Jump to content

Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

Agonizel
By Agonizel
in Tech News
 Share
Go to solution Solved by 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.

SansVarnic
Message added by SansVarnic

Please remember the Community Standards when commenting.

Any derailment, political comments, name calling, baiting, etc will be met with removal of commentary and warnings issued.

 

This topic is a contested issue so lets remain civil with this discussion.

Posted

I truly believe battlefield V has to be set in a alternate reality. Either that or it is innaccurate, which is fine for the purpose of entertainment and the standards followed by BF games these days

 

 0. Trailer is set in the time period before france capitulated and the british had removed their troops of the ground im france. Indicated about what we know about the setting of the games. Also explains the lack of russian pressence in any footage or consept art.

 

1. All german armor spottet in the trailer were of post early 1942 production (please notify me otherwise) therefore shouldnt have been seen in combate

 

2. BrItish armor. Especially the Churchill GC was in prototype stage and never saw combat. Also open AAA om the back or a Valentine during a frontline assault?

 

 3. V1 rocket was not introduced untill 1944 and couldnt conduct precision strike unless it was the manned variant that was discontinued. 

 

These are those ive found at the top of my head. And i could probably find more if i wanted to. 

 

Either the game is very innaccurate like a battlefield game, or the game is set in a arternate reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

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.

Yep, because it's not like they were actively deleting the rational negative comments about the film and leaving all the shitposting up or anything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Sauron said:

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...?

I can feel the way I do for reasons that may not make sense to you. You obviously don't understand that feelings aren't always rational. I mean the entire trailer was kinda dumb imo. If it weren't for the lost arm and the cricket bat I probably wouldn't have cared as much. I mean them handling a light machine gun like an smg upset me as well. In the end the way they out a woman in the game was pretty ridiculous to me not so much that they put one in the game. 

Edited by Brooksie359
Clarity and spelling errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I'm hoping the first DLC weapons pack is multiple prosthetic arms she can hot swap during battle. 

 

I'm thinking:

  1. Machete (melee)
  2. Syringe (quick heal)
  3. Shield (block/defense)
  4. Bazooka (anti-tank)

"And I'll be damned if I let myself trip from a lesser man's ledge"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
11 minutes ago, Velcade said:

I'm hoping the first DLC weapons pack is multiple prosthetic arms she can hot swap during battle. 

 

I'm thinking:

  1. Machete (melee)
  2. Syringe (quick heal)
  3. Shield (block/defense)
  4. Bazooka (explosive)

I want the anti-tank flare gun. Because that was actually a thing. Not to mention the handheld throwable panzerfaust warhead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

This thread is still going.....

Dont question it. Its the nature of wildfires.......... They just keep flaring up for no good reason, even when you think there isnt anything left to burn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
5 hours ago, Sauron said:

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...?

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.

3 hours ago, Sampsy said:

 

I don't have a problem with women in BF5 myself, but why the hell was this selected as the "best answer"? It simply consists of a bunch of amateur psychology you might find in r/iamverysmart to dismiss any opposing arguments as sexist and stupid. Moving on they make up some facts about the historical accuracy of BF games, lie about people not being bothered about bigger inaccuracies and then refuses to listen to any rebuttal. It's a textbook example in how to not present an argument.

 

Edit: Oh nevermind I see. OP selected their own post as the best answer, announcing themselves as winner of the thread before walking away from the discussion. Classy. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
4 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

 

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.
 

Ummmm, it was a V1 not a V2 (V2 were the first ICBM), and BF1942 allowed you to use them as guided artillery (they were a bitch to control though due to their speed).

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

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 accurate 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 else wrong with the BFV trailer.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

-Thread locked-

 

As stated clearly by the message above this thread and the Community Standards, politics and political discussion are not allowed here.

 

 

Quote or tag me( @Crunchy Dragon) if you want me to see your reply

If a post solved your problem/answered your question, please consider marking it as "solved"

Community Standards // Join Floatplane!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing Tech News

×