-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
EA on the backlash against women in Battlefield V: ‘Accept it or don’t buy the game’
- Thread starter Deleted member 6263
- Start date
So happy they did this. They are doubling down instead of staying neutral. Good on them.
This should have never been an issue in the first place.
This should have never been an issue in the first place.
Never thought I'd say "fuck yeah you go EA".
Fucking bigot cretin gamers and their fucking bigot cretin backwards bullshit.
More women in games plz.
Fucking bigot cretin gamers and their fucking bigot cretin backwards bullshit.
More women in games plz.
I enjoy fans labeling themselves as "haters". They don't get that they are literally describing themselves as a Battlefield fan who cannot handle the presence of women in this video game. Customisastion will be nothing too big. It ain't gonna be astronaut outfits. Silly people either lying to us or lying to themselves.
Any mention of "historical accuracy" is probably a fucking first for these fans in all of this series. This is the hill they want to die on? It ain't even a hill. It's piano wire.
"Waah, they don't care about us original fans." lol
Any mention of "historical accuracy" is probably a fucking first for these fans in all of this series. This is the hill they want to die on? It ain't even a hill. It's piano wire.
"Waah, they don't care about us original fans." lol
Last edited:
It's a bit troubling that everybody thinks this is about sexism and not a genuine desire for historical accuracy. Historical accuracy is not binary. A lot of people want real settings, weapons, vehicles, factions, etc, even if the gameplay is unrealistic. I mean, that's 99% of the appeal of military shooters for most players. Racing games are also a perfect example of this. The vast majority of players don't want a 100% realistic racing simulation but they do want to drive real cars. If the next NFS or Forza replaced all the real cars with fake ones, there would be outrage.
Battlefield has never had realistic gameplay but it used to be pretty realistic in terms of its historical context. In BF1942, for example, the Germans actually spoke German. Naturally, as the series became more mainstream, concessions were made for accessibility and broader appeal. Adding female combatants is just the latest of those concessions. If I was drawn to the series primarily for its historical context, I'd be irritated by these concessions. Female combatants (in the American, British or German armies) are just as out-of-place as drones or laser guns in WW2.
Granted, there are no doubt people who are genuinely sexist and object to this for that very reason. However, to dismiss all criticism of historical inaccuracy as nothing but sexism is problematic.
Battlefield has never had realistic gameplay but it used to be pretty realistic in terms of its historical context. In BF1942, for example, the Germans actually spoke German. Naturally, as the series became more mainstream, concessions were made for accessibility and broader appeal. Adding female combatants is just the latest of those concessions. If I was drawn to the series primarily for its historical context, I'd be irritated by these concessions. Female combatants (in the American, British or German armies) are just as out-of-place as drones or laser guns in WW2.
Granted, there are no doubt people who are genuinely sexist and object to this for that very reason. However, to dismiss all criticism of historical inaccuracy as nothing but sexism is problematic.
I genuinely dislike EA, but I have to say they handled this situation greatly!
They are right! You don't like women in this game? Don't buy it and shut up.
They are right! You don't like women in this game? Don't buy it and shut up.
Between this, the "Nazis are bad and I don't know why we have to keep saying it" from the Bethesda presser, the amount of female leads in what were male-led series, and the fucking ballsy ass kiss in the Last of Us 2 trailer, I'm so happy that my industry is finally growing the fuck up.
When you respond to a statement directed at sexists with "but what about the people who aren't sexist?", you need to step back and take a breather.
Do you feel the same about people complaining about the lack of swastikas in the game?
I firmly believe that not everyone who is against having women as playable characters in the multiplayer in this game is sexist. Although I do realize that a portion of people that are complaining are certainly sexist. People that keep bringing up Battlefield's unrealistic gameplay as an argument against historical accuracy don't seem to understand the perspective of those that are complaining. You have to differentiate between thematic historical accuracy and gameplay. No one is expecting a multiplayer fps to depict World War 2 accurately in it's gameplay. But people want the setting to be depicted with historical accuracy. That's what makes it a World War 2 game. The setting, the weaponry, the vehicles, the factions and their uniforms. I guarantee you that this outrage would be nonexistent if this was a futuristic Battlefield game or even Bad Company 3.
I personally don't mind the inclusion of women or racial minorities in the multiplayer if it makes others feel more included in the game. Although I do find it odd that people would feel uncomfortable playing as White male soldiers in a World War 2 game. But I firmly believe that EA is including women and extensive customization in the game for financial reasons. Women who play Battlefield games are less likely to spend money on customizing their playable characters if they can only be male. And it's the cosmetics that I have a problem with. It doesn't really feel like a World War 2 game that much when the soldiers in the Battlefield look like mercenaries rather than the British army or the German Wehrmacht. I want proper factions with proper uniforms. I think allowing players to disable the display of soldier customization would be an excellent compromise.
I personally don't mind the inclusion of women or racial minorities in the multiplayer if it makes others feel more included in the game. Although I do find it odd that people would feel uncomfortable playing as White male soldiers in a World War 2 game. But I firmly believe that EA is including women and extensive customization in the game for financial reasons. Women who play Battlefield games are less likely to spend money on customizing their playable characters if they can only be male. And it's the cosmetics that I have a problem with. It doesn't really feel like a World War 2 game that much when the soldiers in the Battlefield look like mercenaries rather than the British army or the German Wehrmacht. I want proper factions with proper uniforms. I think allowing players to disable the display of soldier customization would be an excellent compromise.
I agree on that point. The 'best squad' screen at the end of matches is laughable in most of the gameplay videos I've been watching. I feel like the only thing it's missing is dance emotes.
Yes. The swastika was the main symbol of the Reich during WW2. Removing it is a concession that reduces historical accuracy. If you don't want to people to play as Nazis, then don't make a multiplayer game set in WW2. The whole point of using a historical setting is to replicate said setting. The more concessions you make, the less relevant the setting becomes.
Except that's not really an accurate assessment. EA's statement is "if you object to female combatants in this game regardless of reasoning, we don't care." That's not really a surprising stance, as the BF series has become less and less historically accurate with each iteration. The people who really care about historical accuracy are in the minority. The majority of players just want to jump out of planes and get headshots while skydiving.
Last edited:
Are you admitting that you've never seen a prothetic arm before?
Who cares? EA will fuck up this game anyways. i could care less if BF5 had a all woman cast of ww2, i still feel ea will find a way to mess it up.
EDIT: to clear it up, the fact the game have a woman didn't make me want to not get this game, it EA's Past Record.
EDIT: to clear it up, the fact the game have a woman didn't make me want to not get this game, it EA's Past Record.
I'm sure maybe a handful of them genuinely want historical accuracy, but the rest is straight up sexism. You don't get over 400k dislikes on a video because people are history buffs.
So don't let this be the hill that you die on. Don't defend their bullshit or what they choose to hide behind in order to peddle it.
"These are people who are uneducated — they don't understand that this is a plausible scenario, and listen: this is a game," he says.
I don't even like Battlefield and I want to buy it now.
User Banned (5 Days): Sexism. Using historical accuracy as a means to discredit gender inclusion.
No, For Honor is a fantasy amalgamation of different countries and historical periods. It's not trying to replicate a specific historical setting or event. If the critics were entirely comprised of sexists, we'd be seeing a lot more outrage about any game that features playable female characters, such as...
The Division 1 & 2
Ghost Recon: Wildlands
Titanfall 1 & 2
Various Call of Duty games
For Honor
Various Rainbow Six games, including the newest one
Mass Effect 1-3 & Andromeda
Dragon Age 1, 2 & Inquisition
Prey
Far Cry 5
Fallout 1-4 & New Vegas
Elder Scrolls 1-5
Overwatch
Killing Floor 1 & 2
Left 4 Dead 1 & 2
Dead By Daylight
Friday the 13th
Fortnite
PUBG
Etc.
It's pretty obvious that BFV's historical setting is a key factor in the complaints about the inclusion of female combatants yet people seem committed to blaming it all on sexism.
That is demonstrably false. There are actually many games that feature playable characters (see list above) yet only BFV has received such controversy. The key distinction between BFV and the games I listed? A specific historical setting in which female combatants did not exist within the represented factions.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of sexist gamers (and people in general) on the internet. However, you shouldn't automatically assume that everyone complaining about the presence of a female character is sexist.
Yes, women were part of WW2... in support roles (except for the Soviets). There were plenty of female medics, nurses, machinists, radio operators, drivers, postal workers, etc. There were no female front-line combatants in the American, German or British armies. There definitely weren't any black female soldiers in the German army.
I understand the appeal of diversity. I prefer to play as female characters in my games. However, let's not pretend that BFV's representation of women in WW2 is in any way historically accurate.
Last edited:
Gonna say the same thing to you that I said to the other guy. You do not get over 400k dislikes on a video because people are history buffs. I am sure there are a handful of players that actually care, but the vast majority of people complaining are doing it out of toxic masculinity and sexism that runs rampant in gaming. Do not dismiss or downplay that this is the case. Because it is the case and has been the case for a long time. We see it every single time a female character is shown, a female protagonist is revealed or even when a female gamer says something in game chat.
We have endless evidence of this fact and yet everytime it bubbles to the surface we have people that either downplay it or dismiss it and its really annoying.
It is sexism, because It's been proved time and time again that women took part in WW2 and there's nothing wrong with including them.
Damn. Reading that had my chest filling up with pride. Never thought EA would say something to get me pumped up like that.
Look if you wanna ignore the mountain of evidence that its mostly sexism then thats on you. But don't expect the rest of us to buy the song and dance about hundreds of thousands of players suddenly fretting over historical accuracy. They introduced female Russian snipers in Battlefield 1 (Which is 100% historically accurate) and people bitched about it then too.
Are there people that genuinely care? Yes. I'm sure that there are some people out there that are honestly bothered by the various inaccuracies in the weapons and customizations.
Are they the majority? Not even close. The vast majority of the people who made this into the deal it was were doing it out of the usual toxic masculinity and sexism that is so prevalent in gaming culture at the moment.
Last edited:
That does not explain why the second trailer did not get nearly as many dislikes despite showing female characters. That also does not explain why Battlefield 1 reveal trailer was the most liked gaming trailer ever despite starting with a female Arab character riding a horse. With that said though I do realize what you are saying. Toxic masculinity and sexism is a huge problem in gaming and I don't want to downplay it at all. And I am inclined to agree that a significant portion of the dislikes on that trailer came from this problem.
Probably because the second trailer wasn't being watched as widely. The trailer that got all the hate was the reveal trailer and had ALOT more eyes on it when they showed it. And I mean people watching E3 not just YouTube views. Meanwhile all of the other videos got alot less exposure or were uploaded by popluar YouTubers like LevelCap and JackFrags. So of course their videos are not gonna garner as much hate.
This is not about accuracy. This is about abunch of children and morons from Twitch and YouTube gang negging a video with a woman in it.
Oh look. More people bending over backwards to explain away clear sexism. How shocking and unexpected
Remember how most of the complaints around the reveal centred around cosmetics and how it's not 'historically accurate'. Seems that for most people (maybe not all) that little facade is stripping away and now the toxic dregs of the Battlefield community are out in full force now because of the amount of women they are seeing in gameplay. What a pitiful existence they have. Go watch The History Channel for historical accuracy and let a game be a game.
For those still banging on about 'historical accuracy', mention that tanks and weapons being used by both factions even though that faction didn't use or have that weaponry or it being used in the wrong time period. Not to mention the battle of Narvik features just Germany and Britain and no actual Norwegians. Funny that these aren't being mentioned.
For those still banging on about 'historical accuracy', mention that tanks and weapons being used by both factions even though that faction didn't use or have that weaponry or it being used in the wrong time period. Not to mention the battle of Narvik features just Germany and Britain and no actual Norwegians. Funny that these aren't being mentioned.
I am so hyped for this game. It's currently the only game I have pre-ordered. I'm still playing BF1 and having a blast, and the addition of female characters only increases my excitement for the game. Bring it on.
Exactly what I was thinking. Of all the nice easy lobs to get thrown, this is among the simplest to hit out of the park. And judging by the response this is getting, I'd say they did.
Women were allowed (and used) in front line combat roles by the Red Army. To the best of my knowledge, women were not allowed (or used) in front line combat roles in the British, US, German, or Imperial Japanese armies. The closest they came was manning stationary AA guns I believe. There were no female paratroopers or infantry in the British, US, German, or Japanese armies for example, AFAIK. If I'm wrong about that I'd be very keen to hear the details though, because it's a very interesting topic.
Women also played a major role in the French Resistance, which is pertinent because I believe that they're one of the confirmed post-launch factions.
FWIW, BF1 already has female soldiers for the Russian faction, which I'm a fan of.
Polish resistance too, which I'm hoping finally gets a little play this time around since that just gets completely skipped over in most WWII games. Not getting my hopes up too much, or anything; but it would be nice to see.
That trailer were hot garbage, even taking prosthetic arms and women aside. Plenty of people didn't like the trailer for it's style and putting everyone who disliked it in the camp of sexist or "history buffs" is pretty naive.
Are all of the people that disliked the video sexist? Of course not.
Are the majority of them sexist? Yeah. Its been proven to be the case over and over and over again at this point. The fact EA had to make a public statement about it should tell you that.
The people complaining about the historical anachronism of western women soldiers for the sake of "immersion" and "historical accuracy" reveal the true depth of their concern for history: it is only skin deep. Because there are just as egregious leaps from history that many of the complainers would be willing to sweep under the rug under the banner of "gameplay".
Like the proliferation of semiautomatic and automatic weaponry. Or the inaccurately represented use of vehicles that were not fielded by the nation in question. Or the use of armored zeppelins as battlefield superiority platforms rather than as terror devices. Or everything involving the depiction of the Battle of Narvik.
But most people complaining won't care. Because historically accurate gameplay would mean little to no automatics, restricted weapons and vehicles (for example, the Ottomans would not have tanks at all in BF1). It would not be as "fun", so they will forgive these historical transgressions if they are aware of them at all.
But the historical anachronism of women on the frontlines? Now there's a line that for some reason should not be crossed, there is something that shatters their high school-informed suspension of disbelief.
The people focusing on criticism of the inclusion of women for their cries of "historical accuracy" only reveal their own inherent ignorance and bias, more fans of how they believe history should be depicted in a game than how history actually happened.
Like the proliferation of semiautomatic and automatic weaponry. Or the inaccurately represented use of vehicles that were not fielded by the nation in question. Or the use of armored zeppelins as battlefield superiority platforms rather than as terror devices. Or everything involving the depiction of the Battle of Narvik.
But most people complaining won't care. Because historically accurate gameplay would mean little to no automatics, restricted weapons and vehicles (for example, the Ottomans would not have tanks at all in BF1). It would not be as "fun", so they will forgive these historical transgressions if they are aware of them at all.
But the historical anachronism of women on the frontlines? Now there's a line that for some reason should not be crossed, there is something that shatters their high school-informed suspension of disbelief.
The people focusing on criticism of the inclusion of women for their cries of "historical accuracy" only reveal their own inherent ignorance and bias, more fans of how they believe history should be depicted in a game than how history actually happened.
Good answer from EA/Dice, if you are so insecure that you can't stand women in your "hyper realistic" interpretation of WW 2 aka Battlefield 5 you really have a problem mate.
I'm all for adding female characters to your game if that means more players are going to play it, because they can identify with the characters they are playing. It's a good thing trying to expand your playerbase and and if you have a problem with that, well, maybe this ain't the game for you then.
Now what I don't like as much are the cosmetics, like soldiers with prosthetics running around on a battlefield and other nitpicky stuff like the Sturmtiger being used as a tankdestroyer.
But despite that I'll still get the game, because a. it's WW2, albeit a fantasy version of it but whatever, b. it looks good and c. it apparently plays a bit different compared to BF1.
A bit offtopic: Granted I don't like BF1 but not because of the women, but because it was the first AAA WW1 game and they've done, atleast imho, a rather poor job of capturing the atmosphere of WW1, like mostly automatic or semiautomatic rifles, tanks that are too fast, running and gunning, etc..
I'm all for adding female characters to your game if that means more players are going to play it, because they can identify with the characters they are playing. It's a good thing trying to expand your playerbase and and if you have a problem with that, well, maybe this ain't the game for you then.
Now what I don't like as much are the cosmetics, like soldiers with prosthetics running around on a battlefield and other nitpicky stuff like the Sturmtiger being used as a tankdestroyer.
But despite that I'll still get the game, because a. it's WW2, albeit a fantasy version of it but whatever, b. it looks good and c. it apparently plays a bit different compared to BF1.
A bit offtopic: Granted I don't like BF1 but not because of the women, but because it was the first AAA WW1 game and they've done, atleast imho, a rather poor job of capturing the atmosphere of WW1, like mostly automatic or semiautomatic rifles, tanks that are too fast, running and gunning, etc..
It would be great if these people disliked it enough to boycott the game while the change created enough interest with other demographics to counter the lost sales.
Not only would the game then feature playable women but it would also have a much more inclusive online community. And now with this response from EA I might even buy and support the game out of principle.
Not only would the game then feature playable women but it would also have a much more inclusive online community. And now with this response from EA I might even buy and support the game out of principle.
Here is a gameplay clip from the expansion pack Battlefield 1942, the original BF game.
Yes, that's a fucking jetpack. In a WWII game.
Please, tell me more about how BF used to be "pretty realistic in terms of its historical context". Tell me more about how out of place drones would be in WWII.
You're missing his point---and in this particular instance he has a valid one---about these people making a stink about women in BF but seemingly fully embracing it in other titles like Siege. So clearly there is some sexism, there is some sexism defending itself with a desire for a more realistic representation of WWII combat, and there are at least some people who desire that more realistic representation without a sexist motivation. The people deciding that it is entirely sexism are just as wrong as the people they're complaining about.
The reality of the situation is that more diversity means more character customization means more things to monetize, so EA gets to "do the right thing" and make money at the same time. Not a bad position to be in.
Personally I'm all for the inclusion of playable female characters in BF, as long as they have the same size models and hitboxes as the males. In many games the female models have been smaller visually and sometimes even with smaller hitboxes so that if you're not using a female model in multiplayer you're at a competitive disadvantage.
This is how it is working.
There is an audience who is now completely and utterly primed to flag and fight what is seen as the "SJW agenda". Their entire thing is to fight on sight. At first it will be social media bleating as a reaction.
This is then followed by starting to push debunk reasons.
Historical accuracy.
Why are we letting corporations shove LGBT+ down our throats. They're just heartless and doing it for the money.
The swarm pick this up and push and push and push and push. Do they particularly care about the context around any of this? No. It is simply ammunition to use in their war on "the other side".
In their heads, it isn't sexist. But through social compliance, they are actually taking up that stance as long as it means that they are fighting those who have been positioned as their enemy.
EDIT:
This is why the conversations around this get shut down. It is clear and transparent that the "I have a reasonable discussion" thing that is being pushed on near to every instance of this is utterly being piggybacked in order to wage a campaign of negativity.
Personally, I feel EA have taken the right stance. This is the game. You buy it, or you don't.
Last edited:
Good on EA/Dice for this stance.
No premium pass and now this pretty much solidifies my purchase.
No premium pass and now this pretty much solidifies my purchase.
Good job EA. This should be the response to all controversies. Don't like what the game offers? Then don't fucking buy it.
Yes but you have to look at the ratio of likes to dislikes. That clearly shows the difference. You are making a huge assumption here that most of the people who dislike the reveal trailer did not watch the E3 trailer. And like I said before, Battlefield 1's reveal trailer also goes against what you are saying. There was literally an Arab woman shown riding a horse in a middle eastern desert at the start of the trailer in a World War 1 game. It's the most liked video game trailer ever if I am not mistaken. I think people would have had a huge problem with that trailer if she was shown riding that horse in the western front setting surrounded by trenches. And that's the point I am trying to make. A lot of people are complaining because of the thematic inconsistency.
And I am not trying to downplay the role of sexism in the reception of the Battlefield V trailer. I am simply saying that the majority of the people disliking that trailer might not be doing it because of sexist reasons. A significant portion might be. And I might be wrong because there is no way of telling. But I truly feel that it's not the case. And I am saying this while knowing how prominent sexism is in the gaming culture and on the internet.
Well look at that, I agree with EA on something. Didn't expect that today XD
Absolutely well said.
Absolutely well said.
Good on EA.
I may not like their business practices, but when it comes to sociopolitical controversies, I always am positively surprised by their stance of diversity.
I mean, there's controversies and there's controversies.
Some controversies happen for a good reason, others, like this one, are just stupid bullshit.
I may not like their business practices, but when it comes to sociopolitical controversies, I always am positively surprised by their stance of diversity.
I mean, there's controversies and there's controversies.
Some controversies happen for a good reason, others, like this one, are just stupid bullshit.
Lost in all of this is that both trailers they've released so far have been very, very bad by Battlefield standards. They haven't really had the confidence to show a 64 player match in a public setting like they did with BF1. Most of the heavy lifting is being done by youtubers who have to piece together gameplay changes from their time at EA Play and scattershot interviews with the devs. There just hasn't been a strong, coordinated roll-out of the actual game like in years past and that's letting angry sexists fill the void.
The marketing for this game had been very poor thus far compared to the previous Battlefield games. This is really sad because Battlefield V sounds like it is shaping up to be the best Battlefield game ever in my opinion. I hope they release a demo soon. I can't wait to get my hands on this game and try all the new changes.