BFV Dev: I Knew Adding Female Soldiers Was Going To Be A Fight; There Are Other Authentic WW2 Games

Battlefield V developer Alan Kertz (Design Director at DICE) said that he knew adding female soldiers was going to be a fight, but it's the right time to do so. He then pointed out that other World War 2 themed games are available for those seeking maximum authenticity.

Read Full Story >>
Imp0ssibl32211d ago

Who can be so stupid to make up such a fuss because they are adding playable females in multiplayer?!?

techsquisite2211d ago

Probably the same type of person who'd be of the mindset to not allow women to vote 100 years ago. Just a theory.

HaveSumNuts2211d ago

Probably the mindset of someone who has a thing against boob physics in games.

Skull5212211d ago

We’re upset because Battlefield is starting to become, well, not Battlefield. A beloved series is falling to the culture wars.

EA is going to have to explain to shareholders how they made a Battlefront blunder followed by a Battlefield blunder.

General Shrooms2210d ago

Nice straw-man techsquisite. Why bother confronting the detractors grievances when you can just call them a bigot?

The 10th Rider2210d ago

It was actually largely groups of women that most vehemently opposed women's suffrage. So if it's your theory that it's the same group that doesn't want women in Battlefield V, you're saying that it's largely women that don't want women in BFV.

zypher2210d ago (Edited 2210d ago )


I got into Battlefield because I like the mechanics. I like that if there's a sniper camped in a building, I can use an RPG to take him and half the structure down. I like that instead of calling in an airstrike via killstreak, I can just spawn in a jet and do the bombing myself. So long as the series maintains these mechanics, and doesn't start propagating extreme right wing ideologies, then I don't give a shit where it stands in the culture wars.

UltraNova2210d ago


Take a close look, what do you see?


mep692210d ago

So the same sort of people who thought that Poor men who didn't own land didn't deserve the vote either.

Dirtnapstor2210d ago

“...and doesn’t start propagating extreme right wing ideologies”
Sorry but cultural diversity and inclusion is a Lefty movement, not Right-winged.
Aside from that, I agree, I could care less as long as the mechanics are through and through BF.
Angry Joe has some great commentary on the game that was not public. Quashes much of the concerns. DICE is probably waiting for E3 to fully reveal.

subtenko2210d ago

ahhh no youre the type of person everyone is worried about stiring stuff up and trying to use it for some bs agenda. NOPE get outta here with that. You act like females in videos games arent common, ratios are everything. More male characters might be in games the way that more males ask females on a date and not the other way around

Skull5212210d ago


You’d better cancel your preorder because this game is going to let you play as Nazis.

zypher2210d ago (Edited 2210d ago )


Yes, you can use Nazis as an avatar, as a function of needing opposing sides, which is pretty vital to the gameplay of a game set during WWII (be it an alternative setting or otherwise). Doesn't mean the game is propagating nazism.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2210d ago
-Foxtrot2211d ago

They aren't though, it's like one part of a dozen complaints people have, sure there's going to be a few people but it's not what everyone in the gaming community is focusing on, cherry picking Youtube comments so they can twist the narrative for their article can easilly be done. I mean this article explains it the best.


They are making it about this one thing so the entire thing seems "stupid" or "immature" and sweeps the other complaints under the rug.

parris2211d ago

The whole thing is silly and immature.

It's just a video game.

-Foxtrot2211d ago (Edited 2211d ago )


So people saying they have an issue with it because

It looks like an alternative universe where WW2 happened with a steampunk twist.

Overuse of War paint

Bright and colourful

A much over the top lively atmosphere

Shirtless guys and clothing which dosen't look like that time frame or what they'd wear

Some hair and facial hair styles looking out of plac

Someone with a prosthetic hand using it so easily while being on the front lines

All of those issues people have raised is "immature and silly"...no it's called having an opinion, a valid one. If the trailer was for the single player then these points hit harder, if the reveal was for the multiplayer then all these "cosmetic items" are being used a lot to justify the MTs they'll be putting in the game and while we sit here and argue they'll be laughing all away to the bank because we're all too distracted to focus on their greed like we all did together as a community for Battlefront II. So either way...it's valid criticism.

I mean there's a War Story in the game about a young female resistance fighter in Norway fighting off the enemy...she's not on the front lines or military she's on her own as part of the resistance which to me is more believable then a woman at the heart of the front lines with a prosthetic hand fighting off enemies like it's a walk in the park. Gender isn't the issue, the story which revolves around them is and if it dosen't fit then it makes you question it.

morganfell2211d ago (Edited 2211d ago )


I agree with you. The thing is Dice did this because they are risk averse. It's like a movie or series where they hire the wrong actor for the role but they want name draw. Or they opt to remake something from the past because they feel its safe. Anyone seen that horrible and laughable trailer for the new Magnum PI?

If Dice had been a little smarter and willing to take just a little risk they could have gone with a new IP. But they wanted to ride the Battlefield name. The laughable thing is they could have done so and called it Battlefield Altered Wars or something similar and made a point of the fact it was an alternate history. In doing so all of this flak could have been avoided. Now they are getting an ear full and having to devote time to defending their product because they were too stupid to do something that respected history, allows creative freedom, and provides them the ability to cater to their new target audience

Rachel_Alucard2210d ago (Edited 2210d ago )


When someone says it's just a video game, anything you say is invalid since you don't care enough to discuss it since it is that irrelevant to you. I don't think I need to argue against anyone in favor of mindless consumerism.

parris2210d ago (Edited 2210d ago )

Rachel it is just a video game.

More games are released than a person could play even if that's all they spent their time doing.

People are up in arms about this like it's peace talks between two warring nations. It's not a big deal, I have more respect for my kid when I tell him to mow the lawn and he doesn't want to. At least in that case he is actually being forced to do something. No one and I mean NO ONE has to buy or even play BFV.

If you take a step back and realize the actual problems in the world, and probably in most peoples personal lives you'll quickly realize the entire idea of getting outraged over something as trivial as BFV is in fact silly and immature.

Rachel_Alucard2210d ago


Excuse me, but don't come on to a video game newsite and wave the flag of "It doesnt matter guys!"

If it is that meaningless to you, then you have no reason to discuss or debate with anyone here. If you want to talk about other world problems then go to places that deal with it, instead of coming here and trying to shut others down since the field is so meaningless to you.

UnholyLight2210d ago

Well said on all accounts Foxtrot

UnholyLight2210d ago

I just want BF to still be a somewhat realistic game other than those silly moments that happen in the game...and not go down the CoD WWII route.

We don't get console WWII shooters anymore and I was really looking forward to a world where graphics and gameplay are finally getting insane and a real authentic and immersive experience that builds off what DICE has built up and how fun Battlefield 1942/3 was...could be that much better...

Instead we might be getting a game that's just about being silly instead of serious online. I was just discussing this with a friend over the weekend. We just want to play a WWII authentic and period correct game that has the Battlefield gameplay on it, with amazing graphics, and lots of players, with correct clothing (Germans wearing SS, Wehrmacht, Fallschirmjager, Americans wearing the 101st patches...you know...proper representation.

For the record Im totally fine with women being in the game assuming their inclusion represents the countries that actually fielded them (Russian female snipers...other allies like Great Britain who assembled special forces with women..Resistance members) not anything silly like frontline british women soldiers or something totally insane like FEMALE GERMAN NAZI SOLDIERS or African American Nazi soldiers...you know things that didn't happen in history at all period.

It just does a disservice to WWII to not represent it correctly in my opinion. That's where I think the majority of the community's heads are at...not this anti women straight up type crap that has popped up.

2210d ago
sampsonon2210d ago Show
jmc88882210d ago (Edited 2210d ago )

@Foxtrot, while I don't like out of place things, I am realistic.

If the price of free map packs and no season pass = cosmetics, some/most of which is out of place, so be it.

Also people really have to realize that $60 in 2018 is like $30 back in 2005.

In 2000-2001, one ounce of gold sold gave you the money to buy ~4-5 $50 AAA games. In 2018, based on the spot price right now, it would buy you between 21 and 22 $60 AAA games.

Regardless of how much money seems to us, in reality, all our money is worth nothing anymore. These companies for right or mostly wrong have a job to return value to their shareholders, not lose money via inflation.

I don't solely blame Wall Street corporations for this. I like to do that too, but 90 percent of it is on people like Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and likewise across the world.

This along with the Wall Street model itself are why there are loot boxes, season passes, and cosmetics in everything these days. The average person can't afford $150 a game, but these companies can sell the game for $60 and the whales via these other expenditures can get the average price up to who knows, 90-100-110? I really wonder where Overwatch is at.

This is the forgotten element, currency debasement, which often makes ALL talk about greedy videogame corporations worthless. If you don't take this into account, it's just pissing into the wind.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2210d ago
BadElf2211d ago (Edited 2211d ago )

Again, for me personally, its not because its just simply women in videogames. Its the REASON behind the foolishness. Why is it "the right time to do so"?? EA has had the vocal MINORITY complaining....yes, the SJWs, the Annita Skarkasians. Women were in videogames in the past. In movies and all forms of entertainment. BUT, it wasnt because of an AGENDA. That's the annoyance.

drpepperdude2211d ago

We have had women in gaming since the beginning yet with this one game we disagree with they act like we are anti-women. Some of my favorite games growing up have had female leads. They also use the you must be a virgin cliche to try and argue their side when really they have no real arguments against us. How they relate virginity to being anti-women I will never understand when the real world anti-women people usually became that way because of bad relationships.

RauLeCreuset2211d ago

Omnislash exposes the ridiculousness of this "agenda" scapegoating. All art can be accused of pushing an agenda. Perhaps the game has been pushing a military agenda. See what I mean? The Harlem Renaissance was pushing an agenda. It's easier to come out against a nebulous "agenda" than to admit having a problem with inclusion (or as some people will tell themselves, too much inclusion).