What's 'woke'? I've literally only seen it being used as some sort of insult before.
But, yeah, I agree. Bond feels kinda soulless these days.
It's kind of like SJW. It has no real meaning and exists just to describe something that you don't like.
What's 'woke'? I've literally only seen it being used as some sort of insult before.
But, yeah, I agree. Bond feels kinda soulless these days.
What's 'woke'? I've literally only seen it being used as some sort of insult before.
But, yeah, I agree. Bond feels kinda soulless these days.
At the risk of going off topic, 'woke' is when you start believing that everything wrong with the world is because of the patriarchy, blaming everything on racism and sexism, develop misandry and start hating on white dudes, begin virtue signaling and pandering to lgtbqrsuvwxyz+-&*/, "people of color" and other so-called "minorities" and begin self-identifying as a moonbeam.What's 'woke'?
Yeah, but they're thinking it.I also want to say I disagree with what's been said about the Bond franchise.
First off, the series isn't 'going woke'.
No, because both women are good actors who are perfectly suited to the part and nobody made a particularly big deal out of it, the casting doesn't come at anyone else's expense, and because why not?Was it 'woke' when Judi Dench was cast as M? Was it 'woke' when Naomi Harris was cast as Moneypenny?
I'm glad you think so, but many people are feeling the fatigue set in, including the actors and producers.Second, I don't think the series has become 'soulless' recently.
All that talk is coming from tabloids and 4chan, though. The movie itself isn't being marketed with a black woman as 007 front and centre. Hell, Barbara Broccoli even explicitly stated that a woman would and should never be James Bond when asked about it. The trailers and promos aren't focusing on the new 007. She's there, sure, but not so much it drowns out everything else. I don't see why you think the producers were hyping her up because they really haven't been.All this talk of "OMG 007 is a chick!!" might just be marketing fluff, but that their going with that during their promotional run is indicative of media spin and controversy (empty virtue signaling) and if that's all they have to talk about at present then the movie must not have much of anything else going for it.
But it wasn't. Dice were clear from the very start that their goal was an inclusive vision of World War 2, just like they had with World War 1 before it. Their goal was never to accurately recreate WWII, just like the Battlefield franchise never has since it began. It's a heightened, over-the-top WWII, and this time they added women, black people, and disabled people to further a design goal Dice has had for most of its games in recent years.Battlefield V was presented as HISTORICALLY ACCURATE
But it wasn't. Dice were clear from the very start that their goal was an inclusive vision of World War 2, just like they had with World War 1 before it. Their goal was never to accurately recreate WWII, just like the Battlefield franchise never has since it began. It's a heightened, over-the-top WWII, and this time they added women, black people, and disabled people to further a design goal Dice has had for most of its games in recent years.
If historical accuracy is genuinely what people are upset about then they don't care about Battlefield as much as they pretend to. If historical accuracy isn't what they're upset about, it's pretty easy to figure out what is.
No. But it did feature an enlisted woman fighting on the front lines... with a mechanical peg leg.Uhm, okay. So, did Battlefield V really " develop misandry and start hating on white dudes" just because they had women in their game?
You're talking about gameplay, not historical context.If historical accuracy is genuinely what people are upset about then they don't care about Battlefield as much as they pretend to. If historical accuracy isn't what they're upset about, it's pretty easy to figure out what is
No. But it did feature an enlisted woman fighting on the front lines... with a mechanical peg leg.
Look. There's movie inspired WWII with an action bent, arcade-y gameplay, and somewhat loose historical accuracy on occasion.
Then there's depicting a woman soldier with a disability as though that actually happened. It's pushing credulity. Over the top, arcade-y or not, COD has never been a fantasy version of WWII. In Wolfenstein something like that wouldn't be out of place (although that's a game series that did develop misandry and start hating on white dudes). COD has even sold itself on its ZOMG!! REALiZM!! at least when it comes to its cinematic focus.
In short, it's pandering and disrespectful. Some people can't help but feel as though such a thing only ever happened for the sake of attention.
You're talking about gameplay, not historical context.
Has any COD game set in WWII ever had mechs? Ray guns? Magical occult artifacts? No. COD tries to imitate WWII movies by creating a cinematic look that makes it feel like you're playing one of those movies. To do that, the series has stuck as close as possible to an accurate historical presentation of WWII. Female soldiers with peg legs are a far cry from that.
Thing is, if DICE really wanted to put a chick in their WWII game it's not like there isn't plenty of WWII history to draw from to do that. Russian snipers, French resistance spies, female aviators who were so insanely badass that they flew aircraft unarmed through enemy territory.
But one can only suppose that portraying women who actually fought in WWII would be too HARD. Simpler to just come up with some ridiculous character that exists solely to drum up controversy and clicks before release to get people talking about your game because your banal cash-grab product certainly won't entertain anyone on substance or merit.
noIf you think that female characters from World War II should be drawn from real people,
My bad. All these derivative shooters look alike.Why are you talking about COD? The question was about Battlefield.
You're talking about gameplay again.Battlefield has always been more arcade-y
Why do you two think that every character must be based on a real life person?But why can they put in as many fictional men as they want without anyone even thinking about it
Wrong.You're holding female characters to a different standard, and then arguing that it's the devs being sexist.
how ignorant of you to say. You are misunderstanding my point and assuming things I've never alluded to. Don't call me paranoid just because you can't understand what I'm getting at.which is paranoid as hell.
I guess that's why they chose to pander instead of putting forth some basic effort to represent real women who actually helped win the war.Dice has always been pretty left-leaning.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly how it went down in some marketing meeting.Do you seriously think they sat there and said "How can we piss people off to get attention for our game
or, what they could have said was, "Hey, let's honor some of the women who helped win the war by basing a few characters and levels off actual brave women who actually fought in WWII. We could do research, conduct interviews, and be really honest and thorough so we don't come off looking like bellends for making some grossly inaccurate portrayal."or do you think it's more likely they sat there and said "Hey, women play games, too
Dishonored is another game people panned for going woke. I haven't played it and I know nothing about it so I can't say. It's certainly true that a lot of times pieces of media get unfairly panned for going woke when they really haven't. Even if they fail it's likely due to something else. It is an unfair stigma that entertainment media has to share now that no-talent hacks have made this a thing.It's like when people complained that Dishonored: Death of the Outsider was 'going woke'