Having watched the BFV reveal it's clear the woman is supposed to be: 1) Serving in a frontline unit of the British Army, and 2) Openly serving as a woman. She's blatantly not based on any women soldiers because the force she's fighting with wouldn't have let her join.
Honestly though, this shouldn't have been something Bob should have cared about. The trailer is rife with similar historical innacuracies (British soldiers wearing blue facepaint like they're extras from braveheart, no-one seems to be actually wearing a uniform, one Brit has a fucking katana on his back, and that's just in the first 40 seconds). It's pretty obvious that Dice wasn't interested in historical accuracy when they were coming up with character customisation options any more than they were when they gave everyone automatic weapons in Battlefield 1.
What a film critic probably should have picked up on though was the absolute clusterfuck of cinematography that the trailer was. Watching it a second time I'm still not sure what was going on as it seems to be a constant barrage of dramatic moments (Dismount a tank ->House fight! -> Tanks crush house! ->Get on a bike! -> Plane crash! -> Shoot fleeing Germans-> Germans are attacking from behind! ->Hit by rocket-> Evil German tries to stangle you! ->Saved by lady soldier!). The general effect is an incoherent mess of a trailer that tells me abosuletly nothing about the game other than that things exploded in WW2 and this isn't trying to be true to real life. For a gameplay trailer, the HUD is only visible for half the runtime and there are too many finely tailored interactions between characters for me to assume that even when the HUD is on I'm being shown an accurate representation of gameplay.
Then again, I guess shitting on FPS chads for not liking an FPS and being sexist is the most important thing for Chipman. God knows we can't form our own opinions without making it about whether or not something is 'progressive'.
Honestly though, this shouldn't have been something Bob should have cared about. The trailer is rife with similar historical innacuracies (British soldiers wearing blue facepaint like they're extras from braveheart, no-one seems to be actually wearing a uniform, one Brit has a fucking katana on his back, and that's just in the first 40 seconds). It's pretty obvious that Dice wasn't interested in historical accuracy when they were coming up with character customisation options any more than they were when they gave everyone automatic weapons in Battlefield 1.
What a film critic probably should have picked up on though was the absolute clusterfuck of cinematography that the trailer was. Watching it a second time I'm still not sure what was going on as it seems to be a constant barrage of dramatic moments (Dismount a tank ->House fight! -> Tanks crush house! ->Get on a bike! -> Plane crash! -> Shoot fleeing Germans-> Germans are attacking from behind! ->Hit by rocket-> Evil German tries to stangle you! ->Saved by lady soldier!). The general effect is an incoherent mess of a trailer that tells me abosuletly nothing about the game other than that things exploded in WW2 and this isn't trying to be true to real life. For a gameplay trailer, the HUD is only visible for half the runtime and there are too many finely tailored interactions between characters for me to assume that even when the HUD is on I'm being shown an accurate representation of gameplay.
Then again, I guess shitting on FPS chads for not liking an FPS and being sexist is the most important thing for Chipman. God knows we can't form our own opinions without making it about whether or not something is 'progressive'.
