Get Woke, Go Broke

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Saelune:
The problem is if the lack of realism is the problem, then there is a lot more wrong with every 'historical shooter' ever besides women and blacks. It just shows that sexism and racism are their line for unacceptable, not every other thing that is hindering the realism of games like Battlefield 5.

A single person can murder people in public more casually than Jack the Ripper in Victorian England with neither headlines nor fanfare, but a lady gang leader? I'm calling BS on this.

I mean, stabbing an established member of society in the neck in front of dozens of his peers is totes believable, but...a wman? In chrge? Fetch me my fainting couch!

I do have to disagree on one point, however. It's not that women and black people are the line for historicity, it's that historicity is the excuse people use to complain about them. Because they will use it whether the characters are ahistorical or not. See also: Assassin's Creed Liberation, Assassin's Creed Unity, and assassin's Creed Origins (where having a black protagonist in Africa was somehow an SJW move).

Something Amyss:
SNIP

Actually I wasn't okay with off-history vehicles. If I remember correctly the British tanks used in trailer were never deployed in the European theater, saved for a German ground invasion of the UK.
So I guess its possible the British used female front line, crippled, soldiers during the non-historical German land invasion of the UK. and the Japanese sent Samurai to help. Good! great! I'd love to play that game. Don't market it as a bleedingly historically accurate and anyone who doesn't know better doesn't know history. I'm willing to bet a prosthetic armed British female sniper in a squad that included a samurai sword wielding Asian man fought against the Nazi land invasion of Great Britain during WW2 isn't Historically accurate. I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that event did not occur.

and I never said there weren't lady samuarais. But in the trailer its a dude, so the point is moot.

Saelune:
SNIP

Its not the lack of realsim that's the problem. The problem is it was marketed as 'realistic'. Realism wasn't something the gamers randomly applied, it was something the marketing team thought was a selling point. So saying 'look this is so realistic!' and gamers saying 'no, its not' the problem isn't the gamers. It was the marketing team thinking this was realistic, meaning historically accurate. I think everyone was willing to overlook gameplay mechanics as not realistic, because it is a game after all. But setting and characters are harder to overlook if the selling point is historically accurate realism.

Honestly, the reveal of the female character and existence of prosthetics was done pretty early in the games marketing cycle

If someone still thought it was going to be an accurate reenactment by release date that was on them

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, the reveal of the female character and existence of prosthetics was done pretty early in the games marketing cycle

If someone still thought it was going to be an accurate reenactment by release date that was on them

But that's my point. No one thought it was, but the game was being marketed as accurate and then people were told off for 'not knowing history', as if the game devs were trying to rewrite history to fit their game.

Some people did care there was a ladymake in the game, and they can go fuck themselves. But others who were promised a realistic ww2 shooter have more ground to stand on when they complain its not realistic.

Something Amyss:

trunkage:

Ghostbusters is destroyed.

Don't worry, that new title that is probably going to be Scooby Doo with an Ecto 1 and may or may not feature any original Ghostbusters is totally going to save the franchise from the great shame of having girls.

Miles Morales destroyed Spider-Man (but maybe that has been rectified since Into the Spiderverse).

Mile moved into the Overton Window of acceptable for most people years ago, though. He's now used as a counter to more recent characters, like Black Captain America and Muslim Girl Marvel and Gay Iceman (who is just regular Iceman but out of the closet). It's almost funny how fast these things become normal and an excuse to attack the new thing.

I was trying tl point out a bunch of outrage. Not necessarily agreeing with it. But it good to point out what USED to be controversial and how the change didn't destroy the world.

Like I hope there will be female Space Marines. Make them weaker than men. Make them enemies of the Emporer. Necromunda play with this decades ago. Don't worry about changing armour even, like they do with the Imperial Gaurd. It's a massive standard suit, just let it fit whoever. Don't go Sister of Battle and emaphise certain features.

And, I think these new Star Wars will create controversy, but in 20 years there will be a bunch of people coming out of the woodwork saying how good this new trilogy was. Just like there is a bunch of people saying the Prequels were cool now.

Silentpony:
Actually I wasn't okay with off-history vehicles.

But you chose to run with a complete fabrication as your headliner.

Kind of the problem. Also, thanks to undeadsuitor for reminding me.

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, the reveal of the female character and existence of prosthetics was done pretty early in the games marketing cycle

If someone still thought it was going to be an accurate reenactment by release date that was on them

Not to mention comments specifically from the dev team. I'm not sure how you can argue what the game is "supposed" to be with the people behind it making statements to the contrary.

Silentpony:

Something Amyss:
SNIP

Actually I wasn't okay with off-history vehicles. If I remember correctly the British tanks used in trailer were never deployed in the European theater, saved for a German ground invasion of the UK.
So I guess its possible the British used female front line, crippled, soldiers during the non-historical German land invasion of the UK. and the Japanese sent Samurai to help. Good! great! I'd love to play that game. Don't market it as a bleedingly historically accurate and anyone who doesn't know better doesn't know history. I'm willing to bet a prosthetic armed British female sniper in a squad that included a samurai sword wielding Asian man fought against the Nazi land invasion of Great Britain during WW2 isn't Historically accurate. I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that event did not occur.

and I never said there weren't lady samuarais. But in the trailer its a dude, so the point is moot.

Saelune:
SNIP

Its not the lack of realsim that's the problem. The problem is it was marketed as 'realistic'. Realism wasn't something the gamers randomly applied, it was something the marketing team thought was a selling point. So saying 'look this is so realistic!' and gamers saying 'no, its not' the problem isn't the gamers. It was the marketing team thinking this was realistic, meaning historically accurate. I think everyone was willing to overlook gameplay mechanics as not realistic, because it is a game after all. But setting and characters are harder to overlook if the selling point is historically accurate realism.

I am saying that if people want to complain about how 'unrealistic' it is, they need to stop focusing on just the women and non-white people. But because they are sexist and racist and using 'historical accuracy' as an excuse, it is bullshit.

They are 'willing to overlook the gameplay' because they are just sexist and racist and it was never about realism or historical accuracy.

Something Amyss:
SNIP

What fabrication? Cyber? That's your hold up?
The female cyber sniper with Japanese Samurai fighting Nazis in Great Britain, Whoa whoa whoa!
Female prosthetic sniper with Japanese Samurai fighting Nazis in Great Britain thank you very much! There! Realism solved!

Come on. If you're arguing my point is invalid because 1 of the 6 historically inaccurate events has to be relabeled, then its not a very healthy counterpoint.

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Something Amyss:
SNIP

Actually I wasn't okay with off-history vehicles. If I remember correctly the British tanks used in trailer were never deployed in the European theater, saved for a German ground invasion of the UK.
So I guess its possible the British used female front line, crippled, soldiers during the non-historical German land invasion of the UK. and the Japanese sent Samurai to help. Good! great! I'd love to play that game. Don't market it as a bleedingly historically accurate and anyone who doesn't know better doesn't know history. I'm willing to bet a prosthetic armed British female sniper in a squad that included a samurai sword wielding Asian man fought against the Nazi land invasion of Great Britain during WW2 isn't Historically accurate. I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that event did not occur.

and I never said there weren't lady samuarais. But in the trailer its a dude, so the point is moot.

Saelune:
SNIP

Its not the lack of realsim that's the problem. The problem is it was marketed as 'realistic'. Realism wasn't something the gamers randomly applied, it was something the marketing team thought was a selling point. So saying 'look this is so realistic!' and gamers saying 'no, its not' the problem isn't the gamers. It was the marketing team thinking this was realistic, meaning historically accurate. I think everyone was willing to overlook gameplay mechanics as not realistic, because it is a game after all. But setting and characters are harder to overlook if the selling point is historically accurate realism.

I am saying that if people want to complain about how 'unrealistic' it is, they need to stop focusing on just the women and non-white people. But because they are sexist and racist and using 'historical accuracy' as an excuse, it is bullshit.

They are 'willing to overlook the gameplay' because they are just sexist and racist and it was never about realism or historical accuracy.

No they overlook gameplay because its a game. I imagine if they had sniper Basset Hounds or Space Marines fighting in WW2 gamers would have been equally as 'this is not historically accurate stop pretending it is'
That EA had ladies and Asian men in a 'historically accurate' trailer and people objected, that does not mean those people are sexist and/or racists. In the same way if a 'realistic' game had Canadian soldiers fighting during the Persian war, people objecting are not anti-Canadian.
The game was marketed as 'This is what it was like. See the Samurai proves it' And samurai did not fight with the allied powers. So no, that is not what it was like, and its not anti-samurai to point that out.

Silentpony:

Saelune:

Silentpony:
Actually I wasn't okay with off-history vehicles. If I remember correctly the British tanks used in trailer were never deployed in the European theater, saved for a German ground invasion of the UK.
So I guess its possible the British used female front line, crippled, soldiers during the non-historical German land invasion of the UK. and the Japanese sent Samurai to help. Good! great! I'd love to play that game. Don't market it as a bleedingly historically accurate and anyone who doesn't know better doesn't know history. I'm willing to bet a prosthetic armed British female sniper in a squad that included a samurai sword wielding Asian man fought against the Nazi land invasion of Great Britain during WW2 isn't Historically accurate. I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure that event did not occur.

and I never said there weren't lady samuarais. But in the trailer its a dude, so the point is moot.

Its not the lack of realsim that's the problem. The problem is it was marketed as 'realistic'. Realism wasn't something the gamers randomly applied, it was something the marketing team thought was a selling point. So saying 'look this is so realistic!' and gamers saying 'no, its not' the problem isn't the gamers. It was the marketing team thinking this was realistic, meaning historically accurate. I think everyone was willing to overlook gameplay mechanics as not realistic, because it is a game after all. But setting and characters are harder to overlook if the selling point is historically accurate realism.

I am saying that if people want to complain about how 'unrealistic' it is, they need to stop focusing on just the women and non-white people. But because they are sexist and racist and using 'historical accuracy' as an excuse, it is bullshit.

They are 'willing to overlook the gameplay' because they are just sexist and racist and it was never about realism or historical accuracy.

No they overlook gameplay because its a game. I imagine if they had sniper Basset Hounds or Space Marines fighting in WW2 gamers would have been equally as 'this is not historically accurate stop pretending it is'
That EA had ladies and Asian men in a 'historically accurate' trailer and people objected, that does not mean those people are sexist and/or racists. In the same way if a 'realistic' game had Canadian soldiers fighting during the Persian war, people objecting are not anti-Canadian.
The game was marketed as 'This is what it was like. See the Samurai proves it' And samurai did not fight with the allied powers. So no, that is not what it was like, and its not anti-samurai to point that out.

Stop making excuses, cause that is what you're doing. Either you care about historical accuracy, or you don't. You cant say 'That doesn't count' while harping on this other thing as ruining the historical accuracy.

People just want excuses to be racist and sexist.

Saelune:
SNIP

No you're wrong. Its not an excuse to say a game should have gameplay. Yes, of fucking course soldiers in ww2 weren't controlled by controllers from a couch. No one said they were, and you're being obtuse if you think that is what is meant by historically accurate. You have to allow for the consumer interaction. Yes it 'breaks' the realism of a WW2 game to not literally be WW2 and to be a game instead. But in its defense it is a game. So a game having a game is pretty par for the course for well, games.

By that logic no medium can ever be accurate. Saving private Ryan? Hardly realistic. You can't do that in only 2 hours and Tom Hanks wasn't in WW2. what's that? Michelle Rodriguez is on a magical unicorn to fight Nazi zombies alongside Tom Hanks?! Well if you didn't object to Tom Hanks and only 2 hours, you can't object to that.

Its not all the same Saelune. Playing a game to play a game is not the same as historically inaccurate historical events.

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

No you're wrong. Its not an excuse to say a game should have gameplay. Yes, of fucking course soldiers in ww2 weren't controlled by controllers from a couch. No one said they were, and you're being obtuse if you think that is what is meant by historically accurate. You have to allow for the consumer interaction. Yes it 'breaks' the realism of a WW2 to not literally be WW2 and to be a game instead. But in its defense it is a game. So a game having a game is pretty par for the course for well, games.

By that logic no medium can ever be accurate. Saving private Ryan? Hardly realistic. You can't do that in only 2 hours and Tom Hanks wasn't in WW2. what's that? Michelle Rodriguez is on a magical unicorn to fight Nazi zombies alongside Tom Hanks?! Well if you didn't object to Tom Hanks and only 2 hours, you can't object to that.

Its not all the same Saelune. Playing a game to play a game is not the same as historically inaccurate historical events.

More excuses. You're not convincing anyone here. You're also making wild leaps to defend your claims but they aren't working. I know you know that movie time insinuates that time and events pass that aren't shown in a movie because it is not worth the viewers time. Doesn't mean stuff didn't happen.

If you want to complain about realism in games then don't focus on just the women and blacks. Otherwise it will be quite apparent the real complaint is that there are women and blacks.

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

No you're wrong. Its not an excuse to say a game should have gameplay. Yes, of fucking course soldiers in ww2 weren't controlled by controllers from a couch. No one said they were, and you're being obtuse if you think that is what is meant by historically accurate. You have to allow for the consumer interaction. Yes it 'breaks' the realism of a WW2 to not literally be WW2 and to be a game instead. But in its defense it is a game. So a game having a game is pretty par for the course for well, games.

By that logic no medium can ever be accurate. Saving private Ryan? Hardly realistic. You can't do that in only 2 hours and Tom Hanks wasn't in WW2. what's that? Michelle Rodriguez is on a magical unicorn to fight Nazi zombies alongside Tom Hanks?! Well if you didn't object to Tom Hanks and only 2 hours, you can't object to that.

Its not all the same Saelune. Playing a game to play a game is not the same as historically inaccurate historical events.

More excuses. You're not convincing anyone here. You're also making wild leaps to defend your claims but they aren't working. I know you know that movie time insinuates that time and events pass that aren't shown in a movie because it is not worth the viewers time. Doesn't mean stuff didn't happen.

If you want to complain about realism in games then don't focus on just the women and blacks. Otherwise it will be quite apparent the real complaint is that there are women and blacks.

Okay then. Lets say I make a game about the Battle of Thermopylae, but I have all 300 Spartans be women, on top of the other few thousand Greeks there. I then market my game as historically accurate.
Is it sexist to complain that its not?

Here's you're problem. You think that because the problems are women and races in BF5, that the problem is only that sex and race exist. That because someone objects to British female soldiers in a ww2, they must be sexists. That there is literally no other explanation, because sex is involved, therefore sexism. Its not that crippled British women didn't fight alongside samurai, no no, its sexism. And that's simply...well, wrong. You're wrong.

If you want Samruai and ladies and missing limbs, good, great, more power to you. Do not call is historically accurate because its not. In fact I'll put it to you. Do you think Battlefield 5 was historically accurate, gameplay of the game aside? In your understanding of WW2, how many Japanese Samurai fought during the German land invasion of Great Britain?

No one complains that a game isn't realistic because it has gameplay. Like when in Civ games Gandhi launches nukes. That didn't become a meme because well duh, Gandhi and Caesar weren't alive at the same time, stop complaining lol racism! Its because historically Gandhi was kinda' anti-war. And so the idea of him nuking people was absurd.
OH I'm sorry, was it racist to complain Gandhi doesn't nuke?

Silentpony:

Saelune:

Silentpony:
No you're wrong. Its not an excuse to say a game should have gameplay. Yes, of fucking course soldiers in ww2 weren't controlled by controllers from a couch. No one said they were, and you're being obtuse if you think that is what is meant by historically accurate. You have to allow for the consumer interaction. Yes it 'breaks' the realism of a WW2 to not literally be WW2 and to be a game instead. But in its defense it is a game. So a game having a game is pretty par for the course for well, games.

By that logic no medium can ever be accurate. Saving private Ryan? Hardly realistic. You can't do that in only 2 hours and Tom Hanks wasn't in WW2. what's that? Michelle Rodriguez is on a magical unicorn to fight Nazi zombies alongside Tom Hanks?! Well if you didn't object to Tom Hanks and only 2 hours, you can't object to that.

Its not all the same Saelune. Playing a game to play a game is not the same as historically inaccurate historical events.

More excuses. You're not convincing anyone here. You're also making wild leaps to defend your claims but they aren't working. I know you know that movie time insinuates that time and events pass that aren't shown in a movie because it is not worth the viewers time. Doesn't mean stuff didn't happen.

If you want to complain about realism in games then don't focus on just the women and blacks. Otherwise it will be quite apparent the real complaint is that there are women and blacks.

Okay then. Lets say I make a game about the Battle of Thermopylae, but I have all 300 Spartans be women, on top of the other few thousand Greeks there. I then market my game as historically accurate.
Is it sexist to complain that its not?

Here's you're problem. You think that because the problems are women and races in BF5, that the problem is only that sex and race exist. That because someone objects to British female soldiers in a ww2, they must be sexists. That there is literally no other explanation, because sex is involved, therefore sexism. Its not that crippled British women didn't fight alongside samurai, no no, its sexism. And that's simply...well, wrong. You're wrong.

If you want Samruai and ladies and missing limbs, good, great, more power to you. Do not call is historically accurate because its not. In fact I'll put it to you. Do you think Battlefield 5 was historically accurate, gameplay of the game aside? In your understanding of WW2, how many Japanese Samurai fought during the German land invasion of Great Britain?

No one complains that a game isn't realistic because it has gameplay. Like when in Civ games Gandhi launches nukes. That didn't become a meme because well duh, Gandhi and Caesar weren't alive at the same time, stop complaining lol racism! Its because historically Gandhi was kinda' anti-war. And so the idea of him nuking people was absurd.
OH I'm sorry, was it racist to complain Gandhi doesn't nuke?

We're talking Battlefield V, which is like, the 30th Battlefield game. They had a LOOOOOONG time to complain about realism and historical accuracy. That it took women and blacks to get these cretins out of the woodwork is not a coincidence.

But have fun with your strawmen.

Saelune:
SNIP

Well fucking duh dude! They didn't have British crippled snipers before! That's a pretty poor argument, to say no one complained about the British Japanese Samurai until they added the British Japanese Samurai and now suddenly its a big deal! Why didnt people complain about the non-existent Samurai in Battlefield 2, the damn racists!
Yeah. Duh. I thought we took it as read people didn't complain until they had a reason to?

Silentpony:

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, the reveal of the female character and existence of prosthetics was done pretty early in the games marketing cycle

If someone still thought it was going to be an accurate reenactment by release date that was on them

But that's my point. No one thought it was, but the game was being marketed as accurate and then people were told off for 'not knowing history', as if the game devs were trying to rewrite history to fit their game.

Some people did care there was a ladymake in the game, and they can go fuck themselves. But others who were promised a realistic ww2 shooter have more ground to stand on when they complain its not realistic.

How was the game marketed as realistic if the marketing included the disabled woman

undeadsuitor:

Silentpony:

undeadsuitor:
Honestly, the reveal of the female character and existence of prosthetics was done pretty early in the games marketing cycle

If someone still thought it was going to be an accurate reenactment by release date that was on them

But that's my point. No one thought it was, but the game was being marketed as accurate and then people were told off for 'not knowing history', as if the game devs were trying to rewrite history to fit their game.

Some people did care there was a ladymake in the game, and they can go fuck themselves. But others who were promised a realistic ww2 shooter have more ground to stand on when they complain its not realistic.

How was the game marketed as realistic if the marketing included the disabled woman

Because the game was called realistic and the Devs themselves came out and said that anyone who thought the disabled woman wasn't realistic didn't understand history.

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

Well fucking duh dude! They didn't have British crippled snipers before! That's a pretty poor argument, to say no one complained about the British Japanese Samurai until they added the British Japanese Samurai and now suddenly its a big deal! Why didnt people complain about the non-existent Samurai in Battlefield 2, the damn racists!
Yeah. Duh. I thought we took it as read people didn't complain until they had a reason to?

You keep saying this part as if it wasn't right from the start that racists sexist gits weren't bitching about women and blacks.

People started complaining because of women and blacks being in the game, because they are sexist and racist against them and hate any sort of inclusivity. A lot of people hate inclusivity, they hate diversity, and they use shitty arguments to excuse their bigotry.

Silentpony:

undeadsuitor:

Silentpony:
But that's my point. No one thought it was, but the game was being marketed as accurate and then people were told off for 'not knowing history', as if the game devs were trying to rewrite history to fit their game.

Some people did care there was a ladymake in the game, and they can go fuck themselves. But others who were promised a realistic ww2 shooter have more ground to stand on when they complain its not realistic.

How was the game marketed as realistic if the marketing included the disabled woman

Because the game was called realistic and the Devs themselves came out and said that anyone who thought the disabled woman wasn't realistic didn't understand history.

I mean

they're absolutely right

but that doesn't change the fact that every trailer and image either featured her or another historic inaccuracy. So it shouldn't be a surprise when its not a specific type of accuracy that people are looking for.

Saelune:

Silentpony:

Saelune:
SNIP

Well fucking duh dude! They didn't have British crippled snipers before! That's a pretty poor argument, to say no one complained about the British Japanese Samurai until they added the British Japanese Samurai and now suddenly its a big deal! Why didnt people complain about the non-existent Samurai in Battlefield 2, the damn racists!
Yeah. Duh. I thought we took it as read people didn't complain until they had a reason to?

You keep saying this part as if it wasn't right from the start that racists sexist gits weren't bitching about women and blacks.

People started complaining because of women and blacks being in the game, because they are sexist and racist against them and hate any sort of inclusivity. A lot of people hate inclusivity, they hate diversity, and they use shitty arguments to excuse their bigotry.

And you keep thinking that because someone complains about women, therefore they're sexist. That because no one in 2002 complained about the non-existent female characters in Battlefield 1942, who then complained about females in 2018's Battlefield 5, they MUST be sexists. and that's poor logic. People complain about women in historically accurate games now because up until now no dev had put females in accurate WW2 frontline games, because, not to put too fine a point on, its not historically accurate. That's not sexism, that's getting an F in History 101.

and that's what you're defending. You're defending a Failed mark because the devs wrote in ladies and Japanese men fought for great Britain. And you're wrong. You're incorrect in thinking that actually happened and you're incorrect in thinking pointing that out is sexist/racists.

undeadsuitor:

Silentpony:

undeadsuitor:

How was the game marketed as realistic if the marketing included the disabled woman

Because the game was called realistic and the Devs themselves came out and said that anyone who thought the disabled woman wasn't realistic didn't understand history.

I mean

they're absolutely right

but that doesn't change the fact that every trailer and image either featured her or another historic inaccuracy. So it shouldn't be a surprise when its not a specific type of accuracy that people are looking for.

But the marketing team marketed it as Histrionically accurate. And no, they weren't right. Crippled women did not fight alongside Samurai during the Invasion of Britain. That historical event did not happen. And its a straight up lie to claim it did.

They showed trailers of a crippled woman, and said this was accurate and that anyone who disagrees doesn't get it. So how can they then bank on the idea no one actually thinks its accurate? It can't be both ways. EA can't be both absolutely right, and also obviously wrong.

Silentpony:

Saelune:

Silentpony:
Well fucking duh dude! They didn't have British crippled snipers before! That's a pretty poor argument, to say no one complained about the British Japanese Samurai until they added the British Japanese Samurai and now suddenly its a big deal! Why didnt people complain about the non-existent Samurai in Battlefield 2, the damn racists!
Yeah. Duh. I thought we took it as read people didn't complain until they had a reason to?

You keep saying this part as if it wasn't right from the start that racists sexist gits weren't bitching about women and blacks.

People started complaining because of women and blacks being in the game, because they are sexist and racist against them and hate any sort of inclusivity. A lot of people hate inclusivity, they hate diversity, and they use shitty arguments to excuse their bigotry.

And you keep thinking that because someone complains about women, therefore they're sexist. That because no one in 2002 complained about the non-existent female characters in Battlefield 1942, who then complained about females in 2018's Battlefield 5, they MUST be sexists. and that's poor logic. People complain about women in historically accurate games now because up until now no dev had put females in accurate WW2 frontline games, because, not to put too fine a point on, its not historically accurate. That's not sexism, that's getting an F in History 101.

and that's what you're defending. You're defending a Failed mark because the devs wrote in ladies and Japanese men fought for great Britain. And you're wrong. You're incorrect in thinking that actually happened and you're incorrect in thinking pointing that out is sexist/racists.

I am saying that if you want to complain about realism and historical accuracy, you took too long. Bigots are complaining because they are bigots and are using 'historical accuracy and realism' as a thinly veiled excuse to justify their bigotry.

You're defending sexism and racism.

Saelune:
You're defending sexism and racism.

It is entirely possible for someone to share an opinion that runs parallel to an opinion shared by racists and/or sexists without being racist and/or sexist.

There is nothing racist or sexist for saying that crippled women and Japanese Samurai did not serve in the British armed forces during World War II.

A lot of the fans of the series like the idea of playing as a soldier in an accurate depiction of that setting. British amputee snipers and Samurai are not conducive to that setting. Not wanting that in a series that has traditionally been setting accurate does not make detractors sexist and/or racist.

I think the issue really at play here is that Battlefield was just trying to copy Fortnite but they didn't want to come clean about that so they pretended their crazy haired for ww2 cyborg woman who was beating people with weaponized cricket bats in the trailer was included not because that's Fortnite's aesthetic but because EA is just so very woke all of a sudden and then doubled down when criticized by longtime fans who expect more historical accuracy.

Silentpony:
No they overlook gameplay because its a game. I imagine if they had sniper Basset Hounds or Space Marines fighting in WW2 gamers would have been equally as 'this is not historically accurate stop pretending it is'
That EA had ladies and Asian men in a 'historically accurate' trailer and people objected, that does not mean those people are sexist and/or racists. In the same way if a 'realistic' game had Canadian soldiers fighting during the Persian war, people objecting are not anti-Canadian.
The game was marketed as 'This is what it was like. See the Samurai proves it' And samurai did not fight with the allied powers. So no, that is not what it was like, and its not anti-samurai to point that out.

...The historically accurate trailer where the lady with WW2 era prosthetics died in the first 12 seconds of action then came back to life to ride on a Jeep, then came back to life again to bludgeon a man to death with a cricket bat?

It was a multiplayer trailer. Showing off customization options.

Saelune:

People started complaining because of women and blacks being in the game, because they are sexist and racist against them and hate any sort of inclusivity. A lot of people hate inclusivity, they hate diversity, and they use shitty arguments to excuse their bigotry.

A lot of people complained about a lot of things. Only some of them complained about blacks/women for racist/sexist reasons.

But because all the other complains don't really touch politics, those were the only ones that got any further attention. Both by people who are only interested in politics and coudn't care less about another stupid multiplayer shooter and by the publisher (because that is a better narrative than having a shitty game)

And yes, you can easily find realism complains about every other battlefield game. But there are no clicks and pageviews in people actually complaining about realism in a video game and having a point. So none of that sparked controversies. But as soon as you can add some sexist/racist angle, it is over the whole internet because it is suddenly ammunition for all sides of that neverending internet battlefield.

altnameJag:
It was a multiplayer trailer. Showing off customization options.

It was a trailer aimed at longtime fans of the series showing the new shinies. It completely turned off people who looked for an immersive WWII experience.

Silentpony:
Come on. If you're arguing my point is invalid because 1 of the 6 historically inaccurate events has to be relabeled, then its not a very healthy counterpoint.

I mean, you then doubled down by giving it a 0/2 on historical inaccuracies that weren't necessarily inaccuracies, tried to claim that you actually are bothered by the actual inaccuracies in the game, even though you decided to argue a lie instead, and now are "snipping" responses so you can hide anything other than your version of the truth.

Seriously, maybe just be honest instead? If you have to crank the histrionics over the inaccuracies, which when scaled back to what goews on in the game are pretty tame already, you're not so much making a case for "get woke, go broke": as you are for "muh feelz."

And I really can't help stop you from feeling oppressed by a story you likely heard third-hand in the first place, given you're repeating the same falsehoods verbatim, I can only address that you've literally made my case for me. Thank you.

The devs literally said you were wrong about what the game was supposed to be. If you think you know better than them what the game they made is, I have no words left.

altnameJag:
It was a multiplayer trailer. Showing off customization options.

I mean, that's completely reasonable. WW2 soldiers came back from the dead all the time. But none of them--not one--ever used the ladies room.

But above all, our games must be fun! The Battlefield sandbox has always been about playing the way you want. Like attempting to fit three players on a galloping horse, with flamethrowers.

Historical accuracy confirmed.

Something Amyss:

Come to think of it, it's sort of funny the way the people who always quote George Orwell seem to have an "always at war with Eastasia" mentality.

But...aren't we at war with Euraisa? 0_0

Something Amyss:

But...and Black Panther is a great example of this...even with that positive message that made people feel good, other people felt attacked, and that's going to be an extant problem ion media. Saying "black people can invent thins and be cool" is immediately going to trigger an "you're tearing white people down!" response.

To be honest, while I haven't seen BP, I always thought either statement was rather silly. Like, isn't the reason Wakanda like it is because of some magical space rock? To my best knowledge, magical space rocks don't actually exist, so we can't really use Wakanda itself as a measurement of any hypothetical, especially since we already effectively have those hypotheticals of never being (effectively) colonized via Ethiopia.

I'm a fan of the Arroverse shows, and I don't think anyone here is shocked by this at this point, because I mention them a lot. A lot of people are really angry at the "SJW" agenda being pushed by all the shows of late, and part of the problem is...it's not really all that different from before.

Playing devil's advocate, the amount of "wokeness" in Supergirl is far more than the others I've found. In the reviews I did of the show's first two seasons, I admitted to being put off by it - even if I might agree with some of their points, Supergirl has the subtlety of a jackhammer in delivering them, and arguably trips itself up.

"We must be nice to refugees. Aliens are refugees, and we aren't going to build a dome...now let's have no-one mention that the daxamites are also refugees and WANT TO CONQUER US."

I can't help but wonder if they fully thought out the social commentary of season 2 to be honest. 0_0

trunkage:

Like I hope there will be female Space Marines. Make them weaker than men. Make them enemies of the Emporer. Necromunda play with this decades ago. Don't worry about changing armour even, like they do with the Imperial Gaurd. It's a massive standard suit, just let it fit whoever. Don't go Sister of Battle and emaphise certain features.

TBH, I'd rather the Space Marines remain all male, the Sisters of Battle remain all female, and the Imperial Guard be egalitarian, both in-universe and from a modelling standpoint. If people really wanted female Space Marines they could do model conversions, but from an in-universe standpoint, for the Space Marines to suddenly gain a female chapter, or the Sisters of Battle to suddenly get a male chapter...it's not technically impossible, but you'd have to do hula hoops to justify either.

Abomination:
It is entirely possible for someone to share an opinion that runs parallel to an opinion shared by racists and/or sexists without being racist and/or sexist.

There is nothing racist or sexist for saying that crippled women and Japanese Samurai did not serve in the British armed forces during World War II.

A lot of the fans of the series like the idea of playing as a soldier in an accurate depiction of that setting. British amputee snipers and Samurai are not conducive to that setting. Not wanting that in a series that has traditionally been setting accurate does not make detractors sexist and/or racist.

I agree with the first statement. However, on the subject of female soldiers in BF5, I have the following gripes with the outcry:

-While it's true that women didn't serve in frontline positions in WWII bar rare exceptions, there's a number of historical liberties being taken elsewhere. The outcry that focused exclusively on female soldiers is disproportionate in the wider scheme of things.

-Having played BF5, it's a non-issue anyway. About the only time you can make out any soldier details is if you're revived and see the face of your saviour, or in the end of game "best squad" thing, where you can show off your swag.

-The campaign, which is as close to realistic as the game gets (and given some of the missions in said campaign, certainly not realistic in the North African/Norwegian theatres), is bereft of female GIs, so as far as narrative goes, the game remains accurate in that regard anyway.

Dreiko:
I think the issue really at play here is that Battlefield was just trying to copy Fortnite but they didn't want to come clean about that so they pretended their crazy haired for ww2 cyborg woman who was beating people with weaponized cricket bats in the trailer was included not because that's Fortnite's aesthetic but because EA is just so very woke all of a sudden and then doubled down when criticized by longtime fans who expect more historical accuracy.

True. I've said it from the start, the presence of female characters can be traced back to Fortnite...even if the game doesn't even have its own BR mode installed yet.

Silentpony:
I think it gets misapplied and many people don't know what 'social justice' really is. Like take the Battlefield 5 controversy. Its a historical game, aiming for gritty realism. And they added a bionic woman and a Japanese-British samurai to a combat squad.
If it was historical fantasy one could argue the 'inclusive' angle, but its not fantasy. Its straight historical, aiming for realistic.

Yeah, but no. "Realism" arguments are largely bullshit.

These are sorts of games where getting shot shaves 27% of your health bar which you can recover in 5 seconds by inaction or a medkit, which happens 23 times in the process of gunning down an entire company of enemy soldiers... every level. In gritty realism you're a god of combat awaiting your nation's top combat medal to have killed a dozen enemies in one engagement, and being shot the first time meant your arm is fucked because the bullet shattered the humerus, you're at risk of death by blood loss and it's six weeks convalescence before you're any good to anyone in warzone even presuming the arm didn't need amputating.

You can play a game like World of Tanks with its once much trumpeted realism. Except nearly all the tanks have guns that could never be historically fitted, all sorts of made-up background values, a max sight range 300m lower than German WW2 recommended engagement distance and these days most of the tanks available are based on nothing more than an engineer's back-of-a-napkin scribble that would never have seen the light of day because it was utterly impractical (like being blocked by rivers because 90% of bridges couldn't take its weight).

And then after they've finished Battlefield 5, that player's off to the next game where he guns down invading aliens with a plasma cannon.

Sure, George: "OMG that soldier's a woman!" is somehow a massive problem.

If you want realism, join the real army and shoot real guns at real people. Otherwise, there basically isn't a dev on the planet who says "realism comes before fun", including Battlefield 5's.

Agema:

These are sorts of games where getting shot shaves 27% of your health bar which you can recover in 5 seconds by inaction or a medkit, which happens 23 times in the process of gunning down an entire company of enemy soldiers... every level. In gritty realism you're a god of combat awaiting your nation's top combat medal to have killed a dozen enemies in one engagement, and being shot the first time meant your arm is fucked because the bullet shattered the fibula, you're at risk of death by blood loss and it's six weeks convalescence before you're any good to anyone in warzone even presuming the arm didn't need amputating.

You can play a game like World of Tanks with its once much trumpeted realism. Except nearly all the tanks have guns that could never be historically fitted, all sorts of made-up background values, a max sight range 300m lower than German WW2 recommended engagement distance and these days most of the tanks available are based on nothing more than an engineer's back-of-a-napkin scribble that would never have seen the light of day because it was utterly impractical (like being blocked by rivers because 90% of bridges couldn't take its weight).

I admit that i never played any of the Battlefields but did play World of Tanks for a couple of months.

But ... "much trumpeted realism" ? WoT was always one of the least realistic WWII games i ever played. And people knew that. And a very big number of people complained about that.

I don't know where the idea comes from that realism complains only started when the women appearen in Battlefield V. They didn't. They have always been there. People bitching about how unrealistic certain parts of wargames are is basically as old as wargames themself.

Satinavian:
But ... "much trumpeted realism" ? WoT was always one of the least realistic WWII games i ever played. And people knew that. And a very big number of people complained about that.

I played WoT for years. I still play it, for about a week a year to see if they've fixed any of it from the last inadequacy. Usually not: their ethos is more about pushing out more content (i.e. tanks) regularly, and fixing fuck-ups an order of magnitude slower.

But there was a huge issue back in the day about realism: the idea that tanks should have historical guns and armour and speed, etc. But that ran into problems with balance, so they started up-gunning a lot of the tanks with plainly ahistorical weaponry. And under all that, there were concealment rules, terrain movement penalties, aim and load times (etc.) which were essentially all just made up to balance the tanks and didn't really make any sense from the perspecitve of realism. Eventually they just ended up doctoring pretty much everything to meet balance needs.

Satinavian:

altnameJag:
It was a multiplayer trailer. Showing off customization options.

It was a trailer aimed at longtime fans of the series showing the new shinies. It completely turned off people who looked for an immersive WWII experience.

Lol! Anyone familiar with the series would be an utter fool with no memory to think there was going to be an "authentic WWII experience" in battlefield, whatever that means in videogames anymore. And as a person who enjoys those games, I can tell you what actually put me off this one, and that's the incredibly overdone and monotonous WWII setting itself which COD also did merely a year before that as battlefield were exploring the much more interesting WWI setting, alongside EAs growing habit of bad monetisation business and incomplete release packages, oh and red Dead 2 was a much larger priority with a more deeply presented historical setting...people trying to put this on womens-break-ma-realism and EA-hurts-my-feefees are so desperately reaching for their confirmation bias, they're willfully ignoring everything else to do so. It's pathetic.

Hawki:

-The campaign, which is as close to realistic as the game gets (and given some of the missions in said campaign, certainly not realistic in the North African/Norwegian theatres), is bereft of female GIs, so as far as narrative goes, the game remains accurate in that regard anyway.

Wait, so the campaign, the actual staged re-enactments (or at least the approximations thereof) don't have custom characters in them? Then what is the problem?

Of course I'd want to play as whoever I want in a free-for-all, sandbox or PvP mode. Access to all ethnic groups and genders. Preferably with a great deal of customization. For example, I usually like to make an approximation to myself - despite the fact that I nowhere near pass military muster in the physical sense. It's just fun to do in a game like Saint's Row or a wrestling game, and I assume it would be fun in a war game, too.

...

Abomination:

Saelune:
You're defending sexism and racism.

It is entirely possible for someone to share an opinion that runs parallel to an opinion shared by racists and/or sexists without being racist and/or sexist.

There is nothing racist or sexist for saying that crippled women and Japanese Samurai did not serve in the British armed forces during World War II.

A lot of the fans of the series like the idea of playing as a soldier in an accurate depiction of that setting. British amputee snipers and Samurai are not conducive to that setting. Not wanting that in a series that has traditionally been setting accurate does not make detractors sexist and/or racist.

Satinavian:

Saelune:

People started complaining because of women and blacks being in the game, because they are sexist and racist against them and hate any sort of inclusivity. A lot of people hate inclusivity, they hate diversity, and they use shitty arguments to excuse their bigotry.

A lot of people complained about a lot of things. Only some of them complained about blacks/women for racist/sexist reasons.

But because all the other complains don't really touch politics, those were the only ones that got any further attention. Both by people who are only interested in politics and coudn't care less about another stupid multiplayer shooter and by the publisher (because that is a better narrative than having a shitty game)

And yes, you can easily find realism complains about every other battlefield game. But there are no clicks and pageviews in people actually complaining about realism in a video game and having a point. So none of that sparked controversies. But as soon as you can add some sexist/racist angle, it is over the whole internet because it is suddenly ammunition for all sides of that neverending internet battlefield.

altnameJag:
It was a multiplayer trailer. Showing off customization options.

It was a trailer aimed at longtime fans of the series showing the new shinies. It completely turned off people who looked for an immersive WWII experience.

It is entirely possible that a ton of people are racist and sexist and just want to bitch about women and blacks. It is a common thing. It keeps coming up whenever women, non-whites and LGBT people show up in anything, a bunch of bigots start bitching loudly about it.

Bigotry is rampant. You guys can pretend all you want it isnt, but you'd be wrong then.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here