Women, not a problem. Implementation is a problem.

Comments

  • HardAimedKid
    11386 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    herodes87 wrote: »
    So were are the female soldiers in BF3/4?

    23238390490_b64b96c061_b.jpg
    Hannah says Hi

    bf3 had none.

    Loooooooooooooooooooooooooool
  • Rename010101
    198 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Here’s my thing, women haven’t been in old war games for years. Now all of a sudden its implemented,why? I’ll still buy/play the game regardless.

    I believe companies don’t want to be labeled as “bigots” or “racists” so they cave and this is what you get.
  • MissCommissar
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    We had a middle eastern female character in the campaign of Battlefield 1 that took down hundreds of Ottoman soldiers by herself.

    But put a British women in a game and everyone freaks out.

    I do remember, that there were controversiers about that aswell. But in the end of the day, noone cared about that noname "Zara". Handsome T.E. Lawrence was a main superstar there.
  • ackers75
    2651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Far too many battlefield players have developed gynophobia all of a sudden.
    Don’t worry they don’t hurt you, if anything they are rather fun.
  • bran1986
    5913 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    I just want character models to be somewhat grounded in reality. You could have a whole team of women characters and I wouldn't care if they looked like the women on the box art and splash screen, they looked cool and looked like actual soldiers.
  • cash_is_savage
    16 postsMember Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    Far too many battlefield players have developed gynophobia all of a sudden.
    Don’t worry they don’t hurt you, if anything they are rather fun.

    Its not "gynophobia" if it was these people would have problems with women in other games like Fortnite, PUBG, CoD, or GTA, but they don't. They have issues with history being represented inaccurately, and they see including women on the frontlines (that aren't Soviet) as a move to pander to the left side of the political spectrum by including multi-culturalism in European history where it was not. There is a new paradigm in Western Society to refuse to accept any form of history that was masculine or white as simply just that. I'd imagine a TV series like Band of Brothers would never be made today, because it didn't include minorities or women as lead roles during the entire series.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    People are talking about immersion but we had a game with prototype smgs in BF1.

    This is going to be one of those small pre-launch gripes, then they're going to buy the game anyway :D

    Exactly.
  • ThiefjeNL
    61 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Again, that's just picking and choosing what you deem acceptable as immersion breaking based solely on your own parameters. What's acceptable as unrealistic or historically inaccurate is not held up to a standard in these games. Every game has had varying degrees of unrealism, immersion breaking features, and plots that are entirely fictitious - BF4 and BF2142 being the most unlikely to happen ever.
    What is or isn't acceptable is everyone's personal opinion but I get the feeling the subject isn't even debateable the way some people have responded to those criticising the trailer and what DICE has in store for BF V.
    As far as BF2142 goes it's set so far in the future we're probably not going to be around to see it unless life expectancies are going to increase dramatically in this century.
    With that in mind its more of a fictional setting, more so than BF4, which also allows for limits on what is or isn't acceptable to be pushed further than the limits of what is acceptable in a historic setting such as BF V for which their are historic accounts and facts.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Imo the reactions to females in this game from most are gross over reactions, and they try justifying it by insisting it breaks immersion in a franchise whose games have been chock full of immersion breaking, unrealistic features and mechanics.
    Again you seem to mixing up immersion breaking elements that have a direct effect on gameplay and those that do not. Respawning, reviving, resupplying, having a HUD, being able to take multiple hits (over time) without dying, the speed of vehicles and so forth fundamentally alter gameplay (hardcore vs non-hardcore for example). What your character looks like however does not and only allows people to be their own special snowflake. Personally I don't mind the customisation elements (including gender choice) but would appreciate if there was more regard for historic authenticity especially in a historic setting. One such example, as mentioned above and what's basically the point of this whole thread, is that although many women served in the armies they weren't really ever used directly on the frontlines but generally in supporting roles or a bit further behind the lines (take the Soviet Union example with snipers, pilots, AA crews etc.) and I'd appreciate if that is reflected in the game one way or another. But apparently just bringing up the matter is to much to handle for some.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    People are putting too much concern in some cosmetic customization, and seeing unrealistic things in an unrealistic game. It's stemming directly from people acting like BF is something that it's not, or acting like BF1 or any other BF game were even remotely accurate to history.
    As far as gender customisation goes, see above. As for clothing / weapon / vehicle customisation, I really couldn't care less as long as I can tell friend from foe.

  • Ursusaurus
    10 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited May 2018
    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..

    Okay, if we're going to be petty--it DOES have fingers that move. The two hooks can clamp together to grasp things. We all know it's not actually a cyborg arm
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    ThiefjeNL wrote: »
    What is or isn't acceptable is everyone's personal opinion but I get the feeling the subject isn't even debateable the way some people have responded to those criticising the trailer and what DICE has in store for BF V.
    As far as BF2142 goes it's set so far in the future we're probably not going to be around to see it unless life expectancies are going to increase dramatically in this century.
    With that in mind its more of a fictional setting, more so than BF4, which also allows for limits on what is or isn't acceptable to be pushed further than the limits of what is acceptable in a historic setting such as BF V for which their are historic accounts and facts.

    What you're missing is the unrealistic and even illogical expectations of many in relation to what BF has always been. It's always been an unrealistic, historically inaccurate, over the top, all out war fps. Even the representation of combined arms warfare in BF games is grossly over-exaggerated. It's filled to the brim with unrealistic aspects - from armies fighting in battles they never fought in, to factions using weapons they'd never use or that weren't even developed for military use, all the way to people spawning out of thin air, being revived by defibrillators, and walking away from 4 shots to the chest.

    But people are acting as if putting the female gender as a customization option is going too far. Like its beyond the unrealistic BS dice has been putting in games. Acting as if it's worse than other aspects, despite having the EXACT SAME EFFECT, just because it's not strictly for the sake of gameplay.

    People are arguing for historical accuracy in a game belonging to a franchise that had jetpacks and helicopters in 1942, that had railguns and hover tanks in a game set in 2020, that had a ww1 title mainly played with full automatic weapons barely used in the conflict. Games where I can use a prototype German GSG 9 rifle when fighting for the Chinese military. A franchise that had a game (Hardline) that was so ridiculously out there and over the top that people try to act like it's not even a BF game.

    It's obvious who's acting illogical to the situation.
    Again you seem to mixing up immersion breaking elements that have a direct effect on gameplay and those that do not. Respawning, reviving, resupplying, having a HUD, being able to take multiple hits (over time) without dying, the speed of vehicles and so forth fundamentally alter gameplay (hardcore vs non-hardcore for example). What your character looks like however does not and only allows people to be their own special snowflake. Personally I don't mind the customisation elements (including gender choice) but would appreciate if there was more regard for historic authenticity especially in a historic setting. One such example, as mentioned above and what's basically the point of this whole thread, is that although many women served in the armies they weren't really ever used directly on the frontlines but generally in supporting roles or a bit further behind the lines (take the Soviet Union example with snipers, pilots, AA crews etc.) and I'd appreciate if that is reflected in the game one way or another. But apparently just bringing up the matter is to much to handle for some.

    I'm not mixing those things up, I'm grouping them together because they have the exact same affect we're discussing.

    Again, women are authentic to ww2. They sevved and fought in the war to some extent - they're being used in this game to the same extent smgs were used in BF1. Having them readily available as troops on the front line of every faction may not be realistic or historically accurate - but I emphasize for the millionth time that BF is not and has never been realistic or explicitly historically accurate, even in its few games based on a historical war.

    If they added full on, multi layer player customization and you expected them to not have a gender option, that's being a little naive. Especially when it's involving a war that women took an active part in.
  • Natetendo83
    1029 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    the fact you can spawn out of thin air doesnt break your realism?

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand that gameplay mechanics that are necessary for fun are not related to an overall aesthetic designed to give the illusion of being in a particular place?

    We spawn out of thin air because video games, that doesn't mean we want flying cats, cyborgs, and other things that don't fit a WWII aesthetic (in this case that includes almost everything in that trailer).
  • ladderley
    129 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    the fact you can spawn out of thin air doesnt break your realism?

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand that gameplay mechanics that are necessary for fun are not related to an overall aesthetic designed to give the illusion of being in a particular place?

    We spawn out of thin air because video games, that doesn't mean we want flying cats, cyborgs, and other things that don't fit a WWII aesthetic (in this case that includes almost everything in that trailer).

    This 1000 times! So many people being obtuse about it just because they disagree.
  • Defer94ARG
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I think that having the option of playing with womens in a WW2 game is really cool. But im a little bit dissapointed with some other stuff... i mean, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ are boring. Lets put the British and the US armies to fight against the Soviets, thats ok. Because, you know, its just a game. Its great to have the freedom that videogame gaves to the players and the developers, and i hope they use it to make the best ww2 game ever. I mean, playing with a black japanese soldier, who is also jewish, with a rail gun, in the Wehrmacht against the (why not) mexican army... of course its not historical, but.... its a game, right??

    Of course im exagerating. What i want to say with this is that developers need to draw a line in what its really acceptable in a game. If youre going to take all the freedoms you want, why doing the game about a specific era, a specific war? I hated when the same stuff happened to BF1 (full auto experimental guns, tanks in battles that never had tanks, for not talking about other things), and i hate it now. I was hoping a ww2 game in this generation, a game that aproaches the war from a serious perspective... but we get this.. and its not going to change, im afraid.

    Its limits what we need if we want a "historically realistic" game (as realistic as a game could be). Draw a line and say "ok, this is the limit between an historically accurate game and a completely different universe. The same happened to BF1.. it was not a WW1 game, it was a game inspired in WW1... But im afraid we need to get used to this.. this is the future of videogames, at least of the mainstream ones... BFV is not a WW2 game, is a game inspired in that war, nothing more than that, and im really dissapointed.

    Thats it...
  • LieutenantVixen
    216 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    They're just doing it to sell cosmetics. As I recall, DICE rejected the idea of letting soldiers be female in BF1 for reasons of history; but if they're not gonna do Premium this time, they've gotta get EA their money some other way, and that means MAXIMUM COSMETIC OPTIONS even if the soldiers end up looking nothing like WW2 soldiers.
  • herodes87
    1290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    herodes87 wrote: »
    So were are the female soldiers in BF3/4?

    23238390490_b64b96c061_b.jpg
    Hannah says Hi

    bf3 had none.

    Multiplayer??? Its about Multiplayer.

    Bf1 had women in Singleplayer too but at Launch no. Just with the Tsar Dlc they came Up in the Multiplayer. And thats what people talking about.

    They Made it historical accurate to at them to the White Army Not the Red Army.

    They should have done it with BF5 Like that too.

    No one Cares about the Singleplayer because you can easily ignore it by not playing it.
  • Copper2021
    19 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Loqtrall 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.

    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.


    Bro... take it easy. Your arguments are terrible.

    Having sides that didn't fight in the battle fighting the battle is one thing.

    Having robot wielding katana women is another thing.

    There's a difference and if you cant spot it than this game is exactly for you end of story.

    There's nothing wrong with this game. It's a sci fi game. I want a ww2 game.

    Secret weapons of ww2 was at least based off prototypes and stuff at the time. If something is possible but didn't happen I'm fine with it in the game.

    Katana wielding robot armed women were not in the realm of possibility during ww2. Therefore I do not like this game.
  • Dogwoggle11
    2678 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    All these people are buying the game anyway.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    Copper2021 wrote: »
    Loqtrall 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.

    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.


    Bro... take it easy. Your arguments are terrible.

    Having sides that didn't fight in the battle fighting the battle is one thing.

    Having robot wielding katana women is another thing.

    There's a difference and if you cant spot it than this game is exactly for you end of story.

    There's nothing wrong with this game. It's a sci fi game. I want a ww2 game.

    Secret weapons of ww2 was at least based off prototypes and stuff at the time. If something is possible but didn't happen I'm fine with it in the game.

    Katana wielding robot armed women were not in the realm of possibility during ww2. Therefore I do not like this game.

    Katana wielding robot armed women?

    You do realize it was just a guy with a Katana melee weapon (used on the Pacific front of the war) and a woman with a 1940's era prosthetic arm, right?

    You're saying my arguments are terrible, and then follow that up with over-exaggerated drivel.

    You look at that and see a Sci fi game? Are you on another planet right now?
  • Contra87
    698 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Defer94ARG wrote: »
    What i want to say with this is that developers need to draw a line in what its really acceptable in a game

    They did. It will be available in October. Some just don't like or can't handle where they decided the line fell. There are two choices: Buy it or don't. Everything else is personal opinion and semantics about the game they made.
Sign In or Register to comment.