1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News EA pushes Battlefield V to late November

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 31 Aug 2018.

  1. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    904
    Or they where short on ideas that could make it past the beancounters at EA and so they just copied what COD did... i.e. back to WW2 and add women.
     
  2. Zak33

    Zak33 Staff Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    12 Jun 2017
    Posts:
    261
    Likes Received:
    54
    //pulls on his WW2 flameproof suit, that is not flameproof really, because it was made in 1942

    I don't atually understand what the real argument is on this - what's the actual debate about ladies being added or not added to this game?


    Here's the rub - to be historically accurate with 50% of the global population from WW2, in a game in 2018 isn't likely to make a very good game. (I think the ratio is blokes 107 to women 103 on planet earth, but please let the 50/50 ratio be the number)
    I'd personally really like a game where I had to rivet the panels to a Spit, or load the 2500 bullets into a Lanc tailgunners tray, but I'm v v odd. I like games about efficiency. I'm not entirely convinced a Land Army game will work though. A truck driver game might work well, delivering bombs to the heavies.
    Can you see where this is going? Reality makes pooh games. A Russian team player front liner could potentially be a female Soldier, but that soldier would have the same chance of having no gun and only a few bullets, because that's the reality. Half of many battalions had few guns and just picked them up from the dead bloke/woman in front. But it makes a pooh game, reality often does.

    So what is the factual reason for the addition of ladies in this game, because I genuinely can't see the wood for the scarred trees in this debate.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page