These tough alpha males complaining about women being in the game, are they the same shit heels screaming about not being able to wear swastikas and shit?
Pretty much. These are the exact same people who accuse "SJW's" like Anita Sarkesian of "censorship".
This is where I stand too. These deafening cries for historical accuracy only seem to pop up in regards to minorities and women being represented rather than the multitude of concessions made to turn these wars into fun games in the first place.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.
Last edited: