Follow TV Tropes
It's not just an alt-right sabotage, there are so many reasons I can think of for why the game failed. For what it's worth, I probably would've bought Battlefield V, after EA released all the content, had it been an accurate historical portrayal of World War II.
'Accurate historical portrayal' isn't something you're going to find in a video game, least of all a Battlefield game. Even the more 'realistic' World War 2 games (and I use that term incredibly loosely) make sacrifices for gameplay because, as it turns out, getting shot at isn't a very entertaining or thrilling experience.
Alright alt-right controversies aside, what exactly is up with this game?
What are the actual issues beyond minority folk being playable?
In terms of story, not gameplay, I have a maximum tolerance for historical inaccuracies when it comes to video games based on real-life events, which I feel Battlefield V exceeds from what I saw. Would've loved to see some of the Russian women soldiers instead.
You would still get alt-righters bitching about them even if that is historically accurate. Lyudmila Pavlichenko was the most famous of all the women that fought for Russia, and one of the best snipers in history but I guarantee if you brought that to them they'd try to completely ignore your argument in some way. You'd be surprised how ignorant, willfully or not, people will be when it comes to history.
I do agree that it wasn't just alt-right sabotage that messed up the games chances but to say the alt-right had nothing to do with the game doing badly at all is disingenuous and that is what I was arguing.
To name some, Slimcoder:
Edited by SgtRicko on Feb 8th 2019 at 8:31:46 PM
Also, Russian scouts in BF 1 were women, now the change is that you can have a female character no matter the side or class. So what. Luckily, the devs didn't go overboard and while the Allies have Africans, Asians and even an alcoholic, the Germans are as Aryan as the alt-right chuds wanted.
Edited by NotSoBadassLongcoat on Feb 8th 2019 at 11:27:43 AM
Yeah I heard that Call Of Duty got flack from chuds because they had black Nazis.
Sadly that isn't too out there. While they were not very common their was some Afro-Germans that got enlisted in Death's Head/SS and Hitler Youth. Also seen a small amount today on rare occasions on social media and their is actually disturbingly quite a few minority neo-nazi gangs in Latin America and Slavic countries today for some odd reason despite how much the nazis actively despised those groups of people.
The French Resistance also had a lot of women in it and their was a ton of female pilots in WW 2.
I personally though am more for player choice and customization in games like these then realism. I always personally despised how their is always a group of gamers, usually alt-right chuds nowadays, that want their games to be realistic. I remember people used to make fun of those guys all the time and yet strangely in recent years they go unchallenged a lot of the time despite it being, well a game y'know.
Although I do know DICE has never been the best at getting their games without ridiculous glitches and content droughts. Their single player campaigns also always sucked.
Edited by Wispy on Feb 8th 2019 at 3:13:36 AM
Chris Franklin of Errant Signal fame did a fantastic video on the single player, talking about how it grasps for a gravitas it can never live up to purely based on the fact that none of the missions last long enough to really provide the requisite depth of characterization or immersion to make the emotional beats more meaningful.
And Kameron Hurley's 2014 essay We Have Always Fought covers a lot of ground as far as women in armed conflict. Applied to games, the fantasy of video games isn't the presence of women - women have always fought - it's the presentation of them as women. And considering this is the game series in which you lumber around in a 40 ton steel behemoth that mysteriously only requires two operators, I can take the hit to my verisimilitude to allow for some fucking self-expression
Edited by math792d on Feb 8th 2019 at 1:00:12 PM
They do however have more consistency about who and what they are.
"Alt-right" is apparently nothing but a catch-all term. To put it in perspective both for the subject and Battlefield V, you could ask a simple question "Did women fight in World War Two?" a completely neutral thing. Half the responses will be something to the effect "Yes, they did. <link-to-history-article>" with most of the accounts being Russian. The other half will blanket call you sexist or "alt-right" for even asking.
100% accurate no. 100% authentic yes. Early Call of Duty games such as United Offensive and Big Red One played incredibly authentically some gameplay concessions notwithstanding.
They also had a high degree of accuracy, in some cases to the point that the guns you're firing are using their real-world sounds recorded just for the game. (The MP-40 in reality does sound like a sewing machine just like in Call of Duty Big Red One.)
Which will also bring up a nifty thing later...
Numerous bugs and poor performance issues as mentioned but then there's also some severely frustrating gameplay including very very poor contrast and visibility of enemy soldiers. A severe lack of content both delivered and promised is also a major ding against it.
Then you just have poor execution of everything from the poor UI to the endless loading screens to the poorly thought out assignments and unlock tracks and more.
So where was the controversy surrounding Tanya Pavelovna in Call of Duty Finest Hour? Either folks under the age of 25 today are vastly more intolerant compared to folks in their teens and twenties back in 2004 or the execution and quality of characters and portrayals in Battlefield V is extremely poor by comparison.
There was no controversy back then and it was an authentic portrayal. No cyborg arms or out of place locations.
And Tanya here was not the only woman character in a Call of Duty WW 2-era game from long ago. (Nor were they the only women characters in WW 2 games back then.)
I would rather have had BF 1's variant system than the tripe it is now. In BFV weapons really only have one configuration in their upgrade trees if you go by the metas. Even if you ignore the metas, the possibilities are very limited to either hipfire god or aimed fire aimbot. The variety is simply not there.
For example, the faster bullets upgrade is a requirement to ungimp scout rifles so you're automatically down a slot on the upgrade tree. (Just like Extended Mags is often a requirement for the SMG category.)
Edited by MajorTom on Feb 8th 2019 at 6:34:15 AM
But none of that is 'authentic' either. Gameplay inherently strips the authenticity away in favor of a presentation that is like something else. The early World War 2 computer games, including the early Cods, were all clearly aping other media surrounding the war coming out at the time, or the 70's epics that had come before. The first Medal of Honor takes a lot of its D-Day cues from Saving Private Ryan. The early Soviet missions in the first Call of Duty game are taken right out of Enemy At the Gates ('historical authenticity' lol), and most of their characterization of the Red Army are taken out of American or German depictions of the Eastern Front.
If you took away all the bits in which you're running around simulacrums of World War 2 battlefields and depopulating entire German villages' worth of young men, you're left with something that's still an illusion, it's just an illusion that's closer to pop culture's depiction of the war (which is all we really have left), and so it feels true without being it.
But that's not authentic, it's just a decent illusion.
For the record, I don't know how much of Battlefield 5's bad press was because of of bad performance or bugs, how much was the usual sexist backlash that's been part of the gaming sphere since non-dudes started to actually stake an interest in the medium, and how much of it is just because gamers are God's perfect idiots, and ultimately it doesn't really matter.
Edited by math792d on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:01:15 PM
I just enjoy just how patently greedy and incestuous the relationship between EA and its shareholders is if 7.3 million units sold is a failure.
what a shitshow capitalism is.
That caught my eyes as well. Some might argue that higher development costs require higher sales numbers, but then I'd like to know just where the money was supposedly spend. Because from what I have seen of the game after relase (thanks to a friend who borrowed me his account), the content available did not justify its' initial 60Ä price tag. I don't mind paying more for a game via DL Cs if the initial game is fun to play, and offers a decent amount of entertainment. BFV was neither (with some exceptions) and there are many games out their that offer more for the same (or lower price) so I had no reason to buy it.
As a side note, it seems to me that the "SJW" is more a PR coup in favour for EA than against them. Because thanks to that they can now justify their low sale numbers with the boycott of sexist gamers (which do exist of course) than with the bad state of the game after release.
^^ It's considered a failure because their initial projections were 10-12 million last summer, they pared it back to 8-9 million based on low pre-orders and they didn't even make that.
Compare that to Battlefield One which sold 15 million in the same amount of time as BFV's been out.
You don't roll out a sequel in a franchise and then have a 50% plus decline in sales/revenue and consider it successful. That's how you get things like a Franchise Killer.
And that capitalism remark? Poor sales are the other aspect of it. Capitalism worked as intended, people voted with their wallets and didn't buy it. Supply and demand, people demanded a better game and EA supplied crap and it's no surprise sales fell through the floor as a result.
Edited by MajorTom on Feb 8th 2019 at 8:31:20 AM
It's just a factor of capitalism. Anything that doesn't make more money than it did last year is a failure, and Battlefield 1 shipped, what, something to the level of 20 million copies?
If we assume most of those copies of BFV were at the 60 dollar price tag, that's half a billion dollars, which is apparently just not enough money for investors. Because capitalism is a cancer.
Edited by math792d on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:32:40 PM
^ Lifetime wise, Battlefield One has done about 22 million or so. It did almost 3/4 of that number in its first three months.
Edited by MajorTom on Feb 8th 2019 at 8:33:03 AM
It wasn't. The game went on permanent 50% discount 5 days after launch.
thats still quarter of a billion.
Shareholders can go fuck themselves.
Edited by Midgetsnowman on Feb 8th 2019 at 9:38:23 AM
Considering it was that model that led to the preventable deaths of so many good seriesí, yeah, Iím happy to see the shoe on the other foot here.
Thatís what it boils down to for me. EA sucks as a company, and I dislike them for what they did to Mass Effect and Dead Space. Therefore, supporting the company that sucks is a low priority. And donít get me started on the Titanfall spinoff without any freaking Titans.
Consumer unfriendly practices that led to bad content micromanaged to hell with micro transactions is not something people want to support. Doesnít matter what side of the culture war youíre on.
Edited by Beatman1 on Feb 8th 2019 at 1:45:27 PM
So far Respawn's staff claim they removed the Titans and wall-running due to balancing reasons. The Titans received the boot due to being too difficult to effectively balance without giving them some massive weakness or compromises (which basically ruined the sense of power they typically provide), and the wall-running made things too chaotic for a hero based battle royale.
EDIT: But on the other hand, Respawn is working on that upcoming Star Wars title, so they probably took whatever working assets they originally had for Titanfall 3 and quickly assembled themselves an F 2 P Battle Royale shooter before being re-focused onto a different project by EA.
Edited by SgtRicko on Feb 8th 2019 at 9:15:23 PM
The alt-right is not a catchall term. They tend to consist of sexists, incels, neo-nazis, the worst of the worst. There is a lot of overlap between those groups if you delve into the alt-right.
I wouldn't be defending anyone that got accused of being called alt-right as their is a very good chance that they got called that for a good reason. Same thing with getting called any other kind of bigotry. If they don't want to get called alt-right, or a racist, or a sexist than they should stop using alt-right/racist/sexist talking points
The only exceptions of crazies I have seen is the occasional hopefully young person calling an artist racist because they depicted a darker skinned character slightly lighter. Or the tankies and TER Fs. You can argue that the former is just fandoms being shit in general though.
Apex Legends is also a bit different in the sense that the TTK is much longer than Titanfall 2 and some of the guns suck really bad (looking at you Mozambique) due to that. So far it has been Respawn's most successful game though so it may fund Titanfall 3 and that new Star Wars game in the future.
I am keeping an eye on Respawn as they are the only developer EA has right now that has not been completely gutted and thrashed by EA. I have not forgotten EA killing off Visceral and likely any chance of seeing a Dead Space game again, or what they did to Dead Space 3. Or what they did to Bioware. DICE used to be way better at handling their games in the past too
In that way, I am satisfied that they aren't doing too well right now.
Edited by Wispy on Feb 8th 2019 at 5:01:38 AM
Clever EA, goes all woke and delivers a meh product so the internet would blame SJW for ruining gaming.
Actually, BFV is not that bad, is it? It feels very mediocre and EA expected money to flow just because Battlefield 1 did incredible.
Honestly a mediocre game is just as bad & in some ways worse than a bad game.
If we assume development costs were somewhere around 150 million for assets, wages, licenses, etc and marketing costs were around 100 million (I'm pretty sure D-list Trevor Noah wasn't cheap), then a quarter of a billion maybe makes them break even on just development. This does not factor in post-launch support or the possibility of sequels/continuing on.
In economics, simply breaking even is not good enough. You want at minimum a tidy profit so you have room to keep going, to expand and make more. In short you want a return on investment, not just your investment back.
If you launch a project and break even and it's your first launch then it might be excusable as you're still finding your way. But if you have a history of prior projects launching and you don't at minimum consistently pull repeats for sales numbers and consistent margins all sorts of red flags pop up, not just from investors. Customers will think your quality or competence has declined (and they are likely right, quality products seldom experience declines) and will thus leave you for greener pastures.
Which in the end boils down to the simplest concepts of capitalism, supply and demand. If you don't supply what the market demands as happened with BFV, you will fail and decline. Corporatism or any of that is irrelevant.
You just made it one. By saying this...
Anybody who calls somebody "incel" is to be taken even less seriously than the claims that "SJW" doesn't exist.
So people who ask for historical accuracy or authenticity (even if misinformed about what that is) are alt-right? People who ask for their reveal trailers to make sense are alt-right? People who don't take kindly to being labeled "uneducated" are alt-right? People who don't like wacky customization schemes are alt-right? People who expect and demand their games be complete and reasonably bug-free are alt-right?
It truly is a catch-all term. The worst of them all.
At least you can take the piss out of a bad game. For example, Big Rigs and its many Good Bad Bugs.
A mediocre game is among the worst kind of crap. Not so bad you can make fun of it and have fun with it but nowhere near good enough to praise it either. So Okay, It's Average is second only to So Bad Its Horrible in terms of quality.
Yeah clearly their is no point arguing with you if your going to just plug your ears and say I am not listening constantly.
Sure, incels don't exist. Got it.
Community Showcase More