Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Dreiko]

No one is as good as John Wick. It's not possible in the world its set in. No amount of training can possibly help a person do what John Wick does. Otherwise, we'd have one person who could just shoot up all the terrorist for an automatic win. Star Wars' universe has magic and lazer swords. Transferring knowledge from one arena to another quick makes more sense because magic

Star Wars has the benefit of a lower level for the suspension of disbelief. John Wick pretends its close to our world, thus close to our rules. Why would there ever be any assassins ever because John Wick. I can suspend my disbelief way easier with Rey than Wick. Because no amount of training can make you into that sort of person. You need gamma rays, wanted bullet bends, super solider serum or even Batman's nonsense phone bat-o-vision thing from Dark Knight

Like, how in gods name do you think John Wick earned anything in those movie? John Wick was never in any real danger. And it really juxtaposes to the start when somehow he gets captured but never really again for three movies. That should never have been possible because of his 'skill'

The last thing I'd call John Wick is interesting. He's an empty shell. An NPC. I'd prefer the dark side 'unearned aptitude' please. Something with real stakes. (I dont really want this. Force Awakens was a pretty bad movie. I'm fine with never seeing it again. It's just has more substance than John Wick.)

The fact that Star Wars has you suspend your disbelief is actually a point against your case, because there's all these fantastical ways of explaining things that Wick's universe doesn't allow, and ye they STILL didn't explain it despite having all the leeway in the world to conjure up something interesting.


Like I said, it "kinda works", meaning, it's not ideal to do what John Wick did either, so it's not like I'm a big fan of that approach either, but it feels much less egregious despite also being flawed.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Oh yeah, so hot. So angular.

It reminds of the Hefner roast where Adam Carolla said something about only having a charcoal drawing of a vagina back when Hef was a kid.

 

[Trunkage]

His gun-fu is pretty cool, reminds me of the first Matrix (i.e. the good one).

If you've seen Harley Quinn, you know how important action can be

I was actually far more interested in the assassin guild Politics and would have preferred a movie on McShane and Riddick. They actually have personality

 

[Trunkage]

The fact that Star Wars has you suspend your disbelief is actually a point against your case, because there's all these fantastical ways of explaining things that Wick's universe doesn't allow, and ye they STILL didn't explain it despite having all the leeway in the world to conjure up something interesting.


Like I said, it "kinda works", meaning, it's not ideal to do what John Wick did either, so it's not like I'm a big fan of that approach either, but it feels much less egregious despite also being flawed.

No, it kinda of works for YOU. It doesnt for me. At all.

It's like all the stupid 80s movie. *deep movie guy voice* 'He's been in the army. Now he can kill everyone. No one can touch him.' It was stupid back then and it's stupid now.

I'm not trying to take these movies away from you. I can't watch these movie with doing something else

 

[Dreiko]

No, it kinda of works for YOU. It doesnt for me. At all.

It's like all the stupid 80s movie. *deep movie guy voice* 'He's been in the army. Now he can kill everyone. No one can touch him.' It was stupid back then and it's stupid now.

I'm not trying to take these movies away from you. I can't watch these movie with doing something else

I mean, that's just a genre though. That's kinda the point. I get not watching these films but that's kinda what they're supposed to be so there's no flaw, it's like complaining about all the romance in a romance movie lol.

Now, I sure prefer Kill Bill over Rambo, but to get your Kill Bills you have to first have had a long line of 80s action movies with a lot of guns and explosions and stuff (and also a long line of similar style of Chinese movie with martial arts replacing guns).


I dunno, I think if you can't enjoy something like the Drunken Master because it's too unrealistic I think you're going into it with a joyless buzzkill mentality.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Remind me of Drake's body count again?
It's hundreds. Per game.
Drake, judging by his actions, is psychopathic mass-murdering machine who cracks jokes like he cracks skulls.
In every game, you can use hand-to-hand combat to kill enemies. It usually takes three hits unless the opponent is heavily armored (or female, apparently).
It even has a cool mechanic where, if you're out of ammo or weapons, you knock the enemy's gun out of their hands as you dispatch them and catch it in midair.

Yes, he's a proficient fighter, not just handy with a gun. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have survived as long as he had.

Are you trying to tell me, that out of all the games and out of all the enemies he's faced, that Nadine is the ONLY TRAINED FIGHTER he's ever been up against? And that's the reason he couldn't beat her? Is that seriously your argument? Out of all the PMC's in all the different games, not ONE of them employed someone who studied any sort of hand-to-hand combat?

It's not an "alternate universe" game either. Therefore it gets to alienate both people who expect historical accuracy AND people who expect an "alternate universe", and is probably why it failed to meet expectations.

Historical revisionism and inserting women into places where they originally weren't is radical feminism for reasons that should be obvious.

Scores are mostly how we determine quality, not sales. Especially not the sales of a long-running series. If the first two games were good, people might automatically buy the third game, but that doesn't mean the game is good. GTAV has earned the most amount of money for a video game, ever. Does that mean it's the best game ever?

Basically, you saying that a game was "successful" in terms of sales means very little, seeing as how sales is not a measure of how "good" a game is. That's how it matters.

Drake kills a lot more than say John McClane or Indiana Jones because Uncharted is a fucking game and the core gameplay is shooting. If Drake killed/dispatched of 10-20 people per game like say Indiana Jones does (probably cuz I ain't looking up Indiana Jone's kill count), Uncharted would be like a walking simulator or adventure game. Look at how much more people James Bond kills in video games than in the movies. And if you pay attention to how Drake actually fights hand-to-hand, he's not a proficient fighter, he's at best a good bar room brawler.

Do you not get that Uncharted is a pulpy action movie and uses said logic? If the hero isn't a skilled fighter like say John Wick, then they aren't going to win in a "fair" fight against a more skilled/stronger opponent like this classic scene from Indiana Jones. Drake doesn't beat Lazarevic in Uncharted 2 in a fair fight for example.

Battlefield is not a super historically accurate game. Again, if it was, it wouldn't be very popular to begin with. Allowing women to play as women in multiplayer isn't radical because if the war was happening today, women would be fighting in it. There's tons of concessions that are made for historical accuracy to make gameplay more fun (I didn't know WWII soldiers had regenerating health). What's the problem with making a minor concession to be more inclusive in a game that, AGAIN, has never been super historically accurate to begin with? Why aren't you complaining about how historically inaccurate the Red Dead Redemption games are towards women? All these cowboy games are radical masculinism, aren't they? At least far more radical than your Uncharted 4 and BFV examples of "feminism".

Why don't you tell companies that revenue from a product means very little to it being a "good" product? They should scrap how they produce products based on demand and only go based off user scores on say Amazon or whatever. None of our review systems can objectively rate how good a game (or other media) is because it's all subjective. I personally wouldn't rate GTAV as even a 5/10 game, that means nothing to Rockstar when it's probably been the most profitable release in the history of history. A company in any industry is going to make more of the things that sell. Why has there been so many Transformer movies if the movie studio cared about making "good" movies?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Women in certain armies in certain roles in WWII. Mostly Middle Eastern or Russian. Not as Battlefield V as as the default allies sniper a Korean woman.

If you want to argue because you can fine some it's fine in any context I can point to a bear who served in WWII so #WheresmybearEA?

If EA wanted a woman fighting why not have DICE make 2143 a sequel to the Sci-Fi Battlefield 2142?

or gone proper alt history like Supernatural stuff and everything. The argument of "They're not obliged to try and keep somewhat authentic" can be applied to more than that if they're going to go full on go full on with Supernatural powers and weapons and stuff, full alt history stuff with it.

Hell the whole "We'll tell the actual stories of real Women in WWII in the campaign" didn't happen they removed a commando unit and replaced them with a mother and daughter as though they were saying "Yeh actual stories of real women aren't actually worth telling so here have this instead as you a supposed girl power story" or something. And it wasn't the press who called them out on it in the end it was literally a friend of the youtuber Razorfist who is an loud and proud Republican. But the Highway of Death being portrayed as a Russian War Crime not an American one in a Call of Duty game? The press were all over that like ants at a picnic.

There tons of gameplay concessions made for making the game more fun that aren't historically accurate. Why aren't those as bitched about as women being in the game?

Since when is the Battlefield series about telling poignant war stories?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, she's a typical hero character. There have been plenty of male heroes with the same level of competence, but zero level scrutiny from fans. And that's the problem with Rey; not that she's too competent, but that she's the typically comptent hero character.

Well oddly male characters do get scrutiny and generally have to have some explanation these days. I mean Buckaroo Banzai was a parody taking the piss out of such impossible over the top male characters and that film was in 1984

Same as Luke really, since we don't really see Luke actually get stronger, he just does because he's the hero.

Well do do see Yoda training him and the improvement etc there

He flies a space fighter through the narrow gulch of some giant construction, and fires an energy bolt with pinpoint accuracy into an equally sized hole that conveniently blows up the entire Death Star. How? Because he's the hero character that saves the day. Eventhough just a few days ago he was some kid living a sheltered life with his boring old aunt and uncle. Almost like his character, certainly in the first movie, served as a wishfullfillment. And we don't ever really see him get knocked down. Even when Vader cuts his arm off he just gets a new one two scenes later - it's not like he needs to overcome this defeat in anyway and learn from it.

There's actually a few lines than explain that. At one point it's mentioned Luke has been training as a Pilot (at the Rebel base) and it's meant to be implied some time has passed. As for pin point accuracy, that's meant to be a combination of latent force ability and the fact as Luke says he used to shoot Womp rats while going round on his Land speeder. It doesn't do a good job of making it clear it's meant to be more than a few days later though.

He does get a new arm however the new robotic arm is kind of meant to be a constant reminder of his defeat. It doesn't just go away, he has that robot arm for life now.

The worst you can say about Rey is that she's just that same type of character done again; down on their luck, wishing for something more. Which is why Finn should've been the protagonist/new Jedi, since his character was in a very unique postion for this franchise, and felt like it had the potential to grow in a far more interesting way. Plus, the quickly established bromance (or actual romance) with Poe really created a nice emotional flair to his character arc.

So Rey is just the typical Star Wars protagonist, except a woman.

Also Rey is basically more powerful and competent than almost any Male character that's been in the franchise.

No one is as good as John Wick. It's not possible in the world its set in. No amount of training can possibly help a person do what John Wick does. Otherwise, we'd have one person who could just shoot up all the terrorist for an automatic win. Star Wars' universe has magic and lazer swords. Transferring knowledge from one arena to another quick makes more sense because magic

I mean technically it's possible with John Wick. Ethical is another mater though.

Wick is meant to have been basically raised by a Russian crime family from being an Orphan and taught his skills from an early age. His schooling beyond basics for life was how to use weapons.

I mean to even get the performance Keanu Reeves and Halle Berry trained 6 months in weapons training


Also the reason we don't have John Wicks running round killing all the terrorists is because Wick gets shot and injured a lot. The films show to an extent he has to be pumped full of who knows what to keep going. That will slowly kill a person and you can't keep it up long and you want you elite special forces to be able to keep going as long as possible.

Second military tactics using a group tend to be more effective to prevent injuries etc

Third is that Militaries don't watch butchers if they can help it. They'd like to take some people alive to get intel from if they can

 

[Iron]

If you've seen Harley Quinn, you know how important action can be

I was actually far more interested in the assassin guild Politics and would have preferred a movie on McShane and Riddick. They actually have personality

Oh they made a low-budget movie about the same concept.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

John Wick is a Mary/Gary Stu. Way more than Rey

Oh so that's why he had to pay one of the operatives of the Bowery King to hide him and take him to be treated?
Or how about the time at the start of the 3rd film where he has to hire a doctor to treat his wounds and sew him up?
Also the end of the 3rd film where he's basically being carried away unconscious.

Drake kills a lot more than say John McClane or Indiana Jones because Uncharted is a fucking game and the core gameplay is shooting. If Drake killed/dispatched of 10-20 people per game like say Indiana Jones does (probably cuz I ain't looking up Indiana Jone's kill count), Uncharted would be like a walking simulator or adventure game. Look at how much more people James Bond kills in video games than in the movies. And if you pay attention to how Drake actually fights hand-to-hand, he's not a proficient fighter, he's at best a good bar room brawler.

Do you not get that Uncharted is a pulpy action movie and uses said logic? If the hero isn't a skilled fighter like say John Wick, then they aren't going to win in a "fair" fight against a more skilled/stronger opponent like this classic scene from Indiana Jones. Drake doesn't beat Lazarevic in Uncharted 2 in a fair fight for example.

Battlefield is not a super historically accurate game. Again, if it was, it wouldn't be very popular to begin with. Allowing women to play as women in multiplayer isn't radical because if the war was happening today, women would be fighting in it. There's tons of concessions that are made for historical accuracy to make gameplay more fun (I didn't know WWII soldiers had regenerating health). What's the problem with making a minor concession to be more inclusive in a game that, AGAIN, has never been super historically accurate to begin with? Why aren't you complaining about how historically inaccurate the Red Dead Redemption games are towards women? All these cowboy games are radical masculinism, aren't they? At least far more radical than your Uncharted 4 and BFV examples of "feminism".

Why don't you tell companies that revenue from a product means very little to it being a "good" product? They should scrap how they produce products based on demand and only go based off user scores on say Amazon or whatever. None of our review systems can objectively rate how good a game (or other media) is because it's all subjective. I personally wouldn't rate GTAV as even a 5/10 game, that means nothing to Rockstar when it's probably been the most profitable release in the history of history. A company in any industry is going to make more of the things that sell. Why has there been so many Transformer movies if the movie studio cared about making "good" movies?

So no company should feel obliged to add in certain characters because "They exist in real life so you should add them too". What it's how it works part of the defence by Dice and some in this thread was women did serve in WWII just not in most western armies and women exist in real life and would serve now. But the game isn't realistic as you said so why does it need to do things? Are we saying people are so fragile they'll only play as a character that shares their superficial characteristics because then you're telling companies why bother making women the lead when more men likely play their games anyway and if women will only play women it follows men will only play men.

Hell BF V sold below expectations. You can demand all you want but if the sales aren't there to support it then it's pointless and all you're doing is proving the people shouting are worthless listening to. People have been promising companies some big eager new audience chomping at the bit to buy games designed to cater to various things they claim to want and then they come out and keep selling below expectations it seems. The supposed new audience isn't there. They never were. It's an illusion being created by people online who see gaming as a great way to push their political activism and don't care for the product just the political implications and the perceived "power" of being able to claim they control some established franchise now.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

There tons of gameplay concessions made for making the game more fun that aren't historically accurate. Why aren't those as bitched about as women being in the game?

Since when is the Battlefield series about telling poignant war stories?

Because Gameplay =|= Aesthetic and tone.
They're two separate aspects of a game.

Would anyone want a 100% realsitic World War I game?
No because if you died once in the game it would stop you playing ever again.
Because there would be player agency you'd be forced to win the battles won in real life and lose those lost in real life.


And again the inclusion argument is then also sunk by claiming it's not fully realistic so if it can never really be why must the game reflect things in real life again when inclusion is demanded?

As for telling war stories.......... that's what the developers promised to tell in the campaign, real stories of World War II only the one with women was just them replacing a whole male commando unit with a mother and daughter rather than telling any of the stories of actual women in World War II.

 

[Buyetyen]

I mean, that's just a genre though. That's kinda the point. I get not watching these films but that's kinda what they're supposed to be so there's no flaw, it's like complaining about all the romance in a romance movie lol.

No shame in being a one-trick pony unless you do your trick badly.

I dunno, I think if you can't enjoy something like the Drunken Master because it's too unrealistic I think you're going into it with a joyless buzzkill mentality.

Might not be a great example as Wong Fey-hung has a clear character progression and arc. If you want a movie with no character development but still works, the original Ghostbusters. Still, all that shows is that it can be done, not necessarily that is always done well.

 

[Iron]

No shame in being a one-trick pony unless you do your trick badly.



Might not be a great example as Wong Fey-hung has a clear character progression and arc. If you want a movie with no character development but still works, the original Ghostbusters. Still, all that shows is that it can be done, not necessarily that is always done well.

*too unrealistic*

 

[Trunkage]

Oh they made a low-budget movie about the same concept.

Calling it low budget doesn’t give me hope that this is good

 

[Iron]

Calling it low budget doesn’t give me hope that this is good

It has Jodie Foster though.
Low budget can work, depends on how well you execute it - like Saw 1, the raid 1, clerks 1... notice they all have (1) after their names? because they made sequels, baby!

 

[Trunkage]

It has Jodie Foster though.
Low budget can work, depends on how well you execute it - like Saw 1, the raid 1, clerks 1... notice they all have (1) after their names? because they made sequels, baby!

I don’t disagree with you. I was looking for a review or expansion on this sentence and saying it in a way that would encourage a response. The way it is currently stated doesn’t provide hope. If it was more like ‘low budget butttt.....’ It would pique my interest more

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So no company should feel obliged to add in certain characters because "They exist in real life so you should add them too". What it's how it works part of the defence by Dice and some in this thread was women did serve in WWII just not in most western armies and women exist in real life and would serve now. But the game isn't realistic as you said so why does it need to do things? Are we saying people are so fragile they'll only play as a character that shares their superficial characteristics because then you're telling companies why bother making women the lead when more men likely play their games anyway and if women will only play women it follows men will only play men.

Hell BF V sold below expectations. You can demand all you want but if the sales aren't there to support it then it's pointless and all you're doing is proving the people shouting are worthless listening to. People have been promising companies some big eager new audience chomping at the bit to buy games designed to cater to various things they claim to want and then they come out and keep selling below expectations it seems. The supposed new audience isn't there. They never were. It's an illusion being created by people online who see gaming as a great way to push their political activism and don't care for the product just the political implications and the perceived "power" of being able to claim they control some established franchise now.

Because Gameplay =|= Aesthetic and tone.
They're two separate aspects of a game.

Would anyone want a 100% realsitic World War I game?
No because if you died once in the game it would stop you playing ever again.
Because there would be player agency you'd be forced to win the battles won in real life and lose those lost in real life.

And again the inclusion argument is then also sunk by claiming it's not fully realistic so if it can never really be why must the game reflect things in real life again when inclusion is demanded?

As for telling war stories.......... that's what the developers promised to tell in the campaign, real stories of World War II only the one with women was just them replacing a whole male commando unit with a mother and daughter rather than telling any of the stories of actual women in World War II.

You're making very extreme arguments. It's not about women are so fragile that they'll only play as women, it's that if they can play as women, possibly more women will give the game a try. Online shooters have been basically exclusively marketed to men for decades, that market is probably as tapped as it can get at this point. There's quite a few more women that are into online shooters than you'd think (I know from playing online shooters, both my clans in Ghost Recon were female lead for example) and marketing to them can possibly bring in more sales as they are most likely an untapped market.

You're cherry-picking the sales of a single game. Houseman brought up Uncharted 4 and Mass Effect when UC4 sold the best of its franchise and ME3 sold the best of its franchise. If this kind of marketing/pandering is indeed trending to less overall sales, then how is said marketing/pandering continuing? How are the EssJayDubyas convincing companies to make less money? This is the same industry that didn't want female leads or a female on the box because those games sold less even though they only had correlatory data supporting that.

Again, with the extreme gameplay arguments. Because dying once and never being able to play the game again or not allowing the losers to win a multiplayer match is the same as health regeneration, reload times, gun recoil, and several other gameplay accommodations. I'm fully against health regeneration in shooters because of how it changes the gameplay let alone it being historically inaccurate. I don't want it in BF as much as I don't want it in Metal Gear Solid. Warhawk is a much more arcade-y BF and it didn't have health regeneration, why does BF have it? It's not historically accurate nor does it improve gameplay.

Expecting 90+% of video game developers to tell a poignant story is asking for A LOT. Expecting DICE to be able to do that is asking for A LOT x10. The same reason BF got a campaign is the same reason they put a woman in the game; TO GET MORE SALES. It's not some conspiracy of EssJayDubyas ruining "your" games.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You're making very extreme arguments. It's not about women are so fragile that they'll only play as women, it's that if they can play as women, possibly more women will give the game a try. Online shooters have been basically exclusively marketed to men for decades, that market is probably as tapped as it can get at this point. There's quite a few more women that are into online shooters than you'd think (I know from playing online shooters, both my clans in Ghost Recon were female lead for example) and marketing to them can possibly bring in more sales as they are most likely an untapped market.

Will they though?

Cause I doubt it really makes that much difference at all to girls already into shooters anyway. Especially in the "Spunk Gargle Wee Wee" sub genre or Military Shooter subgenre.

You want to know what game had a pretty big female Fanbase? Gears of War, which took them what 2 entries before even putting a playable female character into multiplayer.

You're cherry-picking the sales of a single game. Houseman brought up Uncharted 4 and Mass Effect when UC4 sold the best of its franchise and ME3 sold the best of its franchise. If this kind of marketing/pandering is indeed trending to less overall sales, then how is said marketing/pandering continuing? How are the EssJayDubyas convincing companies to make less money? This is the same industry that didn't want female leads or a female on the box because those games sold less even though they only had correlatory data supporting that.

So what about all the others I mentioned?

Sunset
Revolution 60
Where the Water Tastes Like Wine
Not Tonight
Tacoma
Firewatch (yes it underperformed)
Life is Strange 2
Lawbreakers
Battleborn (Reminder Randy and Co were on about a range of sexual and gender identities for the characters and pushing how he female characters in game weren't gross and sexualisd like other games)
Dishonoured Death of the Outsider
Wolfenstein 2 the New Order underperformed.
Wolfenstein Young Blood

Again, with the extreme gameplay arguments. Because dying once and never being able to play the game again or not allowing the losers to win a multiplayer match is the same as health regeneration, reload times, gun recoil, and several other gameplay accommodations. I'm fully against health regeneration in shooters because of how it changes the gameplay let alone it being historically inaccurate. I don't want it in BF as much as I don't want it in Metal Gear Solid. Warhawk is a much more arcade-y BF and it didn't have health regeneration, why does BF have it? It's not historically accurate nor does it improve gameplay.

BTW didn't BFV work on a first aid kit system rather than fully regenerating health anyway? Like you carried kids and medics could revive you and resupply you with more kits to heal yourself?

Expecting 90+% of video game developers to tell a poignant story is asking for A LOT. Expecting DICE to be able to do that is asking for A LOT x10. The same reason BF got a campaign is the same reason they put a woman in the game; TO GET MORE SALES. It's not some conspiracy of EssJayDubyas ruining "your" games.

Expecting Dice to provide a historically accurate or at least somewhat accurate story when they claimed they'd present one is too much?

The reason for the women in game according to the designer is he didn't want to have to explain to his young daughter that in the past men were called up and did die for their countries in awful World Wars while women tried to keep the factories and industry running back home. He didn't want to have to explain the past is different to the present to his kid so got the team to put women in...............

BFV didn't get more sales that's the thing lol. The mythical new audience doesn't exist, at least in gaming where you have to buy in to get the console and then the game and no putting a female soldier on the box won't get a girl to drop $300 on console to play the game if she's not already into shooter and for some reason doesn't have a console already.

 

[Houseman]

And if you pay attention to how Drake actually fights hand-to-hand, he's not a proficient fighter, he's at best a good bar room brawler.

How is someone who "is not a proficient fighter" able to fight and win, in hand-to-hand combat, against all the trained fighters that are a part of the PMCs?

If your explanation for Nadine winning 2v1 against Nate and Sam is "she's a trained martial artist", then that must mean that every single other enemy in the game must not have had any martial arts training whatsoever. Is that what you're saying?

Do you not get that Uncharted is a pulpy action movie and uses said logic?

I'm fine with it using pulpy action movie logic. My complaint isn't "it's unrealistic". My complaint is that Nadine breaks the established rules of the game's internal logic.

Do you not get that Uncharted is a pulpy action movie and uses said logic? If the hero isn't a skilled fighter like say John Wick, then they aren't going to win in a "fair" fight against a more skilled/stronger opponent like this classic scene from Indiana Jones. Drake doesn't beat Lazarevic in Uncharted 2 in a fair fight for example.

Yeah. Exactly. You're saying that all the other enemies Nate fights skipped out on their martial arts classes, except for Nadine, which is ridiculous.

Either none of the combatants Drake fought had any martial arts training, so that "a good bar-room brawler" could defeat them,
OR Drake is actually good at fighting.

Which is it?

Also, Drank and Lazarevic never have a fair fight, but if they did, the latter would win because he's in a higher weight class. Lazarevic has a move, in the final boss fight, where he picks Drake up by the neck and throws him across the room, all with one hand.

Battlefield is not a super historically accurate game

Of course it isn't. However, it's also not an Alternate Universe game. Battlefield breaks its own rules by not being consistent. It doesn't know whether it wants to be historically accurate or AU, and it's not confident enough in itself to come out and say what it wants to be.

What's the problem with making a minor concession

There's no problem. I and others just don't like it, which is probably why the game sold below expectations.

Why don't you tell companies that revenue from a product means very little to it being a "good" product?

Because I don't have the ear of any companies.

A company in any industry is going to make more of the things that sell.

I guess they aren't going to repeat the same mistakes from BFV, then, because that game failed sell as well as they thought it would.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Will they though?

Cause I doubt it really makes that much difference at all to girls already into shooters anyway. Especially in the "Spunk Gargle Wee Wee" sub genre or Military Shooter subgenre.

You want to know what game had a pretty big female Fanbase? Gears of War, which took them what 2 entries before even putting a playable female character into multiplayer.



So what about all the others I mentioned?

Sunset
Revolution 60
Where the Water Tastes Like Wine
Not Tonight
Tacoma
Firewatch (yes it underperformed)
Life is Strange 2
Lawbreakers
Battleborn (Reminder Randy and Co were on about a range of sexual and gender identities for the characters and pushing how he female characters in game weren't gross and sexualisd like other games)
Dishonoured Death of the Outsider
Wolfenstein 2 the New Order underperformed.
Wolfenstein Young Blood



BTW didn't BFV work on a first aid kit system rather than fully regenerating health anyway? Like you carried kids and medics could revive you and resupply you with more kits to heal yourself?





Expecting Dice to provide a historically accurate or at least somewhat accurate story when they claimed they'd present one is too much?

The reason for the women in game according to the designer is he didn't want to have to explain to his young daughter that in the past men were called up and did die for their countries in awful World Wars while women tried to keep the factories and industry running back home. He didn't want to have to explain the past is different to the present to his kid so got the team to put women in...............

BFV didn't get more sales that's the thing lol. The mythical new audience doesn't exist, at least in gaming where you have to buy in to get the console and then the game and no putting a female soldier on the box won't get a girl to drop $300 on console to play the game if she's not already into shooter and for some reason doesn't have a console already.

You got any proof to show they wouldn't?

Looks like quite a few indies that don't have the marketing of AAA releases so it's common for those games to get small sales numbers because they're indie and usually less popular genres to begin with. Some of those games don't even make sense to me. Firewatch/Lawbreakers is EssJayDubya? Why was Life is Strange successful then if said EssJayDubya-ness doesn't work? Dishonored 2 sold quite a bit less already and brought back the voice actor from Thief. But the DLC to a game that was less popular is less popular because of a woman protagonist but not Dishonored 2? That doesn't make sense. Battleborn got taken out by the Overwatch train basically. There's tons of reasons games don't sell as well as hoped for and tons of reasons why games sell more than expected.

Other Battlefields had full on regenerative health, nobody was throwing a hissy fit over historical accuracy then. BFV has a bit of an altered regen health system. Nobody complains about how fast reload times are or how low the recoil of the guns are.

BF is a blockbuster video game series. You should expect the accuracy you'd get from a blockbuster war movie. Again, there's tons of reasons that go into a game being successful/unsuccessful. BFV missed out on the battle royale train for example. DICE has lots of problems with simple shit that they can't get right like TTK and general balance of guns. There's plenty of games that are selling that have "diversity". And, no, potential new women playing BF or COD or whatever already have consoles or PCs if they're interested in those types of games already.

How is someone who "is not a proficient fighter" able to fight and win, in hand-to-hand combat, against all the trained fighters that are a part of the PMCs?

If your explanation for Nadine winning 2v1 against Nate and Sam is "she's a trained martial artist", then that must mean that every single other enemy in the game must not have had any martial arts training whatsoever. Is that what you're saying?



I'm fine with it using pulpy action movie logic. My complaint isn't "it's unrealistic". My complaint is that Nadine breaks the established rules of the game's internal logic.



Yeah. Exactly. You're saying that all the other enemies Nate fights skipped out on their martial arts classes, except for Nadine, which is ridiculous.

Either none of the combatants Drake fought had any martial arts training, so that "a good bar-room brawler" could defeat them,
OR Drake is actually good at fighting.

Which is it?

Also, Drank and Lazarevic never have a fair fight, but if they did, the latter would win because he's in a higher weight class. Lazarevic has a move, in the final boss fight, where he picks Drake up by the neck and throws him across the room, all with one hand.



Of course it isn't. However, it's also not an Alternate Universe game. Battlefield breaks its own rules by not being consistent. It doesn't know whether it wants to be historically accurate or AU, and it's not confident enough in itself to come out and say what it wants to be.



There's no problem. I and others just don't like it, which is probably why the game sold below expectations.



Because I don't have the ear of any companies.



I guess they aren't going to repeat the same mistakes from BFV, then, because that game failed sell as well as they thought it would.

When is Drake fighting all these guys hand-to-hand? Uncharted is a shooter. Haven't you heard of basic action movie concepts? Like the standard goon or foot soldier? They're the cannon fodder enemy that just went through like basic training. Why can the Ninja Turtles take out hundreds of foot clan but 4 of them can't beat Shredder? Why are the stormtroppers such bad shots in Star Wars? Drake is akin to characters like aforementioned Indiana Jones and John McClane, everyman heroes. Nathan Drake is not John Wick. Nadine wins in a fair fight because she's far more skilled. Same reason why it takes Jackie Chan so long to defeat the final guy from Drunken Master 2 when he's been taking out the other "goons" like nothing all movie.

Again, if "progressiveness" is why games are selling less, then why are there games with "progressiveness" that are selling more? If "progressiveness" was causing games to sell less, it would be happening consistently across the board and it's not.