Blizzard: At a computer game convention- "Don't you guys have phones?"
Bethesda: The bag we advertised you was only a prototype, you get a cheaper version. We don't plan on doing anything about it.
Electronic Arts: If you don't like a gender-diverse WW2 you're uneducated.
It's starting to feel like these developers have some sort of contempt or flat out dislike for their customers. It's getting harder and harder to justify spending any money on any of these companies. Hopefully MWM offers up a lot of options for CoT, I think I'll have a lot extra to spend.
—
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I know of the Blizzard one, that was mainly marketing fuck-ups since they essentially implied it would be Diablo 4. Haven't heard about the Bethesda or the EA one, but it seems like the EA one is mainly phrasing. Wile I'm not trying to defend EA, and it certainly is a rude and condescending sentence, it's doesn't look like it's on the same level as what Blizzard and Bethesda did.
Not so sure it's contempt or dislike of their customer base as much as that they take them for granted, as in "regardless of what we say or do you'll buy from us". I hope that that attitude comes back and bites them in butt big time.
Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but if THIS is why people don't like EA then I think they should take another look at EAs whole business model/practices.
While their statement is rather blunt and sure to alienate some (bro)gamers, it's not necessarily inaccurate.
We've had all male WW2 games (see: nearly every WW2 game ever).
So, the only qualms I could see someone having with a gender-diverse 'alternate history' WW2 is not liking gender diversity, which generally derives from being uneducated/ignorant.
Any historical arguments are invalid due to it being stated that it's an alternate reality of sorts.
More than likely, it will play nearly if not exactly the same as Battlefields previous installments. There is just women in it now.
IMO, if this is the straw that broke the camels back for people with EA, then some priorities might need rearranging.
A) You are. The complaints were never about a female being in video games, that happens all the time and no one ever complains. The complaints were about female cyborgs using bats on the front lines in a game where the devs said "We want Battlefield V to provide both a [b]true[/b] and an unexpected WW2 experience" and "Historic battles, an all-new experience; Charge into unparalleled combat during pivotal moments in the early days of World War 2. Use modernized movement and weapon mechanics for an experience unlike any other.". Either they want to provide a true, historic WW2 experience, or they want an alternate reality with cyborgs. It worked for Wolfenstein, after all. But you can't do both.
B) These companies are all guilty of a long list of issues as you've pointed out. These are all just the latest and most offensive examples of them directly insulting their own players.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
EA: Yeah I like me some diverse history, if you want real history there's documentaries. And if a game wants to be a documentary, which would be neat, it should avoid that stuff.
Bethesda: yeah CoT should probably avoid anything physical more complicated than a t-shirt, mug, or other stuff you can frankly get at kinkos. It just seems to attract issues unrelated to games games companies have trouble with.
Blizzard: yeah they dropped the ball hard :p
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
As someone who doesn't play those games, I'd have to agree. Either stay true to the source as stated you are, or just come out and say "This is an alternate reality"
Pick a way to do it and go.
No different than movies. People don't like it when movies say they're biopics and such then deviate completely or lie outright.
Not to mention how EA completely rewrote some history for its missions. Whether its to push forward a particular narrative based on today's political ideology or not is up to you. But there are quite a few Norwegians who are pissed that their achievements and sacrifices on that particular mission in real life was removed from the game. EA is far more guilty for other terrible business practices against their customers. Profit over anything else (remember SW: Battlefront II?). Sadly, a lot of other companies are heading in that direction. Micro transactions is the new buzzword and investors love it. Just research how much money these companies make on micro transactions alone.
I have always been a fan of Blizzard but this whole debacle with Diablo (which i saw live) was both hilarious and sad. Telling an audience full of pc gamers, "don't you have phones?" after getting boo'd should be a wake up call to these companies to listen to their fanbase and not investors. It's now a recurring joke in my WoW guild when someone screws up on a mechanic. I personally won't play it because I prefer to play games on my widescreen and I generally dislike gaming on my phone.
And then you have their influence in gaming journalism. AAA games from these big developers getting stellar reviews presumably are bought and paid for (maybe with cash or incentives for exclusives). I saw a youtube video of a leaked article from a "major" game news website where Diablo Immortal was already getting editor's choice award and the game isn't even out yet.
All this is pushing me towards indie developers more and more (MWM, CD Projekt Red). At least they listen to their customers and stay true to their vision.
These are my bases:
CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR
Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1
Exactly the point I'm making. AAA companies are alienating everyone right now. Now's the time for MWM to capitalize.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I think the Blizzard one is a little skewed - I follow a guy, Rhykker, on YouTube and he is definitely a Blizzard fan - I feel that he is fairly honest all things considered. He has been following Diablo job postings and keeping up with the community manager and a fair amount of other research for quite some time. He shared some pretty good information before Blizzcon that came from Blizzard saying to not get your hopes up [about Diablo 4]. All that said, he was fairly devastated by what happened and made a good and honest reaction (it is over a hour long https://youtu.be/JKFgpkKEK14). He also did his research and found out some interesting... whispers? Rumors? Whatever you want to call it - anyway, it offers a decent amount of insight on what happened with Diablo 4 (if you believe the report - follow-up link [edit: this video contains profanity - just putting it out there] https://youtu.be/HHXMkZkjDSA).
Anyway, that is all just my opinion - thought I would take a swing at adding to the conversation.
This! [size=18]Is![/size] [size=20][b]TITAN CITY![/b][/size]
The problem was that rumors of D4 were circulating for a while based on job postings and some minor leaks from people who know employees at Blizzard.
People had their expectations set on a D4 reveal for Blizzcon.
Days before Blizzcon, Blizzard posted on their blog to tell people that what they were expecting wasn’t happening. Despite many places repoasting and reporting on the blog, people thought it was either a swerve or ignored it.
They could have handled it better from the stage, certainly. But I wouldn’t call it dropping the ball. They tried to want everyone before hand at least.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Asking a room full of PC gamers, "Don't you have phones?" After announcing that they don't plan on making a PC game?
I have a hard time making excuses for that. And that's before all that stuff about it being a resin of a P2W free game.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
The Diablo Immortal Debacle can only be explained using an analogy ... what if NC$oft announced that they were releasing a new City of Heroes RPG to replace the one that they closed ... and it turns out that they're only making a tabletop RPG, not an online 3D MMORPG for Mac/PC computers like you'd be expecting. And then when the fanbase turns on them for [i]not delivering what people wanted[/i], NC$oft asks (not so innocently) ... "What, you people don't have paper?"
I mean, it really was [b]THAT BAD[/b].
At this juncture, Diablo Immortal is basically a cash grab aimed at China, but now Blizzard has decided "why stop at only ripping off China?" and realized that they can drop this travesty on the entire planet instead. Even if Diablo Immortal winds up being "pretty good" for a mobile game, the one thing that it will never truly/properly BE is ... a "real" Diablo experience.
Grey Stone is completely correct about Rhykker and his youtube channel. The reaction to Diablo Immortal just absolutely GUTTED him, and there was simply no way to feign the level of betrayal he put on the line upon reviewing the announcement made at Blizzcon. This wasn't a lead balloon. This was a neutronium balloon dropped on own foot by Blizzard.
Some companies are Out Of Touch with their fanbase.
But what's really sad is when you realize it's even worse than that ... what's really happening is that they're OUT OF RANGE from their fanbase ... and that is NEVER a good place to be.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I feel the problem is the way they announced it. Diablo mobile game may not have been so badly received if it was delivered to the people better.
I'm no fan of playing D3 myself, but I liked D1 and LOVED D2. D3 couldnt keep me away from CoH and it felt different than D2.
However, I can't knock them from wanting to make a mobile Diablo.
I have to agree with Brand X - but at the same time I also can see Blizzard genuinely being excited about this game (I get it, that’s the point of this topic ... sort of) and hoping that while they wanted to have, and at the start of the year (supposedly) expected to have something more to present at Blizzcon, that Diablo Immortal would be enough to tide them over.
Is it main stage opener worthy? Not to a room full of PC gamers obviously based on how things went. But, if they had gone about presenting this mobile game differently, as many have said elsewhere, then I believe things would have been much less intense. I have to admit, even if Blizzard isn’t sure that they want to call it D4, a 10 second clip of something - maybe a map that they’ve polished to the best of their abilities? - and then said “we know what you guys want and we are working on it. We can’t say definitively what it’s called, but it’s in the works, and here is a glimpse at part of what you could see.” Then they have covered their end by saying could - even if the project gets scrapped - and they still have multiple projects being worked on so folks can openly speculate about what it’s for. Is it a remaster if a previous entry? Is it a new entry? Who knows! People would have spent up to the formal release of a project name speculating on that 10 second clip.
So I guess in conclusion I am in favor of a couple of folks here in pieces and parts. Blizzard genuinely expected people to be happy about this and they weren’t. The reaction could have been handled much better, but emotions run high in stressful situations. Does it make the company out of touch though... I guess to an extent yes because they had their hopes set so high? But also not really because they have more stuff in the works, and they wanted to have more of it to show off, but things just didn’t work out that way for whatever reason.
This! [size=18]Is![/size] [size=20][b]TITAN CITY![/b][/size]
Saw this article today and it reminded me of this thread - good for a laugh.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/outraged-battlefield-fans-demand-historically-accurate-64-vs-64-matches/
;)
We live in interesting times when it can be profitable to run a "news" website dedicated entirely to trolling.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
Please don't bring up Faux News ...
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Weren't they called yellow pages? Or something like that? I can't recall the exact term for that, unfortunately.
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
+1
Please dont bring up polotics on a game forum that has nothing to do with politics.
Compulsively clicking the refresh button until the next update.
Unless the politics are about the game world itself. Like... The mayor of Titan City.
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
I would love to see a giant mind control plot based around the Mayor's re-election.
An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".
That sounds interesting. The question would be: a single supervillain or a big organization? Both are kind of intriguing, however I'd prefer the first. It could come to several back and forths between them. It would be like a bigger arch enemy.
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
I like the idea of a more chaotic-evil mind control villain pushing the Mayer in a direction contrary to his more popular politics.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Multiple factions and villains, each trying to influence the mayor in their own way. Some at competing goals, so when heroes take missions to thwart one, you may increase the influence of another. Some villainous players may actually take missions to RAISE the influence of a particular faction. It's implied that this builds off the multi-axis alignment system, with "lawful" outcomes affecting a "lawful" mayor or a more giving vs selfish one. The results could change the tone of the city- with more police per corner or emboldened gangs. Players battle through election night until the winning faction is declared. Everyone speculates what it means for the city and game.
Then, the next day, nothing changes. The mayor lives up to the old political adage, "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here" and the city goes on just as it had before. Nothing they did had any impact.
This of course leads to to much player drama, momentarily rising to prominence in the 24-hour news cycle as people debate the political commentary and what it means to America today along with a social media meltdown. Eventually, to ease player concerns, MWM offers anyone filling out a webform a commemorative voter punchcard personalized for their characters. Things calm down until after the first players get the cards. then someone notices that 10% of them came with hanging chads, and the political commentary news cycle drama repeats.
"FEAR THE BEARD!"
Odo is back! In his Santa outfit!
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
Wow, that's perfect!
Now exchange the nothing happens with nuclear meltdown, turning everyone to mutants and we get a modded Fallout game.
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
Mayor Mind Control.
Build a wall to keep out the non-supers and make them pay for it.
If you like your hero, you can keep your hero.
Those deplorable villains on red side.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
Bethesda found a way to make it WORSE!
https://www.reddit.com/r/fo76/comments/a3ga47/i_am_getting_your_support_tickets_on_my_bethesda/?utm_source=reddit-android
Customers were getting OTHER customers (plural) support tickets with full personal info including credit card info. They have since closed down the support ticket system, but the info is out in the wild now.
Serious dumpster fire here.
Where are the modders to save them now :p
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
I want to add Activision to the list of offenders. The "gave" Overwatch players a "Free" copy of Destiny 2 some time back, then it turns out it was just a free trial that lasted like 4 days. After that, I had to buy the game (at a discount, I'll admit) in order to keep playing. I mean, it worked. The initial free trial did hook me, so I felt that I had enjoyed the game enough to pay them, but still.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I got Destiny for free, though. It wasn't a trial in my case :)
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
Just a nitpick: there were females serving combat roles in WW2, just not from the US. The Night Witches (a notorious German bomber squadron) come to mind.
That said, not many were utilised as ground troops.
As for EA & Blizzard? Both awful, and Bethesda is sadly following suit. I miss the old days of Bethesda, when they weren't just Jerk Corporation #Eleventy-thousand.
Characters:
* Kestrel
* Zero Break
* All-Star
Nitpick: The Night Witches were a soviet squadron, not German. The Germans gave them the nickname Night Witches, though.
Incidentally, there's a small-press RPG by the same name and based on the subject matter that, while I've never gotten a chance to play it, is reported to be massive amounts of fun, and can get pretty intense.
~ DariusWolfe
Errant, TNT, Vibrant and Fluxion on Liberty
Yes on German it's called "Nachthexen" ;)
[font=courier][color=#FF0000]Tech[/color][/font]
45 52 52 4F 52 3A 20 34 30 34 0D 0A 48 65 72 6F 20 6E 6F 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 21
Were there women fighting in WW2? Yes, of course ... but rarely as frontline infantry.
Pilots? Sure (Soviets had entire squadrons of them).
Snipers? Sure (Soviets had some of the best of these).
There's a reason why whenever commanders talked about their troops in the field, whether ashore, at sea or in the air, the generic term for them was "THE MEN" ... because pretty darn close to 100% of them were. There were exceptions, of course, particularly in resource scarce fighting forces (the Finns and the Soviets come to mind rapidly), but pretty much everywhere else "soldiering" was an exclusively MALE fraternity with a "No Girls Allowed" sign on the door to where the fighting was happening.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Don't forget the Russian lady who bought a tank and then fought the Nazis with it.
"Mariya Vasilyevna Oktyabrskaya was a Soviet tank driver and mechanic who fought on the Eastern Front against Nazi Germany during World War II."
Named her tank the "Fighting Girlfriend."
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
You know, the whole EA thing reminds me:
They could have been gender diverse *and* historically accurate, on the Eastern front. The Soviet Union had nearly a million women in combat, in any position from infantry to tanks to fighter pilots, even officers. I have long said that a historically accurate battle of Leningrad FPS would be incredible to witness, with one side gender-locked monocultural against a multicultural, gender equal opponent. Help underscore the difference between the two sides.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
Yeah, but then they'd be making the communists the good guys, and we can't have that.
That would be "too political"
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I think the problem people have with the EA controversy (at least the current one) is less the portrayal of WWII itself and more the reaction to fan criticisms of the portrayal.
The entire issue could probably have been avoided if they’d called the game something like “Battlefield: Alternate” and emphasized this was an alternate timeline with differing history and technology, something I can’t find any example of the developers themselves ever stating(admittedly, I’ve only done a couple google searches looking, so maybe I missed it), but which I have seen used as a defense of the game.
Even then, if they’d just responded with some tact to the criticism instead of calling a significant portion of their customer base uneducated/bigots, it would have been a minor issue instead of what it blew up into.
Of course, at this point EA is such a tarnished name that the whole thing is just a drop in the bucket. Personally, I do my best to avoid anything EA related since they mutilated the Mass Effect series.
The fan response to Battlefield 5 was dumb. Battlefield has (from what I can tell) rarely been anything nearing authentic, accurate, or realistic.
And it's oh so strange that the fans cry for historical accuracy when there's women involved as opposed to all the other historical inaccuracies in the previous game or, probably, in this one.
EA are still garbage, regardless.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
My favorite WW2 flame is the analysis that the Soviets probably could've beaten the Nazis single-handedly, but it've been a Pyrrhic victory as Russia would struggle to sustain itself after the fact.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
I don’t really see the complaints as dumb, because while I’m sure a historian can find a plethora of inaccuracies in most modern representations of WWII, to the layman most of those would go unnoticed(you even seem unsure of it, saying things like “from what I can tell” and “probably”, when talking about historical inaccuracies). Equal gender representation on the frontline, however, is clearly historically inaccurate and breaks the immersion of the setting(at least on the western front). It would be like if on Stranger Things you saw the kids playing on a PlayStation 4, on a giant HDTV in the middle of their living room. Or if the characters all started saying things like “on fleek” “YOLO”, or some other modern slang. Sure, there’s already a lot of anachronisms on the show that those with a careful eye or ear and historical knowledge can catch, but none of those shatter the illusion of a mid 80’s setting the way that introducing things so blatantly modern into it would.
I don’t really care about that. When I get a game in this genre, all I care about is a fun experience shooting people or piloting tanks and planes into battle. But I can certainly understand it bothering someone else and lessening their enjoyment, and I wouldn’t presume to call them dumb for feeling that way.
However, as a potential customer, and more importantly, an individual who doesn’t represent EA, you have every right to have that opinion of the fan reaction, to express it in any way you see fit, and to respond to others who disagree in any way you want. Technically EA and their representatives have the right to do so as well, but it’s a really stupid move to call your customers uneducated or suggest their reaction is dumb. You please those who already agree with you and dislike “the other side”, but you’ll turn off those who initially criticized you, and also those who didn’t really care one way or another about the issue, but now see a large corporation treating a significant portion of their customers like dirt, turning their game into a political attack and virtue signal(look at their launch party if you don’t believe me), which is the last thing most of us want from our mindless shooting game.
Considering, as far as I can tell, the only part of the game that has "women on the frontlines" is multiplayer which is wildly historically inaccurate already and it seems there'd only be "women on the frontlines" there is because the game gives you the option to have your multiplayer character be a lady. So not really a gender equality on the frontlines more of a potential for it, which seeing as the game's usual demographic is male and people usually play their gender in games there's not much chance of seeing any sort of gender equality on what could charitably be called the front lines.
In the story mode of the game the 1 out of 4 stories that has a woman protagonist isn't even anything to do with the frontlines.
So, yeah, the claim of historical inaccuracies are, in a word, stupid.
I can't find anything about the Development Team or EA saying that those complaining are uneducated. As far as I can ascertain the devs responded to people saying that there weren't women on the frontlines by saying that while rare there were indeed female soldiers in WW2. Another dev stated "Player choice and female playable characters are here to stay ... Our commitment as a studio is to do everything we can to create games that are inclusive and diverse. We always set out to push boundaries and deliver unexpected experiences." Which seems fine to me. The only thing even vaguely confrontational to me is some one from EA saying essentially "This is how it is, so either buy the game or don't."
So yeah, in summery EA is garbage regardless but capital "G" Gamers aren't any better.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/319787/This_is_not_okay_EA_minces_no_words_on_backlash_against_women_in_Battlefield.php
“These are people who are uneducated—they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario...”
- Patrick Soderlund, EA Chief Creative Officer
Furthermore, if what you enjoy about the multiplayer is an emulation of the setting/time period, then yes, women on the frontline is immersion breaking. Personally, I think players should have the option to play as either gender in multiplayer, or single player when it fits the narrative, but just because I disagree with their position doesn’t mean that the complaint or the people lodging it are stupid, nor does it indicate they hate women as some like to insinuate. They simply have different tastes and priorities than I do.
And that 1 single player campaign would have been a great chance, as some here already mentioned to highlight an actual example of the few, exceptional women who actually did fight in the war. Instead they removed the actual people involved. Complete missed opportunity, and insulting to all involved to boot.
"These are people who are uneducated—they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario, and listen: this is a game, and today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass [woman]. And we don't take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don't understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either or. It's just not ok."
Sounds reasonable to me. Anyone pointing out the historical inaccuracies of it fail to understand that it's just a video game. Anyone not wanting women in the gane fail to understand that women play games too and sometimes people want to just be a badass woman.
If what you enjoy about the game is an emulation of the setting and time period then you're playing the wrong game. This game is not a simulation of WW2. It just isn't. It's a game with the trappings of WW2 with barely any of the realism. Which then you need to ask why, why in all the inaccuracies and lack of realism is it that "there's women in it" is the point that breaks their immersion.?
The fact that the people who complained about the historical inaccuracies were strangely silent about it until a woman showed up in their video game definitely says something. Because, most likely, they're using "historical inaccuracies" to mask the fact that they don't want (non objectified) women in their video games and they don't want women in their hobby.
And of course they removed actual people involved, so do most movies. Involving real people and actual historical events would be a nightmare and likely make for a far less entertaining story.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Thing is, if they made it so that the only option to play women was as members of various Resistance groups or on the Eastern Front, it would've been a much stronger choice - inclusive, historically accurate, and much more gripping from a narrative standpoint (as Tyche suggested above).
It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.
[color=#ff0000]Business Director[/color]
As for narratively in the story you play as a Norwegian resistance fighter lady. So there's your narrative woman resistance fighter. And that's the only story part where you play as a woman.
The multiplayer isn't narratively focused, or historically accurate there's little reason to not let players play whoever they want, accuracy be damned.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Agreed on the multiplayer. But altering history for the sake of inclusion, when several of the people directly involved with the historical events in question are still alive..... I can't say it's something I consider wise decision making.
Addendum: Looking further into information, it appears that the last member of the historical team passed away this October. Since the game released after he was gone, I alter my position to say that I only have an issue if they did not consult in the development process.
It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.
[color=#ff0000]Business Director[/color]
It's not altering history any more than any other number of WW2 stories from games or movies. Sometimes people just want to tell a cool story set in WW2, hell in Inglorious Bastards they killed Hitler, in Wolfenstine they have crazy sci-fi gadgets and weapons. No one gave two shits about historical accuracy there.
I don't think there are many CoD, Battlefield, or Medal of Honor stories that have actual history in them why then is having a WW2 story that didn't actually happen with a woman in it a big deal? It's a game, not a historical documentary.
Could it have been a stronger narrative if they based it on true life events with real people? Maybe. Would that have been a shit ton more work? Definitely. Would it have been more fun? Probably not. With their own story they can do what they like have whatever set pieces they like, have an actual antagonist, and not have to worry about it.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
But it is altering history if you portray and promote your game as the most immersive WWII experience to date as said by their own dev team. The key term is WWII experience. When you say things like that fans of the franchise expect a level of accuracy. Simply because WWII was a real thing. Those other games and movies you mentioned, none of the fans expected any level of accuracy to those events because they knew going in those stories were simply fiction. Had they simply said, Hey guys we are calling this Battlefield and its set in WWII but not the WWII you remember, then the blow back would have been very different. Or instead of a WWII setting set it in the future with a Starship Troopers vibe (I would so love a Starship Trooper-Battlefield game-Service Guarantees Citizenship!). But they purposefully didn't say anything hoping to capitalize on their existing customer base, which to me is very disingenuous. Just look at their sales. They have already discounted their game by like 40% on some stores. Their existing fan base wasn't happy with the product. Customers have every right to not buy a company's product if they don't want to especially if it is not what they were expecting. You don't order at Taco Bell and be happy they served you a burger because its just food.
One a side note, where are all the fans that this game was catering too? Surely they would help with the sales right? Wasn't the twitter community all about this? Didn't they buy a copy to support diversity? Serious questions because if the developer was just taking advice from people who don't even play the game then that is just setting up for failure.
These are my bases:
CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR
Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1
I would say it’s quite unreasonable to call people who think a significant female presence in frontline combat during WWII is an implausible scenario uneducated. I’d also say it’s rather unempathetic to belittle those for whom breaking with the setting detracts from the enjoyment, just because it isn’t a concern of yours. Not to mention that the “it’s just a video game” defense could be used for any element of the aesthetic that someone didn’t like. You could just as easily argue, “Why does anyone care about being able to have a female avatar when it’s just a video game?”
It’s also disingenuous and uncharitable to jump to the assumption that people are lying about their reasons just because you don’t agree with their concerns, especially when you assume that their actual reasons are effectively the most reprehensible reasons imaginable for this scenario.
Not to mention that the idea that it’s about “keeping women out of games” just doesn’t hold up to any logical analysis. Halo’s had at least a female pilot back to the first game(I think there were some female soldiers as well, but it’s been so long, I’m not sure). The first game in the series to have some level of character customization for multiplayer(at least as I remember, feel free to correct me) was Reach, and that gave you the option to play a female Spartan. Overwatch is full of female character options of almost any imaginable variety. Almost every modern RPG let’s you choose the gender of your character, even ones like Mass Effect where that requires double voice acting. I could probably sit down and list a dozen very popular games or series with female lead characters that have been around for decades. None of these raised more than the slightest of ire with “Gamers.”
The only major examples of a fan backlash to some change to a series like this that come to mind all have at least one of two things in common, usually both. First, either they in some way violated a previously established element of the setting/lore without properly setting it up/explaining it, and/or second, the change was done or presented by the creators in a way that made it clear that the motivation behind the change was pushing a particular ideological viewpoint more than advancing the story in interesting ways. People like the things they know to stay the same or evolve naturally, and they don’t like getting talked down to or preached at.
Additionally, addressing the issue of historical accuracy, perhaps that’s the wrong term. Obviously, by it’s very nature as an interactive medium, a video game can never be historically accurate. The moment a player makes a choice as mundane as which of two enemy soldiers to shoot first, historical accuracy is out the window. But there is a marked difference between altering the specific details of events to improve gameplay or narrative flow, and intentionally disregarding elements of the setting. A better term might be historical authenticity.
Something like Inglorious Basterds, or even Captain America, can be historically authentic despite not being historically accurate. These movies tell stories set during the time of the war, and make efforts to present only elements that the audience will recognize as belonging in that time while avoiding those that don’t, with the differences to reality being a part of the story being told. Despite it having crazy sci-fi gadgetry, if everyone in Captain America had a modern smart phone, that would have damaged the historical authenticity.
With regard to the game, the heavy water story arc is actually historically authentic. If it were an entirely fictional account, I don’t think there would be any significant amount of criticism of it. It makes sense that a woman could have taken part in an operation of that nature. It’s plausible. It fits within the setting as it is understood by the public. The problem there is that there was a real operation, and the people who actually achieved that mission, without ever firing a shot, I might add, were written out to insert a fictional woman, when there were a number of examples of actual women who fought that they could have used as a basis instead, or they could have created a completely fictional event, ala Inglorious Basterds.
What does feel out of place with what we expect to see during WWII is female soldiers taking part in open warfare that the multiplayer modes are meant to represent. If this were a modern or future or fantasy war setting, no on would care, as the several examples I mentioned previously show.
I don't think Barrlefield has ever sold itself by promoting any sort of historical accuracy and the multiplayer is definitely nowhere near historically accurate or authentic. A historically accurate or authentic WW2 game would likely be not very much fun at all.
How many of the other stories are based on a real operation with a new fictional man placed in it? I'd guess all of them, but strangely there's no flac for those. Hell I think a ton of WW2 games have likely done this exact thing, base their story on a real operation and change the names and nature of it, but no one gave a shit till they put a woman in it. And it's not like they told people it was based on real events so I don't fet why anyone would think that's their goal here.
Is the game historically accurate? No. Is it historically authentic? Also no. But has any battlefield game ever been? Probably also no. So for some reason (there's women in it) people hold this new one to a higher standard than any of the previous entries, strange that.
As for the likes of Overwatch it had some "controversy" before it launched. Someone asked, very politely if memory serves, if they could change one of Tracer's victory poses as they felt that said pose wasn't really in keeping with Tracer's personality. And capital G Gamers lost their collective shit saying that this person was trying to censor the game and that such a pose was part of the dev's artistic vision and shouldn't be changed. Strange how they'll defend the devs vison over a pose showing a woman's rear and strangely no one did that for Battlefield having women in it. If only there was some sort of underlying reason.
Not that Blizzard generally has a great rep with representing women in their games anyway. Playing a male character you can range from being a huge overweight man (Roadhog), a small skinny man (Junk rat), A big burly man (Reinhardt/Doomfist), or a very small man (Torbjorn) to almost anything in between. As a woman you can be a slightly short woman of average build (Mei), a larger muscly woman (Zarya) or a bunch of other women who have, more or less, the exact same build. But that I feel is a topic for another time.
Sales on Battlefield don't really mean much as to "where are all the fans that this game was catering to?" Who knows how much of the games actual sales are from people who have never bought a Battlefield game in their life and decided to pick up this one because it advertised that you can, indeed, play as a lady? Can't really tell that one from just the numbers. Same as any comic book change "for diversity or inclusion" there's not really any telling from just the sales numbers how many of those sales are new comic bool readers, but seeing as there has been a supposed increase in comics that have made changes for more diversity and overall comic book sales are trending up... Well, corrolation is not causation as they say.
Same as video games, more video games are catering to a diverse market and video games are one of the most successful forms of media around.
Oh, and as for the Halo series you've been able to customize your multiplayer guy since the first game. The first game let you pick a color (unless you were doing any sort of team multiplayer), the second allowed you, I believe, to switch up your look a bit and gave you emblems to place on your suit also you could play as a covenant elite. Can't speak much of the rest of the series I didn't really play much of it after 2.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Also thanks to this thread I'm now getting ads for Battlefield V.
So thanks for that.
Though the ads tagline is "World War 2 as you've never seen or played before!" Seems pretty accurate. This version has women in it, where as most other versions that people have seen and played... Haven't.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
https://www.origin.com/usa/en-us/store/battlefield/battlefield-v
"Historic battles, an all-new experience
Charge into unparalleled combat during pivotal moments in the early days of World War 2."
https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-5/about/single-player
"Battlefield V War Stories
Explore single-player stories inspired by real places and events from World War 2."
Either it's portraying historic, pivotal moments of real places and real events in WW2 or it's a fictional version where the people and places don't matter. One is fine. The other is also fine. Can't be both. Trying to do both to appease a political stance and virtue signal and then calling people names? Sorry, that's just not defensible.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
"Historic battles, an all new experiance" so they're historic and all new at the same time. Difficult, that.
Inspired by real places and events could be anything. Star Wars is inspired by some aspects of WW2.
It is a game based on real historical events but is in no way selling it's self as being historically accurate.
Every piece of art has a political stance and I don't really think it's "virtue signaling" for a company to say that women participated in WW2. Calling people names? You mean how they said that the people who claim that women didn't fight in WW2 were uneducated? What would you call someone who was spouting off something factually untrue?
What's not defensible on EA's part is predatory monetary practices, trying to keep gambling in video games, and buying up good dev teams then sucking all the life out of the games they make then disolving the studios.
You want to get mad at EA for something it's that. Not a dev making a comment that some folks are uneducated for making claims that are factually untrue.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
We agree that EA and the like are terrible for their crap practices. We agree that diversity and inclusion is a good thing. And that stories and gsmes told from different perspectives can be powerful and thought provoking. We also agree that companies have the right to make games anyway they wish.
What we don't agree on is the way those games are marketed to existing fan bases. I beleive they purposefully chose ambiguous terms to deceive their customers into thinking they were getting a product that was not close to the idea that was marketed. They should have clearly stated this isn't your grandpa's WWII and that it is a modern retelling of events. None of their marketing materials state that. That's all they had to say. But they didn't because they knew sales would flop.
You keep mentioning that this is just a game and that none of this matters. But it does! Especially to those of us who had and lost family members to those events. The man who raised me was a proud WWII vet and lived through that experience. Not a day passed by where he wasn't thinking of those events and would tell me stories. To him it was the physical manifestation of good versus evil. He thanked god everyday for having the balls to enlist. Marketing ambiguously and not adhering to what really happened to "git mo money" is entirely disengenuous.
These are my bases:
CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR
Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1
Of course it would be a modern retelling, it's a story being told in the modern day by people that weren't there. It could never be anything but. To think differently is foolish and the game never stated it was going to be an accurate retelling of actual events.
It is a game and it doesn't matter. It's not trying to make light of those who served or were lost in the war. It's not doing something like trying to frame the Nazis as the good guys. It's just telling a story using WW2 as a setting. If anything it's educated people to the fact that women did indeed serve during WW2 and has had people talking about those brave women who had often been overlooked by most which I don't think is a bad thing.
When it was anounced that there was going to be women in it ignorant people said that women didn't serve in WW2. Allowing that to go uncontested would be terribly disrespectful to the women who did serve.
Hell, the very idea that people contested the fact that women served in WW2 shows how poorly educated people are on the subject.
You say it matters then what have you done when any other WW2 game has come out before this? Did you point out their historical inaccuracies? Did you complain that the stories these companies made up weren't based on real events nor had real people in them? Probably not. To call this game out for it and not even mention all the other times it has been done before is disingenuous.
But no. Thus game crosses the line for some reason. If it's not because it has women in it then for what reason? I'm sure other games have marketed themselves as being historically accurate in the past. And from what I can tell this game actually having a part of the story devoted to the women who played a part in WW2 is already showing more accuracy than the other games that completely ignored that fact.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Again the thing is that they never marketed it as a modern retelling. Fans expected one thing and got another.
And No I didn't call out the movie Iron Sky for being inaccurate because it was blatantly obvious that it was fiction. And those other examples you cited fall in that category.
I think at this point it's just better to say agree to disagree. You seem firm in your belief that the outrage is only just about women and relegate any other valid criticisms already pointed out above to artistic license because it's just a game.
That being said, So who's ready for City of Titans! Woohoo!
These are my bases:
CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR
Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1
They didn't market it that way because unless it was some sort of documentary there isn't much else it could be.
What about the medal of honor series? Call of Duty, Company of Heroes and the sheer plethora of other WW2 fiction out there? A video game about WW2 unless specifically stated otherwise would be obviously a work of fiction. They never stated the game was based on real events. They necer claimed it to be historically accurate, even if they stated their game was the most accurate WW2 game they only need to have slightly more accuracy than any other game.
You are holding this game to a standard far higher than it needs to be. It's a battlefield game. They get released, what? Every year? Every 2 years? Something like that? Expecting them to be historically accurate is foolish.
The fact is no one gave a shit about historical accuracy in video games, especially in first person shooters of all things, UNTILL battlefield advertised having a woman in it then SUDDENLY historical accuracy was paramount. It's not hard to put two and two together.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I hope Project Hero bought a few copies to make up for all the "ignorant misogynists" that didn't, being clearly the target audience.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
Nope, cause I don't like EA for their practices and I don't really care for multiplayer shooters.
That and untill this thread I didn't really pay much attention to the game. Heard about the "controversy" and just went "Oh, seems capital G Gamers are making a fuss about nothing or something stupid again."
And lo and behold it was just a bunch of Gamers making a stink over something stupid.
And I get that was an attempt at a slight against me Warlocc but do try harder than "Haha, you're not an ignorant misogynist!"
Edit: Or was it more "Ha, see you'd like the game because it has a woman in it and based on the reviews it seems to be a well crafted game"?
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
It's all good. We are all allowed to have our opinions and entitled to our beliefs. We don't need to slight each other over EA of all things lol. Let's just continue to vote with our wallets and let EA and the like to continue their free fall into the ground just like their stock price. Support indie devs who do listen to customers.
These are my bases:
CoH Base
https://imgur.com/a/HbskR
Citadel Forged With Fire
https://imgur.com/a/9okUuf1
EA is a terrible publisher that deserves to fail. It sucks that it's going to drag down the development studios they've aquired.
But their drop in stock serves them right for trying to milk their customers for as much money as they can. And straight up lying to their customers in a few occasions.
Though their drop in stock is likely attributed to the weird myth game publishers have that the next game in the series is going to sell 150% more copies then their last installment. Calling any that don't meet their outrageous expectations failures.
Also just as a note. If people don't buy the game they are not the customers. Those who didn't purchase battlefield 5, for whatever reason, aren't the customers. Voting with your wallet is fine and dandy but people not buying battlefield wont cause them to change things in the game they'll just think that the IP or type of game is unprofitable and drop it altogether. Because this is how publishers work. People not buying the latest dead space game tells the company that Dead Space isn't profitable so they fire the dev team and can the series. They have no reason to listen to people who aren't buying their products. It's often more impactful to buy their product then go to their forums and tell them what you didn't like about it. Then you aren't just a lost potential customer you are then a dissatisfied customer.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Also, listening to the customers doesn't mean you need to do what they say. EA clearly listened to their customers as they responded to those claiming historical inaccuracy.
They heard the concerns and responded. They possibly could have handled it more delicately.
I guess Gamers are just too easily offended.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
What are you basing the claim that past games haven’t been authentic on? From my understanding, when the games have been set in historic periods, they kept the weapons and equipment fairly faithful to what was around at the time and based playable character models on the types of people you would expect to see in that conflict. No modern weapons with laser sights or other high tech gadgetry. No one in civil war era uniforms fighting in WWII. They’ve stretched it a bit by adding things like prototype guns that never saw mass production during the time, or allowing the use of weapons that existed but weren’t widely used on the front. I’m sure they tweak the actual mechanics of the weapons to make the gameplay more fun. But those sort of additions and alterations would only be noticeable by an afficiendado of WWII history, technology, and weaponry. To the average person, all those things will still feel like they belong in the setting, and therefore don’t damage the authenticity. So again, what do you base that claim on?
When talking about the various stories games based on historical wars feature, you use a lot of language that indicates you don’t really know what you’re talking about. To be frank, I don’t know either. I tend to prefer sci-fi settings for my shooters, and I’m only aware of this case because it’s become a news story. Having been informed about it, I find it tasteless, and see no reason to disbelieve others when they say they find it tasteless for the same reasons. If I were aware of other, similar cases, I’d probably find them tasteless too. If you want to point out other examples, I’d be glad to treat them exactly the same way I’m treating BF V, by explaining why I find what they did to be in poor taste and not buying the game.
And you’ve completely mispresented the whole Overwatch/Tracer controversy, but since no one was complaining to keep female characters or players out of the game, and you’ve not argued in any way that they were, I won’t waste further time talking about it.
You’re fooling yourself if you don think the drop in sales for this BF doesn’t have a lot to do with this controversy. You talk about not knowing how many of the sales are due to new players buying it because of adding women, but you obviously haven’t thought that argument through to it’s logical end. Let’s assume what you seem to be implying is the most optimistic possibility, that every sale is a new player buying it to play as a woman. That means that EA managed to run off 100% of their pre-existing customers. On the other end of the spectrum, if none of the customers are new, they managed to run off 60%(I saw that sales were down 60% on an article somewhere, but can’t be bothered to hunt that down at the moment, if that number is wrong, my apologies, but we both know that sales are way down). Either way, or anywhere in the middle, they’ve lost far more than they’ve gained.
Now again, and this is what you either fail to understand or refuse to accept, this largely isn’t because of the addition of women, in and of itself. It’s because of how they presented this change, and how they responded and continue to respond to negative feedback. They could have avoided probably 90%+ of this by just not making this a political attack, and by not belittling their customers.
You’ve also stated that those in opposition to adding female soldiers have claimed that no women served in WWII. I’m noticing a trend of you misrepresenting your opponents view points in a way that makes them easier to repute. It’s an easy logical trap to fall into, I know, so do be mindful of it in the future. While I’m sure you can find some examples of that being said if you go digging long enough(given that we’re talking about a group of millions with no way to verify if the person is posting an honest opinion, a joke, or parodying their opponents), what I’ve seen claimed in every case I’m aware of, is that women serving in frontline combat was extremely rare, approaching being nonexistent, with women in the Allied forces serving almost exclusively in logistical and support roles away from the fighting, due to the social climate of the time putting a high priority on protecting women from danger. From what I can tell, this is a factually correct.
And if the developers were seeking to honor those women who did serve, they could have actual told their stories instead of writing fictional women into events that no woman was involved in.
Back to Halo for a minute. I know that Halo 1 allowed a color choice, but I’m not sure I’d call that customization given that it gets overridden whenever you’re in a team match, which is what I mostly played back then. Forgot about emblems and elites in 2. I remember Reach having fairly extensive customization, at least enough compared to previous entries that it stuck in my memory, with costume bits you unlocked as you played more. But what I find really interesting is that after Halo started including female avatar options, you stopped playing.....
Hmmmmmmm....
Applying your logic, I can only assume that you must have a problem with women in your first person shooters. Right? After all, you played Halo before players could be female in multiplayer, but stopped playing once women were added. I mean, it’s not hard to put two and two together. Right?
;)
Pretty sure Halo Reach came out after 3. Halo 3 that I didn't purchase or play much of. So... Unless I could see into the future then no, I stopped playing once it moved off of the original XBoX.
As for the historical inaccuracies yeah, the prototype weapons. Apparently it's not historically inaccurate enough nor immersion breaking enough to be able to use weapons that either weren't mass produced or never saw the front lines but it apparently is so when there's women around despite there being, as discussed, historical precedent.
Weird, huh? That one gets a pass while the other doesn't. One is a line that must not be crossed the other is just added in for more variety and fun.
And yeah, I'm probably misrepresenting one side possibly because like I had said I was only vaguely aware of the "controversy" to begin with and picked up more on it from this thread and google searches.
Women in the game are ONLY on the front lines in the multiplayer (if someone decides to be one) the multiplayer, I might add, with weapons that weren't present on the front lines and likely having maps named after famous battles (like in Star Wars battlefront) wherin the historical victor for that battle can lose. Expecting ANY sort of historical accuracy in the multiplayer is ridiculous.
Otherwise in the story there's 1 out of 4 (5 counting the DLC) where you play as a woman and she is a RESISTANCE FIGHTER a role in WW2 that defibitely DID have women in it.
In short their wildly historically inaccurate mode is historically inaccurate and their story mode is historically plausable (minus it likely being done like an action movie).
So prototype weapons and vehicles that were rarely or never seen on the frontlines? They don't care. Using camo and emblems that weren't around during those times (pretty sure you can make your own emblem)? They don't care. But they have women potentially (remember it's multiplayer so there's not even any guarentee that there'll be anyone playing a female character) running about? SUDDENLY IT'S TOO HISTORICALLY INACCURATE!
At best it's people being uneducated, and/or just stupid. At worst it's people being horribly misogynist and using the claim of "historically inaccurate" to mask their true reasons. Because claiming that something is historically inaccurate has a bit more clout than just screaming that you don't want women in the game.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
If they don't care about historical accuracy in the weapons, don't care about historical accuracy in the vehicles, don't care about historical accuracy in the outcomes of battles, but DO care about historical accuracy when it comes to women participating in WW2...
It's pretty obvious they don't care about historical accuracy.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
It was none of the above.
It was proving the point, "Know your audience.", whether you agree or disagree with 'em.
If a company makes a game for the people that aren't going to buy it anyway, they're insane for getting salty when no one buys it at all.
[color=red]PR Team, Forum Moderator, Live Response Team[/color]
I’m sorry, but no. You’re just using that to, “mask the fact that [you] don't want (non objectified) women in [your] video games and [you] don't want women in [your] hobby.”
I won’t be fooled. I can see that you’re really “being horribly misogynist.”
:P
On a serious note, you keep dodging around my explanation and going back to the argument that if something isn’t 100% historically accurate then complaining about historical authenticity is somehow invalid. What percentage of people are going to look at a gun or vehicle in game, that looks largely similar to the guns and vehicles they know of from that time, and recognize it as being a prototype or not being common on the battlefield? Less than 1%, I’d guess? Pretty much just a small number of subject matter experts. What percentage of people are going to see a significant number of female troops and recognize that as being something you wouldn’t see on a WWII battlefield? Pretty close to 100%.
Again, I don’t even think the option to play as a woman should be removed, breaking the setting in this kind of game isn’t something that bothers me. But it’s incredibly closed minded to assume that it doesn’t bother others, and then to further assume they are lying about their motivations and are actually mysognists masking their woman hatred. It just seems like you’re unable to consider the issue from a viewpoint other than your own, so you default to accusing those you disagree with of the worst things you think you can apply to the situation
I doubt people will notice much if the person they killed in the frantic multiplayer was male or female. But then I haven't seen the models, so who knows.
And given that the majority of the playerbase is likely male and would likely play as a male avatar the liklihood of seeing a female soldier isn't super high. This is completely speculation on my part.
If someone's enjoyment of a game hinges on them not seeing any women in said game I think they have some issues.
They clearly don't care about historical accuracy, if they did they wouldn't be playing Battlefield. The idea that they can excuse any number of historical inaccuracies except there being women around (which is historically accurate) that definitely tells me something about said player.
Again, best case scenario is that the person is uneducated about women doing their part in world war 2 or they're foolishly expecting a level of realism or accuracy in a mode that has very little of either and the worst case scenario is they're misogynistic and just don't want women in their video game. Take your pick.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
You continue to avoid actually addressing what I’m explaining to you and instead addressing some phantom argument no one is making.
First, it’s pretty easy to tell the gender of the person of character you just shot because they scream out in pain as they are hit and dieing.
Second, I don’t know what percentage of the characters in a typical multiplayer match will be of each gender, but it’s a much higher female ratio than would have been on an actual WWII battlefield, or has been portrayed in past movies and other media, which is why it breaks the immersion of the setting for some.
Third, yes, if someone found any instance of a female in a game off putting, I would agree with you. But that’s not we’re talking about, we’re talking about people of a given gender being somewhere that they wouldn’t within the given setting. If for example, we had a game set in fantasy version of medieval Europe, and you have to visit a convent of nuns, but then half the nuns were men in nun outfits, and none of the other NPCs acted as if this was strange or explained it with in game lore of some kind, despite the fact the game is very inaccurate to history(there were no dragons or magic in the real medieval Europe), I would still find this offputting and strange. It would damage the authenticity to the setting, perhaps not enough for me to put down an otherwise good game, but certainly enough for me to question and criticize why it was put in the game that way. At which, if we follow your logic, I would have to be a misandrist, I suppose.
Finally, in response to your three options at the end. One, no they’re not uneducated as to the role women played in WWII, they seem to in fact know more about it than the developers, given the number of examples of actual women fighting that they raised and the developers apparently ignored. Two, why is it foolish to want the setting’s authenticity to be maintained? If that’s important to you, why is it wrong to raise that concern. Three, if they are misogynists, at least then you’d have some company :P
Battlefield 1942 had jetpacks.
/thread
If you take umbrage to anything being put into a fantasy game then that's a personal problem. If in your hypothetical situation I wouldn't find it strange at all, or off putting. Religious people in some type of robes in a fantasy setting!? Oh heavens, no! If they weren't specifically Christian nuns I wouldn't think anything of it. If they were Christian nuns I'd wonder more about the placement of Christianity in the fantasy setting than if there were male nuns. Seeing the male nuns, I'd assume that in this fantasy setting they just don't have any kind of gender preference for nuns and I'd probably think it was pretty neat or think nothing of it at all.
So. Again. In the MULTIPLAYER of battlefield, which is a complete crapshoot in terms of any historical accuracy, there's the possibility of maybe running into someone using a female avatar.
Women -did- fight in WW2 did so as parts of resistance, as snipers (something you can do in the game), as pilots (something I believe you can do in the game), and in at least one notable instance in a tank (something you can do in the game), also support roles like say a medic? (Something in the game).
So they give you all the tools you could ask for to make for an authentic experience. You can also go completely ham and have it be as weird as you want. Sides winning certain battles that they didn't win, weapons being used that weren't used, and having everyone be a woman IF YOU WANTED.
So strangely they don't want authentic weapons, don't want authentic battles, but they do want an authentic ratio of men/women. Or have it so people can only play women in a certain role, which is restricting and not fun. When considering to make a game authentic or fun usually devs err on the side of fun.
It's very foolish to want the setting's authenticity maintained in a mode that has the least amount of authenticity. Especially as to maintain said authenticity requires only the removal of women and not removing weapons and vehicles that weren't in said battle nor assuring a certain side wins.
It's a game, not a simulation. The multiplayer mode is a toy, not a documentary. By it's nature multiplayer can not adhere other than loosely to any sort of accuracy or authenticity.
And stop attempting to call me a misogynist, it wasn't funny nor accurate the first time and it's not funny or accurate now.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Truely battlefield has always been a bastion of historical accuracy and authenticity.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Ye gods, how bad does it have to be to count as Pyrrhic? Russia had (historians vary) about 20% of its population killed by WW2, compared to about 1% for the UK and 0.3% for the USA (and we don't exactly hand wave those losses away as nothing). I think Soviet participation in WW2 is very much already in Pyrric victory territory.
As to whether Russia would have been victorious anyway without US intervention, the Normandy invasion etc. as far as I'm aware, official USSR history always had that view. Western historians dismissed this as cold war propaganda for years, but these days there's been a far greater acceptance that actually it's a pretty reasonable point of view, but that's a very quick and dirty summary of a very broad field.
It’s called a joke, one that demonstrates the obvious flaw in your logic you are clearly blind to by applying it to yourself.
Don’t be so easily offended. What are you, a Gamer? :P
On a far more interesting note, I’d love to see a Russia/Germany WWII with US intervention scenario explored. I imagine that if the fighting remained conventional, it could be a slog that would go for quite a while, but the real decider would probably be who developed nukes first. Given we’ve been talking about the heavy water plant operation, I know Germans were at least on course to develop them if the allies hadn’t intervened, but I’m not familiar with the state of the Russian nuclear program circa 1942.
I stated "it wasn't funny" it's clear that I'm aware it's supposed to be a joke. But Jokes are funny and make some sort of sense.
This is to your halo reach thing, right? Your "joke" would work if I had stated distaste at halo reach due to the inclusion of something and claimed that such a thing wasnt supported by lore. I did not. Seeing as I stopped paying attention to the series long before the inclusion this "joke" falls flat. And the continued use of it doesn't make it any more humorous.
The only thing that offends me about what you post is the poor attempt at humor that attempts to paint me as being one of those I'm against. "Those who fight against racism are the REAL racists!" It's not funny as a joke, and not clever.
In short
[img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/aa/1b/eeaa1b04ccc271bfbac88d48e4e1e04d.jpg[/img]
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
The point<————
Your head<—————
The point you tried to make doesn't work. The joke you tried to make wasn't funny. You failed, good sir and/or madam.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
No, you just completely misunderstood what the point was, but that’s ok. Looking at things from another’s viewpoint is clearly difficult for you.
What then is your point?
People said there weren't women in WW2. They were wrong.
They said that women didn't fight in the front lines. Also wrong.
There wasn't enough women fighting in the front to justify their placement in the multiplayer? Which has as much historical clout as something like Samurai Showdown? Multiplayer is just for fun so who cares if there's women available to be played there?
Again. If someone is coming to Battlefield Multiplayer expecting any sort of historical accuracy or authenticity they are doomed to be disapointed from the start.
If all it takes for their sense of fun is the sight or sound of a woman they have problems.
So then. What, if any, good reason could long time fans have for avoiding this title if not for the fact that it has women in it?
The devs called people making uneducated statements uneducated. Not even directly. If that was enough to turn people off a franchise then we would see a lot more people not buying things like Assassin's Creed as Ubisoft and a bunch of other companies call their customers varying types of sea life. But I guess that's fine because they're not calling people out on their bullshit.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I just told you the point of my joke. Reread the second sentence of my previous post.
Your "joke" doesn't work. "No, see you're sexist because you didn't buy a game that came out long after you stopped paying attenton to this series!"
So your joke doesn't work on any level, at all. There's no through line. There's no logical connection to be made.
A bunch of guys (cause lets face it, it was definitely a bunch of guys) complained about a game that had a woman in it based on the falsehood that there weren't women in WW2 and then said game proceeded to have low sales. It doesn't take sherlock holmes to find the connection here. They put Women in it, a bunch of douchey guys didn't buy the game they usually would have.
CLEARLY THEY CARE ABOUT HISTORICAL ACCURACY!
Because the history they want it to be accurate to didn't happen. They don't want historical accuracy. They want a historical fantasy where men were men without the help/aid/need of women.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
I think part of the problem is the comment.
When someone says "There were no women in WW2."
One can generally use some common sense and realize what they mean.
You take it as the be all end all.
Just doing a quick google search will show you, one wasn't likely to see a woman on the front lines.
Yes, there was Russia using women in non-auxiliary roles, but it was still a rather low percentage of their forces and they were still majorly medics.
Now, I'm not playing the game and have no desire to. Didn't play the previous ones either. However, if they're going to say historically accurate and then have half of the forces be female for equality, then I wouldn't call it historically accurate.
Hell, Braveheart got called out on it's historical inaccuracies and it was still popular, so why get bent out of shape over people calling a game out on it :p
This thread delivers.
Mostly because it's disingenuous.
They say it's because of historical accuracy. But It's not. It's very clearly not.
Because the multiplayer, doesnt have, and has never had any real level of historical accuracy. And that's the only mode you can play as women "on the front lines."
So complaining about historical accuracy in the least historically accurate mode is a bit like someone complaining that they're too dry while being underwater. Complete BS or stupidity.
And that's the long and short of it. Half the forces aren't female for equality. Half the forces might be if the players themselves decided they wanted it to be so. Which isn't a bad reason to have it.
Edit: They're pretty much saying "I want historical accuracy but only so much as to not have women in the game. All the prototypes, vehicles, and weapons that weren't really seen around the frontlines can stay, also any silly things like jetpacks or the like, just no women pls, cause that ruins my immersion."
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
If you only bring up historical accuracy as it pertains to women being in a video game... You don't really care about historical accuracy.
You care about women being in your video game.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
::sigh::
No, you still don’t get it, and the ironic thing is my point is the very reason you can’t understand the point. Or rather, that’s the obvious thing I should have known beforehand.
You are labeling these people as something horrendously negative based on an entirely flawed set of assumptions and no evidence. You’re so stuck in your own way of thinking that even when multiple people explain to you that, despite you not understanding, misunderstanding, or disagreeing with their reasons, these people do have valid, legitimate reasons to raise a concern, you are either unwilling or unable to consider that another set of ideals or values outside your own might be valid. So all you can do is continue to cry “Misogyny!” like a broken record.
The joke wasn’t that you’re the real mysoginist, it’s that you, and most of the people you accuse of it, obviously are not. But if you refuse to even consider another person’s viewpoint when they differ from your way of thinking on something, it’s very easy to just label someone as whatever undesirable pejorative you can apply and then disregard anything they say.
I had hoped that maybe applying it to you in a manner that was almost equally ridiculous as the way you are applying it to others, and that was clearly sarcastic, might force you to consider the issue from a different angle. The joke is that calling you that only makes sense when I refuse to accept any other far more rational explanation for your behavior. But you’re so mired in your own headspace that you just assumed I was actually trying to claim about you the same thing that you are claiming about millions of people that you know next to nothing about.
I have been like you. That’s probably why it bothers me so much. I don’t know if it’s just age, experience, or marrying into a culture with radically different values and principles that did it for me, but it’s incredibly frustrating to watch others stuck in the same trap of believing their ideals and values are the only ones that are legitimate, and everyone who differs does so out of ill intent, rather than a different set of priorities. It’s what makes the two ideological halves of my country hate each other beyond all reason, being legitimately convinced the other side believes what they do solely out of evil or complete ignorance.
I know you are not a mysoginist. I’m very aware that, at the core, you’re coming at this from a good-hearted place. You believe you are doing good, defending the oppressed, calling out other people’s bullshit. But there’s a reason people say the path to hell is paved with good intentions. You’re so single-mindedly focused on that, that you’ve blinded yourself to any other, far more plausible, explanation of what you see around you. You’ve gone full Don Quixote, and I’m sorry, but this Sancho Panza isn’t going to humor you. Those windmills are not giants, that wash basin isn’t a legendary helmet, and that healing elixir is actually making you sick.
Look, mate. I'm calling them that because that is what they are. They ONLY care about historical accuracy as it pertains to Women in their WW2 game.
If they cared about historical accuracy they wouldn't be playing any Battlefield game. These aren't amature history buffs, they're Gamers. Dude bro gamers. The kinds of Gamers that yell racial slurs at people in games.
It's the same as of someone didn't care about any changes to a source material but then suddenly does if a character's race or gender is changed. It's not super hard to figure out why they are suddenly invested.
Sexism in videogames has been a problem for a while. Be it from developers or the gaming community.
There's been a crap load of push back to things being made more diverse or just not being made specifically for white men.
Gamergate. Comicsgate. And other such things have been made specifically to harass women and minorities away from hobbies traditionally seen as being for white men.
So pardon me if I don't think that an attack (especially one based in ignorance as has been shown) on women in a video game is anything but.
Could they be specifically just amature historians that focus soley on women throughout history? Yes. Is it very likely? Hell no.
They're just a bunch of men looking for an excuse to keep women out of their game (unless they're objectified) because "There's too much diversity being shoved in everything" "those SJWs!" And other such nonsense used to justify their hate.
There were women in WW2. By having that acknowledged and letting people play as them is more historically accurate than any game that doesn't have/show/talk about their involvement which until now was pretty much all of them.
Did some digging and apparently people were also upset about the inclusion of people of color in Battlefield 1. ARE YOU NOTICING A TREND?
They complain about minorities and women not being "historically accurate to the time period" even though it is accurate. And dont care about historical accuracy in anything else to do with the game, like people running around with full auto weapons in WW1! HOW STRANGE THAT THEY ONLY WANT SO MUCH ACCURACY THAT IT WOULD REMOVE WOMEN AND MINORITES FROM THE GAME.
But no, these people just care about historical accuracy. Sure. Definitely not rascists and mysoginists. No.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Pages