Battlefield V is about making friends, building forts and daily chores


World War 2 has broken out once again as EA DICE heads back to the 1940s with Battlefield V, a theoretically safe sequel with some curious, and possibly divisive, ideas at its core.

After the thematic reset that was Battlefield 1 I wasn’t expecting much from this year’s instalment of the long-running shooter series – class tweaks, new period accessories and still-higher fidelity explosions, all of it fed through the same mix of giant, vehicle-strewn maps and objective modes. There’s certainly a lot here that’s familiar, but EA DICE has made some dramatic changes to Battlefield’s squad system that shunt an already team-oriented game even further away from lone wolf play. That’s in addition to the ability to rebuild trashed structures, fortifying maps that hitherto existed only to be ripped apart, and, less attractively, a tsunami of live service and earning mechanisms gathered under the banner of the “Tides of War”. As I discovered during a two-hour presentation today in London, it’s a riskier, more stimulating prospect than the “return to roots” messaging suggests.

Where the last game sought to dispel cliches about the Great War while making it more germane to Battlefield’s combat sandbox, Battlefield V wants to “challenge preconceptions” of World War 2 by telling stories in settings other than Normandy’s beaches or the tank-ridden fields of northern France. You’ll still go to France, but you’ll also tour the Norwegian mountains as a resistance fighter, parachute into a burning Rotterdam and roam the North African desert. The campaign is once again an episodic, multiple-perspective affair, and there’s much talk of “real” people dealing in “relatable” ways with the horrors of a global conflict.

It’s hard to judge based on the campaign footage I’ve been shown – a 30-second snippet of a resistance fighter falling into a lake – but going by Battlefield 1’s rather straight-laced narrative I doubt any of this will prove mind-blowing. More enticing is the reintroduction of a standalone co-op mode, aka Combined Arms, where you’ll join up to three other players on missions behind enemy lines with dynamically generated objectives, often under the pressure of scarce resources. These sound tough, but DICE’s creative director Lars Gustavsson says they will act as a “safe haven” for newcomers while offering a more focused, intimate challenge for the pros.

The ethos of greater intimacy extends to PvP, where you’ll find the usual classes – Assault, Recon, Medic and Support – and some familiar modes – Team Deathmatch, Conquest and Domination, plus a redoubled, even overpowering emphasis on squadplay. Players now spawn into a four-head squad by default, regardless of mode, though you can choose to matchmake as a lone wolf; when respawning, you’re also given the option to squad-spawn first rather than being kicked out to the full map deploy screen.


Squadmates can now revive each other regardless of class, though only Medics can restore you all the way to maximum health – a powerful incentive to band together, where previous games often saw “team-mates” scattered across the map like children at a wedding. Another incentive to buddy up is the reinforcement system, with squads earning points for teamplay actions like giving each other ammo or following the leader’s orders. Squad leaders can then spend those points on powerful rewards such as V1 rocket strikes, supply drops and a chunky four-seater tank that only your squad can spawn into. It’s the Call of Duty streak system, in other words, but those big match-winning plays can only be acquired through teamwork. Whether less organised players will be able to tell the difference when somebody drops a missile on them is another question.

The beefed-up squad focus shapes many of Battlefield V’s new features. Players spawn with less ammo, creating more reliance on classes who can dole it out. There’s a brand spanking new set of contextual and environmental animations that make your movements a shade more obvious to both friendlies and enemies: long grass twitching as you crawl through it, or feet slip-sliding on muddy slopes. You can now drag allies into cover before reviving them, so it’s easier to play Florence Nightingale under fire. And then there’s the new fortifications system, which lets you bolt things like machinegun nests, tank traps, sandbags and trenches to each map’s destructible buildings, including those that house those all-important conquest flags.


It’s obviously reminiscent of Fortnite – to address the elephant in the room, there’s currently no sign of a battle royale mode – and another way of encouraging players to group together rather than spreading out over a shifting battlefront. All classes wield a building tool by default, though only Support players can build the most formidable defensive structures. If you’d rather run amok, rejoice in the knowledge that you can now hitch stationary weapon emplacements to vehicles, in scenes apparently worthy of Mad Max: Fury Road. This sounds like it’ll be of particular concern to pilots, as deadly anti-air guns can now be dragged to unpredictable spots and fired on the go.

If Battlefield V is a fairly exciting departure at the level of mechanics, the new live service and player progression elements sound a bit tiresome. Care of the overarching Tides of War system, you’ll raise an overall player career level while grooming a collection of individual soldiers. Inasmuch as I could tell from a rather swampy, hour-long discussion of work-in-progress assets, classes now break down into “archetypes” that can be outfitted with different cosmetic and gameplay-affecting traits. We were shown a screen of a Recon class with the paratrooper archetype, equipped with boosts to agility and health regen, plus greater resilience against blast damage. Weapons and vehicles can also be customised in advance of matches with perks such as tougher armour plating or a fancy walnut rifle stock.


It’s great to have new options to play with, and Battlefield’s standing as more of a simulation-driven shooter suits this fresh layer of customisation. But then the game goes the extra mile with a landslide of quintessentially service-game reward elements that appear to exist solely for the sake of player retention (and microtransactions, about which DICE’s lips are currently sealed). You can expect daily and special “orders” such as kill X in Y mode that earn you points for various trinkets, XP boosters, and time-limited special events where you tackle modes with special rulesets for extra-rare rewards. It’s all designed to “get you invested”, to help you “create your own identity” and form a “deep connection” with the ephemeral characters and items you amass. I have never warmed to games that try to install themselves into my life this way, and even in the abstract, the offerings here already feel exhausting.


There are upsides to the service-game stuff, however. One is the overdue death of Battlefield’s awkward Premium Pass system: all the major DLC elements EA DICE adds will be available to all players free of charge, to avoid dividing the community. That includes Grand Operations, an evolution of Battlefield 1’s Operations mode that will serve as the delivery system for many of the add-on maps. A Grand Operation is a series of matches with custom rules on different maps, joined together by a loose storyline – reliving the invasion of Rotterdam from the air, for example, then fighting street to street before one side is reduced to a desperate final stand. Each match outcome affects the odds (e.g. spawn ticket number) in the next, and you can expect a mixture of new modes on existing terrain and brand new maps, with fresh Operations kicking off every few months. The idea is to make playing Battlefield V a “journey”, a perpetual war woven around grinding for loot that calls to mind not WW2 but the contested solar system of Bungie’s Destiny.

Battlefield V is, all in all, something of a surprise. Only hands-on time will tell whether the new squad focus is to the game’s benefit, but I like the assertiveness these additions reveal. The event gave the sense of a developer that wants to change how its players think about a formula they understand well, and isn’t afraid to introduce appropriate incentives and discouragements. As for the service elements, there’s a bit of shine with the rain, but much will depend on the monetisation systems that accompany them – EA DICE hasn’t exactly earned much trust for itself on this count in the past six months. Watch out for some additional thoughts on the subject from myself and Lars Gustavsson in the next few days.

Battlefield V is due for release on October 19th. There are more screenshots below. Click to make any of the images on this page bigger.









  1. Freud says:

    I wonder when drug dealers will start claiming they are offering a live service to their customers?

    • mitrovarr says:

      I’m really not a huge fan of the trend for games now to demand that the player basically marry them, and do hundreds of hours of grinding to see all of the content. Not every game needs to be an MMO.

      • Seafoam says:

        It’s the microtransaction money.
        If people would invest only sensible amount of time on games, they would also spend only sensible amount on loot crates. And they don’t want that.

        • Xelias says:

          Every single time a battlefield comes around I think to myself “hey, that might be a fun drop-in, drop-out multiplayer, the game looks pretty cool” Then I’m reminded that it’s EA and always riddled with traps and baits to milk money out of player.

          I don’t like buying something that’ll ask me more money later to play less of the game.

          • dontnormally says:

            My experience with this on BF3 hit hard.

            What the fuck do you mean tanks are weaker when I get in them because I didn’t pay for stronger tanks dlc or grind 10k hours???

  2. BaaBaa says:

    My first impression is this will be a lot like Battlefront 2, which I’ve found to be a poor shooter underneath all the extravagant audio/visual spectacle.

    • aircool says:

      Agreed. Battlefront 2 is soulless. The gameplay is just so bland. Ironically, the loot box fiasco took the focus away from what is a shiny, but ultimately unsatisfying game.

      Single player is ok, but I’m only interested in that ‘cos it’s Star Wars. Battlefield/CoD single player hasn’t interested me since the first CoD.

      • Chromatism says:

        I couldn’t agree more. The first CoD with the United Offensive expansion was, for me, the pinnacle of the series. Every game after has felt like a step back.

        As for Battlefield, number 3 definitely had it’s issues however on the whole I thoroughly enjoyed myself aside from some less than stellar map design (especially when measured against the rest of the series). On the other hand Battlefield 4 felt, in gun handling and movement, like one of the prior modern CoD titles… which seems reasonable given that CoD doesn’t really resemble itself at all anymore when you get down to the minutiae.

      • Vandelay says:

        I think a lot of my lack of enthusiasm for Battlefront 2 comes from getting Battlefield 1 at the same time. It is clear that the later is a superior game.

        But the combat in SW:BF2 is just incredibly underwhelming compared to hectic assault on the senses that make up most Battlefields. It is propped up by Star Wars, but the game just feels so much more lucklustre.

        I did get on ok with the single player, but even that just made me long for a true new Jedi Knight game. And who thought making the Luke level be about squashing bugs was a good idea?!

  3. Seafoam says:

    I don’t know how giving making your characters look and act like they come from fortnite makes them real historical and relatable.
    I think just your ordinary soldier in uniform just being an individual, serious or goofy, is just fine enough. But you gotta “Hollywood them up” I guess.

    Also if they hype the other part of conflict, fort building, and tight squad relations, why not have parts set in the Winter War already?
    Everyone interested ww2 history knows of it. Always on about how dilligent Finns held off the might of the Red Army. Yet there’s practically no shooter games of it.

    I guess Norway gets the limelight, and Finland stays in the shadow as always. Well I hope you norwegians like the funny accents they give you and the history they get wrong, tee he he.

    • klops says:

      I’m sure no one tried to make them historical. I also have never seen Hollywood making WW2 fighters as beard dudes or females with robotic arms and faux-William Wallace warpaints. I’m also sure that fortifications and tight squad relations weren’t anyhow tied only to the Finns during WW2.

      There’s practically no shooter games about smaller Eastern or Northeastern European countries in WW2 because so few know about them and USA winning the Nazis sells much better.

      • Seafoam says:

        Well not ONLY to the Finns but most of the conflict consisted of fort building and tight querilla warfare. So it hits the nail in the head.
        And I would love a ww2 game set in an eastern european country.

    • KFee says:

      Kids nowaday need that, sad but true

      • klops says:

        As a teacher I disagree. There’s just a limit how many serious grey-and-brown WW2 games you and fellow publishers can make.And like I said below, you couldn’t add silly base building (or possible oncoming battle royale?) to a WW2 game trying to take itself seriously. So the theme supports the gameplay, which I appreciate.

  4. MrUnimport says:

    I guess I don’t mind the crazy fantasy-history approach taken in BF1 per se, but this doesn’t really appeal to me. I’m not some stuck-up rivet-counter, but it doesn’t look like WW2 anymore.

  5. Ham Solo says:

    Oh look, a female british paratrooper with a mechanical metal hand. I saw that in a WW2 documentary once.

    • Premium User Badge

      Mikemcn says:

      The people looking for historical accuracy in their first person shooter blockbusters have always confused me.

      There is so little that is accurate about these games, from the environments to the amount and types of weapons to the nature of combat encounters to the sheer number of people you shoot to their health systems among-st myriad other things.

      Yet somehow it takes the appearance of a women, a prosthetic hand, or a black person for everyone to start whining about historical accuracy.

      • brucethemoose says:

        Sometimes they try to play up the historical side of the game in the marketing material. Like they’re honoring the fallen or the survivors, or “remembering” or something.

        That is the only bit that annoys me. If you make a themed fantasy game, that’s fine. You just can’t used that card… While it has more of that vibe than I’d like, I haven’t seen anything too bad in the BF5 material though.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mikemcn says:

          Ok yea that’s no good. I’ve never seen a FPS that felt like a documentary-esque tribute to real people.

          Reminds me of the contrast between BF1’s serious/dramatic campaign and then the EA social media team’s flamethrower memes.

      • aircool says:

        Oh, I dunno… I’ve been pissing myself laughing at in game characters swinging LMG’s around like a water pistol for years, but at least most of those games didn’t get all po-faced about their historical accuracy (apart from Wolfenstein of course, Mecha-Hitler was real).

        Perhaps they should include some mini-games where you have to disassemble your weapon, clean it, oil it and put it back together, otherwise it might jam in the middle of a firefight.

        • sosolidshoe says:

          Oh goody, we’re already at the “some level of abstraction is necessary for a non-sim game, so *literally nothing* matters” part of the discussion – the “it’s FANTASY, it doesn’t have to make *sense* or have basic internal consistency” of games with a historical bent.

          For my part, there’s a reason I bought Battlefield games over COD games, and that was that they at least attempted to have a feel of authenticity to them. Sure, most of them eventually brought in an expansion pack with fictional Nazi superweapons or Russian hovertanks or whatever, but the core games and most of the additional material was “here is a big sandbox map with [insert war here] theme, have at it”.

          If I want Dieselpunk/Weird War Two stuff there’s Wolfenstein, and if I want a game that pays the bare minimum lip-service to the theme while throwing in as much crazy nonsense as possible, there’s COD. The selling point of Battlefield was that it wasn’t either of those things, and now apparently it’s a bit of both plus Fortnite(because of course).

          I mean, it’s not like this is unexpected, given the genuine grade-A grass-fed nonsense that was Battlefield 1’s relationship with its WW1 theme, but it’s still disappointing because I was looking forward to having a decent WW2 multiplayer game to play again after all this time.

        • hungrycookpot says:

          I would love that.

      • Xelias says:

        My big problem about that is: Why take a serious, historic conflict where people really died and make a joke out of it ? If you want to talk about an event where real people gave up their life for their own ideals you should at least do them justice and try to tell their stories.

        If you just want to have fun, make a game about dieselpunk alternative reality and just have a blast with it.

        It kinda feels like using one the worst period of history to make money and feels very cynical.

        • fegbarr says:

          “It kinda feels like using one the worst period of history to make money and feels very cynical.”

          Sure, I agree with this and I admit it makes me uncomfortable to think about why it is that games based on real conflict (particularly this one) are often appealing to us.

          But would making exactly the same game but with slavish adherence to the people involved at each battle be any less cynical? I’d be much less comfortable with that than anything.

          Culturally as a whole we do have some very strange things going on with the way our entertainment treats war in general and WW2 specifically as we manage to (often simultaneously) entertain ideas about it as the horrible time that ruined so many lives but also a simplistic adventurous “good war”.

          Games can teach us things about history and about the sacrifices people made during this and other awful times, but I’m not sure, with respect, you could ever do that with a team-based multiplayer FPS and striving for the accuracy without the introspection feels much less respectful to me.

          • fegbarr says:

            Good grief, those last two paragraphs could use some better punctuation. Apologies to anyone trying to read them!

        • Improper says:

          “It kinda feels like using one the worst period of history to make money and feels very cynical.”

          That’s kinda what Hollywood and games industry have been doing for a while now, decades in fact. Not saying that all developers or filmmakers are in it only for the money, but certainly the people financing them usually do it because war films are often a “safe bet”.

          They don’t give their earnings to help veterans or their relatives, or use it to help people in warzones for example (some do, thankfully). They make formulaic, romanticized films about a dark time in humanity’s history because it’s profitable.

      • Ham Solo says:

        Then why do they claim immersion and authenticity when it clearly is a work of complete fiction?

    • CaidKean says:

      Oh yeah, I remember that one, it was on The History Channel I think!

    • piesmagicos says:

      Hate to burst that righteous bubble of yours…but prosthetic limbs were not at all uncommon in ww2 and with the lack of humanity able to fight…a loss of a hand wasn’t going to deter someone from fighting. My great grandfather lost a foot and still was able to march albeit in support roles. Heck Alexey Maresyev lost both his legs and still managed to be a ace pilot.

      Its like Gizmodo wrote this 4 years ago for this exact moment! link to

  6. Grizzly says:

    Dice clearly just wants to make a diselpunk game but they keep having to tie it to a certain historical setting because otherwise it wouldn’t sell :P

    • April March says:

      I’d totally buy a Battlefield game in a steampunk/dieselpunk setting.

      Problem is I would be the only one! At least I’d always find a space on a server.

    • Turkey says:

      Probably could have avoided stepping in a big pile of steaming nazi shit too if they just went full diesel punk.

  7. klops says:

    Battlefields have “always” been kinda dumb. I appreciate this honest over-the-top attitude in Technicolor even though it does not interest me in any way. Something else than sharp gray and brown filter and trying to make Band of Brothers as a game.

    Also by making the game less “realistic” they can add more popular game systems from Fortnite much easier into this than if it would be, let’s say Red Orchestra 2 or some embarrasingly serious WW2 story about glory and sacrifice.

  8. TychoCelchuuu says:

    I’m really enjoying all the Internet shitlords flipping out about a woman in their precious video game, as if a series that got its start with people riding the wings of airplanes and fixing tanks with wrenches has lost its hallowed realism.

    • Premium User Badge

      Mikemcn says:

      The hate response is always so gross… I love my WW2 history, but these games have always been 90% shooting lots of enemies and making things go boom, and about 10% historical accuracy. If there were no serious complaints before the reason for the anger now is probably not anything to do with history.

      If having a woman, a disabled person or a minority represented in the game makes some player feel more included, that’s great. I can certainly find examples of all different types of people helping in the war if we need a basic level of historical accuracy.

      • Mario Pajas says:

        You politically correct people are tiresome. History is not inclusive. What you are pretending to say is sexism or racism never existed. Let’s imagine 200 years in the future where people take these games as a serious historical portrayal of WW2.

        And why stopping with gender or disability? They would add transgender soldiers, a Syrian refugee or an autistic person too.

        • klops says:

          Why would people imagine that in the future? Has studying history stopped? Has general knowledge just ceased? Are the common people well familiar with a 200 year old game?

        • Premium User Badge

          Mikemcn says:

          Politically correct AKA not assuming that heterosexual, perfectly healthy, usually white men were the only actors in history ever. We have history books, documentaries and period dramas for the historical record, they leave out alot of these people but that is changing. And besides, no one is ever going to boot up BFV to figure out what WW2 was like.

          And there were definitely transgender soldiers in World War 2, there were definitely cognitively impaired people asked to fight when they maybe shouldn’t have (Many were also slaughtered by the nazis), and there were literally entire armies of “refugees” who fought the nazis. The Free french and Polish forces who the allies let into their countries and then armed weren’t all that different from syrian refugees, they just happened to be fleeing a monster the western world had agreed it didn’t like.

          Just because history books never highlighted these people doesn’t mean they did not exist.

          • aircool says:

            Absolutely true, but there’s representation and then there’s misrepresentation.

            They hawk about historical accuracy, then over-egg the diversity. You can’t avoid ‘diversity’ these days, which is fair enough, but I don’t like it being shoved in my face when there’s no need. I guess it’s just my age, but I’m tired of the assumption that we’re all ignorant, narrow minded and blinkered to the world around us.

          • Viral Frog says:

            “The Free french and Polish forces who the allies let into their countries and then armed weren’t all that different from syrian refugees, they just happened to be fleeing a monster the western world had agreed it didn’t like.”

            They also happened to be predominantly white. The western world very clearly dislikes the monster that Syrian refugees are fleeing from. We just don’t like the color of their skin, so we don’t help.

          • MrUnimport says:

            >Politically correct AKA not assuming that heterosexual, perfectly healthy, usually white men were the only actors in history ever.

            It’s not evil to acknowledge that frontline combatants in Europe during WWII were overwhelmingly healthy white men. If you want someone to blame, blame the policies of the time that kept women from fighting (except in the USSR), kept black American servicemen in segregated units, and so on and so forth. We cannot expect the past to represent the ethnic makeup of today’s population.

        • Viral Frog says:

          I think you people who think that games should be historically accurate are quite trite, myself. Even the most “historically accurate” video games are nowhere near authentic in anyway. So since there’s nothing even remotely close to historical accuracy, why is inclusiveness an issue? Why is it such a problem to you that a developer wants people from all walks of life to enjoy their game?

          • aircool says:

            Because they never include people who are left-handed and colourblind. I demand representation!!!

        • Premium User Badge

          Earl-Grey says:

          If you would kindly find the nearest bridge and crawl back where you obviously come from, that would be grand, ta!
          -your mother’s basement also works.

          You CAN’T-ERASE-HISTORY shitlords are the worst.
          No one’s erasing history, we’re building a future where no one will be discriminated for their sex, skin colour or for loving whatever consenting adult they prefer.
          A future where the travesties and monsters of the past aren’t glorified but thought as a warning against the dangers of human cruelty.
          But you bigoted, ignorant, scared little impotent trolls are as always throwing whatever you can into the gears, trying to halt whatever hard-earned strides this frail society manages to make towards a future for everyone.


          • Cederic says:

            So much for “be excellent”.

            I’d love a future that’s got equality for all. Lets see men get 50% custody of children, lets see women dying in equal numbers on the front line, lets remove gender disparity in prisons and education.

            Well up for all of that, because I do very much believe in equal opportunities for everybody.

          • Halk says:

            Thank you! Finally!

            Always these basementdwellers trying to push society back, fear of everything that changes..always pretending that it is something else behind it, “political correctness”, “historical accuracy” etc etc. And in games of all mediums..

            Just be gone

        • Rince says:

          The political incorrect people is pretty tiresome too.

        • Smion says:

          *Hitting stop at the point in the trailer where a dude downs a fighter plane by shooting a hand grenade in mid-air and scrolling down to the comments to nod along solemnly* I can’t believe they would ruin this otherwise very authentic portrayal by including women soldiers as part of the Royal Tank Regiment.

        • Halk says:

          I think you misunderstand what politically correct is.

          History is not inclusive, true! But we would like the present time to be a bit more inclusive. Nobody is saying that racism or sexism never existed, quite the contrary, the debate is all around everywhere these days.

          If people 200 years in the future takes Battlefield 5 (or any game) as a history lesson I feel sorry for them. Do you actually think that will happen, that our entertainment becomes some kind of documentaries? Of course you don´t!

          Sure why not, it is a game of fiction, they can add whatever they want.

      • brucethemoose says:

        Maybe they should explore a WWII front that actually had minorities fighting most of it?

        Diversity is good, but there’s a certain irony in trying to be inclusive while presenting a very euro/american-centric view of the war.

      • MrUnimport says:

        I’m confused by the idea of letting people feel included in a depiction of a historical event. WW2 was fought in the past by people who aren’t us. Why pretend like we were there? Why not make up a new war to be in?

        In particular, why strain credulity by having a character use a primitive prosthesis as if it were some kind of cyber-arm? Is this game not supposed to take place in reality? Then why not say so and save everyone the trouble? (Of course, then they couldn’t reap the glory-and-sacrifice marketing bonus.)

        • Risingson says:

          The absurd thing is that among all the things that defy credibility in these games, the one triggering is having a woman soldier. It’s very telling, too.

          • DatonKallandor says:

            Or, you know, the ROBOT ARM. There were women fighting in WW2. But they sure as shit weren’t doing it in the US or British forces, who were a vile boys club. You can totally have female fighting characters, just make them russian, because those actually existed. Surprise, this is the path that previous WW2 games actually took – place your minority or underrepresented characters in positions where they actually would have been. And don’t give them frickin steampunk robot arms.

            There were non-whites fighting in WW2. But they sure as shit weren’t doing it in mixed units, because again, western military of the time was racist as hell. You can totally have black characters in a WW2 game, just put them where they would have been historically, which is what other WW2 games have done.

            Quite frankly the “you just hate women/black people” defense was already tiresome when it was wheeled out for ghostbusters, and it’s just as tiresome here.

          • Risingson says:

            You just do. You feel annoyed by exactly that and not other stuff. You can write a lot of different sentences and join letters that will say the same, over and over again.

          • Ashabel says:

            I mean, what really shows that you just hate women is that when confronted with her presence, you had the option of assuming she was masquerading as am an when she was originally deployed, or assuming that she’s SOE, or even assuming that she lifted that uniform from another soldier after her original one was destroyed, and yet you still took the option of behaving like a mouth-frothing idiot bigot on the internet.

    • Seafoam says:

      Well I wouldn’t say that everyone is flipping about it just because she is a woman. More like that she is poorly implemented. With the devs higlighting the “realism” and all that.
      Even if she was a man she would still have been out of place in the historical setting, so it is kinda hard to argue against those claims. Gender is a non issue on the sillyness here.

      Though I’m sure many shitlords are crying about just her gender, how it’s “pandering” or something. Perhaps her gender just easily exemplifies her out of placeness? Or if everything else is wacky she’ll actually fit right in?

    • klops says:

      I sort of get it. Well, don’t get the rage, how big an issue it can be for some and the general misogynism. But I get the opposition.

      Even though most know that games aren’t very realistic, they still often try to achieve immersion and realism at least in their settings. In a “realistic” WW2 game a possibility for a US lady-trooper storming the German bunkers at Normandy just feels bad. It’s as good an idea as if you could have a possibility to be a Swedish or a modern soldier in 1944 D-Day or being a male nun in a convent during the middle ages. Doesn’t work. For me.

      For me this would be a bigger issue than repairing a tank with a hammer on the spot or other totally unrealistic mechanics, and it has nothing to do with man-activism, misogynism or opposing trans-people.

      Then again, this has never happened in those “realistic” games, so the shitlords’ arguments I’ve seen on this have often been against straw men.

      In a fantasy world of BFV or Silent Storm or other WW2 settings like that, I don’t care who the soldiers are.

      And yes, I know there were female fighters in WW2 as well. I used the D-Day example because I’m pretty sure there weren’t any there.

      • MrUnimport says:

        I think it’s basically because people’s mental concepts of what a WW2 run and gun action fantasy entails are based directly on Hollywood movies, which frequently play fast and loose with military tactics and the laws of physics but rarely feature women and minorities.

        • klops says:

          I think it is because war is always abstracted very heavily in games. It is expected that shooting with a rifle or ordering a batallion can’t be completely realistic.

          It is easy to have the gender of the troops realistic.

    • Gibster says:

      There’s sacrificing realism for the sake of game balance, and then there’s creating a historical unicorn to pander to a demographic. One is necessary to creating an enjoyable game, the other defiles the historical setting which it’s placed in for no reason other than being “inclusive”.

      Battlefield One is the least realistic World War I fps that has ever been made but at least its set pieces make an effort at belonging in the setting. Yes it is ridiculous seeing a man shoulder fire an HMG but the only true single man portable LMGs in World War I were (to my knowledge) the BAR, the Madsen, and the Chauchat. Weapon variety is an important staple of the Battlefield franchise so in order to maintain that game play element they added MMGs and HMGs to their roster. You can at least tell that they tried by holding off on releasing the heavier guns until the later dlc. Yes they could have stuck to only releasing those true single man operable LMGs that did exist in the war but would that have been fun? Would that have lead to a satisfactory amount of content? I do not think so. With Battlefield 1 DICE were (first and foremost) making a Battlefield title and that meant fulfilling certain gameplay aspects.

      With any game that takes place in a historical setting, there is going to be sacrifices in realism for the sake of fair and balanced gameplay. Even the more “realistic” shooters like Red Orchestra do this to some extant. However, these titles do have a responsibility in their portrayal of historical settings. As far as I can tell, all the weapons, the gear, and the soldiers in Battlefield 1 did exist, even if some of them were one off prototypes or meant to be used in a multi-man function, they are at least period accurate set pieces. Some of the stuff I saw in the Battlefield V trailer were historical unicorns, they never existed in the setting it was trying to portray. It was not only a disgrace to the setting but also visually jarring in an incredibly uncomfortable manner. Not only that, inventing uniformed female soldiers does nothing to add to gameplay in any meaningful manner. Unless DICE address this, I will not be buying Battlefield V because I will not support this pandering at the sacrifice to a historical setting. It is disappointing to see DICE stoop so low.

      • Ashabel says:

        Remarkable. Truly remarkable.

        Now if only you’d spend as much time researching World War II as you’ve been spending on blaming DICE for your lack of education.

      • Grizzly says:

        Nancy Wake was a captain of the SOE, who organized the French Resistance forces after D-Day. She is noted for both her excellent commanding skills and killing a nazi with her bare hands. She wouldn’t be the only woman deployed into as part of SOE efforts. However, I just really need to name just one name here (so I immediately went with the most badass), as BF1’s Char 2Cs, Battlefield Zeppelins, Cei Rigottis, and various other shenaniganery were never seen in WW1 at all. I didn’t know about her before this trailer started doing the rounds, funnily enough.

        Then there’s the French, who uniformed their resistance fighters after D-Day, amongst them quite a few women (but not as much as in other partisan units elsewhere), and there’s the obvious Russians who we will undoubtedly see in this game.

        Women fighting in WW2 were rare, sure, but hardly “Historical unicorns”, and in a game that is trying to do ALL THE CUSTOMIZATION it would make sense that you could change your character’s gender. It’s hardly as glaring as, say, throwing a grenade back at the enemy and then shooting at it so it blows up a bf109 in midair. Or V1 rockets used as tactical missiles. Or the universal availabilty of quickly-deploying parachutes in BF1. Or the Paratrooper raids in BF1. Or THE BATTLEFIELD ZEPPELIN GRRR

  9. sneetch says:

    Just reading about the service features I thought I could feel EA trying to slip their hand into my pocket.

    I’ll be waiting for free weekends or whatever before trying this one out. If the gunplay feels right then maybe.

    • aircool says:

      I really don’t mind paying for stuff if it’s worth it, but a fair and balanced matchmaking system has to be central to the game.

  10. aircool says:

    Usual rules apply…

    How will they deal with hackers.
    Will we ever get a fair match, especially with EOMM on the cards.
    Rewarding the best players with better killing tools didn’t work for Battlefront 2, and I can’t see it working here.

    What everyone wants out of a game is a fair fight. A balanced game with no killstreak bullshit, no cheaters, no ‘fake’ balance and no cheese. Ultimately, that’s all people care about after a week or so; getting a fair match.

    • aircool says:

      Oh, and can we have an option to turn of the fucking lens flare for christ sake?

      • April March says:

        Lens flare is there for historical accuracy. They’re historically accurate to ca. 2007.

        • aircool says:

          I tried playing Mass Effect: Andromeda (free on Origin Access) and had to uninstall after 30 minutes because the lens flare was that annoying.

          Maybe I should try Dragon Age: Inquisition instead as they didn’t have film/video cameras. Or maybe they did… I dunno, it’s all made up anyway.

    • DrollRemark says:

      What everyone wants out of a game is a fair fight. A balanced game with no killstreak bullshit, no cheaters, no ‘fake’ balance and no cheese. Ultimately, that’s all people care about after a week or so; getting a fair match.

      It’s amazing to see the likes of Battlefield and CoD scrambling to react to the popularity of PUBG/Fortnite and not grasping that maybe this is one of their biggest selling points, not just the format.

    • Cederic says:

      Nice, you’ve managed to highlight all of the reasons I wont buy the game.

      An online FPS is all about balanced gameplay. That overrides setting, genre, the lot. Battlefield V appears not to care about that, so no sale.

  11. racccoon says:

    Its nice and pretty..Trailers hmm :(

  12. zat0ichi says:

    THe frostbite engine is pretty but I need a pause button.

    I have the money to buy this but when it feels like a large percentage of that is for the multi-player experience I am immediately put off. How much of the game dev budget goes into the mp side of things?

    Why don’t they do SP only releases of games?
    It must really easy to set the license code to not allow MP server access.

  13. Astaa says:

    Seeing as EA have basically said they will continue to screw people via microtransactions as much as they possibly can…I won’t be buying this game or any other EA game. They are a disgusting distributor and a cancer on the industry and its high time more people voted with their wallets.

  14. Rince says:

    The Co-op sounds nice!

  15. Cederic says:

    Can’t believe nobody has highlighted the historical inaccuracy that’s causing me so much distress.

    V1 flying bombs (they weren’t rockets, they were just rocket powered) lacked the accuracy to even target the battlefield, let alone a near instantaneous strike on a specific part of it.

    It was bad enough seeing them land during the trailer, given the Germans never used them to support ground battles, let alone finding out they’re being treated as some form of precision artillery.

    Pure gimmick. Just give us precision artillery ffs.

    • Lordcrazy says:

      I agree with all you said, however I took it as a nice throwback to the about as “historically accurate” Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WW2

  16. fegbarr says:

    I’m really excited to play a WW2 game that won’t pretend to be a “historically accurate” simulation but actually reflects who were are as a society today and who we want to include in our games.

    Not all historical fiction is (or should be) documentary. Complaining about historical accuracy in a title like this is, to my mind, like complaining that something like Westworld is inaccurate.

    • klops says:

      Well said!

    • DatonKallandor says:

      Westworld is a horrible comparison, because that’s explicitly not portraying the Wild West frontier, but a stereotype of it created later to entertain.

      BF5 claims to portray WW2, not a fake themepark based on WW2.

      • fegbarr says:

        They don’t explicitly say it’s a fake theme park, but it’s pretty well implied. We’re not playing this to learn about history, we’re playing it to shoot our pals and look at explosions in 4k and (in all likelihood) get called slurs by teenage boys on voicechat.

        Would you appreciate the comparison more if I said BFV was akin to the theme park than the show?

        “A stereotype of it created later to entertain” feels like exactly what we’re doing here, with or without women fighters and robot arms. File it somewhere near Kelly’s Heroes and Where Eagles Dare (and ‘Allo ‘Allo?).

      • klops says:

        Westworld is an imaginary unrealistic, over-the-top playground with Wild West theme created to entertain.
        BF5 is a real unrealistic, over-the-top playground with WW2 theme created to entertain.

        If that BFV trailer doesn’t scream fake themepark, then I don’t know what does.

  17. Foxtratocaster says:

    They had the balls to make their own version of 2ndWW, but nobody is brave enough to make something out of any of the underground wars happening NOW, not even mentioning Siria or Gaza. That’d be too much controversy, but hey, they’re EA, don’t wanna piss off people, right?

  18. JustAchaP says:

    I am interested in a lot of the changes. I like hearing about more incentive for teamwork but that probably because I enjoy games like Squad and Rainbow Six Siege.

Comment on this story

HTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>