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.
So you would like to have seen many more millions of women killed in war? Got it.
Hey, how about this? You buy this game, you play it. You won't, I know you won't, but you keep typing like you're the saviour of womankind correcting a grave injustice done to them. This game is garbage, the stunt is just that, I foresee that it will fail just like Inquisition and Andromeda did. I'm happy just knowing none of you are even buying it.
Did you actually say I was "pushing a social justice agenda"? I can't take you seriously if you are going to be absurd.
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.
I would think that that would be waaay worse, actually, and it would be a lot of different people 'squaking'. Not about forced diversity- but it would be screeching, nonetheless.
Okay, first of all, Inquisition didn't fail. It certainly didn't fail financially, it didn't kill the series (Dragon Age 4 has been known about for ages at this time of writing), and while plenty of people have had gripes with Inquisition, it's a far cry away from being a "failure" in any objective sense.
As for Andromeda, that can be called a failure more readily, but since its failure was primarily down to poor management on the developers' part,* I'm not sure what they have in common...except the whole conspiracy theory that the models were ugly because of "SJWs" I guess.
Third of all, remember when people were saying that Battlefield 1 would fail because of "forced diversity" and it ended up selling 15 million copies, therefore becoming the highest grossing game in the series, equalled only by Battlefield 3 (potentially) in no. of units sold?
Even leaving aside the lack of any evidence of this assertion, it's an assertion that you either know is wrong, or are woefully ignorant about, since I already stated I was getting it. For shits and giggles, I can even copy-paste the email receipt (minus personal details)
Order confirmation #1006ECFF93B8333A-A
Shipping method: Standard
Item SKU Description Price Qty Deposit Sub-total
238357 Battlefield V - Xbox One
(Release date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018) $99.95 1 $10.00 $99.95
Regular post $3.50 1 $3.50
Items: $99.95 Shipping: $3.50 Deposit: $10.00 TOTAL (inc GST): $103.45
Remaining: $93.45
The remaining balance will be deducted approx. 1-4 days before release date. (Fri, 19 Oct 2018)
So, at this point, you either:
a) Failed to read the post where I stated that I had bought it.
b) Read the post, and decided to lie to prove a point that's already lacking in empirical evidence.
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.
You know, if you're going to be disingenuous, I'd rather you just be up front with us. People don't want to see millions of people die in war, no matter what their gender is, so honestly just fucking stop.
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.
The only difference is the sides would flip. The people bitching about having women in the game at all would be like "What difference does it make, you wanted a female character and now you got one but still you *****."
And the other side would be screaming the same sexist crap they always scream.
But it's all good, they not only got a woman into a video game, but they got bonus points for making her a handicap woman.
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.
The only difference is the sides would flip. The people bitching about having women in the game at all would be like "What difference does it make, you wanted a female character and now you got one but still you *****."
And the other side would be screaming the same sexist crap they always scream.
But it's all good, they not only got a woman into a video game, but they got bonus points for making her a handicap woman.
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.
The only difference is the sides would flip. The people bitching about having women in the game at all would be like "What difference does it make, you wanted a female character and now you got one but still you *****."
And the other side would be screaming the same sexist crap they always scream.
But it's all good, they not only got a woman into a video game, but they got bonus points for making her a handicap woman.
Customization fine. But I'm talking about the female lead they've been advertising for the story. It's the story that have people upset isn't it? After all you've been able to be male/female custom characters in these fps games for a while. Hell Rainbow 6 Siege has premade cannon female and male characters. Though that isn't WW2 set.
Also if it is only the multiplayer mode that gives players female options, then WTF are they bitching about? It's multiplayer that has nothing to do with setting or the single player story. You can't possibly argue immersion for a multiplayer team deathmatch.
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.
Right, I know of it. Still, This War of Mine doesn't actually aim to faithfully recreate the experience of war for the soldiers. That's something nobody wants, but something that people say they want when a particular detail irritates them for entirely unrelated reasons.
Dalisclock said:
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.
Exactly-- and the same is true of all past instalments in the Battlefield series (and arguably even more so in COD).
CritialGaming said:
Also if it is only the multiplayer mode that gives players female options, then WTF are they bitching about? It's multiplayer that has nothing to do with setting or the single player story. You can't possibly argue immersion for a multiplayer team deathmatch.
It's the multiplayer I've seen the most complaints about, actually-- hence the line about having loads of women running around. That line of argument only makes sense if they're talking about the multiplayer.
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.
The only difference is the sides would flip. The people bitching about having women in the game at all would be like "What difference does it make, you wanted a female character and now you got one but still you *****."
And the other side would be screaming the same sexist crap they always scream.
But it's all good, they not only got a woman into a video game, but they got bonus points for making her a handicap woman.
Customization fine. But I'm talking about the female lead they've been advertising for the story. It's the story that have people upset isn't it? After all you've been able to be male/female custom characters in these fps games for a while. Hell Rainbow 6 Siege has premade cannon female and male characters. Though that isn't WW2 set.
Also if it is only the multiplayer mode that gives players female options, then WTF are they bitching about? It's multiplayer that has nothing to do with setting or the single player story. You can't possibly argue immersion for a multiplayer team deathmatch.
Nope, this has mostly been about the option to play as a female character in the multiplayer section of the game, though I'm sure there's some bitching about the possible female lead as well. Even Rainbow Six Siege has people complaining that "Girls in an SOF unit!? SJW's are ruining everything!"
Customization fine. But I'm talking about the female lead they've been advertising for the story. It's the story that have people upset isn't it? After all you've been able to be male/female custom characters in these fps games for a while. Hell Rainbow 6 Siege has premade cannon female and male characters. Though that isn't WW2 set.
Also if it is only the multiplayer mode that gives players female options, then WTF are they bitching about? It's multiplayer that has nothing to do with setting or the single player story. You can't possibly argue immersion for a multiplayer team deathmatch.
...does the woman they're talking about being a character in the single player have a hook hand, or...? Does the single player campaign have a 50/50 gender split or...?
Nah, damn near every complaint I've heard about BF5 is about the multiplayer trailers. Because there were Norwegian women who fought Nazis on the ground in Norway, which considering that DICE wants to feature some of the lesser known stories of WW2, seems like a perfect fit. We wouldn't want to be ahistorical by cutting those women out, right?
I wouldn't buy EA anyway, but putting women soldiers into the frontline of WW2 would also a dealbreaker. It ruins immersion, it ruins atmosphere, it undermines the sacrifices of the men who lost their lives in war in a disrespectful way and does it all in the name of "inclusivity and diversity" which are two of the most discriminatory, bigoted terms there are in the context of modern social justice and its crusade to rewrite history to make it fit with such an absurd notion. Once again, social justice infects another franchise and it will suffer for it. Fans will turn away and the people to whom it's supposed to appeal (presumably women) won't buy it.
This is from a few pages ago. Don't worry. This is important
Because:
Hey, how about this? You buy this game, you play it. You won't, I know you won't, but you keep typing like you're the saviour of womankind correcting a grave injustice done to them. This game is garbage, the stunt is just that, I foresee that it will fail just like Inquisition and Andromeda did. I'm happy just knowing none of you are even buying it.
So... you're weren't buying Battlefield in the first place? You are getting offended at something you weren't buying in the first place? Or clearly haven't been (at least for a while.) Why are you trying to force "SJWs" to buy it to prove their ideology when you weren't buying it when it was "good". You clearly don't have the faith in your ideology to spend your money appropriately.
Also, you clearly thinking that having women in games is unfair on men. Which leads to this:
Did you actually say I was "pushing a social justice agenda"? I can't take you seriously if you are going to be absurd
You literally think that men are so hard down by that the Status Quo should be changed. The Status Quo in your eyes being the Leftist Equality propaganda machine. It a funny thing, when you focus on an "enemy," you end up acting exactly like them. You think a computer game will somehow revise history? Have you been listening to Peterson again. You know he has said he deliberately tries to be absurd to prove a point. Just because you aren't pushing the Left Social Justice agenda, doesn't mean you arent pushing your own version. Gambit's version. Where men are second class citizens, and everyone is against them. I will call you out for what you are.
KingsGambit said:
trunkage said:
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.
Around 30 million women died in WW2. Pretty much half the casualties. I don't think putting them on the front lines would have changed that number much as they still died anyway. In fact, what I was implying was that if women were allowed to fight, the war wouldn't have dragged on as much. You know, because having more manpower would have helped goals being achieved quicker. Imagine if women were allowed by Germany to fight. It wouldn't have made a difference in France, as Hitler told them to NOT attack Britain. But they probably who have been able to push to Moscow during Barbarossa. Knocking the Russians out might have swung the whole war.
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.
But those changes actually have a purpose, like you said, to streamline the gameplay and make it more fun, while preserving the feel of a WW2 setting. To me, that doesn't clash with the setting and break immersion nearly as much as a purely cosmetic change that stares you in the face throughout the game and makes me constantly say to myself, "They didn't have any tangible gameplay reason to make that drastic change, but they did it anyway because of ."
To use your example, pressing to instantly heal is something that is necessary to improve gameplay, because going to spend a week in the hospital to recover from wounds would be boring. Making 50% of all soldiers female (if they were doing that) would be different, IMO. More akin to recoloring the sky with pink polka dots instead of blue, or having people ride ostriches into battle instead of tanks... it serves no purpose to improve gameplay. See the difference? If not, then we disagree, and that's fine. Just trying to explain how I see it.
Hawki said:
Kerg3927 said:
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.
That's good. If it's just the player character and it's purely optional, then I don't have an issue with it. Much different than the hypothetical of going into battle in a World War II setting and having 50% of the soldiers fighting on both sides being female.
Hawki said:
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.
And WW2 battles in which 50% of the participants on both sides were female did not exist, either. Battles like that still don't exist, and may never exist. I don't see a difference between that and magic. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because apparently the 50% thing is not true.
Hawki said:
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.
Except most of the inaccuracies that you are pointing out are something that only a history buff who spent time researching it would be able to perceive. But any 12 year old who has taken a 6th grade history class can probably tell you that a WW2 battlefield composed of 50% women is just blatantly historically wrong (I know, the 50% thing was apparently speculation).
Hawki said:
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).
When one notes an inaccuracy while playing a game, the reasons behind it matter, IMO. If it's done to improve gameplay or increase sales, that's one thing, and probably understandable to most people because that type of thing has been going on in video games since the beginning. But if a major inaccuracy is introduced purely because of modern politics, then that's an entirely different thing, and less understandable. People are going to *****.
Some people don't like forced diversity in places where it makes absolutely no sense. That's a political viewpoint. Think if you had a game that shoved right-wing politics in your face. Say, in order to beat a boss in a particular game, you had to go to a Christian church and pray, buy an NRA license, protest high taxes on the wealthy, and blow up an abortion clinic. People on the left wouldn't like that very much, would they? It would be the exact same thing.
I know, political themes have always been in games. But, IMO, they should be subtle and at least make sense within the setting of the game. Heavy-handed political themes that clash with the setting are going to rub (good) people the wrong way.
Around 30 million women died in WW2. Pretty much half the casualties. I don't think putting them on the front lines would have changed that number much as they still died anyway.
Do you have a source for that number? I don't doubt it as millions of civilians died from disease, famine, and murder, but I couldn't find a source googling. Thanks.
trunkage said:
In fact, what I was implying was that if women were allowed to fight, the war wouldn't have dragged on as much. You know, because having more manpower would have helped goals being achieved quicker. Imagine if women were allowed by Germany to fight. It wouldn't have made a difference in France, as Hitler told them to NOT attack Britain. But they probably who have been able to push to Moscow during Barbarossa. Knocking the Russians out might have swung the whole war.
Someone had to feed and take care of the children and elderly back home, and take care of the sick and wounded, and as I understand it, many women worked in factories and took over many jobs that were vital to supplying each country's war machine. They didn't just sit around fanning themselves, so I'm not sure that increasing the number of soldiers by adding women would have helped anything. War supplies would have been diminished. Healthcare would have been lacking. Morale would have suffered because people would have been worried about children left alone at home. Someone had to stay at home and take care of the kids and do the regular day to day work. Realistically, I think more women soldiers would have meant that more men would have had to stay home. It would have probably been a trade off. It was total war, so almost everyone played a role as it was.
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.
The only difference is the sides would flip. The people bitching about having women in the game at all would be like "What difference does it make, you wanted a female character and now you got one but still you *****."
And the other side would be screaming the same sexist crap they always scream.
But it's all good, they not only got a woman into a video game, but they got bonus points for making her a handicap woman.
Except that wasn't the point as per fucking usual. Historical accuracy being the main bullshit time-waster sqwking deflection is inconsistent, it's a cunting excuse whether consciously or not. Don't be a fool.
Around 30 million women died in WW2. Pretty much half the casualties. I don't think putting them on the front lines would have changed that number much as they still died anyway. In fact, what I was implying was that if women were allowed to fight, the war wouldn't have dragged on as much. You know, because having more manpower would have helped goals being achieved quicker. Imagine if women were allowed by Germany to fight. It wouldn't have made a difference in France, as Hitler told them to NOT attack Britain. But they probably who have been able to push to Moscow during Barbarossa. Knocking the Russians out might have swung the whole war.
How does that work? Someone has to maintain the factory work, take in the harvests, and teach the kids. Moreover, the fall of Moscow would have meant fuck all for the Soviet Union. The war would have been lost or won at Maikop, Grozny and Baku. You know, where all the oil is.
The Soviet Union covered about one seventh of the planet's land surface.
Losing the Suez canal would have been a bigger blow to the Allies over losing Moscow.
Stalin had already packed up the majority of the war industry he would have need to further prosecute the war and sent it to the Urals which was arguably beyond even the most fevered dreams of the Axis. Military doctrine of European powers states that taking an enemy capital means capitulation. But Russia is not Europe (not really anyways, I mean arguably the Caucasus and westward, but whatever) ...
Effectively the (very) best the Axis were ever going to hope for was a permanent front between Astrakhan, following up the river to Stalingrad, and all the way straight up to Arkhangelsk. And that estimate was purely hypothetical to begin with that they could hold it in perpetuity. Russia was a decentralized mess of hundreds of ethnic groups, moreover 'Russia' wasn't even the Soviet Union.
Moscow was just a place, and arguably a place that so many people didn't even consider the spiritual heart of the Soviet Union.
When the Poles lost Warsaw, Marshal Rokossovsky still kicked Axis arse, for instance. So whether out of spite, desire for liberation, or simply because they were communists fighting in a global war against fascism, the loss of Moscow wouldn't have diminished the actual desire to reclaim land from the Third Reich.
Each one of those different colours, or groups of similar colours separated geographically, is an ethnic or subcultural group as they saw themselves ... that red blip in the far northwest doesn't mean as much as you might think in the eyes of your average Soviet. People seem to have trouble just internalizing how fucking big the USSR was... to be fair, in terms of comparison, there simply isn't anything to fairly hammer home how likely impossible it would be to occupy it.
To hammer home this point, Order No. 227 ('Not a Step Back') involved prosecuting anybody caught saying that they could afford to retreat further towards easier logistical lines just because of how much ground they had. They made such sentiments a court martialable offence, affording summary execution if particularly grievous. To put it pointedly, the Axis forces would have bled or starved to death before getting to the Urals, and worse comes to the worst Stalin wanted to make that an inevitability.
Also ... Is the fact that the Soviet Union had 2000 trained female sharpshooters (actually trained sharpshooters, expected to able to work in a unit and not necessarily only from concealment, not soldiers given a decent rifle that were called 'snipers') made a difference have any bearing on the rightfulness of women to defend their nation?
For fuck sake, I mean really?
"One reporter even criticized the length of the skirt of my uniform, saying that in America women wear shorter skirts and besides my uniform made me look fat."- Lyudmila Pavlichenko, press conference at Washington D.C.
Confirmed Axis kills, 309.
It's 2018, guys. I think we can raise the bar. Women killing fascists was a thing in WW2. They kind of made a lot of enemies, and had a habit of being outright monsters.
Except most of the inaccuracies that you are pointing out are something that only a history buff who spent time researching it would be able to perceive. But any 12 year old who has taken a 6th grade history class can probably tell you that a WW2 battlefield composed of 50% women is just blatantly historically wrong (I know, the 50% thing was apparently speculation).
If anything, that makes the Rotterdam/Narvik examples worse, because average joe isn't going to know about the inaccuracies. People can take one look at BFV and tell that women being present isn't accurate (least not on the Western Front). British forces at Rotterdam and Narvik? Not so much.
Besides, relying on Battlefield for history lessons isn't a good idea. A basic introduction to history perhaps, but that's about it. BF1942 taught me about the existence of Operation: Battle Axe for instance, but it didn't tell me that despite having you play as the British in its campaign, the British actually lost that battle. I'm not blaming the game for that, but it's a reason why I shouldn't rely on fiction as the be all and end all of history lessons.
Hawki said:
If it's done to improve gameplay or increase sales, that's one thing, and probably understandable to most people because that type of thing has been going on in video games since the beginning. But if a major inaccuracy is introduced purely because of modern politics, then that's an entirely different thing, and less understandable. People are going to *****.
So what makes the presence of women political, and the presence of British forces where they shouldn't be apolitical? Why wasn't there similar outrage in Medal of Honor when OSS agents were tagging along with Soviet forces, among other things?
Besides, there's a simple answer for both cases. Why does BFV have playable females? Well, simple. Customization is pretty much a given in games these days, and it's competing for a share of the battle royale pie. More customization options, wider your audience.
Think if you had a game that shoved right-wing politics in your face. Say, in order to beat a boss in a particular game, you had to go to a Christian church and pray, buy an NRA license, protest high taxes on the wealthy, and blow up an abortion clinic. People on the left wouldn't like that very much, would they? It would be the exact same thing.
First of all, there's already games with right wing politics (see CoD). Second of all, you're right, people would protest it. Third of all, I simply have the choice of not buying it?
Some people don't like forced diversity in places where it makes absolutely no sense. That's a political viewpoint. Think if you had a game that shoved right-wing politics in your face. Say, in order to beat a boss in a particular game, you had to go to a Christian church and pray, buy an NRA license, protest high taxes on the wealthy, and blow up an abortion clinic. People on the left wouldn't like that very much, would they? It would be the exact same thing.
So, making a playable female character "would be the exact same thing" as you [having] to go to a Christian church and pray, buy an NRA license, protest high taxes on the wealthy, and blow up an abortion clinic?
I think I found your problem mate, and it's definitely not the game or "left wing politics"...
I think if you're the kind of person who looks at a multiplayer game which will be played by millions of people of a wide variety of ages, genders and backgrounds and somehow the only reason you can come up with as to why said game would allow you to use a female avatar is that some kind of secret conspiracy is trying to indoctrinate people to believe historical inaccuracies for political reasons, then I think what you're responding to there is a massive, massive problem with your own politics, and one you probably need to get over if you're going to play games in a world where a younger and more diverse audience is increasingly determining the market.
I mean, it does not take a military historian to realise that a significant chunk of the weapons in battlefield 1 were basically made up or extrapolated from generally non-functional prototypes or modified weapons of the time, because in general automatic weapons smaller than a full sized machine gun did not exist. Heck, world war 1 machine guns jammed constantly at the best of times because the manufacturing tolerances were not fine enough to even build those big, bulky machine guns. They were there because you cannot have a mainstream multiplayer shooter game without automatic weapons. It is a convention of the genre, just like character customisation.
And that's before we get to the extreme historical accuracy of fixing horses with a wrench. You know, I'm not an expert on equine biology or the military history of horses in world war 1, but I'm pretty sure you can't repair a damaged horse with a wrench. Maybe if the horse broke its leg you could beat it to death so it doesn't suffer, but that seems kind of redundant in a game where everyone has guns.
Oh yeah.. and this..
I guess our fake-ass "real history" forgot to tell us about that little gem..
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.
Besides, there's a simple answer for both cases. Why does BFV have playable females? Well, simple. Customization is pretty much a given in games these days, and it's competing for a share of the battle royale pie. More customization options, wider your audience.
I agree. My original statements were all in response to the allegation that the game was going to portray World War II as having 50% female soldiers in battles. All soldiers, all battles. Others have since said that this will not be the case, and if so, that's great.
Avnger said:
So, making a playable female character "would be the exact same thing" as you [having] to go to a Christian church and pray, buy an NRA license, protest high taxes on the wealthy, and blow up an abortion clinic?
I think I found your problem mate, and it's definitely not the game or "left wing politics"...
Again, I wasn't talking about the mere presence of women. I was talking about rewriting history to portray World War II as having 50% female soldiers fighting in all battles. Millions of soldiers, half of them female. That would be an example of the cancer that is identity politics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics], which is currently tearing apart the fabric of Western society by trying to divide everyone up into teams of "oppressed" factions each fighting to overthrow their alleged evil white heterosexual male "oppressors." It's a racist and sexist ideology, and some people would prefer not to have it infecting their video games.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
