EA on Women in Battlefield V: Accept It, or Don’t Buy the Game

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
In an interview with Gamasutra, EA’s Patrick Soderlund had a stern message for anyone disagreeing with female soldiers in Battlefield V: accept it, or don’t buy it. Calling these folks “uneducated,” the chief design officer explained that women in World War II is “plausible” and offers a personal anecdote involving his 13-year-old daughter, who suggested that Battlefield should probably have female characters if other shooters (e.g., Fornite) do.

“There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass [woman]. And we don't take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don't understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game. I'm fine with either or. It's just not ok.”
 
ok, I wont buy it. IMO EA is a screwed up company:
- refused to remove a vocal racist until after Andromeda was done
- their techs on the phone lie through their teeth and they are poorly trained if at all
- a 5 years wait for Mass Effect Andromeda and it was a bust
- the EA client doesn't always launch correctly
- DLC fails to install

I guess you can tell I'm not an EA fan.

Folks need to grow up and stop being gaming whores who are willing to pay any price just to get their gaming fix (sometimes the price paid isn't money; it's much higher than that)
 
Last edited:
He thinks there were tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces? Who's the "uneducated" one.

If you want to put women soldiers in the game, fine, whatever. However, don't go full retard and say, "derrrr... women soldiers were plausible... derrrr". No. No they weren't. We have plenty of actual battlefield footage/pictures. Never saw a single women on the front lines.
 
I think the bit about his daughter tells us everything. All he cares about is lining his pocket with a few extra cents. Cartoony game makes a lot of money off of microtransactions. 13 year old girl, who probably isn't the pinnacle source of video game quality, wants dads game to also have a cartoon look. Said assclown hurls insults at anyone who doesn't like the cartoon, microtransaction infused model they're striving for with BF5. Tries to hide fact he wants to nickle and dime us to death (while ruining the quality of the game long term) by posting a pathetic sob story about his daughter.

Many people would simply have a lot more respect if he just said something similar to the following:

We don't give a damn about making a semi authentic looking war game. We want to make more money, so we're putting in dozens of tasteless cosmetic microtransactions because PUGB and Fornite make a killing from it. Sorry that is how it is in 2018!

Of course, flinging poo and whining to the internet makes more headlines and press for his product. And I suppose a number of people fall for his statements.
 
GOD'SlittleSERVANT said:
The sad thing is, why the fuck is this even a topic of discussion?

Tired of everyone getting fucking butthurt over nothing.
Click to expand...

my guess is it was the "Accept It, or Don’t Buy the Game" comment that riled up.

For the record, EA is not my dad ...
 
Women did not have combat roles in most of the Allied forces, although a great aunt of mine was the highest ranking woman in the Canadian Army, a Colonel in WW2. Women had combat roles in specialist units such as the British SOE and the American OSS. Women had combat roles in the Soviet Union and several other countries. But who really cares? It's a game.
 
I wasn't going to buy it either way, but it seems odd for people to suddenly get pissed about historical accuracy in a video game. Especially in a first-person shooter. Last time I checked, it wasn't historically accurate to take a bullet, rest for 10 seconds, and be 100% fine. :p

Personally, I say if people want to make women characters, they should be able to have at it.

Also, (somehow) in B4 inevitable SJW rants.
 
TordanGow said:
He thinks there were tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces? Who's the "uneducated" one.

If you want to put women soldiers in the game, fine, whatever. However, don't go full retard and say, "derrrr... women soldiers were plausible... derrrr". No. No they weren't. We have plenty of actual battlefield footage/pictures. Never saw a single women on the front lines.
Click to expand...

What he actually said:
The common perception is that there were no women in World War II. There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war.
Click to expand...
Which is 100% factually accurate; there were enormous numbers of women that saw combat in WWII. That includes women actively fighting for the western allies, though those were in special operations roles, not regular army.

That's not to say the game won't suck, because EA, but they're 100% correct that women were involved in direct combat in WWII.
 
_l_ said:
my guess is it was the "Accept It, or Don’t Buy the Game" comment that riled up.

For the record, EA is not my dad ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, a confrontational attitude is probably not the best way to boost sales; I suspect he's probably just tired of the whole issue.

I know I am. ;)
 
Guess I won't buy the game.

2cchtn.jpg


TordanGow said:
He thinks there were tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces? Who's the "uneducated" one.

If you want to put women soldiers in the game, fine, whatever. However, don't go full retard and say, "derrrr... women soldiers were plausible... derrrr". No. No they weren't. We have plenty of actual battlefield footage/pictures. Never saw a single women on the front lines.
Click to expand...
I think there should be a Jewish solder cause technically they did fight in WW2. In space ships, firing lasers. Hey it's technically possible.

kbBaYzc.gif
 
Probably would have been more accepted in a modern shooter that took place in Israel. Seriously, BF with Israeli hardware and weapons would be awesome. Merkava tanks!!
 
Whiners. It's a video game. Looks awesome too. The trailer wasn't great but gameplay looks awesome.
Girlfriend plays BF with me all the time, she's happy she ll be able to play as a female. Anyone thinking video games can rewrite history is a very dull tool. I don't give a shit about female characters, but I can't wait to cause shit in a tiger.
 
Does the battlefield franchise have a commitment to historical accuracy? If it doesn't then I don't see why people would object.
If it does how are they violating historical accuracy in regards to women (serious question, I only watched the trailer where there was a single woman)?
 
I'm a huge battlefield fan, I don't play any other EA games since Sim Citry 3000, and everything before that was all Maxis. Guess more of a DICE fan than EA fan these days, and I don't get why people are getting up in arms about this, there have always been other titles for those that want ultra realism, the Battlefield franchise has never been about historic accuracy, it's been about fun. That's why I've already pre-ordered. Still playing Battlefield 1 and will play Battlefield V more than I care to admit.
 
opfreak said:
Both sides are wrong.

1) there were hardly any women figthers in WII, and still true to this day. EA is trying to re-write history based on some PC ideology.
2) Its a freaking game. Who cares.
Click to expand...

I don't mind women in a game, in fact I even prefer it. But them trying to justify it as historically accurate makes me mad.

So by going full mcintosh they achieved that I don't want to buy it despite liking the idea of women in the game.
 
When I first saw the woman in the trailer I defended it. I said, we're dealing with off-the-beaten-track conflicts like resistance cells and the co-op especially seemed to be a "commando" type experience where you would have very eccentric personages (see: "Mad Jack" Churchill and Virginia Hall). Cool. Then I saw "Royale" and realized they just want to sell tons of stupid cosmetics for the battle royale mode (let's be honest). In a way I feel bad because the pushback against loot boxes led them here, but then I realize...it's their own damn fault. EA: all you had to do was reinvent 1942 and have plausible cosmetics but instead, in the words of Angry Joe, "you done f'd it up."

As an aside: people will no doubt say, "but Maxx, they won't have BR until after launch!" This is true, but it's part of their trap. They've already heavily advertised the fact you can play early with Origin Access. They've advertised heavily the fact there won't be a Season Pass. Put two and two together - they want people to subscribe to Origin Access and pre-order the game (since there's no fear of a divided playerbase) and once you're locked in beyond refunds (vast majority of AAA money comes within weeks of release) they'll open up BR and sell the shit out of cosmetics for it. This isn't about them learning from past mistakes, it's them being manipulative with monetization in an entirely new way.
 
Last edited:
I think it's cool that EA included women in the game. I play games for entertainment, not for historical accuracy. And I think the game will be more interesting with female characters.
 
I just don't get all the outrage. More women are playing games, so EA is letting them play with an avatar that represents themselves. How is that a bad thing? The whole, "How many women saw combat in WWII?" question doesn't matter. This a game where you drive jeeps full of dynamite in to tanks, or run planes in to infantry men, not a realistic battle simulator.
 
serpretetsky said:
Does the battlefield franchise have a commitment to historical accuracy? If it doesn't then I don't see why people would object.
If it does how are they violating historical accuracy in regards to women (serious question, I only watched the trailer where there was a single woman)?
Click to expand...

For a lot of us immersion plays a big role. It defines the difference between mediocre games and great ones. When you see something silly and unfitting it just takes you out of the experience. Similar to how TV/movies/games try and make every former SEAL a female. It is just silly and makes the character less believable. Crysis 3, The 100 are two examples that come to mind but there are a number of others that I've seen. They try to build up a character to make them seem badass, but when you chuckle at how silly it is you take the character less silly.

Yeah, the Soviets had a few female snipers in WWII. But they weren't infantry, didn't drive tanks, didn't wear blue war paint, and didn't operate firearms just as effectively with only one arm.

Shmee said:
I More women are playing games, so EA is letting them play with an avatar that represents themselves. How is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Build the game around the theme. If you want playable females, pick a different setting or genre. To do otherwise is just lazy.

Are you going to protest Tomb Raider so we can add a beard to Lara? "Play as you feel" is one of the dumbest concepts to take hold in the gaming industry. I want to be immersed the experience, and that means the developers have to craft it.
 
This is a defense tactic to rout a potential flop in the face of widespread criticism. This has nothing to do with history or gender diversity.

It even comes with a straight-up ad hominem: "These are people who are uneducated."
 
I do not care about the inclusion of a different avatar one way or the other. I do not particularly care for being told, "Like [whatever we just did] or STFU." That, in my opinion, is not a diplomatic or appropriate response.
 
2018., the year 13 year old children decide what your games will be like. The future of gaming is now. Current year is the best year.
 
TordanGow said:
He thinks there were tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces? Who's the "uneducated" one.

If you want to put women soldiers in the game, fine, whatever. However, don't go full retard and say, "derrrr... women soldiers were plausible... derrrr". No. No they weren't. We have plenty of actual battlefield footage/pictures. Never saw a single women on the front lines.
Click to expand...

Women's Battalion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Battalion

American reporter Bessie Beatty estimated the total number of women serving in these gender-segregated units at 5,000 in the fall of 1917, but only the 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death and the Perm Battalion were deployed to the front.[3]

Batall%C3%B3n-muerte-rusia--insiderussianrev00dorrrich.png


Regiment_from_Petrograd.jpg


These were Russian female soldiers in the images above.

46 Canadian female soldiers were killed during the war.

Women in World War I.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_I

2,000 Finnish female soldiers fought in their Civil War which was started because of Russia's collapse during World War I. It ended with Finland finally breaking from from Russian rule and becoming an independent country. Finland was supposed to join Germany after the war, but we know how that worked out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

Women have been fighting in wars since the beginning of time. Heck the Vikings were notable for their women fighting alongside the men. I don't know why people think that the same cultures that produced the Vikings would suddenly make their women into trophy wives for World War I.

Most women enlisted during World War I from America were nurses or doing things like running switchboards. Nurses of course were in the military hospitals that were near to the battles. Many men that were traumatized by chemical warfare preferred female nurses as they could calm them down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_women_in_World_War_I

11,000 American women in the Navy
21,000 Army nurses.
Lots more. Check out the article. :)

Same thing happened in World War II.

/shrug
 
Make all the characters women and they'd throw a fit because it would be teaching/encouraging violence toward women. People are going to bitch no matter what. We live in a world of "do it the way I want and everybody agree with me or I'm going to throw a fit like a 10 year-old" whiners.

I say make them all women, and make them naked (and I bet it would sell twice as many copies if the graphics were detailed enough). :p

The world is mentally ill.
 
opfreak said:
Both sides are wrong.

1) there were hardly any women figthers in WII, and still true to this day. EA is trying to re-write history based on some PC ideology.
2) Its a freaking game. Who cares.
Click to expand...
Pretty much this, but 2) far far outweighs 1).

And the one side that is unequivocally right is EA. If you don't like it, your only recourse is to not buy the game. Get over it.
 
They may have been there, but not in the levels and amounts the game has at the moment. For those wanting historical accuracy, maybe include a checkbox that swaps out the character on the client side?

I hear they may have one for those that want historical uniforms versus the new all-you-eat uniform customization.
 
Flogger23m said:
For a lot of us immersion plays a big role. It defines the difference between mediocre games and great ones. When you see something silly and unfitting it just takes you out of the experience. Similar to how TV/movies/games try and make every former SEAL a female. It is just silly and makes the character less believable. Crysis 3, The 100 are two examples that come to mind but there are a number of others that I've seen. They try to build up a character to make them seem badass, but when you chuckle at how silly it is you take the character less silly.

Yeah, the Soviets had a few female snipers in WWII. But they weren't infantry, didn't drive tanks, didn't wear blue war paint, and didn't operate firearms just as effectively with only one arm.
Click to expand...

Yes, the build-up of female combatants is way, way overdone in basically everything lately because the main issue is that they constantly remind the fucking audience that "and this is being done by a woman, wow!" as opposed to the approach of simply showing someone badass being badass and letting the audience accept it as such. Private Vasquez from Aliens, anyone? No one gave a shit that the character was a woman and no one argued that she was a badass.

I guess the structure of how you used Crysis and The 100 makes more sense if you had that at the end of what you typed because the examples don't apply otherwise. There's a stark difference between something like a female Navy SEAL in Crysis, an apocalyptic future setting where who gives a shit about gender when we're all gonna die scenario is going on compared to your note about the Soviet female snipers. If DICE is saying "women did this" and they didn't then yes, that's an issue.

But also...wtf do you expect them to do when they're trying to appeal to as broad an audience as they can? This is about money, not history, just the same as it was when they released 1942. Battlefield is not a realistic nor historical experience in any way. How is your immersion not as equally devastated by half the shit that goes on in the game in the first place?
 
I'm OK with the choice of having female soldiers in Battlefield V. I think Patrick Soderlund (PatSo) fucked up and has no idea what he is doing when it comes to handling this. I'm sure PatSo is getting stupid shit from stupid people however, you don't address everyone with a response meant for a portion of the fanbase. Now it sounds like PatSo thinks everyone who questions the choice is "uneducated" which is ironic because it shows just how uneducated PatSo is. (Privileged?) You can be on both sides of the decision and still question choices and be educated. For example, what is the motivation behind the choice and what impact should we except? Are they giving female soldiers the proper treatment with this presentation? What sets this apart from a male envisioned female RPG character? (She looked RPG'ish.)

On the other hand, I also think certain opinions against the choice of female soldiers in Battlefield are ridiculous; specifically in regards to Battlefield and historical accuracy. I just have to say that if you want to play a soldier in a battlefield with historical accuracy just Google search "war reenactment near me." It's a win-win, you get to have some sun and some exercise while EA doesn't get your $60. (Also supporting your local community groups.)
 
I wasn't going to buy it anyways.

Going SJW will seal EA's fate more so than battlefront 2 already has
 
TordanGow said:
He thinks there were tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces?
Who's the "uneducated" one..
Click to expand...

You are, if you think any video game in the retail market is ever going to be an accurate re-creation of real war.

You're also being dishonest: no one has said there were "tons of women soldiers in the US / English forces."
Besides, if there was even one, why not let people play her?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top