Talk:Battlefield V

This article doesn't seem very NPOV
This article doesn't seem very NPOV. The sources used regarding the trailer's reception mostly rely on personal attacks against those criticizing the game and don't actually prove their point.

"Battlefield V fans who failed history are mad that the game has women in it /Has anyone here read a book?" "If you think people aren't being whiny babies about women in Battlefield, this is what the BF subreddit looks like right now" "What angry dorks mean when they say “historical accuracy” is not a game that’s accurate to the time being presented"

This wiki article then goes on to say "others critiquing the backlash pointed out that female soldiers were not especially rare in World War II", but these sources given don't actually prove this:

The Verge article simply lists four women (and an air regiment, which is completely irrelevant as the footage in question is one of a disabled woman in frontline ground combat). Assuming the biggest possible definition of a regiment, (2,000) this article has proven only 2,004/1,900,000,000 soldiers were female. (Undoubtedly the number is far more, but it's about the sources used, not our original research.) I don't think there's any way you can argue 0.000105473% is anything but "especially rare".

The USGamer article doesn't even list any female soldiers in WW2, but instead black soldiers in WW1.

The SegmentNext article doesn't say anything about female soldiers in WW2 history.

The Kotaku article even admits most women in WW2 served as combat personnel, and doesn't say anything about the frequency of women in combat roles except mentioning the Soviets had some.

Can we, at the very least, get an actual source for "female soldiers were not especially rare in World War II" and if we can't, get it removed from the article?

50.99.2.129 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel like the "not especially rare" claim is greatly exaggerated - for example, the country with largest representation of female soldiers in WW2, Soviet Union, had "more than 800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war, which is roughly 3 percent of total military personnel, mostly as medics". This is according to linked Wikipedia article that was used for such claim. I'd say "3 percent" is a pretty rare amount ;-) Same article also claims that "British women were not drafted into combat units" and "The United States, by comparison, elected not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it". So even if few British/US women did participate in front-line combat (as volunteers) - I believe their amount was also pretty rare (unless someone can dispute this with more specific percentage/data). Wikipedia should strive to be neutral, without such ambiguous statements. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny
Currently in the article, it says "Some also suggested that the backlash was partly due to misogyny, rather than true worries over historical accuracy", and then provides four sources.

If you follow through the sources none of them mention misogyny or a lack of worries over historical accuracy. Because this is such an opinionated statement (and who the heck is "some"?), I think it would be best to remove it until there is an actually credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.190.109 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear what these sources describe, and while we only used four (We don't LINKBOMB), many many more were and are available. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the quoted articles put an emphasis on "fans were outraged by trailer because it had women", and that is pretty much a definition of "misogyny", even though this direct word was not used in quoted sources. Plus there are some articles that do use this exact word, for example this one, but there are way too much references/quotations already so adding even more would not be really helpful (unless someone would remove previous reference and replace it with the one I just linked).Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"fans were outraged by trailer because it had women", and that is pretty much a definition of "misogyny"

that is absolutely false. The dictionary definition of misogyny is "the hatred of women". Being upset at a historical inaccuracy in a generally historically accurate franchise is not a misogynistic act. You are misinterpreting something benign based on your bias. There is no evidence that the backlash was due to "the hatred of women", which is an absolutely insane assumption to make without some sort of poll that proves it. Linking what are essentially tabloid articles does not constitute evidence in my opinion. I'm not going to bother to edit the article though, because combating highly opinionated ideologues on wikipedia isn't my thing. Have fun propagating misinformation 24.194.190.109 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are failing to understand what the "Reception" section is about - it allows for a subjective opinion by reliable sources, you can look at many examples from many other Wikipedia articles about games, movies and other stuff how it is generally used. If a certain reliable source had an opinion that some fans disliked seeing women in the game (like this article from VG247 which actually did use the "misogyny" word, and VG247 is considered as a reliable source), it has the right to be included in this particular section. This is what Wikipedia is about - to report existing information in a neutral way backed by reliable sources, and I believe it's absolutely neutral to report that "some critics also suggested that the backlash was partly due to misogyny" in a section called "Reception" (which, again, is mostly about subjective opinions). Do I personally like those critics/sources (VG247, Kotaku, Polygon)? No. Does it matter? Not really - they're still considered as "reliable sources" by majority of other Wikipedia editors (and worthy of being used anywhere on Wikipedia). If you believe these sources should not be considered as "reliable" - you're welcome to discuss that, just not here. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Calm down with overquoting, people
I've been noticing that some people keep adding references/quotes to the "Reception" section, and while I do understand that there are many, many sources which cover the controversial reception of things like game's trailer and developer's responses - I think you should stop adding them. The first paragraph of "Reception" section already covers the whole "controversy" part, including "complaints about inclusion of women/inclusion of prosthetics/inclusion of cosmetics", as well as responses from various "gaming" blogs (including the point that "women did serve in WWII" and "the BF games were never historically accurate"), and there are already at least 5 references to such blogs/sources, all containing basically the same points (just phrased differently). If you'll keep adding same quotes telling same exact points from even more sources - the whole article will basically become just a one big "Reception" section. At least leave enough space for an actual reviews by people who will play the final game and sources such as Metacritic... Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception
About your latest edit, I understand that you want to include that there are specific complaints about a british woman being featured and with a source I'm happy for that to be in there but the other sources aren't one sided for not mentioning it. The majority of sources and complaints are about women generally and not the British woman and the historicity of british women fighting. I'd prefer to reword it specifically to "Fans were also frustrated with the portrayal of women in the game, some specifically with the British woman featured..." and probably change the following paragraph so it flows better. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the extra word you suggested, though I am really not sure how to rephrase the following sentences...Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Although acknowledging that British women were rarely on the frontline, critics have responded that female soldiers did participate in World War II highlighting real-life examples from multiple countries, and that previous games in the Battlefield series are not seen as a completely realistic portrayal of war." to make it apparent what the critics were responding to and that they have real life examples from countries (france/poland/ussr/germany) just ones other than britain. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're happy with that I'll edit it in. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't mind it, you can do that edit.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fans?
Is there any proof that the backlash was mainly from the fans? I think that statement needs a citation. The default position should be that there was a backlash, but we don't know from who. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article and this article use the word fans. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they use the word, but they aren't about whether this backlash was from fans or not. Sources should be used to support facts, not to borrow sloppy phrasing. BTW you could use a more neutral word, like "audience". That is factual and unquestionable. 80.98.184.139 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really see the problem with using the word “fans”. Naturally, the fans of the franchise are going to be the most vocal in their opinion of the games. The chances that the majority of the people complaining don’t even play the Battlefield games are pretty much zero. Sure, there are people like that out there, but they are not going to outnumber the fan base when it comes to criticism of the game. The use of the term “fans” in the cited articles isn’t sloppy at all. It’s pretty clear that the articles are talking about gamers who play Battlefield games. Anasaitis (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018
Missing "Category:World War II first-person shooters". Battlefield 1942 and 1943 have it Jpintos~enwiki (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception consensus
On what basis is the reception consensus "mixed", when this would imply negative, average, and positive scores across the board? As I said in my last edit on the article, 2/3 platforms cited "generally favourable" reviews, which takes priority over the 1 platform for "mixed" reviews; not doing so would give the minority view undue weight. "Generally" also acknowledges the fact that there do exist average or negative reviews. I can see you're an experienced admin, but nonetheless I do disagree with your edit, and I've also linked to Fallout 76's and WP:VG/REC Talk pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fallout_76#Mixed_to_Negative/Unfavorable_Reviews. here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Mixed_on_metacritic. here] where a number of users have discussed how to quote Metacritic and write a correctly-sourced reception consensus in the lead. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * additionally please do not attempt to change it to quote Metacritic as being both "generally favourable" AND "mixed or average" reviews, and try to claim it's "cherry picking" when I change it to "generally favourable". You then remove the consensus completely and replace it with a mention it sold less than half the copies Battlefield 1 did in the same timeframe, and then mimic TheDeviantPro by quoting WP:VG/MIXED, which I even wonder if you've read properly. Edits like these are what to lead me to believe you're trying to skew Battlefield V's article as negative as possible. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this, especially as the PS4 is only two points away from generally favourable and averaging the scores out gives a generally favourable score. Cherries Jubilee (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sales in lead editing
Can someone please have a word with user SWAGnificient as he’s frequently editing/reverting my edits in order to include how well Battlefield V sold compared to Battlefield 1 in the lead section. Bear in mind there’s only a single sentence detailing this information in the Sales section. I’ve advised in my opinion this sort of data is not relevant in the lead as it goes against WP:UNDUE. I would also argue that in terms of a game’s sales, sources detailing a notably high or low number of copies sold or anything relating to breaking records should only belong in the lead. SWAGnificient's past edits just seem to indicate he’s trying to skew the game’s reception in a negative light. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's probably undue, as such a minor bullet point in the entire affair. You should join this discussion before making further additions here. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall I take it out the lead (which presumably will just be reverted), or wait for his response...? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Give some time for a response. -- ferret (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it's been 5 days and the user has made edits in that time to other pages bar Battlefield V's. Who's to say he hasn't just ignored the request? It's in instances such as this that I don't necessarily agree with prioritizing a user's response that might never happen, over leaving in content that it is agreed should be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it, they have had time to join the discussion. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention raytracing
Battlefield 5 was the first game to ship with a post release patch for nVidia's RTX raytracing. This should really be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexp700 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Rating of critics are not objective, and are biased
Ratings of critics are not honest, they just HAD to make a LGBTQIA++ black women inclusive (tolerance hell) game to have good ratings, or else they would be kicked out for not being politically correct (also accused of being Nazis, thanks, SJW). See the difference between actual people's ratings, and critics rating to seehow much they're biased and sponsored. WP:SPONSORED  It would be better to mention the player's ratings, which are very negative because they're not biased. 37.175.143.255 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Metascore 81 Based on 51 critic reviews User Score 2.8 Based on 2471 user ratings That proves that they're biased. 37.175.143.255 (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The "List of video games notable for negative reception" page omits games that are subject to review bombing for things unrelated to gameplay (i.e. character customization). Problem is, user reviews are far too easy to manipulate.

What about Fallout 76? (Scores of 49, 51, and 52 respectively for numerous bugs, plus controversies surrounding quality of physical content)

Are they being biased when they blasted that game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.140.203 (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Info on Post-launch Support
The article mentions nothing of the post launch support, or the "Tides of War" game as a service model. Especially with the release of the Pacific Theater, the article is in great need for an update, and if it weren't for my lack of knowledge of how to do it right, I would be happy to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by System Lag (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should include a section chronicling all of the major updates, and include what the included like maps, weapons and the like. I believe the article for BF1 does it with that game's dlc, so I think we should do it as well PolterGhast07 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of duplicate information that was present for seemingly opinionated purposes
I want to make a note of my edit that you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlefield_V&type=revision&diff=926435718&oldid=926217867

1. It was duplicated information (all points were already addressed under == Reception ==) 2. The intentions behind the duplication and placement seems like opinionation/writer being on the side of critics or referred to as, "misogynists" (with this factor making them feel like reception should be one of the main subjects out of the entire Wiki article, thus its positioning within the intro and duplication)

As == Reception == is obviously better suited to contain this information, and this information being present there in a better shape than the removed duplicate (more detailed, and properly sourced), it gave me a proper basis for removal within my edit. This note is to motivate why I think no one should be doing it the former way, because I understand there (in this talk page) was a heated argument about said criticism and the way of expressing it in the article, and I don't want those people to come here and (due to how filled they are with their frustration) try go over my reasonable fix. Blooker (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. The entire purpose of the article lead is to summarize the article content, and that also includes portions of the reception and controversies. -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

But this part doesn't summarize the article, which is about a game and not the controversies. I mean it should be obvious, the portion about reception plays a minor role in the subject and even the article. So by duplicating it and arbitrarily putting it in the intro as well (implying it's one of the main subjects on the game) someone has shown to be opinionated as to the relevance of critical reception and the priority it should take over other main subjects of the article. I used common sense when determining that these are the people who are rumoured to be misogynistic, having created this whole ruckus about gender roles and the critical reception. They feel like the publisher EA has done such an injustice to them, that this 'controversy' deserves to be arbitrarily made to look like one of the main subjects of the game. Even if you do some research on the internet, you will find that you can use common sense and judge that there is a lot to talk about this game, and only a minor role goes to talks about said controversies. Games of this scale are a subject matter of their own. I would like to hear back from you on this, before I am taking the matter into a disputes board. Blooker (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you reading a different article than me? The article clearly includes reception, sales and the controversy. This is 100% standard for including in the lead summary, especially with only a single sentence for each of those. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? I didn't say that the article doesn't include it, I just said that it's not a main subject of the topic (this game), also motivating why it's not supposed to be either. I think it should be common sense that significant subjects of the article topic are to be in the intro, and this was arbitrarily, clearly (for the reasons I described earlier) a result of opinionation. Blooker (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you that you're simply wrong about how leads are written. Leads are summaries of the article, not the "main subject of the topic", but I still don't udnerstand how you can say the topic's reception and sales aren't part of said topic. If you feel my position wrong about video game leads (despite every video game article on Wikipedia following this pattern), perhaps you could try post to the Wikiproject page for video games at WT:VG for other opinions. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate Ferret's points. Summarizing the reception in the lede is standard practice not just for video games but any creative work. This summary should include any significant sourced criticism (such as was the case with BF V and representation of women). --M asem (t) 18:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a mistake here in assuming the thing about female representation was actual criticism. It was just outrage from a certain corner of the community, which was refuted by most actual critics. That usually doesn't qualify as significant criticism and it would be undue to mention it alongside actual criticism of the game.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Include Soundtrack information
I included the listing of soundtrack for the video game as released by the EA games company, with proper reference. It was removed saying that the video game is not notable. How can one say that? On wikipedia, more and more information must be added to gain a full knowledge on a topic. IndieOKB (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The soundtrack for Battlefield V is not independently notable with in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sourcing. You did not provide any sources that discussed the sound track, just database listings. See our Manual of Style for more information, WP:VGSCOPE #15. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)