Women, not a problem. Implementation is a problem.

1235»

Comments

  • ThiefjeNL
    61 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    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.

    It's obviously unreleastic from the very offset. The fact that after you die you're able to respawn or start a new match, in this game or any other, is unrealistic and should be removed everywhere! I'm sure a lot of people would love to play an FPS game in which respawning or starting a new match is not possible after your first death! /sarcasm
    So yes it's unrealistic, inaccurate or exagerated to the extend of allowing interesting forms of gameplay and allowing us to visit locations in the world we'd otherwise not see. But all that directly relates to gameplay and how it is experienced, cosmetics don't really do that with an exception for camoflage maybe.

    As far as the Secret Weapons of WW2 DLC goes yes parts of it are inaccurate (though the helicopter, I assume you mean the Flettner Fl 282, was used in the war but they never got around to arming it). However, that DLC much like the weapons featured in Final Stand are there to allow new ways of experiencing gameplay. Besides it's not even 2020 yet and the US navy has actually developed a functional railgun (though at the moment it doesn't meet demands) so atleast some of the aspects in Final Stand aren't way beyond reason or what may be expected to be achieved in the next few decades.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    ThiefjeNL wrote: »
    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.
    Given the earlier section of your reply you certainly are mixing things up. Does being able to respawn, heal, resupply etc. (gameplay & mechanics) or not being able to do so alter the way you play the game? Yes it does. Do the looks of your character or vehicle (cosmetics & aesthetics) seriously affect the way you play? No it doesn't. Those are two very different things.

    The reason why SMGs all dumped all over the Assault class in BF1 is actually quite simple, it's got everything to do with gameplay and making the Assault class stand out from the other classes. If it, or any other class aside from the scout, was largely confined to bolt-action rifles (although historically accurate) people would have been moaning about all classes being the same with exception of the gadgets.

    So saying these categories (gameplay & mechanics vs. cosmetics & aesthetics) can be combined as one because they supposedly have the same effect is plain false.

    Lastly I didn't say I expect there to be no option for gender choice if a multi layer player customization is implemented. I only said I (and probably others) would appreciate if that option was within the confines on reasonability.
  • lorenzburg
    63 postsMember Member
    Why so much hate for women in game? I understand that it was something so rare to meet a find a woman on the battlefield, especially outside the Eastern Front or partisans formations. I agree that the woman in the trailer is the stereotypical badass veteran who could kill somebody even blindfolded (because ordinary women holding weapons do not exist, there's something that changes in the hormonal system ...) but I don't hate the trailer just for this, instead I didn't like the trailer that much for the lack of WW2 atmosphere.

    But really, in the heat of the moment would you really recognize a woman in the uniform unless she has no helmet? In BF1 would you ever recognize the russian sniper as a woman without hearing her voice? As a male, did you feel uncomfortable playing as the sniper? I felt no difference at all, it's the same class as the others but with a different voice.
    Also the "black german sniper/knight issue", I believe that it would have been even more rare to find a black german soldier in the European front than a woman, historically speaking is a punch in the face but when you're playing is that making that difference?

    From a historical point of view it's true that women were very rare on the battlefield, instead I wouldn't have made the classes so much customizable, I would make the uniforms and the helmet impossible to change (just changing depending on the enviroment such as summer coats, desert/colonial or pacific, and for the helmet if that class has the helmet or just a side cap you can't remove/change it) but you can change some stuff such as watches, bandaging (for eyes, arms, legs, ...), tattoos, facepaints.
    I wouldn't mind even if they make the gender of the class unchangeable.

    The only thing I'm a bit undecided is prothesis since nobody would send a "disabled" soldiers to the field unless it's strictly necessary, the Germans "recruited" them only when they "ran out" of able-bodied men, at least prothesis could be used only by non-combat troops.
    And I hope that BF5 won't be similar to CoDWW2 and its colourful and mixed army. There's a reason why soldiers wear a "UNIFORM" and not like in medieval times when they wore depending on the noble they're serving, so I really hope that uniforms won't be customizable that much to keep the uniformity of the army you're playing with/against.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 2018
    ThiefjeNL wrote: »

    It's obviously unreleastic from the very offset. The fact that after you die you're able to respawn or start a new match, in this game or any other, is unrealistic and should be removed everywhere! I'm sure a lot of people would love to play an FPS game in which respawning or starting a new match is not possible after your first death! /sarcasm
    So yes it's unrealistic, inaccurate or exagerated to the extend of allowing interesting forms of gameplay and allowing us to visit locations in the world we'd otherwise not see. But all that directly relates to gameplay and how it is experienced, cosmetics don't really do that with an exception for camoflage maybe.

    As far as the Secret Weapons of WW2 DLC goes yes parts of it are inaccurate (though the helicopter, I assume you mean the Flettner Fl 282, was used in the war but they never got around to arming it). However, that DLC much like the weapons featured in Final Stand are there to allow new ways of experiencing gameplay. Besides it's not even 2020 yet and the US navy has actually developed a functional railgun (though at the moment it doesn't meet demands) so atleast some of the aspects in Final Stand aren't way beyond reason or what may be expected to be achieved in the next few decades.

    Given the earlier section of your reply you certainly are mixing things up. Does being able to respawn, heal, resupply etc. (gameplay & mechanics) or not being able to do so alter the way you play the game? Yes it does. Do the looks of your character or vehicle (cosmetics & aesthetics) seriously affect the way you play? No it doesn't. Those are two very different things.

    The reason why SMGs all dumped all over the Assault class in BF1 is actually quite simple, it's got everything to do with gameplay and making the Assault class stand out from the other classes. If it, or any other class aside from the scout, was largely confined to bolt-action rifles (although historically accurate) people would have been moaning about all classes being the same with exception of the gadgets.

    So saying these categories (gameplay & mechanics vs. cosmetics & aesthetics) can be combined as one because they supposedly have the same effect is plain false.

    Lastly I didn't say I expect there to be no option for gender choice if a multi layer player customization is implemented. I only said I (and probably others) would appreciate if that option was within the confines reasonability.

    Lol, even though it's beside the point, BF4s rail gun (which was a handheld rifle) is nothing similar to the electromagnetic rail guns the military uses today, which are primarily mounted on heavy vehicles and can't be welded and operated by a single infantryman.

    But I digress.

    You keep repeatedly bringing up that I'm ignoring that some unrealistic things are for gameplays sake - but I'm not.

    Again, I'm combining these things because in the end, whether they affect gameplay or not, they result in the loss of immersion - which is what people are so up in arms about when it comes to the woman in the trailer.

    Let me post it blatantly - I do not care whether or not it affects gameplay, they still result in the exact same affect on the player that's being complained about

    The fact that cosmetic customization allowing females has no affect on gameplay is not grounds for something unrealistic not being featured in the game. Females are still authentic in reference to who participated in ww2, despite not being REALISTICALLY or ACCURATELY depicted compared to the actual war.

    If anything (this being the crux of my point), BFs history for unrealistic and historically inaccurate features is grounds for gender selection to stay, and actually makes sense. The primary argument, despite how many ridiculous circles you or anyone else want to argue around the issue, about women in this game pertains to being unrealistic and historically inaccurate, thus leading to a decrease in immersion.

    That sentiment is thwarted, by default, by the fact that BF has always been unrealistic, over-exaggerated, and over the top.
  • Defer94ARG
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Contra87 wrote: »
    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.

    Of course its something personal... when i think in a game that its described by the developers as a "authentic WW2 experience" i expect a minimum of historical accuracy, and its my taste (and im not the only one who thinks the same). Thats why if after watching gameplays or playing the beta im going to decide what i do.. if it is like what the trailer depicts... im not buying the game..

  • Radious1987
    511 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    For me it will feel totaly off and immersion breaking if i see games where from 64 players will be 20-40 women soldiers.

    And watching them running around with bazookas, driving tanks, reparing and building fortifications and fighting like a Rambo.

    That is simply too much for WW2 game where this has no place at all and there is really no way to defend implementation like this.
Sign In or Register to comment.