-
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
If women in a video game bothers ya so much maybe ya shouldn't be here
Guess that they shouldn't have them playable and have you rape and murder them instead. Is that what you're suggesting?
Edit: Might be reading it wrong. lol.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Battlefield/comments/8qq9jw/calling_me_uneducated_is_the_last_straw/
someone hold me. i'm dying over here
someone hold me. i'm dying over here
Nobody mentioned Lyudmila Pavlichenko?(apologies if they have I've only skimmed through the thread trying to ignore the dumbest posts here). Credited with 309 kills including 36 German snipers. Now this is Stalinist Russia so maybe there's some propaganda? However there were many female snipers in the Russian front. Let alone Operatives, Resistance Guerilla fighters etc. The idea that the war was only fought by rank and file (even when there were female rank and file soldiers, not that the ignorant dolts know this) is stupid.
Ignorant people tend to be ignorant of many things, as is plain to see in this thread.
Ignorant people tend to be ignorant of many things, as is plain to see in this thread.
There is one thing that all of the above have in common (excluding Battlefield 1): They take place in a modern or future setting where it's generally accepted and common place to see women serving in the military alongside men. In the case of Battlefield 1, they limited these characters to the historically accurate factions. When it comes to Battlefield V, I feel that a large contingent of the complaints are coming from an American point of view, where during WW2 women served as uniformed auxiliaries in non-combat roles. I'm curious if Russian and French men would have the same thoughts given that women did partake in combat roles during WW2.
Of course you will always have your misogynist asshats who will feel threatened by a female.
For a game that doesn't try to be 100% accurate, then yeah. for sure.
I'm happy that they're taking a stand here (particularly on this issue), and I hope that more companies follow their lead and adopt a "don't like it, don't buy it" model instead of compromising and capitulating to complainers.
You're joking but some former posters here and the alt right would be perfectly happy to have that instead.
I don't care about this discussion at all. Don't even know what it is about. I just have developed a rather strong dislike against EA. Too bad because I really like the guys from Dice.
Time & place dude.
i'm all for shitting on EA because...they're EA after all.
But I feel like it's not exactly the correct reaction to EA doing something good.
Also it makes it look like you're one of the mysoginists unhappy with women being in games other than being titty dispensers.
Oh I agree with you. They definitely have some black marks on their record but this certainly isn't one of them.
The line being drawn at women is always funny to me. Literally, the first YouTuber video I saw of BFV footage had an Allied soldier paradropping into Narvik with German weapons, what looked to be the StG 44 and the Panzerfaust. The Battles of Narvik took place in 1940. The Panzerfaust and StG 44 were both put into service in 1943.
Why does no one want to talk about this timetraveling, possibly double agent, allied soldier being portrayed in BFV, and the implications it has on historical accuracy, authenticity, and the honor of those who sacrificed during the war?
Edit: Oh, and it also looks like he had a Walther P38, although I guess I can let that slide because that was produced in 1938. Still an Allied soldier basically fully kitted with German weaponry though.
Why does no one want to talk about this timetraveling, possibly double agent, allied soldier being portrayed in BFV, and the implications it has on historical accuracy, authenticity, and the honor of those who sacrificed during the war?
Edit: Oh, and it also looks like he had a Walther P38, although I guess I can let that slide because that was produced in 1938. Still an Allied soldier basically fully kitted with German weaponry though.
Last edited:
I lost a few brain cells reading this. there are many videogames with women on the cover that "Huge penis'd men" are still interested in. Whoever the hell is on the cover has nothing to do with the backlash.I think I figured it out.
You don't honestly expect men (huge-penis'd men, I might add) to go into their local GameStore and purchase a video game with a m'lady front and center on it, do you? I know I don't. It makes my testosterone levels plummet even further to the ground just thinking about it.
OP
OP
This...was my attempt at a joke. Doesn't seem to have worked, please ignore lol
God you cant do that to me without the /s !
Its very hard to tell sometimes lol
I don't know why one would be unhappy because of women being in games. This is so fundamentally stupid on all levels it's not even worth a discussion.
Well a reality tv show con artist running for president is a stupid idea on such a fundamental level it shoudln't be worth discussing either but here we are.
Problems don't go away if we ignore them :/
OP
OP
I thought it was obvious enough without the /s, sad to see that that's not the case. Lesson learned lol
I'm pretty sure that post was entirely sarcasm, pointing out that companies that feature female protagonist don't actually advertise it as such in most cases. That seems to be the case for shooter games at least, though I would say there's not a complete lack of Precedence because you have Tomb Raider, Lost Legacy, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and others to say a few.
Granted those are more action adventure type games then shooters by most definitions though.
I think the general point is that Battlefield is probably one of the first mega AAA shooter franchises to solely feature a woman in combat on the cover, even though the concept of women in shooters or as soldiers isn't new to gaming by any stretch.
Go and Google "20th century prosthesis", "history of prosthesis", "1940s prosthesis", "war and prosthesis", or any similar phrase and let me know how many times Dorrance comes up in the first five pages.
Overwatch, tomb raider, UC TLL, life is strange, mirrors edge, horizon, beyond two souls, nier, gravity rush just to name a few. There's 0 evidence that what you said is true and there's 0 reason for someone not to buy a game just because theres a girl on the cover. That's just crazy
People in general probably not, but I have a feeling that for the crowd EA is responding to here that may be the case. Even for superficial reasons IE: People calling Aloy ugly.
I wasn't saying that in any way whatsoever, you completely misread my point.
I'm saying major shooter franchises havent used women prominently in marketing before, and they havent.
I made the same point as you that many highly successful games have, and I even mentioned Tomb Raider and Lost Legacy, and that there's no reason to believe a woman on the cover or in a starring role won't sell the game.
No? Why should I know that? But someone was kind enough to reply to me before you, so now I know.
and theres a reason for that. many shooters dont feature women as central protagonists
Not sure why people can't see it as an alternate WW2 game. We've had so many WW2 games before and we're in this Overwatch, PUBG Fortnite era, it's bound to have an influence.
Last edited:
If by WWII game you mean D Day movie based game, sure.
There's nothing inherently unWWII in this game because women are in it especially compared to the other WWII games that have been out.
That's just not true. Battlefield 3 originally was going to ship with a US faction that was all white men. It was only after we complained during the Beta that they woke up and changed it.
Compared to the rest of the industry?
I'm not saying they're good, I'm saying they're better.
I noticed this too, so much footage of an "allied" attack with German weapons. Absolutly sucks.
exactly. women were active participants of that war.
I heard Battlefield 1dlc has female soldiers? now I'm going to buy the Revolution edition just for that. only played the base game back in 2016.
It would've been nice to see them not only have the appropriate faction specific weapons (as in BF1942), but go further and have them be historically accurate as to year of the battle in question, so that earlier battles from the war featured different weapons and vehicles from later battles in the war. But obviously DICE is going in the complete opposite direction here.
The only remaining vestige is faction specific vehicles - maybe they should've gone all the way and ditched those too, at least that would've made balance easier (and asymmetric vehicle balance is not something DICE will ever get to work going by past experience). You could argue that it might've made identifying friend from foe harder, but with the current state of play in BF5 I don't really know how you easily do that anyway, so it probably wouldn't have been much of a loss.
Just a friendly reminder battlefield 1 with all dlc in $15 and gets you 10% off a pre order of V
So now it's google's fault you can't do basic research? Gimme a break. Why are you obsessed with having me do your googling for you? But apparently I am incapable of resisting. So "any similar phrase", like, oh, let's say "world war 2 prostheis"? Where the fourth and sixth results mention them? Or "war and prosthetics" where the second result mentions them? Guess we're back to you being incapable of basic research. All of which is again an attempt to obfuscate your error, because whether they mentioned Dorrance hooks or not nobody was talking about Hosmer hooks in the context of World War 2 because they didnt exist.
And by the by, the search terms you listed? "history of prosthesis", first page, sixth result mentions them, "1940s prosthesis", third page, ninth result mentions them, "war and prosthesis", first page, fourth result. Even leaving aside the right name for the prosthetic involved nearly all those search results provide ample evidence that by the 1940's prosthetics could easily be used in the manner shown. The only way to avoid that fact seems to be wilful ignorance. Am I being trolled? If so kudos I suppose. Either way I'm done.
You know that the point was for you to actually count, right?
On the first page of each search result:
"World War 2 prosthesis" - 2/9
"War and prosthetics" - 1/10 (repeat article)
"History of prosthesis" - 1/10 (repeat article)
"1940s prosthesis" - 0/10
That's two articles out of dozens of search results that mention Dorrance hooks - and only a single short paragraph in each of them. There were comprehensive 50+ page articles in those results that didn't mention Dorrance hooks.
So please spare me on what degree black belt you are in Google Fu, try to chill the hell out, and maybe next time someone asks for a source on a claim, don't let your weird persecution complex convince you that they're doing it just to insult you.
You are right about one thing. This is a reeaaal stupid argument.