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

I'm starting to see a pattern here: You make an extraordinary claim about someone, they ask you to provide evidence, you refuse and make a snide comment. It's particularly distasteful in this case because Rex clearly put a lot of time into recording the historical aspects of BF1 and you are just blowing him off when he asks you what he missed.

I don't see myself as having moved on from that. I never minded to have fun in BF but it set off an entirely wrong tone right off the bat, it wasn't some fun send off. It's something that caused huge backlash & was obviously very terribly recieved. All I'm trying to say. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate and I know it can be a fine line to walk but they clearly broke that line when so many people got pissed.

As a percentage, how many confirmed kills in in World War 2 were done by a soldier with a prosthetic arm using a cricket bat, male or female? The game is silly and puts players in impossible circumstances, more so than previous titles which were already a bit silly in the name of having fun. That's not some incredible revelation nor is it not worthy of some criticism. Players are allowed to dislike it. Watching everyone pour over WWII documents like a game of odd-ball trivia trying to attack people that don't like something is cringe.

It's okay for people to dislike things but you can't base your dislike on the fact that it "disrespects history" then get mad when people reference history to show you why you are wrong. Can you not see how incredibly hypocritical it is to go after someone for "pouring over WWII documents" in a discussion about how realistic certain aspects of marketing material are?

No, not at all. Looking at a (likely less than) 1 in a million case of someone doing something stupid doesn't mean that it's suddenly realistic for a game to have half the players running around with a weaponized cricket bat or katana. The criticism isn't that it's impossible, it's that it's ridiculous.

why don't you answer my questions about BF1 and what you said about that instead of trying to dodge the question with that. It's not about exact percentages, historical fiction will never be about exact percentages - especially in the realm of video games, because by nature that's limiting to artistic creativity and freedom. What? I am a historian, of WWI, and I spend quite a lot of time reading about WWI and I've maintained for a long time that BF1 was far more accurate than people give it credit for - principally because it doesn't align with their preconceived notions of WWI. And so this morning I decided to put that myth to rest once and for all. I worked on that from about 9:30 this morning to 2:00. I have work this evening so my morning was free and I enjoy reading up on WWI and its media representations. That also doesn't account for the countless other hours I've spent reading and writing about the war.

What's weird is taking a video game developers idea to let people play as women in a WW2 game and making this part of some sort of SJW conspiracy theory.

You've been moving goalposts this whole time. It went from "show me when that happened ever" to "no THAT doesn't count, try this other way". It's a textbook moving of goalposts.

Im pretty sure they just pulled said ridiculous assets after the backlash. Especially considering some have made it in but the general tone of the actual game is a total 180.

That's the one thing I can agree with. At least we've found some common ground. :v But on the flip coin, you can't write off the backlash and people who think it's ridiculous imo.

It sure is interesting that we got editorials from hacks and hot-take Youtube videos about DICE "mocking" complaints about Battlefield V (which later turned out to not be true, shockingly!) but almost no one gave DICE credit for rolling back a lot of the cosmetic complaints we saw in the reveal trailer.

Look, I don't want to belittle your war knowledge. I actually think it's really cool that you have all that info and put all that work into it, and in any other circumstance I'd be thankful for that document. I think you missed the point with it, is all. Don't think it's not appreciated even if I'm shutting it down.

I didn't even realize that was the case, that's actually proper good.

Im a lot more annoyed at dice clinging onto diversity, but leaves out Indians in British forces.

There's even a Kukri melee weapon. What a weird omission...

Why don't you try actually engaging then. What "point" did I miss specifically? The point is that BF1 is far closer to history than most people give it credit for, which is in fact "not missing the point". That it's not alternate history. "shutting it down". lmao dude you haven't provided any sources or any actual counter-argument so no, you haven't even come close to "shutting it down". you've just acted like a nincompoop.

Still waiting on a day we see some more Sikhs, they were straight up badass.

Especially weird because they had Indians in BF1. Though their use of one race per class has always bothered me. Any class should be any race.

they started doing this with alien options in star wars too and it sucks there as well

So, 90% of players using weapons that were issued in the low-mid thousands, many of them only issued to specific branches of specific armies. I never said any of these weapons or accessories didn't exist - maybe you're focusing on my use of the word "experimental", which yes, doesn't apply to all of these weapons and accessories. However they were nowhere near as prolific as represented in the games, as you demonstrate in that google doc. "Saw service" =! prolific enough for 1/64 soldiers to be issued or otherwise acquire one, let alone all of them. "It's WW1/2 but everyone has access to MP18s, Fedorov Avtomats; FG42s, MP44s etc" You could argue that restricting the vast majority of players to their faction's standard-issue weapons wouldn't make for an entertaining or easily marketable game and I would probably agree with that from an objective point of view. Personally though, with some minor adjustments to weapon handling, I could really enjoy a mode that did restrict the majority of players to what they would reasonably have access to. Faction-specific and only widely-issued/employed weapons and vehicles - which is what 1942, bar SWoWW2, has over the current games. With the proliferation of otherwise limited-issue equipment - and how generally well-equipped the average player is compared to their real-life counterparts - I already view BF1 as "It's 1920 but WW1 is still happening". I'd much prefer them to embrace how amped up their representation of the world wars are and go even further with it - by branding it as alt-history. For one it'd completely alleviate the feeling they're not doing justice to the realities of those wars - which for a lot of people will be the first or most major impression they have of them - but more importantly, Dieselpunk is the coolest -punk.

By doing what they have they have done far more justice to WWI than frankly any other piece of media before. and you’ve missed the point. Fiction, especially a shooter, isn’t about being statistically accurate. It’s about building an engaging game (or narrative), and by using things that actually exsisted they built an extremely engaging game that is far and away from alternate history or diesel punk.

Btw. Look at this dude. People like this are the ones who are the most vocal about Battlefield V. It's obviously a throwaway account, but it's also an obvious troll and all he's doing is just adding oil to the fire. https://www.reddit.com/user/Loli_Lover_20 https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/78659/ceaa410b-544f-45b8-b5d2-a2723e16cd83/loli3.jpg https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/78659/ffaae20b-95a8-42f0-8ade-b319342f85a4/loli1.jpg https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/78659/d26edbde-5151-46aa-8577-6e1fe4544f45/loli2.jpg Obviously, not every person who criticises EA, DICE or Battlefield are incels or alt-right. But that doesn't fucking count when the only criticism you have is "FEMINISTS! SJWs! CUCKS!". At that point, you are either a troll or deluded. A lot of you guys have shared valid points that things could've been done differently and more realistically. And yes, that's a fucking valid criticism unlike those other guys. One of my old friends with whom I've been playing games with since meeting him on a SA-MP roleplaying server back in 2009, recently got all woke and with the reveal of Battlefield V, he started telling me about the SJWs ruining everything and the feminists taking over the media. I find that quite sad, to be honest.

For what it's worth, I agree 100% those people going off about it being some weird SJW conspiracy are just totally nuts. I hate in a lot of places the conversation became about that instead. BFV was the perfect target for it I suppose. Just enough ammunition for a clusterfuck they could latch on and shit all over, not that EA's handling of it was perfect. I can actually relate to your experience on close friends pulling that stuff on you. It's kind of a shocker.

I feel like it should still be easy to discern who's not buying it due to the women and steampunk arms and who's not buying it because DICE's behavior and instant deflection of player concerns as alt-right harassment. It's not rocket science. I don't understand how people can't figure this out, with modern American media engaging in misrepresentation, deflection and distracting accusations as a means to manipulate people. We've been observing this from Fox News and right wing pundits for 25+ years, but when it comes from the left, people somehow are wholly unable to spot it. The reason i'm not buying BF5 is pure and simply because DICE are being massive cunts about how they address their userbase and they seem wilfully out of touch. I don't hate women, i love that they're in the MP. but their campaign makes no sense and i don't think that thinking so gives them the right to label people as bigots. They ´KNOW how shallow and pretentious their efforts are. Same as Sarkeesian knew she was spitting out swiss-cheese arguments in her video-series. People legitimately don't mind that Progressives want a better and more inclusive world. They really fucking hate that they're doing it so lazily and are being so sloppy and disingenuous in their methods and arguments. There are so many better ways to do this. I really don't see how a few retards on Reddit being assholes somehow invalidates the observable fact that this whole progressive movement is being useless and is bringing useless results for people that need and deserve better.

lmfao battlefield? Realistic? Since when?

I think devs need to just avoid attacking their playerbase, regardless of reason. They're customers, the money source, and word travels fast if they feel slighted. If some idiot is spouting actual sexist garbage and a dev retorts there's nothing stopping someone from taking an out of context screen grab and playing victim. PR is important more than ever, and EA definitely dropped the ball here. Social media is a vulnerability for proper PR, and devs represent your product - if you allow devs to list that they work for you but don't prevent them from saying something controversial you risk a PR incident. Either distance the social media accounts of the devs from the actual company or screen what they write. There are people with legitimate complaints about authenticity that could have been easily handled with labeling this game as "alternate history" and not doubling down on it being "authentic". People are kind of attached to semantics, and tend to be literal. Even though you shouldn't need to write "caution: hot" on a cup of coffee it's better to do that then have somebody complaining on Twitter that you were selling hot coffee and they wanted iced coffee (when if they had any common sense they'd know). People value authenticity and if they percieve inauthenticity they will react, even if the transgression is banal. You can't have an "authentic" "realistic" experience in a Battlefield game with the way the mechanics, weapons, and plot are, but you can make a thrilling take on a time period. Don't use words that can be misinterpreted - if you're not going to 1:1 recreate actual events and people then don't claim you're presenting an authentic experience. I could go on, but this game is a good example of terrible PR and some simple things could have changed public opinion easily.

The game seems to be going more from "WWII with changes for gameplay purposes" to "Fictional war with a layer of WWII over it."

Like I said in the video thread, people demanding Historic Accuracy in a franchise thats the literal arcade opposite of games like ARMA is kind of silly.

This is such a terrible line of argument. No one is asking for realism. They're asking to not have arbitrary pandering changes that do nothing but take from the authentic feel of the game. Having a larger variety of weapons and vehicles adds more usable equipment, more options, more playstyles, etc. Adding women does nothing but pander to people who can't deal with the reality that WWII, especially the battles being presented, was fought basically completely by men.

Or you know, lets people play an online multiplayer shooter with an avatar that they feel represents themselves.