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

[Silvanus]

You could also make a game featuring FDR and Liberace, what's your point? Anything goes if everything exists at the same time?

Nothing wrong with that argument. There are people in this thread arguing that since female frontline soldiers were somewhat rare, they therefore shouldn't be in BFV: it's a valid counterpoint that plausibility extends further than we'd think.

 

[Dalisclock]

I know I've already mentioned this before, but it's worth noting that DICE, much like Activision, don't seem to have much interest in adhering particularly close to actual history in this regard. It's more along the lines of "Lets take a place or person or battle involved in a war and then build something fun and playable around that concept". This is when they're not just recreating famous war movies or scenes from famous war movies.

Which is how you get the battle of Pavlov's house in the original CoD that's 20 minutes long(instead of months) or where one Bedouin lady working for TE Lawrence ends up taking down a super-powerful armored train pretty much by herself while Lawrence occasionally pops in to remind us he's the one history remembers. Or why one guy named Ramirez ends up doing everything when the Russians invade the US(okay, not really historical but the same level of realism going on).

Hell, Battlefield 1, which might be the "closest" to showing a real war(in the loosest sense of the word), still decided to liberally throw handheld automatic weapons, regardless of how rare or even when they were put into production(guns from 1918 show up prior to that), all over the battlefield because apparently it was more fun or a single British Mark V tank that can somehow create a breakthrough by itself without infantry support despite being notoriously prone to breakdown in the best conditions(which the opening card even calls out).

I could go on and on with examples where realism takes a backseat to playability(Fun is a bit subjective here) from both series if you want. Hell, I've long since just learned to ignore it because trying to reconcile this shit with actual history or how militaries actually operate is a fools errand and just focus on how well it works in it's own context and how much engaging it is to play.

On a similar note, we could talk about how Stars Wars and actual military tactics/strategy intersect and probably get much the same results, if you get my meaning.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I know I've already mentioned this before, but it's worth noting that DICE, much like Activision, don't seem to have much interest in adhering particularly close to actual history in this regard. It's more along the lines of "Lets take a place or person or battle involved in a war and then build something fun and playable around that concept". This is when they're not just recreating famous war movies or scenes from famous war movies.

This is the problem. This is the one time DICE can actually have their cake and eat it too, sacrifice absolutely nothing on the game play, spectacle, or history side. Nothing whatsoever. Stories like Mariya Oktyabrskaya's already sound like something out of a Battlefield game, and those events actually happened. This is so much of a slam dunk it beggars credibility to argue otherwise.

The problem arises in that to tell those stories, one must tell stories about the French resistance and Red Army, which raises a whole lot of uncomfortable questions about national politics and pro-NATO, Cold War-era, historical revisionism. What we seem to be getting served instead, are complete historical fictions which ultimately spit in the face of the women who actually fought; considering DICE's bait-and-switch with diversified representation in BF1, that does not reflect well on them as a game studio or progressive (in any meaningful way) entity.

 

[Zontar]

Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia:

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

The picture was from Tunisia, the men were Senegalese. The Senegalese made up ~60% of the Free French military by the time of the liberation of Paris. We Americans specifically asked de Gaulle to shuffle his forces around so only white soldiers made the attack. Because our military was still segregated and we were astoundingly racist.

And as I stated in the now purged part of the thread, you called North Africans black, not the people who served in North Africa, the people from North Africa.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You could also make a game featuring FDR and Liberace, what's your point? Anything goes if everything exists at the same time?

Nothing wrong with that argument. There are people in this thread arguing that since female frontline soldiers were somewhat rare, they therefore shouldn't be in BFV: it's a valid counterpoint that plausibility extends further than we'd think.

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

As I pointed out previously in this thread; The number of women in the Red Army was about the same as the number of men who served in the Waffen-SS (800,000 compared to 900,000), if we count female partisans the number of women fighting for the Soviet Union approaches 2 million or more. The number of women who had frontline duties in the Red Army is also greater then the number of men who served in the "elite" Waffen-SS armored divisions (1st Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, 2nd Das Reich, 3rd Totenkopf, 5th Wiking, 10th Nordland and 16th Hitlerjugend). Not to mention that the 300,000 or so women who had frontline duties in the Red Army far outnumbers the less then 100,000 men who served in American Airborne Divisions in Europe, and probably outnumber the actual paratroopers (since glider infantry didn't count as paratroopers) about 10:1. The actual number of women in the Red Army is also closer to 3%, if we go by the 25 million people under arms in the Red Army.

My point is, in case it isn't clear, that while women were a rather uncommon sight on the frontline in the Great Patriotic War they were not much more uncommon then the Waffen-SS and more women fought in the Red Army then served in US airborne infantry. Yet any game about World War 2 that doesn't at least make reference to the Waffen-SS and US Airborne, or outright include them, will often draw ire for being revisionist because it omits these prestigious elite forces.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: what we consider pertinent, plausible and historically accurate has more to do with the narrative tradition in which we perceive WW2 then it has to do with WW2 itself.

 

[Zontar]

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

As I pointed out previously in this thread; The number of women in the Red Army was about the same as the number of men who served in the Waffen-SS (800,000 compared to 900,000), if we count female partisans the number of women fighting for the Soviet Union approaches 2 million or more. The number of women who had frontline duties in the Red Army is also greater then the number of men who served in the "elite" Waffen-SS armored divisions (1st Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, 2nd Das Reich, 3rd Totenkopf, 5th Wiking, 10th Nordland and 16th Hitlerjugend). Not to mention that the 300,000 or so women who had frontline duties in the Red Army far outnumbers the less then 100,000 men who served in American Airborne Divisions in Europe, and probably outnumber the actual paratroopers (since glider infantry didn't count as paratroopers) about 10:1. The actual number of women in the Red Army is also closer to 3%, if we go by the 25 million people under arms in the Red Army.

My point is, in case it isn't clear, that while women were a rather uncommon sight on the frontline in the Great Patriotic War they were not much more uncommon then the Waffen-SS and more women fought in the Red Army then served in US airborne infantry. Yet any game about World War 2 that doesn't at least make reference to the Waffen-SS and US Airborne, or outright include them, will often draw ire for being revisionist because it omits these prestigious elite forces.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: what we consider pertinent, plausible and historically accurate has more to do with the narrative tradition in which we perceive WW2 then it has to do with WW2 itself.

I think one of the reasons one appears much more then the other is that the SS and US Airborne where often right up at the front (and in the case of the US Airborne, behind enemy lines) while the women of the red army where mostly fighting from a distance in sniper groups since that's a role women are... I'd say better suited for but a more accurate assessment would be less ill-suited for given the realities of the human body and the demands war places on people.

Hell I was under the impression that the Red Army had more then 3% of its ranks be women given the existential struggle the Great Patriotic War was and the propaganda that was pushed during the war of the woman soldier of the Red Army, since Israel today has more of its armed forces who serve in combat roles who are women and they don't really advertise that fact too much (though then again, Israel is also the only modern military to put women in combat roles to begin with, what with the nation being the military in many ways).

 

[Squilookle]

I think one of the reasons one appears much more then the other is that the SS and US Airborne where often right up at the front (and in the case of the US Airborne, behind enemy lines) while the women of the red army where mostly fighting from a distance in sniper groups

If you're within sniper range of the enemy- you're at the front. And it wasn't just snipers. The very first ground clash of the Battle of Stalingrad was a German tank thrust on several AA batteries brought to bear against them. After the tanks failed to successfully counterattack, after a few hours Stukas were brought in to obliterate the staunch defenders.

Those staunch defenders were entirely made up of teenage female volunteers. Obliterated to the last woman halting a tank thrust. It doesn't get much more 'front line' than that.

In France and virtually every other Axis occupied country on both sides of the world (Including Russia) women took up arms and fought as partisans/resistance behind enemy lines. That's fighting beyond the front lines.

Russia had entire squadrons of female fighter pilots, that shared airfields with male squadrons and flew sorties out over enemy territory and defence patrols within their own. Fighting on, behind and in front of the front line.

So yeah. I think we can put to bed the idea that women were simply 'in the wrong spot' to be given a portrayal. If that were the case, then the 101st Airborne would have been the only paratroopers fighting on either side, because the very nature of paratroops is to be dropped into an active fighting area, and if doing that guarantees media portrayal, and nobody else ever shows up, then the 101st must have been the only ones in the war!

 

[Elijin]

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia:

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

The picture was from Tunisia, the men were Senegalese. The Senegalese made up ~60% of the Free French military by the time of the liberation of Paris. We Americans specifically asked de Gaulle to shuffle his forces around so only white soldiers made the attack. Because our military was still segregated and we were astoundingly racist.

And as I stated in the now purged part of the thread, you called North Africans black, not the people who served in North Africa, the people from North Africa.

Minor semantic quibble. An especially irrelevant one, as the reset allowed my to correct the grammar that you're so hung up on.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

The mistaken belief that just because the maximum effective range on modern (or past) sniper rifles can push out past a kilometer or more, then that's where most sniper fire occurs.

The drab reality is that most sniper fire occurs around 200m if lucky, 300m on the outside.

Or to put it another way, "sniper" is a job, not an equipment class. Everybody's packing a rifle in WW2, usually bolt-action. The sniper is just the guy with a scope. You know, maybe. If they're lucky or American.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

The first two, with the last only applying if they're also women. Its like I said on the day that got deleted, there's a clear divide developing in this topic between those who actually know their history and those whose idea of history comes from the previous Battlefront games. And since the previous Battlefront games didn't have women or black people then thats how WWII must have been, regardless of all those pesky "facts' and "evidence" people keep waving round!

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Or to put it another way, "sniper" is a job, not an equipment class. Everybody's packing a rifle in WW2, usually bolt-action. The sniper is just the guy with a scope. You know, maybe. If they're lucky or American.

Honestly, we're gamers. Our sense of scale when it comes to the effective range of modern weaponry is fucked. See, shotguns, which in reality are lethal out to ranges longer than most FPS maps. I can pee further than the lethal range of shotguns in most games.

 

[Silvanus]

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

Alright then, "rare". Who gives a shit? It's rare, but it happened; it falls under "plausible".

The notion that rarity of an event excludes it from depiction in a videogame is utterly, utterly ludicrous.

 

[Trunkage]

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

The mistaken belief that just because the maximum effective range on modern (or past) sniper rifles can push out past a kilometer or more, then that's where most sniper fire occurs.

The drab reality is that most sniper fire occurs around 200m if lucky, 300m on the outside.

Or to put it another way, "sniper" is a job, not an equipment class. Everybody's packing a rifle in WW2, usually bolt-action. The sniper is just the guy with a scope. You know, maybe. If they're lucky or American.

The White Death commonly let people get as close as 150m, becuase actually trying to shot people from a long distance is incredibly difficult. That why snipers focus on camoflague

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

Alright then, "rare". Who gives a shit? It's rare, but it happened; it falls under "plausible".

The notion that rarity of an event excludes it from depiction in a videogame is utterly, utterly ludicrous.

No women were allowed to join any Allied armies and fight on the battlefront side by side with men.
The exception - and not really, because they were still segregated from men - were three air regiments, some land forces (don't know how many) and a sniper unit totalling around 1.5% of the Russian army from 1941 to 1945 (women totalled 3% of military personnel, "most" were not combatants, ergo math).
I'm not saying that's good.
Or it's how it should be.
But it's what happened.
And I appreciate that it's just some game and you can make a skin out of just about anything and anybody because in a war that directly involved 100 million people surely there're real life examples of pretty much every social, sexual, racial, religious and ethnic extracts conceivable to those who give a shit. What I don't buy for a second is this contrived presentation of diversity as being the norm rather than the exception in WW2 or any other war before that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

Alright then, "rare". Who gives a shit? It's rare, but it happened; it falls under "plausible".

The notion that rarity of an event excludes it from depiction in a videogame is utterly, utterly ludicrous.

No women were allowed to join any Allied armies and fight on the battlefront side by side with men.
The exception - and not really, because they were still segregated from men - were three air regiments, some land forces (don't know how many) and a sniper unit totalling around 1.5% of the Russian army from 1941 to 1945 (women totalled 3% of military personnel, "most" were not combatants, ergo math).
I'm not saying that's good.
Or it's how it should be.
But it's what happened.
And I appreciate that it's just some game and you can make a skin out of just about anything and anybody because in a war that directly involved 100 million people surely there're real life examples of pretty much every social, sexual, racial, religious and ethnic extracts conceivable to those who give a shit. What I don't buy for a second is this contrived presentation of diversity as being the norm rather than the exception in WW2 or any other war before that.

Neat.

French Resistance fighters were rolled into the Free French Army after Dragoon. There were women fighters there, and the French army was ~60% black. Same happened to the Resistance fighters in Norway.

The "1% rule" apparently only applies to women and not, say, paratroopers. Who are rare, and thus shouldn't be represented at all.

 

[Squilookle]

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

The mistaken belief that just because the maximum effective range on modern (or past) sniper rifles can push out past a kilometer or more, then that's where most sniper fire occurs.

The drab reality is that most sniper fire occurs around 200m if lucky, 300m on the outside.

Or to put it another way, "sniper" is a job, not an equipment class. Everybody's packing a rifle in WW2, usually bolt-action. The sniper is just the guy with a scope. You know, maybe. If they're lucky or American.

The White Death commonly let people get as close as 150m, becuase actually trying to shot people from a long distance is incredibly difficult. That why snipers focus on camoflague

The White death also generally went without a scope as well, preferring regular sights that didn't glint.

 

[Marik2]

And once again it's back to 11 pages.