Now you're just trying to predict the future. If 100 years from now there is legitimate opppession of white straight males that is comparable to the bigotry 50s or prior eras that is a tragedy that should be stopped but in the present all you're doing is actively hoping that attempts to better include underrepresented groups fail for the sake of securing the position of a group that currently dominates the vast majority of art and media. 

I don't see how EA is really re-writing history with the inclusion of female characters. Women did have combat roles albeit not common, Russia was the only allied power I believe that used women in combat roles then there was the resistance. I see this character as more of an homage to that then anything. Why do some men get all uppity over this? BF is hardly realistic to begin with. I am a guy, I have played BF since BF 1942, I took a bit of a break with BF 3 and 4 but got back into it with BF1 and I will get this next one. Why EA/Dice is taking flack over this is just stupid, they are doing plenty of other crap that people should focus on (DLC and Nickle and diming the consumer).

"Even if we assume that the dev wasn't refering to the cricket bat and prosthetic arm and just that there is a woman at Omaha beach, it still comes off as an attempt to rewrite history, even if he followed up by "it's just a game"."

Are you really going to pretend like he wasn't talking about women specifically? We're talking about the same interview that created the "I have a 13-year-old daughter" meme and which does not mention cricket bats or prosthetic arms once but is ENTIRELY about women and yet you are going to say it's ambiguous if the statement was about women or not? Really??? The people who are against the game literally made the 13 year old daughter  thing into an entire series of memes - it's not exactly obscure knowledge what the employee was referring to. I refuse to believe you just don't understand that the statement was about women, unless you just didn't read that interview. 

And look, I can respect the premise of wanting a more realistic basis for the game. But when you write stuff like this down "If they fully believed that the scenario they showed was realistic, then they wouldn't have to follow up with "it's just a game" in the first place. It's like they know what the truth is and just won't admit to it." it really just lacks self awareness (no, this isn't an "insult" this is just honestly how it comes off). Saying "it's just a game" maybe a bad excuse (and remember I'm not pledging allegiance to EA and DICE, they are still wrong on a lot of shit), but Battlefield isn't even close to a simulator. In fact, even in it's own genre of shooters it isn't the most realistic (games like Insurgency or Day of Defeat are more realistic but are distinctly not simulators). So are those "excuses" to? The thing is comparisons are warranted and while "it's just a game" is pretty lazy intellectually (what interview isn't tbh) even in it's own place in the industry Battlefield is not the bastion of realism. 

What you are describing by the way is not mutually exclusive. "it's just a game" and "fans don't know history" COULD work together, it could be a paradox. However the problem is more so the fact that they responded pointing to history while being historically accurate. They should have made a better statement, without a doubt. What i'm more concerned about is that I think most of the backlash came BEFORE people checked to see if they could get away with the "historical accuracy, bro!" It's just like I said in my first response. Both the fans and developers are being intellectually dishonest. The backlash obviously started as a push against "SJWs!!!" and "identity politics", which is hilarious because pushing against identity politics while only viewing it as identity politics because of the identity of who is on screen (remember, we are talking about BEFORE the statements came out and they clarified their position) is inherently a judgement based on identity! 

I guess the big difference between me and many Battlefield fans is that, I can look at the history of their past 10 years of projects, of the games I've played, and I can make an easy connection between their statements and the games themselves. What most fans are doing now, is not making that connection. They are making a connection between idealism and what they want from Battlefield, not what the games actually portray. All the games are extremely unrealistic. What DICE and EA are trying to describe and failing to communicate is a perfect yin yang balance between the unrealistic aspects of gaming and the tonal portrayal of "realistic" warfare. I seem to get the point, not sure others who take the franchise too seriously do. 

Ironically, gamers are a diverse group - and I, for one, probably don't want to be associated with you in any group, if generalizing like this is your thing, so that's at least one out from your 'gamer' group. And just for the record, I'm against the stuff they're pulling off in BFV.

Yeah, but we are already experiencing that oppression. I've described this a dozen times now. Can a white straight male say or conduct themselves the same way a minority can in media? Can a white straight male say they want to cast white straight males in their movies, then celebrate it openly when they do it, and see the same response as when a minority does it? No. It's oppression, plain and simple. Certain people need to watch their words and conduct a lot more closely than others, lest they be branded and discarded from polite society.

I'm sure women with prosthetic limbs were fighting on the front lines of WW2.

People who whine about sjw's are a plague more annoying than sjw's themselves.

Which is exactly why we will not see politics in gaming die out unless the political stance itself dies out on its own.  Good games will sell, showing that adding political stuff in games will not stop it from selling.  Your reply only helps prove my point about why BFV failing will not shy devs away from being political as a whole.

The reason for the lower number will not be because of political views BTW, it will be due to it being released on one platform.  The first game released on PS3, was a hit, then released again on PS4 and sales doubled.  Devs and publishers are not oblivious to that fact.

Again, I don't get what point you're trying to get across. I never said that Battlefield is totally realistic, nor do I really care if they want to go for realism or not. This is not what the debate is even about. It's about real life WW2, and them claiming it's a totally realistic scenario that they portrayed, when they could've just ONLY say "its just a game" and be done with it.

The first part of that sentence was obviously straight-up sjw pandering, and cannot be put any other way

edit: this argument is just gonna end up going in loops, so I'm gonna stop right here. No hard feelings or anything.

Not really, it would sell more without the politics, which is his point.