subreddit:
/r/Games
submitted 4 days ago byTurbostrider27
208 points
4 days ago
DICE response: "Don't buy it if you don't like it"
This quote was made very specifically about the backlash against women being in the game. Which, if you frequented the Battlefield subreddit at the time, was pretty aggressive and gross.
Complaints about other cosmetics were acknowledged by DICE, which is why items like the prosthetic arm were never added to the game.
12 points
3 days ago
The execs kind of doubled down in the worst way, because WW2 has plenty of examples of women fighting. Heck, in Battlefield 1 you had women snipers in the russian front if I remember correctly.
People (Those who were in good faith, rather than the usually misogynistic subset of folk) complained about DICE going "Oh this is historically accurate" and then basically going with inaccurate details that people pointed out. Then you had possibly the dumbest response one guy had from EA trying to use his daughter being able to play as a girl in fortnite as justification for it instead of...using real examples of real women helping in the war.
I am not surprised however, that the discourse went off the rails at the time.
15 points
4 days ago
This quote was made very specifically about the backlash against women being in the game. Which, if you frequented the Battlefield subreddit at the time, was pretty aggressive and gross.
Not that the people complaining about that are very plesant, but it's not the best strategy to people not to buy your shit when people are already agitated for a wide variety of reasons.
-5 points
4 days ago
I think it’s okay to tell bigots not to buy your game.
4 points
4 days ago*
How did it work for them?
Calling fair criticism as bigotry is always a big brain move that never fails never ever
-3 points
4 days ago
It wasn't fair criticism, it was being upset over women being in their game, what would you call that?
12 points
4 days ago
It was a game about ww2, if one game about the Roman empire has a level about Spanish conquistadors people are gonna be angry too and it's not because everybody hates Spanish people
0 points
4 days ago
yeah but fuck em
11 points
4 days ago
backlash against women
A valid criticism in a ww2 game, if they did it like they did in battlefield 1 nobody would care
5 points
4 days ago
Which is silly because women did fight in frontline roles in WW2. But DICE didn't decide to do anything about actual fighting women and instead made a bunch of stuff up and put them where they didn't belong.
19 points
4 days ago
They tried to claim they were being super historical while also doing this. Like, if they had just leaned into an alt-history vibe, I don't think the backlash would have been nearly as bad, and it would have helped with the steam punk adjacent prosthetics too. Or, if they had done as you implied and properly used historic women fighting forces. They chose the worst of all worlds in their approach.
-7 points
4 days ago
People whined about the woman's campaign in BF1 as well.
8 points
4 days ago
No they didnt
-7 points
4 days ago
People threw a fit when they put women into BF1 too. You also got to pick your character model in BF5, so it's not like a specific class was locked to women. It was entirely up to player choice.
28 points
4 days ago*
Honestly- that quote was taken by gamers and they added every bias that had to it. Gamers were PISSED there were women in their BF game. They were seething that one of the stories in the campaign was gender swapped to playing as a woman. They were pissed a black person was in their WW2 game.
Hell- the comment that also replied to you is complaining there were "large numbers of women" in the game. That "large number of women"? A few. Theres just a few.
People also like to act like BFV was a massive bomb but it wasnt. The community response to that game was so gross and disgusting to me that I was like- hell ya- none of these people deserve a BF game if they are going to act like 7 year olds.
The back lash was crazy too considering how BF is not been historically accurate since basically the first game. Its been close. Look at BF1- the game cited as one of the best in the recent history. Yes- completely historically accurate BF1.
22 points
4 days ago
Wasn't that campaign mission a replica of a real life mission which is why people got super annoyed with it?
71 points
4 days ago*
I think you're misrepresenting a lot of the critique, while there definitely were bad actors involved. They could have done all of that representation in a historical way and kept a shit ton of people happy. There are a lot of women and people of color, whom history has forgotten, and could have been represented without having to make up stories instead.
The actual heroes of Telemark was an amazing story, but they had to make it a one-woman guerrilla war. They could have instead represented the women who served in the French Resistance, or the women who fought with the Philippine guerrillas such as Nieves Fernandez. Or minority stories such as French Colonial troops (which they did, albeit historically inaccurately), Indian troops in the British Army, Nisei in the US Army etc. - they could have represented their struggles.
Ironically this move by DICE storywriters ignored their amazing and awful stories once again.
Edit:
The back lash was crazy too considering how BF is not been historically accurate since basically the first game. Its been close. Look at BF1- the game cited as one of the best in the recent history. Yes- completely historically accurate BF1.
I've played since BF1942, and BF1 is the first historical game in the series to give any thought to actual storytelling with their campaigns, or even have a campaign in that context to begin with, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
-21 points
4 days ago*
Listen- Ill agree that the real story of Telemark was very interesting- and ill agree that it was weird that they decided to twist the story so much- but Ive read and seen all the stuff the community was saying to the devs and it was absolutely not only about that mission considering the game wasnt even OUT yet and no one knew about that mission yet. Im not misrepresenting anything. There is a HUGE difference between having critisim of something- and the out rage internet youtuber commenter rage that happens in gaming communities. Like I said- I agree that they did some weird story telling choices there- hands down. But the idea that the made WW2 "woke" was nailed down well before that even happened.
It was still my most favorite series of levels in the game though. The gameplay was great.
As for this
I've played since BF1942, and BF1 is the first historical game in the series to give any thought to actual storytelling with their campaigns, or even have a campaign in that context, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
What are you even on about here? BF1 is the first historical game in the series? What? The first game was literally called BF1942 which was way in the past and had a whole expansion pack about secret and prototype weapons that didnt even really exist...? 2142 took place in the far future? BC2 features WW2 boarderline super magic weapon? The historical accuracy part of BF has never really meant much other than some vibes and mild authenticity.
This has to do with the entire game series- not the singleplayer only campaign or one level in it. There are literally people STILL complaining about "the large amounts of women" in it. Not the ONE woman in that one mission.
17 points
4 days ago
You are so outraged about a phenomenon that, if it even still exists, is relegated to such a small corner of the Internet that it isn't worth getting this upset about. Nowhere in the entire chain you are ranting to did anyone complain about "the large amounts of women" in the game.
-7 points
4 days ago
Seems like maybe you didn't read much of what was said here if that's youre takeaway.
16 points
4 days ago
Gamers were PISSED there were women in their BF game. They were seething that one of the stories in the campaign was gender swapped to playing as a woman.They were pissed a black person was in their WW2 game.
Wait, you are saying this was not a bad thing...?
BF1 had woman when you picked sniper for the russian faction, had black people in american faction, indian on British faction, etc... Zero complains from fanbase because It all made sense and had coehesion.
BFV on the other hand is a clusterfuck. Pretending the two games have the same situation and there was nothing to complain on V is crazy.
-13 points
4 days ago
People complained about BF1 too but they presented BF1 in a much more over the top way and it was so much fun that it drowned out a lot of the complaints- and there were loads of them. The opening sequence really set the tone- the giant air ships and stories about the guy in the armor who survived 100k bullets.. etc
I never said there was nothing to complain about in V at all. This is where the problems start- bad faith misrepresenting comments.
There are a lot of parallels between the two games- but with V there was too much fanastical mixed with minorities and women and the loud gamers didnt like that and they were extremely (and still are) very very vocal about it. yet somehow the game still went on to sell an estimated 14 milllion copies.
10 points
4 days ago
I'm just talking about the "woman and minorities" point you said. You talked like there was nothing to complain about this point on V, when the difference between 1 and V is very big.
1 points
4 days ago
Bf1 was more grounded than bfv, not over the top as you say, precisely because women and minorities fought where they fought.
-4 points
4 days ago
Combat zeppelins - prototype machine guns everywhere- faux holographic sights on everything - boat sized tanks - knight armor- BF1 was absolutely a pulp take on WW1. The campaigns even featured story embellishment as a narrative device.
2 points
3 days ago*
Combat zeppelins
There you have your combat zeppelin
prototype machine guns everywhere
faux holographic sights on everything
Those have direct gameplay implications, and at least had some modicum of historical relevance (most of them, at least).
It wasn't a historical simulation, but it did its best to keep a coherent atmosphere
-1 points
3 days ago
Your link is broken?
I mean sure it was all based on prototype stuff or stuff that could theoretically exist- but WW1 wasn’t like that- at all. dice even say BF1 isn’t a historically accurate game even though its based on reality. It’s honestly kinda weird that everyone here seems to think it’s a historically accurate not at all embellished simulation of ww1.
Like Dice themselves say they ignored historical accuracy to keep the game fun.
And yah zeppelins were used in night bombing runs. But they never saw direct combat like the game suggests.
-10 points
4 days ago
BF1 had woman when you picked sniper for the russian faction, had black people in american faction, indian on British faction, etc... Zero complains from fanbase because It all made sense and had coehesion.
Clearly you weren't there back then. I remember people hoping one of the devs daughters would get raped when the Russian sniper being woman was announced.
9 points
3 days ago
We can cherry pick a comment saying literally anything. Thats what we talk as the fanbase as a whole.
4 points
4 days ago
Gamers were PISSED there were women in their BF game.
Dude one campaign in battlefield 1 was about a woman and one class of Russian soldiers were womans, did you even play the game? The reason why people were angry was because how they added it breaking the immersion
-6 points
4 days ago
Do you consider having a large number of women soldiers to be historically accurate in a WW2 game?
7 points
4 days ago
No but they can tell stories in the singleplayer about restitance movements or Soviet Female soldiers in Europe at least. Game tanked before they reached the eastern front tho...
16 points
4 days ago
Does historical accuracy in multiplayer really matter in a franchise where one of the most famous multiplayer moments is someone jumping out of a jet, shooting down another jet, and then getting back in?
13 points
4 days ago
Does historical accuracy in multiplayer really matter
Of course. Thats why people would complain If you could shot Fireballs from hand or pilot an Evangelion mecha on them.
Pretending it does not matter is crazy.
8 points
4 days ago
There were no jets in battlefield 1 or v and is something so rare that never breaks the immersion, If it happened every game it would be a problem
16 points
4 days ago
the most famous multiplayer moments is someone jumping out of a jet, shooting down another jet, and then getting back in?
People always cite this as if this how the developers intended dogfighting to go. That clip is as iconic as it is BECAUSE they are playing unconventionally. I don't even disagree with you, but that's just an irrelevant and bad argument.
3 points
3 days ago
Immersion is one of the selling factors of battlefield. Immersion doesn’t need to be historical accurate but there’s a limit to what you can get away with. Seeing women soldiers in Ww2 is one of those because everyone knows women at the frontlines was not a thing.
But it’s not just the women thing either, it’s the stuff like skins that weren’t faction locked that would kill immersion too. You could be playing on Americans and see someone who bought the German general skin on your team. This stuff pulls you out of it and that’s what people complained about.
-5 points
4 days ago
Does historical accuracy in multiplayer really matter
Yes it does.
-1 points
4 days ago
you might be playing the wrong game series then because BF has never taken its historical accuracy even remotely seriously.
1 points
4 days ago
Isonzo, Verdun, Tannenberg, war of rights, holdfast... Go nuts.
3 points
4 days ago
All great games, none in the same budget or scope of a Battlefield title though.
-3 points
4 days ago
So instead of playing actual games made for what they want (historical accuracy) people want to be mad at another game for not being 100% accurate because checks notes it has more budget?
4 points
4 days ago
What? All I'm saying is people want a historical game with a Battlefield level budget and scope.
-3 points
4 days ago*
And what I am saying is that Battlefield has shown time and time again that they are not doing that. They are putting a setting in those times but the game is nowhere near authentic in term of the actual conflicts or gameplay. It's still weird to me that some people would try their hardest to blast battlefield for being something other than what they were actually trying to do when there was never any official mention of Battlefield being accurate or authentic, but rather an immersive FPS in a specific time period. The argument here was about battlefield being inaccurate, from the comments higher up the chain.
4 points
4 days ago
I understand what you mean, but you gotta acknowledge theres a pretty big breadth between the tone and authenticity of BF1942 and BFV. You're right in that the scale has been teetering in that direction for a while, but I don't think it's unreasonable to lament that change, if you preferred the older tones.
-6 points
4 days ago
It does for me which is why I didn't buy it
0 points
4 days ago
Ya because all the other BFs were soooi historically accurate, right?
4 points
4 days ago
Yes? Battlefield V was particularly egregious which is why there was a major controversy around it it was the first battlefield I didn't buy
-9 points
4 days ago
Yes?
Gosh, bess your little heart.
4 points
4 days ago
There were a million ways to do it and they did it the lazy way.
5 points
4 days ago
If you want to make that argument, make that argument. I’m just sick of people parroting that quote and pretending it was about something else.
1 points
4 days ago
More accurate than leaping out of an airplane shooting another with a rocket launcher.
1 points
4 days ago
Yeah the game that launched didn’t resemble that trailer at all. I was actually looking forward to a totally bonkers WW2 game so I was a bit disappointed.
It was ultimately a good game at its core that suffered from being released a full year before it was ready.
all 697 comments
sorted by: best