How historically accurate is this game?
I'm sorry. I know this isn't really Veeky Forums territory, but the amount of shit that (we know) they've put in so far is baffling.
I'll give you a few run downs:
>Black Germans
>France is not a playable faction
>Fricking assault rifles. Automatic and the whole shebang.
Just... why...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
change.org
en.wikipedia.org
historicalfirearms.info
twitter.com
It's a videogame not a textbook they can do whatever inane bullshit they want to pander to as much people possible to make as much money as possible. Anybody with their panties in a twist over Battlefield 1 being historically inaccurate has severe autism.
t. Never played a Battlefield game
So why aren't they pandering to the french?
Shoving literally the biggest player in WW1 into some shitty DLC later on is fucking shit, no matter how you cut it.
believe it or not. historical accuracy can make a difference in how one enjoys a product. there's only so much deviation from actual events I can take before I can no longer get into something. and that's without mentioning how historical inaccuracy are flat-out insults, spitting on, what actually happened and who was involved.
>How historically accurate is this game?
It's not, at all, nor need it be. Video games are entertainment made to appeal to specific demographics. Liberties are taken with gameplay and game mechanics in order to make a casual fast paced shooter demanded by these demographics. As WW1 is such an early setting these liberties are considerably more pronounced than games based on more modern conflicts.
The best you can hope for is that the game sparks an interest in WW1 with people who would otherwise remain ignorant of it.
Please stop making these threads every day.
>So why aren't they pandering to the french?
Nobody plays Battlefield for the single player content.
>historical accuracy can make a difference in how one enjoys a product. there's only so much deviation from actual events I can take before I can no longer get into something.
You're a minority then. Realistic war games have been tried before and they never attract the kind of numbers a company like Dice/EA would need to justify its production. Crowd funding is probably the only way such a game would be made.
>Crowd funding is probably the only way such a game would be made.
> A ww2 game features Russians with American weapons, the Japanese using German weapons, 1/4 of all all Allied troops having bazookas, one person can drive a tank all by themselves and JETPACKS
> No one cares
> A ww1 game in the same franchise have black germans, assault rifles, and don't have any content covering France
> "Whoa man that's just a little bit too unrealistic"
They won't, I've had to repeat this myself and it does nothing. Nobody paid any attention. Their intention is to shitpost.
Though on a lighter note, why don't we speculate some historically accurate game play mechanics for funsies. Instead of griping about muh black involvement, we can chat about why they're accurate and if they'd make enjoyable play.
How can you make trench warfare fun? Anyone here try Ace of Spades back before it went to shit?
Well what do you expect from this or any other shithole
A few years back Battlefield fanboys were caling out CoD fanboys on how inaccurate their game is. Oh how the tables have turned.
Do you know Paradox Interactive? They make historicaly accurate complex stretegies like eu4 or ck2
>historicaly accurate
>Nobody plays Battlefield for the single player content.
What does that have to do with not including the fucking french in a game about WW1?
They even have french tanks for fucks sake.
...
>A few years back Battlefield fanboys were caling out CoD fanboys on how inaccurate their game is.
It gets even funnier when one of the main praises of the original CoD was how historically accurate it was, compared to BF1942 and MoH.
Its all circles and shit
RIP Medal of Honor
>Australian Aboriginals made up 0.2% of Australian Forces (0.1% of ANZAC forces)
>They're featured in Battlefield 1
Why not just stick a big sticker on the game cover declaring that the entire point of the game is to shove minorities into every army? The only acceptable minorities you can put in a WW1 game is Indians and Arabs
Hard to compare PC strategy games to the console-bro action FPS genre, the market is ten times as big.
Aside from weapon loadouts and map objectives, the factions aren't all that significant in BF multiplayer.
I actually thought the main character being from the Harlem Hellfighters was a smart choice. The unit was assigned to the French army as part of the French 16th Division. They wore French helmets, and fought with French weapons. You get to pander to an American audience with an American character while seeing a more authentic view of WW1 by fighting with the French.
>Aside from weapon loadouts and map objectives, the factions aren't all that significant in BF multiplayer.
This makes it even more mindboggling why they wouldn't make them the actual major players instead of shit like fucking Italy.
I honestly don't care about most of what people are bitching about. After all, they have to make it fun for people,and they don't want to alienate low-attention-span kids. I get that. But what pisses me off to no end is the "black Germans". That's just going too fucking far. That's not gameplay, that's pushing some bull-shit anti-white agenda, and I'll have none of it.
>Not wanting to play Lettow-Vorbeck's East Africa Campaign and hold remain undefeated against 20 to 1 odds
He became great friends with the British officers he fought after the war. Truly a gentleman.
It's a video game, video games make cheap thrillers look like literature. It's like the 300 of WWI.
Reminder to be a kind soul and sign this petition.
Jan Smuts fed his former enemy. It's beautiful.
>IT'S A VIDEO GAEM IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ACCURATE
No, it doesn't, but they could try to make it more like WW1 than simply a reskin of BF4. They're not even attempting to.
I'm with this guy.
>who cares if this game isn't accurate
Are people this bereft of knowledge of how youngsters are influenced by the media? For many an American, this'll be the only exposure that'll ever open to WW1, and I don't count on living in a world where Americans have to berate over me the fact that "erm France did nothing in the war, and actually black Americans and women had to save them" just because a videogame told them so.
Et merde quoi.
i don't know anything about the game and about how the "black german" thing is implemented but there definitely were africans fighting for Germany in WW1
>Are people this bereft of knowledge of how youngsters are influenced by the media? For many an American, this'll be the only exposure that'll ever open to WW1
Idk. I played Finest Hour as a kid and all that did was get me extremely interested in WW2 to go out of my way to read and watch about it. I was intelligent enough at the age of 10-11 to distinguish a video game a reality. Dude every orher day theres a "what video game got you into history" thread and half the posters laugh at the inaccuracies in the games. Maybe in your country or state people are retarded enough to think this is an accurate depiction of history and not a video game.
"For Germany" is a world away from "in Germany".
Similar to how people conflate "African troops fighting for France" with "African troops fighting in France".
>It's a game so it's supposed to be shit!
The fact is for an entire generation, this will be the only thing they know WW1 by.
We know that and I think it has already pointed out. The problem is "afro-germans" being depicted on the western front.
I don't think anyone would complain fighting with the based Askari in Eastern Africa, but having every second German being a colonial on the western front is retarded, and panders to afrocentrists.
There were French African troops in France.
Its the German Askaris who were stuck in Africa with Vorbeck.
>yfw you'll never get to play as Eugene Bullard or experience his career
>yfw you'll never get to play as Willy Coppens and removing Kraut by destroying a balloon meant to kill you
>yfw you'll never be an Askari under von Lettow-Vorbeck or a British soldier under Jan Smuts
>yfw you'll never be a pilot on board the HMS Furious sortieing against Kraut Zepplins
Fucking DICE, you could have made a beautiful WW1 game.
>Maybe in your country or state people are retarded enough to think this is an accurate depiction of history and not a video game.
Probably not in my country, because it's hammered incessantly into our brains how much we suffered throughout WW1, but in other countries where children won't be as insightful as to what occurred in WW1 since there might not be such heavy focus on that era, I don't think it's impossible either that those kids will extract their entire knowledge of WW1 from this game.
I mean, polls will tell you that 49% of Americans think they were the nation most responsible for vanquishing germans in WW1. This is the extent of their knowledge of WW1, so why would it inconceivable that they'll eat up what this game tells them, without filtering out the game's lies if they don't know any better.
No, they won't think that, because if a videogame is their only explosure to WW1 they clearly don't give a single fuck about the war nor will they bother taking part in conversations about the war and will have forgotten about WW1 as soon as the next CoD game is released.
Do you think Saving Private Ryan was harmful for kids as well since it was a WW2 movie that only bothered to show the western front, or is that another war American kids aren't taught?
What I'm interested in finding out is will the Ottomans become the #1 multiplayer shitter squad.
historicalfirearms.info
Those numbers have been vastly exaggerated, although it is true that some were disseminated across the front, but most Senegalese fighters were stationed in the colonies, especially since french colonies bordered german Cameroon and Togoland.
I mean, how would it even be conceivable that the french navy dispatch those 170,000 troops to France, when you see the hassle it was for even americans to bring their 100,000 troops to France.
Also, for the 170,000 algerian troops, those were mostly ethnic frenchman (pieds-noirs) though we somehow minimize that they were mostly french troops, because we have to be excessively nice and kind to Algeria these days, to compensate for our cruelty as colonial masters apparently.
>only 64 players
Time to go back to Warband
>when you see the hassle it was for even americans to bring their 100,000 troops to France.
???
they shipped thousands of soldiers daily
there was about a million americans in france halfway through 1918
and about two million by the end of the war
You do realise Verdun exists? An authentic, accurate WW1 game with back and forth trench warfare.
This is me looking through binoculars at the enemy trench, those players have set up an MG nest so i called a mortar strike on it.
>He fell for the Johan "Believable Worlds" Anderson meme
Sure, but France's navy didn't have that similar luxury of navigating where they so pleased, especially in the hell they were suffering where shipping armament from the United States was privileged much further than shipping colonial troops over.
Besides, France's navy in WW1 was mainly confined to the Mediterranean, as had been asserted in the agreement with Britain wherein it was chosen that the Royal Navy would safeguard the waters of the North Sea and the Atlantic while France would engage Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman ships in the Mediterranean. So I don't really see how they could've spared too many ships to journey to and fro from Senegal to Ypres.
As I've said, the accounts of colonial troops were vastly exaggerated later on for us to distinguish ourselves as the good democratic power that was nice to blacks (etc...) while Germany had been tyrannical and racist for not employing African troops.
France lost, Anglos won. And the Anglos decided to use their power to erase France from history.
France will be forgotten. Get over it.
To be fair, we triumph either way.
France wins, we win.
Our spiritual son, England wins, we win.
There's no way for the Anglo to escape this and it will plague him till the end of days :^).
>WW1
>France lost
/his :DD:D:DD
lol nobody considers England France's son. England's French past has already been erased and forgotten long ago.
I mean France lost the culture war, the only war that matters in the end.
Which means it might as well have lost WW1, just like it lost every other war ever (lol surrender monkeys), since that's how it will be remembered.
You sure?
Spoken like a true upstart rebellious child.
Don't you fret England. For every bruise Scotland inflicts on you, you can come back to cuddle against your papa, which happens to be us.
How does it feel to share the same status that Quebec has in being our offspring too? D'you like being on their level?
What's that, some Latin shit or whatever that nobody even reads?
But yeah they should probably change that, I'm guessing it will happen eventually.
There's also "Honi soit qui mal y pense" which remains their mascot hah!
England didn't win the culture war either, it probably lost harder than anyone on the count being English-speaking opens it up to unrestrained floods of American culture.
>Our spiritual son, England wins, we win.
Er no
Yeah, when the monarchy is abolished and France's final victory over Anglo perfidery is cemented.
I know Verdun exists.
I just want to play as a balloon buster or removing zepplins from a WW1 aircraft carrier. Is that so much to ask?
See history has been rewritten so hard that even though you may be right about England being a former French colony, when you point it out you just sound like a pathetically delusional pompous frenchie, and 99.9% of the world would mock you for talking such obvious pretentious nonsense.
>1830
>against the monarchy
Wew copain.
And? The fact remains that the world speaks English, that American culture is strongly influenced by English culture (in particular in its attitude towards France), and that even England enjoys disproportionate cultural influence thanks to its language dominating the world.
Just look at how England and America alike portray history. Everything up to American independence, from the Middle Ages to colonialism, is all about England. After that, through the 19th century and the world wars until today, it's shared between England and America. France? lol, just that worthless comic relief character at best.
We french care only for what God knows of us, and could hardly be bothered that petty humans squiny at us.
And God knows the objective truth there is in history, so in being the world's most relevant country for 400 years, we will have convinced him to model Heaven after France. Hope you're not too surprised when you die and you realize that Heaven is merely a perfected France!
But otherwise, you're right. The perfidious Albion is such a cunning one.
Republicanism is attributed to America, not France.
>having to console yourself with fairy tales
So sad.
The radicals were against the monarchy, but like always middle-class plebs had to compromise.
Ayyyy middle class pride!
Love being average!
Yes, American culture features England. But ultimately? It's all about the USA.
No one gives a fuck about Brits when it comes to any war they and America were in. Like WW2, or WW1.
>England enjoys disproportionate cultural influence thanks to its language dominating the world.
It enjoys access to the Anglophone world. But ultimately this just amounts to teenage SJW's watching Doctor Who whilst US culture absolutely blows Bonglanders out of the water in the Anglophone world.
It's true! I swear!
Oh but wait. You'll not ever lay eyes on Heaven for me to prove to that, since God will sentence you to purgatory for following a religion litterally invented by a fat man that needed to get his dick wet by another women.
So sad. There'll be no Englishmen in sight to banter with in Heaven.
But the greatest republican in history was French.
This kills the Vendéen royaliste.
>Being Catholic
>Being Christian
>Being religious
The whole world watches things like Downton Abbey, learning to know and love early 20th century English culture and society (complete with yet another example of WW1 portrayed from the British perspective btw). What does anyone know about France? Nothing beyond what Anglos deign to put in their own cultural productions, and which is usually just mockery.
And why does it matter why Americans do it? The fact is they still portray everything from the English perspective. England will be remembered as the greatest nation of the past thousand years, as the very embodiment of Western civilisation, right up until America comes to take its place.
Nobody knows who that is. But everybody knows George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin etc.
>Downton Abbey
Literally who?
> learning to know and love early 20th century English culture and society
Nigga I couldn't tell you shit about Britain in the 21st century.
>What does anyone know about France?
That it's awesome and full of sexy people.
>The fact is they still portray everything from the English perspective
Think you mean an American perspective.
What amazes me though, is that despite the mockery that Britain afflicts on France with every opportunity they have, the world still deludes itself that France is the country of culture, refinement, luxury, litterature, cuisine, architecture, fashion, and art.
You can't expect to stump with one decade's worth of french bashing the amazement it once had for France, and for this to completely shut-down that entire generations have been insidiously taught to associate France with intellectuality.
I mean, there's a reason that people still converse in french rather than english to portray themselves as erudite.
In time you might stump us Albion, but for now, I'd say that were still on equal terms.
Don't worry about it though. Our Muslims are sure to drain France's reputation down the shitter.
As American separatists. Not as republicans that wanted to end monarchy in the UK.
the amazement the world once had*
How Western nations will be remembered:
- The heroes of history:
Britain and America, as father and son
- The badass villains:
Germany and Russia
- Honourable mentions:
Italy for art, food, and culture, and Spain/Portugal for having left their mark on Latin America
- Other countries that will be remembered for having contributed to building America as immigrant communities, bringing their cultures and traditions with them:
Ireland, Poland, Norway, Scotland, Greece... pretty much everyone except France to be honest
- The irrelevant comic relief surrender monkey
lolfrance
My ancestors died for this. Heh.
Anyone know of painless suicide methods?
>Britain and America, as father and son
The future will be made up of Hetalia LARPers. Who would have guessed?
> The irrelevant comic relief surrender monkey
Why France produce so much butt pain in anglo-saxons?
They are very ashamed of French conquest and total corruption of their language. As well as their inability to ever beat France at anything.
This delusion.
Admittedly this may have been the original motivation for France-bashing, but by now the revisionism has worked so well that nobody remembers any of that, whether Anglo or not Anglo. France is now that faggy pretentious country that always hoped to equal Anglo awesomeness, but pathetically failed every time.
Don't forget that Russian's aren't playable either.
You know, "progressive" Bioware should really worry about another Savior Americans game
>Anglo awesomeness
> Anglo awesomeness
Between Germany, England and France, France is the most relevant one today. Nice to meme of your glorified empires of the past while being the nothing today guys.
Oh wow, are you serious?
England has cultural relevance, and Germany rules the EU and has the most economic relevance. France is a joke, a German/American colony and nothing more.
>Cultural relevance
This is news to me.
>France is a joke
France is the shit.
I expected that pic to be a normal scene in France.
>He plays games that aren't historic GSG
Leave England alone!
>They make historicaly accurate complex stretegies like eu4 or ck2
>American culture is strongly influenced by English culture (in particular in its attitude towards France)
Hmmm nope
British culture used to respect the French as much as it hated them
Mocking and despising them is purely American, but Brits have been so heavily exposed to American culture these last 60 years they eventually came to believe it was their own
There are no black Germans on the western front in the game. You are making assumptions.
Literally this. Getting upset over shit like this is like getting upset over Tonka toy trucks because they don't accurately represent the engineering of a proper truck.
It's Fucking pathetic.
You don't see how some people might be upset about France being completely erased from popular historical perception?
Stop crying about France ffs. They're obviously going to include them in a DLC and they just did it to make history fanatics like you more likely of buying it because the fact it's not included triggers you all so much.
>HURR ACCURATE GAMES CAN NEVER BE FUN
Have you ever played RO2 or Verdun? Even if the latter suffered from a low budget it had huge potential and the former is still a great and successful game. This stupid meme that games cannot in any way be accurate or else no one will buy them needs to die.
As a french myself, what bothers me really more than anything is that I'll be not excluded from this, by the looks of it, "hellah whacky 'WW1' game", but rather that it's a missed opportunity to dispel this "french cowardly" stereotype implanted in american minds.
Instead, we're treated to a game that will perpetuate this conception of the frenchman as some cowering soldier eagerly heaving his duties on the backs of other countries, and now we'll be afflicted with the pangs of anti-frenchman on two fronts: both by being insulted for our surrender in WW2, and our behavior in WW1 which children having been entertained by this game will regard as equally shameful, when that conflict actually has us exacting our military tradition in its best possible form.