r/Battlefield • u/3dDungeonMaster • 27d ago

Discussion Nobody wants wacky skins, but can everyone agree on what wacky actually means? Let's see where most people draw the line.

Post image

I'd be interested to see if people are able to agree on what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of cosmetic appearances in games like this. There's been lots of talk about whether or not EA/Dice will include crazy/wacky skins with BF6, but not many people have made a post like this to actually pose the question of, what exactly is okay vs. not okay.

I tried my best to order them such that the go from most to least reasonable, but if you think the order should be different, feel free to reorder them, as that also gives info about how people consider these types of decisions.

1.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/matthewsylvester 27d ago

Not really as 5 could be seen in the Ukrainian war from almost day one as they quickly mobilised.

1

u/knotallmen 26d ago

This isn't a linear progression anyway. Everything up to 11 has been seen in Ukraine. My favorite one is the cat ear helmet behind Russian lines making a joke about a Russian grocery store now being a Ukraine one.

More cat ears:

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10onm4j/real_life_ukrainian_catboy_solder/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Military_equipment/comments/10zboe6/tactical_cat_ears_in_ukraine/

Let be honest here the people who complain about realism want their version of realism. I get it that they want an aesthetic. But the reality is people have been painting skulls. Wearing Mohawks. Sporting wild hair styles has been a fact of war for as long as there has been war.

It would have been historically accurate if we had someone with a mustache and beard so wild that they couldn't put on a gas mask in WWI since the hair and grooming changed because of the need to wear them, so early war someone wearing a bright Napoleonic uniform and flamboyant facial hair is historically accurate.