Support NeoGAF

[ruvikx]

Guess what? There are no "issues" to speak of in all this

Developers wanted to create more options for player characters to be inclusive. That's never an issue unless you're a bigot

The game shows a girl sabotaging the heavy water plant in Norway (a real historical event, carried out by men). So the game is basic historical lying 1.01. If someone's only defense against that is to scream "bigot", well jesus f Christ, what can we say anymore?

Now I want to see a video game about the Sioux & other Native Americans featuring a load of blond, blue eyed European men in the 18th century. Vive inclusiveness, correct? Somehow I imagine the same side who're defending Battlefield 5 might not like a "games aren't supposed to be historically accurate" excuse in such an example.

 

[Screamer-RSA]

....verkramptes....

Lol I'm Afrikaans and I had to look that up .

EA/DICE turned Battlefield into a COD pew pew shooter and Worth A Buy said it best, "The battlefield sounds like a hen night gone wrong."

 

[Mojoraisin]

As a fan from 1942 I said I wasn't going to buy this game. Didn't like the new direction, how dice treated their fans and the historical revisionism. Many of my bf1-friends said it was great and BF1 improved. Was also missing playing with my friends. Since Dice has backed down somewhat after they got rid of Patrick Söderlund I gave it a chance.

Personally I think it's far from BF 1 standards after a 6-7 hour first impression.
*Maps are pretty bad apart from a few with a real bf-feel.
*The low ttk and open maps make many rounds a sniper and camping exercise. BF was never a twitch shooter. Now you're almost helpless if you don't get the first shot off from close//medium range.
*I actually think graphics are worse than BF1 with more sloppy texture work. Playing on PS4 pro. Will have to play more.
*It doesn't feel as grand a battle as BF1 did. Not sure why.
*Women screaming all over the place detracts from experience.
*Menus and customisation are a clusterfuck and really confusing. Why did they even have to change so much here?
*Bugs galore again, but to be fair pretty much all of BF games have launched with a lot of bugs.

I just don't "feel" it yet.

There are good things, the most notable netcode and an amazing sound stage. Weapons respond well and it feels really responsive. Also aware that I'm still in the phase where I'm trying to adjust from BF1 that I grew to love.

They need to release new maps and have a serious look at TTK. That might sway me a bit. As of now I can't personally recommend it, but wait and see. BF1 is still an amazing game in the meantime.

 

[Yoshi]

The game shows a girl sabotaging the heavy water plant in Norway (a real historical event, carried out by men). So the game is basic historical lying 1.01. If someone's only defense against that is to scream "bigot", well jesus f Christ, what can we say anymore?

Now I want to see a video game about the Sioux & other Native Americans featuring a load of blond, blue eyed European men in the 18th century. Vive inclusiveness, correct? Somehow I imagine the same side who're defending Battlefield 5 might not like a "games aren't supposed to be historically accurate" excuse in such an example.

The very nature of first person shooters means they are historically completely inaccurate. Soldiers do not tend to be action heroes, but most of the time, especially in wars like WW2, just people who have a good chance of dying quickly while trying to kill some others. They want to display iconic events in such a game, but you are not just at one of those events, but all of them over the course of the game. Chances are, even if you play as a man, that the man you are playing wasn't sabotaging the heavy water plant in Norway.

 

[Geki-D]

That's the same game?

Surely in a franchise with over 8+ entries there are other examples?

 

[Lanrutcon]

It's weird, right? Maybe understand who your audience is. Make the game for the people that'll buy it, not for the critics. Oh, and never tell people not to buy your product.

I am a business genius. Someone hire me.

 

[Shmunter]

The very nature of first person shooters means they are historically completely inaccurate. Soldiers do not tend to be action heroes, but most of the time, especially in wars like WW2, just people who have a good chance of dying quickly while trying to kill some others. They want to display iconic events in such a game, but you are not just at one of those events, but all of them over the course of the game. Chances are, even if you play as a man, that the man you are playing wasn't sabotaging the heavy water plant in Norway.

Just trying to understand, is the argument that if something is not 100% accurate, all bets are off?

I would say nothing outside of the current and present is ever 100% accurate. Anything after the fact would be subject to interpretation and the finer details lost.

Surely accuracy need not be binary, and Striving for accuracy can still be a reasonable proposition.

 

[Yoshi]

Just trying to understand, is the argument that if something is not 100% accurate, all bets are off?

I would say nothing outside of the current and present is ever 100% accurate. Anything after the fact would be subject to interpretation and the finer details lost.

Surely accuracy need not be binary, and Striving for accuracy can still be a reasonable proposition.

Why is the gender of the characters displayed the breaking point here? It is a pretty inconsequential detail, when compared to all the other stuff that is not historically accurate. Even the complete tone is absolute unfitting for WW2. I have seen the first trailer, it looked like a happy shootbang, not one of the most dreadful and deadliest wars ever fought.

 

[Starbuck2907]

ouch, from a long time battlefield fan, unfortunately I don't think I will ever pick this up. Had my fill of BF1 and this looks like a total reskin, I have heard it is different. Who knows may pick up when it is cheaper but zero interest right now.

I was highly suspicious of BFV.

But, so far it's really, really fun. The gunplay, in particular, seems better, and many if the things in the beta that I didn't like were fixed and turned out quite good. I'm shocked, but the game itself is much better than BF1 so far.

 

[azz0r]

It will always be great, BFV is better.

The gun play is amazing, being able to build a defense in terms of sandbags is also fun and makes sense sniping or defending a spot, free dlc is also nice too. If you like BF1, you should have no issue with BFV. The issues I had with BF1 are fixed in this game.

I jumped on the BF1 train, jumped off for a year, came back with the DLC pack. I might just follow the same route with V. They need time to polish it up.

 

[Shmunter]

Why is the gender of the characters displayed the breaking point here? It is a pretty inconsequential detail, when compared to all the other stuff that is not historically accurate. Even the complete tone is absolute unfitting for WW2. I have seen the first trailer, it looked like a happy shootbang, not one of the most dreadful and deadliest wars ever fought.

I would suggest it matters a lot to some, a bit to others, and not at all to many. Once you frame something as WW2 there will be a preconceived notion. And there will be people that romanticise being in a great battle they have been familiarised with by famous productions like Saving Private Ryan or Band Of Brothers.

If you don't hit that vision, it's a failure to those people, myself included. However I don't care all that much, but I won't deny those that do - because we are all different.

 

[Yoshi]

I would suggest it matters a lot to some, a bit to others, and not at all to many. Once you frame something as WW2 there will be a preconceived notion. And there will be people that romanticise being in a great battle they have been familiarised with by famous productions like Saving Private Ryan or Band Of Brothers.

If you don't hit that vision, it's a failure to those people, myself included. However I don't care all that much, but I won't deny those that do - because we are all different.

Then it would be more precise not to complain about historical accuracy in a work that is extremely historically inaccurate (offensively so, when it comes to the tone, imo) and just say it as it is: It does not meet my preconceived notions or fantasy about the scenario.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I think the very first official Youtube reveal having like half dislikes to likes ratio was telling.

DICE didnt have a vision with this game from the beginning, just tried too hard to capture the Fortnite 'fun crowd'and also appeal to female gamers when they should have just concentrated on making a fun game.

As it is I will pick this up in a couple months when bugs are ironed out and there's more content.

 

[Kenpachii]

Why is the gender of the characters displayed the breaking point here? It is a pretty inconsequential detail, when compared to all the other stuff that is not historically accurate. Even the complete tone is absolute unfitting for WW2. I have seen the first trailer, it looked like a happy shootbang, not one of the most dreadful and deadliest wars ever fought.

Nobody cares about girls in there games. It's about the tone devs pushed and how they treat there consumer base. which made this clusterfuck happening and backslash. And created easy cheap lines like "battlefield Vagina". SJVVields. Because the only reason girls are even in the concflict is to cater towards progressive outlets that can only see black and white / male and female and give you free points by doing so. Which pisses people off.

People bought battlefield for being as realistic as possible with good gameplay, then devs shit on there consumers for thinking it was realistic while it was not. ( clearly devs don't know there market ) by picturing some bugs they never bothered to fix as game features they invented ( flamethrower on horse). ( its like Bethesda advertising there bugs as features to keep the nostalgic Bethesda experience up ) and then some clowns defending it.

Dumb the entire trailer full of people that did not fought or had not even 1% presence in the war itself. Shit on anybody that did.
Trailer also made BF look like a god dam super hero movie which was even more ridiculous.

Shit on russian gamers that just want to kill people in tanks with there own faction but push them as some kind of after thought in the conflict even while they hold of the strongest army the world has ever known in a war conflict that had actual substance.

Trying to dig into the BR market something people don't buy BF for and dumping down everything to get there.

Super toxic behavior towards your loyal consumer base that spend tons of money on your game to score browny points and SJW points ( just check there trailers, its like holywood sjw pandering all over again ). Ram there trailer full of it also.

Shit on anybody that does not agree with there toxic US culture. Yet ww2 was fought by more then just US toxic progressives. Basically more people buy BF then just americans.

Get shit on by there userbase as result and in order to make sense out of there own "resetera syndrom"

They blame it on guys that hate woman. whoops i mean white male gamers probably.

Then even go out of there way to tell there old playerbase to not buy the game.

Yea i wonder why it backfired.

But morals where hard to find anyway with Dice in general. They already created some backslash in there last game also.

 

[Akira1983]

Nobody cares about girls in there games. It's about the tone devs pushed and how they treat there consumer base. which made this clusterfuck happening and backslash. And created easy cheap lines like "battlefield Vagina". SJVVields. Because the only reason girls are even in the concflict is to cater towards progressive outlets that can only see black and white / male and female and give you free points by doing so. Which pisses people off.

People bought battlefield for being as realistic as possible with good gameplay, then devs shit on there consumers for thinking it was realistic while it was not. ( clearly devs don't know there market ) by picturing some bugs they never bothered to fix as game features they invented ( flamethrower on horse). ( its like Bethesda advertising there bugs as features to keep the nostalgic Bethesda experience up ) and then some clowns defending it.

Dumb the entire trailer full of people that did not fought or had not even 1% presence in the war itself. Shit on anybody that did.
Trailer also made BF look like a god dam super hero movie which was even more ridiculous.

Shit on russian gamers that just want to kill people in tanks with there own faction but push them as some kind of after thought in the conflict even while they hold of the strongest army the world has ever known in a war conflict that had actual substance.

Trying to dig into the BR market something people don't buy BF for and dumping down everything to get there.

Super toxic behavior towards your loyal consumer base that spend tons of money on your game to score browny points and SJW points ( just check there trailers, its like holywood sjw pandering all over again ). Ram there trailer full of it also.

Shit on anybody that does not agree with there toxic US culture. Yet ww2 was fought by more then just US toxic progressives. Basically more people buy BF then just americans.

Get shit on by there userbase as result and in order to make sense out of there own "resetera syndrom"

They blame it on guys that hate woman. whoops i mean white male gamers probably.

Then even go out of there way to tell there old playerbase to not buy the game.

Yea i wonder why it backfired.

But morals where hard to find anyway with Dice in general. They already created some backslash in there last game also.

If "nobody" cares about girls in games, care to detail how Dice could have added female soldiers in MP and single player, just as it is now without pissing anyone off?

 

[Shmunter]

Then it would be more precise not to complain about historical accuracy in a work that is extremely historically inaccurate (offensively so, when it comes to the tone, imo) and just say it as it is: It does not meet my preconceived notions or fantasy about the scenario.

Well I have to disagree. The female representation plays part in not meeting the preconceived notions so can indeed be criticised, like any other number of the inaccuracies. And despite there being a multitude of historical problems in the game, this aspect rises to the surface because it's obvious and easy to point ones finger at among a slew of less tangible matters.

What I'm most pleased with here is we can have a mature debate about these things without instant and baseless social politics being used to shut down conversation. This has nothing to do with said politics, it is a debate on the game, WW2 and the depiction at hand.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Would love for something like this to be clarified. Is it death of Physical by Digital, or it's just a poor performing game. Perhaps a ratio of both.

If it were doing well and breaking records EA would be boasting about it. This is a flop.

 

[Thiagosc777]

If "nobody" cares about girls in games, care to detail how Dice could have added female soldiers in MP and single player, just as it is now without pissing anyone off?

All they had to do is to add add female option to MP, but all the marketing materials show traditional WW2 imagery. And the "war stories" should be closer to reality and not historically revisionist by replacing men with women for some agenda.

Good marketing focusing on how the war actually looked like (no cricket bats or disabled female soldiers), war stories that are actually plausible and respected the actions of people of the past, and just the gender option added to MP. Problem solved.

But they are SJWs. Doing the most logical thing is not what they do. They have to virtue signal and preach to people, otherwise they wouldn't score political points, now would they?

 

[Shmunter]

If its because of digital, why are we not getting these stories for every game released in the last year or so?. Plus digital sales have doubled in a year?, i doubt it.

If it were doing well and breaking records EA would be boasting about it. This is a flop.

Yes, I agree your assessment is more than probable.

 

[El_Belmondo]

What a shitshow this thread is. Yes, the game features a woman, so what? You can't expect a history based FPS be realistic unless you have only educated yourself about X war via Hollywood movies.

DICE told bigots to basically screw themselves and they did good. I'm sorry for those with an extremely fragile masculinity (i'm really not, though) but women need some action heroes to identify themselves too.

 

[Thiagosc777]

What a shitshow this thread is. Yes, the game features a woman, so what? You can't expect a history based FPS be realistic unless you have only educated yourself about X war via Hollywood movies.

DICE told bigots to basically screw themselves and they did good. I'm sorry for those with an extremely fragile masculinity (i'm really not, though) but women need some action heroes to identify themselves too.

doing good = going down in flames

 

[El_Belmondo]

doing good = going down in flames

If the price is to send bigots to fuck themselves, it is worth it.
they'll get their money via DLC and mtx anyway.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

If the price is to send bigots to fuck themselves, it is worth it.
they'll get their money via DLC and mtx anyway.

I don't agree with bigots, but I also don't think it's right to turn a beloved franchise into a political football just to score points against them. Potentially torching Battlefield to tell part of the audience 'to go fuck itself' (right or wrong) is a big price to pay imo.

 

[Akira1983]

All they had to do is to add add female option to MP, but all the marketing materials show traditional WW2 imagery. And the "war stories" should be closer to reality and not historically revisionist by replacing men with women for some agenda.

Good marketing focusing on how the war actually looked like (no cricket bats or disabled female soldiers), war stories that are actually plausible and respected the actions of people of the past, and just the gender option added to MP. Problem solved.

But they are SJWs. Doing the most logical thing is not what they do. They have to virtue signal and preach to people, otherwise they wouldn't score political points, now would they?

Why does it have to be "traditional" ww2 marketing?

It's not like we haven't had dozens of ww2 games that stuck to showing only the war from Americans side, focusing on male soldiers, etc

Battlefield games (and most video games by that nature) are not respectful to the men and women who fought in the war anyways, so I don't see why creating new stories or modifying existing ones to start featuring women is a line crossed

As a matter of fact this would be only the 2nd war game I can think of since MOH underground that features a female soldier prominently. And underground came out like what, 16-18 years ago? That alone speaks volumes

 

[El_Belmondo]

I don't agree with bigots, but I also don't think it's right to turn a beloved franchise into a political football just to score points against them. Potentially torching Battlefield to tell part of the audience 'to go fuck itself' (right or wrong) is a big price to pay imo.

It's a war game. From the very first moment you're put on a side of the war the game is taking a political stance. No buts.

 

[GenericUser]

Sadly only 50%. I know that the core gameplay has been improved over BF1, but Dice openly disrespecting gamers, there consumers, even making fun of them, deserves something worse. But hey, maybe this displeases daddy EA enough to fuck up Dice even more.

 

[El_Belmondo]

but Dice openly disrespecting gamers

Uuuuuuuuuuuuhhhh no, they disrespect asshats, they never said anything about gamers as a whole.

maybe this displeases daddy EA enough to fuck up Dice even more.

This is just pathetic.

 

[JimmyRustler]

What a shitshow this thread is. Yes, the game features a woman, so what? You can't expect a history based FPS be realistic unless you have only educated yourself about X war via Hollywood movies.

DICE told bigots to basically screw themselves and they did good. I'm sorry for those with an extremely fragile masculinity (i'm really not, though) but women need some action heroes to identify themselves too.

Care to explain why women so desperately need female action heroes?

 

[El_Belmondo]

Care to explain why women so desperately need female action heroes?

Care to explain why they don't?

 

[Akira1983]

Care to explain why women so desperately need female action heroes?

Why do you need male action heroes?

 

[Simply_Bry]

Did not buy simply because I am tired of political agendas being pushed down my throat. Also skipped Wolfenstein 2 despite loving 1. Won't buy even at 15 either. I got BF1.

Wolfenstein 2 was amazing. Now I can't compare it to Wolfenstein 1 as I never played it, but I loved the satirical humor (besides the gameplay of course) and I think MachineGames has some massive balls for making something like that in the soft world we live in today. In that regard it's exactly the opposite in what DICE is doing (which is good).

 

[Yoshi]

What a shitshow this thread is. Yes, the game features a woman, so what? You can't expect a history based FPS be realistic unless you have only educated yourself about X war via Hollywood movies.

Up until here I agree.

DICE told bigots to basically screw themselves and they did good.

This depends a bit on what "doing good" means. If it is true that the reason BF5 did worse than its predecessor is the gender situation here, then it was probably not good in a business sense, though I would in principle agree on the general sentiment that it is beyond petty to complain so much about female soldiers in such a game. You could probably choose better words for that, that do not alienate fence sitters, yet make clear that you find the requests to remove female soldiers unreasonable. Since I couldn't care less about EA's bottom line, for me personally this is inconsequential though.

but women need some action heroes to identify themselves too.

But here I need to ask: Why would anyone (woman or otherwise) need action heroes, especially soldiers, to identify to? Neither do I see the great virtues that one should aspire to here, nor any other educational benefit in people identifying with warrior action heroes. And to stress this again, this goes both ways, I do not see any good reason why men are in need of identifying with such characters.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Care to explain why they don't?

I asked first.

Why do you need male action heroes?

Well, I don't and in looking back I'm broader context I'm not sure how much good my male action role models did when I was growing up. One could easily argue that these types of role models are responsible for a lot of the issues we have today.

But instead of toning that down, making role models more compassionate the industries solution seems to be simply to give women the same kind role models we males had when growing up. What a smart way to conquer our issues.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

It's a war game. From the very first moment you're put on a side of the war the game is taking a political stance. No buts.

Sorry, but most video games set in wars aren't about making a political statement, and to be honest I don't think Dice intended on including women in it as a political statement. I think it became a political issue when some people misconstrued it as such then Dice got defensive, engaged in a political argument and that was that.
Had dice just deflected the criticism and not used it as an opportunity to tell people to 'go fuck themselves' as you put it, then it may have sold more , not damaged the franchise and actually helped the cause of inclusiveness and diversity a lot more.

 

[Akira1983]

Up until here I agree.

This depends a bit on what "doing good" means. If it is true that the reason BF5 did worse than its predecessor is the gender situation here, then it was probably not good in a business sense, though I would in principle agree on the general sentiment that it is beyond petty to complain so much about female soldiers in such a game. You could probably choose better words for that, that do not alienate fence sitters, yet make clear that you find the requests to remove female soldiers unreasonable. Since I couldn't care less about EA's bottom line, for me personally this is inconsequential though.
But here I need to ask: Why would anyone (woman or otherwise) need action heroes, especially soldiers, to identify to? Neither do I see the great virtues that one should aspire to here, nor any other educational benefit in people identifying with warrior action heroes. And to stress this again, this goes both ways, I do not see any good reason why men are in need of identifying with such characters.

Men aren't in need because they have been catered to most of the time since the beginning of gaming

Easy to shrug and say no big deal when you can go out and buy virtually any game you are interested in and have a character that represents your gender, race, etc

 

[Akira1983]

I asked first.


Well, I don't and in looking back I'm broader context I'm not sure how much good my male action role models did when I was growing up. One could easily argue that these types of role models are responsible for a lot of the issues we have today.

But instead of toning that down, making role models more compassionate the industries solution seems to be simply to give women the same kind role models we males had when growing up. What a smart way to conquer our issues.

Are you arguing video games negatively influence the people that consume them?

 

[El_Belmondo]

I asked first.

You're the one denying something to someone because why the fuck no. You first.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Are you arguing video games negatively influence the people that consume them?

Well, that seems to be the issue, otherwise we wouldn't even have this thread, no?

 

[Yoshi]

Men aren't in need because they have been catered to most of the time since the beginning of gaming

Easy to shrug and say no big deal when you can go out and buy virtually any game you are interested in and have a character that represents your gender, race, etc

Maybe I'm capable of that, but I very rarely do. What kind of games I like you can try to guess from my avatar; I prefer if video game characters do not even represent my species. But my question was not why would they want that, the question is why do they need it, because even if they want it, and even if male consumers sometimes might identify with male action heroes (and I'd guess some female consumers may still do that as well, because it is just one more variable that is different to themselves they would have to abstract away from), I would argue it is not a good thing, because it promotes reckless, arrogant, disrespectful and violent behaviour. Why would anyone need such a role model? Action heroes are terrible role models.

EDIT: By the way, I have just gone through all my game purchases this year:
Ittle Dew 2+ - female human main
StarTropics - white male human main I think
Burnout 3 - no characters
Burnout 4 - no characters
Blinx - a cat main
Sonic Mania Plus - a hedgehog main
Axiom Verge - haven't played it yet, cannot say from the screenshots, maybe you know?
Croc 2 - a crocodile main
Oceanhorn - a white male human main
Kao the Kangaroo Round 2 - a kangaroo main
Tak und die Macht des Juju - a male human main, I do not know whether he qualifies as white?
Tak 2: Der Stab der Träume - same as Tak 1
Poi Explorer Edition - a male white human main
Tak 3: Die große Juju Jagd - same as Tak 1
Yooka-Laylee LE - chameleon and bat main
Chameleon Twist - chameoleon main
Burnout Dominator - no character
Ty the Tasmanian Tiger - Tasmanian tiger main
Gex 3 - Gecko main
Rocket: Robot on Wheels - robot main
Gex 64 - Gecko main
Kao the Kangaroo - Kangaraoo main
Glover - Glove main
Super Magnetic Neo - Robot main
Scaler - Chameleon main
Kore Gang - white girl main (I think, haven't played it yet)

So six out of 26 games, with three unclear whether they meet the ethnicity requirement. More than I would have thought actually. But on the other site, it's also six games with a reptile main. Oh and the main character I like the least from these games is Tak. I don't find him visually pleasing and I don't like his voice acting either.

 

[JimmyRustler]

You're the one denying something to someone because why the fuck n o. You first.

Ok, so let ask me in a different way: What good will it do? Giving women tougher role models I mean? I don't get that.

Women/feminity never was the problem and if making them more masculine will solve anything is questionable at best. The problem is being tackled with on the wrong end. Having trigger happy John McClaines, Schwarzeneggers and all the video game characters was fun when growing up, I won't deny it, but if you really think we have masculinity issues today, the solution is NOT to give women the same crap.

 

[Saruhashi]

Battlefield games (and most video games by that nature) are not respectful to the men and women who fought in the war anyways, so I don't see why creating new stories or modifying existing ones to start featuring women is a line crossed

I tend to agree with this. Who really cares if they have female avatars etc in the game when it's just a game?

Buuuuuut

Where I would find a problem here (and one of the reasons why i won't buy this game) is the shitty attitude of the people involved in making and promoting the game and the reporting of the "controversy" in general.

Look, when you set your game in a certain period of history there is some expectation of authenticity. If you are going to throw authenticity out the window then that's fine but you need to prep your audience for it, I think. The trailer for BFV is just BOOM "it's a lady with a prosthetic arm on the front lines in WW2". Haha! WTF?

So when they got pushback from the audience regarding that weird approach they should have been prepared to name drop things like Inglourious Basterds and say "look, it's set in WW2 but it's more of a whacky alternative history, we think you'll really like it".

Instead they bizarrely took the approach that women were in WW2 so you must be some kind of dumbass if you are surprised that the Brits had a female amputee on the frontlines.

Anyone can accept that women were involved in the war and that women were involved in the fighting at various points on various battlefields. All you have to do is Google it. FFS though please don't ask me to accept some bullshit historical... well, lies, basically... just to "own" some misogynists who don't want women in games. I won't do it.

That's what I hate. That we have to buy into this weird lie about women in WW2 for what? So I can chuckle to myself imagining all the 40 year old virgin mothers basement dwelling boogeymen that totally exist getting upset about this? I'm fine thanks.

There are 100s of ways they could have handled this but they decided to tell their audience to fuck off. That was dumb and rubbed many people the wrong way.

This was NOT the way to handle things:

Patrick Södurland: "The common perception is that there were no women in World War II. There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war."

Nobody was saying there were NO women in WW2. Your trailer had a female amputee fighting on the British front lines and that's the "issue". There is a gulf difference between the two.

Patrick Södurland: "These are people who are uneducated -- they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario, and listen: this is a game. And today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass [woman]."

I sincerely doubt that even the most educated WW2 historian would look at the opening moments of that trailer and think "yup, this is pretty much how it was".

It would have been so easy to say it's a kind of alternative history. Instead they double down with "if you think this is unrealistic that's because you are uneducated". Why would you do that? Just say "yeah, it's unrealistic because we wanted it to be more darkly funny" or something. Not "fuck you, you're dumb".

Patrick Södurland: "And we don't take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don't understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either or. It's just not ok."

Fine. I won't buy it then.

 

[Bondo]

This game is $30 at target till tomorrow. Dunno if its been posted and I didn't see anyone mention in my glance over.
I think that's a price point to get me on board again.

The question I wonder, will it be cheaper than 30 by the time the battle royal releases? hmm

 

[bilderberg]

If "nobody" cares about girls in games, care to detail how Dice could have added female soldiers in MP and single player, just as it is now without pissing anyone off?

they already did in BF1 and absolutely no one gave a shit

 

[manfestival]

Men aren't in need because they have been catered to most of the time since the beginning of gaming

Easy to shrug and say no big deal when you can go out and buy virtually any game you are interested in and have a character that represents your gender, race, etc

That strikes me as pushing for equality of outcome with is not a good thing. Being in need of something is not necessarily the right approach to be taking here. Ignoring something just for the sake of pushing diversity is a noble but dangerous thing to do. Learning a lot of this stuff through listening to people like Jordan Peterson. People in general are not going to able to articulate well enough to extrapolate these thoughts as to why something may seem "off." They are going to complain and the real issue that people are perceiving is going to be ignored or misconstrued for something else which can be easily transformed into an easier target(racism, sexism, and etc).

 

[IISANDERII]

The game shows a girl sabotaging the heavy water plant in Norway (a real historical event, carried out by men). So the game is basic historical lying 1.01. If someone's only defense against that is to scream "bigot", well jesus f Christ, what can we say anymore?

Now I want to see a video game about the Sioux & other Native Americans featuring a load of blond, blue eyed European men in the 18th century. Vive inclusiveness, correct? Somehow I imagine the same side who're defending Battlefield 5 might not like a "games aren't supposed to be historically accurate" excuse in such an example.

I remember a player who's also history buff made a text document pointing out historical anachronisms in BF1943 back in the day. The list was well over 600 items long both with small examples and large and I don't remember anybody calling for boycotts then.

Your Native American example is a great example of a strawman argument.

 

[Croatoan]

I will say I think dice screwed up by following the "War" chronologically. Thats another reason why it can "look" like BF1 on first blush. All of the things we equate with ww2 have been left out save for the tech (DDay, pacific theater, Dunkirk, Battle of the Bulge, springfield, garand).

Also the african levels are very similar in look to BF1 maps.

As much as I love BF5 and WW2 it may have been smarter to do BF5 modern day and BF6 WW2 for some separation.

I could give two shits about female soldiers. Anti-SJWs are beginning to be worse than SJWs with their whining.

Edit: My wife loves being able to play as a woman now. Its something has wanted since BF3 (Note: she doesn't snipe so couldn't play as a woman in BF1).

 

[Akira1983]

they already did in BF1 and absolutely no one gave a shit

I bounced off BF1 pretty quick but I don't remember women in multiplayer?

I didn't stick around for any dlc however, or maybe my memories foggy

 

[Stuart360]

What a shitshow this thread is. Yes, the game features a woman, so what? You can't expect a history based FPS be realistic unless you have only educated yourself about X war via Hollywood movies.

DICE told bigots to basically screw themselves and they did good. I'm sorry for those with an extremely fragile masculinity (i'm really not, though) but women need some action heroes to identify themselves too.

My post from a page back -

We have tons of modern day and future FPS games with women in them, and how many times do you hear people moaning about them?, exactly. Its nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. People just get annoyed because they think its been forced in for SJW agenda purposes. Not trying to speak for anyone, just saying what i have read from people.

Please dont do the SJW standard "if you dont agree with me, it must mean you're a bigot" stance, its that shit that makes people hate SJW's so much.

 

[El_Belmondo]

My post from a page back -

We have tons of modern day and future FPS games with women in them, and how many times do you hear people moaning about them?, exactly. Its nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. People just get annoyed because they think its been forced in for SJW agenda purposes. Not trying to speak for anyone, just saying what i have read from people.

Please dont do the SJW standard "if you dont agree with me, it must mean you're a bigot" stance, its that shit that makes people hate SJW's so much.

Only if you don't do the bigot standard "If you don't agree with me, it must mean you're a SJW" stance.

Not that i care anyway, i'm proud of being a SJW.

But exactly because of that i'm not very fond of its use in a pejorative way.

EDIT: Also as i implied before, realism my ass. Look, there isn't anything more historically inaccurate than a WW/WW2 shooter, so any time someone says "It's not historically accurate to have women fighting in WW2" or "It's a ninja amputee woman in WW2" i can't help but to think, well, learn your videogames, dude.

 

[Croatoan]

My post from a page back -

We have tons of modern day and future FPS games with women in them, and how many times do you hear people moaning about them?, exactly. Its nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. People just get annoyed because they think its been forced in for SJW agenda purposes. Not trying to speak for anyone, just saying what i have read from people.

Please dont do the SJW standard "if you dont agree with me, it must mean you're a bigot" stance, its that shit that makes people hate SJW's so much.

My question is, why do you care if women are in a game that is already horribly inaccurate historically?

Like, I can't think of anything more petty to get upset about. Maybe if this game was Post Scriptum or something trying to be completely accurate to history.