Genderfield V: The saga continues

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
968
3,502
445
People keep using that tweet like it means something and that its some golden gun against criticism and I already addressed it in a previous post.
Your selective reading skills merely underline the fact that you're not really here to have a well reasoned discussion, but to push your political agenda. It only tells me that you've probably never played BF 1942 and are not really that interested in these games or their history. You're only here to shake your fist at them darn sexists who dun' want no wahmen in their gamez. Nobody here really give a rat's rear about that minority because guess what, they don't have a problem with having women represented in their video games.

People provided you with enough evidence to dismiss your unfounded claims, yet the only thing you manage to come up with are a few silly youtube comments from people expressing their disdain in the form of crude jokes. As if that would be in any way representative of the people expressing their concerns in a reasoned manner.

These past few pages you've been doing nothing else than battling against your own silly strawmen because you have no leg to stand on.

This is your level of discourse in a nutshell:

People in this topic: We are not arguing against women in video games

You: Look at those sexist as*holes

People in this topic: Watch this video, it explains pretty well what we are upset about

You: That video uses words I don't like

People in this topic: Stop strawmanning

You: Look at these silly youtube jokes that are totally not representative of the BF community

People in this topic: Read what this BF designer had to say

You: Let me just ignore it
 
Last edited:

Iggzy

Neo Member
Mar 8, 2018
48
51
100
The only people I see detached from reality are the ones getting genuinely upset and throwing tantrums over the fact that women are represented in an online video game in 2018 or that a video game is taking liberties with historical accuracy.
You are trying way too hard to damage control their failure, enjoy BFV and be happy with what it is, why should other people like what you like?
This whole situation is a Dice selfmade shitshow, made by their PR department and now they gonna have to deal with it. Could have added women without making a big deal, because it's not a big deal - women are in games since videogames exist, and you know what? They added women in BF1 and there was no outcry and there's a reason for that, RDR2 has women outlaws did they made big deal about that? No. Do you see threads here about that? No.
 
Oct 2, 2018
104
242
185
You are trying way too hard to damage control their failure, enjoy BFV and be happy with what it is, why should other people like what you like?
This whole situation is a Dice selfmade shitshow, made by their PR department and now they gonna have to deal with it. Could have added women without making a big deal, because it's not a big deal - women are in games since videogames exist, and you know what? They added women in BF1 and there was no outcry and there's a reason for that, RDR2 has women outlaws did they made big deal about that? No. Do you see threads here about that? No.
Yeah, I feel like what Dice/EA have done here is create a marketing buzz around their game that comes across like the purpose of the game is to get one over on the evil alt-right, white supremacist, incel nazis of the internet.

Essentially creating a feeling that one of their main selling points is "buy our game because it annoys all the right people".

Except I'm not sure that it really does. I mean, you have to imagine that the game WOULD annoy actual alt-right types but how many of those people actually exist?

It then becomes an out of control spiral where more and more people get labelled as "alt-right" and then are hit with the accusation "you hate this game because it has women in it".

When they double down on this all it really does is increase the number of people they apparently don't want to sell their game to and that in turn increases the idea that "buy our game to own the alt-right" is a major selling point of the game.

Then it feels like the game is tangled up in all these odd contradictions. You bring out a game that glorifies and rewards the use of guns to defeat enemies. Then you try to market that to a distinctly anti-gun crown by claiming that sexists hate the game. So anti-gun, anti-war people can be turned on to a WW2 first person shooter so long as they feel like it's addressing gender inequality.

I'd suggest that, in reality, most people who are interested in gender-related social issues have no real interest in first person shooter video games.

Almost feels like they decided to market a game to an audience that probably isn't into this kind of thing by implying that their personal boogeymen are outraged by the games mere existence.

From a personal perspective, following on from good times with BF1, I would have been interested in BFV but it feels like the developer has come along and said "look we put some stuff in here that you are going to feel iffy about BUT it's OK because we don't want you to buy the game anyway".

The actively went out of their way to make me not want to buy their game. That's mad when you think about it.

I genuinely wonder how many other folks are in more or less the same position.
 
Jun 14, 2018
217
172
170
Yeah, I feel like what Dice/EA have done here is create a marketing buzz around their game that comes across like the purpose of the game is to get one over on the evil alt-right, white supremacist, incel nazis of the internet.

Essentially creating a feeling that one of their main selling points is "buy our game because it annoys all the right people".

Except I'm not sure that it really does. I mean, you have to imagine that the game WOULD annoy actual alt-right types but how many of those people actually exist?

It then becomes an out of control spiral where more and more people get labelled as "alt-right" and then are hit with the accusation "you hate this game because it has women in it".

When they double down on this all it really does is increase the number of people they apparently don't want to sell their game to and that in turn increases the idea that "buy our game to own the alt-right" is a major selling point of the game.

Then it feels like the game is tangled up in all these odd contradictions. You bring out a game that glorifies and rewards the use of guns to defeat enemies. Then you try to market that to a distinctly anti-gun crown by claiming that sexists hate the game. So anti-gun, anti-war people can be turned on to a WW2 first person shooter so long as they feel like it's addressing gender inequality.

I'd suggest that, in reality, most people who are interested in gender-related social issues have no real interest in first person shooter video games.

Almost feels like they decided to market a game to an audience that probably isn't into this kind of thing by implying that their personal boogeymen are outraged by the games mere existence.

From a personal perspective, following on from good times with BF1, I would have been interested in BFV but it feels like the developer has come along and said "look we put some stuff in here that you are going to feel iffy about BUT it's OK because we don't want you to buy the game anyway".

The actively went out of their way to make me not want to buy their game. That's mad when you think about it.

I genuinely wonder how many other folks are in more or less the same position.
Pretty much sums up how it is for me too. Agree on everything really.
 
Sep 17, 2012
8,230
325
520
Inserting Solid Snake or the Contra guys in Battlefield would have been more believable than this
Glad the only games I played by DICE were Pinball Fantasies (Digital Illusions)

They have inferiority complex with their past and they are not the only ones unfortunately.
 
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
So for the people defending this, namely @Nobody_Important and @EDMIX (And maybe @Yoshi but I think hes being pretty reasonable about the whole thing)

If you don't consider this an issue, revising history to include women (And minorities but that isn't the case here), why would whitewashing be an issue to you?

Now, I'm against both, we shouldn't downplay whatever happened in the past, but I can't logically see how you could be against it since revising history is essentially what it is.
 
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
If you don't consider this an issue, revising history to include women (And minorities but that isn't the case here), why would whitewashing be an issue to you?
In principle I have no issue with either, depending on the motivation. If you have a good casting or story reason to use a white actor for a character that was not white in the source material, it is fine by me, as would any other such change to gender, ethnicity or whatever. Whitewashing to diminish a group or for fear that a certain ethnicity would be met with negative reception by the audience is a different thing of course, but the difference is one in motivation. Making something based on WW2 thematically and then using disprportionally many female soldiers in there in an attempt to give female players who see a great personal value in such represenatation a presence is not a problematic motivation from my point of view (it is a good one actually).
 
Likes: EDMIX
Jul 7, 2018
957
852
200
So for the people defending this, namely @Nobody_Important and @EDMIX (And maybe @Yoshi but I think hes being pretty reasonable about the whole thing)

If you don't consider this an issue, revising history to include women (And minorities but that isn't the case here), why would whitewashing be an issue to you?

Now, I'm against both, we shouldn't downplay whatever happened in the past, but I can't logically see how you could be against it since revising history is essentially what it is.
You don't have to ask them that, even, basically ask them this:

"Why is it wrong for a game to feature ONLY straight, white males in its cast?"
 
Likes: EDMIX
Jan 25, 2018
1,976
2,208
255
29
Southeastern USA
I got a radical idea.

What if..... female gamers as a rule don't like violent, gritty military shooters based on historical conflicts?

I know it's very shocking and politically incorrect to suggest men and women have different tastes in entertainment, which is why the Lifetime network and Harlequin romance novels always make sure the stuff they put out equally appeals to men as much women.

But maybe I'll be very generous and say making a military WW2 shooter for a female audience was a shot worth taking, but it's failed, can we go back to making games for the actual audience that likes that genre now?

Are SJWs really so fucking delusional to try something, fail and then keep on failing out of spite? These are the people who want to seize control of everything?
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
"Why is it wrong for a game to feature ONLY straight, white males in its cast?"
It is not wrong in principle. If whole types of games do that though, then it can alienate a significant percentage of potential players, those that are of different ethnicity or gender and put some value into representation (for, e.g. identification). It can thus be a positive thing if different kinds of people are used over a variety of games.
 
Likes: EDMIX
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
"Whitewashing to diminish a group or for fear that a certain ethnicity would be met with negative reception by the audience is a different thing of course"

But they do that in the war stories about the french soldiers, they portray them in a much more negative light than what actually happened, isn't that just going doing the same thing but in the opposite end of the spectrum?

"using disprportionally many female soldiers in there in an attempt to give female players who see a great personal value in such represenatation a presence is not a problematic "

We'll have to disagree, revising history is always a problem for me (And obviously many other people), there's a diference between simply giving you the option of playing as a female character, which I've never seen anyone complain about in any other game, and going out of your way to vilify men and lie about history, I don't think it helps anyone.

Example: Making a movie about the zulu warrios with white and asian people to give everyone representation.

Sure there are some people which are actually against women, and I'm not defending those, but labeling anyone who takes issue with this as mysoginist is just wrong, making stupid jokes about the game doesn't make you a misogynist doesn't matter how lame they are.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Yakuzakazuya
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
"Whitewashing to diminish a group or for fear that a certain ethnicity would be met with negative reception by the audience is a different thing of course"

But they do that in the war stories about the french soldiers, they portray them in a much more negative light than what actually happened, isn't that just going doing the same thing but in the opposite end of the spectrum?
I have no idea what you are talking about here, but in principle, yes, if developers go out of their way to portray events in ways to paint people of a certain nationality in a more negative light, that is not OK.
We'll have to disagree, revising history is always a problem for me (And obviously many other people), there's a diference between simply giving you the option of playing as a female character, which I've never seen anyone complain about in any other game, and going out of your way to vilify men and lie about history, I don't think it helps anyone.
Making something inspired by WW2 and then not to be completely faithful to the source material is not revising history, because it is an entertainment product, not an educational one and it does not claim that it is a faithful recreation of history. It is a new product with inspiration / influence of history, not a work in history.
 
Jul 7, 2018
957
852
200
It is not wrong in principle. If whole types of games do that though, then it can alienate a significant percentage of potential players, those that are of different ethnicity or gender and put some value into representation (for, e.g. identification). It can thus be a positive thing if different kinds of people are used over a variety of games.
I don't disagree with that, but I think for the last 3-4 years we have gathered enough evidence to showcase this is not the case, in varius media.

I believe those different percentages could really served better by making IPs directly at them, instead of co-opting IPs that are standard.
 
Jan 21, 2018
333
258
180
Republic of Catalonia
Making something inspired by WW2 and then not to be completely faithful to the source material is not revising history, because it is an entertainment product, not an educational one and it does not claim that it is a faithful recreation of history. It is a new product with inspiration / influence of history, not a work in history.
They claimed it was faithful. Then they started to portray every SJW fantasy on it.
 
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
I have no idea what you are talking about here, but in principle, yes, if developers go out of their way to portray events in ways to paint people of a certain nationality in a more negative light, that is not OK.
The game portrays french soldiers as extremely racist when that was simply not the case, many soldiers died defending the Senagalese when captured by Nazis who didn't want to fight agaisn't "Inferiors". The senagalese were rewarded for their efforts in the war, the only reason they weren't allowed to march in Paris was because of America as far as I know.

Making something inspired by WW2 and then not to be completely faithful to the source material is not revising history, because it is an entertainment product, not an educational one and it does not claim that it is a faithful recreation of history. It is a new product with inspiration / influence of history, not a work in history.
Where do you draw the line? Taking entire war stories and changing everyone who participated is definitely revising history, "not being faithful" is very difference from completely disregarding history, and I think you have to admit DICE clearly is pushing an agenda, they didn't simply change it for the sake of change.
 
Last edited:
Jul 8, 2016
647
303
230
Has there been any statistics to show how many males/females play battlefield? I would love to see if that ratio has changed at all due to this being everybody’s battlefield.

Edit: if there has been a heavy increase in female gamers playing this battlefield over past games then I can certainly see why this would be taken as a good progressive move by EA DICE.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I don't disagree with that, but I think for the last 3-4 years we have gathered enough evidence to showcase this is not the case, in varius media.

I believe those different percentages could really served better by making IPs directly at them, instead of co-opting IPs that are standard.
When it comes to gender and shooters then yes, going for a female audience instead of a male audience is probably a bad idea, but to target both and to give both groups characters they want to play is a net gain, as long as the subgroup of males who cannot stand persons who periodically bleed out of their sexual organs and feel the need to reference this oh-so-nasty part about those people while complaining online does not exceed the group of interested female players who are sensitive to representation in size. And if it does, then I'd argue it is still commendable for developers to prefer to work towards the interests of the latter group than the former.
 
Aug 12, 2018
460
303
235
DICE attacking their batlefield bro dude audience on twitter who are 90% of their customers and at the same time advocating sickening sjw leftist agenda

Employee 1: BF5 failed so far, sales over %60 lower than BF1, what should we do?

Employee 2 : let's mock our audience even further !! That will work!!

Us gamers should unite and gather if EA pull the same crap with Anthem

That will teach em another lesson👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊👊
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
They claimed it was faithful. Then they started to portray every SJW fantasy on it.
They claimed it was believable, not faithful.
The game portrays french soldiers as extremely racist when that was simply not the case, many soldiers died defending the Senagalese when captured by Nazis who didn't want to fight agaisn't "Inferiors". The senagalese were rewarded for their efforts in the war, the only reason they weren't allowed to march in Paris was because of America as far as I know.
There were racist and non-racist French soldiers, and it surely depends a bit on whether we are talking soldiers before or after Germany had gobbled up France. I cannot say much about the specific depiction in the game here, because I am unaware of it (and will certainly never play BF5), but if the intent was to depict French people as particularly racist, then it would not be fine.
Where do you draw the line? Taking entire war stories and changing everyone who participated is definitely revising history, "not being faithful" is very difference from completely disregarding history.
For something that is inspired by a historical event? I draw no hard lines. I mean, making a WW2 story where the Nazis are all Jews would be pretty fucked up, but not primarily because it is historically inaccurate. Writing a story inspired by WW2 and have a higher percentage of female soliders is a pretty minor thing though, certainly no more inaccurate than the fast-paced shooter gameplay and hero set ups.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,328
1,345
205
Has there been any statistics to show how many males/females play battlefield? I would love to see if that ratio has changed at all due to this being everybody’s battlefield.
sjw make giant stink about your games, target sjws to expand audience, lose original audience, sjws never actually cared about buying your game just about inserting identity politics, no one buys it.
Its actually impressive in its stupidity considering how many times this exact scenario has happened over the last decade in all types of media.
But i think the devs are in sweden.. so maybe it comes with the territory.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
104
242
185
When it comes to gender and shooters then yes, going for a female audience instead of a male audience is probably a bad idea, but to target both and to give both groups characters they want to play is a net gain, as long as the subgroup of males who cannot stand persons who periodically bleed out of their sexual organs and feel the need to reference this oh-so-nasty part about those people while complaining online does not exceed the group of interested female players who are sensitive to representation in size. And if it does, then I'd argue it is still commendable for developers to prefer to work towards the interests of the latter group than the former.
Why couldn't you just say something like "If they target both groups then it's a good idea so long as the number of players gained outweighs the number of players lost"?

By going with this "men who can't stand women" narrative you imply that ANYONE who isn't interested in the game is in some way a bad person.

This is a shite attitude. Nobody is obligated to buy and play a game for ANY reason.
Trying to imply that the reason people wouldn't want to play this game is purely down to a dislike of women is a crappy, and incorrect, stance to take.

Regarding the idea that it's commendable for devs to try.
It's commendable sure but it's completely foolish if "the subgroup of males who cannot stand persons who periodically bleed out of their sexual organs" isn't that large in the first place.
It's even more foolish if in the efforts to get rid of or piss off or just to troll legit misogynists ends up just making regular people disinterested in your product.

That's why mis-characterization of critics could potentially bite games like BFV in the ass. The devs are basically out there sending a message that if you have criticism of the game they will try to smear you as being the same as a bunch of legit assholes.

I would say that trying to target the widest audience possible is grand. The downside of that is usually that the games vision has to be compromised or the games marketing doesn't reflect the actual game.

Most likely though marketing a game based on the idea that making the purchase is some kind of moral good is not going to lead to good sales.

This subgroup of people you are talking about? As a % of the audience it's a small group and they are also not generally likable people. Honestly it would be better for Devs to just ignore them.

In this case the devs are acting a lot like yourself, really. Trying to associate people who do not belong to this subgroup with the said group.

It's not a winning strategy, in my opinion. Not from the devs perspective and also not from your perspective here either.
 
Jul 8, 2016
647
303
230
For something that is inspired by a historical event? I draw no hard lines. I mean, making a WW2 story where the Nazis are all Jews would be pretty fucked up, but not primarily because it is historically inaccurate. Writing a story inspired by WW2 and have a higher percentage of female soliders is a pretty minor thing though, certainly no more inaccurate than the fast-paced shooter gameplay and hero set ups.
They should honour the source material in a case like this. I believe that would have been the most respectable thing to do. I honestly believe if they want to use the “inspired by true events” by all means be creative as they like, but give some information or background on the true event. Don’t throw the truth under the bus for your boom boom shooter. If they don’t want to do that, they can make up their own fake stories and not be caught pissing on the graves of hero’s.

WW2 is one of the (if not the) biggest and most studied wars in the western world. I have no idea how DICE thought they could literally coat it in fairy dust and think people wouldn’t be vocally upset. I really don’t have much sympathy for them. They should have done this with a different war/scenario or kept to multiplayer only like Call of Duty done before them.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
They claimed it was believable, not faithful.

There were racist and non-racist French soldiers, and it surely depends a bit on whether we are talking soldiers before or after Germany had gobbled up France. I cannot say much about the specific depiction in the game here, because I am unaware of it (and will certainly never play BF5), but if the intent was to depict French people as particularly racist, then it would not be fine.
For something that is inspired by a historical event? I draw no hard lines. I mean, making a WW2 story where the Nazis are all Jews would be pretty fucked up, but not primarily because it is historically inaccurate. Writing a story inspired by WW2 and have a higher percentage of female soliders is a pretty minor thing though, certainly no more inaccurate than the fast-paced shooter gameplay and hero set ups.
I'm not saying there were no racist french soldiers, but the game does portray them as particularly racist, the scene where they erase black people from the photos is completely insane, showing them having to dig trenches as something racist, when pretty much everyone had to dig trenches in ww2, and pretending they didn't let them fight in the war, these are all things that distort the reality of the situation at the time.

Then we just have a different view about history, I think revising history is extremely dangerous, when every media starts revising history then it becomes reality, not everyone is going to do research about everything they see on the media, showing the era of Jim Crow laws as accepting of black people would be lying, just as much as pretending that women were fighting in the frontlines at ww2.

They also called it it untold stories, which implies these stories were real, which isn't the case.
 
Aug 12, 2018
460
303
235
sjw make giant stink about your games, target sjws to expand audience, lose original audience, sjws never actually cared about buying your game just about inserting identity politics, no one buys it.
Its actually impressive in its stupidity considering how many times this exact scenario has happened over the last decade in all types of media.
But i think the devs are in sweden.. so maybe it comes with the territory.
Swedden is the northern Scandinavian country that heavily advocate immigrants right?

With recent high criminal and rape attack from them? Wonder how's the 'diversity' works out for them?

Anyway I wasn't here to talk about Sweden

But any game developer that try to put hidden political agenda into their game...feck em I won't buy their game

This is why I always respect Nintendo, these guy give zero attention to liberals or anyone trying to put hidden political message behind their game

Let game be games!
 
Last edited:
Likes: The_Mike
Jul 7, 2018
957
852
200
When it comes to gender and shooters then yes, going for a female audience instead of a male audience is probably a bad idea, but to target both and to give both groups characters they want to play is a net gain, as long as the subgroup of males who cannot stand persons who periodically bleed out of their sexual organs and feel the need to reference this oh-so-nasty part about those people while complaining online does not exceed the group of interested female players who are sensitive to representation in size. And if it does, then I'd argue it is still commendable for developers to prefer to work towards the interests of the latter group than the former.
We have more examples of the opposite, that bringing one demographic into a game dominated by another demographic is detrimental to sales of comics, books, movies, games, no matter how much liberal propaganda is shoved down on people throats they reject it, so why is my compromise a bad idea? Black Panther was a movie that was created with the black demographic first and foremost as they were the comics behind it, and it served primary the black demographic and every white person who came to see it knew exactly that the movie would not serve his interest first and foremost, why is it hard to expect otherwise from the minority demographic?
 
Apr 6, 2015
452
48
240
I could care less about diversity in multiplayer, hell I play a female in almost every game I can if given the choice.

But if you’re going to push an accurate representation of WWII in the campaign then portray it realistically. If it was Bad Company 3 I would be all into it.

You can’t change history for better or worse. If you want to portray it accurately then there’s sacrifices to be made.

The reason why I’ll never buy this game? They are going to hard into their agenda. I don’t particularly care for politics in video games so if you are going to go full in on it then I’ll save my money. The game could go on sale for $10 and I won’t buy it.
 
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Then we just have a different view about history, I think revising history is extremely dangerous, when every media starts revising history then it becomes reality, not everyone is going to do research about everything they see on the media, showing the era of Jim Crow laws as accepting of black people would be lying, just as much as pretending that women were fighting in the frontlines at ww2.
It is not revising history because they do not claim they portray history accurately. And even without women soldiers, Battlefield would hardly be an accurate historical portrayal. Is Inglourious Basterds also an issue? It also plays in WW2, but historical accuracy is.. let's say not the primary concern of the movie.
They also called it it untold stories, which implies these stories were real, which isn't the case.
It's a video game. If people get their information about WW2 from a first person shooters, we have much more severe issues than woman soldiers here.
They should honour the source material in a case like this. I believe that would have been the most respectable thing to do. I honestly believe if they want to use the “inspired by true events” by all means be creative as they like, but give some information or background on the true event. Don’t throw the truth under the bus for your boom boom shooter. If they don’t want to do that, they can make up their own fake stories and not be caught pissing on the graves of hero’s.
Mind you, I do not think Battlefield's happy shootbang announcement trailer was respectful of WW2. But then it is all the more strange for people to get hung up on a couple of women soldiers.
By going with this "men who can't stand women" narrative you imply that ANYONE who isn't interested in the game is in some way a bad person.
No. See, I am so uninterested in the game, I wouldn't take it for free. But that has nothing to do with women soldiers. I am solely talking about people fuming because of women soldiers, not about everyone uninterested in the game. Even for people who do like online shooters, there can be good reasons to not want BF5 and thus even lower sales numbers are insufficient in isolation to judge whether the net effect of the heavy representation of female soldiers was positive or negative. We would have to consider other factors as well (other games on offer, negative experience with past Battefields, gameplay and presentation issues outside of female soldiers, series fatigue).
 
Likes: Noboru Wataya
Mar 21, 2013
2,534
762
560
Has there been any statistics to show how many males/females play battlefield? I would love to see if that ratio has changed at all due to this being everybody’s battlefield.
I've played with a few gaming communities that play squad FPS and the ratio has always been around 12:1 male to female. The problem that keeps women away from these types of games is not because they can't play as a female soldier. It's because as soon as they speak on open mic, they get pounced on by raging hornmonsters or drowned out by the dudebro chat. Frankly I find it as offensive as what the male players of WaW had to put up with in public chat. Blatant racist and homophobic slurs, yo mama etc. That is what drove people to party chat. Women naturally have a lesser interest in these type of games. Capitalism demands margin growth. There going after a demographic that doesn't exist or is tiny. At the cost of completely alienating and calling their core playerbase horrible things. Of course, these type of asshats do exist, but they are probably only the same ratio as actual women players in the first place. Mature men with families, dads, reasonable guys are being lumped in with all this bullshit and there's a breaking point. When your game is having all the fun sucked out of it with this crap they'll just find something else to play that is 'fun' without the baggage.

The failure of these companies to nip a problem in the bud early means an unfamiliar demographic has to go through the same to learn to play in party chat only or with friends. The fact isn't that there are tens of thousands of misogynists playing these games. It's the simple fact that assholes are playing these games and will use anything to insult someone else. Oh you have a high pitched voice, you must be a faggot. Oh you have a girls voice, you must be crap.

Frankly I find it more disgusting and distracting that companies like EA think throwing a female character model is doing enough. And frankly I find it ludicrous that the internet gamers lap it up like a magnum opus. Solve the underlying problem.

Lastly I'd like to see EA/DICE release stats on the company soldier breakdown. Including m:f ratio and the diversity quota of each soldier. Because I tell you, at the end of the rounds when you see the starting squads, it's unusual to see more than one white male in the team. Which pretty much blasts their point out the window.
 
Likes: Noboru Wataya
Oct 24, 2017
155
52
180
I love BF series i wasnt planning on buying this game, i bought and its a bellow average game, i dont know what happened to the series, but im done, BF1 was ok and now this one is even worst, sorry Dice, but im done. I dont care about the gender thing, the game lets you pick between man and woman.

Weapons have "specializations" now, this is stupid, wtf happened here. Theres nothing that you look forward to unlock, its a obvious step back from bc2 bf3 bf4.

Im returning to bf4 (and bf1 eventually), i dont wanna buy the new COD.

I played every bf that ever launched, but bf1, hardline and bf5 are the worst.

BF3 - 729:10:40 hrs
bf4 - 413:15:00 hrs
(i dont know how to see the stats from the older games)


Sorry about my english, still learning.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
It is not revising history because they do not claim they portray history accurately. And even without women soldiers, Battlefield would hardly be an accurate historical portrayal. Is Inglourious Basterds also an issue? It also plays in WW2, but historical accuracy is.. let's say not the primary concern of the movie.

It's a video game. If people get their information about WW2 from a first person shooters, we have much more severe issues than woman soldiers here.
Pretending media doesn't influence peoples perception of history is naive to say the least and straigh up stupid If I'm being honest. Inglorious bastard never presents itself seriously, the whole plot is a joke. Games like Batlefield and Assassins creed presented themselves as historical titles for years, Assassins creed started going for more fantastical elements, Battlefield kept taking itself seriously and just started presenting revised history.

Mind you, I do not think Battlefield's happy shootbang announcement trailer was respectful of WW2. But then it is all the more strange for people to get hung up on a couple of women soldiers.
This isn't the case, there where lots of complaints about BF V, from the arcadey gameplay to the katana wielding guy and yes also the presence of women, DICE started insulting the fans by saying that these complaints were coming from misogynists and if you had a problem with the trailer you were one. Of course now the discussion is all about the women because DICE made it so, the media made it so by insulting the BF V fanbase, and you're doing it too, people don't like being called misogynist when they know they're not and obviously they're going to defend themselves.
 
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
This isn't the case, there where lots of complaints about BF V, from the arcadey gameplay to the katana wielding guy and yes also the presence of women, DICE started insulting the fans by saying that these complaints were coming from misogynists and if you had a problem with the trailer you were one. Of course now the discussion is all about the women because DICE made it so, the media made it so by insulting the BF V fanbase, and you're doing it too, people don't like being called misogynist when they know they're not and obviously they're going to defend themselves.
I'm talking about people such as the ones @Nobody_Important quoted, that are specifically complaining about women. Not about everyone who is not interested in Battlefield 5.
 
Oct 2, 2018
104
242
185
No. See, I am so uninterested in the game, I wouldn't take it for free. But that has nothing to do with women soldiers. I am solely talking about people fuming because of women soldiers, not about everyone uninterested in the game. Even for people who do like online shooters, there can be good reasons to not want BF5 and thus even lower sales numbers are insufficient in isolation to judge whether the net effect of the heavy representation of female soldiers was positive or negative. We would have to consider other factors as well (other games on offer, negative experience with past Battefields, gameplay and presentation issues outside of female soldiers, series fatigue).
Yes, and what I am saying to you is that the number of people legitimately fuming because of women soldiers is not that many.

So few that they could probably afford to lose them all and it wouldn't matter that much.

Plenty of games with women in them do great sales so I would suggest that ignoring the worst trolls is the preferred action.

Dice, for whatever reason, decided to build up the dumbest of dumb critics as being on a par with less extreme criticism. This appears to have been a bad move.
 
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
I'm talking about people such as the ones @Nobody_Important quoted, that are specifically complaining about women. Not about everyone who is not interested in Battlefield 5.
Yes and I'd bet none of those peole are mysoginists, 12 year olds making shitty jokes on the inthernet isn't mysoginy, humour is allowed to exist even if you don't like it. But you lump everyone together, unless you think everyone who critized this issue is a misogynist?
 
Likes: woigemok
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Yes, and what I am saying to you is that the number of people legitimately fuming because of women soldiers is not that many.

So few that they could probably afford to lose them all and it wouldn't matter that much.

Plenty of games with women in them do great sales so I would suggest that ignoring the worst trolls is the preferred action.

Dice, for whatever reason, decided to build up the dumbest of dumb critics as being on a par with less extreme criticism. This appears to have been a bad move.
Well and I said that it was not a clever move to complain so aggressively about them, because other people may be alienated by that. In fact, I think that the effect of misogynists on the sales is negligible.
Yes and I'd bet none of those peole are mysoginists, 12 year olds making shitty jokes on the inthernet isn't mysoginy, humour is allowed to exist even if you don't like it. But you lump everyone together, unless you think everyone who critized this issue is a misogynist?
As I already explained, I come to the conclusion that it is very likely that these specific people are coming from a standpoint of misogyny. Whether they are children or not is irrelevant to that. This kind of "humour" is of course allowed to exist, but I am also allowed to evaluate it and the motivation behind it.
 
Jun 13, 2017
300
339
195
As I already explained, I come to the conclusion that it is very likely that these specific people are coming from a standpoint of misogyny. Whether they are children or not is irrelevant to that. This kind of "humour" is of course allowed to exist, but I am also allowed to evaluate it and the motivation behind it.
When you start insulting the people who make these jokes it means you're not longer taking it as humour.

We can joke about black people without being racist, we can joke about women without being misogynist, we can joke about the holocaust without being nazis, when you start searching for motivation and intend behing humour, it means you're not taking it as humour.
 
Oct 2, 2018
104
242
185
It is not revising history because they do not claim they portray history accurately. And even without women soldiers, Battlefield would hardly be an accurate historical portrayal. Is Inglourious Basterds also an issue? It also plays in WW2, but historical accuracy is.. let's say not the primary concern of the movie.
I think the difference with Inglourious Basterds is that I would think that if people quizzed Tarantino about historical accuracy he would have a better answer than "these people who think it isn't plausible are uneducated".

I would guess that Tarantino's vision was a WW2 movie that was completely batshit crazy in that Tarantino style. I doubt he'd call you "uneducated" when quizzed about the historical accuracy. He might say you didn't understand his intent with the movie. I dunno.

Dunkirk on the other hand is a movie that tries to get historical "authenticity" nailed down. They made mistakes but it doesn't feel like they were outright trying to present an "alternate" history.

Again, I feel like Nolan chose WW2 for his movie for a reason and if you were to call him out on inaccuracies he would answer along the lines of trying to be as authentic as possible and not "the audience is dumb".

So BFV devs picked WW2 as the setting of their game (or maybe it was forced by the publisher, who knows). They did enough research into WW2 to know about things like the heavy water plant. Then they decided to put a very 2010's ideological spin on things.

They are closer to Inglourious Basterds than Dunkirk at this point but they are acting like they are closer to Dunkirk.

I would speculate that Trantino could have done ANYTHING in IB and audiences would have been like "it's just a crazy Tarantino take on WW2".
I would also speculate that if Dunkirk would have ended with a rogue lady pilot showing up to down a few German fighter planes audiences would have been like "what the fuck is this!?".

Dice's problem, for me, is not that they decided to go with an alternate WW2. It's that they tried to paint people who thought the whole thing was dumb as "uneducated" and proceeded to hint that objections were down to sexism.

Didn't the marketing materials talk about the "untold stories of WW2".

On one hand they are presenting historical accuracy/authenticity but on the other hand they are wanting to call people uneducated when they point out their BS.

Further to this, i would put it to you that Inglourious Basterds eschews historical accuracy in the name of a kind of visceral entertainment.
BFV, on the other hand, replaces a team of Norwegian commandos with a teenage girl and her mom as part of an ideological agenda.
 
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
When you start insulting the people who make these jokes it means you're not longer taking it as humour.

We can joke about black people without being racist, we can joke about women without being misogynist, we can joke about the holocaust without being nazis, when you start searching for motivation and intend behing humour, it means you're not taking it as humour.
Humour is not necessarily well-spirited. Humour to spite someone or something is a form of trolling. These remarks are trolling humourous remarks.
 
Jun 14, 2018
217
172
170
It is not revising history because they do not claim they portray history accurately. And even without women soldiers, Battlefield would hardly be an accurate historical portrayal. Is Inglourious Basterds also an issue? It also plays in WW2, but historical accuracy is.. let's say not the primary concern of the movie.
They claim to be portray history believably. Inglorious Bastards does not even try. No one is demanding 100% accuracy. But when you put in a 14 year old girl to take out 200 nazis, or a woman with missing arms on the front line, youre in Fortnite territory.
The premise for a believably story has to be there, thats the problem. The real strange thing is that people dont get this.


It's a video game. If people get their information about WW2 from a first person shooters, we have much more severe issues than woman soldiers here.
Its a medium like anything else, and can be whatever it wants to be. There are hyper realistic simulations out there called videogames. Please stop this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Saruhashi

Fuz

Member
Jun 8, 2009
3,004
1,124
775
Cagliari, Italy
Games like Batlefield and Assassins creed presented themselves as historical titles for years, Assassins creed started going for more fantastical elements
And yet, I've read a good number of inaccuracies on renaissance Italy due to them. People (=americans) thinking that most of what they played was realistic.
 
Last edited:
Jun 14, 2018
217
172
170
And yet, I've read a good number of inaccuracies on renaissance Italy due to them. People (=americans) thinking that most of what they played was realistic.
Again, read up on the difference between believable/immersion, and realistic.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
11,517
713
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Is offensive humour not allowed because it's offensive?
Did I say anything about it not being allowed? If a certain level of humour is reached, it is indicative of the motivation behind it, that's all.
They claim to be portray history believably. Inglorious Bastards does not even try. No one is demanding 100% accuracy. But when you put in a 14 year old girl to take out 200 nazis, or a woman with missing arms on the front line, youre in Fortnite territory.
The premise for a believably story has to be there, thats the problem. The real strange thing is that people dont get this.
Believeability is about coherence, less about realism or authenticity. The things you describe can be believable, they could even be realistic, without being authentic. Shooters like Battlefield have been very unrealistic (and even more so, unauthentic) in the past already, but seem to have managed to come off as believable still. A woman with a missing arm or a 14 year old killer girl are not less authentic than the heroic killer guy you play otherwise - both are unauthentic.
Its a medium like anything else, and can be whatever it wants to be. There are hyper realistic simulations out there called videogames. Please stop this nonsense.
There are very realistic simulations that people call videogames, yes. They also tend to be very complicated and inconvenient, unfun to many, which is why they are relegated to a certain niche. Battlefield is a mainstream action game. Not a hyper realistic simulation.
 
Mar 12, 2014
2,977
1,511
355
Then it feels like the game is tangled up in all these odd contradictions. You bring out a game that glorifies and rewards the use of guns to defeat enemies. Then you try to market that to a distinctly anti-gun crown by claiming that sexists hate the game. So anti-gun, anti-war people can be turned on to a WW2 first person shooter so long as they feel like it's addressing gender inequality.
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:

You win the internet today. Summed it up perfectly.
 
Likes: Yakuzakazuya