This was actually something I wrote up a while ago but for one reason or another never got around to publishing. I figure it's still worth posting because the topic remains a problem for the entertainment industry as a whole, even if the Battlefield V controversy in particular has run its course. So anyway, enjoy my hot take.
Ya know, I like diversity in my media. I like having the option of playing a first person shooter or an adventure game. I like being able to command an entire army into battle, or just control a single character. I like playing female characters. My favorite video game character of all time is in fact a female. Video games have afforded us lots of different experiences over the years throughout their history thanks in large part to creative minds being granted the tools and freedom to explore new ideas. But when a game contains "checkbox diversity" or a "diversity quota" in which they include "diverse" characters for no other reasons than just to avoid criticisms of sexism and racism, or because it's just the way the current political winds are blowing, then your game is being anything but unique or diverse. It's only being diverse on a very superficial level, while on a more meaningful level it is actually being quite homogenous and unchallenging to your target audience.
Although I'm not a fan of the Battlefield series regardless, I've
been thinking about why I found the BFV announcement mildly
annoying. Funny thing is I'd probably play a female character if I had
any plans to buy the game. But I'm
just hard-pressed to believe that the addition of female soldiers is at
all sincere. I mean, did DICE honestly put them in the game because they
were passionate about some cool idea for shaking up the setting with
female characters, or did they do it just to score faux-progressive
points with the mainstream in the cheapest way possible, and then pat
themselves on the back for how superficially diverse they are? Because
given the way they've been treating this, it really feels like the
latter.
Of course it's worth pointing out that women did serve in World War 2, but it would still be disingenuous to suggest that it was at all a 50-50 affair, let alone even close to that. It was not uncommon to see thousands of troops on the battlefield with not one woman in sight. So to the idea that this just gives devs free rein to fudge the numbers as much as they want because they found one woman serving somewhere, then we might as well depict every soldier as having a bear companion fighting alongside them, as the Polish army did at one point have a bear serving in its armed forces.
It is also perhaps fair to point out that the Battlefield series has never been realistic in many of its depictions of war. It is after all a video game, and respawning just seconds after receiving a fatal wound is hardly reflective of how real combat plays out. However I think this point ignores a very important distinction between realism and thematic consistency. Just because a game isn't realistic in a certain sense doesn't mean that anything should go. It would still come off as messy and wildly out of place if some characters were cel-shaded, while some had a more gritty art style, or if there were random wizards and aliens blasting spells and plasma cannons on the battlefield.
Now at this point you might object and say that such examples are clearly a bit more unrealistic than what DICE is pushing, but that's the point. Obviously there is a limit to one's suspension of disbelief; some just draw their line in the sand much sooner than when you get to aliens and wizards. You have a certain theme that you've chosen; you should stick with it.
DICE however wants to play both sides of the argument. On the one hand they will say "We'll always put fun over authentic," and that's fine, but then they'll go on to say things like, "The female soldier in the key art portrays an unseen and untold perspective of World War 2 that is often overlooked," which is worded in such a way that implies they actually are being historically accurate; it's just that it's a story that is often forgotten. No actually, it's just inaccurate. The reason it's an untold story is because it never happened. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It's tiptoeing a fine line between revisionist history and a "fun" alternate history take, and they can't seem to pick a side to be on. This mixed tone is similarly reflected in the trailer; the vehicles and weapons from the setting are there, but there's randomly a female soldier with a claw arm. The colors look slightly realistic and gritty, yet also cartoonish at the same time. It really just seems like this game has an identity crisis that would have been better served if they simply doubled down on being an alternate history or fantasy steampunk war game set vaguely in a world war 2-esque setting.
Does a game need to have a 4-quadrant diagram in its design document that perfectly balances out the cast? "OK, we have 5 white characters here, 5 Asians here, 5 middle easterners here, and finally 5 black characters over here. OH SHIT WE ADDED ANOTHER WHITE DUDE. Quickly! Make sure we add 1 more character in each of the 3 other categories! Then don't forget to sub-divide those out into 4 more categories so that we get 6 females in each too!" Like just stop. Not everything needs to be a perfectly proportioned pie chart. I just want people to make the damn game that they actually want to make, not constantly get hung up on who they're going to offend if they aren't perfectly represented at all times. It all just feels very manufactured, soulless, and done out of pure obligation. The forced nature of it all is what's leaving the sour taste in players' mouths.
Something that I think is often lost on well-meaning diversity advocates is that the reason we desire diversity is because it brings new perspectives and ideas to the table, not a color palette or genital swap. The reason why Black Panther is such a great step forward for Hollywood is not just because they plastered a superhero movie with a 99% black cast, but because it actually explored African ideas and culture in doing so. Chadwick Boseman wasn't just there to be the token black guy in an otherwise standard New York backdrop where he has to stop the evil alien from blowing up the Empire State building. So if you're going to add a racially/sexually diverse character for no other reason than just to fill a diversity quota, then you better actually bring an interesting new perspective to the table, or else as far as I'm concerned you're not really being "diverse" at all. It's just shallow McDiversity. A greasy diversity burger made from questionable ingredients with a side order of Coke and french fries.
In fact, through another lens, Black Panther isn't a very diverse movie at all. As was already pointed out, the vast majority of its cast is black without much else in between. And you know what? That's fine too. Not because it's representing a minority population, but because this is a movie specifically about exploring black perspectives in the superhero genre.
Would it have really added anything to the film if they made sure to swap out some characters for different races to balance out the cast? No, it would have only cheapened the narrative and damaged suspension of disbelief, as random white people and Asians would be roaming about without explanation in a setting that is supposed to be occupied with exclusively black tribes. Making sure that other races get to have their say would just be missing the point and needlessly cluttering the narrative.
A film isn't automatically in favor of animal cruelty just because it doesn't squeeze in a message about animal abuse, and likewise a film isn't automatically racist if it doesn't have a perfectly balanced representation of all races. We can have films about just exclusively black people, or just exclusively Asians, or god forbid, even exclusively white males fighting on the front lines in World War 2 if the narrative calls for it.
Another thing that is often overlooked is that sometimes portraying a setting with all its flaws and imperfections (lack of diversity included) helps to illustrate the realities of injustice, how we've grown as a society, and why we should strive to ensure we never go back to revisiting those times.
At the end of the day this is just a dumb video game, and I'm probably overthinking it, but at the same time I would be remiss to think that media doesn't have any social ramifications for the way it portrays historical settings - video games included.
When I was a kid, I saw The Patriot in theaters and took it to be a reasonably historical representation of the time period barring a few Hollywood bells and whistles, but looking back on it now, I'm rather annoyed with its shamelessly jingoistic portrayal of Americans fighting for their freedom, and the evil British soldiers coming to burn their churches down with innocent civilians inside. As if the Americans aren't stealing the land from the natives to begin with. They're just perfect saints. It's these kinds of portrayals that breed excuse-making when atrocities are committed in America's name, because America is always the good guy and we can't ever do anything wrong, right?
Anyway, revisionist history just irks me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it I guess. DICE can do whatever they want, but I'd prefer that devs return to making games out of passion, not by rummaging a corporate checklist to make sure they've pandered to every kind of demographic. Regardless, I do feel this is just another phase of our current political climate. In years past, women and minorities have been underrepresented and mistreated, so I suppose it's only natural now that society has become more aware of it, it is trying to over-correct itself, but eventually the pendulum will swing back again. Hopefully at some point we can reach some proper balance where we aren't trying to exclude minorities from representation, yet are also mindful not to compromise artistic integrity merely to fulfill a diversity checklist. Instead, just make art to tell a good story, and if a particular role calls for a white male or a transgender Asian, nobody really cares.
Ya know, I like diversity in my media. I like having the option of playing a first person shooter or an adventure game. I like being able to command an entire army into battle, or just control a single character. I like playing female characters. My favorite video game character of all time is in fact a female. Video games have afforded us lots of different experiences over the years throughout their history thanks in large part to creative minds being granted the tools and freedom to explore new ideas. But when a game contains "checkbox diversity" or a "diversity quota" in which they include "diverse" characters for no other reasons than just to avoid criticisms of sexism and racism, or because it's just the way the current political winds are blowing, then your game is being anything but unique or diverse. It's only being diverse on a very superficial level, while on a more meaningful level it is actually being quite homogenous and unchallenging to your target audience.
Of course it's worth pointing out that women did serve in World War 2, but it would still be disingenuous to suggest that it was at all a 50-50 affair, let alone even close to that. It was not uncommon to see thousands of troops on the battlefield with not one woman in sight. So to the idea that this just gives devs free rein to fudge the numbers as much as they want because they found one woman serving somewhere, then we might as well depict every soldier as having a bear companion fighting alongside them, as the Polish army did at one point have a bear serving in its armed forces.
It is also perhaps fair to point out that the Battlefield series has never been realistic in many of its depictions of war. It is after all a video game, and respawning just seconds after receiving a fatal wound is hardly reflective of how real combat plays out. However I think this point ignores a very important distinction between realism and thematic consistency. Just because a game isn't realistic in a certain sense doesn't mean that anything should go. It would still come off as messy and wildly out of place if some characters were cel-shaded, while some had a more gritty art style, or if there were random wizards and aliens blasting spells and plasma cannons on the battlefield.
Now at this point you might object and say that such examples are clearly a bit more unrealistic than what DICE is pushing, but that's the point. Obviously there is a limit to one's suspension of disbelief; some just draw their line in the sand much sooner than when you get to aliens and wizards. You have a certain theme that you've chosen; you should stick with it.
DICE however wants to play both sides of the argument. On the one hand they will say "We'll always put fun over authentic," and that's fine, but then they'll go on to say things like, "The female soldier in the key art portrays an unseen and untold perspective of World War 2 that is often overlooked," which is worded in such a way that implies they actually are being historically accurate; it's just that it's a story that is often forgotten. No actually, it's just inaccurate. The reason it's an untold story is because it never happened. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It's tiptoeing a fine line between revisionist history and a "fun" alternate history take, and they can't seem to pick a side to be on. This mixed tone is similarly reflected in the trailer; the vehicles and weapons from the setting are there, but there's randomly a female soldier with a claw arm. The colors look slightly realistic and gritty, yet also cartoonish at the same time. It really just seems like this game has an identity crisis that would have been better served if they simply doubled down on being an alternate history or fantasy steampunk war game set vaguely in a world war 2-esque setting.
Does a game need to have a 4-quadrant diagram in its design document that perfectly balances out the cast? "OK, we have 5 white characters here, 5 Asians here, 5 middle easterners here, and finally 5 black characters over here. OH SHIT WE ADDED ANOTHER WHITE DUDE. Quickly! Make sure we add 1 more character in each of the 3 other categories! Then don't forget to sub-divide those out into 4 more categories so that we get 6 females in each too!" Like just stop. Not everything needs to be a perfectly proportioned pie chart. I just want people to make the damn game that they actually want to make, not constantly get hung up on who they're going to offend if they aren't perfectly represented at all times. It all just feels very manufactured, soulless, and done out of pure obligation. The forced nature of it all is what's leaving the sour taste in players' mouths.
Something that I think is often lost on well-meaning diversity advocates is that the reason we desire diversity is because it brings new perspectives and ideas to the table, not a color palette or genital swap. The reason why Black Panther is such a great step forward for Hollywood is not just because they plastered a superhero movie with a 99% black cast, but because it actually explored African ideas and culture in doing so. Chadwick Boseman wasn't just there to be the token black guy in an otherwise standard New York backdrop where he has to stop the evil alien from blowing up the Empire State building. So if you're going to add a racially/sexually diverse character for no other reason than just to fill a diversity quota, then you better actually bring an interesting new perspective to the table, or else as far as I'm concerned you're not really being "diverse" at all. It's just shallow McDiversity. A greasy diversity burger made from questionable ingredients with a side order of Coke and french fries.
In fact, through another lens, Black Panther isn't a very diverse movie at all. As was already pointed out, the vast majority of its cast is black without much else in between. And you know what? That's fine too. Not because it's representing a minority population, but because this is a movie specifically about exploring black perspectives in the superhero genre.
Would it have really added anything to the film if they made sure to swap out some characters for different races to balance out the cast? No, it would have only cheapened the narrative and damaged suspension of disbelief, as random white people and Asians would be roaming about without explanation in a setting that is supposed to be occupied with exclusively black tribes. Making sure that other races get to have their say would just be missing the point and needlessly cluttering the narrative.
A film isn't automatically in favor of animal cruelty just because it doesn't squeeze in a message about animal abuse, and likewise a film isn't automatically racist if it doesn't have a perfectly balanced representation of all races. We can have films about just exclusively black people, or just exclusively Asians, or god forbid, even exclusively white males fighting on the front lines in World War 2 if the narrative calls for it.
Another thing that is often overlooked is that sometimes portraying a setting with all its flaws and imperfections (lack of diversity included) helps to illustrate the realities of injustice, how we've grown as a society, and why we should strive to ensure we never go back to revisiting those times.
At the end of the day this is just a dumb video game, and I'm probably overthinking it, but at the same time I would be remiss to think that media doesn't have any social ramifications for the way it portrays historical settings - video games included.
When I was a kid, I saw The Patriot in theaters and took it to be a reasonably historical representation of the time period barring a few Hollywood bells and whistles, but looking back on it now, I'm rather annoyed with its shamelessly jingoistic portrayal of Americans fighting for their freedom, and the evil British soldiers coming to burn their churches down with innocent civilians inside. As if the Americans aren't stealing the land from the natives to begin with. They're just perfect saints. It's these kinds of portrayals that breed excuse-making when atrocities are committed in America's name, because America is always the good guy and we can't ever do anything wrong, right?
Anyway, revisionist history just irks me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it I guess. DICE can do whatever they want, but I'd prefer that devs return to making games out of passion, not by rummaging a corporate checklist to make sure they've pandered to every kind of demographic. Regardless, I do feel this is just another phase of our current political climate. In years past, women and minorities have been underrepresented and mistreated, so I suppose it's only natural now that society has become more aware of it, it is trying to over-correct itself, but eventually the pendulum will swing back again. Hopefully at some point we can reach some proper balance where we aren't trying to exclude minorities from representation, yet are also mindful not to compromise artistic integrity merely to fulfill a diversity checklist. Instead, just make art to tell a good story, and if a particular role calls for a white male or a transgender Asian, nobody really cares.
