EA Details the Four Battlefield 1 Expansions

[ffronw]

EA Details the Four Battlefield 1 Expansions

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1385/1385833.jpgThe Battlefield 1 Premium Pass will include four expansions, and EA has revealed what those four expansions will be.

The Battlefield 1 Premium Pass has been available since the game launched in October, but until yesterday, we only knew what one of the included four expansions would be. The details of the first expansion, They Shall Not Pass, were revealed back in January [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/169367-First-Details-of-the-Battlefield-1-They-Shall-Not-Pass-Expansion-Announced], but now we know the titles and a bit of information on all four expansions.

They Shall Not Pass will bring the French Army to the game, as well as encounters in Verdun. Those include a tank assault on the banks of the Aisne River and the fighting within Fort de Vaux.

The second expansion is In the Name of the Tsar, and it will add in the Russian army, as well as four snow themed maps. The third expansion, Turning Tides, will focus on amphibious warfare, and will include the daredevil Zeebrugge raid, the Gallipoli offensive, and more. Finally, the fourth expansion will be titled Apocalypse , and will bring to life some of the war's most infamous battles, along with "brutal tools and unique weapons."

In short, Battlefield 1 has a lot of upcoming content planned, although it's still a bit pricey at $49.99. DICE has recently added the Winter Update [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/169540-Battlefield-1-Winter-Update-Now-Live-Brings-Many-New-Features], adding ribbons, higher max class ranks, and more. There's still no word on when They Shall Not Pass will launch, but hopefully we'll find out soon.

[gallery=6997]

Permalink

 

[fix-the-spade]

Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

St Jiub, as much as I respect and honor your efforts to repel the Cliff Racer menace, I fear you may have had a little too much Skooma for one night.

The US army deployed around 350'000 African Americans to Europe, the British Army had a couple of West Indian regiments numbering about 15'000 and the French many more than both Britsh and Americans. Indeed the Tirailleurs Senegalais were credited with forcing the Germans back at Chaleroi in 1914, so black troops were in the war pretty much from day one.

But anyway, I'm sure you'll feel better once you've sobered up.

 

[Zhukov]

Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

Hahaha! And there we go, right off the bat.

Man, look at all these coloured soldiers who totally didn't exist:

Who's being disrespectful now?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

Hahaha! And there we go, right off the bat.

Man, look at all these coloured soldiers who totally didn't exist:

Who's being disrespectful now?

Bah! Liberal propaganda, fake news, brainwashing our children with tainted thoughts of human decency! Only Trump and fox news tells it how it is. This will be dismissed with all other inconvenient facts. But nice try, however.

 

[Naldan]

Those caps though with these strings that are supposed to go under your lips... What were they thinking? Talking about the second picture.

 

[Hawki]

Huh. So instead of complaining about EA's DLC, people are complaining about...black people?

Before you know it they'll be adding Indians! Or Japanese! Or, gasp, Arabs!

Damn EA social justice warriors.

 

[Buizel91]

Well Jiub got rekd...

Will have to get back into this game, those expansions actually sound pretty good.

 

[Laughing Man]

Will have to get back into this game, those expansions actually sound pretty good.

Total opposite here, the game got boring after a month and I haven't had any desire to go back to it, and yeah these DLCs haven't sparked any desire to return either. The shocking thing being I actually pre ordered the Premium version on the off chance that I would enjoy the game and still be in to it when the new DLCs finally cropped up... oh well.

 

[The Lunatic]

Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

Character customization is limited in Battlefield games to just camos and gun skins because unlike Valve (and to a lesser extent Ubisoft) and Activision, EA and DICE understand that in a twitch- (and class) based game like Battlefield you need to be able to tell what the enemy is in less than a second (at first glance basically) which means nothing too notable can be customizable (as all Assaults on a team need to look the same, all Recons etc.).

And it's not like Overwatch where each character varies wildly and notably either, allowing crazy different looks.

 

[Zontar]

Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

Character customization is limited in Battlefield games to just camos and gun skins because unlike Valve (and to a lesser extent Ubisoft) and Activision, EA and DICE understand that in a twitch- (and class) based game like Battlefield you need to be able to tell what the enemy is in less than a second (at first glance basically) which means nothing too notable can be customizable (as all Assaults on a team need to look the same, all Recons etc.).

And it's not like Overwatch where each character varies wildly and notably either, allowing crazy different looks.

Skin colour and facial structure wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be what is used to determine who is of what class in the game. It really should have been a non-issue of colour customisation for skin being included, but no, we had to pretend the Germans had African soldiers, the Turks had European soldiers, the British had Middle Eastern soldiers (to a noteworthy degree that is) and that France is empty land for foreigners to fight over (because Fuck France in particular I guess).

It's frankly insulting that in a war that had almost no Africans in it that they, above the Europeans who where the bulk of it, the Middle Easterners who took a large hit from it, the Indians who made a good show of it and the East Asians who did a comparatively small but still often overlooked part of it, that instead of all them a group who had far less involvement then any of them was used as the face of it. Well I'm not going to mince words, it's the equivalent of having the equivalent of having the fight against Colonialism and Imperialism have its face be some rich white aristocrat for how tone deaf it is. Only EA could be that dense, not even Activision could screw up that badly.

 

[Hawki]

I'm not saying they NEVER saw combat, but the way EA tells it, you'd think whites were the minority on the battlefield, and so many black soldiers were there that they need to be featured on ALL of the cover and promotional art. Completely disproportionate to how history actually was.

...what?

Haven't played Battlefield 1, but of its six campaigns, you play as one female Bedouin, four Caucasean males of American/Italian/British/Australian nationality, and one black soldier, and that last part is only a 'technically,' because the mission in which he features is technically where you control multiple soldiers. How the heck are whites a minority in that context?

If you're talking about skin colour in multiplayer being synonymous with classes, I could maybe, MAYBE sympathize a bit, but it's multiplayer. I'm going to go out on a limb that running and firing, shrugging off shots, and being able to drive tanks and planes at will isn't historically accurate either. The only remotely thing I could call 'insulting' about Battlefield historically is that it doesn't have the French and Russians available from the start, considering that they were major players in the role, while the US (playable from the outset) entering the war was a late, albeit still significant event. If the presence of non-whites in combat roles in multiplayer is "insulting," then, well, I don't know what to say.

The central powers used integrated brigades and more colored soldiers, but again I still feel EA is deliberately trying to force the issue whenever possible so they can feel as "progressive" and safe as possible.

Considering how common reactions like this are, I don't know how any of this is "safe."

I'm apathic towards EA, but here we have a game from a AAA publisher that focuses on a war that doesn't get much screentime, games or otherwise (least compared to WWII), and focuses on theatres of war other than the Western Front, and gives representation to a variety of nationalities and ethnicities? I can give them respect for that.

What is so wrong with more white people being featured when most soldiers were actually white?

Nothing, but I don't see the presence of non-whites "wrong" either.

 

[Hawki]

Are you kidding me? You can't release ANYTHING without a black character front and center these days without getting "called out" by the moral police on twitter.

Using the same argument, you can't release anything WITH a black character without being accused of pushing an agenda (see The Force Awakens and Hidden Figures for examples). And that's not including non-hetrosexual tizzies (e.g. Tracer in Overwatch, the "lesbian couple" in Finding Dory, etc.)

One extreme is saying that any form of non-diversity is racist. The other extreme is claiming that any form of diversity is pushing an agenda. So far, this thread is veering quite close to the latter.

I don't find the "presence of non-whites on the battlefield" to be wrong in itself. What I do take issue with is the "blackwashing" of the conflict by the over representation of black soldiers, when they had very little to do with this conflict compared to white soldiers,

I'd be able to take the claim of "blackwashing" seriously if it actually approached that. It doesn't in the campaign, and unless the majority of classes in multiplayer are black, I don't see an issue there. You've already admitted in your own posts that black soldiers served, so there is precedent. I'm not so paranoid about ratios - blacks served, as a fact. So did people of many nations and ethnicities. Anything that reflects that is good in my mind, especially when WWI itself is so often overshadowed by WWII, and within WWI itself, so much of what I (and as far as I can tell, many others) is focused entirely on the Western Front. The Russians for instance might be coming late to the party, but at least they're coming.

Equality is one thing, but pretty soon we're gonna have WW2 games coming out where 80% of the soldiers storming Omaha Beach will be black. You might be too uncomfortable to call that wrong, but it sure as hell ain't right.

I'm going to guess that Battlefield 1 doesn't even exceed a 50% black rate - I've noticed that you haven't cited any actual percentages in your claims of "blackwashing" as far as multiplayer representation goes.

Also, very nice insinuation that I'd be "too uncomfortable" to call 80% blacks being at Omaha "wrong." But if I did see 80% of blacks in an Omaha Beach sequence (and insert witty joke here about Juno, Sword, and Gold beaches), I would say something along the lines of "um, I think the ratios are a bit off." But "wrong?" Eh, only historically. Morally, I'm far more interested in someone's actions than the colour of their skin. And liberties are taken in fiction. In the case of video games depicting war, a LOT of liberties. Saying that blacks in a WWI game is "insulting" is about as true as saying that Wolfenstein is insulting because it has Hitler in a mech suit, or that Medal of Honour: Spearhead is "insulting" because you control an American soldier in Berlin and not a Russian one. Heck, I'd probably have an easier time arguing that was more "insulting" because while non-white soldiers did serve in WWI, I've never heard anything about American soldiers in Berlin prior to its fall historically (feel free to correct me if you want).

 

[Hawki]

Um, excuse me? By "my own admission" Blacks mostly served in non-combat roles digging ditches, hauling shit, and other grunt work on the allied side.

Ahem:

If either of you had bothered to take off your PC glasses for a second, you would know that very few colored soldiers ever fought on the front lines for the Allies. The soldiers that were deployed mainly were used for labor, hauling bodies/ equipment, and other logistical tasks. The western leaders at the time didn't think it was proper to have whites and coloreds fighting side-by-side. I'm not saying they NEVER saw combat,

That's your post, verbatim, stating that black soldiers served in combat roles, however few.

That's the facts. EA has not only made them the face of the entire conflict in all of their marketing campaigns,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nRTF2SowQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY3hlQEOc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-vAxVh8ins

Those are three trailers that I pulled from YouTube. I only spotted a black soldier (key word on "a") in the last one. I'm pretty sure I saw more Arab soldiers, and there's whites galore. The only thing you could bring up to support your case is the cover art. Oh my god, a black soldier on it, how terrible.

What's telling after watching these trailers is that if you want to pull the "insulting" card, the only insulting thing I could pull from it is its glorification of combat in what was one of the most terrible conflicts of human history. I don't care what colour your skin is - anyone who served in that war has my respect.

but also portrayed them as standing shoulder to shoulder with white soldiers on the allied side when that was absolutley not the case.

Two problems:

1) Your argument has so far only applied to multiplayer, where reality is stretched already. Unless you're seriously suggesting that multiplayer should be segregated as well.

2) Untrue, black soldiers did fight alongside the French and Canadians. The intro campaign is, to my understanding, reflective of this, as you take control of a Harlam Hellfighter soldier, fighting the Germans alongside the French.

I'll take this moment to point out that this intro level, having watched it, is one of the most harrowing depictions of war I've ever seen in a game, and also serves as an excellent humanization of human beings in war, and you're worried about the colour of the protagonist's skin.

So, if that doesn't "approach" blackwashing history in your mind, exactly what would?

Portraying the ethnic integration of WWI as being predominantly black, to the exclusion of any other ethnicity.

Which it hasn't done. At all.

Nice "guess" there, but even if it doesn't "exceed" 50% it's very close. By that logic almost every other soldier in this war was black.

Again, I'd take that claim seriously if the singleplayer backed it up, and if multiplayer in Battlefield games wasn't already a stretch of credulity.

Also, WWI was a global war in every sense of the word. People of multiple races and nationalities fought across multiple locations. If you want to work out the ratios based on race, have fun doing that.

So again, how the fuck is that not blackwashing?

-Because black soldiers historically fought (as did many others)

-Because the term "whitewashing" is used to describe a white individual portraying someone of a different ethnicity. "Blackwashing" would hold true in reverse, but it's not supplanting any one individual.

-Because the singleplayer campaign, which goes for at least some realism, does go by a more realistic ratio.

-Because they aren't portrayed as a majority by any ratio - not in singleplayer, and even you haven't claimed that the ratio is over 50%. Something like Gods of Egypt could reasonably be accused of whitewashing (though that's the least of the film's problems) because white actors are the majority in a setting that, at least in theory, should make them the minority. In contrast, Battlefield 1 hasn't portrayed non-whites as a majority.

Frankly, I've never been too concerned about colourwashing of any kind. Gods of Egypt is a bad film, but it's nothing to do with the ethnicity of its characters. Likewise, Battlefield 1 isn't going to live or die based on the colour of its soldiers' skin.

It's complete bullshit, and EA needs to be called out for it.

Ah yes, EA. You could call them out for their treatment of employees, shady business practices, or their tendency to acquire studios and grind the acquired IPs into dust. If you wanted to look at Battlefield 1 specifically, you could complain that France and Russia aren't included from the outset, despite being major powers in the war. But no, the greatest sin of Battlefield 1...is that it has too many black people.

Well, feel free to call them out I guess, I won't stop you. But for someone who complained about "the moral police on twitter," you seem to be fitting into that role quite well.

 

[Hawki]

Okay, so, spending more time than I cared for, I've worked out the ratios for some of the class ethnicities.

Battlefield 1 currently has six factions (US, UK, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire). Looking at the classes, I've ascertained the following:

Assault: White for all factions

Support: 5 confirmed white, 1 ambiguous (Austria-Hungary, as I can't make out the skin colour)

Scout: 3 are black (UK, US, Germany), one is Arabic (Ottoman), other 2 are white

Medic: The British medic is Indian, the German and Austro-Hungarian medics are white, I haven't been able to find info on the others.

Pilot: At least 1 is white.

Now, these are hardly definitive, because I'm missing a lot of entries. This was spent looking up what I could on the Internet. As I also understand, the Battlefield 1 classes are set in terms of appearance. And maybe errors were made. But just a cursory glance at this shows that the classes are predominantly white. It's also worth noting (if you really, REALLY are upset about there being "too many blacks") that once Russia is released, there'll be even more whites, but those cheese-eating surrender monkeys called the French might have blacks. Shock, horror, blah blah blah.

Although, I'm left to ask at this point (again)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsuokWmEZI

Seriously, I never played any other Battlefield game, even the historic ones, and asked "geez, are the ethnic ratios accurate?". I was more asking who that bastard sniper was that shot me.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...alright, so, that happened.

I just hope they don't fuck up the Gallipoli fight in the 3rd expansion. Well, ok, it's an EA war game, so hopefully they don't fuck it up too much and have, I dunno, a bunch of Americans roll up in tanks and Zeppelins during it or something. Just let the Australians have this one this time, please? Just for once? We kinda got ignored with all the other war games, but Gallipoli was kinda our 'big' one so it'd be nice to actually play an Aussie during it.