Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Riesig

Random Signature Generator

(814)

  • "Riesig" started this thread

Posts: 5,065

Date of registration
: Mar 8th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Philippines

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, June 14th 2018, 7:01pm

Realism, historical accuracy, gameplay and its spectrum in immersion (A shitty half assed verbal diarrhea)

Note: This is a random half-assed write up I made in my mind because I have nothing else to do while testing batch programs to finish at work. This is more to discuss how an individual (mostly my dumb opinions and my mostly incorrect interpretation of other people's opinions) perceives immersion in BFV rather than assert correctness of opinion.



So after having bathed in toxicity in Reddit, Facebook and YouTube during the first trailer up to E3, I tried to summarize the many differing opinions of people with the game and add how I agree or disagree with their opinion on it.


A. Gender / Race should not be in X Y Z army during A B C period because historically E F G

- I personally do not have any big problem seeing a different kind of soldier on the Battlefield but it could have been possibly handled better by allowing a pool of types of people that have participated in that area of conflict for a specific faction to customize and spawn in. (e.g. battles fought in the Russian / French region would have females, while battles fought in South Africa / Middle East would have the opportunity to select non-white Nazis)


Using that system rather than full-on pick whatever customization would have been better for the perception of immersion to the player and to the game and its historical context, out of place characters give me a slight twitch but I can live with it and play the game normally with it.


B. Character customization

-Would have been good to implement certain limitations for factions and weather conditions so as not to break the illusion of realism and not go full ham to prevent derpy looking characters
shiny katanas at the back of non Japanese soldiers just look like goofy mall ninja shit and prosthetic arms in the front line is too far fetched for me.



C. Battlefield is "unrealistic" and should remain "unrealistic" because the game isn't depressing, you can revive people from headshots and sniping from horses and rendezooks can happen

-This is a weird argument for me to personally and I often see it used so many times to make a point that unbelievable and impossible things can happen in BFV therefore we can add other things that can break immersion.

e.g.
"Why don't we take out revives and magic healing then if you want the game to be realistic and historically accurate?"
"Is sniping from horses realistic?" - This is a weird argument that implies that you can't snipe on a horse, when in reality people can, they just chose not to because it's not effective.

Battlefield in itself is mostly grounded in the real world, believable rather than pure simulated reality. There are a lot of actions that can be easily overlooked because it's a game, and the ability to perform insane feats like the rendezooks are unique actions that push the game's set of rules in a believable manner. It's not like the game's just made out of horse sniping and rendezooks, it's still commonly played with pseudo-realistic gameplay elements.


So maybe this is just an argument in semantics.


So what's you're take? What game elements do you give Battlefield a pass and what can break immersion for you?
I'm a tsundere tentacle

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,416)

Posts: 2,814

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, June 14th 2018, 10:13pm

I find this all ridiculous at best and even "dangerous" at times, while totally failing in what it is supposed to do, decreasing barriers. It was a similar case in BF1, although BF V makes it even worse.

Personally, race and gender relevant topics, should be discussed in videogames, but it should be context-related. In BF1 this means, yeah there were black soldiers in the German Army, not in the European theatre. German-African forces fought a guerilla war until after the ceasefire. There you have a major opportunity to put black german soldiers into a game, that has relevance. Instead they chose to make the german sniper black, because there is a photo of a black regiment drummer or trumpeteer.
It is better with the other forces, I suppose, although apart from the Harlem Hellfighters I know of no mostly regiment that enlisted that saw combat. So why not make maps tailored around it? Why not educate people on these things and make the black skin mandatory for the battle?
And of course they only went halfway with it, Italy had colonies in Libya and Abessinia and had enlisted troops from there, I suppose, yet they are not represented. The french probably had thousands of Maghrebi people fighting for them, yet you are told nowhere and whole theatres of war are left out. Instead you get certain classes that have a different race and they are thrown in your face without context.

In BFV it is worse because segregation was a real thing, heck it basically was about separating certain ethnic groups from others. French Maghrebi were treated like shit, went on a rampage through Germany. Blacks were only allowed to be cooks in the US military. The Wehrmacht took part in ethnic cleansing, same with the Japenese Imperial Navy. The Russians did unspeakable things to their own people as well. And here we are in the game running around in perfect harmony, for the sake of false player diversity.
The thing is, Battlefield was always about authenticity, not realism, but in this case it does not work anymore. And if critisised they will tell you that 100k women were enlisted for using the spotlights for air defense and that some were issued with pistols for defense. How many saw combat there? They will also tell you that this many black people were enlisted as soldiers and served in combat roles and as pilots. But will not tell you that they were mostly cooks, stevedores and truck drivers.
And then we get to Narvik, which is in Norway and suddenly have black and female soldiers on both sides. How does that make sense in the context of the battle?

I think it is important to tell these stories, since there was a lot of weird shit going down in WWII, but DICE could really go full out in this with the singleplayer and themed maps, that teach you something about the forgotten things of this era. But, alas, it is more important to create a game with a light-hearted look, and a half-assed attempt on diversity. It is a huge markting thing, the game will sell more copies this way, but will educate no-one. The only thing this does is to just irritate people on both sides and provoke hostile responses.

Posts: 2,015

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

3

Friday, June 15th 2018, 1:32am

Realism isn't the issue. BF is not a realistic game. What matters is immersion and suspension of disbelief. For whatever reason people have decided to drawn the line on what they are willing to suspend belief over at genders, races, and outfits. I think that is a bit silly and a totally arbitrary decision. But gamers are a whiny and very petulant bunch, so it isn't surprising. We should also be congnisant of the fact that video games don't really tell war stories, they are about having fun. And so the entire exercise of gaming is not historical exploration, it is entertainment. I think it is thus disingenuous to demand homage and respect in a medium that fundamentally trivializes warfare. It turns something that is utter misery into something that is pure entertainment. Yeah, sure there are some people who will be motivated to learn about the historical realities, but most people just want to shoot stuff and see cool explosions.

With all those things in mind, if the whole thing is an exercise in trivialization, why does non-representative character customization matter so much? It doesn't. What I find really strange is that they chose a WW2 game to do it in. They could have fought this battle where it was entirely appropriate: in BC2, in BF3/BF4. Why now? Clearly there is some political element at work here.

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

4

Friday, June 15th 2018, 4:53am

Battlefield is an online multiplayer video game, where gamers play as hollow, nameless, characterless avatars to represent themselves in the virtual world. My take is that as a very basic, fundamental rule, in this type of setting every single gamer should be able to create an online avatar that represents themselves. Full stop.

That this is even a topic of discussion more than a week after the reveal trailer is absurd.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Mofixil

Sometimes I just get blinded by hate. And tears.

(377)

Posts: 1,414

Date of registration
: Jul 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 9

  • Send private message

5

Friday, June 15th 2018, 4:11pm

Imho the whole shitstorm is just a PR disaster and nothing more than that.

Full customization, no matter how absurd the results would be could have been sold as almost exclusively positive thing to the players, freedom of expression, layers of customization and all that jazz. People demanded more customization after BF1 and they'd be given that.

Of course it'd lead to concerns about friend or foe identification issues, but this could be resolved in other ways (be it in-game settings that forces accurate uniforms, asymmetrical equivalents and alike).

Posts: 4

Date of registration
: Feb 3rd 2015

Platform: PC

Location: WI, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 6

  • Send private message

6

Saturday, June 16th 2018, 5:57am

With regards to race/gedner etc I think the out of proportion complaining is a symptom of a larger issue that I believe is cultural where Battlefield V is just the battleground for that issue. It is more of a meta issue than an issue with the game itself I think. I really dont think the dev comments about being "on the right side of history" or saying "not to buy the game if you dont like it" help to calm the outrage either. Honestly this whole thing could have been averted with better PR and response from DICE/EA.


With regards to the argument about overdone customization, I am really not a huge fan of the presence of 1 case to justify it's inclusion in the game. Just because a badass Brit killed a Kruat with a sword on D-Day or something doesn't mean everyone in the game should get katanas or whatever. Otherwise I dont really have a strong opinion.

With regards to the argument about Battlefield being unrealistic. Battlefield is unrealistic. But it is authentic. Realism != Authenticity. This is what people need to realize.

Posts: 3,674

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

7

Saturday, June 16th 2018, 7:14am

Just because a badass Brit killed a Kruat with a sword on D-Day or something doesn't mean everyone in the game should get katanas or whatever. Otherwise I dont really have a strong opinion.


I run exclusively swords as melee weapons in BF1, and melee weapons have never been faction-specific. Literally the only difference is you can see them on models now (as you can see rocket launchers) which is only a good thing.

Also, I highly recommend this video on Mad Jack Churchill.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 1,111

Date of registration
: Jun 24th 2012

Platform: Xbox One

Location: The Winner's podium

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, June 16th 2018, 7:25pm

All those people who wanted their World War 2 game to look like World War 2 are jerks.

Realism is a word often thrown around when it comes to the battlefield series but it has always been a poor choice. Authentic would be the one to use. These are the battles, these are the weapons and vehicles used, this is what it looked like all within in the preface of having fun.

Then Battlefield 1 happened.
You have just read a Post by The World Champion and now feel smarter for doing so.
-------
Cham·pi·on
noun \ˈcham-pē-ən\

1 : Warrior, Fighter
2 : a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <The champion of the World>

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,413

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

9

Saturday, June 16th 2018, 9:30pm

These are the battles, these are the weapons and vehicles used, this is what it looked like all within in the preface of having fun.

Then Battlefield 1 happened.


Indeed Battlefield 1 was the start of BFs abandoning of Authenticity and slide into degeneracy.

A french metro system is a reasonable site for a Russian-US conflict were both factions are mostly armed with Daewoo Precision Industries USAS-12 operating Frag-rounds and Anti-Tank Rocket launchers.

BF3 portrayed the weapons used of the US/RU armies perfectly.

the M67/M15 is/was the standard issue grenade/Mine of the RU forces.

The QBB-95z, KH2002 and a scoped .44 magnum was standard issue US army loadout.

The Pancor Corporation Jackhammer (MK3A1) was accepted and issued to combat troops and was not at all 3 working prototypes.

The MR-412 REX was commonly found in the hands of Russian tank operators and totally entered production I swear.

A ramshackle crossbow built on an M16 frame with a Kobra sight was actually mass produced and provided to both RU and US forces with both High-explosive AT bolts capable of penetrating the front hull of an M1 Abrams and specialised "sonic" arrows which light up hostiles on the standard-issue AR h.u.d.

The Changhe Z-11w is indeed a common battlefield vehicle in use by the Russian army and is certainly not at all a Chinese Helicopter

The KA-60 KASATKA who is also a common battlefield vehicle and is not in the slightest a helicopter who made its maiden flight of 15 min 3 years after BF3 is set and still has yet to receive RU certification and is still on order instead of in service.

BF4 continued to uphold this excellent tradition of accuracy and authenticity

BF4 correctly updates the US armoury grenades to the Soviet RGO Impact and upgrades the standard-issue combat knife into a shank.

As we would expect, developed near the end of the War of 2020 by the Pan-Asian Coalition, the Rorsch Mk-1 Handheld Railgun enters limited service in the US, RU and CN ground forces.

CN forces updated the standard sidearms to a modernised, shortened Winchester Model 1892 with 40x sight and suppressor.

Russian ground forces, under pressure from the war of 2020, replaced their special forces rifles with the "Phantom Bow" project. the tactical flexibility of the varying ammo types proved decisive.

Similarly under pressure, the US replaced the expensive Shank combat knife with an Icicle to reduce costs.

Thankfully, the Pan-Asian Coalition had not suffered these extreme budget cuts and deployed the brand-new HT-95 Levkov hover-tank in late 2020. However the casemate design proved to be a limiting factor in it's effectiveness.

We could go on and praise the constant, persistent upholding of these high standards also found in BF2 and the BFBC series but I feel we will Trigger the BFV "Nonwhite people and women exist" brigade, they simply dont have the emotional stability and mental capacity to comprehend the nuance and attention to detail that these series depict.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,416)

Posts: 2,814

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

10

Saturday, June 16th 2018, 11:42pm

Well considering that 2020 hasn't happened yet, there is still time. Most people have an easier time depicting a prototype helicoptre in a wargame set in the near future, than with longbowmen in a war we were all taught a lot about in school.

But yeah, if you are a military crack and have a basic understanding of how the armies of the world get their stuff, and how long it actually takes, yep a very skeptical person might find it unrealistic or unauthentic.