Battlefield V (2018)

[Do Make Say Think]

I worry about this game, with Soderlund jumping ship and from what I've seen.

I hope I'm wrong. We're overdue for a good new Battlefield, and it seems EA may have "learned" a little on the pay-to-win being a no-no in these types of games front.

From what I understand this Soderlund chap was offered a lot of money to stay and he turned it down; I think he wants out/work on different stuff.

As far as the historial accuracy/women in WWII narrative, it's just like the mary sue thing with Rey in Star Wars: when women show up in certain settings, they just don't get the benefit of the doubt men get (and not because these people hate women, they don't see themselves doing it).

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Honestly, I wonder how BFV is going to turn out. If it flops, I could see EA management getting a major shake up.

 

[Commander Clueless]

From what I understand this Soderlund chap was offered a lot of money to stay and he turned it down; I think he wants out/work on different stuff.

There's the possibility it's strictly a career move, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Honestly, I wonder how BFV is going to turn out. If it flops, I could see EA management getting a major shake up.

I fear for DICE here, honestly.

EA really needs to change their release schedule. Releasing between CoD and Red Dead this year seems like a bad idea.

Delay it until Q1/Q2 2019, maybe? Although I doubt they want to interfere with Anthem either...

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

If they did BFV during the Summer, I think it would be bigger and keep on people. Summer is usually a slow time but also gives more time for people to play games. While it's not a gift giving season, it's still something to do. But yeah, DICE may be in trouble.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Battlefield 1 came out in late 2016.

I think it's too early for the next big installment to be quite honest. Every time something like this happens, the devs scale back some of the stuff they eventually added to the previous version and that just makes the fans understandingly bitter.

The problem is EA moreso than DICE from the looks of it; and I'm not even one of those "EA must be burn" guys. They should have kept supporting Battlefield 1 (which, from what I understand, is a successful game) for a little while and then launch Battlefield V in like 2020. I don't think people are in a rush to abandon BF 1.

 

[XX]

Open beta on the 6th

 

[Commander Clueless]

I'm excited to try it out. I'm hoping it catches me right away, unlike BF1 and BF4, which both took time to get good IMO.

 

[Hammettf2b]

I will definitely be trying out the beta

 

[sa cyred]

I was all in on the BF1 beta, played a TON.

Sadly when it was released I didn't get as attached :/

 

[Osprey]

It's ****ing stupid. At some point you have to accept that they're making a game first and foremost. They're not trying to rewrite history, they're not trying to push some agenda down your throat, they're trying to make a game that is fun to as many people as possible. Plenty of other documentaries and textbooks about historical wars. Video games are meant for fun first and foremost.

EDIT: Just to make it clear none of this is directed at you. Clearly you're on the side of the rational human beings.

There's no "rational" point at which to draw the line here. You may be accepting of certain historical inaccuracies, but you might draw the line at others, like introducing Black Hawk helicopters and rail guns into a WWII setting. Someone else might argue that there's nothing wrong with introducing them if it makes the game more "fun" (basically, turning your own argument against you) and think that you're being irrational for drawing the line there. Everyone agrees that there's a point where historicity has to give way to gameplay, but has different, perfectly rational opinions on where that point should be.

 

[Osprey]

Sexist manbabies have made a point to brigade this game because they can try to hide behind the 'realism' argument. Nobody cared when CoD put in women. That game sold like hotcakes.

If nobody cared about female soldiers in CoD:WWII, doesn't that contradict your "sexist" accusation and suggest that something else is going on?

I think that this controversy didn't happen when Sledgehammer added women (and even black Nazis) in CoD:WWII because they didn't make a big deal out of it. In fact, they purposely left out playable female characters from the single-player campaign and even the multiplayer trailer featured all males, even though the actual multiplayer mode supported female characters. Sledgehammer actually showed a lot of respect toward people who wanted a game that looked and felt like WWII while not totally leaving out the other gender and skin colors.

In contrast, DICE chose to make a conspicuously female soldier the focal point of the very first glimpse of the game that people saw and even chose a similar looking actress for the still image for the trailer and game posters. That helped to make a first impression on a lot of folks that the game was not very WWII-like. It wasn't just the fact that the soldier was female, either, but that she didn't look like a 1940s female, she had a mechanical arm, there were male soldiers who looked anachronistic, as well, and the events and circumstances featured seemed outlandishly unrealistic. All of those things received flak, but the female was the easiest to single out, because it was the most conspicuous and suggestive. In contrast, go watch the CoD:WWII trailers and you'll be struck by how familiar and honest toward the actual conflict that they seem. For example, the soldiers wear period-appropriate attire and all look alike, the circumstances (like the beach landing) look like those out of WWII movies and the action isn't so unrealistically chaotic.

Basically, Sledgehammer skillfully designed and marketed their game to appeal to history fans while still being inclusive, and the reward was the game selling like hotcakes. DICE, on the other hand, really screwed up by prioritizing micro-transactions, then initiating their marketing by playing up that and the inclusion aspect, rather than the historical angle, and then compounding the issue with their excuses and accusations. That's why fans are upset. If DICE had done what Sledgehammer did and built their marketing around the war, itself, and only slipped in females without making a big deal out of it, they could've avoided most of this negative reaction and the possibility that it'll hurt sales.

To see what I mean about the reveal trailers for both games, watch them again and see if (even character gender aside) one strikes you as looking more like WWII to you than the other.

 

[542365]

There's no "rational" point at which to draw the line here. You may be accepting of certain historical inaccuracies, but you might draw the line at others, like introducing Black Hawk helicopters and rail guns into a WWII setting. Someone else might argue that there's nothing wrong with introducing them if it makes the game more "fun" (basically, turning your own argument against you) and think that you're being irrational for drawing the line there. Everyone agrees that there's a point where historicity has to give way to gameplay, but has different, perfectly rational opinions on where that point should be.

No, it's not "perfectly rational" to object to women being included in a game depicting a war in which women actually fought. You object to this one stretch of the truth but not the dozens of others for a very obvious, clear reason. Stop hiding behind this bullshit "historical accuracy" argument and fly your sexism flag high.

 

[Turin]

I am sorry to break it to you chaps but the white-knighting on a hockey forum isn’t going to score you many points with the ladies. Not everything is sexism and accusing posters of having a bias against 50% of the world without proof is absurd.

If you cannot understand why fans would object to the blatant politicization of this franchise because 2% of war casualties in WW2 were women, you are being intentionally obtuse. They had Trevor Noah host the reveal, you’re not convincing anybody, Left or Right, that this wasn’t a political statement. Then to call everybody who said the marketing was bogus “uneducated” and to not buy it.. EA and DICE deserve what’s coming. It’s a shame too, because they made many positive changes otherwise.

 

[Osprey]

No, it's not "perfectly rational" to object to women being included in a game depicting a war in which women actually fought. You object to this one stretch of the truth but not the dozens of others for a very obvious, clear reason. Stop hiding behind this bull**** "historical accuracy" argument and fly your sexism flag high.

Clearly, you haven't read or comprehended any of my posts in this thread, since I haven't objected to women being included in the game. I get the feeling that that doesn't matter to you, though, since you seem to think that opinions that aren't as extreme as yours must be coming from the opposite extreme. Issues aren't black and white like that, and too many people treating them as they are and being rude to differing viewpoints is why discourse is so toxic nowadays.

 

[XX]

I am sorry to break it to you chaps but the white-knighting on a hockey forum isn’t going to score you many points with the ladies. Not everything is sexism and accusing posters of having a bias against 50% of the world without proof is absurd.

If you cannot understand why fans would object to the blatant politicization of this franchise because 2% of war casualties in WW2 were women, you are being intentionally obtuse. They had Trevor Noah host the reveal, you’re not convincing anybody, Left or Right, that this wasn’t a political statement. Then to call everybody who said the marketing was bogus “uneducated” and to not buy it.. EA and DICE deserve what’s coming. It’s a shame too, because they made many positive changes otherwise.

Nobody is "white knighting"

If you don't want to play alongside female soldiers, don't buy the game. Spare us the man tears. Those of us that aren't triggered by sharing space with women will enjoy it while you get to pout in the corner. Everyone is happy.

 

[syz]

The whole "forced agenda" thing is adorable. Oh shit, this "agenda" (better decoded as "attempt by developer to represent/market to a wider audience") that has no legitimate downside is being forced upon me against my will. Better make a YouTube video about it. FOH.

Marketing sucks in general. If you don't like it stop clicking the links.

Can we agree that it could be dangerous if they started creating an entirely false history that a young generation of kids start to learn? I don't mind games like Wolfenstein who come right out and say that it's an alternate history. But the Battlefield games don't do that.

No, we can't agree. Any kid whose understanding of history is shaped by video games/literally any fiction has shitty parents and teachers, particularly if they're deriving it from games that they can't even legally purchase.

Like, it sounds like it's literally your job to tell them that they're wrong for doing that?

 

[Turin]

Nobody is "white knighting"

If you don't want to play alongside female soldiers, don't buy the game. Spare us the man tears. Those of us that aren't triggered by sharing space with women will enjoy it while you get to pout in the corner. Everyone is happy.

Me: I don’t want this game to be politicized

You: You’re just triggered you have to share a space with women stop crying

Ok. Real nuanced take, valiant defender of womenfolk.

 

[Turin]

The whole "forced agenda" thing is adorable. Oh ****, this "agenda" (better decoded as "attempt by developer to represent/market to a wider audience") that has no legitimate downside is being forced upon me against my will. Better make a YouTube video about it. FOH.

Marketing sucks in general. If you don't like it stop clicking the links.



No, we can't agree. Any kid whose understanding of history is shaped by video games/literally any fiction has ****ty parents and teachers, particularly if they're deriving it from games that they can't even legally purchase.

Like, it sounds like it's literally your job to tell them that they're wrong for doing that?

It has no legitimate upside. You can tell by how terrible the game is going to do that the Battlefield community would rather pay 60$ for something more authentic. You can say it doesn’t matter all you want but by and large the market has already decided it does. And I really don’t think many give a damn that women are part of BF. I’d say Soderlund calling anybody who doesn’t embrace the politics as ignorant and shouldn’t buy it is as big a factor as anything.

 

[syz]

It has no legitimate upside. You can tell by how terrible the game is going to do that the Battlefield community would rather pay 60$ for something more authentic. You can say it doesn’t matter all you want but by and large the market has already decided it does. And I really don’t think many give a damn that women are part of BF. I’d say Soderlund calling anybody who doesn’t embrace the politics as ignorant and shouldn’t buy it is as big a factor as anything.

Saying representation of marginalized groups has no legitimate upside is the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum, and I say that while being like 2 months removed from somebody telling me that Detroit isn't political.

Everything adds up here, tbh. People who don't understand what's going on here are ignorant. Unfortunately big budget games rely on mass market sales to succeed. Said mass market is, more often than not, ignorant. Thus, the game will take a hit.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Analyst predicts EA's 'Battlefield V' will be a 'serious disappointment,' citing weak preorders

 

[Throw More Waffles]

The whole "forced agenda" thing is adorable. Oh ****, this "agenda" (better decoded as "attempt by developer to represent/market to a wider audience") that has no legitimate downside is being forced upon me against my will. Better make a YouTube video about it. FOH.

Marketing sucks in general. If you don't like it stop clicking the links.



No, we can't agree. Any kid whose understanding of history is shaped by video games/literally any fiction has ****ty parents and teachers, particularly if they're deriving it from games that they can't even legally purchase.

Like, it sounds like it's literally your job to tell them that they're wrong for doing that?

Ignore it if you want.

But I’m telling you that as a teacher my students are learning a lot of history from these video games. It would be a shame if it were a fake history.

And yes, it’s a teachable moment to talk about where these games were wrong. In the perfect world, every teacher would do that. But, surprise.... we don’t live in a perfect world. A lot of these kids learn a fake history and aren’t ever challenged on it.

Teachers not being good enough could be a part of the problem. But you know what else is a part of the problem? Fake history in video games. Is it going to bother you if video games had a fake history that doesnt fit your narrative?

 

[syz]

Ignore it if you want.

But I’m telling you that as a teacher my students are learning a lot of history from these video games. It would be a shame if it were a fake history.

And yes, it’s a teachable moment to talk about where these games were wrong. In the perfect world, every teacher would do that. But, surprise.... we don’t live in a perfect world. A lot of these kids learn a fake history and aren’t ever challenged on it.

Teachers not being good enough could be a part of the problem. But you know what else is a part of the problem? Fake history in video games. Is it going to bother you if video games had a fake history that doesnt fit your narrative?

Sounds like you're asking video games to do your job for you, tbh. Fiction isn't held to this standard, nor should it be. To say that it should comes across as borderline Republic nonsense--or, at the very least, you sound like how my Grandparents probably sounded when they barred my Dad/Uncles from going to see Life of Brian because it was "blasphemous."

If they throw the typical boilerplate "this game is a work of fiction" thing at the start do all these problems go away for you, or should they be extra cautious in case the kids who play the game are illiterate?

 

[S E P H]

Analyst predicts EA's 'Battlefield V' will be a 'serious disappointment,' citing weak preorders

I don't think this has anything to do with agendas in the game and more about the game looking "meh". I definitely won't be buying it and it has nothing to do with the political argument above. The game just looks boring, but it might not be bad and could be more of the EA's marketing team dropping the ball here.

I will admit that, I believe the developers engaging in their "save femininity" nonsense with the anti-SJW crowd doesn't look good in the publicity of the hardcore gaming community. The ones who actually spend time on Reddit.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Sounds like you're asking video games to do your job for you, tbh. Fiction isn't held to this standard, nor should it be. To say that it should comes across as borderline Republic nonsense--or, at the very least, you sound like how my Grandparents probably sounded when they barred my Dad/Uncles from going to see Life of Brian because it was "blasphemous."

So if an Iraq war game came out and showed America as the good guys, Muslims as terrorists, and Iraq really was hiding wmd’s... you’d be ok with that? If kids really started thinking that was all true, you’d just “blame their teachers”?

Careful how you answer... wouldn’t want to be like your grandfather and “the life of Brian”.

 

[syz]

So if an Iraq war game came out and showed America as the good guys, Muslims as terrorists, and Iraq really was hiding wmd’s... you’d be ok with that? If kids really started thinking that was all true, you’d just “blame their teachers”?

Uhhh... yes? Among other things? Like the systemic issues of perpetual under-funding of humanities departments, or abysmal primary/secondary curriculum? Anybody who goes through life able and willing to accept fiction as fact has been failed by the people in their lives who should have taught them better. Why is blaming the fiction itself somehow the more reasonable option here? Because your kids are too lazy to pick up a book or actually listen to you in class so now the responsibility shifts to the media they consume? Man, I played Mortal Kombat in elementary school and I never once believed the human body had eight rib cages. Shit ain't hard.

Like, come on. We have The Republic. We've been through Pamela. We've been through playing records backwards to hear the devil. We've been through Life of Brian. We've been through Mortal Kombat. We've been through gangsta rap. We've been through Jack Thompson chasing ambulances around yelling about DOOM. These arguments are all the same, and they're all just virtue ethics bullshit. Stop blaming the art for people being stupid.

But also let's keep in mind that the stakes at play here are... being able to pick a female character model if you want? If there's a slope here (there's not), it isn't that slippery.