The Great Battlefield 5 debacle

[Exatreides]

So, this past week Dice has announced they will no longer be adding any content to Battlefield 5 after June. In the past, a large amount of content was promised to continue pushing the game. However, with the announcement Battlefield 5 becomes a half finished product, leaving many folks who spent between 60-120 US dollars quite upset.

Imagine paying 120 dollars for a movie, then half way through the film the movie ends with out the main action starting, and with no way to get your money back.

Battlefield 5 is going to end with only the Americans, British, Japanese and Germans. That's right, a World War 2 game has no French, Italians, or Soviets. No Stalingrad, no D-Day or Sicily. How do you mess up a World War Two game? Seriously?!

The battlefield 5 existence has been plagued with controversy. From scrapping history (Replacing English and Norwegion Special Forces with Lady Partisan attacks in Norway) to strange steam punk fake limb additions in early Betas. Additional content was put out at a snails pace, while big title call of duty games were dropped. A firestorm pub G light mode was released and quickly abandoned by the player base. TKK (how long it takes to kill an opponent) was changed and later reverted, and changed again.

Dice and EA have completely alienated a loyal player base and continued their tradition of wrecking long standing franchises.

[MinionZombie]

I've dipped in and out of the Battlefield franchise over the years. I remember playing Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam (this one most of all), Battlefield 2 back in the day (in bots mode) and having a lot of fun - just clear cut and entertaining gameplay. I've also played both Bad Company games, which I quite enjoyed as well.

I was interested in playing Battlefield 3 and 4, but there were so many bad things I heard about them (not as advertised, full of bugs, tiny campaign modes), so never bothered. I then played Battlefield Hardline, which was an interesting switch-up (but why was it really called "Battlefield"???), and then I played Battlefield 1, which I enjoyed but felt leaned too much into smaller, stealthy, 'sneak about' missions rather than full blown battlefield action most of the time.

I was (briefly) interested in playing Battlefield V, but when you're trying to be "authentic" to the true history of WWII and then shoving in some leapy jumpy lady with a bizarre metal arm thing I was like, oh piss off. By all means, set a game in WW2 era and just make a bunch of stuff up, but if you're going to re-write history (and thereby insult the memories and sacrifices of the soldiers who took on those challenges, sometimes giving their lives to achieve the goal at hand) for whatever silly reason, then go fudge yerself. Seemed like it didn't know what sort of game it wanted to be and generally struggled to be anything in particular, unfortunately.

It's like with Fallout 76. I've heard nothing but bad stuff about that. Now, Fallout diehards might have grumbled about #4, which certainly had some issues - but I enjoyed it an awful lot and got more than 100 hours out of it. How hard is it to just do that again and polish the rough bits out? You'd think it's be a straight forward thing to do, relatively speaking, but no ... Fallout 76 ... sheesh!

[EvilNed]

I do not want to come off as racist, but when they put black soldiers in the ranks of the Imperial germans fighting at Verdun in the first World war game I thought "what the hell is this". And yes, I understand that there were black soldiers fighting for germany in africa, but that was not the narrative being portrayed in this game - and they were certainly not fighting together in the same squad. Now would they have instead featured like an african scenario with a squad of black soldiers fighting for the Kaiser, then that would instead have been downright cool.

And a lot of people argue that it's more important to include diversity at the cost of historical authenticity, but I disagree. I will never see the Overlord film, because it glosses over important historical inconvenient truths - the fact that the US was segregated society and military. The world back then was racist. I don't want that aspect of history forgotten, because we weren't always as inclusive as we are today.

If you want to tell a story where everybody is allowed to partake on equal terms, then you shouldn't tell one set in the world wars. There wasn't a single egalitarian nation involved and no less than two of the antagonists engaged in genocide.

[shootemindehead]

"Diversity" is nonsense. "Representation" is nonsense. Especially so, when it's jammed into a period piece.

If someone cannot enjoy a story, whether in game for or film form without having to see someone of their race, sex, orientation or whatever, then there is something wrong with that person and not the story they're watching/playing/reading. And the insistence of "representation" being shoved into places where it doesn't belong only fuels this silly idea that people can't enjoy a yarn if it doesn't have someone that fits a certain demographic on the screen in some kind of secondary or tertiary role.

So, so, tired of all this shite.

[Neil]

I do not want to come off as racist, but when they put black soldiers in the ranks of the Imperial germans fighting at Verdun in the first World war game I thought "what the hell is this". And yes, I understand that there were black soldiers fighting for germany in africa, but that was not the narrative being portrayed in this game - and they were certainly not fighting together in the same squad. Now would they have instead featured like an african scenario with a squad of black soldiers fighting for the Kaiser, then that would instead have been downright cool.

And a lot of people argue that it's more important to include diversity at the cost of historical authenticity, but I disagree. I will never see the Overlord film, because it glosses over important historical inconvenient truths - the fact that the US was segregated society and military. The world back then was racist. I don't want that aspect of history forgotten, because we weren't always as inclusive as we are today.

If you want to tell a story where everybody is allowed to partake on equal terms, then you shouldn't tell one set in the world wars. There wasn't a single egalitarian nation involved and no less than two of the antagonists engaged in genocide.

This is an interesting topic unto itself really. It's down to political correctness I'd suggest... An example - Here in the UK, if we look at homosexuals or non-white people people represented in entertainment, TV, adverts etc etc. They make up a significantly higher proportion than their proportion within the actual population. ie: Political correctness in attempt to not appear homophobic or racist, has basically meant that being exactly the case, with those minorities being actively sort out in preference to other demographics. Rather than, shock horror, no attention being paid to these traits at all as should be the case...

If a historical scenario meant there should be no black people, then no black people there should be. Would we expect a few white people popping up in the midst of a zulu army for diversity? Racism is changing a choice due to colour. It shouldn't. But modern day political correctness is all too often about basing choice on colour.


Anyhoo... What's Battlefield 5? :)

[MinionZombie]

And a lot of people argue that it's more important to include diversity at the cost of historical authenticity, but I disagree. I will never see the Overlord film, because it glosses over important historical inconvenient truths - the fact that the US was segregated society and military. The world back then was racist. I don't want that aspect of history forgotten, because we weren't always as inclusive as we are today.

Indeed. It always grates on me when I see a portrayal of the past according to today's socio-political climate, rather than that of the actual time period that is supposedly being represented. Ultimately it's a huge error of judgement:

1) It negates the struggles of those who lived in those times and were subjugated merely because of their skin colour, sexual orientation, nationality etc. Surely that's hugely insulting?
2) It misrepresents the past and censors history, which then leads onto the old adage 'those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it'.
3) It's a bit crass and, ironically, perpetuates notions of segregation or over-importance of someone's sex/gender/race/etc - i.e. casting someone to be "diverse" rather than for narrative purposes or for their acting talent (which really should be a priority). To be cast because of a random twist of genetic fate, rather than for your skills and hard work breaking into an industry that is almost impossible to get into, is, surely, also massively insulting and disrespectful.

Remember the few idiots who complained about there being too many white male faces in the movie Dunkirk? Oof ... there's a lot to unpack there.

There's a strange irony. The people altering history will grandly posture about calling for it to not be forgotten. It's really quite insidious when you think about it more deeply.

It's extremely important not to censor the past. I see that Disney cut a casting couch joke from Toy Story 2 (1999). Yes, in today's light that's an off-colour joke, and certainly in a family friendly movie, but it's wrong to cut it as it leads to covering up the fact that the "casting couch" has been talked and joked about for decades and decades. Surely it's far better to admit that, yes, even in a family friendly movie there were jokes about this sort of thing (or any other topic).

Seeking to obfuscate and cover-up the truths of history is an insult to every single person who endured the faults of the past.

[Tricky]

Battlefield 5 is the first one I haven't bought since Battlefield 2, I saw the trailers before it was released and just thought it wasn't for me with the female soldiers running around. Fair enough the Russians had women fighting on the front line, and they should be represented if those units are featured in the game, but neither the allies or axis had them in front line combat roles. We had women test flying spitfires, working in logistics back home, repairing vehicles and all those other vital roles in the war effort, but that's not what the Battlefield games are trying to represent.

For a more realistic WW2 online FPS game I'd recommend Post Scriptum on the PC, it's fantastic but much more tactical and you die easily which doesn't appeal to the hyperactive players of CoD and Battlefield. I've not played it but Hell Let Loose is also meant to be very good.