I love the direct blunt response. It's unusual from big publishers usually.
I love the direct blunt response. It's unusual from big publishers usually.
The notion that you'd succeed even in your ridiculous hypothetical is naive. People that have lived and breathed far into adulthood thinking a certain way don't just change their beliefs, even when confronted with logic upon logic at long durations.
Nah. Eventhough I like the response, I still wont6buy anything from EA. I do think too many people just try to offended. Not everything has to be all inclusive and for everyone. I say good on EA, but I'll still pass.
At large, absolutely not, it's an impossible goal and a ridiculous burden to impose on a public forum about videogames of all places. If the moderation is strict and limits exposure to toxic bullshit allowing for a more inclusive community and in general just a friendlier environment, then it's absolutely worth it and not fucking censorship. There are many other forums that allow people with such beliefs to happily post all day long about forced inclusivity of women in games, and if you wanna head over and attempt to rationally debate them go ahead. I admire your crusade, and will be eagerly awaiting the results of your success.Just to be clear, what you're saying is that there is no value in rational debate, that you don't know how to change the views of people with beliefs for find abhorrent but that's fine because it's not your job anyway?
I mean... ok but I really don't know what on earth that attitude is going to achieve for you.
I just realized it didn't make any sense lol
Battlefield subreddit is amusing to say the least
Why do they have such an unwavering need for TOTAL HISTORICAL ACCURACY like it's the only thing that matters in a multiplayer shooting game
Literally who cares if a model is female or male, does it matter in any way towards the goal or outcome or your enjoyment of the game
Because the games have a long and storied history of being historically accurate, the multiplayer matches in past games have looked exactly like real warfare, as seen here:
And here:
So women being in a WW2 game just throws the grounded nature of what you can see in the above gifs right out the window
The moderation here is already well down the slippery slope back to how it was in the old place. Really sad and completely unnecessary. We're big boys and girls, we should be able to handle people with different views to us.
https://strategywiki.org/wiki/Battlefield_1942/Weapon_inaccuracies
That's just the tip of the iceberg for that game, too.
Because the games have a long and storied history of being historically accurate, the multiplayer matches in past games have looked exactly like real warfare, as seen here:
And here:
So women being in a WW2 game just throws the grounded nature of what you can see in the above gifs right out the window
I've never said there's no point in attempting to change the views of others, merely that expecting it to actually work large scale is incredibly unrealistic, and expecting a videogame forum to carry that burden is also unnecessary and would ultimately prove ineffective. Your hypothetical is ridiculous when you're using it as a comparison to what we're actually talking about here, but of course in that situation attempting to change the mind of said hypothetical individual is worth a try, but that situation is life and death, women in fucking Battlefield multiplayer isn't.My "ridiculous hypothetical" is an every day part of my job and there will be similar examples in all of our daily lives. The idea that there's no point in attempting to change the views of others is the most naive thing I have probably heard all year given that now and throughout history people have slaved away to change the views of others to give you the life you're living now.
It's almost as if historical accuracy has never been a key element of the series and that the people whinging about the game just don't like women being in the game for some reason
Your ban duration is pending as of my post and I dunno if you'll ever see this, but god I wish people would stop calling rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia "opposing views." This shit is not just an opinion and no, there's no danger whatsoever in removing people from the community who harbour such an abhorrent worldview. Regressives have no place at the table of "rational discourse" and should be shunned from any mainstream platform. We don't progress as a species by making concessions to people who feel threatened by the very existence of women and minorities.Speaking purely from a strategic point of view, if you want to challenge beliefs you feel are wrong then moralising and censorsing is absolutely guaranteed to fail and only strengthen those beliefs and encourage further division in society.
Historical accuracy regarding WWII is extremely important, but FPS video games undermine just about everything about war so including additional women is a drop in an inaccurate ocean. The entire concept of respawning is pretty much an insult to everyone who ever lost their life in war. Also the Norway story involving female characters looks like the most historically accurate part of the game so far.
But you can explain that to people without banning or censoring them, that is completely counterproductive and in fact exactly the kind of thing that traditionalist right wingers do. It's an abject betrayal of progressivism and will only increase the number of people attracted to those views.
The moderation here is already well down the slippery slope back to how it was in the old place. Really sad and completely unnecessary. We're big boys and girls, we should be able to handle people with different views to us.
Knowin' these dipshits angry over the game, they'll probably buy the game, then make it some sorta "event" where they film themselves break the disc (or take a picture of the broken disc), then post it to YouTube or Instagram while writing something like"#SJWfieldV", or "Suck it, SJWs!".
You just had to sneak this bullshit in there didn't you.I do think too many people just try to offended. Not everything has to be all inclusive and for everyone.
Knowin' these dipshits angry over the game, they'll probably buy the game, then make it some sorta "event" where they film themselves break the disc (or take a picture of the broken disc), then post it to YouTube or Instagram while writing something like"#SJWfieldV", or "Suck it, SJWs!".
Just to be clear, what you're saying is that there is no value in rational debate, that you don't know how to change the views of people with beliefs for find abhorrent but that's fine because it's not your job anyway?
I mean... ok but I really don't know what on earth that attitude is going to achieve for you.
The word DICE has used when talking about Battlefield games in the past isn't "realism," or "accuracy," it's "authenticity." Basically, they've always tried to model the guns, uniforms, and vehicles as accurately as possible given constraints at the time. That helps with immersion. Then gameplay then sits outside of that (which is why they don't say realism or accuracy), unlike games like ArmA, Operation Flashpoint, Red Orchestra, Verdun, Post Scriptum, etc.I never understood the whole "realism" thing, the fact that the first time I step into a multiplayer match that I can go revive someone who just got shot in the head has realism go right out the window for me. I don't care if an army's uniform color is a shade darker or lighter.
RE5 gets very racist or at best tone deaf. From zombies who literally chuck spears:This reminds me when people were saying RE5 was racist because you were killing primarily dark skinned people in central Africa. If I remember correctly, they added a whole bunch of very light skinned people to the zombie list. (sorry if I remembered this incorrectly)
I remember back in the old country, I had a similar discussion with someone about the censorship of "historical symbols", and suggested that if they want a game that portrays them "accurately", that it should force you to take part in the scenarios.It's one of the saddest arguments I've seen on any subject. No video game can ever be "historically accurate" to any war, because the horrors of war are not in any way shape or form entertaining. Are we to include concentration camps, the mass rapes of German women and children at the hands of the advancing Russian army, the bombing of German civilian towns with zero strategic military purpose by the U.S. Airforce? What about how soldiers used to see how many rifle butts it would take to cave in a human head? That's the kinda accuracy we need in our outrageously fun online shooter.
I don't usually get "triggered" by much of anything, but for some reason, this stance against women and POC really gets to me. Maybe it's because they're thinly hiding it behind "accuracy" and "they owe it to children to learn history".
I've been kicking around the hypothesis in my head that the lack of proper context in media, specifically games, has helped in some way foster the behavior we're witnessing now. Taking the actions of most selfish and evil ideology to ever exist, watering down their motivations, creating scenarios where you constantly mow down hordes and get to use their fancy tech afterwards, and saturating the market with this narrative, all lend themselves to desensitizing people to the existential threat they posed for so many people.I think you could make a real argument that heavily gamified versions of real life, modern conflicts in which millions of people were killed are inappropriate.
The fact that nobody cared until it meant having a female protagonist in a AAA videogame demonstrates pretty conclusively that these complaints are all in extremely bad faith.
Basically. These people were never honest about "rational debate", and not interested in education. The lie about mainly "learning history through videogames" is always hilarious to me. How absolutely bonkers would such a person be? They'd make Alex Jones look like a distinguished scholar lol.Ciaran These people are being met with "but it's just a video game, not a history lesson" still won't lay off about "bionic women" and "Somalian Kratos" and "forced liberal agenda". They've made up their minds and their beliefs are bigotry and sexism. It's being poorly masked by an "outrage about historical accuracy", but when I've dared to enter into the Battlefield subreddit since the first trailer dropped, I've asked these people for examples of historical accuracy from previous entries in the series. I've yet to see anything that made me sympathetic to their point of view. This series was always a joke of a cartoon when it came to representing the war. The uniforms are wrong, the armies are usually wrong, the weaponry is dead wrong, the maps are usually way off and the actual action of what's being represented is so historically inaccurate to any real war they've portrayed. So all their entries that use the settings are real wars are 99% totally inaccurate, that just leaves the bigots with the "historical accuracy" of made-up future wars.
Capcom lost their damn minds in 2009. Speaking of people who lost their damn minds did someone just without a hint of irony try to argue that kids learn about history from video games instead of history books?
This is kind of dumb, because so much of EA's approach with Battlefield V seems to have been a direct apology for the anger over Battlefront 2. At the very least you should look at their monetization strategy for yourself instead of writing them off for past sins.Nah. Eventhough I like the response, I still wont6buy anything from EA. I do think too many people just try to offended. Not everything has to be all inclusive and for everyone. I say good on EA, but I'll still pass.
I'm not google. If you can't be arsed, or can't manage, to do basic research it's not my job to make up for your failings.
Speaking purely from a strategic point of view, if you want to challenge beliefs you feel are wrong then moralising and censorsing is absolutely guaranteed to fail and only strengthen those beliefs and encourage further division in society.