• Battlefield V Announced
    406 replies, posted
It would be better if they researched the times that women actualy took an active part in war that actualy did happen instead of pulling stuff out of thin air,that way they could be inclusive and "the most immersive battlefield"that they make claims to.
Women are great. Please shove more of them into my video games. Thank you.
I was one of the people who disagreed with the decision to have women in CoD WW2 multiplayer for seemingly no other reason than inclusivity but after actually playing the game I find that it's not noticeable enough to sufficiently add to or distract from the experience, at least for me. When I'm playing the game I just don't really consider who is shooting me other than their general profile. The actual characteristics of the virtual model matter very little to me personally. What I'm more concerned with is how visual representation and customization will conflict with the profile of character models. In every BF game you can tell the difference between classes at a glance. It's not hugely useful in a game that is still largely based on relatively low TTK but it's still nice to know. I'd hate for that to disappear in BF V.
How does she look anything like a resistance fighter to you? She's wearing a German uniform, with an MP40 and Luger, with German infantry in the background and even a Tiger Tank.
you can barely make out the two people in the background, please. one of them looks like he's wearing elder maxon's coat. as for the uniforms and weapons, the Polish resistance for instance used German uniforms and weapons (admittedly with red/white armbands). So let's assume she's German for a minute. The German military employed over 500,000 women auxiliaries under the title of Wehrmachthelferin. According to the German version of Wikipedia: >In den letzten Kriegsjahren wurden Helferinnen auch als Soldatinnen, obwohl nie als solche bezeichnet, verwendet. Which translates to (with Google Translate) >In the last years of the war, helpers were also used as soldiers, though never referred to as such. In Febuary 1945, the auxiliaries women of the Luftwaffe, Heer, and Kreigsmarine were combined. As Commiespaceinvader noted in what I linked above >approximately half a million women who went to the East as part of Nazi rule and occupation and participated in various Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity against the native population, Jewish and non-Jewish, of Poland, the USSR and other nations under the iron boot heel of Nazi occupation. hmm, sounds to me like it isn't nearly as implausible as many are making it out to be. Here are some good links to AskHistorians about "historical authenticity" and "accuracy" and its place within video games and other forms of media. 1. 2. 3. 4.
None of us were saying it was impossible. We were saying she was a member of the Wehrmacht after you called her a resistance fighter.
That’s literally the first impression it gives off, especially since I have a bit of interest in the Polish resistance who used German uniforms and equipment. it’s not a ridiculous conclusion
I kinda feel like this is just rewriting history by making it more inclusive. A 10 year old playing this game may not know any better, it risks us forgetting some of the reasons and struggle for equality to begin with.
This right here, so much. If in the campaign they try to inject some bullshit storyline about some female soldier where a female soldier wouldn't be, then people might have some actual teeth when it comes to the whole historical authenticity and such, but I'm pretty sure this trailer was supposed to represent the multiplayer and all the customization options available in the multiplayer, which is actually far more important if you ask me because multiplayer should always be about the people you play with, whether it's someone you know or not, and letting them express themselves in ways that doesn't actually compromise the gameplay. As long as the classes are identifiable, if someone wants to be a female soldier in a multiplayer experience that really doesn't reflect the actual experience of the war, what harm is done?
And I don't see what's wrong with that. There's no rule that says we must portray history realistically, and plenty of games have done so already. I don't see what's so wrong with using WWII's historical context to frame silly shit like women with robo claw hands. It's at least different.
How? How is it any less insulting that people complained about women in BF1's Tsar expansion, when there were many more women who fought in the Russian army than the combined total amount of experimental weaponry that they put in the game? Does that not obfuscate historical "truth" and erase the true nature of the war? While I've argued in the past that DICE captured the spirit of warfare in 1918, I can totally accept that they fudged the details for gameplay reasons. But it's like that with any piece of historical media - be it game, book, tv show, movie, song, or whatever. It's a piece of fiction, it will never be a piece of historical research (nor should it strive to be). This speaks more about your own preconceived notions and beliefs about the past, than the past itself. I highly recommend this answer from AskHistorians as it explains my view point extremely well (mainly the "I think when contextualizing" bit downwards and part 2).
This is a great post from a great subreddit, thanks.
it's like if creative assembly suddenly decided to make all units in their games like napolean, shogun and medieval total war have a 50/50 split of women and men... like why?
Am I the only one who honestly just doesn't give a shit about all this controversy? I'm a longtime Battlefield fan, the first multiplayer FPS I played was Medal of Honor: Allied Assault followed closely by Battlefield 1942, I've played every Battlefield game on release and enjoyed it (except you Battlefield Heroes, nobody loves you), and I honestly just don't care if it's not a historically accurate portrayal of WWII. I watched the trailer, said to myself "Oh hey you can play as a Woman this time" and that was it, I really don't get the outrage. People want "historically accurate" WWII gameplay, cool go play the singleplayer campaign then, there's going to be plenty of that and I'm sure it will be great. If you really can't handle playing multiplayer without it being "historically accurate" for some reason because there's Women on the front lines and people might have a prosthetic or some cosmetics that don't 100% match standard issue gear, maybe this just isn't the game for you? Go play Post Scriptum, or Verdun, or Red Orchestra 2 if that's really your sticking point, but for every person who won't buy it because of this I guarantee you there dozens more if not hundreds or thousands who will, because those details are so insignificant and don't affect the core gameplay at all that nobody is even going to notice most of the time while playing. Do you pay attention to the clothing and gear that every solder has when you kill them in Battlefield? Yeah, me neither, not even when you get a knife kill. It really is that insignificant of an issue.
While it feels weird to make a game based on a war and then not give a shit, sure, but that's hardly the main issue by this point. It's not a completely illegitimate criticism that it's inaccurate, but Dice's response so far has been utterly ridiculous, as many people here have already showcased better than I can be bothered to. The marketing so far has been pretty obnoxious and we're at the literal start of this show.
I don't want historically accurate at all. I want historically inaccurate. I want alt-history awesome shit with zeppelins that serve as aircraft carriers and mechs and giant bombers carrying massive cannons and soldiers in diesel-punk power-armor with gatling guns and shit. I couldn't give a fuck less about the 12th French Fart brigade led by Major Tight-Cunt who was historically famous for her fight in Assholitz in which two French soldiers under her command pissed themselves and it got in the eyes of a Nazi soldier on the floor below them before they got hit by an errant artillery round and they all blew the fuck up. Throw me out there cool shit. I want to see a line of Ratte tanks escorting some massive monster tank that dwarfs them while the British have a squad of soldiers in mechs stomping around flanking them and blowing holes in them. Historically accurate is a great way to make me not give a fuck at all about the game.
That "Elder Maxon's coat" is some form of coat or smock with a lighter coloured lining visible, some uniforms had a winter camouflage on the inside and were reversible. With Wehrmachthelferin, if you read the page again the combat role you're talking about is as Flak/Air Defense crew. They were in combat roles but not in the same sense of being full soldiers fighting directly on the front and they only had handguns. As for the askHistorian comments, several of those are making the sense sort of defenses as those who say "It's not a realistic game!" and aren't separating the lack of realism in the gameplay from tone/atmosphere/depiction of the setting.
This sounds kind of alarmist in an unnecessary way. You're making a mistake if you think popular media should be the arbiters of what's "historical" in the first place. Not all media has to have the same goals, this new battlefield allows for more creative expression on the part of the player. That's just a different goal for what this battlefield is striving to be instead of "historical accuracy".
Yeah wow, kinda hard to happily play as disgusting war criminals but then turn around and get outraged over being disgusting female war criminals As long as I can tell the classes apart and the shooting guns is fun whatever, do what you feel Dice
I don't really mind if its for multiplayer only anyways it wouldn't really surprise me if the EA and dice are just kicking up controversy to distract the public from when they reveal the game's business model
Armed 'Helferinnen' were not issued Heer uniforms and equipment. They served as desperation militias in the closing days of the war, alongside civilian volunteer organizations and recovering wounded. The character in that art is absolutely not a logistics conscript who has just been given a rifle and told that a few million Soviets are driving down the street, it's a gender-swapped Heer gefreiter. The 'based on real SOE/OSS operatives' thing to explain the prothetic-armed woman is nonsense too. Virginia Hall was not a clandestine assassin or Nazi-gutting partisan, she was a HUMINT officer and predecessor of the modern case officer, and was an incredible operative with a significant post-war role in the development of the CIA's SAD, but she was not a combatant. Virtually all of the other female intelligence officers were the same way, they were spies, not soldiers. There was plenty of female participation in the war that could be realistically represented- Soviets and partisans being the two most prominent. I really strongly dislike this apologetic trend of 'some women in these nations served in auxiliary roles and may theoretically have picked up a gun, therefore depicting these nations as deploying women in uniform on the front lines is historically accurate'. It's beyond a stretch, it's a bait-and-switch.
Why even do ww2 if they are going to take such liberties? Why not do something like valkyria chronicles where it’s ww2 like with fantasy factions? No one has ever gotten upset about fantasy or historically accurate female soldiers. ”there are records of black people fighting for Germany in North Africa and female resistance fighters in France so let’s just make all factions 50% black and 50% female and call it a day” is what it looks like.
So what? We know there were women who participated in military capacities. We know there were women (~500,000 by Wendy Lower's estimate) who actively participated in the Holocaust - from desk jobs, to actively killing. >Those who killed, the perpetrators, are a group unto themselves. Their numbers are hard to calculate, their deeds as grotesque as any that have been gathered into the history of the Holocaust. A woman named Johanna Altvater had no official mission to murder, but she gladly did so “on her own.” Indeed, her “specialty … was killing children.” Liesel Willhaus would shoot Jews from the balcony of her home, to the applause of her young daughter. A Nazi's a Nazi. Quoting an AskHistorians answer I have linked previously: >many of these women agents saw combat alongside men and several were captured and ultimately executed by German forces. Not really no. Battlefield is not an "Accurate" series. It has never been accurate. Crying about women is crying about the veneer of authenticity. As /u/commiespaceinvader noted >It strikes me as a bit absurd to criticize a piece of historical media that let's the player fill the shoes of a generic representation of an organization that played a key role in both perpetrating and enabling the Holocaust without alluding to this topic, drawing any consequences from it and at the same time, glorifying the experience by awarding points and perks to them based on how many generic representations of historical forces fighting a genocidal regime they kill, for too much "political correctness". But then when it comes to the historical accuracy that should be prioritized on several levels, the same people who cry "I want to be a Wehrmacht soldier but not as a Nazi and at the same time only if I my player model is white and male because that's history" argue that it's just a silly game, which in consequence means that male and female, black and white player models really make no difference.
Because it's a video game, what's the point of restricting media just because of the theming and backdrop they use? The point of media and art is that you can take these liberties and do pretty much whatever you want. If you want something that doesn't take liberties, you shouldn't be looking at video games.
I understand what they were going for, and I don't necessarily think the game will be bad, but jesus that was a dumb trailer.
So the image is obviously ahistorical, and you are trying to defend it with completely irrelevant history, describing a form of combat involvement that was rare, ad hoc, and looked nothing like the image in question. If the game wants to depict female Helferinnen manning FlaK guns during the fall of Berlin that's historical and I'm all for it, but that's not what the image is. Yeah, I saw the full answer when you linked it before. It gave a good overview of the limited role of women in special operations, explains how they primarily served in intelligence-gathering and clandestine roles, and explains how those roles very occasionally involved use of lethal force (not direct involvement on the battlefield). That does not make a crippled female special operations officer fighting on the front lines against uniformed combatants in any way plausible. If the game wants to depict female SOE officers caught by SS personnel in occupied Paris and forced to shoot their way out then, again, that's historical and I'm all for it, but, again, that's not what the trailer was. Something which the Battlefield series has, previously, gone to great lengths to maintain. I'm not hoping Battlefield will become Red Orchestra but I'd at least like a WW2 game to mostly look and feel like a WW2 game, rather than weird artistic decisions going well beyond the inclusion of ahistorical female soldiers.
lmao. more women served in WWI than the amount of experimental weapons actually produced that are on full display in BF1. For 1942 the Soviets lacked appropriate weaponry, and other factions saw deficiencies in their weapon selection with guns from other countries (ie giving the Americans the SMLE instead of a Garand). Such great lengths in their previous WWII game. Especially since they then released Secret Weapons of WWII for it. What they have is the veneer, but that's all it is. It isn't actual authenticity (hence why I say that BF1 captured the spirit of 1918). I'm sorry but the story of women involved in the German war machine is irrelevent how? Again, what you're asking for is the veneer of authenticity. Not actual authenticity. I echo it again, in a game that lets you play as a part of one of the most horrendous and awful organizations to ever exist, whether or not your player character is male or female is moot when it doesn't touch on the Holocaust.
Yes, that is what people want. Battlefield has always been a game that does a balancing act between fun and immersion. When it comes to the veneer, the look of the soldiers, the locale, the weapons, etc., they've gone to great lengths to make it all appear historical. Even the experimental stuff was realistically experimental. It wasn't some laser gun or tie fighter. The furthest they pushed was the extreme edge of historical possibility, things that armies were actually trying to develop. The sort of stuff you're talking about, like large numbers of women on the front lines, isn't that. There is no possible historical world where huge numbers of female soldiers were going to fight alongside men on the front lines of WWII. You are welcome to argue that you simply don't care about any attempt at authenticity, but lots of people do, and your continual pointing to things like experimental weapons does nothing to further your point. It's the difference between historical possibility and total fiction.
there were thousands of soviet women who served in active combat roles and hundreds of thousands of others who served directly on the frontlines. attempts to minimize the roles of women in wwii is quite frankly, hilarious >The furthest they pushed was the extreme edge of historical possibility, things that armies were actually trying to develop I go back to DICE's previous WWII game where they included a jetpack in the last expansion. >historical possibility and total fiction the total fiction where every army was equipped with the same weapons and with weapons like the helreigel that never even came close to mass production?
I'm not sure why you're saying this as if it's some cutting point when this is openly what we've been asking for the whole time. Not rivet-counting historical realism, but a decent veneer of historicity. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody in this thread has claimed that Battlefield is some paragon of historical accuracy, but they have historically made an effort to give their games the appropriate feel of the conflict they were set in. ...Because you cited it in response to an image that does not depict that story at all? Like I said, if they want to make a game about the women who were actually involved in the German military, I'm all for that. But the image of a female Heer soldier is complete fantasy. 'WW2 military games can't be realistic if they don't shoehorn in the Holocaust' is complete nonsense. Nobody gives serious war movies flak for not 'touching on the Holocaust' when they're depicting D-Day or Dunkirk. The Reddit post you are paraphrasing reeks of 'games aren't real art and can't be serious with their subject matter'. Nobody is minimizing the roles of women in WW2, they are pointing out gross factual inaccuracies in DICE's depiction. Others in this thread have posted the Night Witches, the Soviet snipers, the various partisan movements across Eastern Europe, the French Resistance, and other organizations which actually did field women in combat roles on the front lines. The British military did not. SOE and OSS did not. The Wehrmacht did not. These are not 'minimizations', they are facts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.