The usual media outlets are already spinning their narrative in order to exploit another savory internet controversy by insulting their audience. This time, it's not the bigoted basement-dwelling misogynistic neckbeard, nerd or geek, but the angry dork who uses history as an excuse to wallow in his male-dominated power fantasy. According to
Luke Plunkett of Kotaku:
What angry dorks mean when they say “historical accuracy” is not a game that’s accurate to the time being presented, then, but accurate to the aspects of that time (or the popular historical re-telling of it) that are sympathetic to their current political and cultural beliefs.
It's the same Ghostbusters, Kingdom Come, The Last Jedi bullsh*t all over again. If you don't like it, you must be a woman-hating bigot who wants to keep girls out of his tree-house. Shaming and insulting your audience into liking something didn't work the first couple of times and it won't work this time either. This is just another example of a gaming studio sacrificing their creative vision in order to capitalize on a political trend. It's weird, authenticity doesn't matter when it serves their ideological views, but when it comes to boob-armor and the realistic depiction of women in video games, authenticity suddenly matters again.
As with inclusivity, their arguments only matter when they confirm their own political views, but are suddenly rendered meaningless when they contradict their own fictional fantasies. It's that sort of hypocrisy that people aren't reacting kindly to because it's obviously transparent. I wonder if the Nazis in this game will be depicted equally as diverse and inclusive.
But like, that doesn’t even matter here. Any idea that this, of all things, is what shatters the credibility and historical credentials of a series that has long reduced the war to endless skirmishes between jeep-flipping, plane-crashing brave soldiers named 69XX_cvmlauder_xx69 is insane.
That argument only works if you completely neglect the intricacies of video games as a medium. Gameplay mechanics are what make a game fun, the setting is what makes it immersive. Hence why the implementation of gameplay mechanics are measured by different means than the setting they allow the player to interact with. In the context of video games, gameplay isn't supposed to be realistic because it would make for a boring and tedious game. You're still interacting with the game through keyboard & mouse or a game controller, so short of donning a WWII uniform and a weapon, the mechanics are never going to be realistic. It's the setting that allows players to immerse themselves into the world, not the controls.
When you choose a historical setting for your game you should be aware of its limitations. If silly character customization is more important to you than the historical context, then you should opt for a fictional setting that can easily accommodate for such an over-the-top approach. But when you are marketing your video game on the premise of WWII, pirate samurai Mohawk bionic robot arm ladies just won't cut it. That is the major difference between a fictional alternate reality setting like Wolfenstein and the historical setting of Battlefield. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far.
As evidenced by the current like/dislike ratio on the BFV trailer, lots of people were interested in the historical setting of the game, especially when it's embedded into such a meaningful context as WWII. It's the reason why many gamers preferred BF over later installations of COD, not only because of the different gameplay mechanics, but also because BF was more rooted in its historical setting. I'm sure that lots of other people don't really care about that and that's fine too, but at the same time you can't fault those who care for airing their grievances. They were promised an immersive WWII setting, but got
Battlefield: Looney Tunes edition instead. It's not even all about the female protagonist, but the stupid one-liners, the Katanas, the Braveheart warpaint, the Eyeliner
(seriously, you're in a WWII situation but you still care about pointless cosmetics? how is that empowering?), the miracle prosthetic, the flamboyantly fashionable uniforms... it all takes away from the seriousness that was WWII and turns it into something ridiculously laughable.
In other words, this has f*ck all to do with gamers being angry misogynistic bumholes. The only ones who will be profiting from this needless pandering are not those fighting for inclusivity, it's not the game developers who clearly misunderstood their audience, and it's not the gaming community who will be painted in a negative light with a broad brush again. It's the gaming press who can exploit another controversy for outrage clicks and the ideologues who can mark this off as another political victory.
It's a shame that those who are merely interested in the political context neither pay nor play these games, but it's the ones who will be needlessly smeared and slandered again. Good job DICE, you wanted both and now you've got nothing at all. That said, despite the ADHD ridden trailer, the graphics look amazing though. Maybe the freshened up gameplay will be enough to win the audience over, despite its poor depiction of WWII.
