Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[MadyTehWolfie]

I want to know why there's a disabled person on the battlefield period.

[Frankenburger]

I can't believe we live in an age where people care about "realism", much less historical accuracy, in a first person shooter where you rush the front lines, die without consequence, and respawn to do it all over again. Even though this is set during a real event, the gameplay and story written for the game within WWII is pure fantasy and fiction. If people want historical accuracy, best hit up a museum. People don't play adrenaline fueled shooters with the intent of learning national/global history. If I can nonstop sprint full speed in full combat gear, slide around gunning down 10 soldiers with a single magazine, then turn around to regenerate my bullet wounds within seconds of using a medpack, then what's the harm of adding disabled female soldiers?

[veli2501]

11 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

I want to know why there's a disabled person on the battlefield period.

$KIN$

[Fred Castellum]

26 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

I want to know why there's a disabled person on the battlefield period.

Probably because having a disabled person still fighting on the front lines is deemed "badass"?

 

This outrage is free publicity for EA/BF5 regardless of what side of the conversation your on. 

[Warboy]

On 5/24/2018 at 10:47 AM, Beer_Nontitju said:

... new way with women as soldiers, case and point.

I have to say, The whole way you approached this discussion has been the biggest compilation of logical fallacies. It's crippling, Especially strawmanning.

 

 

On 5/24/2018 at 4:05 PM, Misanthrope said:

I really like this tweet, it's not only appropriate to the thread, but neat.

 

 

Gameplay mechanics are different than inaccuracies and realism. But nice try.

 

 

On 5/24/2018 at 4:53 PM, Misanthrope said:

That's not the point. The point that people even suggesting that it directly evoked extremely racist cartoons and thus might be a questionable choice for certain people that might find issue with that or wished to discuss those aspects of the game was blown out of proportion in a big, massive "How dare you bring that up any game can depict anything and it should still be supported cause you just want to censor us!" Usually with far more explicit language and far longer rants about it.

 

I am simply stating, that surely this people will be making that same argument now that people are talking about the questionable choice of not being historically accurate by including a woman in a WWII combat role, because how dare you bring that up any game can depict whatever they want and should still be supported cause you just want to censor us for includying women.

 

I am sure the typical gamer dudebro will be able to make these points again and be internally consistent with their "free speech" absolutism in gaming right?

 

Nice, actually like your approach.

 

On 5/24/2018 at 5:53 PM, Beer_Nontitju said:

This is getting out of hand

 

It got out of hand from you on page 2.

 

18 hours ago, Rune said:

People are stupid.

Edit: Fuck it, just preordered the deluxe edition.

 

Ah, yes. Preorder based on hyped up controversy instead of the game itself, the gameplay, or even the graphics. I'm sure that will pay off, Like Mass Effect Andromeda.

[MadyTehWolfie]

40 minutes ago, MyInnerFred said:

Probably because having a disabled person still fighting on the front lines is deemed "badass"?

 

This outrage is free publicity for EA/BF5 regardless of what side of the conversation your on. 

I'd say it's kinda retarded. I'm not outraged by it, just flabbergasted why they would put it in. Next they'll have wheelchair people on the front lines with two .50 Cal machine guns strapped to them.

[LAwLz]

Rather than blame the gaming community for being sexists who just wants to hate women, I think the real issue is that people are getting fed up with bullshit virtue signaling.

Barely anyone batted an eye when games like Overwatch or Rainbow Six Siege were full of women, because it felt organic. In this case, it really seems like DICE/EA shoehorned in a crippled woman in the front of the battlefield to score some progressive-points with the media.

It feels out of place and forced, and I think most people feel that way.

 

Also, I have no interest or hope for this game. The BF/DICE series of games has really turned to shit since BF3.

[MilitantCro]

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Another example of a bunch of different versions of comic book characters, and this one is from DC, would be Superman.  There's a super dog named Krypto, there's a weirdo version named Bizarro, there are multiple female versions such as Supergirl[his cousin] and Superwoman, iirc there was literally a super horse named Comet, a cat named Streaky, and a monkey named Beppo.  FFS there's even a Marvel version named Sentry.

Yeah but I am talking about spiderman being white for decades, all the earth 1 batmans were white males, iron man, and so on. Suddenly they added all does diff gender version of them at the same time. Ofc it is to please the sjw.

[Agonizel]

1 hour ago, Warboy said:

I have to say, The whole way you approached this discussion has been the biggest compilation of logical fallacies. It's crippling, Especially strawmanning.

When making such a claim, be sure to quote multiple arguments of mine instead of one and clearly display the incoherence's if there is any. Otherwise, your claim remains baseless.

 

I'm making the same point and repeating myself to almost every new comments like yours with the same logical path by exposing the same contradiction (that is made by the "contra-female soldier in WW2 virtual game" opinions) that all ends with the same conclusion every time. 

So no, no logical fallacies.
 

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Rather than blame the gaming community for being sexists who just wants to hate women, I think the real issue is that people are getting fed up with bullshit virtue signaling.

Barely anyone batted an eye when games like Overwatch or Rainbow Six Siege were full of women, because it felt organic. In this case, it really seems like DICE/EA shoehorned in a crippled woman in the front of the battlefield to score some progressive-points with the media.

It feels out of place and forced, and I think most people feel that way.

 

Also, I have no interest or hope for this game. The BF/DICE series of games has really turned to shit since BF3.

And you got all this from the trailer and the cover?

 

Stop making excuses for people.

[Agonizel]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

It feels out of place and forced, and I think most people feel that way.

The thing is, a lot of people such as myself - a battlefield fan - didn't care and it didn't felt out of place and forced. Why is that?
The discussion is in WHY does it feel out of place and forced for some people?

I explained it in my post and I'm gonna develop it explicitly again because there are various psychological phenomenons at work here and I could cite some for you:
1. Status Quo bias: people prefer when things remain the same. In BF5's case, they obviously changed something
2. Norms & Values: The discomfort of transgressed norms, not only that, but the expression of it. In fact, a during a very recent study of the university of ULB (I assisted to the lecture last month) the discrimination of LGBT people at work: in short, there was a theory that could be inducted with the data gathered: People that transgress the norm are not discriminated because they transgressed it, but because they show that they transgressed.

For instance, you get records of such conversations: "I hate muslim/gay people!" -"Well, I'm actually muslim/gay" -"Oh, you're okay because we don't notice it"
In case of BF5, they flagantry transgressed the norm of by presenting a woman as the new face of the game
3. The cognitive dissonance: which is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes: It's an extremely strong psychological state in which people won't accept their own incoherence (it's actually part of a defense mechanism to preserve self-integrity and thereby mental sanity), that's why even the most developed arguments won't even work.

No one wants to be sexist because it's socially undesirable. I believe many of the people complaining about the woman in the game also believe in equality between genders and women's rights. I believe they do not mean to be demeaning to women in any way. BUT the incoherence I exposed in the sole argument brought by those people which complains about historical inaccuracy (...):

1. Battlefield never pretended (in any game) to be historically accurate
2. There are many other bigger inaccuracies that didn't bother people that much
(...) shows that, the outrage may actually be (intended or not) sexism deflected (by the cognitive dissonance) behind the curtain of "historical accuracy". Because they ofcourse don't mean to be sexist, but they need to find a thing ("historical inaccuracy) to blame their discomfort on.
 

I'm sure there are many other phenomenons such as the lack of the ability of decentring which means being able to step outside of one's own truisms, cognitive scheme and preconceived, culturally anchored thoughts and ideas.

All in all, the status quo bias, norm&values, the cognitive dissonance are the main psychological phenomenons (I could observe in the people commenting against of the implementation of women in the game) that could explain their discomfort and the reason why they oppose this change. 

 

This is my last comment for this thread.

[Tech_Dreamer]

inb4 actual SJW's show up to complain about it  as a platform that promotes violence against women. start YouTube gameplay take-down of killing women in-game.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And you got all this from the trailer and the cover?

Not sure what you mean by "you got all this".

All what exactly? I am just giving my POV of this situation. Like I said, the gaming community does not seem to have had issues with other games including women, even in games like Rainbow Six Siege. So to me it doesn't make sense to blame some inherent sexism in the gaming community when it's clearly being aimed at some specific games/actions rather than uniformly to all women.

 

I mean, I can only thing of three scenarios here.

1) The gaming community is full of sexists that hate women... But they for some reason are OK with women in some games like Siege and Overwatch and specifically don't want them in the Battlefield series. To me this doesn't make much sense.

2) People view this as virtue signaling and they are tired of it. It's hard to pinpoint exact things which makes it appear less genuine as let's say Siege, but this seems to be the issue people are taking. Again, people did not react like this to other games which has female characters, so either the gaming community has changed views very quickly (from being OK with women, to hating them in like 2 years) or people perceive the inclusion of women in BF5 as different from the inclusion of women in other games.

3) The people who are now hating on BF5 have not been interested in games such as Siege and rarely if ever commented on them before. Considering what a massive overlap fanbases of modern FPS games has, I find this hard to believe too.

 

Maybe I am missing something here, but to me the very strong reaction to BF5 including women, and the lack of a reaction to other games including women, tells me that the answer isn't as simple as "well gamers are just women hating sexists!".

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure what you mean by "you got all this".

All what exactly? I am just giving my POV of this situation. Like I said, the gaming community does not seem to have had issues with other games including women, even in games like Rainbow Six Siege. So to me it doesn't make sense to blame some inherent sexism in the gaming community when it's clearly being aimed at some specific games/actions rather than uniformly to all women.

 

I mean, I can only thing of three scenarios here.

1) The gaming community is full of sexists that hate women... But they for some reason are OK with women in some games like Siege and Overwatch and specifically don't want them in the Battlefield series. To me this doesn't make much sense.

2) People view this as virtue signaling and they are tired of it. It's hard to pinpoint exact things which makes it appear less genuine as let's say Siege, but this seems to be the issue people are taking. Again, people did not react like this to other games which has female characters, so either the gaming community has changed views very quickly (from being OK with women, to hating them in like 2 years) or people perceive the inclusion of women in BF5 as different from the inclusion of women in other games.

3) The people who are now hating on BF5 have not been interested in games such as Siege and rarely if ever commented on them before. Considering what a massive overlap fanbases of modern FPS games has, I find this hard to believe too.

 

Maybe I am missing something here, but to me the very strong reaction to BF5 including women, and the lack of a reaction to other games including women, tells me that the answer isn't as simple as "well gamers are just women hating sexists!".

Well you need a couple of pointers I see:

 

1) You don't need to hate women to be a sexist. You don't even need to be intentionally dismissive of women to still find issues when it is not reasonable to find issues with their inclusion (As I am confirming on this thread)

 

2) "People view this as virtue signaling" Really? Because Trump won, the tories won, the left is effectively on the fucking run and reactionaries and conservatives literally got everything they wanted.

 

So tell me again how all these poor gamers are "on the run" from the all controlling, virtue signaling, globalist conspiracy because of the terrible persecution of *reads notes* Possibly having a women protagonist on a ww2 videogame.

 

3) The very strong reaction of BF5 including women is a direct response of gatekeeping: Overwatch is considered a filthy casual game anyway. Six Siege is just not as big. This game is the staple of the "hardcore" gamer dudebros. That's all there is, rally behind the cause that's most visible.

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

The thing is, a lot of people such as myself - a battlefield fan - didn't care and it didn't felt out of place and forced. Why is that?
The discussion is in WHY does it feel out of place and forced for some people?

I explained it in my post and I'm gonna develop it explicitly again because there are various psychological phenomenons at work here and I could cite some for you:
1. Status Quo bias: people prefer when things remain the same. In BF5's case, they obviously changed something
2. Norms & Values: The discomfort of transgressed norms, not only that, but the expression of it. In fact, a during a very recent study of the university of ULB on which I got a lecture from least month the discrimination of LGBT people at work: in short, there was a theory that could be inducted with the data gathered: People that transgress the norm are not discriminated because they transgressed it, but because they show that they transgressed.

For instance, you get records of such conversations: "I hate muslim/gay people!" -"Well, I'm actually muslim/gay" -"Oh, you're okay because we don't notice it"
In case of BF5, they flagantry transgressed the norm of by presenting a woman as the new face of the game
3. The cognitive dissonance: which is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes: It's an extremely strong psychological state, that's why even the most developed arguments won't even work.

No one wants to be sexist because it's socially undesirable. I believe many of the people complaining about the woman in the game also believe in equality between genders and women's right. I believe they do not mean to be demeaning to women in any way. BUT the incoherence I exposed in the sole argument brought by those people which complains about historical inaccuracy (...):

1. Battlefield never pretended (in any game) to be historically accurate
2. There are many other bigger inaccuracies that didn't bother people that much
(...) shows that, the outrage may actually be (intended or not) sexism deflected (by the cognitive dissonance) behind the curtain of "historical accuracy". Because they ofcourse don't mean to be sexist, but they need to find a thing ("historical inaccuracy) to blame their discomfort on.
 

I'm sure there are many other phenomenons such as the lack of the ability of decentring which means being able to step outside of one's own truisms, cognitive scheme and preconceived, culturally anchored thoughts and ideas.

All in all, the status quo bias, norm&values, the cognitive dissonance are the main psychological phenomenons (I could observe in the people commenting against of the implementation of women in the game) that could explain their discomfort and the reason why they oppose this change. 

 

This is my last comment for this thread.

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".

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

-snip-

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.

[matrix07012]

This conversation is always the same.

 

Imagine western media as a restaurant. This restaurant has been serving a great dish with meat and potatoes for the last few decades and people like eating there.
Recently the restaurant has been having some issues. The bathroom is filthy, the waiter takes forever to take your order and most importantly the potatoes are under cooked and the meat is burned. When people raise concerns to the waiter, his response is: “You hate potatoes!”. And people are like: “No, I like potatoes, I just had them yesterday.” And the waiter responds again: “You hate potatoes!” So people go on Yelp and give the restaurant a bad review. The media’s response is “Restaurant review bombed by potato haters!”.

[Cookybiscuit]

Picking your own comment as best answer, that's how you know you lost the argument.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Sorry but I don't see how anything you said relates to what I said.

Dude it was a direct quote from what you said:

 

Quote

1) The gaming community is full of sexists that hate women

You basically poisoned the well from the get go by introducing that line if you didn't believe in it.

 

We're done LAwLz you will not be interested in anything I have to say so I will not say it to you.

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Dude it was a direct quote from what you said:

 

You basically poisoned the well from the get go by introducing that line if you didn't believe in it.

 

We're done LAwLz you will not be interested in anything I have to say so I will not say it to you.

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.

[ravenshrike]

 

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Wahman in BFV with prostetics

The fun part about all this is that there was a specific design decision to put the prosthetic on the woman. I guarantee that it was done to deflect from criticism of the prosthetic itself. All so EA can get that sweet sweet micro-transaction money.

[maartendc]

I don't understand this whole discussion anymore.

 

A lot of people just didn't like the trailer because of what it represented in terms of gameplay, meaning: a COD-ifictation and over-the-top action that doesn't jive with the methodic capture-the-flags gameplay of Battlefield. Let's hope this trailer does not represent a departure in gameplay from the well known and loved Battlefield Conquest modes.

 

If a subsection of people on "the internet" brought up female soldiers as being the reason they hate the trailer, does that mean I am not allowed to dislike the trailer anymore for other reasons? This is absurd.

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I wouldn't bother arguing with misanthrope he's pretty hard left/sjw. There are plenty games with good female characters, shoehorning a cripple female into a WW2 game just seams silly. If they wanted to do it they should have chosen to make a able bodied female french resistance fighter on the cover not a crippled British women who would never have been in combat.

[Daegun]

Let's review really quick why hating on just having a woman because of historical inaccuracies is more than a bit hypocritical. If you want to hate on the whole trailer, that's all good and we have no problems. It kind of deserves it tbh. 

[Fred Castellum]

22 minutes ago, Daegun said:

Let's review really quick why hating on just having a woman because of historical inaccuracies is more than a bit hypocritical. If you want to hate on the whole trailer, that's all good and we have no problems. It kind of deserves it tbh. 

He forgot how that grenade shot in midair also took out a plane.... they didn't fly that low for strafing runs.