A good thing about the delay is that I can show with no uncertainty the true extent of the reveal trailer's cockup. Featured is a pair of screenshots from the Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 5 reveal trailers on the Official Battlefield YouTube channel, Battlefield 1 being the massively successful previous instalment in the series released in 2016. What you can see is fairly self-explanatory, Battlefield 1's trailer was very well received, while Battlefield 5 is being shit on by those dislikes, with in fact a bigger lead in the dislikes than Battlefield 1 had dislikes in total, significantly bigger; nearly sixty-four thousand. This goes beyond merely a mixed reception, this is a disaster for Battlefield 5, an almost biblical fall from an approval rating of ninety eight percent to just forty three percent, this isn't a good situation for Battlefield 5. The obvious issue here is that the response to this video could hurt the game's sales, something that is very observable in Battlefield's main rival, Call of Duty, which had a terribly received reveal trailer for Infinite Warfare, followed by low sales, and though the response hasn't been so brain-meltingly bad for Battlefield 5, this could have the same effect. That as well as later cockups like the announcement of a Battle Royale mode that no one asked for, or the really odd choice to have Trevor Noah, a "comedian" and show host hosting the live show and making a fool of himself by demonstrating his complete lack of experience and understanding with the Battlefield franchise. But on the plus side, Battlefield 5 has made the smart move to ditch the season pass, which will inevitably garner some good will, especially considering that Black Ops IIII, a dumpster fire of a game and Battlefield's biggest competition this year, is going hardcore on the season pass model; locking all DLC behind the pass, and then locking the pass itself behind over-priced special editions of the base game, which makes EA, of all companies, look consumer friendly by comparison. Also unlike Call of Duty: Black mark 4, Battlefield 5 will have single player content in the form of the mini campaigns returning from Battlefield 1, which still doesn't replace a single, full campaign, but is better than nothing. But if Battlefield 5 is doing this right, garnering positivity from the public for its consumer friendliness, why is that trailer such a disaster, why the four hundred thousand thumbs down? 
Let's ignore the elephant in the room for a moment and consider that the trailer itself is rubbish; it's a messy, poorly edited, nonsensical train wreck that doesn't represent the gameplay. First, let's look at how Battlefield 1's trailer works so well, to get a better idea of why Battlefield 5's doesn't. Right away, the Battlefield 1 trailer lets you know that this trailer is in game footage running on the Frostbite engine, and not pre-rendered, which is important because now the viewer knows that what they're seeing is actually the game, making the level of visual fidelity and sheer brutality of it all more impressive. The trailer is a mixture of multiplayer footage, and sections of the single player element, providing a good degree of visual diversity in the presentation; with battles on the sea, in the air, on mountains and in forests and deserts, giving the conflict of the trailer a greater sense of scale by showing how the game's conflict; the first World War, spanned from the hills and farmlands of Europe to the mountains and dunes of Arabia. The trailer is edited extremely well, with rapid cuts from scene to scene, but done in a way that still makes the action comprehensible, and is in rhythm with the beat of the music, giving the trailer a great degree of energy, it's exciting. And then there's the music; Glitch Mob's Seven Nation Army, which perfectly fits the tone of the trailer, and is possibly the most effective element of it. All of this makes a trailer that is impressive, epic, exciting, but still easy to understand, and provides a good picture of what the game is like. Now compare that to Battlefield 5, there is no epic Glitch Mob, no snappy, exciting cuts to the beat of the music, not visual diversity, at least of the kind that's good, no indication that the trailer is in game footage, which it clearly isn't as shown by the 'gameplay' section of the trailer, and it's cut together into a one-take that makes the action incomprehensible and jarring. People die and then reappear seconds later, there's no clear visual distinction between good guys and bad guys, and there are more explosions than a Michael Bay fever dream, plus the trailer is obnoxiously colourful, like it's colour saturation's been turned up, it doesn't look natural. Nothing about this trailer works, it's without effective musical accompaniment, it's messy, ugly, obnoxious, incoherent and fake, it's crap. But what makes this so absolutely befuddling to me is that during E3, when DICE was showing off the game, they released a multiplayer trailer that fixes literally all of these issues; it opens with the caption that it's in game footage, it has music, it's well edited, the visuals are appealing and not fake looking, and the trailer shows off vehicle and air combat as well as ground combat in a comprehensible way, while also providing a glimpse at the game's single player. This is actually a good trailer, and why they didn't release this for the reveal, but instead gave us that turd ball is completely baffling. 
But that's all water under the bridge now, there are bigger issues with the trailer beyond it just being a bad trailer, issues that come from a far deeper, darker, juicier place, I of course refer to Battlefield 5's insulting reinterpretation of history, and DICE's insulting response to the subsequent and very justified backlash. The trailer, in addition to looking fake thanks to the sickly colours and overdone explosions, features things that just don't make any sense in the European theatre; like a teddy bear strapped to the side of a tank, or blue war paint, or a guy with a Japanese Katana, the complete absence of any kind of Axis iconography like the Swastika, and the elephant in the room, a woman with a prosthetic arm. I feel like I've been here before, and that's because I have, before WWII released and it was revealed that the game would censor the Swastika and let you, should you so desire, play as a black female Nazi. First up, I'll repeat my point on the censoring of the Swastika, why are you doing that; I said in Bring on the Meteor VII that this censoring is counterintuitive, because the Swastika has, for 80 years, been a symbol of evil, a symbol of the horrors the Nazis brought upon the world, but it's gotta go, because it might offend some poor, weak minded idiot apparently. But like I said back then, all this really does is disembody the evil of the Nazis, with the unintentional effect of undermining the meaning of the symbol, I've since described this as historical sanitising, which it absolutely is; some things about history aren't very nice, you could even call them 'problematic,' but all hiding that history does is distort people's interpretation of the truth, it's insulting to them, and disrespectful of history, and in the case of the war, disrespectful to all the people who died because of the Nazis, and all the people who died protecting our freedom from them. But this stretches much further than that, and there's a reason for it, a very, very bad reason. 
The trailer features a woman with a prosthetic arm, war paint and a trench coat, fighting the enemy on the front lines, storming their lines with a Tommy gun and a spiked cricket bat. This, in a World War 2 Battlefield, does this need an explanation as to why it makes absolutely no sense, because it shouldn't. Like I said in Bring on the Meteor when discussing this exact subject regarding Call of Duty, this kind of "diversity" and "inclusion" or as I like to call it, pandering and agenda pushing, kills a game's authenticity and creates a warped, inaccurate and politically slanted interpretation of history. And like I said in that post, no kids these days have picked up a book and actually learned anything about the War, so their knowledge of it comes from media; films and games, so when said films and games are distorting history to push a narrative, that gives those people consuming that media who don't know any better a distorted version of reality, which is dangerous, because that version of reality that they understand is built on a lie. But of course, argument number one against this being an issue is that it's just a game; I've heard this a few times, that it doesn't matter, because it's a game, and it doesn't matter. But if that's the case, why were DICE talking at their reveal show about creating a game that's authentic and immersive, clearly they don't want to make an immersive World War 2 game, because featuring things that just don't exist in reality breaks that immersion and authenticity. But it's just a game, games aren't realistic, so therefore there shouldn't be any effort put into being historically accurate, well you know what, that argument sucks. Yes, it's a game, and in games, liberty is obviously taken by the devs to make it fun to play; you can't respawn in real life, in real life equipment fails, and you don't magically heal from being shot, you're not completely proficient with any and all guns at your disposal, these things aren't realistic, but they are necessary, because a game needs to be fun, and when you lose a firefight because your gun jams or because they're better trained with their weapon than you are, that isn't your fault, that isn't fair, and thus, in a video game, it isn't fun. But this doesn't apply to a game's setting and aesthetic in the same way; a game taking liberties in its mechanics to make it more fun and a game claiming to be authentic to a time or place while simultaneously and arbitrarily changing that time or place's portrayal are not the same thing. One is understandable and unavoidable, and the other is a disingenuous revision of truth, one that isn't necessary, and as we'll get to, is motivated purely a political agenda.Argument two, women fought in the war too, so this is realistic, and the simple answer there is, no it isn't; there were also animals that fought in the war, but does that mean that animal combatants were common and normal, no it doesn't. Women did fight in the war, but they weren't front line infantry, at least in the British, American and German armies, they served pretty much exclusively in support roles, apart from in Russia and in the resistance groups that rose up in Nazi territories where women did fight, and the devs know this, they have access to all this history, they've even included a female resistance fighter in their single player, which is fine, because that isn't a complete lie. But a woman fighting the Nazis in the British army, that is a lie. Women served a crucial role in the war, while men were fighting, the women manned the factories and industries at home, they also served as nurses, patching up injured soldiers, their contributions made the war possible, but when DICE says they want to tell a unique version of World War 2, they're not talking about the resistance, or the factory workers, or the field nurses who tended to the wounded, their "modern" take on the war is entirely motivated by modern identity politics. Which is obvious in their contradictions; they say they want to make an authentic experience, but then, in response to the backlash, they say that they're putting fun before authenticity, so which one is it, DICE? Argument three, the game features customisation options, which would allow you to make your soldier look however you want, and this is fine, but no it isn't, not when it breaks the authenticity they supposedly care about. Because if you lost a limb on the Battlefield, they wouldn't give you a tommy gun and send you back in, they'd send you home, you have to also take into account that the British army would do everything in their power to keep women out of situations where they'd risk dying and losing limbs, you know, places like the front line. None of this would be an issue if DICE never used the word authentic; had Battlefield 5 simply been a shooting game that loosely uses the setting while embracing its own fiction, but not based in any real events or places of the time, this level of customisation wouldn't matter, because then the "it's just a game" argument would actually be accurate, but no, Battlefield 5 is going to be "immersive" and "authentic" and tell a "unique" perspective of World War 2. At the heart of the backlash is this confusing message, the game wants to be immersive by painting a realistic picture of the war, but it also wants to break that immersion by giving players the option to look like a Mad Max character if they want. But then of course is the real reason for this confusion, the reason that scares me the most.
But then we get to the best bit, the most amazing, retarded, zealous thing I think I've ever heard a game dev say; "I fundamentally feel to my core this is the right way and I will find myself on the right side of history." Yep, this person is mad, lock him up, he's out of his mind. Right side of history, mate, you're literally not, your reinterpretation of history doesn't even come close to reflecting things as they really were, there were no Furiosas fighting the Nazis. And when he says this is the right way, notice the context, this is an entirely moral defense. When he says right, he doesn't mean it literally, as in correct, because he can't make that case, but it is apparently the morally right, the just thing to do, except, as I've made very clear now, distorting history to distort people's understanding of it is revisionist and zealous, and if people actually buy it, it becomes dangerous, because they then base their understanding of it on your lie. What follows is less relevant, but still worth touching on; DICE are arrogant, because they still think people will play it, and they think that people will actually believe their lie, which, hey, maybe some people will, people who've never actually been taught any history in school or just picked up a history book in their free time, and people who love social justice- hang on, SJW's don't play games do they, it's always ideology first for them, they don't really care about the media, and there aren't enough of them to support your media when everyone else goes elsewhere for their entertainment. It's one of the many reasons that Ghostbusters failed at the box office, because SJW's don't care. He proves that it's ideology first by admitting that this has been a goal of his for a while, but that he didn't have enough influence to do it, and then implies that people who don't like this are stupid by making himself sound enlightened, and then proves his wokeness to us by throwing in some buzzwords; Male Dominated, Diversity, these buzzwords are out of date, I think SJW game dev.exe needs an update.
Oh but this gets even better, as we look at article two in our reasons not to buy Battlefield 5, and this one's worse, believe me, it's much worse. Here we go, right off the bat with the lie, "There were a ton of women who both fought in World War II and partook in the war." breakdown time, this a lie by omission, sure, I'll concede that women fought in the war, but what you're not divulging here is the capacity in which they fought, which was not equal to the men of the war. The argument against this isn't that women weren't involved, like you try to frame it as, it's that you're lying about how involved they were, and that you're doing so to push a narrative, and as for "the unseen, the untold," oh yeah, loads of people on the battlefields of World War 2 had prosthetic limbs, we just never hear about their tales of glory because of ableism, I think that's how this works.Giving this twat the benefit of the doubt, he may be on about the single player, which partially deals with the resistance in Europe, where women were prevalent in combat, but I'm not prepared to believe that people this zealous will be able to keep it in their pants when trying to tell a fictional story in a real-world setting. But here's the emotional argument again; a very, very familiar one; he too, different guy by the way, also has a daughter, and she saw all this backlash and just didn't get it, because she can play as a girl in Fortnite, and our twat dev agrees, "you're right, it's not ok." First up, this story is bullshit, how do I know, easy, because it's near enough the exact same story we got from the other guy; he has a daughter and wants to pander to her by distorting history, distorting in such a way that coincidentally lines up perfectly with the political agenda they so clearly have. I'm not saying these two plebs don't have daughters, but I am saying that getting the same 'think of the children' defense from both of these idiots isn't a coincidence, it's an appeal to emotion in order to deflect from their lies.
But the real reason I'm not buying Battlefield 5, and why I'm encouraging you do also not buy it, is this steaming little turd's advice to players who don't like his bullshit. "These are people who are uneducated," interjection, here's the thing you mong, when you start throwing around words like uneducated to describe your opposition without refuting their criticism, that reflects negatively on you, you can't simply call someone stupid without demonstrating that they are stupid, you have to actually refute them. But you can't refute them, because, unlike your buddy from earlier, history is actually on their side, they're right, and you're lying, and you're then trying to deflect this by using the "it's just a game" argument I refuted already today. But here come more buzzwords and lies; "And Today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn't been before, There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass woman." This is, again, a lie by omission, he is omitting what the audience of Battlefield 5 is, it's an attempt to deflect from the fact that they're pandering to try and appeal to a different audience, one that, generally, isn't interesting in the product they're offering, which is also all just a deflection from the fact that they're doing all of this for the sake of their agenda.
 |
| *added on the fifth of July, I wanted to include the numbers when I wrote this piece, but I didn't find it until yesterday, so here it is. I also expanded a bit on some of the points I make throughout, specifically relating to this chart and the part where I call the EA guy a mong* |
And my favourite bit, this twat has an ultimatum to players; "you have two choices: either accept it or don't buy the game." I tell you what, for someone so entrenched in pussy politics, the sheer size of his balls is actually rather impressive, either that or he's a complete fucking moron. Rule number one in trying to sell a product: don't insult your customer, I've been saying this since 2015, I said this with Ghostbusters, I said this with Doctor Who, I'm saying it now with Battlefield 5. When someone doesn't like what you're doing to something they like, shouldn't it be imperative to keep them on board, to keep them in a position of liking that thing, so that they then watch it and buy DVDs and merchandise and all that jazz, because all telling them to fuck off does is shrink your market, which in turn, shrinks your profit. We're watching this happen in real time with Star Wars right now; people who didn't like The Last Jedi were stupid misogynist alt-right white-supremacist poopy heads, and in response, merch sales nosedived, home video sales nosedived, and Solo bombed at the box office. The market doesn't like being insulted and telling them to fuck off might be the worst thing you could ever do, because they will fuck off, and they won't come back. I actually want Battlefield 5 to fail now, I want the game to sell far below EA's expectations, because this twat is on record telling people that if they're not in the cult, and if they don't "accept it" like good little boys and girls, then they shouldn't buy the game. This is an unacceptable position for anyone trying to sell a product to take, and it speaks volumes to their arrogance and self-righteousness. But you know what, he's right, if I'm not going to just bend over and lube up like they want me to, I won't buy the game, they won't have my money because I'll take it somewhere else, I'll take it to Tomb Raider and Red Dead Redemption, but not Call of Duty because that game can get fucked too.
Battlefield 5 blows my mind with how eager the devs are to spit in their community's face, this is Call of Duty levels of bullshit, coming from a studio that, perhaps in my naivety, I expected better from. Good job on getting rid of loot boxes, golf clap, you're getting rid of a predatory system that should never have been added in the first place, I'm sure that'll get you some positivity, but forcing your identity politics where it does not belong, and when people get mad at you for it, then telling them to get lost is every bit as scummy, just for different reasons. I'm sorry to your kids, though not because they can't play as a girl in a game, but because their parents are zealots willing to vandalize history to push their politics and use their kids as ammunition in a culture war of their own making, one they're arrogant enough to think they can win, when they haven't got a chance. I refuse to buy Battlefield 5, and while I have no right or power to stop you, I implore you, reading this, to do the same. If this bullshit doesn't bother you as much as it does me, then enjoy Battlefield 5, more power to you, at least it gives someone joy, but I'm not joining you this time, I can't.
