•
•

Are games like COD WW2 or Battlefield 1, going to falsely teach history to the next generation? (self.badhistory)

Chukieman が 投稿

So I posted this on r/History about a week ago, but was told to post it here instead. So here it is!

So while watching gameplay for the next call of duty, I started thinking about the various historical inaccuracies.

So while I'm not at all bothered about this, as it's just a game and shouldn't be completely accurate and should just be fun, I see that a lot of people have been mad about the inaccuracies.

For example, the game does not have Swastikas and is being replaced (I'm assuming) with the iron cross.

There is also the fact that we see Female soldiers fighting for America and often black soldiers as well even though I'm sure racism prevented many black soldiers.

The same goes for games like Battlefield 1. The lack of trench warfare makes it seem like the entirety of the First World War was just massive, epic battles, but does not show all aspects of the war.

The point I'm trying to make is this. Will the historical inaccuracies in these games teach the next generation this history? Will they believe that these were the true events of the war and the aspects of the wars? Or will school still teach true history (or what we know today)?!

I just want to say that I'm not trying to racially or sexistly(?) trigger anyone. I'm genuinely curious! It's the fact that seeing a Black, Female, German soldier running about the battlefield is making a lot of people upset.

Thanks in advance!

全 6 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]alien13869kpop historian™/looking for korean history books 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think if you're playing an FPS (especially ones like COD or Battlefield) for the historical accuracy or to learn about the time period in which the game is set in, you're playing them for the wrong reason. Not to say we can't show their inaccuracies, I'm just saying that a game in which people can regen health is not gonna have good accuracy.

[–]Chukieman[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's fair! Like I say in the post, yes the games are designed for fun and not historical accuracy. But we also know how impressionable younger players can be!

[–]Compieuter 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

For example, the game does not have Swastikas and is being replaced (I'm assuming) with the iron cross.

I assume this is to deal with the ban on swastikas in some countries. I think they couldn't even sell the game in Germany if it had swastikas.

There is also the fact that we see Female soldiers fighting for America and often black soldiers as well even though I'm sure racism prevented many black soldiers.

I heard that this was because in multiplayer you can customize your character and it stays the same when you play different factions. As long as it isn't in the campaign I see no reason to complain.

The same goes for games like Battlefield 1. The lack of trench warfare makes it seem like the entirety of the First World War was just massive, epic battles, but does not show all aspects of the war.

It's a game what do you expect? Ofcourse they are not going to show all aspects of the war.

[–]HIPSTERfilter 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ive repeatedly heard lack of Swastikas was due to the ban in Germany, which confuses me because when CoD was last in WWII (World at War) it showed them. There are some shooters that due to for realistic representations like "Verdun", but the slow combat and high death rate make for a niche audience.

[–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Boar Wars: The Porcine Menace

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

  2. r/History - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is*

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]TankArchives 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Every battle in WWII was fought by 16 people per side (32 if they had PCs) at a time on about a 1 km by 1 km square battlefield. The side that killed the most people won.