Considering how there was footage from the arab front in the trailer it already seems to be more extensive than most other works from the time. Even Ken Follet didn't write about the war between arabs and ottomans. Neither did Jan Guillo although he showed the colonial wars in africasomeguy1231 said:Ugh, they better not dumb the game down...
I think this is the most amazing part about this. If not intentional, the wording is not going to be doing the industry any favors.loa said:So they're openly marketing their 16-18+ game to children now?
Speaking as someone born in 1998 I think it varies both from country to country and school to school. My elementary classes actually got a lot of time on WW1 compared to WW2 since it was both less well known and seemingly more complex. our main focus on WW2 was the holocaust and the invasion of norway. the rest were mostly just dates and names like pearl harbour, D-day and operation barbarosa. In WW1 there was a lot more focus on cause and effect although the battles themselves were mostly glossed over because we didn't fight in the war. as for 9/11 most people know more than they want to know and in general have gotten rather jaded because the collective western news media has seemingly been doing nothing but spouting propaganda about it for as long as anyone can remember. mercifully most history teachers seem to catch on to this and 9/11 is practically never talked about even though there is at least one paragraph about it in every history textbook i have used for the last five yearsVinLAURiA said:Today's seventeen-year-olds were born in 1999. Even 9/11 is probably something they only know from history class now.lacktheknack said:That's... fine? The game is rated M, the only legal customers most assuredly realize that WWI was a thing.
Realistically if they want to have any semblance of traditional Battlefield gameplay, they're going to heavily concentrate on 1918 dynamics where you have armoured cars, prototype SMGs, self propelled guns, advanced tanks and fighter plane dogfights. They'll also have to sneak vehicles and weapons historically only used by one army into others for balance.Brian Tams said:EA should be more worried about people who DO know what World War 1 is, and will shit all over what is guaranteed to be an extremely unfaithful adaptation of what was a very brutal war fought in conditions where the filthy environment of the trenches killed just as many soldiers as the actual fighting did.
I wonder if the decision to skim on WW1 is a conscious decision or just something that happened out of WW2 lionizing(not that lionizing the people who fought is a bad thing)? The US wasn't massively involved in WW1 until right at the end and even then there wasn't a very big presence of the US. It could just be that they think it important to know when and why it happened(because Arch Duke Ferdinand shot an ostrich because he was hungry) but not go massively into it due to lack of involvement. I'm guessing the major wars you guys study are the US Civil War, The American War of Independence and WW2?Imperioratorex Caprae said:Considering the way almost all of my elementary and high school history classes basically glossed over WWI but we got hammered with WWII, I'm not that surprised that younger generations may indeed know very little-to-nothing about WWI unless they took it upon themselves to read about it.
WWI is very important even in regards as a lead-in to WWII as the state of postwar Germany and the Treaty of Versailles + the Great Depression are huge factors in why Germany went facist nutso on Europe. If they'd taught it correctly, in my day, a lot more people I was in class with wouldn't have struggled to understand why Germany went right into invading Poland and the whole forced redistribution of wealth, blame the Jews, etc. But instead we got a smattering of WWI about trenches and mustard gas, very little on the postwar pressures and then BAM! Nazis. Thankfully my grandfathers both were historically inclined and taught me well, one of them having served in WWII. So I got a full education from them about WWI and WWII and why they happened so close together.elvor0 said:I wonder if the decision to skim on WW1 is a conscious decision or just something that happened out of WW2 lionizing(not that lionizing the people who fought is a bad thing)? The US wasn't massively involved in WW1 until right at the end and even then there wasn't a very big presence of the US. It could just be that they think it important to know when and why it happened(because Arch Duke Ferdinand shot an ostrich because he was hungry) but not go massively into it due to lack of involvement. I'm guessing the major wars you guys study are the US Civil War, The American War of Independence and WW2?Imperioratorex Caprae said:Considering the way almost all of my elementary and high school history classes basically glossed over WWI but we got hammered with WWII, I'm not that surprised that younger generations may indeed know very little-to-nothing about WWI unless they took it upon themselves to read about it.
Being British at least at my school we most certainly did study WW1 properly, and I should imagine that France and many of the countries for whom The Great War hung over for the entirety of it do to.
In some places. Not in Europe. In the UK, the only time it was illegal to sell something with a rating on was if the BBFC classified it, which only happened Rockstar and some high profile violence based games, the BBFC haven't been allowed to classify video games for almost a decade.Strazdas said:Also outside of US the rating systems ARE mandatory. as in it is flat out illegal to sell 16+ game to 15 year old.
You do know that the title "world war 1" is the revisionist-title right. "The Great War" is the original title of the first world war. The title "world war 1" was only applied to the war after we had the second world war and people realized that this sort of thing might not be a one-time thing that can happen.Karadalis said:Same thing as with Alien and Aliens.. the sequel just was bigger, badder, more action, more explosions, more dead people.
But seriously... this one time i will share EAs worries... kids these days have no clue there was a "first" world war. Heck people are now dubbing it "the great war" instead of world war.
History is sadly rewritten by a bunch of revisionist assholes and/or seen as something thats not worth teaching/learning about... looking forward to repeating the mistakes of the past...
Don't try to lump in your crappy school with the rest of ours, we learnt everything from rat/lice infestations in the trenches to minor battles in our school, Gallipoli they only focus on when you are in primary school and start WW1 history.Thaluikhain said: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.
Machineguns are one of the primary reasons for trenches. I believe you mean assault rifles and submachine guns though submachine guns and even the BAR machinegun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle ) where in use by the end of WW1.Zulnam said: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.
Also "ww1 was not just trenches" = expect no historical accuracy. Machineguns for everybody!!