My thoughts on the BFV controversies...

*I won't hesitate to call the mods if this turns into a shitshow and have this thread locked. It would be a shame, but let's keep it cool, alright? You're welcome to disagree, just avoid name calling.*

Edit: I recommend you read the full post to get the full picture. This is a really nuanced discussion. I might make a sort of generalization that I later clarify with more nuance. Okay? Okay!

To put it bluntly, I don't think it's a good idea to turn a real life military conflict into something that's meant to be bombastic and fun. I've never served in the military, but I feel confident in saying that. It might've worked in the past as BF1942 has proven, but as the Battlefield games continue on the path of more fun and more bombastic, it becomes more obvious to me that it's not a good idea. Seeing the marketing for the game you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a war cartoon because that's exactly what it is. It's using a silly tone with an authentic WWII backdrop and I can understand if some people don't see anything wrong with that or can look past that, but at the same time the controversy it's stirring up highlights just why I think we should move past doing stuff like this.

The 'it's not historically accurate' argument is true...obviously. It's clearly not being historically accurate, it's trying to be a multiplayer shooter for an audience in 2018 and all that entails. It wants to be inclusive, which I can (and do) respect. My issue isn't with its inclusion of a crippled woman on the cover or in trailers being a badass, I think that's great. It's just that it's using a real life conflict that caused misery, loss of life, loss of goodwill, etc etc to fuel that fun power fantasy and that dissonance is gonna cause these discussions to pop up for good or ill.

To recap, if this didn't have a WWII skin and was showing itself off as just a more generic military power fantasy that wasn't based off any real conflict, I wouldn't have an issue. I would welcome its more inclusive approach and let those who bemoan it cry about it. I'm also not saying that WWII is off limits or can't have a fun spin (like Wolfenstein), it's just that it's not showing itself as an alternate history tale where we can suspend our disbelief. It's using the backdrop of real history to be a power fantasy. It's using real weapons, real battles, real conflicts and choosing to use it as a playground. It doesn't want to be historically accurate in terms of the consequences that come with war, it wants to be historically accurate (or authentic) in terms of setting...

And I don't think that can fly anymore. Again, it's great if you can look past it. I remember playing BF1's campaign in the beginning where soldiers die off one by one only to later be in a suit of power armor in a mini-gun shooting Germans like an un-stoppable badass. The game went from depressing to fun rather quickly. The backdrop looks like hell, but what I'm doing is gratifying. It's a strange dissonance that doesn't commit to be grounded or silly and that's my problem.

War can look like hell, but it can't feel like hell. It can't have the undercurrent of what caused the conflict or the consequences of that conflict in a fun multiplayer shooter, so I don't think it should use the conflict as a backdrop. That's my 2 cents.

I can see what you mean, however it's worth noting that Battlefield has not become more bombastic in past years; it has actually become less. DICE's approach has always been to grab historical battles and treat it's elements as fun toys for a sandbox multiplayer experience.

As whimsical the reveal trailer for BFV was, it was more of a return to the original games where one can play the BF theme in vehicles (which trailer directly alluded to), and it doesn't come close to something like Battlefield Heroes.

As for controversies, I think the actual size of the controversy is overblown, simply because news headlines like that travel quickly simply due to the current political climate. The amount of people offended, or even aware, of some perception of inaccuracy is probably really, really small.

As for tone, the idea that the interpretation of the war in popular culture should always be focusing on its misery, loss of life, and loss of goodwill is really restrictive.

Eh I think it's totally fine to use any historic period or conflict for a video Game, so long as it's done well. I don't think games like call of duty or battlefield do it well. Something like Valiant Hearts more so.

I'm with you on why you don't like it, your choice, but the wording of this -- the "I don't think it should be this." -- is so profoundly askew in my mind. It's an emotional reasoning, and emotions are the most biased foundation for arguments. You can't defend against them. The only thing artistic mediums should be, is free of people having opinions about what they should be; thinking they don't just have the right to dislike it, but more than that: the right to think its existence should be revoked and questioned because it doesn't line up with their own vision of what art should be. If we all did that tomorrow and won, what would be gained, really? All that would happen is a piece of work we had nothing to do with would be diluted and become a husk, re-designed by an unelected committee, or erased completely for our own self-righteousness. You've lost the vision; removed the concept of freedom art as a platform should grant by default, no matter how your gut responds; put your own views above the collective vision of the studio who worked so hard on it; overwritten their input with yours because of a personal preference. That's not a reality I would ever want to be a part of. I'd rather die than have my content neutered by people just because they had a different interpretation. Who would dare display such a deep misunderstanding of artistic freedom but old-fashioned book-burners when it actually came to the point of making a final decision once and for all? Would we push that button as a society, really?

What about movies? Tarantino's previous two films, for example? Gleefully skipping through awful shit to stick it to their oppressors? I think by limiting ourselves to only taking harsh realities of the past with the utmost seriousness every single time, you lose your ability to reduce them to the ridiculous ideas put forward by angry little men that those wars and years of oppression were. It's empowering to pomp up evil in pantomime window dressing and then kick it in the balls.

Painful memories are painful no matter what a pulpy game or movie depicts. They don't replace them or re-write them, they temporarily re-frame them so we can breathe a collective sigh that we're slinging mud at the faces of evil and enjoy it. No matter what a piece does, it deserves every criticism or positive or both that it receives in its lifetime from us all, we all have valid views, but they should remain intangible. Once we think we know better than its creators what it needs to be, place a system of right and wrong into the equation, and try to create a movement that ends up having an actual oppressive outcome, we're as bad as the Thought Police. That will always be my view on every medium.

I'm not specifically responding to you per se, this is a generalized response to this type of discussion. I respect your views, but not the wording, in the least hostile way possible.

Right, I understand that. This is a really nuanced issue. Something like Saving Private Ryan had fun human moments within its serious narrative. Treading that line is easier for movies than games. Games are naturally cartoonish and must have a sense of pacing that's conducive to what's fun or interesting to play.

I don't claim to have all the answers here. It's just something interesting to discuss.

@frodobaggins I've actually never played Valiant Hearts, but from I can tell that game DID show the consequences of war, which is what makes it different than CoD or BF. It's easier to do that in a contained narrative that doesn't just involve shooting.

Tarantino sets his movies as a sort of alternate history and as mentioned, I'm cool with that. We suspend our disbelief there. His sense of tone is consistent throughout. There's not the same sense of silliness in Battlefield, if that makes sense. They're trying to have a sense of authenticity in BF.

That's a really arbitrary line to draw. You're already playing in a toy sandbox where you can die over and over and spawn on your friends and run a plane into the ground with no consequences. It's a multiplayer FPS video game. Authenticity to a conflict has no meaning in this context if you even spend 1 second to think about it.

Have you played the beta? I ask in good faith because your post sounds like your responding to the bad reveal trailer. In my opinion, this is the most grounded Battlefield to date. The excellent voice work they've given downed enemies is haunting. It's the first time in a Battlefield game where the smoke cleared after a firefight and I actually felt uncomfortable because of moaning enemies. Another user in a different thread mentioned the sniper class counting kills under their breath in real time. I find that thematically chilling as well. I think they're doing more than ever to make the game feel authentic.

I can go into why I think the gameplay changes support this idea as well, but I'm at work so it's time to wrap up.

I don't see any evidence of this game feeding a power fantasy. It's doing the opposite as far as I can tell. I guess I disagree with your premise that this is a problem with Dice and Battlefield V. If you want to argue that video games shouldn't use real life historical conflicts in general (which you pretty much say between the lines) I think there's a more nuanced conversation there. As for me, playing the beta and watching coverage has already piqued my interest in the real WWII. I've started watching "WWII in Colour" on Netflix and it's excellent. So, even if you're right that BFV is doing something wrong, I believe you would agree that my experience is resulting in a net positive in regards to respect for the real WWII.

Again, if you can look past the game's attempt to be authentic in certain areas while simultaneously having the structure of a multiplayer shooter, I have no problem. If you can suspend your disbelief to that extent and enjoy the game than I envy you. Yes, it might be an arbitrary line to draw but games that are tonally inconsistent without knowing that are still worthy of criticism. In this case, with people demanding historical accuracy in part because it has those serious and authentic elements, I think this is a discussion worth having. I think it has hurt the game overall. To each their own.

Let me say upfront, that games can use real life historical conflicts. I'm against them not doing them well or using them as windowdressing. They can have all the audio cues and such of a real conflict, at the end of the day you're in a multiplayer map where that context is muddled and that's where my thread comes from.

Do games just need to add "based on a true story"? I am confused, cause I don't think I've seen a movie, book, or game ever really be historically accurate. That's what documentaries and history books are for! I just think this whole "controversy" is very weird. I'm pretty sure someone from Northern Africa, China, Europe, and basically anywhere else but the U.S. and roll their eyes at this game, cause I'm left wondering; who's history do you want to see accurately in this game?

Why is battlefield different than every other video game (and in general Hollywood's) portrayal of real wars?

Very few tackle the darker themes of war because it would be a terrible affair that few would want to play for any length of time. In terms of other games trivializing war, Call of Duty just did this and Dynasty Warriors was founded on the idea and has been doing it for a decade without a single person batting an eye. I don't think this is a nuance discussion at all, I think the WW2 backdrop is hitting too close to home for you and clouding your judgement on just how restrictive your believes would be on video games as a whole.

If you're referring to Inglorious Basterds, I don't find it to be "alternate history" moreso than any other work of fiction is. Just because something isn't presented as a true story of actual events doesn't make it alternate history. Take Hogan's Heroes for example, it was a comedy set within the backdrop of WWII. Is that wrong? I think it's ok to have a certain amount of levity in a grave setting. In fact the contrast can be interesting. It can certainly be irreverent to the point of being offensive, though if it crosses the line. I don't know that I would categorize BFV that way though. I saw the reveal trailer and have seen a few gameplay videos here and there. I didn't really see anything controversial.

Before I respond to any more comments (I haven't read beyond what I responded to), let me clarify some things...

I made this thread in response to the controversy about historical accuracy (about the woman on the cover and such) in BFV that EA themselves responded to. They basically said that 'if you don't like that we included women don't buy it.' Which has caused somewhat of an uproar online. My response goes to the heart of it all. Which is to say that they've kinda painted themselves in a corner by being both authentic in its setting and trying to make a fun, inclusive multiplayer shooter in 2018. I should've made this more clear.

To clarify more and to sort of respond to the comments above, tone does a lot for a game. If your tone is inconstant by having serious backdrop on top of fun gameplay, it kinda loses me and is where I think the heart of this controversy lies. It's the whole dissonance argument we had when 2013 Tomb Raider came out. People want that historical accuracy while DICE and EA want to make a fun, inclusive multiplayer shooter on top of a historical setting.

Tarantino gets away with it because his tone is consistent. That's a movie and that's easier to do. In games, gameplay, tone and setting all intertwine. If one leads one expectation (authenticity in a real world conflict) and gameplay leads to another (fun), then we have controversies like this crop up.

Well, this is a problem a bunch of shooters have at their core, if we're being honest. The idea of capping someone as "fun" in a game really isn't ever tonally appropriate with respect to the real world, historically or presently. I'd agree it's a bit more jarring in a WWII context because the war had a tremendous impact on the world, but I'm not that bothered by it because, after all, it's a video game.

Also, Battlefield 1 did a decent job of showing reverence to the conflict itself. In addition to featuring some actual squadrons like the Harlem Hellfighters and the Women's Death Battalion (both of which I became interested enough in to read up on), there was very little goofy shit trivializing the gameplay. I made a post here about turning off all the HUD elements to make it as immersive as possible, and found it to be a reasonably affecting experience when I dialed back the video gamey-ness. That it is possible to make a game appear/feel reasonably authentic within an online multiplayer experience was an impressive feat to me.

I disagree with the "power fantasy" contention. Most shooters have you playing as some superhero who moves at lightning speed and hipfires on a full sprint accurately using a gun with zero recoil, if not also with some jetpack to literally fly around obliterating everything in sight. That game can be done well (see: Titanfall 1 & 2), but Battlefield 1 was refreshingly slow-paced when most games are going hard the other way, so I don't think the series makes a good example of the power fantasy complaint.

Maybe Battlefield V will be different, but it doesn't look like it apart from perhaps empowering some atypical demographics which, while not "historically accurate" to the conflict per se, arguably is a welcome development considering that we've thankfully progressed as a society since 1945. As such, a 2018 video game embracing an evolved idea of a protagonist is fine by me, even retroactively. Enough on that, though.

I don't really buy into the idea of playing a game as some future space marine capping aliens being okay while a more "realistic" setting isn't. I'm a goddamn adult capable of separating fiction from reality, and the "fun" I get from a shooter has never, and will never be derived from who I'm shooting. They're all sort of virtual husks to me within the video game, and outside of something truly offensive, that should all kinda be left in the video game world. I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that I think the "controversy" here is a little overblown.

Mmm, yeah I think I hear you. I appreciate a story being sillier than the setting might otherwise demand, but it's an easier pill to swallow when you veer into alternate history like Wolfenstein or Inglorious Basterds.

It's not necessary for me (if I were down to play another Battlefield game, I'd probably be pretty excited about this one), but I think if they had come out front and centre and confronted the tone by pitching this thing with "we're making a pulpy Battlefield game that's also trying to tell some WW2 stories that we don't hear too much about," that first point would severely cushion the whiplash of seeing the most spectacular things in your "authentic" WW2 game, and then everyone who's okay with a pulpy WW2 tone can move on to appreciating that they're not doing a WW2 in pop culture greatest hits.

I wonder if the reason they had to push the whole "authentic" shit is because of some marketing data that's all "the numbers say say it, so motherfucker get out there and say it." It's like some slimy sales associate brazenly lying to your face, to look at that first trailer and have them try to sell it to you as authentic. I actually like the tone they went with, but they can fuck right off with that shit.

It is perfectly valid to want more authenticity out of a game based on World War II. Some people don't care about some of the wackier cosmetics which is fine, but some do which is also fine. Some people wouldn't care if you could mount unicorns and swing laser swords. That line that breaks immersion is different for every player. A large portion of the people that saw that initial trailer didn't like what they saw and they let DICE know.

The controversy however was created by DICE. They didn't respond appropriately to peoples' complaints going as far as to call them 'uneducated' and instructing them to not buy their game. They were coming into this with an already shaky recent history since Brokenfield 4 (get it?!) and this was the straw that broke the camel's back for some.

Personally, I want something slower and tactical. BFV is an easy no buy to me. It's really crazy because I am one of those people that was excited to go back to WW2 but I ended up completely passing on both COD and BF. I just think they both whiffed so hard on what people actually want but I digress.

I'm sorry but I find this really silly. So it's ok if something based on a war is historically inaccurate but only if historically inaccurate in the exact way you want it to be? Anything that goes over your seemingly arbitrary line is too far and shouldn't exist and If I'm understanding you right one of those lines is women... cool.

It's fine to have a preference or your taste skews one way or the other but painting it this the way you are isn't really a good look. If the decision to make BF V unrealistic rubs you the wrong way then I'm with the devs on this one. Don't buy it. You dig holes for yourself when you try to add more nuanced than what is needed. You don't like the direction? got it, opinions are cool. You don't like it because ...something, something... historical accuracy ...something, something... women. Yeah, no not interested.

@fatalbanana said:

I'm not sure if you are replying to me, but I never mentioned women being a problem personally. I mentioned that I was looking for something slower and tactical.

With that said, if you are trying to sell video games to as many people as possible, telling people to not buy your game is generally a bad idea. They might listen.

My argument here is EA and DICE dug their hole when they wanted a WWII multiplayer game. People hear WWII, they want something authentic and real for the time, which they aren't going to get in a multiplayer shooter which is trying to be inclusive (which I personally think being inclusive is a good thing). The gameplay design and setting don't match tonally. I don't really care for those who cry when they see a woman on a cover of a video game. At the same time, they should've thought this over more closely.

I should add that women did serve in WWII. Before someone tries to muddy up my argument again, I'm simply stating that WWII sets a certain expectation to the audience and EA should've thought that over. The time period wasn't exactly known for being inclusive or having people roll on tanks.

@carlthenimrod: I wasn't replying to you specifically but I will elaborate on my point because it might not have been clear. I don't get the need to draw lines of accuracy with any kind of media and more specifically why Battlefield is the big stopping point for people. There are uncountable numbers of fiction based on WW2 but Battlefield is the big offender when it comes to not being realistic. Wonder why.

I get that you want a certain kind of game your not getting but why do you lay that at the feet of Battlefield? I want a game that's a really great mix of MMO and action game but I don't blame WoW for not being that because that would be silly I'll just play Destiny instead.

The original poster made it clear his response was based on the controversy of women being in this video game and that's the main reason why I think this particular thread is ridiculous. Having a preference when it comes to a game's tone is not a hot take. Not to say the poster isn't allowed to talk about it but using the controversy as a stepping stone for a milquetoast opinion is silly to me.

I don't feel the need to defend the marketing staff of anything but I don't care they said people shouldn't buy their game. They aren't wrong and I could care less if it costs them sales. I don't see why that should hurt your feelings.

My opinion is that the game shouldn't have taken place in WWII at all b/c it doesn't fit well with what they (DICE and EA) were trying to accomplish. I'll admit this is a muddy topic that has several layers that I probably didn't explain well (given the responses I guess not). I'm not saying never make a WWII game and I'll admit the first paragraph of my post was not well thought out, but I think given what I said so far in this thread there's a decent argument as to why they probably shouldn't have set this game during WWII.

I think there is a stepping stone here. If this was a generic military game, the backlash probably wouldn't have been this severe. My opinion? Probably. I don't know, it might've still escalated to this level somehow. At the very least the 'critics' couldn't cry 'historical inaccuracy'.

In any case, the gameplay doesn't match what they want out of the realistic setting. Again...my opinion? Yeah I guess, but this title of this thread is my thoughts on the BFV controversy. It's not something I had set in stone, meaning that people are welcome to disagree.

Yup, you can have an opinion and I can have an opinion based on that opinion. Woo... glad we got that cleared up.

Ok, I'll stop being a jerk but you pretty much made my point for me. The historical accuracy argument was first used by bad actors raising a stink because women were revealed to be in the game. It then was used by people in good faith to make an argument for a version of a game that they weren't getting but wanted. The whole reason this is still being talked about is because of what you're doing right now; rehashing a non-controversy stoked up by twitter agitators and using as fuel for your own video game wishes.

To address your actual issue though I just don't get why you have such a problem with the ludo-narrative dissonance of a battlefield game but we can agree to disagree on that, I made my point.

BFV is no more silly or fun than any previous BF game, and having put ten or so hours into the beta for BFV, I didn't think it leaned into a tone of 'fun' or 'inclusivity' in any meaningful way whatsoever. This is coming from someone who has literally put thousands of collective hours into every single core BF game ever made. The narration, dialogue, animation, art style...all of it is dead-serious. Structurally, it's virtually identical to every BF game that came before it.

The only specifically inclusive thing I saw was that some of the characters happen to be women or people of color. I couldn't even find anywhere that I could choose what race or gender my character would be; I just assumed you would pop into the match as a random person. Having said that, I've noted that you are lumping in "inclusive" with "fun" as if they are necessarily coupled. They aren't. Getting to play as a woman isn't "fun", it's a setting. It's not "fun" to allow people to represent themselves, or otherwise play as characters who resemble actual people culled from the annals of history.

I honestly can't fathom what details, in my experience with the game, that clearly align with the facets of the game with which you take umbrage. I don't know what your experience with this game is, but it's completely different than mine, in a way that makes me wonder if you are misremembering things, or if you've even played the game at all.

If this entire argument is strictly about game trailers or other pre-release press material, none of which I've seen...I don't know that it's valid to translate it directly as a critique of the game itself. There's probably a lot to say about what the marketing is saying, but the product, apparently, says something entirely different - as, in media, it very, very often does.

At any rate, I don't think it's necessarily important that people widely don't seem to agree with you, but it should say something that people widely don't seem to even know what you're talking about.

While everyone is screaming about realism, women, etc I'm just kind of sick of media making characters look like modern day youth to appeal to that audience rather than make characters look like they would in the given setting, time period, or circumstances/race. "Race" not really speaking to human ethnicity, but rather seeing aliens from distant planets looking like regular people you see at the local mall but with green/blue skin. Like watching Mass Alex reminds me how interesting all the alien races are visually, except the asari who are just blue humans basically.

It's a real shame the well is poisoned on this one since I can't express my opinion that all the looks DICE has chosen look like trash and lack a lot of what I like out of a WW2 aesthetic without being assumed to be on the wrong side. Fortunately you can customise your Company so my 4 peeps will look nice. It's the other 63 players in the server I have to worry about

It's just a thought that if their default medic look is a British guy in an American paratrooper uniform but also a high altitude pilots mask then how many people that resemble WW2 will be in the WW2 game.

Also the VO for the British is cornier than the typical BF. You get a lot of "good golly" and "ell ol friend" and "its just a flesh wound". Most of it is fine though and I can live with it but it is definitely more chipper than the average BF.

I don't understand how it's okay to give 1942 or Vietnam War a pass, but BFV needs to have this discussion.

Unless EA and DICE take a political stance to piss all over history, their take here for BFV is fine. It's a multiplayer-focused video game with a purpose to provide entertainment, regardless of how or if they land any emotional punches in their single-player campaign. And even though this is an entertainment product, it is still made by creatives who wish execute their creative vision, which is fine to critique, but not to wag fingers at.

@shivermetimbers: OK. I get that argument about DICE trying to have it both ways. I remember reading loads of bullet velocity/drop specs for guns in Battlefield 3 with a buddy and saying "why do they want to make some parts of this game so realistic when so much of it is so unrealistic?" I think it was pretty similar to what you're feeling toward BFV now. The difference is that when my friend responded with "I'd rather have some realistic parts than no realistic parts" I could just accept it and move on because BF3 has a purely fictional setting. With BFV you present a more complicated conversation that I don't have any special insight into. Although I will say again that I don't think the tone is as dissonant as you say, and it's hard to imagine a game where shooting guns at people and getting shot at isn't fun which is the opposite of reality. Seriously, if you want to talk about dissonance let's talk about the value of human life in games. I love blood and gore and gibs and good ragdolls in games, but I feel like crying when I someone get hurt more than a little bit in real life. Sometimes coworkers will watch some gnarly video and I have to run away before I accidentally see something serious. But now I'm rambling.

I can't speak to "historical accuracy" because my history suuuuuucks. But I might consider some inconsistencies a limitation of the medium. Some are obviously choices.

"To put it bluntly, I don't think it's a good idea to turn a real life military conflict into something that's meant to be bombastic and fun."

Well shit, where you have been in the past 10 years? Do you have these conversations every year about every war game that comes out that happens to be "bombastic and fun". Do you get upset when games use real places and people as target practice for rampaging western soldiers to turn into a fine red mist? Do you quietly reflect on on the costs or war after you play a couple missions or a few matches? Nah, you play them to mow down people in crude fashion. Primary interactions are killing whilst playing an immortal hero that will eventually get to the end of the game. Sorry but your arguments don't hold water and the idea that you are upset that "using a real life conflict that caused misery, loss of life, loss of goodwill, etc etc to fuel that fun power fantasy" is laughable, THAT has been these games' (and developers) bread and butter for the past 10 years!

The only difference is some other peoples idea of fun is playing different characters they don't usually play and your idea of fun involves wanton killing of hundreds people(people which happen to represent real nationalities) in a matter of minutes while you miraculously healing fatal wound is seconds just by being next to a medpack, which I guess to you is ok and still manages to respect the "authenticity" of the themes of war. But throw some women and black people in there and suddenly it's just too much, the different shaped avatars and NPCs have nullified the "authenticity" more so than Lazarus the super soldier.

Also this sentence: "It doesn't want to be historically accurate in terms of the consequences that come with war, it wants to be historically accurate (or authentic) in terms of setting..." is trite. It's a meaningless statement, as if any of these games attempted to to present the consequences of war outside of producing plot reasons for sequels.

I'm probably being harsh, maybe I've read some of your thoughts on this incorrectly but It's either you've had this gripe since the first war-shooters or you've conspicuously became an authenticity aficionado the moment a woman popped on the screen.

I was borne and raised in Belgium a country who's infrastructure got totally annihilated twice! (thanks Germany :D your forgiven) And i am totally fine with this ( WWII games / Depiction of the World Wars). It at least makes people aware that this happened even though it isn't historically accurate it at least makes some Dan Ryckert esque kid say "what is this WW there depicting" and this could lead to people searching more about the conflict itself and the political stew Europe was in the 1930 etc. And Learn that Fascist like Franco ruled Spain until1975. ( Yeah i know it's fucked' up). So if this ends with people getting more informed about the Second world war, i am all for it.

Also i wanna point out that stuff like there depiction of the battle of Narwick (map was in the open beta) is a point in the right direction. With BF1 Conflict mode depicting these battles over several days and giving some info in the background.

@shivermetimbers:

So there was a lot here so sorry if I missed anything, but what exactly do you consider to be "tonally inconsistent" with BFV? From what I have played so far, and seen there isn't anything in this game that shouts "over the top multiplayer silliness".

While I myself have not served, I have many friends who do/have and from what I've heard you'd be surprised how "bombastic" combat can be. Yeah you probably aren't being as careful because well, it's a video game, but especially in an urban setting there are explosions are gunfire going off CONSTANTLY, if you have air support, add in the buzzing of aircraft/helicopters.

You also have to piece out the two parts of BF V. There is the multiplayer, where the tone is very clearly the highest highs of combat( none of that hurry up and wait ) and then there's the single player which(supposedly) will tell a story with themes which is just based in this setting. Which brings me to my second point.

What makes this different than say something like Pearl Harbor(acting aside), Black Hawk Down, or even Band of Brothers? Or any number of other pieces of media? While all of those things are based on actual events, creators try to make them engaging so people will listen to the narrative. Yes, in multiplayer there isn't really a narrative, but one could argue that the narrative is "war is hell". And actually the grand operations I believe ARE loosely based on actual operations.

I found CoD's handling of war in the recent WWII game more troubling but what do I know

I get your point, I just don't know if Battlefield V is the worst example, or just one in a long line of games that tried to have their cake (being about a historically accurate setting, with lots of content to "inspire them", from movies to books) and eating it too (being a power fantasy videogame where one badass soldier with reckless abandon could wipeout an entire barrack full of people)

Man that game was so good.

@meierthered: yeah it really was wasn't it.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Valkyria Chronicles 4. It has no basis in reality and no one will care one way or the other so long as it's fun.

It's crazy how butt hurt people are acting over you bringing up this question in regards to Battlefield. Yes other games have had this issue that doesn't mean Battlefield cannot be the catalyst of a discussion. Personally I don't think the inconsistencies are a big deal because past wars, conflicts, struggles will always be minimized as time goes on. I'm not making a value judgment on whether that is good or bad, that's just how I think people and the world work; the farther we get away from something the less meaningful it becomes to people. So while I agree with the sentiment of your post it just doesn't matter much to me because it is an inevitability that these important moments of the past get minimized and bastardized by later generations.

@shivermetimbers: I've felt this way for a very long time, which is why I tend to stay away from games depicting modern "realistic" military conflict. A notable exception is Spec Ops: The Line, but I read about the story of that game before playing it and waited until it was in a $5 bundle with two other games before buying it.

You're coming from a good place, and I appreciate it. Still, don't worry about it. Look, soldiers play these games, too. When I was deployed, I knew guys who would play CoD after they got back from patrols. I perhaps took a much more hardline stance on this sort of thing than anyone else I knew, but remember that veterans are not a monolith. Some will like playing these games. Some won't.

I remember being in a GameStop and seeing an actual WW2 veteran buying battlefield 1942. He used to fly fighter planes during the war, and he explained how he loved WW2 games like Medal Of Honor and Battlefield 1942. Imagine after being through everything he's been through and still liking WW2 video games. So, if it was okay with him then it's ok with me.

For me, I personally don't care about the women in the game thing. I get that it's historically inaccurate and all, but I think Battlefield as a whole is inaccurate. Take BF1 for example. That game is incredibly inaccurate in terms of how that war was fought and what weaponry was used in WW1, but nobody cared as much as 'gurlz in the game' because at the end of the day this game series is fun over accuracy. Because of that, pointing out women fighting in the war as inaccurate while not pointing out the other inaccuracy makes the argument invalid. I find it difficult to argue for 'a little more accuracy, but not a whole lot.' Hell, there is a co-op mode with generated levels and a battle royale mode. Try to explain that one in the books. And I am not on the other side of the debate calling anyone who questions women in the war misogynistic. I'm on the side who sees this as a dumb minor issue when at the end of the day you are getting a new Battlefield.

On top of that, and this is my personal opinion, I don't want accurate WW2 shooters. I've already stormed the beaches of Normandy too many to want some hyper-realistic telling of WW2. There are so many WW2 shooters out there (even modern ones in this second age of WW2 shooters) that are accurate, so why still make the same. Even though the game wasn't good, I still love the premise of Raid WW2. I wish more games take a unique stance on the time period (which this game is sort of doing).

So this thread is a few days old now...I'd recommend not trying to write complex blogs and posts when in serious physical pain. I should've also made this more discussion friendly by making it a poll instead of a blog (do you think military games should use real world settings?), but ah well.

My first paragraph here kinda threw people off, which is understandable. I haven't read through all the replies, but let me summarize all my posts above into something more cohesive:

I personally don't think modern military shooters should use real world conflicts, okay let me rephrase that a bit, multiplayer shooters with a more inclusive design mentality such as Battlefield V should no longer use real world conflicts. I stated my reasoning above, but to summarize, WWII leaves players with a certain expectation and games going for authenticity in their war game should also be considerate of the fact that what they are simulating isn't real, but what they are trying to replicate did happen on some level. So knowing that, players will try to compare what's happening in the game to real the real life event. Whether or not you particularly or the developers see the problem is irrelevant. There is something to be said about it.

So mentioning stuff like Tarantino movies, which a. isn't trying to be authentic and is made for suspending your disbelief. b. is not trying to simulate real war and c. has a consistent tone, doesn't fit in with the conversation. Battlefield is trying to go for a sense of realism, you can tell by the moans and audio design alone as a user above me mentioned, they are going for a serious backdrop amongst the traditional Battlefield gameplay chaos (which is what they always do). Which is fine if the conflict they are representing is fictional, but if something is off about your WWII themed game, people are going to notice and comment.

Not trying to take away one's enjoyment of BF, btw. It's just my opinion on the matter here.

It's an emotional response, to be fair, not an obvious issue with tonal consistency, which is completely subjective and arguably not even necessary to make good art. Why can there only be one persistent tone to be deemed valid, cohesive and positive? Why does it need to be completely authentic or nothing at all? it just seems like an extremely unfair expectation. Nothing should be done or changed. Feel free to say what you want on the topic, it's interesting, and people will always listen and agree or disagree, but it should simply never go beyond intelligent discussion. It's their vision, and that should be sacrosanct: ignore it if you want to, or immerse yourself in it if you want to, they should be our only options. Supporting the companies and products that treat subject material how we want, or not.

The Tarantino comparison absolutely fits in with the conversation. It's a valid and direct comparison. He takes the subject matter incredibly seriously, and you have no reason to say Inglorious and Django aren't trying to be authentic, because they definitely are. The only thing they're not are 1:1 recreations of the horror, but they do use the ingredients. How is that different to Battlefield? Remixing authentic elements, including real suffering, into unique and original stories with some original characters.

I also disagree that Battlefield never expects you to suspend your disbelief in the same way historical Tarantino flicks do, because, again, they absolutely do. When I played an American huckster pretending to be a British pilot and single-handedly brought down two blimps full of nazis, DICE were not asking me to take it super seriously in any way. When I dragged my co-pilot through no-man's land to save him, they were, and those tonal shifts are key to Inglorious and Django. Contrast and conflict, two cornerstones of every medium. You can't have contrast without different tones.

I couldn't care less really. I guess what I'd always prefer is a game that can teach you something when they use historical accounts, but if the game is fun and does well at what it sets out to do then I don't really mind in the end.

I wanna be an Ewok running around with an stg44. Literally nothing else matters

@brunothethird: I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree here. Tarantino is going for schlock, which is again something we can argue for days. He's always been about consequence free violence and silly stories in real settings. Battlefield lacks that schlock value. It's grim and depressing in its visuals and outlook on war, while having a gameplay core that's cartoonish and chaotic. Also I don't get why this being a quote unquote 'emotional' response is a problem. Every response has an emotion attached to it, even if it's apathy.

That would be cool. Lean in with the absurdity, which is what the series should be doing, imho. I'm not saying take out all the WWII elements either, the guns and stuff can stay.

Wrong war bro...

I already detailed how emotional responses against examples of any medium are fundamentally a problem, as personal bias should have no say in what art 'should be,' because that suggests there's a right and wrong way to do it, which is a misunderstanding. Colours are inert to me, and I see others' creative output as nothing but colours in a debate setting, so it feels like arguing that blue and red are inappropriate when paired with brown and grey or something.

Yeah, we should agree to disagree I guess; sometimes things naturally go nowhere. I hope the thread gives you more of the kind of responses you're interested in finding.

@hayt: Fiiine: naughty Germans.