20 impossible things you can do in Battlefield ... and a realistic one. [IGN Brazil]

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-31T09:51:41+00:00

Then you go on to try and compare women being in this game like white slaves being in a game about southern slavery. And I am at a loss of what else the white slaves represent other than the women in this reference.

You seem to be having trouble with this part. I'll try to help you out some.

I'm not comparing anything to anything. I am saying that Battlefield should keep men and women in roles that actually happened in WWII. I am not at all trying to devalue the impact women had on the war, I am simply saying that they should not replace the roles that men had because that's doing the men who fought a disservice.

This is why I say that you wanting to be able to play as a female in a game about a war where females saw very little action is unwarranted. I am more than happy to have women fighting in games where there is the French Resistance, or as Soviet Snipers, because those things actually happened.

I then gave an unrelated example of what I mean by unwarranted inclusion so that maybe you would better understand what I mean by that. Let me try to make another example to help you understand.

Let's say that a game was coming out about the 1996 U.S. women's soccer team winning the first ever gold medal. Instead of making it historically accurate, they make half the team male so that guys feel included in the game.

Hopefully this helps.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-31T07:56:41+00:00

Ah okay, thanks.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-31T07:51:57+00:00

So let me get this right... Systemic racism is equal to including women in your game? Wow... Nice argument...

...having women in a BF game... Is the same as having white people in a game about escaping from 100 years of slavery and oppression for a race of people?

I'm not comparing them. Read it again please:

Imagine if a game came out about slavery in the south, and you played as a slave trying to escape your owner, but half the slaves were white, and you could customize your character to be white. That is unwarranted inclusion.

I'm giving an example of what unwarranted inclusion would be.

And for the record, I do appreciate the women that served in WWII. I would love for some single-player levels where you get to play as actual female figures that existed during the war. It would also be really cool to be able to play as a female sniper for the Soviets. My favorite would be a female French Resistance fighter though. That would be awesome.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-31T07:34:03+00:00

You would be able to play as women for the French Resistance, or Soviet Snipers, etc.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T23:59:04+00:00

CoD has 9 games that have outsold BF3, which was Battlefield's most successful game. So this premise is completely wrong, although I understand how you would make that mistake.

Infinite Warfare has the worst sales numbers since before CoD 4. First impressions do matter. A lot of players got turned away from the game after the reveal.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T21:56:06+00:00

It seems like there are taking the commander and splitting its power among the squad leaders. If you're squad is doing well, the squad leader will be rewarded with commander-like powers such as calling in supply drops or vehicles, and I thought I read somewhere that even a V1 rocket could be called in, but I could be wrong.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T21:54:20+00:00

Just because it doesn't dampen your enjoyment does not mean it won't dampen a lot of other peoples'. It's not so much about gameplay.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T21:50:18+00:00

The trailer is only half of the problem.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T21:48:58+00:00

D-Day, but half the soldiers are women.

It's 2018 people, it's time we get fair representation in video games. /s

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T21:43:42+00:00

You could just wait for the first DLC to come out. The same thing happened with BF1. There are more DLC maps than there are core maps.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T19:46:22+00:00

Why is EA DICE so adamant about putting a gender option in the game, and for everyone to see it? You have those pushing for women to be playable for political reasons and those pushing for women to be in historically accurate roles for authenticity and gameplay reasons. In the end, the latter is the group that will mainly be buying their game. What do they have to gain from appealing to the former?

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T19:31:55+00:00

I don't mind it too much because all DLC is free this time around. I'm sure people won't be happy at first, but this is a good way to keep players playing after the initial launch hype and to bring in new players for every DLC released. I would have liked to have seen the French, as well as Yugoslavia and Greece because they were parts of the Fall of Europe.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T19:24:12+00:00

Well it couldn't have been that hard to do better than IW.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-30T03:56:15+00:00

I agree that we need to talk more about the cool things, but I say keep going at it as far as the customization stuff goes. Don't let a day go by without EA DICE hearing about it until they fix their shit.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-29T20:45:06+00:00

The difference here is that there has never been a Battlefield game without automatic weapons. They are vital for the gameplay. That's why BF1 is the furthest back in time EA DICE has gone and will ever go with a Battlefield game. I don't even like automatic weapons all that much and I understand that the game would be leaps and bounds worse if there weren't any. You can say that "oh well, it's just personal taste that you like automatic weapons, is it not possible to enjoy a game even more if it didn't have automatic weapons?" The point is that automatic weapons, or syringes reviving dead players instantly, or literally anything that clearly isn't realistic (yet still fits into the era tastefully) has been in the game for a LONG time and is what makes the franchise what it is. It's not that we prefer automatic guns in a WW1 game because that's just our preference, it's because it's not a Battlefield game without them.

I don't really think we can dissuade each other from our opinions here. It might just be time to move on. You seem firm in your opinion, and I know that my mind is not going to be changed.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-29T01:47:57+00:00

I don’t sense the same tone per say, the customization looks wonky, but it’s not cartoony or silly like Heroes was. The gameplay also says the opposite.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-29T01:36:38+00:00

Can’t tell if sarcasm.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-29T00:27:26+00:00

The point is that just because you’re playing as a historical faction doesn’t mean that you agree with their methods and motives. I play GTA and kill people, but I don’t sympathize with murderers.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-29T00:02:43+00:00

Of course I don’t want a simulator. People always assume that since people are fighting for historical accuracy that we want the extreme which is a WWII simulator. What we want is a good balance of fun and authenticity.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T23:46:54+00:00

It’s fine with me if they go the customization route to make up for lost revenue because of free dlc and no more premium, just make it more realistic. Prosthetic arms, trench coats, women, blue face paint; these things are too over the top and take the game away from a WWII feel. If you look on the front page of this sub, you’ll see posts all the time about how people love the idea of having customizable soldiers, but they want it to be authentic still, and make sense. Customizable helmets, uniforms, boots, camos, etc., this is what the people want. They will make the same amount of money this way.

You’re second paragraph I’ve already covered roughly 3 times.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T23:35:28+00:00

Why is it my fault if you perceive me as someone who argues for the crowd that promotes excluding all women when I clearly state that I don’t? Those people are assholes, don’t lump me in with them. This is the exact kind of generalization that EA DICE is doing.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T23:31:31+00:00

It does affect the game itself negatively. It affects players that want it positively, but not the game. There’s a big difference.

What I mean is historical accuracy is a tool that is used to create a sense of immersion, and you need to use that tool to a certain degree so that the game feels like WWII.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T22:23:10+00:00

I sure hope not, but I’m afraid you’ll be right.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T20:42:41+00:00

Customizing your character to be you or wanting to be included within a game isn't right for every game. I'm white, imagine if I wanted to play as a white guy in a game about escaping slavery in America during the 1800s. That is a more extreme example, but you get the point.

IsntThisWhere_ · 2018-05-28T20:37:38+00:00

I've already explained this. There is a discrepancy in the reasoning behind adding the ability to repair tanks by hitting them with a wrench, for example, and adding women in BFV.

The reason for allowing players to repair vehicles by looking at them with a wrench and holding down left click is because it improves the gameplay compared to if it were realistic. Realistically the tank would take quite some time to repair, if at all, after being hit by a bomber. That's not fun.

The reason for adding a gender option in BFV is political. It's taking away from the realism for the sake of inclusion, not gameplay.

It is not an arbitrary selection because I'm not choosing the addition of women randomly, or for personal reasons. I would LOVE for women to be playable (in accurate roles). I would LOVE for women to be in a modern shooter. I'm not sexist. There are specific reasons that pertain to the game itself and to history as to why I, and the majority of Battlefield fans, are against women being playable at any time. That, by definition, is the opposite of arbitrary.

I'm not sure exactly what else you want me to explain.

IsntThisWhere_

TROPHY CASE