Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
4 hours ago, jbadams said:Have you seen a WW2 era prosthetic? I've only seen stills of the trailer, but from the images I've seen that particular facet actually looks about right.
I'm no expert on British history but from my understanding she's shown in the game as a British solder and that it was against the law for women in the British army to be on the front lines.
1 hour ago, Awoken said:That's why I think, quite ironically, our only hope lay in divorcing ourselves from reliance on nature entirely and creating an entirely artificial existence for ourselves, one that doesn't need the chaos' that come with mother nature for sustenance.
Yeah, that's the kind of excuse i use to justify working on stupid little games 
I think in a future world with more population we need a virtual space to not freak out. So building up this place can't be a bad thing, just in case...
Anyways, recovered from (or at least suppressing) depression, i still think this space can help to unite mankind with all their religious and cultural differences - those 'obstacles' may decrease their importance i hope.
But it seems the game industry has no clue how to handle or even detect sensible issues. What do you expect from a bunch of nerds spending too much time behind their screens, producing results that are not even on par with b-movies from the 80s? Maybe we need some help from more social, intellectual, philosophical, political or what ever expert people. A new role, 'social designer' or something, haha. Oh wait - the right side could get this wrong, let's call it differently... damn - i do not even know which word to use... 
8 minutes ago, Cobra26 said:...she's shown in the game as a British solder ...
I spoke about the "metal hand", and only about the metal hand, so I'm not sure how your reply is in any way relevant to my post which you quoted? ?
5 hours ago, Cobra26 said:I'm no expert on British history but from my understanding she's shown in the game as a British solder and that it was against the law for women in the British army to be on the front lines.
Until 1950, women were banned, by actual legislation, from all military service in any of the three arms[1] -- during WW2, women served in separate, non-military services and were specifically forbidden from carrying weapons. As late as the 2010 Equality Act, the military was allowed an exclusion on a policy basis.
RAF frontline service was allowed from 1989 and actually took place in 1994 (takes a while to train fighter pilots). Navy combat service was allowed from 1990 and began in 1991.
Army frontline service was finally made universal in 2016. I think it's now at the point any role is open, although some of them currently have had either no women pass they physicals (most men don't either though) or none have yet completed the training.
[1] The UK doesn't regard the Marines as a separate arm -- they're part of the Royal Navy.
On 6/6/2018 at 3:06 AM, mikeman said:
It is true that what is needed is for well-meaning people "of the other side" to be educated. It's a tricky thing, to be able to figure out which people are well-meaning but not sufficiently educated, in which case you try to reason with them, and which people are just stomping their feet and not willing to give an inch, in which case we're just going to accept we're opponents. And in the end, for many people it's not a case of ignorance, but of colliding interests. In which case this isn't only about difference of opinions, but, sadly, antagonism. You can't do anything about it than clash. This goes for every pressing matter, up to, say, climate change, which pretty much decides the fate of the planet. It's not a "difference of opinion" that causes, say, the fossil fuel industry to deny the science here. It's just that their interests are hurt. You can't educate them, because education is not the issue here. But you can educate many well-meaning people, as I said, whose interests actually lie on "our side".And many people are pointing out that we're not doing a very good job at it. I've heard repeatedly from people that are actually organizing in the streets, for example, that this "SJ" jargon has gone too far and that there is a problem with vocal individuals that seem to enjoy the posturing and the grandstanding just a bit too much. Phrases like "check your privilege" or "it's not my job to educate you", for example, may have started with good intentions, but they're so overused at this point that they're blocking the educating of people that may be actually be won over to "our side". You can't start yelling at each and every one, with the same stock phrases, that doesn't have the experience or has read the exact literature that you have.
This is, unfortunately, only becoming tougher and tougher. You're seeing more and more that attempts to reach out are being misconstrued as attacks. Undoubtedly the progressive movement has had its nastier types as well, since just about every faction, ideology, group of people, etc. has types that are essentially in it just to gain power and importance rather than to further the cause of helping others.
And of course, a lot of it really is that there's a ton of vested interests. In many cases it isn't so much that people aren't educated but that interests are hurt by it, especially in the case of fossil fuels and climate change.
In general though, here in the US, we hear a ton about 'those left behind' by the socio-economic, cultural, and technological changes at the turn of the millennium. It's a different era really in a lot of respects, something that I think a lot of people haven't really adjusted to. This, I think, is the key to a lot of these issues: just how much change we've seen in the span of 10-15 years. And it's understandable to see why anxieties can spawn from quick change.
I actually wonder if E3 will shed any light on the campaign for this game and what they are portraying there. WW2 has been done to death in games, but there's still a ton of unexplored history.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:And I found it important to point out that a lot of "historically inaccurate" are not about gender or race.
In case of the BF5 Trailer, after having looked into it more it seems the female soldier and the black british soldier are only about 1/4 ofwhat probably triggered people to dislike because of "historical inaccuray"... one of the british soldiers in the european theater has a katana on his back - and again, then we have robot-arm lady shooting a rifle with a pretty primitive prostetic arm.
And that doesn't even go into the full overthetopness of the whole cutscene... which in my case was easing me off a little bit because all of this probably was meant to be not taken seriously at all... looked like fortnite without the cartoon graphics... seems it still managed to trigger some people even more.
That's just my point though: the game was clearly never intending to be historically accurate. You can see it in pretty much every aspect of the trailer. And again, Battlefield has been extremely far from historically accurate since it's inception.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:a) if the whole historical correctness angle wouldn't be there, it couldn't be used... thus making the game look more cartoony, using a fantasy world, making it clear that this is alternate history
b) if the game would be a new IP, you would have to deal with less fanboism -> hence why changing existing IPs to accomodate more diversity has to be done very carefully IMO
c) if the whole environment would have been soured by years of pointless slapfests in the media and on youtube, people would probably react less toxic and you would just hear one or two people mutter something about "that katana and robot arm is not historical" - that shit wasn't as much an issue 10 years ago, at least I cannot remember it to be.
a): we've addressed this really earlier imo.
b): But why shouldn't IPs evolve? Look at James Bond (as an example, since my dad is a huge fan and I'm really familiar with the series): it's almost unrecognizable at this point compared to the older versions (I mean a blonde Bond, omg, people had meltdowns over that when Casino Royale first came out ). Within gaming, look at how different the new God of War is from the older ones. The point is that IPs change: they have to change to keep pace with changing cultural and economic realities. The old God of War was a game essentially catered towards testosterone in an era when games were about non stop action with little reason or thought given to why. These days are different. The new one is much different. It's about a journey of a dad. The point is that things change. Like I said earlier, we shouldn't really ignore the fact that things have changed. And devs realize that things change so they try to keep franchises possible by changing up things.
c): Well 10 years ago there was also less prevalence of the Internet. I barely used it circa 2005, and most people didn't use it nearly as much as now. And around that time the pace of change was different. It's now 2018. A lot can change in approximately 10 years, and a lot has changed. I'm not sure that it's people have 'become more toxic and are just attacking one another more' that's the issue there. That seems more like a symptom and not an issue.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:I would be damned if I could find a real unbiased source on the matter that I would trust. I mostly pieced it together from clearly biased sources. Just read the gaming press, watch some anti-SJW youtube videos, mix it, divide by two, and you get something close to the truth.
Sorry, not going to link to something that I don't fully trust.
The gist of it, removing as much bias as I can: the guy at the top of the studio was a controversial figure during the GG controversy, obviously very involved. He headed a Czech studio to develop a first person RPG set in mediaval bohemia that was really using historical accuray as its main feature.
The game quickly got critisized for not having PoC and, as far as I remember, not enough women in it. The studio, especially the guy at the top, started a counterattack mocking the guys complaining about it. Historically accurate angle was used as defense. The whole thing exploded as it always does, gaming press started writing pieces on him, anti-SJW squad came to the defense, ugly slapfest ensued.
The result was the game came out unchanged, was a huge success for a relatively small game from a small studio, and apparently was decent, if not brilliant.
Questions got raised if the game would have gotten just as much flak for what could be seen as a minor issue in a small game from eastern europe if the guy at the top wouldn't have been wellknown from GG.
That is pretty much the gist of it, trying to be as unbiased as I can. If you want the version with more flavour, again, your probably can google it. was all the rage for a month or so, and the internet is still filled with the remains of that dumpster fire.
My own reading into it seems to portray that some people pointed out that the game could've had more non-whites that aren't just enemies. Then people dug into it a bit more, and were like 'yea maybe there could be some more' and the dev, a prominent Gamergate supporter, responded rather harshly, sparking a ton of fighting. My guess is that this had more to do with Gamergate than with anything else, which is itself a massively controversial subject. The Witcher 3 isn't exactly super diverse in any way and was wildly successful, and a great game imo. I'm not very familiar with history in that era, nor am I familiar with the game at all. But Gamergate anything will lead to fighting.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:No, its not a provocative trailer. But people are on edge because this whole "SJW vs. anti-SJW" thing was never allowed to die down by both sides. Its still being fed by the media and youtube channels every day, just check for yourself.
The solution to THAT problem is when people no longer care, there will be no money more in trying to rile up people for clicks.
And to make people not care anymore... yeah, you kinda have to let it die down. Kinda let more things just go instead of reacting to it. Because this loop is being fed by reactions. And it has escalated to a point where I am no longer sure there are ANY reactions that can help to de-escalate. ESPECIALLY when all these reactions often come in the heat of the moment, where even the official reps of game devs and movie studios sometimes write stuff they probably would regret having written months later. I hope at least they regret it.
Look, I understand some people wanting to change the world. I understand some people feeling the other is in the wrong, and wanting to either shut them down or convince them. But I don't think any of this can happen. This has escalated way beyond what can be contained. If you think otherwise, and want to do something against it, good luck to you. You will need it.
You seem to be of the belief that this will 'die' if we let it 'die'. And that's just what I'm saying: it won't. There wasn't anything in this trailer that was all that provocative. It looked to be a cartoony arcadey WW2 game. This isn't controversy worthy and to most people it isn't.
There's an assumption that the fuel to the fire is 'the other side' and really, I'm not sure that's true. I'd be willing to bet that it will continue to become a larger issue either way, even if we start going out of our way to not offend the other 'side'. I don't really think it is about reactions.
I don't know the statistics, but I imagine if you were dropped into a random battle you'd probably be surrounded by white men, at least in some theaters. However, we tell stories about those that stand out.
I want to hear more about the women who fought on the front line, I've certainly heard plenty about the others.
That said, I do think that the game developers here are pandering to changes in the market. This is par for the course, they were equally pandering to the original market.
QuoteI was the standard and you broke the standard.
VHS was a standard too. Don't take it personally.
QuoteThere's no such thing as a boy only club. Why can't I have one?
Sure you can - you can hang a sign "No Girlz Allowed" on your tree house if you so wish.
However, don't expect international multi-million dollar companies to support you in this endeavour.
41 minutes ago, rip-off said:
I want to hear more about the women who fought on the front line, I've certainly heard plenty about the others.
As far as I know among the western powers the number of women in front-line combat was near zero if not actually zero. The British had some women manning AA guns however. The Soviet Union was a different story. I think about 2 or 3 percentage of their combat soldiers were women. The most famous that I know of is Ludmila Pavlichenko. Woody Guthrie even wrote a song about her. There were many others though: tank commanders, fighter pilots, the night witches etc.
"The British had some women manning AA guns however. "
The women in the ATS were originally not allowed to actually fire the guns or load them -- Basically the AA defences were desperately short of workers and the only acceptable plan to allow women to work with them was that they were still prohibited from doing anything that wasn't "good". So while they were trained as spotters, reporters, radio operators, drivers and so on, they were never trained to fire the gun.
It was a ridiculous distinction, but the supporters of the plan knew it was the only way it would be acceptable for the ATS to work in the air defence system.
And there were casualties amongst the women -- they were in the gun emplacements and targeted by enemy aircraft along with the men -- totalling 389 killed or wounded. In recognition of this, the women were awarded AA Command uniform badges and the previously men-only title of "Bombardier". Eventually they did all the roles including gun-laying and loading except, symbolically, pulling the lanyard.
At this point, may I remind everyone that BF1 had the freaking Iron Man Mark 1 suit in it and, while people did point out that it was unrealistic, they didn't start a #notmybattlefield campaign.
I was the standard and you broke the standard.
Somehow I can't stop laughing when reading this. 
I can only hope this is a 12-yrold kid, otherwise we have a problem.
Games should be fun, not an interactive version of history channel. Just play and have fun, all these controversies are simply dumb.
