I go through peaks and valleys with the site. I'll get really into a new series or something and then back away for a week or two. But it'll always be there, and I can always come back.
@petefic: I really wish some of the game Journalists who retweeted some very distasteful things did this, there's a specific one who I still can't believe tried to defend the indefensible. I honestly thought he was better than that.
I think i know who you're talking about and yeah, that really bummed me out
(Also, real talk, what's with the name? Why is it V instead of 5? Maybe the game itself will provide an answer to that in time, but it's seriously throwing me off. When I first saw it I managed to convince myself it was gonna be a new Vietnam. Is this Battlefield Venom? Did I slip into the other timeline??)
Some people are subscribing to the idea that the V is supposed to also stand for Victory as well as 5. Like VE-day and that famous picture of Churchill
If this game was at all interested in historical authenticity I think you would have a point.
And that's why so many people are bummed. They were hoping for a WW2 game that WAS interested in historical authenticity. I know I was. Yeah there have been a ton of other authentic WW2 games, but they were 20-15 years ago. It's been a long time since those games and I think a lot of people are ready to see that again with modern game engines. Hell, lots of gamers today probably were too young to have even played those games. And Battlefield was a series that used to care about authenticity. 1942, Vietnam, and BF2 all were games sold on how authentic they were.
I do think a lot of this could have been avoided if they came out and made it abundantly clear that the concept behind this game was fantasy alt-history WW2. But when this game was teased as "Battlefield returns to WW2", people thought that meant we are getting a successor to BF1942. Instead we get british soliders running around with blue facepaint holding katanas. It's not a simple case of "people are mad that there's a woman in a video game". The RAGE 2 trailer a few weeks ago was filled with women in combat and no one cared.
@ghost_cat made the point I was going to already so I'll confront your other point by saying I don't buy that being the reason why people are bummed. The vast majority of people I've seen are mad because of some perceived "checking off of boxes" or "playing the diversity card", "giving into skeleton's" etc. in the guise of being sticklers for historical accuracy *eye roll*. To be fair I haven't seen that much on these forums so I'm not calling out anyone in particular on this site. With that said Rage 2 isn't based on or playing off of real world events so there is little reason for calling the diversity police or whatever. Battlefield having real events associated with it sets off the signals to say "hey, woman don't belong here you including them is historically inaccurate" but very little mention of the katanas.
If you wanted the game to be something realistic and accurate I don't know why you think this game would be that but I generally don't begrudge you that. Though I don't think it's something worth being up in arms about but that's just me. The responses sticking to the historically inaccurate/women angle are silly. Which is what my original post was responding to.
I've seen more than a few people mention the katana.
Being one of those people that is upset that they aren't going for a more authentic tone, it really bums me out that there are so many people acting like cretins about this. Being on "that side" is uncomfortable for me.
Log in to comment