EA Details the Four Battlefield 1 Expansions

EA Details the Four Battlefield 1 Expansions

bf1-they-shall-not-pass-320

The Battlefield 1 Premium Pass will include four expansions, and EA has revealed what those four expansions will be.

The Battlefield 1 Premium Pass has been available since the game launched in October, but until yesterday, we only knew what one of the included four expansions would be. The details of the first expansion, They Shall Not Pass, were revealed back in January, but now we know the titles and a bit of information on all four expansions.

They Shall Not Pass will bring the French Army to the game, as well as encounters in Verdun. Those include a tank assault on the banks of the Aisne River and the fighting within Fort de Vaux.

The second expansion is In the Name of the Tsar, and it will add in the Russian army, as well as four snow themed maps. The third expansion, Turning Tides, will focus on amphibious warfare, and will include the daredevil Zeebrugge raid, the Gallipoli offensive, and more. Finally, the fourth expansion will be titled Apocalypse , and will bring to life some of the war's most infamous battles, along with "brutal tools and unique weapons."

In short, Battlefield 1 has a lot of upcoming content planned, although it's still a bit pricey at $49.99. DICE has recently added the Winter Update, adding ribbons, higher max class ranks, and more. There's still no word on when They Shall Not Pass will launch, but hopefully we'll find out soon.

Permalink

Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

Jiub:
Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

St Jiub, as much as I respect and honor your efforts to repel the Cliff Racer menace, I fear you may have had a little too much Skooma for one night.

The US army deployed around 350'000 African Americans to Europe, the British Army had a couple of West Indian regiments numbering about 15'000 and the French many more than both Britsh and Americans. Indeed the Tirailleurs Senegalais were credited with forcing the Germans back at Chaleroi in 1914, so black troops were in the war pretty much from day one.

But anyway, I'm sure you'll feel better once you've sobered up.

Jiub:
Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

Hahaha! And there we go, right off the bat.

Man, look at all these coloured soldiers who totally didn't exist:

Who's being disrespectful now?

image

image

image

image

Zhukov:

Jiub:
Will it include more politically correct "blackwashing" of history? Based on the screenshots, the answer is yes. Kinda disrespectful to the actual soldiers how EA thinks all these colored people that didn't exist were the ones who fought this European war.

Hahaha! And there we go, right off the bat.

Man, look at all these coloured soldiers who totally didn't exist:

Who's being disrespectful now?

image

image

image

image

Bah! Liberal propaganda, fake news, brainwashing our children with tainted thoughts of human decency! Only Trump and fox news tells it how it is. This will be dismissed with all other inconvenient facts. But nice try, however.

Those caps though with these strings that are supposed to go under your lips... What were they thinking? Talking about the second picture.

Huh. So instead of complaining about EA's DLC, people are complaining about...black people?

Before you know it they'll be adding Indians! Or Japanese! Or, gasp, Arabs!

Damn EA social justice warriors.

Well Jiub got rekd...

Will have to get back into this game, those expansions actually sound pretty good.

Will have to get back into this game, those expansions actually sound pretty good.

Total opposite here, the game got boring after a month and I haven't had any desire to go back to it, and yeah these DLCs haven't sparked any desire to return either. The shocking thing being I actually pre ordered the Premium version on the off chance that I would enjoy the game and still be in to it when the new DLCs finally cropped up... oh well.

fix-the-spade:

The US army deployed around 350'000 African Americans to Europe, the British Army had a couple of West Indian regiments numbering about 15'000 and the French many more than both Britsh and Americans. Indeed the Tirailleurs Senegalais were credited with forcing the Germans back at Chaleroi in 1914, so black troops were in the war pretty much from day one.

Xsjadoblayde:

Hahaha! And there we go, right off the bat.

Man, look at all these coloured soldiers who totally didn't exist:

Who's being disrespectful now?

If either of you had bothered to take off your PC glasses for a second, you would know that very few colored soldiers ever fought on the front lines for the Allies. The soldiers that were deployed mainly were used for labor, hauling bodies/ equipment, and other logistical tasks. The western leaders at the time didn't think it was proper to have whites and coloreds fighting side-by-side. I'm not saying they NEVER saw combat, but the way EA tells it, you'd think whites were the minority on the battlefield, and so many black soldiers were there that they need to be featured on ALL of the cover and promotional art. Completely disproportionate to how history actually was.

"While still discriminatory, the Army was far more progressive in race relations than the other branches of the military. Blacks could not serve in the Marines, and could only serve limited and menial positions in the Navy and the Coast Guard. By the end of World War I, African Americans served in cavalry, infantry, signal, medical, engineer, and artillery units, as well as serving as chaplains, surveyors, truck drivers, chemists, and intelligence officers.

Although technically eligible for many positions in the Army, very few blacks got the opportunity to serve in combat units. Most were limited to labor battalions. The combat elements of the U.S. Army were kept completely segregated. The four established all-black Regular Army regiments were not used in overseas combat roles but instead were diffused throughout American held territory. There was such a backlash from the African American community, however, that the War Department finally created the 92d and 93d Divisions, both primarily black combat units, in 1917. "
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwi/articles/fightingforrespect.aspx

Do yourself a favor, and learn something about the people behind those pictures before you use them to call ME disrespectful.

The central powers used integrated brigades and more colored soldiers, but again I still feel EA is deliberately trying to force the issue whenever possible so they can feel as "progressive" and safe as possible.

What is so wrong with more white people being featured when most soldiers were actually white?

Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

The Lunatic:
Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

Character customization is limited in Battlefield games to just camos and gun skins because unlike Valve (and to a lesser extent Ubisoft) and Activision, EA and DICE understand that in a twitch- (and class) based game like Battlefield you need to be able to tell what the enemy is in less than a second (at first glance basically) which means nothing too notable can be customizable (as all Assaults on a team need to look the same, all Recons etc.).

And it's not like Overwatch where each character varies wildly and notably either, allowing crazy different looks.

Paragon Fury:

The Lunatic:
Honestly, this whole "Black people in WW1" thing would be completely avoided if they weren't so lazy as to avoid adding character customisation.

Character customization is limited in Battlefield games to just camos and gun skins because unlike Valve (and to a lesser extent Ubisoft) and Activision, EA and DICE understand that in a twitch- (and class) based game like Battlefield you need to be able to tell what the enemy is in less than a second (at first glance basically) which means nothing too notable can be customizable (as all Assaults on a team need to look the same, all Recons etc.).

And it's not like Overwatch where each character varies wildly and notably either, allowing crazy different looks.

Skin colour and facial structure wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be what is used to determine who is of what class in the game. It really should have been a non-issue of colour customisation for skin being included, but no, we had to pretend the Germans had African soldiers, the Turks had European soldiers, the British had Middle Eastern soldiers (to a noteworthy degree that is) and that France is empty land for foreigners to fight over (because Fuck France in particular I guess).

It's frankly insulting that in a war that had almost no Africans in it that they, above the Europeans who where the bulk of it, the Middle Easterners who took a large hit from it, the Indians who made a good show of it and the East Asians who did a comparatively small but still often overlooked part of it, that instead of all them a group who had far less involvement then any of them was used as the face of it. Well I'm not going to mince words, it's the equivalent of having the equivalent of having the fight against Colonialism and Imperialism have its face be some rich white aristocrat for how tone deaf it is. Only EA could be that dense, not even Activision could screw up that badly.

Jiub:

I'm not saying they NEVER saw combat, but the way EA tells it, you'd think whites were the minority on the battlefield, and so many black soldiers were there that they need to be featured on ALL of the cover and promotional art. Completely disproportionate to how history actually was.

...what?

Haven't played Battlefield 1, but of its six campaigns, you play as one female Bedouin, four Caucasean males of American/Italian/British/Australian nationality, and one black soldier, and that last part is only a 'technically,' because the mission in which he features is technically where you control multiple soldiers. How the heck are whites a minority in that context?

If you're talking about skin colour in multiplayer being synonymous with classes, I could maybe, MAYBE sympathize a bit, but it's multiplayer. I'm going to go out on a limb that running and firing, shrugging off shots, and being able to drive tanks and planes at will isn't historically accurate either. The only remotely thing I could call 'insulting' about Battlefield historically is that it doesn't have the French and Russians available from the start, considering that they were major players in the role, while the US (playable from the outset) entering the war was a late, albeit still significant event. If the presence of non-whites in combat roles in multiplayer is "insulting," then, well, I don't know what to say.

Jiub:

The central powers used integrated brigades and more colored soldiers, but again I still feel EA is deliberately trying to force the issue whenever possible so they can feel as "progressive" and safe as possible.

Considering how common reactions like this are, I don't know how any of this is "safe."

I'm apathic towards EA, but here we have a game from a AAA publisher that focuses on a war that doesn't get much screentime, games or otherwise (least compared to WWII), and focuses on theatres of war other than the Western Front, and gives representation to a variety of nationalities and ethnicities? I can give them respect for that.

Jiub:
What is so wrong with more white people being featured when most soldiers were actually white?

Nothing, but I don't see the presence of non-whites "wrong" either.

Hawki:

Haven't played Battlefield 1, but of its six campaigns, you play as one female Bedouin, four Caucasean males of American/Italian/British/Australian nationality, and one black soldier, and that last part is only a 'technically,' because the mission in which he features is technically where you control multiple soldiers. How the heck are whites a minority in that context?

If you're talking about skin colour in multiplayer being synonymous with classes, I could maybe, MAYBE sympathize a bit, but it's multiplayer. I'm going to go out on a limb that running and firing, shrugging off shots, and being able to drive tanks and planes at will isn't historically accurate either. The only remotely thing I could call 'insulting' about Battlefield historically is that it doesn't have the French and Russians available from the start, considering that they were major players in the role, while the US (playable from the outset) entering the war was a late, albeit still significant event. If the presence of non-whites in combat roles in multiplayer is "insulting," then, well, I don't know what to say.

I should have clarified I was referring to the ratio of white/colored soldiers on the multiplayer battlefield, and more specifically EA's marketing campaign. I haven't played much singleplayer.

Hawki:

Considering how common reactions like this are, I don't know how any of this is "safe."

Are you kidding me? You can't release ANYTHING without a black character front and center these days without getting "called out" by the moral police on twitter.

Hawki:

I'm apathic towards EA, but here we have a game from a AAA publisher that focuses on a war that doesn't get much screentime, games or otherwise (least compared to WWII), and focuses on theatres of war other than the Western Front, and gives representation to a variety of nationalities and ethnicities? I can give them respect for that.
... I don't see the presence of non-whites "wrong" either.

I don't find the "presence of non-whites on the battlefield" to be wrong in itself. What I do take issue with is the "blackwashing" of the conflict by the over representation of black soldiers, when they had very little to do with this conflict compared to white soldiers, and how that fits into a larger trend in the media and pop-culture in general these days that portrays whiteness as something to be ashamed of or apologized for, while being a colored person is something to be celebrated. Just like you can say "Black lives matter." but god forbid you say "All lives matter." or all of a sudden your a racist/nazi/bigot/"insert trendy put-down label here".

Equality is one thing, but pretty soon we're gonna have WW2 games coming out where 80% of the soldiers storming Omaha Beach will be black. You might be too uncomfortable to call that wrong, but it sure as hell ain't right.

Jiub:

Are you kidding me? You can't release ANYTHING without a black character front and center these days without getting "called out" by the moral police on twitter.

Using the same argument, you can't release anything WITH a black character without being accused of pushing an agenda (see The Force Awakens and Hidden Figures for examples). And that's not including non-hetrosexual tizzies (e.g. Tracer in Overwatch, the "lesbian couple" in Finding Dory, etc.)

One extreme is saying that any form of non-diversity is racist. The other extreme is claiming that any form of diversity is pushing an agenda. So far, this thread is veering quite close to the latter.

Hawki:

I don't find the "presence of non-whites on the battlefield" to be wrong in itself. What I do take issue with is the "blackwashing" of the conflict by the over representation of black soldiers, when they had very little to do with this conflict compared to white soldiers,

I'd be able to take the claim of "blackwashing" seriously if it actually approached that. It doesn't in the campaign, and unless the majority of classes in multiplayer are black, I don't see an issue there. You've already admitted in your own posts that black soldiers served, so there is precedent. I'm not so paranoid about ratios - blacks served, as a fact. So did people of many nations and ethnicities. Anything that reflects that is good in my mind, especially when WWI itself is so often overshadowed by WWII, and within WWI itself, so much of what I (and as far as I can tell, many others) is focused entirely on the Western Front. The Russians for instance might be coming late to the party, but at least they're coming.

Hawki:
Equality is one thing, but pretty soon we're gonna have WW2 games coming out where 80% of the soldiers storming Omaha Beach will be black. You might be too uncomfortable to call that wrong, but it sure as hell ain't right.

I'm going to guess that Battlefield 1 doesn't even exceed a 50% black rate - I've noticed that you haven't cited any actual percentages in your claims of "blackwashing" as far as multiplayer representation goes.

Also, very nice insinuation that I'd be "too uncomfortable" to call 80% blacks being at Omaha "wrong." But if I did see 80% of blacks in an Omaha Beach sequence (and insert witty joke here about Juno, Sword, and Gold beaches), I would say something along the lines of "um, I think the ratios are a bit off." But "wrong?" Eh, only historically. Morally, I'm far more interested in someone's actions than the colour of their skin. And liberties are taken in fiction. In the case of video games depicting war, a LOT of liberties. Saying that blacks in a WWI game is "insulting" is about as true as saying that Wolfenstein is insulting because it has Hitler in a mech suit, or that Medal of Honour: Spearhead is "insulting" because you control an American soldier in Berlin and not a Russian one. Heck, I'd probably have an easier time arguing that was more "insulting" because while non-white soldiers did serve in WWI, I've never heard anything about American soldiers in Berlin prior to its fall historically (feel free to correct me if you want).

Hawki:
[
I'd be able to take the claim of "blackwashing" seriously if it actually approached that. It doesn't in the campaign, and unless the majority of classes in multiplayer are black, I don't see an issue there. You've already admitted in your own posts that black soldiers served, so there is precedent. I'm not so paranoid about ratios - blacks served, as a fact. So did people of many nations and ethnicities.

Um, excuse me? By "my own admission" Blacks mostly served in non-combat roles digging ditches, hauling shit, and other grunt work on the allied side. That's the facts. EA has not only made them the face of the entire conflict in all of their marketing campaigns, but also portrayed them as standing shoulder to shoulder with white soldiers on the allied side when that was absolutley not the case. So, if that doesn't "approach" blackwashing history in your mind, exactly what would? I would say that's pretty much the litteral definition of the term.

Hawki:

I'm going to guess that Battlefield 1 doesn't even exceed a 50% black rate - I've noticed that you haven't cited any actual percentages in your claims of "blackwashing" as far as multiplayer representation goes.

Nice "guess" there, but even if it doesn't "exceed" 50% it's very close. By that logic almost every other soldier in this war was black. So again, how the fuck is that not blackwashing? It's complete bullshit, and EA needs to be called out for it.

Jiub:

Um, excuse me? By "my own admission" Blacks mostly served in non-combat roles digging ditches, hauling shit, and other grunt work on the allied side.

Ahem:

Jiub:

If either of you had bothered to take off your PC glasses for a second, you would know that very few colored soldiers ever fought on the front lines for the Allies. The soldiers that were deployed mainly were used for labor, hauling bodies/ equipment, and other logistical tasks. The western leaders at the time didn't think it was proper to have whites and coloreds fighting side-by-side. I'm not saying they NEVER saw combat,

That's your post, verbatim, stating that black soldiers served in combat roles, however few.

Jiub:

That's the facts. EA has not only made them the face of the entire conflict in all of their marketing campaigns,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nRTF2SowQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pY3hlQEOc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-vAxVh8ins

Those are three trailers that I pulled from YouTube. I only spotted a black soldier (key word on "a") in the last one. I'm pretty sure I saw more Arab soldiers, and there's whites galore. The only thing you could bring up to support your case is the cover art. Oh my god, a black soldier on it, how terrible.

What's telling after watching these trailers is that if you want to pull the "insulting" card, the only insulting thing I could pull from it is its glorification of combat in what was one of the most terrible conflicts of human history. I don't care what colour your skin is - anyone who served in that war has my respect.

Jiub:
but also portrayed them as standing shoulder to shoulder with white soldiers on the allied side when that was absolutley not the case.

Two problems:

1) Your argument has so far only applied to multiplayer, where reality is stretched already. Unless you're seriously suggesting that multiplayer should be segregated as well.

2) Untrue, black soldiers did fight alongside the French and Canadians. The intro campaign is, to my understanding, reflective of this, as you take control of a Harlam Hellfighter soldier, fighting the Germans alongside the French.

I'll take this moment to point out that this intro level, having watched it, is one of the most harrowing depictions of war I've ever seen in a game, and also serves as an excellent humanization of human beings in war, and you're worried about the colour of the protagonist's skin.

Jiub:
So, if that doesn't "approach" blackwashing history in your mind, exactly what would?

Portraying the ethnic integration of WWI as being predominantly black, to the exclusion of any other ethnicity.

Which it hasn't done. At all.

Jiub:

Nice "guess" there, but even if it doesn't "exceed" 50% it's very close. By that logic almost every other soldier in this war was black.

Again, I'd take that claim seriously if the singleplayer backed it up, and if multiplayer in Battlefield games wasn't already a stretch of credulity.

Also, WWI was a global war in every sense of the word. People of multiple races and nationalities fought across multiple locations. If you want to work out the ratios based on race, have fun doing that.

Jiub:
So again, how the fuck is that not blackwashing?

-Because black soldiers historically fought (as did many others)

-Because the term "whitewashing" is used to describe a white individual portraying someone of a different ethnicity. "Blackwashing" would hold true in reverse, but it's not supplanting any one individual.

-Because the singleplayer campaign, which goes for at least some realism, does go by a more realistic ratio.

-Because they aren't portrayed as a majority by any ratio - not in singleplayer, and even you haven't claimed that the ratio is over 50%. Something like Gods of Egypt could reasonably be accused of whitewashing (though that's the least of the film's problems) because white actors are the majority in a setting that, at least in theory, should make them the minority. In contrast, Battlefield 1 hasn't portrayed non-whites as a majority.

Frankly, I've never been too concerned about colourwashing of any kind. Gods of Egypt is a bad film, but it's nothing to do with the ethnicity of its characters. Likewise, Battlefield 1 isn't going to live or die based on the colour of its soldiers' skin.

Jiub:
It's complete bullshit, and EA needs to be called out for it.

Ah yes, EA. You could call them out for their treatment of employees, shady business practices, or their tendency to acquire studios and grind the acquired IPs into dust. If you wanted to look at Battlefield 1 specifically, you could complain that France and Russia aren't included from the outset, despite being major powers in the war. But no, the greatest sin of Battlefield 1...is that it has too many black people.

Well, feel free to call them out I guess, I won't stop you. But for someone who complained about "the moral police on twitter," you seem to be fitting into that role quite well.

Okay, so, spending more time than I cared for, I've worked out the ratios for some of the class ethnicities.

Battlefield 1 currently has six factions (US, UK, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire). Looking at the classes, I've ascertained the following:

Assault: White for all factions

Support: 5 confirmed white, 1 ambiguous (Austria-Hungary, as I can't make out the skin colour)

Scout: 3 are black (UK, US, Germany), one is Arabic (Ottoman), other 2 are white

Medic: The British medic is Indian, the German and Austro-Hungarian medics are white, I haven't been able to find info on the others.

Pilot: At least 1 is white.

Now, these are hardly definitive, because I'm missing a lot of entries. This was spent looking up what I could on the Internet. As I also understand, the Battlefield 1 classes are set in terms of appearance. And maybe errors were made. But just a cursory glance at this shows that the classes are predominantly white. It's also worth noting (if you really, REALLY are upset about there being "too many blacks") that once Russia is released, there'll be even more whites, but those cheese-eating surrender monkeys called the French might have blacks. Shock, horror, blah blah blah.

Although, I'm left to ask at this point (again)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsuokWmEZI

Seriously, I never played any other Battlefield game, even the historic ones, and asked "geez, are the ethnic ratios accurate?". I was more asking who that bastard sniper was that shot me.

...alright, so, that happened.

I just hope they don't fuck up the Gallipoli fight in the 3rd expansion. Well, ok, it's an EA war game, so hopefully they don't fuck it up too much and have, I dunno, a bunch of Americans roll up in tanks and Zeppelins during it or something. Just let the Australians have this one this time, please? Just for once? We kinda got ignored with all the other war games, but Gallipoli was kinda our 'big' one so it'd be nice to actually play an Aussie during it.

Hawki:

Jiub:

That's your post, verbatim, stating that black soldiers served in combat roles, however few.

"However few". Yes, VERY few, as in a tiny fraction of the combatants, the vast majority of whom were white. Why is it that this tiny fraction gets SOOOO much representation?

Hawki:

The only thing you could bring up to support your case is the cover art. Oh my god, a black soldier on it, how terrible.

Again, why is it that a black soldier becomes the face of the game when a small fraction of the soldiers deployed were black, and an even smaller number actually even saw combat?

Hawki:

What's telling after watching these trailers is that if you want to pull the "insulting" card, the only insulting thing I could pull from it is its glorification of combat in what was one of the most terrible conflicts of human history. I don't care what colour your skin is - anyone who served in that war has my respect.

I agree, they need to seriously step up the gore/carnage in this game. Waaay too tame. There should be sever-able limbs, explode-able heads, and way more bood. It would also be cool if you could see intestines spill out when you gutted somebody with your bayonet. Doesn't really do the horror and brutality of the conflict justice the way it is now. You just get lost in the pretty scenery.

Hawki:

1) Your argument has so far only applied to multiplayer, where reality is stretched already. Unless you're seriously suggesting that multiplayer should be segregated as well.

My argument is that black soldiers should not have been included in the game at all since they served such a minor role in the war, and the only reason they were not only included, but grossly over represented and mascot-ized by EA is because of the current politically correct media elitism. That applies to both multiplayer, singleplayer, and especially the cover art.

Hawki:

2) Untrue, black soldiers did fight alongside the French and Canadians. The intro campaign is, to my understanding, reflective of this, as you take control of a Harlam Hellfighter soldier, fighting the Germans alongside the French.

I'll take this moment to point out that this intro level, having watched it, is one of the most harrowing depictions of war I've ever seen in a game, and also serves as an excellent humanization of human beings in war, and you're worried about the colour of the protagonist's skin.

Great, only one problem there ace, the canuks ain't in the game, and neither are the French (yet). As far as the intro scene goes, it was just another generic gun down wave after wave of faceless enemies while holding an undefendable position kind of deal. Nothing we haven't seen a million times before.
If you wanna talk about a harrowing war scene in a game, I would point to the old CoD game where you were defending Stalingrad. "First man takes a rifle, second man takes ammo. When first man is shot, second man takes rifle." That shit was brutal. Also historically accurate. (for CoD anyway...)

Hawki:

Portraying the ethnic integration of WWI as being predominantly black, to the exclusion of any other ethnicity.

Which it hasn't done. At all.

Again, I'd take that claim seriously if the singleplayer backed it up, and if multiplayer in Battlefield games wasn't already a stretch of credulity.

Also, WWI was a global war in every sense of the word. People of multiple races and nationalities fought across multiple locations. If you want to work out the ratios based on race, have fun doing that.

Ok, got it. Even though I would guess that less than 10% of all combatants (that's being very generous, it's probably a lot lower) were black, it doesn't matter that they are portrayed as close to 50% in multiplayer. So by that logic, let's just make 2/3rds of the soldiers Thai, and we'll make 2/3rds of the other side Brazillian. It doesn't really matter right? Who cares about immersion or attention to detail. We could also set a few battles on the North Pole or Easter Island. Apparently, nobody would mind!

Hawki:

Ah yes, EA. You could call them out for their treatment of employees, shady business practices, or their tendency to acquire studios and grind the acquired IPs into dust. If you wanted to look at Battlefield 1 specifically, you could complain that France and Russia aren't included from the outset, despite being major powers in the war. But no, the greatest sin of Battlefield 1...is that it has too many black people.

Oh yes, because it's not like literally EVERY other game company is guilty of the same shit or anything... The industry in general has been circling the drain for years and is headed for a major crash. I've reached the point where most video games these days are so bad, I don't even care if the whole industry goes down in flames.

I don't complain about France not being in the game because I personally don't really care for the French to be honest. Almost all French I've ever met were jerks. As far as the Ruskis go, it's no surprise they weren't included. Their army was a complete mess, the Czar was asleep at the wheel, to the point where he had to recall the troops due to the communist uprising, and they were out of the war after that. Hardly a "major power in the war".

You're missing the point; this is bigger than video games. Battlefield 1 is a fun game, but the over representation of the blacks and the overall trend it fits into in our media and society right now is disturbing. We have to call it out and push back against it when we see it.

Wrex Brogan:
...alright, so, that happened.

I just hope they don't fuck up the Gallipoli fight in the 3rd expansion. Well, ok, it's an EA war game, so hopefully they don't fuck it up too much and have, I dunno, a bunch of Americans roll up in tanks and Zeppelins during it or something. Just let the Australians have this one this time, please? Just for once? We kinda got ignored with all the other war games, but Gallipoli was kinda our 'big' one so it'd be nice to actually play an Aussie during it.

I'm Australian, but to be fair, Australia has never really been that major of a player in wars. Even in Gallipoli, the majority of Allied troops were British and French, and IIRC, there were a sizable portion of troops from India in addition to the ANZACs. I don't think it's intentional dismissiveness to Australia, just that we're hardly in the 'big boys club' as far as world powers go. We certainly weren't in WWI at least.

Still, I can't complain in of itself. If an ANZAC faction does come along, that means I get to have a whole new level of argument as to whether the ratio of Australians to Kiwis is correct (should be about 5:1 or 4:2 in Australia's favour).

Jiub:

Oh yes, because it's not like literally EVERY other game company is guilty of the same shit or anything... The industry in general has been circling the drain for years and is headed for a major crash. I've reached the point where most video games these days are so bad, I don't even care if the whole industry goes down in flames.

I've heard the "heading for a crash" argument for years now. Still hasn't happened. Course you can play what you want though.

Jiub:
I don't complain about France not being in the game because I personally don't really care for the French to be honest. Almost all French I've ever met were jerks.

That's hardly an excuse to not include France.

And as someone who lives in a suburb with a noticable percentage of French migrants, I've had the opposite experience from you. I mean, the French brought in a crepe shop at the local village. Crepes! C'est tre bien!

Jiub:
As far as the Ruskis go, it's no surprise they weren't included. Their army was a complete mess, the Czar was asleep at the wheel, to the point where he had to recall the troops due to the communist uprising, and they were out of the war after that. Hardly a "major power in the war".

You're correct about the Russian army being ineffective, but that's simplifying the issue. Russia was a major Entente power. It was of great concern to the Central Powers due to how Germany was now flanked by France to the west, and Russia to the east (hence the creation of the Schliffen Plan). Russia was also arguably one of the key instigators of WWI, given how they backed Serbia, and were one of the first major powers to mobolize. Also, they did keep German troops occupied on the Eastern Front for a significant period of time - enough so that when German troops were rotated to the Western Front, it could have turned the tide of the war, if the US hadn't intervened, effectively balancing out Germany's troop surge.

So, no, Russia was a major power. And considering how little I've heard about the Eastern Front, I think it would be nice to see some battles of that era. Same way Battlefield 1942 highlighted areas such as North Africa, which is rarely featured in WWII media.

Jiub:
You're missing the point; this is bigger than video games. Battlefield 1 is a fun game, but the over representation of the blacks and the overall trend it fits into in our media and society right now is disturbing. We have to call it out and push back against it when we see it.

There's many trends in the world I'd call disturbing. Diversity, multiculturalism, and more equal representation isn't among them.

You want to "push back" against it, go ahead. I'm under no obligation to follow you into the battle though.

50 bucks is pretty damn expensive, but at the same time the season pass gives you more multiplayer content than the vanilla game, plus exclusive benefits. I think 50 bucks for BF4's seasons pass was justified (frankly, it had too much content), but I'm not so sure about BF1.

And since we seem to be on the topic, I don't agree with the so called "blackwashing" of things, or having diversity for diversity's sale, but when what is being "blackwashed" (I hate having to use this word) are unnamed soldiers for classes used by everyone in a multiplayer game, I don't see the problem. Of course, the most preferable option would be the ability to select your appearance, but this is a class based game and visual identification of an enemy's class is key to strategy. I think having these races show up in the multiplayer as classes was a nice way to showcase and respect their involvement in the war.

If they had been in the singleplayer in a shoehorned way, yeah, that would have been annoying. But no, the African American troops were shown only in the start, at the beginning for a short period of time. It showed that there's more to WWI than people think (I sure didn't think troops of African descent were allowed into armies, considering how non-black WWII seems). This I think is one of the central themes of BF1. War on such a massive scale led to a lot of new, weird things like suits of armor being used with guns or shovels being used to bludgeon people to death. It also made sense for what the opening (which I think is everyone's favorite part of the singleplayer) was trying to do, to show that in war and death, we are all the same.

It would be easier to agree that historical accuracy is rarely a strongpoint of games, especially EA ones. Instead of arguing over what's already out there, why not promote reading up on actual history? Besides, the simple fact that EA released a game based on WW1 can be enough to stir the curiosity of some people and look into the actual facts.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here