On DICE's motive behind featuring the Harlem Hellfighters in BF1 [Added DICE Comment]

The type of game is definitely relevant. This only became a discussion because it's an AAA game. An indie hex strategy about the Harlem Hellfighters wouldn't be the same thing as this.

And mind you, if you read my earlier posts, I'm of the opinion that the great injustice is if (more like when) the Hellfighters are relegated to a politically correct reskin.

Now why would you think that it's going to be a politically motivated reskin? What in Dice's own statements about the content that seems to very clearly address all of the issues that you are amplifying are you unclear on?
They clearly say here are the stories that we want to tell, and these are the reasons why. Willfully ignoring the very premise of their endeavor is just hijacking the topic to push a separate agenda.

Big budget usually means bigger audience which in turn makes the representation more meaningful.

That's fallacious reasoning. Tell that to the Valiant Hearts team, the games critical reception and awards. Also bigger budget does not mean a bigger audience. Not even in a larger percentage of big budget releases. EA could make this game a budget title and the name recognition would hit the same amount of ears initially regardless. I see where you're going with that, though it still in completely irrelevant to the context of the representation of the minorities during this conflict.
 
So how many subtopics are going on in this thread? Pandering/Tokenism of a black character, overrepresentation of American characters. Is there any else? Probably some other stupid shit I'm missing.
 
I think one thing though, that European have to admit; is that American involvement in WWI was essential to drawing it to a conclusion, or at least before the decade was out. The Germans nearly broke the allied lines in an assault in the early Spring 1918. It was the arrival of American soldiers and material to the front that permanently turned the tide; so portraying the United States as some sort of bit partner in the war is extraordinarily disingenuous.
The American presence on the Western Front was instrumental in ending WWI as early as it did, but it was more the fear of what they could do moreso than their actual contributions on the battlefield. The situation in early 1918 was that the American entry into the war meant several million soldiers added to the Allies' numbers whereas Germany's reserves were starting to run low. They gambled on the Spring Offensives to deliver knockout blows to France and Britain before Americans could be deployed in France in substantial numbers. And while the Spring Offensives saw a lot of initial success, this success was mostly in the Michael and Georgette Offensives against the British. One of the major contributors to this success was that the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, kept a lot of the British Army's reserves in Britain, refusing to give them to Field Marshal Haig.

Even though they weren't tactically decisive, the Spring Offensives turned out to be a big deal in the end. The Allies had planned a series of grand offensives in 1919 (Plan 1919 and others) to take advantage of the Americans' added manpower. However, their 1918 offensives, especially the Hundred Days, were so successful that Germany gave up by late 1918. The reason? They're varied, but the loss of the best German troops in the Spring Offensives and the way those attacks sapped German morale played a big part.

So the argument goes America was important to winning the war; Black Soldiers were important to the American war effort; ergo, Black soldiers serve recognition for their importance in winning the war.

And I mean, from a dry social calculus PoV: recognition of stateless people is more important than recognition of people who have a state.
I don't think that there needs to be any reason to acknowledge the Harlem Hellfighters, or anyone else in WWI. They fought, so they deserve recognition. They don't need to be the most important or most representative. That'd be a silly idea.
 

I can't believe this thread is even a thing. You can't have a game starring black characters without a "motive". Unbelievable

This thread is embarrassing.

I also don't even understand.
Didn't the last Battlefield game have a black guy on the cover too? Why are people pretend freaking out?

Is it wrong or right that I never noticed the guy on the cover was black?

The "why is a black dude on the cover" question in that interview is funny. Like that question would ever be asked if it was some white guy gracing the cover as usual

White guy on cover: "OMG look another white protagonist on the cover, how original! /sarcasm"

ANY other race/gender on cover: "Look how hard they're trying to be diverse lol"

You're NEVER going to win with this subject.

As a black person, this thread is an absolute dumpster fire.

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).

let's wait for a few hundred more games with generic black guys on the cover before we start complaining.

non issue..

Last three pages. Seems pretty clear many are trying to put all objections in the racism corner when theres people legitimately arguing about the choice to make this a USA SAVES THE DAY war tale.
 
Now why would you think that it's going to be a politically motivated reskin? What in Dice's own statements about the content that seems to very clearly address all of the issues that you are amplifying are you unclear on?
They clearly say here are the stories that we want to tell, and these are the reasons why. Willfully ignoring the very premise of their endeavor is just hijacking the topic to push a separate agenda.

I have this weird distrust of EA and PR flacks. Considering their history the story is most likely to be incoherent trash.
 
I don't think that there needs to be any reason to acknowledge the Harlem Hellfighters, or anyone else in WWI. They fought, so they deserve recognition. They don't need to be the most important or most representative. That'd be a silly idea.

I agree personally, but if people are going to demand their be an explanation for it, I think thats the best there is. Me? I think respecting DICE's artistic choice is the least problematic outlook, but that's just me.
 
Last three pages. Seems pretty clear many are trying to put all objections in the racism corner when theres people legitimately arguing about the choice to make this a USA SAVES THE DAY war tale.
Did you read the OP? Did you notice that none of those posts you quoted are quoting anyone criticizing the nationality part of the cover? There are 2+ discussions happening in this thread, the people you're quoting are part of the original topic.
 
I have this weird distrust of EA and PR flacks. Considering their history the story is most likely to be incoherent trash.

So your argument is actually about your distrust of EA and has zero to do with the content presented plainly before you, or the rolls of smaller yet significant groups who have historically been denied their own stories and their proper place in history then? Got it.
 
Maybe people complaining (the non-racist complainers), should consider that this is payback for this French film atrocity about the American Revolutionary war that DARED to feature a Frenchman on the poster. The horror... I'll apologize for the BF1 as soon as Charles de Gaulle apologizes for this movie.

La Fayette (1961)
That's not an American production, though (like DICE isn't an American studio.) And it was one of many covering that period in time, not one of the very few -- or only big budget one -- that do like BF1. Both of which I'd say are kind of important, as an Americentric representation of World War 1 being the first to break through into mainstream is what those concerns are based on.

Since we're by now many pages in I want to reiterate that my initial stance was and is that the Harlem Hellfighters are cool dudes and I'm looking forward to their campaign. This isn't about them in particular; it could have been any colour American on the cover and I would've had the same (composed, not angry) reaction of "huh, weird." to a World War 1 game being sold with Americans in the spotlight.
 
So your argument is actually about your distrust of EA and has zero to do with the content presented plainly before you, or the rolls of smaller yet significant groups who have historically been denied their own stories and their proper place in history then? Got it.

I have no idea why you have this need of needling me constantly but whatevs, have your fun.
 
I'll say I really don't know how this whole argument got started; I haven't actually seen anyone espousing White Nativist sentiment over the posts I've seen but if there is any, obviously that's icky and wrong and doesn't deserve to be discussed.

But I think that's a bit insincere to say that's what most of the people in this thread are arguing, even if I agree it's silly.
 
Got no issue with this stuff. Great to tackle a war from the non standard / hollywood POV.


Now I just wonder if DICE are going to even try touch on other less savory aspects of that war. Like the widespread use of child soldiers and labour from all sides.

WW1 was messed up. I hope they use the story mode to make that point clear. The "genesis of modern war" is a nice sales pitch but in reality the mix of old and new tech was barbaric and brutal.


And ya know... if they are doing multiple characters for storymode I hope that lets them do views from both sides of the conflict. Been a while since I played a game that did that.
 
That's fallacious reasoning. Tell that to the Valiant Hearts team, the games critical reception and awards. Also bigger budget does not mean a bigger audience. Not even in a larger percentage of big budget releases. EA could make this game a budget title and the name recognition would hit the same amount of ears initially regardless. I see where you're going with that, though it still in completely irrelevant to the context of the representation of the minorities during this conflict.
I didn't say that this is always the case, but that this game will reach more people than a small indie game is imo not too crazy of an assumption. This game will receive a PR campaign unlike any Ww1 game before it.

And this matters in the context that you said that Europeans already have tons of WW1 games in which they are featured (And honestly that giant bomb list is rather pitiful. Some games barely feature anything really related to WW1 and others are so niche that barely anyone knows them)
 
I'll say I really don't know how this whole argument got started; I haven't actually seen anyone espousing White Nativist sentiment over the posts I've seen but if there is any, obviously that's icky and wrong and doesn't deserve to be discussed.
As backed up by Messofanego's post, I haven't really seen much of that either. I've been following the threads since the reveal and there's been a few posts here and there at best, but nothing that constitutes a backlash or supports OP's interpretation of the community's reaction.
 
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.

That's a fantastic non-answer. 10/10 politician.
 
As backed up by Messofanego's post, I haven't really seen much of that either. I've been following the threads since the reveal and there's been a few posts here and there at best, but nothing that constitutes a backlash or supports OP's interpretation of the community's reaction.

There was some ignorance at the start, since some believed the US only had Black Labor Battalions during WWI, but I don't remember anything particularly mean-spirited.

Rest assured, there's probably some corner of the internet freaking out over a black dude being on the cover, but I don't think that was the reaction here.
 
I have no idea why you have this need of needling me constantly but whatevs, have your fun.

WW1 brings the Euro perspective too; it's not just American racial politics. It's a misrepresentation to say it's just about that here.

Because this thread is precisely about racial politics....


There were some posts that suggested that this is a black vs white matter.


...and you were actively trying to sideline that discussion.

Forgive me if I've been reading too much into that, but there are more than enough people in this thread trying really hard to either strip the black man on the cover of his nationality, switch the discussion away from his nationality, substitute him and his origins out for their own identifiable (and equally disposable) stand ins of an actual real life hero placed into a traditional white power fantasy, even remove him completely and whitewash the event entirely with tired nationalistic nitpicks. And I'm sorry, it's utter and complete bullshit.
We can't even have one thread to chop this topic up and stay on racial politics within honest to god actual historical context without it being jacked and made into yet another tale of white fragility cos the story is about anything other then them.

I didn't say that this is always the case, but that this game will reach more people than a small indie game is imo not too crazy of an assumption. This game will receive a PR campaign unlike any Ww1 game before it.

And this matters in the context that you said that Europeans already have tons of WW1 games in which they are featured (And honestly that giant bomb list is rather pitiful. Some games barely feature anything really related to WW1 and others are so niche that barely anyone knows them)

Very true. Now number me the games and stories told today about the ethnic people who were embroiled in this conflict with as much on the line as everybody else. Just give me one.
 
That's not an American production, though (like DICE isn't an American studio.) And it was one of many covering that period in time, not one of the very few -- or only big budget one -- that do like BF1. Both of which I'd say are kind of important, as an Americentric representation of World War 1 being the first to break through into mainstream is what those concerns are based on.

Since we're by now many pages in I want to reiterate that my initial stance was and is that the Harlem Hellfighters are cool dudes and I'm looking forward to their campaign. This isn't about them in particular; it could have been any colour American on the cover and I would've had the same (composed, not angry) reaction of "huh, weird." to a World War 1 game being sold with Americans in the spotlight.

And that's where the issue gets muddied. It's not any character on the cover, it just happens to be a black guy and all of a sudden everyone is against it, but not because he's black, just because he's American. I brought it up yesterday and some guy is throwing Indians in my face. I don't remember everyone making a fuss about Indians or whoever else when it was the generic white character.

Everyone involved deserves some recognition. It's not like the game's content ignores every other country according to the devs themselves. When the generic American was on the cover, everyone wasn't asking for region specific covers. Now a black guy appears and its "There should be region specific covers!", "uh, it's because he's an American, not because he's black". All just a conincidence I'm sure.
 
Because this thread is precisely about racial politics....





...and you were actively trying to sideline that discussion.

Forgive me if I've been reading too much into that, but there are more than enough people in this thread trying really hard to either strip the black man on the cover of his nationality, switch the discussion away from his nationality, substitute him and his origins out for their own identifiable (and equally disposable) stand ins of an actual real life hero placed into a traditional white power fantasy, even remove him completely and whitewash the event entirely with tired nationalistic nitpicks. And I'm sorry, it's utter and complete bullshit.
We can't even have one thread to chop this topic up and stay on racial politics within honest to god actual historical context without it being jacked and made into yet another tale of white fragility cos the story is about anything other then them.

I don't exactly agree but I can certainly stop pushing my angle if it causes concern. So I'll turn on lurk mode.
 
Very true. Now number me the games and stories told today about the ethnic people who were embroiled in this conflict with as much on the line as everybody else. Just give me one.
It's not about ethnicity. People already said they'd be fine with a black Frenchman etc.
 
And that's where the issue gets muddied. It's not any character on the cover, it just happens to be a black guy and all of a sudden everyone is against it, but not because he's black, just because he's American. I brought it up yesterday and some guy is throwing Indians in my face. I don't remember everyone making a fuss about Indians or whoever else when it was the generic white character.

Everyone involved deserves some recognition. It's not like the game's content ignores every other country according to the devs themselves. When the generic American was on the cover, everyone wasn't asking for region specific covers. Now a black guy appears and its "There should be region specific covers!", "uh, it's because he's an American, not because he's black". All just a conincidence I'm sure.

Maybe because everyone recognises the key role played by US in freeing Europe from nazism, and other modern Wars featured in videogames have been largely a US affair (whatever the opinion is on the reasons being right or wrong)?

WWI simply isnt a war where the US played a keyrole in. Having a game feature an American Squad on the cover implies the opposite, and is simply preposterous.

Also, still playing the "everyone disagreeing is racist" card.
 
It's not about ethnicity. People already said they'd be fine with a black Frenchman etc.

Of course, I don't think people would have a problem with a black Frenchman even if the Hellfighters are more than welcome, it would be very strange if we aren't playing any "Poilu" in this game though...
 
I didn't know that the HH were black Frenchmen. You can't possibly be serious....
You misunderstand. People said they'd be fine with a black Frenchman instead of a hell fighter.
You don't have to focus on the US to get black representation
 
Everyone involved deserves some recognition. It's not like the game's content ignores every other country according to the devs themselves.
I've never said America shouldn't get recognition. It's about them getting the lion's share of it when they haven't had even close to a lion's share of involvement.
When the generic American was on the cover, everyone wasn't asking for region specific covers. Now a black guy appears and its "There should be region specific covers!", "uh, it's because he's an American, not because he's black". All just a conincidence I'm sure.
I haven't been around for any "generic Americans" on the cover because I've only been following BF1 since the reveal that it was WW1. But as I said, that doesn't address any of my complaints and none of them were specific to them being black so stop with this nonsense.
 
WWI simply isnt a war where the US played a keyrole in. Having a game feature an American Squad on the cover implies the opposite, and is simply preposterous.

I mean you could at least pretend to actually know something on the subject.

The WSJ can help you out.

U.S. military power helped to bring the war to an end—a prospect at which the German government scoffed in 1917. When Kaiser Wilhelm II was warned that unrestricted submarine warfare—and the losses it would inflict on the U.S. merchant fleet—might provoke U.S. belligerence, he scribbled in a memo, "I do not care." Even if the Americans did declare war on Germany, he blustered, they were just a bunch of cowboys with an army barely worthy of the name. What use would these weaklings be against Germany's legions?

The speed and strength of the U.S. war effort wasn't a surprise only to the kaiser; it was one of the great strategic surprises of the 20th century. In April 1917, the U.S. had enormous industrial strength—some of which had been supplying the Allies with weapons and goods since 1914—and a powerful blue-water navy. But the U.S. Army was, by European standards, pitiful—not quite 140,000 men. With astonishing speed, the War Department began creating a new army from scratch to take on the Germans. Men were drafted and volunteers enlisted in unprecedented numbers. Germany had underestimated not only America's materiel superiority but also its courage and determination to win.

By spring 1918, only 287,000 U.S. combat troops were in France. But that summer, the number soared as thousands of U.S. "doughboys" completed their training and crossed the Atlantic. By August, the U.S. First Army had been created—some 500,000 men strong. German observers, many of whom had assumed that it would take years before Washington could deploy even a handful of divisions, were stunned. One German commander, Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, lamented, "The Americans are multiplying in a way we never dreamt of."

Enough Americans were finally on the Western Front to make a major contribution to the last battles of the war—often known as the Hundred Days Campaign. Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing's forces may not have been as battle-hardened or tactically sophisticated as their British and French counterparts, but their impact was enormous. The First Army made its long-awaited decisive assault in September in the Meuse-Argonne region, aiming to drive north toward Sedan, cutting off scores of German troops and severing critical supply routes.

U.S. troops sustained heavy casualties in the opening days, but German commanders looked on with horror: The Americans, they realized, would only grow stronger over the coming months. This helped to convince Germany to give in. On October 3, 1918—a week after the Meuse-Argonne offensive began—the newly appointed German chancellor, Max von Baden, telegraphed President Woodrow Wilson to ask for an armistice and peace talks on the basis of his Fourteen Points. For the German Empire, it would be the beginning of the end.
 
And that's where the issue gets muddied. It's not any character on the cover, it just happens to be a black guy and all of a sudden everyone is against it, but not because he's black, just because he's American. I brought it up yesterday and some guy is throwing Indians in my face. I don't remember everyone making a fuss about Indians or whoever else when it was the generic white character.

Everyone involved deserves some recognition. It's not like the game's content ignores every other country according to the devs themselves. When the generic American was on the cover, everyone wasn't asking for region specific covers. Now a black guy appears and its "There should be region specific covers!", "uh, it's because he's an American, not because he's black". All just a conincidence I'm sure.


Eh, I think there is something to WWI being a more uniquely European war than say WWII. I'm sure the people who're complaining about the HH guy would be complaining if it were a White U.S. Doughboy. But obviously that's counterfactual so I can't prove it.

But yeah I think the Europeans complaining really ought to let this slide. There's going to be European recognition in the game, you don't have to worry about that.

@CosmicQueso: Yeah I said the same thing earlier; but people argued that the Entente was winning in 1918 regardless. Personally, I feel all things being equal, from a military action point of view, U.S. entrance into WWI was more decisive than it's entrance in WWII. From a war material point of view though...
 
You misunderstand. People said they'd be fine with a black Frenchman instead of a hell fighter.
You don't have to focus on the US to get black representation

I'm not misunderstanding shit. You do have to focus on the Harlem Hellfighters to tell a story (one of several stories) about the god.damn. Harlem Hellfighters!!!!!!!!


Just like you have to focus on the Bedouin to tell a story about them!

These people were there! They existed! The war was about them just as much as anybody else. The erasure of these people in our collective history is the entire point of telling their stories in the first place.
 
I'm not misunderstanding shit. You do have to focus on the Harlem Hellfighters to tell a story (one of several stories) about the god.damn. Harlem Hellfighters!!!!!!!!


Just like you have to focus on the Bedouin to tell a story about them!

These people were there! They existed! The war was about them just as much as anybody else. The erasure of these people in our collective history is the entire point of telling their stories in the first place.
Well then your initial post should have been "Now number me the games and stories told today about the ethnic people Harlem Hellfighters who were embroiled in this conflict with as much on the line as everybody else. Just give me one."
 
I think it's beyond insane to frame the presence of a hellfighter on the cover as an example of American jingoism considering the disgraceful treatment they received before, during, and after the war, on the part of their own government, and from their fellow soldiers.

About 150,000 of the 200,000 African Americans who served in the AEF were used as stevedores and laborers. Upon arrival in France on 1 January 1918, the 369th unloaded ships and dug latrines. Those African Americans who eventually saw combat did so in the French army, when French manpower needs became critical. This was after unrelenting harassment from American military authorities in France. There were bloody fights between black and white American soldiers, and AEF headquarters went so far as to release the notorious pamphlet Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops, in which the American military warned French civilian authorities of the alleged inferior nature and supposed rapist tendencies of African Americans.

Henry Johnson in particular:

Henry Johnson displayed astonishing valor in World War I as a member of the renowned Harlem Hellfighters, yet he was denied recognition because he was African-American.

First, Johnson’s all-black regiment had to battle for permission to join the U.S. war effort.

Then, the regiment went to the front lines in France under French command because white American forces refused combat duty with blacks.

Then, almost single-handedly, Johnson repelled an attack by as many as 24 German soldiers. Fighting with rifle, knife and fists, he saved the life of a trenchmate while suffering life-long injuries.

The French awarded Johnson the high honor of their Croix de Guerre with gold palm. New York greeted him and the Hellfighters with a parade on their return. And the U.S. denied Johnson both a Purple Heart and a disability pension, even though he had lost a shinbone and most bones in one foot.

Johnson returned to Albany on 24 May 1919, where he enjoyed a brief moment of fame. Pictures of Johnson and Roberts were sold in great number, and both lectured on their war experiences. Johnson and Colonel Hayward shared a platform in Albany. Johnson promoted Liberty Bonds. Albany trolley cars proclaimed, "Henry Johnson licked a dozen Germans. How many [Victory War] stamps have you licked?" His image was used as a recruitment tool by the army as late as 1976. Before he got home his wife was sought by reporters and entertained by upscale white women. "Bill (her preferred name for her husband) ain't big, nor nothing like that," she supposedly told a New York Times reporter (22 May, 1918), "but boy, he can go some."

Yet his fame was short-lived and apparently provided little financial benefit. He returned briefly to his railway porter job, but his war wounds made it impossible to resume hard physical labor.

The full details of Johnson's rapid decline into penury, alcoholism, and early death are not known. He separated from his wife and children in 1924. In 1929 he died an alcoholic and penniless in New York City. He was buried under the name of William Henry Johnson in Arlington National Cemetery on 5 July 1929.

For nearly seven decades his family remained unaware of his burial at Arlington National Cemetery. In the 1990s his son Herman Johnson, 369th veterans, and New York State politicians all campaigned for posthumous recognition by the United States. In 1996 Henry Johnson was finally awarded the Purple Heart, routinely given to soldiers wounded in action. Albany named a street for him, and a monument and bronze bust were erected in his honor in Albany's Washington Park. Efforts to have him awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award, ended in failure. In 2007 a Henry Johnson Charter School opened in Albany.
 
Well then your initial post should have been "Now number me the games and stories told today about the ethnic people Harlem Hellfighters who were embroiled in this conflict with as much on the line as everybody else. Just give me one."


Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You actually listed not a single one, but you'd rather generalize the discussion away from it's specifics because you don't actually have anything to offer up.
Give me a piece of history about these glorious black Frenchmen and their deeds during this conflict that was profound enough be in this game, and I will gladly learn about them and concede the point.
World. War. Global conflict. People getting all exclusive with their atrocities by way of political fuckups is ridiculous.
 
I hope to see some Brazilian in game too...

It turns my stomach. Just flat out the most offensive game I've ever seen.

I can name family members that died in this conflict, wept at the pictures and accounts of the dead and maimed that experienced this hell, was taught all the horrors of it from primary school, through my whole life, it's only ever been a symbol of the folly of war, the worst, most black and shameful era of British and European history. I've been to the actual battlefields and mass graves across Europe, held the minutes silence without fail every rememberence day my entire life, for as long as I could understand the meaning of it.

There was no glory in this war. No thrilling action or daring do, no heroes and villains, this was mass murder, a scar on the history of our species, and every single person involved in it was a victim.

This trailer, the entire concept of this game, makes me feel physically sick, and just so fucking angry.

How fucking dare anyone make a game like this about the Harlem Hellfighters.

I don't know what's worse, the sick fucking emotionless, greedy cunts that would seriously exploit this horror of an industrialised massacre, or the ignorant, soulless bastards that will give them money and enjoy it.

Anyone involved in this, or seriously think of buying this, should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm in love *___*

Pre-order legendary edition for all!!!!

giphy.gif
 
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You actually listed not a single one, but you'd rather generalize the discussion away from it's specifics because you don't actually have anything to offer up.
Give me a piece of history about these glorious black Frenchmen and their deeds during this conflict that was profound enough be in this game, and I will gladly learn about them and concede the point.
World. War. Global conflict. People getting all exclusive with their atrocities by way of political fuckups is ridiculous.
Why do the deeds suddenly have to be profound? I thought it was about putting everything on the line just like everyone else in the war. The Bedouin warrior woman is also no one specific as far as I know.

And well there is Walter Tull, who fought in the british army, if you really need someone who won medals

I don't have a problem with shining a spotlight on the Hellfighters, but that the first big budget WW1 game could have put a European on the cover is also not a too insane to wish for if you ask me.
 
World. War. Global conflict. People getting all exclusive with their atrocities by way of political fuckups is ridiculous.

Now that I can get behind. I do think this idea of exclusive ownership of the war is blood ridiculous. I agree with another poster that the HH deserve recognition by writ of having fought and died in the war, just the same as anyone else.

I mean like I said before I think this can be defended purely out of artistic choice, but I do think there's a valid political element to it as well. As I previously mentioned, several posters didn't even realize America had African combat troops in WWI. To be under-appreciated is annoying, but with maybe the exception of Belgium, people know the nations who fought on the Western Front. To be forgotten and unrecognized is a completely different matter.
 
Why do the deeds suddenly have to be profound? I thought it was about putting everything on the line just like everyone else in the war. The Bedouin warrior woman is also no one specific as far as I know.

And well there is Walter Tull who fought in the british army.

I don't have a problem with shining a spotlight on the Hellfighters, but that the first big budget WW1 game could have put a European on the cover is also not a too insane to wish for if you ask me.


You keep moving the goal posts, because I haven't said anything about who gets the glory of being on the cover.
Tirailleurs Senegalais.

So African then. Not European. Pretty much foreign conscripts as well, but certainly not African American. Got it.
Thanks for the link. I can see many hours of deep diving into the history of this infantry group.

Now that I can get behind. I do think this idea of exclusive ownership of the war is blood ridiculous. I agree with another poster that the HH deserve recognition by writ of having fought and died in the war, just the same as anyone else.

I mean like I said before I think this can be defended purely out of artistic choice, but I do think there's a valid political element to it as well. As I previously mentioned, several posters didn't even realize America had African combat troops in WWI. To be under-appreciated is annoying, but with maybe the exception of Belgium, people know the nations who fought on the Western Front. To be forgotten and unrecognized is a completely different matter.

Nobody cares, and nobody wants to care apparently. It's not enough that there is ample reasoning behind the approach and presentation of these stories so far.
People seem to want full control and ownership of the history traditionally told their way, and their way alone.
 
Eh, this thread is a wild one. Both sides of the argument are kind of annoying me to be honest. I'm glad there's a brother on the cover of one of the biggest AAA shooter franchises out here, and a mainstream piece of media set in one of the early 20th century world wars is FINALLY acknowledging black people's sacrifices during those wars. To dismiss it as 'pandering' as if it's some kind of positive discrimination is offensive.

On the other hand, I also do see the concern that this may focus on American's during WW1. Regardless of what the American's on this forum think, WW1 touches a special nerve with people here in Europe that you really can't even begin to understand. Far more so than WW2 for some reason, at least here in UK. And so to have a mainstream piece of media set in WW1 focus on American's who, despite helping to speed up the war's end, did join after French, German, British, Australian, Belgian, Italian, Russian men had been dying in the mud for 4 years prior is understandably touching a nerve.

HOWEVER! If you listen to the trailer, I'm pretty sure every instance I heard of speaking, the accent was British, which is cool. We'll see how it pans out, but this thread is an embarrassment. Good god.
 
I mean you could at least pretend to actually know something on the subject.

The WSJ can help you out.

Do you even have an idea of the proportion of losses and suffering or are you Just waving your USA flag for fun?

Only in Italy there were like 400.000/600.000 dead only in the army vs 120.000 in the USA troops. Not counting civilians and fallout of war. Yes, it was a war where USA didn't play a role as important as the WWII nor did pay a tribute as bloody as all of European countries.
 
Eh, this thread is a wild one. Both sides of the argument are kind of annoying me to be honest. I'm glad there's a brother on the cover of one of the biggest AAA shooter franchises out here, and a mainstream piece of media set in one of the early 20th century world wars is FINALLY acknowledging black people's sacrifices during those wars. To dismiss it as 'pandering' as if it's some kind of positive discrimination is offensive.

On the other hand, I also do see the concern that this may focus on American's during WW1. Regardless of what the American's on this forum think, WW1 touches a special nerve with people here in Europe that you really can't even begin to understand. Far more so than WW2 for some reason, at least here in UK. And so to have a mainstream piece of media set in WW1 focus on American's who, despite helping to speed up the war's end, did join after French, German, British, Australian, Belgian, Italian, Russian men had been dying in the mud for 4 years prior is understandably touching a nerve.

HOWEVER! If you listen to the trailer, I'm pretty sure every instance I heard of speaking, the accent was British, which is cool. We'll see how it pans out, but this thread is an embarrassment. Good god.

I can understand and empathize. But I hope you and other members can understand that saying that the black american WW1 soldiers is that same a white american soldier. It also shows a clear lack of respect and understanding. It wasn't the same and this is a unseen perspective that I hope some of you could appreciate.
 
I can understand and empathize. But I hope you and other members can understand that saying that the black american WW1 soldiers is that same a white american soldier. It also shows a clear lack of respect and understanding. It wasn't the same and this is a unseen perspective that I hope some of you could appreciate.

Tell that to them mate, not me. As I said in the first paragraph, I'm glad my race is finally getting some proper recognition for what they did in WW1. It's ridiculous how we're more or less scrubbed out from the history books as far as mainstream WW1/WW2 media goes.

But I'm just saying I can see why people are worried that this sets a precedent for a very American focused game, despite the PR lip service from DICE. It's absolutely okay for people to be skeptical until proven otherwise.
 
Now I just wonder if DICE are going to even try touch on....widespread use of child soldiers and labour from all sides.

This is a stylised, action based video game that uses a war from a century ago as a setting - it's not a vehicle to deliver a reverent history lesson. Forcing a didactic tone onto a game that's essentially about the fun of blowing shit up would however border on disrespectful.

Love the slightly pulpy vibe BF1 has going for it - feels fresh. BF1 is more Seven Nation Army than Barber's Adagio for Strings...
 
Top Bottom