DICE: We'll Always Put Fun Over Authentic; We Wanted To Empower Player Choice, Diversity & Inclusion

DICE commented on the community's tepid response to the Battlefield V customization options seen in the trailer, saying that they'll always put fun over authentic and while they treat history with great respect, they wanted to empower player choice, diversity and inclusion in Battlefield V.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
KaiPow173d ago

Gimme that Wake Island 2018!

Skull521173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Yuck, this is like Disney’s response to the Star Wars fandom. I may have to just skip this game if diversity and inclusion are the drivers and not pleasing the Battlefield community that has been supporting you for 16 years...

As for player customization and choice that’s all well and good, but how about you give me the choice in my game to just see people in period authentic uniforms, and they can see whatever they want on their screen?

BadElf173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Agree. What exactly is the "Company customization" they were talking about? They said you will be able to change what YOU want to see, where what I see could be different than yours. Im hoping they mean we'll be able to make it more authentic... so if fools are choosing women with mohawks, I dont have to see it on my screen

Lord_Sloth172d ago (Edited 172d ago )

I could be wrong here but are they supposed to be guerrilla fighters? They seem very haphazard like just a bunch of schmucks who got caught up in the fighting which did happen in areas all across Europe during WW2. It's entirely possible this is about a group of poor souls who woke up 1 morning and found themselves in hell.

NarooN172d ago

Because player skins = a great way to weasel microstransactions into the game.

Princess_Pilfer172d ago

Nothing says authentic war shooter like WW1 being full of fully automatic rifles and people leaping out of modern fighter jets mid flight, sniping an enemy fighter pilot, and landing in the now dead pilots jet, hijacking it mid flight.

Battlefield hasn't been realistic in decades, and it's sorta silly to pretend it has been.

Daeloki172d ago

Dude, it's a game, it's fictional, it's based on something real, but still fictional.

But I'm wasting words here, the community is probably better off without you anyway

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
Aceman18173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

I wasn't buying the game because I'm tired of FPS right now, and I'm done with EA but goddamn I can't believe ppl on here throwing a b***h fit because of a female character in the game. There are much more pressing issues going on besides a women in a shooter game 😒

The 10th Rider172d ago

It's more than just that. It's a female character with a prosthetic arm and a sniper rifle that doesn't look like she could be from any military from across history. If they'd just put in some female characters, but made it so they looked like they belong in WW2, I'd roll my eyes but ultimately I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal.

3-4-5173d ago

I would love for them to bring back Kharg Island from BF3 in a DLC.

173d ago Replies(3)
ArchangelMike173d ago

To be honest with you I don't know what all the fuss is about. So what there's a female Scott with a prosthetic arm, and a Soldier with a Katana strapped to his back. If the game is fun, with great a great and involving story as well as engaging mutiplayer modes and addictive gameplay loops and mechanics, so what, isn't that what we pay money for, to have a fun and engrossing experience? I don't think I've ever seen an ultra-realism historically accurate WWII game that set the gaming charts alight. What if DICE implemented one shot kill permadeath, so you think that would make for a fun game or a more frustrating experience.

Alexious173d ago

People just always have to find something to complain about.

173d ago
Anzil173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Realistic doesn’t equal Historically accurate.

Brave_Losers_Unite173d ago

Why is it whenever a woman is included as a main role theres always people to complain about it? Its a video game for christ sake! People so triggered over a video game character shouldn't be playing video games but instead seek mental help

Goldby173d ago


oh like Tech companies making millions off of a War that has killed countless people on both sides?

please, its a video game, not an 8th grade hsitory project.

games are meant to be fun over realistic. its not Battlefield simulator. its justa game

EazyC173d ago

It feels like the antithesis of BF1942, which really did strive to be an authentic era-appropriate experience. How we've imposed our societal "inclusiveness" to retrofit history is actually quite insulting to those that fought.

Daeloki172d ago

@EazyC those who fought in WWII probably don't give a crap, in fact they probably disapprove of gaming in general so what does it really matter anyway?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
qazitam67173d ago

100% correct. If you want a ultra realistic military simulation what are you playing BF for? It has never been that.

Anzil173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Again with this unintelligent spew.... Realistic doesn’t equal Historically accurate.

Sunny_D173d ago

Realistic doesn’t equal Historically accurate.

Ok, but unless the devs otherwise state that they are going for a historically accurate rendition, there really shouldn't be fuss over how they want to tell the story.

We don't want another Genji again with a giant enemy crab again, lol.

EazyC173d ago

The same reason that FIFA has correct teams and branding, you want it to visually look like the real thing. That argument is so silly.

The 10th Rider172d ago


But in the past Battlefield has been a franchise that has aimed for an authentic feel. Evidently V completely throws that out the window.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 172d ago
Christopher173d ago

I also don't care, but if DICE were honest about 'always' prioritizing fun, you'd think we would have had some of these changes years ago.

D3TH_D33LR173d ago

Plllleaaaase.... as if none of the other battlefields are fun.

Christopher173d ago

They are defining fun here as the changes made and saying they prioritize it. If that was true, these obviously not at all new concepts would have been in older games.

No one is saying the games aren't fun, but the reasoning for making these changes now don't make sense other than "it's good marketing now and we didn't need it before."

Anzil173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Simple. Historically accurate doesn’t equal realistic. This is why liberal idealists will always lose.... they don’t know the argument they’re argueing. People want unrealistic gameplay in a historically accurate setting if you’re going for a distinct setting.

Rude-ro173d ago

“Historically accurate doesn’t equal realistic.”

Liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

🤔😂😂&# 128514;

Team_Litt173d ago

Liberal idealists will always lose? Wow! Lol are you listening to yourself bruh? All this because there's women in a game? Who said DICE were going for historical accuracy to begin with?

Anyway from where I'm sitting the 'liberal idealists' already won and you are crying about it.

FunAndGun172d ago

Simple, Historically accurate doesn't equal fun.

You can go play a different game I guess because this is not the boring historically accurate game you're looking for. Maybe try the History channel and use your couch for cover?

qazitam67172d ago

This is why you cant have a reply section with American's in it. There is always that group that turn a conversation no matter what it is into Liberal vs Conservative crap making the rest of the intelligent Americans look guilty by association. This is about BF5, not Trump vs Pelosi.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 172d ago
D3TH_D33LR173d ago

It’s a lot of fragile masculinity imo. Nobody cares if cod does it but they do once battlefield tries to make their own multiplayer progression meaningful with loads of unlocks. Gamers are their own worst enemy and complaining is in vogue.

Hungryalpaca172d ago

Stop using game mechanics to explain away why people don’t like the aesthetic. It’s stupid and is comparing apples to oranges.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
-Foxtrot173d ago

"Several fans voiced their disagreement on Battlefield V’s customization options, which include body types, gender, war paints and more, as being too inaccurate from a historical point of view"

Yet for some the only thing they take from that is "OMG How sad people are complaining about a women" that's the only thing.

To see a WW2 game with people being shirtless, covered in body paint, unrealistic hairstyles and the like while giving off the wrong vibes like it's steampunk like is a little silly especially when they say things like "Experience the most intense, immersive Battlefield yet", as it kind of comes off like they are contradicting themselves. If they wanted those kind of things then they should have just made a full on alternative WW2 game which tells a completely different take on it.

"The female soldier in the key art portrays an unseen and untold perspective of World War 2 that is often overlooked"

What story is that though? If you were doing a story about a group of every day townsfolk who create a Resistance to defend their small city/village from a Nazi assault or about a Russian squad with one of the Russian snipers I get it but a female soldier who went on the front lines, at the heart of the battlefield while having a prosthetic hand? Never heard of anything quite like that. What inspiration did it come from while doing their historic research for the game?

meka2611173d ago

couldn't agree more. If they want all this just make a fantasy shooter, not something from history.

-Foxtrot173d ago

Thing is we wouldn't mind that considering it would space the other titles out more

New IP

They've kind of ruined Battlefront so they need to lay off that for a while if they know what's good for them

Teflon02173d ago

Um... it's a video game... BF1 wasn't that enjoyable because it followed WW1 too much. This time they're making it better... People who think BF is suppose to be a war simulator need to wake up. BF was never a war simulator. It's a war game. I like battlefield for it's large scale combat and team play. Not for the stupidness people are crying about. Cosmetics aren't a issue. Everything in the games free now but cosmetics. Are you going to cry just because you're being t-bagged by a girl character instead of a guy? Really?

-Foxtrot173d ago

"Are you going to cry just because you're being t-bagged by a girl character instead of a guy? Really?"

What did I say in my original comment above? Huh?

"Yet for some the only thing they take from that is "OMG How sad people are complaining about a women" that's the only thing"

And guess what? You did JUST that...

Nineball2112173d ago

@ Teflon02
"Are you going to cry just because you're being t-bagged by a girl character instead of a guy? Really?"

In that case, you're being v-bagged.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 173d ago
spicelicka173d ago

I have to agree with that. I have no problem with women or whomever being in the game, but it shouldn't be advertised like some WW2 simulator. If they can just tout it as an alternative WW2 game it would be no problem. It doesn't even have to be very different, calling it alternative just gives you room to do whatever you want.

Anzil173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

So simpoe

porkChop172d ago

They haven't advertised it as a WW2 simulator though. They've said it's "intense" and "immersive". They haven't referred to it as historically accurate or authentic at all. They're specifically saying right in this article that they're *not* trying to be that authentic because they're prioritizing fun and player choice.

You're saying that you're fine with the female and everything being in the game as long as they don't advertise it as a simulator. Well since they're not advertising it that way, there shouldn't be any issue for you.

qazitam67173d ago

A lot of women play BF so why should they not have a skin they can use to represent themselves? Sure, women running around the front lines in WW1 and WW2 was very very rare but this is a game, not the real deal. DICE making this choice has nothing to do with being SJW's. They just want all people to feel included in the game at the expense of realism. Besides it would be much more fun to be V bagged than T bagged.

Anzil173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

Because they picked a WW2 setting and haven’t had any reason for it to be inaccurately represented. If they said it’s alternate history, people would be fine. Is it really that hard for you to understand?

-Foxtrot173d ago

Skins are fine in multiplayer...but the trailer was showing characters in the single player story.

It just becomes "what's the point of doing WW2" in the end...I mean if that's the case do Battlefield: 2143

Silkside173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

A lot of Chinese, Vietnamese, etc play battlefield as well, I suppose we should we should be inclusive and add those character into the game as well? See where I'm going with this?

ZombieGamerMan172d ago

Having a female lead isn't SJW pandering but when you say "Realism & Historical accuracy be damned in our WW2 shooter that isn't called Wolfenstein and let's be inclusive & diverse" then we have full on confirmation that it is SJW pandering because only SJWs actually care about forcing diversity & exclusivity into everything

Sunny_D172d ago


What do you want them to do?

Lay it out in laymen terms so that it can make you feel better?

“This is an ALTERNATIVE WW2 shooter that is not HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. It is LOOSELY based off WORLD WAR 2.”

Will that statement suffice?

“hasn’t any reason for it to be inaccurately represented?”

They need a reason on how to make a VIDEO GAME? Do they need to go the videogame committee to ask for permission to add women in the game? Since when?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
Anzil173d ago

Thanks... like it’s so simple to understand our point of view. The dumb PC crowd has no argument a side from why not. We have reasons why, now address why that doesn’t matter with actual honesty.

47173d ago

Thank you! Can we please pin this comment or something so these other idiots can see why people have an issue with this game?

DaMist173d ago

I personally only aways see these video games as alternate takes on said wars, because let's be honest an authentic war depiction in video games would probably not be fun at all. I don't want to experience all that in an interactive, dynamic way. I think that's better left for other mediums, specially not a multiplayer game. I'm always open for new takes and presentation, if the game play changes are good and it plays fun, that's what matters to me.

Angelin173d ago

If history is your thing then why play a game and not read a book or watch a documentary? The fact that YOU play it is historically inacurate anyway :)

-Foxtrot173d ago

That was the lamest attempt of a come back...ever

Rachel_Alucard172d ago

Literal 4th grader commenting at it's finest.

Rachel_Alucard173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

I don't care if there's playable females or guns that were never included in the actual war. But I'm worried they'll start pulling a Sledgehammer WW2 where they censor Swastikas, include afro-german female nazis, and turn the game into some alternate World War instead of the actual WW2.

They tweeted, "We have set out to make a game that is believable with a level of authenticity that ensures we're still delivering an enjoyable and engaging experience." That careful wording doesn't give me hope.

rainslacker173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

You're getting it all wrong. This is realistic and authentic. Just like when we were 9, and played war with our friends in the back that answers your question on the source of their research.

I expect water guns to kill in one shot. Nerf bullets to be thrown back as grenades. A bunch of screaming between the player and the enemies about how they shot one another, while the other says, "nuh-uh". And small trees to block any and all bullets making the player invulnerable. Then of course, the game is over when the one friend we don't like comes over with a ninja sword trying to be cool. After that, everyone just goes inside and plays MegaMan or Contra on the NES until dinner time.

ZombieGamerMan172d ago

I'm more upset that she's Venom Snaking it with the fake arm, I'm sorry but I just can't acccept a WW2 soldier out on the front lines with a fake arm, I know the war was dire but I just don't see the military sending in the crippled into war

Kostche172d ago

exactly, well said, and i got that steampunk vibe to the game also, and someone was saying they over layed the trailer with hud

jaklink172d ago

Here are some of those "Female Soldiers" who served in World War II since apparently it's so difficult to google anything.

Rachel_Alucard172d ago

Now try googling crippled female soldiers. You can't find crippled male soldiers on the front lines because they got discharged for losing a limb in the first place.

meka2611172d ago

How about you pay attention, most don't give a shit about female characters but keep going with that narrative if it makes you feel better. The problem is the game doesn't feel like WW2 and that's just dumb. And I know you didn't say this but everyone saying they didn't advertise it as authentic need to look at the promo material again. Hell one of the screenshots on the xbox store of it says the most immersive ever.

FunAndGun172d ago

If there was no woman in the reveal, then this wouldn't even be a big discussion. The "woman" IS the driving force behind all this complaining. You don't have to admit it, but you know it's true.
Also, unless they are quoted saying this is a historically accurate depiction, then no, they are not contradicting themselves.

JLynn943172d ago

They aren't contradicting themselves. Intense and immersive can still be achieved with customization and historical fiction. This is just grasping at straws for things to complain about as per usual with the gaming community.

172d ago
+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 172d ago
Marcello173d ago

He`s pulled that out his backside, bit like this game. By that theory it would mean Saving Private Ryan wasnt fun because its authentic.

Thunder_G0d_Bane173d ago

Saving private Ryan isnt a game it’s a film.

A film can’t be compared to a game.

Saving private Ryan wouldn’t be fun as a game if you get shot an die permanently.

Angelin173d ago (Edited 173d ago )

That would be battle royale and it IS fun.

ClanPsi1173d ago

Actually, it would be f*cking amazing. Imagine a 2000 Yanks vs 200 Krauts Omaha Beach map with 100% full realism. I salivate at the thought.

Hungryalpaca172d ago

Game mechanics =\= authenticity. That “argument” holds no water.

How something looks has nothing to do with how it plays. However how something looks can put people completely off.

Hence why this trailer is so hated. People prefer if you do a period peice you stick to the period or don’t bother.

Teflon02173d ago

Saving private Ryan isn't fun... wtf. What's fun about that? Is it enjoyable to watch? Yes. But look at the BF communities comments on BF1. They hated that the guys had no customization etc. That was DICE trying to be authentic. I thought that was annoying after playing BF4 for years. Use logic. People crying about this game haven't used any form of logic yet. You can pull a defib out your ass and players are immediately up like nothing happened. you can flip between guns in like .5 seconds and have perfect aim etc. But you're crying about being authentic right. How about stop, couch to one knee and reload your gun and being done and needing a medic and attention for like a hour before going back on the battlefield. Lets be authentic... That's how dumb that all sounds