Anyone who complains about people wanting realism in games (which is oftentimes integral for proper immersion and is one of the biggest things people mod games to fix after boobs and bug fixes) can fuck right off.
Sometimes there's a difference between wanting realism and what one perceives as realism. People can be misinformed on a topic and say something isn't realistic when it is.
And if a game isn't saying that it's historically accurate you wouldn't have any room to complain that it wasn't 100% correct.
Reality generally makes terrible fiction. There’s seldom a single day or week that follows a 3 act ark, has a “heroes journey” or clean resolution. Threads are left hanging, things happen for no reason, the pacing is shit, things build to nothing or come out of nowhere. Objectives are unclear, consequences are dire, and final. In a game where you can take enough bullets to make 50 cent nod in respect- and keep fighting 100%, where you can run 3 football fields without stopping- where you fight a war in which 90% of your time isn’t spent waiting or being bored.... a lady on the battlefield is what would burst the bubble of historical immersion? If this was billed as an authentic combat experience- you may have a point. Since it’s in the same franchise that allows you to encounter a megalodon- voice chat over longdistance in WW1, vehicles regenerate health and can be fixed in moments with only a hand tool- too many to list. Come on. Yeah. Battlefield has a history of gritty simulation...
All video games are wish fulfillment. We want to pretend that we're actually doing something without doing it. Which is fine, I love shooters. But I understand that no soldier in WWII was able to kill 100 Nazis, die, get resurrected, and then do it again.
Don’t get me wrong. I love video games, and even the best sim is still not up to reality. What I’m saying is that as a game, a fantasy made for fun and enjoyment- there are things that stretch or break reality for the sake of enjoyment. The original Rainbow 6 games allowed you only one shot- then your character was dead or incapacitated, no respawn, and you may have to go most of the game without using them again while they recovered. Most FPS fans don’t like that. They want to live a fantasy of battle where they feel like an action hero. Even IF there was no historical precident for women in WW2 combat, what’s so jarring about allowing women to live those fantasies too- unless a persons fantasy is a world without women in major roles?
I was agreeing with you! Video games, especially shooters or any game that has a highly technical aspect, attract those that lean on pedantry to seem interesting.
Lol. No argument. I just wanted to be clear, and carry on the ideas discussed. “Gamer gate” and things like this serve as the standing testimony that sexism is thriving in the video game community.
@tarotnathers13th- sexism isn’t exclusive to any industry or area. I can’t necessarily agree that it is no more prevalent or severe than any where else, it’s hard to compare discrimination- what’s worse, being disliked by 1,000 people or hated by 100? Being told you can’t have a job because you aren’t welcome, or being allowed a low level job where you are pressured and tormented into quitting? I suppose it’s subjective, but largely I agree that sexism is doing quite well most places. Specific to this conversation though and video games- I still maintain what I said above. That in the video game community as a whole, industry, players, etc- sexism is thriving.
Every time a games company backpedals onto "My player base who dislikes what we have revealed is sexist" kicks up a shitstorm. Just like how some "feminists" claim that since men have the potential to rape, they are all potential rapists, They effectively plug their ears to any actual criticism and pass it off as an invalid, sexist opinion. EA and Dice did not make the right decision to label their player base as misogynists. If they had handled it better, then there wouldn't be this mess currently mucking up the talk around Battlefield V. Better they come out of the gate saying Battlefield V is an interpretive take on the events of WW2 than fall back on that argument later. Controversial sure, but a far better action to take than label people who love your games as sexists.
Women were more special cases. Men were by far the majority and the default.
...Which is why a woman on the battlefield, being a more remarkable sight than a man, makes for a great main character to tell epic stories about, because they're probably only there if they're already legendarily awesome.
I wonder how many British soldiers went to war with woad warpaint slathered over their faces, I would've assumed Scottish soldiers would've done that, but goddamn does it look ugly.
nooooo bruh stfu some nibba gonna come in here and try to disprove your a and den yall gonna fight the same fight that has happened like 10 times already in this chat.
@guest Well then if you're so for realism, this game needs to be changed altogether! You die when you're hit once, or you can survive when it's a bullet to the arm or leg but will be forever crippled and will take actual in-game months to heal. The game is permadeath, no respawn ever. Reloading takes like two minutes, not five seconds. No picking up ammo from the ground, and just jamming it into your gun, it has to be the exact same type. You have one main weapon and one pistol, no four-weapon arsenal, no extra grenades (maybe like one but not 20!). No quest markers, no GPS, compass or even a map. Also you have needs, you gotta eat, drink, sleep, pee and poo. All in real-time, so you gotta have the game on for the night for the character to get some sleep. Most of the time is spent in the barracks, no battle-to-battle bullshit. No fast travel, of course, you gotta sit there and watch the character sit in a car for actual hours.
I could go on but I'm pretty sure you got my point.
Like woman did fight in the war but as mostly resistance fighters the only nation to implement them into actual combat status that was not already conquered was the Soviet Union which for the most part did it because their strategy of throwing men at the germans till they ran out of bullets was taxing. Other countries did implement them into the army but as auxillary forces not apart of the main group of fighting men and did not see any combat. The german army did implement females into their fighting force along with kids near the end of the war but it was out of pure desperation as they were beat and they were just trying to fight off the russians. Im cool with how battlefield does it after all its their game but as a fan of ww2 and an avid gamer i would like to see them make it more historically accurate and not give in to the pressures of todays society which somehow thinks they played an equal role the fighting. They existed feel free to make them an option in the game or even ha
have their own campaign but dont flood it like they did in call of duty. It just makes the game look super dumb when im shooting a whole army of black females.
Isn't this the same game series that let you leap from airplane to airplane like some jacked up tiddlywink? And you're complaining about realism? Unless you can prove that no woman saw combat at any point ever, AND that every other aspect of the game is 100% historically accurate-- from the characters and the events they take part in, right down to the types of guns and the emblems on their uniforms-- I don't see what the problem is. Actually, even if you CAN prove that, I don't see what the problem is. It's a woman, not a vagina dentata. If you're that bothered by one being represented as an essential part of the wars (which they were), but maybe not in a hyper-realistic role, then by all means: Boycott it and play a different game. Or make like Shang in Mulan-- pretend she is just a really hot guy and spend the entire rest of the game questioning your sexuality.
I would like to see the part where soldiers smeared their faces in woad/wode before going into battle during WW2. Or any soldier in WW2 with a prosthetic arm using a two handed gun in an active combat zone and on the move with any proficiency.
I didnt really care about her being a woman... I cared more about the fact that she had a prosthetic arm... like wtf. Now that's some desperate diversity shit. I guarantee you, very few people would have their arm blown off and pay a living fuck ton of money for a prosthetic during this time, and then go back to fighting in the war. Might as well make her a LatinX trans person while their digging for diversity point.
If we take it beyond the game, sure women did special ops, operate tanks and fly planes. No problem, of course they did. As far as women on the front lines face to face with a 6'4 250lb male Nazi...
Wait just a minute, this may go very wrong for me, but ... the woman of WWII we're mostly in the "We Can Do It" section. Such as factories for the planes and tanks. Not so much the front lines unless they were nurses. Women in general were definitely on the front lines, just not so much shooting at Nazis.
The " we can do it " section of women was women at home stepping up since there was a lack of men home to take the roles in factories. It's not talking about the women in service at the time.
We can do it was invented to encourage women to pick up the hard jobs men had to leave behind. Before it very few women had a job that was manual labor. And many wifes were finding themselves husbandless and pennyless. So by inventing We can do it opened alot of jobs and alot of supplies for our troops.
But We can do it had nothing to do with actual military. Comparing We can do it to what women did in the military is like comparing a doctor to the company that makes the rubber gloves doctors use. Though the gloves are very important they are not the same as the doctor. And there was alot of very important and very hands on women in WWII.
I don’t get the downvote. @typow777 is incorrect- but not malicious. They just need to be told the facts. WW2 was a “total war” in which civilians and combatants mixed, and all targets were tactical wether technically military or not. In Europe, Asia, Africa, all over- women fought for their lives, homes, countries, etc. from guerillas, to freedom fighters, to active duty personnel on fronts where sexism took a back seat to survival, women fought in all theaters of the war, even if some militaries did not actively allow women in combat. WW2 was many wars at once, the Chinese were fighting civil wars, in the Middle East and Mediterranean and more, the chaos gave rise to wars of independence or annexation. Because of a lack of “man power” WW2 marked for much of the world a surge in responsibility for women, and that included combat. The bulk of the armed forces were men, and female infantry weren’t a common site on most allied battle fields, but women did fight.
You'd commonly find women fighting as active combatants in Russia as tank crews, fighter/bomber pilots, and in France and Italy as resistance fighters. Britain would have women crew anti aircraft artillery positions, but generally in America women fulfilled support roles, filling a lot of logistical roles to free up men to go and fight on the front. Germany had test pilots who were female, but what makes me pause in the trailer is that Battlefield 1 went through a lot of effort to accurately render and depict a lot of historical fighters in the conflict, like the Harlem Hellfighters. Now with all the opportunities to have female fighters represent the Night Witches, Italy's Anti-Fascist party, and the French Resistance, it boggles my mind as to why their lead is a paraplegic British woman dressed in non-specific army green with wode warpaint. I don't mind the woman, but why not go the full length and actually represent female units that fought during the conflict?
Did they just want to show off all the customization options available to players deviating from the bog standard GI Joe with a helmet covering half his face? I don't know but that's partly what is feels to me, but why not display all this on different characters instead of all on one?
Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
Hes talking about how men were on the front lines AS THE MAJORITY.
Its like having German mercanaries on the front of a Reolutionary War game.
There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that. Especially if you were rehashing a thing that had been done to death, and wanted to tell a different but still possible story, or tell a story from a less explored angle. You could have a black samurai on the cover of a Dynasty warriors game- there’s historical precident although it was far from the norm, but would certainly be interesting and break up the monotony if the genre without resorting to pure fiction. How many war games show special forces units on the cover- despite those units making up a tiny sliver of their respective governments forces, or having very little total deployment time compared to the total deployment of other units? How many feature exotic weapons that may or may not even exist in a militaries arsenal? How many have made up items, or tweak the function of real materiel for game or story sake, often to the point such capabilities didn’t exist in that time?
And if a game isn't saying that it's historically accurate you wouldn't have any room to complain that it wasn't 100% correct.
...Which is why a woman on the battlefield, being a more remarkable sight than a man, makes for a great main character to tell epic stories about, because they're probably only there if they're already legendarily awesome.
(I do know that Nazis were also anti-black people)
I could go on but I'm pretty sure you got my point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I03ZgpoCUgY
Thats odd.
But We can do it had nothing to do with actual military. Comparing We can do it to what women did in the military is like comparing a doctor to the company that makes the rubber gloves doctors use. Though the gloves are very important they are not the same as the doctor. And there was alot of very important and very hands on women in WWII.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots
Its like having German mercanaries on the front of a Reolutionary War game.