Seems like there's been a bit of fuss online lately about the inclusion of female characters into games that are set in a historical period where women wouldn't have been involved. Of note, Battlefield 5 has been including women in its armed forces and Rome Total War II recently announced female generals. Now, it should be stated that I haven't played either of these games so I'm coming at this from the general position as a gamer/spectator. Yet I've found myself mulling this whole thing over in my mind quite a bit, trying to figure out what the 'correct' position is. So here goes:
On one hand, I totally get why women should be included. A community moderator for Total War mentioned that she didn't want to have to explain to her daughter why there weren't any people like her in the game. Reasonable. And just because it needs to be explicitly stated, duh, of course ladies are just as capable of doing most of the same stuff as dudes do. Women are allowed in the military, so why wouldn't we show them as capable soldiers? There are plenty of brilliant female leaders, so why not portray some wielding that power? Video games are an artifact of the current time and culture, and if we want more gender equality and inclusion, women should absolutely be included in games. We have to create the future we want to see with what we're creating in the present.
On the other hand, especially in these historical contexts, it just ain't accurate. In most of the western forces of WWII, there were several females in support roles, but not many involved in front-line combat. So why are they being posthumously and digitally injected into armies that they never fought in? I mean, hey, don't get me wrong - if I'm playing on a Russian, or Polish, or French Resistance team, you're damn straight I want to see some women characters. Maybe they weren't statistically-speaking the most common gender, but it's still a great way to highlight contributions of a minority. But why force something into a context where it wouldn't have actually belonged?
On the other other hand, all sorts of enjoyable games, no matter how well-intentioned or insanely faithful they try to be to their source material, tend to make concessions. One of my favourite things to spot is the Supermarine Spitfire variation that's used when you're playing one of the many, many games featuring the Battle of Britain. It should technically be the MkI or II, but often it's the V or IX - they were the most common version and the devs needed an asset that could be reused elsewhere in the game. I notice the incongruity, but once I get into the action itself, it just doesn't really matter. It's essentially a cosmetic change that doesn't impact the gameplay or the experience. You notice it, forget it, and move on. So if a US soldier has a female player model, what difference does it make? It's a cosmetic change, get over it.
On the other (x3) hand, where do we draw the line at substitutions? People are attracted to the game because of the context it represents. Would people still be playing Rome Total War if all the mounted cavalry were riding zebras instead of horses? Maybe they all behave the same in terms of gameplay, but at some point you're breaking the immersion, wrecking the historical context that drew in fans. For the next game about the American Civil War, should we demand to see some of the Confederate generals as black characters? We can't tell the black population what they aren't capable of, especially when we now know better. Or maybe in the next Vietnam War title we need to include more soldiers with cerebral palsy? In 50 years when we have the technology for the physically disabled to move about freely, we can't tell them what they are and aren't capable of. Maybe the next Red Dead Redemption title should replace the horses with 10-speed bicycles, because they're more environmentally friendly and don't promote animal cruelty.
Looking at the online debate surrounding this issue, I get the sense that both sides are painting themselves, their opposition, and the issue itself in very broad, black and white strokes. Those in favour of the female characters think the other side are misogynistic assholes who can't stand women. Those in favour of historical accuracy think the other side are meddling Social Justice Warriors (ugh) that need to inject their values as non-debatable fact into anything and everything. The lack of nuance to the discussion drives me nuts - everything is either passionately RIGHT or WRONG and there's precious little ground in the middle.
I get it. Inclusion is good. It's great! Let's tell stories with modern values that reflect the kind of world we want to live in. But at the same time, we need to own the past we were given; we can't just cover up the parts of history we're ashamed of.
I'm glad we're having the debate, and notice an historically-accurate absence of women. Hopefully years from now, it'll grow to become a conspicuous absence. One that drives future generations to ask questions and examine the world around them. I want an ugly history that'll continue to teach us lessons.
-Cril
