The new shooter Battlefield 2042 takes place in a future where the world is in a dire state. The climate catastrophe is in full swing, millions of refugees are roaming the world, Germany is bankrupt, and the European Union has dissolved. According to developer DICE, this is not meant as a political statement. It is all about gameplay.
In this scenario, Battlefield 2042 plays out: In the run-up to E3 2021, the big reveal of Battlefield 2042 took place. The makers of the sci-fi shooter, DICE, have released a timeline of what happens in the world of the shooter before players jump in:
- The world is marked by the “greatest crisis in human history,” climate change. The state of the world is characterized by rising sea levels and hurricanes that are stronger than ever before.
- In January 2034, a “global food and fuel shortage” erupts. The resource shortage triggers the “second great depression,” a massive global economic crisis.
- By August 2035, it is said: “European Union officially dissolves after the bankruptcy of Germany. “
Ultimately, the catastrophic developments of the 2030s lead to 1.2 billion people becoming stateless (No-Pats). The USA and Russia, as the remaining superpowers, then recruit from the No-Pats to form “elite task forces” and send them into battles for the last resources.
No “social commentary,” just a great setting
This is what EA says about it: In an interview with IGN, Design Director Daniel Berlin is confronted with the fact that Battlefield 2042 already offers a lot of political fodder: Stateless citizens, climate change. He is asked if that is a “socio-political commentary.”
Berlin replies:
“For us, it’s purely a multiplayer game. We have gone down this path to find a narrative where we can show the world through the eyes of a No-Pat. We want to bring more spectacle and let bigger events happen.
The setting fits perfectly. It fits the scale and gives us reasons to travel across the whole world. It serves gameplay purposes only.”
Daniel Berlin, Design Director
Here are the reactions: The interviewer doubts in the article that Berlin himself believes his answer. It was also felt in Far Cry 6 that games address political themes but then deny it. It is said: “Publishers want players to not trust their own eyes.”
Also on reddit, some users are surprised: One user says it is like in The Division 2. Ubisoft makes a game with a pandemic, filled with weapons, and then says they didn’t make a political statement. The “spineless game companies” apparently fear that Trump supporters won’t buy their games.
Another says: He can understand DICE well in that they distance themselves from anything that could be seen as “political” or “divisive,” after the drama about fighting women in Battlefield 5.
Political stance seems to be considered “toxic” in video games
What lies behind this: This shows once again how sensitive EA and DICE have become to such topics. Because with a “clear political statement” on equality they pretty much burned their fingers with Battlefield 5.
Now they have a pragmatic attitude towards the climate catastrophe: It just makes a nice backdrop for our shooter. However, they do not want it to be understood as a political statement: “Watch out for the environment.”
There is a legendary quote from basketball player Michael Jordan about why he rarely speaks on politics: “Republicans buy sneakers, too” – Jordan wanted to keep his business with sports shoes intact by not making statements about his political beliefs. Because even supporters of “the other party” should remain his customers.
This slogan apparently still applies to the gaming industry today.
The trailer for Battlefield 2042 already has twice as many likes as the hated trailer for BF5
