r/Battlefield • u/Sheriff_Hotdog • Sep 07 '24

The 'Historical Accuracy' argument in this sub is annoying. Discussion

Post image

"Oh but you're rewriting history and dishonoring those who died" yeah like we aren't playing A FUCKING GAME that takes place in the same brutal and horrible wars that humanity ever fought for fun :v

Honestly, IDK about the historical inaccuracies. BF1/V are both fun and great games and if you can see that because "boo-hoo its hot historical" then you're looking at the wrong franchise for that.

1.9k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/StoneBleach Sep 07 '24

Being historically correct would be like being physically realistic, like for real. BF, like any other game, is first and foremost, games, not history lessons or physics simulators. While it's true that many people appreciate detail and fidelity and even narrative, everything has to be in balance. A perfect balance gave birth to BF 1.

0

u/LengeriusRex Sep 07 '24

Historical accuracy and realism are two completely different things. Nobody asked for guns to jam all the time or for soldiers to sink knee deep in mud, we wanted a historically authentic Battlefield, which EA and DICE promised and didn't deliver. How exactly do prototype weapons that have never been fought with and nonexistent uniforms contribute to your so-called "balance"?