Battlefield V is set to release in October of this year and is already generating controversy thanks to EA DICE’s inclusion of playable female characters. The development has led to a call to boycott the game under the unifying hashtag of #notmyBattlefied. The problem with such a call to arms, however, is that despite the codependent relationship between creators and fans, Battlefied has never belonged to any one group. If it belongs to anyone, it has to belong to everyone. So while a vocal minority bellows behind their screens into the void of the internet, they must learn to accept that not everything is for you (you being the universal you). If the inclusion of female resistance fighters and the mere ability to craft your avatar in the female form offends you so deeply, then maybe this version of the game simply isn’t for you. And that’s ok. GM of DICE Oskar Gabrielson echoed the sentiment stressing that “player choice and female playable characters are here to stay.” And suggesting that anyone upset by the notion shouldn’t buy the game.
So let’s dive into this a bit. Why are these fans SO upset by the representation of female characters? Their claim is that it is “historically inaccurate” and a desperate attempt by developers to appeal to the SJWs or social justice warriors of the world. In a way this is true. EA has been trying over Battlefield’s last 2 or 3 iterations to appeal to a wider audience. The game has moved away from the simulation style of earlier releases to a more fast-paced, high action gameplay. This is likely a reaction to Battlefield’s main competition, Activision’s Call of Duty. So yes, in a way EA DICE is trying to appeal to SJWs, but in reality they’re trying to appeal to everyone. As they expand multiplayer and co-op modes in Battlefield V, it stands to reason, simply from a developer stand point that they give players the opportunity to craft their avatar in their own image, whether it be male or female.
But about that “historically inaccurate” bit. While many countries did not allow women to fight on the front lines, the Soviet Union certainly did; to the tune of 800,000 women. A handful of these women were in fact some of the deadliest snipers of the war; women like Lyudmila Pavilchenko, also known as Lady Death. Women in the United States may not have been on the front line but 350,000 served as uniformed auxiliaries in during WWII. Women risked their lives as spies and resistance fighters throughout the war, making the single player war story of a female resistance fighter in Norway fairly true to the spirit of women fighting wherever they could find the opportunity.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if fans of Battlefied are going to accept the historical inaccuracies of fast moving tanks and small arms fire taking down aircraft, they’re going to have the accept the historically supported notion that women can fight and did in fact do so in WWII and have done so throughout human history. While it may not be highlighted in your average social studies text book (an argument for another day), it’s easily researched and verified. Are the missions and scenarios you can place your female avatar in historically accurate to the exact situations women found themselves in during WWII? That remains to be seen but ultimately doesn’t really matter. As Gabrielson said himself, “above all, our games must be fun!” At the end of the day it’s a video game, not a college history lecture. My advice to those upset by the inclusion of women is to not play as a woman (a radical notion, I know) or play any number of the previously released Battlefield iterations.
It’s not really even about the inclusion of women, it’s this agneda of forced diversity that this game pushes. I have no problem with female characters in video games but it needs to be done well with subtlety.
Good points. Thank you for the feedback.
How is the inclusion of women who did in fact fight and contribute in numerous ways during World War II forced? If fans of the game want to debate the quality of the game that’s fine but the arguement that the inclusion of women is historically inaccurate is invalid.
“How is the inclusion of women who did in fact fight and contribute in numerous ways during World War II forced?”
Because less than 1% of combatants of WW2 were women, yet DICE is over representing them profusely, to the point where it’s patent propaganda. People purchase games to relax and get away from freshman-tier politics. The devs have even admitted that it was a political decision and called those who disagreed ‘uneducated’, and challenged them to not buy the game.
Oh, and 800,000 females were not combatants for the Soviets. You need to learn the difference between propaganda and reality. Ludicrous stories in Soviet newspapers about women fights was just a method to pressurize more women into ammunition factories. The Soviet female snipers myth is also just that – overblown propaganda.
Right now, in Syria, Assad has been filming female tank commanders for newsreels. Yet they have in fact never been in combat or never will be. It’s just propaganda.
Many sites disagree with your claims.
Discounting Wikipedia; there are many that talk about the female Sniper.
https://www.businessinsider.com/lyudmila-pavlichenko-female-sniper
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/11/01/during-the-second-world-war-more-than-2000-women-served-as-snipers-in-the-red-army/
https://mashable.com/2016/07/30/soviet-women-snipers/#H5djy6zV_aqF
There are others as well.
BF was a series that promised war as close as they could get it within the confines of hardware limitations. That’s how games are made. When developers take shortcuts, like factually inaccurate representions of history to give this insane idea to people that we CURRENTLY don’t see them as equal people (we just don’t want to fudge the history).
Is it overblown? Yes. If you don’t want it they’ll say why, people will vote with their wallets. People still buy it, that’s the degree to which they measure selling out for immediate gain with net loss. A worse product from a lack of individuality and freedom within the confines of their resources. They are at the feet of shareholders who make the safest bets. The safest bet being what’s hot, social justice crap. What the gaming industry is suffering from is gamers not rasing the bar. The gaming industry is larger than ever yet the 80’s-early 00’s produced significantly higher quality at a larger volume than today.
That means the people mad about Battlfield are the guys that are sick of the lack of attention to detail, ridiculous politics before polishing the game (A simply mechanically flawed game, which is the biggest issue today). They aren’t evil racist sexist blablahblahs. They just want the best thing possible and you’ve set unimportant standards on developers that wastes resources, talent, and time to things that aren’t needed for a mechanically acceptable product.
The two sides are complaining about small things that should be small conversations to find a small middle ground. Meanwhile the big problems are set aside and the overall product suffers.
Thank you for the response. It was very detailed and clearly had some good points.
Tanks did move fairly fast esp for the 1930s and 40s and some weapons carried by infantry were fully capable of shotting down low flying aircraft