Follow TV Tropes
But massive blowback like that did sink Battlefront II.
Battlefront II however had criticism against the actual game itself and its progression system. This is mostly just people mocking their claim on "historical accuracy" when the game blatantly utilizes Rule of Cool .
I for my part will embrace the craziness, my customization goal will be a white haired cyborg woman in Waffen-SS uniform that runs a full stealth build and a Katana as melee weapon :"psst nichts Persönliches, Kindchen"
edited 25th May '18 6:16:16 AM by Kiefen
Nobody would be mocking the "craziness" if the developers made even a token effort to present it as such.
As it stands, what we got in that teaser was pretty ahistorical.
Don't half-ass it by trying to be crazy and also "accurate", go all out. People wouldn't be complaining because Battlefield has done "crazy" before, so it's nothing new.
Tons of women fought in World War 2 and Battlefield was never historically accurate anyway!◊
edited 25th May '18 9:41:18 AM by SnakeGandhi
"BLYAT CHORT CYKA PIZDA MUDAK DERRMO, FASCISTA"
I was under the belief a character who says that needs to be purple.
edited 25th May '18 6:20:26 PM by VutherA
EA didn't "Screw up". I imagine it's something like Infinite Warfare; some people "legitimately" angry, and some just disliking it because they want to for shits and giggles.
The BF V trailer alone's gotta a ways to go to meet Infinite Warfare's. BF V's got around a 50/50 split in likes and dislikes, Warfare's got 589K likes to 3.7 million dislikes.
I am just tired of these settings. I don't give how much the uber macho idiots insist that we need more boots on the ground shit rather then anything else. I liked the sci-fi settings more because they were new
Like seriously, fuck off with that. You can make FPS shooters that aren't totally boring recycled tripe. It's always the same wars.
edited 25th May '18 5:27:19 PM by Wispy
That was a rather chaotic trailer. Way too busy and doesn't really let you see what is going on. It isn't as cool as the BF 1 trailer was either.
Haven't played an FPS in years, but this is a pretty good take on the controversy.
The thing is though, cherrypicking glitches and exploits isn't hard proof. You can't claim "historical authenticty" when your trailer shows off folks in prosthetics and a goddamn katana on somebody's back. It's very over the top and you should admit it, but for some reason dropping the pretense is too scary for them.
There is quite a bit of hyperbole in the drama, but strawmanning doesn't accomplish much.
edited 26th May '18 8:06:35 AM by UltraWanker
Eh, while it's disingenuous of Dice/EA to claim any sort of historical authenticity, that's an inherent issue with the format. People play WWII-themed shooters on the fundamentally inauthentic premise that fighting in the war is somehow fun, exciting and balanced. That's why our player characters are all hardened 101st Airborne types instead of the Soviet conscripts that statistically made up the majority of combatants, why we spend all our in-game time shooting a variety of weapons at clearly-shown enemies instead of being treated for trench foot or blown up by a mine on a jammed-up supply route, and why we respond to getting shot by hiding behind a rock for a few seconds and continue mowing down the enemy and not going through weeks of excruciating surgeries before getting medically discharged, suffering from extreme trauma and night terrors and being increasingly disqualified from the workforce and cut off from society over several years before blowing our brains out.
I mean... which other war-themed games out there have an actual claim to authenticity? The original Call of Duty? Red Orchestra? Company of Heroes? Unity Of Command? Valkyria Chronicles? By turning warfare into interactive entertainment, we're already whitewashing its most fundamental aspects and accepting a deeply inauthentic portrayal of it for the sake of playability and fun. And while it's a pretty asshole move from the devs to claim authenticity, especially when there are still living vets all around the globe, I'd argue that having woad-faced cyborg women running around with cricket bats is a tiny step on the fun-realism spectrum compared to what we've come to accept over the years.
Then again, the real WWII did feature folks with prosthetics and was a decidedly shitty affair, so I think I get where the fanboys' concern is coming from.
edited 26th May '18 8:31:35 AM by eagleoftheninth
Authenticity has always been window-dressing, and I think a lot of people know this. Otherwise Kingdom Come: Deliverance would be a peasant simulator where you sleep, do some chores, shit, and repeat. There have always been Acceptable Breaks from Reality when speaking about mechanics, and honestly you can never escape such things. I still stand by what I said about gifs showcasing glitches were a strawman that doesn't help move the conversation forward. My issue isn't the game itself, rather the PR department's apparent lack of self-awareness. Bad Company did it before, why not this one too? Personally speaking, the bullshitting is the worst part of all this. Other than that, video games will remain video games. I agree that it's inherent to the medium.
edited 26th May '18 8:54:59 AM by UltraWanker
As I said, prosthetics did exist back in that time and in World War 1 and 2 (infact they existed throughout all history but thats a different topic) but they were cosmetic only. Pretty much only used to hide disfigurements from the wars. They were not fully functional replacement arms like what is depicted in the trailers. The closest they had to functional was some of the leg prosthetics and that is arguable.
edited 26th May '18 1:24:14 PM by Wispy
thgough the one the lady has is based off an actual northrop-grunman prosthetic design from way back when,
The chick with the cyborg hand and the dude with the Braveheart facepaint threw me off. I'm glad that all of the explosions and rush during that trailer threw off other people and not just me.
I've got to wonder if there is a historically accurate, or as "accurate as possible while still being playable." A game where you really aren't the badass grunt character and you tend to lose more often than not.
Surely some indie project somewhere has attempted this.
Huh, that's funny, apparently the Deluxe Edition cover has a dude as the cover art person.
Interestingly, that particular prosthetic is actually inaccurate for the WW 2 setting. The Northrop Corporation didn't establish its prosthetic division until after the war ended.
You can't really tell because it has a sleeve covering the whole arm, but it's only replacing her hand. The sleeve and shoulder piece keep in it place, and the piping has wires that actuate the grippers.
Jack Northrop famously tried to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans, during wartime he even had recuperating soldiers do small assembly jobs for his aircraft like putting together avionics and motor components. He paid them a full factory worker's salary, even though they worked from their beds in the recovery wards.
edited 26th May '18 6:44:18 PM by archonspeaks
right, but its at least obviously inspired by a real life design instead of "a scifi robot hand"
Iunno, I think that the whole controversy shows that a lot of players aren't aware of the "window dressing" aspect of video game authenticity. The marketing department did shoot itself in the foot with the authenticity claim, but by nerd-raging at the trailer, I think that the gaming community kinda betrayed its own enthrallment with the illusion of realism presented by countless video games before BFV. The CSI Effect is a very real issue with the presentation of history in the media - and I think it's also deeply dishonest for gamers to suddenly complain about authenticity without acknowledging that their perception of historical events was shaped by inauthentic works of fiction in the first place.
That GIF reel wasn't made up of glitches, btw. All showed the ways that players exploited loopholes in the game mechanic to boost their enjoyment at the expense of authenticity, which all in all isn't exactly a bad thing. When the more grounded Post Scriptum comes out, I expect the players of that game to find ways to pull off similar shenanigans as well.
I'm tentatively excited about the announcement of the Norwegian campaign, but I really wish that we'd gotten more WWII media that weren't focused on the same American units in Western Europe over the June 1944-April 1945 period. You could put a spotlight to the Italian front, where the FFL, Poles, Kiwis, Brazilians, Italian partisans and elite US units like the 442nd all rubbed shoulders on a narrow front. Or the Yugoslav partisans, perhaps the only resistance group in the war to liberate their country largely on their own power. The Eastern Front similarly has many under-portrayed stories: the Bagration and Vistula-Oder offensives were portrayed in Company of Heroes 2, but that game wasn't exactly interested in a balanced portrayal of the theatre, all things considered. Over to the east you have Slim and Mutaguchi playing speed chess among the swamps and temples of Burma, the desperate jungle fighting in New Guinea, native guerillas in the Philippines ambushing and sabotaging the Japanese on every turn and the Syria-Lebanon campaign, where Free French and British Indian troops battled Vichy forces in the ruins of Crusader castles. And I really do think that a diverse portrayal of the war would really benefit the game on both the authenticity and gameplay departments.
edited 26th May '18 11:47:35 PM by eagleoftheninth
It's possible we may get that from the Operations and the other mods which are said to not have expansion packs.
So like COD WW 2 it's just focusing on the same shit all over again?
And with all this controversy, I now want to buy the game and see if it really is THAT bad.
People being upset is the reason I want to experience it myself. The trailer was just a bad trailer, it means nothing.
Community Showcase More