Lets get a discussion going about the influence of popular media on the perception of history...

So there is a canyon between those who who feel obligated to upholding the memory and achievements of their ancestors and traditions, and the liberal-minded masses who, though honestly in the believe that they are being good people, unknowingly push an agenda that consumes their native culture. How do we bridge it, when they always claim racism or intollerance?

Dont feel bad man, its natural that history lessons center on the (perception of) history of the state in which they are taught, its similar in europe. Though I would like to add that in the case of germany it teaches hate of ones historical inheritance.

obviously

>Video game depicting a horrifying trench based war of attrition as a series of fast paced commando style battles with submachine guns, 20mph tanks and bullet proof steel armour suits
>No one cares

>Video game also has a number of black men fighting for the western armies
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Grow the fuck up you literal children

>...DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR

it seems kind of wrong to me, for lack of a better term, that modern Germans are to some degree made to feel guilty about their identity and view their state historically with so much scorn. I've never really understood that. of course they should learn about the atrocities of the past and realize how horrible such periods were, but they shouldn't be taught to feel shame and hatred of their own country just because grandaddy was complicit (or more) in offing the Jews.

then again, I'm a burger, so I don't know how much of this phenomenon I see is actually institutionalized. any Germanons care to weigh in?

>battlefield game plays like a battlefield game
>the eternal swede putting niggers and poos in a war where millions of white Europeans fought and died in

What are you talking about. No one teaches kids to hate themselfs, if anything they are taught to realize that this deplorable stuff happened in the past and they are not the ones responsible for it, but should never forget it and learn through it. Something every country should adpot from the germans.

I'm tired of hearing about Indian soldiers in Europe

>mu 22 gorrillions

>getting mad over a video game with not that much historical accuracy

>getting mad at a game which has more white people in its campaign

>getting mad at a game because waahhh blacks are in muh multiplayer, muh historical accuracy

These are only casualties though. In another of the billion battlefield threads we've had some user posted how there were actually plenty of conscripts from colonies (especially on the british side)

ofcourse, they were oddly enough not used as front line cannon fodder so I still agree with you

>getting mad at poo in loos in BF1

There were tons of British Indian troops on the Western Front.

>Studies show ignorance to be more effective on the battlefield than the British empire.

Those issues have also been complained about, so... you're wrong.

Even if they were accepted, they constitute gameplay-improving choices.

Black marksmen in the German western front is just wrong and adds nothing.

I would be all for a German East Africa map with black soldiers, for the record.

Noticed, did you?

Great post. Keep us updated.

This. If they placed the nignogs and poo in loos where they make sense and added France, no one would have batted an eye

Why can't you faggots ever complain about the host of other historical inaccuracies besides niggers? It's obvious that it isn't historical inaccuracy that triggers you, but niggers (and wimminz) because you have some sort of SJW persecution complex and complain about these issues 10 to 1 versus other historical inaccuracies.

Wait for russian army in DLC, if they add there blacks too...

I hate playing the austro-hungarian empire or the germans because of the blacks...

Don't be fucking absurd.

...For Russia, they'll use Latina assaultwomen.

No. It's because the race thing is the most historically incorrect out of all of them.

my gripe is that it will miseducate people.

No one knows anything about WW1 but now they will all know that 3/4 british soldiers were non white

GamesBeat: You’re talking about revealing sides of the war that people don’t necessarily know about. A lot of people have made note of the fact that your cover character is black, even though obviously black people fought in World War One. For you guys, was that a conscious decision, an opportunity to show that there was more breadth to this war than people know about?

Berlin: That’s the thing. People don’t know that this was the case. We want to show diversity in the game. That’s been a key goal. You can see in the trailer that there’s a Bedouin woman warrior on a horse. She’s a playable character in the single-player campaign.

I don't worry for the poor white British , the BF1 campaign sucks their dick more than enough
French and Russians on the other hand...

russian dlc confirmed today

The DLC have no campaign
France and Russia will have two crappy multiplayer maps that 30% of players will buy while Brits were sucked during the entire campaign

>The DLC have no campaign
Who cares? The entire campaign is like 3 hours long, you can stop bitching about the British focus because it lasts about 45 minutes.

Also there are hardly any blacks in the single player, the only blacks in the SP are the Americans.

Meanwhile the MP is designed as a "all things World War 1" thing, and the colonial empire had blacks which they did use on the home front or colonial front.

But the brits did use poos

Horse. Shit. That is a goddamn rotten lie and you fucking know it. You fucks were complaining about "NIGGERS IN MY WHITE WORLD WAR ONE" from the day the fucking game was announced, before anyone knew anything about the game more than it was a WW1 game.

Furthermore
>Poo in loos where they make sense
The British used the Indian Army in massive numbers in France and Belgium. You fucks STILL complained about how it "wasn't historically accurate" and how it was "diminishing the white contribution" of the war.

Go shove your racebaiting antics right up your ass.

Of the 130,000 Indians who served in France and Belgium, almost 9,000 died.[16]
> massive numbers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I

Funny how you ignore the part about the nigs. Please tell me how many negroes the German empire deployed on the western front

>leaving out the war in the Ottoman Empire
>"over one million Indian troops served overseas"

>game is literal race baiting propganda
>call those who point this out "race baitors"

really made me think

now fuck off back to leftypol you marxist cuck

It adds nothing, but does it take anything away?

Because these are the most obvious ones you retard.

If a guy with half his face chewed off showed up at a hospital that's where they're going to start, they're not going to be screening him for prostate cancer

>a black guy being the character model for a class in a multiplayer mode
>this is the most inauthentic thing in a game where WW1 warfare consists of two huge mobs of guys just contantly zerging at each other all equipped with machineguns and semi auto rifles that they spray everywhere, while tanks race all over the land and mother fucking zepplins hover over the battlefield like a AC130 shelling everything that moves

>France

They aren't even in BF1.

Blacks and Indians on the Brit side makes sense, but there is no excuse for a black german soldier. Its just totally historically inaccurate and silly that they would go to the trouble to include it. Maybe if there were african campaign in the game, but there aren't...

It's to be expected. We all know Battlefield 1 won't be representative of WWI, just as we know normies are stupid and will inevitably ruin everything.

the black Austro-Hungarians is what really gets me. correct me if I'm wrong, but there's just no basis AT ALL for it afaik

I think anyone can see this is just selective outrage of the political type. There's a shitload of things that are not historically accurate in the game, italian Iron man comes to mind, yet the "apolitical" types rally around muh race.

But people ARE also mad about the other historical innacuracies present in the game, you are just choosing to get selectively outraged about the outrage over race because it makes you uncomfortable.

The whole game is a fucking joke, but the racial pandering is the one issue that has NO reasonable explanation other than to pander to blacks.

Based on the history of FPS games taking place in world wars, I don't think many people expected DICE to not take some liberties in regards to weapons. Having 90% of troops use bolt action rifles can work on the PC since its much easier to aim and track targets. Because BF1 is on console it is unreasonable to expect there to not be an abundance of weaponry that is forgiving for controller users' often imprecise spraying. To make the player loadout as historically accurate as possible would hurt console sales and reviews because it would be too hard.

My god you love your sowing circles of this crap op. There are countless threads of this topic on so many boards. It's a video game so who gives a fuck. If you are worried about your kids then teach them what's right in historical perspectives and not to buy in to mass media projections from the entertainment industry.

Why is pandering to blacks worse than pandering to ADHD shithead teenagers, which is what the entirely of the game other than one multiplayer skin for one team, is about?

>people ARE getting mad at the other

Where are the videos of apolitical folks being outraged at the other historical inaccuracies, or the constant threads of mere historical interests complaining about those inaccuracies? I haven't seen them anywhere, or is it just a very specific section of the political spectrum that has a problem with it?

And what exactly is so outrageous about the fact that there's a very small part of the campaign centered around an unit comprised of nigs? Is it somehow harmful and disrespectful to showcase them even tho they did exist? Is it white genocide to include blacks in a conflict that is 99% of time portrayed as full European? Will this game turn the tide of several decades of books, movies, comics? Will it poison the mind of the youth and turn them into the degeneracy of craving the BBC?

Indians for the British are fine, if overrepresented, same if the French had a class locked to a colonial soldier.

Black soldiers for both Germany and the UK is ridiculous though.

>Those issues have also been complained about
Nowhere near as much as this whole black soldiers scandal has been complained about though to be fair.

Eat shit shartlander.
The poos contributed more to the war in terms of manpower than america.

>indians serve in the western front in significant numbers
>including them means that white sacrifices are being mocked.

I understand the Swedes over at Dice wanted their pet niggers in their games, but did they really have to mutilate WW1 so much? Black Germans on the Western Front, France somehow not even existing despite at least a third of the game taking place in France?

If they really wanted to have black characters, why not make it make sense? Focus on the African theater, a theater that's almost entirely unknown... and almost entirely black.

>Start out playing as a Senegalese Tirailleur
>Fight in Togo and Cameroon
>Some mission where you're fighting Germans in Namibia because somehow you're a bad enough dude to fight alongside British Africans
>A few missions in continental France because after the African Theater was settled, many Tirailleurs were transfered to the trenches in France
There you go, you play a black guy 100% of the way and it's historically accurate.

This is cool too. You'd have various classes that are all white, except for the "colonial troop" class (which would be lightly equiped but highly mobile or something).

Yeah, the fact trench warfare is nowhere to be seen and France and Russia are not involved at all in the game so far is way less important than EA letting you choose the race of your soldier.

>the black Austro-Hungarians is what really gets me.
There aren't any, they are all Europeans.

What gets me is the Black Germans and Black Brits but all Turkish Ottomans, its clearly intentional because if there was to be blacks it would be on the Ottomans who had blacks knocking around for centuries.
such as
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kizlar_Agha

How it goes down with my friends that do play battlefield games still
>get on battlefield and play for like 1hr and half or 2
>smoke weed and eat while they play
>get bored and go fuck their girlfriends
>then they move on with their lives because it's just a video game that's taken as leisure time from their lives
Wow what a surprise

France expansion was confirmed yesterday alongside the Russian one.

I'd say all the things you stated are all equally evidence of Dice wanting to push a certain narrative: a narrative towards an international (read: American) audience that pushes the globalized/American value of multicultural diversity. If it means cutting out the single most important combatant on the Western Front in favor of black people, so be it.

Verdun, though not flawless, is a better WW1 game in every way imaginable. In part because it somewhat accurately captures the feel of trench warfare without feeling boring, in part because France is actually the main focus instead of being shoved aside because lol surrender monkeys amirite it's not like they ever fought a real war.

How generous of Dice, they're now giving us the privilege to pay extra money to play as one of WW1's primary combatants.

America would make more sense as a DLC country (and even then I'd consider this unacceptable "sell the game in bitesized pieces" bullshit) but that wouldn't fall well with the cowadoody Amerilards that are their main target audience.

Well without the Americans the Russians would have no caability to wage war as they did.
Inb4 vatnik says it's a lie.

DLC is fine, all games do DLC, it prolongs the life of a game, it's not even called DLC its called expansion and its been around since 2000. It lets the devs add content they didnt have time to develop first.

But yeah France should be in from the start, USA should be a later expansion.

>They are not taught to hate themselves
Haha
Hahahaha

>Learn from germany
HAHAHAHAH

>the usa supplied russia with humans for their human wave tactics
Russia would have waged war the exact same way they did, there would just be more dead Russians fighting over who gets to carry the gun

Anyone else glad they made the Germans black too? I was afraid they would push the narrative of BRAVE BLACK FIGHTEN' DEM EVIL NAZI GERMAN WHITIES

>Human wave tactics
Hello pop history faggot.
Your post and subsequent ones go into the

Unfortunately Senegalese Tirailleur are not african american so they don't matter.

It's so the current population of Germany can identify with the characters.
We wuz kaisers and sheit.

Blacks have been irrelevant for all of human existence, the only reason behind black relevance today is due to whites mindlessly helping human beings they oppressed which is a dumb idea because vengeance is a hard thing to let go,without whites blacks wouldnt be shit. Thus blacks should be represented in media because they have no objective value to history.

>It lets the devs add content they didnt have time to develop first.
Of course. It's not like developers would ever delay crucial game elements and sell them as DLC later on! That'd be ridiculous!

Even the Harlem Hellfighters, which are pushed so much to the foreground by Dice, fought under French command and even wore the French style Adrien helmets rather than the Brody-copies the Americans used. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a best-selling game?

You have no clue what you're talking about.
As a German that took the Leistungskurs in history in a a humanist and later a natural scientific G9 Gymnasium, I couldn't disagree more that we are taught "to hate our historical inheritance".
In the first place, you non-Germans vastly overestimate how much of our curriculum is even about WW2 and the Nazi period. Out of my 13 years in basic education, only 0,75 years were explicitly about the Nazi period. Historical education has far more of a focus on everything leading up to and the effects of the revolutions of 1848/49. The German literature classes, by analyzing works like Der Prozess (The Trial) or Michael Kohlhaas, are probably more critical in that regard than the history classes, but the self-proclaimed goal of German education is to teach the process of critical thinking, not the conclusions.
Of course, I can only speak for my state and school type, though, but I haven't heard otherwise so far.

You have no clue what you're talking about.
As a Nazi that took the Leistungskurs in history in a a humanist and later a natural scientific G9 Gymnasium, I couldn't disagree more that we are taught "to hate our historical enemies the jews".
In the first place, you non-Nazis vastly overestimate how much of our curriculum is even about WW1 and the Weimar period. Out of my 13 years in basic education, only 0,75 years were explicitly about the Weimar period. Historical education has far more of a focus on everything leading up to and the effects of the revolutions of 1848/49. The German literature classes, by analyzing works like Mein Kampf(My Struggle) or Martin Heidegger, are probably more critical in that regard than the history classes, but the self-proclaimed goal of German education is to teach the process of critical thinking, not the conclusions.
Of course, I can only speak for my state and school type, though, but I haven't heard otherwise so far.

>on the home front
Nope. And certainly not in mixed units nor with the same uniforms.

I'm german too and we had the nazi topic in every year going over various subjects such as history, german (language), art and religion.

One of my history teachers actually let us read passages of Mein Kampf in class. It's probably the most anti-fascist move you can do, if you use a commented work that puts his claims into context and have an open mind.
Even for neo-nazis Mein Kampf is of too low literary quality to actually read, and not just have it in the bookshelf as a symbol.

>The most antifascist thing
Explain that to "antifascists" (correction, people who claim to be that are often just cryptofascists, my bad) then.

Quintessentially bro tier.

I was checking the videos about game which are going like "Everything wrong with Battlefield 1", "Angry review of Battlefield 1" and such things. And NONE of them even mentioned blacks being the cover of the game. This is just sad at this point. Memey youtubers that say fuck you to everything can't tell a word about blacks being ridiculously overpresented in a period they hardly had any part.

but then again basically all ww1 media up to this point only showed that white people sacrificed life and health in the trenches, which is historically inaccurate

9.000 indians died in the western front out of 744.000 british deaths in the field.
1 in 4 british soldiers is indian in the game, while 2 out of 4 are blacks.
You should be ashamed of defending this shit.

what a stupid dichotomy

>The only faction to actually try and ship africans to fight in europe was Italy but they all died of pneumonia.
Why wasn't this in game?

In Paradox Defense, you would wait for years to play CK2 if the base game included all the DLC.

Half of the DLC is downright useless. Some are understandable, but releasing a game called CRUSADER Kings where the Muslim factions aren't playable from day 1 is retarded (and let's not forget that Islam is still broken, to the point where Paradox gave up on fixing it). Then there's Rajas of India, which is entirely useless and was just made for the sake of selling another DLC, same as Sunset Invasion. And all the "Songs of X", "X Portraits" etc. packs are redundant. There's not a single reason not to have those included with the "main" DLC they accompany.

Paradox is the single best example of heinous DLC practices. Same with their new game Hearts of Iron 4, which was released with only 9 countries having unique focus trees. And let's not forget that in the game as it was upon release (and still is right now) tanks are entirely useless and infantry + artillery is all you need to win the game as far as land warfare goes. Let me repeat that: the outdated strategy that is responsible for France's loss is the best strategy, and the strategy that revolutionized warfare in that era is downright useless.

Paradox is the future of gaming: sell a broken, incomplete game on launch and make people pay even more for a complete, semi-functional game.

I'd be much happier if CK2 had a much more limited scope but focused on making what they did really good. And I don't care if it takes longer, many game companies (that actually care about the quality of their product) routinely delay the release of their games to fix bugs or add new features.

just looked up the character models for A-H, probably mistook the assault class as black due to the shadow of his helmet and face shroud. but yeah, the Ottomans being one of the whitest-looking factions gets me every time

why the fuck are there even black people in the game?
where were all the black men in ww2 games??

Blacks were not an element of Ottoman Army. Memes apart army was predominantly Turkish in Ottomans, regardless from the proportion of population. Only in the late period they started to conscript other ethnicities. Yet again it is easy to say that, there were more non-muslims, than Blacks in Ottoman Army.

Yeah but if you're going to shoehorn blacks into WW1 it would be the Ottoman theatre that suits them best. It certainly wouldn't look so out of place.

It's so obvious that the German is black just to make a point.

Angry review of Battlefield 1 isn't an "Angry" review its a review by AngryJoe, he is actually quite positive about the game but points out its flaws. He won't mention the blacks because thats just going to cause a major shitstorm for any big youtuber.

German exchange students told us they did the Nazis for one term every year and that you all have a mandatory trip to Auschwitz.

Maybe you just got lucky

The French might have, but not the Germans. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck did lots of amazing things,but transporting askaris to Europe was beyond even him.

What's Italian iron man?