Battlefield 2042

Ewww... Royale.
At least it's skippable

A good video on the subject from Boogie, as others rage about why BV pre-orders might be weaker than BOIIII and RDR2.

I have to say I'm finding this whole situation with Battlefield V pretty amusing. These days there seems to be no shortage of devs who don't understand what their audience truly wants. This whole "get woke, go broke" thing already became a trend. I mean, look at the games that try to appeal to progressivism and then look at games that appeal to more tradional or conservative standards.

God of war was a sucess, Kingdom come deliverance was sucess, now Red dead redemption 2 has every reason to be a sucess too.

Meanwhile Andromeda flopped, Wolfenstein flopped and now here we are at battlefield V.

My personal stance is that their idea to add woman to the game was not a bad one. But the way they did made sure they would fail. I mean, back in WW2 we had female snipers and pilots that fought for Russia, but instead, they have a british woman with a fake arm. Battlefield games are war simulators, not inglorious bastards. Why not make a game about real soldiers instead? Hell, look at Lyudmila_Pavlichenko. She alone killed over 300 nazi soldiers during WW2. This seems like the type of soldier who went through many battles in her time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

In case you missed, a lot of people also dislike Battle Royale. Black ops 4 is recieving a lot of mixed reaction because of it. I certanly don't like it.

Andromeda failed because of several reasons. Preachy progressivism, shitty writing, technical issues and EA preassuring the team with a tight schedule. But saying the politics played no part in it's downfall wouldn't be true.

Well, I'm excited for it at least.

Also no offense, but anyone who is arguing that games like Battlefield or Call of Duty are supposed to be realistic war simulators are mistaken. They have never been realistic. They try to make the atmosphere as realistic as possible, but whenever they can take liberties for whatever reason, whether that be for story or gameplay or so on, they always take it.

Google is truly fascinating. History is truly fascinating. This took me about 2 minutes and two videos to find.

How is it not within reason in this game? WW2 had female frontline fighters in multiple armies. Sure some nations didn't but we don't know the full backstory between this character. For all we know they are a mercenary or resistance group. 

I count resistance groups as armies of those nations since they fit the definition. But fine, multiple countries had female front line fighters. Better?

None of the soldiers we play as are real people. That allows them to give that character more freedom than only allowing them to do exactly what that real person did and why real characters are NPCs. And no, they can make plenty of reasons that aren't crappy. For example I mentioned a couple in my previous post: part of a resistance or mercenary group. Those groups existed and fought in WW2 as a fact so fits all those little criteria.

Plus if I recall correctly that was a multiplayer trailer not a story trailer, so if that is the case and it was just showing off stuff in multiplayer then there are no criteria needed anyway. Unless you think MP needs to adhere to strict realism in which case every battle better have the side that actually wins that battle be the victors no matter what. 

And this character is based off the real women who fought in WW2 on the front lines. Even you acknowledged that not just Russian women fought on the front. What's the issue here then?

She is british. There were no frontline female british soldier in WW2. Period.

Incorrect. There were actual British women who fought on the front lines. For example they were part of the Special Operations Executive. They fought with the resistance movements in Europe, including on the front lines.