I never said they didnt. My problem is when woman and poc are placed or cast where they where they never participated, the beaches of Normandy for example, rather than tell their actual stories. Even if this game was just about the segregated black platoons and fighter squadrons and featured nothing about white folk besides the germans/russians/japanese that they fought, id have no issue and would buy it if it was a decent game. Those are stores not told beyound low budget and poorly marketed movies. Thats how i know its all pandering and nothing more. Theyll have trans and lisping homosexuals as npcs, narrators, mp characters in a ww2 game long before theyll have an all black cast.
Well if that's the case, using words like "blackification" didn't really help to get your point across, as using it made it seem you were completely against the notion of blacks fighting in WW1 and WW2, which is historically inaccurate. While I can empathize with your stance against rampant pandering and social justice, in the end they are just games and their main purpose is to provide entertainment. Best not to take them too seriously.
That's A-OK but in that case, I would demand that developers do not tout their game as 'realistic, historically accurate, authentic et al' Call it a total fabrication, a fantasy, an alternate reality, whatever floats your boat but don't be calling it something it isn't. The reason this kind of thing gets so many people's backs up is because it is perverting and distorting history. Alternate takes on history are fine, I love 'The Man in the High Castle' but market it as such. **this is not directed at you Carfax, just a general observation
That's we're you're wrong. For a long time I thought so too, but it's just another piece of the puzzle, another form of propaganda that will produce results in long term, because people will get used to it. I said it before, this sort of thing is not new, it's been happening all along in our history. What is new is that in the year 2018, with the wealth of accessible information, it would be a true shame if history can be rewritten before our very eyes and we have nothing to say about it. And let's be real, I don't see ***** black female soldiers (or other such nonsense) to be of any help to Jewish people, black people or women for that matter. If anything, they should feel offended. Now I don't think DICE would go to such extremes like Activision did, but still...
@ Bang Tail and Solfaur, BF1 and other games like it are riddled with historical inaccuracies and flourishes intended to improve gameplay, entertainment and balance at the expense of realism. Why would you be more upset at black female Nazis as compared to zombies for instance? One could even argue that realism is inversely proportional to fun, when it comes to FPS games. Real War isn't anywhere close to fun or entertaining. I remember back in the day I had issues with Bioware making so many of their characters gay or bisexual. My argument was that it was "unrealistic" to have so many LGBT people in such a small group of characters, given that LGBT comprises around 4% of the human population at most. But after reflecting on it, I began to understand why the developer made those decisions, which is not to say that I support it or anything. It was purely for the sake of entertainment and inclusion. Realism had nothing to do with it, and it was ridiculous for me to expect games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age to lean heavily on any form of realism.
When it comes to multiplayer I prefer modern setting because of the gameplay possibilities, I miss moments like these from BF3: Also helicopters.
If they go the premium pass route this time I honestly wonder if people will bite. I personally will not be getting premium unless for some reason it is really worth the price (highly doubt it) and if it comes with a better guarantee of not splitting the community up. With that being said, I don't think EA has any idea how to monetize the game to a point where the gamers will be happy (no pay2win), EA gets all that extra cash they "need", and where it doesn't split the community up at the same time. That alone has killed the hype for me. EA is just a bad company and it's best if we don't get too hyped with anything they put out there until we see for a fact. Battlefront 2 looked really amazing until I tried the beta and laughed at the pay2win aspect all the way to the uninstall button and never looked back. So what would work I wonder? Maps should be free for the sake of community, and yet we all know EA won't do that without a catch. I'm completely OK with players paying to have their default cool models look ugly with pink and rainbow colors, but the second someone can pay to be "better" I'm out. EA could even go as far as giving players some emotes/gestures/etc in exchange for money for all I care, as long as it keeps everything else free and pay2win out. On that note, I don't think games are more expensive than they used to be to make (keep in mind here that this is my opinion as I am not a developer. Only speculating). I don't get that when most modern games re-use an already built engine (with tweaks) and just change assets. So the entire argument of needing more money beyond the $60 price tag is just absurd and BS to me. That is probably a big lie and if games are truly that much more expensive these days it is probably due to the marketing, expensive voice actors, and etc. Do you think Nintendo got a good return back from Mario Odyssey without a premium pass? I do.
That's because it's not an issue in Mass Effect or Dragon Age, both are entirely fictional and not representative of anything that has happened in human history. I don't find the practice of taking liberties with history 'entertaining' at all and it has nothing to do with inclusion either. We'll agree to disagree as I have no wish to derail the thread
just play these new maps in bf1 and tell me about fun, i love the new maps:heligoland bight and river some, and this submarine pen one, those are great maps for sneaking around to ur objective
So a little leak has appeared! https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/01/...l-of-duty-back-to-world-war-ii-this-year/amp/ I am thoroughly enjoying the new BF1 DLC. I'm envisaging that BF WW2 (2018) will be very gritty. I am really hyped for the reveal trailer.
Not impressed. The setting is almost the same, with extremely similar weapons etc. I think it will just be a half arsed job with recycling BF1.
With all those automatic weapons, bf1 feels already more modern than a lot of WWII shooters i've played in the past
Still not convinced this is real. Can be easily faked. Not been the 1st time the last years showed. ....everyone did so far and no one will get an answer....
Time for the reveal of the successor of this beloved franchise that shaped the modern first person shooter experience alongside a couple other big names: Medal of Honor, Jedi Knight: Jedi Outcast, Red Faction, James Bond - Golden-eye, Unreal Tournament, DOOM. Some have come and go like Crysis, F.E.A.R. There also those former Medal of honor devs. that started a franchise you might have heard of, named "Call of Duty" in 2004: they're still shipping for hundreds of millions of dollars of game sales every year or so. So... Battlefield , one of the first, one of the best, here it is: Will it walk into the footsteps of the game that started it all, 16 years later? Reveal 23 May : https://www.ea.com/neverbethesame
I really hope it goes back to WW2, COD WW2 was such a disappointment. I want big maps with lots of players.
Would love a WWII game, i want Spitfire formations flying over the battlefield ! And a M1 Garand *gling*
I got this game already, it's called Battlefield 1942 and there are plenty of servers still packed with people.
I had enough of "old time warfare" with bf1 a couple of months after its release, and went back to bf4 - i would have prefered a battlefield in more modern times - at least vietnam, or more recent.
