The black solders should of been the hellfighters only. Black Germans is just as stupid looking as having women running around with MG15’s or with sentry kits on.
I tried following several of DICE’s staff on twitter and all they do is fill my feed with a bunch of feminist garbage. I am actually very surprised female soldiers weren’t included to be honest. Although I guess they made up for that with the amount of blacks they put in the game. Very progressive of them to change the historical racial demographics of a nation 100 years ago to adhere to a diversity agenda from THE CURRENT YEAR.
I will be shocked if the Japanese scout class in BF1944 isn’t a transsexual african.
I’m calling it now in fact, because if DICE can even find ONE example of a trans soldier in WW2, half of the game’s characters will be transsexuals.
Yes I have extensively studied WW1 and given your failure to post any immediate evidence to just shut me down, you know I’m right. Black Africans did not serve where they are portrayed in the game, they were barely even tolerated in civilian life as regular citizens at that point and certainly did not hold rank in the military especially the coveted cavalry ranks of the aristocracy.
Blacks DID serve in the African theatres, as Askari, meaning native troops, were mostly illiterate savages given ad hoc uniforms, considered untrustworthy, were only able to be controlled by certain very tough and merciless officers, had to be restrained from ¯_(ツ)_/¯/burning everything in sight, held no appreciable rank and were mostly used as cannon fodder.
This isn’t racist to state, it’s simply historical fact based on reams and reams of photographic and written first-hand evidence.
What IS racist, is following a political agenda to alter known proven history in favour of one group.
Times change and we now have competent black generals in many national militaries. To alter the history of their peoples rise in social station over the last couple hundred years, detracts from and massively devalues the huge leaps in competence and ability that they have made in such a short time.
You have to remember, for many kids, this game will be their sole lesson of WW1s history. There is a responsibility on the part of the company that produces it to make clear where the realism ends and artistic license “albeit with an agenda” takes over.
Has DICE spoken definitively on this point at all ? Why did they make such a design decision ? Who benefits ?
I can see that every point you make has been deliberately skewed to deny the importance of anyone black in the war. You try to portray blacks as nothing more than savages. That is worrying, because there is indeed evidence to the contrary, and if you have looked into it as much as you say you have, then you are leaving that out on purpose because of your own agenda. I could argue, but I think you are just a racist so I’m not going to.
Because it’s a Battlefield game set in WW1, they do their research well, but as a representation of the War, it’s most definitely not and nor should it be.
Do you and GoldenWrench57 seriously mean that the war in the trenches played “a negligible part”?
Would you then be so kind to enlighten us all what really played a great role during WW1?
I’m really looking forward to hear your answer, based on your obviously well known facts from all the documentaries you watched…
WW1 was mainly soldiers with bolt action rifles (with iron sights) going over the top of their own trenches, and walking towards the enemy trench. There were some tanks, going at walking speed and providing moving cover for advancing troops.
None of this happens in BF1. What we have is a simplified Battlefield game with weapons based on what was theoretically available at the time.
Previous Battlefield games weren’t realistic with regards to weapons either. Soldiers of today (just like any time in history) don’t get to choose from a vast array of available weapons. They get standard issue stuff, like it or lump it.
Anyway, do we really want BF1 to be realistic? Sitting in a freezing cold trench, starving hungry, suffering from dysentry and trench foot, waiting to go over the top, only to die? No thanks, I’ll have BF1 as it is thanks.
Like I said earlier, I think you have to judge by what is possible in an FPS game that has to be entertaining and fun to play. In those terms, I think they have done very well in terms of realism. When a landship that looks exactly like the real landships rolls past you, when the uniforms are accurate, when a plane flys overhead that is accurate, when you pull out a Hellreigel that looks exactly like the gun they were working on at the end of the war … there are so many touches of realism. Think they have gone as far as they could in realism terms within the limitations of a video game. If they had put in neon pink Main Battle Tanks and Stealth Jets it would be a different matter, but I give them a lot of credit for how hard they’ve tried.
You must have your head stuck up Sindari’s ¯_(ツ)_/¯, and vice versa.
I’ve studied tons of material about The Great War, books included. I’m pretty damn confident that I know more about the war then you, based on such ridiculous statements…
You can’t possible have that opinion and not be willing to elaborate further. Nobody’s saying that the war in the trenches was everything that The Great War was really about, but calling it a negligble part is just plain stupid and an insult to everyone who fought and died in the trenches.
Tanks going 15mph and can drive for hours when in reality they went about 3mph and broke down every 50 yards at the first sign on mud. And planes that can survive 500 bullets from the ground and still fly, even though they were made of wood hmmm sounds legit. Plus they can drop about 10 grenades at once, they are better than planes in BF4.
…