Battlefield 1 and war video games: Old lies for a new generation

By Carlos Delgado
3 August 2017

Other urls found in this thread:




No it didn't.

battlefield 1 and all other military fps shooters are shiity


so is OP and whoever Carlos Delgago is.



Red Orchestra is pretty good.

its not so bad op

in WWII games they let you play as the USSR as the good guys because "an enemy of the nazis is our friend"

of course, criticism of the USSR is probably frowned upon on this board.


I-I don't want to know what is coming.
I want to get out of this ride.

I don't think Hearts of Iron or rising storm are militarist propaganda, and probably in some ways Carlos Delgado is bullshiting


Not in Europe.

you know damn well that putting blacks at the forefront of their game's advertising and media exposure is purely ideological. don't be disingenuous

FFS. We've had this discussion about the fucking black soldiers a thousand times already.

People still care about this absolute fucking cancer? This series has been dead since 2142.

I guess the Germans just imagined those enemies then.

Shooters ain't shit tbh

You want real war games, you play strategy games. Now that's where the big fish lies, you kill hundreds to thousands to millions in those games and almost always you are a dictator.

And everyone else.

The colonial participation in either WW are pissants.

The most "colored" factions are probably the turks in WW1 and the japs in WW2.

Does that really sound like a rational move for an empire like France whose colonial empire was one of its main advantages over Germany? No. They used those men because they'd have been crazy not to.

And these men were used as cannon fodders or garrison, heck, the german used them too in Africa.

None of them did anything relevant in the war bar maybe the fierciest gurkhas and even then, you wouldn't see these troops charging Somme.

dude why'd you put an ass right beside the text i can't focus

It's the ass of ideological freedom my lad.


get off this ideology

Well, the best troops aren't cannon fodders, that's for sure.

Why do you need to lie about this? There are plenty of African and Arab conflicts if you want their deaths. WW1 was an European war, pretty much everyone who died in the continent was European. It doesn't even make any sense whatsoever to move "millions" of crappy troops with no idea of the terrain, even ignoring the fact doing so would result in the colonies breaking free (no more supplies).

Article author is a handwringing fuckmouth who didn't do the research
It's a fucking grandstrat. You can play Switzerland. You can make Nazi Germany actual socialist or return it to democracy either ingame or through modding. You can stop the war from happening, you can refuse to drop the A-bombs or drop them elsewhere, you can engage in or refrain from strategic bombing, there's a popup event for the rape of Nanking that presents it as the atrocity it was, there's an option to not purge the Soviet officer corps. You can mod it or play somebody else's mod if you think it's full of shit. I really fail to see how the fuck that's similar to a linear cinematic FPS campaign.
yes, a DLC-ridden RTS set in Ancient Rome, Warring States Japan, Medeival Europe or the 17th century is propaganda :^)
What site is this from, OP? The fact that there's no link makes me suspect it's shite.
Yes, those are highly likely to be propaganda, but if the author knew jackshit about vidya gaymes, he'd know that nobody plays or gives a rat's ass about the story in campaign mode unles it gets them better unlocks for PvP.
I'd well believe it is but the author fails to cite specific examples of the context in which it's presented that might make it that. This comes off as PMRC-tier bullshit.
Because they know nobody gives half a fuck and plays these games to pwn scrubs in pvp. The characters are also shallow in Clue and Guess Who, almost like people play because it's entertaining and not for the story.
That's called historical accuracy. I'm sick of people expecting characters in games set a cenury or more ago to have modern morality and outlook. History isn't PC, or pretty and had a lot of fucking stupid ideas and beliefs.
take your meds.
1 of 2

2 of 2, polite sage for doublepost
We must support the Ottoman Empire against British Imperialism :^)
He wasn't?
Is he ever depicted anywhere where one of them couldn't be potentially within earshot?
but that happened. I admit focusing on it exclusively is sketch, but what of the story itself? This whole paragraph smacks of cherrypicking. Assuming it's not that, it's almost like the game companies know that flagwaving types comprise most of their customer base and play to their audience.
Yeah, and?
Almost like they want to avoid controversy, get a lower ESRB rating so they can sell to younger kids who haven't learned what a bunch of bullshit DLC and EULAs are or how to pirate, and won't catch a de-facto bannu when stores refuse to carry it. Almost like they halfassed the campaign modes because they know people only play it for the fucking PvP. Also what are graphics limitations?
One could read it like that, but again the more likely explanation is they need to justify the pricetag on new systems by showing off/playing with the graphics engine. How do the rats serve to make it look romantic? How would he propose to portray war in vidya? A classic FPS-style branching map? A grid-based tac RPG? What? The author needs to make clear what he expects out of this or would consider a satisfactory portrayal of war.
Almost like that message, if it exists, is completely lost on the despooked userbase…
Nor is this complete and utter faggot being intensely triggered by a hypothetical historically-accurate portrayal of ugly, distatsteful historical events right after accusing the same game and company of glossing over those same ugly realities of the war and the era. Or just being stuck for a closing zinger and going with that dogshit one.

Mostly only by tankies, which you'd know if you lurked more instead of tilting at windmills and strawmen.

Look, I think there are problems with the ideology of FPS games but this review seems really weirdly written, it's clearly someone who has no idea what videogames are actually like.

Basically I'm just mad someone else is stepping on my territory >:^(

This is what you sound like.

Because Europe was always majority non-white, goy. White people are a genetic mistake, aka albinos. Get with the times.

make a response faget

i caaaan't i'm too busy with my soe video, it's going on forever

I'm 28 mins in and prolly 5-10 mins still to go

Not him, but check this out:
So that gives us around 2.8 million colonial troops out of 8.8 million for the Commonwealth, 0.6 million out of 8.6 million for France and 0.2 million out of 4.7 million for the US.

Your point about supply and the colonies breaking free is valid though, as reflected in British racial military policy:

So, is the appearance of non-white soldiers in current games a result of the diversity trend in all industries? Probably. Would it be far-fetched to run into an Indian or African soldier every now and then when Australians are deemed important enough to get their own campaign in the same game? Certainly not.



Make one about first person shooters tho. Like the article ITT, but good.


I really like Battlefield 1. It's immersive multiplayer fun and I've always liked how in battlefield you feel like a small part in a huge battle but you can see the ways in which the front lines change and players push up against objectives. I also like the destruction, it's really cool playing that one Suez Canal map and seeing that town in the center of the map slowly get blasted to pieces to the point where it's basically leveled in really contested matches.

That being said, the games singleplayer is pure cringe in that it dips its toes into "war is bad guys" but then proceeds to glorify it.

And they say there are no good wars.