Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[Taf the Ghost]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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".

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.

[ravenshrike]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

CoD:IW

To CoD players CoD:IW is like the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies. It doesn't exist.

[Trik'Stari]

The real question,

 

The only question that actually matters is,

 

 

DID THEY FIX THE FUCKING SNIPING OR NOT?

 

Sniping in Battlefield games has been absolute garbage since BF3. BFBC2 had perfect sniping and they ruined. Also,

 

WHEN CAN MEDIC HAVE THEIR DAMNED LMG's back?

 

The only reason I would object to them putting women in these games is to spite the people who think it needs to be done to "be progressive". And even then, only if they're trying to shove it in peoples faces like so many feminists seem to do with anything they touch.

 

Beyond that, I don't fucking care. Just fix the sniping, and give my medic back his light machine gun because they lack so much in offensive capability that it's not even funny.

[XenosTech]

17 pages and people are still arguing about a game that clearly states that it was dice's take on WW2 not that it was a historically accurate game

Even the bloody dev said it was their spin on the war... People need to grow tf up

[XenosTech]

Just now, rrubberr said:

The issue is that it completely tramples and disrespects the factual history of the war, whether or not EA / DICE wants it to be "accurate" makes no difference.

Right... Say it with me... IT. IS. A. FUCKING. GAME.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Anybody else smell something weird from all this ? like ..

 

 

 

like a forced marketing move scandal? not this much issue with other games previously coming out, a sort of controlled controversy to create headlines tagging to the product they intend to promote & yet release.

[Trik'Stari]

19 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Yes, and we Europeans have a HISTORY that is being trampled every day by "progressive" media and popular culture. How much of replacing us with blacks and women in media is too far?

Nevermind it being largely pointless. It adds nothing to the game so what's the point?

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

This is just about the only time this is a valid argument, but it's just a game. Chill, people.

[ravenshrike]

25 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Anybody else smell something weird from all this ? like ..

 

 

 

like a forced marketing move scandal? not this much issue with other games previously coming out, a sort of controlled controversy to create headlines tagging to the product they intend to promote & yet release.

Ahem.

7 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

 

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.

 

11 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

What it adds is respect for the millions of men who died in the European theatre.

No, no it doesn't. A guy running around with a katana on their back while a scrawny female sniper with a prosthetic arm beats someone to death with a barbed wire wrapped cricket bat does not add respect for those who died in the European theater.

[RollTime]

On 5/24/2018 at 7:40 AM, Princess Cadence said:

Life is much better when you don't give a crap about social media drama.

Petition to give Princes Cadence a "wise man/woman" badge. 

[RollTime]

1 hour ago, rrubberr said:

Of course, in this most "progressive" of times, you can no longer make the argument that EA / DICE should not devalue the fact that men, overwhelmingly white men, fought and died by the millions in the second world war, by pretending that blacks and women made up any significant portion of combat. It is not that the game needs to be historically accurate, or that you can't have an occasional female Soviet sniper (because there occasionally was such a thing); the issue arises when EA / DICE begin to trample the true history of Europe with overt social justice and feminism.

 

It is at that point that we Europeans, who have ancestors who gave their lives, get irked by the complete disregard EA / DICE have for their sacrifice.

The true history of Europe? What? It's a video game. I mean really if you want MAXIMUM ACCURACY go play Argo, it doesn't even have jumping. The game isn't supposed to be a documentary, it's supposed to be fun. And if someone finds it more fun to play as a woman than a man, then by all means I say let them.

 

The thing I take issue with is the prosthetic arm. Pretty sure anyone with a prosthetic arm would not fought in WWII.

[Trik'Stari]

36 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

What it adds is respect for the millions of men who died in the European theatre.

No I mean them pumping this kind of stuff into a game. It adds nothing to it except maybe controversy or someone being able to say "take that you white cis-gendered males!".

 

Or at least those are the only reasons I see for doing something like this. I mean I guess it adds customization to the game? Although there are better ways to do that if you are okay with breaking historical accuracy (better weapon customization is always a plus in my book. Historical accuracy be damned)

 

And they could have just had women in the Russian side of things because they actually fielded women in combat unlike all the other armies.

[RollTime]

Just now, rrubberr said:

Lel and did you catch that V1 "rocket" being used as an anti-infantry weapon?

No, where was that? Someone make a GIF and spam all the people complaining about historical accuracy with it.

[Trik'Stari]

24 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

That is the crux of it, isn't it? Just shoving it to the men who gave their lives to make and change history to push their new anti-European agenda. As a European, it's sad to watch trampling your culture become not only commonplace, but popular and 'cool.'

If it weren't for the current political atmosphere and the anti-male agenda being pushed everywhere else in society by the elitist faux-intelligencia, I would be willing to believe they did it just to add customization.

 

And I have no problem with that. I however have a problem with it being yet more virtue signaling which I am more than willing to believe is the case.

 

Although trying to drum up attention to the game via controversy is equally possible.

[ARikozuM]

20 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Although trying to drum up attention to the game via controversy is equally possible.

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. 

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Ghosts was a more modern or future meme, it was not rewriting history.

Okay... 

 

BF1 had a female protagonist in the Lawrence of Arabia campaign (Nothing is Written, I think) and no one lost their minds for it. This is vastly different as EA made a POINT TO SHOW OFF THE FEMALE CHARACTER.

 

 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Nobody but me and all the people I know that play the game, lol. It's even more disingenuous to put women in a WW1 shooter, not to mention that 1 in 4 classes on the German side are black. I guess DICE think's Germany somehow held onto its colonial holdings?

Yeah no one important gives a flying fuck. It's a game, get the fuck over it.

[Hunter259]

10 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

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

And then stops talking because he knows how poor is arguments have been. Literally any thing that is about historical atmosphere is met with a gameplay response or that they said it was their take on it. Apparently being your take on a historical event gives you the excuse to be inaccurate. 

[dalekphalm]

@LAwLz I just wanted to point out that your BF4 vs Siege stats are not comparable.

 

IF we agree that the Siege stats are accurate (14.5m estimated copies sold - despite the author of this figure straight up admitting he guessed some of the numbers, and made up others), then we must also agree that the BF4 stats you provided are simply wrong.

 

Why?

 

Because for the Siege stats, the primary source for most of his non-PC stats is vgchartz. Sure, that's fine. We do know that the site isn't 100% accurate, but it's a good ballpark.

 

However, if we use vgchartz for BF4, you can see that total sales estimates are also around the 14m mark. And supposedly vgchartz doesn't take into account digital sales? (Since the Siege sales figures article listed totally separate sales figures for digital distribution on all platforms)

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=battlefield+4

 

If this is correct, and vgchartz only takes into account physical retail copies of the game (sold via the likes of GameStop, Walmart, Best Buy, Amazon, etc - for all platforms), then the 14m copies sold for BF4 is actually potentially under-represented by a large degree.

 

I don't inherently disagree with your statements - though I personally feel that having a Woman in BFV - crippled or not - is a total non-issue - but I wanted to correct this misunderstanding about the sales for BF4 vs Siege. So BF4, at worst, has about equal sales to Siege. But if digital is not actually represented, then BF4 sales would actually significantly outweigh Siege sales.

 

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume it includes digital sales, and that sales between both games are roughly equal.

[Canada EH]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

straight up admitting he guessed

I wouldnt take a word they say, just more fakeness

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Canada EH said:

I wouldnt take a word they say, just more fakeness

Well, for example, to get the Ubisoft digital sales figures, he literally took the Steamspy figures, and doubled them, because "Ubisoft marketed the game a lot". Yeah marketing the game a lot will increase sale figures, but that's entirely, 100% baseless.

[LAwLz]

20 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

Doesn't seem like he was that far off though. Here is an official report saying Siege has 20 million registered players (with 2.3 million daily active users).

In any case, my point is that claiming that Siege is a small game that nobody cares about is ludicrous. It's nothing but a very bad attempt to dismiss facts that doesn't suit your narrative, which is a very dangerous practice.

[JoostinOnline]

Outrage that an entirely fictional story has fictional elements. It's like throwing a fit about the Captain America or Wonder Woman films because "that's not historically accurate".

 

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACCURATE, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A VIDEO GAME!

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Doesn't seem like he was that far off though. Here is an official report saying Siege has 20 million registered players (with 2.3 million daily active users).

In any case, my point is that claiming that Siege is a small game that nobody cares about is ludicrous. It's nothing but a very bad attempt to dismiss facts that doesn't suit your narrative, which is a very dangerous practice.

I agree that the claim that Siege is a "small game" is certainly not accurate.

 

Though, how exactly do you measure a game that has since switched to a F2P model, which will inherently attract more players that aren't willing to pay for a game? It's a difficult comparison to make in any circumstances.

 

Though I could definitely believe ~15m copies sold before F2P model, and an additional 5m players attracted via the F2P model. These are plausible figures for sure.

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Outrage that an entirely fictional story has fictional elements. It's like throwing a fit about the Captain America or Wonder Woman films because "that's not historically accurate".

 

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACCURATE, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A VIDEO GAME!

That's my thinking.  There's so much that's historically 'off' that the presence of a woman should probably be 59th on the list of things guys object to.  If you're going to toss historical realism out the window, why the hell wouldn't you make the game more inclusive?