Enygger_Tzu
Banned
Is this true? 0-o
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Battlefield 5 physical sales down more than half on Battlefield 1
- Thread starter Thiagosc777
- Start date
Is this true? 0-o
mcz117chief
Member
Yeah technically. There is a French campaign where you play a soldier from Senegal. Every time he meets a white person they look at him with disgust, prevent him from participating in fighting and then erase him from photos like he never existed.
See here
Last edited:
Enygger_Tzu
Banned
Fuck, so not only EA/DICE wanted to virtue signal, not only they wish to spit in the face of their royal fanbase, but they also wanted to FUCKING SPIT IN THE FACE OF DEAD WAR HEROES as well.
Fuck this game, fuck those two companies. I am done with them.
And I believe that the meager amount of sales this game had, were too high now.
Ulysses 31
Member
Glad I skipped this Soyfield.
mcz117chief
Member
Honestly I am most disgusted with the Norwegian campaign. An amazing story about Norwegian commandos executing a perfect raid to prevent the Nazis from developing a nuclear bomb turns into a feminist power fantasy where one woman did what an entire squad of British commandos couldn't do. Almost dies from hypothermia (she is literally blacking out at the end) but still manages to beat a rested German soldier in one on one melee combat (only then does she fall unconscious). The second mission is just stupid and disrespectful, saying that British commandos were made up of ex-cons while in reality they were all volunteers from the Royal Marines.
Dice could have easily made fantastic campaigns, even make them over the top and ridiculous, with slight adjustments to real history. French partisans ambushing fuel convoys during Normandy landings (easy place to put a woman there), Soviet infantry action in lesser known sections of the front (even here you could put a woman as there were few all women infantry sections like the 1st Separate Women's Volunteer Rifle Brigade which didn't technically fight but whatever), but no, they just decided to make up their own completely ridiculous and disrespectful stories.
JoeyWestSide
Member
Physical sales are down on every game than it's predecessor...
Rhazer Fusion
Member
That's one of the things that can happen when all these clueless companies release their high profile games at the same time. Most gamers or consumers are not rich where they can purchase 10 games in 1 to 2 months, Companies will NEVER learn.
Last edited:
{insert code here}
Member
Dice ruined Battlefront with consecutive bombas and now BFV looks to be another bomba. Sprinkled somewhere in between those was that Mirrors Edge Catalyst bomba. Dice was been pissing in the wind for years now.
JoeyWestSide
Member
Not just that I mean digital sales are taking away from physical, so of course they're down, they're all down physically.
-MD-
Member
He's saying it's a trend, physical is dying and digital is on the rise.
Black Ops 4 physical sales were way down (50% less than WW2, 90% less than MW3 iirc) and yet it's the best selling game of 2018. Physical sales for BFV being lower than usual was expected.
cryptoadam
Banned
Give Grand Operations a shot. It took a while for the game mode to grow on me but I am liking it more and more. Still not as good as operations but its a decent mode.
After Dec 4th patch they will remove the bomb always being on screen in Airborne and put Frontlines back to BF1 style and I think the GO mode will improve 1000%. I don't know what DICE was thinking but making the bomb visibile on the map at all times for the defenders gives them a huge advantage, makes the mode way to tilted to defenders.
) 
IISANDERII
Member
I appreciate your thoughtful post, you do make very valid points. But make no mistake that their ultimate goal is to make money.
For my point of view what I'll say is I don't see it as a political agenda. What I see are people drawing lines for what is acceptable to them with regards to what is passable for this media. I've seen many WWII documentaries, read books etc. Like I am certain many of us have. So seeing the countless anachronisms in any recreation is like seeing countless bright neon signs which say that this is piece of entertainment, first and foremost. You might learn something but equally you may be given disinformation too. A multi billion dollar corporation with a massive marketing budget will be laughed at. I honestly worry for anybody taking it at face value.
From any entertainment media you can point out any number of inaccuracies. Let's say there's a film on the Norwegian saboteurs, I could spend my entire time wondering if it really was 11 blonde dudes and one redhead. Wondering if their boots are close replicas, far off, if they prioritized comfort for actor's feet etc. Where did their weaponry come from? Replica Dungeon? What specifications did they go for? Did they borrow an example from the Norwegian Museum of History or might they have a crate of old guns stored in an unlikely place? Did they really have the exact same configuration or did the film not account for a soldier's personal customization? Was the captain really an arsehole, why were they chosen then? Was the film just written this way to create tension and inner conflict? Was the spunky one really that spunky and is it characteristic of his village? Does that village even exist?
The details you could wrought your mind with is practically endless.
And If I had just finished watching this film and the first thing the person next to me said was "Didya know that in real life Sgt. Blikkson wasn't a woman?" I would stare at this person for a full 30 seconds wondering if their prefrontal cortex is in a jar somewhere.
For that being a person's reaction is just, I don't know, an incredibly primitive thought process. I honestly don't mean offence. It's just how do you ask this when there are an unlimited number of far more interesting details both big and small? And then to actually make an issue of it and bring wrath, I just cannot fathom that person and their station in life. The human race has created, built, destroyed so many things in history, so many different minds of geniuses, evil, good and so on. And I'm supposed to delve into the intricacies of a focus group deciding whether it's going to be a cock or a vagina?
InterMusketeer
Member
Your comment there is just unbelievable to me. How can you be fascinated with small, minute, insignificant details when the core story is misrepresented on screen, clear as day?
Who, what, where, when and why are the basic questions that should be answered in a story. Who is this story about? Norwegian commandos, and they're all men. Like, why even consider the rest of their telling of the story if one of the most important fucking aspects, and one of the easiest things to get right, is done wrong? Intentionally even!?
Shmunter
Member
How's the population on PC? I deliberately just studied my 150+ friends list (149 of which I have no idea who they are) on my PS4 and BFV is seldom to be seen.
The poor sales are seemingly worse than even the reports would indicate, which is unfortunate because I aim to pick it up at some point.
Good lord, Metacritic PS4 - Critic 73, User 2.3
Even the progressive pandering couldn't get this to resonate with the media. Maybe the critics review bombed it themselves because Dice rolled back some of the bat shit crazy elements? If not, the game must have serious issues.
Comparing BF1 PS4 - Critic 89, User 7.9
IISANDERII
Member
One of the most important aspects? How is that fact so critical that it supersedes anything else in the operation?
InterMusketeer
Member
You don't think it's important to accurately tell WHO the story is about?
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Dr. Claus
Banned
You mean insulting the very people who risked their lives on this operation? Spitting in the face of history for the idiotic notion of "inclusivity"?
LegendOfKage
Member
IISANDERIII, so are you saying you don't see the harm with intentionally misgendering historical figures? Is that a two-way street? Would it be okay to take a group of women who did some historical thing and rewrite them all as men?
I don't see the point in doing either, and I really don't see a reason why Dice didn't make up a completely original story to insert women into, and instead took a real life event and wrote out the people who actually saved lives. But that's okay, because in a gender accurate depiction of the same event, one of the guys was wearing a watch, and who knows if he was really wearing that watch, so that's just like changing everyone's gender?
Changing a known and historically recorded central aspect of a person is the same as changing an unknown or inconsequential factor such as clothing or hair color? That's an absurdist argument that can be taken to ridiculous lengths. I don't know what hair color Amelia Earhart had, but I do know that she was a woman, and I know that any historical depiction of her as a man would be a complete and total failure for even the slightest regard of historical accuracy or reverence.
Last edited:
-MD-
Member
There's no way to tell, you can browse through a list of servers so I haven't had any problems getting into a match.
As far as matchmaking goes, it only starts to slow down in NA around 5am.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
You mean buying it to play it for fun? Who knew, thought we were suppose to buy games based on twitter comments lol /s
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
It can be both though, that isn't really an either or. The building features are nothing like fortnite. Pretty sure in WWI and WWII they built up defenses like with sandbags. So far that has never had me thinking I'm playing fortnite, that has me feeling I'm in preparing for a fire fight about to happen...
When you have a wrench in BF to fix the tank, you also have a wrench in Team Fortress to fix things....you telling me cause its in both games, both concepts must be the same?
Both have guns too, that make them the same or?
Do you hear how silly you sound?
Hold up. I need to get this clear in my head.
Let's say I am going to create a movie, novel, or storyline in a video game based around Operation Gunnerside.
Well, what was that?
It is considered the greatest act of sabotage in WW2. In February 1943 a team of Norwegian Commandos succeeded in destroying a German heavy water production facility.
So, I'm going to make this story about that event. Grand.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that you see no difference between the following:
1 - I make errors such as the characters boots, the guns they actually would have used, the hair color of the commandos.
2- I make errors and/or changes to the personalities or the characters of the commandos and even their backstories.
3- I replace the commandos with a teenage girl and her mother.
You seriously don't think some of these potential inaccuracies in the story are more questionable that others?
Me: Hey did you know that in real life the facility was destroyed by a group of Norwegian commandos and not a teenage girl and her mom?
You: Wow, that's an incredibly primitive thought process.
Hahaha. You have got to be kidding with this.
I think we could easily predict the game journos reaction to a game where you had a story mission surrounding the failed 1937 world flight of the Electra and it's pilot Mr Edward Amhart or something like that. I think we could easily predict that reaction.
Or maybe a story mission in an openworld game set in 1950s Alabama where you help Mr Ross Parkins, a white man, take on the local bus operator to change their racist policies? I think we could accurately predict the reaction to that too.
Ah, what am I talking about lads. It's not any different from getting the boots wrong, or hair color or something like that. Right?
Games are just fantasy anyway. Right?
IISANDERII
what's your take on "white-washing"?
Last edited:
Secret_Lover
Member
Game is currently 35% off on EU psn. I´m not familiar with the trends so I don´t know if that´s a typical rate for a battlefield game 3 weeks after launch but it doesn´t seem too hot. Probably not the most accurate comparison but SC6 is also deeply discounted and the steam playerbase for that game peaks at sub-1000 already.
IISANDERII
Member
In terms of Amelia Earheart vs the Norwegian saboteurs, you can just look at an encyclopedia for a difference.
On Wikipedia the opening words are "Amelia Mary Earhart was an American aviation pioneer and author. Earhart was the first female aviator to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean."
The Norwegian Op: "The Norwegian heavy water sabotage(Bokmål: Tungtvannsaksjonen, Nynorsk: Tungtvassaksjonen) was a series of operations undertaken by Norwegian saboteurs during World War II to prevent the German nuclear weapon project from acquiring heavy water(deuterium oxide), which could have been used by the Germans to produce nuclear weapons."
It goes on like that and going down further, "In February 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside, later evaluated by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II."
So it doesn't say male saboteurs, it doesn't say male Norwegian commandos either.
I think it leaves out that detail because it's immaterial to the missions. I've asked before and nobody has been able to explain why these soldiers being male was critical to the operation.
On Wikipedia the opening words are "Amelia Mary Earhart was an American aviation pioneer and author. Earhart was the first female aviator to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean."
The Norwegian Op: "The Norwegian heavy water sabotage(Bokmål: Tungtvannsaksjonen, Nynorsk: Tungtvassaksjonen) was a series of operations undertaken by Norwegian saboteurs during World War II to prevent the German nuclear weapon project from acquiring heavy water(deuterium oxide), which could have been used by the Germans to produce nuclear weapons."
It goes on like that and going down further, "In February 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside, later evaluated by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II."
So it doesn't say male saboteurs, it doesn't say male Norwegian commandos either.
I think it leaves out that detail because it's immaterial to the missions. I've asked before and nobody has been able to explain why these soldiers being male was critical to the operation.
Enygger_Tzu
Banned
You seem overly sensitive this game is not selling well and it is scrutinized in this thread? May I ask why?
CaptainAnchovie
Banned
It leaves that detail out because it's common sense. There are physical, psychological, and mental differences between men and women that have been granted by evolution. These differences make men so suited to combat roles that the very few female soldiers have always been footnotes and anecdotes in grander picture of war.
mcz117chief
Member
Because men have greater physical abilities and are therefore superior soldiers, they also don't have to worry about some annoyances like periods and are generally more emotionally stable and cooperative in groups. Another reason is because there were no female members of these units and in general there are still no female specops teams. They were dropped behind enemy lines and were required to stay there for months without any support, something only the best of the best could have done, with the best knowledge of the land and Olympic physique, which happened to be all men. Only men did it so obviously only men should be portrayed, there is zero reason to shoehorn a woman into this. There are plenty of famous women in the history of mankind that did wonderful things, focus on those instead of trying to gender-bend real events.
MilkyJoe
Member
If you wait around I'm sure that coitus will be along soon.
NickFire
Member
How would you know it's immaterial to the missions?
COULD 2 civilians, a teenage girl and her mom no less, have pulled off Operation Gunnerside? We'll never know. Maybe. Maybe not.
DID a teenage girl and her mom participate in Operation Gunnerside? No. No they did not.
The fact of the matter is that the soldiers who participated in the operation WERE male and so the question "well could they have been female" is pointless.
Out of curiosity was the age of the commandos mentioned?
Do you think, say, that the soldiers being under 10 years old vs over 16 years old could have been critical to the mission?
If their age and gender isn't mentioned then it's safe to assume that any person of any age could have completed the mission given that those factors were "not critical to the mission"?
Was the species of the participants mentioned? Or is it just common sense to assume the commandos were human?
Where would you draw the line on applying common sense to a situation like this?
InterMusketeer
Member
They didn't just leave out that 'detail.' They knowingly changed it to virtue signal.
According to your logic, the boots they were wearing were immaterial to the mission as well. As were the weapons they were using, because they didn't fire a shot anyway. But somehow that is important to you. You're being rather selective in what you deem important. The point is, if you want to recreate a true story as accurately as possible, you try to get the facts straight.
Honestly I love the idea that because the Wikepedia article about the event doesn't mention that the commandos in question were male then that's a point for "the gender of the commandos is immaterial to the mission". AS IF there were a ton of female commandos sitting around Norway in 1943 that could have just as easily have gotten the job done.
The fact of the matter is that somebody at Dice knew enough about the event to get the location and time period correct and other details such as the Germans are using the heavy water to develop nukes. They knew all of that for sure.
Yet because the Wikipedia article didn't mention "male commandos" specifically Dice is thinking "well could it have actually been a girl and her mother that did this... I don't see why not"? Give me a break.
Catphish
Member
Personally, I think the concerns about the "agenda" as it pertains to the multiplayer side of BFV are overblown and borderline ridiculous.
But the re-writing of history for their single-player missions is high bullshit, and Dice/EA deserve to get called out for it, big time. In fact, I'm much more understanding of an individual's decision to boycott the game over that than anything regarding multiplayer.
It's pretty fucking disgusting, tbh.
But the re-writing of history for their single-player missions is high bullshit, and Dice/EA deserve to get called out for it, big time. In fact, I'm much more understanding of an individual's decision to boycott the game over that than anything regarding multiplayer.
It's pretty fucking disgusting, tbh.
mcz117chief
Member
Yeah, I don't give a rats ass about multiplayer options. They could have left the hooks and Japanese swords and add whatever gender people wanted and I wouldn't care in the least, but when you are telling a real story, this kind of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.
Last edited:
ar0s
Member
Some amazing replies in here and a great laugh for a Friday afternoon, thanks guys!
"Yet because the Wikipedia article didn't mention "male commandos" specifically Dice is thinking "well could it have actually been a girl and her mother that did this... I don't see why not"? Give me a break."
Hahahaha.
"Yet because the Wikipedia article didn't mention "male commandos" specifically Dice is thinking "well could it have actually been a girl and her mother that did this... I don't see why not"? Give me a break."
Hahahaha.
Enosh
Member
by 60%? you really think the market shifted 60% towards digital in 2 years?
CaptainAnchovie
Banned
If I'm remembering correctly, I believe I read that physical sales have been trending downward 3-4% every year, but I don't spend a huge amount of time with sales.
MightySquirrel
Banned
Goooooood. Should have gone sci-fi.What brainiac thought releasing 2 games in a row what looks like basically same setting is a great idea.
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
Still hoping for a BC sequel but that seems like it's never coming. Would love to see an alternate 80's cold war turned hot BF.
Plague Doctor
Member
Not directed at you and I know you are responding as skeptical to this point as I am, but every time this point comes up with some ridiculously high digital to physical ratio I just point to Black Friday, the whole month of December, and all the major publishers and platforms go nuts with specials and advertising for retail locations.
Someone should let them know they are wasting money. Apparently it's 60% and upwards digital now according to some people on the internet.......
....
...gotta blow vast sums of money on marketing to grab that remaining >40% physical, right?
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Banned
I tried to state the same thing this morning when one of my favorite groups released a new review:
Got multiple death threats and was told to leave the community because of it via PMs. All because some can't fathom that certain folks want to see history portrayed with some authenticity/accuracy and not altered to push a socio-political agenda.
Last edited:
JoeyWestSide
Member
Just in the UK? Sure!
Similar threads
- Locked