Battlefield General - Discuss the series here

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The media and marketing teams have fallen back to the typical talking points. At this point it's free marketing.

You don't hate women and player choice do you? Because thats what people are really complaining about.
bf51.jpg




And another article reframing things as a "men don't want female characters in videogames"
bfv3.jpg
 
Honestly, I feel like Saban made this Battlefield.
2odastream said:
It's a strange day when we applaud the ability to shoot women in the face in our World War II games.
Click to expand...
I'm just glad the female and the disabled are finally doing their part in the war effort. God bless.
 
Let me see... outside of partisan work, the main areas where women served that would be nearish the front lines was basically in Russia, where there was the Night Witch squadron, which was an all woman bomber unit, as well as being female tank commanders, one of whom would rally her troops with the battle cry "IF YOU CAN CATCH MY ASS, YOU CAN HAVE IT!", and female snipers, some of who would work in groups of 3, with the group being the sniper, the spotter and a woman who they'd dress in fairly worn clothes and have her wander the streets crying, to try to bait out German troops. Then again, that was in Stalingrad, so...

There were female antiaircraft gunners in Germany, but they were mainly the Hitler Youth, and this was when the Russians and the Americans were both approaching Berlin. There's a case of a 13 or 14 year old girl in command of a group of pre-teens at an AA gun who shot down an American bomber.

And promptly got gunned down by escorts.

Yes, there were plenty of female partisans, but you can't really call a partisan a front line fighter. It's not really their role.
 
Okay, here's something I've been thinking about.

I don't think in our minds the question is necessarily historical accuracy. The real problem is authenticity. It feels inauthentic for something portraying itself as serious.

Let me elaborate. I was watching Tombstone earlier. I know that factually, it plays fast and loose with the history of the Earps and the Cowboys. But the thing is, it's entertaining and it feels authentic, and I don't question or second guess the film, nor do I get pulled out of the movie (with the exception of some cheesy acting in spots which is at least fun to watch). You don't have someone clipping a laser sight to their Peacemaker or saying "Cowabunga, dude!". It goes to a respectable length to portray the 1880's Arizona setting. Tombstone gives us a very specific time and place, and we expect certain things of it.

To contrast a film that's much foggier on the fine details but still feels authentic, look at The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (Westerns make good examples for this discussion and I'm on a Western kick lately). If you want, you can nitpick little details about its Civil War era setting- various guns are out of place, and ones that did exist are depicted as cartridge conversions instead of cap-and-ball. But overall, you can buy it as illustrative of Civil War in the far Western theater bordering Mexico as that's a backdrop for the story rather than its focus. There's nothing specifically in there that's going to take most viewers out of the story.

It's that little voice in our head saying "I buy it" or "That's bullshit". BFV feels inauthentic and what we know about the game and the world it takes place in doesn't support the story it's telling us. 90% of Saving Private Ryan is fiction, but we go along with it because it feels like it's something that COULD have happened and the characters in it feel like they could have been actual soldiers even if every last one of them is made up.
 
I just think the character designs for the four primary characters featured in the trailer looks incredibly goofy. I don't mind a female soldier if she was fighting with all her limbs intact but at least keep her in a supporting role like the way they did it with the Russians in BF1. Like or dislike on whatever you had on BF1 but atleast the character designs for all the factions were top notch and a bit refrained. Also you better have Black German Soldiers in there too.
 
Zaragoza said:
I just think the character designs for the four primary characters featured in the trailer looks incredibly goofy. I don't mind a female soldier if she was fighting with all her limbs intact but at least keep her in a supporting role like the way they did it with the Russians in BF1. Like or dislike on whatever you had on BF1 but atleast the character designs for all the factions were top notch and a bit refrained. Also you better have Black German Soldiers in there too.
Click to expand...

No joke I'd play the shit out of a WW2 where the protagonist was a hot French broad fighting Nazis in the Rouen countryside.

But this game doesn't deliver on that.
 
Hey. Shitty gaming hacks who think "MUH DIVERSITY!" and "MUH STRONK WOMYN!" will magically turn the turds you create into gold?

Maybe instead of continuing this baffling fucking obsession with mary sue powered brown haired englishwomen "creative" media seems to have had for the past few years (seriously did fucking marketing tests give that specific demographic slight 0.1% trend increase or some shit?) you could have just had the female character be one of the women fighting in either the chinese communist or chinese nationalist armies.

Thus netting the coveted "WOMYN OF COLORED!" award, giving you shitcunts the "OMG SO UNDERUSED SETTING!" points you got for Battlefield 1, and actually making the game look like it might be a halfway interesting retread of the fucking WW2 shooter shit that was tired and stale before the twin towers got jewed back in 2001.

Infact how about you make a whole fucking game of this?! Polish Home Army, Chinese Army, Finnish Army, and the Chindits in Burma. Boom. You just got yourselves an interesting concept for shit that has barely ever been covered by vidya.
 
This looks like some cosplay shit that is really far from the original material. Why would you write your game in WWII setting if you clearly don't want to be authentic to it?
 
MrHoneyBadger said:
This looks like some cosplay shit that is really far from the original material. Why would you write your game in WWII setting if you clearly don't want to be authentic to it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, MGSV was a great game and part of that was Kojima never said it was supposed to be a historically accurate representation of the 1984 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I suspect EA is trying to have their cake and eat it too by trying to get the historically accurate crowd and the "yesh queen slaaaaaaaaaaaay" feminist gamer crowd that doesn't really exist.
 
Last edited:
Nazi vegeta said:
I love how they flip flop between ''it's alternate ww2!!'' and ''we care about history and being legit!''
Click to expand...
The marketing team should just say "to hell with this history screeching, we're just trying to sell another WW2 shooter". Then again we wouldn't get all this salt.
 
c-no said:
The marketing team should just say "to hell with this history screeching, we're just trying to sell another WW2 shooter". Then again we wouldn't get all this salt.
Click to expand...

It's nice when you don't even need to leave the farms to get it!

I guess there's the "no such thing as bad advertising" school of thought.
 
It's like fucking clockwork with these assholes:

"This piece of Media looks like shit and shows those in charge fundamentally do not understand their own consumerbase."

"Obviously this is because the consumerbase hates women."

Continue until Ghostbusters 2016/Mass Effect Andromeda/Disney Star Wars/Marvel Comics/Etc.
Rinse, repeat until every franchise that can be fucked into the ground in this fashion is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom