Outraged by the implementation of Women in Battlefield 5

[dalekphalm]

15 minutes ago, MilitantCro said:

Im all about equal rights and everything. But I dont like games pushing something just to please the SJWs.

 

It will come to a point where we will never get a historicly accurate movie or a video game just because they will be scared of getting attacked by them.

There are lots of historically accurate movies.

 

This would be like being upset that the recent Transformers 5 was not accurate, with it's historical flashback scenes. BF series was never, isn't, and will never be, historically accurate.

 

If the BF series was previously a historically accurate MilSim series? Sure, we could have that discussion. It's not.

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

When has BF ever been accurate?

Never.

10 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

So if Luke Skywalker appeared in the trailer, jumped up onto a plane and cut it in half with his lightsaber, would that be fine, since it's just a game and it isn't 100% realistic? Or would that break the immersion and the suspension of disbelief? 

This is an "Appeal to Extremes", which is a form of Logical Fallacy.

 

Luke Skywalker is a fictional character from a Sci-Fi/Space Opera series. Lightsabers do not exist even now, let alone in WW2.

 

Having a female fighter in a Action/Arcade WW2 game? Who cares? Just don't use the female character model. This isn't SJW pandering. This is giving the audience what they want - many people complained that you couldn't play as a Female in BF1. Giving them that ability does not affect gameplay in any way.

 

Besides, historically, many females did participate, even on the front lines, during WW2 - particularly resistance fighters for occupied nations.

[Daegun]

This thread is amusing to read. 

 

My view on the whole thing is this isn't a big deal in a game that isn't meant to be realistic and never has. To argue that it's a deal breaker seems to be hypocritical with how much else you'd have to ignore. 

[Fred Castellum]

5 minutes ago, Daegun said:

This thread is amusing to read. 

 

My view on the whole thing is this isn't a big deal in a game that isn't meant to be realistic and never has. To argue that it's a deal breaker seems to be hypocritical with how much else you'd have to ignore. 

Indeed! It's quite comical reading through this thread. 

 

The game is still going to sell like hotcakes I'm sure. The grenade being chucked in midair and then getting shot to take out a plane was a bit ridiculous... but let's see what the gameplay is like. 

[Majinhoju]

This Luke Skywalker cameo needs to happen.

[MattLifewalker]

You could always play Brothers in Arms Road to Hill 30 if you want a historical FPS. That was a great game! I personally wouldn't go looking for history in BF or COD.

[matrix07012]

30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

If the BF series was previously a historically accurate MilSim series? Sure, we could have that discussion. It's not.

Never.

This is an "Appeal to Extremes", which is a form of Logical Fallacy.

 

Luke Skywalker is a fictional character from a Sci-Fi/Space Opera series. Lightsabers do not exist even now, let alone in WW2.

 

Having a female fighter in a Action/Arcade WW2 game? Who cares? Just don't use the female character model. This isn't SJW pandering. This is giving the audience what they want - many people complained that you couldn't play as a Female in BF1. Giving them that ability does not affect gameplay in any way.

 

Besides, historically, many females did participate, even on the front lines, during WW2 - particularly resistance fighters for occupied nations.

The point I tried to make by this extreme is that just because a game isn't 100% realistic and historically accurate doesn't mean that you can put in it anything that you like. Faster movement speed or a period accurate gun that was never deployed don't break the immersion, but a desert eagle would.

Also "fallacy fallacy".

30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

This would be like being upset that the recent Transformers 5 was not accurate, with it's historical flashback scenes. BF series was never, isn't, and will never be, historically accurate.

The existence of transformers in the transformers universe is a obvious signifier that the movie is set in a alternate reality, therefore it doesn't break immersion and suspension of disbelief. There is no such thing in the promotion material of BFV.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

The point I tried to make by this extreme is that just because a game isn't 100% realistic and historically accurate doesn't mean that you can put in it anything that you like. Faster movement speed or a period accurate gun that was never deployed don't break the immersion, but a desert eagle would.

 

The existence of transformers in the transformers universe is a obvious signifier that the movie is set in a alternate reality, therefore it doesn't break immersion and suspension of disbelief. There is no such thing in the promotion material of BFV.

Yeah, but having a female fighter in WW2 is no different from a "period accurate gun that was never deployed". Neither should break immersion, because while neither was common, both could be considered at least "somewhat possible".

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, Beer_Nontitju said:

Battlefield was NEVER about historical accuracy.

For a long time, the go to fanboy argument (of why BF is better than CoD) was that BF was a very realistic shooter.

 

A bunch of idiots crying about historical accuracy are probably those that think BF was realistic prior.

[ravenshrike]

I'm more annoyed by the fact you can have a character running around missing a hand without gameplay repercussions.

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

Really?  A silly move to have any women in the game?  Not even as, say, French resistance fighters?

 

Again: the issue isn't pointing out that women on the frontlines would be historically inaccurate.  It's that this is the issue men (and believe me, the objectors are exclusively men) are obsessed over.  Not the weapon use, not the wildly unrealistic tactics... OMG THERE'S A GIRL.  If they really weren't exhibiting sexist behavior, they'd be painting the game's lack of realism in broad strokes rather than centering on this one point.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, calling women thots and demanding women be removed isn't sexist?  Arguing that men can have inaccuracies, but women can't is also not sexist?  When you're degrading women and saying that men can have things that women cannot then yes it is sexist.

Call then thots is demeaning and can definitely be considered sexist. Wanting them to remove the inaccuracies from the game and being mad about them is not. Wanting them to remove women form the game because you don't want women in them is sexist. Nobody said they can't have it in the game. They just said they don't like it and want it to be removed. You act like people are saying they don't want women in the game. People are saying that they don't want them forcing them into the game when it isn't historically accurate. If they had them on the Russian side then this would all be avoided. If EA want to make a game where they force women into the game where they historically shouldn't have been then they have every right to. That doesn't mean that we have to be happy about it and aren't allowed to be mad. You talk men having thing that women can't in this situation. What can't women do that men can? If the game didn't have women characters in inaccurate settings then neither men nor women could play as them in those settings. So the argument that it would give men rights that women do not is silly. Your making this into a gender equality issue when it really isn't. 

[Ithanul]

30 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

I'm more annoyed by the fact you can have a character running around missing a hand without gameplay repercussions.

That actually caught my attention more than the individual being a gal.

 

Though, I really never consider the BF or CoD franchises as historic accurate games.  Heck, back when I was an active duty mech in the AirForce.  The shop I work in would play Battlefield games and still make tons of jokes about the guns and vehicles in the game that where inaccurate.  Currently, the military squadron I work for really don't seem to give a squat that there is a gal show case on the front.  They just want to shoot stuff and blow up planes and tanks in the game.

 

Personally, just looks like the normal hate bandwagon that the franchise gets before the game releases.

[matrix07012]

50 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's a work of fiction, so yes you can.  If you couldn't then COD wouldn't have taken the direction that it has, and same could be said about the Wolfenstein franchise.  If it was non-fiction then yes you couldn't do anything you wanted.  F-I-C-T-I-O-N  Next, people are going to bitch about Superman flying out of a black hole at the SOL.

There's a Czech book called Hammer of Witches by Václav Kaplický inspired by witch trials from the 17th century. It's a work of FICTION, but thanks to the accurate portrayal of the time period, many have considered it to be a literature of facts. There's a difference between fiction set in the past (COD 1, COD 2, BF1942) and fiction set in an alternative timeline (Wolfenstein). Fiction set in the past should accurately depict the time period, therefore some things aren't allowed unlike in fiction set in an alternative timeline where everything's allowed and like I said, there's nothing in the promotion material of BFV that places it in an alternative timeline.

47 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah, but having a female fighter in WW2 is no different from a "period accurate gun that was never deployed". Neither should break immersion, because while neither was common, both could be considered at least "somewhat possible".

No, because a period accurate gun that was never deployed is something small and easily glanced over, but a big number of women running around on the battlefield is eye catching and being able to fire a gun with a prosthetic arm is just absurd.

[Brooksie359]

19 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Really?  A silly move to have any women in the game?  Not even as, say, French resistance fighters?

 

Again: the issue isn't pointing out that women on the frontlines would be historically inaccurate.  It's that this is the issue men (and believe me, the objectors are exclusively men) are obsessed over.  Not the weapon use, not the wildly unrealistic tactics... OMG THERE'S A GIRL.  If they really weren't exhibiting sexist behavior, they'd be painting the game's lack of realism in broad strokes rather than centering on this one point.

If they had them in historically accurate places it wouldn't be silly. Having them in their they way they are is silly and seems like a pr move tbh. Most of the other inaccuracies play a gameplay role. They are there to make the gameplay play how they want it to play. Having women in this context doesn't seem like it does anything but detract from the setting. That's just my opinion and you don't have to agree but don't be calling me sexist just because I disagree with you.

[Agonizel]

10 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Call then thots is demeaning and can definitely be considered sexist. Wanting them to remove the inaccuracies from the game and being mad about them is not.

Let me repeat to you what everybody told you so many times.

First: Battlefield does not pretend, nor does it want to be historically accurate

Second: If historical inaccuracies were the real problem, then people would be obfuscated by all sorts of inaccuracies, they would not solely focus in the new female character.

But since the outrage is solely focused on the implementation of women: That is sexist. That's what it is, there is just no other word for it.

 

One can be sexist unintentionally. One can be sexist because of culture, values, norms and individual cognitive schemes without trying to be demeaning to women. You must be able to detach yourself from your own preconceived ideas.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Read the OP it's a bunch of guys bitching that women are in a game, calling them thots, demanding a deluxe edition remove them completely, and shit like that.  This game has fictional/historically inaccurate men in it, so why can't it have historically inaccurate women?  Ya know what, I'm pissed off that incorrect portrayal of aliens in Halo.  I'm allowed to be because it is the same fucking argument.  No, I'm not making this into a gender argument that's the only inaccuracy you care to argue.  That's the one you want, not the men being fictional, not the gun placement being inaccurate, and nothing else it's just "women aren't supposed to be on the frontline!"

Where are the historically inaccurate men? Show me where they are? All the things you talk about are minor and usually have a gameplay role behind it. This is just unessisary. They could have implemented them into the game without being inaccurate so it makes no sense to me. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Where are the historically inaccurate men? Show me where they are? All the things you talk about are minor and usually have a gameplay role behind it. This is just unessisary. They could have implemented them into the game without being inaccurate so it makes no sense to me. 

"This is just unnecessary", except for perhaps the thousands of women who want to play as a female?

 

Seriously, this is a MP shooter. The MP Setting is not historically accurate. Unless Deathmatch/Capture Points was something I missed in history class?

 

as said by @valdyrgramr, this is fiction. The devs and writers decide what parts (if any) of history to portrait accurately. If they want to feature a story in which the main character is one of the few females to be on the front lines? So be it. And because allowing female characters in MP just makes sense, so be it.

[matrix07012]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, it's fiction.  If it were non-fiction then you can do what you damn well please.  That's why it is fiction.  It is meant to be fabricated.  It is meant to be false/not real that is the point of fiction.  You don't get to decide wtf the dev gets to do, it's their product and their fiction.  If you cared so much then make your own game, or finance them to the point that your opinion has that much motivation.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, matrix07012 said:

 

 

You're missing his point just as much as he's "missing" yours. The point is that historical fiction does not have to be entirely historically accurate. Changing details, small or large, for the benefit of the game, is 100% totally fine.

[Misanthrope]

I really like this tweet, it's not only appropriate to the thread, but neat.

 

 

[matrix07012]

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Hypocrisy 101, again.  When you argue that fiction is real, or needs to be accurate, we can call this a psychosis argument.

Again, because I never argued that.

16 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You're missing his point just as much as he's "missing" yours. The point is that historical fiction does not have to be entirely historically accurate. Changing details, small or large, for the benefit of the game, is 100% totally fine.

"The point is that historical fiction does not have to be entirely historically accurate"
I'm saying this from the start. Disabled women running around everywhere is a big detail that breaks the immersion. Being able to respawn like Shaun here argues doesn't.

14 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I really like this tweet, it's not only appropriate to the thread, but neat.

 

 

This video that I already posted explores this fairly well.

 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, matrix07012 said:

Again, because I never argued that.

"The point is that historical fiction does not have to be entirely historically accurate"
I'm saying this from the start. Disabled women running around everywhere is a big detail that breaks the immersion. Being able to respawn like Shaun here argues doesn't.

This video that I already posted explores this fairly well.

 

And we're arguing that having women running around on a respawning MP map does not break immersion - at least, not for many many gamers.

 

Is it really going to ruin your experience if a woman character is in the same match as you? In terms of the prosthetic? We know next to nothing about the game. I'm not going to judge based on what amounts to box art.

[ScratchCat]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

"This is just unnecessary", except for perhaps the thousands of women who want to play as a female?

 

Seriously, this is a MP shooter. The MP Setting is not historically accurate. Unless Deathmatch/Capture Points was something I missed in history class?

Right after the chapter on how the allies and axis powers spent half a decade fighting over the same 100km^2. The sub-chapter on how each side retreats after 30 minutes or when one side has collected enough flags and the process repeats is also an interesting read.

[matrix07012]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

And we're arguing that having women running around on a respawning MP map does not break immersion - at least, not for many many gamers.

 

Is it really going to ruin your experience if a woman character is in the same match as you? In terms of the prosthetic? We know next to nothing about the game. I'm not going to judge based on what amounts to box art.

That's why I didn't engage in this conversation sooner, because I'm going to wait until the game is out and decide if it's good and immersive or not.

[Gullerback]

damned if you do damned if you dont