Ryan HartmannThis past week, EA and DICE announced the next installment in their critically acclaimed and commercially lucrative Battlefield franchise. Going back to World War II for the first time in several installments, the game also features female soldiers in prominent combat roles. This revelation went about as well as you’d expect, if you’ve been following gaming at all over the past five years, with hordes of angry young men protesting the “politically motivated” attempts at “social justice”:
How dare this company force (gasp!) women on this obviously male-dominated industry (that is actually female-dominated if you go by the raw numbers). How dare they ignore their user-base (by choosing to be more representative and inclusive of their user-base). How dare they ignore “historical accuracy” by depicting women fighting in a war they never fought in (that they actually fought in). It’s a real “clusterwhoops”, alright. Let’s see if we can’t break this down and get to the root of the problem.
Let’s dispense with that last argument first: Women most definitely did fight in World War II. Yes, even on the front lines. Yes, in large numbers, up to 100,000 in some countries. Women played a central role in all aspects of the war effort, even if they weren’t typically part of America’s or Britain’s fighting forces (though several did serve on the front lines in the Air Force, and more than 350,000 women served in the US armed forces during the conflict both at home and abroad). Sometimes it’s easy to forget that this was called World War II for a reason; by the end of the war, almost every nation in the world had joined the fray to some capacity. Many of these nations employed women in combat roles, several of whom were highly decorated. The former nation of Yugoslavia (now Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo) had military forces exceeding half a million, and women made up over 100,000 of their fighters. Russia, which played a central role in the eventual defeat of the Axis powers, deployed women in both their infantry and their air forces while much of the French Resistance was made up of, and led by, women. Those who genuinely care about historical accuracy are generally aware of this, but historical accuracy was never the issue here, any more than “ethics in games journalism” was the real issue behind Gamergate.
But that’s really beside the point, because DICE has never been particularly concerned with historical accuracy (nor should it be), which makes any concerns about historical accuracy either hilariously ignorant or hilariously disingenuous; take your pick. Battlefield games have always played fast and loose with history, even when portraying ostensibly historical events. Liberties are always taken in creative media to portray more dramatic narratives, which is exactly what DICE has always done. In that context, it should only matter whether women in combat roles can aid in creating the sort of dramatic narrative that the game is going for. On that front I think the obvious answer is “yes”.
One of the few things these outspoken “critics” seem neither willing nor able to acknowledge is that the inclusion of women in games can really only benefit everyone, unless your only real objections are based in juvenile misogyny. Women comprise more than 50% of the global population; they, and their stories, are central to the human dynamic and understanding who we are. The more often they are represented in the stories we collectively tell, as an attempt at acquiring that understanding, the better.
Even more important is the realization that games as a medium do not belong to any one group of people. Video games most certainly do not belong to this extremely vocal minority group of young, (mostly) white males who presume to be the gatekeepers of acceptable representation. One of the best things about games is that, no matter who you are in real life, once you’re in a game you can become anybody, or anything. Your imagination, and the imagination of developers, is your only limitation. The notion that we should only ever be allowed to be men, or as is more often the case white men, is really just a feeble plea from insecure little boys to handicap the possibilities of gaming in order to assuage their fragile egos. If women in games bother you so much that you place faux-historical accuracy above equal representation, it’s probably time to put down the controller and get some fresh air.
So a world war 2 game with women on the front lines? Maybe some black female Nazi officers? How about we give them a Tec-9 and maybe some Uzi’s. Since it doesn’t have to resemble WW2 or be accurate. Maybe in WW1 we could have unicorns?
As I pointed out repeatedly in this article, with links to credible sources should anyone wish to verify my claims, women most certainly fought on the front lines in World War II. If you actually want historical accuracy, you want women on the battlefield.
I’m aware that women also fought in the war. But they were less than 1%. So having them in the game to be inclusive doesn’t give a very accurate account of what happened. I look at the number of deaths and the number of male deaths in regard to women’s is so such a massive, massive difference that having them in the game to represent the 1% seems like it’s been put in to be Politically correct as apposed to historically accurate. If they want to make a 50/50 war game then fine. Don’t call it ww2 because that’s now what happened!
The numbers you cited add up to women being less than 2% of the total number of soldier who lived on the front line. Yeah women really doninated world war 2 guys.
The Soviets did use female soldiers, but this game takes place on the western front, and the Brits did most definitely not have female soldiers with prosthetic limbs and blue face paint.
There were female French resistance fighters, and no one would have complained if this was a scene of allied troops fighting along French resistance fighters. But it’s not, and here we are.
It wasn’t just the Russians. Hundreds of thousands of women fought in WWII; England was but one of dozens of nations involved in the war. Also, why is this the only area in which people are suddenly eager to enforce “historical accuracy”? These games have always been cartoonishly inaccurate and nobody cared… until women showed up.
Nobody cared about call of duty being accurate because nobody takes that franchise seriously. But battlefield is a different game.
But not on the front lines where the game takes place. The difference is between being unrealistic for the sake of gameplay and hardware limitations, or being unrealistic for no sane reason. It’s the latter that has got people up in arms so to speak.
They most certainly fought on the front lines in the European theater (please feel free to follow the links provided in the article 🙂 ), but even if they hadn’t, the idea that *this* issue is what breaks anyone’s historical immersion is what is truly puzzling to me.
Battlefield games have always been a cartoon where historical accuracy ranks somewhere near the bottom of the list of priorities. Nothing about these games have ever been remotely historically accurate, so why is historical accuracy suddenly so important, but only important in relation to females being in the game? And if it’s so important, why are none of the people who are complaining about this taking any time whatsoever to look up the actual history of the war?
That’s no True, battlefield games have always picked a war that was known, it had weapons and vehicles that were relevant to that setting or point in history. They take bullet drop and vehicle physics seriously as well as the firearms. So saying it’s a cartoon war game makes you look ignorant.
Are you purposely acting dense. It seems people are pretty what they object to.
There is a difference between ignoring historical accuracy due to functional reasons(we are not actually shooting guns. We are clicking a mouse) compared to demanding us to believe in a lie.
Exactly. Female characters is fine in a game. But forcing them in to something thats meant to be historically accurate is just nonesense. If they weren’t trying to represent something that happened why make it about ww2? Why not be realistic and make it about a fantasy war where women fought on the front lines in the same capacity as men instead of rewriting history so they don’t seem sexist.
Ryan don’t waste your breath, the majority that are up in arms have the same logical mindset as Trump. No matter how many facts are placed in front of them they will choose to ignore them.
Even if you look at the 1% statement from Gow, that alone should make it ok, since Battlefields single player component have almost exclusively focused on just a few soldiers, usually not even a full squad.
No matter how it is looked at, EA is using a specific era to model a “game” after, so if people don’t want to accept the fact that women did fight in the war, then at least accept that the developers are allowed to have creative liberties. And if that still isn’t enough then GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE!
Are you seriously going to make this about Trump? I don’t even like the guy, but I support him anyway because it’s hysterically funny to see him cause mental breakdowns among SJWs.
I know, bringing up trump in a discussion about our video gaming hobby. Maybe you should just call me a racist misogynistic white man as well. Go all out
You are misogynistic, you are crying that virtual women are ruining your gaming. Bigot
Good job you fucking idiot
So you are ok with bigotry? Which is exactly what you are showing in this article. Nothing to see here, just a bunch of manchildren crying like their leader in office.
Majority that are up in arms? The people who buy and play the game in question? So there opinion is not relevant because you have decided that I have the same political views as Trump? Fair enough. Clearly the people who want women in unrealistic war scenarios must be Hillary supporters. And the 1% comment was me rounding up. It’s actually far less than 1%.
You’ll have to show me the statistics for female soldier deaths in the war. Not at home, not civilians, on the front line in the mud. Or is your arguement that “it’s what the fans want”. Yet here we are, the fans saying it’s nonesense. You can’t just change history to be politically correct.
Just look up any of the documentaries or books on Russian Female Snipers. Nearly 2,000 served and only 500 made it through the war. That was just one role that women served in WWII in Russia they also served as pilots, tank operators, medics, gunners.
The amount of deaths that women had has no bearing on those that served.
Oh and yes your opinion is irrelevant, so is mine, they(EA) are the only opinions that matter since they are creating the game, if they want to put aliens in it they can and neither of us could do anything about it.
Of course the amount of deaths is relevant. And I know about the Russian female brigade. But 1500 deaths compared to millions of men is a shocking different. Changing history is massivelly disrespectful to the sacrifices men have had to make for centuries. So our lack of ability to change anything means we shouldn’t discuss it? So what’s your opinion piece right here doing?
So in a way using your logic, you could argue America didn’t even participate in the Persian Gulf war. Seeing as we had only 149 KIA vs. at minimum 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. Even when they reviewed the status of the US Vets 10 years later the number only climbed to around 5,000, many of which were suspected gas attacks.
Deaths are not relevant to the status of serving in a theater or the military for that matter.
And the snipers were only one part of the over 800,000 women Russia deployed. So the total number is gonna be much higher than 1,500. And again this is only Russia i’ve talked about many nations used woman on the front during WWII.
You need to understand i come from a military family, i’m one of the only people in my family that didn’t enlist, so yes i am offended when you try to act like a group didn’t participate because they suffered a much lower mortality rate. That will offend anyone who has served.
Well I’m glad we’ve at least moved on from the factually indefensible argument that women never fought on the front lines. At least we’re getting somewhere 🙂
The number of women who fought on the front lines is entirely irrelevant, even if your argument is about historical accuracy. This game is not claiming that women were a dominant, ever present force on the battlefield, just that they were *there* (and they absolutely were).
But again, this misses the point since DICE has never claimed that Battlefield games are intended to be even remotely historically accurate. And nobody ever cried about historical accuracy until black people and women started showing up in the games, despite there being a blatant disregard for all aspects of history in all previous games.
If you want historical accuracy in your war games, you most definitely have options. You can play Verdun, or Post Scriptum. Battlefield is not the hill you want to die on if historical accuracy is your main complaint, because this should be a series you never bothered with to begin with.
If you’re going to ignore all the other ways in which this series (and others) distort or just plain ignore history, it seems a bit odd to suddenly be very concerned about history as it relates specifically to this one issue.
It’s just a woman, fellas. They’re all over the place, even on the Battlefield 🙂
So in a way using your logic, you could argue America didn’t even participate in the Persian Gulf war. Seeing as we had only 149 KIA vs. at minimum 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. Even when they reviewed the status of the US Vets 10 years later the number only climbed to around 5,000, many of which were suspected gas attacks.
Deaths are not relevant to the status of serving in a theater or the military for that matter.
And the snipers were only one part of the over 800,000 women Russia deployed. So the total number is gonna be much higher than 1,500. And again this is only Russia i’ve talked about many nations used woman on the front during WWII.
You need to understand i come from a military family, i’m one of the only people in my family that didn’t enlist, so yes i am offended when you try to act like a group didn’t participate because they suffered a much lower mortality rate. That will offend anyone who has served.
“You can’t just change history to be politically correct”
Now go say that in a mirror several times, or as many times as is needed for it to sink in.
What? Sorry I thought I was having a sensible conversation with an Adult.
Majority that are up in arms? The people who buy and play the game in question? So there opinion is not relevant because you have decided that I have the same political views as Trump? Fair enough. Clearly the people who want women in unrealistic war scenarios must be Hillary supporters. And the 1% comment was me rounding up. It’s actually far less than 1%.
But not on the front lines where the game takes place. The difference is between being unrealistic for the sake of gameplay and hardware limitations, or being unrealistic for no sane reason. It’s the latter that has got people up in arms so to speak.
And this has always been one of the dumber aspects of the battlefield games. No one is forcing then to set themselves in the past. The games demand credibility but their also silly in their over the top aspects.
At least fortnite and CoD are honest regarding their stupidity.
British women fought on the front line? Shite.
The Soviets did use female soldiers, but this game takes place on the western front, and the Brits did most definitely not have female soldiers with prosthetic limbs and blue face paint.
There were female French resistance fighters, and no one would have complained if this was a scene of allied troops fighting along French resistance fighters. But it’s not, and here we are.
Game of Thrones is not realistic, but the fans would still get upset if the archers traded in their bows and arrows for machine guns.
It’s not OK to add things that weren’t there to a game that takes place during WW2 and making it look like Fortnite, and the old fans aren’t sexist for pointing it out.
Game of Thrones is not realistic, but the fans would still get upset if the archers traded in their bows and arrows for machine guns.
It’s not OK to add things that weren’t there to a game that takes place during WW2 and making it look like Fortnite, and the old fans aren’t sexist for pointing it out.
It’s ridiculous that something like this needs to be said, but good on you for saying it, Ryan. I don’t recall Battlefield ever being particularly focused on being a sombre simulation prioritising realism anyway, but people are acting like this has suddenly broke their immersion.
I actually had no reaction at all to the female characters in this, to the point I didn’t even acknowledge it. I was watching the trailer and trying to work out what might actually be gameplay or a representation of features. When the ‘DICE say female characters are here to stay’ articles started popping up I thought it was a dig at Ubisoft’s insistence that female player models were an impossible feat. It was only later that I realised what it actually was.
Since then I’ve seen people coming up with as many stupid objections to the game as possible, things like there being too much colour (as if people lived in sepia back then) or that World War 2 shooters should only be serious, accurate reflections of a terrible conflict (as if the genre didn’t start with Wolfenstein 3D). It’s all just… ugh.
So you’re trying to counter arguments no one is actually making, using shitposts on Twitter as proof. Amazing. The absolute state of gaming journalism. This whole article is a joke.
Another shit post by a kid
Cant wait to buy this day one over the trash that is Call of Duty
STAFF NOTE – Let’s make sure that we’re all being respectful and civil in our discussions. Everyone is free to have their own opinions on the content, but personal attacks of other members, whether you agree with the editorial or not, are not acceptable.
We’re here to talk about games and gaming, not yell at each other. Let’s keep that in mind. Thanks.
So now you wan’t to be respectful and civil? That is actually funny seeing how for the past 6 years the gaming press has been demonizing it’s own readers as racist sexist woman-hating neckbeard basement dwellers.
PSXE is not “the gaming press” at large and neither am I. If you have a beef with other sites’ editors calling you a neckbeard or a basement dweller, you’ll need to take it up with them.
Pointing out sexist comments of the type highlighted by this article is not being disrespectful; it is merely observing and commenting on that behavior, and those types of comments are objectively sexist.
If you disagree with any point of this editorial and want to continue discussing it, that’s more than welcome. No one is required to agree with me or any other PSXE staffer, and no one is prohibited from criticizing my work if they don’t like it.
However, when debating or discussing topics with other members of the community, in this or any other article on PSXE, you need to maintain a civil tone, as do they. Name calling, personal attacks and insults by *anyone* are off limits. It’s that simple, and it’s non-negotiable.
Thank you for reading.
PSXE is not “the gaming press” at large and neither am I. If you have a beef with other sites’ editors calling you a neckbeard or a basement dweller, you’ll need to take it up with them.
Pointing out sexist comments of the type highlighted by this article is not being disrespectful; it is merely observing and commenting on that behavior, and those types of comments are objectively sexist.
If you disagree with any point of this editorial and want to continue discussing it, that’s more than welcome. No one is required to agree with me or any other PSXE staffer, and no one is prohibited from criticizing my work if they don’t like it.
However, when debating or discussing topics with other members of the community, in this or any other article on PSXE, you need to maintain a civil tone, as do they. Name calling, personal attacks and insults by *anyone* are off limits. It’s that simple, and it’s non-negotiable.
Thank you for reading.
So now you wan’t to be respectful and civil? That is actually funny seeing how for the past 6 years the gaming press has been demonizing it’s own readers as racist sexist woman-hating neckbeard basement dwellers.
So I think you’ve heavily misconstrued the argument. First off, yes women served on the front lines, not going to argue that. But you say Battlefield has never been a series about accuracy and that’s inherently not true. Yes, it has had some silly things here and there (railguns, tiny pistols, M1 Garand’s in modern times) but for the most part it has stayed faithful to the era that it drew from. That changed with Battlefield 1 where they decided to ditch the accuracy of the era in favor of faster gameplay, a decision that I still believe to be a mistake. My main issue with the game is the gonzo Tarantino-esque vibe. Why does a British soldier have a katana? Why is there a person running around with a prosthetic arm on the front line? Why are they using Highland blue warpaint, similar to the Scottish warriors, but they are British? Why aren’t they wearing proper uniforms? None of it makes any sort of sense. And before you give me anything about pilot’s who had prosthesis, think about that, pilots, not infantry. The most you could lose was a leg, the prosthetic for that worked well enough. But losing an arm is something else entirely. In the 30′ and 40’s the technology just wasn’t there to make the arm fully functional, our tech is barely getting there. She wouldn’t be able to hold or fire her gun, nor would she have been able to use the spiked cricket bat (again gonzo and stupid). I wouldn’t mind if this game wasn’t attached to the Battlefield name or if they didn’t put it in real WWII (looking at you Wolfenstien TNO, love that game). This game is jarring for what fans of the series have come to expect.
I hate that you misconstrue GG as well. It definitely was about ethics, John Bain was a leading voice behind that and there was definitively shady practices going on behind the scenes. Former GIO editor Mike Futter broke the silence on the journalist mailing list which showed site collusion, dev care packages to and from publications, and an effort by mainstream site to ‘kill’ the term ‘gamer’. This isn’t conspiracy, this is stuff you can find in a google search.
Lastly, I find it sad that you have to generalize the push back to young white males. Everyone I’ve seen criticize this have been all over the spectrum of race and gender, but if that were the case it would deflate your narrative wouldn’t it? Only a very small group of close minded people complain about playing as a woman or man. Yes, there are people who complain about playing as men. But for most player, like 99%, they don’t mind playing someone who doesn’t look like them. I love Tomb Raider (especially the reboot), Mirror’s Edge, and Remember Me. Ellie’s chapter in TLoU and her DLC The Left Behind were amazing moments where I genuinely cried. Playing Prey as both male and female Morgan was a blast. This has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with presentation.
P.S.: Dice also said they are adding body type options to the game, I find this ridiculous in the extreme. So were there obese soldiers in WWII, probably but I’d assume not many. There were boot camps for a reason. Also does playing as a larger character make your hitbox bigger? If not then that will lead to inherent imbalance. There’s a reason most video game protagonists and soldiers are fit.
Anybody remember the days when we didn’t need articles like this because people just enjoyed video games? And for the record it’s not just one side either. There are plenty of women who complain about stupid things in regards to game centered around men. The main thing being I can’t relate because it’s a man,’ and we’re all supposed to acknowledge that bs but as soon as a dude says he doesn’t want to play, say, Horizon because he can’t relate to a female he’s an evil, white male, Trump-supporting nazi who lacks empathy. Don’t pretend this stupidity doesn’t happen which is why we get dumb tweets like the ones present in this article, in response to women in games. One moronic extreme leads to another equally moronic extreme.
On the plus side, those who just like to cause a stir are definitely very small in number compared to normal people, even in the internet community. I follow a lot of youtube gamers, male and female, and different ethnic backgrounds, and they just enjoy playing good games with great stories and well written characters. I’ve seen many guys (and I’m one as well) who love Horizon: Zero Dawn and Tomb Raider and there’s a large number of women who love the Nathan Drake-led Uncharteds and the God of War games (even the original trilogy). The problem is the normal people get drowned out because the vocal minority are the ones in positions to make their voices heard.
Hey Gamer83,
Thank you for the response, it was well thought and articulated. I agree that some people definitely go over the top with the reactionary responses to opinions they disagree with. I truly believe I didn’t make that mistake, and that I was clear I was talking about a very specific group.
Ryan
Just for clarification I’m not necessarily calling you out, though I can see it came off that way a bit. I think all of us in the internet gaming community, myself included, have a tendency to go to extremes too much these days but I’m trying to get better at it. I actually was very ‘anti-SJW’ until I had some heated discussions last year around the time Horizon Zero Dawn came out. All I wanted to do was chat with people about the game but I made the mistake of going to gamefaqs to do that and the game’s dedicate forum was filled with idiotic stuff like ‘feminist agenda.’ Tried reasoning with people that they were looking too hard for something that wasn’t there and after about 5 responses going back and forth and getting no where I realized ‘SJWs’ and ‘anti-SJWs’ are two fictitious groups. The two groups that do exist are those who just want to hate everything, and then those of us who want to enjoy games and have good discussion without having to sift through the nonsense. But the internet is what it is.
So I think you’ve heavily misconstrued the argument. First off, yes women served on the front lines, not going to argue that. But you say Battlefield has never been a series about accuracy and that’s inherently not true. Yes, it has had some silly things here and there (railguns, tiny pistols, M1 Garand’s in modern times) but for the most part it has stayed faithful to the era that it drew from. That changed with Battlefield 1 where they decided to ditch the accuracy of the era in favor of faster gameplay, a decision that I still believe to be a mistake. My main issue with the game is the gonzo Tarantino-esque vibe. Why does a British soldier have a katana? Why is there a person running around with a prosthetic arm on the front line? Why are they using Highland blue warpaint, similar to the Scottish warriors, but they are British? Why aren’t they wearing proper uniforms? None of it makes any sort of sense. And before you give me anything about pilot’s who had prosthesis, think about that, pilots, not infantry. The most you could lose was a leg, the prosthetic for that worked well enough. But losing an arm is something else entirely. In the 30′ and 40’s the technology just wasn’t there to make the arm fully functional, our tech is barely getting there. She wouldn’t be able to hold or fire her gun, nor would she have been able to use the spiked cricket bat (again gonzo and stupid). I wouldn’t mind if this game wasn’t attached to the Battlefield name or if they didn’t put it in real WWII (looking at you Wolfenstien TNO, love that game). This game is jarring for what fans of the series have come to expect.
I hate that you misconstrue GG as well. It definitely was about ethics, John Bain was a leading voice behind that and there was definitively shady practices going on behind the scenes. Former GIO editor Mike Futter broke the silence on the journalist mailing list which showed site collusion, dev care packages to and from publications, and an effort by mainstream site to ‘kill’ the term ‘gamer’. This isn’t conspiracy, this is stuff you can find in a google search.
Lastly, I find it sad that you have to generalize the push back to young white males. Everyone I’ve seen criticize this have been all over the spectrum of race and gender, but if that were the case it would deflate your narrative wouldn’t it? Only a very small group of close minded people complain about playing as a woman or man. Yes, there are people who complain about playing as men. But for most player, like 99%, they don’t mind playing someone who doesn’t look like them. I love Tomb Raider (especially the reboot), Mirror’s Edge, and Remember Me. Ellie’s chapter in TLoU and her DLC The Left Behind were amazing moments where I genuinely cried. Playing Prey as both male and female Morgan was a blast. This has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with presentation.
P.S.: Dice also said they are adding body type options to the game, I find this ridiculous in the extreme. So were there obese soldiers in WWII, probably but I’d assume not many. There were boot camps for a reason. Also does playing as a larger character make your hitbox bigger? If not then that will lead to inherent imbalance. There’s a reason most video game protagonists and soldiers are fit.
It makes me sad that no one has responded. I thought I made some pretty decent points.
Hi Foreseer,
I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to respond before now. E3 week is crazy busy and I just didn’t have the time to check this article again for new comments. Hopefully you have email notifications turned on and you see this reply 🙂
To your point about my claim that Battlefield is not a series concerned with historical accuracy – you start off by admitting that there are several instances in which the developer willingly departs from historical accuracy. If you can tolerate those inconsistencies, why not a perceived inconsistency about gender? That DICE sometimes adheres to history doesn’t mean they’re obligated to do so all the time, and we both agree that they often don’t, so I don’t see how this is the line in the sand.
As for my claim about white men being the primary movers behind this – in the larger picture, yes this is indisputably a movement of young, white men. While there are some people of different races who will have similar opinions, the push against diversity in gaming is inherently a product of angry white men who do not understand that other people having equal rights does not in any way diminish their own.
The outcry over women in Battlefield V does not exist in a vacuum. It’s part of the larger argument that has consumed the industry for the last four years, ever since Gamergate became a term. I’ve been a part of this community as a player and a critic for 20 years, I’ve participated in the larger related communities for most of that time, and in my experience it is overwhelmingly white males who take issue with things like this, and for obvious reasons.
There is a problem of representation in games, and it does need to be addressed sooner rather than later. I’m all for developers like DICE doing so in games that do not require strict adherence to historical events, especially when the liberties taken are only to represent the essence of the event instead of the details, which I think is a good description of most BF games.
Again, I’m sorry for the late reply. Thank you for reading and commenting, I truly appreciate all feedback, even (perhaps even especially) feedback that disagrees with me. Like everyone, my views deserve to be challenged and I enjoy the opportunity to discuss and defend and/or re-evaluate them 🙂
Ryan Hartmann
Reviews Editor
Thank you for the reply. I understand, E3 has been busy for me as well, while I didn’t get to attend this year, where I write has been going nuts over this year’s announcements.
My first point was to draw parallels to some of the liberties taken with historical accuracy and context and see how they stack up against the way BFV was presented. The thing is, while some things don’t completely adhere 100%, no one is asking for that. To illustrate, you’ve already misconstrued my argument, though most likely no fault of your own. I address that yes, women were in WWII and they even had combat roles, limited or otherwise. My main criticism is the vibe the trailer gave off, it was a Tarantino/Bay bombast craziness. I’ve shown the trailer to several people since it was released and all of them asked me verbally, “What war is this?” I of course tell them it’s WWII. Their confusion stems from the lack of direction or tone set by the trailer.
When talking about the push back, let’s stop a second. Have you taken any time to wonder why white men or men in general push back against what you say? It’s because they no longer feel welcomed to the table of discussion. I know I often don’t feel welcome because of my race, gender, or sexual orientation. Many young men feel that way these days, especially when it’s forced down their throats that’s it us who are the problem. The people who are stirring the controversy pot are a relatively small group, but when the media (including your article, not attacking, just citing) paints in broad strokes it only pushes ‘normal’ (I hate that term) men away from your discussion. Generalizing only leads to more problems. Look at the last sentence in your third paragraph. “[I]nherently a product of angry white men who do not understand that other people having equal rights does not in any way diminish their own”. What message does that send? It sends the idea that white men, in general, are somehow the problem. While the argument is mostly from men I would ask you to look at the argumentative channels on Youtube that have discussed BFV. A great video is from AppaBend, an Indonesian man, who brings up plenty of points about the criticism the trailer has received.
Next the point is on GamerGate. In 2014 when the term exploded into internet culture I didn’t quite understand it, in fact I was squarely against it, I even supported Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. But after about a year I dug into both sides of it. I found that the most prominent voices in GG brought up good points about ethics in journalism. While I wish no bad faith towards you or this site, there was damning evidence of site collusion, paid scores, and more that I listed above. The insults flew after most media outlets took fire at GG, using both Anita and Quinn as proof of harassment committed by GG. GG has never claimed any responsibility for anything thrown her way. But the gaming community at large was enraged that sites and publications tried to make the term ‘gamer’ a mark of ‘impurity’. This is where the anger stemmed from. There is a much larger conversation around this topic but if you would like to continue discussing it I can link you sources and info.
Lastly, you are right. We need better representation in games, but trying to force it on others or vilify those that might raise an objection is not how you accomplish that. You make representation the norm, look at Life is Strange, The Last of Us, Gone Home (even if the ‘twist’ was a little predictable), Horizon Zero Dawn. Those games had female and queer leads but didn’t make a fuss about it. Rather they wrote the story they wanted to tell and made a product that people loved. The best take away from E3 for me was Cyberpunk 2077. They sat down and gave an interview in which they talked about the romance options. They laid out that since you are a custom character you define your sexuality. You can be Gay, Straight, Bi, monogamous or polyamorus. But that wasn’t the part that made me happy, what made me and so many others happy was that they treated it like it was normal. They didn’t try to make it into a statement, they talked about it as if they were talking about IRL relationships, with all the complexities those have. That is real representation and I hope more devs come to see that. Then we will truly make games for everyone. I’ve been gaming for over 20 years as well and have now leveraged that experience into writing games critique for a site, something I’ve always wanted to do. Just a side note but writing my first controversial take was probably the most nerve-wracking moment of my life but I proud of what I put out and my boss was super supportive. Gaming has always been special to me and my girlfriend, it’s shaped huge parts of our lives. And it only makes me happy to see more people enjoy this medium, I just don’t want others to feel excluded in the process.
Hi Foreseer,
I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to respond before now. E3 week is crazy busy and I just didn’t have the time to check this article again for new comments. Hopefully you have email notifications turned on and you see this reply 🙂
To your point about my claim that Battlefield is not a series concerned with historical accuracy – you start off by admitting that there are several instances in which the developer willingly departs from historical accuracy. If you can tolerate those inconsistencies, why not a perceived inconsistency about gender? That DICE sometimes adheres to history doesn’t mean they’re obligated to do so all the time, and we both agree that they often don’t, so I don’t see how this is the line in the sand.
As for my claim about white men being the primary movers behind this – in the larger picture, yes this is indisputably a movement of young, white men. While there are some people of different races who will have similar opinions, the push against diversity in gaming is inherently a product of angry white men who do not understand that other people having equal rights does not in any way diminish their own.
The outcry over women in Battlefield V does not exist in a vacuum. It’s part of the larger argument that has consumed the industry for the last four years, ever since Gamergate became a term. I’ve been a part of this community as a player and a critic for 20 years, I’ve participated in the larger related communities for most of that time, and in my experience it is overwhelmingly white males who take issue with things like this, and for obvious reasons.
There is a problem of representation in games, and it does need to be addressed sooner rather than later. I’m all for developers like DICE doing so in games that do not require strict adherence to historical events, especially when the liberties taken are only to represent the essence of the event instead of the details, which I think is a good description of most BF games.
Again, I’m sorry for the late reply. Thank you for reading and commenting, I truly appreciate all feedback, even (perhaps even especially) feedback that disagrees with me. Like everyone, my views deserve to be challenged and I enjoy the opportunity to discuss and defend and/or re-evaluate them 🙂
Ryan Hartmann
Reviews Editor
So I think you’ve heavily misconstrued the argument. First off, yes women served on the front lines, not going to argue that. But you say Battlefield has never been a series about accuracy and that’s inherently not true. Yes, it has had some silly things here and there (railguns, tiny pistols, M1 Garand’s in modern times) but for the most part it has stayed faithful to the era that it drew from. That changed with Battlefield 1 where they decided to ditch the accuracy of the era in favor of faster gameplay, a decision that I still believe to be a mistake. My main issue with the game is the gonzo Tarantino-esque vibe. Why does a British soldier have a katana? Why is there a person running around with a prosthetic arm on the front line? Why are they using Highland blue warpaint, similar to the Scottish warriors, but they are British? Why aren’t they wearing proper uniforms? None of it makes any sort of sense. And before you give me anything about pilot’s who had prosthesis, think about that, pilots, not infantry. The most you could lose was a leg, the prosthetic for that worked well enough. But losing an arm is something else entirely. In the 30′ and 40’s the technology just wasn’t there to make the arm fully functional, our tech is barely getting there. She wouldn’t be able to hold or fire her gun, nor would she have been able to use the spiked cricket bat (again gonzo and stupid). I wouldn’t mind if this game wasn’t attached to the Battlefield name or if they didn’t put it in real WWII (looking at you Wolfenstien TNO, love that game). This game is jarring for what fans of the series have come to expect.
I hate that you misconstrue GG as well. It definitely was about ethics, John Bain was a leading voice behind that and there was definitively shady practices going on behind the scenes. Former GIO editor Mike Futter broke the silence on the journalist mailing list which showed site collusion, dev care packages to and from publications, and an effort by mainstream site to ‘kill’ the term ‘gamer’. This isn’t conspiracy, this is stuff you can find in a google search.
Lastly, I find it sad that you have to generalize the push back to young white males. Everyone I’ve seen criticize this have been all over the spectrum of race and gender, but if that were the case it would deflate your narrative wouldn’t it? Only a very small group of close minded people complain about playing as a woman or man. Yes, there are people who complain about playing as men. But for most player, like 99%, they don’t mind playing someone who doesn’t look like them. I love Tomb Raider (especially the reboot), Mirror’s Edge, and Remember Me. Ellie’s chapter in TLoU and her DLC The Left Behind were amazing moments where I genuinely cried. Playing Prey as both male and female Morgan was a blast. This has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with presentation.
P.S.: Dice also said they are adding body type options to the game, I find this ridiculous in the extreme. So were there obese soldiers in WWII, probably but I’d assume not many. There were boot camps for a reason. Also does playing as a larger character make your hitbox bigger? If not then that will lead to inherent imbalance. There’s a reason most video game protagonists and soldiers are fit.
Why did you just mark the comment I made as spam?
Nobody marked your comment as spam. It appears to have triggered one of the automatic filters by Disqus. I’ve manually approved it for ya.
Thank you. I just saw it marked as spam and I feared the worst, given I’ve experienced such a thing before.
Yeah, no worries man. From what I can gather, it was the formatting you used in the comment. It kinda looks like a wall of text, which I guess triggered the spam filter.
Also for reference, we very rarely censor our users here. If it contributes to the conversation, it’s more than likely going to be allowed. The only time a staff member will step in, is if a user blatantly insults another user. That (for obvious reasons) is not allowed.
I see, I tried to space it out better but I guess essays aren’t Diqus’ favorite. And that’s good to know, it’s my first comment here and I felt like some things were needing clarification, at least how I see the other side of this discussion. Again, thank you.
Welcome to PSX Extreme! 😀
Yeah, so long as you contribute to the conversation and keep everything mature and constructive, you won’t be penalized. If anything, an open and healthy conversation is actually encouraged! 😀
I see, I tried to space it out better but I guess essays aren’t Diqus’ favorite. And that’s good to know, it’s my first comment here and I felt like some things were needing clarification, at least how I see the other side of this discussion. Again, thank you.
So I think you’ve heavily misconstrued the argument. First off, yes women served on the front lines, not going to argue that. But you say Battlefield has never been a series about accuracy and that’s inherently not true. Yes, it has had some silly things here and there (railguns, tiny pistols, M1 Garand’s in modern times) but for the most part it has stayed faithful to the era that it drew from. That changed with Battlefield 1 where they decided to ditch the accuracy of the era in favor of faster gameplay, a decision that I still believe to be a mistake. My main issue with the game is the gonzo Tarantino-esque vibe. Why does a British soldier have a katana? Why is there a person running around with a prosthetic arm on the front line? Why are they using Highland blue warpaint, similar to the Scottish warriors, but they are British? Why aren’t they wearing proper uniforms? None of it makes any sort of sense. And before you give me anything about pilot’s who had prosthesis, think about that, pilots, not infantry. The most you could lose was a leg, the prosthetic for that worked well enough. But losing an arm is something else entirely. In the 30′ and 40’s the technology just wasn’t there to make the arm fully functional, our tech is barely getting there. She wouldn’t be able to hold or fire her gun, nor would she have been able to use the spiked cricket bat (again gonzo and stupid). I wouldn’t mind if this game wasn’t attached to the Battlefield name or if they didn’t put it in real WWII (looking at you Wolfenstien TNO, love that game). This game is jarring for what fans of the series have come to expect.
I hate that you misconstrue GG as well. It definitely was about ethics, John Bain was a leading voice behind that and there was definitively shady practices going on behind the scenes. Former GIO editor Mike Futter broke the silence on the journalist mailing list which showed site collusion, dev care packages to and from publications, and an effort by mainstream site to ‘kill’ the term ‘gamer’. This isn’t conspiracy, this is stuff you can find in a google search.
Lastly, I find it sad that you have to generalize the push back to young white males. Everyone I’ve seen criticize this have been all over the spectrum of race and gender, but if that were the case it would deflate your narrative wouldn’t it? Only a very small group of close minded people complain about playing as a woman or man. Yes, there are people who complain about playing as men. But for most player, like 99%, they don’t mind playing someone who doesn’t look like them. I love Tomb Raider (especially the reboot), Mirror’s Edge, and Remember Me. Ellie’s chapter in TLoU and her DLC The Left Behind were amazing moments where I genuinely cried. Playing Prey as both male and female Morgan was a blast. This has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with presentation.
P.S.: Dice also said they are adding body type options to the game, I find this ridiculous in the extreme. So were there obese soldiers in WWII, probably but I’d assume not many. There were boot camps for a reason. Also does playing as a larger character make your hitbox bigger? If not then that will lead to inherent imbalance. There’s a reason most video game protagonists and soldiers are fit.
So I think you’ve heavily misconstrued the argument. First off, yes women served on the front lines, not going to argue that. But you say Battlefield has never been a series about accuracy and that’s inherently not true. Yes, it has had some silly things here and there (railguns, tiny pistols, M1 Garand’s in modern times) but for the most part it has stayed faithful to the era that it drew from. That changed with Battlefield 1 where they decided to ditch the accuracy of the era in favor of faster gameplay, a decision that I still believe to be a mistake. My main issue with the game is the gonzo Tarantino-esque vibe. Why does a British soldier have a katana? Why is there a person running around with a prosthetic arm on the front line? Why are they using Highland blue warpaint, similar to the Scottish warriors, but they are British? Why aren’t they wearing proper uniforms? None of it makes any sort of sense. And before you give me anything about pilot’s who had prosthesis, think about that, pilots, not infantry. The most you could lose was a leg, the prosthetic for that worked well enough. But losing an arm is something else entirely. In the 30′ and 40’s the technology just wasn’t there to make the arm fully functional, our tech is barely getting there. She wouldn’t be able to hold or fire her gun, nor would she have been able to use the spiked cricket bat (again gonzo and stupid). I wouldn’t mind if this game wasn’t attached to the Battlefield name or if they didn’t put it in real WWII (looking at you Wolfenstien TNO, love that game). This game is jarring for what fans of the series have come to expect.
I hate that you misconstrue GG as well. It definitely was about ethics, John Bain was a leading voice behind that and there was definitively shady practices going on behind the scenes. Former GIO editor Mike Futter broke the silence on the journalist mailing list which showed site collusion, dev care packages to and from publications, and an effort by mainstream site to ‘kill’ the term ‘gamer’. This isn’t conspiracy, this is stuff you can find in a google search.
Lastly, I find it sad that you have to generalize the push back to young white males. Everyone I’ve seen criticize this have been all over the spectrum of race and gender, but if that were the case it would deflate your narrative wouldn’t it? Only a very small group of close minded people complain about playing as a woman or man. Yes, there are people who complain about playing as men. But for most player, like 99%, they don’t mind playing someone who doesn’t look like them. I love Tomb Raider (especially the reboot), Mirror’s Edge, and Remember Me. Ellie’s chapter in TLoU and her DLC The Left Behind were amazing moments where I genuinely cried. Playing Prey as both male and female Morgan was a blast. This has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with presentation.
P.S.: Dice also said they are adding body type options to the game, I find this ridiculous in the extreme. So were there obese soldiers in WWII, probably but I’d assume not many. There were boot camps for a reason. Also does playing as a larger character make your hitbox bigger? If not then that will lead to inherent imbalance. There’s a reason most video game protagonists and soldiers are fit.
This article gives excellent examples to why gaming should refuse and bar diversity and inclusiveness.
Gatekeeping keeps out thieves, usurpers, and enemies; they let in citizens. If you actually are a gamer, then the gatekeepers will let you in with open arms.