Rumour-o-rama: Battlefield V revisiting WW2 this year

How do war game makers pick which war to fight in their next game? It’s a little-known fact that the games industry unites every year to settle this by drawing balls. It’s important that games don’t all pick the same war, after all, and draws were deemed the best method after several disastrous years of paintball tournaments. Call of Duty got the much-coveted World War 2 ball last year, and rumours are now saying that DICE are the lucky ones in 2018. Battlefield V will take the series back to World War 2 this year, rumours say. They’re only rumour, mind.

GamesBeat say that “sources familiar with EA’s plans”, who wish to remain anonymous, have confirmed it to them. They’ve heard that it will launch later this year. The sources further say that EA had used a working title of Battlefield 2, which would be even more egregious than Battlefield 1 considering there already was a Battlefield 2 in 2005 (though there was also a Star Wars: Battlefront II in 2005 and that didn’t stop EA from releasing a Star Wars Battlefront II in 2017).

Believe as much or as little of all that as you please.

The Internet–including myself, right now–is also passing around that ↑ supposed Battlefield V dev build splash screen, though it’s not clear where it came from. It would not be a difficult image for a hoaxer to mock up. Let’s say it proves nothing, especially as it only shows a colourful smear rather than e.g. Winston Churchill flicking the Vs or anything and oh my god if they do that with Battlefield V I will be livid.

As a poster on the unofficial Battlefield Forum pointed out, DICE have considered the name Battlefield V before. Battlefield YouTuber Westie said in 2017 that, at a press event, he saw an early Battlefield 1 pitch video which referred to the game as Battlefield V. They’re evidently saving the name for something special.

EA have spoken before about DICE releasing a new Battlefield this year, though they didn’t say in which war it is set. They didn’t say much of anything. But they are quite clear that it’s not a Battle Royale game.

Obviously DICE will return Battlefield to its roots in World War 2 at some point because that’s how biannual video game franchises work. The only question is: this year or later? EA will surely reveal this year’s game by E3 in June at the latest.

We now go over to Rod Stewart for the draw:


  1. Mungrul says:

    At this point, it’s not beyond plausibility that the next world war will be started by a game publisher wanting more material for their annual releases.

  2. Grizzly says:

    I’m still hoping they would go back to their Codename: Eagle routes and give us alternate history Battlefield building upon BF1. Because let’s be honest, BF1 was already half-a-diselpunk game anyway what with the Char 2Cs in combat or the battlefield zeppelins, so they might as well go all the way :D

    • cakeisalie says:

      Yeah, I actually felt them trying to keep up the pretence of “historical accuracy” was holding the game back. And it wasn’t really fooling anyone. In essence, it was just the BF4 formula tweaked and reskinned.

      The should have just gone full on fantasy/alternative history, in the direction of steam or diesel punk. That might have actually been a lot of fun.

  3. Turkey says:

    If both these franchises survive their WW2 nostalgia tour and get to do everything over again, we’ll have irrefutable proof that video games are not art.

    • cakeisalie says:

      So because some games are not art, no game can ever be art? Surely that logic could be applied to any medium, including music, painting, theatre, literature, etc…

  4. Mezelf says:

    It’s probably true, knowing how predictable EA is in trying to chase the money train.

    And it’ll probably be called Battlefield 2, which means we’ll have not 2, not 3, but 4(!) EA games that will be abbreviated to BF2.
    Yes, much to my chagrin over the years, people have been abbreviating Battefield: Bad Company 2 to BF2. These savages, console barbarians were somehow not aware of the masterpiece that was Battefield 2.

    Back to EA… I literally don’t give a fuck anymore what EA does to their Battefield franchise anymore. They can call it Battefield WW2 for all I care. But calling it Battefield 2 ensures the real Battefield 2 will forever be impossible to talk about. It’s such a small and petty thing to get mad about, yet EA seems to be the ONLY publisher egregious enough to disrespect their own franchise like this in the name of dolla dolla bill ya’ll.

  5. BaronKreight says:

    Battlrfield is no longer calling me for duty.

    • OmNomNom says:

      You receive a Medal of Honor for originality

      • BaronKreight says:

        I’m not pretending to be original here. Here eat some more salt.

        • OmNomNom says:

          wtf… i was just joining in xD

          call of duty…
          medal of honor…



  6. KingFunk says:

    It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if they did call it Battlefield 2 since Battlefield 1 dealt with WW1 – I mean, after all, the real life ‘sequel’ had a bigger & badder villain, a larger scope and more death…

    The problem is, I can actually imagine some marketing guys ‘tastefully’ pitching it this way…

  7. HigoChumbo says:

    Meh… will they ever make a follow up for 2142? I miss those mechs and, most importantly, Titan Mode.

    • Blacksilver65 says:

      They considered Carrier Assault the follow up to Titan mode. Also wish they would do something along those lines again.

  8. dahools says:

    I think they should go gulf war I. Good old desert combat (remember that MOD). Real jets and real bombs. Woop woop, hell yeah! and all that jazz.

  9. woodsey says:

    I must be getting old in videogame years, because the mere thought of playing another WW2 FPS still makes me nauseous.

  10. sosolidshoe says:

    I really don’t get all the grumbling and “ermahgerd I’m gonna puke WW2 ugh” stuff. I mean, odds are if you got heavy into the latest CoD you’re not going to be interested in a Battlefield game regardless(that’s not universal of course, but generally speaking the two playerbases don’t overlap that much), and when was the last big multiplayer WW2 shooter before that?

    I can’t even remember. I can remember being disappointed by Battlefield doing WW1 because that war can’t really support the game’s formula without becoming ridiculous, and that’s how it ended up, and thinking they’d be much better off doing WW2 again where they could put together the “right” combos of weapons and class abilities without reaching so hard they dislocate their metaphorical shoulders.

    So yeah, if they do WW2 again, good. BF1942-2, and then hopefully in a couple of years BF Vietnam-2, with modern graphics and some(but hopefully not all) of the map and gameplay refinements we’ve had over the years? Sounds good to me.

  11. joekiller says:

    Love the title image of BF1942 Omaha Beach. Allies sneak up the right and steal a tank. Axis sits on that same ramp and pwns all day. Much time lost there.

  12. LunaticS0UL says:

    Oh, joy, another monotonous uninnovative FPS set in WWII. There’s nothing more back there to explore; let’s keep moving forward. What would really be amazing would be a shooter set in modern times.

  13. Farden says:

    Where’s my 2142-2? =/