Xeon said:
Zekkyou said:
I don't understand why the zombie mode is used as an example. If Activision announced tomorrow that the story will focus on zombie's rather than Nazi's, would it be inconsistent for people to complain? Of course not, because it goes against their expectations. Creative freedom is important, but when dealing with historical settings (and without explicitly saying "yes, this is purely fantasy") you have to work within the expectations of your audience, and justify the changes you make. As it stands, the response to including woman in settings where they were an extreme minority is "because we want diversity". For some people that's a reasonable justification, for other's it's not.
I personally couldn't care less what they do with anything, hell put some dragons in and i'll probably be more entertained, but feeling differently about a individual variable isn't unreasonable as long as the context is different.
|
Well said but the problem with people's expectations is that it could be plain wrong. In this case, putting no women soldiers in would actually make it less accurate than having them included.
|
There's nothing wrong in expecting no female infantry combatants on Western Front in WW2, outside of Resistance. If it was Eastern Front (or if it was Vietnam) then by all means, one side should definitely have female fighters...pitty they've restricted the game to only 44-45 Western Front in the first place, but guess they need to milk that cow with sequels, so eventually we'll get to Eastern Front, Africa and Pacific.
Then again, for all their "historical accuracy", lot of other things seem to be half-assed, so why not this as well.
