On a base level I agree with him, I do think games like Battlefield V do misrepresent history while touting some sense of authencicity that other obviously-wrong games like Assassin's Creed does not. Battlefield does not openly state it takes place in a fictional universe, and it does bring historically factual textboxes in alongside the non-factual history, which really muddles the lines between fact and fiction to the average consumer. Assassin's Creed got space magic.
On the other hand, every single fucking argument he makes is shit. Especially the French campaign where he keeps bringing up the proportionate part, and there's so many fucking dogwhistles for racist bullshit all over that bit. Furthermore, inclusion is not the problem I have with Battlefield. It's not removing white men from history, it's just putting in other demographics who clearly were a part of history. Which is good. The reason it's both okay and actually-good to make a game where gasp, only half the protagonists are white men, is that we've had so many films, series, books and games that already represent the white men of World War II, so a bit of something else is a positive, if nothing else then for the "They were there too you know" factor.
In short: Fuck this guy. Battlefield V has some serious problems with historical accuracy and the portrayal of fact within fiction in a clumsy way, but this fuckwit goes at it for all the wrong reasons, with all the wrong arguments, and is obviously a racist shithead.
Does this guy explain why he's a Krogan specifically, or did he just need an analogy for a rough necked no-filter warlike persona?
god, /pol/tards are the most annoying people on earth
dude it's a piece of fiction, that's not "meddling with history". Historical films, tv shows, novels, etc... of yesteryear also reflected their current "social agenda". It's just the *nature* of what fiction is, it reflects the past through the prism of the present.
Uh there's the entire Codex in most of the Assassin's Creed games, and now they also have the "Discovery Mode". I've seen people actually try to cite the Codex in AC as a source. The AC Devs have always held that their *story* might be inauthentic, the world they build around it is (even when it isn't nessecarily actually authentic).
But it's the same thing with any piece of historical fiction, people will treat it as fact because it's part of their limited understanding and interaction with the past.
Why do these sorts of cunts dispise creative freedom so much? Maybe take it as a reminder that you shouldn't be learning your history from creative mediums.
Yeah they do that part well for sure, but not a lot of people take the time to read them. My point is, though, Assassin's Creed does not hide the fact that it's historically inaccurate, where Battlefield (Okay my experience draws from BF One, not V) does not. It presents itself as more or less factual through-and-through.
A lot of people actually do, and even if they don't I can't even count the amount of "Assassin's Creed helped me pass x test" posts I've seen.
They're both seen as valid sources of information to some people, because they don't usually engage with history (or source criticism).
Also if you can be bothered to read the lore notes in Assassin's Creed they almost always have an explanation for why something is different to how it was in real life and how. Like the cathedral in Unity didn't exist until several years/a decade after when the game takes place and the explination in game was "this wasn't here yet, but it was too cool to leave out."
Not that I own this game or mind the direction they went with that much, but they could've been historically accurate while also being diverse. It's a bit peculiar that they didn't do that. Why not make a campaign or a multiplayer map about the African-American tank battalions? Or that Asian-American infantry regiment that fought in Europe? There are loads of stories that actually happened that should be told, I think. Making stuff up wasn't necessary.
People might not have complained as much if they'd done that, though I guess it's possible that many of them actually are racists/sexists who would've complained either way.
This was what they did for BF1 (except for the odd Black German) and the only ones who actually bitched vehemently were the actual racists/sexists as the minorities shoved in had good enough historical legitimacy to be included i.e the Indians in the British Empire, Cossacks/women for Imperial Russian Army, blacks for America/Britain.
All they had to do was do the same thing, but with appropriate minorities for appropriate nations i.e Indians in Wehrmacht.
FPS games will never realistic or respectful of history by default, people need to stop pretending they ever were.
Making a fun game out of the event of WWII the exact opposite of being an accurate, respectful representation of history. And that's completely fine. And i'm glad devs are realising that and focusing on the entertainement aspect. Nerds like this guy are either cinema sins tier cherry picking nerds, or pure bigoted dogwhistles.
i find that these sorts of people will go on tangents about "Historical accuracy" and how they are history buffs while simultaneously spouting wehraboo myths and actual nazi propaganda about the german army in WW2
They're by and large people whose history "education" consists of video games, /pol/ threads, and David Irving books.
Ironically enough they could stand to learn some history even from Battlefield V since the Tirailleur war story actually does show some real and oft overlooked aspects of WW2 history.
I think what annoys me more is that DICE isn't even willing to go all the way with the customization. Like, there's women on the german side but no minorities. Why the cutoff there, DICE? Either go all the way or not at all.
Let me tell you, I've seen a lot of war movies - "reasonably accurate" and "respectful" are not words I'd use to describe them.
I think it can be done, it takes serious effort, but you can do it right if you try. The problem is EA doesn't try. A big problem is the tonal shift it brings out, which was recently demonstrated very well by Call of Duty WW2, that game's campaign actually ended with you playing as one of a squad of American soldiers walking through a concentration camp (IIRC it was Berga), it was less than five minutes of brevity, and then it's back to the usual CoD tier writing and when it ends you're playing a game designed with microtransaction gambling as its main "feature."
I think there is no way EA can make a AAA FPS that's respectful and accurate to the war as well. It's just two conflicting goals. And that's completely fine.
If we want respectful, comemorative games, we have to look at indies like A war of mine.
What @IlluminatiRex said. Even recent movies, with a high budget like Fury or Dunkirk get a lot of facts wrong, or sacrifice historical accuracy for spectacle. And that's fine. They're successful at what they're trying to do, creating an entertaining narrative. They're not documentaries and they don't need to be.
And even then, something like This War of Mine is an abstraction, one that does at the end of the day put engaging gameplay above other things (it at least has the benefit of the themes and gameplay working in tandem). I'm sure there are arguments out there that gamifying that sort of experience is in itself inherently disrespectful and inaccurate.
Or look at All Quiet on the Western Front. That's a fiction novel that came out about a decade after the war ended and it still reflects the mood of 1928 better than that of 1918. You can't escape representations of the past being influenced by the creator's current culture.
Being able to play as a black female Jewish Nazi in Call of Duty got mocked pretty hard.
Why does it matter when they already include female nazi fighters? Why is that the cutoff?
tbh i find forced diversity in war games kind of offensive for the opposite reason: because it's basically erasing america's history of racism
Your example only happened in the multiplayer mode. An FPS multiplayer mode is pure game logic, so pretending it has historical sense in the first place is just ridiculous. And that applies to singleplayer too anyway. Do you think WWII soldiers had a HUD and respawned? That one soldier would kill hundreds, magicaly recovering from bullet wounds by waiting a bit?
The campaign has you play a Tiger tank in Lybia in 1941, one year before the first Tiger was manufactured. Do you want a list of everything else that's innacurate or will you understand that people will buy this game to have a fun WWII shooter, not a history documentary.
If you want an accurate representation of history, don't play games or watch movies. Read books and watch lectures from good historians who are always looking for more evidence and questionning our understanding of the past.
It's not that much of an abstraction. Women served in the Wehrmacht, just not at the front, at least not until the end of the war. Also, check out the "League of German Girls".
I can't really take such reviews seriously. They pop up on Battlefield reddit very often and they're usually posted by users who frequent T_D. Also, Battlefield games tend to be amalgamations of various technology from the era. You get prototype weapons that were barely tested, weapons we barely knew ever existed. Battlefield 1942 had an expansion that brought us a jetpack. According to BF wiki, the expansion was very well received, nobody said shit about historical accuracy and now there's people complaining about a scarf face cover because it makes you look like Antifa. People complain that there are no swastikas in Battlefield V and they say they want the good ol' days of BF 1942 back. Battlefield 1942 never had any swastikas in it.
People complained about the wacky reveal trailer, which was definitely not something anybody expected, but it did show off all the new features, including character customization, weapon customization and fortification building. But nobody cared about that, because of "CYBORG NINJA WAMEN WITH A CRICKET BAT WRAPPED IN BARBED WIRE"... which was arguably not the best thing to end the reveal trailer on, because that made so many people focus on it. Everybody saw it as a cyborg arm, before some people found out that it was an actual prosthetic arm that existed during the era - still very much out of place, but something that truly existed - and then most people went back to calling a cyborg arm. People saw the cold weather leather mask and immediately made fun of it and called it a Jason Voorhees hockey mask. A British soldier with a katana - oh the horror. Every Battlefield since BF3 has had a bunch of cool and wacky melee weapons you could use, but a katana? A katana? One of the things that hints at the pacific campaign later on is shunned to hell.
When it comes to uniforms, technology and other types of equipment, I am confident that DICE do a great job. They might be awkwardly mixed either by DICE or the players themselves, but everything is ultimately historically accurate.
People complain about historical revisionism... in a videogame. It's not even a historical videogame. It is set during WW2. That's about it. People keep spamming V2 rockets at the end of each round and nobody cares that they weren't really a thing until the late war. If you want historical accuracy, go watch a documentary.
A multiplayer game that isn't completely historically accurate allows players to play as women? The feminists are taking over.
A movie that involves a romantic between two homosexual characters? Them dirty gays are taking over and indoctrinating our kids.
Anything that involves a transgender character? THEY'RE PUSHING A LIBERAL AGENDA ANDTHEY'RE TURNING THE FRIGGIN FROGS GAY!
Fucking chill out, take a step back. If you don't like Battlefield V and prefer the other Battlefields - great, go and play them. And to be honest, they've said it before "If you don't like it, don't buy it." and people criticised them for this statement, but it's true. If you didn't like a game like Subnautica, would you go to Subnautica's forums/reddit and complain about how much you hated different aspects about it and that you weren't going to buy it?
If the game isn't popular and doesn't sell well, EA and DICE will notice. Unless the game was made with child labour, I don't see any reason to cheer for its failure to sell copies. Fuck the attitude of "I wanted this game so much but now I see the devs didn't share my personal views and opinions - fuck their game, I hope it fails and they never make another game ever again!"
Personally; This was the first Battlefield game that I've pre-ordered and I am happy with it. It runs better than Battlefield 1 for me, I don't mind the women, I didn't really care too much about the War Stories, but I did play them, the gameplay feels great and once they iron out the bugs, I'll be even happier.
You wanted to know if they served in the Wehrmacht, and they did, so don't move the goalposts. You also ignored the last part of the wartime service section, where they also took part in the war, especially at the end of it (see Volkssturm). It's not insane to think they would use woman (and kids) for a last-ditch effort.
Realism isn't binary, things can be less or more realistic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
