Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
XRobinson

Historical accuracy in war games

Recommended Posts

I just read how moderators of BFV forums are saying enough is enough on historical accuracy in their game, because of depiction of women in game now.  Well, how important is it for war games to be accurate to history?  I think they should be to large extent because rewriting history to accommodate politics now or in future is rewriting history isn't it?  And rewriting history is just plain wrong.  Tyrant s like Hitler tried to erase the past and insert a more pleasing narrative.  Why do we need to do these things?  Just asking to see what others think....what do you think? Am I allowed to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For and against.

Clearly the biggest reason I'm against the idea of being historically inaccurate is those that don't particularly know the history but are playing a game will think that's how it was.

Stupid stuff like the newer WWII Call of Duty where Kar98 rifles have trench mags or Germans were using aircraft mounted MGs instead of MG34 or MG42.

 

I'm trying to think of any reason to say I'm for it other than just making it interesting enough to be a game.

I think Red Orchestra 2 is the best adaptation of a WWII game (at least until Post Scriptum gets farther along in development) for fun and historically accurate.

 

If you're going to go so far as how bad the new Battlefield is, don't pretend it's based off of WWII, just make them completely different. I don't want some bullshit halfassed "WWII like" game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can agree with that view.  It just seems whoever gets in power always wants to change the past so they can control the present and future.  Mold people's views and attitudes according to their view and ignoring facts.  Although one could argue history is largely fictional anyway in that the victors get to write what the facts were even if its not entirely true.  Yes women did fight but not as men did and if they did it was as part of resistance groups or smaller military units or in isolated instances.  They were not drafted to be front line soldiers even though some did fight on the front as snipers like in Russia:

 

Lyudmila Pavlichenko
Sniper
Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko was a Soviet sniper in the Red Army during World War II, credited with 309 kills. She is regarded as one of the top military snipers of all time and the most successful female sniper in history.

 

Im ok with female characters in games as soldiers but be historically accurate.

 

Say you want to change attitudes about drafting women into front line soldiers....put them in war games in those positions and whamo you now accept women being drafted into same positions as men, because well you played with them online in a game.  Right?  Or am I exaggerating?  I believe the military did say not too long ago women now can be drafted in future?

Edited by XRobinson
spelling and more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the side that doesn't see the big deal as these games have never been historically accurate in the first place and offer absolutely no value at describing how the war actually was. We're playing a video game for fun, it was made for profit and somehow people mix in "respect" and "historical accuracy". If you're into history you need to study it instead of playing a video game expecting to get a history lesson, especially an arcade multiplayer one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, banOkay said:

I'm on the side that doesn't see the big deal as these games have never been historically accurate in the first place and offer absolutely no value at describing how the war actually was. We're playing a video game for fun, it was made for profit and somehow people mix in "respect" and "historical accuracy". If you're into history you need to study it instead of playing a video game expecting to get a history lesson, especially an arcade multiplayer one.

Games, film, TV, media it's all related, games now make more money than film and TV.  Stories of the past set in time are in a historical context.  We see ideas of today, changing attitudes and norms get projected into the past way of thinking.  And learn and grow or maybe forced to change into a new way to think a new way to believe in something, maybe change what you thought was a fact or truth.  So, maybe it is more a big deal than you think.  :). But I can see how people think games are just toys for kids and so harmless.  But....maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 word: Wolfenstein.

 

Game devs have the liberty to create whatever they want and it's your choice to play it or not for any reason (historical accuracy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st of all. Yes the game devs can do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean it cannot be problematic from certain standpoints, and it definitely doesn't mean that people can't vent their frustrations and opinions on the topic.

My personal opinion on the BFV case:
As with Squad, BFV is a game, and it needs to be fun. Therefore im ok with historical inacuracy that aims to improve on gameplay. In the case of BFV im okay with weapon balance being done by letting all factions use the same weapons, and only have vehicles be faction dependant. The historical inacurracy serves a purpose in this case.

Letting people chose to be a black woman serving in the armed german forces does not serve a gameplay purpose. It is so far from reality as anything gets, and it is totally uncalled for. The devs have said themselves that the reason you cannot shoot downed enemies is because it is against the geneva convention... so they are using reality as reasoning behind gameplay mechanics. Unlike wolfenstein which is clearly a fantasy based on a loose fragment and thematics of a historical event.

I would love to see women fighting for a russian faction, and black soldiers in the US army (i know the armed forces where segregated, but unit organization and structure seems like a far fetched thing to ask for, when the germans are running around with brenguns, right?) - it wouldn't ruin my immersion.

How ever, playing as a german squadleader looking left and right over your ranks to see black females with bionic arms and other ridiculous stuff like that is simply immersion ruining to an extend that serves no purpose except for EA to politicize gender equality and forgetting about history, the soldiers who fought, and the terrible, racist, tyrranical people and countries that once, almost, ruled the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when game tries to be accurate... you can learn something which is very cool. Its also very nice to have alternative take on history but then don't pretend game is based on reality.

 

For WW2 games, i would say panzer general or close combat series were pretty great for historical accuracy... compared to them, i don't think BFV should even mention ww2 setting :) dunno... might be wrong, we will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shovely Joe said:

How ever, playing as a german squadleader looking left and right over your ranks to see black females with bionic arms and other ridiculous stuff like that is simply immersion ruining to an extend that serves no purpose except for EA to politicize gender equality and forgetting about history, the soldiers who fought, and the terrible, racist, tyrranical people and countries that once, almost, ruled the world.

There is no immersion either way because of how unrealistic the gameplay is.

 

20 hours ago, XRobinson said:

We see ideas of today, changing attitudes and norms get projected into the past way of thinking.  And learn and grow or maybe forced to change into a new way to think a new way to believe in something, maybe change what you thought was a fact or truth.

Please give me examples of this, which facts did the hundreds of unrealistic WW2 games made before today overturn? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, banOkay said:

There is no immersion either way because of how unrealistic the gameplay is.

 

Please give me examples of this, which facts did the hundreds of unrealistic WW2 games made before today overturn? 

Well, why were there no female soldiers in WW2 games before now besides the spy service ninja women in Wolfenstein?  Now they are in WW2 game as a soldier means the idea of no frontline women soldiers is now over turned right, but depiction in the game didn't overturn it by itself.  The game depictions don't do it by themselves, it's who controls the politics, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

the idea of no frontline women soldiers is now over turned

No it's not, all the facts stay the same because no sane person makes conclusion about history based on a multiplayer portion of an arcade game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, banOkay said:

No it's not, all the facts stay the same because no sane person makes conclusion about history based on a multiplayer portion of an arcade game...

Nobody said that they did, and you didn't answer my question, why was there no frontline women soldiers in WW2 games before now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will always be in the camp of proper marketing and PR concerning accuracy in ones content. If a publisher says, "here's a title that is thematically set in a time period but takes liberties to be fun at the expense of historical accuracy", I won't pitch a fit. No different than if a publisher stated, "here's a title that will be heavily rooted in historical accuracy in every aspect", I won't pitch a fit either. But as soon as the walls go up and honesty/integrity go out the window you can bet I'll pitch a fit. Proper PR and marketing to ones customer base will always be key, especially when you start pushing into the historical space. The issue with BF:V (the current standing offender) is instead of being direct with how they want to utilize/not utilize accuracy they are instead keeping behind a veil and at times grossly attacking criticisms they choose not to address in a professional manner to their players. Historical accuracy in the end is a tool for the creator. It can mean visuals, narrative, settings, etc. A plethora of things to use at ones discretion. However with said discretion comes the responsibility of establishing at what level one is going to portray/utilize historical accuracy within a product. Simply put clarity is the key. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

Nobody said that they did, and you didn't answer my question, why was there no frontline women soldiers in WW2 games before now?

Well you were claiming that the idea of no frontline women is now over turned, or at least influenced. There aren't many women in video games overall and there are tons of misrepresentations and inaccuracies all over the place. I feel horrible for seeming to side with EA, but the way I see it is that EA wants money. DLCs failed or cost too much resources to make and they split the community. Nobody cares about subtle weapon skins because you don't really notice them. Gameplay advantages sure give you a reason to buy items, but the community clearly hated that and BF2 flopped. So they got rid of DLCs and ramped up the customization, they don't care if it's WW2 and choices are limited, they want money.

 

That's the way I see it despite the retarded comments from some of the DICE and EA staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

Just found this petition:

https://www.change.org/p/ea-dice-battlefield-5-respect-historical-accuracy

 

Should we sign it? I think so...

 

The petition is insane and will not achieve anything given the game is already well into development.

 

I understand the sentiment of wanting the game to be more historically accurate but including women is one of the least inaccurate aspects given how much attention it's getting. I'm seeing gameplay of dudes running around in a huge mix of made up camouflage using red dot sights... in WW2.

 

BF1 had the same issues, not that I thought the game was doing something terrible by using all of these prototype weapons in a WW1 setting but it seemed like it, and BFV, just want to give players a modern arsenal with World War 1 or 2 aesthetics. To me that's the issue, nothing to do with 'rewriting history' but it's just not using the setting to its gameplay potential.

 

Personally, if I were to make a game like BFV I would set it in some alternative reality diesel punk setting so you can have the aesthetics and go crazy with weapon attachments and customisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm starting to think EA is insane in the membrain...you know like that song.  LOL.

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2018 at 2:08 PM, Stom said:

Personally, if I were to make a game like BFV I would set it in some alternative reality diesel punk setting so you can have the aesthetics and go crazy with weapon attachments and customisation.

it's already that, in all but name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only politics that should be in a historical context game is the politics of that time period.  Or don't call it a ww2 game at all.  Call it cosplay cross dressing mania fps shooter delux tank war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×