Talk:Battlefield V

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

@Ferret: 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)

@Ferret: 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). --Masem (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)