It was already explained to you back then, but you seem to love keeping your head in the sand, EDMIX.
The issue with BFV wasn’t that it decided to put a spin on history, but they claimed they were going to give real untold stories the time to shine. Stories that actually happened and treat the war with respect. Which they didn’t do. They genderbent real people, dismissed the actions of brave men and women, and outright lied about stories that occured to push their personal political beliefs. Then they attacked the community when they fought back against the blatant fake advertising.
In Vanguard, they outright stated that it isn’t following history, but an alternative spin. The vast majority of people are fine with this as they didn’t outright lie to the consumers about what the product would be.
I get that you don’t give a shit and just want to play games, which I can understand and even respect - but what I don’t respect is the blatant mischaracterization of the arguments that were pushed.
1. They are both video games, not history books. No one should have expected anything odd like any of that shit in such games lol
and BFV stated something about "inspired" by real places and events, they never made any claims about the stories themselves being "real untold stories" etc, nothing like that even remotely, most of theses games don't do that, in fact it would be pretty hard to find even a few that literally tell you verbatim some real exact biopick or something lol
I think people took the whole "inspired" by comment and deeply exaggerated it.
This is a video game with people jumping out of planes with C4 landing on tanks and shit lol So I don't recall them ever making it sound like it was some 1.1 retelling of a 100% real thing. A real place, a real event....sure, but I don't believe they ever made it sound like some biography or something odd like that as legally they are not going to say some shit like that. In fact, they even state themselves "real places and events" and "using fictional situations".
Witness human drama set against global conflict.
www.ea.com
Even the people that liked it, state its fictional..
Given the game’s bizarre debut trailer, I wasn’t sure what to expect when I sat down with Battlefield V’s singleplayer game mode.
kotaku.com
"These off-the-beaten-path tales, of lesser-known theatres of the greatest war in human history, acknowledge their fictional nature up-front. None of these stories are meant as a literal re-telling"
People who hated it state its fictional.
Big ambitions fail to deliver a fresh experience
www.polygon.com
"No matter how carefully these fictional characters are rendered and written, sooner or later they are likely to start charging through barracks or an air base or a gun emplacement, slaying dozens of enemies with a righteous blaze of high-caliber weapons."
I mean dear god, they even fucking tell you as clearly as can be told they put "fun over Authentic". For fuck sakes, you telling me they are trying to make something seem real, yet tell you its fucking fictional, tell you they put fun over "Authentic" etc, they seem to be doing a shit job at telling you its a real 1.1 retelling bud. You seem to be arguing for that more then DICE and EA themselves at this point
https://wccftech.com/dice-well-always-put-fun-over-authentic/
Should have never been some assumption on this shit when even the people making the game are telling you this. You want that to be the narrative to argue about sir, but you can't really state EA or DICE wanted that to be the case when their comments say the very opposite.
So its up to you to prove that DICE, EA etc were trying to tell you this was 100% a biography of sorts, 1.1 or something like that. I think it was understood by many that it was about a real event, in a real place...about something competely fictional lol That is what MOST of theses games are and I don't recall reading anything about DICE wishing to do an exact retelling verbatim, 1.1 or anything odd like that, I'd surprised if you can find anyone from that company making such claims. You going to fucking tell me the jetpacks in 1942 was put in there cause DICE wanted you to believe that really happened then or maybe this is just a video game? lol I think many of you created this narrative more then even DICE and more then even the others that hated the single player.
I even hate the single players enough to never really play them, but I never stated it had to do with some history thing as I'm pretty sure its been known that they are works of fiction, so I don't know how you can "lie" to someone and yet openly they are saying up front in English sir they put "fun over authentic". That was stated BEFORE the game came out, so how can they claim its this real exact thing and day liiiiieeeed yet tell you they put fun over authentic? Sounds like you want it to be the case, I see no evidence that it is, like zero. So when you state something like "In Vanguard, they outright stated that it isn’t following history", DICE out right states its not authentic, they put fun over that, its fictional, inspired by etc, keep that same energy, why the fuck did you ignore all of that by DICE? I recall an outrage that they didn't want to be authentic, now you fucking telling me an outrage that they are lie about being authentic even when them saying otherwise themselves? The massive lolz.
edit. shit they BOTH tell you they are "inspired by"
Here’s everything you need to know about ‘Call of Duty: Vanguard’, when you can play it, how to get into the betas, and more.
www.nme.com
You simply choose to pretend 1 told you something the other didn't when both actually state lots of the same things...