’Battlefield V’ Makes History’s Bloodiest War as Big as It Possible Can—64 Players at a Time
Leaping from planes, we fall through aurora that looks as though it’s melting into the sky. We drifting for a few quiet moments above the tundra, descending with the snow. What we can’t truly grasp until we land, though, is that we are gently gliding into hell.
A series of dramatic vignettes ensues, touching half a dozen theaters of war: Soaring over Hamburg during an RAF raid; tank combat in Libya; sniping from behind enemy lines in Algeria; machine-gunning through the muck at Nijmegen Bridge in the Netherlands. While the locations are far-flung, an abject chaos connects them all, and the conflicts therein. We fight, and die, and fight some more. This is World War Two. This is Battlefield V.
Related Stories
Postmodern WarfareWith Black Ops 4, Call of Duty Takes Aim at a Fortnite WorldJulie Muncy
Shopping14 Weekend Deals on Great Games, Consoles, and GearWIRED Staff
Exclusive: How Xbox Is Bringing Gaming Anywhere You ArePeter RubinOut today for PC, Xbox One, and PS4, the latest in DICE’s military-shooter franchise trains its focus on multiplayer action. The Call of Duty series, its closest rival, has pursued a similar corrective to compete with Fortnite and other always-online juggernauts of the moment, but Battlefield V seeks scale as well: As many as 64 players come together on its expansive maps. You can’t pack that many people, and that much firepower, into a single virtual arena without breeding discord—but that too is intentional. Like its immediate predecessor, the WWI-set Battlefield 1, Battlefield V steeps players in the dizzying miasma of large-scale combat.
And since creating a satisfying experience for 32 players is a far steeper challenge than with 12, the game instead imposes narrative through subdivision. In addition to your larger team, you’re a member of smaller squad, tasked with incremental missions that connect to the larger overall push. Your significance becomes tripartite: you matter for your own efforts, as well as that of your squad, and finally as a constituent piece of a charging war engine.
There’s meaning to be found there, even in defeat. In one mission, after your squad has scaled a small peak, the three of you secure explosives to an enemy outpost and wipe out a pernicious mortar that’s been stalling the advance of your downrange comrades. Even so, the detonation gets the attention of a sniper, and you all meet your end while fleeing the scene—gunned down in the snow.
It’s not often that a game is confident enough to deprive players of the role of the hero, and here the futility becomes almost poignant. Where much of the shock of Battlefield 1 came from its disorienting grandeur, compounded by bodies and trenches and the creeping fog of chlorine, its successor aims for precision. The advances here aren’t mindless, but measured in discrete checkpoints and clear missions.
