9 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:
What if someone made a game, or movie, or book, etc, about Shaka Zulu and the war against England. And what if half of Shaka's warriors were white women?
That is a false equivalency, for many reasons. First and foremost, this looks to be character customization for online gaming. Online gaming has literally never adhered to reality except in the loosest sense of the term, unless you actually believe that the way that Kaiserschlacht is depicted in Battlefield 1 operations is gospel honest to God true reality. Online gaming is not trying to tell a story typically. Secondly, women actually did fight in WW2, along with other non-white ethnicities. What you are trying to compare to absolutely never happened.
12 minutes ago, Mynx said:
You're ignoring all of the social context and looking at the issue in a vacuum. While I'd agree with you on an even playing field, reality is different and more complex. The double standard that you're complaining about is really a false equivalence due to the environment that we live in. Replacing non-white characters with white characters for example, which is considered "white washing", is only really a problem because there's a history of systematic oppression at play that greatly increases the weight behind the action. Replacing a white character with someone else doesn't carry that same weight, so it's not as big of a deal, so people generally look past it.
I'd also add however that we aren't really washing in the case of Battlefield V. Other ethnicities and women did fight in WW2. The British made use of colonial troops in many theaters of the war. African Americans fought in the war (Tuskegee Airmen, regiments, etc.). This isn't made up fact.
9 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:
It's really just reverse racism. The "diversity" crowd supports putting people of color into situations where they don't belong, and then become outraged if white people are put into situations where they don't belong.
Their arguments are not honest. In reality, they just hate white people.
No, it isn't reverse racism, nor is it hatred of white people. The fact that you drew that conclusion from a trailer for a video game of all things that has some women and other ethnicities depicted in a WW2 setting is more telling than anything else. By God people, it's just a multiplayer character skin customization, like what they had in COD, what possible issue does this present? But somehow this option becomes 'hatred against white people'? There are so many unrealistic things about this game, but this one thing that affects pretty much nothing and also has historical precedence is what somehow sends you to conclude that there's some secret anti-white agenda? Have you considered that maybe it's just money at the end of the day? As @ChaosEngine stated, it's almost certainly a financial decision, not a political/creative one.
I vaguely recall hearing similar complaining at a fever pitch over Battlefield 1's depictions as well.
If it's the realism that bothers you, there is a ton of unrealistic stuff in Battlefield and COD including depictions of the way the war is. There is a lot in these games that is fictionalized/dramatized that also omits quite a bit of important aspects of WW2 but it's not in there anyways.
10 hours ago, Gnollrunner said:
For example if a D-Day game came out and you had to storm the beaches as a woman in a bikini, most people are going to say it's stupid, and many will vocally complain about it.
Now that sounds like quite the game 
. Jokes aside, I'm sure that those games exist for the sake of giggles. I don't think people can really complain about such a game depending on what it is. Sure Battlefield doing that would be kinda weird, but more cause it's not fitting with their thematic choices.
4 hours ago, JoeJ said:
Ok - makes sense... i get your points, and i remember reading similar argumentation in posts on gaming sites. But there are other comments as well - up to something like 'jewish propaganda has rewritten our history books'. It's difficult to distinguish between various motivations for me.
If people perceive diversity as forced, then maybe there is something wrong with the games, but i've never experienced this my self. If you have any examples please let me know - i still don't know what you talk about exactly.
Of course we can't make every game a Star Trek game but giving people the option to be whatever they want is a central idea of gaming. Why all this crititicism on devs if all they do is giving us options?
Yea some examples would be interesting actually. I'd like to hear what people think is the 'wrong' kind of diversity beyond Battlefield V.
7 hours ago, Michael Aganier said:
The series started with realistic diversity because the game was designed like that. And suddenly, excessive diversity is forced into it. It is forced because it doesn't make sense to be there. Now, making sense refers to historical accuracy, but historical accuracy is not the problem.
The problem is not that history is not respected, the problem is that you force wrong history on me to serve something that is extremely moralising. This is where the political agenda comes from. Forced diversity is the war ship of political correctness. The moralising part comes from political correctness.
Forced Diversity > Political Correctness > Moralising > Disrespectful
For one, in the case of multiplayer skins, let's be clear here: multiplayer battles are pretty far detached from the realities of the actual battle they try to depict. The option to customize a character is moralizing? How are you so sure that this isn't just some financial decision?
And if they're depicting stories of women in WW2, or other ethnicities, both of which we know existed in history? What then?
And again, at the end of the day, it's just entertainment...amongst the many other things that they've changed for the sake of a more fun game, this doesn't make that much of a difference to the game. Again, it is purely a financial decision in all likelihood.
)
