Battlefield V (2018)

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
The current VO for the female soldiers in BFV are terrible and the player models in general (for both genders) look really stupid. They wanted Bad Company 3 but bailed halfway. The poor implementation - especially compared to BF1 - is not helping their cause.
 

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,844
6,450
C-137
To me, putting females in the game was done to attract more women gamers, nothing else. Don't think they were going for accuracy, obviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saskatoon

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,889
9,737
To me, putting females in the game was done to attract more women gamers, nothing else. Don't think they were going for accuracy, obviously.

So what if they minimalized Japanese and German atrocities during the war in order to "attract more German and Japanese gamers"? Does that cross your line?

For some of us, altering social history in any way in order to make more money crosses that line. Especially given how strongly these games shape young peoples historical world views, as I tried to show in my previous post. I simply find it a slippery slope.
 

IceManCat

#TheFloridaPanthers
Jul 13, 2006
6,087
2,551
The Rat Den
I dont mind the females really, I just dont like that they didn't even try to be semi historically accurate. Whats with the blue faceprint ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dialamo

flyingkiwi

Registered User
Oct 28, 2014
4,315
3,452
France
So far the best critique that I’ve heard of women being in the game was he’s against it if they just turn out another standard soldier story but with chicks. Apparently there are some rather compelling and nuanced stories of women participating in the war which deserve to be explored in their own right, and he hopes the female characters get the detailed treatment they deserve. I’m going to be honest here and say I don’t know enough about both the war and BFV to make my own stand, but this guy’s opinion seemed reasonable.

And to the teacher, I get where you’re coming from. I teach English and it can definitely be tough to deal with students who are informed by wonky sources! I hope you can find a way to leverage the interest your kids have in these games in your classroom. Maybe challenge them to research a presentation on the differences between the events/social background of the game and more accurate historical accounts? If they had to (re)make a video game/movie etc about a historical period using what they’ve learnt, what would they include?
 

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
30,706
16,238
Toruń, PL
Actman describes chicks and Battlefield V absolutely perfectly here...



Nobody hates the addition of female characters, it's the unnecessary forced agenda by the (one example) DICE developer clogging up all the news sections of this game is what gamers really hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dialamo

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
That's a pretty good summary. The quote from the DICE developer that he highlighted is one that I hadn't seen before.
Demize99 (DICE Design Director) said:
I knew this was going to be a fight when I pushed for female soldiers in Battlefield. I have a daughter, and I don't want to ever have to answer her question of "why can't I make a character that looks like me" with "because you're a girl."

I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history.

And I think many people will play the game despite their reservations. And maybe learn something about either history or themselves. That is part of the making games art.

I didn't want to get caught up in this discussion again, but there is so much that's wrong with that quote, IMO.

1) He pretends that the only explanation that he could give his daughter is one that'll make her feel ashamed of her gender. He makes it sound like educating her and helping her to understand that it's nothing to feel bad about isn't even an option.
2) As the guy in the video points out, if his daughter doesn't understand why she can't make characters in WWI and WWII games that look like her, perhaps she's too young to play them.
3) The "character that looks like me" part suggests to me more than just justification of female characters, but justification of the modern appearance and presentation of them. It's not enough for female gamers to get to play a female character. That character must also look distinctly female and modern, with bright red hair, a ponytail and a slim-fitting outfit. This is part of my problem, that there isn't even an attempt at authentically portraying how female soldiers would've looked. There are some photos of women who actually fought and they look a lot more like the men that they fought with than the woman in that trailer.
4) He thinks that he'll end up on the right side of history... by twisting history... which is ironic and makes no sense.
5) Suggesting that people will buy the game despite their reservations comes across as "we can do what we want and you'll still buy the game."
6) Similar to #4, he hopes that people will learn something about history even though it's not actually historical. I don't think that the Wolfenstein developers use educational value to excuse their twisting of history.
7) He suggests that people who have reservations may learn something about themselves. What he must be implying is that some gamers will come to the realization that they hold sexual prejudices and might ultimately learn to become better people because he did them the favor of forcing the issue on them. I can't imagine being much more pretentious than that.
8) He suggests that imposing his beliefs, at the expense of authenticity, on others is an "art." It's not necessarily bad to communicate your beliefs through your work, but you have no business calling what you do "art" if the only way for you to get your point across is to go to the extreme and shove it in people's faces, IMO. True art is about subtlety.
 
Last edited:

542365

2018-19 Cup Champs!
Sponsor
Mar 22, 2012
22,262
8,646
Hysterical how bent out of shape people get about “historical accuracy”. That’s not the issue and you know it. You don’t want women in the game. It really is as simple as that. Nobody actually believes the Battlefield series is some educational military sim. Nobody plays it for historical accuracy. They play it to blow shit up and have fun. Women being in the game is not going to hamper your enjoyment of the game unless you really, truly dislike women. In that case, I’m glad they’re upset. f*** ‘em.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
Hysterical how bent out of shape people get about “historical accuracy”. That’s not the issue and you know it. You don’t want women in the game. It really is as simple as that. Nobody actually believes the Battlefield series is some educational military sim. Nobody plays it for historical accuracy. They play it to blow **** up and have fun. Women being in the game is not going to hamper your enjoyment of the game unless you really, truly dislike women. In that case, I’m glad they’re upset. **** ‘em.

There may be no point, because you've clearly made up your mind, but your assertions deserve correction.

No, "women in the game" is not the issue. First, if you deliberately made that vague enough to imply an issue with women playing the game, you're wrong, as no one has suggested that women not play this game or, to my knowledge, any other WWII game.

Second, if people simply have issue with female avatars because they "really, truly dislike women," where's the criticism of female avatars in so many other games? No one complains about female characters in Overwatch, Fortnite and the like. Why is that? I'm sorry, but it is about historical accuracy.

Third, not everyone who has taken issue has argued that there should be no female avatars at all. Some of us have taken more issue with the representation (build, attire, hair style, makeup, etc.) being anachronistic than just the fact that she's female. Generalizing all complaints the way that you did is wrong.

Fourth, something that bothers some is that it's forced on gamers for questionable reasons and, if you object, even on reasonable grounds (like historical accuracy), you're called out as sexist. Some find that behavior, which you're owning, yourself, to be very distasteful and something to take a stand against.

Finally, but most relevantly, a lot of people do play games like this for the historical flavor. If they just want to "blow **** up and have fun," as you claim, they could go play so many generic games like Overwatch, Fortnite, PUBG, Titanfall, Destiny and others. Many are drawn to historical shooters, instead, because of the opportunity to participate in history, in conflicts that they've read about, watched and imagined what it'd be like. It's fantasy fulfillment, and it tends to be less fulfilling the more things that are clearly ahistorical and out of place.

All of these arguments have been made rather clearly already, yet you've seemingly decided to dismiss them outright and assume a much more sinister explanation. This is an example of why our culture is so toxic, IMO. Too many people would rather assume the worst in others and believe that their arguments are extreme, unreasonable and even offensive than give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand why reasonable people might have them. It's possible to understand and respect where a person is coming from, yet still disagree with his beliefs and arguments, even strongly, but that concept doesn't seem nearly as popular as the alternative.
 
Last edited:

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,844
6,450
C-137
There may be no point, because you've clearly made up your mind, but your assertions deserve correction.

No, "women in the game" is not the issue. First, if you deliberately made that vague enough to imply an issue with women playing the game, you're wrong, as no one has suggested that women not play this game or, to my knowledge, any other WWII game.

Second, if people simply have issue with female avatars because they "really, truly dislike women," where's the criticism of female avatars in so many other games? No one complains about female characters in Overwatch, Fortnite and the like. Why is that? I'm sorry, but it is about historical accuracy.

Third, not everyone who has taken issue has argued that there should be no female avatars at all. Some of us have taken more issue with the representation (build, attire, hair style, makeup, etc.) being anachronistic than just the fact that she's female. Generalizing all complaints the way that you did is wrong.

Fourth, something that bothers some is that it's forced on gamers for questionable reasons and, if you object, even on reasonable grounds (like historical accuracy), you're called out as sexist. Some find that behavior, which you're owning, yourself, to be very distasteful and something to take a stand against.

Finally, but most relevantly, a lot of people do play games like this for the historical flavor. If they just want to "blow **** up and have fun," as you claim, they could go play so many generic games like Overwatch, Fortnite, PUB, Titanfall, Destiny and others. Many are drawn to historical shooters, instead, because of the opportunity to participate in history, in conflicts that they've read about, watched and imagined what it'd be like. It's fantasy fulfillment, and it tends to be less fulfilling the more things that are clearly ahistorical and out of place.

All of these arguments have been made rather clearly already, yet you've seemingly decided to dismiss them outright and assume a much more sinister explanation. This is an example of why our culture is so toxic, IMO. Too many people would rather assume the worst in others and believe that their arguments are extreme, unreasonable and even offensive than give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand why reasonable people might have them. It's possible to understand and respect where a person is coming from, yet still disagree with his beliefs and arguments, even strongly, but that concept doesn't seem nearly as popular as the alternative.
Not trying to touch on the female or historical accuracy, but I play BF because some how in 2018 it's still the only f***ing war game with actual destructible environments and actually feels like you're in a war with multiple battles happening around the map, in the air and water.


Ever since I started playing BF4 as much as I did, I have a really hard time playing games like COD because infinite gredandes can be thrown into a building and there's absolutely no signs of damage. Even games I do like, like PUBG, I wish I could throw a few nades and take down a building on someone. And that just boggles my mind how most games still don't make their environments destructible.
 

542365

2018-19 Cup Champs!
Sponsor
Mar 22, 2012
22,262
8,646
There may be no point, because you've clearly made up your mind, but your assertions deserve correction.

No, "women in the game" is not the issue. First, if you deliberately made that vague enough to imply an issue with women playing the game, you're wrong, as no one has suggested that women not play this game or, to my knowledge, any other WWII game.

Second, if people simply have issue with female avatars because they "really, truly dislike women," where's the criticism of female avatars in so many other games? No one complains about female characters in Overwatch, Fortnite and the like. Why is that? I'm sorry, but it is about historical accuracy.

Third, not everyone who has taken issue has argued that there should be no female avatars at all. Some of us have taken more issue with the representation (build, attire, hair style, makeup, etc.) being anachronistic than just the fact that she's female. Generalizing all complaints the way that you did is wrong.

Fourth, something that bothers some is that it's forced on gamers for questionable reasons and, if you object, even on reasonable grounds (like historical accuracy), you're called out as sexist. Some find that behavior, which you're owning, yourself, to be very distasteful and something to take a stand against.

Finally, but most relevantly, a lot of people do play games like this for the historical flavor. If they just want to "blow **** up and have fun," as you claim, they could go play so many generic games like Overwatch, Fortnite, PUB, Titanfall, Destiny and others. Many are drawn to historical shooters, instead, because of the opportunity to participate in history, in conflicts that they've read about, watched and imagined what it'd be like. It's fantasy fulfillment, and it tends to be less fulfilling the more things that are clearly ahistorical and out of place.

All of these arguments have been made rather clearly already, yet you've seemingly decided to dismiss them outright and assume a much more sinister explanation. This is an example of why our culture is so toxic, IMO. Too many people would rather assume the worst in others and believe that their arguments are extreme, unreasonable and even offensive than give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand why reasonable people might have them. It's possible to understand and respect where a person is coming from, yet still disagree with his beliefs and arguments, even strongly, but that concept doesn't seem nearly as popular as the alternative.

You call this "fantasy fulfillment". I agree with you entirely there. The game is fun(or rather, will be fun) because you get the chance to live out your fantasy as a badass soldier with your squad. Why shouldn't women be given this same opportunity? There are many accounts of women fighting in this war. Why should they be off limits? Why shouldn't my wife be given the opportunity to play the game as a character who looks like her? Who does this inclusion harm? Why can't she roleplay as one of the badass women who served their country while I get the opportunity to roleplay as one of the badass men who did? Women fought in the war, their exclusion would actually be historically inaccurate. The Battlefield series has never been a military simulation. It's a game first and foremost. Yes, they base these games on real-world conflicts and tend to keep things semi-historically accurate, but it's about providing enjoyment. It's a form of entertainment. The inclusion of female soldiers makes the game more entertaining to a huge subsection of the population and only harms those who play this game for a history lesson(which is obviously a pretty bad move to begin with considering these games have never been entirely accurate) or those who hate women, to which again I say f*** 'em. Their opinion doesn't matter. It's absolutely nothing to get bent out of shape about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saskatoon

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
You call this "fantasy fulfillment". I agree with you entirely there. The game is fun(or rather, will be fun) because you get the chance to live out your fantasy as a badass soldier with your squad. Why shouldn't women be given this same opportunity? There are many accounts of women fighting in this war. Why should they be off limits? Why shouldn't my wife be given the opportunity to play the game as a character who looks like her? Who does this inclusion harm? Why can't she roleplay as one of the badass women who served their country while I get the opportunity to roleplay as one of the badass men who did? Women fought in the war, their exclusion would actually be historically inaccurate. The Battlefield series has never been a military simulation. It's a game first and foremost. Yes, they base these games on real-world conflicts and tend to keep things semi-historically accurate, but it's about providing enjoyment. It's a form of entertainment. The inclusion of female soldiers makes the game more entertaining to a huge subsection of the population and only harms those who play this game for a history lesson(which is obviously a pretty bad move to begin with considering these games have never been entirely accurate)...

That's actually a fair argument and I wish that you had made that in the first place, instead of making the argument that you did.

If women have fantasies of fighting in WWII with other women, there are other ways of satisfying it that wouldn't hurt the historical feel as much. One that I've already mentioned is making the female models look a lot more like the male models, similar to how actual female soldiers in history and modern times have looked quite a bit like their male counterparts. If there are dozens of women running around the WWII battlefield, but, at first glance, they don't look too much different from the men, it wouldn't hurt the historical feel as much.

Unfortunately, and despite the developers implying that it's only about the social justification, EA and DICE want to milk gamers for paid character customization like the developers of Fortnite have made a fortune doing. That's the real issue here, not being "on the right side of history," as the developer suggested. They want women avatars in the game so that women will pay to customize them with cute haircuts and sexy outfits (not to mention with mechanical arms). No woman is going to pay to customize a male avatar, after all. It's not just about them, though. The male avatars have their own ridiculous customization options, such as beards and face paint, that break the historical feel, as well.

Basically, there could've been a compromise that men and women could've both lived with, IMO, but EA/DICE's decision to go the Fortnite route of monetization of character customization has made that impossible and created the controversy that we have. There's nothing inherently wrong with charging for character customization, but such customization has little to no place in historical war games, IMO. Now, if there's an option for those who don't want to see others' customizations to turn them off, that'll be most welcome, but I'm a little doubtful that EA will allow it, since people might buy fewer customizations if they know that fewer people will see them.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
They ran another alpha. It's still not great. The alpha build is months behind the beta build. So you guys will get to play something significantly better than what I put up with.

That said, the game isn't pre-selling well and Patrik Soderlund jumped ship preemptively. The marketing has been terrible for this game.
 

SolidSnakeUS

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 13, 2009
48,829
12,278
Baldwinsville, NY
Honestly, yeah, the marketing feels almost non-existent. Like to be honest, outside of me actually reinstalling BF4 recently, I forgot that V was coming out.
 

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,844
6,450
C-137
Battle Royale tease at the end.

I keep telling my friends Battlefield is going to have the best BR mode. They have the advantage in using vehicles, destructible environments and usually have much better large maps.
 

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,094
10,545
Hysterical how bent out of shape people get about “historical accuracy”. That’s not the issue and you know it. You don’t want women in the game. It really is as simple as that. Nobody actually believes the Battlefield series is some educational military sim. Nobody plays it for historical accuracy. They play it to blow **** up and have fun. Women being in the game is not going to hamper your enjoyment of the game unless you really, truly dislike women. In that case, I’m glad they’re upset. **** ‘em.

So you're telling me that soldiers didn't get blown up by tanks and grenades only to get revived by injection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WubbaLubbaDubDub

542365

2018-19 Cup Champs!
Sponsor
Mar 22, 2012
22,262
8,646
So you're telling me that soldiers didn't get blown up by tanks and grenades only to get revived by injection?
Or a completely untrained soldier flying a jet one minute and captaining a tank the next. Or running around with rifles that amazingly never jam no matter how rough you treat them. I want my soldier cleaning his f***ing gun daily, eating shitty rations, and getting terrible leg cramps from walking all day. I want some of the sliders to just straight up never see fighting. They walk and walk and walk and never once encounter a gun fight. Let's take it all the way. You live one life for the entire game. You get drafted, go to basic training, get sent to the front lines, die a horrible death, and then the game closes permanently. Your digital loved ones are devastated. You have to buy another copy to start another life.

It's f***ing stupid. At some point you have to accept that they're making a game first and foremost. They're not trying to rewrite history, they're not trying to push some agenda down your throat, they're trying to make a game that is fun to as many people as possible. Plenty of other documentaries and textbooks about historical wars. Video games are meant for fun first and foremost.

EDIT: Just to make it clear none of this is directed at you. Clearly you're on the side of the rational human beings.
 

XX

Waiting for Ishbia
Dec 10, 2002
54,886
14,502
PHX
Or a completely untrained soldier flying a jet one minute and captaining a tank the next. Or running around with rifles that amazingly never jam no matter how rough you treat them. I want my soldier cleaning his ****ing gun daily, eating ****ty rations, and getting terrible leg cramps from walking all day. I want some of the sliders to just straight up never see fighting. They walk and walk and walk and never once encounter a gun fight. Let's take it all the way. You live one life for the entire game. You get drafted, go to basic training, get sent to the front lines, die a horrible death, and then the game closes permanently. Your digital loved ones are devastated. You have to buy another copy to start another life.

It's ****ing stupid. At some point you have to accept that they're making a game first and foremost. They're not trying to rewrite history, they're not trying to push some agenda down your throat, they're trying to make a game that is fun to as many people as possible. Plenty of other documentaries and textbooks about historical wars. Video games are meant for fun first and foremost.

EDIT: Just to make it clear none of this is directed at you. Clearly you're on the side of the rational human beings.

Sexist manbabies have made a point to brigade this game because they can try to hide behind the 'realism' argument. Nobody cared when CoD put in women. That game sold like hotcakes.
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
I worry about this game, with Soderlund jumping ship and from what I've seen.

I hope I'm wrong. We're overdue for a good new Battlefield, and it seems EA may have "learned" a little on the pay-to-win being a no-no in these types of games front.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->