EA Concerned Kids Don't Know About WW1 For Battlefield 1

[hermes]

Translation: EA high-ups believe young generations are dumb enough to know nothing about the world war that was prior to the second world war.

That seems like a fair assessment. I would say many adults know nothing about the prequel to WW2, and most know about that one because Hollywood keep pounding us with it, over and over again.

I would say it is a good place to start. Sure, the only way to make it historically accurate is having short spawn time, machine guns killing with one bullet, and charging head first being a valid strategy; but if it makes some 12 years old learn something about the real Verdun, it would make it better than most recent games set in "unnamed Middle East Country"...

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Honestly, I think a lack of knowledge about WWI is a valid concern. Not in the "This game shouldn't be made" sense, but as a concern in its own right. Battlefield COULD be used to inform people about the era, but we'll see how good a job it does of that. Sadly, its likely to glorify the war and just make a mess of the lessons that should have been learnt. I hope though that at least the campaign portrays the horror of the war, rather than the gung-ho "Lets go kill people" attitude they normally have. Portraying the scale of the conflict, the huge number of lives lost, and the utter futility of it all would be a great thing to remind people about what war is. I just doubt Battlefield will be the game to do it sadly.

This. So much this. Much more than WWII, The Great War has this sense of hopelessness and futility associated with it that really could be an amazing experience to see in a game. Based on the trailer though I don't think we'll be getting a tone of reverence or respect for the war. I would have liked to see a trailer similar to the Gears of War Mad World trailer. A much more somber affair. Obviously this needs to be marketed to tweens though so I understand the direction they went. I'm still looking forward to the game and I'm hoping DICE sneaks in some more thoughtful moments.

OT: Not surprised at all. I was a history major so I'm used to this feeling.

snip

I don't have much to add except that I agree completely. As the memory of major conflict fades, more and more the idea of war as something glorious and heroic makes a resurgence. WWI (and every other war of course) was a tragedy, and WWI specifically for the reasons you mentioned. Millions were killed, homes lost, families destroyed; and for what? Some binding alliances that did nothing but breed distrust.

Thanks for that eloquent response. I enjoyed reading it.

I don't think "war as something glorious" has ever faded, at least not in the United States. As Garibaldi stated on Babylon 5 "Why do we always break up history by the wars? We slice up history by the periods of war, why not the peaces? Easy, because war is exciting, and interesting, and deep down, we like to see things get destroyed." This is hardly a new phenomenon. The only thing that changes is what war is being glorified. I mean come on, we successfully glorified the Battle of Thermopylae only a few years ago with 300. This is something people just do.

Yes, that's definitely true. Movies and plays and history have always glorified war, I'm not disputing that. What I meant is in regards to real people and new generations, the more they are removed from the memory of the last great conflict the less threatening and horrible war can seem. War is remembered and looked upon differently by someone who has fought and bled in one and someone who has no personal experience or close connection to someone who has fought. It's those people who would benefit from a sobering look at WWI. You see this trope in movies all the time. The young son/nephew/whatever is all geared up to go and fight for his country/family/honor and his dad/grandpa/whatever tries to convince him not to go. Of course he doesn't listen and ends up learning about the harsh realities of war and becomes a more mature person because of it.

I wouldn't consider 300 a good example. It's an extremely stylized adaptation of crazy ol' Frank Miller's uber masculine, pro-war graphic novel. It's not meant to be taken seriously or be an accurate representation of that battle. Most war movies do the exact opposite and try to get across the anti-war message Joccaren and myself have been talking about.

 

[Naldan]

If they don't know, it's safe to say that the educational system fucking sucks.

What I'm even more worried about, is that people pull their education from these games instead. The dangers and reasons for World War 1 and 2 are still possible to emerge. And the absolute original roots of both wars wasn't fascism or nationalism.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

It's always worrying when a video game company is more concerned that kids might not know about WW1 then schools, I mean I had to learn about it on my own which is a shame because it is pretty interesting.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm mostly worried about grenade spam and random artillery death.

Because those are the funniest parts of online shooters, and now it's entirely historically accurate.

 

[CaitSeith]

That's... fine? The game is rated M, the only legal customers most assuredly realize that WWI was a thing.

I mean, everyone (and I'm confident in saying EVERYONE) in the customer-base knows that Hitler was a dude, and that he was central in World War II, so by simple observation...

Technically, it's not illegal to sell M-rated games to minors in the US (that was dictated by the supreme court). By the way, who was the bad guy (USA's enemy leader) in the WWI?

 

[Callate]

While I think it's more than a little patronizing to suggest the playerbase simply wouldn't be aware of World War I, it bears note that it hasn't exactly been in the spotlight for a while.

Charles M. Schulz had Snoopy's "World War I Flying Ace" fantasies as a regular feature of the Peanuts cartoon, but Schulz passed away more than fifteen years ago, now, and while the movie did okay, it didn't exactly blow the house down.

Prior to that, the last pop culture mention of WWI I can think of was Ubisoft's Valiant Hearts. Prior to that... I dunno. Legends of the Fall?

It certainly doesn't get the loving coverage that World War II's gloriously black-and-white (so portrayed) themes do. And when it does, it's the air war, not waiting in the trenches to be gassed, sniped, or ordered to charge a machine gun emplacement.

So I guess I can see why, from a marketing standpoint, WWI might have been a hard sell. Still, I think it's probably a good thing that they made the effort... If only because the genre's staples are beginning to look a little stale. Where they're not trite or controversial.

 

[CaitSeith]

"We believe younger consumers out there won't know about ww1"

Question... Why are they worried about marketing an M (17+) rated first person shooter to elementary school kids? (Justification: I started learning about world wars in middle school)

EA is known to focus test their games with groups from 13 years old to frat-boys.

 

[hermes]

Honestly, I think a lack of knowledge about WWI is a valid concern. Not in the "This game shouldn't be made" sense, but as a concern in its own right. Battlefield COULD be used to inform people about the era, but we'll see how good a job it does of that. Sadly, its likely to glorify the war and just make a mess of the lessons that should have been learnt. I hope though that at least the campaign portrays the horror of the war, rather than the gung-ho "Lets go kill people" attitude they normally have. Portraying the scale of the conflict, the huge number of lives lost, and the utter futility of it all would be a great thing to remind people about what war is. I just doubt Battlefield will be the game to do it sadly.

This. So much this. Much more than WWII, The Great War has this sense of hopelessness and futility associated with it that really could be an amazing experience to see in a game. Based on the trailer though I don't think we'll be getting a tone of reverence or respect for the war. I would have liked to see a trailer similar to the Gears of War Mad World trailer. A much more somber affair. Obviously this needs to be marketed to tweens though so I understand the direction they went. I'm still looking forward to the game and I'm hoping DICE sneaks in some more thoughtful moments.

OT: Not surprised at all. I was a history major so I'm used to this feeling.

snip

I don't have much to add except that I agree completely. As the memory of major conflict fades, more and more the idea of war as something glorious and heroic makes a resurgence. WWI (and every other war of course) was a tragedy, and WWI specifically for the reasons you mentioned. Millions were killed, homes lost, families destroyed; and for what? Some binding alliances that did nothing but breed distrust.

Thanks for that eloquent response. I enjoyed reading it.

I don't think "war as something glorious" has ever faded, at least not in the United States. As Garibaldi stated on Babylon 5 "Why do we always break up history by the wars? We slice up history by the periods of war, why not the peaces? Easy, because war is exciting, and interesting, and deep down, we like to see things get destroyed." This is hardly a new phenomenon. The only thing that changes is what war is being glorified. I mean come on, we successfully glorified the Battle of Thermopylae only a few years ago with 300. This is something people just do.

Yes, that's definitely true. Movies and plays and history have always glorified war, I'm not disputing that. What I meant is in regards to real people and new generations, the more they are removed from the memory of the last great conflict the less threatening and horrible war can seem. War is remembered and looked upon differently by someone who has fought and bled in one and someone who has no personal experience or close connection to someone who has fought. It's those people who would benefit from a sobering look at WWI. You see this trope in movies all the time. The young son/nephew/whatever is all geared up to go and fight for his country/family/honor and his dad/grandpa/whatever tries to convince him not to go. Of course he doesn't listen and ends up learning about the harsh realities of war and becomes a more mature person because of it.

I wouldn't consider 300 a good example. It's an extremely stylized adaptation of crazy ol' Frank Miller's uber masculine, pro-war graphic novel. It's not meant to be taken seriously or be an accurate representation of that battle. Most war movies do the exact opposite and try to get across the anti-war message Joccaren and myself have been talking about.

In the subject of 300, we also have to remember that the main source for the story are the writings of Herodot, the closest thing the ancient world had to an historian, but still Greek and still far more interested in creating an interesting narrative than presenting an objective portrait of the conflict, and the narrative was the one the western world has rolled on for centuries. Yes, Miller's portrait was uber masculine and traditionally heroic, but it is almost unfair to blame him for it.

And that is also why Americans (and, by extension, Hollywood influencing the western world) know a whole lot about WW 2 than 1 is because the narrative is a lot easier to fit into the romantic good vs evil, heroes vs villains narrative than golden age Hollywood loves (at least a lot more than a lot of the wars around it). Even today, when we can agree that the allies had their fair share of dirt under the rug, it is nothing compared with the things Germany did and is still stigmatized for. By comparison, most WW 1 stories are not about heroism, but about sacrifice, inhumanity and futility; its generation is not one that grew nobler because of the war, but one that was broken, almost literally; it is very difficult, unless aiming to pure propaganda, to read a novel about it that doesn't feel anti-war... Also compare it with Vietnam, where the US not only lost the war after several years of seemingly pointless conflict, but incidents like the My Lai massacre created an stigma in the war (in general) and the soldiers (in particular) that tainted the narrative of Americans as heroes in that conflict.

I think it is fair for EA to think not enough people know or care about WW 1 as a conflict... I grew interested in the conflict when the 100 anniversary created a lot of content about it, so you can see how recently I acquire most of my knowledge in the conflict. Still, I wish them the best of lucks. From a gameplay perspective it presents a lot of challenges, but from a settings perspective, it is enormously rich.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Over in Australia, the totality of WW1 taught in schools (or discussed anywhere) tends to be about the Australians (and maybe some New Zealanders) in Gallipoli, so not surprising.

That's something I've always been curious about actually.

I mean...from what I remember there were about 50% more French than Australians there and something like ten times more soldiers from the British Empire. Yet Gallipoli here isn't as well remembered as the battles at Verdun, Somme or Ypres.

Why is Gallipoli lionised particularly? I'm pretty certain that Australians and New Zealanders served extensively in a lot of other theatres.

By the way, who was the bad guy (USA's enemy leader) in the WWI?

If by that you mean "who was the leader of Germany in WW1" (the German Empire being probably the most key nation in the Central Powers alliance)...that'd be Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Even today, when we can agree that the allies had their fair share of dirt under the rug...

Considering how many people argue that things like the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both justified and necessary...yeah I don't think you can say that people 'agree'. :-\

 

[hermes]

And if they've done a history class, there's two wars they're going to hear about: WWI and WWII.

Heck, as I mentioned, everyone knows who Hitler was (and I do mean EVERYONE), and it's well known that he was important in WWII, so anyone with a functioning brain will quickly conclude that a WWI occurred.

I am guessing because it is known as World War 2, you deduced there has to be a World War 1. Genius, but it doesn't mean you know about it, other than the name. It is like saying that, since most people know about a city called New York, they also be familiar with (old) York.

And since everyone (and you do mean EVERYONE) knows about it, I propose you an experiment: ask anyone to name the leaders of the axis (excluding the most famous one).

 

[lacktheknack]

And if they've done a history class, there's two wars they're going to hear about: WWI and WWII.

Heck, as I mentioned, everyone knows who Hitler was (and I do mean EVERYONE), and it's well known that he was important in WWII, so anyone with a functioning brain will quickly conclude that a WWI occurred.

I am guessing because it is known as World War 2, you deduced there has to be a World War 1. Genius, but it doesn't mean you know about it, other than the name. It is like saying that, since most people know about a city called New York, they also be familiar with (old) York.

And since everyone (and you do mean EVERYONE) knows about it, I propose you an experiment: ask anyone to name the leaders of the axis (excluding the most famous one).

I asked three - a German, a Swiss, and an American. They all said Mussolini but couldn't remember the exact name of the Japanese emperor.

That's not the point I'm getting at, though - I'm saying that everyone knows Hitler.

 

[lacktheknack]

That's... fine? The game is rated M, the only legal customers most assuredly realize that WWI was a thing.

I mean, everyone (and I'm confident in saying EVERYONE) in the customer-base knows that Hitler was a dude, and that he was central in World War II, so by simple observation...

Technically, it's not illegal to sell M-rated games to minors in the US (that was dictated by the supreme court). By the way, who was the bad guy (USA's enemy leader) in the WWI?

Don't remember the name - I just remember Franz Ferdinand getting assassinated and then everyone completely flipping out.

Is that relevant to the OP? No. The OP claims that EA is worried that their customers not knowing there was a world war in the first place.

 

[happyninja42]

Yes, that's definitely true. Movies and plays and history have always glorified war, I'm not disputing that. What I meant is in regards to real people and new generations, the more they are removed from the memory of the last great conflict the less threatening and horrible war can seem.

I disagree with this, there is plenty of threat and horror in any war. The fact that the events of WW 1 are less impactful because it's such a distant event to current generation is just an event. I don't see anyone talking about the horrors of the wars from ancient times, and decrying how "our current generation are removed from the memory of the horrors of the *insert war from like 2000 years ago*. Nobody seems to worry that we've forgotten the lessons of the horrors of war when it was horse drawn chariots and men with spears. So I guess I just don't see what's so special about WW 1 that it "must be preserved for future generations, lest they forget the horrors of war". I think they can easily point to any more contemporary war, and point out the horrors of it. In fact, many stories/movies/games do exactly that. Spec Ops the Line, any number of modern war movies depict the shittines of the conflicts. So I think the idea of "reminding kids that war is terrible" is perfectly secure in our culture, they're just not using WW 1 to do it. And that's fine, nobody's using the tribal conflicts of the middle ages much these days to remind people of "the horrors of war". Or the wars that Alexander the Great took part in. Why? Because it's so distant, the frame of reference is just not there. It is quite literally ancient history.

War is remembered and looked upon differently by someone who has fought and bled in one and someone who has no personal experience or close connection to someone who has fought.

I agree, but this fact isn't unique to WW 1. Nor is this unique to war at all. I'm sure people who actually lived in the "Wild West" would call bullshit on John Wayne's films, or any of the other movies famous of that genre for being "not like the real thing." It's fiction, in the context of the entertainment being presented to the public. There is no way to truly convey the real horrors of war to someone, without actually putting them in a war. You can try all you want to "capture the realism of it", but you will always fall short. Sitting in your comfortable home, with a full stomach, and dry feet, isn't how you understand the pains of trenchfoot, being wet for weeks straight, constantly smelling dead bodies, etc etc. Try as you might, it's just not going to work. There is always that disconnect. So to try and use these games as a learning tool for those things, I think is doomed to failure. And I promise you, EA isn't worried about the fact that kids don't know WW 1 from a "oh the tragedy of lost history!". No it's the "Shit! They're not going to buy our game!" angle.

It's those people who would benefit from a sobering look at WWI. You see this trope in movies all the time. The young son/nephew/whatever is all geared up to go and fight for his country/family/honor and his dad/grandpa/whatever tries to convince him not to go. Of course he doesn't listen and ends up learning about the harsh realities of war and becomes a more mature person because of it.

Again, that isn't a trope unique to WW 1. Nearly every war story has this in it. And besides, learning about the horrors of WW 1 doesn't really do the "doomed to repeat it" thing. I mean I seriously doubt we're ever going to go back to trench warfare. It's just not how war has evolved, just like we're never going to go back to rank and file riflemen like in the colonial times. So the only real lesson of WW 1 that is at all relevant to today is "war sucks, we should avoid it if we can", and that is easily taught with any more recent war.

I wouldn't consider 300 a good example. It's an extremely stylized adaptation of crazy ol' Frank Miller's uber masculine, pro-war graphic novel. It's not meant to be taken seriously or be an accurate representation of that battle.

Sadly many people do take it as fairly accurate, just stylized in it's look.

Most war movies do the exact opposite and try to get across the anti-war message Joccaren and myself have been talking about.

Depends on the director, and the era. Some of them are just trying to show how awesome their side is, and how bad the other side is. American Independence films are famous for this. Those dirty Brits!

 

[MCerberus]

Except that that's not actually how anything works in reality. Most schools, especially grade schools, don't give a flying fuck about supporting inclusivity, which is part of why bullying has always been a huge problem. I think you should probably take a break from the internet, it'll help you stop seeing SJW Boogeymen everywhere you look.

OT: Boy, the cynicism and projection in this thread is just bowling me over.

Guys, not everyone has the same shitty schools you had. In fact, some schools are actually pretty good. Your bad personal experiences (or even worse, anecdotal stories that you just heard from the internet) aren't enough to extrapolate on the situations present in entire countries.

Yes, public schooling has major problems, but stories of things like illiterate kids graduating from high school are not the gorram majority.

One of the problems is textbook selection, combined with time constraints. WW1 is not considered 'useful' as a propaganda tool (note: texts are super political in US schools, especially biology and history for stupid reasons and in stupid ways). So because the US doesn't look too heroic and it would involve admitting the nation had a hand in a series of disasters whose lineage is everything from WW2 to ISIS, it's skipped so courses can spend more time, inexplicably, in old and middle kingdom Egypt. That's actually a commonality, and I super haven't figured out this Egypt obsession especially since Sumeria, Persia, Babylon, and ancient China are barely touched on.

Oh, and to the 'who was the enemy of the US or ww1' question, kinda funny that

Well the answer is actually one Poncho Villa. The US's reasoning for entering the war (if you don't pick unrestricted sub warfare, aka getting between the US and its money) was the telegraph from Germany making promises they had no way of fulfilling that Mexico would regain its lost territories from the US. Villa had previously raided the US, becoming the face of a vague threat from Mexico, especially since the Mexican government was pretty chill about US troop interventions to catch the guy and wanted nothing to do with the war.

Or the textbook answer, Wilhelm 2.

edit- and fun thing, it looks like in the game itself the main character is going to be German. That's a Mauser C96 he's holding.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Yes, that's definitely true. Movies and plays and history have always glorified war, I'm not disputing that. What I meant is in regards to real people and new generations, the more they are removed from the memory of the last great conflict the less threatening and horrible war can seem.

I disagree with this, there is plenty of threat and horror in any war. The fact that the events of WW 1 are less impactful because it's such a distant event to current generation is just an event. I don't see anyone talking about the horrors of the wars from ancient times, and decrying how "our current generation are removed from the memory of the horrors of the *insert war from like 2000 years ago*. Nobody seems to worry that we've forgotten the lessons of the horrors of war when it was horse drawn chariots and men with spears. So I guess I just don't see what's so special about WW 1 that it "must be preserved for future generations, lest they forget the horrors of war". I think they can easily point to any more contemporary war, and point out the horrors of it. In fact, many stories/movies/games do exactly that. Spec Ops the Line, any number of modern war movies depict the shittines of the conflicts. So I think the idea of "reminding kids that war is terrible" is perfectly secure in our culture, they're just not using WW 1 to do it. And that's fine, nobody's using the tribal conflicts of the middle ages much these days to remind people of "the horrors of war". Or the wars that Alexander the Great took part in. Why? Because it's so distant, the frame of reference is just not there. It is quite literally ancient history.

War is remembered and looked upon differently by someone who has fought and bled in one and someone who has no personal experience or close connection to someone who has fought.

I agree, but this fact isn't unique to WW 1. Nor is this unique to war at all. I'm sure people who actually lived in the "Wild West" would call bullshit on John Wayne's films, or any of the other movies famous of that genre for being "not like the real thing." It's fiction, in the context of the entertainment being presented to the public. There is no way to truly convey the real horrors of war to someone, without actually putting them in a war. You can try all you want to "capture the realism of it", but you will always fall short. Sitting in your comfortable home, with a full stomach, and dry feet, isn't how you understand the pains of trenchfoot, being wet for weeks straight, constantly smelling dead bodies, etc etc. Try as you might, it's just not going to work. There is always that disconnect. So to try and use these games as a learning tool for those things, I think is doomed to failure. And I promise you, EA isn't worried about the fact that kids don't know WW 1 from a "oh the tragedy of lost history!". No it's the "Shit! They're not going to buy our game!" angle.

It's those people who would benefit from a sobering look at WWI. You see this trope in movies all the time. The young son/nephew/whatever is all geared up to go and fight for his country/family/honor and his dad/grandpa/whatever tries to convince him not to go. Of course he doesn't listen and ends up learning about the harsh realities of war and becomes a more mature person because of it.

Again, that isn't a trope unique to WW 1. Nearly every war story has this in it. And besides, learning about the horrors of WW 1 doesn't really do the "doomed to repeat it" thing. I mean I seriously doubt we're ever going to go back to trench warfare. It's just not how war has evolved, just like we're never going to go back to rank and file riflemen like in the colonial times. So the only real lesson of WW 1 that is at all relevant to today is "war sucks, we should avoid it if we can", and that is easily taught with any more recent war.

I wouldn't consider 300 a good example. It's an extremely stylized adaptation of crazy ol' Frank Miller's uber masculine, pro-war graphic novel. It's not meant to be taken seriously or be an accurate representation of that battle.

Sadly many people do take it as fairly accurate, just stylized in it's look.

Most war movies do the exact opposite and try to get across the anti-war message Joccaren and myself have been talking about.

Depends on the director, and the era. Some of them are just trying to show how awesome their side is, and how bad the other side is. American Independence films are famous for this. Those dirty Brits!

I feel like this got really confrontational all of a sudden. You are taking what I said out of context a little bit. I'm not speaking about WWI specifically in any of my statements. I'm simply pointing out that throughout history, if you look at the way war's have been received by countries and their populations, that their reticence to go to war decreases the further you move away from their last major conflict. I'm not using WW1 as a specific marker in time and as a war to be held up as the singular conflict to compare all future conflicts to. It just happens to be the focus of the next battlefield game. If they were making Battlefield: Horse and Chariot I'd say the same thing. Let's get a more tonally accurate and honest look at warfare in the time period.

I also wasn't stating or implying that playing a video game is going to make someone able to empathize with the experience and fully understand what it's like to see combat, disease, death, suffering, what have you. Just that I think we're due for a game that doesn't portray war as a straight up action movie that rewards the player with funny dances and gun skin for shooting (x) number of people in the head.

It sounded like we disagreed based on one thing getting lost in translation but we actually have the same view point on most of this.

 

[Charli]

Surely this is a prime opportunity to TEACH them about world war one you morons. God... marketers, why do they brain such stupidity sometimes. It was a major point in our history they don't need to know everything or indeed anything about World War One to enjoy the gameplay, injecting knowledge through the gameplay is next tier shit and in the hands of a truly talented team of game makers can make a good game, unforgettable.

 

[happyninja42]

I feel like this got really confrontational all of a sudden.

I don't know why you feel that way. I simply spoke to the points you said in response to my responses. I used no inflammatory words, or profanities, or question your intelligence, or any of the many things people say when being confrontational. The only thing I said that I guess you could construe as confrontational is "I disagree". And well....if that's all it takes to be considered "confrontational", then I don't know what there is to say about trying to have a discussion with any person ever.

You are taking what I said out of context a little bit. I'm not speaking about WWI specifically in any of my statements.

Actually you did specifically reference WW 1 in at least 2 posts, one to another poster further up, and once in direct quote to me. But that's fine, not speaking about WW 1 specifically, no biggy. It's just the crux of this thread, so I figured we would be talking about that war in particular.

I'm simply pointing out that throughout history, if you look at the way war's have been received by countries and their populations, that their reticence to go to war decreases the further you move away from their last major conflict.

I agree, the longer it's been since a nation has had a conflict, the more willing they are to go into another conflict. But the US has been in a near constant state of war since 2001, even though officially, by federal "Wartime Period" standards, we've actually been in a state of war (for benefit purposes for veterans), since 1990. We are in fact, quite sick of war right now, and the national drive to start another one is crazy low. So, I'm not really sure why they would need to be reminded of "war is bad". We know this, we've been in a constant state of it for several generations of kids. At least in the US that is. And since I'm pretty sure the EA report about kids not knowing about WW 1 is most likely talking about the US population, it still applies.

I'm not using WW1 as a specific marker in time and as a war to be held up as the singular conflict to compare all future conflicts to. It just happens to be the focus of the next battlefield game. If they were making Battlefield: Horse and Chariot I'd say the same thing. Let's get a more tonally accurate and honest look at warfare in the time period.

Sure, as best as we can, but the reality is that nobody alive actually knows what that is like. They can guess, and make theories, and read what little documentation we might have from that time, but in the end, it's 100% speculation.

Just that I think we're due for a game that doesn't portray war as a straight up action movie that rewards the player with funny dances and gun skin for shooting (x) number of people in the head.

Then play Spec Ops the Line? Or you could try some of the old WW 2 Medal of Honor games. They were pretty brutal in the "war sucks" department.

It sounded like we disagreed based on one thing getting lost in translation but we actually have the same view point on most of this.

Maybe, I just don't think it's practical to ask a game designer to make a game that is that accurate to real war. That due to several factors, the true impact just won't go over well, and you will end up making a game that is rather dull, un-entertaining, and doesn't sell well. And that's all they want, to sell the game, as much as possible. And actually, after thinking about it some more, Spec Ops might not be a good example to point to for the "war is hell" example in gaming, since that game is firmly targeted at war gaming itself, and riffing on the wargame culture. It might work simply because it doesn't glorify the actions of the people in it, but I'm not sure how good it is, simply because they go out of their way to force the player into gamer specific situations, to put a spotlight on them.

Besides, if they were really trying to be accurate with war, they'd have tons and tons of the game of you just sitting around doing nothing, trying to stave off boredom, until it's time for you to actually do something. 95% boredom, 5% absolute pants shitting terror. Especially WW 1, those guys spent days, even weeks, sometimes even months, not really fighting, but just....sitting there, slowly going nuts from boredom and stress, while their feet get soaked, developing trenchfoot, dysentery, etc etc. Who's going to buy a game that's you just sitting there, looking at the other guy across the trench from you for weeks of game time? Nobody. So they have to "Hollywood it up" in order to actually make it attractive to the market.