Women, not a problem. Implementation is a problem.

«1345
AiRJacobs
60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
I found this quote in the comment section under the reveal trailer and it's pretty much says it all:

"In contrary to many people here, I don't have a problem with women in this game, but couldn't you have made it somewhat realistic and with reference to the women that actually fought, instead of just making a British super amputee up? I mean, there were women, but most of them were Russian. There were female Russian snipers and even a woman only flight squadron, the night witches. Considering amputees, there was a Russian pilot ace who lost both his legs but continued flying with prosthetic. But why does it have to be so over the top? I was hoping for a realistic and mature approach, and instead I get this. And all the other characters look way over the top as well, this whole thing looks like a battlefield heroes trailer with good graphics. I hope the game will be good, but the trailer doesn't look promising"

Comments

  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Nothing is a problem, if you put and use it properly or somehow interesting in setting, that you are building up, so yea, I kinda agree with that post.

  • Tullzter
    1271 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Implementation of woman has failed for me. ask my wife
  • AiRJacobs
    60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Exactly. Also, I do remember the devs saying something during the reveal regarding this game being an authentic WWII experiences. Hold them to their word.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Exactly. Also, I do remember the devs saying something during the reveal regarding this game being an authentic WWII experiences. Hold them to their word.

    I think a game developers version of authentic is different from most gamers.
  • azelenkin0306
    565 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.
  • AmericanAutobot
    132 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Stop... just stop.... don't butcher history. I don't really care what anyone thinks, adding women in a time era where women fighters was still an alien concept, is like trying to add alien guns in a WWII game. They don't mix. What I want to see is historical accuracy in the fighters, the firearms used, the tanks, the planes, the symbols, and everything. The mechanics of Battlefield is not historical accuracy, this is true... but as for everything else? Yes, there should be historical accuracy. The mechanics is not the problem here, it's practically everything else that needs to be historically accurate. Again, with infrantry, symbols, badges, firearms, tanks, planes, etc. Those are the rhings that needs to be historically accurate. It's not the mechanics we want historical accuracy in, it's everything else.
  • AiRJacobs
    60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Why is it a poor argument, if it bases on absolutely same logic, that you put in your argument "it has never been realistic or historically accurate"? Wierd...

    If game isn't about 100% realism and historical accuracy, it doesn't mean straight forward from that, that you can put and do in your game whatever bs you (as dev) like. That's a simple point, anything against that?
  • StarscreamUK
    7532 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    its not a robot arm, I've even seen people claim shes a cyborg. She has a prosthetic arm, it doesn't have fingers that move etc, its more like a snooker rest in reality..
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ****?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.

    Uh, BF1942 was actually one of the very few BF games with some form of character model customization.

    BF1942 Secret Weapons of WW2 also had jetpacks and prototype helicopters.

    So yes, the first ww2 BF game did have this stuff and was just as unrealistic.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.

    You just thwarted the entire "it's ruining immersion because she's a female" argument by saying the game doesn't have to be realistic to be immersive.

    It's nonsense to insist that seeing a guy get shot in the face by a tank and then revive by a syringe poke is less immersion breaking than seeing a female soldier run by you in a multiplayer match where the Germans you're fighting are using Italian, American, and British weaponry.

    And the lightsaber argument holds up? Are you seriously equating having a woman with a prosthetic arm, to having Darth Vader and lightsaber in a ww2 game? Something that could have actually happened in ww2, to something that is a sci fi creation from a galaxy far, far away?

    You're implying THAT holds up as a legitimate argument? And you want me to take your opinions and stances seriously?
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Why is it a poor argument, if it bases on absolutely same logic, that you put in your argument "it has never been realistic or historically accurate"? Wierd...

    If game isn't about 100% realism and historical accuracy, it doesn't mean straight forward from that, that you can put and do in your game whatever bs you (as dev) like. That's a simple point, anything against that?

    It's ridiculous because you're comparing a woman in a ww2 game to having the dark lord of the sith and his laser sword from a sci fi movie in a ww2 game.

    They're not remotely of the same logic - mine could and actually did happen, yours doesn't even exist.

    Lol, and to insist the devs can't take whatever creative freedom they want with their game/game setting just proves how naive you're being.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    its not a robot arm, I've even seen people claim shes a cyborg. She has a prosthetic arm, it doesn't have fingers that move etc, its more like a snooker rest in reality..

    Does that fact, that you brought us here, solve the general problem of unrealism of handicaped female taking part in acutal hotspot frontline combat actions?
  • StarscreamUK
    7532 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    the fact you can spawn out of thin air doesnt break your realism?
  • SMK_GAMING_2
    775 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Dice have always tried to be historically accurate whenever possible, take for example this YouTube video, they based many maps on real locations, same features on those maps are actually the same, I applaud them for doing so



    Now I realise not everything can be accurate, that can never be the case. But does that mean they just let go and make things up completely? No they should not be doing that. Most of the guns and such that they had to use their imagination with were prototype weapons (i.e. the Hellreigel for example), so their ideas were based on something.

    Regarding the realistic part, they do what they can, they could of course make every gun a 1 bullet kill, and no revives etc but who is going to play that. They try to balance a realistic experience with fun and enjoyment. Remember a video game can never really be realistic, that term should not be taken literally when those who are talking about it say so. They want it realistic FOR A VIDEO GAME, not to mimic the actual events of war
  • MUH_Cwywardwaah
    1083 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    Well bf1 tries too hard to hit you with historical facts so thats one. Other games also have some link to historical accuracy like weapons,vehicled used. Uniforms, symbols etc. Its not a selling point but its there in the games that require it.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    the fact you can spawn out of thin air doesnt break your realism?

    No, cos it's a core gameplay mechainc and it's cool. If something is cool and makes gameplay better - it's allowed to break realism.

    If something is ridiculous and doesn't make anything better whatsoever - it's not allowed to break realism.

    Questions?
  • AiRJacobs
    60 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ****?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.

    Uh, BF1942 was actually one of the very few BF games with some form of character model customization.

    BF1942 Secret Weapons of WW2 also had jetpacks and prototype helicopters.

    So yes, the first ww2 BF game did have this stuff and was just as unrealistic.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.

    You just thwarted the entire "it's ruining immersion because she's a female" argument by saying the game doesn't have to be realistic to be immersive.

    It's nonsense to insist that seeing a guy get shot in the face by a tank and then revive by a syringe poke is less immersion breaking than seeing a female soldier run by you in a multiplayer match where the Germans you're fighting are using Italian, American, and British weaponry.

    And the lightsaber argument holds up? Are you seriously equating having a woman with a prosthetic arm, to having Darth Vader and lightsaber in a ww2 game? Something that could have actually happened in ww2, to something that is a sci fi creation from a galaxy far, far away?

    You're implying THAT holds up as a legitimate argument? And you want me to take your opinions and stances seriously?

    Immersion isn't the same as realism. You can be immersive without realism, just look at Star Wars Battlefront. However, for a realistic game to be immersive, it has to be realistic. This game, and its devs claim it to be an authentic WWII game, so our brains are going to make logical judgments based on that criteria. The further the game dwells from authentic WWII experience, the less immersive it will be. Simple as that.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    Dice have always tried to be historically accurate whenever possible, take for example this YouTube video, they based many maps on real locations, same features on those maps are actually the same, I applaud them for doing so



    Now I realise not everything can be accurate, that can never be the case. But does that mean they just let go and make things up completely? No they should not be doing that. Most of the guns and such that they had to use their imagination with were prototype weapons (i.e. the Hellreigel for example), so their ideas were based on something.

    Regarding the realistic part, they do what they can, they could of course make every gun a 1 bullet kill, and no revives etc but who is going to play that. They try to balance a realistic experience with fun and enjoyment. Remember a video game can never really be realistic, that term should not be taken literally when those who are talking about it say so. They want it realistic FOR A VIDEO GAME, not to mimic the actual events of war

    Yes, that's why there were factions fighting on some of those maps that didn't even fight in the actual battles. Or why a ww1 game was riddled with automatic, literally never used, prototype weaponry. Why one of the base game unlock slrs wasn't even remotely used in the war at all, by any faction whatsoever. We just got the Thompson Annihilator which wasn't even through prototype development until the last year of the war, near the end of the conflict.

    That weapon never saw a day of battle in ww1, but I'm using it as an Anzac on Achi Baba.

    It's hard to say DICE has tried to stay historically accurate when the vast majority of BF games revolve around an entirely fictitious ww2 scenario between the US, China, and Russia, and had nothing to do with history or staying accurate to any semblance of real war.

    You act as if the idea for women or people fighting with prosthetic limbs didn't actually happen, or as if they're basing it off of nothing. A woman fighting in ww2 is about as unrealistic and historically inaccurate as using the Hellriegel or Cei Rigotti in BF1.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    Well bf1 tries too hard to hit you with historical facts so thats one. Other games also have some link to historical accuracy like weapons,vehicled used. Uniforms, symbols etc. Its not a selling point but its there in the games that require it.

    It's just highly nonsensical to me to expect historical accuracy and realism in a game whose franchise has barely embraced those things over gameplay.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    Have you watched the reveal? They were all talking about the immersion, about going back to roots, to where it all has started. Please correct me if I am wrong, but did the first WW2-themed Battlefield have all this ****?

    I know, that we haven't seen any actual gameplay and this trailer may depict some kind of Co-OP fun gamemode, which is OK, since I do care only about Grand Operations. But based on the trailer and your arguments, light sabers and jetpacks can easily fit in.

    Uh, BF1942 was actually one of the very few BF games with some form of character model customization.

    BF1942 Secret Weapons of WW2 also had jetpacks and prototype helicopters.

    So yes, the first ww2 BF game did have this stuff and was just as unrealistic.
    AiRJacobs wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Annnnnnd another person expecting realism and historical accuracy when that's never been a key feature of games in the franchise.

    May we have lightsabers and Darth Vader in BF V then, if realism and historical accuracy never been a key feature of that game series? It's incredibly poor argument, why do people use that so often?

    Because it's true. Please, point out to me a BF game that is realistic and historically accurate and I'll retort it without even thinking.

    Go ahead, I'll wait. I'll probably die before a solid example is posted.

    The incredibly poor (counter)argument here is the petty "well why don't we have lightsabers and Darth Vader" argument when someone points out the blatantly obvious fact that BF has never been realistic or historically accurate.

    A game does not have to be realistic or historically accurate to be immersive. Immersion is based on how well a person is sucked into the entertainment. However, the closer something is to realistic, the easier it is to be broken out of the immersion. This game is suppose to be an authentic WWII experience. At that point, small things can break immersion. Female soldiers, robot arms, blue face paint, these are all serious immersion breakers. Also, the light saber argument holds up just as well.

    You just thwarted the entire "it's ruining immersion because she's a female" argument by saying the game doesn't have to be realistic to be immersive.

    It's nonsense to insist that seeing a guy get shot in the face by a tank and then revive by a syringe poke is less immersion breaking than seeing a female soldier run by you in a multiplayer match where the Germans you're fighting are using Italian, American, and British weaponry.

    And the lightsaber argument holds up? Are you seriously equating having a woman with a prosthetic arm, to having Darth Vader and lightsaber in a ww2 game? Something that could have actually happened in ww2, to something that is a sci fi creation from a galaxy far, far away?

    You're implying THAT holds up as a legitimate argument? And you want me to take your opinions and stances seriously?

    Immersion isn't the same as realism. You can be immersive without realism, just look at Star Wars Battlefront. However, for a realistic game to be immersive, it has to be realistic. This game, and its devs claim it to be an authentic WWII game, so our brains are going to make logical judgments based on that criteria. The further the game dwells from authentic WWII experience, the less immersive it will be. Simple as that.

    But again, your argument that women break immersion in a ww2 game is based off of the realistic viewing of ww2 as a conflict (which did have women, after all).

    And in that respect it is authentic. And no, I'll save you the hardship of following that up, and point out that authenticism and realism are not remotely the same term, nor do they mean remotely the same thing.

    Women in ww2 is about as authentic as having prototype weapons in BF1. Or having police force weaponry in BF4 when it's a military shooter.

    DICE have proven time and time again that it something that interests them is even REMOTELY used in the setting of the game, they'll add it to the game if they want to.

    That's why the lightsaber and darth Vader example is so ridiculous - because it's neither realistic, authentic, or historically accurate - whereas the women in the game applies to all 3 of those aspects in SOME facet.
Sign In or Register to comment.