EA on women in Battlefield V; "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Callate:
I suppose that it would be petty to point out that women had particular roles on particular sides and particular fronts, and you weren't likely to see a woman on the front lines during WW II in most places. If you saw a French Resistance fighter sprinting around with a sub-machine gun in a pitched battle, they were doing it wrong.

You sure about that?

image

Simone Segouin and hundreds of French girls just like her would say otherwise, once they'd finished up liberating places from the Germans such as Chartres and Paris...

Squilookle:

Callate:
I suppose that it would be petty to point out that women had particular roles on particular sides and particular fronts, and you weren't likely to see a woman on the front lines during WW II in most places. If you saw a French Resistance fighter sprinting around with a sub-machine gun in a pitched battle, they were doing it wrong.

You sure about that?

image

Simone Segouin and hundreds of French girls just like her would say otherwise, once they'd finished up liberating places from the Germans such as Chartres and Paris...

That doesn't especially dispute what I said. The vast majority of actions of the French resistance had little to do with head-on fighting- perfectly understandably, as for much of the occupation they would have been outgunned. They conducted assassinations, collected intelligence, and performed a great many acts of sabotage, but that's not the sort of asymmetrical conflict most FPSs center around.

I happily concede that there was at least one battle with a visible French Resistance fighter with a sub-machine gun. But as I said, that's one particular side on one particular front.

Callate:

That doesn't especially dispute what I said. The vast majority of actions of the French resistance had little to do with head-on fighting- perfectly understandably, as for much of the occupation they would have been outgunned. They conducted assassinations, collected intelligence, and performed a great many acts of sabotage, but that's not the sort of asymmetrical conflict most FPSs center around.

I happily concede that there was at least one battle with a visible French Resistance fighter with a sub-machine gun. But as I said, that's one particular side on one particular front.

The whole point of the Resistance was to conduct sabotage and subversion in order to leave the Germans as disorganised as possible during the eventual opening of the second front. Once D-Day happened, and German reinforcements had been delayed as best they could, all bets were off. This was not one particular side on one particular front. These fighters linked up with any and every allied units they could find and actively participated in the fight to reclaim their country. It is far from an isolated incident. You may as well say the vast majority of time the British spent in Europe was on their own soil. France was a very different place once Overlord got underway.

Callate:
That doesn't especially dispute what I said. The vast majority of actions of the French resistance had little to do with head-on fighting- perfectly understandably, as for much of the occupation they would have been outgunned. They conducted assassinations, collected intelligence, and performed a great many acts of sabotage, but that's not the sort of asymmetrical conflict most FPSs center around.

So, June 1944 this thing happened where suddenly lots of British, American and Canadian immigrants showed up in German occupied Normandy. You might have heard about it, it was a pretty big thing. What's less well known is that, a couple of months later, a second invasion force crossed the Mediterranean and landed in Southern France.

The French resistance was deeply involved in the preparation for these events (in fact, a large scale campaign of sabotage prior to the event played a major role in their success) and pretty much from the point paratroopers landed in Northern France, they were able to make contact with large assemblies of resistance fighters.

On the 20th of June, only a couple of weeks after the landing in Normandy, the French high command issued a statement effectively folding the French resistance in liberated areas into the French army under the designation Forces Francaises de l'Interieur (or FFI for short). From that point onward, resistance fighters in areas which had been liberated began to organise into batallions and were often incorporated into existing formations to make up the manpower of what was left of the French army. Ultimately, the FFI made up three quarters of the French army which took part in the liberation of France.

When you see pictures of French resistance fighters, unless those fighters have been captured and are being photographed by their captors, they are FFI fighters during the period in which the FFI was taking part in "head-on-fighting". Understandably, the resistance was not in the habit of photographing themselves posing with captured machine guns during the occupation period.

Are we really trying to use the 0.001% of women who fought in combat roles to justify the downright travesty that has been everything revolving around Battlefield V? Because that isn't really a justification, especially when you remember the very rare and specific circumstances that those instances happened in, the fact none of them where the ones we saw in the trailer, the fact none of those exceptionally few women in combat where amputees, and the fact I'm pretty sure none of them served in a rag-tag unit that was temporarily desegregated.

It's alternate history with nothing resembling reality, and that's not a problem, why are we trying to justify the realism in a game that is openly and boldly trying to not be realistic?

Zontar:
Are we really trying to use the 0.001% of women who fought in combat roles to justify the downright travesty that has been everything revolving around Battlefield V? Because that isn't really a justification, especially when you remember the very rare and specific circumstances that those instances happened in, the fact none of them where the ones we saw in the trailer, the fact none of those exceptionally few women in combat where amputees, and the fact I'm pretty sure none of them served in a rag-tag unit that was temporarily desegregated.

It's alternate history with nothing resembling reality, and that's not a problem, why are we trying to justify the realism in a game that is openly and boldly trying to not be realistic?

I'm honestly trying to understand you.

At most? We play 6 characters in each game. A number that couldn't even possibly encapsulate the sheer number of people who took part in the war. Marines, Air Force, Engineers, Medics... not represented. But that's ok because we just focus on those who carry the guns. And of those scores of millions... at most 6 per game.

So if people who design the game decided to focus on other aspects that legitimately saw fighting and combat other than the traditional skirmishes we all know of... isn't that more of a problem that's personal than historical?

Every story normally focuses on someone who's unique. Harry Potter isn't about Hogwarts and every student in it. It's a story based on one time period due to this one child. Likewise is Lone Survivor not about every Navy Seal who has ever lived. But the experience that one sniper had during a failed mission. This is how media has always been. Even if there's 0.01% like you said... other than you not liking it, what makes that any different than any other true to life war story that focused on one person, one team, or one mission?

ObsidianJones:

Zontar:
Are we really trying to use the 0.001% of women who fought in combat roles to justify the downright travesty that has been everything revolving around Battlefield V? Because that isn't really a justification, especially when you remember the very rare and specific circumstances that those instances happened in, the fact none of them where the ones we saw in the trailer, the fact none of those exceptionally few women in combat where amputees, and the fact I'm pretty sure none of them served in a rag-tag unit that was temporarily desegregated.

It's alternate history with nothing resembling reality, and that's not a problem, why are we trying to justify the realism in a game that is openly and boldly trying to not be realistic?

I'm honestly trying to understand you.

At most? We play 6 characters in each game. A number that couldn't even possibly encapsulate the sheer number of people who took part in the war. Marines, Air Force, Engineers, Medics... not represented. But that's ok because we just focus on those who carry the guns. And of those scores of millions... at most 6 per game.

So if people who design the game decided to focus on other aspects that legitimately saw fighting and combat other than the traditional skirmishes we all know of... isn't that more of a problem that's personal than historical?

Every story normally focuses on someone who's unique. Harry Potter isn't about Hogwarts and every student in it. It's a story based on one time period due to this one child. Likewise is Lone Survivor not about every Navy Seal who has ever lived. But the experience that one sniper had during a failed mission. This is how media has always been. Even if there's 0.01% like you said... other than you not liking it, what makes that any different than any other true to life war story that focused on one person, one team, or one mission?

While in older games this was true due to design limitations, in newer BFs each role has unique models, you regularly play as different forces on different maps and now Air Force and Naval Units get their own characters and models as well (assuming you spawn as a Pilot/Naval unit).

We don't focus on non-combat or non-frontline roles obviously because they aren't that fun or interesting for gameplay. On top of that the couple of times they have tried with the Commander feature it's been universally considered boring and not very fun despite being useful.

ObsidianJones:

So if people who design the game decided to focus on other aspects that legitimately saw fighting and combat other than the traditional skirmishes we all know of... isn't that more of a problem that's personal than historical?

I think you should watch the reveal trailer, there was nothing in that which existed in the real world, was pure alternate history, and that's the issue. People want something that resembles reality from this game, and the worst part is that the developers are acting like this is exactly that.

Admittedly it's not as much of a problem as the legitimately offensive use of an African American to represent French troops on the cover/limited edition's accompanying model for Battlefield 1, but given the fact people want a realistic looking WW2 game with a decent, believable plot, and it's clear we aren't getting that, well people are upset because they aren't getting what they want. And lets be honest, no one was asking for a fantasy alternate history WW2 story following a group of irregulars who where desegregated, wore war paint despite not being in any units that did so, and where led by a woman in a combat roll no woman did, who on top of that is disabled to a degree no one would even entertain the idea of putting anyone like that in combat.

The only people who aren't upset are those who either only want to play the online mode, or those who wanted something dramatically different from the bulk of the game's fanbase who care about the campaign.

My grouch:

I've engaged with a couple social justice-y types and other defenders of BFV's narrative choices, and these are the conclusions to which I've come.

1. Yes, women fought in WWII. That's a no-brainer. EA and DICE has deliberately chosen to make a game not about those women to honor or enliven their memory, but rather create fictional characters out of whole cloth with what seems to be zero basis in the very real history of women warfighters in WWII. The thing is, defenders of EA and DICE are more than happy to name drop the women who fought (Lyudmila Pavlichenko seems to be a favorite to name drop), but when it comes to making a game about them, you could hear a pin drop.

I have my own theories as to why this may be the case, but I believe a large part of it is the francophobia that possesses the majority of the Western world, and the russophobia that is so much en vogue right now. Historical revisionism with regards to WWII isn't exclusively the realm of Holocaust denial, and the content served to folks in the West outside the university classroom is...highly suspect, to say the least. Me, I'd say "propaganda that glorifies the United States' role in ending the war in Europe, and horrifically exaggerates the importance of basically any operation or theater in which the US or Britain fought, while denigrating the role of various nationalist resistances and erasing in sum the Eastern front where the war was really fought and won".

In light of that, not only does defense of BFV in this regard not only ring exceptionally hollow, but carries a heavy, but subtle, Anglophonic jingoism. The day I hear clamor about making a game, or campaign, about women warfighters on the Eastern front -- some of which, like the story of Mariya Oktyabrskaya, read as if they already were a Battlefield campaign -- will be the day I regard their defenses as honest or genuine in any way, especially when...

2. Lest we forget, BF1 had its share of controversy with the Harlem Hellfighters and Zara. And, lest we forget, the response from EA and DICE, and the games media, was identical -- people complaining are bigots. Then the game came out, and the end product was the Harlem Hellfighters were only in the first minute of the (ten-minute-long) introductory war story supposedly about them, and Zara wasn't even the protagonist of her own story but instead a silent avatar for the player to interact with the game world while all narrative weightlifting fell to Lawrence of Arabia.

Where were all the social justice-y types calling that shit out? well, they were all fellating EA and DICE for including women and POC in the most topical, exploitative, and perfunctory ways possible to sell copies. And attacking those of us who played the game, and engaged our brains while playing, by calling us bigots when we took one look at the game's actual content and said, "what a crock of shit".

EDIT:

That doesn't especially dispute what I said. The vast majority of actions of the French resistance had little to do with head-on fighting- perfectly understandably, as for much of the occupation they would have been outgunned. They conducted assassinations, collected intelligence, and performed a great many acts of sabotage, but that's not the sort of asymmetrical conflict most FPSs center around.

Dude, almost all the MoH WWII games involves characters attached to the OSS, or are part of the OSS proper, to conduct the very types of activities you point out.

Zontar:

ObsidianJones:

So if people who design the game decided to focus on other aspects that legitimately saw fighting and combat other than the traditional skirmishes we all know of... isn't that more of a problem that's personal than historical?

I think you should watch the reveal trailer, there was nothing in that which existed in the real world, was pure alternate history, and that's the issue. People want something that resembles reality from this game, and the worst part is that the developers are acting like this is exactly that.

Admittedly it's not as much of a problem as the legitimately offensive use of an African American to represent French troops on the cover/limited edition's accompanying model for Battlefield 1, but given the fact people want a realistic looking WW2 game with a decent, believable plot, and it's clear we aren't getting that, well people are upset because they aren't getting what they want. And lets be honest, no one was asking for a fantasy alternate history WW2 story following a group of irregulars who where desegregated, wore war paint despite not being in any units that did so, and where led by a woman in a combat roll no woman did, who on top of that is disabled to a degree no one would even entertain the idea of putting anyone like that in combat.

...wasn't the reveal trailer explicitly multiplayer? The gal with the cosmetic hook-hand dies twice and respawns for gods-sake. Fucks's sake, I thought gamers liked optional cosmetics.

And having a black dude on the cover is a problem representing France? The same French army that had to hire Spanish mercenaries to take Paris because us Americans were uncomfortable with how brown their force was? Hell, most of the Free French army was from North Africa.

Paragon Fury:
While in older games this was true due to design limitations, in newer BFs each role has unique models, you regularly play as different forces on different maps and now Air Force and Naval Units get their own characters and models as well (assuming you spawn as a Pilot/Naval unit).

We don't focus on non-combat or non-frontline roles obviously because they aren't that fun or interesting for gameplay. On top of that the couple of times they have tried with the Commander feature it's been universally considered boring and not very fun despite being useful.

Fair enough. I did forget Clyde Blackburn segments.

But Fury, do you understand you're now dictating what is universally fun? A stealthy mission might be more fun to others. Seeing someone who wasn't anywhere near suited for the soldier life picking up a gun and fighting for his or her life is an extrillating prospect to me. It might not be for you, but that's why there are different genres in games, and different aspects in games we love. And more over, there are parts we hate in games we love.

I personally couldn't progress pass "No Russian". I couldn't attack villages in Company of Heroes 2. Doesn't mean I'm not a fan of these games even if they have moments that turn my stomach.

Zontar:

ObsidianJones:

So if people who design the game decided to focus on other aspects that legitimately saw fighting and combat other than the traditional skirmishes we all know of... isn't that more of a problem that's personal than historical?

I think you should watch the reveal trailer, there was nothing in that which existed in the real world, was pure alternate history, and that's the issue. People want something that resembles reality from this game, and the worst part is that the developers are acting like this is exactly that.

Admittedly it's not as much of a problem as the legitimately offensive use of an African American to represent French troops on the cover/limited edition's accompanying model for Battlefield 1, but given the fact people want a realistic looking WW2 game with a decent, believable plot, and it's clear we aren't getting that, well people are upset because they aren't getting what they want. And lets be honest, no one was asking for a fantasy alternate history WW2 story following a group of irregulars who where desegregated, wore war paint despite not being in any units that did so, and where led by a woman in a combat roll no woman did, who on top of that is disabled to a degree no one would even entertain the idea of putting anyone like that in combat.

The only people who aren't upset are those who either only want to play the online mode, or those who wanted something dramatically different from the bulk of the game's fanbase who care about the campaign.

I have, as I said over and over in this thread. I think the robot arm is very stupid. I've gone on record in saying that multiple times.

Also, The Harlem Hellfighters are an actual unit. The 369th Infantry Regiment was assigned to France because white Americans refused to serve with them. And they fought well for America and France. The Army still talks about 'The Black Death', Sgt Henry Johnson. American Battle Monuments Commission calls the 369th the "Most Storied African-American Combat Unit of World War I".

America didn't want them to fight for them or with them during that time. France took them in and treated them as Equals. The French respected them so much that Johnson is the only American to ever get the Croix De Guerre.

You have to admit it's weird. You say you only want to honor the men who died fighting wars. But when a video game company wants to honor a group of people looked down and seen as unequal in the eyes of humanity... who despite that, said that they want to fight for the country that hated them and didn't even want to bleed next to them, you say it's 'highly offensive' that they finally get some limelight in a 'historically accurate game'.

France gave them and only them their highest awards. Now they can't even get a cover or a statue in 2016 without people saying "OMG, SJWs STOP MAKING THINGS UP!!" or "GOD, WHY DO YOU NEED TO CRAM MINORITIES INTO EVERYTHING?!".

How is that not offensive?

altnameJag:
...wasn't the reveal trailer explicitly multiplayer? The gal with the cosmetic hook-hand dies twice and respawns for gods-sake. Fucks's sake, I thought gamers liked optional cosmetics.

If it was to portray the multiplayer, they certainly made no indication of it in the trailer.

And having a black dude on the cover is a problem representing France? The same French army that had to hire Spanish mercenaries to take Paris because us Americans were uncomfortable with how brown their force was? Hell, most of the Free French army was from North Africa.

Yes, actually, it was a major controversy for the game. I don't think you realise the place WW1 holds in French culture, to have the French army represented by a black man for the Western Front, well it's hard to explain to an American given equivalences, but the closest I can think of is having a Samoan represent the US in a game about the Pacific Front of WW2 in a world where the US almost never even gets mentioned in war games.

Also, there's little I can think of that'll get your teeth broken faster then calling a North African black. They really take offence to being compared to blacks.

This is what North Africans look like:

image
image

(sorry, best pictures of a group I could find where relating to gatherings over tragic deaths)

Just because they're from the African continent does not automatically meant they're black. In fact I'd say they, even above LA's Hispanic community, probably hate blacks more then any other group. They certainly openly insult them in their media on a frequent basis.

ObsidianJones:

I have, as I said over and over in this thread. I think the robot arm is very stupid. I've gone on record in saying that multiple times.

Also, The Harlem Hellfighters are an actual unit. The 369th Infantry Regiment was assigned to France because white Americans refused to serve with them. And they fought well for America and France. The Army still talks about 'The Black Death', Sgt Henry Johnson. American Battle Monuments Commission calls the 369th the "Most Storied African-American Combat Unit of World War I".

America didn't want them to fight for them or with them during that time. France took them in and treated them as Equals. The French respected them so much that Johnson is the only American to ever get the Croix De Guerre.

You have to admit it's weird. You say you only want to honor the men who died fighting wars. But when a video game company wants to honor a group of people looked down and seen as unequal in the eyes of humanity... who despite that, said that they want to fight for the country that hated them and didn't even want to bleed next to them, you say it's 'highly offensive' that they finally get some limelight in a 'historically accurate game'.

France gave them and only them their highest awards. Now they can't even get a cover or a statue in 2016 without people telling "OMG, SJWs STOP MAKING THINGS UP!!" or "GOD, WHY DO YOU NEED TO CRAM MINORITIES INTO EVERYTHING?!".

How is that not offensive?

It's not offensive for one very simple reason: France, the true looser of the first world war amongst the Western nations, is virtually ignored when it comes to the war despite having lost more then all other Western nations combined. Then, when for the first time in history a major big budget game about the conflict is made that shines a light on them, they choose a foreigner of a difference race to represent the country.

As I pointed out to Alt, it's like if a Samoan was used to represent the US in the Pacific War in a world where the US was almost entirely ignored when it comes to its part of the fight being depicted in the media. It's not offensive because the way it was handled was offensive to the people it was claimed to be representing and honouring. That being the French, who where snubbed so hard they didn't get a fucking campaign while the Italians and some American fighter pilot did.

Squilookle:

The whole point of the Resistance was to conduct sabotage and subversion in order to leave the Germans as disorganised as possible during the eventual opening of the second front. Once D-Day happened, and German reinforcements had been delayed as best they could, all bets were off. This was not one particular side on one particular front. These fighters linked up with any and every allied units they could find and actively participated in the fight to reclaim their country. It is far from an isolated incident. You may as well say the vast majority of time the British spent in Europe was on their own soil. France was a very different place once Overlord got underway.

I'm not saying the actions of the Resistance were not heroic or significant. Merely that the overall consistency of the French Resistance (itself somewhere between 11% and 20% women, depending on different accounts) was not indicative of who one would usually see engaging in pitched, front-line fighting, nor the kind of engagements usually highlighted in multiplayer-only first-person shooters.

evilthecat:
The French resistance was deeply involved in the preparation for these events (in fact, a large scale campaign of sabotage prior to the event played a major role in their success) and pretty much from the point paratroopers landed in Northern France, they were able to make contact with large assemblies of resistance fighters.

On the 20th of June, only a couple of weeks after the landing in Normandy, the French high command issued a statement effectively folding the French resistance in liberated areas into the French army under the designation Forces Francaises de l'Interieur (or FFI for short). From that point onward, resistance fighters in areas which had been liberated began to organise into batallions and were often incorporated into existing formations to make up the manpower of what was left of the French army. Ultimately, the FFI made up three quarters of the French army which took part in the liberation of France.

When you see pictures of French resistance fighters, unless those fighters have been captured and are being photographed by their captors, they are FFI fighters during the period in which the FFI was taking part in "head-on-fighting". Understandably, the resistance was not in the habit of photographing themselves posing with captured machine guns during the occupation period.

That's interesting. I'm having difficulty finding information regarding the final consistency of the re-conquering French forces, to what degree they were members of the "original" Resistance versus new recruits, freed POWs, returned Expeditionary forces, etc. Do you have a source?

ObsidianJones:
France gave them and only them their highest awards. Now they can't even get a cover or a statue in 2016 without people saying "OMG, SJWs STOP MAKING THINGS UP!!" or "GOD, WHY DO YOU NEED TO CRAM MINORITIES INTO EVERYTHING?!".

How is that not offensive?

How about the fact they were only in the game for two incredibly short cutscenes and about thirty seconds' worth of game play in the very campaign supposedly about them, when the group was collectively featured on advertising and promo material as a major selling and talking point of wanting to portray a more culturally, nationally, and ethnically diverse perspective of the war?

Breaking down Storm of Steel, the PC is only a Harlem Hellfighter in the very beginning and very end. The rest of the story, the PC is a freakin' Brit.

Zontar:

altnameJag:
...wasn't the reveal trailer explicitly multiplayer? The gal with the cosmetic hook-hand dies twice and respawns for gods-sake. Fucks's sake, I thought gamers liked optional cosmetics.

If it was to portray the multiplayer, they certainly made no indication of it in the trailer.

I...she died 10 seconds in. The finale where it shows her hitting the guy with the bat had a "respawn on squad" notification prior.

She died. And showed up again. The hell do you mean "they made no indication of it"?

Zontar:

And having a black dude on the cover is a problem representing France? The same French army that had to hire Spanish mercenaries to take Paris because us Americans were uncomfortable with how brown their force was? Hell, most of the Free French army was from North Africa.

Yes, actually, it was a major controversy for the game. I don't think you realise the place WW1 holds in French culture, to have the French army represented by a black man for the Western Front, well it's hard to explain to an American given equivalences, but the closest I can think of is having a Samoan represent the US in a game about the Pacific Front of WW2 in a world where the US almost never even gets mentioned in war games.

Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

Zontar:
Also, there's little I can think of that'll get your teeth broken faster then calling a North African black. They really take offence to being compared to blacks.
*snip irrelevance*
Just because they're from the African continent does not automatically meant they're black. In fact I'd say they, even above LA's Hispanic community, probably hate blacks more then any other group. They certainly openly insult them in their media on a frequent basis.

Oh yeah, I'm sure those are the best pictures you can find.[/sarc]

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia: image

As always, history isn't nearly as cut and dried as you like. https://ww2-weapons.com/free-french-army/

Zontar:
It's not offensive for one very simple reason: France, the true looser of the first world war amongst the Western nations, is virtually ignored when it comes to the war despite having lost more then all other Western nations combined. Then, when for the first time in history a major big budget game about the conflict is made that shines a light on them, they choose a foreigner of a difference race to represent the country.

As I pointed out to Alt, it's like if a Samoan was used to represent the US in the Pacific War in a world where the US was almost entirely ignored when it comes to its part of the fight being depicted in the media. It's not offensive because the way it was handled was offensive to the people it was claimed to be representing and honouring. That being the French, who where snubbed so hard they didn't get a fucking campaign while the Italians and some American fighter pilot did.

Ok, not knowing that France does play a huge part in the handful of World War 1 games doesn't mean they are ignored.

Verdun, Making History, the Great War, The Entente: Battlefields World War 1, etc.

But come now. I would think a group of people spat on by the very nation that spawned them, who bled and died for a war that really wasn't theirs to fight... and who are still to this day being denied the honor they deserve because people have a lack of knowledge of the actual history they created by fighting in the Great War seem to be the true losers.

But if it makes you feel better, Battlefield 1 did make They Shall Not Pass, bringing the French Army to the forefront.

Although, I am starting to lose track in these threads. Originally, it was the idea that representation wasn't important, just the facts and the history of those men who died honorably in combat. Now, when we see that African Americans did indeed die for their country, albeit under control of another nation because american whites didn't want to be near them... we need to think about the representation of the French. I'll tell you, this gets more confusing with all the twists and turns.

altnameJag:
I...she died 10 seconds in. The finale where it shows her hitting the guy with the bat had a "respawn on squad" notification prior.

She died. And showed up again. The hell do you mean "they made no indication of it"?

You'd think that the fact that the trailer was revealed as the "Multiplayer reveal trailer" would be indication enough...

Wow this topic is still alive, I guess people are really passionate about it huh?

Zontar:
It's alternate history with nothing resembling reality, and that's not a problem, why are we trying to justify the realism in a game that is openly and boldly trying to not be realistic?

I don't know. If you want to wear pumps and wield an M-16 (with underslung grenade launcher, of course) while charging the beaches at Normandy or Iwo Jima, go for it. I have no idea why people don't just say "Meh, it's not historically accurate. No women stormed the beaches at Normandy or Iwo Jima, but it might be interesting to reenact that battle in a dress."

I'm looking forward to the Baba Yaga expansion where Stalin is deposed by a witch and all the Russian tanks are replaced with giant huts that stomp around on chicken legs.

It's all nonsense. Buy it or don't.

altnameJag:
Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia:

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

ObsidianJones:

Ok, not knowing that France does play a huge part in the handful of World War 1 games doesn't mean they are ignored.

Verdun, Making History, the Great War, The Entente: Battlefields World War 1, etc.

None of those where big budget games that claimed to have a focus on the French for the first time ever for such a game.

But come now. I would think a group of people spat on by the very nation that spawned them, who bled and died for a war that really wasn't theirs to fight... and who are still to this day being denied the honor they deserve because people have a lack of knowledge of the actual history they created by fighting in the Great War seem to be the true losers.

If they wanted to do that, they'd have done that. The problem is that isn't what they did, they painted it as being a fair representation of the French army at the time, and only after the backlash from French players did they try to mitigate their mistake and gave us the They Shall Not Pass DLC as a partial apology for their major fuckup.

Although, I am starting to lose track in these threads. Originally, it was the idea that representation wasn't important, just the facts and the history of those men who died honorably in combat. Now, when we see that African Americans did indeed die for their country, albeit under control of another nation because american whites didn't want to be near them... we need to think about the representation of the French. I'll tell you, this gets more confusing with all the twists and turns.

The argument for representation hasn't changed a bit, what has changed is what people what to play representation with. For fiction no one gives a shit outside of the few insane people who are incapable of connecting with a character who doesn't share both their sex and race. When it comes to history, however, that's where it goes out the window, because it's an event that actually happened, and people tend to want those events to be portrayed as they happened rather then through the lens of fiction. It's why Dunkirk was loved by those who aren't trying to push fiction into history books and hated by those who are, and why people where pissed off that in a war which saw France lose more people then any nation save Russia, where they where finally supposed to get their time in the spotlight, instead that spotlight went to a single regiment of foreigners who made only one thousandths of the forces the French had during the war.

If you can't see why that pissed of French gamers, well that's all on you at this point and there's nothing I or anyone else can say that will explain why people get offended at things that are legitimately offensive.

Zontar:
None of those where big budget games that claimed to have a focus on the French for the first time ever for such a game...

If they wanted to do that, they'd have done that. The problem is that isn't what they did, they painted it as being a fair representation of the French army at the time, and only after the backlash from French players did they try to mitigate their mistake and gave us the They Shall Not Pass DLC as a partial apology for their major fuckup.

I'm going to take a step back and realize I did misread the situation. From my comprehension of your statement, I thought you were taking umbrage that there was simply an African American on the cover and was tied to the french. That's why I took a lot of time explaining the Hellfighters. Apologies for getting your meaning wrong. Sincerely

Although I'm looking at all press releases now (like this), I'm not seeing where they said they were going to focus on French Forces. But hey, I missed one thing already

Wild west thread

Zontar:

altnameJag:
Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia:

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

The picture was from Tunisia, the men were Senegalese. The Senegalese made up ~60% of the Free French military by the time of the liberation of Paris. We Americans specifically asked de Gaulle to shuffle his forces around so only white soldiers made the attack. Because our military was still segregated and we were astoundingly racist.

undeadsuitor:

KingsGambit:
It's as unusual as finding a cowboy in ancient egypt or an eskimo in Braveheart.

I don't really care about this horse race, but I do want to share some fun historical facts

Victorian England lasted from 1837-1901
The American Old West lasted 1803-1912, and the cowboy era specifically started in the 1860s
The Meiji Restoration (the time period where Japanese Samurai lost their rights and many became wandering ronin and mercenaries) lasted 1868-1912
And french "privateering" lasted in the Caribbean till about 1830ish

which means that a game featuring a Victorian Gentlemen Thief, a gunslinging cowboy, a disgraced Samurai ronin, and a French Pirate would be 100% historically plausible

You could also make a game featuring FDR and Liberace, what's your point? Anything goes if everything exists at the same time?

Johnny Novgorod:

You could also make a game featuring FDR and Liberace, what's your point? Anything goes if everything exists at the same time?

Nothing wrong with that argument. There are people in this thread arguing that since female frontline soldiers were somewhat rare, they therefore shouldn't be in BFV: it's a valid counterpoint that plausibility extends further than we'd think.

I know I've already mentioned this before, but it's worth noting that DICE, much like Activision, don't seem to have much interest in adhering particularly close to actual history in this regard. It's more along the lines of "Lets take a place or person or battle involved in a war and then build something fun and playable around that concept". This is when they're not just recreating famous war movies or scenes from famous war movies.

Which is how you get the battle of Pavlov's house in the original CoD that's 20 minutes long(instead of months) or where one Bedouin lady working for TE Lawrence ends up taking down a super-powerful armored train pretty much by herself while Lawrence occasionally pops in to remind us he's the one history remembers. Or why one guy named Ramirez ends up doing everything when the Russians invade the US(okay, not really historical but the same level of realism going on).

Hell, Battlefield 1, which might be the "closest" to showing a real war(in the loosest sense of the word), still decided to liberally throw handheld automatic weapons, regardless of how rare or even when they were put into production(guns from 1918 show up prior to that), all over the battlefield because apparently it was more fun or a single British Mark V tank that can somehow create a breakthrough by itself without infantry support despite being notoriously prone to breakdown in the best conditions(which the opening card even calls out).

I could go on and on with examples where realism takes a backseat to playability(Fun is a bit subjective here) from both series if you want. Hell, I've long since just learned to ignore it because trying to reconcile this shit with actual history or how militaries actually operate is a fools errand and just focus on how well it works in it's own context and how much engaging it is to play.

On a similar note, we could talk about how Stars Wars and actual military tactics/strategy intersect and probably get much the same results, if you get my meaning.

Dalisclock:
I know I've already mentioned this before, but it's worth noting that DICE, much like Activision, don't seem to have much interest in adhering particularly close to actual history in this regard. It's more along the lines of "Lets take a place or person or battle involved in a war and then build something fun and playable around that concept". This is when they're not just recreating famous war movies or scenes from famous war movies.

This is the problem. This is the one time DICE can actually have their cake and eat it too, sacrifice absolutely nothing on the game play, spectacle, or history side. Nothing whatsoever. Stories like Mariya Oktyabrskaya's already sound like something out of a Battlefield game, and those events actually happened. This is so much of a slam dunk it beggars credibility to argue otherwise.

The problem arises in that to tell those stories, one must tell stories about the French resistance and Red Army, which raises a whole lot of uncomfortable questions about national politics and pro-NATO, Cold War-era, historical revisionism. What we seem to be getting served instead, are complete historical fictions which ultimately spit in the face of the women who actually fought; considering DICE's bait-and-switch with diversified representation in BF1, that does not reflect well on them as a game studio or progressive (in any meaningful way) entity.

altnameJag:

Zontar:

altnameJag:
Couldn't give the slightest of fucks, actually. It'd be more accurate than demanding it be whitewashed to preserve someone's feelings.

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

How about a picture of an actual, typical representation of the Free French army, from Tunisia:

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

The picture was from Tunisia, the men were Senegalese. The Senegalese made up ~60% of the Free French military by the time of the liberation of Paris. We Americans specifically asked de Gaulle to shuffle his forces around so only white soldiers made the attack. Because our military was still segregated and we were astoundingly racist.

And as I stated in the now purged part of the thread, you called North Africans black, not the people who served in North Africa, the people from North Africa.

Silvanus:

Johnny Novgorod:

You could also make a game featuring FDR and Liberace, what's your point? Anything goes if everything exists at the same time?

Nothing wrong with that argument. There are people in this thread arguing that since female frontline soldiers were somewhat rare, they therefore shouldn't be in BFV: it's a valid counterpoint that plausibility extends further than we'd think.

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

Johnny Novgorod:

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

As I pointed out previously in this thread; The number of women in the Red Army was about the same as the number of men who served in the Waffen-SS (800,000 compared to 900,000), if we count female partisans the number of women fighting for the Soviet Union approaches 2 million or more. The number of women who had frontline duties in the Red Army is also greater then the number of men who served in the "elite" Waffen-SS armored divisions (1st Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, 2nd Das Reich, 3rd Totenkopf, 5th Wiking, 10th Nordland and 16th Hitlerjugend). Not to mention that the 300,000 or so women who had frontline duties in the Red Army far outnumbers the less then 100,000 men who served in American Airborne Divisions in Europe, and probably outnumber the actual paratroopers (since glider infantry didn't count as paratroopers) about 10:1. The actual number of women in the Red Army is also closer to 3%, if we go by the 25 million people under arms in the Red Army.

My point is, in case it isn't clear, that while women were a rather uncommon sight on the frontline in the Great Patriotic War they were not much more uncommon then the Waffen-SS and more women fought in the Red Army then served in US airborne infantry. Yet any game about World War 2 that doesn't at least make reference to the Waffen-SS and US Airborne, or outright include them, will often draw ire for being revisionist because it omits these prestigious elite forces.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: what we consider pertinent, plausible and historically accurate has more to do with the narrative tradition in which we perceive WW2 then it has to do with WW2 itself.

Gethsemani:

Johnny Novgorod:

1% of the Russian battlefront is "somewhat" rare to you?

As I pointed out previously in this thread; The number of women in the Red Army was about the same as the number of men who served in the Waffen-SS (800,000 compared to 900,000), if we count female partisans the number of women fighting for the Soviet Union approaches 2 million or more. The number of women who had frontline duties in the Red Army is also greater then the number of men who served in the "elite" Waffen-SS armored divisions (1st Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler, 2nd Das Reich, 3rd Totenkopf, 5th Wiking, 10th Nordland and 16th Hitlerjugend). Not to mention that the 300,000 or so women who had frontline duties in the Red Army far outnumbers the less then 100,000 men who served in American Airborne Divisions in Europe, and probably outnumber the actual paratroopers (since glider infantry didn't count as paratroopers) about 10:1. The actual number of women in the Red Army is also closer to 3%, if we go by the 25 million people under arms in the Red Army.

My point is, in case it isn't clear, that while women were a rather uncommon sight on the frontline in the Great Patriotic War they were not much more uncommon then the Waffen-SS and more women fought in the Red Army then served in US airborne infantry. Yet any game about World War 2 that doesn't at least make reference to the Waffen-SS and US Airborne, or outright include them, will often draw ire for being revisionist because it omits these prestigious elite forces.

I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: what we consider pertinent, plausible and historically accurate has more to do with the narrative tradition in which we perceive WW2 then it has to do with WW2 itself.

I think one of the reasons one appears much more then the other is that the SS and US Airborne where often right up at the front (and in the case of the US Airborne, behind enemy lines) while the women of the red army where mostly fighting from a distance in sniper groups since that's a role women are... I'd say better suited for but a more accurate assessment would be less ill-suited for given the realities of the human body and the demands war places on people.

image

Hell I was under the impression that the Red Army had more then 3% of its ranks be women given the existential struggle the Great Patriotic War was and the propaganda that was pushed during the war of the woman soldier of the Red Army, since Israel today has more of its armed forces who serve in combat roles who are women and they don't really advertise that fact too much (though then again, Israel is also the only modern military to put women in combat roles to begin with, what with the nation being the military in many ways).

Zontar:

I think one of the reasons one appears much more then the other is that the SS and US Airborne where often right up at the front (and in the case of the US Airborne, behind enemy lines) while the women of the red army where mostly fighting from a distance in sniper groups

If you're within sniper range of the enemy- you're at the front. And it wasn't just snipers. The very first ground clash of the Battle of Stalingrad was a German tank thrust on several AA batteries brought to bear against them. After the tanks failed to successfully counterattack, after a few hours Stukas were brought in to obliterate the staunch defenders.

Those staunch defenders were entirely made up of teenage female volunteers. Obliterated to the last woman halting a tank thrust. It doesn't get much more 'front line' than that.

image

In France and virtually every other Axis occupied country on both sides of the world (Including Russia) women took up arms and fought as partisans/resistance behind enemy lines. That's fighting beyond the front lines.
image

Russia had entire squadrons of female fighter pilots, that shared airfields with male squadrons and flew sorties out over enemy territory and defence patrols within their own. Fighting on, behind and in front of the front line.

image

So yeah. I think we can put to bed the idea that women were simply 'in the wrong spot' to be given a portrayal. If that were the case, then the 101st Airborne would have been the only paratroopers fighting on either side, because the very nature of paratroops is to be dropped into an active fighting area, and if doing that guarantees media portrayal, and nobody else ever shows up, then the 101st must have been the only ones in the war!

I wonder where this perception that WW2 era snipers are not frontline soldiers. Video games? Movies? Inherent sexism?

Zontar:

altnameJag:

Zontar:

You obviously don't know what the word "whitewashing" means.

Those men are Senegalese, who where a small part of the French military. What you've done here is the equivalent of taking a picture of one of the Japanese-American soldiers who fought in the Pacific for the US Navy and trying to make a point that it wasn't a different minority that fought on that front, only while pretending North Africa is black on top of that (note: it's not, it's actually got less black people then most West European nations).

The picture was from Tunisia, the men were Senegalese. The Senegalese made up ~60% of the Free French military by the time of the liberation of Paris. We Americans specifically asked de Gaulle to shuffle his forces around so only white soldiers made the attack. Because our military was still segregated and we were astoundingly racist.

And as I stated in the now purged part of the thread, you called North Africans black, not the people who served in North Africa, the people from North Africa.

Minor semantic quibble. An especially irrelevant one, as the reset allowed my to correct the grammar that you're so hung up on.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here