Whenever people start saying "but you shouldn't even discuss this", I start having conflicted feelings. We should be able to comment the inclusion of women in a game which claims to be set in WW2 ( even though the trailer looked weird, that's what they say, claim and advertise so we have to be logical even though they aren't themselves ), and how poorly that has been done without being instantly branded as gamergate/right-wing/misogynist, etc.
Would there be any uproar if they bothered using historical references ( things like xyzg mentioned ), or straight-up admitted that their game had little to do with the actual WW2 ? A much quieter one, for sure. You can't just blame everyone of being intolerant, it can't just be them when the reaction's so massive.
I'm not, I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss what you put in your example. But let's face it, some comments out there about women (and even black people in BF1) being in the game are fucking retarded. And there were women actively fighting in resistance groups together with men, their lives depended on it. So if you can suspend your disbelief that you can re-spawn, use a non-standard loudout for your solder and certain game-mechanics then I don't see why it's such a problem with adding women to the roster.
TheZor wrote:
I think you could safely make a scale of the different elements ( weapon loadouts, maps and so on ) according to their importance in terms of immersion for the average Joe. Even him would have trouble with Nazi female soldiers, but I doubt he'll care much that X tank wasn't used during that specific time-period.
I'm honestly pretty puzzled that you can get German weapons as allies and vice versa, it makes no sense at all and I'm not in favour of it either - maybe it was just an example you were using, sorry then ! It'd be as imbecile as giving you a red lightsaber as a Jedi.
But it's been like that since BF3, someone in the Chinese army can start with U.S weapons and gadgets. The "authentic" part with BF after Bad Company has basically been that it's set in a certain time-period and there were "real" factions on different sides, that's it. So claiming that Dice has suddenly gone off the rails with it's authenticity is not only wrong but disingenuous if you have played any of the prior BF games.
TheZor wrote:
The laughable justification by the DICE dev was too much to simply overlook and give him a pat on the head for being "nice", even though I sympathize with his intentions. Those matters hold a good deal of importance for a lot of people ( no matter how ridiculous it is, it's a friggin' videogame ), hence why it bothers me so much that it's being explained so poorly, so imprecisely - it only ends up backfiring.
Personally I don't care either way what some dice dev gave as a reason as I find it that the only reason that should have been given was "is it fun and does it add anything?". That some dev claims those were his reasons then I can't dispute that as I can't read his mind and it might or might not be just a ploy.
TheZor wrote:
PS: I know that this could be seen as nit-picking and we fundamentally agree, but some people do care
All I'm saying is, who gives a shit if there are women in the game as that is not what makes it or breaks it for me. And complaining about women as characters in a WW2 game to me seems not only daft but also counter-productive as the focus shifts from something that does affect the game which are the mechanics.
And, you also have quite a bit of authentic games set in different periods, they are mostly boring and dead because they are too authentic and "real" (and they don't have any women in them).
Kanint wrote:
Would probably be easier if DICE just came out and admitted: "Ok fine, we don't actually care about history, we're just adding prosthetic arms, katanas and women so we can sell them as cosmetics".
But of course that's the main reason behind it. At least they're not loot-boxes anymore.
I wonder if most of the pseudo-drama born from that (pretty bad) trailer was part of a grand marketing scheme, by creating something that wrestles expectations and can be seen as 'controversial' in order to reach out to the largest number of people, generating interest among even those who are outside of the gaming sphere. Whether it's bad or good publicity doesn't matter, everyone is talking about Battlefield and with the direct competition being stuck in a comatose state with no hope besides pressing F, for the PR team this still classifies as a big winning move.
I'm not talking about the inclusion of women (which is absolutely fine by me, having options is always good in multiplayer, they can include a playable non-binary attack rotorcraft for all I care) but as already mentioned by many users, a lot of bile could be avoided if they just admitted the full-bombastic alternative nature of the video game without pushing the we're trying to reshape history as we see fit!1 button, that's quite silly and encourages folks to perceive it as something malicious. Then again, it might just be their strategy to begin with, they keep on baitin' . I guess time and proper gameplay footages will tell the true story.
^^ THIS! So long as they maintain the fact this is an "alternate view" on WW2 then.. cool BUT if they don't do that and try to reshape actual historical facts then.. That is NOT good... Then they're warping/skewing history to suit their current narrative/agenda just to be "Inclusive" and the youth over time will take this as fact.
MSI GT72S 6QF Dominator Pro S 29th Anniversary Intel i7 6820HK @ 4.0Ghz, 32GB DDR4-2133 RAM, 2x256GB Raid0 Toshiba NVMe 2.5 inch PCIe SSD, Nvidia Geforce GTX 980 OC'ed 200+ Core / 200+ Mem, 17.3 inch LG IPS HD Display @ 75Hz, Intel 7265AC Wifi, Windows 10 Pro BIOS version: .112 EC Firmware version: .105
What's wrong with most of the AAA titles nowadays?
Instead of using new technology (VR, anyone?) and choosing for innovation they choose the safe (money-guaranteed) road. Some new gimmicks left & right, adding political correctness stuff.
I must admit that some new stuff seem to be more slower-pace orientated: Less bullets and grenades, more types of movement,...
If they just could recreate the Forgotten Hope 2 mod with this Frostbite engine...
What's wrong with most of the AAA titles nowadays?
Instead of using new technology (VR, anyone?) and choosing for innovation they choose the safe (money-guaranteed) road. Some new gimmicks left & right, adding political correctness stuff.
I must admit that some new stuff seem to be more slower-pace orientated: Less bullets and grenades, more types of movement,...
If they just could recreate the Forgotten Hope 2 mod with this Frostbite engine...
How would an AAA game produce good sales, when for example VR is still a niche product?
Enthoo Evolv ATX TG // Asus Prime x370 // Ryzen 1700 // Gainward GTX 1080 // 16GB DDR4-3200
Personally I give zero fucks about unlocks or cosmetics shit, but people nowadays have no reason to play because they got all that unlocks/cosmetics (BF1), like that's a stupid reason to stop playing a game cuz there is nothing to gain.. How about just play for fun or to win? Only thing I really care about is how hard it will be to see who's friend or foe in a game with these cosmetic bullshit things . For all I care they can all weak pink clothing, just easier to spot and kill them tho.
Everything about the game sounds great except for the trailer. Hmm.
The way I see it, every life is a pile of good things and bad things. The good things don’t always soften the bad things, but vice versa, the bad things don’t always spoil the good things and make them unimportant.
Everything about the game sounds great except for the trailer. Hmm.
Yeah, the trailer was an odd choice by Dice. They have impressed on people (well atleast me) with most of their other trailers...but this one felt shitty.
The trailer actually reminded me of a Bad Company 2 trailer. Mainly because both trailers focused on a squad, entering a house, and switching to showing a "game interface" to simulate gameplay.
I just found it again and there are differences, if anyone is curious or nostalgic:
Recently, incorrect minimum PC specs for #Battlefield V were published as placeholders. We haven’t announced our minimum or recommended specs for Battlefield V yet. Stay tuned!
Whenever people start saying "but you shouldn't even discuss this", I start having conflicted feelings. We should be able to comment the inclusion of women in a game which claims to be set in WW2 ( even though the trailer looked weird, that's what they say, claim and advertise so we have to be logical even though they aren't themselves ), and how poorly that has been done without being instantly branded as gamergate/right-wing/misogynist, etc.
Would there be any uproar if they bothered using historical references ( things like xyzg mentioned ), or straight-up admitted that their game had little to do with the actual WW2 ? A much quieter one, for sure. You can't just blame everyone of being intolerant, it can't just be them when the reaction's so massive.
I'm not, I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss what you put in your example. But let's face it, some comments out there about women (and even black people in BF1) being in the game are fucking retarded. And there were women actively fighting in resistance groups together with men, their lives depended on it. So if you can suspend your disbelief that you can re-spawn, use a non-standard loudout for your solder and certain game-mechanics then I don't see why it's such a problem with adding women to the roster.
TheZor wrote:
I think you could safely make a scale of the different elements ( weapon loadouts, maps and so on ) according to their importance in terms of immersion for the average Joe. Even him would have trouble with Nazi female soldiers, but I doubt he'll care much that X tank wasn't used during that specific time-period.
I'm honestly pretty puzzled that you can get German weapons as allies and vice versa, it makes no sense at all and I'm not in favour of it either - maybe it was just an example you were using, sorry then ! It'd be as imbecile as giving you a red lightsaber as a Jedi.
But it's been like that since BF3, someone in the Chinese army can start with U.S weapons and gadgets. The "authentic" part with BF after Bad Company has basically been that it's set in a certain time-period and there were "real" factions on different sides, that's it. So claiming that Dice has suddenly gone off the rails with it's authenticity is not only wrong but disingenuous if you have played any of the prior BF games.
TheZor wrote:
The laughable justification by the DICE dev was too much to simply overlook and give him a pat on the head for being "nice", even though I sympathize with his intentions. Those matters hold a good deal of importance for a lot of people ( no matter how ridiculous it is, it's a friggin' videogame ), hence why it bothers me so much that it's being explained so poorly, so imprecisely - it only ends up backfiring.
Personally I don't care either way what some dice dev gave as a reason as I find it that the only reason that should have been given was "is it fun and does it add anything?". That some dev claims those were his reasons then I can't dispute that as I can't read his mind and it might or might not be just a ploy.
TheZor wrote:
PS: I know that this could be seen as nit-picking and we fundamentally agree, but some people do care
All I'm saying is, who gives a shit if there are women in the game as that is not what makes it or breaks it for me. And complaining about women as characters in a WW2 game to me seems not only daft but also counter-productive as the focus shifts from something that does affect the game which are the mechanics.
And, you also have quite a bit of authentic games set in different periods, they are mostly boring and dead because they are too authentic and "real" (and they don't have any women in them).
Kanint wrote:
Would probably be easier if DICE just came out and admitted: "Ok fine, we don't actually care about history, we're just adding prosthetic arms, katanas and women so we can sell them as cosmetics".
But of course that's the main reason behind it. At least they're not loot-boxes anymore.
Thanks for replying, always nice debating with you
Honestly, I haven't played a Battlefield game for more than half an hour since Battlefield 2142, BF3 didn't click with me at all and since the following games have been more of it, I'm pretty clueless actually.
Amazing that you can use the opponent faction's weapons in your loadout, it's incredibly dumb in itself but hey, easier to do than properly balance stuff I guess
They can't.. at least NOT in MP otherwise you'd screw up the actual physical map possibly hosing the other side although I'd love to actually make/dig full tunnels to the other side then see if the opposition tries to provoke a major cave-in! Or bring down a mountain on-top the enemy's main base totally disrupting them for the entire game session! Yeah not gonna happen even if the netcode and engine supported it.
MSI GT72S 6QF Dominator Pro S 29th Anniversary Intel i7 6820HK @ 4.0Ghz, 32GB DDR4-2133 RAM, 2x256GB Raid0 Toshiba NVMe 2.5 inch PCIe SSD, Nvidia Geforce GTX 980 OC'ed 200+ Core / 200+ Mem, 17.3 inch LG IPS HD Display @ 75Hz, Intel 7265AC Wifi, Windows 10 Pro BIOS version: .112 EC Firmware version: .105
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
We should be able to comment the inclusion of women in a game which 
That is NOT good... Then they're warping/skewing history to suit their current narrative/agenda just to be "Inclusive" and the youth over time will take this as fact. 
I'm a twat.
