That is always a given.Zykon TheLich said:
But i am starting to get curious about how many people discussing here actually played and liked the earlier entries in this series and if we can find anyone complaining about V who is ok with the others.
EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But i am starting to get curious about how many people discussing here actually played and liked the earlier entries in this series and if we can find anyone complaining about V who is ok with the others.
Well, obviously I can only speak for myself, but I've only played 1942 and the old SW battlefront 2, both some years after release and neither particularly appealed.Satinavian said:
I was however really interested in BF1, until I saw the mass use of automatic weapons, those giant zepplin/armoured train/whatever things, the power armour machine gun guy, the flying level gunning down waves of bombers...
Generally it's been a series that grabs my interest but then unfortunately loses it again.
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.
As I said in another thread when the "it is disrespectful to those that fought in the war"-argument got trotted out: Bullshit. It is no more disrespectful to fictionalize the ethnic or gender composition of the forces involved then it is to use the war as a conceit for an entertainment product. If your line of what's disrespectful is drawn at "women being put in a game" but allows for games that lessens the horrors of war, white washes the Wehrmacht or portrays the Red Army as Asiatic hordes that run straight at machine guns, then your priorities needs some serious re-checking. The very fact that you think making games that make fun of these battles where hundreds of thousands of people suffered in terrible ways and thousands died or were permanently maimed is alright, but that then introducing women is were it gets disrespectful boggles my mind, like for real.KingsGambit said:
I mean, you betray that this is not about the 70 million people that died during WW2 in the second part of your post, when you go on a tirade against SJWs. However, it would be becoming if we didn't use the absolutely unimaginable human suffering of WW2 and all the people that died because of it as ammunition in a discussion about representation in computer games.
I'd be able to take those complaints seriously if the most devastating war in human history wasn't being used to sell a product where people get to do all the killing with none of the consequences.KingsGambit said:
I can buy the argument that playable women in Battlefield V decreases immersion. I can't buy the argument that it's disrespectful. If playable females are the dividing line between what's respectful and what isn't in the Battlefield series, then you have some self-evaluation to do.
No, you have to question why you feel rewriting historical events to fit a political worldview is better for an entertainment medium. It is pandering to people who don't play games and utterly disrespectful to the men who died fighting an evil regime on the battlefield precisely to protect their women and loved ones at home. It ruins immersion because there weren't frontline women in these battlefields and inserting them is a social justice crusade. It doesn't make the game better, it doesn't increase drama, it doesn't tell a better story, it reduces all of these things for the wrong reasons. It's immersion breaking because when those men were under fire and looked around the battlefield for the rest of their units, there weren't any women among them, at all. It's absurd, historically inaccurate for the period and all evidence and testimony bears that out. It's as unusual as finding a cowboy in ancient egypt or an eskimo in Braveheart.Hawki said:
You have some self-evaluation to do to consider why you feel painting in people who weren't there into a game is a worthwhile endeavour. It's as bad as black, female nazis in the CoD title. It is taking one of the most horrific wars in history, still in living memory for some, and turning it into an SJW joke. What about taking a game or film of the Suffragettes and recasting them all as men? Or turning Florence Nightingale into a man? What about attributing other womens' achievements in many fields and attributing them all to men instead? I guarantee there would be mouths frothing. It's a disrespectful, unnecessary, immersion-breaking stunt to please social justice crusaders.
I'm talking about the allied troops who died defending our countries from evil. Men who died in the millions.Saelune said:
Anyway, I don't give a damn. I'm not buying this, I wouldn't play this garbage if it was free (for one, it'll inevitably be an Origin exclusive). And the funny thing is that nor will the feminists and SJWs stunts like this pander to. If EA want to double-down on pandering to SJWs, I'll defend their right to do it while saying why it's horseshit and watch amused while the free market sorts it out. They've already ruined Mass Effect and Dragon Age and dragged BioWare's once great name thru the mud, so what's another franchise.
I feel I'm also a little more annoyed at the opposition to my (our) stance here because I know for a 100%, stone-cold hard fact that this "You're being intolerant of diversity" crap I'm getting for not liking the depictions in BFV does NOT cut both ways.
If the trailer instead had been about the Pacific Theater and feature Caucasian Males prominently in the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy, I know more than a few people on this very board, much less the rest of the Internet, would be losing their fucking minds.
But I'm not allowed to say I want a more accurate depiction of the Allied and Axis militaries.
If the trailer instead had been about the Pacific Theater and feature Caucasian Males prominently in the Imperial Japanese Army/Navy, I know more than a few people on this very board, much less the rest of the Internet, would be losing their fucking minds.
But I'm not allowed to say I want a more accurate depiction of the Allied and Axis militaries.
"They're just doing this to pander to feminists, when they should be pandering to ME instead, because I'M the only one who matters."
I used to buy that...Not so much anymore.Paragon Fury said:
I saw how the Read Only Memories steam forum was flooded by people going "This game is literally gay agenda propaganda why are there no goddamn straight people in this game, WTF, by pushing an agenda you are literally like the nazis" (I wish I was kidding, someone literally said that last bit).
So, a small indie team made their own cyberpunk mystery point and click game, and people still shat on them despite "making their own game" that's inclusive of LBGT/etc.
And when I told these people "hey, you kinds of people are always saying 'why don't you make your own game with these elements instead of wanting them in established series' " they either ignored me or went on to say how I was obviously part of the agenda too for "wanting this SJW trash on Steam, which will kill gaming" :s
Sooo...I don't really think "Go make your own series" really works because a lot of those anti-SJW people will seek it out just to bash it regardless.
1. The first Soviet level in COD had you assaasinsting a General who didn?t exist to avenge massacres he ordered and since he didn?t exist, they probably didn?t actually happen either. I didn?t see you express outrage over that, so you?ll forgive me if I don?t take your talk about respecting those who fought in the war seriously, as that clearly happened to make the point ?Nazis bad? which is a political point.KingsGambit said:
2. I like games that let me play as a woman. I always pick them in character customization. So hate to disprove your idea that they?re pandering to people who don?t play games, but that only ever had ?I said so? to stand on.
3. You don?t care. Uh huh.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/907/907511.png
It's not a documentary. It's not a text book or learning aid. Hell, it's not even a movie with a serious tone. Its a setting for FPS. For mayhem and violence and competition and silliness, all in the name of fun.KingsGambit said:
But it's fine, your post ignored the multiple people who pointed out how using the war as a backdrop for our fun time virtual murder killing funtimes is 1000 times more disrespectful than anything you mention. That plus your little bit at the end about SJW ruining everything totally made everything clear here. You dont care about being respectful of veterans. You dont care about historical accuracy. You dont care about much else other than keeping 'SJW/progressive/liberal/inclusive nonsense' out of videogames.
Yup, turning the most brutal war in human history into a game for entertainment where players call one another fags, tea-bag one another, and kill each other for funsies is perfectly respectable. Adding women, though? Wont somebody think of theKingsGambit said:
I think they need to double down on the two fisted adventure style stuff to drive home the clear notion that this is not just historical fiction, but historical PULP fiction. Someone suggested bear cavalry for the Soviets: yep, get that shit in there. Go hog fucking wild.
You have made it very clear the real reason you are bothered by this game. However, if you really cared about the historical accuracy of this game, then you would be complaining about everything else, and would be doing it long before this game.KingsGambit said:
You are using historical accuracy as a thinly veiled excuse for your real issues.
You know, I really have to wonder just how sharp y'alls eyesight is if you can make out some minor chest bumps on other players avatars at any kind of range.
Let along for y'alls eyes to be sharp enough for you misread the class of your opponent at range.
I can barely tell someone's there before they start shooting at me.
Let along for y'alls eyes to be sharp enough for you misread the class of your opponent at range.
I can barely tell someone's there before they start shooting at me.
Honestly, those weapons were the reason I lost all interest in the game. Well, that and the realization that they induced in me, which was that DICE wasn't really changing up the formula for Battlefield 1, a formula I had gotten bored with after playing a grand total of two Battlefield games.WolvDragon said:
"Oh boy, a World War I game! I really liked Verdun, a game like that with a bigger budget and player base would be awesome!"
*Sees game that doesn't look a bit like World War I with all the automatic weapons and everything else that was mass produced for this game because it was fired once in the war and therefore totally counts*
"...Oh I see. When DICE said they wanted to make a World War I game, they meant they wanted to create the same game they've been making over and over again with a fresh coat of paint and not changing the mechanics to a degree that could alienate their old fanbase...I mean...I don't hate them for it, but I don't want to play a World War I game that feels like World War II. It just kinda misses the whole point of it for me."
Who's "rewriting" anything?KingsGambit said:
If the possibility of playing as a woman counts as that, it's a choice that comes down to the player. I "rewrote" history every time I played BF1942 and delivered a non-historical outcome.
You can use that argument for any change in a franchise that you don't like.
So, in your view, turning the most brutal war in human history into a game for mass entertainment is fine. But as soon as women are added it becomes "utterly disrespectful."
Right...
If you're going to go down the path of moral outrage, at least keep it consistent.
There's lots of things in Battlefield that break immersion. That's been true since 1942. While you're correct in saying that women didn't fight on the frontline on the Western Front, again, it's a bizzare line to cross that suddenly this is where things become "disrespectful" or "pandering."
You seem to be the one doing the crusading here...
The Battlefield multiplayer has never told "story" of any kind. There's lots of shit that happens in multiplayer that doesn't in singleplayer.
They didn't get to respawn either. Or have ammo drops, or have medics patch them up in seconds, or have squad systems where soldiers appear out of thin air.
While you're right in citing it as historically inacurrate, again, I'd be able to take the complaint more seriously if the outrage wasn't only directed at one specific inaccuracy whose inclusion is down entirely to player choice.
Off the top of my head, there's the use of a V2 in BFV trailer, even though V2's were used to bomb London, and weren't used against Allied forces. I suppose I should get into moral indignation because it's disrespectful to everyone who died from these weapons. Or, I can accept that it's a game that's liable to take liberties for the sake of gameplay. Playable females are just one such liberty, said liberty being again, down to player choice.
No, it really isn't.
A cowboy in ancient Egypt is an absolute impossibility because the time difference between the 19th century and Ancient Egypt is over 2000 years. An Inuit in Braveheart is less of a stretch of credulity because as unlikely as it is, you could still concieve a scenario where an Inuit travelled south (or was brought south) to the time of the War for Independence. However, there's a number of key differences between your grievances here and Braveheart, in that Braveheart is a work of fiction with a clear vision. Battlefield V multiplayer is interactive by nature, so any inclusion of females is down to player choice. Likewise, females partaking in combat is far more believable, however unlikely, than the first scenario you listed, and arguably even more likely than Braveheart, in as much that there's historical accounts of women on the Eastern Front, the use of women in the French Resistance and SIS, and there's fighting on a continent where civilians of both genders are present. So I could imagine a scenario where a woman does pick up a weapon to fight alongside the Allies (or Axis).
Is it unlikely? Yes. But while Battlefield does try to capture an air of authenticity, it's been taking historical liberties since day 1.
Well, considering that the "painting" is down to player choice...yep, I'm good.
Also, it's an asinine question in the context of the larger one, as to whether appropriating WWII for entertainment is ethical. Frankly, I'm fine with that as well.
Weren't those multiplayer-only skins that were down to player choice in a game series that already features Nazi zombies?
No, not really.
Well, considering that BFV hasn't made the soldiers "all women" and left it down to player choice, that's a poor comparison. But even then, the Suffragettes, while a female-driven movement, did have men supporting them. You could easily have a Suffregette-based story starring males.
Florence Nightingale was a historical individual. BFV (or any Battlefield) has never depicted historical figures in its multiplayer.
History has that kind of thing already regardless of gender. But again, this is faulty logic. Battlefield V isn't attributing anything to anyone, least not in multiplayer.
And yet, it's SQW's that are doing the "crusading" here...
You want to crusade against Battlefield's historical liberties? Fine. But at least spare us the hypocrisy of being selective about what's acceptable and what isn't.
Then why are you even here?
Probably. But there was only a single female in the trailer in a battlefield that had at least hundreds of soldiers. Equating that to a group of white males in the Imperial Japanese forces isn't an equal comparison.Paragon Fury said:
People can say what they want. Just want to know why some liberties are acceptable and some aren't. And why it's even an issue when if you don't want to play as a female in BFV, you can simply choose not to.