Gamers are already drawing battle lines over the Battlefield V trailer

@Timex It’s a prosthetic arm from that period:

Yeah, no. Looked like a robot arm.

Seriously, I had no idea that it was supposed to be WWII from watching that trailer. But the presence of a woman was the least “strange” thing about it.

And that’s fine.

This is such bullshit. You’re saying that EA shouldn’t put women in their game because, of all things, it’s a tool to head off bad reviews? Do you even think through this shit or was it just something that sounded good in your head as you went on your rant?

I think the animation threw a lot of people off. It’s obvious that she’s much too fast and accurate moving with that arm than an actual prosthetic. The appearance is accurate to the time period. It just moves like a sci-fi robo-arm, rather than the real thing.

But, that’s how I’d expect it to be with a cosmetic skin in a videogame. No one would ever use it for their in-game character if it actually gave you a movement or aiming penalty.

LOL as if EA putting it “front and center” is the reason these idiots have a problem. Let me remind you of some actual videogame history.

Here’s Medal of Honor: Underground, released in…2000. 18 years ago.

image

Look at that woman, in a WWII game, front and center. Was there drama about it? Nope.

So why is there drama now? Simply because there is now an internet brigade of deplorables looking for any encroachment on their hallowed ground of shooters made for dudes by dudes.

This is amazing that people are actually complaining about a woman in a trailer.

This is why you guys are never gonna get laid.

Oh but don’t you see, this is about realism in games!
Or it’s about Battlefront II’s loot boxes.
Or it’s because EA is putting women “front and center” in their marketing, which obviously should just focus 100% on men.
Or it’s because now people who don’t like the game have to fear being called sexist.

or something.

No no no no no. I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be in the game; it isn’t up to me.

I’m saying that I don’t care about the Battlefield model of gameplay enough to want to buy it, and the inclusion of female avatars won’t convince me otherwise. However, I do want to like the idea of the Battlefield franchise, but am exasperated that EA have copied Call of Duty since 2011. Even with the inclusion of female avatars, Battlefield V isn’t original. The franchise now seems to rely on poor communication and obfuscation as a way to keep people confused and more prone to need to rely on and crave information pumped out by the developers & publishers, because the other media sources are negative, depressing, and now might be seen by some as less interesting or trustworthy as a result.

I’m also trying to suggest what might happen, & what could happen, given the climate that we live in, and the tactics that have already been used to perpetuate the importance of Battlefield within video games media. Why wasn’t the game announced at E3? Why has a game that most people’s reaction to would have been ‘meh’, suddenly is now met with such intrigue, hostility & now division?

… and asking the question: Does rabid fandom makes games sell better, and would it be used to sell games, even if it makes us all a little less happy as a result?

Then there is this issue of FUN in World War 2. World War 2. FUN. Playable female avatars get to feature in World War 2 as a wish fulfilment, in places they wouldn’t usually be seen, for MAXIMUM FUN and expression. Some people argue that it is accurate, but research suggests those were outlier cases. World War 2. As far as we can guess, it won’t try to say anything about, for example, the work of the Women’s Auxiliary via gameplay (narratives can be inserted via single player, but that isn’t the same as multiplayer system design).

It is as if DICE looked at that Wonder Woman film scene where Diana is blocking machine gun bullets with her gauntlets in WWI, and they were annoyed they didn’t get the Marvel tie in with BF1:WWI… hence the bombasticness of BFV trailer.

Is BFV a super-hero game? Should it be marketed as such? Is it a fitting tribute to previous generations? What do older people think of the way it is being presented? What do concentration camp survivors & POWs think? Do they think it trivialises World War 2, or are they ok with it? Does it matter what they think? Will we ever know? How will World War 2 games change over the years? What should I think about it? Should I train myself to change my reaction to this boring Call of Duty cribbing franchise? Should games trivialise war? How much artistic license is tasteful vs what isn’t?

I’m torn between many ideas of whether this or that should be in whichever game I might or might not buy, but I definitely do not think it is as clear cut as some like to make it.

For EA/DICE, all they have to do is stick to their vision, but the rest of us have to now do more WWII research into what is accurate vs what is being folded over or represented ‘differently’ for the sake of FUN!

You must be super fun at parties.

Oh slippery slope. It’s all clear now. If you let the womens in, pretty soon they’ll be wearing pants and not skirts and dresses!

Yes. It is that, because it is how social media trends operate for the sake of marketing. I recently saw a Kellogs Corn flakes advert on twitter which asked “Are you Team AM or Team PM?” In reference to when you eat Cornflakes. Market enforced division… over breakfast cereal!.

… and this is because marketeers know that division is a powerful force for selling products.

Hahaha haha.

I feel like you might, maybe, be over analyzing things like videogames and breakfast cereal. You also worry a bit too much about, well, pretty much everything, apparently.

I mean, really, you know you sound like a crazy person when you suggest that the reason EA is including women in Battlefield is so they can call anyone who doesn’t like the game sexist, right?

No, I’m not saying that putting women in the game was only motivated by a desire to call people sexist. Plausibly, they were put in for the reasons that DICE say - inclusion.

When it comes to ‘Console Wars’, it was about making people believe that buying a particular brand of console was the ‘correct’ choice, which meant that the other was ‘wrong’; it wasn’t about personal requirement.

I understand that there is a personal requirement/desire for female avatars in ‘Call of Duty model’ games; it is dubious in its ‘authenticity’, in some historic periods, namely World War 2, but cest la vie. I didn’t think about it at all in CoD:WWII, and only thought about it as a potential controversy since BFV, because of how unavoidable the question has become, and how it has become mixed up with FUNWorldWar2.EXE

…but in LESS than 2 days, it had already turned into an argument where some people are ‘correct’ and other people are ‘wrong’, as media imposes its ability to tell people that they are wrong, before checking its own assumptions. Competitive fandom is abound. Meanwhile, “because there is no such thing as bad publicity”, and, since EA have got such good press, they will continue raking in the benefits of the public trying to process their rather enigmatic trailer. Who now will be brave enough to critique or scrutinise Battlefield?

I’m not fooled. EA shouldn’t be let off the hook so easily, and ‘We’ve included women now’ on their advertising shouldn’t be a good reason for journalists to ignore the less ethical elements of EA, although, it probably will suffice.

In summary, I’m just a pleb. I’m not important enough for people to spend their time analysing or suggesting what I’m up to or about, because I don’t know. Clearly, some have been free to try. So close… and bless you for trying.

It is easier to critique an average person than an important one, because the average don’t have the power to enforce ‘correctness’.

Again, I will put it to some here that they aren’t looking at what EA is up to. EA, the company that has now rebranded itself as ‘politically correct’ and is jettisoning its reputation as ‘the gambling video game company’ as soon as it can, before governments start looking into their dealing (and taxing them more for the social cost to the tax payer that EA might have caused by their years of Sports Card packs & loot boxes).

If a miserable, divisive environment is maintained, then every pleb suffers, because we will keep spending money in the attempt to make us happy, and the publisher will rake in the money, having actual financial and political clout over an actual world, while we are stuck in the virtual, and arguing over the virtual, and craving to engage in the systems built by those with the power. We aren’t communicating; we are building our own walls & isolating ourselves. We may even end up defending EA against governments, because vices make us happy.

Now, I’m not even sure if I should play video games anymore. I see the overall wealth of the conversation divided around corporate lines or ‘PC and un-PC’ narratives, and it is soooo boring & tiring. They don’t feel like fun, they feel like they are being sold as a pacification tool that we pay for, to waste our time. The actual game seems about getting you to sit down and play whatever game is sold to you, and coming back, always anticipating, and wanting more.

But, then: “Give the people what they want”.

The same could be said of people. Specifically you. You have typed a lot of words, but have said nothing, added nothing other than your judgement. Maybe you shouldn’t play games, as they are so hard to play from those tall horses.

It is called Medal of Honor: Underground Underground suggests resistance fighting, which it is established that women were involved in during WWII. Also, above all, the design of the box of that game ACTUALLY communicates a ‘World War 2’ vibe, whereas Battlefield V cover does an exceptionally poor job of conveying ‘WWII’. So, MoH Underground makes sense - a game from 18 years ago, so far, seems to have done a better job, which is what we have been trying to convey to you this entire time. The stuff of the past isn’t always ‘wrong’, nor is the future always progressive.

Quite frankly, a WWII female spy game would be a good idea. Or even one where you play as a female Russian sniper (although, I don’t know if the families of the actual ladies referenced would agree to it).

Remember, that descendents of these people are still alive and kicking. We cannot just do what we want with their legacy because DICE say it is ‘FUN’.

‘Battlefield: Resistance’, could be a decent type of spin-off in the same way that they tried Cops & Robbers with ‘Battlefield: Hardline’.

It is as if Battlefield V is doing its best in marketing to circumvent direct comparison to WWII, which is indeed possible, since modern German laws are very strict on what can and cannot be depicted. Ironically, the Swastika, one of the only flag designs that actually conveys time and place effectively within a historical setting, isn’t permitted outside of educational works, and, as has been established BFV isn’the going to be educational, which means that historical accuracy and entertainment are no longer viable bedfellows under German law + ratings boards, and that close compromise between ‘accuracy’ and ‘fun’ is now less viable an option.

By the way, for those saying it will be same old Battlefield gameplay that they don’t like, @TurinTur has a nice summary in the other Battlefield V thread about the differences in gameplay, and they sound quite extensive.

Ooh err…

If you want a reclarification, what I mean is that games which attempt to inject meaning can be more problematic than those that were built as a result of simulations that required compromise. Of course, the person’s decision to design or code the game in the first place has meaning behind it, but narrative driven marketing can become a crutch to hold a project together, and so more people can ignore the need for good systems. Gaming is now very meta, so pre-existing systems can be bolted on even if they were not designed to suit the game; I.e boilerplate design.

I remember playing an alpha of Halo 2 about 6 months before Halo 2 was scheduled for release. People said it was going to be the greatest game ever, and hype was at a fever pitch. We waited 2 hours in line at an expo to play that alpha for maybe 10 minutes, and the vehicles didn’t even work back then. Halo 1 had a working Warthog, but Halo 2’'s 'Hog was only modeled but not driveable, and that alpha experience was a major disappointment. The systems weren’t done yet, SO CLOSE to release, but the story of the game, and the hype of the experience etc was awaited by people with SUCH FANDOM & anticipation, regardless of whether the game functioned or not behind the veil/closed doors, and gaming hasn’t really changed from that ‘macgyver’ model, all the way back in 2004.

The fever pitch of Halo 2 transcended the question of its ability to function as a video game.

We can’t? I wasn’t aware of any laws restricting that. Are you just talking about some kind of nebulous sense of respect? Because the WWII female spy game you just lauded, Medal of Honor: Underground, is loosely based on a real person. And I do mean loosely. Helene Marguerite Deschamps Adams, for all her heroism and service, did not actually do many of the things the player does in that game.