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

Dude please tell me in what way any of the video games from the very first Medal of Honor to now have accurately portrayed WW2 in sense of the word that is not only tonally consistent but fair handed in its historical showings.

As I said: pandering. I'm sorry, but if playing a women, even though it has no thematic fit whatsoever, makes the game feel better for you, then you have an issue. If I were playing a game where women actually were the majority characters, then I would very much want to play a woman. Why the hell would I care that it matches my gender? Especially in a game where the gender of your character has no role in how the game is played.

Then why the hell would you care about the gender of your playable character? Remember - it has no role in how the game is played. Which is why the first Call of Duty game has a mission where you steal a French car and the Germans send most of their available trucks and cars to chase you. Which is also why this game has reflex sights, why it lets you jump off a bridge and deploy a parachute, repeatedly, why it lets you take multiple bullets to the face only for you to be fondled by your squadmate or stabbed by syringe and you're back on your feet again. Well, you know - the weapons are authentic, the vehicles are authentic, the uniforms are authentic, the battlefields are usually depicted quite authentically. Certain things that were very rare are a lot more common in the game. The game is CLEARLY historically accurate as fuck. It's definitely not in the game to be fun. Oh no no no, sir. /s BUT FUCK ALL THAT - if you include women and the minorities in a videogame that isn't strictly historical yet is set in a specific time period, then you might as well include furries and anime characters, because historical revisionism, right? I mean, Girls und Panzer is a thing. Why not complain about that? It's also set in WW2 and as far as I know, Japanese schoolgirls didn't drive German tanks. Clearly, we should tell the makers how ahistorical their shit is!

I hate this argument that you can't be authentic in a video game without being straw-manned and called an alt-right nutbag. Why are the Call of Duties 1, 2, 3, and 5 so revered? Because they stayed true to the source material and created compelling narratives. I understand wanting to bring light to untold stories, and I love that. But, presenting a game and throwing taglines "authentic WW2 experience" while meanwhile revising history to "stay on the right side" is such condescending bullshit. I wonder why nobody complains about women being in video games in the plethora of instances where they are primary protagonists? Because who fucking cares? It's a fictional setting. I keep thinking of the New Yorker story when the writer brings an alpaca to a restaurant as an emotional support animal and everyone acts like it's normal out of sake for political correctness. The alpaca in the room is that people can intuitively tell when they're being bullshitted and talked down to. EA and DICE can go fuck themselves if they think they can get away with this and simultaneously question why people are so "bigoted" for not buying their poorly conceived product. Otherwise, the game is fucking fun. It's such bullshit that a well crafted game had to be ruined by redundant politics.

You're not even capable of doing that, despite the lead art designer stating that they would allow full player customization because he 'couldn't explain to his daughter why she couldn't play as a woman in a historical FPS game'. Dice locked the axis faction to be white only. Ironically, there were non-white German soldiers from the Free Indian Legion, and they're well documented to have fought defending the beaches in Normandy. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-177-1465-16%2C_Griechenland%2C_Soldaten_der_%22Legion_Freies_Arabien%22.jpg Dice's main argument for historical inaccuracy is that if something has been documented to have happened at one time during the war (like the amputee female British commando, Prototype Thompsons being shipped to Europe just before the end of WW1), it can be put in the game. Now why can't I customize my German persona? Because Dice/EA uses race/gender as a marketing tool, that's why.

(ignore this, idk how to delete on mobile) I don't remember battleship Tirpitz being sunk by 4 british commandos (I think that's what they were in cod1?). There's loads of other scenarios in cod games that aren't depicting things that happened the way they did irl because they are games, and the primary focus is a fun game.

Just because they do one thing doesn't mean they have to do all of them.

Ah yes, the games where you are essentially a one man army mowing down throngs of Germans/Japanese doing things that didn't necessarily happen in real life. What those games are accurate to is the pop-culture version of WWII is informed primarily by Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.

This argument ignores what it would do to those films if Tom Hanks had purple hair, an open mid-riff and a nose-ring.

I'd say it has to do with context, Medal of Honor: Underground's main character was a female, french resistance fighter and I can't really think of anyone I knew that played it every having any sort of issue with it. I don't think a lot of people would've had an issue with it if it were the least bit believable, but when they go off the deep end and start talking about being on the 'right side of history' it's hard to have any sympathy when it looks feels the sole reason most of this was added was to cash in on those sweet social justice points because it's such a polarizing, popular matter that it just about gets shoved into most AAA games nowadays, with the added bonus that you can deflect any criticism by immediately calling any critic a misogynist/racist. It wasn't an issue when you had female multiplayer skins in the old medal of honor games. Wasn't a big deal when there's already a few female characters in 'WW2' games, like RtC and Bloodrayne having female nazis. I just personally hate the tone that they took and that terribly puts me off of even buying the game for something that could've been a non-issue for a perfectly understandable question over a game that was originally being promoted as an 'immersive, authentic WW2' game.

On what level was any of the stuff in the (awful) reveal trailer even close to that?

It's a video game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ugebzq3juE

Video games and their developers should never be criticized - StarBot

Thank you for making up a quote that I never said "So basically, I'm monkey" ~ @CMX

You and @Sgman91 are presenting this argument so disingenuously. It's extremely simple: WW2 media utilizes fictional elements all the time, so when people ignore literally every other historical inaccuracy except for women, there's clearly an issue. I'm sure there are gun nuts and tank nuts and all sorts of historical specialists who would take issue with all sorts of "embellishment" but at the end of the day everyone puts it aside so they can enjoy this work of fiction. You keep saying you aren't sexist but essentially calling the inclusion of fictional women in a fictional videogame "obnoxious."

I misread and thought this was about a Battlefield 5 Garfield community and I got very interested.

I was against women in CoD WW2 and Battlefield V but I think IlluminatiRex has swung me from against to "neutral". I'd prefer the historical authenticity of men and, in the case of Germans, exclusively white men, but I do like the idea that Sledgehammer and DICE respectively had created their own sort of canon version of WW2 with it's unique quirks, and for me personally it doesn't take away from the actual historical aspects of the war, or more authentic gaming experiences. This is completely subjective and will vary from person to person. For me personally it's about even. Case in point, I was doing the final act of the Nordlys campaign, the one where you play as a female Norwegian resistance fighter during 1943, and the part that bugged me wasn't being a girl, it's the fact that I found an STG-44 with a red dot sight sitting next to a house. Not to mention the fact that the FG-42 is almost as ubiquitous as an AK47 in a Modern Warfare title despite only 3000 being made and issued exclusively to paratroopers.

Stop throwing everything under "it's a video game". If your game's going to be based on a historical conflict that killed millions of people, you either try to be strictly about the action and don't try to push beyond that, or you disclaim or make sure quick and early that it's not to be taken at face value. DICE couldn't make up their mind about the disclaimer approach, and the story takes itself all too seriously with both slow moments and bombastic army-slaying action alike - and yet doesn't bother to note that it is basically writing an entire team of commandos out of history, rewriting an entire operation from the ground up, and then turning around and sensationalizing about how the France tried to write people out of history (which goes way and beyond France's mistreatment and ignorance of the Senegalese) with a documentary-esque monologue of poorly-readable text at the end. Video games can teach people to read, teach them things they never knew. The American education system is kind of crap in many places by my perspective, and there are plenty of idiots who will take things at face value. When it came to Battlefield 1, there were way too many people who thought the German Empire were Nazis simply because people are fucking stupid. So if you don't discern the line or at least make it so bombastic and over-the-top that you know it can't be serious (as with the British criminal's campaign), people will take it as fact. And even without the idea of idiot-proofing, DICE's writing for the Battlefield campaigns have been atrocious for years. BF1 was criticized for the campaign where a man wearing armor that existed but wasn't very effective was sprinting around with a portable gatling gun mowing down hundreds of Germans, with no narrative hints or anything that he was fibbing about it all to his granddaughter. Why are we not allowed to criticize writing that, either intentionally or unintentionally, veers into rewriting history? Even if it is for an action game?

This is silly. Nothing is remotely like that in the game and aside from screams you NEVER notice women ingame, like ever. The game for the most part nails the WWII Hollywood atmosphere and tone, not once do you feel taken out of it by any political shit or "SJW tampering", aside from the occasional female scream which I mentioned before hand. Aside from women and the small Norway mission (which links back to the former anyway), care to tell me what parts of the game pander to modern politics? I'll be hard pressed to find anything, the game's pretty straight when it comes to the setting. It even has a playable German mission soon which humanizes soldiers fighting for the Third Reich and even lionizes them with the typical Tiger myth bullshit.. people who are intense with the "SJW"shit would never dream of daring to portray German soldiers as anything but genocide enablers who sold their souls, if it wasn't for the fact a single mission and customization option was made to include women, we'll see the very same people screaming at DICE praising them to the hills for daring to stand against the norm and having the balls to ignore the sensitive left over having playable Germans lol.

the multiplayer balances this out by making the Tiger total dogshit.

I'm personally hoping they either patch the tanks or nerf the infantry AT weapons, the fact we haven't seen the Panzerschreck or Bazooka yet is terrifying to think about right now.

eh, its pretty fun. its unforgivably buggy, but all AAA games are these days...

Everything is easier to suspend my disbelief with because it's fiction. This isn't even a simulation like ARMA or Red Orchestra. It's an arcade game. See, this is where your rhetoric turns hostile. There is literally no harm in being inclusive. I have no idea why everyone is so butthurt about DICE deciding to be inclusive. It's not a "SJW" conspiracy, it's about giving players more cosmetic choices. And even if it was done entirely in the name of soulless corporate pandering, so what? Literally who does it hurt? No one had to be mad about this. It's ridiculous that it's in the news, but I'll be damned if I don't tell people that being so assmad about this is ridiculous and probably stems from some sexist ideals.

Honestly none of this would have been a problem if EA didn't tote around how accurate the game was supposed to be to real life. If they said this game was in an alt-history setting in the marketing I bet there wouldn't be much of an issue.

Because that's fun. Being a woman for the sake of it being 2018 is not fun. It's contrived.

"Playing as a woman is contrived." "I'm not sexist." Pick one.

Actually try to understand what I'm saying rather than whip out a nice zinger. I'm saying that you can't simultaneous hold that you want to be an "authentic" shooter while trying to revise history for the sake of inclusion. Maybe, I'm missing the whole point of BF5... but I don't think so. DICE has done an excellent job of inclusion in BF1 without ramming down everyone's throats.

Of course it's contrived. It's a video game. Everything is contrived. Battlefield not being historically accurate doesn't mean the developers aren't respectful of the sacrifices of real soldiers, thats absurd.

Why is it solely DICE's responsibility to make a game about them, and not the other developers who have made dozens of World War 2 games that are stylized non-fiction recreations of the era and not 1:1 simulations?

Well they got that detail right.