EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

[StatusNil]

Where is the Nordlys? Good question. The Nordlys is a section of Norway [https://www.visitnorway.com/visit-nordlys/].

Sorry to get pedantic on ya, but I can't help it. Ackshully "Nordlys" appears to be Norwegian for the "northern lights" (AKA Aurora Borealis), and not a part of Norway.

I view it as a personal responsibility to involve myself here, since I once spent like 24 hours in Norway and thus consider myself an expert in all matters concerning this feisty tropical island nation.

 

[Elijin]

[HEADING=2]Stop. Pretending. Everything. Is. About. Women. Being. In. Battlefield.[/HEADING]​

This is a topic about women in battlefield, and whether or not that's a negative thing.

That said, I won't pretend it didn't have its fair share of emergent over-the-top Hollywood action sequences. There's a reason 'Battlefield Moments' was a term coined by this game:

I'd forgotten how much old BF was so much more focused on raw combat rather than the whack-a-mole/hide&seek hybrid combat has become due to all the extra clutter of bushes and sand and scenery and terrain.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Where is the Nordlys? Good question. The Nordlys is a section of Norway [https://www.visitnorway.com/visit-nordlys/].

Sorry to get pedantic on ya, but I can't help it. Ackshully "Nordlys" appears to be Norwegian for the "northern lights" (AKA Aurora Borealis), and not a part of Norway.

I view it as a personal responsibility to involve myself here, since I once spent like 24 hours in Norway and thus consider myself an expert in all matters concerning this feisty tropical island nation.

It's in the northern section of Norway, but I get your meaning. I always thought it happened at a particular spot in Norway, but I can just change it...

... I don't want to. It stays. I will be inaccurate due to laziness!

.... I'mma do it...

 

[StatusNil]

I will be inaccurate due to laziness!

I can respect that.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

It seems that a lot of people have been consuming enough certain opinionated 'news' media that has basically conditioned them into Pavlovian responses towards anything in their entertainment that could possibly be even remotely attached to the "sjw liberal conspiracies" that are infesting all entertainment. It becomes a bell whistle they have been trained to react to, with paranoia and rejection. Unfortunately it will happen with every damn release that dares put anybody who isn't a bloody manly white straight dude, so expect this same old tripe more often than not as entertainment applies more variation in their characters with less hesitation. One thing the conservative media has succeeded at pretty well, unsurprisingly when there isn't really anything they care about other than fighting change or anybody who desires it.

Despite your rather sardonic and non-inviting post, I'll try for some honest and good faith speculation.

I think it's more to do with people seeing their popular characters and/or games being remade and replaced with the same "inclusive" mindset that focus on single digit percents of the population and seem to want to inject that everywhere they look. They just get fed up. They want their stuff to remain true to origins and style. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind entirely new games or characters that doesn't impinge on already established foundations.

I hope I made myself understood somewhat, and that I got the point across clearly.
If there is anything unclear, don't hesitate to ask. Nicely.

 

[Avnger]

I think it's more to do with people seeing their popular characters and/or games being remade and replaced

How, in this case, is anything being "remade and replaced?" There is one female character seen in the trailers and the female player characters are completely optional in multiplayer. The male multiplayer characters are still there, and 99.99% of the trailer characters are still white males. Battlefield was going to attempt to cash in on WW2 again regardless.

with the same "inclusive" mindset that focus on single digit percents of the population

Last I checked, women were slightly over 50% of the population and LGBT (not a part of the specific topic at hand) persons are just under 4%.

and seem to want to inject that everywhere they look.

The only group being "injected everywhere" is straight, white males in videogames. Take a look at population percentages. White men only make up 31% of the US population if we remove that 4% LGBT, we're left with just under 30%. Now take a look at the American videogame character representation. Are you going to honestly say that straight white men don't make up a significantly larger percentage of characters than 30%?

They just get fed up. They want their stuff to remain true to origins and style.

You mean they want to continue to be exclusively pandered to. Also to drag this back onto the topic at hand, how exactly is 1 woman in the trailers and optional female multiplayer characters breaking "origins and style?" Unless your idea of "origins and style" is a 'no girls allowed' tree house, you're talking out of your rear regarding the outrage about this game.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind entirely new games or characters that doesn't impinge on already established foundations.

We've already seen this to be patently false a large number of times whenever a "SJW" indie game comes out. Stop repeating this bullshit narrative.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I think it's more to do with people seeing their popular characters and/or games being remade and replaced with the same "inclusive" mindset that focus on single digit percents of the population and seem to want to inject that everywhere they look. They just get fed up. They want their stuff to remain true to origins and style. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind entirely new games or characters that doesn't impinge on already established foundations.

I'm not Xsjadoblayde, but I do want to answer this if that's alright.

That position is flawed given that the Battlefield series has been rebooted with a particular goal in mind. To tell stories. Not every story about war will be the direct frontline. And not only is the Frontline a true Battlefield.

Battlefield 1 had six individual stories. Storm of Steel, Through Mud and Blood, Friends in High Places, Avanti Savoia!, Nothing Is Written.

Now, was there really an American Pilot who posed as a British Pilot for some reason? Can't find evidence of it. Yet no one complained about Historical Accuracy when people played as him. Was Daniel Edwards the last driver of the real life Black Bess [https://www.flickr.com/photos/drakegoodman/5484055352]? I've been looking. No mention of his name.

And speaking about being fed up, it's actually a valid point. But why does one side only get to be fed up? Even with proof that the world isn't the way people thought it to be, the answer is not enough. Even in knowing that there WERE a section of the population who bucked the norms and saw combat, people say "so? Not to my standards".

But what if others actually want to see the seldom told stories of war?

I've seen the same stories about WW2 since I was a child. It's boring. If there are new and actual stories about it, I'm much more interested in it because it's new. If they made up a position, I'm not interested. It's as fair as that. And I didn't have a position about it until I looked it up and found, oh shit, there were women who actually fought. Not just helped on the supply lines. There were blacks who fought, who left America and the Caribbean to run to Canada to enlist and fight. That Canadian enlisting fact I didn't learn until today, formulating my response to this very thread.

No one is saying "Shut down the stories of the soldiers who fought on the frontline". People are saying that there are all avenues of warfare that happened in WW2. Norwegians came together and fought in a secret army. Men and women. This story is about one of those soldiers. And yes, there were few female combatants. I see no problem taking one segment of one game to talk about resistance fighters. Because I'm sure it's something we would all do in some form if our countries were overtaken.

You say people want things to remain true to origins and style. Do you not get that is the very reason we do not have an accurate number of women who fought and gave their lives in the worst war in history? Because a nation couldn't bare to think that their resistance efforts relied on women as much as men. Remaining 'true to origins and styles' robs people who've fought, bled, and died for the same cause but just didn't happen to look the same way. I didn't know Blacks saw warfare in WW2, direct warfare until a year ago. Hell, some stories I didn't even learn up until today [http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC3345-FDE7-5326-01EF58424224C02E].

True to Origins and Style means that those who were never in style get excluded. I remember being a kid in history class, embarrassed that only white men could fight in wars up until Vietnam. We spent half a class on Vietnam, but weeks on WW2. Now, as an adult, I have to wonder why these moments, as small as they are, are forgotten to the point that most people believe there weren't even any minorities who served in World War 2.

No one is asking for anyone to invent something. But if there IS something, it deserves to be talked about. Do a poll. No one is telling the history books to make up stories about how Rosey the Riveter quit her duties, gathered up women, and flew to Europe on an airplane powered by their Womanly Might!

What people are saying is if there's proof of other perspectives, other sides to the most defining conflict of civilization... let's hear about them.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I think it's more to do with people seeing their popular characters and/or games being remade and replaced with the same "inclusive" mindset that focus on single digit percents of the population and seem to want to inject that everywhere they look. They just get fed up. They want their stuff to remain true to origins and style. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind entirely new games or characters that doesn't impinge on already established foundations.

I'm not Xsjadoblayde, but I do want to answer this if that's alright.

That position is flawed given that the Battlefield series has been rebooted with a particular goal in mind. To tell stories. Not every story about war will be the direct frontline. And not only is the Frontline a true Battlefield.

Battlefield 1 had six individual stories. Storm of Steel, Through Mud and Blood, Friends in High Places, Avanti Savoia!, Nothing Is Written.

Now, was there really an American Pilot who posed as a British Pilot for some reason? Can't find evidence of it. Yet no one complained about Historical Accuracy when people played as him. Was Daniel Edwards the last driver of the real life Black Bess [https://www.flickr.com/photos/drakegoodman/5484055352]? I've been looking. No mention of his name.

And speaking about being fed up, it's actually a valid point. But why does one side only get to be fed up? Even with proof that the world isn't the way people thought it to be, the answer is not enough. Even in knowing that there WERE a section of the population who bucked the norms and saw combat, people say "so? Not to my standards".

But what if others actually want to see the seldom told stories of war?

I've seen the same stories about WW2 since I was a child. It's boring. If there are new and actual stories about it, I'm much more interested in it because it's new. If they made up a position, I'm not interested. It's as fair as that. And I didn't have a position about it until I looked it up and found, oh shit, there were women who actually fought. Not just helped on the supply lines. There were blacks who fought, who left America and the Caribbean to run to Canada to enlist and fight. That Canadian enlisting fact I didn't learn until today, formulating my response to this very thread.

No one is saying "Shut down the stories of the soldiers who fought on the frontline". People are saying that there are all avenues of warfare that happened in WW2. Norwegians came together and fought in a secret army. Men and women. This story is about one of those soldiers. And yes, there were few female combatants. I see no problem taking one segment of one game to talk about resistance fighters. Because I'm sure it's something we would all do in some form if our countries were overtaken.

You say people want things to remain true to origins and style. Do you not get that is the very reason we do not have an accurate number of women who fought and gave their lives in the worst war in history? Because a nation couldn't bare to think that their resistance efforts relied on women as much as men. Remaining 'true to origins and styles' robs people who've fought, bled, and died for the same cause but just didn't happen to look the same way. I didn't know Blacks saw warfare in WW2, direct warfare until a year ago. Hell, some stories I didn't even learn up until today [http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC3345-FDE7-5326-01EF58424224C02E].

True to Origins and Style means that those who were never in style get excluded. I remember being a kid in history class, embarrassed that only white men could fight in wars up until Vietnam. We spent half a class on Vietnam, but weeks on WW2. Now, as an adult, I have to wonder why these moments, as small as they are, are forgotten to the point that most people believe there weren't even any minorities who served in World War 2.

No one is asking for anyone to invent something. But if there IS something, it deserves to be talked about. Do a poll. No one is telling the history books to make up stories about how Rosey the Riveter quit her duties, gathered up women, and flew to Europe on an airplane powered by their Womanly Might!

What people are saying is if there's proof of other perspectives, other sides to the most defining conflict of civilization... let's hear about them.

Quite alright for you to answer. I'll try to do the same.

.. I'm sorry to be so concise in my response, but I can't see how this dilemma wouldn't be solved by creating new games, instead of changing old franchises. If the old ones don't sell and the new ones do. Discard the old franchise and keep on with the new one. If the new ones don't sell, it just that much marsh gas with a vocal minority support. Keep doing old franchises. Include a few asked for minorities, but don't shout it out. Let people get used to change slowly.
I'm a liberal lefty pushed to the right by this widespread and incessant need to virtue signal in an authoritarian way and push the frankly sexist and racist narrative where only ones skin and gender count. **** that. Let characters be characters. Support those you like.

 

[Kerg3927]

Identity politics offers nothing anymore except to divide us. At some point, we all need to get back to just being people, without an adjective denoting which "team" we belong to.

I agree.

But you don't get to decide when that is.

You certainly don't get to decide that it's now, when plenty of people are constantly, constantly reminded which "adjective" they belong to just through the basic process of living in a society that doesn't treat them the same as everyone else.

So those people are never going to stop complaining? Ever? No matter that actual, real life discrimination in the West is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it was 50 years ago? No matter how much things improve?

There's always going to be some bias between people. Always. People are biased toward people like themselves, and biased against people unlike themselves. It's part of our hardwiring, and it can't just be ripped out. Any time there is a room full of people with differences, there is almost never going to be perfectly equal diversity and some people are going to feel less comfortable than others. There is no such thing as a perfect room.

And at some point, the complaining becomes the boy who cried wolf. People don't take it seriously anymore. And after crying wolf for the millionth time, people finally start to get a little pissed off. There has never been so little discrimination in the (Western) world, and yet it seems like there has never been more complaining about it.

One way in which a person might be reminded which adjective they belong to, of course, is by watching people have a meltdown because people of the wrong adjective appear in a video game. Because somehow, even though it doesn't matter and we're all just people and we shouldn't be divisive, it really matters that video games have the wrong people in them and that's an acceptable grounds for complaining.

Because remember, only certain people have to worry that they're being divisive..

This "reminding" comes from both sides, and I would say it usually originates from those whining about a lack of perfect diversity in pretty much everything.

Identity politics is what bigots created to oppress people who are different. Identity politics were created when a man told a woman she was less than him, identity politics were created when a religious person told a homosexual they are a sin against God, identity politics were created when a white person said that being black makes you property, not human.

All of those bad things happened in the past, obviously. They are rare occurences today. It's not 1860, or 1920, or 1960 anymore.

The only way to stop identity politics is to fight for equality.

As I said above, there is no such thing as perfect equality. There will always be some bias, and all we can do is minimize it. I would say that we're probably close to as good as it's ever going to be, at least among educated people. And right now, because of the boy who cried wolf effect and the backlash it creates, this continued obsession over perfect equality seems to be polarizing us and moving things in the wrong direction.

Pfft, tell that to the African Americans who get arrested for carrying weed 3-4 times as often as white people despite white people being more likely to carry weed. And then get longer sentences for crimes they do commit for no goddamned reason.

You know people study this stuff, right?

I would say that the reason that black people are arrested at a higher rate is because they are statistically more likely to be committing a crime, and thus they are profiled. Police probably also focus more on poor black neighborhoods because often that is where the highest concentration of crime is. Anyway, the reasons are complicated [https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime], and racism is only one (probably small) factor. Other factors include low income (in capitalism, people who start out poor typically stay poor... upward mobility is possible but difficult), substandard education (due to low income/low taxes collected), a lack of local cultural emphasis on education, gang culture, etc.

You don't see these higher percentages in other minority groups such as Asians and Indians. If it's all racism, why aren't they also filling our prisons? Instead, they are filling our universities and typically doing very well for themselves. I would say that the biggest factor is culture. And not racist white culture. The culture in those local communities.

Regarding your specific example, just legalize marijuana, problem solved for everyone.

A man was just sentenced to death because he was a gay man and the jurors felt that that meant that he would enjoy life in prison and therefore it wouldn't be a punishment for him.

If you think all the issues with inequality just magically went away, you haven't been paying attention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/charles-rhines-gay-jury-death-row.html

I would point out that the murder was in 1992... 26 years ago, so he wasn't "just sentenced." I would also point out that this type of story is probably extremely rare. I've certainly never heard of such a thing. And finally, I said "equal under the law," as in what the law says, but you never know what's going to happen when a jury deliberates... people are naturally biased in various ways, and juries are by design made up of average people, with variances in education, etc. Either way, that guy could have avoided the whole death penalty vs. life in prison thing by simply not murdering someone. I am against the death penalty, but hard to feel too much sympathy for him.

Oh hon...

You really believe those white walls surrounding your life is the total extent of everyone's experiences, don't you? Maybe you should take a peak at what other people have to deal with in life before proclaiming the discrimination they suffer as non-existent. Unfortunately, not everyone has whatever personal privileges you have to not suffer those injustices. Just because you don't have to endure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I didn't say it was nonexistent. But I certainly think it's a small percentage of what it used to be. And yes, I think a lot of it is currently exaggerated or even fabricated. Most of what I see in the news is just someone being offended, not the truly bad shit that we saw 50+ years ago.

For example, most of the actual racist people that I've encountered in my life were either old people who grew up before the civil rights era (and they are now in their 70's and 80's and dying off) or ignorant, poorly educated white people, who are not really in positions of power and influence.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So those people are never going to stop complaining? Ever? No matter that actual, real life discrimination in the West is a tiny, tiny fraction of what it was 50 years ago? No matter how much things improve?

Correct. People will always be whining over optional multiplayer cosmetics.

Pfft, tell that to the African Americans who get arrested for carrying weed 3-4 times as often as white people despite white people being more likely to carry weed. And then get longer sentences for crimes they do commit for no goddamned reason.

You know people study this stuff, right?

I would say that the reason that black people are arrested at a higher rate is because they are statistically more likely to be committing a crime, and thus they are profiled. Police probably also focus more on poor black neighborhoods because often that is where the highest concentration of crime is. Anyway, the reasons are complicated [https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime], and racism is only one (probably small) factor. Other factors include low income (in capitalism, people who start out poor typically stay poor... upward mobility is possible but difficult), substandard education (due to low income/low taxes collected), a lack of local cultural emphasis on education, gang culture, etc.

You don't see these higher percentages in other minority groups such as Asians and Indians. If it's all racism, why aren't they also filling our prisons? Instead, they are filling our universities and typically doing very well for themselves. I would say that the biggest factor is culture. And not racist white culture. The culture in those local communities.

Yes, why would a group of immigrants who emigrated legally with a high cost of entry be doing differently than a group of citizens that were brought here enslaved and did not have equal rights until a generation ago. That couldn't possibly be linked to racism in anyway. It's not like racial profiling, the thing you describe in your first sentence, is racism or anything.

Regarding your specific example, just legalize marijuana, problem solved for everyone.

Regarding marijuana, my specific example, Black people are 3-4 times more likely to be arrested for carrying weed and no other crime than white people. And if they're a black dude, their sentence will be longer for no goddamned reason: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf and it's been growing.

And at some point, the complaining becomes the boy who cried wolf. People don't take it seriously anymore. And after crying wolf for the millionth time, people finally start to get a little pissed off. There has never been so little discrimination in the (Western) world, and yet it seems like there has never been more complaining about it.

This I actually agree with.

We wouldn't be seeing nearly this level of shit storm if there were female character models for multiplayer in the Xbox era. And despite literal years of constant whining, game sompanies are wising up.

 

[Trunkage]

It seems that a lot of people have been consuming enough certain opinionated 'news' media that has basically conditioned them into Pavlovian responses towards anything in their entertainment that could possibly be even remotely attached to the "sjw liberal conspiracies" that are infesting all entertainment. It becomes a bell whistle they have been trained to react to, with paranoia and rejection. Unfortunately it will happen with every damn release that dares put anybody who isn't a bloody manly white straight dude, so expect this same old tripe more often than not as entertainment applies more variation in their characters with less hesitation. One thing the conservative media has succeeded at pretty well, unsurprisingly when there isn't really anything they care about other than fighting change or anybody who desires it.

Despite your rather sardonic and non-inviting post, I'll try for some honest and good faith speculation.

I think it's more to do with people seeing their popular characters and/or games being remade and replaced with the same "inclusive" mindset that focus on single digit percents of the population and seem to want to inject that everywhere they look. They just get fed up. They want their stuff to remain true to origins and style. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind entirely new games or characters that doesn't impinge on already established foundations.

I hope I made myself understood somewhat, and that I got the point across clearly.
If there is anything unclear, don't hesitate to ask. Nicely.

I'd a agree that some people have this mindset. I can see that some people think that men are being replaced by women and minorities in an effort to be inclusive.

Mr problem is that, even in the 80s and 90s, media wasn't inclusive. I remember the outrage at G I Jane and how offended people were at women being in the army, let alone a marine. (This could have also been a replacement of G I Joe. I can't remember. It's been too long since I've seen the movie.) it's still hostile now, as Black Panther was released in phase 3 due to it being a black superhero/lead and that was deemed a risk.

Unfortunately, success is tied with IP. Movie and TV execs won't put money out for new stuff. They want tried and true. If there wasn't a push for inclusiveness, then it would stay as mostly white men. Take the rebooted Star Trek. Using old character means that it's pretty much all white men. Which means that it stays non-inclusive.

I'd like new characters to join a universe, rather than gender or colour swapping. But then I've seen a backlash against Disocvery partially becuase there aren't that many white men in it. Same with the new mainline Star Wars movies. They think the SJW cabal has taken over and gotten rid of all the white men. Any woman or minority in any property is a threat to them.

Either way, someone will be offended at something

 

[Terminal Blue]

So those people are never going to stop complaining? Ever?

Define complaining?

Like, I know your complaints were partly due to a misunderstanding, but let's say they weren't. Let's say that Dice really were making a world war 2 game with an ostensibly world war 2 setting, but making some models and NPCs female. Now, I don't think you'd have to like that game, maybe you're after a more realistic world war 2 game and would find it distracting or immersion breaking, but at the end of the day it's a creative decision to sacrifice realism for (some people's) fun, and let's not pretend that's something that's never happened in Battlefield before. Again, a whole bunch of the weapons in Battlefield 1 literally didn't exist or worked fundamentally differently, but were made up to fit a world war 1 game into the mould of a modern shooter.

But your argument, which to be honest sounds very complaining, is that this wouldn't just be another artistic choice which you could like or dislike, but would in fact be some kind of "cancer" which is somehow destroying Western society. Yeah, putting women into a video game is destroying Western society.

It's not necessary to bring politics into this at all. Battlefield is a multiplayer-focused shooter, one of the biggest in the world, it has a huge and diverse audience, much of whom is fairly young, or otherwise not part of the traditional "hardcore gamer" set we encounter on sites like this. If that audience wants to see itself reflected in games, and isn't hugely concerned about historical accuracy or the "authentic world war 2 experience", then Dice should have the right to make the games they want. I don't see any reason that is more "political" than putting automatic weapons in world war 1.

But to you, it is political. In fact, it's not just political, what you're doing is identity politics. You are doing identity politics right now. You are making this political when it doesn't have to be. For some reason, you can accept that a gun that never existed being in a video game isn't political, but cannot accept the same of women being depicted in a situation they didn't historically appear. Why are women inherently more political than anything else to you? Well, because you're interpreting "women" as a political symbol. The fact that you're doing so from a hostile standpoint changes nothing.

So, to answer your question, people will stop using identity politics when everyone stops using it. But that will mean that it genuinely doesn't matter whether or not there are women in video games. After all, there is nothing political about women.

There has never been so little discrimination in the (Western) world, and yet it seems like there has never been more complaining about it.

Have you considered that this is because, historically, people were afraid to speak at all.

Like, I personally have been assaulted and put in hospital more than once. Friends of mine have been attacked with deadly weapons. People I know have taken their own lives because they could not live being treated as they were. This is the "little discrimination" you're talking about. The "big discrimination" of the past was far, far worse.

One huge advantage which people struggled for for years (using identity politics) is that most people now agree that equality is a theoretically good thing. This means that speaking out about inequality you face is sometimes a useful way to get to change, because most people recognise inequality and don't like it. In the past, this was far less true. When the stonewall riots or the civil rights movement happened, most people sided with the opposition because they fundamentally didn't think queer people, or black people should have the same rights as everyone else, there was an explicit belief that these were inferior humans, they were the enemy who needed to be suppressed and pushed down. Nowadays, that belief hasn't gone away, but it is at least something people are obliged to keep secret, which means we can talk about it in a way older people couldn't have imagined doing.

This "reminding" comes from both sides, and I would say it usually originates from those whining about a lack of perfect diversity in pretty much everything.

I don't know.. arguments about the "divisiveness" of opposing positions overwhelmingly come from people who don't think they're using identity politics (but really are, because seriously.. we all do, all the time).

 

[Trunkage]

Around 30 million women died in WW2. Pretty much half the casualties. I don't think putting them on the front lines would have changed that number much as they still died anyway.

Do you have a source for that number? I don't doubt it as millions of civilians died from disease, famine, and murder, but I couldn't find a source googling. Thanks.

I made a bunch of assumption based on statistics so I don't know specifically. Gender wasn't a category that was ever compiled. Around 62 mil died in WW2. 20mil in combat, which would be mostly male. And 40 mil were civilians, which would have been mostly women due to men being on the front. So, as I said, 30 mil is a very rough guess. But it would definitely be well above 20.

Someone had to feed and take care of the children and elderly back home, and take care of the sick and wounded, and as I understand it, many women worked in factories and took over many jobs that were vital to supplying each country's war machine. They didn't just sit around fanning themselves, so I'm not sure that increasing the number of soldiers by adding women would have helped anything. War supplies would have been diminished. Healthcare would have been lacking. Morale would have suffered because people would have been worried about children left alone at home. Someone had to stay at home and take care of the kids and do the regular day to day work. Realistically, I think more women soldiers would have meant that more men would have had to stay home. It would have probably been a trade off. It was total war, so almost everyone played a role as it was.

Yeah, I could see this. I could imagine a big operation asking for a big intake to prepare for it. Another example would be D-Day. They would try throwing everything at an enemy to knock them out of the war. Hence me picking an example of such a case. It's a guess.

 

[Squilookle]

That said, I won't pretend it didn't have its fair share of emergent over-the-top Hollywood action sequences. There's a reason 'Battlefield Moments' was a term coined by this game:

I'd forgotten how much old BF was so much more focused on raw combat rather than the whack-a-mole/hide&seek hybrid combat has become due to all the extra clutter of bushes and sand and scenery and terrain.

Not to mention the Frostbite level destruction now steadily removes all the vantage points and tactical opportunities of a map as a match progresses.

The other main difference is the scale. Battlefield 1 had at most, I think, 6 tanks and 6 planes in a map at any one time. Compared to 1942 and Vietnam, that's just pathetic. 1942's maps were big because they had to be- because both sides fielded huge collections of tanks/planes/a whole fleet of fully steerable warships. Seeing 32 aircraft duking it out over an Aircraft Carrier in the Coral Sea was an awe-inspiring sight, and I would gladly trade BF:V's level destruction and pretty graphics to once again wage war on the scale we saw in 1942 and it's mods- such as Forgotten Hope:

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Quite alright for you to answer. I'll try to do the same.

.. I'm sorry to be so concise in my response, but I can't see how this dilemma wouldn't be solved by creating new games, instead of changing old franchises. If the old ones don't sell and the new ones do. Discard the old franchise and keep on with the new one. If the new ones don't sell, it just that much marsh gas with a vocal minority support. Keep doing old franchises. Include a few asked for minorities, but don't shout it out. Let people get used to change slowly.
I'm a liberal lefty pushed to the right by this widespread and incessant need to virtue signal in an authoritarian way and push the frankly sexist and racist narrative where only ones skin and gender count. **** that. Let characters be characters. Support those you like.

Hey, conciseness gets to the root of the matter. More importantly is that you responded. Understanding only comes from open communication, so thanks for that.

I'll mirror you. All games that were ever made about real life wars have all been Historical Fiction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction]. To my knowledge, we never played as anyone real doing anything real. The time? The Conflict? The only accurate parts of history. Games usually cobble together gameplay from historical events and base player characters around it.

Given there were other conflicts in World War 2 in other places fought by other combatants, there's no need for another game. If Battlefield 2 is about World War 2, any story that can be drawn from real life sources are fair game. If a busboy picked up a gun and did guerilla tactics against the Nazis in Norway, I won't discount his story because he didn't enlist. Some warriors don't have the luxury of enlisting. Some are made warriors because they are fighting for their homes.

Although the robotic arm shit can go.

 

[Abomination]

I'll mirror you. All games that were ever made about real life wars have all been Historical Fiction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction]. To my knowledge, we never played as anyone real doing anything real. The time? The Conflict? The only accurate parts of history. Games usually cobble together gameplay from historical events and base player characters around it.

I think Crusader Kings II might be one that at least STARTS at a point of true history and then you're given free reign to see how it turns out.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I think Crusader Kings II might be one that at least STARTS at a point of true history and then you're given free reign to see how it turns out.

Same goes for the Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis and Victoria games. So, obviously Paradox into most historically correct.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Quite alright for you to answer. I'll try to do the same.

.. I'm sorry to be so concise in my response, but I can't see how this dilemma wouldn't be solved by creating new games, instead of changing old franchises. If the old ones don't sell and the new ones do. Discard the old franchise and keep on with the new one. If the new ones don't sell, it just that much marsh gas with a vocal minority support. Keep doing old franchises. Include a few asked for minorities, but don't shout it out. Let people get used to change slowly.
I'm a liberal lefty pushed to the right by this widespread and incessant need to virtue signal in an authoritarian way and push the frankly sexist and racist narrative where only ones skin and gender count. **** that. Let characters be characters. Support those you like.

Hey, conciseness gets to the root of the matter. More importantly is that you responded. Understanding only comes from open communication, so thanks for that.

I'll mirror you. All games that were ever made about real life wars have all been Historical Fiction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fiction]. To my knowledge, we never played as anyone real doing anything real. The time? The Conflict? The only accurate parts of history. Games usually cobble together gameplay from historical events and base player characters around it.

Given there were other conflicts in World War 2 in other places fought by other combatants, there's no need for another game. If Battlefield 2 is about World War 2, any story that can be drawn from real life sources are fair game. If a busboy picked up a gun and did guerilla tactics against the Nazis in Norway, I won't discount his story because he didn't enlist. Some warriors don't have the luxury of enlisting. Some are made warriors because they are fighting for their homes.

Although the robotic arm shit can go.

The is a need for a new game precisely because this franchise has a history of delivering one thing.
Otherwise it turns into a changed game that goes against said history.

I have no qualms whatsoever if they made a new game with another (but similar perhaps?) title that focused on another (overlooked) aspect of World War II.
Though, thinking a bit more leads me to suspect that changing a game could have more than just a political narrative in mind.
If one is willing to risk it all.

No Bad Publicity for one. Because here we are, talking about it. ,)
Familiar Title. Very risky this one. Fans of one thing usually don't like too drastic a change.
Already pre-made engine and assets. Lowering costs.

 

[Saelune]

Identity politics is what bigots created to oppress people who are different. Identity politics were created when a man told a woman she was less than him, identity politics were created when a religious person told a homosexual they are a sin against God, identity politics were created when a white person said that being black makes you property, not human.

All of those bad things happened in the past, obviously. They are rare occurences today. It's not 1860, or 1920, or 1960 anymore.

The only way to stop identity politics is to fight for equality.

As I said above, there is no such thing as perfect equality. There will always be some bias, and all we can do is minimize it. I would say that we're probably close to as good as it's ever going to be, at least among educated people. And right now, because of the boy who cried wolf effect and the backlash it creates, this continued obsession over perfect equality seems to be polarizing us and moving things in the wrong direction.

Rare? Children are literally in cages and Nazis are more protected from violence than children are. Bakers are literally discriminating against homosexuals. Women are condemned for calling out people who support a sexist man who gets praised by the same people calling those women sexist.


There is a difference between crying wolf when the wolf is not real than people looking at a wolf eating the boy and saying 'How dare that boy hurt that wolf's feelings!'


Perfect equality? How about just letting black people not be shot by cops who then get paid vacation as a reward, how about not letting sex offenders run the government, how about letting gays buy a damn cake! How about immigrants being treated as people, not live stock!


Imperfect equality is a broad term, too broad. Seperate but 'equal' broad.