Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

We know this is at least partially political because we see the exact same shrieking going on in other forms of entertainment of leftist identitarians* demanding content producers bow to their every whim and when they don't they attack them and attempt to destroy them.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/01/further-examples-of-why-in-my-opinion-mike-glyer-is-a-scumbag-and-file-770-is-evil/

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/15/statement-concerning-my-being-disinvited-as-the-guest-of-honor-for-origins-game-fair/

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/21/origins-debacle-update-they-still-havent-reimbursed-me-for-my-plane-tickets/

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/05/30/origins-sent-out-yet-another-message-about-me-and-my-response/

Right, and on the other side we have a bunch of extremely butthurt "anti-leftist-identitarians" who seem far more upset about a woman being in a game than the other side would be if there were none. Also, one source where a blogger rants about people they don't like is hardly proof of a worldwide threat to our society, and it has little to nothing to do with why the presence of a woman in a battlefield game upsets you so much.

4 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

As for Battlefield not being accurate, in point of fact it was always relatively time period accurate and the deviations from accuracy were meant to increase playability, at least until BF1. Now, in BF1 they did deviate marginally from this with the available weapons. Why? As an excuse to sell the season pass and attract more people to multiplayer during it. However even they they still gave the nod to historical accuracy in multiplayer because the only women available were Russian soldiers. They have now decided to toss historical accuracy entirely, and are using the leftist identitarians' demands as a shield to doing so. As I noted earlier in this thread, putting the prosthetic on the woman was a blatant marketing decision to help shield themselves from the fallout.

Adding one (or more) female characters and playable female avatars can improve playability for some people. Shocking, right? Other people care about different things! What a novel idea!

 

And no, sorry, you can't get away with claiming any battlefield game was striving for historical accuracy. The fact that they got some things historically correct doesn't mean the game wasn't, as a whole, a work of fantasy. Cherry picking what does and doesn't matter when it comes to historical accuracy only further demonstrates how hypocritical the whole argument is. "Oh, everything except the dates and a couple of weapon skins is wrong in this, including physics, but at least there are no women in the wrong side of a fictional battle! Sure dodged THAT bullet!" Jeez...

 

I'm afraid this "fallout" you think they need to "shield" themselves from is mostly in your head. The battlefield series has always been successful and it has never been negatively impacted in sales by someone complaining that there were no women. Sure, there are some nuts around... but nobody pays attention to them other than youtube channels that make money by actively seeking these people out and making fun of them.

10 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

As for bringing W:TNO into this, that's complete bullshit on it's face. TNO is explicitly set in a alternate reality where a secret cabal of jews had a bunch of sooper sekrit technology they were hiding that the Nazis stole to fuel their warmaking capabilities. It was never meant to be historically accurate. At all.

Right, now remind me when exactly Battlefield claimed to NOT be in an alternate reality, or that its goal is to be historically accurate. Battlefield 1942, vietnam and 2 never even had a single player campaign beyond playing the maps in approximate historical or geographical order, and battlefield 2 was set in modern times - except the chinese were at war with the us and russia. What you're saying is that, because the BF5 team didn't explicitly come out and declare that BF5 is alt history, suddenly having women in it is an unforgivable deviation from canon... I remember a time when the fact that it is a videogame was enough to explain and justify historical inaccuracy for the sake of being more fun, or engaging, or less melodramatic. Furthermore, you have yet to provide a single reason why the most offensive part of all this inaccuracy has to be the presence of women in the game...

22 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

*People who believe that identity politics and intersectionality are the foundation on which their political positions should be based.

I know what the term indicates (despite it being a pointless label that is mainly used to make fun of people who disagree with someone's world view), what leaves me perplexed is your belief that this niche political group has any sort of power that extends beyond making some noise on twitter for a week or two.

[matrix07012]

People are now bringing up what I have been trying to avoid throughout this entire thread. Politics...

 

Surely, all of those 368 731 people must be sexist, racist, misogynist etc. It's the only reason why someone would dislike something.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

People are now bringing up what I have been trying to avoid throughout this entire thread. Politics...

The "discussion" has gone on for long enough. Niether side of this argument has made a scratch on eachothers walls. 

[ravenshrike]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Also, one source where a blogger rants

Well good to know you didn't read the links pretty much at all.

 

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The fact that they got some things historically correct doesn't mean the game wasn't, as a whole, a work of fantasy.

Yes, it's a game. This means that it is by definition a work of fantasy. However something being fictional does not mean it is not historically accurate. Battlefield games were relatively historically accurate in the available content. BF1 stretched this a little by allowing weapons and vehicles that weren't out of prototype stage in 1918 into the game. But it was still pretty accurate from a historical standpoint all things considered.

 

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Adding one (or more) female characters and playable female avatars can improve playability for some people.

.Correct, it can. But it is also a major deviation from historical accuracy with at best an utterly marginal return on a playability standpoint. Had you actually read the links, you would know that part of my point was the majority of those complaining about lack of female characters would be that they are unlikely to play the game much at all. The amount of women who will start playing Battlefield primarily because they can do so with a female avatar is pretty damn few.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm afraid this "fallout" you think they need to "shield" themselves from is mostly in your head.

If they had stuck the prosthetic on katana guy and had the visual aspects of the trailer centered on him with the female soldier just running around in the background there would have been little to no bitching about the female soldier and it would have all been centered on their money grubbing microtransaction cosmetic bullshit instead. DICE and EA very clearly used the female soldier and the current politics surrounding females in games as a lightning rod to shield themselves from any criticism.

[MadyTehWolfie]

2 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

ah, ok then. ive not heard any reaction from the general media at least. i can see why people somewhat reacted to there  being a crippled woman in the trailer. didnt know it was gonna be such a dealbreaker though considering it is battlefield and not ARMA 3 or Post Scriptum. 

 

would be sad if only certain countries could have women. when it comes to prostetics its cool customization, but otherwise it is kinda meh. (IMO)

I wouldn't have a problem if she was able boddied and a french resistance fighter then that would be cool but the way they implemented it seems forced rather than natural.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

29 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

People are now bringing up what I have been trying to avoid throughout this entire thread. Politics...

 

Surely, all of those 368 731 people must be sexist, racist, misogynist etc. It's the only reason why someone would dislike something.

Surely those 297,009 people must be neo-marxists feminist social justice warriors, it's the only reason why someone would like something.

 

Sorry, but you set the bullshit detector on overload.

[matrix07012]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Surely those 297,009 people must be neo-marxists feminist social justice warriors, it's the only reason why someone would like something.

 

Sorry, but you set the bullshit detector on overload.

Yes, that's the point. Throwing random labels around solves nothing and only divides.

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Well good to know you didn't read the links pretty much at all.

I did... it's the same author on every "article", unless it's a shared account (in which case I beg your pardon, it's 4 bloggers ranting about people they don't like) I believe my assessment is correct...

20 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Yes, it's a game. This means that it is by definition a work of fantasy. However something being fictional does not mean it is not historically accurate. Battlefield games were relatively historically accurate in the available content. BF1 stretched this a little by allowing weapons and vehicles that weren't out of prototype stage in 1918 into the game. But it was still pretty accurate from a historical standpoint all things considered.

They were never historically accurate - perhaps they were compared to doom, but you keep ignoring the crux of the problem - the only inaccuracy you seem to care about is the presence of a woman. Stop dancing around the issue and pretending it's about historical accuracy in general and give me a single good reason why other inaccuracies are ok whereas the presence of a woman isn't.

23 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Correct, it can. But it is also a major deviation from historical accuracy with at best an utterly marginal return on a playability standpoint. Had you actually read the links, you would know that part of my point was the majority of those complaining about lack of female characters would be that they are unlikely to play the game much at all.

If you want to make a point, state it yourself - there is a lot of stuff in those articles that I dearly hope you don't subscribe to, and rebutting ~10 screens of blog is a lot of work I don't need to do to make my point. You throw around terms like "the majority" and "those complaining" but exhibit a distinct lack of numbers and statistics. Your links certainly don't show any data to back the supposition that "most" of any group do anything in particular. Granted, I don't have numbers either - but you're the one claiming there's some sort of sjw conspiracy bringing about the women-in-battlefieldocalypse.

31 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

The amount of women who will start playing Battlefield primarily because they can do so with a female avatar is pretty damn few.

What if - bear with me, this is truly shocking - what if, some women who already enjoy battlefield would enjoy it more if they could play with a woman avatar? What if this wasn't about bringing in women as if they were livestock to be baited, but rather about making the game more enjoyable for some of them? Does that deeply offend you? Please, show me on the doll where the bad, bad sjws hurt you...

Spoiler

 

35 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

If they had stuck the prosthetic on katana guy and had the visual aspects of the trailer centered on him with the female soldier just running around in the background there would have been little to no bitching about the female soldier

Did you even re read this sentence? You're flat out admitting that you believe women are ok, but not in a prominent role... you don't care at all about historical accuracy, you only care about not having a woman as a main character in the game.

 

Also, I guarantee you there would have been people complaining about the woman anyway...

38 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

DICE and EA very clearly used the female soldier and the current politics surrounding females in games as a lightning rod to shield themselves from any criticism.

YOU're the one complaining about the woman instead of the "more important" issues you keep mentioning.

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Surely those 297,009 people must be neo-marxists feminist social justice warriors, it's the only reason why someone would like something.

 

Sorry, but you set the bullshit detector on overload.

 

5 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Yes, that's the point. Throwing random labels around solves nothing and only divides.

665,722 people have opinions. Only assholes have opinions.

[Syntaxvgm]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

@ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen as opposed to historical revisionism because we feel like it, like 99% of the rest of any battlefield game and many other critically acclaimed titles that didn't commit the one cardinal sin of having a woman in them. Wolfenstein the new order is an excellent game despite getting virtually nothing "historically correct" about ww2 - and yet when battlefield tries to change something as relatively small as having a female combatant, riots ensue. I said multiple times I consider the battlefield franchise to have gone down the drain years ago, but I find it incredibly hypocritical to suddenly bash it specifically because it now has women in it and claim it's because of historical accuracy.

 

Your whole argument is based upon the vague idea that this might be political, without giving a single good reason for why THIS time in particular we should care about historical accuracy in a battlefield game, and ONLY as far as the presence of a woman is concerned. So what if was done to appeal to a previously largely uninterested crowd? It has nothing to do with the gameplay (especially when it comes to the multiplayer which is all anyone cares about) and if it makes even a single person happy, why would you care? (retorical question, I already know why you care... but apparently calling someone who acts sexist sexist is not allowed...)

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.

 

[Majinhoju]

I still think Luke Skywalker should make a cameo and cut a plane in half.  I just want to see the reaction.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Syntaxvgm said:

But this is supposed to get a pass becasue why? Because wolfenstein is about 'the germans won and something something mecha nazis?

It's not supposed to "get a pass", it's supposed to not be treated like the ascent of the Antichrist simply because there is a woman in the trailer. While sure, battlefield is not wolfenstein, it's no saving private ryan either and it has never been, nor has anyone ever demanded for it to be. BF1 missing entire factions never raised nearly as much ruckus as the appearance of a woman in the trailer of BF5. In fact, the announcement trailer for BF1 was met with a massive hype train if I recall correctly. I'm not asking you or anyone to like it or buy it, I'm asking for a little self awareness when complaining there is a woman in the trailer and trying to pass it off as concern for historical accuracy. There are many things I dislike about the last few Battlefield games and I have no interest in defending it specifically, but this witch hunt is quite frankly disgraceful and it shines a bad light on the whole game enthusiast community.

 

Going back to wolfenstein, it's an exaggeration to hammer the point home - historical accuracy does not make or break the game and pretending that the trailer is such a turnoff purely because it has a historically inaccurate woman in it is dishonest and pretentious. If it turns out the campaign is a pile of garbage (I fully expect it to be, considering how every battlefield single player campaign has been exactly that) then sure, complain about it all you want - complain that the woman characters are poorly written (if they are), complain that it does nothing with the historical setting's potential (if it does) and nobody will fault you for it. But reeeeeeing about a freaking trailer having seen no gameplay and framing the presence of a woman as the single cardinal sin of this game does not fall into the realm of fair criticism - it's sexism by the word's definition.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

28 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

 

Is saving private ryan, a movie based on decently realistic things telling a fictional story 

Saving Private Ryan realistic? 

 

OK, this is what people need to understand about "realism": war is the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. First person shooters are the remainder of the movie.

 

(ironically enough, one of the trailer scenes was taken directly from Spielberg's movie...)

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Saving Private Ryan realistic? 

 

 

no, but to a different standard than hellsing.

[Syntaxvgm]

36 minutes ago, Sauron said:

BF1 missing entire factions never raised nearly as much ruckus as the appearance of a woman in the trailer of BF5. In fact, the announcement trailer for BF1 was met with a massive hype train if I recall correctly.

This is true and while I feel part of the hate is being spawned by push to criticism, the hate was their immediately in twitch chat during the premier. The other part of this game not being looked forward is disappointment felt by people from bf1, but without the woman mc in the trailer and the 45 minutes of women only before that, it would've just been met with a 'meh'

 

36 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not asking you or anyone to like it or buy it, I'm asking for a little self awareness when complaining there is a woman in the trailer and trying to pass it off as concern for historical accuracy.

There's concerns for accuracy vs what was perceived an outright politicized slap in the face that felt like revision vs omission or missing the mark in a game meant to be vanilla ww2

 

36 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There are many things I dislike about the last few Battlefield games and I have no interest in defending it specifically, but this witch hunt is quite frankly disgraceful and it shines a bad light on the whole game enthusiast community.

 

When you poke the worst parts of a community intentionally they get louder.

 

36 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

Going back to wolfenstein, it's an exaggeration to hammer the point home - historical accuracy does not make or break the game and pretending that the trailer is such a turnoff purely because it has a historically inaccurate woman in it is dishonest and pretentious. If it turns out the campaign is a pile of garbage (I fully expect it to be, considering how every battlefield single player campaign has been exactly that) then sure, complain about it all you want - complain that the woman characters are poorly written (if they are), complain that it does nothing with the historical setting's potential (if it does) and nobody will fault you for it. But reeeeeeing about a freaking trailer having seen no gameplay and framing the presence of a woman as the single cardinal sin of this game does not fall into the real of fair criticism - it's sexism by the word's definition.

Holy crap that trailer looked like it was trying to be COD so hard to the point of parody and that's all I could focus on. KERSPLOSION PLANE TANK! BOOM BANG ABNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most of the players wasn't a mad company or bfbc2 campaign, and it's my favorite BF by far, but I think got bored and quit the campaign on multiple tries to play it. In the end none of this really affects the part of bf people actually care about. Bf1's campaign was like what? A couple hours?

Quote

But reeeeeeing about a freaking trailer having seen no gameplay and framing the presence of a woman as the single cardinal sin of this game does not fall into the real of fair criticism - it's sexism by the word's definition.

Is just forcing females into a setting they weren't not also sexism? I'm not sure really. I really came into the announcement stream paying attention to how much they'd used the word "immersion" before even showing a single fucking picture of the game. They seriously were only showing concept art before the trailer and hyping the game on that?
oh no premium pass or whatever. Horray. Remember when mw3 they said no last stand to a cheering crowd and they just renamed it and kept it in? Lol. We're rewarding this behavior.

And in a way, if there wasn't a short trailer, I'd feel the hate would be more justified. Up until that trailer, that whole 45 minute trailer talked about "immersion, immersion, building" and only showed women characters. Up to that point the content the fans received was completely information starved except for the part they knew would cause controversy. They kinda played it smart by adding the trailer.
No one's talking about how mediocre their "ideas" for MP sound and these "we listened to the community" hollow typical claims that are basically the canary in the coal mine, followed by "building lol fortnite"
No one's talking about the focus on character customization they had for several minutes, clearly going to the mtx model, exploiting whales and treating that like it was the mp gameplay improvement. 
As much as I do find a lot of the reaction is disgraceful and a bad representation- I feel like gamers will always get a bad rap from the gaming focused media whether there is a real story there or not, so my main concern doesn't lie with the image problem.
To me, it feels more like the all women remake of ghostbusters, though not nearly as bad, and it wont backfire as bad or be as bad. But intentional attention and drama all the same.
 

[Majinhoju]

Here's the only important question.  Will the game be fun?

[matrix07012]

The reason people are so angry about it is that it's just a symptom of a larger political and social issue.

[Sauron]

@Syntaxvgm whether the women's presence is forced or not will be the subject of another discussion, I'm sure - but only once the game is released and that can actually be judged... furthermore, someone else being sexist doesn't justify a person's own sexism, does it? I'm not defending Battlefield here, I'm only pointing out the blatant sexism in the reaction to the trailer. Let bad things be bad and criticise them for their badness, not because there are women in them. I agree there are other things worth criticizing about what's been shown of Battlefield 5, which is why I find this fixation on the women so aggravating (moral concerns aside).

 

I didn't get a chance to play bc2 so I won't contest your judgement of the campaign, but the ones I have had the displeasure to play or try have been absolutely terrible (much in the same way as cod's campaigns, and at least they have had the decency to get rid of it eventually).

 

As for poking the worst part of the community, call me naïve but I thought we were better than this... if this "worst part" is so big perhaps it's worth discussing. It's not just a very small minority because everywhere I go it looks more like a 50-50 split, including this thread.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

@ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen as opposed to historical revisionism because we feel like it, like 99% of the rest of any battlefield game and many other critically acclaimed titles that didn't commit the one cardinal sin of having a woman in them. Wolfenstein the new order is an excellent game despite getting virtually nothing "historically correct" about ww2 - and yet when battlefield tries to change something as relatively small as having a female combatant, riots ensue. I said multiple times I consider the battlefield franchise to have gone down the drain years ago, but I find it incredibly hypocritical to suddenly bash it specifically because it now has women in it and claim it's because of historical accuracy.

 

Your whole argument is based upon the vague idea that this might be political, without giving a single good reason for why THIS time in particular we should care about historical accuracy in a battlefield game, and ONLY as far as the presence of a woman is concerned. So what if was done to appeal to a previously largely uninterested crowd? It has nothing to do with the gameplay (especially when it comes to the multiplayer which is all anyone cares about) and if it makes even a single person happy, why would you care? (retorical question, I already know why you care... but apparently calling someone who acts sexist sexist is not allowed...)

I find it comical that people say it's not about historical accuracy and just about women in video games. I mean you didn't see people getting mad about tomb raider, horizon zero dawn, uncharted 5 and the many other games that feature string female characters. If it was a gender issue then people would have been outraged about that. The reality is it isn't about people being upset about having women in the game but rather it being historically inaccurate. Now whether being upset about a game like battlefield not being accurate makes sense doesn't matter ad that is pretty subjective anyways. Anyways it is clear that there are many examples of games with women in them that people not only didn't care that women were in them but also really enjoyed the game. I can guarantee that people wouldn't care at all if this was a modern warfare setting or some sort of alternate reality. I mean even wolfenstien had women in it but people didn't care because it play it off like it was historically accurate. You may not think battlefield as a very accurate game but other do or at the least think they try and make it fairly accurate. At the end of the day I know people are still going to believe that holding this view is sexist I just hope I was able to make some understand where I and others views are coming from. 

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I did... it's the same author on every "article", unless it's a shared account (in which case I beg your pardon, it's 4 bloggers ranting about people they don't like) I believe my assessment is correct...

Again, had you read them you would have realized that the person writing the articles was not a blogger except inasmuch as he has a blog. This would be akin to describing Kanye West as a twitterer because he has a Twitter account.

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

They were never historically accurate - perhaps they were compared to doom, but you keep ignoring the crux of the problem - the only inaccuracy you seem to care about is the presence of a woman. Stop dancing around the issue and pretending it's about historical accuracy in general and give me a single good reason why other inaccuracies are ok whereas the presence of a woman isn't.

Because the other inaccuracies are a direct concession to making the game a game and not an attempt at a simulator. Now, this wasn't true of BF1s weapons, and you know what, plenty of people bitched about it but the bitching was comparatively less because they were not by any means the central focus of the trailer. Whereas not only is a historically inaccurate woman the central focus of the trailer in question, but adding insult to injury she's a cripple running and gunning with zero issues and her compatriot has a katana on his back while a V2 rocket is used as artillery. Plenty of people both in the youtube comments and elsewhere are complaining about those things. That the media reaction closed ranks over the fact that it's about a woman is the exact sort of complete and utter bullshit seen surrounding the Ghostbusters(2016) trailer.

 

  Meanwhile you are either confusing or conflating historical accuracy with realism. It is historically accurate that there were female russian soldiers in combat. It is realistic to say that those soldiers were only used in last ditch positions. Well, except for the Night Witches. It is historically accurate to say there were females in the British army that were based on the British home islands. It is realistic to say that there were standing orders for them to be evacuated from their positions if the Germans ever actually invaded.

 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Did you even re read this sentence? You're flat out admitting that you believe women are ok, but not in a prominent role... you don't care at all about historical accuracy, you only care about not having a woman as a main character in the game.

 Wow, you completely managed to miss the point. What I actually was doing is pointing out that they were using the fact that she was female to cover for their cosmetic microtransaction bullshit. The number of comments anywhere concentrating solely on the fact that there was a female combatant in WWII. It is that she's female, british, and is missing an arm with blue face paint. If none of the other things were done in the game at all and it started out as a russian female pilot that crash landed and joined up with a squad, the amount of bitching would have been negligible. Even if it were just a british female the amount of bitching would still have been a fraction of what it currently is. It is when you combine all those factors that you get the current controversy.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean you didn't see people getting mad about tomb raider, horizon zero dawn, uncharted 5 and the many other games that feature string female characters. 

With those games there would have been no excuse to hide behind - but as soon as an opportunity arises it seems no time was lost when jumping on the bandwagon. I would also wager the target demographic for battlefield is a little different from that of tomb raider, but that's beside the point.

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If it was a gender issue then people would have been outraged about that.

If this WASN'T a gender issue people wouldn't be saying this is about gender politics, or did you not read the comment I was answering to? You are allowed to not like a game because it's historically inaccurate, what's nigh on unbelievable is the amount of outrage specifically about the presence of women in the game. You can dislike a game without being personally offended by its mere existance, you know...

10 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I can guarantee that people wouldn't care at all if this was a modern warfare setting or some sort of alternate reality. I mean even wolfenstien had women in it but people didn't care because it play it off like it was historically accurate.

I maintain that people didn't care in Wolfenstein because the protagonist is the manliest manly man to have ever walked the Earth and the sheer power fantasy stomps any potential to complain about any other character. Not that I'm criticising Wolfenstein for that, on the contrary - BJ fits the game perfectly; but Battlefield never claimed to be historically accurate either... that's the naysayers putting words in the game's mouth to make their facade seem a little more believable.

16 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You may not think battlefield as a very accurate game but other do or at the least think they try and make it fairly accurate.

Then those people are factually wrong and should adjust their expectations of a game where the primary game mode features respawning tanks and regenerating health.

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

At the end of the day I know people are still going to believe that holding this view is sexist I just hope I was able to make some understand where I and others views are coming from. 

If one acts and talks in a sexist way it becomes irrelevant what they consider themselves to be...

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

With those games there would have been no excuse to hide behind - but as soon as an opportunity arises it seems no time was lost when jumping on the bandwagon. I would also wager the target demographic for battlefield is a little different from that of tomb raider, but that's beside the point.

If this WASN'T a gender issue people wouldn't be saying this is about gender politics, or did you not read the comment I was answering to? You are allowed to not like a game because it's historically inaccurate, what's nigh on unbelievable is the amount of outrage specifically about the presence of women in the game. You can dislike a game without being personally offended by its mere existance, you know...

I maintain that people didn't care in Wolfenstein because the protagonist is the manliest manly man to have ever walked the Earth and the sheer power fantasy stomps any potential to complain about any other character. Not that I'm criticising Wolfenstein for that, on the contrary - BJ fits the game perfectly; but Battlefield never claimed to be historically accurate either... that's the naysayers putting words in the game's mouth to make their facade seem a little more believable.

Then those people are factually wrong and should adjust their expectations of a game where the primary game mode features respawning tanks and regenerating health.

If one acts and talks in a sexist way it becomes irrelevant what they consider themselves to be...

I said fairly accurate. The original call of duty games were fairly accurate with having campaign that was based off of historical data yet it had game mechanics like respawns and regenerating health. It is in the end a game and can not function in the way it wants to without those mechanics. That doesn't make it historically inaccurate but rather less realistic. Those two things are quite different. If you have a game with an m1 Abram that is in a ww2 setting then the game becomes incredibly inaccurate for the time period even if the mechanics if the game are quite realistic with perms death no respawns and and no health regen. I have always viewed battlefield as a franchise that was fairly accurate in its portrayals bar maybe the bad company games as they were much more comical in nature. You can disagree with me on this if you want but just know this is a very subjective topic and you can't really prove that you are right much like I can't prove that I am right. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

the person writing the articles was not a blogger except inasmuch as he has a blog.

In other news, a person is not a youtuber except inasmuch as they make youtube videos. A person is not a writer except inasmuch as they write books. A person is not sexist except inasmuch as they discriminate based on sex. A person is not a *insert attribute* except inasmuch as they fit the definition of *insert attribute*... I guess. I didn't say a professional blogger if that's where you'll be taking your "words don't mean what they mean" crusade next...

 

Besides, he could be the president of the United States and his words would gain no further credibility as far as I'm concerned... the point is that one angry guy isn't grounds to believe a worldwide political conspiracy sworn to ruining videogames by putting women in them...

 

And no, historical accuracy and realism are not separate things. Women being in the russian army and being used as a last reserve are BOTH historical facts and something that is historically accurate must, by definition, follow historical facts.

 

The Ghostbusters reboot happened 2 years ago and the trailer happened even before that, if that's the most relevant comparison you can draw to show some sort of connection I think you're suffering from a bad case of tunnel vision... oh, and the Ghostbusters trailer backlash was definitely full of sexism; sure, there were plenty of things to complain about even in the trailer, but if I had a penny for every "they shouldn't have casted women" comment I saw back then I'd be rich. And you know, back then I would have been a bit more prone to falling into that trap - I feel I have grown up as a person since then.

 

I believe I have already answered your other "points" multiple times in this thread and I don't expect I'll be able to convince you of anything, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

I said fairly accurate. The original call of duty games were fairly accurate with having campaign that was based off of historical data yet it had game mechanics like respawns and regenerating health. It is in the end a game and can not function in the way it wants to without those mechanics. That doesn't make it historically inaccurate but rather less realistic. Those two things are quite different. If you have a game with an m1 Abram that is in a ww2 setting then the game becomes incredibly inaccurate for the time period even if the mechanics if the game are quite realistic with perms death no respawns and and no health regen. I have always viewed battlefield as a franchise that was fairly accurate in its portrayals bar maybe the bad company games as they were much more comical in nature. You can disagree with me on this if you want but just know this is a very subjective topic and you can't really prove that you are right much like I can't prove that I am right. 

You don't get to pull the "fairly accurate" card when you're complaining about something that could very well be considered a detail. Either you can present a good explanation of why having women in the army specifically crosses the line of "fairly accurate", or we can consider it at the same level of other details that would make it "fairly" accurate as opposed to "perfectly" accurate - and unlike an m1 in a trench the sex of the soldier makes no difference when it comes to gameplay. If it is so subjective, why are there so many people blaming it on some political agenda and feeling so betrayed by it? Surely, if this just causes them to not like the game they wouldn't be so angry about it...?

[Brooksie359]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

With those games there would have been no excuse to hide behind - but as soon as an opportunity arises it seems no time was lost when jumping on the bandwagon. I would also wager the target demographic for battlefield is a little different from that of tomb raider, but that's beside the point.

If this WASN'T a gender issue people wouldn't be saying this is about gender politics, or did you not read the comment I was answering to? You are allowed to not like a game because it's historically inaccurate, what's nigh on unbelievable is the amount of outrage specifically about the presence of women in the game. You can dislike a game without being personally offended by its mere existance, you know...

I maintain that people didn't care in Wolfenstein because the protagonist is the manliest manly man to have ever walked the Earth and the sheer power fantasy stomps any potential to complain about any other character. Not that I'm criticising Wolfenstein for that, on the contrary - BJ fits the game perfectly; but Battlefield never claimed to be historically accurate either... that's the naysayers putting words in the game's mouth to make their facade seem a little more believable.

Then those people are factually wrong and should adjust their expectations of a game where the primary game mode features respawning tanks and regenerating health.

If one acts and talks in a sexist way it becomes irrelevant what they consider themselves to be...

I can not determine what people believe is sexist and trying to do so is futile. I have thoroughly explained why I don't like the choices they made and yet it gets brushed off as an excuse. If people just label any reason why someone doesn't like it as an excuse and proceeds to label them as sexist then it really doesn't matter if they were sexist in the first place as in the end they are all labeled the same. I feel the way I do for my own reasons and why would anyone be able to tell me I am wrong?