EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

[Hawki]

Fans will turn away and the people to whom it's supposed to appeal (presumably women) won't buy it.

Remember when people were saying that Battlefield 1 would bomb for similar reasons?

Yeah...

You are here to defend teh oppressed wimin,

Where have I stated that?

presumably I'm the evil, alt-right nazi enemy who is against equality

Where have I claimed that?

or whatever evil role you've assigned to me

Where have I assigned a role?

simply because of my thoughts on this subject.

I notice that your "thoughts on this subject" are assertions and ad hominem and not an argument, nor have you responded to any of the above post in any meaningful manner.

You want the JUSTICE of having teh wimin on the frontline.

Again, where have I claimed that?

Actual quotes thanks.

Not just the justice, but the social justice.

Because italicization makes a point all the more poignent.

It's the RIGHT thing to do and you are morally superior to me because of your stance!

Considering that your post up to this point has been ad hominem, hyperbole, and assertion without evidence...well, I am feeling morally superior right now actually, yeah.

The funny part is you were very rude to me before, accusing me of hypocrisy

Because your entire argument is based on "I'm fine with historical inaccuracies, but this is one historical inaccuracy I can't abide, because of "social justice."

I'm also not the only one to point out this hypocrisy, and you've done nothing to address it.

(I actually considered making you the first person on this site I'll ever have blocked).

No skin off my back.

I've been sincere in everything I've said.

If you were sincere, you would have actually addressed the post above and/or the crux of the matter, which is why this historical inaccuracy is somehow more egregious than everything else.

You won't buy it,

And...bought.

Or pre-ordered, technically.

no one defending it will. They never do.

So in your world, everyone who likes females in the game and/or doesn't care won't buy it. Therefore, everyone who will buy it will do so in spite of it. Ergo, the entire Battlefield fanbase is against "dem wimin."

Right...

They just want the social justice.

Is this the "royal they," or "one of them!" they?

I'm just happy you are proving my point

Um, what point?

This is SJW pandering

Despite your moral outrage, no, it really isn't.

and it sacrifices something far more important

Such as?

in the process and for the wrong reasons.

...which are?

Also, your claims will need substantiation.

However Kait's inclusion was actually an insertion into a game where you played as big burly men, and thus it caused a stir.

It did, but seriously, why? I don't recall people making a stir when we started getting female squad members, but suddenly having Kait as the main protagonist is the issue (it's not as if she's the only character anyway, the trailer clearly shows Del tagging along)? And while this is subjective, I'd argue that Kait is probably the most interesting new character in Gears 4, if only because of her connection with Myrrah. But apparently, no, I'm wrong, a dutragonist from Gears 4 is pushing the "SJW" agenda because she's now the protagonist.

Or let me put it this way - if Del was the main character of Gears 5, would there be the same level of outrage?

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 if you combine "male" with "multi" you get 74%.

And look, to be clear, neither statistic is really an issue. I think you said yourself that as the quality of storytelling improves in games, there'll be more variety anyway.

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.

Reading the article, I don't get a sense of that. I think it's a non-issue at the end of the day, but if you are looking at the numbers, then it isn't equal. Of course, if they were arguing for any kind of enforcement or quotas, then that would trigger alarm bells, but the article doesn't push any idea other than "here are the stats, we don't think it's a good thing."

So yes, in Battlefield V people will push back against that because they like the game the way it has always been.

Okay, sure, but you'll forgive me for raising an eyebrow that we didn't see similar levels of outrage.

I mean, this series started off in WWII. If we apply the idea of "pushback against change," then where was it when the series moved away from WWII into Vietnam and then the modern era? Where was it when it went full sci-fi in BF2142? Where was it when we got Bad Company with a drastically different tone from the previous games (games that, lack of story aside, treated themselves seriously)? Where was it when it abandoned war entirely and went into Hardline? BFV is obviously a change in the sense that it lets people play as females for the first time, but this is a series that's changed reguarly. Obviously female soldiers on the Western Front is historically inaccurate, but if historical liberties or change is your Achilles heel in Battlefield, it's kind of weird that this kind of outrage begins now. Especially when, again, the use of a female avatar is optional. If this is "forcing an agenda," then it's an agenda that's using very little actual force in regards to player choice.

It shouldn't be a crime for men to enjoy manly games filled with manliness (see B-Cell).

Didn't say it was. In fact, as I stated, Doom (in its current state) does work better with a male protagonist than a female one, since it's an excess of...hyper-masculinity, I guess (before you say anything, no, this isn't "toxic masculinity," lest words be put in my mouth). I think Doom could easily work with a female protagonist in principle (see Doom 3), but if it doesn't have one, so what? Id can choose who their protagonists are, just as DICE can. In fact (call me a SJW) if you want, I actually have to applaud them for focusing on more obscure theatres of war. Battles taking place in Norway and Denmark? Well, shit. That's something we don't see that often. That the Norway segment has a female protagonist is pretty academic.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

I think the ultimate point I want to get across is this:

If playing as a female character is that important to you, there are TONS of games that provide you that option. If you can't get passed the fantasy that is protrayed in a game featuring a strictly male character, then you do have other games to play. And the biggest thing that bothers me is when these people take a game like Assassin's Creed and say, "I don't like that this makes me play a male character so change it."

This idea that all media needs to change itself to fit your personal preferences is just insane to me. What's even more insane is that media seems so readily willing to bend to the will of the vocal minority for whatever reason, and then when the rest of us protest against the changes (which are usually done poorly anyway) suddenly we are the bad guys.

 

[Silvanus]

I think the ultimate point I want to get across is this:

If playing as a female character is that important to you, there are TONS of games that provide you that option. If you can't get passed the fantasy that is protrayed in a game featuring a strictly male character, then you do have other games to play.

If only being able to play as a male character is that important to you, there are tons of games that provide you that option (or, even, you could just choose a male character in Battlefield V, and let other people choose otherwise)!

This idea that all media needs to change itself to fit your personal preferences is just insane to me.

Right! And in this instance, the ones who want the game to change to fit their personal preference... are the ones who want it to be male-only!

 

[CritialGaming]

If only being able to play as a male character is that important to you, there are tons of games that provide you that option (or, even, you could just choose a male character in Battlefield V, and let other people choose otherwise)!

It isn't important to me. I don't much care. I want good characters, good stories, good games. I've said that over and over again. Their gender or sexual orientation means nothing to me.

Right! And in this instance, the ones who want the game to change to fit their personal preference... are the ones who want it to be male-only!

Who is saying that they want male-only gaming? Where in any of this is that happening? When has that ever been the case?

I don't want that, I've never wanted that. I've also said on this very forum, that I almost ALWAYS play female characters when available.

It just doesn't bother me when a game doesn't feature women either. If an all-male cast was the vision of the developer for the game and it fits, then cool. Why should that be demonized?

 

[Silvanus]

Who is saying that they want male-only gaming? Where in any of this is that happening? When has that ever been the case?

Uhrm, well, you'll notice that quite a few people in this thread are arguing at great length that the developers should not have included the option to play as a woman; that players should only be able to choose male characters in Battlefield V.

I don't want that, I've never wanted that. I've also said on this very forum, that I almost ALWAYS play female characters when available.

It just doesn't bother me when a game doesn't feature women either. If an all-male cast was the vision of the developer for the game and it fits, then cool. Why should that be demonized?

But... that's not the vision of the developer. The developer of Battlefield V included women, of their own volition, and a bunch of people are criticising them for it.

 

[CritialGaming]

Who is saying that they want male-only gaming? Where in any of this is that happening? When has that ever been the case?

Uhrm, well, you'll notice that quite a few people in this thread are arguing at great length that the developers should not have included the option to play as a woman; that players should only be able to choose male characters in Battlefield V.

That's one game. A War game, which has been typically a solo male experience. The series itself has been a male character driven series (although the story-modes have been rather shit so :shrug: on that front)

Again nobody is calling for male-only GAMING. They are asking for their current male-driven favorites to remain male-driven, and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

But... it's not the vision of the developer. The developer of Battlefield V included women, of their own volition, and a bunch of people are criticising them for it.

You're right. This is the result of push back from a perceived forced inclusion, as well as a change in flavor of a series that they love for what it is.

And if you remember, (it was the post you said was drivel) I said that neither side in this case was right. Battlefield has women now, so what? I get that.

I do also see where people are coming from when seeing something they love being changed for weak reasons, especially with how heavy handed this particular character seems to be.

Let me ask you this, have you ever been a fan of a movie or TV show that changed something in the sequel or second season that you didn't like or made it worse? When they do this to a game franchise, it has the same feeling for a lot of people. I can promise to you that if this Battlefield V was exactly the same, with this exact female character, but wasn't labeled as a battlefield game. People wouldn't be nearly as upset. (though trolls would troll, just like the sun will rise tomorrow)

 

[Silvanus]

That's one game. A War game, which has been typically a solo male experience. The series itself has been a male character driven series (although the story-modes have been rather shit so :shrug: on that front)

Again nobody is calling for male-only GAMING. They are asking for their current male-driven favorites to remain male-driven, and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

I never said people were calling for women to be gone from all games-- I was talking about this game: "in this instance, the ones who want the game to change to fit their personal preference... are the ones who want it to be male-only".

You're the only person talking about "male-only gaming". I don't know where you got it from, and am somewhat confused.

You're right. This is the result of push back from a perceived forced inclusion, as well as a change in flavor of a series that they love for what it is.

And if you remember, (it was the post you said was drivel) I said that neither side in this case was right. Battlefield has women now, so what? I get that.

I do also see where people are coming from when seeing something they love being changed for weak reasons, especially with how heavy handed this particular character seems to be.

Every instalment has been different from what came before. There'd otherwise be no purpose in releasing new instalments. And every time, sure, some people preferred the old style and wanted it the way it was before.

...But in this case, they can still have the male characters they had before. The change here is an optional one for those who want it. And yet, the criticism has been louder and more forceful than ever before.

Let me ask you this, have you ever been a fan of a movie or TV show that changed something in the sequel or second season that you didn't like or made it worse? When they do this to a game franchise, it has the same feeling for a lot of people. I can promise to you that if this Battlefield V was exactly the same, with this exact female character, but wasn't labeled as a battlefield game. People wouldn't be nearly as upset. (though trolls would troll, just like the sun will rise tomorrow)

Obviously I've disliked changes in sequels! I've never been angry at a game for including an option that I'm not in the slightest forced to use, though, because that's just silly. The closest analogy would be getting angry at a film or TV show for including an optional extra in the DVD, even though I can still just watch the show as I like.

In this case, one side of the debate wants people to be able to play how they want, and the other side wants everybody to have to play the same way as them. It's absurd.

 

[CritialGaming]

You're the only person talking about "male-only gaming". I don't know where you got it from, and am somewhat confused.

Maybe I missed what you meant in the implication. Because of the following context.

This idea that all media needs to change itself to fit your personal preferences is just insane to me.

Right! And in this instance, the ones who want the game to change to fit their personal preference... are the ones who want it to be MALE-ONLY!

My quote is referential to all of gaming as a whole, which you followed up with the male-only point. Perhaps here you are just referring to BF-V, which I missed because I figured you meant for everything.

Either way all the stuff you said above is quite a lot like what I originally said. BOTH sides in this instance are wrong. Yet if you take a step back and look at it, you can see where people are coming from.

Actually I think that the marketing itself it partly to blame. If they weren't so focused on the female lead, and it was just a natural part of the game. Then perhaps people wouldn't be so annoyed. It's almost as if EA is saying, "It's ANOTHER bullshit as Battlefield game, but hey we put a girl in it this time!" It's so irrelevant to the gameplay itself that if they had just showed that female character along gameplay demos, it wouldn't have caused any of this trash.

But whatever, that's how the marketed it and I guess it worked because people are talking about a Battlefield game so good job?

 

[Silvanus]

Either way all the stuff you said above is quite a lot like what I originally said. BOTH sides in this instance are wrong. Yet if you take a step back and look at it, you can see where people are coming from.

I could possibly see where people were coming from if they were merely complaining about the game changing (in the same way that they'd complain about a new tank they didn't like, or whatever).

But the criticisms thus far have mostly been about how liberals and feminists are ruining it. And I can't see where people are coming from there, because it's bollocks.

Actually I think that the marketing itself it partly to blame. If they weren't so focused on the female lead, and it was just a natural part of the game. Then perhaps people wouldn't be so annoyed. It's almost as if EA is saying, "It's ANOTHER bullshit as Battlefield game, but hey we put a girl in it this time!" It's so irrelevant to the gameplay itself that if they had just showed that female character along gameplay demos, it wouldn't have caused any of this trash.

It focused on something that could appeal to people; some people like playing as women. It's kind of the job of the marketing department.

If other people feel alienated by the idea that people are even given the option, then... well, that's not the fault of the marketing department; that's ludicrous.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

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. But this disrespects all of that and does so for the worst of reasons. The need for "diversity and inclusivity", far left SJW pandering.

I still find it funny that you think that including women is some kind of massive disrespect, but making a wiz-bang war-is-fun shooter where you casually respawn and hurl yourself at the enemy trying to be as cool as possible while winning is somehow not.

I'd argue that making war fun and not really addressing the true horrors of war and making death a minor setback of about 10 seconds is more disrespectful to the people who lost their lives.

But given that they're already making a wiz-bang war-is-fun shooty game that treats individual soldier lives as worthless because you can just respawn, and thus making it into a fun game rather than actually treating the war and tremendous loss of life with any respect...I don't see how "You can play as a girl solider now!" is any worse.

Honestly, if your point was just "This is pandering and I won't buy it on principle" I wouldn't be responding. At least that logic is consistent.

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.

If I had any interest in wiz-bang war is fun shooters, I actually would buy it.

Sadly, I find the (As yatzee calls it) "Spunkgargleweewee" genre of shooters to be boring and dull and generic and exactly the opposite of the kind of shooters I want to play.

If it was a Spec Ops The Line narrative driven shooter with a really emotionally impactful story that treated the subject of war and PTSD with the seriousness it deserved, or if it was a completely off the wall awesome/creative co-op shoot-and-loot like Warframe (complete with super neat abilities and insane mobility), I would totally pick the game up. Or hell, if it was a turn based tactical RPG set in WW2 I would probably buy it.

Seriously, even back in the heyday of "Battlefield 1942 The Secret Weapons of WW2" I only played it at the card shop next to my high school because my friends did, and I only ever enjoyed it when I could snag one of those megatanks that shot like 8 rockets at once, or when I got the jetpack or that time I crashed a plane into an enemy tank and jumped out and lived. I was SO glad my friends moved on to Halo and Soldier of Fortune. THAT was a lot more fun.

Given that I'm currently on a limited budget, I'm not going to buy a game I have no interest in playing just to support them, unless it's an indie company that desperately needs the support to live, or unless it's at a price I can justify to myself.

 

[Trunkage]

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.

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.

Are you a WW2 vet? If so, kudos to you. You did some fine work.


If not, how about you stop pretending that you are the voice of WW2 vets? Stop pretending that this is anything more than you trying to push you Social Justice agenda via the bravery of WW2 heroes. It's got nothing to do with them and everything to do with you using their prestige to further your ideals. I'd say that disrepectful, but I dont pretend to speak for the vets.


You know what else I think is disrepectful? The leaders of these waring countries who were so intimidated by women that they didnt let them fight on the front lines. I think that's disrepsctful of every man who had to pay with thier blood and sweat on the frontlines as they could have been supported by women if not for this law. I think its disrespectful to every civilian who could have been saved if they let women fight. These guys killed MILLIONS through their decision. My post was just pointing out how the weakness of these leaders, being scared of women, lead to disaster.


I'm going to point out that everytime I said "I think." Becuase I'm not going to presume what is disrepectful for everyone involved in WW2

 

[Hawki]

I think the ultimate point I want to get across is this:

If playing as a female character is that important to you, there are TONS of games that provide you that option. If you can't get passed the fantasy that is protrayed in a game featuring a strictly male character, then you do have other games to play. And the biggest thing that bothers me is when these people take a game like Assassin's Creed and say, "I don't like that this makes me play a male character so change it."

Is this the "royal you" or the "personal you?"

If the latter, I'd like you to point to an actual instance where I demanded a game (or any piece of media) implement the changes you're listing. Because as I hope I made clear in the above post, I think the idea of quotas or forcing change based on gender is asinine.

If the former, then yes, I do agree, though I'm not sure if Assassin's Creed is the best example, since it has had female characters before, and while Unity had no obligation to provide playable female characters, Ubisoft's response that "it would take too long to code" was asinine (at least own up to it). Odyssey is kind of weird given the player choice thing (how does that work with the Animus?), but then, Odyssey seems to be so far off the beaten path right now that it barely seems like Assassin's Creed.

Not that that's inherently bad. I'm not a big AC fan, but I think Odyssey looks kinda rad.

This idea that all media needs to change itself to fit your personal preferences is just insane to me. What's even more insane is that media seems so readily willing to bend to the will of the vocal minority for whatever reason, and then when the rest of us protest against the changes (which are usually done poorly anyway) suddenly we are the bad guys.

Well, okay, sure, but it does go both ways. A different vocal minority is willing to attack anyone who's fine with changes and/or embraces them as well. It's the old "SJW" vs. "SQW" dichotomy. I hate using labels, as labels are reductive by nature (and I think "SJW" is used far too liberally to the point where it's lost all meaning), but really, the tactics are the same. All that changes are the causes followed.

I'd personally just like to say "so DICE included playable female avatars in multiplayer that are 100% optional to use in a series that already takes historical liberties for the sake of gameplay - why is this an issue?" Apparently though, that isn't an option.

 

[Kerg3927]

I'm not against women being in a WW2 game, I'd be fine with the already mentioned female soviet soldiers or French resistance. Though then again you run into the issue of the French resistance fighting grand battles using tanks, planes etc the equivalent of a full army. If there were any battles the French Resistance fought like that let me know, I don't claim to be any kind of knowledgable about the French Resistance and would genuinely be interested to hear about it, but I think its silly to see 50% of front line soldiers in a WW2 game being female.

What they should have done is made a game set in an alternative WW2 universe, go full on over the top, have Nazi Vampires, have bears instead of horses for the Soviets, British tea powered machine guns, that kind of thing. If they're going for historically inaccurate they should have made that into a selling point. Thats a game I would play!

This is my stance. I think a fictional work should pick or create its setting, and then at least try to be reasonably true to it. If they really do have 50% female soldiers in battles, and at the same time try to claim that the game is set is WW2 (this universe), then that clashes with the setting horribly. Might as well have your soldiers be able to fly like Superman and cast fireball spells like a magic user. We're not talking about a minor historical inaccuracy here... it would be a complete rewriting of history.

Anyway, they can make the game how they want, but I'm not going to buy and play a game that violates its setting in such a silly manner, especially when it would be obvious to my cynical self that it was done in order to be politically correct and to virtue signal. I would be thinking about how incredibly stupid it is the whole time I was playing, and then I would feel like the game is shaming me for feeling that way, which would then piss me off, and it would end up ruining my enjoyment of the game.

Now, as Bobular said, if it were a sci fi/fantasy game set in some alternate universe or futuristic or fantasy setting in which 50% of the soldiers were female, I could buy that, and it wouldn't bug me at all. Just pick a setting and be true to it.

 

[Silvanus]

This is my stance. I think a fictional work should pick or create its setting, and then at least try to be reasonably true to it. If they really do have 50% female soldiers in battles, and at the same time try to claim that the game is set is WW2 (this universe), then that clashes with the setting horribly. Might as well have your soldiers be able to fly like Superman and cast fireball spells like a magic user. We're not talking about a minor historical inaccuracy here... it would be a complete rewriting of history.

Games in general have never attempted to faithfully recreate the war, though; if they did, the games would not be fun to play, because war was not fun. Players wouldn't be able to just run around shooting enemy soldiers on their own without direction; that behaviour would result in court-marshalling. Healing would be nigh impossible in the field. A single shot to the foot would take you out of the game for days, or weeks. Players would have to spend significant time eating disgusting food in dug-outs, or starving, or dying from dysentery.

These are all more drastic departures from the experience of war than female soldiers.

 

[Hawki]

If they really do have 50% female soldiers in battles,

They don't. It's entirely down to player choice. And if it's anything like other FPS games I've played, the no. of players who choose female avatars will be well below 50%.

Again, as I said, I'm not sure how one is "forcing an agenda" when no-one's being forced to play as female.

Might as well have your soldiers be able to fly like Superman and cast fireball spells like a magic user.

No, not really. Superman definitively doesn't exist. Magic definitively doesn't exist. Females definitively do exist, definitively operated in WWII, and while not utilized in frontline combat except on the Eastern Front, it's a far cry away from Superman or fireballs. It's arguably less than a far cry away from the Secret Weapons of WWII, which sold itself on allowing players to use vehicles and equipment that were historically never used whatsoever.

We're not talking about a minor historical inaccuracy here... it would be a complete rewriting of history.

Except any "rewriting" is down to player discretion in this case. If you want an actual example of rewriting history in the game, again, Narvik and Rotterdam, where British forces are present in force with nary a Dane or Norwegien to be seen (Rotterdam is especially egregious in this case). Or you can point to the presence of the Sturmtiger, only 18 of which were ever produced, yet is fully playable (it was playable in Secret Weapons, but that was explicitly based on "what if?" scenarios of WWII technology) Or the V-1, which was never used for anything other than attacking cities (and almost exclusively London at that), yet is a calldown here for use against infantry and vehicles. Or...well, you get the idea.

Point is, Battlefield has rewritten history before (Secret Weapons), and taken plenty of liberties with history, and in the case of Battlefield V, is literally rewriting history in some of its multiplayer. Difference is, the ability to play as women is optional, whereas everything else is compulsory, unless you actively go out of your way to avoid weapons that shouldn't be there. And yet, this is the inaccuracy that everyone harps on. If anything, the women issue should be the least egregious because it's optional, while all the other liberties aren't. Again, I'm getting flashbacks to Battlefield 1, where people were thrown into a frenzy by the presence of an African American character, but were fine having France and Russia reduced to DLC, while the US (an important player, but latecomer) was there from the outset. This being a game where a significant portion of it occurs IN FRENCH TERRITORY.

Similar to the British being where they shouldn't be in BF5, there's a simple explanation for this (British and US forces are going to resonate more with English-speaking players than Danes, Norwegians, or French), but it doesn't change that this is the same kind of liberty people were fine with, but as soon as optional women showed up, that's when everyone lost their minds (least for Battlefield 5 at least).

 

[Trunkage]

You're the only person talking about "male-only gaming". I don't know where you got it from, and am somewhat confused.

Maybe I missed what you meant in the implication. Because of the following context.

This idea that all media needs to change itself to fit your personal preferences is just insane to me.

Right! And in this instance, the ones who want the game to change to fit their personal preference... are the ones who want it to be MALE-ONLY!

My quote is referential to all of gaming as a whole, which you followed up with the male-only point. Perhaps here you are just referring to BF-V, which I missed because I figured you meant for everything.

Either way all the stuff you said above is quite a lot like what I originally said. BOTH sides in this instance are wrong. Yet if you take a step back and look at it, you can see where people are coming from.

Actually I think that the marketing itself it partly to blame. If they weren't so focused on the female lead, and it was just a natural part of the game. Then perhaps people wouldn't be so annoyed. It's almost as if EA is saying, "It's ANOTHER bullshit as Battlefield game, but hey we put a girl in it this time!" It's so irrelevant to the gameplay itself that if they had just showed that female character along gameplay demos, it wouldn't have caused any of this trash.

But whatever, that's how the marketed it and I guess it worked because people are talking about a Battlefield game so good job?

So I remember games marketing of the 80s and then 90s. There was a distinct shift in that time from being both gender centric to specifically male centric. It lead to females not playing games. To get females back involved, you need to market to females. Whether that requires a female being on the front? I don't know. It's probably is an easy short cut.

My question is - is this female push necessary? Maybe. I know far more female Battlefield players than male. (The reverse is true for COD and its sounds like the issue is community and being really anti-female. But I'm not part of either so I don't know specifically.) Just like I know more women who play Fornite. But I do recognise I could be an outlier. If I am an outlier, then they should be marketing to females more. That's a massive untapped market. The people who can only handle men being in the army have COD.

Me personally, I like having female avatar while gaming. Not having one is a disincentive for me.

 

[Dalisclock]

This is my stance. I think a fictional work should pick or create its setting, and then at least try to be reasonably true to it. If they really do have 50% female soldiers in battles, and at the same time try to claim that the game is set is WW2 (this universe), then that clashes with the setting horribly. Might as well have your soldiers be able to fly like Superman and cast fireball spells like a magic user. We're not talking about a minor historical inaccuracy here... it would be a complete rewriting of history.

Games in general have never attempted to faithfully recreate the war, though; if they did, the games would not be fun to play, because war was not fun. Players wouldn't be able to just run around shooting enemy soldiers on their own without direction; that behaviour would result in court-marshalling. Healing would be nigh impossible in the field. A single shot to the foot would take you out of the game for days, or weeks. Players would have to spend significant time eating disgusting food in dug-outs, or starving, or dying from dysentery.

These are all more drastic departures from the experience of war than female soldiers.

There is a game that does kind of focus on the shitty aspects of war. It's called "This War of Mine" and it's depressing as fuck. You know, because war is shitty and depressing and not fun.

As for historical inaccurate, there is nothing about that trailer with the hook-handed lady that even suggests they're trying to be accurate to history. The entire thing comes across as Michael Bay directing while high on coke, all "style" and little substance, with shit just kinda happening all over the place. I'm perplexed how the lady in the trailer is where people are suddenly getting all insistent on "realism" when the entire thing is shooty-bang-bang-explosion power fantasy.

 

[Elijin]

This is my stance. I think a fictional work should pick or create its setting, and then at least try to be reasonably true to it. If they really do have 50% female soldiers in battles, and at the same time try to claim that the game is set is WW2 (this universe), then that clashes with the setting horribly. Might as well have your soldiers be able to fly like Superman and cast fireball spells like a magic user. We're not talking about a minor historical inaccuracy here... it would be a complete rewriting of history.

Games in general have never attempted to faithfully recreate the war, though; if they did, the games would not be fun to play, because war was not fun. Players wouldn't be able to just run around shooting enemy soldiers on their own without direction; that behaviour would result in court-marshalling. Healing would be nigh impossible in the field. A single shot to the foot would take you out of the game for days, or weeks. Players would have to spend significant time eating disgusting food in dug-outs, or starving, or dying from dysentery.

These are all more drastic departures from the experience of war than female soldiers.

There is a game that does kind of focus on the shitty aspects of war. It's called "This War of Mine" and it's depressing as fuck. You know, because war is shitty and depressing and not fun.

As for historical inaccurate, there is nothing about that trailer with the hook-handed lady that even suggests they're trying to be accurate to history. The entire thing comes across as Michael Bay directing while high on coke, all "style" and little substance, with shit just kinda happening all over the place. I'm perplexed how the lady in the trailer is where people are suddenly getting all insistent on "realism" when the entire thing is shooty-bang-bang-explosion power fantasy.

The argument being presented by most here is that the flood of inaccuracies are excusable and not harmful to their immersion, but women totally cross that line.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

There is a game that does kind of focus on the shitty aspects of war. It's called "This War of Mine" and it's depressing as fuck. You know, because war is shitty and depressing and not fun.

As for historical inaccurate, there is nothing about that trailer with the hook-handed lady that even suggests they're trying to be accurate to history. The entire thing comes across as Michael Bay directing while high on coke, all "style" and little substance, with shit just kinda happening all over the place. I'm perplexed how the lady in the trailer is where people are suddenly getting all insistent on "realism" when the entire thing is shooty-bang-bang-explosion power fantasy.

I garunfuckintee you that there wouldn't be as much as a single panicked sqwk of "buhhh forced diversity!" if the female happened to be a big-titted walking sex object instead.