| Faelco said: I never use that term, but Battlefield is a good example of rewriting history to make it fit with the morals that some people have today. Like making Achilles or a British Queen black. "History hurts my feeling, so we should modify History to make it according to my principles". It's a very dangerous slope, and is usually used in totalitarian regimes or dystopias. If you read books like 1984, A brave new world or Fahrenheit 451, you would recognize some obvious patterns that our society started to follow lately. Fahrenheit 451, particularly, explains that it became a society of forbidden (and burned) knowledge and culture because of "SJW". They explain that some small groups of people started to make forbidden stuff that offended them, like books or shows, and it became worse and worse, to the point where almost all scientific knowledge, history, or culture is banned from society. Because it's offensive and can hurt the feelings of people. History is History. It's bad? Then good, it will show to new generations what to do or not. But rewriting History because it offenses you? Who those people think they are? |
The point is: EA is not rewriting history because people can get offended that women are not included. They're including women because women play games, and EA wants their money. Get it? Putting women in BFV is as inaccurate as having weapons never jam in BF1. And both decisions were made so that EA can get more money. If you're mad at BFV for having women, you should also be mad at BF1 for including WWII cannons in it, at CoD WWII for having a cannon shoot twice as fast as it would in the real war and at any other war game, because none of them is 100% historically accurate.
Or you can just think a bit about it and get to the conclusion that they're meant to be games, not documentaries. They don't claim to be 100% accurate. It's like complaining about Mario's fireballs working underwater because that would never happen in the real world.
