Forums - General Discussion - I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

VGPolyglot said:

Why does it matter whether it's a resistance fighter or a soldier? And CoD3 having them is just more evidence that this is not a recent phenomenon.

Because female resistance fighters were more frequent than soldiers. And I don't think the actual inclusion of female characters is the issue here, but rather the  occurence and frequency of including them as a token focus character in every game (or at least putting them in the spotlight like Battlefield).

I  won't go out of the way to not buy the game for that - let the devs do what they want. It doesn't change my gameplay experience - but it does seem unnecessary. Especially since people on the other side of the spectrum complain if there isn't a certain type of people in a game (see Kingdom Come: Deliverance), even though the representation is strong in numerous other games.



Around the Network

I think I will be getting the next BF instead of the next COD but I can understand where a few comments come from. It’s Memorial Day tomorrow and it’s a day to remember all of the soldiers that died throughout our history. Most of the games and even COD have entered that arena with respect. Trying to tell these real stories in new interactive ways. Cod WW2 has wild colorful things in MP but the campaign tried to respect that history and honor those fights. A French resistance fighter that’s a women, why not? The wild costumes and hairdos in BFV aren’t stopping me from buying the game but I can understand why some BF players would be confused. Why not just make a WW3 game? You can put whatever you want in that lol.



I think the reason it's such a problem now is their intention and the fact that World War II is a sensitive subject. Bastardizing horrifying historical events to pander to extreme groups and for moral grandstanding is disgraceful.

With all the other ridiculous shit that was seen in the trailer, they really need to distance themselves from realism and actual historical events for it to remain tasteful. Valkyria Chronicles did a great job of this.



brendude13 said:
I think the reason it's such a problem now is their intention and the fact that World War II is a sensitive subject. Bastardizing horrifying historical events to pander to extreme groups and for moral grandstanding is disgraceful.

With all the other ridiculous shit that was seen in the trailer, they really need to distance themselves from realism and actual historical events for it to remain tasteful. Valkyria Chronicles did a great job of this.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What bothers me is that A: These are soldiers in Battlefield V's trailer - not resistance fighters, so why the fucking are they wearing blue war paint on their faces? B: On top of regulation for female military combat the enlistment in the 1940's, she wouldn't  be able to enlist with a severed arm either. The fact that she has a metal prosthetic hand and uses it in combat is beyond ludicrous... As well as the soldier who has a Japanese Katana sword on his back.

How the fuck did he obtain that? How did a European gain access to a Japanese sword that, in real life - would have never been allowed to use in combat.

 

Battlefield V is all kinds of fucking stupid, no matter how you look at it... 



TranceformerFX said:
brendude13 said:
I think the reason it's such a problem now is their intention and the fact that World War II is a sensitive subject. Bastardizing horrifying historical events to pander to extreme groups and for moral grandstanding is disgraceful.

With all the other ridiculous shit that was seen in the trailer, they really need to distance themselves from realism and actual historical events for it to remain tasteful. Valkyria Chronicles did a great job of this.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What bothers me is that A: These are soldiers in Battlefield V's trailer - not resistance fighters, so why the fucking are they wearing blue war paint on their faces? B: On top of regulation for female military combat the enlistment in the 1940's, she wouldn't  be able to enlist with a severed arm either. The fact that she has a metal prosthetic hand and uses it in combat is beyond ludicrous... As well as the soldier who has a Japanese Katana sword on his back.

How the fuck did he obtain that? How did a European gain access to a Japanese sword that, in real life - would have never been allowed to use in combat.

 

Battlefield V is all kinds of fucking stupid, no matter how you look at it... 

They probably were trying to break some type of record of how lame they could make it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
TranceformerFX said:

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What bothers me is that A: These are soldiers in Battlefield V's trailer - not resistance fighters, so why the fucking are they wearing blue war paint on their faces? B: On top of regulation for female military combat the enlistment in the 1940's, she wouldn't  be able to enlist with a severed arm either. The fact that she has a metal prosthetic hand and uses it in combat is beyond ludicrous... As well as the soldier who has a Japanese Katana sword on his back.

How the fuck did he obtain that? How did a European gain access to a Japanese sword that, in real life - would have never been allowed to use in combat.

 

Battlefield V is all kinds of fucking stupid, no matter how you look at it... 

It appears as they did it just to draw attention to the female character. The missing limb, the face paint, the lack of a helmet, getting shot and respawning, using a cricket bat as a weapon and just standing there making small talk when there's a firefight going on. If only they portrayed them like actual soldiers instead.

The like-dislike ratio on the trailer is already in favour of the negative side at 270K:300K, but hey, it might be a good game after all.



forest-spirit said:
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this whole idea that creators needs special justifications for making characters that are female, gay or black, or else it's "pandering to the evil SJW demons".

It's just good old far right ideals at work. If you can marginalize people in real life, the entertainment they watch should reflect it as well. That's why there's this huge culture war in pop culture now. When movies like The Force Awakens and Black Panther became giant hits, alarms got set off, leading a certain group of people to think they were being replaced and put themselves in panic mode. In actuality, entertainment has been diverse in some form for years. I mean, even a show like Star Trek was made with diversity and social justice in mind.

You just have more people feeling comfortable with pushing back toward this form of segregation, which is too bad. It's particular nasty in geek circles who really have no tolerance for encountering people who don't reflect themselves. It's becoming this angry wave of people who can no longer enjoy anything due to seeing everything as tainted and it's only going to get worse. With social media, the mobs that have grown out of the movements to remarginalize people have destroyed a lot of good will between people. But I guess that's the point.

If you can get enough people being angry at people on television for not looking a certain way or having different lifestyle, then they hope that idea will reflect in the real world as well.



bugrimmar said:
SpokenTruth said:

You're playing a video game, not a simulator.  

Right. So let's fool around with all historical materical wherein millions of people died and let their families see how you twist everything.

 

While you're at it, let the Germans win then. You like that? Or make Hitler into the good guy. Since you think it's ok to fool around with history yeah?

So lets play a video game about when millions of people died and let their families see how you disrespect their memory by using it for escapism.

As for alternative histories, that's fine.  That said, the history in video games is not 100% accurate anyway.  Who is your character again? 

DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

You're playing a video game, not a simulator.  

Perhaps you never heard of coherence on a story.

Yes, I have and it refers to maintaining story continuity within a work and/or between iterations of a work. 

Or did you meant to say historically accurate?

 

To all:  We trade a lot of accuracy for engagement in video games.  Complaining about unrealistic diversity in a setting while simultaneously accepting regenerative health, carrying 10 guns at once, infinite stamina, etc....



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
bugrimmar said:

Right. So let's fool around with all historical materical wherein millions of people died and let their families see how you twist everything.

 

While you're at it, let the Germans win then. You like that? Or make Hitler into the good guy. Since you think it's ok to fool around with history yeah?

So lets play a video game about when millions of people died and let their families see how you disrespect their memory by using it for escapism.

As for alternative histories, that's fine.  That said, the history in video games is not 100% accurate anyway.  Who is your character again? 

DonFerrari said:

Perhaps you never heard of coherence on a story.

Yes, I have and it refers to maintaining story continuity within a work and/or between iterations of a work. 

Or did you meant to say historically accurate?

 

To all:  We trade a lot of accuracy for engagement in video games.  Complaining about unrealistic diversity in a setting while simultaneously accepting regenerative health, carrying 10 guns at once, infinite stamina, etc....

Not accuracy. Coherence.

Inside the story what was the technology that would allow a prostetic woman to fight in the war? Or were did a Katana wielding soldier came to on a shooting conflict?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Pretty surprised this thread is still going on tbh. I mean the Battlefield trailer probably revived it. But there's like 50 different topics now so oh well.

the-pi-guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

There's studies that support Ka-pi96's post. Men and women have different preferences. That is likely the real reason why there's rarely any equal representation between women and men in the vast majority of jobs.

Women do have different preferences.

But most Liberals will argue that the reason for those different preferences are largely due to cultural influences.  

Do you think having a boy grow up with Barbie's would probably have differences from a boy who grew up with toy cars? 

This is true. Nature vs Nurture is a rather classic sociological debate and the answer is somewhere in the middle. But discounting the absolutely massive influence socialization has is pretty premature, to put it lightly.