EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

[Terminal Blue]

Again, I wasn't talking about the mere presence of women. I was talking about rewriting history to portray World War II as having 50% female soldiers fighting in all battles. Millions of soldiers, half of them female. That would be an example of the cancer that is identity politics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics], which is currently tearing apart the fabric of Western society by trying to divide everyone up into teams of "oppressed" factions each fighting to overthrow their alleged evil white heterosexual male "oppressors." It's a racist and sexist ideology, and some people would prefer not to have it infecting their video games.

You know, people have made games and media which featured magic, giant robots, zombies, vampires, werewolves, time travel, aliens and, as mentioned, jetpacks in a world war 2 setting.

But woms are the final straw. That's just too fictional. I mean, I can buy that there were Nazi wizards, but they'd better have dicks!

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here. I mean, if you couldn't deal with a fictionalized depiction of world war 2 featuring women and not see it for what it is, exactly the same as every other fictionalised depiction of a real setting in which elements have been tweaked for entertainment, then I don't think that's a problem of other people bringing in politics.

 

[Hawki]

You know, people have made games and media which featured magic, giant robots, zombies, vampires, werewolves, time travel, aliens and, as mentioned, jetpacks in a world war 2 setting.

To be fair, a lot of that stuff is in settings that are explicitly playing fast and loose with WWII (Hellboy, Wolfenstein, etc.) Battlefield at least nominally follows history. So while the presence of playable women is an inaccuracy, my main point is that it isn't inherently more egregious than anything else.

 

[Kerg3927]

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here.

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018. Everyone is now equal under the law in the West, assuming you can afford a lawyer. And that's a class issue, with income as the only variable, not any other kind of imagined or faked discrimination. Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Battlefield at least nominally follows history.

None of the three people on that horse better be having a vagina, or my historical immersion will be ruined!

I get what you're saying, but seriously..

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018.

Indeed, that's because of this thing called identity politics.

Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

I agree.

But you don't get to decide when that is.

You certainly don't get to decide that it's now, when plenty of people are constantly, constantly reminded which "adjective" they belong to just through the basic process of living in a society that doesn't treat them the same as everyone else.

One way in which a person might be reminded which adjective they belong to, of course, is by watching people have a meltdown because people of the wrong adjective appear in a video game. Because somehow, even though it doesn't matter and we're all just people and we shouldn't be divisive, it really matters that video games have the wrong people in them and that's an acceptable grounds for complaining.

Because remember, only certain people have to worry that they're being divisive..

 

[Saelune]

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here.

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018. Everyone is now equal under the law in the West, assuming you can afford a lawyer. And that's a class issue, with income as the only variable, not any other kind of imagined or faked discrimination. Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

Identity politics is what bigots created to oppress people who are different. Identity politics were created when a man told a woman she was less than him, identity politics were created when a religious person told a homosexual they are a sin against God, identity politics were created when a white person said that being black makes you property, not human.

The only way to stop identity politics is to fight for equality.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here.

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018. Everyone is now equal under the law in the West, assuming you can afford a lawyer. And that's a class issue, with income as the only variable, not any other kind of imagined or faked discrimination. Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

Pfft, tell that to the African Americans who get arrested for carrying weed 3-4 times as often as white people despite white people being more likely to carry weed. And then get longer sentences for crimes they do commit for no goddamned reason.

You know people study this stuff, right?

I agree.

But you don't get to decide when that is.

You certainly don't get to decide that it's now, when plenty of people are constantly, constantly reminded which "adjective" they belong to just through the basic process of living in a society that doesn't treat them the same as everyone else.

One way in which a person might be reminded which adjective they belong to, of course, is by watching people have a meltdown because people of the wrong adjective appear in a video game. Because somehow, even though it doesn't matter and we're all just people and we shouldn't be divisive, it really matters that video games have the wrong people in them and that's an acceptable grounds for complaining.

Because remember, only certain people have to worry that they're being divisive..

Yep. Identity politics can die just as soon as certain people existing stops being "political".

 

[Erttheking]

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here.

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018. Everyone is now equal under the law in the West, assuming you can afford a lawyer. And that's a class issue, with income as the only variable, not any other kind of imagined or faked discrimination. Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

A man was just sentenced to death because he was a gay man and the jurors felt that that meant that he would enjoy life in prison and therefore it wouldn't be a punishment for him.

If you think all the issues with inequality just magically went away, you haven't been paying attention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/charles-rhines-gay-jury-death-row.html

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

To be fair, a lot of that stuff is in settings that are explicitly playing fast and loose with WWII (Hellboy, Wolfenstein, etc.) Battlefield at least nominally follows history.

????????

Um ... no? Like, no. Just no. Having recently played BF1, categorically 'no'.

Even in a sense of it being a series, no.

 

[Avnger]

See, as someone who would be in a mental institution being forcibly and tortuously pumped full of hormones against my will if not for identity politics, I think your politics might be the problem here.

Not saying that there weren't issues in the past, major issues, but what you are describing is not going to happen in 2018. Everyone is now equal under the law in the West, assuming you can afford a lawyer. And that's a class issue, with income as the only variable, not any other kind of imagined or faked discrimination. Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

Oh hon...

You really believe those white walls surrounding your life is the total extent of everyone's experiences, don't you? Maybe you should take a peak at what other people have to deal with in life before proclaiming the discrimination they suffer as non-existent. Unfortunately, not everyone has whatever personal privileges you have to not suffer those injustices. Just because you don't have to endure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Since when were games like battlefield and cod actually historically accurate? They have a long record of avoiding showing black soldiers in the US army because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that the army was segregated at the time.

As for female soldiers, there were many, however in most places they had to do it illegally or outside of organized armed forces, something a lot of people on the internet today undermine or ignore, then use WW2 to argue women are inferrior while ignoring the fact that it was illegal for them to join the army in most allied countries

 

[Squilookle]

To be fair, a lot of that stuff is in settings that are explicitly playing fast and loose with WWII (Hellboy, Wolfenstein, etc.) Battlefield at least nominally follows history.

????????

Um ... no? Like, no. Just no. Having recently played BF1, categorically 'no'.

Even in a sense of it being a series, no.

If you honestly think BF1 shows how Battlefield has 'always' treated historical conflict, then you're making yourself look too young for this discussion.

Since when were games like battlefield and cod actually historically accurate? They have a long record of avoiding showing black soldiers in the US army because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that the army was segregated at the time.

As for female soldiers, there were many, however in most places they had to do it illegally or outside of organized armed forces, something a lot of people on the internet today undermine or ignore, then use WW2 to argue women are inferrior while ignoring the fact that it was illegal for them to join the army in most allied countries

Battlefield 1942 (2002)- the first Battlefield. Depicts WW2- a conflict during which the U.S. employed segregation. All U.S. soldiers in-game are White.

Battlefield Vietnam (2004)- the second Battlefield game. Depicts Vietnam- a conflict during which the U.S. employed the national draft, and no segregation. U.S. soldiers in-game are both Black and White.

Battlefield 2 (2005)- The third Battlefield game. Depicts a fictional near-future war involving the U.S, not using segregation. U.S. soldiers in-game are both Black and White. The subsequent games always showed Black and White U.S. soldiers engaged in fictional conflicts.

So don't come waltzing in here pretending DICE never took notice of historical accuracy in the past. Just because they (understandably) play it fast and loose with the details of their fictional Battlefield conflicts, doesn't mean they didn't make an effort in the early days to evoke the actual, real wars they were portraying.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If you honestly think BF1 shows how Battlefield has 'always' treated historical conflict, then you're making yourself look too young for this discussion.

Three games, one of which dating since I was a teenager, doesn't fill me with much confidence for your argument. Of them I played Battlfield 2 ... the next Battlefield game I played was 2142 (which was my favourite by-the-by). It seems like a pretty stupid argument to begin with. The grand bulk of them have been incredibly fanciful, and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts if I find a copy of BF: Vietnam and BF 1942 I'm going to find problems with it as well.

Am I supposed to apologize for only being in my early thirties and my experience of the series has covered the grand majority of Battlefield games to date?

Moreover, what 'historical accuracy' is there in pretending like women didn't fight in WW2?

My grandmother poisoned Japanese soldiers, and shot others as a guerrilla in the Philippines. Partisans and guerrillas came from all walks of life. Women represented roughly 20% of the French resistance. So are you telling me that by choosing not to display women partisans they're doing history a favour despite clearly there were women who were partisans/guerrillas/etc?

There's a lot of information on Jewish women who became partisans in areas occupied by Nazi Germany, but apparently for the sake of 'immersion' and 'historical accuracy' pretend they didn't exist? Seems like a stupid argument to me. I would hope people wouldn't be offended solely because a Battlefield game covered (or more likely romanticized) some of the shit my grandmother got up to killing Japanese simply because they're worried a character portrayed might give them cooties.

To be fair, a videogame where a person poisons two soldier's drinks and has the audacity to not mow down a hundred more that night probably wouldn't make an interesting videogame. Neither would be dragging through mud supplies for other guerrillas, spending 9 hours traversing mountainous terrain with 180 kilograms of flour, rice, sugar, and ammunition on a simple hand cart, be all that interesting.

Well you know what? Fuck that. I demand my historical accuracy. How about something like 9 hours of watching soldiers perform loaded marches or nothing? Otherwise my immersion will be broken. Press X for 9 hours loaded march, otherwise the historical accuracy may suffer.

Hell, Lyudmila Pavlichenko had killed 38 snipers over her career (a record not since broken if I recall correctly), and on average killed 5 fascists per day in the Ukrainian theatre before being injured by a mortar round. She is one of the most infamous sharpshooters in history, and certainly one of the best scoring of all time.

Shook hands with a U.S. president.

Earned the nickname 'Lady Death'.

But covering such things might break the immersion. Clearly for the sake of 'historical accuracy' must deem such things unsuitable for videogames. Seems childish to me. And you know what? I'd agree. Trying to transform my grandmother's actions in the Pacific War into a AAA FPS would be a tough sell.

It might even require some creative licence to make highly interesting and interactive.

But then again, so was the usual soldier's lot in life.

Except for Lyudmila Pavlichenko. She was a potent soldier and I can totally see a AAA FPS covering her exploits. Like, a clear example of mowing down hundreds of dudes by game's end and yet still be not too distant from her actual exploits.

Her campaign story could even end on that dramatic part of the mortar hit. Being carted off as another statistic, and the fall of Ukraine to the fascists despite her best efforts at places like Odessa. And that seems like a pretty poignant story to me that could be told...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

So don't come waltzing in here pretending DICE never took notice of historical accuracy in the past. Just because they (understandably) play it fast and loose with the details of their fictional Battlefield conflicts, doesn't mean they didn't make an effort in the early days to evoke the actual, real wars they were portraying.

Maybe they did. They obviously did research on what equipment the various sides used. But then you have BF1942 where every second guy had a Bazooka or a Sniper rifle (if you were allies that was a British sniper rifle, if Axis a german one) and the other guy had either an automatic rifle (the BAR for allies), an assault rifle (the StG 44 for the axis) or an SMG (the Thompson for allies, the MP-40 for axis). Occasionally you'd see a guy with a normal rifle (an Enfield for allies, a K98 for axis) Tanks conducted duels at spitting range, not the hundreds or thousands of meters they did in the real world and could be repaired by a guy with a wrench and five seconds to spare, even if said tank was burning. Guys that took a few bullets to the face only needed to have a first aid kit handed to them and the support guys carried an infinite amount of ammo on their back, in case someone ran out. Not to mention the common tactic of soldiers bunny hopping across open spaces or riding on the wings of aircraft.

As many of us have said before, there was no real amount of historical accuracy in earlier BF games. They were no more accurate then when kids run out into the forest with sticks or BB guns and play pretend WW2. The BF games, just as the CoD games, served up the fantasy of WW2, carefully vetted, directed and neutered as to be palatable as fast paced multiplayer shooters. If you think that the line where it becomes preposterous is when women and people of color are introduced to the battlefield, and not any of the other hundreds of concessions to fun and enjoyment, that is saying more about you then about the realism of the games at hand.

I mean, I think it is a weird hill to die on, but let us not pretend as if the problem is that realism is suddenly being sacrificed at the altar of gameplay and fun, because that's been the case since the first game.

 

[Squilookle]

If you honestly think BF1 shows how Battlefield has 'always' treated historical conflict, then you're making yourself look too young for this discussion.

Three games, one of which dating since I was a teenager, doesn't fill me with much confidence for your argument. Of them I played Battlfield 2 ... the next Battlefield game I played was 2142 (which was my favourite by-the-by). It seems like a pretty stupid argument to begin with. The grand bulk of them have been incredibly fanciful, and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts if I find a copy of BF: Vietnam and BF 1942 I'm going to find problems with it as well.

Am I supposed to apologize for only being in my early thirties and my experience of the series has covered the grand majority of Battlefield games to date?

Moreover, what 'historical accuracy' is there in pretending like women didn't fight in WW2?

My grandmother poisoned Japanese soldiers, and shot others as a guerrilla in the Philippines. Partisans and guerrillas came from all walks of life. Women represented roughly 20% of the French resistance. So are you telling me that by choosing not to display women partisans they're doing history a favour despite clearly there were women who were partisans/guerrillas/etc?

There'ss a lot of information on Jewish women who became partisans in areas occupied by Nazi Germany, but apparently for the sake of 'immersion' and 'historical accuracy' pretend they didn't exist? Seems like a stupid argument to me. I would hope people wouldn't be offended solely because a Battlefield game covered (or more likely romanticized) some of the shit my grandmother got up to killing Japanese simply because they're worried a character portrayed might give them cooties.

To be fair, a videogame where a person poisons two soldier's drinks and has the audacity to not mow down a hundred more that night probably wouldn't make an interesting videogame.

Neither would be dragging through mud supplies for other guerrillas, spending 9 hours traversing mountainous terrainwith 180 kilograms of flour, rice, sugar, and ammunition, be all that interesting.

But then again such things probably don't belong in a videogame, right?

Hell, Lyudmila Pavlichenko had killed 38 snipers over her career (a record not since broken if I recall correctly), and on average killed 5 fascists per day in the Crimean theatre before being injured by a mortar round. She is one of the most infamous sharpshooters in history, and certainly one of the best scoring of all time.

Shook hands with a U.S. president.

Earned the nickname 'Lady Death'.

But covering such things might break the immersion. Clearly for the sake of 'historical accuracy' must deem such things unsuitable for videogames. Seems childish to me.

OK I'm going to stop you right there. I'm sick of this. Did I say women shouldn't be in Battlefield V? Or a WW2 shooter? No. My post was arguing that there was a time in the past where Battlefield games made an effort to capture the feel of wars that actually happened. That's it. That was the whole post. Didn't mention women. Didn't state my opinion on them being in Battlefield one way or another. Didn't say anything about how many took part. My post, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Women in Battlefield V' controversy.

[HEADING=2]Stop. Pretending. Everything. Is. About. Women. Being. In. Battlefield.[/HEADING]​

You've somehow missed every Battlefield game set in a real war save for Battlefield 1. That isn't your fault. But it does also mean you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to how Battlefield used to show actual, really-happened wars. And I can tell you it was nothing like the trainwreck that BF1 turned out to be. To think you do know- THAT is what's childish here.

I'm also not talking about historical accuracy, so I may as well rip that band-aid off right now too. Of course the early Battlefields weren't 100% historically accurate. 1942 was made by a team of 14 people for Christ's sake. You try building a game about the most devastating conflict in human history with a measly baker's dozen and getting all your research right. It's not the point and never was. It didn't have the gritty storyline of Brothers in Arms or the top-line graphics of MOH: Allied Assault or the in-your face UI of the first Call of Duty. But it still looked and moved like a WW2 experience. It was unmistakably World War 2. People watching the BF:V trailer didn't know what the hell it was supposed to be. Was it WW2? Some steampunk thing? An alternate reality where the circus went to war? Even knowing now what a mess Battlefield 1 would become, at least its first trailer was still unmistakably World War 1, give or take a stupid Iron Terminator suit or two.

As many of us have said before, there was no real amount of historical accuracy in earlier BF games.

See above.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You've somehow missed every Battlefield game set in a real war save for Battlefield 1. That isn't your fault. But it does also mean you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to how Battlefield used to show actual, really-happened wars. And I can tell you it was nothing like the trainwreck that BF1 turned out to be. To think you do know- THAT is what's childish here.

Would it help my argument that I've actually been watching game footage on youtube? You got me interested and I figured I'd test my theory that I'd find problems with it. In this one let's play of 1942 it looks just as fucking over-the-top as any I've played. Even some of the glitch exploits. Flying tanks looks fun.

Apparently there's still servers up. Might try to find a copy. Looks a hoot.

 

[Squilookle]

You've somehow missed every Battlefield game set in a real war save for Battlefield 1. That isn't your fault. But it does also mean you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to how Battlefield used to show actual, really-happened wars. And I can tell you it was nothing like the trainwreck that BF1 turned out to be. To think you do know- THAT is what's childish here.

Would it help my argument that I've actually been watching game footage on youtube? You got me interested and I figured I'd test my theory that I'd find problems with it. In this one let's play of 1942 it looks just as fucking over-the-top as any I've played.

Nope. It wouldn't. Codename Eagle (The predecessor to the Battlefield series that got Battlefield greenlit in the first place) was 95% slow trundling around the map and 5% desperate action when trying to get an enemy flag. But on Youtube?

Oh look! All of the sudden its somehow just as hardcore as Battlefield 1​

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Nope. It wouldn't. Codename Eagle (The predecessor to the Battlefield series that got Battlefield greenlit in the first place) was 95% slow trundling around the map and 5% desperate action when trying to get an enemy flag. But on Youtube?

Oh look! All of the sudden its somehow just as hardcore as Battlefield 1​

As I said, I've been watching let's plays. Kharkov map, and El Alamein. Alamein map seems too big and empty and kind of boring. Kharkov one looked like fun.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

You know what? I did a crazy thing. I went through this thread and I looked for anyone who actually looked up the info for the game. I really didn't see anyone who did.

So, I decided on a lark that I would [http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield_V].

Singleplayer
Similar to Battlefield 1, Battlefield V's main campaign will be made up of a collection of different War Stories. These stories will document the conflicts of both male and female soldiers during the great war. Players will experience freezing landscapes as a Norwegian resistance fighter, as well as a soldier in the midst of the desert heat of North Africa. Currently, these are the only two War Story locations to be revealed.[1]

Nordlys
Set in 1943 during the German occupation, it tells the story of a young woman who must make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save her family

Where does it seem to take place? Good question. The Nordlys [https://www.visitnorway.com/visit-nordlys/] (as EA names the section of single player) are Northern Lights that is known to be at the Northern Part of Norway.

Did Germany ever occupy Norway during the War? Yes, they did. [https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/the-attack-on-western-europe/the-occupation-of-norway/]

Now, let's get to it. Was there any Norwegian Resistance fighters? That's a Check for Historical Accuracy [https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/resistance-movements/the-norwegian-resistance/]

It's almost time, people. Were there any female Norwegian resistance fighters Yes, although the exact number is unknown [http://what-when-how.com/women-and-war/norwayresistance-movement-during-world-war-ii-women-and/].

Although a large number of women assisted Norwegian troops after the German invasion in April 1940, they were not regarded as part of the military forces. When the Milord was systematically built up toward the end of the war, this realm was a nearly exclusive men?s sphere. The few women who played an active role in the Milord (and, as a result, crossed traditional gender borders) were forgotten in the Norwegian culture of commemoration after 1945, as were all the women who simply had done the work of a "patriotic housewife."

So what is the problem? That it wasn't Millions? Even thousands? Ok. So what? We focus on special people all the time. We have tons of games devoted to the general, so what is wrong with being specific? Why do we only have to respect and remember 'acceptable' solders? What is wrong in shining the light to the exceptional other than you don't feel like the exceptional deserve it?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

You know what? I did a crazy thing. I went through this thread and I looked for anyone who actually looked up the info for the game. I really didn't see anyone who did.

So, I decided on a lark that I would [http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield_V].

Singleplayer
Similar to Battlefield 1, Battlefield V's main campaign will be made up of a collection of different War Stories. These stories will document the conflicts of both male and female soldiers during the great war. Players will experience freezing landscapes as a Norwegian resistance fighter, as well as a soldier in the midst of the desert heat of North Africa. Currently, these are the only two War Story locations to be revealed.[1]

Nordlys
Set in 1943 during the German occupation, it tells the story of a young woman who must make the ultimate sacrifice in order to save her family

Where is the Nordlys? Good question. The Nordlys is a section of Norway [https://www.visitnorway.com/visit-nordlys/].

Did Germany ever occupy Norway during the War? Yes, they did. [https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/the-attack-on-western-europe/the-occupation-of-norway/]

Now, let's get to it. Was there any Norwegian Resistance fighters? That's a Check for Historical Accuracy [https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/resistance-movements/the-norwegian-resistance/]

It's almost time, people. Were there any female Norwegian resistance fighters Yes, although the exact number is unknown [http://what-when-how.com/women-and-war/norwayresistance-movement-during-world-war-ii-women-and/].

Although a large number of women assisted Norwegian troops after the German invasion in April 1940, they were not regarded as part of the military forces. When the Milord was systematically built up toward the end of the war, this realm was a nearly exclusive men?s sphere. The few women who played an active role in the Milord (and, as a result, crossed traditional gender borders) were forgotten in the Norwegian culture of commemoration after 1945, as were all the women who simply had done the work of a "patriotic housewife."

So what is the problem? That it wasn't Millions? Even thousands? Ok. So what? We focus on special people all the time. We have tons of games devoted to the general, so what is wrong with being specific? Why do we only have to respect and remember 'acceptable' solders? What is wrong in shining the light to the exceptional other than you don't feel like the exceptional deserve it?

It seems that a lot of people have been consuming enough certain opinionated 'news' media that has basically conditioned them into Pavlovian responses towards anything in their entertainment that could possibly be even remotely attached to the "sjw liberal conspiracies" that are infesting all entertainment. It becomes a bell whistle they have been trained to react to, with paranoia and rejection. Unfortunately it will happen with every damn release that dares put anybody who isn't a bloody manly white straight dude, so expect this same old tripe more often than not as entertainment applies more variation in their characters with less hesitation. One thing the conservative media has succeeded at pretty well, unsurprisingly when there isn't really anything they care about other than fighting change or anybody who desires it.

 

[Squilookle]

Nope. It wouldn't. Codename Eagle (The predecessor to the Battlefield series that got Battlefield greenlit in the first place) was 95% slow trundling around the map and 5% desperate action when trying to get an enemy flag. But on Youtube?

Oh look! All of the sudden its somehow just as hardcore as Battlefield 1​

As I said, I've been watching let's plays. Kharkov map, and El Alamein. Alamein map seems too big and empty and kind of boring. Kharkov one looked like fun.

I'll admit I was overtly dismissive back there.

Truth is, 1942 is a hoot. Just not in the way modern Battlefield is. Ever since Bad Company, it's always been about a maelstrom of noise bombarding you all the time, trying to wow the player with immersion and intense moments all the time. It tries to be as hectic as Black Hawk Down, and as a result is just as flat.

The older Battlefields were a bit more of a slow burner. Teams would start a match and get in their tanks and planes, and roll out all as one. You'd head towards the enemy, usually with enough time to wonder where they'd be massing their attack, which flags would be the hardest to attack and hold, where their Battleship or Tiger Tanks have gone to lay down the most devastating fire, etc. Tickets counted down, and you could lose a match by a lot if you weren't careful. There's no squads sadly, but this makes flags all the more vital to a team. Outside your main base (if you even get one on a particular map), they are the ONLY places you can spawn. This fostered much better teamwork than all the on screen prompts and little cookie achievements Battlefield showers the player with now ever could.

That said, I won't pretend it didn't have its fair share of emergent over-the-top Hollywood action sequences. There's a reason 'Battlefield Moments' was a term coined by this game: