KLAMarine said: SpokenTruth said:  1. Three shots, not dead and you can take cover and heal?  Heal?  How realistic.  Our marines should try that. 2. Sure, fewer weapons but don't you just love a medic running around with a flame thrower or an RPG because they've obviously trained for it, right? 3. Good thing it allows you sprint again almost immediately. Nothing says realism like back to back to back dashes of Usain Bolt speed with just 5 second breathers in between. Or the Airborne division with no spring fatigue at all. 4. And you can immediately sprint away. 5. So you accept a lack of realism for expediency?  6. So women on the military battlefields are unreal to you but health regeneration, privates with colonel command powers, sprint regeneration, unqualified weapon usage, fly/drive any vehicle, and on and on are realistic?   And don't even get me started on perks.  You guys talk about maintaining realism and then play for hours to remove as much realism as possible with perks. I think a distinction between mechanical realism and aesthetic realism needs to be made here. Mechanical realism gets breathing room since real life tanks are complex. I'm certain that operating a tank involves more than moving a joystick around. We can't expect players to have read something like this to operate or repair a tank now can we?   Also, regenerating health and such is a matter of expedience; the human body can heal of course but it's much faster in a video game. We can't expect a player to have to spend time in a virtual hospital bed after taking a bullet. Real life is nothing like Call of Duty World at War but it's understandable why the video game would forego these realistic aspects of war: because they're a pain in the ass to put up with. Aesthetic realism is different: something like putting African soldiers in the Japanese Imperial Army would make no sense nor would it have the excuse of making gameplay expedient. It would simply be historically inaccurate and pull one out of a setting. Just the same, as far as I know, soldiers with prosthetic limbs wouldn't be allowed to fight and very few women actually fought in World War 2. The setting's aesthetic would be compromised incorporating such things and we all know how reliant people are on their sense of sight. As a WW2phile, I know for a fact that Soviet women fought for the Red Army and flew missions as well. Would be neat to incorporate these historical facts into a WW2 title but it's undeniable that the front lines of battle in WW2 were largely manned by men in overwhelming numbers.

They could have you respawning bodies. take 3 shots you die and have resume imediately on the body at your side, while having a team size that would count as your life bar (which could regenerate or not with time, like more people unifying your team as you move along). Same with the different "cars" or strategic weapons. But that wouldn't really improve much on gameplay itself.

When looking at the trailer itself, I don't care for what they presented (though it was still a bit questionable as billing it as WW2, but whatever). But if you claim us to be uneducated for not believing it, then for sure it has to be the regions they did fought in, cause that's implying they no better than us about WW2.

I think it was more the Woman combined with prosthetic arm and cricket bat and on british front lines, than just the woman itself. 

So to sum it up:

-If that interview didn't occur, than I don't care what wack ass scenario they show, it's not like battlefield was that realistic anyways. 

-However if you you claim us to be uneducated for not believing this sort of thing happened, than it women only better be present in the regions they fought in. Obvious attempt at rewriting history to make it more diverse. 

Though we've already agreed to disagree on this topic, so whatever.

Let's not forget that on PC woman characters, even when inaccurate for the settings, allow to make good use of unofficial nude mods. Although nude female orcs in Morrowind still make me shiver a little.

If I'm being completely honest, I don't really see it as a big problem either, I was just pointing out that while I agree that the "make more characters from x demographic" side of the argument doesn't make sense (I find it disturbingly stupid, honestly), the other side does make sense in that it would be a real problem. The debate should be about to what degree it actually is a problem. I would agree with you that it isn't as huge of a problem as it's made out to be. That said, you bring up another issue, the issue of gender socialization, the way we teach girls and boys what they're "supposed" to like. And while I suppose it is "fine" that women are less interested in gaming, I think a large part of it is the culture of gaming itself being a turnoff to girls. I know it is for my girlfriend. The toxicity of the culture, especially after Gamergate, made her not even want to try gaming, and I have to coax and beg her to play Mario Kart and Snipperclips. I'm slowly getting her into games, after the damage that the culture did. I find that pretty lame, as she's otherwise a huge nerd that I have tons in common with. It seems less that girls inherently like games less than men and more like it's just because we've made it a place where they don't feel welcome. If there were any barrier to entering the industry, it would be the whole culture itself convincing girls think that being a game designer isn't for them, though obviously on the industry side it's less of a problem than on the consumer side. But for there to be a barrier to entering gaming culture at all, I mean, I suppose it isn't some horrible injustice like Kim Jong Un enslaving his own people or something, but it's still just unacceptably lame to me. It frustrates me to no end that I can't get female friends to try games just because society raised them to think it isn't for them. Like you said, you gotta fix all the gender bullshit that pushes people into being stereotypes before you can make any real progress on that front.

I can say that my wife although never having faced the "it is only for boys" and playing some with her relatives as a child doesn't like to play VG at all even after several invites... but she likes to play phone games. Tastes are more personal than obligated. hormones and everything else that biologically diferentiate men and women are also inside mechanisms of pleasure we have and the type of game/entertainment we would prefer.

But that's the thing. Phone games are usually shallow and dumb and whatever she's playing on the phone, there's almost certainly a more in depth and engaging equivalent on consoles. I could see the hormones making you like fashion and certain creative things a bit more, but it couldn't make you like phones over consoles, hormones don't make you like one electronic device over the other. It just means she might not like God of War and might be more into Animal Crossing, while some games will appeal to both genders like Mario Kart. The idea that an entire entertainment medium like games is something that only one gender wants to really get into just seems absurd to me. It would make as much sense to say that guys don't read long novels because there's not enough action in reading or something. Guys might like more spy thrillers on average and girls more romance novels on average, but they both read plenty, and the classics appeal to both, like Harry Potter or whatever. The same should go with games. The fact that so many girls turn up their noses at any game deeper than some bejeweled clone or dress the Disney character shovelware on a phone makes me think something is wrong.

I remember reading complaints about one of the Game of Thrones seasons in which an overweight character never lost weight, despite his character going through grueling physical activity. When the actor was questioned about it, he basically said his constant weight didn't matter in a universe in which dragons and zombies exist. The whole response seemed bizarre to me...even if there are fantasy elements in the story, it doesn't mean every connection to reality can be ignored. 

I don't know much about Battlefield, but it seems like the same idea to me. There's a certain suspension of disbelief that comes along with the medium, but if it's trying to connect with an actual event, then I would guess comparisons to that event are fair game. 

I have bought plenty "everyone" game to play with her, she simply doesn't like it.

phone games may be shallow and simple, but that is what her and the majority of women like. There is very easy to check numbers, those researches that come with 50/50 gamers (sometimes even more women) also make it very clear that if you were going to look at console or AAA it would make like 80% males.

Hormones also explain the type of game your brain will preffer.

You're missing my point. I don't contest at all that a lot of women are like her, I'm saying something must be wrong that a lot of women are like her, or that console games are 80% males, because everything she likes on phones has a better game on consoles, if she'd just get over the device that it's on. Does she like bullshit Disney dressup games? 3DS has Disney Magic Castle, which is basically a Disney Animal Crossing and better than anything on phones. It's like the stupid bullshit she plays on phones, but with depth and an ounce of actual fucking effort put into it. It's not my thing at all, but from a pure game design standpoint, I can see that it is a good game, far above the crap on phones. Even if hormones make her prefer that style of games, she should like the same style but higher quality ones on consoles if she'd get over her problem with playing on a console. Same with other women. Why are they so afraid of consoles? Hormones don't explain that.

Why something must be wrong?

Free game that can be played on spam of 1 min with very easy gameplay is a totally different concept than consoles and I can understand why women would preffer those spaces instead of consoles. Dolls and cars are both toys and quite similar as you handle to play, but why do female preffer one and male other even if both play with the other from time to time?