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

Ok but that was clearly supposed to be an MP player character, they’re not going to have any wroting around them.

"everyone who doesn't share my point of view is an alt right chud argh >:("

History is history. You can fictionalize it, you can try to dress it up in a pretty fashion and lean away from the extremities, and you can even distort it into misinformation and lies. There were women in World War II, but they were not numerous, filled with entire divisions of badass women on the frontlines or so forth. There were resistance members, there were occasional snipers and real badasses, even spies. Often, they fought in the war out of either having the spirit to stand up on their own terms, or they were outright conscripted because there were not enough men. But the fact of the matter is that yes: history is sexist. That's the expectation people have going into something that was historical. Women did not have equal rights, especially in the US where we mostly just stuck them into the jobs the men couldn't occupy while they were overseas. You cannot pretend that this was not the case. Furthermore, you compound your side of the argument by jumping to the extremes of proclaiming that someone is saying something they are not. He's not saying "women can't be good characters", he's saying "you can write better characters than someone randomly shoved into the lead over the actual historical figures just to have a woman in the role". This entire thread is a fucking mobius strip of the same shit over and over, and i've noticed you've been stalking the thread since the start just to try to snipe at people for this.

and what goal would that be, exactly?

I'm getting the feeling you selectively do this to make people slip up so you can call them crazy and/or sexist yet again for caring about fictional women in fictional stories. Because this entire thread has been people complaining about it, and all you've done is be hostile about people's concerns and complaints. I'm not going to magically assume I know what select developers at DICE are up to with some proclamation of virtue signaling or some shit, nor can I proclaim that my paranoia is fact, but I do personally believe this "goal" at least partly involves toning down the historical sexism of the time period that World War II revolved around thanks to modern standards, while playing up the racism in the Senegalese case for more awareness and sensationalizing it even.

I'll take "reading too much into asking about the point your making" for 500 alex. So if you don't know what that goal is (if there even is a goal) why bring it up? Why make a point you can't substantiate. As to the rest of your post: ok and? What do you think Historical Fiction is? It's always going to reflect the past through the prism of the present. It doesn't matter if it's historical fiction from 1870, 1950, or today. An artist/creator will always go into their own work of fiction with their own cultural ideas and biases. There's literally nothing wrong with that. There's no "erasure" of history going on. Historical fiction will always tell you more about the cultural ideas of when it was written than when it was written about. This can be demonstrated On my shelf I have a book titled The Bull From the Sea, by Mary Renault and published in 1962. It's about King Theseus of Athens. It's a novel that takes real history, and mythology, and inevitably reflects the cultural ideas and norms of 1962 better than it does Ancient Greece. But that's just the nature of fiction.

I keep coming back because your argument keeps rehashing the same tired, extremely flawed logic. You can have sexist ideals without being a generally sexist person. And these ideals you keep posting are inherently sexist. History was sexist but this damn fiction game does not have to be and the developers are well within their rights to change it based on their beliefs/design choices (because it's fiction.) The fact is that any of these arguments that use the phrases "virtue-signalling" "pandering" and "SJW" keep relying on this mythical conspiracy that there's secret plan to include women to make people mad or push a social agenda, an entirely unprovable and ridiculous point (the real mobius strip.) And again, even if they are fucking pandering, so what? If it ruins your immersion in a fictional arcade shooter this hard then you have a weird fucking hang up on the inclusion of women and that's what's sexist. Sorry if it makes you mad to hear, but think about the implications of your argument. @IlluminatiRex nails the argument about the very nature of historical fiction, so I have nothing else to say there.

All thread long, i've been arguing the devs are dipshits and idiots that accused everyone against them as sexist, while saying i'm fine with female soldiers in the game and being concerned by the story points that take themselves dead seriously besides the two British guys blowing up an entire army. The devs themselves have painted themselves in a light that many people besides myself see as something more than just some paranoid "fuck SJWs" conspiracy. You're literally expanding everything said into an attack against women and accusing me of being a pissbaby mad about women in my video games when I just about always play female protagonists when I get the option to in customization, and shy away from sexualized stuff in favor of badass military operators or the like. One can debate the historical fiction, but i'm not going to take bullshit being personally flung at me sitting down.

Then they shouldn't pretend they're doing Oscar material.

This may come as a shock, but the point of advertising is to convince people a product is good.

Noone (except extreme alt-righters) has a problem with women in video games. It's how you present them. Plenty of women were in partisan roles (which was in a mission as previously mentioned, but it also erased the efforts of 30 multinational commandos), there were plenty of Soviet snipers, plenty of OSS females. If you so desperately wanted them in multiplayer then you could have introduced these factions into them. Having Allied soldiers fight alongside female partisans or to play as an OSS spy eliminate enemy soldiers in the middle of a firefight in multiplayer would have been awesome to see. Yes, video games are not historically accurate. But there's a fine line between having a semblance of historical accuracy and then straight up introducing fiction. When you do the latter in the most costly war in mankind's history, in a time where gender roles were extremely enforced, of course people are going to question it. Actually, putting women in roles they weren't in downplays the amount of social barriers they had to experience. According to this game, they were able to do whatever they wanted in the 40s with no question, when that isn't true at all. They faced so many issues at the time and the fact that the game covers that up is kind of insulting to the women who actually had to fight the system and become important individuals. It happened, it's not pretty, but it happened. We can't pretend it didn't.

It's 2018 and its EA. oh wait right... The masses still buy shiny things made of pixels with real money that pretty much expire in a year comes the next title.

I feel like we've been going in circles for quite some time now. A person complains that the game isn't historical and that there are many fictional aspects. Somebody explains how and why the game can be based in history and yet be able to contain fictional parts. A bunch of people agree. Somebody else comes back and argues how the game cannot be historical, because there is fictional stuff in it. And then we go back to explaining why it's possible for the game to have fictional plot but also be set in a historical event. And we've not moved further. This discussion hasn't even moved backwards. It's still stuck on this one issue. At least that's the way I feel it. Both parties have brought up good points - the devs could have or perhaps should have made the game more authentic and closer to reality - they didn't, they included many fictional aspects and that's fine. It's a first person shooter. A video game. Some people like it, others don't. Some people want to see it succeed, others want to see it fail. If the game doesn't sell enough copies and the devs abandon it, then so be it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKmhtkbjn4 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII messed with the historical accuracy too and people at the time enjoyed it while some of them didn't know what to think of the expansion. But now there are people calling this expansion better and more realistic than Battlefield V. I mean, seriously, is there really a point in hating videogames and their devs for doing something you didn't want? If you don't like it, you don't buy it. If you love playing RPG games and then try an FPS game and not enjoy it, are you then going to spend the rest of your days telling people about how much you dislike the FPS game genre? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/78659/ae9d40a6-56a3-47f9-b26b-ad5ceb67d859/why.jpg Like this dude. If you enjoy playing games such as Arma, Insurgency and Red Orchestra/Rising Storm, what's the point of going to a community of your favorite game just to tell them that you tried this other game and you thought it was crap because it didn't play like the game you enjoy? I mean, apart from the ensuing circlejerk. It's fucking pointless.

I mean, the reason i'm having such a tizzy about it, honestly, is the campaign factor. DICE campaigns are universally trash besides maybe Bad Company 1, and it presents itself a lot more seriously than the multiplayer content, so it's easier to criticize compared to everyone generally agreeing that multiplayer is perfectly fine to be all wacky or toybox-y about its stuff.

I've been seeing this "DICE telling their base to fuck off" narrative being pass around a lot, especially in the "video game hot take" section of Youtube, and I feel like it strongly contradicts with people saying that the more extreme complaints were just alt-right nobodies that represented a fractional part of the feedback. You can't have it both ways; either the comments are representative of a small subsection or even outside force that DICE is using to strawmen all Battlefield players, or these comments are actually representative of Battlefield players. This isn't aimed at you personally, it's just something I've been noticing after these pictures were released (again, it must be stressed, without context or honesty). A video game released in 2018 can't "erase" history. More to the point, the game actually explicitly mentions that raid at the end. This doesn't really work in a game like Battlefield which has always been about two teams fighting each other. According to this game, World War 2 was a an arcady sandbox game where armies run around strategically-questionable territory raising and lowering flags while firing prototype weaponry at each other in between regenerating health and calling in personal V1 missile strikes. I think this thread proves that clearly a lot of people care about women being in a World War 2 game This is really the crux of it and why this discussion is eternally stalemated between people who disagree where a game goes from "silly but authentic" to "ridiculous and disrespectful". I think part of the problem is that the people arguing that Battlefield V crossed this line don't simply want to let their opinions be known, they actively want to encourage people not to buy the game, so they have to rationalize why previous Battlefield games didn't cross that line and to be frank I just don't buy it. In my ideal WW2 game player avatars would be as realistic as possible, so no women represented in frontline combat, but I'm okay with it happening in BFV because it's DICE's canon of World War 2. It's their clearly fictional take on it. It's also possible of course that my bias makes me ignore or otherwise downplay authenticity issues. I generally care a whole lot more about how the game plays than it being completely realistic. If it weren't for people pointing it out I would never have known that several uniforms for the British team actually use American gear, or that maps set on Belgium somehow have mountain ranges.

lol @ defending alt right chuds being blatant alt right chuds, wanna go cry about women in your video games some more?

To be fair a lot of this came from a couple of developers at DICE starting the whole "my daughter asked why she couldn't make someone that looked like her" thing, which also apparently became "my daughter asked why people are so mad about a woman in a video game", before snarking back at those attacking them on Twitter with proclamations to not buy the game if they feel offended, and calling people that complained about women in WW2 as uneducated. I lack the full knowledge and context of the extent of how poorly they handled it, but as it goes with today's tradition in outrage culture, people took each of these incidents and compounded them into great sins and tried to run DICE's reputation through the mud as a result. The photo in the OP being taken out of context only served as a catalyst for further articulated outrage.

In a game mostly bought for its multiplayer With something like a 6 hour campaign That focus on epic firefights more than anything else Released by EA A thread in a somewhat random forum, hell, a few forums, won't change the mind of a company that shits out a similar title every year with the sole purpose of gouging out money from its userbase.