Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[Agonizel]

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Women were not deployed in front line combat roles in WW2 other than for the Soviet Union and resistance fighters, these are the facts. Having a disabled British female soldier in the game is just embarrassing pandering to SJWs, and looks to be working judging from the likes of OP relishing the "outrage". While this is a very, very stupid decision from a historical accuracy perspective, it was a fantastic choice from a marketing perspective. Your average brain dead Kotaku or Polygon reader wouldn't have known BFV existed were it not for this, and they'll probably view buying the game as some kind of duty to prove they are an ally of SJW garbage.

Have you even read a single alphabet letter from the article? We don't care that women weren't on the front lines!
Battlefield was NEVER about historical accuracy. The game's content is full of unrealistic, inaccurate, crazy stuff that doesn't seem to bother people; that in the contrary is the fun substance of the game.

But put a woman as a main character and everyone loses their minds.

[PSUGuru]

I am a historical buff, and I am all for women in games. It doesn't bother me.

 

However, Battlefield V is set in WW2. In professional armies, such as the US, German, and British Armies, women simply did not serve any roles in the military with the exception of the US, which had women ONLY in support roles (Nurses outside the combat zone). Women simply weren't allowed to serve in Germany or Britain.

 

The only army that had women serve was Russia, but only because they were getting very low on manpower. Resistance fighters, like in France, yeah, there's going to be men, women, and even children resistance fighters. Looking at the trailer, they likely were resistance fighters. They may have british accents, but those are not standard British uniforms. The whole prosthetic arm thing reaffirms this as no military allowed a dismembered soldier to serve, even with a prosthetic. It's true even today.

 

It's a nitpick, as I do like a little authenticity. If women in BFV do appear in the professional armies, then what's really the big deal? It makes it a little less immersive for me, but I ultimately, it's just a game and DICE is just trying to appease it's player base.

 

For authenticity reasons, I don't want women women to appear in combat roles when I am a US, German, or British soldier. Russia? Sure. Resistance fighters? Go ahead. But DICE was never about realism. Which is fine, I guess. But a little authenticity, wouldn't hurt.

 

Either way, whatever happens happens. It won't stop me from playing the game.

 

 

[Agonizel]

2 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

Kotaku, the king of unbiased, ethical and fair journalism. /s

It may be fair criticism, my article choice isn't the best.

 

Still, it does not change the fact that a huge portion of people are outraged by the female character. Look at the trailer comments.
Easily 80%+ are protesting against the female character. Very few are actually commenting the rest of the trailer

[Agonizel]

Just now, QuantumElement said:

I am a historical buff, and I am all for women in games. It doesn't bother me.

 

However, Battlefield V is set in WW2. In professional armies, such as the US, German, and British Armies, women simply did not serve any roles in the military with the exception of the US, which had women ONLY in support roles (Nurses outside the combat zone). Women simply weren't allowed to serve in Germany or Britain.

 

The only army that had women serve was Russia, but only because they were getting very low on manpower. Resistance fighters, like in France, yeah, there's going to be men, women, and even children resistance fighters. Looking at the trailer, they likely were resistance fighters. They may have british accents, but those are not standard British uniforms. The whole prosthetic arm thing reaffirms this as no military allowed a dismembered soldier to serve, even with a prosthetic. It's true even today.

 

It's a nitpick, as I do like a little authenticity. If women in BFV do appear in the professional armies, then what's really the big deal? It makes it a little less immersive for me, but I ultimately, it's just a game and DICE is just trying to appease it's player base.

 

For authenticity reasons, I don't want women women to appear in combat roles when I am a US, German, or British soldier. Russia? Sure. Resistance fighters? Go ahead. 

 

 

I understand, but as I explained Battlefield doesn't pretend to be historically accurate and they won't be. They don't have no obligation to do so

[Agonizel]

Just now, GamingMemeKing said:

R.I.P Battlefield franchise.

Because of a woman? Are you kidding me?

[PSUGuru]

Just now, Beer_Nontitju said:

I understand, but as I explained Battlefield doesn't pretend to be historically accurate and they won't be. They don't have no obligation to do so

Reread my edited post. (I accidentally hit submit a wee too early)

 

It's also a little hard for me, being a huge WW2 history buff.

[GrockleTD]

1 hour ago, MrDynamicMan said:

jeez so homophobic 

nah, just personal preference. you may stare at whomever s ass you like mate.

[Agonizel]

Just now, QuantumElement said:

Reread my edited post. (I accidentally hit submit a wee too early)

 

It's also a little hard for me, being a huge WW2 history buff.

It's alright, I said I understood your interest for history and I respect that.

Then I just explained that battlefield does (unfortunately for people with the same interest as you) not try to be accurate

[Bouzoo]

8 minutes ago, QuantumElement said:

I am a historical buff, and I am all for women in games. It doesn't bother me.

 

However, Battlefield V is set in WW2. In professional armies, such as the US, German, and British Armies, women simply did not serve any roles in the military with the exception of the US, which had women ONLY in support roles (Nurses outside the combat zone). Women simply weren't allowed to serve in Germany or Britain.

Not to be rude, but are you sure you are a historical buff?

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/top-ten-underrated-military-tvshows.html

(ignore what it says in the link)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_women_in_World_War_II

Quote

During World War II, approximately 400,000 U.S. women served with the armed forces and more than 460 — some sources say the figure is closer to 543 — lost their lives as a result of the war, including 16 from enemy fire. However, the U.S. decided not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it. Women became officially recognized as a permanent part of the U.S. armed forces after the war, with the passing of the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_II#Workplace

 

Quote

The Third Reich had many roles for women, including combat. The SS-Helferinnen were regarded as part of the SS if they had undergone training at a Reichsschule SS but all other female workers were regarded as being contracted to the SS and chosen largely from Nazi concentration camps. Women also served in auxiliary units in the navy (Kriegshelferinnen), air force (Luftnachrichtenhelferinnen) and army (Nachrichtenhelferin).[48][49][50][51] Hundreds of women auxiliaries (Aufseherin) served for the SS in the camps, the majority of which were at Ravensbrück.[52]

During the war more than 500,000 women were volunteer uniformed auxiliaries in the German armed forces (Wehrmacht). About the same number served in civil aerial defense, 400,000 volunteered as nurses, and many more replaced drafted men in the wartime economy.[49] In the Luftwaffe they served in combat roles helping to operate the anti—aircraft systems that shot down Allied bombers. By 1945, German women were holding 85% of the billets as clericals, accountants, interpreters, laboratory workers, and administrative workers, together with half of the clerical and junior administrative posts in high-level field headquarters.[53]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Territorial_Service#Notable_ATS_personnel

Quote

The Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS; often pronounced as an acronym) was the women's branch of the British Army during the Second World War. It was formed on 9 September 1938, initially as a women's voluntary service, and existed until 1 February 1949, when it was merged into the Women's Royal Army Corps.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. 

[PSUGuru]

Just now, Beer_Nontitju said:

It's alright, I said I understood your interest for history and I respect that.

Then I just explained that battlefield does (unfortunately for people with the same interest as you) not try to be accurate

Yeah... *Looks slowly over at battlefield 1, where the A7V is deadly...*... that's DICE. I'll still take this over any CoD game. And this doesn't make me want to not play the game. I am a huge battlefield fan. It's just a nitpick. Still likely going to buy the game.

[Cookybiscuit]

Just now, Beer_Nontitju said:

Have you even read a single alphabet letter from the article? We don't care that women weren't on the front lines!
Battlefield was NEVER about historical accuracy. The game's content is full of unrealistic, inaccurate, crazy stuff that doesn't seem to bother people.

But put a woman as a main character and everyone loses their minds.

Why would I give Kotaku my clicks?

 

You might not care, but people who want to play a WW2 game do care. A WW2 game with disabled British women running around clubbing German guys with baseball bats is no longer a WW2 game, it's just shitting on the setting. You are fair to argue that the BF games have always been unrealistic, but you miss out the fact that they are unrealistic from a logistical standpoint rather than a historical/setting perspective. BFBC was about four guys who go rogue and invade a fictional Eastern European country all by themselves and steal a truck full of gold bars. This is ridiculous, but is still cohesive because the setting does not exist and thus is up to the writers to determine the rules of the universe they created. In BF1942 you win the war by standing next to a flag for a couple of seconds, this is not realistic, but it is necessary for the gameplay to function. WW2 does exist, British women did not fight in it and and they are not necessary for the gameplay to function. Their implementation into the game does not make any sense.

 

If you want your game to be historically inaccurate, it's insulting to the player to try and do it in an edgy, dumb and backhanded way like adding women or unrealistically changing the ethnicities of individuals. No one complained about CoD WaW's Nazi zombies or dinosaurs in Dino D-Day because it is blatantly obvious that the writers were having fun with the setting, not trying to rewrite history to fit their political narrative.

[PSUGuru]

2 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Not to be rude, but are you sure you are a historical buff?

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/top-ten-underrated-military-tvshows.html

(ignore what it says in the link)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_II#Workplace

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Territorial_Service#Notable_ATS_personnel

 

You couldn't be more wrong. 

The History channel has lied to me...

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Not to be rude, but are you sure you are a historical buff?

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/top-ten-underrated-military-tvshows.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_II#Workplace

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Territorial_Service#Notable_ATS_personnel

 

Thats interesting but this is more about the woman seen in the trailer with the prosthetic arm,which I guess is a British soldier? And as artillery that wouldn't be considered front lines combat, unless Dice has some kind of story that causes her to get thrown into the front lines of battle. I could care less that they're adding women into the game, but at least have some historical accuracy please, EA/Dice.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

26 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Now, the best worst thing that EA could make is to end the campaign like so: A male and the female character drop their guns and embrace each other with a romantic & fiery kiss in front off the sunset while all the jewish children being delivered from a concentration camp run towards them as they are now a mom & dad figure.

I would feast upon the anger of the outraged!

I will pay someone to make that mod.

[Agonizel]

Just now, GamingMemeKing said:

Because of a woman, with blue fact paint and looks like she is from Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice and has a prosthetic arm. + Also, the previous 2 games have been a flop (Yes, that includes BF1 that was fun for a month.)

You cannot infer the quality of the whole game  (multiplayer) by the looks of the campaign characters.

However, I partly agree with you that Battlefield 4 and 1 were meh.

 

[NumLock21]

I kind of like the Battlefield V game cover. Will look nice next to my BF4 one.

[Bouzoo]

3 minutes ago, QuantumElement said:

The History channel has lied to me...

Obviously. I would like to see a single reputable source that says the weren't allowed. A single source. 

Again, not to be rude, but you really aren't historical buff if you're basing everything on (I suppose) 1, tops few documentaries? Look up more sources. 

 

Also History channel, the guys with Pawn Stars and such shows? That shit plays half the time on my work in our kitchen, I can't bear to watch their shows. Especially the ones about Hitler/SS. 

[Tic-Tac]

Barbiefield V 

[Thaldor]

History and Battlefield in same sentence? For real?

 

If you want historical breakdown of the teaser:

-Chruchill was a very slow tank, that thing in the teaser is way faster than historical Churchill

-MG42 never had that kind of muzzle brake that the teaser depics

-V-1s were never used against battlefields just because they weren't that precises and programming it to hit something that moves is like trying to build a railroad to ram a train at the presidents limousine

 

Because Battlefield 1942 was made somewhat historically accurate doesn't mean next Battlefield that depics WW2 would be historical. You could just as well break down the Wolfenstein series with robot N:s and stuff and cry why Wolfenstein isn't historically accurate because Wolfenstein 3-D used MP40 and other more or less historical firearms.

[Agonizel]

5 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Why would I give Kotaku my clicks?

 

You might not care, but people who want to play a WW2 game do care. A WW2 game with disabled British women running around clubbing German guys with baseball bats is no longer a WW2 game, it's just shitting on the setting. You are fair to argue that the BF games have always been unrealistic, but you miss out the fact that they are unrealistic from a logistical standpoint rather than a historical/setting perspective. BFBC was about four guys who go rogue and invade a fictional Eastern European country all by themselves and steal a truck full of gold bars. This is ridiculous, but is still cohesive because the setting does not exist and thus is up to the writers to determine the rules of the universe they created. In BF1942 you win the war by standing next to a flag for a couple of seconds, this is not realistic, but it is necessary for the gameplay to function. WW2 does exist, British women did not fight in it and and they are not necessary for the gameplay to function. Their implementation into the game does not make any sense.

 

If you want your game to be historically inaccurate, it's insulting to the player to try and do it in an edgy, dumb and backhanded way like adding women or unrealistically changing the ethnicities of individuals. No one complained about CoD WaW's Nazi zombies or dinosaurs in Dino D-Day because it is blatantly obvious that the writers were having fun with the setting, not trying to rewrite history to fit their political narrative.

Then don't buy the game. Battlefield is trying to sell accessible fun for a large audience, not a museum

[DontPeek]

This is just outrage machine BS. The percentage of people who are "outraged" is likely incredibly small to the point of being inconsequential. This is being blown way out of proportion in order to push a narrative that men hate women being in video games. It's not the case and the vast majority of people do not care that women are featured in the game. Nobody is not going to buy this game because it features women. The fact that people can be convinced that there is some huge outrage about this game by pulling a select twitter replies from a bunch of nobodies on the internet is pretty sad. But hey, how else ya gonna virtue signal?

[PSUGuru]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

hats interesting but this is more about the woman seen in the trailer with the prosthetic arm,which I guess is a British soldier?

Likely not. It's not standard British uniform and soldier's with dismembered limbs cannot serve. Even with prosthetic limbs. More likely a resistance fighter. Or it's a British soldier and DICE is just being DICE.

[GrockleTD]

i will probably be getting this game simply because i seem to only like games on their fifth iteration (Civ V, Simcity 5, GTA V, and may as well continue with BFV)

[Agonizel]

1 minute ago, DontPeek said:

This is just outrage machine BS. The percentage of people who are "outraged" is likely incredibly small to the point of being inconsequential. This is being blown way out of proportion in order to push a narrative that men hate women being in video games. It's not the case and the vast majority of people do not care that women are featured in the game. Nobody is not going to buy this game because it features women. The fact that people can be convinced that there is some huge outrage about this game by pulling a select twitter replies from a bunch of nobodies on the internet is pretty sad. But hey, how else ya gonna virtue signal?

False. Anywhere you scroll in the BF5-Trailer comment section proves you wrong. 

 

Also consider the like-dislike ratio

[PSUGuru]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Obviously. I would like to see a single reputable source that says the weren't allowed. A single source. 

Again, not to be rude, but you really aren't historical buff if you're basing everything on (I suppose) 1, tops few documentaries? Look up more sources. 

 

Also History channel, the guys with Pawn Stars and such shows?

This was long ago. Before Pawn Stars. Where they actually aired history shows, like WW2.

 

And I guess I know far more about the armoured vehicles than anything else. That or my memory, which is pretty lousy, has failed me once again.