EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope.Elijin said:
Unless you're China, Israel, Russia or a handful of outlier cases (like the Australian Navy). Or if you want to go the BF4 route and set in a future/near-future conflict where it's expect to be common for women to be on the frontlines (where it was actually weird they didn't have any females in MP because they did have Hannah and Major Greenland in SP). Or something like a theoretical BF2143 where it would obviously be commonplace.
Or hell, go and make Bad Company 3, where you can do whatever you like and no one will really care (unless the model difference gives an advantage cuz that's bad balance).
But if you're going to pick a historical setting, unless you're specifically setting out to make a fantasy/alt-history version a la Wolfenstein then it comes with a set of expectations and standards for appearance and aesthetics.
And women everywhere in WW2 is not among them. Certainly not Potty Mouth Bionic Tracer and Nazi Ninja Assassin.
So you care about historically accurate aesthetic consistency, but only in regards to gender?Paragon Fury said:
Ignorant, or just not enough of that historical knowledge to realise most of the weapon and vehicles combinations in BF games never saw each other on the battlefield? Some of them never even saw battle.
This is the hypocrisy everyone is laughing at. You 'care about historical accuracy' but only in so far as it keeps women avatars out of your games.
Uhhh....no?Elijin said:
I don't think that they should really have Black or Asian people running around everywhere either (that British Asian lady would've been just as ridiculous if it was an Asian man instead - but making it a woman was just making it worse). They DEFINITELY shouldn't be allowed on the German side, because, you know, Nazi Germany's whole shtick was the exact opposite of that.
I'm all for having different appearance for different maps based on specific battles (so long as they conform to the same general model guidelines as the rest of the game so that the class/role is still easy to identify).
And here's the thing; you're laughing at us, but we're laughing at you because you can't seem to understand what constitutes reasonable suspension of disbelief.
And oddball weapon or vehicle appearing that shouldn't be there or didn't see much use doesn't break the suspension of disbelief because it looks, sounds and behaves in a thematically appropriate way. We may logically know it doesn't go there, but it's not so obtrusive that it causes any sort of blip on 99% of the population's radar.
But the way women and customization are depicted DOES, because literally everyone the world over has seen and heard about WW2, has an idea and feel for what it was supposed to look, sound and feel like (even if it's only second and third-hand tales) and so when something that definitely did not happen or does not belong appears it creates an issue.
Yeah, the tank they're showing the British using didn't see any real service for the most part. But it looks and sounds like it belongs there, so it allows for acceptable suspension of disbelief.
Asian British Paratrooper Lady and Nazi Ninja Assassin Lady definitely did NOT happen and do not look like they belong, especially not with their multi-cultural squad mates in their WW2 Hot Topic outfits with their Kratos facepaint, and thus break the suspension of disbelief pretty hard, in addition to smacking of forcing modern morality onto what as a very...not modern in it's sensibility time period.
So you believe a title which is 99% a MP shooter on a grand scale, should be subject to racist overtones? Roleplaying as Nazis?Paragon Fury said:
Lets be real. This isnt a meaningful piece of art trying to tell a harrowing story about a horrible war. Its a venue. A venue, to shake up a feeling of boredom in the current to tomorrow genre of shooters (which is ironic in itself, since current to tomorrow shooters gained prominence shaking up WW2 shooters). This is MP arena. A backdrop to players having a good time.
And those players are also asian, black, women. Why shouldnt they get some superficial representation. This is not meaningful critique of war, this is a playground for mayhem.
The dumb part is, though I dont agree with it, you had a semi reasonable argument extensive customisation. If you divorced the concept of rallying against the customisation from the gender selection, you might even have something. But you're stuck on pretending it matters whether the war was presented as super racists, super sexists boys club, rather than a playground backdrop that it is in this case.
That even creates a second point you could rally on! That games shouldnt treat WW2 as a playground at all unless they're going to go alt-history to divorce the horrific war with being a playground. But you seem fine with it being a thing, so long as its not racially diverse, and women know their place.
Just a heads up, it's not just a single tank. Beyond the primary weapons, BF has a pretty rich history of fielding weaponry that never saw combat service, or only select encounters worth less than a percent (Which, by your logic regarding women, isnt enough to let people use them freely).
Because it's explicitly an alternate timeline. Every Battlefield game has taken place in our world, or in the case of 2142, a future approximation of it.WolvDragon said:
Apparently so.
Then again, I think it's a simple matter of just choosing not to play as female if you want, so I'm left to ask why this is such a thing.
Sure. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kyoungjong] It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_SS_Panzer_Division_Wiking] not [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Division_Nordland] like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)] the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)] German [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Latvian)] military [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Estonian)] accepted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division] a bunch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Skanderbeg] of foreign [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(2nd_Hungarian)] volunteers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)] or anything [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_(1st_French)]. (This paragraph is sarcastic, check the links)Paragon Fury said:
I mean, I can sort of see where you are coming from. There are no recorded instances of British women serving in an infantry regiment (alongside on the other hand), nor of German women being drafted into a Panzer battalion. On the other hand, the Sturm tiger was so rare that you have fewer of those than you have of recorded instances of women fighting in frontline combat during the liberation of France, the Tiger I fought against US troops about half a dozen times total and about the only time a Me-109 made a contribution on the Western front after 1944, that wasn't chasing bombers, was during Operation Bodenplatte, when said contribution was being shot down in great numbers. Which leads us to:
This only means your suspension of disbelief is bad. Do you know my most vivid memory of BF1942? It is of a friend of mine piloting a Spitfire with four of us on the wings, before making a perfect short stop landing right next to a far off objective that we captured. Your idea of what's authentic is basically filtered by movies and games about the war. Let me get personal for a moment: I've read a shitload of books on WW2, I've watched an equal amount of documentaries and I've played dozens of games. I'm the kind of person who reads When Titans clashed and Wages of Destruction for fun. I can tell you which divisions were the first wave on D-Day, what equipment they had and which German divisions opposed the. I could spend hours discussing the operational nuances of Operation Bagration and the transformation of the Red Army from 1934 to 1945. I am as closed as one can get to obsessed with WW2 without fully geeking out. Yet I can watch Enemy at the Gates and think it is a fine movie (as long as no starts talking about how realistic it is), I can play Call of Duty or Battlefield 1942 without getting an aneurysm from the liberties they take with everything or how they base most of their narratives on how movies portray WW2 instead of what WW2 actually looked like.Paragon Fury said:
When you say that Sturmtigers and StG44s in the hands of British paratroopers in Narvik in 1940 is within reasonable suspension of disbelief or that tactical employment of V1 flying bombs is something you can stomach, but that a colored man or a woman in a peadot camo smock fighting for the Germans is not, that's not a statement about what's reasonable suspension of disbelief. That's a statement about your personal politics or your ignorance of WW2.
Prove to me that DICE didn't want to include full character customization but was forced by a nefarious SJW cabal. If you can't, Occam's Razor tells me that the most likely reason for the inclusion is that DICE wanted it and thus decided to exercise their creative freedom to make the game they wanted. When you tell people to "make their own games" you don't get to complain when established companies decide to do so.Paragon Fury said:
Except it clearly isn't. I can pretend that X is Y, doesn't change that X is still X.WolvDragon said:
In my mind? No. However, I think it's disingenuous to use Wolfenstein as an example of people not minding about WWII liberties.
That's my question to Paragon Fury. If you can prove that EA told them to include women and minorities in the game, I'll happily concede that it is a dick move by EA. If you can't, the safest bet is that DICE wanted to do it.WolvDragon said:
By those standards, any work of historical fiction is set in a fictional universe and shouldn't be judged as historical fiction.WolvDragon said:
No, people were too busy complaining about an African American on the cover, a black German soldier class, and an Indian soldier in the British Empire faction.
No, Paragon did say it would be fine in appropriate setting.Elijin said:
If you don't want an armies with white dudes fighting each other than don't make the shooter about Brits vs. Nazis. WWII is called so because it was fought all over the world. How about the Kuomintang against Japanese, if you want asians ? or Soviets conquring Manchuria with both asians, whites and women ?
But no, it is again the thoroughly overdone western front with wesern allies against Nazis.
Indeed, if i had to rate the most stupid thing in the trailer it yould probaly be the V1 and "women" would not come second or third.Gethsemani said:
While the Germans did use anyone they could (aside from women), keep in mind that "non-German" is not the same as "non-white". Most of those links are Waffen-SS. And those units were made in an attempt to make the stupid race ideology into a thing more acceptable to other Europeans by claiming Arian heritage outside of Germany (and to get more volunteeres by admitting those too were part of the master race). There has been a lot of really baffling historical fact bending, but officially all those SS-Units were still of nearly pure Arians and they certainly looked white enough.Gethsemani said:
Yeah no, I dont give a crap whether the game is all white or not. It's a setting for weapon and vehicle styles. Inspiration for a few maps. A multiplayer playground for mayhem and competition. As such, the skin tone or genital set on each human controlled soldier is utterly irrelevant. And as such, there's not reason to not include various options. Other than the cliche justifications that are put forth by those who either legitimately feel negatively towards women, or those who are convinced any step which could even remotely be considered under the banners 'SJW, diversity, inclusion' are some slippery slope into some....Im not actually sure what the end state of that hypothetical is, but Im sure its terrifying to those people.Satinavian said:
That doesn't match Paragon, it certainly doesn't match me, there is only one poster in this whole thread who expressed any dislike for women in shooters. That other want their WWII shooters to be a tad more realistic than a World of Tanks battle has nothing to do with SJW or anti-SJW.Elijin said:
Have we tried the "this is just my preference for the game" caveat in this long running argument?Paragon Fury said:
From what I can tell, I share some of your preferences in maintaining my feeling of setting authenticity, if I could get them to make battlefield for me, that would be nice, but I understand that that isn't the case and I'm not going to complain that they didn't. But at the same time, that's not going to stop me pointing out the things that I don't like and that I might change my mind about buying it if it were different. It's when you start telling people what it should or shouldn't be that you get the most pushback.