by that i kinda mean pretending that it's about historical accuracy, respect to the people that fought and died in the war (which is a sentiment we can all relate to) when in fact it's just a way for them to shit on the developers for adding blacks and women
pretending that they're stupid is dangerous. never underestimate your enemy. havent you seen all the crazy kinds of shit that niche communities of outliers (cough 4ch) have done every now and then when they managed to organize themselves even slightly?
Maybe you're right. It's just kind of hard for me to take them seriously. These are people who are literally offended because someone decided to add women to a fictional piece of media.
Doesn't matter, certain people just get pissed playing a game with female characters in it when they could be male ones instead.
I finally managed to string together enough time to finish the campaign so I'll give my thoughts on the video, separated into three parts to go with the three campaigns.
Regarding the Nordlys campaign, I find it hard to disagree with the video and honestly I'm a bit confused as to what the thought process was. DICE seemingly invested a ton of time and effort into accurately recreating the exact heavy water plant that was sabotaged by the team of Norwegian commandos. The thing is, I'm not even sure why they would think that would make such a good campaign. I get the idea was to feature untold stories and that is certainly a less known story from WW2 but it was a bloodless operation where the really heroic stuff came from the teams resilience in the face of adversity. It's a compelling story, but not really one I'd expect the makers of Battlefield to take on. And again, as other people have said, you have several instances of women being active combatants in WW2 if thats what you wanted to portray. Instead they chose to combine the two, creating a sneaky-murder mission where you play as a solo female operative killing your way through half of Norway. I guess the one flipside of this is that you can't really say DICE 'wrote the Norwegian commandos out of their own story" if the story isn't even remotely the same other than a few key aspects.
I've already covered the Under No Flags part but for the sake of completeness, it doesn't "write the royal marines" out of their own story. Three of the four people in your team are military and it's atleast implied that the officer that recruits the protagonist knows him from his father, the implication being that recruiting prisoners wasn't a typical action (which it wasn't for the British during World War 2). There does seem to be some confusion on the part of DICE regarding the Special Boat Service and Special Operations Executive but in the realm of World War 2 stop-n-pop shooters this is almost a trivial complaint to make and it's probably why this is by far the shortest section of his video.
The Tiralleur part is the most problematic. Firstly is the part where he just assumes a political agenda on the basis of absolutely nothing but his feelings, implying that it's DICE taking a stand with Macron against nationalism and making refugees seem more sympathetic. I will agree that the segment of them filling sandbags and one of the characters saying "things are different here" seems out of place and sort of lazy. As far as I can tell the Senegalese Tirailleurs were involved in heavy combat in Italy and southern France, and as the video points out this seems to be more referencing the American segregated army than the actual French military at the time. But then he follows this up by making the apparent argument that it would have been morally correct to relegate colonial troops to support and logistic roles, turning the conventional argument on it's head and aiming at leftists with the accusations that they want to portray minorities as "cannon fodder", which should be insulting but comes across as laughable more than anything else.
After this we get dangerously close to some clean Wehrmacht myth by saying that even though German forces summarily executed colonial troops, they killed white troops too, and it was in 1940, and that it's "productive or fair to Germans to portray them all as being so merciless". Beyond the fact that this is ridiculously nitpicky, it's hugely questionable to assign the actions of Nazi soldiers to Germans as a people and it's hard to come up with why someone would craft wordplay like that for any other reason than to minimize war crimes performed by the Wehrmacht. He then goes on to talk about black POW's in German camps, which is fascinating, but also irrelevant and serves only to continue trying to make the Nazi's seem less bad than the way DICE portrays them to be. He salts the wound by needlessly shitting on the Senegalese Tirailleurs for actions that took place in Africa. Again, zero relevance and only brings more questions. The last five minutes of this section have nothing to do with the game and this post is long enough so I'm not going to cover it.
Overall there is some solid history here and I agree with some of it but there is a lot of missing context for people who haven't played the game and the nitpicking is at levels that no one would even consider for a traditional WW2 title like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. The main part I disagree with is that this isn't revisionist history nor is it disrespectful, at least by the metric he is using. And if it is, then virtually every World War 2 game is revisionist by the standards set by American Krogan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
