Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[cluelessgenius]

people these days need to grow some balls. its a sign of wealth when we can complain about trivial things like this. if youre seriously outraged about this then you clearly have nothing more important going on in your life.

its only the people that go trough shit every day that dont complain about little stuff like this. to me that means if youre one of those people that are outraged about every litlle thing then you havent worked a day in your life. and usually im right. people need some perspective. but back to the point:

i think the question is: is battlefield trying to be historically acurate? and looking at past games i dont think so. they feel more like the first captain america movie. yes they may play during some historical war/time but mostly because it adds to the atmosphere. at most d say they maybe inspired by it. if you want a simulation go get ARMA. battleield games like most games are a work of fiction and should be treated as such. 

that being said i do have aproblem with everyone thinking that if they do include a female charakter it needs to be sexy as all hell. please feel free to put women on the team in ww2 but please dont give them yogapants and makeup in the middle of the battlefield. 

[Hunter259]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Even then, did half the people in the games exist?

They never have to my knowledge. But that was actually kinda the point. You were a soldier. No name. No backstory. You were sent there to do one job. Kill the guys in front of you and work toward a objective. Just another cog in the military machine.

[Blademaster91]

7 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

I think that in BF1 they said that they prided themselves on historical accuracy 

The other inaccuracies are either necessary for gameplay or bugs ( trench warfare isn't that fun to play )

 

Saying that, complaining in YouTube wont actually solve anything, as at this point the only thing motivating EA is preorders and sales after launch

Well i'm going to wait and see how good bf5 is,preordering is dumb especially after the rough bf4 launch after most of the BF youtubers shilled for EA and how much of a disappointment bf1 ended up being. The overly cinematic ''Michael Bay'' style trailer and the devs using buzzwords like ''immersion'' and ''we listened'' has me worried what is happening with the BF series after BF4.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

The tricky thing with the direction they've been taking the series (this isn't just related to BF5 either) is that the topic of war isn't really suppose to be fun or glorious.  But there are attempts throughout history to paint it that way.

So is this another one of 'those', you think?  And that there's a deliberate attempt to mislead?

I'm not sure. I really want it to be less serious and more fun. Worked for Bad Company. Don't sell it as serious. Hell rewrite ww2. Make new battles. I'd be ok with playing as axis forces on SP. Anything to do something new and fun. OFC they'd get so much media hate for that, they wouldn't get away with it because no one except gaming journalism thinks that you endorse the character you're playing as. It'd be like mw2's no russian x100

 

3 minutes ago, cluelessgenius said:

people these days need to grow some balls. its a sign of wealth when we can complain about trivial things like this. if youre seriously outraged about this then you clearly have nothing more important going on in your life.

its only the people that go trough shit every day that dont complain about little stuff like this. to me that means if youre one of those people that are outraged about every litlle thing then you havent worked a day in your life. and usually im right. people need some perspective. but back to the point:

i think the question is: is battlefield trying to be historically acurate? and looking at past games i dont think so. they feel more like the first captain america movie. yes they may play during some historical war/time but mostly because it adds to the atmosphere. at most d say they maybe inspired by it. if you want a simulation go get ARMA. battleield games like most games are a work of fiction and should be treated as such. 

that being said i do have aproblem with everyone thinking that if they do include a female charakter it needs to be sexy as all hell. please feel free to put women on the team in ww2 but please dont give them yogapants and makeup in the middle of the battlefield. 

I don't they they ARE historically accurate, but they try to sell it like that. I don't want them to be. And if by he sexy thing you are referring to the complaints about the arm (you may not be?), not only would someone missing an arm probably not be fighting and it seems like a forced attempt to make a "strong woyem" character, but it just defies all reality. It practically works like a robot hand in the trailer. That's not how that those things worked at all, and it sticks out like a sore thumb, like something that belongs in a fantasy game like fallout or maybe wolfenstein.

And with half of the characters on SP being introduced being female, none of them as far as I can tell are from conflicts that had any notable presence of women, yet they could have went to the russian front and had plenty to realistic scenarios to choose from.
I don't think anyone would have been more happy with the overly sexualized style of women in games for this either.  I mean as far as sex appeal goes they're all pretty good looking in BF5, but that's just how games/media in general works.
Dude from BF4 cover was pretty fuckable as well.

[Hunter259]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Then gender shouldn't really matter as long as the objective is fictionally done.

Problem is that they WERE going after historical objectives and attempting to make a historical setting. The characters in a world war don't need massive back stories to be enjoyable. They should have their appearances be historical. If you want women or weird looking characters then place your battles in the areas where you actually would find them.

[derr12]

I for one, welcome our new sexy female cyborg battle leaders.

[Okjoek]

I think there should always be a female playable option in any completely developed video game with two exceptions and that's if it is a very specific role-playing scennario like The Witcher III, Halo 1 or Shovel Knight and games that aim to be historical simulations.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Having issues with accuracy ONLY WHEN IT'S WOMEN is sexism, it shouldn't be too hard to wrap your mind around that.

I wouldn't complain if they had it in a modern war setting. So that would make the reason why I don't like it is because of historical inaccuracy not sexism. It's annoying when people just jump to its sexist real fast.

[Vode]

It's a pretty beta thing to worry about.

 

I don't give a fuck. Chick on the cover looks nice.

 

Also it might blow you mind that Samus from Metroid is also female. LOL What about that?

[Hunter259]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, it's fiction not completely historically accurate.  So, again, it really shouldn't matter.  It isn't a history lesson, book, or a documentary.  It's a video game!

Then don't call it an "Immersive WW2 experience!" if you aren't going to attempt a realistic atmosphere.

[2FA]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, it's fiction not completely historically accurate.  So, again, it really shouldn't matter.  It isn't a history lesson, book, or a documentary.  It's a video game!

People confuse realism with authenticity. If you want something realistic, go look at Arma for an example and its hundreds of keybinds for every little thing. BF tries to look authentic for the period the game is set while acknowledging that having an actual focus on realism ruins the fun for the majority of people.

[Agonizel]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I wouldn't complain if they had it in a modern war setting. So that would make the reason why I don't like it is because of historical inaccuracy not sexism. It's annoying when people just jump to its sexist real fast.

If all historical inaccuracies don't affect you but the women, what is it then?
 

[Hunter259]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Then you should point out every other inaccuracy rather than just women in combat.  Also, it's been proven in the past that women have hidden as men to fight in wars.  So, how is it even inaccurate?

 

They also add to these games, "a reimagining".  Also, immersive =/= historically accurate.  It means they are reimaging the event loosely with some form of 3D as in VR or 3D models.   Experience doesn't always mean "facts" nor does it have to be 100 percent accurate when using that word.

Yet they never used that word?

[Hunter259]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Even if they didn't for this one title the words you are so upset about aren't being used in the context that you think they are.

You can't call it an immersive WW2 experience and ignore the atmosphere where you see fit.

[vorticalbox]

4 hours ago, Razor Blade said:

This day in age. Anything you do, anything you say, anything you believe in, anything you don't believe in...somewhere, someone will be offended.

And that's fine.

 

People seem to forget that it's ok to not believe what someone else believes.

[aezakmi]

I'm a simple man I see kotaku I close the tab.

[MrRavens]

Lmfao, EA was feeling good about themselves all like "hey guys...NO LOOT BOXES and no PREMIUM anymore!!" Lol they thought they'd be safe from the outrage...they thought. xP

[Hunter259]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 

 

So, yes they can.  

So because this one guy says that they can that means I have to agree? I mean for god sake you are redefining what the words mean.

 

Experience - practical contact with and observation of facts or events/ an event or occurrence that leaves an impression on someone

Immersive - generating a three-dimensional image that appears to surround the user

 

So they are not observing fact to create an immersive WW2 world. Now. Sell me another one.

[Commodus]

The advantage of this trailer: it's helping us spot all the sexists.  It's not that you're automatically sexist for noting that a woman in front-line WW2 combat is unrealistic; it's when you're obsessed about that in a game franchise that's been knowingly unrealistic from day one. To paraphrase Hamlet, they doth protest too much -- they're betraying their real objections (that women exist in their video games as more than eye candy) while pretending that they're interested in historical accuracy.

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

If all historical inaccuracies don't affect you but the women, what is it then?
 

It depends on what it is. Most of the times I don't like them but they are somewhat necessary. I mean if bf1 was completely accurate then it would be over the top and your shot. Not fun at all. Now stupid inaccuracies are annoying. I don't want them in the game especially if they have no purpose. 

[Okjoek]

This might be the fastest I've seen a thread blow up like this in TN&R. Like holy cow.

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The advantage of this trailer: it's helping us spot all the sexists.  It's not that you're automatically sexist for noting that a woman in front-line WW2 combat is unrealistic; it's when you're obsessed about that in a game franchise that's been knowingly unrealistic from day one. To paraphrase Hamlet, they doth protest too much -- they're betraying their real objections (that women exist in their video games as more than eye candy) while pretending that they're interested in historical accuracy.

Just because people want the game to be accurate doesn't mean that they are sexist. I mean again if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't accurate most people wouldn't care. I mean it's just a silly move to have them in the game. 

[Hunter259]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I'm loving how you use only one of the various definitions of experience.  It also means an encounter, not just practical contact with and observation of facts or events.  Where in immersive does it say it has to be historically accurate either?  It does, you're clinging to what you want the game to be.  It's a game, get over it.

Because it uses that part of the definition as much as the other? I should have put the other definition there I will agree and that is my mistake but it most when you are using a historical event to describe your experience then you are using both parts of the definition.

[Razor Blade]

5 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

And that's fine.

 

People seem to forget that it's ok to not believe what someone else believes.

The problem is when certain people get offended, they let you know in a way that is to do everything in their power to publicly shame you in an attempt to get you to admit you're ignorant and stupid if you don't agree with their opinion.

[XenosTech]

@valdyrgramr Let's not forget that on their website it says it's a portrayal of the events but ya know english is hard for people to comprehend even for people who speak it as a first language.