Honestly I couldn't have said it better myself. I hate everyone says that just because battlefield is a little inaccurate at times it means anything can go and you aren't allowed to be upset about it. I mean I loved battlefield 3 and it seemed quite accurate and realistic implementing mechanics that most games hadn't yet like bipods decreasing weapon recoil and spread as well as supression. It had bullet drop that required to aim up and lead enemies and many more intricacies that other games just didn't have at the time. It seems like all everyone wants to do is brush off any sort of discussion of what is wrong with the trailer other than its sexist if you didn't like it.
They have explained multiple times how EA/Dice could have at least tried to make the role of women in Battlefield more realistic, make them a French Resistance fighter, a Russian sniper, or a British plane pilot. Not sure why people wouldn't want the campaign to be a more realistic mode, it would be a more immersive campaign than the stuff Dice has been making up. I haven't enjoyed the campaign mode much since BF3,and the favorite being BC2 even though both are fictional campaigns.
I don't have a problem with women characters in Battlefield at all, if it encourages more women to play then great because all the women i've played with in BF4 in squads were better than most men that just run off doing their own thing or don't hand out ammo/med packs.
And before you give the "LUL well Battlefield isn't even close to being realistic and never has" strawman argument again, EA and the community used to pride the BF series as being the more accurately realistic alternative to COD, down to the weapon physics and animations BF used to be the more realistic game in comparison. But EA said f*ck that too let's make this game more appealing to the COD console players by admitting the guns in BFV are going to be even more silly than BF1 and have no recoil.
I don't know if it's part of any political agenda, though it doesn't make much sense why EA all of a sudden listens to the community when people have been asking for women as a playable character in the game since BF4 or BF3. And, BF4 had a non-playable woman character in the campaign which they could have also easily made them a playable character and in muliplayer.
I feel like this thread has been bait all along so the OP can make themselves the winner while accusing anyone arguing against anything in the trailer to be sexist. Most of the mainstream news articles are doing the same thing while completely ignoring everything wrong with the BFV trailer.
Much like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, wolfenstein is clearly not selling itself as somewhat historically accurate. Not at all.
I get tired of these comparisons. Woflenstien is wolfenstien and BF is bf. This is the first battlefield that's a dieselpunk ww2-inspired game. Literally furiosa as a main character.
Each game has a level of realism it markets and targets for both gameplay and setting. People are gonna expect Arma to be more realistic than call of duty. People wouldn't excuse something unrealistic in BF because say fortnite did it. People shit on BF1 for literally pretending the french and Russians didn't' exist in WW1 which was made up with dlc. This is not any different. If they really wanted plenty of women soldier storys without controversy, they had an opportunity to tell bf like stories using real Russians in real battles that are really interesting and very rarely covered in games. Or they at least could have dropped the literal robot arm. We expect them to embellish these, of course, but not strait up just put a girl with a robot arm as a lead, trying to pass it off as a realistic prosthetic because it's styled like one. But this is supposed to get a pass because why? Because wolfenstein is about 'the germans won and something something mecha nazis'?
Is saving private ryan, a movie based on decently realistic things telling a fictional story the same thing as hellsing ultimate, where mecha sequal-hitler fights dracula spelled backwards using vampire nazis launched from a blimp called the "deus ex machina" like planes? Are your expectations of those similar? Cause they're both ww2 movies.
I personally would love more outlandish shit with a realistic aesthetic. I really would have preferred they went full steam ahead instead of revision style changes. If they marketed it as ww2 re-imagined or an alternate ww2. Battles that never happened, guns that never existed and stuff like that. Could be really cool, and it gives a lot of freedom.
Some of the bottom part of this post is a paste of a message I sent to Steam support following the seemingly-bullying actions of a Steam forum moderator who has been falsely telling people that Steam rents / leases games through their service and doesn't sell them, and who was intolerant of anybody telling them they're wrong. That moderator liked to do things like delete posts and lock any threads where people demonstrated otherwise.
To be clear, that Steam Discussions moderator's assertion is wrong, and top courts covering a sizeable amount of the world's population have ruled that they're wrong, and Valve themselves have also explicitly stated that they sell, not rent or lease, games to those people who purchase them through their Steam service (I've included that information in the second-half of this post). So, here is...
Software licenses and purchasing and owning software 101:
An EULA and a Terms of Service (ToS) are not the same thing. An EULA purports to apply to a good you've purchased and own, to impose conditions on how you use your own property, and so is invalid. A Terms of Service applies to a service, owned by someone else, that you use via a subscription license or a free account, and so a ToS can be valid. Someone else isn't entitled to set terms for your usage of your own property, which is what an EULA tries to do. But they are entitled to set the terms over your usage of their own property, which is what a ToS aims to do. However, a ToS can still be invalid depending on what terms it claims. And if a ToS tries to add in conditions about your usage of your own property, such as software you've purchased or perhaps modification of your hardware, then at least that part of it is invalid. Just as how some perpetual-license software might include a component that requires a subscription-license for its typical usage (as with some MMOs), a software good that you own might have an online component to which a ToS applies for the sake of accessing 3rd-party servers, with those 3rd-party servers not being a part of your ownership of the base game software you purchased.
Ownership over a thing is what establishes one's decision-making authority over the thing. To sell something is to relinquish it as one's property and to relinquish all of one's decision-making authority over that thing and to transfer decision-making authority over that thing to the person who bought the thing. Anything sold via a perpetual (meaning non-exhausting, eternal, lasting-forever) license is a product that becomes the sole possession of whoever purchases it, and upon its purchase all property rights including all decision-making authority transfer from the seller to the purchaser. And then the seller no longer has any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license.
The European Union's highest court, the Court of Justice, has ruled that software, whether sold via a license and whether physically or digitally-distributed, represents a good rather than a service, and that any purchaser of a perpetually-licensed software becomes the exclusive owner over that instance of the software, just as when they purchase any physical good. Most, if not all of the European Union's countries (including the UK) are also signatories to the Nice Agreement, making software in those countries goods. The EU Court of Justice has specifically ruled [archive link], "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer".
In a 2016 Australian case regarding Valve's refund policy for Steam, Australia's High Court carefully examined whether computer games sold through Steam are goods (and therefore property and consumer rights apply to them) or services (and therefore no property or consumer rights or apply to them), and concluded that they are fully goods, and that Valve doesn't merely sell a license to use the software, but in-fact sells the software itself, and that whoever buys a game from Steam becomes owner of the software that they purchased. Australia's High Court concluded: "Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails. The conflict of laws provisions in the Australian Consumer Law did not essentially carve out an exception for conduct by foreign corporations like Valve governed by a different contractual proper law. Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software)."
In Canada, pre-2019, the government of Canada declared as goods in its Goods and Services Manual (2018 edition), "all computer programs and software regardless of recording media or means of dissemination, that is, software recorded on magnetic media or downloaded from a remote computer network". Since June 2019, Canada has been another signatory to the Nice Agreement, putting its classification of goods and services under the administration of the World Intellectual Property Organization. As a good, software is therefore a private property that is sold and purchased, and which is owned by its purchasers. In 2016, Canada's Federal Court ruled [2] that software licenses are property that transfers to the purchaser at the time of purchase.
About software ownership in the USA:
I am giving this a section of its own because the US has a bit of a messy history on the topic of software ownership and because there's a lot of information about the US and this topic.
A specific matter of software ownership has never gone to the USA's Supreme Court and it's likely that software publishers would prefer that it doesn't, because in all likeliness the verdict will be the same as it was in the EU and in Australia. Because this matter has never gone to the USA's Supreme Court and because regional court verdicts have conflicted with each other in their conclusions, it is baseless for anyone to claim that people in the USA don't own their purchased software. That said, there are plenty of other rulings in the US which give strong support to the view software ownership and rulings which seemingly shut down the main arguments against software ownership.
In the USA, there have been some inconsistent lower court rulings on software licenses. But, they have not all been in agreement with each other and lower court rulings don't apply to all of the USA but only to the specific districts that the rulings were made in. Ninth Circuit rulings, for example, apply only to west-coast USA, representing around just 20% of the US' total population.
The 2010 Ninth Circuit appeals court ruling that many people are familiar with didn't actually conclude that people within its jurisdiction don't own their software, but instead proposed a strange and extremely ambiguous litmus test for people to gauge whether they own a particular software item or not. That litmus test appears to me to based in ignorance of a lot of things, and so I think the Ninth Circuit appeals court was technically-illiterate in 2010 and had their ignorance and confusion exploited by the Autodesk lawyers who took the court for a ride in making them think a software license was some sort of new technology and mechanism that was outside of all existing precedence. But it wasn't. Also, the Ninth Circuit ruling was superseded by a 2013 ruling by the US Supreme Court and so is no more applicable.
On March 19, 2013, the USA's Supreme Court ruled that people in the USA and elsewhere are entitled to resell their copyrighted goods, whether those goods are acquired from a domestic or foreign market, without needing the copyright-holder's permission, in accordance with the first-sale doctrine which states that a seller retains no decision-making authority over a product once they have sold it to someone else. The 2013 Supreme Court ruling supersedes the 2010 Autodesk vs Vernor ruling, as well as any other conflicting lower court ruling in the US. Therefore, any claim in an EULA that a license is non-transferable between people is deemed invalid in the USA just as it is in Europe.
While giving the Supreme Court's reasoning for their judgment in the 2013 case, the judge specifically mentioned software as an example of something that the first-sale doctrine necessarily applies to: "A geographical interpretation would prevent the resale of, say, a car, without the permission of the holder of each copyright on each piece of copyrighted automobile software. Yet there is no reason to believe that foreign auto manufacturers regularly obtain this kind of permission from their software component suppliers, and Wiley did not indicate to the contrary when asked. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29–30. Without that permission a foreign car owner could not sell his or her used car." And also: "For example, the Court observes that a car might be programmed with diverse forms of software, the copyrights to which might be owned by individuals or entities other than the manufacturer of the car. Ibid. Must a car owner, the Court asks, obtain permission from all of these various copyright owners before reselling her car?"
Despite the confusion suggested by the US' lower court rulings on software, the US, likewise to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, France, and I think the rest of the Western world, is signatory to the Nice Agreement, which is a multinational treaty that contains the International Classification of Goods and Services (also known as the Nice Classification) which puts the classification of goods and services for those countries under the jurisdiction and authority of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The World Intellectual Property Organization classifies all forms of software as Class 9 goods, including:
090829 - computer game software, downloadable
090670 - computer game software, recorded
090589 - computer operating programs, recorded
090658 - computer programs, downloadable
090373 - computer programs, recorded
090802 - computer screen saver software, recorded or downloadable
090717 - computer software applications, downloadable
090791 - computer software platforms, recorded or downloadable
090591 - computer software, recorded
Correspondingly, the US Patent and Trademark Office also classifies all software as goods.
So, in the US, people do definitively own their software. And, since software in the US are goods, this powerful 2017 US Supreme Court verdict against printer company Lexmark, which tried to control printers after selling them, might also apply to software and could say something against a claimed authority of EULAs, as the reasoning is perfectly analogous regarding items sold under copyright law:
"A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear and enforceable under contract law, they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell. Pp. 5–13. (a) The Patent Act grants patentees the “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [their] invention.” 35 U. S. C. §154(a). For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude: When a patentee sells an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the [patent] monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser."
And:
"Once a patentee sells an item, it has secured that reward, and the patent laws provide no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the product."
For me, this raises important questions about the Ninth Circuit Autodesk vs Vernor case and increases my impression that the judges of the Ninth Circuit court were simply outside of their of zone of comfort and familiarity when they made their ruling. The questions I have about that case are:
Did WIPO simply not yet have software added to their goods classification at the time of the appeals case in 2009 and 2010? The Nice Agreement has existed since 1957, but the oldest WIPO classification document on their website is from 2013, and WIPO had already classified all forms of software as Class 9 goods by then.
Or, was the topic of software ownership and digital technology in general at that time simply so foreign to courts and lawyers that they didn't realize this was already established in multinational treaties that the US is signatory to, and so and it just slipped by everyone's awareness?
Whatever was the case, the Autodesk vs. Vernor case is clearly an anomaly and outdated following the 2013 US Supreme Court ruling. And I expect that if the information about the US' participation in the Nice Agreement and WIPOs classification of software had been available and known by at the time of the Autodesk vs Vernor appeals case, that the outcome of that appeals case would not have been in Autodesk's favour.
Now, here is an edited-and-updated presentation of some excepted content from my message to Steam support proving that games are sold through Steam and not rented or leased, and that Valve has officially accepted in court that they sell games and that the games they sell are the owned property of those who purchase them through Steam, with all property rights for games sold through Steam belonging to Valve's customers and not Valve.
-------------------- start of excerpt --------------------
Steam's Australian Consumer Rights Notice Disappears From Front Page, ACCC Investigates
Here's the message that the Australian court has required Valve to display for 12 months following the loss of Valve's appeal of a ruling against the company concerning Valve's refund policy for Australians:
And here's that message still on the Steam website (archived version). The message presented on Steam says “When you buy video games from Valve Corporation”, which clearly states that people buy games from Valve through Steam, which means that people don’t rent or lease those games - they buy and therefore own them.
Here's the full verdict from the Australian court: http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2016/2016fca0196#_Ref445465996
The verdict carefully examines whether games sold through Steam are goods and concludes that the games sold through Steam are goods and not services, and that property laws apply to the goods (games) sold through Steam, and that the property rights rest with the purchaser of the games who is not Valve but is whichever of Steam's service subscribers have bought games through Steam.
Here are some excerpts from the High Court's verdict:
As a result of the Australian case's verdict, Valve has explicitly accepted and acknowledged on their website that games sold through Steam are goods (not services), AKA products to which property rights apply, and that Steam customers who purchase games through Steam are the sole owners of those games.
The European Union's top court has also ruled on the matter for over half a billion people that software licenses are property and goods that are sold and therefore bought, and that property rights over the instances of software that software licenses represent therefore belong to the purchasers of those licenses:
EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It [archive link]
The EU court also verified that EULAs are not laws, but are subject to laws. If what a publisher writes in an EULA is unreasonable, it risks invalidating the entire EULA.
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't
European Court confirms the right to resell used software licences [archive link]
Top EU court upholds right to resell downloaded software
EU court rules resale of used software licenses is legal -- even online
EU Court of Justice rules selling 'used' licenses for downloaded software is legal
A German court has also ruled that games bought through Steam are the properties of those who purchased them through Steam – but has also ruled that Valve as a private company is not obligated to build into their system’s design facilitation for people to transfer their games out of their Steam accounts and into other people’s accounts for the purpose of reselling them.
In 2019, a French court ruled [2] that Valve is violating the EUs law by not enabling people to resell their Steam games. This case is currently undergoing an appeal by Valve.
-------------------- end of excerpt --------------------
I hope that all software owners become aware of the fact that they personally own the software they've purchased licenses for and that claims they do not are baseless and urban myth at best, and at worst are deliberate malicious disinformation and corporate propaganda.
A lot of the abuses and software vandalism that software owners have experienced and are currently experiencing at the hands of publishers like Microsoft have only come about because software owners were ignorant and naive of the fact that they do own their software just like you own yours. So, if you want those publisher abuses to stop, then use this information to stamp out any misguided disinformation claims of people not owning their software anywhere you see such claims appearing.
Here's an excellent video by Accursed Farms that's filled with meticulously-researched information and powerful arguments. It's well worth watching if this topic interests you:
Got a question you think lots of people have asked before? Then this topic is for you! (Most likely not final version, any suggestions for improvements are very welcomed).
Things to do (feel free to leave suggestions):
Edit the order from most common to least common question.
Suggest some good routers in different price brackets.
Suggest some VPN providers.
Maybe add more questions.
General polishing.
Why is my Internet so slow?
How can I improve my wireless speed?
Quick list of things you can do to improve your wireless speeds:
What do the different wireless standards (802.11n, 802.11ac, etc) mean?
2.4GHz vs. 5GHz and what does dual band mean?
What is QoS?
What is the difference between a router, a switch and a modem?
What should I look for when buying a router?
What is port forwarding and how do I do it?
How do I access my router's web interface?
What is the difference between Megabit and Megabyte?
I have heard about this thing called pfSense, what is it?
@Sauron @Beer_Nontitju @Syntaxvgm @Cookybiscuit @Misanthrope
Cardboard cutout corporate pandering from AAA game studio gets lauded as noble by a bunch of dweebs who call any disagreement/criticism sexist. NEXT.
Really doesn't make sense why they didn't just make her Russian, or French, or add any context whatsoever to the train-wreck Michael Bay trailer. I bet they did in fact know the media storm it could create and that's a major reason for it.
Character customization is a multiplayer game trend to sell you cosmetics and they're actually doing it for money under the guise of feminism. Maybe some stupid individual kool-aid drinking developers actually believe historical revisionism isn't as cringey as it looks, but the marketing/publishing side of the industry is using this moment purely as a tool to fill their wallets. And they get applause for doing so! How brave they are! Compelling story set in the eastern front or in China/Japan? Nope, but now you can play as someone with a vagina and also please spend money on this hook arm and gun skins after purchasing our super deluxe $120 edition of a game you've already played 2 years ago!
When a developer is literally going "I'm engaging in historical revisionism because talking to my daughter about real stuff is hard" on Reddit, the franchise really should just die. The games have always been romps, but this is straight political pandering. Women in the US/Britain weren't allowed in front line combat roles. A one armed Brit with face paint running around the battlefield is just the cherry on top of the ADHD fest of a trailer. I didn't play BF1 because the weapons were outlandish for the time period, and now they're making a WW2 game right after finishing one. They had a chance to apply some tact in BF1, and they had their chance to authentically place women in modern military positions in BF3 + 4.
@Sauron @Beer_Nontitju @Syntaxvgm @Cookybiscuit @Misanthrope
Cardboard cutout corporate pandering from AAA game studio gets lauded as noble by a bunch of dweebs who call any disagreement/criticism sexist. NEXT.
Really doesn't make sense why they didn't just make her Russian, or French, or add any context whatsoever to the train-wreck Michael Bay trailer. I bet they did in fact know the media storm it could create and that's a major reason for it.
Character customization is a multiplayer game trend to sell you cosmetics and they're actually doing it for money under the guise of feminism. Maybe some stupid individual kool-aid drinking developers actually believe historical revisionism isn't as cringey as it looks, but the marketing/publishing side of the industry is using this moment purely as a tool to fill their wallets. And they get applause for doing so! How brave they are! Compelling story set in the eastern front or in China/Japan? Nope, but now you can play as someone with a vagina and also please spend money on this hook arm and gun skins after purchasing our super deluxe $120 edition of a game you've already played 2 years ago!
When a developer is literally going "I'm engaging in historical revisionism because talking to my daughter about real stuff is hard" on Reddit, the franchise really should just die. The games have always been romps, but this is straight political pandering. Women in the US/Britain weren't allowed in front line combat roles. A one armed Brit with face paint running around the battlefield is just the cherry on top of the ADHD fest of a trailer. I didn't play BF1 because the weapons were outlandish for the time period, and now they're making a WW2 game right after finishing one. They had a chance to apply some tact in BF1, and they had their chance to authentically place women in modern military positions in BF3 + 4.
@Sauron @Beer_Nontitju @Syntaxvgm @Cookybiscuit @Misanthrope
Cardboard cutout corporate pandering from AAA game studio gets lauded as noble by a bunch of dweebs who call any disagreement/criticism sexist. NEXT.
Really doesn't make sense why they didn't just make her Russian, or French, or add any context whatsoever to the train-wreck Michael Bay trailer. I bet they did in fact know the media storm it could create and that's a major reason for it.
Character customization is a multiplayer game trend to sell you cosmetics and they're actually doing it for money under the guise of feminism. Maybe some stupid individual kool-aid drinking developers actually believe historical revisionism isn't as cringey as it looks, but the marketing/publishing side of the industry is using this moment purely as a tool to fill their wallets. And they get applause for doing so! How brave they are! Compelling story set in the eastern front or in China/Japan? Nope, but now you can play as someone with a vagina and also please spend money on this hook arm and gun skins after purchasing our super deluxe $120 edition of a game you've already played 2 years ago!
When a developer is literally going "I'm engaging in historical revisionism because talking to my daughter about real stuff is hard" on Reddit, the franchise really should just die. The games have always been romps, but this is straight political pandering. Women in the US/Britain weren't allowed in front line combat roles. A one armed Brit with face paint running around the battlefield is just the cherry on top of the ADHD fest of a trailer. I didn't play BF1 because the weapons were outlandish for the time period, and now they're making a WW2 game right after finishing one. They had a chance to apply some tact in BF1, and they had their chance to authentically place women in modern military positions in BF3 + 4.
Honestly, I would have considering the amount you've posted would have been a whole page worth but regardless it would have been fruitless based on your behavior thous far.
Also, yes you've displayed plenty of logical fallacies but rest assured. I'm sure those will not be your last in this thread alone.
CoD: Ghosts had female counterparts in the game. No such attention was brought by Activision/Infinity Ward to Ghosts for it. EA/DICE did this purely for publicity.
What people are actually responding to is a sign that the creators don't respect the players. It's a bit down the scale from burning a flag, but the symbolism is pretty hard to miss. People respond to things that are "outside the norm" from a defensive & instinctual process, firstly. The amazingly incompetent "Gaming Media" would, of course, grab onto the "historical accuracy" part first, so they can avoid dealing with the actual topic. (It's a classic media misdirection trick.) The main thing is that it's a sign that the creators are pandering to people that don't play the game, which is the deeper issue.
People will forever forget the biggest screw up in modern FPS history was the CoD:Infinite Warfare trailer. One of the most down-voted YouTube videos in history, and it tanked CoD's yearly sales by almost 50%. There's a reason "boots on the ground" is a meme. Activision looked at the sales figures and realized how badly they misjudged their audience. Why did the players respond so badly to the trailer & not buy the game? Because it didn't fit the understanding of "Call of Duty", so they reacted quite negatively.
This isn't CoD:IW bad, but, well, it's a rather worrying sign.
I am interested in your posts if you don't include a bunch of political agenda, strawmanning or dismissal of evidence and logic.
Don't run away from confrontation when you get proven wrong (for example, that Siege is a small game, when it's actually larger than a lot of the battlefield games).
You're picking on word choice and ignoring my point. My point was that it seems illogical to assume that the "gamer bros" hate seeing woman in games, yet they were completely fine with it in several other games such as Siege. You can't deny that there is quite the disparity between how people are reacting to the Battlefield 5 trailer, and how people have reacted to women in several other examples.
I think the reason why is because this was virtue signaling. It is obvious that DICE/EA made very conscious decisions to focus a lot of the women and make her appear badass and the savior of the day. I think that is what's rubbing people the wrong way. Not that women are in the game.
Sorry but I don't see how anything you said relates to what I said.
I didn't say you need to hate women to be sexist.
I didn't say anything about liberals vs conservatives.
I never said "poor gamers" or that they were "on the run".
This is some quite strong strawmanning you're doing right now, and I'd appreciate it if you could stop, especially with you comments that seems heavily politically motivated.
Also, are you really going to try and argue that Siege, a game with roughly 14 million copies sold (for comparison, Battlefield 4 is estimated to have sold 7 million) is small and flies under the radar? It is twice the size of Battlefield 4 for crying out loud.
I agree with most of what you said, if I am reading it correctly. Feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting you.
Like you said, I think people fall back on the "it's not historically accurate" argument because they can't exactly put their finger on why that character in the trailer feels like pandering. There are a lot things which goes into perceiving something like a trailer, and you can not always put those things into words.
Then they double down on their ideas when they get challenged.
But with that being said, I think the "it's not historically accurate" argument holds more water than the "BF has never been about historical accuracy" argument. There is a very big difference between incorporating unrealistic gameplay mechanics vs incorporating inaccurate historical facts into your historic shooter game for the sole purpose of appealing to some groups of people.
If we take it to the extreme, you can't justify having aliens and wizards in BF5 because "you don't respawn in war, so neither thing is realistic or historically accurate".
..
Lol you didn't debunk shit, you ignored most of the post including my copy paste from their website
.does calling people sexist because they don't like EA shoving a ton of female protagonists in (mainly the one with the robot arm, prosthetics didnt work like that) for no good reason get you a justice boner? Really, and they missed their chance, could have been Russian front for female leads.
I'm not going to. I also don't see how the implementation of women has any benefit in terms of creating "accessible fun for a large audience".
It also isn't about being a museum, it's just about staying (reasonably) within the laws of the setting that you're working with so that setting is recognisable and has integrity. The Halo Warthog appearing in Forza Horizon 3 is fine, a Lamborghini Aventador appearing in Halo 3 is not fine.
You might not care, but people who want to play a WW2 game do care. A WW2 game with disabled British women running around clubbing German guys with baseball bats is no longer a WW2 game, it's just shitting on the setting. You are fair to argue that the BF games have always been unrealistic, but you miss out the fact that they are unrealistic from a logistical standpoint rather than a historical/setting perspective. BFBC was about four guys who go rogue and invade a fictional Eastern European country all by themselves and steal a truck full of gold bars. This is ridiculous, but is still cohesive because the setting does not exist and thus is up to the writers to determine the rules of the universe they created. In BF1942 you win the war by standing next to a flag for a couple of seconds, this is not realistic, but it is necessary for the gameplay to function. WW2 does exist, British women did not fight in it and and they are not necessary for the gameplay to function. Their implementation into the game does not make any sense.
If you want your game to be historically inaccurate, it's insulting to the player to try and do it in an edgy, dumb and backhanded way like adding women or unrealistically changing the ethnicities of individuals. No one complained about CoD WaW's Nazi zombies or dinosaurs in Dino D-Day because it is blatantly obvious that the writers were having fun with the setting, not trying to rewrite history to fit their political narrative.
Women were not deployed in front line combat roles in WW2 other than for the Soviet Union and resistance fighters, these are the facts. Having a disabled British female soldier in the game is just embarrassing pandering to SJWs, and looks to be working judging from the likes of OP relishing the "outrage". While this is a very, very stupid decision from a historical accuracy perspective, it was a fantastic choice from a marketing perspective. Your average brain dead Kotaku or Polygon reader wouldn't have known BFV existed were it not for this, and they'll probably view buying the game as some kind of duty to prove they are an ally of SJW garbage.
Lewellyn reacted to Brooksie359 in Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5
Lewellyn got a reaction from Syntaxvgm in Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5
Lewellyn got a reaction from matrix07012 in Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5
Lewellyn got a reaction from Fred Castellum in Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5.png "Funny")
.png "Funny"){kind=small}