-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes 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
When EA will understand that at the base one complains not of the presence of the woman but of the artistic direction of the customization much too advanced and WTF for the time of the second world war.
The majority of people who complained were, for example, about the woman wearing a prosthesis. The media and the small of spirits then accused of sexism and seized the problem by shouting to the misogynists. Whereas if it had been a man with a prosthesis, the reaction of the players would have been the same.
Of course, there are real sexists who complain about the woman herself and these are idiots but the media and EA take this minority for a majority. If women were the problem, it wouldn't just be for Battlefield. Strangely enough, we say nothing about Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Anthem when the majority of the players are sexist according to them.
Meanwhile, EA does not answer the real and only polemic: the artistic direction that is outside the WW2 era.
To answer EA, I would be happy not to buy the game. Not because of the presence of women but because I refuse to see for example a German in ninja or a German in a lumberjack mask or British in motorcycle jackets.
The majority of people who complained were, for example, about the woman wearing a prosthesis. The media and the small of spirits then accused of sexism and seized the problem by shouting to the misogynists. Whereas if it had been a man with a prosthesis, the reaction of the players would have been the same.
Of course, there are real sexists who complain about the woman herself and these are idiots but the media and EA take this minority for a majority. If women were the problem, it wouldn't just be for Battlefield. Strangely enough, we say nothing about Assassin's Creed Odyssey or Anthem when the majority of the players are sexist according to them.
Meanwhile, EA does not answer the real and only polemic: the artistic direction that is outside the WW2 era.
To answer EA, I would be happy not to buy the game. Not because of the presence of women but because I refuse to see for example a German in ninja or a German in a lumberjack mask or British in motorcycle jackets.
Have you got proof about the majority of complaints being about customisation options? I've seen the opposite such as in comment sections about the trailer, so I'd like to see your evidence.
What is the complaint, there aren't enough options?
Oh they're gonna buy it. I remember back when they revealed the game (I was still a sub) they upvoted a post that basically said "if you're using anything historical inaccurate then I won't revive you", not that they seemed to take it as a joke either...
I could easily see them buying the game and (stupidly enough) paying extra cash to EA to rent their own servers with rules like "NO PROSTHETIC, NO WOMEN, NO FACE PAINT, BLACK NAZI = BAN, WHITE SOLDIERS ONLY" lol.
It's only a matter of time before all men are wiped from video games!
Have you got proof about the majority of complaints being about customisation options? I've seen the opposite such as in comment sections about the trailer, so I'd like to see your evidence.
What is the complaint, there aren't enough options?
I like the "gay Japanese anime heroes" bit. Like, considering what they're upset about, I can't tell if it's a thing where they're raging about men not being manly enough or they're generally concerned about adding gay people next as part of the evil SJW agenda.
its the part in the Bethesda conference where he intros Wolfenstein VR
https://youtu.be/OxGorVTMDIU?t=7700
Last edited:
Both work as they're both salty but the Dead Sea is more appropriate
I think people get too hung up on the phrase "historical accuracy" or "historically accurate" and should instead use the phrase "historically possible." None of the scenes depicted in a trailer ever happened. None of them are historically accurate. You read the letters from actual soldiers during World War II, or almost any war? It's 99% boredom, and 1% sheer terror and inhumanity. You want a historically accurate game? Ok, you sit on your ass and play cards or dig holes for 99% of the game, and then there's one or two battles, most players don't see any enemies or kill them, and ~7% of players aren't allowed to play the game again. Sounds great? Okay, $60 please. Maybe $20 DLC to get a third deployment opportunity.
War movies and videogames shouldn't all try to be "historically accurate," because in most cases they can't be, they should try to be "historically possible." Did an amputee woman with a prosthetic arm find herself on the front lines of a battle? As far as historians know, no, that never happened. Could it have happened? Yes it could have. Does it make a better story, a more inclusive gameplay experience, a wider variety of characters, more options for gameplay scenarios? Yes, it does. It likely makes a better game and if you're looking to play better games then the focus shouldn't be on historical accuracy because then you're going to be playing a pretty damn shitty game -- it should be on historical possibility.
I also think people who support/want things that we've seen in the BF trailer need to be careful to overdo justifications of it on the pretense of historical accuracy and focus instead of historical possibility. For instance, prosthetics existed during World War II... but amputees would not have gone back to the front-lines with a prosthetic. Their tour would be over, at least, for Western European countries (Germans, Soviets, and Japanese could have been different because the desperation of war was on their doorsteps, and perhaps amputees were sent back out to the front lines, unfortunately war documentation in all three of those countries is pretty poor, compared to the Western Allies), and most amputees would be fitted with prosthetic limb well after the war. Because when you say, "Well prosthetics were historically accurate..." that's not correct. An infantry soldier with a prosthetic isn't accurate, but it is possible. When you focus on what was historically possible instead of on what was historically accurate, suddenly a whole slew of narrative options open up and the petty arguments about whether prosthetics were on the battlefield or whether women fought in the front lines of X battle, or something, just don't matter because developers and storytellers can now focus on making a better narrative or a better videogame.
War movies and videogames shouldn't all try to be "historically accurate," because in most cases they can't be, they should try to be "historically possible." Did an amputee woman with a prosthetic arm find herself on the front lines of a battle? As far as historians know, no, that never happened. Could it have happened? Yes it could have. Does it make a better story, a more inclusive gameplay experience, a wider variety of characters, more options for gameplay scenarios? Yes, it does. It likely makes a better game and if you're looking to play better games then the focus shouldn't be on historical accuracy because then you're going to be playing a pretty damn shitty game -- it should be on historical possibility.
I also think people who support/want things that we've seen in the BF trailer need to be careful to overdo justifications of it on the pretense of historical accuracy and focus instead of historical possibility. For instance, prosthetics existed during World War II... but amputees would not have gone back to the front-lines with a prosthetic. Their tour would be over, at least, for Western European countries (Germans, Soviets, and Japanese could have been different because the desperation of war was on their doorsteps, and perhaps amputees were sent back out to the front lines, unfortunately war documentation in all three of those countries is pretty poor, compared to the Western Allies), and most amputees would be fitted with prosthetic limb well after the war. Because when you say, "Well prosthetics were historically accurate..." that's not correct. An infantry soldier with a prosthetic isn't accurate, but it is possible. When you focus on what was historically possible instead of on what was historically accurate, suddenly a whole slew of narrative options open up and the petty arguments about whether prosthetics were on the battlefield or whether women fought in the front lines of X battle, or something, just don't matter because developers and storytellers can now focus on making a better narrative or a better videogame.
Last edited:
This is a funny defense but more just a longwinded rationalization/defence of deplorable gamers. This thread isn't about the customization options which I am sort of with you on but offtopic. Pick your hills to die on. It's a video game. These games haven't been realistic since Battlefield Vietnam, Bad Company and probably before.
I hope they realized the mistake of staying silent during gamergate
You are confusing two points in order to defend a group of sexist neckbeards, congratulations.
Damn good response, looking forward to playing.
Sadly, those people will still buy the game, but if they didn't I bet the toxicity would drop dramatically.
Sadly, those people will still buy the game, but if they didn't I bet the toxicity would drop dramatically.
Last edited:
They aren't pushing anything. If you are one of those people that think that the devs are "pushing an agenda" than I don't know what
To say to you.
The majority of complaints were about there being women soldiers, this is evidenced from comments sections in several places. Saying that a male with prosthetic in a Battlefield game would get this much anger is a false argument because it's hypothetical. You will never know.
If you want to justify your boycott of the game by conjuring up false images of German soldiers in ninja costumes, lumberjack masks, or British soldiers in motorcycle jackets, go ahead. It is hyperbolic, but you're speaking with your wallet so at least you're not going on sexist rants about this.
All of gaming for years and years until recently-straight white male.
Better and more creative options for including women? I'm not certain I get what you're saying there.
User Banned (3 Days): Dismissing gender inclusion efforts as being shoehorned
The Customization of those games. If you're going to have a full customization suite it would be foolish to exclude women and minorities if you can dress you white male character up with facepaint, grizzly beards and non uniform attire. If you can make your dude look completely crazy why should women and black people be excluded? I agree with that. The difference between COD, Fortnite and Battlefield is that Battlefield games set in actual conflicts are based on something that actually happened so there is an expectation. You can subvert that expectation sure, but don't act confused when people tell you it's not authentic.
Cool have your women, lord knows they have been waiting long enough, but it would be better if they were in something new, not shoehorned into a historical conflict in ways that probably didn't happen. Take the Russian sniper class in Battlefield 1. It's a woman, how they appeared at the time and authentic to the era. It 's how it should be done. But no one would spend money to look like that I guess, or so dice thinks.
It's the latter.
Bigoted trash was put on notice this E3 with all the female protagonists being featured in tons of big games.
Maybe they'll add one just for this.
"10/10 maximum sjw would soros again"
Bravo. This quote is the best thing to come out of EA this E3 -- much respect for that response. When "fans" bitch about things like this, I just sit around and hope the door hits them on the ass on their way out.
Bashing here? I've gotta see this, got any quotes? Are people that hateful over a perspective? Lol
I am afraid for going a bit off topic, since my comment is not about the topic of women, but how EA/DICE are avoiding the real criticism... But I will still answer your question since I love debating with you.
The evidence was clear when EA and DICE first responded to the criticism, stating that "women are here to stay". Reddit quickly commented (and even on Era) by saying it is not about the inclusion of women, but the misrepresentation and customization and how nothing of it made sense. All these comments were of course overlooked and/or avoided.
I am sorry for not having evidence, since I won't go through all the Reddit post since then to find it, and I know my post will then seem leas credible, but anyone who goes to r/battlefield daily should be able to recognize what I mean.
That's not what I expected from EA.
And it is the correct answer to those people.
EA looking for redemption?
And it is the correct answer to those people.
EA looking for redemption?
