I guess they’ve never seen Sahara, Battleground, The Longest Day… wait, they actually mentioned The Longest Day. This isn’t just ignorance. They’re really putting effort into being wrong.
I dont know, perhaps with millions of combatants in WW2 it would be a bit odd focusing on what… 300 Navajo code talkers? 18 Choctaws?
It’s an odd argument presented here. If you chose to time travel to nearly any major battle in WW2 the odds are high you would be surrounded by white men killing white men. Any one whose actually knowledgeable about history will know about the Tuskagees, The Red Ball Express drivers, The Ghurkas at Monte Cassino, the Sikh troops, The Polish airmen etc but they will also be aware these were indeed minorities.
It’s like complaining there are too many black players in NBA games because of Yao Ming.
Edit: And yes, if we want to represent every historical minority in WW2 we best be ok with killing black, Asian and Arab Wehrmacht soldiers.
and yes, I know Germanys East African colonial forces, Indian Legion etc were statistical blips, but they definitely existed.
What? That’s not remotely the same thing at all. No one here is complaining that there were too many white guys in WWII. If there’s an issue, it’s that focusing on the famous units and battles tends to cut out the contributions of those minority fighters. To use your analogy, imagine if NBA broadcasts had just neglected to ever show Yao Ming, then summed it up with, “Well, we have to keep his contribution to the games in perspective.”
Read my post. I’ve seen a lot of the same battles depicted in games and other media. (How many times can I land on Omaha Beach?) Just for variety’s sake, seeing other points in the war is nice, and if you can do it from an historically accurate minority POV, why not?
Your images of Arabs and Asians working with Nazis? Again, why not? I’ve shot a crap-ton of Indian medics in Battlefield 1’s MP.
Eh, Polygon seems to find it “too White” for comfort. But that’s a hell of a long list of stuff, TBH.
That Polygon article seemed to be arguing that way.
But, I kind of hate the criticism around historical events and media. The history of the world is racist, we can’t change that. We can do something to shine a light on that hatred as a bad thing, but we can’t just imagine it didn’t happen. You know what really sucks, that they didn’t let patriotic african american citizens fight for their country in WWII (save for a very small group) Or that women who played prominent roles in NASA didn’t get their dues until 2016. But, it is important to undersand and display the historical context of these events. I think it is great that games are trying to include a much more diverse set of characters that were in WWII. I am excited to get to learn some new things and experience the war from a different perspective than I am used to.
But Polygon… you gotta slow your roll a bit here. WWII was in the era where in the allied forces, basically only white men were in the important events. So, of course the game is going to have a lot of this. And to criticize a game that isn’t even out yet for having “token diversity” is really mean to do. I wonder if this article was already pre-formed prior to the reveal ready to criticize the whiteness of the game, and had to pivot once they included information about diversity in the game.
How can you criticize the big doritos and mtn dew fueled AAA franchise for making a point of calling out the diversity of the characters in a game? I would have expected nothing from Activision. I find it extremely cynical to scoff at this as a “token gesture”. I also think that the tone of that article is very much a “hot take”. It is up to a writer to speak their mind, but I think you also have to couch that with “We’ll see if this is just a token gesture” and not turn sledgehammer into some sort of enemy. It is a little bit like tilting at windmills. Lets wait to condemn this until we see the finished product. I think that the issue of diversity is something you would have to assess when you get the game in your hands. But, I think that type of writing is just how games and comics and internet media is. We gotta overanalyze every trailer and press snippet. Gotta have content.
Polygon gonna Polygon.
By “here” I meant us, in this thread, and more specifically on this topic.
Keep in mind that I think Polygon’s article is straight garbage. The fact that they practically start it off with “we won’t know until Nov. 3” is a good indicator for how informed the piece is.
I think the larger discussion about diversity in WWI/WWII videogames shouldn’t be dismissed with a shrug and “Welp, that’s what happened historically!” because we (again, the “we” here in this thread) know that the truth is a bit more complicated than that. There was more diversity in the world wars than most people realize because popular media has been focused on the conflicts and stories of US/UK vs Germany with some Russians sprinkled in.
Edit: Also, lest we forget, we’re not talking about documentaries here. These are videogame recreations of events with a lot of leeway given to “fun” over accuracy. I’ll point to DICE and Battlefield 1 as a good example of how to handle this. When accuracy clashes with a game mechanic, accuracy goes out the window. Everyone gets an automatic weapon! Flamethrowers are power-ups. Planes on every map!
Look at that image of the Indian Medic in MP. There’s no preaching or forced diversity there. In fact, you could argue that by making the Medic on some maps Indian, you’re enhancing the gameplay systems by supplying a unique and easily distinguished silhouette to that class.
Unless it is alternate reality depictions of events I’d think it should be as close as possible to historically accurate representation of the combatants (gameplay) than ticking off every checkbox to be “inclusive and pc”.
But sure, market it any way you want to, to appease the unwashed masses and their ‘flavor of the month’…
Having variation in “outfits” and story lines is good as players can then be more ‘distinct’ on the battlefield; and to show more of the period as well as events that may be unknown to many would be nice for ‘side missions’/DLC.
So, let me get this straight. Setting missions and stories in lesser known WWII theaters, or from atypical regiments, is ok. But only if they relegate them to side missions or DLC.
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there.
Look they can do whatever story they want. If they want to set it during Market Garden, focusing on the 101st? Go for it. If they wanted to set a series of missions in the African colonial forces with Gambian auxiliaries? That’d be a valid choice too. Personally I feel that stories that are less told are more interesting. How many times have we seen the Battle of the Bulge depicted in games or film? Do we really need another game doing it?
Not to say they shouldn’t! If that’s what they want, go for it! But it has been done many times before, and doing it in an interesting way is going to be harder, a s we all know that story. There is more space for new and interesting takes on the war by focusing on some of the out of the way, unusual, or atypical battles and regiments. Basically the polish and effort required to get my interest in another Omaha Beach scenario is far higher than one taking place in Greece or Tunisia. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan, played old CoDs, I know the beats. I can sit down right now and watch Band of Brothers if I want that story told.
You didn’t get it straight, that is just how you interpreted it.
A game marketed as a WW2 game set in the European theatre of war, should try to accurately reflect the number and/or types of units used there, and not introduce units from a totally different region or made up solely to meet some agenda/checkbox/criteria. But there would be no problem if they then introduced maps/battles from other regions with other units or storylines for those. (I.e an expansion for a “European Land War game” could be for example, Tobruk, even though that would still be mostly euro powers fighting…)
Same as they could have the entire game set in one of those regions to begin with and used the correct units for that theatre.
Or they could just have it all made up, marketed it as that, and just do whatever they want.
Well how generous to offer expansions instead of just missions. No way a single unit in a war campaign would ever offer enough material for a full game or book or movie.
Since we’re taking about not focusing on small things… Screw the Ryan family, or the pacifists, most sports movies and you know other genres that zoom in on any single focus instead of what the overall mass is doing right?
We’re in sorry shape if a entire generation j is getting history via video games. It’s fine as a gateway to other academic sources sure, but how many player leave COD to look up something other that stats on guns?
This article just makes me feel bad:
It’s just bad all around - the depth of loneliness that can drive someone to fly around the world to try to meet someone you don’t even know, embecause they seem friendly on their stream. The streamer, who is not equipped to deal with that kind of neediness or, potentially, illness.
That reminded me of an episode of this american life where a kid ran away to Piers Anthony’s house.
I’ve never understood celebrity worship and fandom in general, but it’s especially weird with youtubers.
Markiplier was bawling on camera a few weeks ago about “blah, blah, blah, it’s so hard being a youtuber, you can’t be there for all your fans, you have to choose between so many projects” nonsense. I mean, he seems like a genuinely good guy, but I don’t think his self-indulgent rant deserved ten thousand waaay-too-intense positive replies. Maybe I’m extrapolating too much, but I get the feeling most of these people would look the other way if they saw someone in need five feet in front of them in the street. Empathy is expressed in some really weird ways, I don’t quite trust it.
You’re probably missing the whole two-way personal interaction (as limited as it is) and the feeling of being in the same room with a friend, as opposed to a walled-off celebrity or a needy stranger.
The recent batch of youtube super-celebrities creep me out a lot.
To live happy, live hidden.
In other streaming news, “Ice Poseidon” was banned from Twitch after being swatted off a plane.
tl:dr - This streamer told his viewers where and when he was flying, then dared his community to “do their worst.” Someone called in a bomb threat to the airline saying he was the streamer. The streamer and a companion were arrested and taken off the plane. After hours of interrogation, the FBI figured out it was a hoax. The streamer was then banned from Twitch for encouraging the swatting.
I know these are deadly serious circumstances but I did an actual LOL reading that phrase. Shoo, streamer!