A modern military simulation game set on a large battlefield.
A modern military simulation game set on a large battlefield.
Everyone is discussing the negative coverage EA is receiving about Battlefield V. The company's stock has fallen noticeably, nearly ten percent, following the postponement and lagging pre-order numbers compared to Call of Duty, which saw over eighty-five percent of its expected sales. Many are expressing frustration, especially over the presence of a female character in the game, with EA reportedly discouraging purchases from those who aren't interested. Rumors suggest the delay might also relate to RTX technology and current benchmarks indicating only around 30 frames per second at 4K when ray tracing is active, dropping to about 60 fps at 1440p. With so much attention on the game, opinions are mixed. Some believe it’s time to let things settle and trust EA’s plans, noting the strong beta performance and the promise of a major title. The author also references a previous negative article about Battlefield 1 for context on sales expectations.
The chances of the game being good seem low. It’s time for EA to face consequences. I wish Dice could survive and secure a publisher offering more artistic control, but their current methods are questionable and I fear this situation won’t change.
Notice how DICE manages this situation. If they decide to include wheelchair-bound women in the game, that’s fine. Just clarify why it appears in a proper way. What bothers me is how the developers dealt with criticism on Twitter, assuming that pleasing an audience they can’t reach while offending their fans will help them advance.
I believe the game has strong potential, starting with its dice mechanics and solid gameplay. The beta version is impressive, offering great visuals without any major issues. Many players today are eager to explore and enjoy it, making it a promising experience. My personal confidence in Dice is growing, though I understand others might have different views.
It's nice if you enjoy it, but I know what came after the hardline and frontline situations.
They seem capable of managing better, but if I were in the same spot, I wouldn’t change much. They invest so much effort into making a great game, yet everyone reacts negatively for trivial reasons. Why should anyone care about a woman in the game? Dice has always claimed their games aren’t meant to be accurate—just fun, using settings to create enjoyable experiences.
I emphasized that this was a key matchup, not just another game or variation.
It seems the issue isn't really about a female character being present, but rather a sense of awkward insertion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, that's certain. It's more about preventing things from getting worse instead of solving them.
The experience was mostly about a believable battlefield, but when you face a cripple no matter their gender, outrun a tank, and do other extreme actions, it breaks the immersion for some players. This is something the community really wants to see more of in an alternate timeline or universe. Most people preferred a historical feel rather than modern twists. No one was upset about BF1’s female characters being limited to Russian snipers, which fits the historical context. World War II is one of the most thoroughly documented conflicts, so players will look for accuracy and won’t tolerate inaccuracies. Many also feel the company is trying too hard to appear politically correct and want the game to stay focused on gameplay.
The line is placed where it fits the context, but it’s unclear if it should be labeled as "main game." Why not? The placement depends on clarity and relevance to the discussion.