Opinion: Why Historical Accuracy Doesn’t Matter in Battlefield V

Jun 19, 18  | posted by Alex Quayle (1985)

Addressing the Battlefield V Situation

Last week Battlefield V paraded the Electronic Arts Play conference, some could argue it was the main attraction and others might call it the jewel of the presentation. Despite this, the game was met with heavy criticism from people who were talking through their hat.

I’m referring to the recent wave of backlash against female characters appearing in the upcoming installment of the immensely popular Battlefield franchise. Now I’m no expert on History myself but since I studied History in school and being a Brit I understand a plentiful regarding World War 2 including the fact that the U.S.S.R (now known as Russia) and Britain had divisions where women could aid the war efforts which helped bring the fascist threat to its knees. Women stepped up to replace men in production, agricultural and government jobs, ultimately helped the allies win the war.

Queen Elizabeth II (the current ruler of Britain) was part of the ATS during WW2.

Furthermore, the United States had 350,000 active women in their army so when fans were throwing fits concerning the female presence in Battlefield V. I assumed either they had never taken a History class or they had diarrhea in their mouth. Regardless, historical accuracy is unnecessary in a shooter where tanks can rip through buildings at ease. Why? Because it’s fun and the sole reason, the majority of us play video games for is to escape the treacherous reality of life.

Battlefield is a series that prides itself on being a franchise that is easy to learn and a joy to play meaning players who don’t know their Mario from their Luigi can enjoy the fast-paced action. The sacrifice of accuracy for a solid game idea is worth it and people agree with me.

EA has responded to the whole fiasco telling fans to “accept it or don’t buy the game” while mods on the subreddit for Battlefield are sick of people complaining about women in the game. To be honest, I too would be sick if you had to supervise a bunch of raving idiots who decide to pick on a revolutionary detail. Seriously? Is this what 2018 looks like?

There is, of course, a counter-argument that certain games need a realistic setting and while this has some truth with racing and realistic shooter games the prime examples, this is not the case for beloved Battlefield. At the end of the day, historical accuracy does not matter in Battlefield given its nature and the general experience. Disagree with me? Let’s take this to the comments (just kidding but I’m all ears for anyone who wants to give their two cents on the issue).

Vote: 2 0

You must or to vote.


Did you know you can report news for us too? Anyone can report the news, or post a review on gamelust.com, AND have a chance to become featured on our homepage! All you need to do is or with us and add your voice today!





244 days 18 hours ago

Posted by JDAWG4LIF3

I totally agree man. This doesn't bother me at all. I do feel like a lot of people weren't paying attention to history class. Honestly, a lot of people don't and they forgot about any documentaries/movies they've watched. Battlefield was never meant to be super high strung about everything. When I play battlefield, I just love it and never have any problems. :)

You must or to reply.