Normally, words like childish, arcade-y, repetitive and frantic are associated with the Call of Duty franchise – not this time. This short film breaks that mold and gives us something truly poignant.
Kyle at GameSpew: The debacle surrounding Battlefield V's launch and its inclusion of women reminded me of my favourite video game character: a female soldier named Tanya Pavelovna from Call of Duty: Finest Hour.
The character brought up in the article, Tanya Pavelovna is accurate to history. Conversely the female characters presented by Dice for BF V so far aren't grounded in history or reality. The female soldier on the cover is duel wielding pistols. Additionally, the female one armed British soldier is not historically accurate at all. Despite having one arm she accurately aims a BAR and what appears to be sniper rifle. The British did not allow woman to be combat infantry. Also, the one armed female soldier could be considered a mockery of people who actually lost limbs during WW2, as she is not handicapped in combat, despite lacking an arm.
And you think BF1 was accurate to WW1? In fact it could be consider a mockery of people who died in WW1 too. But I don't find it to be. You should take it seriously OR as a fun video game, not half way through.
I think a huge issue is that people are conflating accuracy with authenticity. BF1 was a far cry from being accurate, but the battles and the gameplay felt authentic. When you bring things like a katana and a prosthetic arm in it doesn't just hurt the game's accuracy, it hurts the game's authenticity. The fact that there's a woman isn't really even a big deal, IMO, it's that so many of the characters look so out of place the game is hardly recognizable as being a WW2 shooter. All they really need to do is add an option to disable viewing customization. Some games already do that. Some have the option between none, realistic, or all customization. They announce a feature like that and then everyone can be happy.
You don’t need to take something seriously for it to be accurate or authentic my dude. Plenty of authentic games are fun.
I had issues with BF1's usage of the black soldier on the cover to promote the game, as he has the least playtime in the campaign. I also didn't understand why Dice made non-white soldiers abundant in the European armies during MP. As a whole BF1 was not historically accurate, many of the weapons in the game didn't see usage during WW1, and automatics weren't as common as the game portrays them to be. Additionally, I found the missions were you played as soldier in "invincible" armor to be just absurd.
I personally think Dice's depictions of the women (and other soldiers) of WW2 as displayed by BF V is absurd. If Dice wanted to ignore history and facts so much, the studio should have just made a steampunk or alternative reality WW2 game.I think much of the criticisms Dice is receiving for BF V's reveal are justified. It is true that fun can take precedence over realism. However, the goofy looking, over the top looking soldiers of BF V's reveal,in my opinion, negatively affect immersion.
"Let’s face it; being upset that women are in a World War II shooter is pretty dumb."
Let’s face it; being upset that people are upset that women are in a World War II shooter is pretty dumb.
At least people that hated the trailer had a point, they want it to be authentic to the period/conflict, you're just trying to white knight for "muh virtual vaginas".
Believe me, they don't really want it to be authentic, they only think so. If they do, I'm pretty sure they didn't read about the WW2 enough. Authentic WW2 (or WW1) video game shooter wouldn't be fun to play.
Go tell that to literally every other WWII shooter. All WWII code before WAW were authentic.
Post scriptum is authentic.
Hell let loose is authentic.
I don’t think you know what authentic means.
You never know, with the Squad Team mechanic being totally customisable, the only females we might see in this game will be the one relegated to the front cover.
As cosmetics go, i doubt i will touch them, unless i unlocked something that made the soldiers look abit more respectful of the millions of lives lost.
The thing is you will do that but then you have to put up with seeing all the nonsense running around. You can’t see your own character after all.
It's about time Call of Duty and Battlefield return to the historical settings that made them popular and successful in the first place, Gazette gaming columnist Jake Magee writes.
They could add in strategic elements like what to do with a million refugees! Isn't WW1 a real war anyway? Yeah, they are never hyper realistic, at least not the well selling ones, but it did happen!
The WW1 depicted in BF1 might as well be considered a fictional war, though.... I'm ready to bet the real WW1 didn't look anything like this
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, btw
There are thousands of wars and little skirmishes and battles that have taken place in history.
The majority are never ever mentioned or learned about even if they are super important in history.
I think its a great idea to explore all those unknown but important wars. A good way to educate people as long as they stick to primary resources...otherwise it could be educating people with false history.
Yes, I can see it now the "Battle of Hastings" (1066) with the Norman invaders having automatic weapons. Better yet how about the "Battle of Agincourt" (1415) with the English using M4 carbines against the French using FAMAS rifles.
Also while we are at it why not explore the "magic" option and Dragons. Although maybe that is carrying things a bit too far. 😉
MGSV had its Africa segment and I really want to see more games explore the brutality and conflict in the African wars of the 70s to 80s
WC
Although it proves itself to be more polarising with each passing year, Call of Duty is hands-down one of the highest-grossing and dependable franchises out there.
Regardless of how much each subsequent development team have taken the base formula in all sorts of directions (there are three teams working on COD in 2015), you can’t deny that when you get hands-on with each annual instalment, it feels immediately familiar, tactile and above-all enjoyable.
If you still think war is used to defend "freedom" than you're completely wrong.
Given your name and display picture, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're a blind patriot who still thinks the U.S is all about freedom. The only freedom you have is paper or plastic, Large or extra large, Ps4 or Xbone.
Until you've fought in a real war driven by war-mongering, money hungry dictators, you have no idea what the cost of freedom is.
Don't worry, their health will regenerate.
i miss when call of duty made you feel like this video does.now it's all about multiplayer with no heart.call me stupid but i don't even know what cod:ghosts is about,just shows buildings falling in holes and a slow turning dog named riley.
i hope they revisit ww2 next gen that would be great