DICE Celebrates Battlefield V's Launch With #EveryonesBattlefield, r/Battlefields Goes Up In Flames

[Budi]

DICE is awesome, and gamers continue to be a mistake.

Click to shrink...

Even with all the loot box shenanigans that I despise, I've kept saying that gamers are the biggest problem in gaming. And they just keep proving me right.

What did Anthem do?

Click to shrink...

It probably has playable women too, the horror. In worst case scenario there's also ethnic minorities. They wouldn't dare to include any sexual minorities though would they? They wouldn't go that far in #gamergenocide

Im saying i agree with what skillup said, who has no investment in the issue, that Dice gave people a product they didnt wanna buy. Posting the worst possible comments you can find is a lot easier than posting reasonable ones.

The moral victory is clearly more important to Dice than the product itself. If someone wants to ban me for saying that then be my guest.

Click to shrink...

They aren't mocking any legitimate criticism of the game. Any feedback to actually improve the game is welcomed I'm sure.

It's fair play if someone takes an issue with the mechanics, game modes, amount of content etc.

Like look at here. Criticism of the game, without talk of soy, cucks and SJW:s. https://www.resetera.com/threads/i-...e-cod-with-64-players-type-of-gameplay.84450/

I fucking love my parents for the fact that the general idea of this (women in games) being a problem feeling like such a fucking alient concept to me.

On the other hand, i have a daughter, so this is really worrysome for me.

Click to shrink...

Inclusion and representation has only gotten better, that's exactly why people are so pissed and shakin in their boots. I'm sure your daughter will have many excellent games with magnificent female leads to play. Though I can't promise she will always have good time in online games unfortunately, that shit really needs sorting out.

 

[Complicated]

God, could you imagine developers having to make a censored American version of their games without women and minorities like they do with gambling and skeletons for China?

 

[Dmax3901]

Im saying i agree with what skillup said, who has no investment in the issue, that Dice gave people a product they didnt wanna buy. Posting the worst possible comments you can find is a lot easier than posting reasonable ones.

The moral victory is clearly more important to Dice than the product itself. If someone wants to ban me for saying that then be my guest.

Click to shrink...

So a company (owned by EA no less) forgoing sales to take a stand against sexists is... a bad thing?

 

[GestaltGaz]

I'm sorry just saw this.
'gamer genocide'

LOL
🙃

 

[Slam Tilt]

Buckle your seat belts, because there's going to be more crap like this -- the alt-right loonies are losing their collective shit now that the Walls of Justice are closing around their god-emperor Trump...

 

[Jam]

I first saw this in Skillup's video on laymengaming and hes 100% right that EA/Dice got what they asked for.

"Dont buy our game"

Wasnt even advertised properly, doesnt have all its modes in at launch and thus nobody bought it. The historical accuracy part is just more fuel on that fire.

Click to shrink...

Im saying i agree with what skillup said, who has no investment in the issue, that Dice gave people a product they didnt wanna buy. Posting the worst possible comments you can find is a lot easier than posting reasonable ones.

The moral victory is clearly more important to Dice than the product itself. If someone wants to ban me for saying that then be my guest.

Click to shrink...

'The moral victory' good Lord you people are delusional.

A product they didn't want to buy; a comment fair enough in a lot of the design/technical issues with the game but not fair enough in relation to the inclusion of women.

But sure DICE should not include women in their game because /r/The_Donald doesn't like it. And they're getting what they deserve for not listening to the Muh "historical accuracy" crowd.

You couldn't be more transparent; regardless of your 'I've played plenty of games with women!' post. Sure.

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

The fact that people are bitching about gender in a video game. Makes my blood boil.

 

[Don Fluffles]

Another argument I heard from someone: The female tank drivers for certain allies in BFV was historically inaccurate. He suggested more real-world alternatives such as the female Soviet snipers.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

Another argument I heard from someone: The female tank drivers for certain allies in BFV was historically inaccurate. He suggested more real-world alternatives such as the female Soviet snipers.

Click to shrink...

Or we could just not give a crap about historical accuracy and include women anyway?

 

[BrutalInsane]

Dice, please change every character to a black female for a week so I can watch these weird 'gamer' idiots heads explode.

 

[Morpheus]

Jeez. That slide was the equivalent of 1984's two minutes of hate. Just cherry picking the most uneducated, ludicrous, grammatically jarring comments they could find and group them together to paint an entire group of people with the mutterings of a bunch of far right fringe lunatics. Curiously enough the one thing that ended being true was the revisionist history. Replacing the platoon of men who sabotaged the heavy water plant in Norway with a 16 year old girl, the SBS protagonist being a convict despite the fact that the SBS recruited from the Royal Navy and had no convicts whatsoever.

 

[Luminish]

I've been a longtime subscriber to the sub for the silly battlefield chaos gifs. For a while it seemed like they were mostly held back. I've seen a lot of disguised alt-right reddit posts go from upvoted to downvoted once they're engaged with just enough to bring out their crazy, but it's hard when you're overwhelmed by numbers.

At least they failed at making "historical accuracy" the next "ethics in game journalism" because no one cares about historical accuracy in a battlefield game, so they had to resort to an invasion where they show off the crazy unprovoked.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

Im saying i agree with what skillup said, who has no investment in the issue, that Dice gave people a product they didnt wanna buy. Posting the worst possible comments you can find is a lot easier than posting reasonable ones.

The moral victory is clearly more important to Dice than the product itself. If someone wants to ban me for saying that then be my guest.

Click to shrink...

DICE gave people a product they did want to buy, the people who didn't buy it just happen to be fuckin children crying about women and black people being in a fictional depiction of World War 2. Gamers are uneducated because they clearly have no fucking idea what a video game is and how it's not real fuckin life.

r/battlefield is a cesspool of people who cannot fathom that this game is DICE's take on World War 2. They wanted to badly a traditional WW2 game, but when it didn't happen, they cry about having some political agenda shoved down their throats because apparently women in a video game is now a political agenda.

I applaud DICE for standing their ground and making fun of people for their stupid fuckin views. Better that than caving in and saying "we shouldn't have added women, who also play our game, who also were part of World War 2 in MANY different roles, because we know our core audience are sensitive children."

 

[Kadath]

Or we could just not give a crap about historical accuracy and include women anyway?

Click to shrink...

From my point of view the problem isn't political. "Historical accuracy" is important when you are playing an historical game.

Whether or not you see Battlefield as an historical game, and the historical trait being important is entirely subjective. But I can see it for some players being immersion breaking and so complain somewhat comprehensibly about it.

It doesn't personally bother me, but I'm not so self-absorbed to assume it CANNOT bother someone else. And I'm pretty sure it would bother me if they added cybernetic arms and jetpacks to a WW2 game. We just draw our lines in different places. How far you can break that historical accuracy before it starts to bother you? I'm sure there are some people are bothered even if a specific weapon doesn't have the correct rate of fire or reloading animation, but likely only a minority has that knowledge. The presence of women is just more obvious and immediately noticed by everyone.

 

[BrutalInsane]

From my point of view the problem isn't political. "Historical accuracy" is important when you are playing an historical game.

Whether or not you see Battlefield as an historical game, and the historical trait being important is entirely subjective. But I can see it for some players being immersion breaking and so complain somewhat comprehensibly about it.

Click to shrink...

So they can go play Post Scrptum or Red Orchestra?

 

[Luminish]

DICE gave people a product they did want to buy, the people who didn't buy it just happen to be fuckin children crying about women and black people being in a fictional depiction of World War 2. Gamers are uneducated because they clearly have no fucking idea what a video game is and how it's not real fuckin life.

r/battlefield is a cesspool of people who cannot fathom that this game is DICE's take on World War 2. They wanted to badly a traditional WW2 game, but when it didn't happen, they cry about having some political agenda shoved down their throats because apparently women in a video game is now a political agenda.

I applaud DICE for standing their ground and making fun of people for their stupid fuckin views. Better that than caving in and saying "we shouldn't have added women, who also play our game, who also were part of World War 2 in MANY different roles, because we know our core audience are sensitive children."

Click to shrink...

You have it completely backwards. They hate the virtue signalling of inclusivity by putting women into WW2 and use historical accuracy as a cover. Some fall for that cover story and join in, but I don't believe they are the catalyst at all.

You're not helping by antagonizing the wrong set of people when most of these idiots come from alt-right internet groups with the intention of stirring up shit.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

You have it completely backwards. They hate the virtue signalling of inclusivity by putting women into WW2 and use historical accuracy as a cover. Some fall for that cover story and join in, but I don't believe they are the catalyst at all.

Click to shrink...

What you're saying is that people hate tokenism and believe adding women into the game is tokenism.

Nope.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Gamers are the next baby boomers. People think once they're gone, society would be more tolerant. LOL. When the gamer generation grows old, they will probably make Baby Boomers look like saints. Anyway, not surprised games like this attract such a crowd. EA/Dice will eventually bend over for their money.

 

[Khanimus]

I died at "Gamer Genocide"

Click to shrink...

So did they, apparently

 

[Deleted member 18944]

And I'm pretty sure it would bother me if they added cybernetic arms and jetpacks to a WW2 game.

Click to shrink...

So battlefield 1942, secret weapons of ww2 expansion? lol

 

[AriesM4rch]

So many things that this game does wrong but playable women are the issue? lol

 

[Jam]

From my point of view the problem isn't political. "Historical accuracy" is important when you are playing an historical game.

Whether or not you see Battlefield as an historical game, and the historical trait being important is entirely subjective. But I can see it for some players being immersion breaking and so complain somewhat comprehensibly about it.

It doesn't personally bother me, but I'm not so self-absorbed to assume it CANNOT bother someone else. And I'm pretty sure it would bother me if they added cybernetic arms and jetpacks to a WW2 game. We just draw our lines in different places. How far you can break that historical accuracy before it starts to bother you? I'm sure there are some people are bothered even if a specific weapon doesn't have the correct rate of fire or reloading animation, but likely only a minority has that knowledge. The presence of women is just more obvious and immediately noticed by everyone.

Click to shrink...

Dying and respawning to 'capture a point' by standing in a circle doesn't break their 'historical simulator' but seeing a woman run past them does.

Nah, their line is fucking stupid.

I can understand moreso people complaining about the possibility of the campaign mission set in Berlin during the final days being America approaching and not Russia, but women in multiplayer? That is just straightforward misogyny.

 

[Kadath]

So battlefield 1942, secret weapons of ww2 expansion? lol

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is the thing.

You can ideally make a steampunk WW2 game with giant mechs and stuff. It would still be a great idea. It's a way to "interpret" freely WW2.

The problem here is that Battlefield 5 is not that game. For the great majority is still a game sold for taking direct inspiration from WW2. From the campaign to the weapons, locations and whatnot. So it's essentially an historical game, sold to use historical atmosphere as a leverage, but than brushes it aside in a few key choices.

So, essentially, I see BF5 as an historical game with a few liberties. But being an historical game, and making that public your own, I also can see some people getting upset about that.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

From my point of view the problem isn't political. "Historical accuracy" is important when you are playing an historical game.

Whether or not you see Battlefield as an historical game, and the historical trait being important is entirely subjective. But I can see it for some players being immersion breaking and so complain somewhat comprehensibly about it.

It doesn't personally bother me, but I'm not so self-absorbed to assume it CANNOT bother someone else. And I'm pretty sure it would bother me if they added cybernetic arms and jetpacks to a WW2 game. We just draw our lines in different places. How far you can break that historical accuracy before it starts to bother you? I'm sure there are some people are bothered even if a specific weapon doesn't have the correct rate of fire or reloading animation, but likely only a minority has that knowledge. The presence of women is just more obvious and immediately noticed by everyone.

Click to shrink...

Oh I'm not saying that it's impossible for it to bother people. I am saying we shouldn't care about the people that it bothers or care about what they have to say enough to let it influence the game.


"Historical accuracy" is not a good enough excuse to exclude women and minorities from a game like this. Especially when the franchise itself is not historically accurate at all. If this game were trying to portray itself as such then you would have a point.


But it's not. So you don't.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

Yeah, this is the thing.

You can ideally make a steampunk WW2 game with giant mechs and stuff. It would still be a great idea. It's a way to "interpret" freely WW2.

The problem here is that Battlefield 5 is not that game. For the great majority is still a game sold for taking direct inspiration from WW2. From the campaign to the weapons, locations and whatnot. So it's essentially an historical game, sold to use historical atmosphere as a leverage, but than brushes it aside in a few key choices.

So, essentially, I see BF5 as an historical game with a few liberties. But being an historical game, and making that public your own, I also can see some people getting upset about that.

Click to shrink...

Ah,

So because the game isn't full on alternate history with mechs, it's not allowed to interpret World War 2 how it wants? Am I understanding what you're saying properly?

 

[TheUnseenTheUnheard]

Everything about this situation makes me sad to be so involved in gaming.

 

[Kadath]

Especially when the franchise itself is not historically accurate at all. If this game were trying to portray itself as such then you would have a point.

Click to shrink...

That's, again, the point.

I see it as an historical game. Where accuracy becomes something that bothers you is subjective. I said that I'd be annoyed by the hypothetical presence of jetpacks and lasers in a WW2 game. An I'm also bothered if these types of game encourage cheesy tactics like bunny hopping around. Yet if I play Titafall I don't complain that there are jetpacks and people jumping everywhere. There are no objective rules, it depends on the game and what that game wants to be.

In the end it's understandable that different people have a different idea of what the game is. And BF5 is indeed sold as an historical game, it's quite obvious. Whether or not those specific liberties in BF5 are immersion breaking is, again, subjective.

For example I know people who don't play certain fantasy games because they have crossbows, and they see crossbow technology enough to break their idea of fantasy/archaic feel. It's a preference.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

That's, again, the point.

I see it as an historical game. Where accuracy becomes something that bothers you is subjective. I said that I'd be annoyed by the hypothetical presence of jetpacks and lasers in a WW2 game. An I'm also bothered if these types of game encourage cheesy tactics like bunny hopping around. Yet if I play Titafall I don't complain that there are jetpacks and people jumping everywhere. There are no objective rules, it depends on the game and what that game wants to be.

In the end it's understandable that different people have a different idea of what the game is. And BF5 is indeed sold as an historical game, it's quite obvious. Whether or not those specific liberties in BF5 are immersion breaking is, again, subjective.

For example I know people who don't play certain fantasy games because they have crossbows, and they see crossbow technology enough to break their idea of fantasy/archaic feel. It's a preference.

Click to shrink...

How is it sold as a historical game? Can you be specific?

 

[Jam]

That's, again, the point.

I see it as an historical game. Where accuracy becomes something that bothers you is subjective. I said that I'd be annoyed by the hypothetical presence of jetpacks and lasers in a WW2 game. An I'm also bothered if these types of game encourage cheesy tactics like bunny hopping around. Yet if I play Titafall I don't complain that there are jetpacks and people jumping everywhere. There are no objective rules, it depends on the game and what that game wants to be.

In the end it's understandable that different people have a different idea of what the game is. And BF5 is indeed sold as an historical game, it's quite obvious. Whether or not those specific liberties in BF5 are immersion breaking is, again, subjective.

For example I know people who don't play certain fantasy games because they have crossbows, and they see crossbow technology enough to break their idea of fantasy/archaic feel. It's a preference.

Click to shrink...

Do you really though?

This is just a bizarre thing to be defending. Regardless of if you align with their politics, you're still willing to bat for their 'supposed' message?

 

[Luminish]

What you're saying is that people hate tokenism and believe adding women into the game is tokenism.

Nope.

Click to shrink...

Tokenism is the wrong word. That's a leftist complaint about fake diversity. And I do think most people are fine with the battlefield 5 brand of diversity. Virtue signalling is the word of white nationalists.

I'm saying to blame the white nationalists for bringing the misogyny and hatred into the "historical accuracy" argument, not the "historical accuracy" crowd for being misogyny and hatred. It's not about "historical accuracy" any more than gamergate was about "ethics in journalism". There was a lot of articles early on that helped Gamergate's cause by focusing on the "ethics in journalism" side, which started a lot of people with legit concerns about that down a dark rabbit hole of hatred because they saw Gamergate as on their side.

Mocking gamergate as not being about "ethics in journalism" at all was both the most accurate and most helpful take, and should be the same approach here.

 

[Kadath]

How is it sold as a historical game? Can you be specific?

Click to shrink...

Come on. I'm simply saying it's sold as a multiplayer game set during WW2, same a BF1 was set in WW1. All the marketing shows a game set during WW2, an historical setting. Drawing all of its content from it. The ONLY thing that sets apart one Battlefield from the other is the setting. Remove the setting and it's the same game with some tweaks.

Isn't Battlefront a Battlefield game set in Star Wars? Would you be bothered if Kylo Ren piloted an X-wing? Or if Leia could unlock stormtrooper armor as a cosmetic? Or a Star Trek suit? It's all immersion breaking in a similar way. Being faithful to the setting without breaking the overall feel.

I remember plenty of complaints about certain weapons being over-represented in BF1 and that weren't historically accurate. That, too bothered some people. There are constant discussion in wargaming communities about this or that detail.

Of course this whole thing was then overblown because people also started having political arguments about it. So they started second-guessing the intentions behind the choice.

I tend to agree that the majority of people use this "historical accuracy" as an excuse to push a different idea. But I also think that historical accuracy is a valid argument on its own without any political implication.

 

[Katarn343]

R/The_Donald infecting other reddits lol? they need to nuke that reddit.

Click to shrink...

The fact that r/the_donald and r/braincels are still active and allowed on Reddit is fucking disgusting. Hell, this guy who posted the 100th thread on the topic is a full-blown pedo, if you check his comment history. Obviously is also an avid user of the mentioned subreddits.

Not surprised SkillUp (or his brother, whatever) is jumping on the bandwagon. I don't know why anyone give his channel, and all similar channels, the light of day. They all parrot the same stuff.

 

[Lump]

Maybe if a WWII game was being sold that about hyper realistic single player campaigns that are designed to historically reflect real campaigns as closely as possible to the point where real named individual soldiers are represented, maybe then I'd possibly consider an argument about people being inserted that weren't in those campaigns.

But a multiplayer shooter with a WWII theme? Get the fuck out of here. Imagine how sad of a life one must lead to lead a brigade against including women in a multiplayer shooter. It's as pathetic as it is transparent.

 

[psynergyadept]

Gamer genocide....lol ok.

absolutely pathetic

 

[Kadath]

This is just a bizarre thing to be defending. Regardless of if you align with their politics, you're still willing to bat for their 'supposed' message?

Click to shrink...

No, I'm writing about this because it is important, not bizarre. My intent is to keep the two aspects entirely separate, because they are.

In what you write here, instead, you make the error of doing exactly what "they" want: clump everything together.

The point is: "immersion breaking" opposes the "virtual signaling". You cannot support these two arguments at the same time. One obligatorily excludes the other.

1- If the real issue is immersion, then the complaint is legitimate and there's zero politics involved. It's just about historical accuracy and nothing else. (and where you draw the line with immersion breaking is very subjective)

2- If instead the issue is virtue signaling or however you want to see it, then immersion IS NOT a problem. You can complain about virtue signaling even if Battlefield was set 3000 years in the future. If you want NO WOMEN in your war games then you don't want them regardless of historical accuracy. You just don't want them. Full stop. You don't really need the historical accuracy as some sort of cover up to further some other agenda. It seems illogical to me.

So if I defend the argument of historical accuracy it means the opposite of what you said: I don't align with their politics, and I'm not batting for any message they bring forth.

 

[Nome]

I'm glad OP made a thread about this.
This makes me FURIOUS. I literally can't step into a match of Battlefield or Black Ops 4 or Rainbow 6 without people spamming MAGA in chat, or setting their clan tag as "NIG" or "JEW" or "MAGA" or some variant thereof. I can't join the Reddit Discords for any of these communities because they're filled with 15 year olds who talk about "owning the libs" and worship Ben Shapiro. This shit is a fucking cancer. The gaming community needs chemo.

I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't planning on buying BFV, but I got it specifically to support DICE making a stand, and I'm glad I did. It really does suck when your playerbase are degenerates.

 

[Jam]

Come on. I'm simply saying it's sold as a multiplayer game set during WW2, same a BF1 was set in WW1. All the marketing shows a game set during WW2, an historical setting. Drawing all of its content from it. The ONLY thing that sets apart one Battlefield from the other is the setting. Remove the setting and it's the same game with some tweaks.

Isn't Battlefront a Battlefield game set in Star Wars? Would you be bothered if Kylo Ren piloted an X-wing? Or if Leia could unlock stormtrooper armor as a cosmetic? Or a Star Trek suit? It's all immersion breaking in a similar way. Being faithful to the setting without breaking the overall feel.

I remember plenty of complaints about certain weapons being over-represented in BF1 and that weren't historically accurate. That, too bothered some people. There are constant discussion in wargaming communities about this or that detail.

Of course this whole thing was then overblown because people also started having political arguments about it. So they started second-guessing the intentions behind the choice.

I tend to agree that the majority of people use this "historical accuracy" as an excuse to push a different idea. But I also think that historical accuracy is a valid argument on its own without any political implication.

Click to shrink...

It's honestly entertaining at this point watching your posts go further and further into ridiculousness. Like stop digging this hole for yourself, stop.

 

[giallo]

If you have the slightest interest in BFV, pick it up, and support DICE. As many have said, they're good people.

And the game? It's awesome. Unfinished at the moment? Yes. But a new update is coming tomorrow with a new map, more single player campaign content, and a bunch of cosmetic stuff.

 

[Trup1aya]

yeah. I mean I really shouldn't stereotype, but enthusiasts of real life wars maybe aren't by-in-large the most progressive of people, especially when looking at disposable entertainment properties. So if you choose to base your game around that...idk...isn't like opening a gun shop and being mad that you have to service NRA members?

Click to shrink...

Battlefield is targeted to FPS players in general, not real life war enthusiasts. The idea that a wwII game inherently brings a about social deviants, especially alt-righter, is asinine- you spend the game combating fascists.

 

[Luminish]

Come on. I'm simply saying it's sold as a multiplayer game set during WW2, same a BF1 was set in WW1. All the marketing shows a game set during WW2, an historical setting. Drawing all of its content from it. The ONLY thing that sets apart one Battlefield from the other is the setting. Remove the setting and it's the same game with some tweaks.

Isn't Battlefront a Battlefield game set in Star Wars? Would you be bothered if Kylo Ren piloted an X-wing? Or if Leia could unlock stormtrooper armor as a cosmetic? Or a Star Trek suit? It's all immersion breaking in a similar way. Being faithful to the setting without breaking the overall feel.

I remember plenty of complaints about certain weapons being over-represented in BF1 and that weren't historically accurate. That, too bothered some people. There are constant discussion in wargaming communities about this or that detail.

Of course this whole thing was then overblown because people also started having political arguments about it. So they started second-guessing the intentions behind the choice.

I tend to agree that the majority of people use this "historical accuracy" as an excuse to push a different idea. But I also think that historical accuracy is a valid argument on its own without any political implication.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's sexist to prefer historical accuracy, nor is it out of the ordinary for people to request the things they want from a game even if that's not the direction the designers want to go. Personally I prefer less realism and more creative freedom in games most of the time, and have a really hard time associating battlefield with realism to begin with, but that's a different argument.

I think you would also agree that invading a subreddit with complaints about that to the point that's the only topic of discussion is an overreaction in any context, and most of that probably does come from a place of sexism given terms like "get woke go broke".

Can't we all agree on that?

 

[Jam]

No, I'm writing about this because it is important, not bizarre. My intent is to keep the two aspects entirely separate, because they are.

In what you write here, instead, you make the error of doing exactly what "they" want: clump everything together.

The point is: "immersion breaking" opposes the "virtual signaling". You cannot support these two arguments at the same time. One obligatorily excludes the other.

1- If the real issue is immersion, then the complaint is legitimate and there's zero politics involved. It's just about historical accuracy and nothing else. (and where you draw the line with immersion breaking is very subjective)

2- If instead the issue is virtue signaling or however you want to see it, then immersion IS NOT a problem. You can complain about virtue signaling even if Battlefield was set 3000 years in the future. If you want NO WOMEN in your war games then you don't want them regardless of historical accuracy. You just don't want them. Full stop. You don't really need the historical accuracy as some sort of cover up to further some other agenda. It seems illogical to me.

So if I defend the argument of historical accuracy it means the opposite of what you said: I don't align with their politics, and I'm not batting for any message they bring forth.

Click to shrink...

And now this just reads as if you're denying there's misogyny behind the campaign and that if there was 'they'd just be honest about it'.

"It really is just about ethics in Games journalism, we swear!"

You're too deep in the rabbit hole.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

Tokenism is the wrong word. That's a leftist complaint about fake diversity.

Click to shrink...

lmfao what the fuck

I'm saying to blame the white nationalists for bringing the misogyny and hatred into the "historical accuracy" argument, not the "historical accuracy" crowd for being misogyny and hatred.

Click to shrink...

When did I ever state I was blaming the 'historical accuracy' crowd? Both 'crowds' are fucking stupid, regardless if they are nationalists, sexists and racists, or think video games can be historically accurate.

 

[Kadath]

I think you would also agree that invading a subreddit with complaints about that to the point that's the only topic of discussion is an overreaction in any context, and most of that probably does come from a place of sexism given terms like "get woke go broke".

Can't we all agree on that?

Click to shrink...

Yes, you nailed the problem.

I was saying that complaints about historical accuracy can be legitimate. Even in this context I can believe that a few people are bothered by the presence of women simply as an immersion breaking level, without any political implication at all.

But it's also true (imo) that this argument is then used as some sort of trojan horse to use as a political movement and that sweeps over like a tsunami (same as GG used journalist transparency as another trojan horse). It's quite possible that a lot of that noise is even coming from people who never played a Battlefield game.

Because of this, it's important to keep them separate and not brush away the fact that some people CAN legitimately complain about historical accuracy and nothing else. They do not deserved to be clumped with bigots and misogynists.

And now this just reads as if you're denying there's misogyny behind the campaign and that if there was 'they'd just be honest about it'..

Click to shrink...

Nope, I'm sure there's misogyny behind the campaign, and that "historical accuracy" is used as a fad by a majority of them.

But majority is not the totality, and those who legitimately care about historical accuracy don't deserve to be clumped together with everyone else. These types of blanket judgements over everything and everyone are the kind of traps that those groups want to trigger, I think.

 

[Nome]

This whole thing about the historical accuracy crowd is fucking stupid. There is no historical accuracy crowd. Literally no one is complaining about playing as the Brits and spawning in with a STG-44. No one.

 

[The_R3medy]

Good on DICE. I understand the game doesn't seem perfect, but the extent of the vitriol it's gotten since its unveiling has to be attributed to both general EA hatred and Alt-Right bullroar. As a history degree graduate, I get that the game isn't perfectly historically accurate. And? It's a freaking video game and multiplayer at that. Relax.

 

[Bhonar]

lol wat da fuk is "gamer genocide" ??

 

[RestEerie]

The weird thing here is that Call of Duty WWII did the same thing, including women as soldiers in the multiplayer mode. It became one of the biggest sellers on PS4/Xbox One.

Are Call of Duty fans more mature than Battlefield fans?

Click to shrink...

my experience is that COD fans are more casual and they jumped from one game to another yearly pretty easily without much attachment while Battlefield fans are pretty hardcore to the series or even a particular game itself and more inclined to stick to one and jump ship to another if the new installment isn't to their liking.

Of course COD having that huge of an audience meant that it is always going to have more casuals than battlefield.

 

[Nome]

The weird thing here is that Call of Duty WWII did the same thing, including women as soldiers in the multiplayer mode. It became one of the biggest sellers on PS4/Xbox One.

Are Call of Duty fans more mature than Battlefield fans?

Click to shrink...

Sledgehammer didn't give a fuck. They made a creative decision and stuck with it.
DICE's "mistake" was to directly engage the MAGA shitbirds and call them out.

 

[Dr. Caroll]

This whole thing about the historical accuracy crowd is fucking stupid. There is no historical accuracy crowd. Literally no one is complaining about playing as the Brits and spawning in with a STG-44. No one.

Click to shrink...

I disagree. While it is true that Battlefield V is not obliged to be historically accurate, whether it's books or films or videogames -- all these have always faced criticism for portraying real events -- or fictional events in a real time period -- in an overtly inaccurate way. To varying degrees a significant number of people do care that, for example, Braveheart is complete nonsense. Or that The Great Escape played far too fast and loose with the lives and deaths of those individuals.

Just look at the criticism of the recently released Bohemian Rhapsody film for taking real events that happened and twisting them into something misleading. This falls under the umbrella of "historical accuracy".

Battlefield's problem at its heart is that its multiplayer is quite popular and multiplayer games by nature are never historically accurate and fun at the same time and anyone pretending otherwise is deluding themselves a bit. Historical accuracy is the domain of singleplayer games. Battlefield has long had singleplayer campaigns. So it does fall under that scrutiny to some degree.

The recent 11-11 Memories Retold by Aardman is a recent example of a videogame that has tried to be historically accurate for the purposes of making the stories it has to tell more genuine.

 

[Mechanized]

Yeah, this is the thing.

You can ideally make a steampunk WW2 game with giant mechs and stuff. It would still be a great idea. It's a way to "interpret" freely WW2.

The problem here is that Battlefield 5 is not that game. For the great majority is still a game sold for taking direct inspiration from WW2. From the campaign to the weapons, locations and whatnot. So it's essentially an historical game, sold to use historical atmosphere as a leverage, but than brushes it aside in a few key choices.

So, essentially, I see BF5 as an historical game with a few liberties. But being an historical game, and making that public your own, I also can see some people getting upset about that.

Click to shrink...

The devs were 200% up front about the nature of BFV and inclusivity being a major part of the franchise going forward. People knew exactly what they were buying and continued to bitch about hISToRicAl AcCurACy ever since. Gee I wonder why.