On DICE's motive behind featuring the Harlem Hellfighters in BF1 [Added DICE Comment]
- Thread starter mikefrails
- Start date
As a non-American, I am not super familiar with American history, it is true. I am not trying to comment at all on the importance of the Harlem Hellfighters to the war or American history. Must I know everything about American history to have an opinion on what j would like to see floated to the top of a European conflict?
And I know there are multiple campaigns, the important part of my comment was about equal weight. Are the Americans the spine of the campaign, or one chapter with no greater weight than any other? I think it makes a difference. I regret my phrasing leading people to think I am an idiot.
Man, I feel like it's impossible to be in this thread and talk about American ethnocentrism without all the Americans assuming your motives are racist. Black American's war stories are undertold, and I'm glad they are in the game as the American representation.
soundscream
Member
How about you spend 30 seconds and Google it before posting. Because you would realize how silly your post was.
Also I should point out this isn't something widely taught in American history, and if you read DICE statement it's the reason they are featured.
Almost all major European developers twist their games toward American sensibilities; look at Ubisoft and how many of their games revolve around American characters.
We'll likely be seeing all developers doing the same for China as the country grows and console gaming gets more of a foothold
jakonovski
Member
For the demographic of me, a nuanced, sober and in depth treatment would be great, no matter where the focus. But I know it's a pipe dream. The most the AAA games industry is capable of is reskinning the rah rah protagonist.
I like pandering to history nuts with historically accurate depictions (although a "historically accurate WWI game" would likely be very dull/horrific to play). Maybe a list of sources in an extra credits menu or something. I would probably buy the game if that were the case.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
No need to apologize thefil. I *DO* think Dice should have went with a multi-ethnic/country representation of characters on the cover of the game. After all, it is a WORLD WAR, not just American specific(and this is coming from an American).
I would prefer to take more than 30 seconds as a WW1 nut, but I'll read the Wikipedia article in good faith.
It looks like they were a regiment that was despised and mistreated for their race among the Americans, and made part of the French force that treated them with respect. They had the longest single deployment of any Allied (American? Contradiction in the article at two points but well assume Allied) regiment at 6 months. They lost over 1500 people.
In a game about America in WW1, they seem like a top choice to be the most featured party. I still feel like in a game about all of WW1 it's unfortunate that even these Americans are the most featured party. These stories exist on all sides and all parties of the war.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Perhaps EA should, to see how MANY important and unique units played a FAR larger role in that war. Like the italian stormtroopers Arditi, that the guy who raised me volunteered for at 16 faking his age.
Soyes, I kinda know something about this little slice of History.
Also LOL at " spent more combat time than any other AMERICAN unit". That's the whole Point.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Honestly Campaign should be really long with Europeans with Hellfighters making an appearance and with USA as DLC mission at the end of WW1
If we wanna be realistic.
What did he mean by this?
Member
I swear if they add some "War of Henry Johnson" dlc in that jawn I might cop a ps4 4 it.
The final boss could be his years of crippling depression and poverty due to the racist government not recognizing his service for 80 years despite receiving numerous foreign medals of honor
The final boss could be his years of crippling depression and poverty due to the racist government not recognizing his service for 80 years despite receiving numerous foreign medals of honor
soundscream
Member
Again all of these arguments are pointless because of why they choose to put the character on the cover.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Not to spoil anybody's fun but I hope you remember how bad BF 3&4's campaigns were before you expect something super amazing. It's still mainly a MP game.
Jessie.Bristol
Member
I'm not understanding the controversy here. Who cares if the character on the cover is black, who cares if you play as a black character in the Campaign (or multiplayer). They are showing all sides of the war, fact is that black people fought in WWI. The only people I see that could be offended by it are either racists or closet racists (just my thoughts).
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Those players in the war have already been recognized for their contribution in the war. Dice specifically said they want to highlight groups that a lot of people might not know of. I'm sorry this offends you so much. Your complaints and others similar too them, come off as childish, naive, and self centered.
It's a no-win situation. If you put a white person on the cover, then the devs are whitewashing or racist or whatever. Put a black person on the cover, and they're pandering to the SJWs and trying to be politically correct. Keep this shit up too long, and we'll see a whole generation of minimalist covers just trying not to offend anyone at all.
Self centered sound really weird, when Im ranting about a US published wanting to bend reality of History to better sell this to self centered AMERICAN kids who wouldnt care about a war they didn't have a key role in.
But hey, if this raises some awareness about history of WWI in the US, I guess its good. Even if its "AMERICAN heroes to the rescue, fuckyeah" version.
Also LOL at the "their role has been recognised, its AMERICAS turn!!!". Really? Where? In the dozens of nonexistant games about WWI?
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
You sound like you didnt read the quote in the OP.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Do you feel this way about every war game?
More_Badass
Member
I think you might be jumping the gun before reading about the game, especially since this is going to be a global campaign featuring everyone from the Hellfighters to Bedouin woman warriors
CosmicQueso
Member
These brave men fought alongside the French, died with the French, all for the French, on foreign soil. Sorry that isn't enough for you.
UnemployedVillain
Member
If it were up to him, it probably wouldn't feature Americans at all
Messofanego
Banned
It's fucking hilarious.
This part is partially true but not all true. The US joined the war after German U-boats started sinking American merchant vessels. Most American sentiment was riled up after the sinking of the Lusitania. It doesn't change the shit these soldiers went through, but US involvement was not a noble sacrifice to save the French people. That's closer to the truth in WW2. In fact, most of France remained in French hands for the entirety of World War 1, and foreign involvement began with the invasion of Belgium.
As the constant disclaimer for the Americans: glad the Harlem Hellfighters are a campaign. Still think it's a marketing decision (despite what the interview says, PR is PR) to put an American on the cover.
Snowybreak
Member
I'd like to point out that we have very barebones info about the actual game and the factions involved in the campaign and that everyone here is arguing about the case. Hell, the Harlem Hellfighters are part of a DLC! We don't even know if that's going to be a part of the campaign! I think everyone here, myself included, has gotten a little too heated about the cover of a case.
Actually, I did not know they were DLC. That kind of sucks? In that case, is it even one of them on the cover, or is that a Black Frenchman?
People need to relax. This isn't about America co-opting your war. The presentation about the Harlem Hellfighter's and other groups is about telling the stories of the other groups that were there that did extraordinary things. They're trying to tell people about the side of the conflicts that they don't already know and can recite ad nauseam. Most people hadn't even heard of the HH in all of the teachings of WW1, and that's kind of the point. The resistance to learning anything not exclusively Euro-centric about this conflict is kind of staggering considering it's an actual World War conflict.
And the bending of reality talk is preposterous and insulting. Black people were there, and nobody wanted them but they got the job done better than most. That is reality.
Including the story of Africa American soldiers is the least pandering thing anyone could do to attract an American audience. Some of ya'll have it so damned twisted.
And the bending of reality talk is preposterous and insulting. Black people were there, and nobody wanted them but they got the job done better than most. That is reality.
Including the story of Africa American soldiers is the least pandering thing anyone could do to attract an American audience. Some of ya'll have it so damned twisted.
veloxStrix
Banned
Unless I'm mistaken - and I very well might be since I've only read a couple of books on WW1 and a few years ago at that - a decent portion of American units sent to Europe were integrated into European forces. So wouldn't "focusing on the American experience" - which probably won't be possible considering there are highlights of the war before America sent forces - just result in a look at the numerous European experiences as well?
Someone forgot to press f to pay his respects.
CosmicQueso
Member
The individual soldier, the image everyone's discussing, this US soldier, fought under direct French command at the Marne and other battles.
What difference does it make of the macro forces that brought America into the war? The ANZAC soldier at Gallipoli, the Belgian that stood against Germany long enough for the Fench and Belgian armies to mobilize at the start of the war, the Russian, the German, every colonial conscript, all of them deserve respect. And certainly getting angry over which adorns the cover of a goddamned video game is the most asinine of actions.
soundscream
Member
The weapons are part of the DLC they exist in the game without it.
Snowybreak
Member
Ah... Seems I misread the content desc. Thanks for the correction.
It makes absolutely no difference to the soldier, you are right! I tried to say that in my post. They all deserve respect. I was correcting specifically the macro narrative of the US participation. I think it's possible to do that without undermining the soldiers. Hell, the entire First World War is a garbage clusterfuck from a macro motivations perspective. I don't think it helps anyone's respect of the soldiers to think their leaders sent them there for a purpose nobler than they did.
I don't think discussion of the cover is unmerited, though. Just like it's okay to talk about racial homogeneity on covers of games in America and other heterogeneous cultures, I think it's okay to talk about national homogeneity on a game about a world conflict. I'm not even saying I'm right, just that it's not outrageous for non-Americans to feel like there might be some "America-washing" going on here.
No, this statement is false and proven wrong by history. No FPS in modern console history has received this much backlash for featuring a character on the cover. We can rundown covers and show evidence that supports a lack of controversy because it's a videogame set in a historic setting and it's shocking to see this backlash.
No one from any community voiced opposition a character on the cover of a modern console FPS before this and this feels weird to see the backlash. It's a game where your character kills people brutally to complete a mission.
I seem to recall a lot of discussion about the cover of Bioshock Infinite not featuring Elizabeth, enough so that some developer interviews were done about it afterward? That's the last modern shooter I was interested in before this one so I can't comment outside that.
ScherzoPrime
Member
Eh, I'm P sure Booker DeWitt being on the cover of BioShock Infinite had a much more vitriolic reaction than this. Frankly I dunno why anyone would be 'angry' over this, but I guess I could see why European posters would feel annoyed over what they see as American appropriation of 'their' war.
Ive gone from racist to antiamerican. That's a progress. By the end of the thread I hope to be "the guy annoyed that ANY war must be about AMERICAS role in it"
Ive read about all thats made public on the game before my first post and suspect I know about WWI quote a bit more than the posters in there. And still argue that making an American unit as the symbol of the game speaks volumes about the approach, especially when they could have gone for a more subtle way. Don't know why its so hard to admit its a USA marketing centric move made to interest the kids to a conflict They're not traditionally interested in.
soundscream
Member
Also the video from the polygon article on the subject shows why any arguments for American jingoism from the hellfighters inclusion is ridiculous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEuoAl1elLU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEuoAl1elLU
Off topic but I recall that like TLOU the problem wasn't with Booker was white but the fact that Booker took the lead on the cover and Elizabeth was in the background. But I guess I could have selective memory about that topic.
"Generic white guy" is also a pretty common complaint though. So far I haven't seen this cover receive much more backslash (to be fair, I only read the reveal thread on Gaf)
ScherzoPrime
Member
It was more of the posing and just overall blandness; I know military dudes scowling with guns has become a total cliche of box art design.
At anyrate, I think the box art is at the very least better than it just being an American Doughboy; I think a compromise could be them offering alternative box covers, one for each protagonist.
Come on Dice, put the Indian Army in there:
My guess is that Gurkhas will be in it; I mean if the Arab Revolt is, I'd assume Indian troops are as well (two different battlefronts though, I know).
potatohead
Member
Come on Dice, put the Indian Army in there:
They should absolutely.
Yeah that is a complaint. And I haven't really seem any widespread negatively but here. But I believe the key difference here is that booker isn't based on a real persons or group of people.