Feminists next target; Battlefield 1.

ZeD [taken 0]

New member
Apr 21, 2012
72
0
0
mecegirl said:
ZeDilton said:
nomotog said:
ZeDilton said:
mecegirl said:
Ok so sorta related to what people are talking about in this thread. I am in the middle of replaying 13 because I just wanted something easy to play though. I never really looked at it before but the random female Psicom soldiers are dressed weird. I guess its because they wanted us to know they were female but just having them listed as Huntress would be enough. All the other Psicom enemies are fully covered and the Huntresses are the only ones who arn't. I wouldn't say the outfit is sexual. Its just weird. I guess they thought just having a model dressed the same but with a different body shape wouldn't be enough?

Its nothing to complain about but its something that I've noticed from time to time with randomly generated female combatants. The designers don't seem to have the confidence that the players would know a character is female by silhouette alone. So they over do the designs.
I'd chalk that up to bad character design, period.
Bad design and isms tend to go together. Good design requires thought care and consideration. The different isms in the world are how we avoid TCC.
How do they go together?

Characters should simply be designed to look like they belong doing what they do.
Not sure why a lot of devs seem to shy away from that.

Also, "TCC"?
Yes, characters should be designed to look like they belong doing what they do. But in the case of badly designed female characters and its connection to sexism, its often that they are designed to show off that they are a girl/woman above all else. That can either come in the form of sexulization, or in just random overt girlyness. The images I posted I would put in the bracket of random overt girlyness.
Alright, I get what you're saying.
I think I'm just too damn numb to think farther than "eh, that looks bad. They should've...".

I don't really see isms in design choices. Just.. bad, boring choices.

But yeah, I get your angle.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Wait, this topic is still going? For 9 pages? Seriously?

People, the 'controversy' presented in the OP is something that didn't even happen. No evil "SJW feminazis" are coming to try to take away the "historical accuracy" of Battlefield 1. Why are we still debating this?
 

ZeD [taken 0]

New member
Apr 21, 2012
72
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Wait, this topic is still going? For 9 pages? Seriously?

People, the 'controversy' presented in the OP is something that didn't even happen. No evil "SJW feminazis" are coming to try to take away the "historical accuracy" of Battlefield 1. Why are we still debating this?
I don't think all of it is along the theme of the thread.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Phasmal said:
And as for the "What so you want to see lady enemies getting killed" crowd- yes, that's exactly what I want. I enjoyed it very much in Skyrim when a lot of the random bandits were female.
I was actually surprised the first time I pulled a woman out of a car in GTA V and she yanked me out of the car and started stomping me. My experience in the game thus far had been that men were the only ones who fought back, so I brought up my phone menu casually because I wasn't expecting a fight. Women still have a much lower rate of response in GTA V, and prostitutes (and possibly strippers) never fight back to my knowledge, but I was all...well then! The novelty of women actually putting up a fight in GTA is kind of cool!

Similarly, when they added women to the gangs online, nobody really seemed to care.

Which reminded me of another example, actually. Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Not only did the diversity of characters get praise from feminists, including She Who Must Not Be Named (who also praised the game for having a "trans man"[footnote]I put it in quotes because a. there wouldn't be any such term in the period and b. it was common for women to pose as men to enter positions they couldn't normally be in. There are at the very least hundreds of exampels from the military alopne, and more from academia. Ned may simply have been a girl trying to cut it in a position where a woman wouldn't be respected, or he could have actually been a transman, I don't know.[/footnote] in the game), but I actually had people complaining to me on here from the non-feminist camp about the number of female targets and women in he rank-and-file of the gangs of London.

Why wasn't there a feminist response to this? Why were the feminists okay with female criminals you could brutally murder? Hell, why was I cool plummeting a hundred feet and sinking my blade into the neck of a criminal with boobs? Was my feminist maturation chamber defective?

This is not to say I have no problems with the game. The story is basically Jacob saying "I have this really stupid idea!" and Evie saying "*sigh* men. I'll get the broom!" over and over. But the execution of women? Didn't seem to be a problem.

EternallyBored said:
Is their any evidence that people would give a shit?
None. And while I keep asking for some, given how firmly it's been asserted feminists would take issues, I keep thinking of examples where there should have been an outcry if this were true.

Saints Row 2: Jessica Parrish meets a pretty horrific fate. And I don't say that lightly, given the fact that The Boss is a sociopath who killed and maimed their way through the game over a slight on the cut of gang deals. Thing is, while Jessica is never a combatant, she's the one who keeps ramping Maero up, and really, she escalated the fight almost as much as The Boss did. I still find her death horrifying, but not because she's a woman. Hell, I don't even normally think about Lyn (SR1) and Aisha (SR2). I think about what happened to Jessica and Carlos. And one of them is a dude. These were "what the hell, hero?" moments.

The Division: one of the main antagonists is a black woman. Granted, people might not care about this one because nobody actually plays The Division.

But the mentality is "feminists will freak out," despite any evidence. Oh, sure, they haven't freaked out in the past over any comparable instance, but this time for sure.

In fairness, though, this isn't anything new. Remember when Obama was going to take away America's guns? And Clinton before him? Gore, Kerry, and every other democrat as well (including Howard Dean, which is funny if you look at Vermont).

cleric of the order said:
This is rather interestingly phrased, i never indicate that the lack of such a thing will impede mechanics, rather that i find it rarely done right.
And I didn't say it impeded mechanics, so I don't know the relevance.

Actually, there were several non-sequiturs in that response, so I'm going to skip to one other point and call it a day on this.
There was no news attached to this thread, and you didn't link to any examples. it's not expressed in the op (even if interpreted that way it isn't quantified).
You're right. So how do I know what I'm talking about?

The answer is simple: I looked it up. I checked out the story being vaguely hinted at and parsed it for detail. If you've followed the thread, you should be vaguely aware of the statements people have repeatedly referenced, and were referencing well before you decided to comment.

Dango said:
Nah, there was a female police officer in the campaign who was your buddy, but multiplayer didn't have any female officers or criminals.
Ah. My bad. Upon further investigation, it appears that my initial query led me to reactionaries who ASSUMED that a woman in Hardline's story mode meant there would be women in MP. I did, however, find a lot of people who got upset when people asked for the option. I honestly don't think being period-appropriate is going to stop any complaining. I thnk the fact that COD went to the future and people still complained should point to that.
 

Lupine

New member
Apr 26, 2014
112
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Lupine said:
Indeed, but there were plenty of black units and integration didn't come up in his point at all. Which again, doesn't make tons of sense because those black Americans are still generally just Americans.
To be fair, racism doesn't make tons of sense (or literally any sense), and that was the foundation of the decision to segregate the military (and every other part of society). Racists don't care if you're a United States citizen who was born here to parents who were born here and have never left the country, they only care if you pass their arbitrary race test.
That wasn't what I was talking about actually. I'm not talking from a sociological standpoint. I meant rather that it made no sense for the poster above to separate the two groups. If we're talking black Americans, what was his reason really for separating them into a separate group from just Americans? Maybe he was trying to make a point, but if so he really didn't do a good job of making it clear what that was.
SAMAS said:
Lupine said:
Charcharo said:
We are talking about a game that ignores Russia, France, Bulgaria (and their respective battles I think)...
*Whilst flaunitng the ohh so important to the War Americans and black people*

It is stupid, I know, especially since we know it will NOT have a deep or important storyline (probably utter BS) that would analyze the very nature of war or WW1... so yeah I get the whining. But still... more important things were left out.
It is an arcade game with arcade BF-esque gameplay and terrible storytelling. It is about as realistic as COD is (maybe a tad more). Yeah it should have female soldiers, unlike a real WW1 game, but life is hard.

Accept it like I accepted Western Imperialism and its attacks on Eastern Europe.
So I'm going to be that guy. Why exactly did we need to separate Americans and black people? Last I checked most of those black people were Americans, so why then did they need to be singled out for their contribution to a war that took place mostly in Europe. Now if we're talking non-Americans here and non-Europe battles, then I'm going to say that makes a bit more sense than just throwing the same European character models in there and expecting no one to notice.
Actually, the vast majority of the blacks who fought in WWI were just straight-up African, not African-American.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1KzBDjr-Ys

Yes, WWI was fought in Africa, Asia Minor, the Middle East, SE Asia, and even a naval battle or two off the coast of South America IIRC. It's called World War I for a reason.

On a brighter note, I gotta Pimp The Great War: a YouTube video series that has been chronicling World War I on a week-by-week basis on the events that happened exactly one hundred years ago from the airing of each episode.

Naturally(and keeping on topic), here's their thoughts on the Battlefield 1 trailers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvzEZ1Sq4tI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYDA5usUzmg

And for completion's sake(and even more on topic), here's a few things they said about women in WWI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cVSjzuvThE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYz6aWz1cs
Well to be fair, I implied just Africans. That part about the parts of the war fought outside of Europe; that was with both fighters from Africa and the Middle East both in mind.
Charcharo said:
Lupine said:
Charcharo said:
We are talking about a game that ignores Russia, France, Bulgaria (and their respective battles I think)...
*Whilst flaunitng the ohh so important to the War Americans and black people*

It is stupid, I know, especially since we know it will NOT have a deep or important storyline (probably utter BS) that would analyze the very nature of war or WW1... so yeah I get the whining. But still... more important things were left out.
It is an arcade game with arcade BF-esque gameplay and terrible storytelling. It is about as realistic as COD is (maybe a tad more). Yeah it should have female soldiers, unlike a real WW1 game, but life is hard.

Accept it like I accepted Western Imperialism and its attacks on Eastern Europe.
So I'm going to be that guy. Why exactly did we need to separate Americans and black people? Last I checked most of those black people were Americans, so why then did they need to be singled out for their contribution to a war that took place mostly in Europe. Now if we're talking non-Americans here and non-Europe battles, then I'm going to say that makes a bit more sense than just throwing the same European character models in there and expecting no one to notice.
Things are not and must not be skin deep. I know that is how it works in the USA, but it is not how it works in Europe.

I am not mad at them for having black soldiers, women, Americans (lol) but missing out on Russia, France, Bulgaria and others is IMHO much worse than missing the aforementioned.
Except none of those things have anything to do with one another. Them having Black soldiers and women didn't exactly exclude Russians, the French, etc. If anything it falling into Americanocentrism should kind of be your complaint. Right? And that's a complaint that isn't exactly new. Not in Battlefield. Not in Call of Duty. Heck, not in the American school system. Americans are kind of into Americanocentrism; so pandering to their expected audience shouldn't really be much of a surprise.
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Something Amyss said:
And I didn't say it impeded mechanics, so I don't know the relevance.
You indicated it should be the least of my concerns, thus it not impeding game mechanics means it is amongst the least of my concerns. I'm sorry that was awkwardly phrased.

Actually, there were several non-sequiturs in that response, so I'm going to skip to one other point and call it a day on this.
I'm sorry that you read it that way, I've not always been the best at communicating via text and I've ask you to clarify what you've said before because honestly i find your method of writing a mite bit unwieldy.
Furthermore I fail to see how our back and forth about the historical accuracy of assassins creed is a non-sequitur, ramble perhaps but the general thrust is the same. that being 1. your claim of historical accuracy is not important for what is was trying to communicate, I.E. anons be reactionary. 2. What historical inaccuracy?


You're right. So how do I know what I'm talking about?
I know how you know what you are talking about, there is no need to be rude and condescending I'm asking you to share it with me because it should take very little effort.

I checked out the story being vaguely hinted at and parsed it for detail. If you've followed the thread, you should be vaguely aware of the statements people have repeatedly referenced, and were referencing well before you decided to comment.
Might be right, had i bothered to read through ever post in the 3 pages before my post went i might have got a good idea of what you were vaguely talking about. But I didn't read all of them nor was i interested in the supposed comments until you brought it up to me. I don't care about hearsay, i require the source to be sure of the content and i can't find it. since you said you've researched it and likely before it was buried beneath Plebbit posts I thought you'd be willing to provide my that information.
 

Gatlank

New member
Aug 26, 2014
190
0
0
That's why i prefer Verdun. The game aims to be historically accurate as possible.
Battlefield 1 doesn't know what path is going to take, to follow the war how it happened or go full COD fiction. In the end that made it a target for rabid feminists.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,746
1,520
118
Country
United States
Gatlank said:
That's why i prefer Verdun. The game aims to be historically accurate as possible.
Battlefield 1 doesn't know what path is going to take, to follow the war how it happened or go full COD fiction. In the end that made it a target for rabid feminists.
You know there aren't any rabid feminists complaining about Battlefield 1, right? The OP was using future tense based on a false premise.
 

ZeD [taken 0]

New member
Apr 21, 2012
72
0
0
Gatlank said:
Battlefield 1 doesn't know what path is going to take, to follow the war how it happened or go full COD fiction.
wat

Seems to me they're perfectly aware where they're taking it.
It's the BF forumula in WW1. Go figure.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
cleric of the order said:
I know how you know what you are talking about, there is no need to be rude and condescending I'm asking you to share it with me because it should take very little effort.
I'm asking you to be vaguely informed on a subject before trying to discuss it. This should also be very little effort. I'm sorry if you think that's being "rude," but it's mostly asking you to pull your own weight in a conversation you willingly sounded off on. It is not unreasonable to expect a basic understanding, especially when most or all other people involved are referencing it. More importantly, I don't have the time to do your homework for you.

Might be right, had i bothered to read through ever post in the 3 pages before my post went i might have got a good idea of what you were vaguely talking about.
Or pretty much any of the thread.

It would have taken less effort to research what this is about than to explain why you won't. That's fine. But don't expect me to want to put in that effort for you. I guess I'll bow out, then.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Why would anyone give a fuck about gender in a game like this? You pick a faction and a gun and you run around trying to shoot the other guy. And if by doing less work they also get to have a more historically accurate setting then all the better. Stop complaining about non-issues.
 

FakeSympathy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
880
154
48
Country
US
This is pretty much a non issue imo, I wouldn't even have blinked twice if the HAD decided to add in some female models...
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Something Amyss said:
I'm asking you to be vaguely informed on a subject before trying to discuss it.
This is a specific thing (the statements given by a company). The general is they didn't do X and I stepped in and asked why is the problem they don't do X when they should be doing Y. My knowledge vague as it is was more then necessary until you stepped in and engaged me, you provided a claim and I've just been asking for a link.


This should also be very little effort.
And it should take you less effort to go through you history and provide me the direct link, (I've already explained or i believe i have) that all of my searches have been swamped with reddit and the persons communicating to my knowledge have not provided a link to the direct statements the company. Until I can find that I can't hold anything said there or anywhere as more than hearsay even if it is entirely likely hearsay.

I'm sorry if you think that's being "rude,"
Look, you know you decided to be rude, don't play this game with me. It's not that you are asking me to research it's how you've done it.

but it's mostly asking you to pull your own weight in a conversation you willingly sounded off on.
Tripe, there is no obligation ether way, i could easily said you decided to begin this conversation and provided a claim i wanted you to define and explain. The truth is that it is as much of a rationalization as you have provided. It is a trivial thing to open your history and I've already admitted to having problems finding the precise quote, at the time i thought there was something more substantial to it than what i found. Having determined that there isn't it I'm annoyed at the twat that tweeted it and frankly I'm not sure if i can really get to the bottom of this idea.

What i mean by that is: if it was a matter of micromanaging rule by corporate memos shit, than why was it introduced in the first place. Why is it a concern now when they've seen the acclimatization to females in multiplayer. In essence why should i trust his salty X coder based on tweets that don't explain the matter more. That's what I've been looking for, the whole thing seems like it's missing vital points.

It is not unreasonable to expect a basic understanding,
It's folks like you I don't like, if people don't know anything they ask, there is nothing wrong with a lack of knowledge and displaying it, it's faking knowledge that is the problem. I am not an insolent and ignorant codger going on about things i don't know, i am asking a question.
A basic understanding is, what is the bf series. What is Dice, What is WW1, What is women and vyda games and

especially when most or all other people involved are referencing it. More importantly, I don't have the time to do your homework for you.
That would imply you hadn't gone and examined the matter yourself, unless you cobbled together this whole thing from hearsay and never actually checked to find the source. I doubt that is the case which makes this even more confusing, it's irrelevant now but i'm glad that i don't understand your mindset.


Or pretty much any of the thread.
Got more things to do than read every entry, i stay for the conversation.

It would have taken less effort to research what this is about than to explain why you won't.
Funny thing I also asked about that other thing i brought up and never got any comment on it.
That also implies that i didn't actually go and research it, i read through a number of threads on other websites and found them stupid.
It was a huge waste of my time, and now being sure there isn't any more context to the matter that the idiot's twitter comment i'm fairly certain that everything is crap.

That's fine. But don't expect me to want to put in that effort for you. I guess I'll bow out, then.
Send your high horse to the glue factory, I asked you it for like 3 posts and you wasted as much of my time as your own without just saying look it up yourself until recently.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
cleric of the order said:
This is a specific thing (the statements given by a company). The general is they didn't do X and I stepped in and asked why is the problem they don't do X when they should be doing Y.
From the OP:
So DICE recently twitted that there will be no female soldiers in the upcoming game BF1. EA originally said, and I quote, "Screw realism, we're adding female soldiers, because we're way overdue". But they decided to revert this decision since there were no female soldiers in WWI.
So no. You had the information you needed from the beginning. This even semi-answers the question of why. As much as I find the original "the feminists are coming" attitude to be absurd and an attempt at scare-mongering, the one thing it does do is spell out why this is an "issue."

Even if it's inaccurate as it does it.

Look, you know you decided to be rude, don't play this game with me.
I'd like to know how you know what I know. Seems like if you can look into my mind to see that intent (which is false, for the record), you should be able to glean the source material.

It was a huge waste of my time, and now being sure there isn't any more context to the matter that the idiot's twitter comment i'm fairly certain that everything is crap.
Apparently, you didn't even read through all the tweets then, because you don't need to go beyond the initial tweets for the "more context" you're talking about. Tweets I found n my first hit on Google.

Though I think the answer here is obvious: don't go to other threads on websites looking for answers. And yes, that would count as a "huge waste of your time" when you could have literally had access to the answer all along.

?All that is believable but female soldiers are not, to the core audience of boys.?

This comes from Amandine's tweets on the matter. You know, the source.

A basic understanding is, what is the bf series. What is Dice, What is WW1, What is women and vyda games and
That would be a basic understanding if we were talking specifically BF1. But this thread is about a "controversy" surrounding BF based on a series of tweets from a woman who works at DICE. A basic understanding would include what was said, ie what caused the "controversy."

That would imply you hadn't gone and examined the matter yourself, unless you cobbled together this whole thing from hearsay and never actually checked to find the source.
No, it wouldn't imply that, especially since I referenced the original tweets. That you still don't know that would indicate you hadn't examined the matter yourself.

I used to do actual reporting. And not "Games journalism," either. It's been something like eight years since I last did any sort of journalistic work on anything of import, but I still tend to approach research the same way. While your first response was to look at "threads" on websites, mine was to look through the news, find out who said it, and look for her original tweets. Now, her Twitter account had since been made private (it's back up but it looks like the tweets have been removed), but her comments have been quoted in full extensively by every news piece I looked at, including the one that appears to be patient zero for the "controversy."

I literally went to the source, a source which is extensively documented. It appears you did not. I am further guessing that you went ahead and looked at threads on the matter because they were likely to reaffirm your position, rather than for any investigative value. Whether or not that's the case, going to threads rather than actual sources is a poor way to gather information. It's also still having someone else do your homework. The danger there is if you didn't do the research, you don't know if your work is correct. This time it definitely did not pay off.

Further, I pulled the tweet text off literally the first web hit for the topic, just to show how quickly I got from A to B. I know Google uses algorithms that stack searches differently, but it appears that you could have gotten there from virtually any major news article on the subject. In other words, to miss this, you would have pretty much literally had to avoid anything even remotely resembling news on the matter. There's a distinct irony in telling me I didn't investigate the source, when it seems you didn't investigate at all.

The bottom line here is that Amandine's claim is that the reason Battlefield 1 will not have women is because it's not believable to boys, despite all the other things which defy "realism."

You're celebrating them for a realism they have no interest in.
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Something Amyss said:
From the OP:
So DICE recently twitted that there will be no female soldiers in the upcoming game BF1. EA originally said, and I quote, "Screw realism, we're adding female soldiers, because we're way overdue". But they decided to revert this decision since there were no female soldiers in WWI.
So no. You had the information you needed from the beginning. This even semi-answers the question of why. As much as I find the original "the feminists are coming" attitude to be absurd and an attempt at scare-mongering, the one thing it does do is spell out why this is an "issue."
Funny I was originally going to quote this verbatum and say the op doesn't indicate at any point the source
This however did not indicate that it was because a group of their target audience would find it strange and that is what i asked you to expanded on. I read the op and took that at face value.

Look, you know you decided to be rude, don't play this game with me.
I'd like to know how you know what I know.
I've read your posts and if they weren't conscious condensation then i would be concerned, I mean don't get me wrong i know a number of people who are oblivious to that but it doesn't often end well.
Either way I may not be the easiest person to have a conversation with but i would like to be spoken to with some civility. You don't have to like me, respect me or admire me just don't talk down to me.

Apparently, you didn't even read through all the tweets then, because you don't need to go beyond the initial tweets for the "more context" you're talking about. Tweets I found n my first hit on Google.
No i read through all 4 of them from the a couple of the new sites i stumbled on to, i don't trust those sites but the ones they introduced were of very little value.

Though I think the answer here is obvious: don't go to other threads on websites looking for answers.
Then what's the point of thread?
If we knew everything about this we wouldn't be coming in here confirming and wanking that information.
Now I don't ask to be given a world view, a way of thinking. I find that distasteful. But i will cobble together a idea of what's going on when i can.

This comes from Amandine's tweets on the matter. You know, the source.
Source or no source i cannot find away of confirming her statements.
If you want to believe go ahead, but so far neither her 4 tweets don't leave me assured that this is the whole truth. There are too many loose ends for me to develop a proper schema of how and why this works.

But this thread is about a "controversy" surrounding BF based on a series of tweets from a woman who works at DICE.
Then those would have been provided if it was about her tweets, this is a speculative conversation spun to the tune of presuming that feminists are about to descend on EA for a unconfirmed rumor.

While your first response was to look at "threads" on websites, mine was to look through the news, find out who said it, and look for her original tweets.
That wasn't my first response
I said it is what happened, I also should have indicated i hate those websites.
All of them
I never said I was good at research and frankly i am not.

Now, her Twitter account had since been made private (it's back up but it looks like the tweets have been removed), but her comments have been quoted in full extensively by every news piece I looked at, including the one that appears to be patient zero for the "controversy."
Then that confirms that as far as i know those 4 tweets were the only ones of concern.
That's fucking lame.
It appears you did not.
from what I've determined from your post, quite the opposite, this desiccated corpse is as dry and insubstantial as i thought.
That's rather disappointing, I thought i was JUST abysmal at research not that i am bad and the story is meager

I am further guessing that you went ahead and looked at threads on the matter because they were likely to reaffirm your position, rather than for any investigative value.
I can assure you, more than most things in my life that was not the case.
I do not like these sites and do not willingly go to reddit, in fact i despise it, i still went on them to check no matter how briefly for the source.
Also what position do you think i hold?

Whether or not that's the case, going to threads rather than actual sources is a poor way to gather information.
It seems that the information was so small and frankly weak that they could actually provide it, unfortunately.

It's also still having someone else do your homework.
What?
By that logic then going to news sites would still be someone else doing your homework (not to indicate that they are equal to games journos). One way or another I would be hunting the primary sources and not the second from them.

And as you've indicated above in your post all of those original posts have been destroyed so all we have left to document them is the forums them selves.

The danger there is if you didn't do the research, you don't know if your work is correct. This time it definitely did not pay off.
I again never said I am good at research, that why i like to talk to people about it.
Usually I find a go natured person who would like to discuss the matter evenly, even if we buttheads occasionally in the process.

There's a distinct irony in telling me I didn't investigate the source, when it seems you didn't investigate at all.
I said I don't believe that's the case.
In fact i ended that by indicating i don't understand how your mind works and likely that it would be useless information anyway:
I doubt that is the case which makes this even more confusing, it's irrelevant now but i'm glad that i don't understand your mindset.
The above clearly indicates that i did not believe that was the case.
Furthermore having investigated all i've determined that it was very little substance to it anyway also you've demonstrated it's been removed from here twitter.

The bottom line here is that Amandine's claim is that the reason Battlefield 1 will not have women is because it's not believable to boys, despite all the other things which defy "realism."
Yes and that doesn't make sense to me.
A number of other games in fact quite a number of them have allowed for female character in multiplayer.
As far as I know the majority of the gaming community does not care.
The previous battlefront game has female troopers and rebels despite the vast majority of them being male in the series.
Why is it that here, that this came down?
Who did this come from?
What makes this different?
From the get go i exposed the loose belief that this is chicanery and so far.
Now i must confirm that I am not married to this idea without evidence but so far the only evidence for anything is a former EA employee saying that women would not be in BF1 because boys.
No other evidence, reasoning or anything else.
You're celebrating them for a realism they have no interest in.
No, in fact I entered this thread annoyed that they wouldn't.
I will not see my people fighting in this war.
I will not see the ottoman conflicts, or the Italian or much passed the American front
At what point did you get the outrageous idea that i celebrated this game for it's realism.
I've mentioned i was fine with the women kicking around in it because it didn't mess with mechanics.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
cleric of the order said:
Funny I was originally going to quote this verbatum and say the op doesn't indicate at any point the source
So when they say that DICE tweeted about this, you are unable to determine the source?

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?

Are you serious?

I've read your posts and if they weren't conscious condensation then i would be concerned, I mean don't get me wrong i know a number of people who are oblivious to that but it doesn't often end well.
I'll leave these issues to a qualified therapist, thank you.

You don't have to like me, respect me or admire me just don't talk down to me.
To the contrary, I was treating you like an informed individual. I assumed you knew better.

No i read through all 4 of them from the a couple of the new sites i stumbled on to, i don't trust those sites but the ones they introduced were of very little value.
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?

Then what's the point of thread?
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.

If we knew everything about this we wouldn't be coming in here confirming and wanking that information.
I'm going off the assumption you meant "wanting."

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.

Source or no source i cannot find away of confirming her statements.
If you want to believe go ahead, but so far neither her 4 tweets don't leave me assured that this is the whole truth. There are too many loose ends for me to develop a proper schema of how and why this works.
Interesting how you were willing to take it as gospel until actual information was added. Her claim is good enough when it comes to realism, 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.

Then that confirms that as far as i know those 4 tweets were the only ones of concern.
That's fucking lame.
Eight. And it wasn't so lame that you came in here arguing about it.

from what I've determined from your post, quite the opposite, this desiccated corpse is as dry and insubstantial as i thought.
So you don't even know the whole story, you have made claims that are false, and that proves I'm the one who didn't do the research? Seriously? Fine, go with that.

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. Evidence that apparently was worth taking as truth when it appeared in truncated form. You have opted to cleave to a belief despite contrary statements from the original source. You can assure me it's not the case all you want, but you have given me no reason to believe it.

And as you've indicated above in your post all of those original posts have been destroyed so all we have left to document them is the forums them selves.
Except I literally gave you TWO ways to verify them. Neither of them involved forums.

Additionally, we have an EA executive who established that actual trench warfare wouldn't "be fun to play."

Yes and that doesn't make sense to me.
And yet you only objected to it after more evidence was brought forth.

A number of other games in fact quite a number of them have allowed for female character in multiplayer.
And?

Battlefield has not. Not in 3, 4 or Hardline. That would be the more relevant point.

As far as I know the majority of the gaming community does not care.
It doesn't matter what is fact. Just like the historicity in video games, what matters is what people believe. Hollywood believes black people only sell in comedies, even despite guys like Will Smith and Morgan Freeman. It's not hard to find loud, angry people complaining about women in games when they're added. 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.

The previous battlefront game has female troopers and rebels despite the vast majority of them being male in the series.
You are aware that Battlefront isn't even the same series, right?

I expect the next Battlefront game will also have female players. That has nothing to do with this.

Why is it that here, that this came down?
Apparently, it "came down" in 3, 4 and Hardline as well. I've not played a single one of these games and I cam tell you that from a bit of websearching.

But again, this is kind of my point. You have made an affirmative argument that this is a new issue without a basic background. People have wanted women in the Battlefield series since at least 2011, and probably earlier. We also now have Coget claiming that women were in both BF3 and BF4, but cut. By all appearance, exactly none of this is new to this game.

Who did this come from?
What is "this" in this context? The news? The statement? The game?

What makes this different?
That someone actually spoke up, apparently.

No, in fact I entered this thread annoyed that they wouldn't.
You argued for your own people showing up while pooh-poohing women. You even went on to argue the historicity of Russian women in the war. You yourself made an historical case against women.