Battlefield 2042

Humping, jumping, either or a Shark is involved.

Maybe you shouldn't take it so seriously is my point though. 

If the tonal shift of the Combined Arms missions in co-op or multiplayer is that bad and present in the war stories, id say you would have a point.

But what in the multiplayer is claiming to be straight-faced here? Thus far what we know and have seen is pretty much a standard multiplayer game using the backdrop of the war combined with personal self-expression. Does shooting someone with an prosthetic arm or face paint really matter when it comes to being a quick shot on a map inspired by the Battle of the Bulge? 

Worrying about how something looks, how "authentic" it can be is such a fools errand because the intent of the game is not authenticity, it's fun in this case.  Doesn't matter if it's a spin-off or side game or a main game. The whole point of Battlefield for a long time was entertainment over authenticity, it just seems really suspect that folks are just now angry about it because they think it's too jarring...as if authenticity mattered before when it never did.

Even more so then you should. As if her comments are really inflammatory.

But then again, folks commenting on the internet is nothing new...

Says the one pushing an ideological point the entire time based upon their feelings. You do realize the irony of what you just said above right?

I'm ok with the game being fun. I'll judge if it is if/when I play it. I am pushing back at stupid arguments because stupid arguments are anathema to experience. If the game is fun and makes people want to participate in tangential learning, then the accuracy of what is depicted is irrelevant to what can be gained by knowledge. I already encourage my own students to study for themselves this way. Anything I can add just fills in the blanks like your rudimentary showcase of historical facts previously.

I mean, if you really wanted to convince me you could have talked about how women soldiers for the British Army made up a sizable chunk of the Royal Air Force, what with the WAAF and WRNS holding over 600,000 women in their ranks. Not to mention the SOE by Churchill which recruited some women as well to lead infiltration operations ahead of allied forces. That's just on the surface too.

I mean, any sort of historical study regarding the role of women or gender could easily diffuse this whole situation. From the own discrimination by some officers in the British Army to the fact that almost all women close to the front lines were trained to shoot and lived in mixed barracks. The only real restriction was no women in active combat campaigns, as a ton of historical papers can attest and analyze for us on several fronts.

So who is blinded by feelings again?

It really is funny how folks are very selective when it comes to how important historical accuracy is to stuff like video games, isn't it?

Remember the folks complaining about Kingdom Come being too historically accurate (in my view it was historically biased, but that is acceptable considering it is from the Czech POV vs the Hungarians/Cumans/Germans) and all the kerfuffle outrage there. Or how us nerds complained about all three Mafia games or  L.A Noire being too period-accurate at times in themes and motivations? Hell, go to Call of Duty and how it warped historical accuracy in World at War and Black Ops...although you would be hard-pressed to find someone who really cares about that.

Other historians praising the Battlefield 1 trailer is all well and good, your arguments here all have merit to a point on that front too. Yet, the outrage is ridiculous as this is nothing new. Folks angry over the showcase of what their marketing is selling to players in a 2 minute trailer (literally in this case) is the same old song and dance that has been done before. Over and over again. As the point of the game is not historical accuracy, but reverence to the war itself. If the game is able to pique someone's interest in the history behind them, over directly referencing it, what does it matter how it looks? You're doing folks interested in World War II, a generation that is beginning to die out quickly, a disservice this way. 

My own grandfather was wounded on Omaha Beach, he only told me the story once when I was 10, he died when I was 14. The reason he told me was the last movie he ever went to the theaters to see was Saving Private Ryan...and he walked out of it after ten minutes because the opening scene traumatized him. He loved war movies, Patton, Platoon, Midway...but Saving Private Ryan was too real for him, it was too accurate. It jarred his memory in a way where he turned to his grandson, someone who never opened up about much, to tell me why it bothered him. 

What is the point of realism when it gets in the way of reverence? Does the savagery of the war,  really matter that much? Can a game be historically accurate even 80% of the time and be fun? Or are you in it for the fun of the game itself only?

Add to that a bunch of schmucks hijacking it because of an issue of gender...well...frankly you should pick a different hill to die on.  Maybe Hill 400 next time? 

I'm sure they'll show some more stuff over EA Play.

I'm liking the look of the game for its 4-person co-op.

That seems to be the one they are focusing on, since it's where the cosmetics are stemming from.

Personally I don't like co-op too much. I really want to see what they do with the War Stories, even if they are sappy and somewhat unrealistic. 

One, I never said you were sexist, I said your attitude thus far has been incredibly similar to those that are, as well as the dreaded social justice warriors attitude as well. If that wasn't clear, let me spell it out by saying you have been skirting a line of antagonistic behavior regardless of motivation.

Two, nothing wrong with caring about that, but it doesn't change the fact that getting angry over it is not only not going to change a damn thing, but this really has little to do with the battlefield series as far as I've seen for a long time. You keep mentioning battlefield 1, even if I grant you that it has historical authenticity, can you name me another battlefield game that has been that way besides 1942 all the way back when?

Thing is, we've seen bad company, hard line, 3 and 4 doing their modern warfare cloning goodbess in invading new york and going to the future year of 2020, heroes...what made them authentic outside of the guns and tech really? Maybe Vietnam but that was back with 1942.

I'm again kind of confused as to how you claim its in the dna when its a very recessive gene that the games never prided themselves in since 2005, really? Or is this really a complaint about marketing?