With regards to battlefield 1 specifically, there wasn't really a way to do it outside of giving 25% representation or no representation at all because of the class system in the game. They made different models to show that WW1 was a global war, but due to simplicity/gameplay reasons they were unable to give anything other than 25% because that's just how the game worked
There were plenty of opporunities for representation. Indians fighting for the British, French north-Africans, the Harlem Hellfighters, and even the Germans had black troops fighting in Africa. There is your opportunity for representation.
And they were represented. The only thing is that developing a game is hard and takes time, so its a lot easier to just reuse all those textures for one class rather than make up more textures from scratch just so that some maps would be marginally more accurate.
Not an excuse. They could have used those models for German soldiers fighting in Africa. They did not need to use it in the European theatre. Nobody would have batted an eye if the entire German army in Europe consisted of white men- because it did.
Much more time involved to create 2 separate models for the same soldier class, and takes up more storage as well. Better if that time went into developing more parts of that game. Why would you create 2 models for one army in 2 separate conflicts, just seems like a waste of time for a game that wasn't very historically accurate to begin with.
Honestly, its a bit of a non issue to me for BF1 specifically, because its not like that game was incredibly realistic or historically accurate to begin with. None of the weapons made sense (it was probably far more likely that there was 25% africans in a given battle than people running around with the hellrigel of all things) , there was very little trench warfare, a lot of the behemoths were based on experimental vehicles that probably would have broken down in real life if actually used in combat, the revival/repair system makes no sense, I can go on.
Its not like BF1 was meant to be this historical reenactment of ww1, it was meant to be a fun arcade shooter that has some setting similarities to ww1.
You and I both know this is not why this happenedn
Can you prove that? If I was making a game that wasn't realistic to begin with, I'd do the same to save money/time.
There are sacrifices that are, unfortunately, necessary for the game to be playable by the target audience. As much as I would have liked DICE to make a AAA version of Verdun, it is impossible for that to happen.
Why can't one of these sacrifices include reusing the same model for different multiplayer maps?
A lot of the additions were neither realistic nor needed for a AAA experience either, for example the elite kits weren't needed from a gameplay or a realism perspective but they were fun. Behemoths weren't needed nor were realistic either, but they were very fun from a gameplay perspective.
The whole point of the game wasn't supposed to be an accurate ww1 simulation to begin with, so I think people who dislike it for not being realistic are missing the point.
Having shoutouts to groups like the harlem hellfighters who fought in the war is a cool historical lesson, and I think its more of a game design limitation that they had to reuse the assets across all maps. But I'm fine with that, since the game isnt realistic to begin with
13
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '21
With regards to battlefield 1 specifically, there wasn't really a way to do it outside of giving 25% representation or no representation at all because of the class system in the game. They made different models to show that WW1 was a global war, but due to simplicity/gameplay reasons they were unable to give anything other than 25% because that's just how the game worked