Battlefield V

I don't think the game will be bad neccesarily just that it would be another WW 2 rehash although if what they are saying in that post is true (which is a bit hard to believe considering their track record already) we are going to see something that isn't the same old US vs Japenese, US vs. Nazis, Russians vs. Nazis, and the same old tripe that has been done in WW 2 games a thousand times over.

It would be refreshing to see an different front on that war. Different countries that participated in it.

The regular military perspective only offers a limited view of the war, anyhow. The unconventional side of the war is full of people like Lim Bo Seng, Noor Inayat Khan and Witold Pilecki whose stories are still waiting to be told. Not to mention the civilian populace, whose war experience was no less real for their lack of ranks and uniforms.

edited 27th May '18 3:05:15 AM by eagleoftheninth

It certainly took the gaming world a long time to think of making something like This War Of Mine...

I for one am just waiting for one of these games to feature Wojtek

Game developers have put in dogs so much, don't be cliche anymore, give us DRINKING BEARS

edited 27th May '18 8:45:10 AM by VutherA

Got a feeling we're gonna see something involving Simo Haya, or at least the player acting out a role similar to what he did against the Soviets during the invasion of Finland. Makes perfect sense at this point, since he's a memetic legend that is also conductive to FPS sniper gameplay.

But the ideas I'm hearing about Burma, the Philippines, etc? Funny thing... Medal of Honor: Rising Sun DID cover that particular aspect of the conflict, including both the retreat and eventual retaking of the Philippines from IJN occupation. Wasn't very memorable though; the island hopping campaign was more striking, probably due to having better setpieces and tense combat situations in the island jungles. Ironically, all I remember about the Philippines retreat mission was the US OSI agents essentially performing a scorched earth retreat as they destroyed vital US infrastructure, weapons caches, burned documents, etc... oh, and a bunch of conveniently set up machinegun nests that magically summoned a horde of Japanese troops for the player to mow down. Even if it's coming from a place you supposedly cleaned up...

But again... I think what's gonna stop DICE from wanting to touch some of the more interesting conflicts is how the Battlefield franchise essentially demands a strong focus on vehicle combat. Many of the battles mentioned are ironically a better fit for the Red Orchestra/Rising Storm franchise, since while vehicles are present in those games, they are far from crucial to winning and can in fact be easily ignored.

You know I genuinely have to wonder why nobody has made an sniper game based off Simo or of Simo's feats. He is perfect for the FPS genre as he killed so many enemy soldiers that no one would blink an eye at you killing 100s of soldiers in a game about him.

None of the aforementioned campaigns were really short of mechanised elements. The Philippines campaign occurred right next to the largest naval battle in history and had some of the most intense aerial combat on the Pacific theatre - which involved a Mexican squadron!. On the ground you have US armour blowing through Japanese fortifications in Metro Manila and facing off against exotic stuff like the Type 1 Ho-Ni tank destroyer, alongside the odd captured Stuart. Ditto for the Burma campaign, which featured large-scale armoured engagements in the U-Go/Ha-Go offensives and numerous amphibious operations. The Yugoslav Partisans also received various armoured vehicles from the Allies throughout the war, which they operated alongside captured Axis models. Sometimes leading to surreal results.

edited 27th May '18 2:27:36 PM by eagleoftheninth

I( suspect a lot of the reason we dont get campaigns about those figures is the same reason so many fanboys crying for historical accuracy have so little knowledge of history.

The games cater to a very US-centric view of the war and everyone elses contributions are mere statistics to be 0overlooked.

Likely, I know Call of Duty WW 2 also kicked off a controversy like this because you could play Black Nazis or female soldiers. Black Nazis were not numerous but they did happen and there was female soldiers in multiple countries at the time including Nazi Germany. Infact I think the second or third best sniper in history was active during that time whom was female. Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she also trained more female snipers.

right. when all media depicts ww2 as heroic big beefy white men from ameirca saving the day, people who have no interest in a history degree or documentaries are going to assume thats history

Lyudmila initially was treated very badly by her male co-horts for sexist reasons....until she showed off her marksman skills with an rifle.

I think she is also someone you can get away with the portrayal of her killing tons of soldiers as she had over 300 confirmed kills.

Even she probably couldn't! It took her over a year to kill that many (though apparently the first 187 was in two and a half months). Simo Hayha's bloodiest day had him kill 25, which is basically the first real mission in any FPS campaign with the death tolls going overboard from there.

edited 27th May '18 4:23:19 PM by VutherA

Yeah if theres any huge flaw in demanding historical accuracy in a videogame, its the fact the average fucking soldier had maybe 3 kills to their name by wars end, and a good deal of them never fired a shot

Hmmm, I was not aware of that. Interesting to know.

Now that you mention it, I wouldn't mind a Survival Horror-ish take on a war situation, but without any supernatural. Most of your shots end up being supressive fire, and you can never be able to 100% confirm if a shot that hit really killed the enemy due to being far.

edited 27th May '18 5:46:22 PM by UltraWanker

That's basically what Squad and Red Orchestra have achieved, at least in the multiplayer sense. But Singleplayer? We're still a long, looooong way off before NPC AI is proficient enough to provide such an intelligent yet fair challenge for players to overcome.

There was an horror game based on WW 1 that was being made recently but I have no clue what happened to that project and even then I am not sure if it would of been any good.

edited 27th May '18 5:55:04 PM by Wispy

Something I genuinely do not understand, maybe it could be explained to me.

Suppose you want realism and historical accuracy. No reason your Battlefield cannot be Normandy defense, Germans, white men only, 1080 mid air no scope head shots allowed. Any particular reason to not allow you to have this Battlefield?

Okay, suppose Ash's Battlefield is to play the Egypt map, British Desert Rats, black tank crew. Any particular reason Ash cannot have that Battlefield?

What about Petya's Battlefield being playing on the Stalingrad map as the Russians and the option to play as a woman? Any particular reason Petya cannot have that Battlefield?

In short there's no reason I can see for players not to allow the amount of realism or options that they like yet this honestly has made some furious that it's not a full on sim or that the options are allowed.

Simple. Context of the battle itself. Soviet women soldiers did happen albeit rarely. Black tank crews existed. British highlander woman who is an amputee? Absolutely not.

That's why the controversy and SJW criticisms exist. Trying to shoehorn in things that didn't exist. (And their handling of it, from their snideness and condescending attitude to outright banning criticism of it is a textbook example of Not Helping Your Case. It's why the trailer right now has almost 350,000 dislikes compared to the just under 290,000 likes.)

But the tanks in the trailer are way too fast. That's not realistic. That's not historically accurate. Why do they get a pass?

Define too fast. An M4 Sherman could do 34 mph. A Tiger I can do 35 on good roads.

A Soviet BT-5 can do 60 mph. On dirt roads.

Tanks were surprisingly fast, very comparable to modern day stuff in the 1940s.

That was one of the reasoned arguments about the trailer and one I'd happily accept if you look at how we imagine tanks. The same as fire and movement of the soldiers, not "cutting the pie" for example, more rush tactics. Throwing back an enemy grenade and shooting it to blow up a low flying plane, if realism and historical accuracy are things that make people buy or not buy a game why is that acceptable?

Those last two things were not considered acceptable either. Too cartoonish. (As were a number of other things in the trailer...)