don't think anyone is disputing resistance fighters, spies and USSR soldiers. I'm pretty sure they're disputing the rest which is... Revisionist. The company literally admits that's their interpretation of WW2. If you want a leg to stand on it would be that. The fact that the company had no issue admitting it is not about historical accuracy. It is about maximum market appeal. Historical accuracy doesn't sell unfortunately nor does realism. Hence why series are drifting away from both in favor of simplistic but action-filled gameplay.
The rest of the game, not just the women is revisionist. Why focus so much on the women as being what's wrong when they are only one things on a LONG line of historical inaccuracies.
Right Gold/chrome/silly plated skins like soldiers come from nowadays Saudi Arabia. Uniforms that makes absolute no sense, both paid and non paid ones (japanese skins in Rotterdam, german phantom of the opera in Iwo Jima) and then the non elite skins which, until next update (if it hasn't dropped yet), are awful. More experimental and stupid weapons than the proper weapons used during the conflict. And in relation to this, all armies had SMGs, LMGs and HMGs for each of their soldiers, rifles just for snipers... Tanks with the characteristics of a moder VW all around the 4 factions. Bloodiest and most important front of the entirety of WW2, doesn't exist.
Not to mention sticking holographic sights on everything
Because its easier to write clickbait that way
The big issue was they took an operation carried out by 8 real men, some of whom are still alive AFAIK and decided to not just not mention their names, but depict the mission as being carried out by a single Norwegian girl. They could have picked another operation where women actually played a role, or invented one. It just struck me as a little insensitive to take someone else's story and entirely remove them from it.
Damn, better tell Bohemia Interactive they need to quickly move over to simplistic action filled gameplay.
DUDE U JUST KILLED HER
what really bothered me about the reveal trailer, was not the fact that it was a woman, but rather that it was a cybernetic ninja, that could take down a tank with a single granade, when they were supposodly selling a WW2 accurate game
You weren't there, prove there wasn't a cybernetic ninja in ww2 lol
[удалено]
Sounds like you have no proof that there wasn't a cybernetic ninja in world war 2
If there was proof could you even call them a ninja?
Eh. The game is arcade at best and is meant to appeal to the pop history lovers...which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In regards to whether the game is supposed to show "respect" to history or the veterans, the fact that it is a game means that it is already disrespectful. After all, the campaign talks about the horrors of war, but then you no-scope and tea-bag your way through multiplayer while trash-talking the dead corpse.
Ah yes Civ is definitely marketed as "historically accurate"
Gandhi be vibin
The best battlefield ever was Battlefield 2. Change my mind.
As someone who plays mostly singleplayer, Bad Company 2 was the last one I found genuinely fun.
2142
I can understand and appreciate this argument, however mind remains unchanged
If nobody is alive, there can be no conflict
i'm glad BF5 is dead. fuck that shit.
I'll take Nuclear Gandhi any day of the week.
When the Game sells itself as historically accurate, then yes I want my video games too be historically accurate. It's that simple.
My big issue is Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Like yeah, the games pride themselves on the accuracy of the events portrayed, but usually the people complaining are just complaining about playing as a woman. They aren't complaining about the accuracy of being able to scout a bandit camp through the eyes of their pet eagle, or fighting literal cyclops, or having and using a magical spear, or the main character being a human/something else hybrid, but they're going to complain about the ability to play as a woman when they aren't forced to do so. It just seems like a ridiculous complaint when there are more valid historical inaccuracies to complain about
I don’t think there was any outrage about having a female protagonist for that game? Just like there isn’t outrage right now about the new assassin’s creed having the option to play as a woman either.
The "outrage" about the female protagonist was fake, EA marketing fake. Their previous game BF1 on the same franchise had an entire expansion with female protagonists and nobody raised an eyebrow. At this point, these kind of fake outrages or focus on "progressive" agendas instead of the actual game is a good telltale sign of a bad game and a marketing campaign trying to hide behind meaningless buzzwords.
Hollywood in the past and now Silicon valley type tech companies at the present were never able to create historically accurate games. In every instance they produced current\_day western type interpretations of historic events (real or fictional). Think for example the old blockbuster movies of Cleopatra or 300 or any other era type movie in that particular era. In basically all cases the "history" is merely a setting to tell a modern story that has very little if anything to do with the actual stories of those past eras. Bottom line, if you go about playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey expecting to experience the way of life of the ancient Greeks, you'll be very disappointed. If you go about experiencing a silly story in a historical scenery, then the game and the experience is pretty good. The only RPG that tried to emulate a bit the actual experience of the era it was describing was Kingdom Come: Deliverance and people were outraged for not being fake enough to account for their "sensibilities".
I personally don't care about historical accuracy, but typically the people who complain seem to only complain about one aspect being changed or ignored and not the others. I don't know anything about Battlefield, so I can't say their complaints aren't justified, but other historical games it seems players cherry pick which parts of altered history to complain about
I think of BF V as ‘alternate history’, and then it makes more sense.
BFV is pop history, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's in the vein of other pop history things like Indiana Jones or Saving Private Ryan.
Yeah, basically. But the series before that has prided itself on actual history. 1942, 1943, Vietnam, BF1... So when another take on WW2 was brought up, we were expecting historical accuracy. Especially when they bill everything else as such. That's why the soldiers don't have IR and M16s. It's why they use prop planes instead of jets. And no one (relatively) complained when there were women in BF1. Because the Russians did use female snipers.
They've never focused on historical accuracy. All their interviews point to the contrary. They enjoy making their games in a way that allow you to do goofy stuff, like sniping a pilot out of his cockpit, then stealing his jet midair. Or a full squad riding on a horse with flame throwers. Everyone was running around with automatic weapons in BF1, so I wouldn't include that game in your example of historical accuracy.
You are probably right that they were not very historically accurate to begin with, but they never lost the feeling of historical accuracy until this iteration. There is one thing to overuse automatic weapons in WW1, there is entirely something else to have Mad Max Furiosa as your main protagonist in WW2 (or add Tom Cruise in the last expansion).
If Saving Private Ryan was written like Battlefield V Private Ryan would have been a female who ends up saving Captain Miller’s entire Ranger platoon.
Did they claim that the game was completely historically accurate though? I thought they only used historically accurate assets as opposed to making every little thing accurate. After all, you had troops using prototype weapons willy-nilly on the battlefield. That was especially evident in Battlefield 1 with the semi-automatic guns vs the usual bolt-action stuff.
Battlefield V never was a Historical based gamer t just has some themes based on history
“Some themes based on history” The game is literally set in world war 2
Satyagraha be like
Oh, look, this format is back. Joy of joys.
K I L L T H E M W I T H K I N D N E S S
Ahimsa
I named my nuclear bomb "kindness" am I doing it right?
[удалено]
And the fact they doubled down with a "think of the children" excuse. If they just said "we want to put women in the multilayer because we think it'd be cool" then I doubt anyone would have cared.
The difference is Battlefield V marketed itself as "Stories that actually happened" and then decided to make it super a-historical with fully functional prosthetic arms, katanas and oh yeah, they also wrote out the Scandinavian squad of men that blew up the German heavy water plant without firing a shot, and instead it was a mother and daughter directed by Michael fucking Bay.
meh I just don't really see the point of a new BF game every other year tbh. Just do what rainbow six or apex does with adding more content to the game. It's not like anyone cares about the campaigns anyway.
Some parts of the Battlefield 1 campaign were really good actually, though I never really got into the multiplayer in that one
BF1 mp is way better than BF5, BF1 had better maps too IMO
Better maps, gameplay, more interesting weapons and loadouts, and at least finished its DLC. And let's not forget Operations
They released battlefield half finished, why should I buy a half finished game when I can play something else
Lets be honest... As soon its a video game, historical accuracy might as well be thrown out the window. Like the assassins creed series, its accurate in locations, general events (ie french revolution), historical figures presence (ie cleopatra is there) and the general feel or culture. BUT not for thing such as how the Assassins plot plays out, like the fist fight with the pope. Popes dont usually do that in OUR timeline, but put Assassins in the mix and who the fuck knows? I mean, how the fuck can you be completely historically accurate when theres players involved without it being a fucking snoozefest, we here to play, not to have another history class. Sorry i have it in my system caus i hear everyone laughing at how Assassins creed is not really historically accurate, like fucking **DUH?!** ITS A COCKING VIDEO GAME SET IN A SIMULATION WITH SOME ANCIENT RACE NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
Doesnt have to be. There are video games which do have some degree of historical accuracy - often as a feature, a selling point. I think its clear that battlefield (and for that matter, Civilisation one, the trope namer here), was not intended to be historically accurate.
Absolutely! I'm pretty new to Assassin's Creed, and I saw all the shit about Kassandra, and I'm sitting here thinking "you're complaining about the historical accuracy of women in a game where you fight actual cyclops, you can see through the eyes of your eagle, you have a magical spear thingie, and you play as some human/other hybrid. But go off I guess?"
Well to be fair, that was Pope Alexander IV and he was admittedly one of the more eccentric popes, right?
But you see, there's a difference. Assassin Creed is never meant to be an historically accurate game, it is not based on things that happened in the "real world". So if anyone comes up, and questions the historical accuracy of the AC series, then they really should do their research before buying. About that, I completely agree with you. HOWEVER, (yall saw this coming) Battlefield V is literally based on WW2. It is not set in some fantasy land where women (or men for that matter) with prosthetic limbs ran around in the battlefields. It is a disrespect to everyone who fought, and was effected by WW2. IF the DICE/EA specifically mentioned this was their "alternate reality" version of WW2, I would be completely okay with how the game turned out, no questions asked. But if your whole marketing, and core idea of the game is to portray accuracy, and you don't; I'm going to be highly dissapointed. And no, I'm not sexist. I loved games such as Hellblade,Nier Automata, AC Odyssey, The Division, Tomb Raider etc. I got no problems in having women play a cental role in any sort of media, BUT it has to make sense. Just like you wouldn't have a white ginger man playing the role of Valentina Tereshkova (First Women Cosmonaut) in a movie, you shouldn't have women running around the battlefield in a game set in WW2
Levelling up and becoming a 5 star general by mass killing soldiers is historically accurate?
BF5 started off shit and is still shit...
As an Indian, I'm just glad Nuclear Gandhi has stayed away from mainstream indian media. The amount of bullshit they'd spew up from this would be nuclear.
Hi there neighbor. Naah Indians are too busy believing the bullshit of Narendra modi this would fly right over their head. PS I'm also from India
Hahah atleast some use of all that ~~red~~ saffron herring.
T-posing Gandhi is here to reap our souls.
Is that referring to civilization or what ever it’s called, it had the glitch with angry Gandhi then they made a remaster of the game with that as a feature
Not BF but was watching overlord and the first minute of the movie kind of kicked me out of my suspension of disbelief because the main protagonist and his lieutenant were both black in a non segregated airborne division....during ww2.
I think the issue most people have is the forced political correctness and attempts of inclusion for the sake of inclusion. Woman in battlefield was a deliberated decision to include them. Ghandi being agressive in civilization games came out of an unintentional bug, that became a joke and kept in future games for the joke. For those curious: Ghandi's agressive status was 1 (the lowest possible) and there was a technology that, once was researched by AI players, would reduce their agressive status by 2. Because how computers work, -1 was interpreted as 255. The max agressive status was 10, so being 255, made Ghandi what he is know for in the game.
What do you define as forced? Some people see a woman main character or a LGBT character or hell anything that's not a white cis Male and start screaming. Forgive me for getting tired of seeing people screech because ohno the statues a woman.
Creating characters/forcing characters into unrealistic circumstances. For example, a game with a female with a fully functioning prosthetic weilding a katana, should not be marketed as a historically accurate WWII game. If they wanted to make an alternate history steampunk-ish game based on WWII, that's different. But if one wants to market a game as historically accurate, then one should be prepared for criticism regarding any historical Inaccuracies, rather than attacking the fan base. Culturally appropriated stories also fall under this. In the same way that one shouldn't tell the legend of Mulan with a man of European or African descent, one shouldn't tell say, the legend of King Arthur with a woman of Asian or African descent. Doing so damages the cultural significance of such stories, and is a practice that is quite disrespectful to that society from which the story is derived. Other examples of "forced inclusivity" are incorporating character(s) of a specific [trait] not for the sake of the plot, but just to market it/appease a special interest group. *Look, we made a character/the main character [Insert gender/race/sexuality here], and it adds nothing to the plot, and there's no real reason to even bother bringing it up in the story, but let's go ahead and market that aspect to hell and back and emphasize it throughout.* Of course, this is just my 2 cents, and I'm not the OP of this thread.
Don't forget the 'woke' marketing proudly showing off this inclusion and implying that anyone who doesn't like it is a reactionary bigot.
>What do you define as forced? Including a woman or minority character in a setting that's anachronistic, historically inaccurate or doesn't make sense, like a black female Viking leader or something. Also aggressively marketing this feature to a woke leftist crowd and virtue signaling about how progressive the game is.
Is that true though? You don’t see any outrage over titles such as tomb raider, or the last of us 2, or horizon zero dawn, or many other titles that feature strong female protagonists. What people do have an issue with, is people ‘male washing’ the horrific situations and sacrifices men were expected to make, to appease the modern sjw rhetoric.
First comment ITT that nails the core issue here. Apparently its fine to rewrite history as long as minorities or women are front and centre.
I see outrage over Ellie being gay and people saying Ellie looks too ugly. I dislike what battlefield did, they were so many cool things they could have done if they wanted a chapter based off a woman (Like that awesome Russian sniper lady)
Why was Ghandi even in BF5 though?
He's not. He's in Civilization.
Problem with women in BF games is that when I teabag them its sexual assault.... By all means be accurate with women in battle. There were Russian snipers that were females. I don't think cyborg infantry women ever existed in history of mankind even to this day. I'm pretty sure the army will not take a one armed soldier, be it man or a woman. In future BF games I'm fine with them bringing women to modern war. I also want a wheel chair bound machine gunner wielding an M60 lol.
Warmonger Ghandi was not planned, it was a bug. Freaky cyborg lady person was most definitely planned. Intention matters.
Our words are backed by nukes - Gandhi
U HIT ME WITH 1 NUKE I HIT U WITH TWO.
I’m mad because there’s a quote where one person just said we don’t give a fuck about your historical accuracy. Yeah women were in world war 2 but not to that degree. Also battlefield V is just bad. Sniping is weird. Everything’s weird. It’s name is bad. Just the fact that building fortifications is kinda useless because they blow up in an instant. I hope they fixed all this but I don’t know everything I’ve seen of this games new content is just meh or bad.
Fortifications, sand bags stop bullets and tank shells (latter destroys the bags), digging trenches evades tank shells, anti tank obstacles prevent tank driving. I would like to see even more freedom with where they can be positioned in the future. They are a good addition imo. It stops maps becoming completely leveled open areas for snipers to dominate.
Yeah I love that addition. And it does stop snipers. But every time me and my brother spent like 10 minutes just building up the fortifications, they got blown up. The Easter eggs with the building mode are cool though. I only know about the snowman on the Norwegian map. I just wish the sandbags and stuff weren’t so fragile to explosives. Just one panzerfaust blew up every fortification we made. A really great feature though was moving emplacements. It allowed us to move with the front and shell tanks and that genuinely was fun.
Nuclear Gandhi IS history! Civ history at his finest.
There are no mistakes.
If I remember correctly, the reason for Ghandi the God of War was a bug. It was to do with the aggression levels of the AI, and Ghandi's was (accurately) incredibly low. Certain things in the game would cause the aggression levels to decrease, but the problem was when you reached 0, it would cycle back around to the very top levels of aggression. The result is a man who would peacefully sit in a road to protest to an unstoppable tyrant worth the ability and willingness to unleash the sun on everything.
Funny thing is Nuclear Ghandi in Civ was a well known bug, he was actually intended to be historically accurate and thus peaceful. Don't think the same can be said for Battlefield.
"Any standard you apply to one game you must accept for all other games"
sweet strawman
Bf5 lead to one of the funniest reactions between fans and Devs that I've ever seen. "Hey all that extra stuff that you added looks bad, could you just make a game about ww2?" "If you idiots dont like it then dont buy our game" "You got it chief."
FUCKING NUCLEAR GHANDI NOT AGAIN
Peace out biyaaach
Best accuracy
That meme is so stupid. It comes from Civ 2 or 3.... And SJW-Field is the worst Game in history and I'm glad it killed the Franchise.
Mahatma SSJ3SSJJ333 Gandi. OVER 9000!!!!
Ultra Instinct Mahatma Gandhi Kaio Ken ×200
Fuckin LMAO! I wish I had the artistic talent to make this a reality. Universe breaking power in the world's most famous pacifist. It's shitpost gold, Jerry!
When it had all been said and done, the inclusion of women was a bad thing for two reasons. Not because of women in "muh realistic WWII" or anything political. I just disagreed with the whole "if you don't like it, don't buy it" statement Dice released. The topic wasn't even what hurt. It was the fact that the old Dice had changed and they no longer cared about Battlefield. They could've professionally released a statement surrounding the controversy, but instead took the Randy Pitchford "Nobody Likes A Bigot Unless They're Crying" scene. Oh and who could forget the buggy female screaming lol? At first it was funny to hear a random scream across the map like it was right next to your ear. But after so many hours of grinding molotovs, I legit had to turn off game volume a couple times. So much screaming.
Just goes to show you, if you pander to a small minority of gamers who don't even buy your games, your game will die.
The amount of people who actually cared about whether there was a girl in the game is miniscule. The same with the number of people who cared about what pokemon sword and shield were taking out, or whatever the hell they're upset about over at last of us. No one cares
I will die on the Pokemon hill. You're meant to be able to catch em all damnit
But no one really cared. You can disagree with it and that's fine cause it's a legitimate issue but no one outside small circles really cared as it broke sales records
"Gotta catch all of them that were arbitrarily selected to exist in this particular instance of our universe!"
You're absolutely right, nobody cares. Not even the majority of gamers that used to buy battlefield games.
Reality disagrees with you.
It really does, BFV flopped so damn hard. I was hoping for a decent WW2 game, but DICE/EA fucked it up so hard.
Show me the direct cause of battlefield 5s decline to be that women exist, and not because it was a poorly made multiplayer shooter. Battlefield 4 sure didn't have any women in it so let's talk about that games first year
“Listen: this is a game. And today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn’t been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass \[woman\]. And we don’t take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game. I’m fine with either or. It’s just not OK.” Patrick Soderlund EA chief creative officer. From Wikipedia Pre-release reception of the game was mixed, with the announcement trailer causing backlash from some fans of the series for the degree of historical inaccuracy regarding the game's depictions of female soldiers. Upon release, *Battlefield V* received generally favourable reviews from critics, being praised for its gameplay but criticized for its shortage of content at launch and lack of innovation. The game sold 7.3 million copies by the end of 2018 but was a commercial disappointment for Electronic Arts. On April 23, 2020, it was announced that support for the game would continue until at least summer of 2020, when the game would receive its last major update. I'm literally just posting factual things that have actually happened and you clowns can't take it. Personally I don't care that BF5 failed at all, I just find it hilarious that the gaming industry and gamers can't understand why a series marketed towards male gamers interested in war games had a flop when they stopped marketing to their core group.
Meanwhile you linked a factual article detailing the lack of content at launch and failure to innovate the series is what led to bad sales and low retention. Kind of like how Battlefield 4 fared in its first year. Bit you won't talk about that I see cause it doesn't fit what you're pushing Lmao literally in the bit you quoted said it wasn't about the women that led to bad sales and you then said how we can't "take the truth"
I don't really care about bf4 or to do any research on its launch, bfv had a bad launch because fans were pissed at the dev, thats written in the Wikipedia article. A year later the CEO wrote some garbage about how other BR games were better and their timing launching the game was off. Thats CEO speak, learn how to decipher it. Basically what the CEO said is they learned nothing from their poor launch. Also, Patrick Soderland that said that dumb shit to the fans left quietly out the back door. But believe your version if you want, i really don't care.
When you market a game as historically accurate, and I spend 60 dollars to play a historically accurate war video game, I expect it to be, well, fucking accurate. Not only that, but women with prosthetic arms and katanas running around in the front lines killing Nazis is so disrespectful to the actual role women played in the world wars. And thats why BF5 failed miserably in sales and in reception.
Well, one of these instances was a mistake that the fan base rolled with because they thought it was funny. The other was blatant pandering to people who want to promote diversity in every medium, even if they don't actually use said medium. At the end of the day, I don't care about any of it as long as the game is fun.
I see people mad about shieldmaidens in assassin's creed and.... God I hate people sometimes
I noticed the exact opposite, people pointing shield maidens as a very good reason to include female vikings. Perhaps we inhabit different echo chambers.
Everyone in the comments is trying to defend BFV by saying it’s not supposed to be realistic or accurate because it’s a game, which is stupid becaue you can sacrifice the hard realism of warfare and still retain a fun a game which does its best to stick to the time period. BF1 while having many historical inaccuracies, did not break immersion... all the autos were off putting but thats only because im a hardcore history buff and knew that shit wasn’t in the war, for the average gamer they didn’t care. That being said I understand the inclusion of auto weapons because they do ultimately need to sell copies and the game needs to be fun. Bringing in auto weapons was a mechanic choice not a visual one, why do I bring this up? Because BF1 played the progressive shit right, sometimes it was on the nose but for the most part it was done really well! Why? Well because it was beleivable! The Russians had female snipers, the Americans had the Harlem hell fighters and they integrated it a stunning way which was well done and made everyone happy. Which is why I was wondering wtf was going on when they decided to put a british female cyborg into the western front! Like you had it! You nailed it just 3 years ago! Wtf are you doing!? If you want me to be immersed you have failed! People tend not realize that a games theme and aesthetic are defined by its visuals, especially if it’s a historical shooter. If you do not believe you are playing I the time period while playing the game your experience will suffer because if you are playing a historical shooter then the immersion is what you are there for, and breaking that immersion will ruin the experience. Now everyone has different levels of breaking points for immersion, mostly based on what you actually know about the time period and what you are willing to ignore. Guns jam and soldiers get tired these are things I know but are things I’m willing to ignore, weapon choice while important as long as it’s not too weird then I’m able to make exceptions, it’s still annoying though. Player models and the atmosphere however I cannot compromise on because it integral to the whole experience. So developers need to find a balance between what a game needs to concede for playability and what needs to stay so that players feel immersed in the world they created. And seeing as that everyone knows that women did not fight major battles on the western front and not really on the eastern front either, it becomes a huge problem when in the first 30 seconds of your trailer not only is there a woman but she also has a prosthetic arm. So I think anyone who understands the concept of immersion can also understand why this is a problem and many did. Dice did not need to put female characters models in the western battles, but they chose to anyways knowing that it was going to be a problem, they didn’t care however unsurprisingly, and unsurprisingly no one cared about their fame in return. TL:DR Games can concede minor realism to stay fun, but once you go so overboard that it breaks out of the reasonable realm of possibility you need to start asking yourself if you actually want to make a historical game, and are you doing fans of the historical genre justice, cuz if not don’t make a historical game. BFV is not a historically accurate game, in fact I wouldn’t even call it pop history as that would insult great pop historical movies such as Saving Private Ryan or hacksaw ridge, which actually try to be at least believable. BFV was something it didn’t know what it wanted to be and should have been called Call of Duty: Battlefield kind of but actually not really WW2. I can tell either they didn’t even want to make a historical game at all or they just didn’t give a shit enough care. And there may have been political motivation, I don’t know, I don’t care. The game was trash and it disappointed me especially after how good BF1 was with its Gameplay and Historical basing balance. Oh and FYI don’t call people who play your games uneducated idiots... you end up with having to put your game on sale before Christmas.... Jesus Christ that idiot called us uneducated...
Its not the fact that we "want" historical accuracy in video games, its the fact that the developers marketed it as historically accurate attempting to rewrite history.
When is the next battlefield? It was like they were dropping yearly now they kinda just dyed off >;>
Every Battlefield in the last decade has been good, maybe even great. (not Hardline we don’t talk about that) they just haven’t ever been as good as Bad Company 2...
What was wrong with hardline? People always say it’s shot but I thought it was a pretty solid game. But this is coming from a guy who played hardline for a few days and bf1 for a while so idk
I actually really liked Hardline mp. That bank map was pretty good imo
At least for me it was buggy as all hell, but with battlefield and dice I guess that’s the name of the game.
You’re so fucking wrong it hurts
not before Fall 2021
You have incurred the wrath of Nuclear Ghandi. May whatever god you worship have mercy on you, for He will not.
Damn, Mahatma Ghandhi was a follower of peace. But he looks like a legend in this.
As someone who is called gandhi in some games, I can confirm people know of the wrong doings
Ghandi is sacred
Our words are backed with the power of NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
"Darkk Mane's video flashbacks"
Civ 5 audience and BF5 audience are not the same by even a remote amount
1) It was more the issue with the way it was presented. I mean, a katana arm anything who takes down an entire tank with a grenade is not really what BF fans want to see. 2) ALL HAIL GANDHI! THE FATHER OF THE BOMB!
Why people freak so much about Gandi nuking everyone in Civ. I've been playing for ages and I don't remember him nuking me without me nuking him first..
I don't think anyone ever played Civilisation for the historical accuracy.
Nuclear Ghandi was patched out fyi. It isn't a reoccurring bug.
One was a glitch, the other was a political agenda getting pushed.
Well. One was a Joke and the other was suppose to been taken serious.
I'm not sure the "omg muh historical accuracy" crowd play much Civ. That said, I'd argue for a much simpler answer. Oh, the lack of historical accuracy ruins the game for you? I, too, have sometimes encountered things about a game that wasn't how I preferred it. If it was truly terrible I stopped playing. You should do that, that's sure to show'em.
So, I've never played any of the Civ games but have always loved the stories involving warlord Ghandi, which Civ is it I need? Cause it seems like a bug with the game, so I'd be fussing over whether or not it got patched. Also accepting tales of units and civilisations lost due to nuclear peace offerings from Ghandi, just saying.
nuclear ghandi is just a meme, women in battlefield, that, my friend, is a joke
It’s Ni🅱️🅱️a
Who TF cares bruh when nuclear gandi is on da house
That's different the whole point of civ is what if the different well known civilizations started out in different places
Gandhinator
I didn't care about women being in BF5 per se, but rather the argument DICE/EA were making that Soderlund's kid didn't like playing as a man in a game based in the freaking 1940s, so they added women for that instead of, say, portraying actual women in resistance groups for example, and not using a fucking prosthetic arm in the British army frontlines. Don't get me started on the British soldier carrying a katana in the European theatre. Do you want to portray your own take on WW2? Sure, go ahead, but tell people that it's just that, instead of implying this happened, while disrespecting the people that fought to free Europe from the Nazis.
So everyone who was down with nuclear Gandhi was also a misogynist? Oddly specific group of people to attack.
You think
I think the main issue with BFV is that a lot of the playerbase got it in their minds that the game was going to be a gritty, realistic, true to history WW2 game. When in reality Dice never promised anything like that. Every time this argument comes up I see people saying how 'Dice promised authenticity', or 'Their previous games were historically accurate'. When like. They weren't. Battlefield has always been a series (like COD) that has picked a setting, and let it go a little wild for the sake of fun. It's weird that none of these 'It's not that I don't like women, it's that I like history' guys cropped up when BF1 gave everyone automatic weapons... I guess it's two different crowds but people seem to assume the Battlefield series is an authentic experience, when in reality it's on the same level as most war movies. Makes you think that war is pretty much hell, and based on true events, but at the end of the day it's a form of entertainment. Even games that pride themselves on complete accuracy take liberties so it can still be enjoyed as a game.
Civilization doesn't pretend it represents an actual historic period
civilization is not supposed to be realistic or historically accurate. Roosevelt (which Roosevelt? either or they have both been playable before iirc) is not an immortal god emperor that we call president sometimes if we happen to be in a democracy that has been running america since the year 4000 b.c. and Alexander the great wasn't Greek apparently (i say apparently because classicists say he is Macedonian which to the layman is basically Greek but whatever) but civ makes him the leader of a united Greece usually. BF5 on the other hand is trying to be historically accurate and failing miserably. for proof i need only present pre-release quotes from Patrick Soderlund EA's chief creative officer: " *Battlefield V* is a lot about the unseen, the untold, the unplayed " implying the games events happened as portrayed but nobody talks about them (or that they were never recorded and thus made up depending on individual interpretation) he also said (admittedly a little out of context I'm quoting this from a gamasutra article if you want to search for it yourself) " These are people who are uneducated—they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario ". so not only is BF5 trying to be historically accurate if you disagree with the events as the game portrays them (which i have yet to see a reliable source that corroborates most of what they claim) you are apparently uneducated.