Plenty of games censor chatboxs. Try swearing and using racist terms in them and see where you get. So your issue is they apparently added white men to the list?
Not being funny but that's the reason most give, they just try to sugarcoat it a bit with 'historical accuracy'. How can you say it didn't sell well because it's a shitty game when people would need to have bought it and played it to know it was shitty? That's a non sequitur. There wasn't a big campaign to cancel pre orders of the back of the beta or anything was there? And that was fairly representative of the final game. It was all from that trailer and then people responding to very poor pr from dice. Not really to do with the game itself. No, It's not the best field but its better than 1.
I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?
Not being funny but you're the one who's decided they don't need to know anymore after learning of an issue with the chatbox of all things. I know about what is in the game now (apart from the chat box apparently). I'm not fully up on every single pre release thing that happened.
Saying white men is racist now? And oh no, Angry Joe is angry about something? Colour me shocked (or is that racist too?). The game has problem to be sure but racism doesn't strike me as one of them. Why is the chatbox even still a thing? I couldn't tell you if there's still any kind of censorship or whatever it but I honestly couldn't give a shit, those things have been toxic and best ignored since day zero way back when.
I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?
So instead they should cater to the misogynist, historically challenged incel gamers out there?
I think you need to get a clue. Let me explain what actually happened.
EA claimed they were "telling the untold stories of WW2," but what they instead did was to rewrite history to push feminist propaganda. The game tells the story of Operation Gunnerside in which a team of Norwegian commandos destroy a Nazi heavy water production facility. However, in the game EA/DICE have written the Norwegian commandos out of history. Instead, the team who destroy the Nazi facility is a strong, empowered, educated mother and daughter team, who are not only scientists but unstoppable soldiers who can physically overpower any man. Clearly, this isn't "telling the untold stories of WW2," but rewriting history to push an agenda. There's a video here which shows the game scenario and then explains what actually happened during WW2. It's quite long, but you only need to watch the first five minutes and you'll get the point.
The whole game was a work of propaganda, designed not to appeal to gamers, but to force feminist propaganda on players. Then, despite completely rewriting history, they told gamers they were "uneducated" and said, "if you don't like it, don't buy it," which is why so few people bought the game.
But hey, don't let reality get in your way. Just keep claiming it's all the fault of "historically challenged incel gamers." Moron.
If they had that exact same mission but you played as some guy would it have the same problem? Yeah but would people go on about it? I doubt it, it's the oblig stealthy/nighttime mission. Is there a video showing how the birth of the SBS was more than one kid and a grumpy guy who sat out most of it for a arm wound (and who decides to have a kip behind enemy lines while said kid fights the war single handed, including flying stukas and driving german tanks)? Yeah, no. Is there a video detailing exactly how the senegalese contingents or whatever contribution differed from the games depiction? Plus if you think anyone was actually protesting at the female led single player mission and not the female models in multiplayer then let me talk to you about this bridge I have for sale.
Well, a heck of a lot more than the number of Battlefield games that have been historically accurate previously.
No battlefield game has claimed to realistic, historically or otherwise. Unless you don't see the issues in the V1 being a troop called precision weapon and the allies having one. Or you think an injection, or even a good pat down is cure for multiple gunshot wounds, or literally any soldier can operate any piece of equipment or vehicle and all the other things that make it a game and not a documentary. Can you point me to one claim battlefield has made about being 'realistic'? Literally the only thing different about this one is female player models, which just joins the list of gameplay>realism decisions made while making a game.
Not a prosthetic, they are incapable of things like reloading a bolt-action rifle, machine gun or artillery piece.
The thing depicted in-game is a _cybernetic_ enhancement, not WW2 era prosthetic.
The thing depicted in what game? Because that's not in BFV. The first trailer yeah, but that was cut hard and fast. Is that not what you wanted?
Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines?
Can you tell me how many made it into the final game? Oh yeah, zero. That shit was cut fast but you wouldn't be able to tell from all the people seemingly still frothing at the mouth over it.
Meanwhile, you get to hear them dying around you, which triggers very different feelings of failure in men than hearing males perish.
Who could have foreseen that THAT would not sell?!
Have you played it? Does that actually happen to you? Does that happen to anyone? You're confusing real war with a video game war. The, lets say. female vocalisations are barely noticeable at best. It's just all this theory nonsense about why women aren't really allowed in proper frontlines warfare which is fair enough to an extent and assuming the exact same principles will apply in a game. Spoiler alert, they don't. The female models aren't even that distinguishable visually from the males unless they're right in your face picking you up and then they are gone again.
I agree that there was no need to do it and women's representation in war in general is kinda fine really but still, the amount it effects the gameplay is exactly zero and any issues resulting from it are just fucking stupid. In hindsight for them I bet they wish they'd left it at having the female led war story single player bit they did but yeah, it's a non issue really.
Or, you know... it's just not a very good game. Couldn't have anything to do with it, though, no - it's just those SJWs getting their just desserts! Of course!
It's just as good as previous battlefields really. It's great that the people moaning about teh womenz in the game for historical accuracy are perfectly silent about every other historical accuracy in the game. I mean, it was well known that the V1 was a precision weapon that could be dropped on a moments notice, oh and the allies had one.
You sure aren't winning much blathering about the speed of light in a vaccum and failing to browbeat people with your 1337_511LLZ, derp. If there's anything "competitive" about you it's your self-proclaimed worship of dishonesty.
Can I come live in your world of zero transmission time?
How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?
You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.
But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.
Typical human.
More catastrophic than the end of the universe? And of course I care only about humans, it's other species jobs to look out for themselves and we're not in the business of creating ideal climates for hypothetical species yet to exist.
Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.
Where is the science that says everything will be just rosy?
One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.
And if we one day find ourselves in a position to stop or delay that should we take it or just say hey ho it's the natural run of things and it was fun while it lasted?
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be.
Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever? You talk like the earth gives a shit if we're on it or not and will always balance for us. Spoiler alert, it won't. Regardless of the causes we can see the average global temperature is going up and that's bad for us so were trying to do something about it.
Move to other countries until you desire governance again. There are plenty of places you can find zero government intrusion into your life. Stop whining, get moving.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of games censor chatboxs. Try swearing and using racist terms in them and see where you get. So your issue is they apparently added white men to the list?
Not being funny but that's the reason most give, they just try to sugarcoat it a bit with 'historical accuracy'. How can you say it didn't sell well because it's a shitty game when people would need to have bought it and played it to know it was shitty? That's a non sequitur. There wasn't a big campaign to cancel pre orders of the back of the beta or anything was there? And that was fairly representative of the final game. It was all from that trailer and then people responding to very poor pr from dice. Not really to do with the game itself. No, It's not the best field but its better than 1.
Well, when someone gathers and clips them all into one big thing then they are more noticeable than normal, I'll give you that.
I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?
Never heard of that.
So you're saying you got no clues about what you're talking about? Never heard of this? Just look at what the developers published on twitter: look at top left corner: the image is unaltered. WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN!
Not being funny but you're the one who's decided they don't need to know anymore after learning of an issue with the chatbox of all things. I know about what is in the game now (apart from the chat box apparently). I'm not fully up on every single pre release thing that happened.
Saying white men is racist now? And oh no, Angry Joe is angry about something? Colour me shocked (or is that racist too?). The game has problem to be sure but racism doesn't strike me as one of them. Why is the chatbox even still a thing? I couldn't tell you if there's still any kind of censorship or whatever it but I honestly couldn't give a shit, those things have been toxic and best ignored since day zero way back when.
I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?
Never heard of that.
but that was cut hard and fast.
As in that was the in-store cutout they were using at Walmart and EB Games?
Don't know about that but it ain't in the game.
1942, Vietnam (also known as bfv), 2, 2142, Bad Co, 1943, Bad Co 2, 3, 4, Hardline, 1, V
That's how you number a series!
So instead they should cater to the misogynist, historically challenged incel gamers out there?
I think you need to get a clue. Let me explain what actually happened.
EA claimed they were "telling the untold stories of WW2," but what they instead did was to rewrite history to push feminist propaganda. The game tells the story of Operation Gunnerside in which a team of Norwegian commandos destroy a Nazi heavy water production facility. However, in the game EA/DICE have written the Norwegian commandos out of history. Instead, the team who destroy the Nazi facility is a strong, empowered, educated mother and daughter team, who are not only scientists but unstoppable soldiers who can physically overpower any man. Clearly, this isn't "telling the untold stories of WW2," but rewriting history to push an agenda. There's a video here which shows the game scenario and then explains what actually happened during WW2. It's quite long, but you only need to watch the first five minutes and you'll get the point.
The whole game was a work of propaganda, designed not to appeal to gamers, but to force feminist propaganda on players. Then, despite completely rewriting history, they told gamers they were "uneducated" and said, "if you don't like it, don't buy it," which is why so few people bought the game.
But hey, don't let reality get in your way. Just keep claiming it's all the fault of "historically challenged incel gamers." Moron.
If they had that exact same mission but you played as some guy would it have the same problem? Yeah but would people go on about it? I doubt it, it's the oblig stealthy/nighttime mission. Is there a video showing how the birth of the SBS was more than one kid and a grumpy guy who sat out most of it for a arm wound (and who decides to have a kip behind enemy lines while said kid fights the war single handed, including flying stukas and driving german tanks)? Yeah, no. Is there a video detailing exactly how the senegalese contingents or whatever contribution differed from the games depiction? Plus if you think anyone was actually protesting at the female led single player mission and not the female models in multiplayer then let me talk to you about this bridge I have for sale.
Well, a heck of a lot more than the number of Battlefield games that have been historically accurate previously.
No battlefield game has claimed to realistic, historically or otherwise. Unless you don't see the issues in the V1 being a troop called precision weapon and the allies having one. Or you think an injection, or even a good pat down is cure for multiple gunshot wounds, or literally any soldier can operate any piece of equipment or vehicle and all the other things that make it a game and not a documentary. Can you point me to one claim battlefield has made about being 'realistic'? Literally the only thing different about this one is female player models, which just joins the list of gameplay>realism decisions made while making a game.
prosthesis
Not a prosthetic, they are incapable of things like reloading a bolt-action rifle, machine gun or artillery piece. The thing depicted in-game is a _cybernetic_ enhancement, not WW2 era prosthetic.
The thing depicted in what game? Because that's not in BFV. The first trailer yeah, but that was cut hard and fast. Is that not what you wanted?
Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines?
Can you tell me how many made it into the final game? Oh yeah, zero. That shit was cut fast but you wouldn't be able to tell from all the people seemingly still frothing at the mouth over it.
Meanwhile, you get to hear them dying around you, which triggers very different feelings of failure in men than hearing males perish.
Who could have foreseen that THAT would not sell?!
Have you played it? Does that actually happen to you? Does that happen to anyone? You're confusing real war with a video game war. The, lets say. female vocalisations are barely noticeable at best. It's just all this theory nonsense about why women aren't really allowed in proper frontlines warfare which is fair enough to an extent and assuming the exact same principles will apply in a game. Spoiler alert, they don't. The female models aren't even that distinguishable visually from the males unless they're right in your face picking you up and then they are gone again.
I agree that there was no need to do it and women's representation in war in general is kinda fine really but still, the amount it effects the gameplay is exactly zero and any issues resulting from it are just fucking stupid. In hindsight for them I bet they wish they'd left it at having the female led war story single player bit they did but yeah, it's a non issue really.
Or, you know... it's just not a very good game. Couldn't have anything to do with it, though, no - it's just those SJWs getting their just desserts! Of course!
It's just as good as previous battlefields really. It's great that the people moaning about teh womenz in the game for historical accuracy are perfectly silent about every other historical accuracy in the game. I mean, it was well known that the V1 was a precision weapon that could be dropped on a moments notice, oh and the allies had one.
You sure aren't winning much blathering about the speed of light in a vaccum and failing to browbeat people with your 1337_511LLZ, derp. If there's anything "competitive" about you it's your self-proclaimed worship of dishonesty.
Can I come live in your world of zero transmission time?
I guess something like this could be used as a deep space GPS if you knew exactly where they originated from
Like they did on the golden record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would like to know if this is a natural phenomenon or is it possible it is from sentient beings. There is no indication in the summary.
.
If it was they were ringing 1.5billion years ago, they've probably hung up by now.
I decoded it, it read
"Be Sure To Drink Your Ovaltine."
Mine came out as
Send nudes
How do you know that you interfering wouldn't cause worse catastrophic problems? When did you become so omnipotent that you know better than nature or the universe what should and shouldn't be, who made you arbiter of what the exact temperature the Earth should be?
You are such a speciest, you don't give a crap about any species but your own. CO2 is plant food and it is absolutely proven that increased CO2 increases plant coverage. Increased temperatures, if they are really caused by CO2, opens up whole new areas of previously hostile territory for animal, bird and insects to occupy.
But all you care about is the fact your beach front property might get closer to the water and that you might get a little uncomfortable where you live.
Typical human.
More catastrophic than the end of the universe? And of course I care only about humans, it's other species jobs to look out for themselves and we're not in the business of creating ideal climates for hypothetical species yet to exist.
19,000 dollar!
Real science is falsifiable, uses facts, questions evidence, never stops asking questions and does not go ape shit crazy when someone points out an error or questions a premise. AGW is not science. It is politics. Just another in for the socialists to exert control over our freedom and finances.
Where is the science that says everything will be just rosy?
One day, nothing will exist in our universe and possibly the entire multiverse/xenoverse.
And if we one day find ourselves in a position to stop or delay that should we take it or just say hey ho it's the natural run of things and it was fun while it lasted?
Seriously, stop this game where you pretend there's no scientific consensus
I didn't. There's no consensus on what feedbacks are important, or how large they might be. Here's another one for you that will show how ignorant we are: there is no consensus on how much the atmosphere warms the earth compared to if it weren't there. We know to within ~10 degrees, but that's a huge margin of error. Look it up.
So the obvious solution is to do nothing and everything will be all fine forever? You talk like the earth gives a shit if we're on it or not and will always balance for us. Spoiler alert, it won't. Regardless of the causes we can see the average global temperature is going up and that's bad for us so were trying to do something about it.
Move to other countries until you desire governance again. There are plenty of places you can find zero government intrusion into your life. Stop whining, get moving.
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
$10,000 cash reward for the above person's real name and home address.
No questions asked.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Now, where's my cash?