Females in Battlefield V

2»

Comments

  • Minigun991
    132 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    In retrospective almost nobody cares about the women soldiers, out of the 32462457624672564 issues the game has this is the smallest.It was just that it was made into a PR disaster last year by making the cyborg lady be the center piece of the reveal

    I have to agree. But a lot of problems would never be there, if that trailer never happened. The game would of sold well. There would be more players so frontline and duos would still be here.

    So pretty much it was dice buying the coffin, so they could nail those 32462457624672564 in.
  • Minigun991
    132 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    In retrospective almost nobody cares about the women soldiers, out of the 32462457624672564 issues the game has this is the smallest.It was just that it was made into a PR disaster last year by making the cyborg lady be the center piece of the reveal

    The point is, what they did would of angered people in any time period if done wrong.
  • Jamesonoid
    406 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 16
    Are they right for being angry, that depends on your expectations. You obviously want a more accurate and immersive experience, so this does matter to you. I want good gameplay and mechanics, so it doesn't matter to me(much). Battlefield isn't really known for accuracy or immersion. You could argue that you get immersed in the chaos and scale of the battles, but seeing a man get shot by a tank shell and then get stuck with a needle and spring to life doesn't exactly draw a thin line between game and reality. At the end of the day, immersion is not what it's all about. 

    What matters more is based on preference, but BF doesn't cater to the Hardcore experience so it doesn't matter to BF. There are other WW2 games that do that, Hell Let Loose and Post Scriptum to name a couple. Gameplay and mechanics matter more, and that is what is broken right now and is driving "the community" away. Maps, content, bugs, lack of goats(Edit; This joke isn't clear because my name changed here, but my GT is EvilGoat51), netcode, balance, etc are what people are complaining and angry about. 

    So while I don't particularity care for women in BFV, you don't really have much of a right to be angry over women on the grounds of historical accuracy and immersion. Many things break those barriers other than women, and nobody throws flags over them. 

    As far as women in modern shooters and people being upset with them, as far as I know nobody was upset with Hannah in BF4. I wasn't around at launch but I haven't heard any complaints regardless. Regarding your Russians VS French foreign legion scenario, Facts of life do not equal facts in videos games, end of story.  

    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    In retrospective almost nobody cares about the women soldiers, out of the 32462457624672564 issues the game has this is the smallest.It was just that it was made into a PR disaster last year by making the cyborg lady be the center piece of the reveal

    I have to agree. But a lot of problems would never be there, if that trailer never happened. The game would of sold well. There would be more players so frontline and duos would still be here.

    So pretty much it was dice buying the coffin, so they could nail those 32462457624672564 in.

    While BFV didn't sell well, it was obvious from the beginning that it was rushed and there were gameplay issues before the game was released. The trailer didn't help, but it's not the single reason that BFV is in the state it's in today. I'm sure many people would look past the reveal trailer if the game was great and they pulled back on the cosmetics in the reveal trailer(which they did, no prosthetic limbs or viking soldiers) But since it has so many issue, that most attribute to it being rushed and not it's poor selling performance, most just pass it up. 

  • chuckandcotton
    71 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In 1942 I ran over people with a Jeep over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And we talk about immersion.
  • VincentNZ
    2675 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I had a problem with the implementation, as I like a WWII game to be either authentic to create immersion, or to be total fantasy with dinosaurs as an example. For the trailer I was particularly annoyed with the prosthetics though and the Katana, not the female. My field of work usually touches recent military history, so this somewhat triggers me. Also how DICE/EA handled the whole thing was at least sub-par, they could have simply stated that this is for inclusion reasons and that it is a completely fictional setting and be done with it. I have to say though that I found Söderlunds argument about his daughter very valid. At release I was particularly annoyed with the female screams all around and also the abundance of them on the field.
    However it became clear that DICE/EA felt the heat and totally changed what they could in the short time they had. Hence customization was totally rolled back, there is only one hairstyle, no facial customization etc..
    So this half-baked system just integrated nicely with the rest of the game that was also not ready for release. So nobody was happy, yeah you had women, but they look like enlisted boys, so that much for inclusion. And now, with the store, they are sneaking the ridiculous stuff back in, slowly. They should have just went through with their thing and market it better. It could have all been sold, yet the marketing department was manned either manned by amateurs or non-existant.
  • lessthanjake123
    142 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ultimately, BFV isn’t really a game centered around hardcore realism. There are tons of game mechanics that are plainly unrealistic (instantly healing yourself, instant resurrections by medics, support players carrying infinite crates of ammo, etc.). To the extent immersion/realism is a thing, it’s about getting into the scale of the moment—having a moment in the game feel like large scale conflict. I don’t really think having female soldiers does much to stop that. I personally don’t really notice it all (minus some of the screams—which are a bit much—and maybe if I get revived by a female soldier).  

    Maybe you do notice it more and maybe it annoys you. But on the other side of the coin are women gamers who may want to play as a character that’s more like them. Both of you will think the other’s position is ridiculous—you’d think those women are ridiculous since what they want is something that is unrealistic, and they’d think you’re ridiculous for caring so much what character models other people are using.  And DICE can’t please everyone. If we’re being realistic, the choice was made partially as a political thing, but probably more importantly from a financial perspective: Especially without the premium model, BFV relies on micro transactions with skins to make money from the game, and you just will have more people buying skins if you provide a subset of people with options for female character skins that they really want (rather than deciding not to do so for realism purposes).
  • GeneralXIV
    237 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    "Im not sexist, but women don't belong here!" - sorry, just making fun of you.

    I dont think that anyone is right to be angry about the inclusion of women in the game. And I dont think its about politics whatsoever. Im always interested to read peoples opinions when they act as if a series including no one but men for multiple games consecutively is perfectly fine, but the inclusion of women and LGBT people is "political". To me anyway, people arent a hive mind, and it's difficult for something to be political when they include people with such broad labels that its in their nature to have a variety of political opinions anyway? Eh.

    Everything the developers said about the game made it clear that they were adding playable women just to include them. I think it was their way of saying "Hey! Yes, we finally know women play our games too, come and join the fun!"

    And Im not sure theres a case for historical accuracy either, because, even though there were not many women that participated in the war itself, there are multiple examples of pilots, tank drivers, snipers, soldiers, secret agents and resistance fighters across a variety of factions. Enough to include them as an option in a simple multiplayer shooter. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is just a game. I see it more as an overall representation of WWII, because the moment you add players interacting with each other, accuracy is ruined anyway.

    If you have an issue with women in the game, I would suggest:

    a) Headcanon them as resistance fighters that are unofficially helping an army.

    b ) Play another game? Battlefield V has never hid its inclusion of women, its a case of a person who buys the game knowing exactly what they are purchasing.
  • VincentNZ
    2675 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    "Im not sexist, but women don't belong here!" - sorry, just making fun of you.

    I dont think that anyone is right to be angry about the inclusion of women in the game. And I dont think its about politics whatsoever. Im always interested to read peoples opinions when they act as if a series including no one but men for multiple games consecutively is perfectly fine, but the inclusion of women and LGBT people is "political". To me anyway, people arent a hive mind, and it's difficult for something to be political when they include people with such broad labels that its in their nature to have a variety of political opinions anyway? Eh.

    Everything the developers said about the game made it clear that they were adding playable women just to include them. I think it was their way of saying "Hey! Yes, we finally know women play our games too, come and join the fun!"

    And Im not sure theres a case for historical accuracy either, because, even though there were not many women that participated in the war itself, there are multiple examples of pilots, tank drivers, snipers, soldiers, secret agents and resistance fighters across a variety of factions. Enough to include them as an option in a simple multiplayer shooter. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is just a game. I see it more as an overall representation of WWII, because the moment you add players interacting with each other, accuracy is ruined anyway.

    If you have an issue with women in the game, I would suggest:

    a) Headcanon them as resistance fighters that are unofficially helping an army.

    b ) Play another game? Battlefield V has never hid its inclusion of women, its a case of a person who buys the game knowing exactly what they are purchasing.

    It is all about the premise though. BF claims on it's own product page that it is all about being authentic and bringing a real war accurately to your screen. The claim is to bring the most immersive BF game of all time.
    The argument is tightly interwoven with the customization system, too. Their arguments are also exposing their flanks. They could have simply stated they do this for inclusion reasons, and that is hard to counter. However if you claim that hundreds of thousand women fought in the war you leave yourself open for argument. Yes, Germany employed 500k spotlight operators late in the war that were largely women. If that is active combat duty is already debatable and it certainly is not frontline combat. Even if you accept that claim, why would spotlight operator Helga take part in the occupation of Norway? Resistance fighters is also not very plausible, as the operations we play in are indeed modeled after large scale battles fought between regular combattants, still in 1941, resistance fighters would rarely be engaged in these and even more rarely would be women.
    I am not arguing that there weren't women engaged in frontline combat, they were such a rare occurence especially in the Axis and Western Allies that they statistically are irrelevant. The same can be said about the different customization options. If they wanted to be inclusive and immersive they would have made it random what you play, and make it so that you see it yourself. However they want to sell customization options.
    If they wanted to show untold roles of women and discriminated people groups and give them sort of recognition, they could have done it through singleplayer, to play as a spotlight operator or black cook, or Nurse. Wouldn't be fun of course, but showcase it in a historically relevant way.
  • SirSpectacle
    771 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Being angry over a video game is never a good idea.
  • Carbonic
    1303 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Eeeek, another of these threads. I thought we were done with these. I'll let it be for now as long as people behave.
    Also, I think we should improve how we word things:
    Jamesonoid said:

    While BFV didn't sell well......

    ...The game would of sold well....
    etc. etc.
    People keep saying this and it's not that simple and I would say it's simply not true. It sold a huge 7,3 million copies (reported in Feb 2019, Google it). This was below expectations, probably since most expected BF1 numbers (BF1 which sold above expectations at the time).
    However, 7,3mil is still a huge number that most games, even AAA games would be very happy about.
    Say after me: "not selling well is not the same as selling below expectations" ;)

This discussion has been closed.