The Dragoon Saga (Sabres of Infinity, Guns of Infinity, Lords of Infinity) - General Discussion



I agree.

Well there you go then. If it’s historically accurate that they did fight, then they should be included in the game. I could understand if people felt like the game was being changed only for a political agenda (whether you agree with it or not, I could at least logically understand), but it’s pretty stupid since they did fight openly as women.


The argument made is that they didn’t fight openly as women in combat infantry roles in certain armies (the US, British, and German, most specifically), which is true, but once again - why choose this particular hill to die on as opposed to something like a realistic ratio of combatants to portable automatic weapons?

As I’ve mentioned in another thread, choosing what aspect of “historical accuracy” to push is a political decision.


I understand.

I think I have a reasonable answer to this. The average American joe - including gamers - doesn’t actually care about historical accuracy, they care about their tiny little world changing and growing to a point where they can’t understand. They hear propaganda and blatantly follow it without thinking. People are sheep that can’t or don’t want to think for themselves, so they let someone else think for them. They are uneducated and don’t want to become educated.

They choose that hill to die on because it is a threat to their carefully constructed glass world and “a realistic ratio of combatants to portable automatic weapons” is not.


I mean yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Though to be fair, if I made a WW2 fps where Thompsons were a company asset (like they were supposed to be), I’d probably get all kinds of uproar too.


Oh :joy:. I missed that, but now that I re-read it I feel stupid. My bad.

Not necessarily. As long as you gave the only one to the PC then I think you’d be fine. Everybody wants to be the hero.


No good. PC’s going to have to steal it off the back of a truck like everyone else.


Fair enough. Question: how many trucks full of Thompson’s roll through Italy? And when’s the next one coming through, asking for a friend?


“They come by appointment. You signal’em in by leaving two bottles of Black Label outside my tent.”


“Well, that’s a high price to pay, but I reckon you gotcha yourself a deal.”

Walking away while talking to a friend.

“Damn! Best deal of me life, considering it might of just saved it. I was wholly prepared to give double what that daft dogface asked for.”


800,000 women of the Soviet Union volunteered for service during the Great Patriotic War, mainly serving in support and medical roles. However, some women were accepted for front line combat, although the requirements were higher than their male counterparts. Women had to be educated and literate, physically fit, and politically sound. These women served as combat pilots, in tank crews, as soldiers, partisans, and snipers (a role that was actively encouraged).


Talking of Soviet women, I recalled hearing about these legends:

The 16th Panzer Division recorded that “right until afternoon we had to fight ‘shot for shot’ against 37 anti-aircraft positions manned by tenacious fighting women, until all were destroyed.”

The regiment, like many of the anti-aircraft units, was made up almost entirely of young women volunteers, barely out of high school. They are mostly known for their bravery in the defense of Stalingrad (now Volgograd), when they engaged an advancing Panzer unit by setting their guns to the lowest elevation and firing them directly at the advancing tanks.


I think this is the crux of the issue. While I’m sure a lot of the people complaining about women in Battlefield V are doing it because of a narrow and bigoted worldview they hold, others have a very valid issue with the representation of the female character. Instead of choosing to represent a resistance fighter, a member of the SOE, a Red Army soldier, that Finnish female sniper whose name escapes me at the moment, etc., EA decided to represent women in WW2 with a Cockney accented, prosthetic limbed, warpaint wearing superwoman who wields a bat wrapped in barbed wire. This was done cause the lead developer, the one who resigned, was asked by his daughter why none of the characters looked like her character in Fortnite, so he made one of the characters exactly that.

I think, or at least I hope, that most people aren’t opposed to the representation of women in the war at all, since they most definitely were there and fought and died alongside the men. But the depiction of women in combat that EA went with isn’t representative of those women. In the end though, it’s a video game. If you want realism, you get shot once and game over. No one would play that though. So the entire drama is rather silly to me.


In regards to the Battlefield V controversy, I think it’s less that “they don’t like their tiny world being threatened”, and more that: “people don’t like to feel manipulated, and since genders in video games is such a hot issue right now, they feel that trying to put women in a setting where, to their knowledge, women did not participate in, comes across as an attempt to push a political message into the games itself, and regardless of whether that message is good or bad they would rather there not be a message at all.”

In regards to the other historical inaccuracies, such as the portrayal of combat itself, I think the reason people don’t criticize that is either because their historical understanding isn’t that deep, or that they’re less hostile to it because they don’t see any implications towards modern politics.

I think portraying their viewpoint as “I don’t like wamon in my vidya gaemz!” is fundamentally dishonest. Some of the Call of Duty games which take place in more modern or futuristic settings have female characters in them, and also don’t have anywhere near the same amount of backlash. It’s not about “I don’t want my own bubble where I can be misogynistic” (at least not for most), it’s about “I want my own bubble where I can turn my brain off and stop thinking about real life for a few hours.”

I personally don’t care about the Battlefield or Call of Duty series, so I don’t have a strong opinion either way. But my personal opinion is that if a game is going to take place in a real life historical setting, they should be accurate in regards to their portrayal of gender and class roles, and if they want to put in a message about equality, the focus should either be on demonstrating why the absence of women is a bad thing, or trying to squeeze in as many women as possible where it does actually fit.

I think it does ‘whitewash’ history by portraying women in active combat roles in the armies of countries that did not historically have them, since it does downplay the sexism and discrimination of those militaries.

I think we should be asking why there aren’t any games following the story of female Russian soldiers, or the partisans/resistance members of various other countries. I think the latter would be an interesting change of pace, but I suppose most major publishers aren’t innovative enough for that.

Alternatively, they could also make a war game set in a fictional world at the same time period, where gender equality does exist. It happens a lot with medieval style games, and while some people still complain no matter what, overall everyone seems to be okay with it.

I don’t know if I said this before but I personally really like the way Cataphrak handles gender issues in this game. He has a society like Tierra, where genders are not treated equally, but then he introduces female characters like Welles and Katarina who have so much potential, but are unable to achieve said potential due to the restrictions placed upon them (and he doesn’t just focus on women - we also see this with characters like Lewes and Cazarosta). Then he has a society like Takara, which is a direct contrast to Tierra - it allows gender equality, and also happens to be infinitely more powerful (that isn’t just due to having gender equality, but it’s pretty clear that gender equality is portrayed as an advantage.)

On one hand he has a heavily patriotic aristocratic society that he is actively working to deconstruct, while on the other hand he has a society that is consistently portrayed as superior (but far from perfect, because no society is) and the genders are given equal opportunities. And none of this feels shoehorned in because it is a fictional world and he is free to decide what the confines and rules of that world should be. Yet it still manages to get the message across because these societies are very much grounded in reality and draw inspiration from real life cultures.

Sorry if I started rambling there. That turned out to be way longer than I thought it would be.


Pretty much. You don’t get to have arguments over “accurate representation” if your basic gameplay loop relies on something so utterly divorced from reality that it might as well be a themepark ride.

As opposed to the previous WW2 canon, with its totally apolitical anglo-american triumphalism and its fawning worship of the “greatest generation” as square-jawed supermen instead of the real human beings they were, right?

I take serious issue with any kind of AAA shooter being considered a “real-life historical setting”. As far as I’m concerned, in most cases, it’s a cosplay shooting gallery. When the the last Battlefield game to be released (the one lauded for its “grittiness” and “realism”) lets you blow up more tanks than the Imperial German Army ever fielded and lets you do a mid-air boarding action of a Zeppelin in the single-player campaign, then I see no point in clinging to the historical accuracy argument.

I’d actually argue that the sort of portrayal of infantry combat in AAA “realistic” military fpses push a far more blatant political message, and one that’s probably more consciously harmful, but that’s a whole different discussion.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s basically what these games are. Just because they use some of the same names and the same weapons doesn’t mean can pretend to be “authentic”, anymore than Wolfenstein: The New order can.


@Cataphrak, is Sir Roustan d’al Jamys the son of a baneblood with a noble title? Also where did he get the name as “Rustler Jamys”?


Nowhere, doing nothing at all, and there is no court of law in the realm that could say otherwise.


Certainly because he has a reputation as a sarcastic and somewhat disruptive man, and not something else.


Yeah, definitely something else except for messing around with cows.


How different do you think their opinion would be if it was a beautiful french bombshell who solely exists for a sex scene?


I know @cataphrak would only approve if she was responsible for the PC’s weekend safety brief. Topic: VD and your Rustler Jamys.