http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/battlefield/news/a799041/female-soldiers-removed-from-battlefield-1/
Where were you when dice unJUST itself?
>>342741715
Why would they even open themselves to this kind of criticism by announcing that in the first place?
>>342741715
>unJUST
Business-wise they're gonna have to endure a tidal wave of agenda-based PR backlash first.
Not to support EA, but frankly if they survive that and social media manipulation doesn't cause their sales to substantially lower, then it just might further show how stupid this trendy journalism has become.
>>342741715
Now to remove black german soldiers fighting in France for some reason
>>342742153
Dude, these fucking idiots don't buy FPS games. They didn't even buy Mirror's edge 2. They are a vocal minority who suck at anything requiring skill (FPS games to an extent) and they also hate guns.
They will lose no sales from this
>>342742168
Arn't the black soldiers exclusive to the American faction? It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
>>342742356
Nope. at least not in the gameplay at E3.
>>342741715
>After all, women participated in almost every other aspect of the war effort except front-line combat, why not make a small amendment?
What is this fucking revisionist history bullshit? Battlefield already takes liberties, so we should savor what historical integrity it still has and not fucking SJW up another game because muh feelings.
>>342741715
>pretend you care about historical setting
>niggers everywhere
>tanks are racecars
>other retarded shit
Why would you do that?
At least admit you are going full retard and tell everyone to deal with it rather than that. They are making it worse by trying to satisfy everyone, that is not going to happen anyways.
If it was WW2, it might he justified. There were at least women resistance fighters there.
>>342741715
>A woman being able to carry a T-Gewehr up a hill, through mud, etc
Removing females because they aren't historically accurate is possibly the stupidest thing to do if you're going for historical accuracy. Not that it's incorrect, but there's a bunch of other shit they'd need to do. Might as well keep your fantasy woman in if you keep the rest fantasy.
What if EA planned all this SJW marketing and then started showing it the finger just to generate publicity
>1% female BF1 playerbase
>HUUR WHY U DELET WOMENNNZ
>>342742168
BUT BUT GERMANY HAD BLACK SOLDIERS
HERE LOOK AT THIS PICTURE FROM WW2 OF ONE BLACK PERSON IN A SOLDIERS OUTFIT
Why? When you make an UTTERLY ahistorical game you might as well go all the way. The game has literally nothing in common with world war 1.
>>342743845
>The game has literally nothing in common with world war 1.
Bigger stretch than your mum's crowning passing your fat head
>>342741715
>Proudly announce female soldiers for SJW brownie points
>Wait a few weeks
>Quietly remove them for actual gamer brownie points
>SJWs don't buy games, so they never hear this news and remain happy
Bravo, EA. You actually managed to make both sides happy.
>>342742072
This.
Now if only they could replace all the automatic weapons with bolt action ones.
I don't even care about the nigger thing. I just don't want to run around with WW2 tier guns in a WW1 game.
>>342741715
>historically acurate
>every 2nd soldier has a (sub)machine gun
>every soldier is black
>french will be prob. a DLC
>landships are way too fast, too many armored cars
>Snoop Dogg
>>342741715
>Britain exits from the EU
>Trump is soon going to become president
SJW's are losing the cultural war fast and they are now panicking.
>>342746724
Feels good, SJWs are annoying fucktards and I'm glad that others are getting sick of them too.
>>342746724
>>342746893
It's fucking about time they felt some pushback. It's been loss after loss since the 60's and it's time the "conservative" defensive strategy was retired. Offensive action like Brexit and Trump is lighting up the future.
I wonder if this is what 80's people felt like when they could see nothing but good things in the future, it feels like that could be now again.
>>342741715
>battlefield
>historical accuracy
kek
I will enjoy the tears but this is incredibly stupid
If they are going to be ridiculously historically inaccurate, then female soldiers should have stayed.
>30% blacks? Guns barely made it past the prototype stage? A.OK!
>Women!? Too unrealistic!
Fuck
Off
>Censorship to appease idiots is okay when its for us
No different
>>342746339
This. The only automatic gun I've seen in that game that looked like it could be from WWI was the one with the magazine on the top, which looked gravity fed.
>>342745289
>>342742072
Because that means it's a guaranteed 2 million extra copies sold
>>342742072
This. Why do game devs feel the need to announced every little detail about their games on twitter? Nothing is ever a surprise anymore an everything has to spark some sort of controversy. Make the game you want to make and let the people who want to buy your game buy it.
>>342747206
How is it censorship? The vast, vast majority of females associated with WW1 were in non-combat roles. Battlefield is a combat-oriented franchise first and foremost
>>342747206
>for us
>us
You aren't one of us.
>>342742168
Well, to be fair, having like 3 black players on the French team would be in the spirit of realism because the French did control West Africa and had volunteer blacks from the United States fighting in its ranks.
But to make it really in the spirit of realism, what they need to do is to add hyper-intelligent AI bots armed with what a normal soldier would have (Bolt action rifle, spade, grenade) if they were going to let real players be "perked up".
Someone post the pic "german soldier according to bf1" etc
>>342741715
>WHY ARENT THERE ANY PLAYABLE WOMEN?! ITS SEXIST!
>add women
>WHY ARE THERE KILLABLE WOMEN?! ITS SEXIST!
>>342747195
Pure realism is boring.
But if I was designing the game, I'd completely rework how the human players of the team are integrated into the package.
What I would do, if I was a developer, would be to add basically three classes of people.
>Specialists
>Vehicle handlers
>Squad leaders.
The 'specialists' get all the nifty perks and guns and spawn off squad leaders.
The 'vehicle handlers' are basically people that spawn into vehicles.
The 'Squad leaders', are basically conventional ww1 infantry that lead a few bots with even less equipment (but play like a normal player would) but handle fire support, direct the rest of the team and do most of the territorial work.
But Dice apparently gets exceptionally butthurt about taking suggestions, so whatever.
>>342749560
Battlefield Hardline is one of the worst games I've ever played. It's a complete design disaster. I paid £4 and that was too much. It doesn't feel good, the maps and game modes promote Call of Duty style run and gun but they aren't built withtge same finesse. Call of Duty maps always used to allow me to play slow when I wanted too. I've yet to find a tactical game mode or one without respawns, so it's just an absolute clusterfuck .None if the good part of CoD or Battlefield classics, but pretty much all of the bad from both.
They also managed to fuck up Mirrors Edge.
How can people like Dice? I hate seeing on FB people shut talking CoD players when BF is legit worse.
>>342741715
>historical accuracy.
Yes.
The historical accuracy of every single soldier having a fully auto weapon that was made in serial number up to 5000.
Sure.
See, that's my complaint. That you are making a game full of full auto guns to appeal to the CoD crowd to make it play like CoD and BF3 and BF4 and every other shooter on the market when WW1 kinda wasn't modern warfare. You're fixing the historical inaccuracy of one thing while having a blatant inaccuracy of field equipment and arms to appeal to Ritalin junkies who want to spray and pray because aiming too hard.
>>342741715
>caring about FPS games
What the FUCK happened to /v/?
>>342743062
Mirror's Edge Catalyst bombed hard. Amazon set the price back to retail, buy Best Buy still has it listed for $39.99. It's pretty unnatural for a price drop to happen that shortly after release.
>>342747206
>Censorship
How exactly? There weren't any female infantry.
>>342751406
see
>>342748882
Aim for the spirit of realism.
And the nice part of doing it that way is you can make battles more grand, and thus more fun, and because the AI is extremely specific, it can be designed robustly and efficiently instead of having to make an overarching system.
Face it, no player is going to want to be stuck with a non-scoped bolt action rifle, a shovel, and a grenade, despite that being a very common theme. So you work around it, make computer controlled players stuck with that that otherwise behave like humans would, and let the human players have all the cool equipment.
>>342751720
There have been multiple 500+ post threads about Call of Duty.
It's basically WW2 with a WW1 aesthetic, all these automatic weapons and house to house combat. They should have made this WW2, but it will grab a couple of retards because they've never played a WW1 shooter game.
>Implying this isn't just another Marketing scheme
>Just like Tracer and her butt pose
And /v/ fucking falls for it again
>>342751824
This is entirely the problem.
>no player is going to want to be stuck with a non-scoped bolt action rifle, a shovel, and a grenade, despite that being a very common theme.
This is the problem
> the cool equipment.
The cool equipment is the above listed.
Unless you're above listed ritalin junkie.
Otherwise you're playing the same exact game that has been done a million fucking times before but with world war 1 paint.
What's the fucking point if you're just reskinning modern combat games and they play the same?
Why not make a game that plays DIFFERENTLY? You know, PLAYS like a WW1 game?
Something that will challenge what players have played before and forces them to try something new?
Oh, right.
Because you hate new things.
>>342752074
>It's basically Modern warfare/battlefield 4 with a WW1 aesthetic
Fixed.
This is baffling. There are so many other, more flagrant offenses to historical accuracy, but the one they make the concession on is woman soldiers? Really? This has to be some kind of bizarre joke.
>>342752093
This is the opposite of that, though. This is almost certain to generate more negative PR for them whereas Blizzard got brownie points at the start for removing the pose. No idea what the plan here is.
>>342752349
It's negative PR they can easily reverse in one fell sweep.
Remember when Blizzard said they'd make Real ID mandatory on Battle.net? People bitched and cried and shouted
Then Blizzard cancelled the plan and was hailed as a hero
>>342741715
>claim be historically accurate
>parade around black Americans
>feature women in the debut trailer
>fine whatever at least I have bolt action rifles to look forward to
>they use rare and uncommon semi/full-auto weapons and less emphasis on bolt actions
Fucking forget it. I had low demands from the beginning and they fucked even that up.
>>342741715
>french army is still DLC only while the US is in the base game so they can sell it to americans
>They unjust themselves by removing female soldiers
Yeah nah they still have a ton of shit to fi before they officially unJUST themselves
>Pretend to remove female soldiers
>Cause a shitstorm and the inevitable petitions
>"Reintroduce" them
>See how we listen to our dedicated fans :^)
>>342752234
>plays like a ww1 game.
That is literally, how you make it play like a world war I game. You make the AI players behave like humans stuck with that equipment, have them fill out a significant chunk of the team, and give the human players on the team either the specialist role, the squad leader roll, or control of a vehicle.
The key phrase is "Plays like a human would".
Other thing that comes to mind is that the vehicles are lulzily mobile, which needs to be changed before release.
>>342752621
Making a dumb decision related to actual video games is a lot different than playing with the fire that is PC nonsense, one way or the other.
>>342747206
>>342752950
I am talking about the core of the game, which, for BF, has always been multiplayer.
If you want it to play like ww1:
You aren't going to be run and gunning one man army commando kill streak unlocked imma smoke this charlie RB to drop tactical tank paratrooper.
A ww1 should, ideally, be pitched bloody combat. Machine gun implacements; stationary. infantry with small capacity long range shots across trenches, difficult barbed wire muddy fields, long range shots.
It wasn't a lot of close range fighting. Which was a lot of problems with the army in iraq since a lot of training was based on WW1 tactics and trench warfare.
>>342742356
>Black people only were in America in WW1 and only fighitng for America.
>>342753617
>Which was a lot of problems with the army in iraq since a lot of training was based on WW1 tactics and trench warfare.
What? Are you saying that the reason it's hard to counter guerilla warfare is because we forgot to change tactics since WW1? You fuckin wot
>>342753617
That is 1916. 1917-1918 is all about a shift from stationary trench warfare to gradually mobile again.
the formula of
>Specialists armed with gizmos that spawn off of...
>Squad leaders, who are slightly better armed (mostly due to having a pistol) that leads a team of bots (2-3) with rifle, shovel, grenade; who are also responsible for fire support.
>Vehicles - because world war I had these things.
Warfare will always be intrinsically different from computer simulation because real warfare involves fear of death.
>>342741715
didnt everyone run around with a fucking smg in e3 gameplay
how about you fix that first u tards
>>342754046
vehicles are ok. that's a staple in ww1
As long as it plays like something that isn't horribly horribly HORRIBLY too similar to bf3/4/CoD.
>bots
please god no.
>>342741715
>happy that a company removes features
Holy fuck you're a tool
>>342741715
>JUST
>unJUST
Kill yourself, retarded memer.
>>342747206
>historical accuracy is censorship
Look, if you want a historical fanfic, you're free to write it. But if you proclaim historical accuracy, or at least a degree of it, you had better fucking keep it historically accurate.
Revisionism IS censorship. Accuracy is not.
>>342754675
Did DICE ever even make bots for multiplayer? Also if you have so many bots per each player I doubt the game will run smoothly, especially on consoles.
>>342754720
When did they ever proclaim historical accuracy?
>>342754893
I can't blame you for not following a DICE/EA game, but if you're going to partake in a discussion about it, do your bloody homework before you speak.
>>342754675
>No human player is going to want to be stuck with being a regular soldier in WW1.
You are speaking for yourself and underselling yourself.
If you try it, you may actually like it because it would actually be something that is not boring or done to death.
>>342755161
It's a game set in WW1 background, but that doesn't mean they've proclaimed the game to be historically accurate.
>>342755356
they removed female soldiers to maintain the historical setting.
>>342755356
Right. And those interviews and conferences never happened.
You know, even if they didn't, declaring your game to be based on a historical event (not "loosely based" or "inspired by") already gives you a responsibility of a sort.
>>342754871
Battlefield 1942 had bots, granted it was clunky, but that was way back in 2002.
The AI required is heavily restricted in requirements (I.e, how does a guy with a rifle react to spotting a tank or a flamethrower), so it should, in theory, be able to be extensively and elegantly developed without it needing to suck up *too* much computing power per bot.
say you have 8 squad leaders, 2 bots per squad leader, that's 32 extra bots per server; which is actually really realistic to the time.
>>342755521
>already gives you a responsibility of a sort.
What the fuck are you talking about lmao. No it doesn't. I can't think of a single game that's "historically accurate." They're all just varying degrees of accuracy, some good some terrible. By itself, historical accuracy has no effect on how fun the game is. No WW2 grand strategy game would be fun otherwise because the Allies would just win every time due to incredibly inferior Axis production and resources.
>>342747206
There were no female soldiers in WW1, idiot.
The suffragette movement was created out of fear of the government employing women in combat situations if the war went on for too long. None of them gave a flying shit about the men and boys(some as young as 13) who died in the trenches in France.
There were tons of nurses and cooks despite all the proto-feminists telling them all to march in the street for "equality" while the men were blown to bits and had their lungs boiled by mustard gas on the other side of the canal.
But nooo, EA has to show women doing the same thing as men or else people will take it the wrong way.
Good thing they had a change of heart in the MP though, since there were no recorded instance of women fighting on the front lines.
Of course there's that mythical unicorn muslim cavalry woman in the campaign though, but that's something reserved discussion when the game comes out.
>>342748352
It's cheap marketing and they've found, through focus "testing", that their core audience don't give a fuck and would rather know everything pre-launch.
Imagine FROM doing the same tactics. People would lose their shit.
>>342747206
>Add the equivalent of a pink haired elf from Mars in a historical shooter while saying that you did a lot of research and are trying to be as realistic as possible
>People call you retarded
>Remove it
>"Censorship"
Suck my dick. Choke on it.
>>342755226
There are many ways to do it, I think I've come up with a way to appeal to the most people.
Someone looking for COD gets their flexibility, someone looking for battlefield gets the scope, and someone looking for Red Orchestra gets the hint of realistic gameplay.
Besides, 64 players on a map the size of Alamein is a little sparse.
