A modern military simulation game set on a large battlefield.
A modern military simulation game set on a large battlefield.
It wasn't about political correctness, but likely pressure to match other titles. I can't defend it, but it seems industry folks are influenced by expectations. They might have added it just to fit in, not because they genuinely wanted to, and another company handles it so they don’t bear the blame if it fails.
It's common knowledge that hardcore wasn't meant as the main focus initially; people often referred to it as a DLC before its official release. I think it was more of a minor side endeavor while the team concentrated on a larger project.
Sure, I'd like to say I wish I had more money and a better grasp of the market.
The battlefield series has consistently functioned as a theoretical military simulation adapted for Twitch shooter formats. Early single-player narratives shaped the design of multiplayer maps. Numerous military-themed shooters have offered customizable loadouts, such as Joint Ops, Unreal Tournament, and Planetside 2, without any overt social messaging. In Quake, team colors were used to indicate squad affiliation, aiding identification. Recently, titles like Star Trek, Star Wars, Wolfenstein 2 Colossus, and BF V have been highlighted for their potential social commentary, drawing mainstream attention. If media takes a stance, it shouldn’t react with panic to feedback. The speed of public conversation lags behind the rate of social integration. DICE is based in Sweden, which may influence their perspective, and I understand that. Having tried the BF V beta and earlier entries, the maps feel similar to past releases. Adding a DLC for BF3 or BF4 would have been welcome, as would improvements to visuals. Other aspects like character design and weapon placement are less noticeable, focusing more on enemy positioning and basic return fire attempts. Distinguishing uniforms from afar is challenging. The game appears to encourage tighter squad formations, which may enhance team cohesion compared to previous experiences. I haven’t noticed significant changes in BF V beyond a new setting, though it remains a beta with positive aspects. I’d appreciate seeing community-managed servers return.
I favor current warfare such as Battlefield 4. I don’t really enjoy World War 1 or 2.
I don't really focus on the female characters in Battlefield. It's absurd, but today's world pushes us to overlook history and facts, reshaping everything to fit people who might feel hurt. What bothers me is the excessive censorship EA applies to the battlefield chat. Terms like "Nazi" are blocked, which makes sense in most games since it's inappropriate, yet when you're opposing or representing a German army, it feels odd. You can say "The Allies are at point A," but not "The Nazis are at point A." It's no surprise that all Nazi references are removed, including the swastika. For some time I was unsure about the game's intended setting, since weapons and tanks looked like WWII, but German elements seemed to belong to WW1 due to outdated flags and missing symbols. Spoiler: EA likely chose a WWII setting for Battlefield V. Phrases like "white man" or "male" are also blocked in chat. But words like "black man" and "asian man" remain unblocked. Why is "white man" considered offensive? [link] This discussion gets even more strange. "Titanfall" and DLC are censored, though you can type "Free DLC" without issues. Words such as "lag" and "laggy" are banned too. I haven't played it yet, but apparently "Defend" is restricted as well. EA claims the filter isn't functioning properly, calling it an error or bug. That's ridiculous because someone must have added words like "Titanfall" to the list. The game is meant for mature audiences, so it shouldn't need a chat filter at all. If mature players can't tolerate seeing explicit terms like "cunt," "fuck," "DLC" or "lag" in hidden chat, then they shouldn't be playing a mature title.