Slashdot Mirror
History Buffs Discover Inaccuracies In Battlefield 1 Trailer (hothardware.com)
MojoKid shares an interesting article from Tom's Hardware. While the new Battlefield 1 trailer may be the most-liked trailer in the history of YouTube, it's also historically inaccurate, according to a popular YouTube channel about World War I. "Some of the scenes feature some unusual or experimental gear," reports Indy Neidell, the voice of the video series The Great War, "and some weapons are carried by soldiers from the other side."
Thousands of people joined the YouTube channel after the release of the game's new trailer, prompting this special video review of the historical accuracy of the Battlefield 1 trailer. "Some of the most spectacular moments in the trailer, such as the tanks bursting into trenches or giant, ominous zeppelins hovering, are actually historically accurate," reports Tom's Hardware, adding that the YouTube commentator "ultimately applauds Battlefield 1 for incorporating so many different elements of WWI. Many people often forget that much of WWI was fought through hand-to-hand combat or that battles took place throughout Eurasian landmass."
Thousands of people joined the YouTube channel after the release of the game's new trailer, prompting this special video review of the historical accuracy of the Battlefield 1 trailer. "Some of the most spectacular moments in the trailer, such as the tanks bursting into trenches or giant, ominous zeppelins hovering, are actually historically accurate," reports Tom's Hardware, adding that the YouTube commentator "ultimately applauds Battlefield 1 for incorporating so many different elements of WWI. Many people often forget that much of WWI was fought through hand-to-hand combat or that battles took place throughout Eurasian landmass."
Work of fiction is shown to be fictional.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
WWI and wars in general are not FUN and you don't re-spawn every time you die.
It's a fucking game people.
A historically accurate game of WW1 would indeed be boring. And frustrating. You climb out of the trench, then run down a wasteland. Should you roll well on your saving throw you have no influence in whatsoever, you jump into the enemy trench and start hacking Krauts (or Tommies, same texture in a different color, basically). If you're lucky and nobody hacks your back apart, a few hours later the others will come running at you where you actually get a bit of gameplay where you may shoot at some of them before they jump into your trench and again it's mostly a matter of luck and less one of skill whether you survive or croak.
Oh. By the way. No respawning. You get randomly hit by a stray bullet, the best you can hope for is some sort of spectator mode for a few hours where you lie in that no man's land between the trenches and your character slowly dies instead of quickly.
Sounds like fun, eh?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Popular works like All Quiet on the Western Front have made every depiction of World War I inevitably something like what the Battle of the Somme was, or the Battle of Caporetto; bitter, miserable wasting away in trenches while swathes of men are destroyed in fruitless attacks on extremely fortified positions. In reality, a lot of the war was high-paced maneuver warfare like the Franco-Prussian War and World War II, especially after tanks were introduced.
But even they acknowledge that you lose all your gear and accumulated XP.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
On the Western Front, yes. Although there were some intervals where there was some movement even there.
Many, many attacks had one side or the other make it to the other side's first few trenches and there was heavy fighting there. And then you'd get counterattacked and possibly thrown back.
The major problem isn't the possibility of a good FPS fight in the trenches, its the fact that there was a very high casualty rate for getting there. Between machine guns, artillery, barbed wire and such, a lot of troops didn't make it across the No Man's Land. What would justify your character getting across? I'd presume, however, that you could use the narrative to simply suggest that they were one of the lucky ones who did simply because if they didn't, there'd be no game.
Now on the Eastern Front and in the Middle East (which they took some care to show), it wasn't all trench warfare. Remember this is when Lawrence of Arabia was active, so you're going to be mobile in any campaign that is located there.
The major problem isn't the possibility of a good FPS fight in the trenches, its the fact that there was a very high casualty rate for getting there. Between machine guns, artillery, barbed wire and such, a lot of troops didn't make it across the No Man's Land. What would justify your character getting across? I'd presume, however, that you could use the narrative to simply suggest that they were one of the lucky ones who did simply because if they didn't, there'd be no game.
Obviously many people did survive multiple trips over the top. But there were also other types of attacks such as trench raids where they would sneak up quietly at night and attack a section of trench, whether to capture prisoners or just generally create mayhem and keep the other side on their toes. In those cases it was pretty easy to get to the other trench. The trick then was to not get blown up by a grenade or bludgeoned to death by a guy with a persuader. Oh, and make back across to your own trench afterwards of course.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil