Good thing you found a way to feel superior to both, then! (And to put more words into this tract about how little you care than almost any other comment from either side of the discussion).CritialGaming said:
Patronising twaddle.
EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Patronising twaddle.
Because it's B-Cell. He doesn't do that thing that people do. You know, thinking before saying stuff? It's just not his MO.undeadsuitor said:
I honestly don't give a shit. I won't buy it for the same reason I won't buy any of the Battlefield games. They're utter shit. Everything from movement and shooting mechanics to map design sucks ass and I can't figure out why it's so popular. I honestly believe that CoD is a superior franchise. And CoD is shit too.
CoD seems to be trying to get worse with each version in stead of better. Which has got to be a gaming milestone of some kind right.Adam Jensen said:
Not really, I don't feel superior to either. I just don't think either makes a good argument. I don't understand how that makes me patronizing at all. I merely tried to justify why I felt the way I did.Silvanus said:
Good on you for just blowing me off though.
Oh, that's not what makes it patronising; what made it patronising was the six-paragraph tirade about how stupid people were for caring about either side.CritialGaming said:
That doesn't really merit anything more than a blow-off. You offer no basic human respect, nobody's going to treat what you said respectfully either.
So you are saying you disagree with me, but have no real stance on the issue to offer a counter. Instead you decide that my statements are so "patronizing" that the only response they merit is 2 posted responses saying they aren't worth responding too.Silvanus said:
Let me be clearer. I am not trying to dehumanize nor disrespect individual people. If anything, I am disrespecting their opinions because their opinion is based on no logical or factual evidence or reasoning. Respecting ones doesn't require that I am not allowed to find that opinion stupid.
I apologize if my post has upset some opinion you have. Perhaps if you presented a dialog as to why you feel I am wrong, or even how my points might be better flushed out, then their could be some purpose to having a conversation. But if you are going to roll your eyes and merely wave your hand dismissively in my general direction, then I guess we know what you have to offer then now don't we?
That's the long and the short of it! I have a stance, and I'm pretty sure I've described it previously in this thread. But by starting out by just hurling insults at people, you've made it quite clear you're not interested in an adult discussion, so it would be a waste of time to engage you as if you were.CritialGaming said:
A lack of clarity was not the problem. I understand what your position is just fine; I just want you to keep it to yourself (or your blog). And, if you give it here, I want to tell you that it's twaddle.CritialGaming said:
You don't want to have a conversation in the slightest, though: only an utter coin would try to start a conversation by throwing insults. I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe that's how conversations are started.CritialGaming said:
I am perfectly fine with the game having female characters, as it is a game using the World War II setting and not a depiction of what actually happened during World War II. More than happy if Battlefield wants the premise of "what if women served on the front lines as well?".
If it is attempting to be historically accurate it would be incorrect to include women in such a manner, especially in the Western theater on the English-speaking sides. Women certainly served in the armed forces for the West but they were not on the front lines, and if any did they were less than a percentile of any front and were not part of a standard military force.
Battlefield is historically inspired, taking many liberties, it is certainly not historically accurate and this was before women were even considered part of the equation, but front line women are a significant aspect of inaccuracy.
If it is attempting to be historically accurate it would be incorrect to include women in such a manner, especially in the Western theater on the English-speaking sides. Women certainly served in the armed forces for the West but they were not on the front lines, and if any did they were less than a percentile of any front and were not part of a standard military force.
Battlefield is historically inspired, taking many liberties, it is certainly not historically accurate and this was before women were even considered part of the equation, but front line women are a significant aspect of inaccuracy.
The problem with that being that, at least here where you're making your point, no one is championing adding females to things. The 'pro' side of this argument simply sees no real problem to the MP arena shooter getting girl avatars, and is mostly built around calling out the bullshit of the 'against' side.CritialGaming said:
Did you know there was about 20 million combatant casualties during the war? And another 40 million civilian casualities. Considering a lot of men went to war, most the of civilian could be female (there is no actual statistics even on combatant casualties.) Most of them were working in factories, farms, etc, producing and building for the war. They werent allowed to fight, but they still gave for their countries in only way they were allowed. Just becuase you werent on the front lines, doesn't mean your death meant nothing.KingsGambit said:
That is exactly the point I was making. You are absolutely correct across the board and I agree entirely. Regarding civilians, they aren't the subject here, tragic as those deaths were. It was discussing the frontline troops. Adding a woman there is the issue. It undermines the sacrifices of the men who actually were there as well as the sacrifices women themselves made as you described, in the factories, farms, offices and intelligence centres. Women were involved in production, communications, logistics, intelligence, were part of the team that cracked Enigma at Bletchley Park, etc. But this disrespects all of that and does so for the worst of reasons. The need for "diversity and inclusivity", far left SJW pandering.trunkage said:
It does as much a disservice to women as it does to the men who lost their lives fighting for our nation's survival and freedom from tyranny. It's saying the work they did do wasn't as valuable as that of the men and that to be equitable, we'll paint women into the mens' role. It's disrespectful and I wouldn't play it if I was paid to. Admittedly, a game about logistics or working in an ammo factory wouldn't sell as much as a shooter, but that doesn't change the fact I think EA have done a very wrong thing.
To anyone who disagrees, you put your money where your mouths are and you buy and play it. Vote with your wallets, just as I shall. I bet none of you will.
While I don't particuarly care, I don't think that's a good comparison to draw, in that:CritialGaming said:
-Lara Croft has been around since the 90s, her still being Lara Croft and doing Lara Croft things isn't much to talk about in that sense.
-Aloy actually was lauded over.
-Funny thing with Gears of War 5, apparently The Coalition is caving into SJWs because Kait's the main character...even though she was a major character in Gears 4...and we've had female squad members since Gears 3...but nup, SJWs!
-"Black girl" in Beyond Good and Evil 2 isn't really a character at this point (seriously, what's her name?), so not much to say there. Likewise, Jade is returning...um, yay? That isn't much to talk about in terms of representation.
So while it isn't an issue (despite what SQWs might claim), playable females in Battlefield could be argued to be a bit more significant as far as representation goes compared to some of those examples in that it's a "first." Apart from that, Gears 5 could be said to have a "first" in that a female is the core protagonist rather than a supporting character, but again, female Gears isn't new in the setting.
-You need a better argument than "X is there, therefore X is disrespectful to Y by virtue of X's presence."KingsGambit said:
-By the same logic, any depiction of a WWII story that depicts any individual in any atypical role is inherently disrespectful to those that took part in the typical role. Is Foyle's War disrespectful to soldiers when it conciously focuses on a police officer that has to deal with the negative effects of war on the home front, including the subversion of the law by military forces?
How?
Or, more specifically, why is this issue inherently disrespectful then every other liberty? I notice that no Battlefield game has ever included civilians, and in the context of multiplayer, glosses over them. If you want to play the outrage game, that should be far more disrespectful.
How?
Also, you're assuming that there's an absolute dichotomy between roles. Men took part in logistics, intelligence, etc. as well.
I'd be able to take the "it's disrespectful" argument if it was applied equally to every other liberty Battlefield has taken in the past, will take in Battlefield V*, and if it addresses the actual ethical question as to whether it's right to produce a sanitized version of a historical conflict and sell it as entertainment.
Apparently your answer is no, it only becomes unethical when females become playable. In the meantime, it's perfectly acceptable to repair horses with screwdrivers because patching up an animal was just that easy in WWI.
*An actual example of what might count as disrespectful is that two multiplayer maps, Rotterdam and Narvik, have the Allied sides as the British, rather than the Dutch or Norwegians respectively. While you can make an argument for British forces being present at Narvik, if not Rotterdam, it still comes off as iffy. Similarly, it felt really off in Battlefield 1 that the French were DLC when the US was in from the outset (if anything, it should really be the other way round), but no, the real moral outrage was the presence of the Harlam Hellfighters, an Indian in the British Empire faction, and an African in the German faction.
If it's a "wrong thing" or "pandering," then that's been going on within EA long before Battlefield V. The Medal of Honour series is one such example, where, among other things, we have an American soldier present at St. Nazaire (a British-only raid), Stalingrad, Maziv Hill, and in Spearhead, Berlin (I could add Arnhem to the list, but that at least is semi-plausible). Or, if we're pandering to "SJWs," we get to fight alongside a Nisei operative in Rising Sun. Oh, and we get to single-handedly sink a Japanese aircraft carrier, because that's totally a thing that happened in WWII.
Here's the thing about people complaining about "pandering" - it only becomes an issue when the complainer's tastes aren't being pandered to. Speaking personally, while I did feel iffy in Spearhead (by your logic, it's disrespectful to the Soviets), it was hardly worth starting a fuss about. So while it's inaccurate to have women in a frontline roll on the Western Front in WWII, I could take the argument of moral outrage seriously if it was outrage applied equally to every other liberty Battlefield takes/has taken, and addressed the question of utilizing WWII as entertainment in the first place. Especially since female characters are optional in the first place.
So now you want to turn it into a political issue. Great...
Hmm, dilemma. On one hand, I'm not fond of giving money to EA. On the other hand, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and I'm left to answer the question...if I buy this game, am I disrespecting the legacy of everyone who fought in WWII because this game has playable female characters, even though they're optional? Or, if I don't buy the game, am I helping in send the message that this historical liberty is one we cannot tolerate in a series that faithfully and accurately replicates the WWII experience, ranging from its weapons, to is presentation of armed forces, to its gameplay, to its use of WWII as a historical backdrop where players get to kill each other with all of the fun and none of the consequences? That's not even touching on stuff like Bad Company (which plays a war with Russia for shits and giggles), or Battlefield Heroes (turns WWII into a cartoon).
There's also Battlefield 1 to consider. For all the foul play SQWs cried at in regards to the above issue, it managed to suprass the combined sales of Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline in its first week. So if trends keep up, I don't think me buying the game is going to prove much, nor is boycotting it going to make a dent in EA's wallet.
...tell you what, as part of the voting process, do I have to pay full price, or wait till the price drop? And if full price, do I have to pre-order, or is that going to stir up another shitstorm? I mean, I didn't think buying a WWII game was a matter of voting for anything, but shows what I know.
(Though if we are voting about WWII, I'll vote for Medal of Honour: Frontline being the best MoH game, NOT Allied Assault. Suck it.
)
Don't worry, I already know the answer. In fact, I wrote the answer in my first post in the thread four days ago:Hawki said:
You are here to defend teh oppressed wimin, presumably I'm the evil, alt-right nazi enemy who is against equality or whatever evil role you've assigned to me simply because of my thoughts on this subject. You want the JUSTICE of having teh wimin on the frontline. Not just the justice, but the social justice. It's the RIGHT thing to do and you are morally superior to me because of your stance!KingsGambit said:
The funny part is you were very rude to me before, accusing me of hypocrisy (I actually considered making you the first person on this site I'll ever have blocked). I've been sincere in everything I've said. The hypocrisy is right here. You won't buy it, no one defending it will. They never do. They just want the social justice. I'm just happy you are proving my point
This is SJW pandering and it sacrifices something far more important in the process and for the wrong reasons.This may blow your mind, but you can not want to buy a game without hating every last aspect of it and just think that some criticisms of it are baseless. I was never going to buy the game because I got tired of Battlefield after two games. I just find your accusations that the game is "disrespectful" to be utterly baseless and I'll be damned if I was going to let it go unchallenged.KingsGambit said:
But you keep throwing around that false dilemma like you actually made a point when in reality it's just a more nuanced version of you just spitefully screaming "fuck you" at everyone you were arguing with.
If I did buy the game you'd probably just accuse me of virtue signaling anyway.
P.S.: For someone who claimed he didn't care, you sure keep coming back to this thread a lot.
I suppose those are good points. Which makes you wonder why the Battlefield V thing is such an issue. But then when I look at it I realize the problem. Female characters only seem to count or matter when inserted into typically male places.Hawki said:
Tomb Raider didn't count because Lara has always been Lara. Same thing with Horizon and Aloy, Aloy didn't replace a man and therefore didn't count on the female inclusion spectrum. Frankly I don't ever remember her being applauded over in the same way as the next two examples are.
However Kait's inclusion was actually an insertion into a game where you played as big burly men, and thus it caused a stir. Same thing can be said with Battlefield, in which they've stuck on vagina where the penises used to be and it has everyone just really confused because they don't know which way to pee anymore.
Is the female character in Battlefield playable? Sure she is all over the cutscenes, but it looks like she is just a said character to who the player is, as can be seen in the gameplay clips.
Either way, it occurs to me that it seems that the biggest hubbub comes when they stick female characters into games under the "inclusion" umbrella. Games that genuinely star females as a baseline don't have as much clout it would seem. Which just goes to show you how unequal the equality clamor really goes. These people don't want equal representation, they want ALL the representation. Female characters apparently should be the STANDARD and it should be the male characters that are included under the "inclusion" umbrella.
God I can't believe I am doing this but Anita *gag* Sarkeesian posted stats on the breakdown of E3 2018 games with female characters as playable protagonists. https://feministfrequency.com/2018/06/14/gender-breakdown-of-games-featured-at-e3-2018/
If you combine the solo Female led games with the games that allow you to play either male OR female, you have 58% of the total E3 games this year having potential female led games. And yet if you read the article they only care to talk about the 8% of the games that are only female protagonists. Because the narrative that they want to drive will never admit that gaming is ALREADY pretty damn inclusive (58% of the total games!), the narrative they continue to push is "not enough not enough not enough" It has to be every game, or damn near every game and I don't even think that would make them happy.
So yes, in Battlefield V people will push back against that because they like the game the way it has always been. It shouldn't be a crime for men to enjoy manly games filled with manliness (see B-Cell).
And of the games that came out before Gears 5, two of them had you only playing as men and three had women that could be played via co-op, so acting like this is some radical step forward is some serious revisionist history.CaitSeith said:
B-Cell does not get shit for liking manly games. B-Cell gets shit because he acts like anything feminine being near his games radically decreases their qualities. And by feminine I include women in general. As if Doom 2016 would somehow be less pandering to those who like high octane action if every pronoun referring to the Doomslayer was changed from he to she.CritialGaming said:
The inverse of him would be a feminist complaining that a female empowerment fantasy is ruined because one or two of the main characters were men.
I'm not acting like it is revisionist history. And I've never once seen Co-Op mentioned as anything that counts for the sake of inclusion. It is generally only the story mode, and whomever is the PRIMARY focus of the game.erttheking said:
Maybe it has I don't really know. All I can comment is from what I've seen or heard. So if it has been brought up, then I missed it.
My point about B-Cell wasn't about hos he views female led games. It was meant to point out that he has the right to want and enjoy strictly manly games if he chooses to do so. His comments about anything female led aren't the point here.
Im not super familiar, but wasn't she a main character in Gears 4 as well? Was that a different character? I'm sorry I assumed Kait was the character from 4 being brought into the forefront for 5. My mistake is that isn't the case.CaitSeith said:
Co-op mode takes you through the story mode and the characters in Gears are main characters who are always there, it's not Halo CE where clones of Master Chief pop out of nowhere. You probably don't see co-op brought up because these kinds of talks usually aren't had about co-op games, split screen co-op is a dying genre.CritialGaming said: