![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/head_sourcesBF5_4 1.jpg]] > [!note] > It's recommended to have read the previous part before, but it's not necessary if you have a good understanding of the Battlefield timeline. The US gaming community plays a significant role in shaping online perceptions of games. English discourse, particularly American English, dominates these conversations. The US market is undoubtedly the most important for the Battlefield franchise. Unlike Call of Duty, Battlefield was once defined by DICE's, a Swedish studio, cultural influence on the game. I say "was" because the formation of Battlefield studios marked, in my view, the end of DICE's cultural predominance. Now more than ever, Battlefield is an American product. ## What Comes Next When Battlefield announced its Great War setting in 2016, with its largely romanticized, bombastic, and alternate-history approach, the reception was fantastic. Yes, people argued about missing factions and the choice of a black protagonist (2 year later it will be woman), but the mood of the gaming community, boosted by backlash against Call of Duty, drowned out these complaints and gave Battlefield 1 massive positive press. Nearly 10 years after its release, enhanced with some of the greatest DLC of the franchise, the game enjoys an excellent reputation, and the allegations against its take on WW1 have mostly been forgotten. ![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/Battlefield1_4.jpg]] *Battlefield 1 promotional material* When compared to the following entry, Battlefield V, it’s almost the exact opposite. The WW2 vision presented in the fifth main installment was a major point of controversy. To this day, 7 years later, that first impression still hurts the game. Not to say that the game doesn't have flaws or that it didn't spend its first 6 months of service trying to catch up with content that should have been delivered at launch. However, I believe there's a persistent aura of negativity that the game has never successfully shaken off, especially regarding the frequent references to Battlefield 1 and 4 as the last great Battlefield games. ![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/BattlefieldV1.jpg]] *First Battlefield V promotional material* Note that the two previous episodes (4 & 1) had been enlarging the community with more accessible design choices and overall much better console ports than their predecessors. In 2018, the successor to the most successful episode, that had been Battlefield 1, had many eyes on it. Eyes trained by the not-so-distant release of Call of Duty WW2 following the mixed reception of Infinite Warfare. So, there was no “Call of Duty is bad” pull effect this time to save Battlefield and gloss over a return to roots. In fact, people wanted to return to modern warfare, a trend that the future Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019, with its Battlefield inspiration, would clearly try to deliver on. --- **The question I wish to ask is the following: Why was Battlefield V massively criticized for its tone and aesthetic, when Battlefield 1, released just two years earlier, applied the same treatment to the Great War without comparable criticism?** --- ## WW2's Cultural Significance So, here we are: Battlefield cultivates a large American audience. The Great War has less defined imagery and aesthetics in people's minds, a far less prominent place in collective vision. Trenches, dirt, and bayonets are perhaps the most “iconic” elements, but these can easily be reinterpreted. There aren't as many cultural touchstones that have helped solidify a strong and unmovable vision of it (which would, in a certain way, rewrite and impose a particular perspective). The Great War doesn't have its equivalent of Band of Brothers or Medal of Honor, giving creative teams much more room to imagine and craft a singular vision (I don't mean historically accurate, I mean distinctive). ![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/Battlefield1_2.jpg]] *Battlefield 1 promotional material* ![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/BattlefieldV4.jpg]] *Battlefield V promotional material* For many people, particularly those from countries and colonized countries not directly involved in WW1, Battlefield 1 was likely their first significant exposure to these aesthetics. I believe Battlefield 1 has helped define what the Great War looks like in popular culture and as such has become the mainstream reference. I think it's really important to talk about "aesthetics" here, because that's what this is about. There's a dissonance in Battlefield V that didn't exist with what Battlefield 1 presented, but this says more about perception than historical accuracy. Battlefield V doesn't "match" the popular image of WW2 and doesn't romanticize it in the way the gaming community has grown accustomed to. ## Is this WW2 shooter WW2 enough? What better example of the stereotypical perspective of WW2 than Call of Duty WW2? You couldn't make more of a "Saving Private Ryan" game. Not only was this approach uninspired, it didn’t shield the game from criticism. At the end, it still feels very "gamey" in a bad way (tank boss fights, epic slow motion, etc.). In multiplayer, the skins and loot boxes finish to dilute it. Given the choice, I’ll still take Battlefield V. Over time, Battlefield V’s live service evolved to incorporate more mainstream references, particularly American-targeted ones. This was especially evident in the final content releases focusing on the Pacific War and the square-jawed American white guy returned to represent the game. This found broader acceptance and aligned more with familiar references, just think about "The Pacific", the successor to "Band of Brothers". ![[../_site-assets/Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4/BattlefieldV3.jpg]] *Battlefield V promotional material of the pacific war Tibes of War* The absence of Omaha Beach will always brand Battlefield V as “not a true WW2 shooter” for certain people. A Greece map isn’t “WW2 enough”, you need your mandatory Stalingrad map to receive your authenticity badge. The focus placed on the lack of "authenticity" doesn't provide a complete answer. There's a more profound and misplaced criticism of the game. What it's mostly about, is that the game doesn't depict WW2 the way some massive cultural hits have portrayed the conflict. The game doesn't visit every major milestone of the conflict like a tourist. I have never heard of a vocal community criticizing developers for including a Norway-located battleground in a WW2 shooter, but still, Battlefield V made the interesting choice to use Narvik as one of the main signature maps of the game. Battlefield V isn't just criticized for being inauthentic. It's criticized for not conforming to the stereotypical image of WW2, revealing a flawed criticism of the game's selection of maps, weapons, and vehicles. **Battlefield V’s vision of WW2 was romanticized, somewhat strangely punk, and historically loose, but no more so than Battlefield 1’s vision of the Great War. The difference lies in perception, not authenticity. WW1 gave DICE creative freedom because players had no sacred imagery to measure against. WW2 left no such room: any deviation from the cultural script felt wrong. In the end, the backlash wasn’t about accuracy, it was about conformity. Players forgave distortion when it matched expectations, and punished it when it didn’t.**