EA Mocking Battlefield V Genderfield Community Complaints at Games Launch Party - Sensationalist Headlines

in what ways are they “portraying it as fact” and isn’t the fact that it already is a piece of fiction be more than enough warning that it’s not real? it’s like that Obi-Wan quote from A New Hope, who’s the bigger the fool: The fool or the fool who follows him? It’s not a piece of fiction’s fault that people take it as fact, it’s the fault of people who aren’t critical of the media they consume and believe everything they see in a video game, movie, tv show, or novel as real.

I remember a lot of those 'alt right chuds' posting reams of information about real life resistance fighters, spies, pilots and other notable frontline personnel to show that they were fine with women being represented in a WW2 shooter, but not with DICE's lazy and unimaginative approach to it.

That was an actual fake arm from the time period. I think they removed it from the game though.

This is how they should've approached V and 1. You get to have all the anachronisms, still have the iconic battles, without upsetting anyone. I doubt anyone would give a shit about it not being set between 1939 and 45, while still being fine with holo-sight FG42s.

Those sights were real things. They were experimental and unreliable, but they're not fictional.

Still really out there though, a British woman service member, an amputee, on the frontlines no less. I don't mind women in my games but that whole portrayal was just too whacky. If it was Battlefield Heroes I'd say go for it at that point.

People keep saying "Battlefield V sales are down" but the only proof I'm seeing are physical sales reports, which begs the question - is it representing actual poor sales, or is it representing a trend of physical sales becoming less and less popular. I'd be more curious about download sales.

The lack of a proper player count on the open beta infographic compared to 2016's BF1 open beta didn't inspire much confidence in me. As far as I remember, they ran for the same duration and at roughly the same time of year, yet one has a very clear player count filtered down into all these other statistics while the other does not. https://i.redd.it/a69b4e780nn11.jpg https://content.pulse.ea.com/content/dam/legacy/ea/battlefield-portal/news/en_US/Beta%20Blog/Beta-Infographic-EN-US.jpg I don't think early retail and digital price cuts this early on are a good omen either. Neither are the free trials from tweeting EA directly or getting a referral through someone on EA Access. I'm not against people getting a chance to play the game without paying anything, but I also think it looks like EA are having trouble both with digital sales and getting people to pay money for their own subbed service.

Please don't do this DICE. There is so much to love about V and it's future, don't engage in the internet culture war bullshit. Focus on the fact the content will be free from now on and that you are communicating more than ever with the players. Don't fling shit at YouTube neo fascists, there is fuck all to be won and it's just fueling their awful narrative.

Why do you think DICE are innocent in this? Do you not realize that they've already made several arrogant and insulting comments towards their fanbase? This "awful narrative" that's supposedly being pushed is one they've pretty much came up with themselves as the majority of the complaints about the customization weren't along these lines at all. This is using the vocal minority (or probably more likely just trolls) to portray this whole controversy as having a horrible agenda and therefore dismiss it entirely. It's absolutely disingenuous.

I didn't have a problem with the game because "womyn in WWII." Hell, there were actually some badass women in WWII, like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a Russian sniper who killed 309 people, 36 of them being other snipers. I more have a problem with the game due to how EA has just treated those with interest in the game with such passive aggression. And to be honest, the game just looks kinda bland to me. Just my opinion of course.

Literally every popular WW2 media is some form of revisionism but even now in this thread we have people getting butthurt about this one specific instance of it. Even if you think it's flawed or badly done historical revisionism, criticizing the inclusion of women or amputees this hard feeds directly into the alt right message, even if you are just talking about how women never fought in a certain mission or that the men of the real mission weren't credited. And trying to cover up the sexism of the attitude by "wanting real historical women" in the games only proves the hypocrisy of the criticism because obviously no one cares when Viktor Reznov from COD:WaW saves Berlin or when any of the other multitude of fictional WW2 characters influence important events. If you really are an anal history buff there is so much else to criticize, so be a little self aware of how criticizing the DICE devs for taking the piss about the gender issues contributes to a bad message.

Imagine how much fuckin cooler it would have been to play a somewhat dramatized version of her story vs the dogshit revisionist mission with the mother and daughter Imagine how much better than mission would have been had it been more accurate to real life, getting to know your few other comrades, escaping the plant without firing a shot then being hunted down for days in the winter forest DICE have made some questionable decisions in the past but they've never come up with something this poor, maybe you guys are right and EA has had a hand in trying to sink battlefield

kinda agree, but "solid core gameplay" hasn't been something associated with battlefield since 3 in the eyes of many.

I think your tinfoil fedora is on a little too tight. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if EA uses BFV's lower sales numbers as an excuse to say that honest business models don't work. BFV is the first Battlefield game since BC2 to not do DLC "season passes" and has promised to deliver post launch content as free updates; it's kind of sad that it's now a big deal that a Triple A title is using the "you buy the game, you get the game" business model, but it's still a significant improvement over the last four Battlefields.

ok

I mean, some of the comments are pretty shit. It's not like they mock the reasonable ones.

Oh go fuck yourself

They turned a mission by Norwegian and British commandos, nearly 30 of them, attacking the Hard Water facility in Norway into 2 women doing it themselves

Hey, if you want to pander to the small part of the market because you want to push some social agenda more power to you. But don't expect to sell any copies.

It may not have been fully intended that way, but that's what it looks like it ended up being from what I've seen on it. And that's fine, just market it like that. Battlefield 1 had the same issue even though it was never marketed as alt-history, but I found it a hell of a lot more interesting once I started looking at it like that. It's honestly an interesting, pseudo-diesel punk take on WW1. Anyway, this is a really childish and unprofessional way to deal with the issue. They should have just said, "Hey, we took some liberties, it's not meant to be entirely historically accurate," and left it at that. Instead they chose to further entrench the people who complain about their game by making fun of them, possibly bringing more people over to their side who were on the fence about it.

Why would you consider Battlefield 1 alt-history or closer to Dieselpunk? I've seen the "there's prototype equipment and WW1 wasn't like this!" complaint used with that, but that's something that can be applied to every Battlefield game from at least BF2. They've all let you use equipment that makes absolutely no sense to be there or that just wouldn't be used in the first place and all portrayed their setting as something that isn't representative of how combat would really be.

The multiplayer has always been the grounds for "alt history" simply because the battles aren't 1:1 and weapons are often never quite right and somewhat anachronistic or the wrong faction and so forth; it's like toy soldiers bloodily killing eachother and always has been. Again, no one would've cared about female soldiers (or at least not complained as much) if female soldiers were merely an option like with Call of Duty, but the devs were dipshits.

OP's article is real bad. Not only does it not provide sufficient proof that the context of the picture was mocking those comments, it goes on to say that this is being used as a marketing tool, which is massively disingenuous. These are pictures from a private launch event and the only reason they are public is because websites like this are editorializing it. Let's also be honest with ourselves a bit here and not pretend like "Feminism ruins everything, feminazies are trying to rewrite history" is a comment worthy of anything but ridicule.

Don't do this strawman shit. I'm fine with feminism, equal rights for all genders and races. The developers (or at least selective leads) were still retards that potentially tanked their own sales and dragged their studio down with them. This is exactly the kind of broad spectrum method of throwing everyone that complains under the bus that should not be happening.

Raidyr and ASparkle are in the thread. It's way too late to try and fix it now.

I would only buy that this is strawmanning opposition to some of their decisions if patently ridiculous comments like the feminazis one was side by side with legitimate complaints, which, given the pictures, doesn't seem to be the case. Again I have to stress that we have no idea what the actual context of this picture is. The only reason we have to believe that they were mocking and strawmanning criticism of the game is purely based on the word of whoever wrote this editorial. For the record, I was one of the first to criticize some of the comments made by those leads on social media. You can find my posts criticizing them if you search. We have no idea if its worth bringing up because we have no idea what the context of the picture is. We are entirely reliant on what the article is attempting to portray, a portrayal that we know for a fact is based on at least one major falsehood. I mean, you could try, but given your post history I'm not optimistic.

Actually there were some 'tards who had a problem with the skintone/gender options for CODWW2 but Activision's response was simply "We want players to have the option to represent who they are" and then just moved on. Doubling down with "WELL IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN DONT BUY IT" wasn't on the cards for them. I don't really think they're doing it for diversity or to sate some left wing agenda. I really do think they're trying to advertise by controversy and sadly people like American Krogan are playing right into their hands.

Countless others have tried. You can't explain something when the explanation is ignored and forgotten the next time it's brought up.

Yes, the way Activision handled their black Nazi women paratroopers was far smarter than the way DICE did and I've said so in the past. When you start accusing your playerbase of being on the wrong side of history you have officially failed at selling your game. Having talked to two people who work at DICE, it's largely done in the name of accessibility. It's not really a marketing or advertising scheme and it's certainly not a targeted political statement. I think it's just that Treyarch/Activision had a unified stance on something where as DICE lets some of it's employees (including fairly high level employees) pop off on social media when they really fucking shouldn't.