Update: Call of Duty - Infinite Warfare Pre-Orders Are Incredibly Low

[Floppertje]

It's weird, because my stances on these two games are entirely reversed. I haven't played anything from these series since the first Black Ops, but Infinite Warfare has gotten me interested. I'm genuinely interested in the story, and space fighter combat/zero-gravity combat is something I'm looking forward to. Meanwhile the idea of a black, American protagonist in a WW1 game has left me with nothing but disdain for the developers.

Why does the idea of a black american protagonist cause you to feel so much disdain?

What on Earth makes you assume the dude's American? Multiple European countries drafted soldiers from their (African) colonies. France did so extensively even. And even if he's American, the US too had black soldiers, an entire goddamn regiment even. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/369th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)]

It's because of posts like yours that why we need minority protagonists more often. And better history lessons.

Because that's my point - I'm not saying there were NO black soldiers in the first world war, and if the protagonist was black in a game set anytime later I would applaud it. Too many white dudes with no personality aside from being gruff and burly in FPS games.

But the vast majority of soldiers in the first world war was white, and the largest and best-known theatres of war were in Europe. The Harlem Hellfighters were one regiment among many. To me, having a black guy as a protagonist feels like the developers are sacrificing historical accuracy just to make the cast more diverse and silence cries of discrimination.

But then again, I'm a random guy on the internet and nobody's under any obligation to take me seriously. Just my two cents on the matter.

The 'vast majority' of soldiers aren't in special operations either, but that hasn't stopped devs from using them over and over again. They used them because the stories that allowed them to tell are more interesting (according to the devs anyway). Personally, I think stories and perspectives you don't hear often are interesting, so on a conceptual level I'm all for this.
On a practical level it's still Dice and EA who are at the helm so I fully expect them to royally drop the ball

 

[talker]

If anything it's more significant to show them, considering the history of race relations in the US and European colonialism and considering how poorly remembered they are. If we follow your reasoning and that of many others it'd be totally okay to ignore minorities simply because they're minorities. Why people are so adverse to seeing lesser known sides of famous events will never fail to boggle my mind. Are you that afraid of different perspectives? Lord knows we get to see and learn something new and different, right?

Whoah, friend. You're making a massive and incorrect leap of logic there. I'm not afraid of different perspectives, it's almost impossible to use the internet without coming across them. I simply think a soldier from the 369th Infantry Regiment is not the best perspective, considering the US didn't join in the war until 1917. It's not the skin colour I'm pissy at, it's the fact that the developers are sacrificing a huge opportunity to satiate the SJWs.

You're aware that "The vast majority" < "All", right? The vast majority of people in the US are white, yet here I am existing and not being white at all.

Good for you. But your comparison of the ethnic population of the US and the ethnicity of the soldiers of WW1 isn't really viable here. Over a fourth of the population of the US is not white, and that's a far greater percentage than the percentage of coloured soldiers, even if you count sepoys and other colonial troops.

The 'vast majority' of soldiers aren't in special operations either, but that hasn't stopped devs from using them over and over again. They used them because the stories that allowed them to tell are more interesting (according to the devs anyway). Personally, I think stories and perspectives you don't hear often are interesting, so on a conceptual level I'm all for this.
On a practical level it's still Dice and EA who are at the helm so I fully expect them to royally drop the ball

You raise a good point, but I think at this point the special operations POV has been used so often having the protagonist be a regular trooper is a refresher. And although lesser-known stories and perspectives are interesting, in this case they really aren't. When the Harlem Hellfighters arrived at the front lines they were treated no different from whites by their French comrades, and as such wouldn't really provide a unique viewpoint in comparison to other regiments. In my opinion a British or French POV would be preferred, since they were in the war from the start. A Russian POV would be even better, because most people know even less about the eastern front than about the minute fraction of coloured soldiers.

And of course you're right about Dice and EA, Battlefield 1 is approaching a fork in the road. One leads to the toilet, the other to greatness.

 

[2HF]

You're aware that "The vast majority" < "All", right? The vast majority of people in the US are white, yet here I am existing and not being white at all.

Good for you. But your comparison of the ethnic population of the US and the ethnicity of the soldiers of WW1 isn't really viable here. Over a fourth of the population of the US is not white, and that's a far greater percentage than the percentage of coloured soldiers, even if you count sepoys and other colonial troops.

You're missing the point entirely, and intentionally I'd wager.

As long as even one single solitary African American fought in WW1 it is not historically inaccurate to have an African American protagonist in a WW1 game.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Whoah, friend. You're making a massive and incorrect leap of logic there. I'm not afraid of different perspectives, it's almost impossible to use the internet without coming across them. I simply think a soldier from the 369th Infantry Regiment is not the best perspective, considering the US didn't join in the war until 1917. it's the fact that the developers are sacrificing a huge opportunity to satiate the SJWs.

That's not a fact. At all. You make this assumption for God knows what reason, one that many make whenever a minority is involved these days.

There's also no such thing as a 'best perspective.' Here's an actual fact; black US troops in WW1 have a story to tell that many can't tell. That story hasn't been told very often. Dice wants to tell that story. That way that story might get a bit more recognition. Now the reason why they've chosen to pick that we can speculate about, but I'm pretty sure your cynical assumption has nothing to do with it.

As for how the black soldiers were treated when they arrived at the frontlines; that's exactly what I want to see. Not just by the French, but by the Americans, British and Germans as well. To say that it's not a unique perspective to tell because the French were nice to them is, I think, understating the experiences of coloured soldiers in that war. Remeber, it's still the 1910's. "Nice" to black people can mean as little as "not getting used as human minesweepers." These guys were also fighting for reasons unknown to almost any other large chunk of the American armed forces. They were fighting for the respect of their entire race. And that's a struggle I'd love to see. To say that it means little simply because they were not treated like dirt by the French is absolutely understating it, I feel. WW1 was a huge deal in the development of race relations in the US. I'm not even from the US and I recognize that.

And here's another thing; we don't know yet whether that's the only perspective that we'll see in the singleplayer campaign. I hope it won't be. I hope we'll see some Alps action too, for instance.

But in the end, the problem is that if we'd keep following reasonings like yours we would never be able to put an end to the shameful cultural under-representation of many minorities.

Evidently, it does make it more significant than most of a front in Europe where millions of boring crackers fought and died. Then again, the 'Eastern Front' is more obscure than the fucking '369th infantry division'. For every Harlem Hellfighter that served a 1000, if not more Russian soldiers, a 1000 if not more Austrian/Hungarian soldier died in WW1.

Guess which one is being ignored just to make a snide point of how there were black soldiers in WW1.

So that front might be interesting as well and I hope we'll see some of that too. So what? There's no given that all that we'll see is Harlem Hellfighter stuff. The cinematic trailer showed parts of the North-African battles as well, so who knows. I can think of more examples as well, like the fighting up in the Alps that I mentioned before. That doesn't make the choice to go with the Harlem Hellfighters any less valid especially considering how much racial minorities suffer from cultural under-representation.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

If anything it's more significant to show them, considering the history of race relations in the US and European colonialism and considering how poorly remembered they are. If we follow your reasoning and that of many others it'd be totally okay to ignore minorities simply because they're minorities. Why people are so adverse to seeing lesser known sides of famous events will never fail to boggle my mind. Are you that afraid of different perspectives? Lord knows we get to see and learn something new and different, right?

Whoah, friend. You're making a massive and incorrect leap of logic there. I'm not afraid of different perspectives, it's almost impossible to use the internet without coming across them. I simply think a soldier from the 369th Infantry Regiment is not the best perspective, considering the US didn't join in the war until 1917. It's not the skin colour I'm pissy at, it's the fact that the developers are sacrificing a huge opportunity to satiate the SJWs.

I can only assume you have information that the rest of us are ignorant of. Do you know what Battlefield 1's Campaign story will be? I can only assume you do. With the information we have right now I doubt anyone could declare the game historically inaccurate. And is it such a bad thing, to be a little inaccurate? Unless you can tell me every story, from every battle, with every soldier involved, I'd say there's a little wiggle room to tackle the social issues of the time and tell a great story. In the end the story will be fictional anyway, black guy or no.

We'll also be playing as a Bedouin woman. The end of the world must be nigh.

Also, does anyone really care about the campaign? I mean... It's Battlefield. Battlefield 3 and 4 had some terribly bland single player content. I really don't think this one will be any better. I'll be glad if you prove me wrong, Dice!

 

[Lightknight]

Some day, I hope we all reach the age where we realize that some people like entertainment we don't care for and that should be okay. I'm not a fan of horror films but I don't ***** about producers and directors who keep putting out horror film after horror film every few years.

Clearly a non-trivial number of people keep buying COD. What is it to people who don't like COD that it exists?

 

[talker]

But in the end, the problem is that if we'd keep following reasonings like yours we would never be able to put an end to the shameful cultural under-representation of many minorities.

You're ignoring what I said earlier. I think it'd be great if we had more non-white protagonists, but I simply don't think this is the best setting for it. American troops didn't join the war until 1917, and if the protagonist was European the game could be about the entire war, start to finish. The Christmas Truce, Verdun, Jutland, the Somme, these are all important and/or well-known events that we'll miss because the protagonist's an American guy. The fact he'll most likely be black is a footnote to me.

I can only assume you have information that the rest of us are ignorant of. Do you know what Battlefield 1's Campaign story will be? I can only assume you do. With the information we have right now I doubt anyone could declare the game historically inaccurate. And is it such a bad thing, to be a little inaccurate? Unless you can tell me every story, from every battle, with every soldier involved, I'd say there's a little wiggle room to tackle the social issues of the time and tell a great story. In the end the story will be fictional anyway, black guy or no.

We'll also be playing as a Bedouin woman. The end of the world must be nigh.

Again, that wasn't my point. I'm more annoyed because of the protagonist's nationality, not his skin colour. That's just an extra level of developers-dropped-the-ball for me.

You're missing the point entirely, and intentionally I'd wager.

As long as even one single solitary African American fought in WW1 it is not historically inaccurate to have an African American protagonist in a WW1 game.

Of course it's not. See above. with an American protagonist we're missing out on the full scope of the war. The skin colour feels like selling out to me.

No idea why you people are getting so angry about this.

 

[Cowabungaa]

You're ignoring what I said earlier. I think it'd be great if we had more non-white protagonists, but I simply don't think this is the best setting for it. American troops didn't join the war until 1917, and if the protagonist was European the game could be about the entire war, start to finish. The Christmas Truce, Verdun, Jutland, the Somme, these are all important and/or well-known events that we'll miss because the protagonist's an American guy. The fact he'll most likely be black is a footnote to me.

Of course it's not. See above. with an American protagonist we're missing out on the full scope of the war. The skin colour feels like selling out to me.

Why we're angry? Because of the latter bold part, how badly it contradicts with the former bold part and how racist you then come across as.

I can actually get not wanting an American perspective. That's fair, and because of the reasons you mentioned I'd indeed like to see more perspectives than just a hypothetical Harlem Hellfighters one. Like how the old CoDs showed multiple fronts of WW2. There's indeed about three years of war preceding the US involvement. Not showing any of that would perhaps be wasteful. And luckily that indeed seems to be the case so you can stop worrying about that.

But then you ruin it by claiming that making him black is selling out. Objecting the nationality, considering the relatively short involvement of the US? Fair enough. Objecting to him being black? Bullshit. Why you're flailing between those two is a mystery to me.

But all of that doesn't change the fact that the Harlem Hellfighters and black US soldiers during WW1 in general is also a lesser known facet of the war, one of tremendous cultural importance for race relations in the US. And considering the cultural under-representation of minorities in the entire West it becomes an even more valuable story. This is one of the few occasions, probably, that it'll be told in popular culture. The fact that he's black might be a footnote to you, but it's not for actual black people. That simple fact alone does make this a fantastic opportunity to learn something about African American history.

Black people deserve to get their stories told. They've been denied that for too long.

And considering what we've heard so far [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-campaign-details-teased-dev-says-div/1100-6439595/] we won't just see the black bloke tromping around with that trench mace making your objection to a black US soldier being one of the characters even more void. You act as if he's the main character. He's not. He's just one of them. To put it in the words of the devs themselves:

As for the character on Battlefield 1's cover, an African-American Harlem Hellfighter, Berlin said putting him on the cover was meant to represent EA's overall goal of spotlighting lesser-known elements of WW1.

"When we set out on this game, we wanted to depict not just the common view of what the war was like," he explained. "We wanted to challenge some preconceptions. We want to delve into some of the unknowns of WW1. Maybe people don't know that this person fought or that person fought, that this army was involved. We're stretching out and bringing all those stories into the game."

What is it to people who don't like COD that it exists?

Probably for its influence on the industry. But by the looks of it that influence has been waning for a bit, so personally I'm not too bothered anymore.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

VGChartz is not a great acid test for how well preorders and sales are going. I do wonder where they would get the idea that the preorders dropped that drastically (though it's not unheard of in games for entries in a series to skydive). This isn't quite a 1-1 due to IW being revealed later than Black Ops III, but it is an interesting quirk. I'd say wait until after E3 to real feel for reception. The series has been on a steady decline for some time, but I wouldn't expect it to drop that bad even after the negative reception to the reveal and the CoD 4 remake being walled off from people who just want to play that.

 

[irish286]

As a game store employee I can say with certainty this is way off. Our reserves are about 30% lower than BLOPS3 was. It's no where near as drastic as they are claiming. Our Battlefield orders are only about 12% lower compared to the last battlefield release and is catching up since the trailer with game play came out.

 

[talker]

You're ignoring what I said earlier. I think it'd be great if we had more non-white protagonists, but I simply don't think this is the best setting for it. American troops didn't join the war until 1917, and if the protagonist was European the game could be about the entire war, start to finish. The Christmas Truce, Verdun, Jutland, the Somme, these are all important and/or well-known events that we'll miss because the protagonist's an American guy. The fact he'll most likely be black is a footnote to me.

Of course it's not. See above. with an American protagonist we're missing out on the full scope of the war. The skin colour feels like selling out to me.

Why we're angry? Because of the latter bold part, how badly it contradicts with the former bold part and how racist you then come across as.

I can actually get not wanting an American perspective. That's fair, and because of the reasons you mentioned I'd indeed like to see more perspectives than just a hypothetical Harlem Hellfighters one. Like how the old CoDs showed multiple fronts of WW2. There's indeed about three years of war preceding the US involvement. Not showing any of that would perhaps be wasteful. And luckily that indeed seems to be the case so you can stop worrying about that.

But then you ruin it by claiming that making him black is selling out. Objecting the nationality, considering the relatively short involvement of the US? Fair enough. Objecting to him being black? Bullshit. Why you're flailing between those two is a mystery to me.

But all of that doesn't change the fact that the Harlem Hellfighters and black US soldiers during WW1 in general is also a lesser known facet of the war, one of tremendous cultural importance for race relations in the US. And considering the cultural under-representation of minorities in the entire West it becomes an even more valuable story. This is one of the few occasions, probably, that it'll be told in popular culture. The fact that he's black might be a footnote to you, but it's not for actual black people. That simple fact alone does make this a fantastic opportunity to learn something about African American history.

Black people deserve to get their stories told. They've been denied that for too long.

And considering what we've heard so far [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-campaign-details-teased-dev-says-div/1100-6439595/] we won't just see the black bloke tromping around with that trench mace making your objection to a black US soldier being one of the characters even more void. You act as if he's the main character. He's not. He's just one of them. To put it in the words of the devs themselves:

As for the character on Battlefield 1's cover, an African-American Harlem Hellfighter, Berlin said putting him on the cover was meant to represent EA's overall goal of spotlighting lesser-known elements of WW1.

"When we set out on this game, we wanted to depict not just the common view of what the war was like," he explained. "We wanted to challenge some preconceptions. We want to delve into some of the unknowns of WW1. Maybe people don't know that this person fought or that person fought, that this army was involved. We're stretching out and bringing all those stories into the game."

Let me just clear one thing up: Usually I wouldn't give a shit about skin colour, but making what I thought was the protagonist a POC when a white (European) guy would make far more sense in context felt like selling out to me. You're jumping to conclusions again.

I thought the guy on the cover was the protagonist. I was wrong. Can we be done with this virtual shitflinging?