Something Amyss said:
So when they say that DICE tweeted about this, you are unable to determine the source?
This is a Amandine Coget, the X-coder who formly worked at dice.
She is not management, marketing or any official group so i don't know why it's from dice.
I'm not sure why she is currently a former employee but what i did see of her twitter suggested she was fired and found a new job.
Sure, DICE wasn't actually the source, but they literally establish who said (but not really) what in the very first part of what I was quoting, and you were going to quote it to prove they don't indicate any sort of source?
I don't actually know enough about this and that's why i want to find out.
Generally yes.
I'll leave these issues to a qualified therapist, thank you.
Give me a couple years, I'd be willing to spend some time helping you, free of charge.
To the contrary, I was treating you like an informed individual. I assumed you knew better.
Honestly I think you just wanted a reason to be rude, that's fine it's the internet I guess.
Generally i enjoy a good bout of cussing over condescension, but if you want or need to act that way.
So let's just leave it at that.
Yeah, there were more than four. At my count, you read half the information. This is the value of actually looking for a primary source. But that's been corrected, you know the whole story now and are willing to talk on that level, right?
Here's the thing, i can't find the other things they've been removed and you won't throw me a bone.
You've demonstrated that you understand and i have admitted i am bad at research.
You understand that i don't know the whole story.
and you understand my angle was less of a concern about women and more about wanting to see new places, new people and play them.
Usually discussion. Or, on some sites, shouting racial and sexual epithets. But the general idea of threads is discourse. Discourse, however, does not necessarily mean anything useful to determining the truth value of a claim.
I've always had a good opinion of the vox populi, you just need to know how to use it.
I'm going off the assumption you meant "wanting."
Nope, i meant methodically masturbating empirical material.
My point being, if you came being fully sure of everything then why how would you learn anything?
You would be parroting the same thing with a bit of your own colours.
I dare say it's impossible to know "everything" about this, but it is possible to come in being reasonably informed. And you didn't come in wanting information, or you didn't indicate it. You came in arguing about a point you apparently did not understand.'
You mean that my people fought in ww1 and would likely be featured in this game, nor would we see the fronts of east, south or anything but Americas intervention really.
This conversation was one you started and this ignorance was uncovered during it. I
Interesting how you were willing to take it as gospel until actual information was added.
I was never willing to take it as gospel, or rather i was and i have stated numerous times that i was hoping for more substance and you've indicated i don't have the full story. So frankly I was right, if i had more of that then i would be able to examine it. Furthermore I've explained time and time again that this doesn't seem to come together form a viable model. This doesn't make full sense to me.
Her claim is good enough when it comes to realism,
I know she pointed towards the tanks being useless, AP rounds would kill the early MKs, heat would too, parachuting was deadly and i agree with this BF would be drastically changed if forced into realist trench warfare.
That's why i didn't care what goddamned texture they rap around the hitbox, a bit of pragmatism is good around the ears.
but her claims--the primary source of this whole "controversy" become insufficient when she says that the real reason was boys wouldn't buy it.
Yeah, we don't have the reasoning of the marketing.
As i said it's a likely one but i find it strange.
Eight. And it wasn't so lame that you came in here arguing about it.
I didn't come here arguing about it.
The only reason why i am is that i found it weird here.
from what I've determined from your post, quite the opposite, this desiccated corpse is as dry and insubstantial as i thought.
and that proves I'm the one who didn't do the research? Seriously? Fine, go with that.
[/quote]
Uh, actually i meant the story was, from what i was able to piece together insubstantial.
nothing actually to do with you or your character.
I can assure you, more than most things in my life that was not the case.
Right now, you're literally claiming the opposite of the evidence in front of you.
I don't go on to forums to confirm my bias.
No matter what you say in the contrary, this statement is true.
Now if you want to indicate i am hard headed, that is fine.
Evidence that apparently was worth taking as truth when it appeared in truncated form.
I never said it was worthy, I wanted the source to judge that.
If you want to say my standard is unreasonable, that is up to you.
You have opted to cleave to a belief despite contrary statements from the original source.
I don't believe I've done that.
You can assure me it's not the case all you want, but you have given me no reason to believe it.
Look, I consider what you've said and I've tried to examine my own work, as far as i can say this is not the case. IF you want to believe, by all means but all of this has come from left field.
I found the claim strange, i asked for the source .
I go find the source and find it not all together lacking but not the corporate or PR explanation as it was done by a now to my knowledge X employee.
You later inform me that it's not enough of the source and the source has been largely removed so i didn't get the whole story.
From the start i wanted something from the board room some insight into it but I've yet to find it so I'm going to withhold judgement.
Except I literally gave you TWO ways to verify them. Neither of them involved forums.
I did check the news and honestly i prefer neither.
Additionally, we have an EA executive who established that actual trench warfare wouldn't "be fun to play."
That isn't a problem for me, i understand the pragmatic need to do something like this, so i find it weird that they do this and leave out female models. Furthermore it is stranger when one considers that EA has worked with feminist games critiques, has had female characters in the previous game and having male and female models are becoming more common in it's competitors and they understand gender issues are rather important to some people.
And yet you only objected to it after more evidence was brought forth.
What, no.
This is why i've been asking in the first place.
I don't understand how this is the case, it seems archaic.
It's not hard to find loud, angry people complaining about women in games when they're added.
I've never actually seen or met these people, likely because i don't go to places where those folks hang out nor go to places to read about them.
Like i started this conversation with as far as I know not even /v/ likely cares about that.
It's really not that hard to believe that publishers think this is the norm, especially given both the dim view they have of gamers and the number of similar reports that have come out over the years.
Quite a sad thing honestly, people hating their consumers.
Wait a moment, we are talking about the company known for disgusting business practices right?
Honestly I don't think it matters what they think of gamer these are the sort of folks that would sell their mother for a penny.
You are aware that Battlefront isn't even the same series, right?
I always forget that, the game is far closer in it's relatedness to battlefield than battlefront.
bu that's a bit of the point, the most recently engineered game from dice?
You later mention that these things have been scrapped from BF 3-4
I don't understand why if they did it for that instance they skipped over this instance.
What is "this" in this context?
Where or rather who decided this at a corporate level.
You argued for your own people showing up while pooh-poohing women.
I would rather see a fight on the eastern fronts, if there are women on it i wouldn't care less and I've mentioned this.
In the grand scheme of things however, i say without any reservation that i would enjoy more map content than either. Namely the middle eastern. Doesn't even matter who fights there. Content that matters > cosmetics.
You even went on to argue the historicity of Russian women in the war.
You mean by reading the page which pointed out that no more than 500 Russian women served in the front.
And only did that because they pulled the right strings.
This is not what a good reason to populate the American lines with women does not make.
I'll commend them for their bravery, the Russian front was horrible and if I'm not mistaken they held the line in the October Revolution quite well.
One way or another it's a bad argument for realism but I'd never argue that realism is the point, I'm annoyed that there will not be realism but I'm not unreasonable.
You yourself made an historical case against women.
You give that more importance than it's due.
Historically and to modern day the majority of making the other poor bastard die for his country is done by men to men.
For most total war unlikely to see women fight in combat, though women have historically played quite a number of support roles, from medics to in the case of early Germanic peoples egging them on (it comes from Tacitus so take that with a grain of salt; http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tacitus.htm third paragraph).
I like historical fact and i dislike falsehoods and revisionism in this when i come across it and am sure of it. It doesn't mean however I don't understand compromise for game play.
![ZeD [taken 0]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/192/192348.jpg?1620256419){kind=avatar}
