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."

4 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Historically accurate = Boring game by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WWI was a lot of just sitting in the trenches and just kind of living in a world where you just can't lift your head above the trenchline. Just kinda slogging it and trying to survive, while living a miserable existence. For a game, rather boring.
    Being also in a video games you are controlling characters not real people the strategy needed is different. In games NPC are disposable, there is no having to face the public and state that you sacrificed 50% of your unit, just to win the objective, where in real life it would just be to surrender or retreat. Because although you may win the battle, the losses would hinder the war more than what you would gain in the battle.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Re:News at 11 by internerdj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People complained about the architecture in Prince of Persia also. If you are going to complain about authenticity, maybe you should start with the knife that lets you time travel.

  3. Re:News at 11 by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In that same vein, I saw someone complaining yesterday about the fact that in the Dark Souls franchise, it's utterly unrealistic that rolling around (one of the core game mechanics for how you avoid taking damage) should be able to make you immune to any form of attack, since it makes the game less believable when someone swings a sword at you and you just roll right through it to dodge. It was quickly pointed out that he's playing a game in which he's an undead spawn of a demigod consuming the souls of the gods and demons he slays while fighting dragons, monsters, and the aforementioned gods and demons, so it would seem to be a bit odd that rolling is what's making the game less believable.

  4. Re:News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've actually complained about this since Demons Souls, the invulnerability frames during rolling, it should be for movement and that's it, the game is applauded for the fantastic hit detection (that stops being relevant as soon as you press the roll button)

    It's for the most part a player vs player complaint, you can stab seven feet of a spear through someone, while they're rolling towards you, even further skewering themselves onto the spear, but they take no damage from it because they were rolling and then counterattack you (usually killing you in one hit) during your attacks recovery phase.