• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 1: No playable female soldiers in multiplayer. Campaign only.

I don't see the issue if they're not even including the Russians/Eastern front to begin with.
Literally no one else (especially not on the Western, Italian and Pacific fronts) had women in their fighting forces. We are talking about WWI after all. And the very few that existed were mostly Mulan-esque cases of pretending to be a man to even get into the army.

That Dice managed to insert a playable Bedouin warrior woman in the first place is commendable because even finding any instance of fighting women in WWI is already hard as heck.

If this was a game about Modern Conflict (with women serving in most relevant armies and paramilitary organisations even in combat roles), Vietnam (Vietcong), Korea (North Korean Army) or even WWII (Red Army and resistance fighters) there would be grounds for discussion and women should be included for the factions they are applicable to, but not WWI.
 

cripterion

Member
I wouldn't quite say that women soldiers are as ridiculous as world war 1 soldiers in rabbit costumes.

I know right, yet the line "it's a video game" makes it sound like anything goes.
I mean last year you had people bitching in FIFA 16 that you couldn't play female teams vs male teams, instead of celebrating their inclusion in the first place.

I think the POV from a women's soldier's a good thing. Might be mistaken but feels like if they didn't have that in the reveal trailer, people wouldn't even be asking for female models in the first place. I sure wasn't expecting them to have female soldiers prior to the game reveal.

EDIT : But I agree that if they were to originally have them in the first place it's pretty dumb not to finally include them in the mp.
 

Lime

Member
I'm a little surprised no one has put in the info from a former DICE employee about this.

https://twitter.com/LiaSae/status/742117056879943681

The original conception totally had women soldiers in multiplayer. Someone had that element removed along the way, and the ultimate reason given was "boys don't find that realistic". This in a game where tanks are prevalent and don't require a crew of 8 to steer the thing and fire the 1 gun. Hell, just look at the concept. It's a World War 1 game that doesn't remotely resemble actual WW1. For that, you'd have to look at something like Verdun, which is nothing like Battlefield-style gameplay.

WW1 Battlefield means you're throwing realism out of the window from the bare concept, so it's an exceptionally poor excuse for why you're not doing women soldiers.

Thank you for posting this, it's so interesting to have an insight into the internal dealings with this issue.
 

4Tran

Member
Also notable the Red Army believed in women taking these roles in equal measure with men. They had equal roles in the states production economics. Compared to the pre Communist WW1 Russia.
Women were given a surprisingly prominent role during that war. And they had the accomplishments to back it up too. It's too bad that their accomplishments were shoved under the rug after the war.

Given that only two battalions ever made it to the front lines and saw any action (one battle), it's doubtful that many of them ever saw any form of front-lines war.

I really think using the Women's Battalion is a silly form of argumentation for the issue anyways.
There was a Women's Battalion in the Paris Commune during the Franco-Prussian War as well, but I don't think that they should be necessarily modeled if anyone makes a game based on that conflict either. It's another case of "Cool if it happens, but okay if it doesn't."
 

CryptiK

Member
Offensively put, they sacrified their vision because they thought you as a guy wouldn't know its authentic.
How do we know that? How do we know that is even remotely true, I like how we take the word of anyone on the internet these days, including a salty former employee.
 
How do we know that? How do we know that is even remotely true, I like how to take the word of anyone on the internet these days, including a salty former employee.
What do you have against women that you don't want them in games?


This isn't the first time you've argued "vision" over representation. I don't think you really understand what it means to have a creative vision versus execution in games.
 

Stiler

Member
I like peoples responses to this.

"It's not historically accurate, there weren't a lot of women so it's fine."



The thing I don't get is that, women did fight, and it would obviously make sense to allow players to pick a woman if they wanted. There is literally ZERO drawback to allowing people to play as a female character if they want to.

It would not be nearly as un-historically accurate as:

1. Everyone using smg's/lmg's (these were not common weapons, the majority of soldiers had bolt action rifles).
2. Rocket guns (Bazookas did not get used until ww2)
3. Spawning out of thin air into airplanes (Pilot class does this)
4. Magically seeing people and their exact movements with 3d spotting.
 

Seronei

Member
Their models would have to be the same size or else it could give a pretty big advantage, and if they don't they'd need to balance it some other way. I think it'd be hard to do this properly. Certainly a much better reason than authenticity when everyone is running around with SMGs.
 

cripterion

Member
What do you have against women that you don't want them in games?


This isn't the first time you've argued "vision" over representation. I don't think you really understand what it means to have a creative vision versus execution in games.

And aren't you the same person that was bitching about bikini zombies? See how that works? You should stop categorizing people based on what they want or not in a game is all I'm saying.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
I'd understand no woman in SP but the opposite? Wat?

No black soldiers too? :/
Wait, seriously? :\

In a way I actually like their choice to try and be accurate. WW1 is a fascinating war and not many people learn about it. If this game can educate people that would be nice.
Haha, Battlefield the educational game... I think not. Valiant Hearts took a few liberties too but overall it's probably far more educational than a generic shooter is ever gonna be.
Plus it has a playable female character and a playable black character and a cool dog!
 

-Amon-

Member
Should be able to pick any colour or gender.
That way people don't feel bad.

I did not felt that bad when i played Tomb Raider just to name one.

I don't know, probably i'm getting too old to see a problem in these kind of things.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
If I hear one more "developer's vision", I am going to throw up
Especially for Battlefield. We all know this franchise is totally not a finely-tuned focus-tested product, but instead a true autheur's most sacred work, unblemished by any executive meddling.
 
And aren't you the same person that was bitching about bikini zombies? See how that works? You should stop categorizing people based on what they want or not in a game is all I'm saying.
Yeah I did. And I stand by it. Techland is the same company that had a mutilated female torso (just some tits in a bikini) statue as a preorder bonus for a previous game. So excuse me if I call them out for being sexists.


If I hear one more "developer's vision", I am going to throw up
Having a "vision" is no shield from being called out on your bullshit.
 

Coffinhal

Member
I did not felt that bad when i played Tomb Raider just to name one.

I don't know, probably i'm getting too old to see a problem in these kind of things.

Didn't know Tomb Raider was a multiplayer game where you played a random soldier

And gender/skin color was something you could chose in Battlefront last year

Haha, Battlefield the educational game... I think not. Valiant Hearts took a few liberties too but overall it's probably far more educational than a generic shooter is ever gonna be.
Plus it has a playable female character and a playable black character and a cool dog!

Valiants Hearts has nothing educational in its gameplay or content, it's just an hyperemotional story that takes place during WW1 with bad game design and a biased/inaccurate historical treatment
 

cripterion

Member
I'd understand no woman in SP but the opposite? Wat?


Wait, seriously? :\


Haha, Battlefield the educational game... I think not. Valiant Hearts took a few liberties too but overall it's probably far more educational than a generic shooter is ever gonna be.
Plus it has a playable female character and a playable black character and a cool dog!

There are black soldiers in the game. You can even see it in this teaser

Yeah I did. And I stand by it. Techland is the same company that had a mutilated female torso (just some tits in a bikini) statue as a preorder bonus for a previous game. So excuse me if I call them out for being sexists.

Oh the horror... Clearly you are quick to label people.
 
If I hear one more "developer's vision", I am going to throw up

I don't think people who talk about a "developer's vision" as a justification for something shouldn't go on to criticize things like microtransactions, DLC or all of the other penny pinching bs people feel more than free to call out. Cause if we're going with "the developer's vision is 100% the word of god", never to be questioned, then there's little room for critique of any kind.
 

Lime

Member
Especially for Battlefield. We all know this franchise is totally not a finely-tuned focus-tested product, but instead a true autheur's most sacred work, unblemished by any executive meddling.

Some people (like one poster earlier) are just looking for every possible excuse to keep women and non-dominant identities (non-white, LGBTQ) out of their entertainment. Whether or not they are aware that they're doing this, their actions and arguments are implicitly oppressive and exclusionary.
 

a916

Member
If they say they don't want to do it, whatever that's on them.

Why would you not do it though, just to avoid the shitstorm that's coming your way?
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Valiants Hearts has nothing educational in its gameplay or content,
I thought some of the collectibles had pretty interesting factoids, actually. There were definitely a few educational moments in the game if you aren't a WW1 historian.

it's just an hyperemotional story that takes place during WW1 with bad game design and a biased/inaccurate historical treatment
Hahaha, okay chief.
 

4Tran

Member
Haha, Battlefield the educational game... I think not. Valiant Hearts took a few liberties too but overall it's probably far more educational than a generic shooter is ever gonna be.
Plus it has a playable female character and a playable black character and a cool dog!
To be fair, Battlefield 1 also has a playable female character and playable black character(s). No word yet on cool dogs.
 

Tosyn_88

Member
Maybe I'm wrong but women's involvement in the major war was more prominent in the second than the first, no? I mean if we look at the timeline of world war one, women especially in the West weren't exactly privileged enough to be designated military positions which could see combat.
 

Aters

Member
BF1 is so gritty, not sure if I want to see women fighting in it. Maybe next time people will be asking for female DOOM guy....It's going to be weird.
 
I'm fine with this but the fact that their campaign reasoning is the way it is is pretty fucking hypocritical. So, I guess I'm not fine with their reasoning.
 
Just some random comments on the Eurogamer piece:

multiplayer would look silly and unrealistic if half the soldiers in every battle were women

I care only for the sake of accurary

who cares bro why cant you just enjoy the game for what it is instead of complaining about irrelevant stuff.

And the absolute best one:

why are you forcing the issue? I'm fully in favour of a better representation of diversity within gaming. I'm always here arguing against misogyny in gaming and I don't see the issue here.

Yes there's going to be plenty of inaccuracies in the game but that's no reason to force diversity into a game.

Diverse representation has to be natural. Throwing a female skin into a historically sexist setting is counter productive. It doesn't further the goal of having a better representation of non-caricature, non stereotyped minorities. It does provide ammunition to the "it's PC gone mad/SJWs are taking gaming over crowd".

PICK. YOUR. BATTLES! If someone can turn around and say "it's not historically accurate" for a game based in a historical timeframe you've not only lost the argument for yourself, you've lost it for us because you've directly connected the rewriting of history to progressiveness.

Focus on the characterisation not the skin.
Focus on the stories that are bound by our imagination, not history.
Focus on changing minds, not changing history.
 
Maybe I'm wrong but women's involvement in the major war was more prominent in the second than the first, no? I mean if we look at the timeline of world war one, women especially in the West weren't exactly privileged enough to be designated military positions which could see combat.
Yeah this has been said, and it's true. The issue is they have women soldiers in the campaign because they want diversity and a modern look over authenticity.... but then give this reasoning for the mp portion. It's backwards.
 

dalin80

Banned
Cool to see the MK4 tank rocking it in a game. There were actually two versions, the male and female depending on whether the side saddle weapons were cannons or machine guns.

I did a write up on the first 'Tank' for another site a while ago.


Please note I'm only including this here as a distraction to the inevitable debate and hand wringing about women in WW1 on the frontlines (tip: yes there were, they were incredibly rare and it's unlikely a serving soldier would have ever have seen one during his time on the lines).

So to get back on the subject of what looks like a different and awesome war game-

British_Mark_I_Tank_zpstx6zyzps.jpg


AKA- 'His Majesty's Land Ship Centipede'

The concept of the first 'tank' and the requirements behind it's development differ substantially from what we would consider a tank from Late WW1 on and that is the most important thing to keep in mind as we consider the first 'tank' and how it started a new industry which in many ways defined land warfare for decades to come.

It was very apparent early in WW1 that weapon development had outstripped transport and armour capabilities, this as we all know produced a stalemate amongst the fronts as trenches were dug and progress stalled. The battlefields were a horrific meat-grinder as infantry stood almost no chance of completing any objective, as soon as they went 'over the top' machine guns, artillery and crude fences would make this task almost impossible.

The need for a mechanised vehicle to assist the infantry in travelling to and then taking enemy trenches was obvious to a few and work got under way in developing such a vehicle and trying to convince powerful figure heads in the military and government of it's use. The first prototypes were barely functioning models focused on testing the principals of a tracked armoured vehicle utilising wooden bodies and very basic tracks purchased from the US. Eventually the Mk1 shape was formed, parts were transported as 'water tanks' giving birth to the name of the vehicle and the first true 'Tank' went into testing. The main body was 25 feet long and was designed to be able to travel over a trench 12 feet wide (8 and 9 feet also mentioned as requirements by some sources) although this was rarely possible, a top mounted turret was considered but concerns over a high Centre of Gravity saw that removed and instead replaced with either cannons or machine guns in side mounted sponsons; These were called the male and female versions. The tracks travelled the entire outer distance of the body and were unsprung, the lack of suspension while doing a marginally better job at keeping the tracks mounted made for an awful ride over any terrain. The tracks at the base are actually mounted on a slight curve to improve steering but this ultimately proved self-defeating on soft ground as they sank in and the surface area increased dramatically.

At this time in 1915/1916 the only diesel engines were land mounted and not yet developed enough for vehicle use and the petrol Internal Combustion Engine was very new and not yet engineered into a reliable state. A Daimler 16l 6 cylinder was used developing only 100bhp with which to push the 28t mass at between 3 and 4mph depending on how well it was working at that time. Steering was initially provided via a rear mounted and hydraulically operated tail but this proved useless and was quickly removed from later models, although the mountings remained for some time. Instead the crew learnt to steer via careful altering the track speeds, care was needed to stop the relatively crude gearboxes and shafts sheering apart. In combat navigation was achieved thanks to a delicate periscope system that rarely survived travelling with no suspension and a very sensitive ships compass which for some reason didn't enjoy being inside a metal can with a running engine a few feet away.

The infancy of the internal combustion engine was in many ways the main weakness of the vehicle, asides from it's low power output the Daimler engine (and later Ricardo units) had shocking reliability, frequent fuel and oil leaks made it a fire hazard not to mention the heat and exhaust gasses produced would get trapped inside the body, minor updates over time did little to solve these issues and as crews often trained in bare hulls without the side weapons fitted they didn't truly discover the hot, cramped and toxic conditions until they were on the battlefield.

Protection was provided by 6-12mm armour which was sufficient at stopping most light machine gun fire at moderate distances but was soon outdone by heavier machine guns, the newly developed anti-tank rifle and artillery which had an easy time picking off tanks left stricken by failed engines. Bundles of hand-grenades were also effective forcing the inclusion of top netting which was somewhat effective at rolling the explosives away. Armour plates and improvements were planned but not utilised, probably as the vehicles already suffered greatly with slow speeds, beaching and mechanical wear.

Ultimately the first Tank had mixed results, awful reliability and little experience in how to effectively use them led to their first uses on the battlefields being quite difficult but at times they showed such promise that the Admiralties Landship secured it's place on the table. In time the crews who suffered greatly inside the hot hulls were able to learn how to better use the weapons even if those who gave the orders didn't always know how to better deploy them.

But again it's important to reiterate that the 'Tank' was not what we currently consider a true fighting vehicle, it was developed to assist infantry by breaking through barbwire, machine gun emplacements and breaching trenches which it did... On the occasions that it was pointing in the right direction and the engine was working. It also proved the validity of mechanised warfare and as engines improved so did mobility eventually taking the emphasis away from Trench warfare and changing the face of large scale war.

Type: Tank / Infantry support vehicle
Place of origin: United Kingdom
In service: 1916-1945(?)*
Designer: William Tritton, Major Walter Gordon Wilson, The Landships committee
Manufacturer: Various
Weight: 28t male, 27t female
Length: 7.75 m (25ft)
Width: 4.2 m (13ft 9in)
Height: 2.5 m (8ft 2in)
Crew: 8
Armour: 6-12mm steel, often non-hardened.
Main armament:
6 pounder cannons or 4 0.303 machine gunes
Engine: Daimler 16l 6 cylinder petrol (100bhp) Later Ricardo unit (150bhp)
Power/weight: lol
Suspension: none
Operational range: 40km
Speed: 3-4mph

*Some were found with soviet markings at the end of WW2 in Germany, its a bit of a mystery. We can only presume they broke down there.
 
Yeah this has been said, and it's true. The issue is they have women soldiers in the campaign because they want diversity and a modern look over authenticity.... but then give this reasoning for the mp portion. It's backwards.

Yeah, that's my main issue with this also. Giving a ''''PC'''' answer like the one he gave and then not having female soldiers in multiplayer is so weird.
 
I don't understand why some devs think that OPTIONS are bad. If people, regardless of their gender, wanted to try playing with a male or female skin, why not simply allow them to and leave it up to the players?
 

Henkka

Banned
Maybe I'm wrong but women's involvement in the major war was more prominent in the second than the first, no? I mean if we look at the timeline of world war one, women especially in the West weren't exactly privileged enough to be designated military positions which could see combat.

You really want to say men fighting in WW1 were "privileged" over women? Fighting and shitting and dying in a trench, what a privilege.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but a quite poor choice of words.
 

Garlador

Member
Maybe one day, devs will realize that half the planet is the gender they don't pander to, and that people like my WIFE play video games like Battlefield and Halo as well.

Plenty of women fought - and many died - in WW1.

Besides... it's multiplayer. That's usually the part that you want to cast the widest net with. Baffling choice.

We're right back to "women are too hard to animate" all over again.
 

Palculator

Unconfirmed Member
Seems dumb given the fact that they do have the models rigged and ready to go for the single player already. But not like I was ever attached to whom I was playing as in a Battlefield game, anyway.
You really want to say men fighting in WW1 were "privileged" over women? Fighting and shitting and dying in a trench, what a privilege.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but a quite poor choice of words.
Check your privilege, soldiers.
 

Garlador

Member
Seems kind of stupid to not include women in multiplayer when they are not going 100% historically accurate and besides women did fight in WW1 even if it was only to a small extent.

Like why not?

Because, according to businessmen everywhere, young boys are still afraid of cooties.

Only answer I've got.
 
Top Bottom