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

That's not what a strawman is.

I did a quick search of Battlefield threads posted in SH and didn't find anyone disagreeing with anything I said, largely because most of my posts were talking about how much more I'd rather play Black Ops 4 and how what some of the things some of the devs have said were really dumb. I really don't understand where you are getting this idea that people have explained anything to me.

and that's still not the fault of the piece of fiction. It's not its job to make sure everyone understands at every second that it is fiction, from the get-go you know this. i'd buy it dude. it's fucking fiction, get your panties out of a twist. echoing @TheVoidDragon but uh there's literally 0% of things in BF1 that can even be remotely constured as "pseudo-diesel punk". Like, BF1 is an abstraction of the tactics of 1918. The majority of the Vanilla (and later base when they added in some other maps for free) maps were set in 1918. 1918 is when you saw the genesis of modern combined arms tactics - integration of infantry, cavalry, tanks, airplanes, armored cars, and artillery. 1918 was also characterized by small unit tactics where the emphasis was on flexible platoons and squads that could adequately take defended strong-points. These platoons and squads would advance under covering fire from automatic weapons (like the Lewis Gun) and semi-automatic (like the RSC which was more widely adopted in 1918 than prior research has suggested) where they would attack a position from all sides (ie "infiltration tactics"). https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/57985/0a705a96-d7a0-4c74-975d-54a4c9138f05/British1918InfiltrationTactics.PNG Figure from Paddy Griffth's "Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Art of Attack 1916-18", page 97 This is what the British were doing in 1918 (with some generals like Ivor Maxse picking up on this in 1917). You have a platoon split into four independent sections which each have their own role in an attack on a position, with the section commanders having a level of their own initiative. Do you see any video games really attempting to be this realistic? Aside from actual Milsim's like ARMA (which don't even deal with the World Wars usually) nothing will ever really achieve this level of realism. They'll all fall back on the standard tropes of whatever period they're in - for WWI that's suicidal "human waves" against Machine Guns (which was never really true btw!). What Battlefield 1 did instead was take Battlefield Gameplay and apply it to WWI, and by doing so it actually comes closer to the reality than anyone would usually think. Yeah it's an abstraction, but BF1 is focused on squads working together to capture objectives, and they often have semi-automatic and automatic weapons to lay down covering fire with additional support coming from the air, field guns, and vehicles.

ah, so I was overthinking it. Still, it can't just be me who notices the anti-SJW crowd playing to the benefit of controversy just as the SJW crowd sometimes does. Really, EA/Dice deserve the biggest Big Woop rating I can even think of. This just makes me apricate Activision (and 3arc... and Sledgehammer) more

Honestly it's annoying because they should be riding on the coattails of what a good game they made, not how angry they made some irrational people.

I do agree with this. Repeating what God of the Grove said, they should have just handled it like Activision did. They very clearly understand that the reveal trailer was a bad idea and I don't know why they are still focusing so much on it.

Dice does deserve what they are getting, they didn't play to their target audience and instead tried to attract new people from the corporate "diversity" catalogue basically saying "if you aint woke dont buy" and assumed their player base would buy it anyway, the game deserves to tank. I wont be giving them my money.

Why do people keep bringing up a part of a franchise that is in the fucking future/present? COD: Ghosts has like fuckall to do with historical accuracy. Literal steel rods are used as WMDs.

What's funny is they have fucking taken away minorities from the German team yet kept the women. This half measure response feels truly retarded since you both took away customization yet didn't remove the main thing causing the anger, leaving you basically worse off than before somehow. It really does feel like every time they have tackled this issue it just ends in absolute disaster. I wouldn't care nearly as much if the game was wank, but it's solid at the core and really doesn't deserve this shit.

Why does it have to be a strawman???

No, but COD:WW2 takes place in - er, world war 2 - and I remember some of the same complaints were leveled against it although to a much lesser degree. Stuff like reflex sights on guns or - yes - woman soldiers. They went away after about a week or two.

The really sad thing about this is that the game looks really good but I have no idea what kind of mind worms EA and DICE snorted to think this kind of marketing is okay. Not only are they multi-billion corporations hiding behind social justice movements but they keep misrepresenting the game and doing basically anything in their power to ensure it will flop from making bad reveal trailers to legit trying to justify revisionism with "I'm doing this for my daughter". I'm not particularly savvy on individual battles in WWII, let alone in the Netherlands, but if that thing with removing 30 commandos from a skirmish for the sake of making the 2 women more special is true, then fuck DICE with a cricket bat wrapped in barbed wire. That would mean they legit tried to tell real war stories but decided to commit legit revisionism to fit their narrative. These are the people who said they were not gonna do alternate history for BFV!

This is correct. The article is misrepresenting the actual situation. The picture is from a private party during a speech about initial customer response. Of course they're gonna highlight negative response and talk about it. Somehow the photo has found its way to the internet, and is now being used by shitty news sites to stir up shit. "Marketing tool" is patently false. Don't believe everything you read online.

Well, it's not really fake news. It's real, but It's been taken out of context. It's also true that devs fucked up in a bunch of ways, but the most vocal critics weren't really even critics at all - just a bunch of trolls spamming websites about WAMYN WITH CYBERARMS, KRATOS, BRITISH COMMANDO NINJA, JASON VOORHEES. Many of the equipment, uniforms, weapon attachments and other stuff that people complained and still complain about has been proved to have been real, yet they still persist it's all fictional. Loads of people were also just bragging about how they weren't going to buy the game, which at that point... You know, it's true "If you don't like the game, don't buy it." You won't see me going to Red Dead Redemption 2 reddit or any other community just to say "lol, the game's shit, not buying this!" You actually play as the British commandos in the prologue when you first start the game. You and your squad get ambushed and killed and you later find German soldiers burrying the dead bodies. I didn't actually care too much about the fact that you play as an 18 year old girl. It could've easily been a story about an 18 year old boy and his father. Other games have had you playing as a one man army - including the old Call of Duty games, the friendly NPCs were pretty much useless in a fight and the only time they did something cool was when they climbed onto tanks, opened the hatch and dropped a grenade inside. Oh yeah and also, based on the challenges in the level, you're meant to be playing stealthily anyway. Anyway, what bothered me about that war story was the fact that you get thrown off a bridge by your mother (the other woman, obviously), you survive, you sneak through a blizzard, fall off a frozen waterfall into a pond. Then you black out several times before the voice of your mother in your head makes you get up and sprint to a cottage in which you beat a German soldier to death with your bare hands before falling unconscious for a few hours... and then you wake up again, ready to wreck some German's shit.

yeah but lets be fair here the alt right chuds aren't getting mad BECAUSE of realism, they're getting mad because "women in my MAN game" and digging for excuses to complain

I think the ultimate irony of it all is that by claiming the historical accuracy argument they instead prove just how ignorant they are of the subject matter at hand.

like really if you need any more evidence other than the language being used here, let's look into the kind of people who are front page on the you tubes when you get a fresh set of algos and disable your login and shit, so you're basically "Some guy who hasn't heard about anything and is turning to youtube for information" like a lot of Gamers™ https://file.house/0_Rp.png top 5 results for "battlefield v women", two of these have way higher viewcounts than the others, so they must be better, right? Let's check what this first guy, Rags's track record for videos is: https://file.house/Fxm9.png I'm sure this guy is a sane and well adjusted individual, look at how he has a collab with Sargon Of Akkad, who totally isn't an alt-right chud and rape apologist! https://file.house/C8n_.png Oh well, if this guy isn't a paragon of virtue, let's check out that other channel, I'm sure he's more reasonable and rational. I made sure to refresh the incognito session to get a fresh tracking cookie and everything. Same search results are given. Huh, weird, as soon as I click his video, my recommended feed is full of alt-right stuff! https://file.house/czqz.png Well, maybe his other videos can shed some light on his vi-Oh, he's defending the rapist on the supreme court too, along with peddling alt-right crap. You know, starting to see a trend here. However, this is only two examples, and like a true raging liberal I like to have a third source on my accusations, so let's pick another few videos! https://file.house/vlVb.png Once again, one of these has way more views compared to the rest, so let's pick it, since more views OBVIOUSLY means more true! I'm sure this user won't have blatantly alt-right shit all over their content feed, right? hm yeah nah looks like some casual dehumanization and shit, totally legit guys Well, that's three strikes. Every channel I've found peddling this crap pushes alt-right agenda stuff. Now, a fun test! Let's say Joe Schmoe goes through this, clicks on Rags's video, finds it informative, and keeps watching the videos youtube recommends him. How long does it take him to get to full on "SJWS GETTING ((OWNED))" compilations and ben shapiro dicksucking by the alt-right? https://file.house/zZL6.webm The answer is 6 clicks, with an H3 highlight reel being the odd bridge between Rags's terrible content and the direct alt right pundits such as Sargon of Akkad(who is still alt-right by the way), and just another two gets my recommended tab filled up with BEN SHAPIRO OWNS CRAZY ATHEIST and Right Politics, a channel dedicated to TUCKER CARLSON OWNS X. Really, there's no two ways about it. The kind of people peddling "HISTORICAL INACCURACY BATTLEFIELD WHY" aren't doing it because they actually care about historical accuracy, it's because they're alt right chuds. Get over yourselves and stop sharing beds with the alt-right just because they pretend to care about something you care about to peddle their toxic garbage to you.

TBH they should've just made a sequel to 2142. They could've avoid a lot of this controversy if they actually decided to expand Battlefield instead of rooting it something incredibly safe. Hell the fact there's only two whole factions to play and they're trying to saying there's "untold" stories of WW2 and not even remotely dipping into shit that's not well known or as popular is fucking hilarious. Wanna know what would've NOT pissed people off about having female soldiers with prosthetic arms? Or having just two factions duking it out,or even it's fucking battle royal mode? A sci-fi setting that they already have well established, with a fanbase who've been wanting than nothing more to have that setting brought back into the light with new tech and improvements. Shit you thought being able to put fucking sandbags and barbed-wire is unique to Battlefield? Fucking modders did it back in 2006 with fucking Project Reality. Hell an indie-dev team that made PR has done it pretty well with fucking Squad. Arma even has it to my knowledge. Hell they could've easily done something better. But instead that played it very safe, and made some bad calls that ended costing them a lot of face and PR.

I was there - it’s unfortunate what you guys think this slide is supposed to show. It was shown in the background of a speech about what the first reveal trailer reactions were, it wasn’t about mocking it

The sci fi shooter is flooded atm though, plus titanfall fills that niche probably. Also we haven't had many, if any, proper good online WWII AAA shooters in like a decade. It's very much a under used setting these days. They will add more factions and fronts as time progresses. Only UK and Germany are in currently since it's only 1940/ very early 41. The battle of Crete is getting added early next year and that's a battle we never really see in games.

anachronisms I don't doubt they existed, but they definitely weren't wide-spread, ditto with the majority of BF1's weapons and accessories. The difference between 1942 and this is every asset used in BF1942 was used on a mass scale in WW2 (Bar a handful of those in the expansion SWoWW2). The game was also "ww2 in general" and had battles from later in the war than that year. There were surely a lot of anachronisms in it, but it wasn't bordering on fiction in the same way as V. All I'm saying is they should either have it be a "proper" WW2 game and dial back or outright exclude the experimental shit, or call it BF1946 (1919 in 1's case) and double down on it.

I don't doubt some alt right shitheads have unfortunately gotten mixed up in this but all I wanted was something like 1942 out of it Battlefield V, in terms of historical accuracy when it comes to units, tech etc. Mass produced stuff in right amounts, bare minimum anomalies. I don't get how that turns me into a snowflake and stuff. I just really liked the way the old Battlefields did it, I feel they respected the time it was based off far better.

The r/Battlefield crowd will take anything as ammo.

I am not sure when it became a feature, but I suppose since Bad Company, you unlock and use whichever weapon you wanted. Since then you could use very common weapons or a lot less common weapons, rare even. I think people liked the weapon system and never complained about it enough to make DICE change it back to the way it was in BF1942. It doesn't, really. I don't think anybody's said that wanting such things makes you a snowflake. And if that's what you enjoy, then... you know, great! Keep playing those games. I love Rising Storm 2, but at the same time, I'm not going to ask devs of a different game to make theirs more like this other game I enjoy, because that's what I want. They are not necessary. Absolutely true. I just see them as a way for DICE to showcase their engine in a more linear and controlled environment. Plus, if you're a newbie, you can use the singleplayer to learn how each weapon handles, etc.

Would people be okay with this game if EA just said "this is kind of sort of based on history"? It's not like any of these games have ever had very realistic impressions of battle. I doubt there was ever a special 'protagonist' super soldier running around through every major skirmish throughout the war killing hundreds of enemies each time so i have a hard time linking any of these games to extreme historical realism. These games all just fetishize the war part in the most reduced down easy to experience parts that all take place in ~30 minutes or less. And as an anecdote, i had someone on discord arguing that this was 'rewriting history' but if you're so short sighted that all you can feel or know about history is what you experienced in a yearly released military shooter than I'm not sure what to say. This isn't an official retelling of history that encompasses everything we know and overwrites every other explanation of historical events.

The weird thing was the lack of coordination between staff. One dev proclaims that the game isn't historically accurate, just stuff for the sake of fun which was the initial word. Right after, I can't remember if it was someone else at DICE or EA trying to step in, they claimed the game WAS historically accurate. There was definitely a miscommunication somewhere in the lines, and then the specific idiots that stirred up the controversy basically took the mic from there.

I think my favorite part was the r/thathappened tier story from one of the devs about his daughter.

I was complaining on the 2nd page how the game has just gotten more whackier, which I just didn't like and there I just got ganged up on. It's fine if they make Battlefield like this but it just saddens me they've lost that old feel to 'em you know. I'm not gonna throw some fit over them making a different game, that's fine. What they did with the WW2 setting just feels weird to me. You're right about the storyline though. It probably is just that, a showcase of the stuff and a way to get oriented. They told some great stories too in BF1, I won't lie. I just miss the times of doing conquest with bots and stuff to test out everything. Made for fun coop experience too playing with your mates and just cranking the number of bots sky high hahaha.

I wish they added yugoslavian partisan forces, it did have women fighters to a certain extent (slovenia has more than one female partisan who was decorated due to heroism in combat), plus I would finally get to play as sort of kind of my own country in a game

See, that'd be actually badass and historically accurate enough. Same with the Soviet snipers, pilots etc.