Battlefield 1 is honoured for its historical accuracy Battlefield 5 is degraded for its lack of historical accuracy I believe this assessment to be unfair, let me tell you why
A lot of you seem to think that I want to discredit battlefield 1, which I wrong, I just tried (and failed) to prove that it really isnt that deep. I was unfortunately wrong about the tankgewehr on the landship as a photograph exists of a tankgewehr mounted on a ball mount of a MkIV tank, sorry about that one What I said about the Vickers K is also wrong as the vehicle mounted weapon ingame is actually a BREN, much to my surprise
the biggest problem with BF5 for me is that the gameplay just feels too arcade-like and that the character customization is goofy af, not to mention many of the skins are very historically inaccurate, with one boasting an Avon FM12 gas mask which wasn't first produced until the 1990s. I've always known that there were historical inaccuracies with some of the weapons and vehicles, but those weren't as jarring to me, or bothersome.
BF1 is a good game, I can see why. But it is not historically accurate. But just because it's not accurate, doesn't mean it's not a good game of course.
@@beanos2287 Yeah it's hard for me to describe, it just doesn't feel right. BFV that is, and that's just player movement/mechanics, not even mentioning the god awful weapon balancing, the terrible maps with far too much dead space, the weird gun & vehicle perk unlock system. Just feels like a rushed game with not much soul. While when I play BF1 you can just tell the developers put great care into the game. Sometimes people are talking about realism in a different way, and probably should just say they like the historical bits added. Like the pre & post-match speech/narration that gives you historical background, & info on the battle you just fought, while also giving an alternate outcome had the country that won the battle in real life lost in game. The grittiness & immersion, big difference from realism. Yes we all know people weren't running around with 60round drum mag SMGs, we know there weren't that many tanks used, we know many of the guns were experimental BUT the atmosphere of pure chaos, hell & helplessness is top tier. The gas, artillery, mortars, planes, tanks, field guns & behemoths while playing Operations seems to perfectly encapsulate the hell of WW1 while still making it fun to play. There are times where I will die and it wouldn't matter how good of a player you are, it will happen, just like in WW1/real life. One second you're rushing B, and the next your in spawn screen due to a coastal gun launching a massive shell at your ass Could be nostalgia partially but BF1 is personally my favorite FPS
@@ChicagoShnozzler exactly it captured the idea of ww1, and tbh I prefer that they didn’t make the gameplay completely historical accurate, it wouldn’t have felt like a bf game imo, but I love that they have the codex’s and the other stuff, because it made ww1 easier to learn about. And my favourite part of bf1 is the guns, because of the use of odd guns got me curious to how they worked, example the RSC 1917 before playing bf1 I had no idea what it was, now I know how it works, and learnt about early self loading rifles, (thanks forgotten weapons and inrange).
Ill give you that battlefield 1 actually tried, but Im still not going to accept that of the eight SMGs in bf1, four where experimental, one is anarcronistic, one was used in extremely limited numbers and the remainder arent SMGs
@Lorenzo12799 Battlefield 1 was made in mind of a "What if" scenario. What if WW1 became an assault on masse and all out chaotic brawl between armies. The weapons that are either experimental and especially the Helrigel which WE ONLY HAVE A PICTURE OF IT to prove it exists as a concept. The devs went crazy with it, and hence, it became OP bc of developers taking creative liberty. Some weapons are historically accurate and I do find it fun for role play purposes. Either way a battlefield game is always about chaos and fun
Yeah, only 20 were made, and some idiot decided to smelt in 19 of them. Now i have to go to Australia if i want to see an actual A7V, thanks british people......
It's known for historical authenticity, not accuracy. BF1 has inaccuracies but they are tactically chosen to create a game that is still fun but also respects history. It acknowledges it's inaccuracies and accounts for that by including a codex and historical trivia in the loading screens which encourage players to learn more about the real events. After operations an announcer puts the battle into context with what really happened, and how this affected the war and wider world. Pre-game dialogue emphasises the horror of the conflict and the real people who had to live through it. The in-game sound design has soldiers breaking down in fear with some really incredible voice acting. BFV on the other hand acts like WW2 is some fantasy setting where tom cruise and cyborg partisans had a grand old time blowing eachother's heads off, all the while quipping like marvel characters. The Norway campaign even insults the memory of the real soldiers the mission is based on by replacing an entire commando squad (who died) with a little girl (who survives). You can be pedantic over all the protoype weapons and distribution of vehicles, but that's missing the point.
they did not die. there wasn't even a shot fired that whole mission. everything you said is wrong but thats the most glaringly incorrect thing you've said
@@ramiere1412 41 men died in operations grouse and freshman. operation gunnerside was a follow up mission which was successful. either way, 41 men died trying to take out that water plant. if only they knew they coulda got it done with 1 little girl, coulda saved all those lives.
@@lunokhod3937 when did the girl take out a heavy water plant? her mom sunk a ship that had heavy water on it. entirely different story stop repeating everything you see online
@@lunokhod3937 great way to cop out once you realized you were wrong👍 and yeah bf1 is vastly more respectful to history with its italian juggernauts singlehandedly fighting off the germans and turks driving british tanks
4:43 the tank hunter tank was actually real, there is a photograph of a Tankgewehr rifle mounted in a captured mark IV British tank at a tank factory in Germany, don’t know if it saw much service but it is actually based on something real and it could be swapped out for a machine gun if needed in battle.
@@Lorenzo12799 yeah this is a slightly more directly. I’m just gonna say it’s known for historical authenticity and not historical accuracy which I still don’t fully agree. It’s a battlefield game. It’s not meant to be historically accurate it’s meant to be fun.
Well actually if you want to be really autistic about it, the tankgewehr modification was only made to captured Mark IV tanks, not Mark V tanks which would make it inaccurate regardless
Prototype weapons and vehicles don't really bug me when my favorite genre of game is "Bumble around with weird prototype military stuff" Which BF1 has in spades. It's the one game that actually touches upon the weird engineering of the 1910s
Based I have +1100 hours in bf1 and 400 in bf5 and you don't need a degree in modern history to realise that these games are not realistic or historically accurate by any means Like if you go through the codex entries in the game you can genuinely learn about how the battles were fought If you want historical accuracy play scout without gadgets and iron sights only or support with lightweight lmgs and no gadgets Maybe de model 10 or 1897 if you play as Americans or the mp18 in if you are German and on some maps only
Last point is false, the French adopted the RSC 1917 en masse in WW1 and were prepared to adopt the Meunier A6 design but didn’t due to the fact that it didn’t use 8mm Lebel and they didn’t want to issue rifles using two different cartridges during WW1. Also the Chauchat is really the only fully automatic weapon that can be properly portrayed in BF1’s gameplay as its intended role and usage was basically a hip fired automatic rifle to give suppressing fire for the rest of the infantry.
50/50. The RSC wasn't standard-issue, but they did make several thousand of them (they were usually issued to the most mechanically literate, which meant something like 3 per company or something-I forget the specific numbers but you get the idea). Also the BAR did get used from the hip so there's that. The Meunier, on the other hand, never really saw front-line service. They made about 1000 of them and were planning to issue them out, but between the RSC project taking priority and the proprietary cartridge, the Meunier project was scrapped within like 1-2 months and all guns recalled before they were used. Sort of like how the Thompson was something like 2-3 weeks short of making it to the front.
@@nebiyuesayas5600 the RSC wasn’t standard issue but they did make it en masse and if the war went on longer it would’ve become standard issue. They made almost 100,000 RSC-1917s in one year, that’s half of how many Chauchats were made during the entire war. They, like all early Semi-Autos, were given to elite shock troops more than anyone else. As for the Meunier the French didn’t adopt it because it didn’t use 8mm Lebel. They were planning before the war to swap from 8mm Lebel but never got around to it until after because they knew a war was coming.
@@iterationfackshet1990 I doubt they would have made the RSC completely standard issue, since it was still an expensive and complicated rifle and the Berthier M1916 upgrades had just been adopted (plus, the French really wanted to change from 8mm Lebel, otherwise they would have made a lot more of the M1918 RSC which fixed a lot of the 1917's). Adopting a semi-auto isn't easy, you have to not only train your troops on standard rifle stuff like marksmanship, but you also have to train them in regards to maintenance and clearing malfunctions, which is harder on a semi-auto. Most troops back then were illiterate conscripts-not that they couldn't learn to use an RSC, but there's a reason the French chose to give them to the elite guys instead of equipping a whole infantry unit with RSCs. Also, the French did *technically* adopt the Meunier, but because of the RSC they canceled it before any of them were issued. IIRC they planned on a similar program of issuing Meuniers to specific soldiers/units that could deal with the complexities and oddball caliber.
@@nebiyuesayas5600 the French were looking to adopt a semi-auto. If the war continued then yes the RSC would’ve been made standard issue since it could basically use tooling for the Lebel and Berthier. However post-war it would be replaced, but the French post WW1 were much more interested in replacing 8mm Lebel first and then adopting a semi-auto, which they actually did but then WW2 happened right as they were adopting a semi-auto which would eventually evolve into the MAS44 and 49. Basically either the universe hates the French or the French just have terrible timing, probably a bit of both.
As a RUclipsr who specialises in preforming very in depth historical analyses of video games included both BF1 and BF5, I would agree with your overall point here. Although BF5 does have some more obvious errors and downright disrespectful ones in the story mode, BF1 overall has more inaccuracies in just the sheer amount of them. For BF1, Dice took WW1, a war filled mostly with rifle combat and limited vehicle use and tried to shove their typical over the top "run and gun" style by adding a load of automatic guns and vehicles and the like but basing them mostly on extremely rare protype designs from the period as their excuse for it, thus creating an absolute mess that does not at all represent WW1. Yet it is still heavily defended by players as "historically authentic" and a small some even going as far as to claim "accurate", espiecially when compared to the horrible reception received from the historical depictions of BF5. They were not even trying to create an alternative universe or anything either because according to this quote from Daniel Berlin, Dices lead game designer: "Battlefield 1 is definitely rooted in history. There's no alternate mix of anything else. All the stuff you see is equipment that was available. All the vehicles you see were available at this time."
Bf1 gave you unhistoric gameplay that was very well hidden behind a thick layer of action, explosions, and pleasant dev interactions. Bfv gave you unhistoric gameplay on a lead platter and told you to eat shit when you asked for fun.
I saw something that said that Germans did capture the mark v which would make sense to why two of these variants have german produced weapons such as the tank gewehr, it’s also shows in the story mode
And the Germans probably didn’t have the ammunition that they would need for the Allied weapons mounted on the tank hence it would make sense for them to switch to a weapon ( the tank gewehr) that they had ammunition for
To echo what other commentators have articulated, it’s not so much historical accuracy is what the problem is, but what ppl really want is to “feel” like they are in that time period; without all the extreme levels of restriction on what weapons, vehicles, or literally anything they use like a milsim such as enlisted would do. Bf1 at least “feels” like ww1 to the average lay man. Bf5 didn’t even try; ppl can call me sexist all they want, there was not women en mass fighting on either side during ww2, there shouldn’t be female soldiers in a game set when they hardly had a presence, if any at all. If they really needed to feel inclusive, they could have had the sniper class be females if they bothered to add the Russians, but this is EA so we can fuck our selves with sandpaper apparently.
Dude never once did I play BF1 and thought: “yea I feel like I’m in WWI” when I saw a dude wearing freaking full plate lug around an 80 pound machine gun, in the Italian alps after a German-made zeppelin that is in the Italian arsenal for some reason, landed on a German tank in the Austrian army of which only 20 were made while I use an experimental gun that was so experimental there isn’t even enough documentation to say how it works. Every time I played BF1 it felt like I was in the Iron Harvest universe and that this is a steampunk shooter. Not that this is WWI.
@@flyingsquirrell6953 I use “feels” very loosely. Essentially what I mean is if you pay very to little to no attention to the details. But like I insinuated, ppl don’t won’t to be rocking bolt actions the majority of the time, which would have been the gun to use during ww1, so they had to compromise in order for it to be enjoyable to the average fps player. They definitely could have at least tried harder though, BFV just straight up said “fuck it” and didn’t even care in the slightest 😅. A cool feature for both games is a historical milsim mode, where it forces players to play how it was.
@@Crimsonlupus if you don’t pay attention to the details then I can argue the exact same about a woman with prosthetic limbs. “Just ignore it like you do all of the BS in BF1”
BF1 only "feels" like the First World War to laymen because laymen know nothing about this time period to begin with. So people will act in good faith and believe BF1 is "authentic" since they have no knowledge to actually contextualize what they're seeing. The same can't be said for BFV because WWII is the most normified subject in all of military history and is immediately recognizable to laymen down to the guns, vehicles, uniforms, etc. EA had an opportunity to do the First World War setting justice in a historiographical sense, but they objectively failed. It's just not the war they set out to depict. It should also be mentioned that BFV is just the logical conclusion to BF1. If nobody cared about all the black British and German soldiers in BF1, then they shouldn't care about all the women in BFV. Both have ridiculous representations of the demographics who fought these wars, yet people are only willing to criticize BFV for it.
@@redaug4212Well Said. People say BF1 is better than BFV because it "captures the feeling and style of WW1" but in reality it only captures the popular idea of what normies think WW1 was, A gothic, ostentatious, philosophical Steampunk adventure rather than the muddy, bloody deathtrap that it really was. Its also why the levels outside of the Western Front don't even try to appear accurate, because 90%+ of the poeple that bought the game think WW1 was the Western Front and nothing else. That's why are Italian Arditi are shown as bulky armored juggernauts supporting troops with heavy machine guns, instead of lightly armored shock infantry armed with knives, grenades and pistols. Its also why the Arab uprising is lead by a woman (Look up TE Lawrence's qoute about the Arab Movement and Camels to see why that is false). For the average person, as long as it had muddy trenches, zeppelins and vague allusions to the horrors of war, it was accurate. The steampunk aesthetic is also part of the reason for the experimental gears and weapons. Not that the game can't be fun but its obtuse to use it as a references for historical accuracy and authenticity
@@AutumnBun321criticising such irrelevant things like an incorrect mortal projectile or changes for the sake of balance isnt useful criticism. Its just cries of a nerd not understanding its a game and not a history documentary.
Battlefield 1 kids speak of historical accuracy and yet they run around like lunatics, Americans run with German LMG's and lets not forget you will face the grand arsenal of Germany's 16 tanks atleast 200 times in the battle. Stop the cap. Both BF1 and BFV are historically authentic. None are accurate.
Fair, this goes for the people that says BF1 is "historically accurate", when it's not. And even the Director or the creators said it, they wanted to REIMAGINE the WW1; so with that in mind, they've made the best representation of what could've been WW1 for everyone. And as a nice bonus, the codex where u can learn history.
I love both games, but yeah people really look at BF1 with rose-tinted glasses (also I wonder why the Winchester M1895 is "standard issue" despite it being a second line rifle. If they were gonna do that, then they missed out on all the other second line rifles). Speaking of guns, where is the Berthier? The Ruby? The full-length Carcano? The PPSh? The Tokarev? There's a lot of guns missing from both games that we never got, but should have.
It's been almost 10 years, we fucking know bf1 isn't historically accurate. Gameplay was clearly the priority over historical accuracy with bf1 and that's ok. I don't think anybody would want to play a game about a completely accurate ww1
Maybe there are people who think BF1 is accurate, but... no. It's authentic, not accurate. It's a hyper-exaggerated WW1, but you don't have to squint to tell it's WW1. BFV is neither historically authentic nor accurate, though some guns are handled more accurately. What seperates them is how far removed from accuracy they are. BF1 soldiers are mostly white (or Turkish), and all men (besides an overrepresentation with the Russians). All battles are depicted with respect, and accurate factions. Uniforms are akin to the era, though usually exaggerated or deliberately changed to have readability between the classes. Soldiers scream, yell, and there is constant dialogue from enemy and allied soldiers. BFV shows no authenticity or accuracy regarding the race of combatants (unless it's the Axis) and shows none regarding gender. Battles are hyper-exaggerated and with completely wrong factions; Al Marj should have British and Italians Rotterdam and Devestation should have the Dutch, but it really isn't a large battle Wake Island should be a Japanese attack Panzerstorm should be French vs Germans in Operations Uniforms are atrocious, and have no attachment to classes, leaving no excuses of readability. And finally, the soldier chatter is significantly toned down. Dishonorable mention to the fact Axis Flags (at least Germany) are inaccurate, making the conflict feel even further removed from WW2. BF1 may not be perfect, but this whole idea that BFV is underrated and got too much hate is garbage. Sure, the game can be fun, I play it all the time myself (less now), but it's always a breath of fresh air to go back to BF1 for a game that depicts its history in spite of its inaccuracies, rather than ignoring it, or worse bastardizing it. Though BF1 did have the Nothing is Written War Story, so I will fault it for that. Oh, also BFV mostly takes place early war, but despite this has mostly late war guns and vehicles, while BF1 mostly takes place late war, and in most cases there's an exception; limits the vehicles that can be used. I do agree that the type of warfare thing is... a thing. I actually find the BF1 Back to Basics mode quite fun. Combat in BF1 is however much slower paced than BFV thanks to movement mechanics, which does its job for the most part, one reason I do not subscribe to the notion that BFV is inherently better. Defending is easier than attacking, which is not the case in BFV.
I also believe bf1 to be better in most regards Also my autism does not allow me to not point out that both the german scout and cavalry are black men despite the fact that germany fielded effectively no colonial troops in any of the European fronts
@TheGamingKiller242 the reason why they didn't add other nations to the game was because they needed to save money and time. U need to create weapons, vehicles voice actors etc. Lazy devs
@@matcastagnani1070 I wouldn't call them lazy, this was during the heart of DICE being overworked with Battlefront and Battlefield (DICE is not a very large studio). I also think it's the customization (plus needing more voice actors for women) that made having other factions impossible. You can tell they wanted to have other factions eventually, because some customization represents the French on the Allies, and the Italians on the Axis, but having to dedicate so much manpower to stupid outfits made it logistically difficult. The Battle of Hannut Grand Operation is also left completely unfinished, probably because they planned on including the French. There is French voice lines in the game already, so they didn't need to do Voice Over, just customization, and maybe a couple weapons. Idk if Italian had Voice Over. If it did, it's only available for the Italian version of the game. But the Dutch got completely screwed. Kind of Akin to Belgium in BF1, but again, BF1 was mostly late war.
The gun play is not close to the same as BF1. The weapon balancing is awful in BFV. BF1's immersion is untouchable compared to BFV. Also there's a MASSIVE difference between immersion and realism. BFV was a slop of garbage for the first year of release. BF1 feels like it was made with care and attention to detail, while BFV seemed like a slapped together money grab. But hey "don't like it don't buy it"
@@Lorenzo12799 Yeah hard to describe sometimes because they do look visually similar at times. And I really do WANT to like BFV, because I like BF and I also like WW2, I just can't get into it though. Has nothing to do with immersion/realism, hard to put a finger on, just doesn't have what I'm looking for. Like I'll play BF2042 over BFV but shit maybe I should redownload and give it a chance.... maybe..
@@Hanz_Goober Also in the last 30 days BF1 has averaged a player base of 9,500, while BFV a player base of 14,500. Pretty small difference when comparing 2 games from the same franchise, especially considering one is 2+ years older. Just for the laughs I looked at BF Hardline and it averaged.... 28 players for the last 30 days
No one mentioning the fact that in Battlefield V at least the vehicles are only playable by the nation that historically made use of them, such as the Tiger being only for Germany and the Sherman only for the US, while in Battlefield I every nation has access to every single tank. Now, I understand Germans using Mark V tanks, but British using A7V??????
I think the whole "historical inaccuracy" debate really just comes down to people not being able to articulate what they actually want. People are okay with artistic liberties so long as they fit the general spirit of the time period. Battlefield V tried to give us female soldiers with prosthetic limbs / cricket bats for melee weapons and British soldiers with katanas. I'm waiting for the day a AAA studio will give us a historically adjacent shooter with a fictional setting, similar to the way Ace Combat games are entirely fictional but use many real world aircraft. Foxhole does this really well, for example.
no they don't? Though I agree that adding inaccurate additions to the game when accurate counterparts exist is annoying, Anyone with basic knowledge about ww1 or battlefield 1 knows that this game, at least when it comes to weaponry, is in no way trying to be accurate. Guns that merely existed during the time period were added to give the game variety and make it more enjoyable. If the developers wanted to make the game historically accurate we would've barely had 20 guns with no different variants. From their own words, they were "showing what ww1 could be" This game is not what ww1 was, nor was it trying to be. It was simply a reimagination of ww1 And it did really good job at it
It depends, not all of WW1 was sitting im trenches and then die in offensive. It's only the western front and sometimes italian. And even so, bf 1 is mostly depicting offensives for obvious reasons
Lmao agreed, tho I wouldn't really count this as incel behavior He makes nerd emojis thorught the video, so I think he's aware of him being a bit too much, this is more of a "Any information Is positive info type vid." Basically cuz anything negative nowadays seems to get you more attention than being nice
Imo, BF1 definitely isn't accurate to history, but it feels more historically authentic. I can enjoy the setting and suspend my disbelief more with it versus BFV, where it honestly doesn't even feel very authentic to the time period.
10:18 there was one semi automatic rifle that did see fairly decent combat usage in BF1: the RSC-1917. Over 70,000 of the rifles were made before the war was over and they were actually fielded in combat. Aside from that, both sides also used semi auto rifles as pilot backup or balloon observation weapons. Germany used Mondragon rifles (some even fitted with drum magazines) and the French used Winchester 1907s. Regarding select fire 1907s, the article mentioned in C&Rsenal about the 1907 did state something about a few rifles being prototyped for select fire to aid in the Russian Civil War, but I don’t know how valid that is. Either way, the only full auto 1907s that are known to exist are the ones the John Dillinger gang used that were modified by Harold Lebman.
The french produced seventy thousand rsc rifles and a couple million men served in the french army, sure it saw use but that use was very far from widespread
I think the real difference is that BF1 is more historically AUTHENTIC. Meaning it gets the "feeling" of World War One much more accurately than BFV does with World War 2. Even with all of its god awful fast firing automatic weapons, terrible tank designs, and strange helmets for soldiers... it at least gets the feeling of world war 1 correct. Maps like Kaiserschlacht, Passchendaele, Verdun Heights, and even the the Somme are my absolute favorite Battlefield maps PERIOD. Just because they're so astatically and horrifyingly beautiful. Like Passchendaele with nothing but trenches, barbed wire, shell holes, destroyed buildings, giant mustard gas clouds, roaring fires, constant artillery shells hitting the ground, screaming soldiers begging to go home, it's an amazing depiction and I love it, not just because I'm a WW1 nerd. Also while I think the campaign, gameplay-wise is pretty shit, most missions have their own unique theme or message to tell. Storm of Steel (which is my fav) displays WW1 at it's most brutal. Close quarters brawls, men burned alive with flamethrowers, cowering German soldiers completely broken by war, and so on. Mud and Blood is meant to represent the struggles with piloting the first tanks and how clumsy yet effective they could be. Men in High Places represents the "soldiers" who were portrayed as heroes by the winning side but most likely were not. Avanti-Savoia (While INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC AND ALMOST CARTOONY) still has one of the most powerful endings representing not just the ones who died... but the ones who came home and lost those they care about back in the war "Buon compleanno, Matteo". The Runner represents the young, inexperienced, and gullible boys thinking war would've been a fun and wonderful adventure when the more experienced veterans have to be there to teach them the true awful realities of war. (Nothing is written admittedly makes no attempt at a theme.) But finally "Remember Us" is purely just a cutscene... an homage to those who fought, that despite everything, many... MANY men still showed bravery and fought to the very end just to be "remembered" as the Lost Generation, and that their sacrifice won't be forgotten with projects like BF1. THAT is why Battlefield 1 is more historically authentic, because it still has the THEMES of war connected to it. It takes itself seriously and does it very well. UNLIKE BFV which went out the fucking window with historical IN-authenticity with god-awful character customization, character selection, and especially the way it handles its war stories. Hell the one with the mother and daughter... doesn't pay homage to the actual commandos who risked life and limb to help put an end to the Heavy Water Program, but instead REPLACES them with two FAKE female characters, which isn't just historically inaccurate, but downright insulting and morally dubious AT BEST. It makes slapstick jokes within the Aussies in Africa, and completely just alters history for it's own narrative by claiming that the black soldiers under the French Army were erased from history for their sacrifice, which just isn't true as many were highly decorated and treated far better than African soldiers in the American Army. Battlefield 1, despite all of it's flaws, at least APPRECIATES and understands history, without making that it's top priority. It still manages to catch that essence of World War 1 and has very powerful themes that come along with it... unlike it's sequel. (But also, despite all of the inaccuracies with the weapons in BF1, it does actually give you the proper history within the Codex, which explains the weapons and how rare and experimental many of them are, which personally matters to me the most. The history is there and that's what matters.)
Always assumed the Winchester M1907 myth about the French "experimenting with full auto 1907's" was BS. The word automatic at the time would refer to semi auto weapons as well. For example the 1911 was often referred to automatic as well.
Bf1 was never historically accurate, it was historically authentic, its way more immersive, i cant explain how and why, but bf v its just not like that
I will say that BF1 is DICE's magnum opus; after that, they've been losing more and more favor from the fans ever since, and ever since BF2042 they've been real quiet, I've seen online posts asking for DICE to be shutdown after the BF5 and Bf2042 being an absolute PR disaster/shitshow; but anyway, BF1 is their best Battlefield that they've ever created in sense of scope and art. Though not my favorite my heart will always belong to BF4, but BF1 is their magnum opus even with its flaws.
problem with battlefield 5 is that its historical innacuracies are deliberate, female japanese ace pilot? show that to a japanese person and they fucking explode, and then the response of the devs was "hurr durr then don't play the game dude"
It's funny seeing people who still try to bargain with the game's poor depiction of WWI by saying "at least it feels authentic", which is really just the milsim equivalent of the WWE fan saying "it's real to me dammit!". I actually have more respect for BF1 fans who believe that it's an alternate history of the First World War. Even though the devs debunked that claim, it does make more sense than trying to pretend as if this game has any legit historicity behind it.
Many of the historical "inaccuracies" with the MkIV Landship can just be answered with "The germans stole it and put their weapons on it." The tankgwehwer was only produced by germany, why is it on a british tank? The germans stole it and put it in there, why does this one have a german 20mm autocannon on it? The germans stole it and put the autocannon on it. I think this guy is the innacurate one because this is World War 1, they were using weapons that had only been around for around 30 years at most, they weren't full production level making these "inaccuracies" they were field testing them to see how they did in battle. Ever read the description for the Villar Perosa, it says that the Arditi modified to fire more comfortably. You don't get to dictate why the game is bad because You're in *Fancy little clan* that only shows that you bought this game to win, not to have fun, or to enjoy what it is, to win. And you probably use the SMG-08 like the greasy tryhard you are. So go on, go back to conquest or TDM or Operations server and continue being a nuisance to anyone on the enemy team.
You're right, I was wrong about the tank gewehr on the mkv, not the 20mm though. That shit about the villar perosa is completely wrong, im pretty sure they got the idea for the model from an old movie, I feel a gun they only used three of doesn't count as a gun they "used" though admittedly that could have been worded better, As for the rest, i do use the smg 08 i don't think its overpowered and I play conquest, as i am sane Also I dont dislike battlefield 1, to the contrary, I absolutely love it, one of my favourite fps's of all time
both are historicallly innacurate af, it's almost like they tried to be as inaccurate as posible. and the worst part is, battlefield 1 doesnt even have campaign where you charge to the enemy position with bayonet of stuff like that. it kinda odd cuz ww1 are mostly just trench to trench warfare but BF1 doesn't have one mission like that.
I find it hard to believe that this is only your 5th video uploaded. Frankly, everything about this video is just on-point from a historical-technical perspective, but the entertainment value is gold m8. Definitely hoping for other vids in the future!
For Battlefield, its not about historical accuracy, its about inmersion. I don't mind using a gun that was produced 1 year later or using an experimental vehicle or something But, like, playing with a woman with a mechanical arm in a battle that there is no way that a woman was involved(Like Iwo Jima, for example) is not inmersive at all. For example, Battlefield 1 did a great job at this by including women in the russian revolution.
I assume the angry hyperbole is meant to be comedic, but at times it kind of steps into vitriol. Neither game is historically accurate and neither game is trying to be, it's simple. A historically accurate WW1 game would be sitting in a trench the whole match dying to artillery or typhus. Rather, these games are trying to catch the "vibe" of those wars, to *feel* authentic more than to *actually be* authentic. BF1 succeeds in doing so much more than V in my opinion, but V still has it's moments here and there. You're right in pointing out that people give 1 much more slack. Probably because a lot of people preferred 1 over V, I'd wager
@@Lorenzo12799 Lol yeah, can't argue with numbers. It showed up in my recommendations for some reason, so I guess you got picked up by the algo. Not trying to be a dick anyway, just some feedback
Using bolt action rifles in Battlefield 1 (for close range) is a nightmare but man it is so satisfying when you absolutely put down someone who is using an automatic after dying 35 times in a row
its insanely fun I agree If you run a revolver and a bolt action you can pull off the one-two punch combo by hitting them with the rifle then the revolver, really fun if you can pull it off consistently
Basically , the developers were absolute pussies in BF1 .They could not actually add more weapons that were ACTUALLY used in the conflict and not add ones that probably never even existed , along with giving a fuck about Historical Accuracy on other parts , but they wanted to be super into being generic .
The amount of people getting mad at this guy is atrocious. People need to realize that he's not saying that Battlefield 1 *itself* is bad, the game is a great one, it's just not historically accurate. Both Battlefield 1 and V are HORRIFICALLY INACCURATE in terms of their depictions with lots of things in-game. That's what's being bashed, not the actual experience. I personally think 1 is terrific, and V is decent at best (Still feels unfinished.). If you're upset at someone pointing out facts about inaccuracies in your favorite game, then pick a fight somewhere else. Yes, it's a game, it's going to have issues, but that doesn't mean that it isn't allowed to have criticism. Also, Storm of Steel is terrifying. Nothing can change my opinion.
Interesting video, even though I think you overestimated a AAA publishers ability to show ww1 in a realistic light. They still gotta make a fast paced arcade shooter after all.
Game devs, please stop with those disqusting sights.... Iron sights and some standart scopes are enough. We don't need any prototype sights on every weapon.
I have always noticed these random inaccuracies and my friend and I have always joked about it. But at the end of the it doesn’t matter if the game is fun
I think the fact that most of the weapons are full auto is good, despite the historical whatever, it makes the game both unique and fun which is the first priority In my opinion.
Corrections KE7 was used during WW2 but in China, initially it was 2nd Sino-Japanese War but after Pearl Harbor it becomes WW2 KE7 was 2nd most numerous LMG in Chinese service, the 1st one was ZB-26
About the russian winchester. Of course its use as standard weapon for some sights is very weird. Especially after adding carcano and mosin, but that rifle was used as standard weaponry in latvian divisions of russian empire. But yeah, It's just laziness or big oversight, that they didn't changed it after dlcs
Here was me thinking that t surprising similarity would be that BFV straight up rips a little less than half of its animations and assets straight from BF1 In the spirit of this video I would like to point out that Winchester was in fact contracted to produce the 1895 with modification for the Russian Empire, and that these would be issued in small though notable numbers, famously to the Baltic troops of the empire. Keep it up
@@Lorenzo12799 its standard issue for Italy, The game got a "historical" gamemode called back to basic that blocked all weapons and only let you use special bolt action variant called standard issue. The 1895 winchester is standard issue for Italy becaous carcano or Vetterli-Vitali was not in game when they created back to basic gamemode
Tannenberg, Isonzo, and Verdun are all historically accurate WW1 games, while bf1 is still my favorite game and very fun, id say its more "authentic" in historical values
It's was never because it was historically accurate. It was because it was woke. Let's be honest, only guys play these games. With the occasional female. Bf1 was great because it wasn't woke. It didn't force people of color and women down your throats. They focused on the designs, gameplay and so much more. Sure, have women in the game. But don't go woke.
They magnify minorities roles while marginalizing the entire picture. Every game does this and youtubers beat around the bush and focus on baskets and armor and superficial bs.
I wouldn’t say bf1 is “historically accurate” but it respects the history from which it was based from. The codex is there if you want the history and it respects the people who served. Bfv doesn’t. It spits in the face of ww2 vets and the events (besides the last tiger)
Damn I didn't know that about the autimatico. Guess I was misled by the name to just naturally assume it was full auto but I forget that automatic in that period usually meant semi-automatic. (Similar to the whole 1907 thing I guess) So I read up a little more and apparently most English sources talking about the autimatico are dead wrong, assuming that either they were all full auto smgs or just a few were and then lumped in with the rest. From what I can tell, there were only a small number of prototypes that actually had automatic fire (so guess it does fit the dice weapon criteria), done by MIDA, who were contracted by Beretta to make the carbine. One type had a cool dual trigger feature, one auto and one semi that was used in later italian smg designs. The article I got the information from said it's unclear why the prototypes were made but speculated that it could have been a request from one of the army units. So there is maybe a tiny tiny shred of a possibility that a full auto one was used. Bit of a reach though. The innacuraccy doesnt bother me tooo much because the game as a whole doesn't strike me as lazy like bfv did. They're not historians but the passion and respect for the events of ww1 were clear to see and thats enough for me. To even attempt to bring some of these wacky experimental weapons to light deserves some props and to choose ww1 as the setting was a huge risk
Italy never used the M95/30 you're thinking of the M91/38 Edit: Also the M91/38 uses a bullet that has more of a pointy than round tip so I honesty do not know what you are talking about
Nobody thinks that bf1 is historically accurate, a lot of people think that it is a better game. Nobody stopped playing bfv because of women, they stopped because the game fucking sucks
@@Lorenzo12799 i agree with your video , just the mistake with the Bren was too obvious for me to resist pointing it out, sorry also i was wrong it's a 100 round drum not a 240
Winchester 1895 not being a standard service rifle is apsurd. Almost 300k were produced for the Russian air force and police alone, it was used in World War 1 in good numbers. Nevertheless "Standard Service Rifle" is the category for back to basics "game mode" where you can only use weapons in that category with every faction having its own rifle.
If you call the Winchester a standard issue for Russia at that point you could also call the Arisaka a standard issue for Russia I know its for the gamemode its just dumb they never updated it
Also reading all these other comments makes me realize people missed the point of the video. You don't *have* to be accurate and trying to claim one is "more accurate" than the other is silly. Both games can be very AUTHENTIC and have excellent gameplay elements. The war games don't have to accurate experiences. We mostly used that word then because the very simple fact that 20 years ago video games started showing a man's hands loading an M1 enbloc instead of the very original Medal of Honor's waving the gun off, by itself, is more accurate. HOWEVER, we *do not* need to be obsessed with accuracy. In some cases its done for the sake of creative choice to deliver a different experience. Sometimes its because the makers had no other choice but make do with what they had at the time.
If anyone wants to think BF1 was historically accurate then something is wrong with you. The game is definitely immersive and I preferred its more gritty atmosphere over BF5’s atmosphere. A more realistic WW1 game is the Verdun, Tannenburg and Izonso series. Similarly if you want realistic WW2 play Hell let loose
i have never heard anyone say battlefield 1 was accurate and when it was releasing everyone who knew better was also saying the same things you were now.
People creamed over BF1 being 'historically accurate' while simultaneously saying its not that deep, or even worse, doubled down when someone questioned that. This video is a breathe of fresh air.
A lot of you seem to think that I want to discredit battlefield 1, which I wrong, I just tried (and failed) to prove that it really isnt that deep.
I was unfortunately wrong about the tankgewehr on the landship as a photograph exists of a tankgewehr mounted on a ball mount of a MkIV tank, sorry about that one
What I said about the Vickers K is also wrong as the vehicle mounted weapon ingame is actually a BREN, much to my surprise
Hi there. Nice video with really good humor. Do you have a patreon or something like that?
not that far yet
@@Lorenzo12799 damn... well then I have to wait. Keep it up man!
If you could make or find a battlefield 1 server that does everything historically accurate, I would be thankful.
@@Lorenzo12799 still a good video, I enjoyed it.
0:01 battlefield 1 is not known for historical accuracy its known for every match feeling like the main character in a movie
Or getting killed every 30 seconds
@@sirsee1914 you’re either the main character or you are one of the background characters either or it’s still pretty fun.
Yeah, everything is run and gun and it’s nothing like how ww1 really was with trench warfare
Emersion on the first place
yeah its arcadey fun
lmao, im a big fan of bf1, love it to death, it still surprises me that people think its "historically accurate"
the biggest problem with BF5 for me is that the gameplay just feels too arcade-like and that the character customization is goofy af, not to mention many of the skins are very historically inaccurate, with one boasting an Avon FM12 gas mask which wasn't first produced until the 1990s. I've always known that there were historical inaccuracies with some of the weapons and vehicles, but those weren't as jarring to me, or bothersome.
@@beanos2287 yeah it doesn’t feel like bf imo
BF1 is a good game, I can see why. But it is not historically accurate. But just because it's not accurate, doesn't mean it's not a good game of course.
@@beanos2287 Yeah it's hard for me to describe, it just doesn't feel right. BFV that is, and that's just player movement/mechanics, not even mentioning the god awful weapon balancing, the terrible maps with far too much dead space, the weird gun & vehicle perk unlock system.
Just feels like a rushed game with not much soul. While when I play BF1 you can just tell the developers put great care into the game.
Sometimes people are talking about realism in a different way, and probably should just say they like the historical bits added. Like the pre & post-match speech/narration that gives you historical background, & info on the battle you just fought, while also giving an alternate outcome had the country that won the battle in real life lost in game.
The grittiness & immersion, big difference from realism. Yes we all know people weren't running around with 60round drum mag SMGs, we know there weren't that many tanks used, we know many of the guns were experimental BUT the atmosphere of pure chaos, hell & helplessness is top tier.
The gas, artillery, mortars, planes, tanks, field guns & behemoths while playing Operations seems to perfectly encapsulate the hell of WW1 while still making it fun to play. There are times where I will die and it wouldn't matter how good of a player you are, it will happen, just like in WW1/real life. One second you're rushing B, and the next your in spawn screen due to a coastal gun launching a massive shell at your ass
Could be nostalgia partially but BF1 is personally my favorite FPS
@@ChicagoShnozzler exactly it captured the idea of ww1, and tbh I prefer that they didn’t make the gameplay completely historical accurate, it wouldn’t have felt like a bf game imo, but I love that they have the codex’s and the other stuff, because it made ww1 easier to learn about. And my favourite part of bf1 is the guns, because of the use of odd guns got me curious to how they worked, example the RSC 1917 before playing bf1 I had no idea what it was, now I know how it works, and learnt about early self loading rifles, (thanks forgotten weapons and inrange).
BF1 was more historical authenctic instead of accurate..
Like its more acceptable in historical thing
Bf1 do have bolt action mode that nobody play but the italian got the lever action instead of carcano
Ill give you that battlefield 1 actually tried,
but Im still not going to accept that of the eight SMGs in bf1, four where experimental, one is anarcronistic, one was used in extremely limited numbers and the remainder arent SMGs
@Lorenzo12799 Battlefield 1 was made in mind of a "What if" scenario. What if WW1 became an assault on masse and all out chaotic brawl between armies. The weapons that are either experimental and especially the Helrigel which WE ONLY HAVE A PICTURE OF IT to prove it exists as a concept. The devs went crazy with it, and hence, it became OP bc of developers taking creative liberty. Some weapons are historically accurate and I do find it fun for role play purposes. Either way a battlefield game is always about chaos and fun
@@Lorenzo12799 but you accept soldiers sliding in the sand while hipfiring with a Madsen huh
You always need a tank hunter variant, you never know qhen youll stumble across one of Germanys 20 tanks
They had around 200 tanks tho
The best part about this joke is that the stated amount of tanks is accurate too
@@frederiklarsen5109the military made an order for 200 tanks but the manufacturers could only produce 20
@@liamhernandez9891honestly, 20 is close enough
Yeah, only 20 were made, and some idiot decided to smelt in 19 of them. Now i have to go to Australia if i want to see an actual A7V, thanks british people......
It's known for historical authenticity, not accuracy. BF1 has inaccuracies but they are tactically chosen to create a game that is still fun but also respects history. It acknowledges it's inaccuracies and accounts for that by including a codex and historical trivia in the loading screens which encourage players to learn more about the real events. After operations an announcer puts the battle into context with what really happened, and how this affected the war and wider world. Pre-game dialogue emphasises the horror of the conflict and the real people who had to live through it. The in-game sound design has soldiers breaking down in fear with some really incredible voice acting.
BFV on the other hand acts like WW2 is some fantasy setting where tom cruise and cyborg partisans had a grand old time blowing eachother's heads off, all the while quipping like marvel characters. The Norway campaign even insults the memory of the real soldiers the mission is based on by replacing an entire commando squad (who died) with a little girl (who survives).
You can be pedantic over all the protoype weapons and distribution of vehicles, but that's missing the point.
they did not die. there wasn't even a shot fired that whole mission. everything you said is wrong but thats the most glaringly incorrect thing you've said
@@ramiere1412 41 men died in operations grouse and freshman. operation gunnerside was a follow up mission which was successful. either way, 41 men died trying to take out that water plant. if only they knew they coulda got it done with 1 little girl, coulda saved all those lives.
@@lunokhod3937 when did the girl take out a heavy water plant? her mom sunk a ship that had heavy water on it. entirely different story stop repeating everything you see online
@@ramiere1412 I realise you feel offended by the fact BF1 is vastily more respectful of history than BFV so i won't upset your feelings any further.
@@lunokhod3937 great way to cop out once you realized you were wrong👍
and yeah bf1 is vastly more respectful to history with its italian juggernauts singlehandedly fighting off the germans and turks driving british tanks
4:43 the tank hunter tank was actually real, there is a photograph of a Tankgewehr rifle mounted in a captured mark IV British tank at a tank factory in Germany, don’t know if it saw much service but it is actually based on something real and it could be swapped out for a machine gun if needed in battle.
thats both true and really interesting
thank you
@@Lorenzo12799 yeah this is a slightly more directly. I’m just gonna say it’s known for historical authenticity and not historical accuracy which I still don’t fully agree. It’s a battlefield game. It’s not meant to be historically accurate it’s meant to be fun.
Do you have a link to such a photo, can’t seem to find it?
@@momohanakai2430 topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2020-04/1585833736_t-gewehr-4.jpg
Well actually if you want to be really autistic about it, the tankgewehr modification was only made to captured Mark IV tanks, not Mark V tanks which would make it inaccurate regardless
Prototype weapons and vehicles don't really bug me when my favorite genre of game is "Bumble around with weird prototype military stuff" Which BF1 has in spades. It's the one game that actually touches upon the weird engineering of the 1910s
Love a lot of the prototypes too
Based
I have +1100 hours in bf1 and 400 in bf5 and you don't need a degree in modern history to realise that these games are not realistic or historically accurate by any means
Like if you go through the codex entries in the game you can genuinely learn about how the battles were fought
If you want historical accuracy play scout without gadgets and iron sights only or support with lightweight lmgs and no gadgets
Maybe de model 10 or 1897 if you play as Americans or the mp18 in if you are German and on some maps only
I was about to comment but you said it for me with your comment thank you
Well there are also those back 2 basics servers which i personally love most, but at least for me these are hard to find these days
Yeah
Exactly. If the game (multiplayer) was accurate, it wouldn't be fun.
Last point is false, the French adopted the RSC 1917 en masse in WW1 and were prepared to adopt the Meunier A6 design but didn’t due to the fact that it didn’t use 8mm Lebel and they didn’t want to issue rifles using two different cartridges during WW1. Also the Chauchat is really the only fully automatic weapon that can be properly portrayed in BF1’s gameplay as its intended role and usage was basically a hip fired automatic rifle to give suppressing fire for the rest of the infantry.
50/50. The RSC wasn't standard-issue, but they did make several thousand of them (they were usually issued to the most mechanically literate, which meant something like 3 per company or something-I forget the specific numbers but you get the idea). Also the BAR did get used from the hip so there's that.
The Meunier, on the other hand, never really saw front-line service. They made about 1000 of them and were planning to issue them out, but between the RSC project taking priority and the proprietary cartridge, the Meunier project was scrapped within like 1-2 months and all guns recalled before they were used. Sort of like how the Thompson was something like 2-3 weeks short of making it to the front.
@@nebiyuesayas5600 the RSC wasn’t standard issue but they did make it en masse and if the war went on longer it would’ve become standard issue. They made almost 100,000 RSC-1917s in one year, that’s half of how many Chauchats were made during the entire war. They, like all early Semi-Autos, were given to elite shock troops more than anyone else.
As for the Meunier the French didn’t adopt it because it didn’t use 8mm Lebel. They were planning before the war to swap from 8mm Lebel but never got around to it until after because they knew a war was coming.
@@iterationfackshet1990 I doubt they would have made the RSC completely standard issue, since it was still an expensive and complicated rifle and the Berthier M1916 upgrades had just been adopted (plus, the French really wanted to change from 8mm Lebel, otherwise they would have made a lot more of the M1918 RSC which fixed a lot of the 1917's).
Adopting a semi-auto isn't easy, you have to not only train your troops on standard rifle stuff like marksmanship, but you also have to train them in regards to maintenance and clearing malfunctions, which is harder on a semi-auto. Most troops back then were illiterate conscripts-not that they couldn't learn to use an RSC, but there's a reason the French chose to give them to the elite guys instead of equipping a whole infantry unit with RSCs.
Also, the French did *technically* adopt the Meunier, but because of the RSC they canceled it before any of them were issued. IIRC they planned on a similar program of issuing Meuniers to specific soldiers/units that could deal with the complexities and oddball caliber.
@@nebiyuesayas5600 the French were looking to adopt a semi-auto. If the war continued then yes the RSC would’ve been made standard issue since it could basically use tooling for the Lebel and Berthier. However post-war it would be replaced, but the French post WW1 were much more interested in replacing 8mm Lebel first and then adopting a semi-auto, which they actually did but then WW2 happened right as they were adopting a semi-auto which would eventually evolve into the MAS44 and 49. Basically either the universe hates the French or the French just have terrible timing, probably a bit of both.
As a RUclipsr who specialises in preforming very in depth historical analyses of video games included both BF1 and BF5, I would agree with your overall point here.
Although BF5 does have some more obvious errors and downright disrespectful ones in the story mode, BF1 overall has more inaccuracies in just the sheer amount of them.
For BF1, Dice took WW1, a war filled mostly with rifle combat and limited vehicle use and tried to shove their typical over the top "run and gun" style by adding a load of automatic guns and vehicles and the like but basing them mostly on extremely rare protype designs from the period as their excuse for it, thus creating an absolute mess that does not at all represent WW1. Yet it is still heavily defended by players as "historically authentic" and a small some even going as far as to claim "accurate", espiecially when compared to the horrible reception received from the historical depictions of BF5.
They were not even trying to create an alternative universe or anything either because according to this quote from Daniel Berlin, Dices lead game designer:
"Battlefield 1 is definitely rooted in history. There's no alternate mix of anything else. All the stuff you see is equipment that was available. All the vehicles you see were available at this time."
your Call of Duty Vangaurd video was a pretty big inspiration for this video, glad you liked it
The legend came
Bf1 gave you unhistoric gameplay that was very well hidden behind a thick layer of action, explosions, and pleasant dev interactions.
Bfv gave you unhistoric gameplay on a lead platter and told you to eat shit when you asked for fun.
I saw something that said that Germans did capture the mark v which would make sense to why two of these variants have german produced weapons such as the tank gewehr, it’s also shows in the story mode
@@Lorenzo12799 I think it makes sense for the germans to mount a tank gewehr on captured tanks since the allies had a lot more tanks than them
And the Germans probably didn’t have the ammunition that they would need for the Allied weapons mounted on the tank hence it would make sense for them to switch to a weapon ( the tank gewehr) that they had ammunition for
To echo what other commentators have articulated, it’s not so much historical accuracy is what the problem is, but what ppl really want is to “feel” like they are in that time period; without all the extreme levels of restriction on what weapons, vehicles, or literally anything they use like a milsim such as enlisted would do. Bf1 at least “feels” like ww1 to the average lay man. Bf5 didn’t even try; ppl can call me sexist all they want, there was not women en mass fighting on either side during ww2, there shouldn’t be female soldiers in a game set when they hardly had a presence, if any at all. If they really needed to feel inclusive, they could have had the sniper class be females if they bothered to add the Russians, but this is EA so we can fuck our selves with sandpaper apparently.
Dude never once did I play BF1 and thought: “yea I feel like I’m in WWI” when I saw a dude wearing freaking full plate lug around an 80 pound machine gun, in the Italian alps after a German-made zeppelin that is in the Italian arsenal for some reason, landed on a German tank in the Austrian army of which only 20 were made while I use an experimental gun that was so experimental there isn’t even enough documentation to say how it works.
Every time I played BF1 it felt like I was in the Iron Harvest universe and that this is a steampunk shooter. Not that this is WWI.
@@flyingsquirrell6953 I use “feels” very loosely. Essentially what I mean is if you pay very to little to no attention to the details. But like I insinuated, ppl don’t won’t to be rocking bolt actions the majority of the time, which would have been the gun to use during ww1, so they had to compromise in order for it to be enjoyable to the average fps player. They definitely could have at least tried harder though, BFV just straight up said “fuck it” and didn’t even care in the slightest 😅. A cool feature for both games is a historical milsim mode, where it forces players to play how it was.
@@Crimsonlupus if you don’t pay attention to the details then I can argue the exact same about a woman with prosthetic limbs.
“Just ignore it like you do all of the BS in BF1”
BF1 only "feels" like the First World War to laymen because laymen know nothing about this time period to begin with. So people will act in good faith and believe BF1 is "authentic" since they have no knowledge to actually contextualize what they're seeing. The same can't be said for BFV because WWII is the most normified subject in all of military history and is immediately recognizable to laymen down to the guns, vehicles, uniforms, etc. EA had an opportunity to do the First World War setting justice in a historiographical sense, but they objectively failed. It's just not the war they set out to depict.
It should also be mentioned that BFV is just the logical conclusion to BF1. If nobody cared about all the black British and German soldiers in BF1, then they shouldn't care about all the women in BFV. Both have ridiculous representations of the demographics who fought these wars, yet people are only willing to criticize BFV for it.
@@redaug4212Well Said. People say BF1 is better than BFV because it "captures the feeling and style of WW1" but in reality it only captures the popular idea of what normies think WW1 was, A gothic, ostentatious, philosophical Steampunk adventure rather than the muddy, bloody deathtrap that it really was. Its also why the levels outside of the Western Front don't even try to appear accurate, because 90%+ of the poeple that bought the game think WW1 was the Western Front and nothing else. That's why are Italian Arditi are shown as bulky armored juggernauts supporting troops with heavy machine guns, instead of lightly armored shock infantry armed with knives, grenades and pistols. Its also why the Arab uprising is lead by a woman (Look up TE Lawrence's qoute about the Arab Movement and Camels to see why that is false). For the average person, as long as it had muddy trenches, zeppelins and vague allusions to the horrors of war, it was accurate. The steampunk aesthetic is also part of the reason for the experimental gears and weapons. Not that the game can't be fun but its obtuse to use it as a references for historical accuracy and authenticity
Bruh. It's just a game.
Nice excuse, games can still have criticism.
@@AutumnBun321criticising such irrelevant things like an incorrect mortal projectile or changes for the sake of balance isnt useful criticism. Its just cries of a nerd not understanding its a game and not a history documentary.
@@galaxspace1 How is an incorrect mortar model "balancing"?
This video was made because people can be as critical of 5 so it's only fair to be as pretentious about 1.
@@markiplieristhebestpizzato2743 Exactly lol. I didn't see anyone saying "It's just a game." in a BFV discussion session
Battlefield 1 kids speak of historical accuracy and yet they run around like lunatics, Americans run with German LMG's and lets not forget you will face the grand arsenal of Germany's 16 tanks atleast 200 times in the battle.
Stop the cap. Both BF1 and BFV are historically authentic. None are accurate.
They're not even authentic.
Fair, this goes for the people that says BF1 is "historically accurate", when it's not.
And even the Director or the creators said it, they wanted to REIMAGINE the WW1; so with that in mind, they've made the best representation of what could've been WW1 for everyone. And as a nice bonus, the codex where u can learn history.
Yeah fuckin love bf1
I love both games, but yeah people really look at BF1 with rose-tinted glasses (also I wonder why the Winchester M1895 is "standard issue" despite it being a second line rifle. If they were gonna do that, then they missed out on all the other second line rifles).
Speaking of guns, where is the Berthier? The Ruby? The full-length Carcano? The PPSh? The Tokarev? There's a lot of guns missing from both games that we never got, but should have.
Of all the guns missing from bf1 the berthier is the most conspicuous
It's been almost 10 years, we fucking know bf1 isn't historically accurate. Gameplay was clearly the priority over historical accuracy with bf1 and that's ok. I don't think anybody would want to play a game about a completely accurate ww1
Isonzo's popular
@@freeze695but as any Battlefield player expecting a Battlefield game, would it be fun? Eh, not really.
then stop saying it
Why is bro so pressed
218 players on avarage 🔥🔥@@freeze695
Maybe there are people who think BF1 is accurate, but... no. It's authentic, not accurate. It's a hyper-exaggerated WW1, but you don't have to squint to tell it's WW1.
BFV is neither historically authentic nor accurate, though some guns are handled more accurately.
What seperates them is how far removed from accuracy they are. BF1 soldiers are mostly white (or Turkish), and all men (besides an overrepresentation with the Russians). All battles are depicted with respect, and accurate factions. Uniforms are akin to the era, though usually exaggerated or deliberately changed to have readability between the classes. Soldiers scream, yell, and there is constant dialogue from enemy and allied soldiers.
BFV shows no authenticity or accuracy regarding the race of combatants (unless it's the Axis) and shows none regarding gender. Battles are hyper-exaggerated and with completely wrong factions;
Al Marj should have British and Italians
Rotterdam and Devestation should have the Dutch, but it really isn't a large battle
Wake Island should be a Japanese attack
Panzerstorm should be French vs Germans in Operations
Uniforms are atrocious, and have no attachment to classes, leaving no excuses of readability. And finally, the soldier chatter is significantly toned down.
Dishonorable mention to the fact Axis Flags (at least Germany) are inaccurate, making the conflict feel even further removed from WW2.
BF1 may not be perfect, but this whole idea that BFV is underrated and got too much hate is garbage. Sure, the game can be fun, I play it all the time myself (less now), but it's always a breath of fresh air to go back to BF1 for a game that depicts its history in spite of its inaccuracies, rather than ignoring it, or worse bastardizing it.
Though BF1 did have the Nothing is Written War Story, so I will fault it for that.
Oh, also BFV mostly takes place early war, but despite this has mostly late war guns and vehicles, while BF1 mostly takes place late war, and in most cases there's an exception; limits the vehicles that can be used.
I do agree that the type of warfare thing is... a thing. I actually find the BF1 Back to Basics mode quite fun. Combat in BF1 is however much slower paced than BFV thanks to movement mechanics, which does its job for the most part, one reason I do not subscribe to the notion that BFV is inherently better. Defending is easier than attacking, which is not the case in BFV.
I also believe bf1 to be better in most regards
Also my autism does not allow me to not point out that both the german scout and cavalry are black men despite the fact that germany fielded effectively no colonial troops in any of the European fronts
@@Lorenzo12799 don't worry, my autism and unhealthy obsession with German history also noticed that.
@TheGamingKiller242 the reason why they didn't add other nations to the game was because they needed to save money and time. U need to create weapons, vehicles voice actors etc. Lazy devs
@@matcastagnani1070 I wouldn't call them lazy, this was during the heart of DICE being overworked with Battlefront and Battlefield (DICE is not a very large studio).
I also think it's the customization (plus needing more voice actors for women) that made having other factions impossible. You can tell they wanted to have other factions eventually, because some customization represents the French on the Allies, and the Italians on the Axis, but having to dedicate so much manpower to stupid outfits made it logistically difficult. The Battle of Hannut Grand Operation is also left completely unfinished, probably because they planned on including the French. There is French voice lines in the game already, so they didn't need to do Voice Over, just customization, and maybe a couple weapons. Idk if Italian had Voice Over. If it did, it's only available for the Italian version of the game.
But the Dutch got completely screwed. Kind of Akin to Belgium in BF1, but again, BF1 was mostly late war.
The gun play is not close to the same as BF1. The weapon balancing is awful in BFV. BF1's immersion is untouchable compared to BFV.
Also there's a MASSIVE difference between immersion and realism. BFV was a slop of garbage for the first year of release.
BF1 feels like it was made with care and attention to detail, while BFV seemed like a slapped together money grab. But hey "don't like it don't buy it"
I agree, battlefield 1 feels way better to play
"don't like it don't buy it" he says, as BF1 pulls way less numbers than V even though its the supposed worse game.
@@Lorenzo12799 Yeah hard to describe sometimes because they do look visually similar at times. And I really do WANT to like BFV, because I like BF and I also like WW2, I just can't get into it though.
Has nothing to do with immersion/realism, hard to put a finger on, just doesn't have what I'm looking for. Like I'll play BF2042 over BFV but shit maybe I should redownload and give it a chance.... maybe..
@@Hanz_Goober Also in the last 30 days BF1 has averaged a player base of 9,500, while BFV a player base of 14,500.
Pretty small difference when comparing 2 games from the same franchise, especially considering one is 2+ years older.
Just for the laughs I looked at BF Hardline and it averaged.... 28 players for the last 30 days
The only WWI game I felt immersed in was the WWI series by Blackmill
Jesus fucking Christ there’s no need to get that heated lol
was it? that was never the intention
No one mentioning the fact that in Battlefield V at least the vehicles are only playable by the nation that historically made use of them, such as the Tiger being only for Germany and the Sherman only for the US, while in Battlefield I every nation has access to every single tank. Now, I understand Germans using Mark V tanks, but British using A7V??????
Realtalk
>"But-but wattabout DUH WAHMEN!"
I HAVE NOT HEARD A SINGLE HUMAN BEING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE CLAIM BF1 IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING TO??!!
THE LITTLE PEOPLE IN MY PHONE DAMMIT
To be honest, watching this makes me realize that not all games can be Historically Accurate, but they can be fun as hell
I think the whole "historical inaccuracy" debate really just comes down to people not being able to articulate what they actually want. People are okay with artistic liberties so long as they fit the general spirit of the time period. Battlefield V tried to give us female soldiers with prosthetic limbs / cricket bats for melee weapons and British soldiers with katanas. I'm waiting for the day a AAA studio will give us a historically adjacent shooter with a fictional setting, similar to the way Ace Combat games are entirely fictional but use many real world aircraft. Foxhole does this really well, for example.
Foxhole has a killer aesthetic I agree
BF1 is historically accurate in a teenage boy's dream
BF1 is what normies want to believe WWI was like, i.e. they want to believe it was like WWII.
A truly historically accurate bf1 would just be depressing and boring. Constant trench warfare with countless deaths and no real victor
I dont care about its historical accuracy, I care that other people somehow believe it is
no they don't? Though I agree that adding inaccurate additions to the game when accurate counterparts exist is annoying, Anyone with basic knowledge about ww1 or battlefield 1 knows that this game, at least when it comes to weaponry, is in no way trying to be accurate. Guns that merely existed during the time period were added to give the game variety and make it more enjoyable. If the developers wanted to make the game historically accurate we would've barely had 20 guns with no different variants.
From their own words, they were "showing what ww1 could be"
This game is not what ww1 was, nor was it trying to be.
It was simply a reimagination of ww1
And it did really good job at it
It depends, not all of WW1 was sitting im trenches and then die in offensive. It's only the western front and sometimes italian. And even so, bf 1 is mostly depicting offensives for obvious reasons
@@theognistyheros but they asses definitely wouldn’t be using hellriegels either
@@essai_ Yeah, in the topic of weaponry, this is just althistory
Also, the biggest problem wasn’t female characters kind of just generally how shit the gamewas.
Touch grass man
Lmao agreed, tho I wouldn't really count this as incel behavior
He makes nerd emojis thorught the video, so I think he's aware of him being a bit too much, this is more of a "Any information Is positive info type vid."
Basically cuz anything negative nowadays seems to get you more attention than being nice
Real
True
And you people should eat grass bf1 sucks just as bf5
You're saying you don't appreciate the effort he put into this video bruh? lol
BFV is actually fine. People are just parroting what they heard and wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to BF1
Release was a bit rocky, the game is good, just not as good as battlefield 1
Imo, BF1 definitely isn't accurate to history, but it feels more historically authentic. I can enjoy the setting and suspend my disbelief more with it versus BFV, where it honestly doesn't even feel very authentic to the time period.
BF1 doesn't feel like WW1. BFV would feel more authentic if it had less women.
10:18 there was one semi automatic rifle that did see fairly decent combat usage in BF1: the RSC-1917. Over 70,000 of the rifles were made before the war was over and they were actually fielded in combat.
Aside from that, both sides also used semi auto rifles as pilot backup or balloon observation weapons. Germany used Mondragon rifles (some even fitted with drum magazines) and the French used Winchester 1907s.
Regarding select fire 1907s, the article mentioned in C&Rsenal about the 1907 did state something about a few rifles being prototyped for select fire to aid in the Russian Civil War, but I don’t know how valid that is. Either way, the only full auto 1907s that are known to exist are the ones the John Dillinger gang used that were modified by Harold Lebman.
The french produced seventy thousand rsc rifles and a couple million men served in the french army, sure it saw use but that use was very far from widespread
@@Lorenzo12799 true, but producing 70,000 rifles is no trivial feat and the rifle itself also played a role in the development of the Garand as well.
Ill admit I worded that incorrectly
A historically accurate WWI battlefield game is simply impossible without completely abandoning the identity of battlefield games
1:46 the Winchester was standard issue amongst Russian cavalry units
As far as Im aware thats just incorrect
@@Lorenzo12799 During the Russian Civil War, the Winchester was the main weapon in reserve divisions.
@@Lorenzo12799 the Tsar contract gave russia 250k+ winchesters. Most are now found in Estonia. They were used en masse.
I think the real difference is that BF1 is more historically AUTHENTIC. Meaning it gets the "feeling" of World War One much more accurately than BFV does with World War 2.
Even with all of its god awful fast firing automatic weapons, terrible tank designs, and strange helmets for soldiers... it at least gets the feeling of world war 1 correct.
Maps like Kaiserschlacht, Passchendaele, Verdun Heights, and even the the Somme are my absolute favorite Battlefield maps PERIOD. Just because they're so astatically and horrifyingly beautiful. Like Passchendaele with nothing but trenches, barbed wire, shell holes, destroyed buildings, giant mustard gas clouds, roaring fires, constant artillery shells hitting the ground, screaming soldiers begging to go home, it's an amazing depiction and I love it, not just because I'm a WW1 nerd.
Also while I think the campaign, gameplay-wise is pretty shit, most missions have their own unique theme or message to tell. Storm of Steel (which is my fav) displays WW1 at it's most brutal. Close quarters brawls, men burned alive with flamethrowers, cowering German soldiers completely broken by war, and so on. Mud and Blood is meant to represent the struggles with piloting the first tanks and how clumsy yet effective they could be. Men in High Places represents the "soldiers" who were portrayed as heroes by the winning side but most likely were not. Avanti-Savoia (While INCREDIBLY UNREALISTIC AND ALMOST CARTOONY) still has one of the most powerful endings representing not just the ones who died... but the ones who came home and lost those they care about back in the war "Buon compleanno, Matteo". The Runner represents the young, inexperienced, and gullible boys thinking war would've been a fun and wonderful adventure when the more experienced veterans have to be there to teach them the true awful realities of war. (Nothing is written admittedly makes no attempt at a theme.)
But finally "Remember Us" is purely just a cutscene... an homage to those who fought, that despite everything, many... MANY men still showed bravery and fought to the very end just to be "remembered" as the Lost Generation, and that their sacrifice won't be forgotten with projects like BF1.
THAT is why Battlefield 1 is more historically authentic, because it still has the THEMES of war connected to it. It takes itself seriously and does it very well. UNLIKE BFV which went out the fucking window with historical IN-authenticity with god-awful character customization, character selection, and especially the way it handles its war stories. Hell the one with the mother and daughter... doesn't pay homage to the actual commandos who risked life and limb to help put an end to the Heavy Water Program, but instead REPLACES them with two FAKE female characters, which isn't just historically inaccurate, but downright insulting and morally dubious AT BEST. It makes slapstick jokes within the Aussies in Africa, and completely just alters history for it's own narrative by claiming that the black soldiers under the French Army were erased from history for their sacrifice, which just isn't true as many were highly decorated and treated far better than African soldiers in the American Army.
Battlefield 1, despite all of it's flaws, at least APPRECIATES and understands history, without making that it's top priority. It still manages to catch that essence of World War 1 and has very powerful themes that come along with it... unlike it's sequel.
(But also, despite all of the inaccuracies with the weapons in BF1, it does actually give you the proper history within the Codex, which explains the weapons and how rare and experimental many of them are, which personally matters to me the most. The history is there and that's what matters.)
WHEN I LEARN ABOUT GAME BALANCE: OH NO I AM WRONG
Always assumed the Winchester M1907 myth about the French "experimenting with full auto 1907's" was BS. The word automatic at the time would refer to semi auto weapons as well. For example the 1911 was often referred to automatic as well.
never believed it either but it is surprisingly prevelant
Bf1 was never historically accurate, it was historically authentic, its way more immersive, i cant explain how and why, but bf v its just not like that
I will say that BF1 is DICE's magnum opus; after that, they've been losing more and more favor from the fans ever since, and ever since BF2042 they've been real quiet, I've seen online posts asking for DICE to be shutdown after the BF5 and Bf2042 being an absolute PR disaster/shitshow; but anyway, BF1 is their best Battlefield that they've ever created in sense of scope and art. Though not my favorite my heart will always belong to BF4, but BF1 is their magnum opus even with its flaws.
problem with battlefield 5 is that its historical innacuracies are deliberate, female japanese ace pilot? show that to a japanese person and they fucking explode, and then the response of the devs was "hurr durr then don't play the game dude"
IM SO HAPPY SOMEONE MADE THIS VIDEO
This is one of the wackiest videos I’ve seen. It’s an arcade FPS game made for fun dude, it ain’t that deep
I think bro thought he was gonna sit on a trench waiting for the officer to say charge
Yall are actually retarded
It's funny seeing people who still try to bargain with the game's poor depiction of WWI by saying "at least it feels authentic", which is really just the milsim equivalent of the WWE fan saying "it's real to me dammit!".
I actually have more respect for BF1 fans who believe that it's an alternate history of the First World War. Even though the devs debunked that claim, it does make more sense than trying to pretend as if this game has any legit historicity behind it.
Most people just prefer battlefield 1 as a game and dont know how to articulate that
Why is Dio yapping about battlefield games, doesn't he have a Joestar to fight?
You thought it was some random person on youtube, But it was Me, DIO
Many of the historical "inaccuracies" with the MkIV Landship can just be answered with "The germans stole it and put their weapons on it." The tankgwehwer was only produced by germany, why is it on a british tank? The germans stole it and put it in there, why does this one have a german 20mm autocannon on it? The germans stole it and put the autocannon on it.
I think this guy is the innacurate one because this is World War 1, they were using weapons that had only been around for around 30 years at most, they weren't full production level making these "inaccuracies" they were field testing them to see how they did in battle. Ever read the description for the Villar Perosa, it says that the Arditi modified to fire more comfortably.
You don't get to dictate why the game is bad because You're in *Fancy little clan* that only shows that you bought this game to win, not to have fun, or to enjoy what it is, to win. And you probably use the SMG-08 like the greasy tryhard you are. So go on, go back to conquest or TDM or Operations server and continue being a nuisance to anyone on the enemy team.
You're right, I was wrong about the tank gewehr on the mkv, not the 20mm though.
That shit about the villar perosa is completely wrong, im pretty sure they got the idea for the model from an old movie,
I feel a gun they only used three of doesn't count as a gun they "used" though admittedly that could have been worded better,
As for the rest, i do use the smg 08 i don't think its overpowered and I play conquest, as i am sane
Also I dont dislike battlefield 1, to the contrary, I absolutely love it, one of my favourite fps's of all time
bruh those soyjacks fr think bf1 was historically accurate💀
Great vid man
You all missed the point that Battlefield 5 is an BF1 asset flip. Even the tank minimap icon in BF5 is from BF1
Suppressors were around when the c93 was, however it may not have been used.
Yes more of these weapons were actually used
both are historicallly innacurate af, it's almost like they tried to be as inaccurate as posible. and the worst part is, battlefield 1 doesnt even have campaign where you charge to the enemy position with bayonet of stuff like that. it kinda odd cuz ww1 are mostly just trench to trench warfare but BF1 doesn't have one mission like that.
It's the "we just want to borrow the look of WWI, but want it to play like WWII" game.
@@redaug4212 it's not even closse to how ww2 is, they still failed.
I find it hard to believe that this is only your 5th video uploaded. Frankly, everything about this video is just on-point from a historical-technical perspective, but the entertainment value is gold m8. Definitely hoping for other vids in the future!
For Battlefield, its not about historical accuracy, its about inmersion.
I don't mind using a gun that was produced 1 year later or using an experimental vehicle or something
But, like, playing with a woman with a mechanical arm in a battle that there is no way that a woman was involved(Like Iwo Jima, for example) is not inmersive at all.
For example, Battlefield 1 did a great job at this by including women in the russian revolution.
Bf1 was historically authentic not historically accurate. Bf5 was neither
"Battlefield 1 is known for it's historical accuracy" 😂
Battlefield games that depict fictional conflicts (BF3, BF4) are more historical accurate than these two games.
The Germans actually outfitted a few MKIV tanks with tankgewehrs
Fucked up there yeah
This video was very good, I subscribed :)
I assume the angry hyperbole is meant to be comedic, but at times it kind of steps into vitriol. Neither game is historically accurate and neither game is trying to be, it's simple. A historically accurate WW1 game would be sitting in a trench the whole match dying to artillery or typhus. Rather, these games are trying to catch the "vibe" of those wars, to *feel* authentic more than to *actually be* authentic. BF1 succeeds in doing so much more than V in my opinion, but V still has it's moments here and there. You're right in pointing out that people give 1 much more slack. Probably because a lot of people preferred 1 over V, I'd wager
I realize I came over as much more passionate than I actually am about the subject but you cant argue with +26000 views and +190 subs
@@Lorenzo12799 Lol yeah, can't argue with numbers. It showed up in my recommendations for some reason, so I guess you got picked up by the algo. Not trying to be a dick anyway, just some feedback
Using bolt action rifles in Battlefield 1 (for close range) is a nightmare but man it is so satisfying when you absolutely put down someone who is using an automatic after dying 35 times in a row
its insanely fun I agree
If you run a revolver and a bolt action you can pull off the one-two punch combo by hitting them with the rifle then the revolver, really fun if you can pull it off consistently
Battlefield 1 doesn't feel like WW2. It's more like alternative history.
Basically , the developers were absolute pussies in BF1 .They could not actually add more weapons that were ACTUALLY used in the conflict and not add ones that probably never even existed , along with giving a fuck about Historical Accuracy on other parts , but they wanted to be super into being generic .
That's why at the time everyone hated bfV and now people say it's fine, well, in comparison to what we got now, obviously.
BF1 feels like WW1 in a surface level way, BFV does not feel like WW2 in any way
This video was extremely entertaining. I chuckled out loud at 3:59 - Thanks Lorenzo!
The amount of people getting mad at this guy is atrocious. People need to realize that he's not saying that Battlefield 1 *itself* is bad, the game is a great one, it's just not historically accurate. Both Battlefield 1 and V are HORRIFICALLY INACCURATE in terms of their depictions with lots of things in-game. That's what's being bashed, not the actual experience. I personally think 1 is terrific, and V is decent at best (Still feels unfinished.). If you're upset at someone pointing out facts about inaccuracies in your favorite game, then pick a fight somewhere else. Yes, it's a game, it's going to have issues, but that doesn't mean that it isn't allowed to have criticism.
Also, Storm of Steel is terrifying. Nothing can change my opinion.
At least someone gets it
@@Lorenzo12799 👌
Interesting video, even though I think you overestimated a AAA publishers ability to show ww1 in a realistic light. They still gotta make a fast paced arcade shooter after all.
productive activities
I personally think bf1 is not made to be historically accurate, its made to feel like you are in ww1, and you imagine the rest
3 seconds in bro's already trying to impress her. Hope she sees this bro
Que?
@@Lorenzo12799 the tired, inauthentic "ugh those guys were so mean to women but don't worry I'm here to save them" routine
Game devs, please stop with those disqusting sights....
Iron sights and some standart scopes are enough.
We don't need any prototype sights on every weapon.
I have always noticed these random inaccuracies and my friend and I have always joked about it. But at the end of the it doesn’t matter if the game is fun
wait till lil bro discovers world of tanks
I think the fact that most of the weapons are full auto is good, despite the historical whatever, it makes the game both unique and fun which is the first priority In my opinion.
Corrections KE7 was used during WW2 but in China, initially it was 2nd Sino-Japanese War but after Pearl Harbor it becomes WW2
KE7 was 2nd most numerous LMG in Chinese service, the 1st one was ZB-26
I fucking knew that too, Im a damn fool and very sorry
About the russian winchester. Of course its use as standard weapon for some sights is very weird. Especially after adding carcano and mosin, but that rifle was used as standard weaponry in latvian divisions of russian empire. But yeah, It's just laziness or big oversight, that they didn't changed it after dlcs
Here was me thinking that t surprising similarity would be that BFV straight up rips a little less than half of its animations and assets straight from BF1
In the spirit of this video I would like to point out that Winchester was in fact contracted to produce the 1895 with modification for the Russian Empire, and that these would be issued in small though notable numbers, famously to the Baltic troops of the empire.
Keep it up
I worded that thing about the Winchester incorrectly, I know it was used its just calling it a standard issue over the Mosin is ridiculous
@@Lorenzo12799 its standard issue for Italy, The game got a "historical" gamemode called back to basic that blocked all weapons and only let you use special bolt action variant called standard issue. The 1895 winchester is standard issue for Italy becaous carcano or Vetterli-Vitali was not in game when they created back to basic gamemode
@@droper6-1-800 Srs, why did they not add that at launch? I'd have gladly taken it over the Hellriegel.
Tannenberg, Isonzo, and Verdun are all historically accurate WW1 games, while bf1 is still my favorite game and very fun, id say its more "authentic" in historical values
Lerenzo: (Explaining things)
Me: 0:35
It's was never because it was historically accurate. It was because it was woke. Let's be honest, only guys play these games. With the occasional female. Bf1 was great because it wasn't woke. It didn't force people of color and women down your throats. They focused on the designs, gameplay and so much more. Sure, have women in the game. But don't go woke.
battlefield 1 was the precursor, It dipped its feet into being "woke", battlefield V dropped right into the water, much to everyones dismay
They magnify minorities roles while marginalizing the entire picture. Every game does this and youtubers beat around the bush and focus on baskets and armor and superficial bs.
I wouldn’t say bf1 is “historically accurate” but it respects the history from which it was based from. The codex is there if you want the history and it respects the people who served. Bfv doesn’t. It spits in the face of ww2 vets and the events (besides the last tiger)
The M1895 Winchester was ABSOLUTELY a Standard Issue rifle in the WW1- Russian Civil War period the game portrays.
I meant as in the standard issue rifle of the Russian empire, which was the Mosin
Damn I didn't know that about the autimatico. Guess I was misled by the name to just naturally assume it was full auto but I forget that automatic in that period usually meant semi-automatic. (Similar to the whole 1907 thing I guess)
So I read up a little more and apparently most English sources talking about the autimatico are dead wrong, assuming that either they were all full auto smgs or just a few were and then lumped in with the rest. From what I can tell, there were only a small number of prototypes that actually had automatic fire (so guess it does fit the dice weapon criteria), done by MIDA, who were contracted by Beretta to make the carbine. One type had a cool dual trigger feature, one auto and one semi that was used in later italian smg designs. The article I got the information from said it's unclear why the prototypes were made but speculated that it could have been a request from one of the army units. So there is maybe a tiny tiny shred of a possibility that a full auto one was used. Bit of a reach though.
The innacuraccy doesnt bother me tooo much because the game as a whole doesn't strike me as lazy like bfv did. They're not historians but the passion and respect for the events of ww1 were clear to see and thats enough for me. To even attempt to bring some of these wacky experimental weapons to light deserves some props and to choose ww1 as the setting was a huge risk
Bruh the historical accuracy claim was never about the weapons or vehicles.
On that renault ft17 tank that isn't mg it is optic
oh shit really? thank you, I didnt know that
"BF1 is known for it's historical accuracy."
I'm sorry, what?? 🤣🤣
Ive heard it said
@@Lorenzo12799, yeah, let me tell you, BF1 is just as historically inaccurate as BFV. 🤣🤣
Verdun is *MOSTLY* historically accurate, BF1 is far from it.
Italians most def used round nosed bullets in the carcano
Italy never used the M95/30 you're thinking of the M91/38
Edit: Also the M91/38 uses a bullet that has more of a pointy than round tip so I honesty do not know what you are talking about
Nobody thinks that bf1 is historically accurate, a lot of people think that it is a better game. Nobody stopped playing bfv because of women, they stopped because the game fucking sucks
It's just a game
Only non historic thing in bf1 is the Australian gasmask
EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY
BRITISH BALLS
VERSUS
ANTI-TANK RIFLE
BEGIN
5:02
6:54 all the british vehicles use a BREN with a 240 round drum mag not a vickers K,
also the 20mm staghound is a post war 1960s Swiss conversion
thank you
@@Lorenzo12799 i agree with your video , just the mistake with the Bren was too obvious for me to resist pointing it out, sorry
also i was wrong it's a 100 round drum not a 240
Winchester 1895 not being a standard service rifle is apsurd. Almost 300k were produced for the Russian air force and police alone, it was used in World War 1 in good numbers. Nevertheless "Standard Service Rifle" is the category for back to basics "game mode" where you can only use weapons in that category with every faction having its own rifle.
If you call the Winchester a standard issue for Russia at that point you could also call the Arisaka a standard issue for Russia
I know its for the gamemode its just dumb they never updated it
Im finnaly happy that some talks about battlefield ones innacuracys
Also reading all these other comments makes me realize people missed the point of the video. You don't *have* to be accurate and trying to claim one is "more accurate" than the other is silly. Both games can be very AUTHENTIC and have excellent gameplay elements. The war games don't have to accurate experiences. We mostly used that word then because the very simple fact that 20 years ago video games started showing a man's hands loading an M1 enbloc instead of the very original Medal of Honor's waving the gun off, by itself, is more accurate. HOWEVER, we *do not* need to be obsessed with accuracy. In some cases its done for the sake of creative choice to deliver a different experience. Sometimes its because the makers had no other choice but make do with what they had at the time.
If anyone wants to think BF1 was historically accurate then something is wrong with you. The game is definitely immersive and I preferred its more gritty atmosphere over BF5’s atmosphere. A more realistic WW1 game is the Verdun, Tannenburg and Izonso series. Similarly if you want realistic WW2 play Hell let loose
The winchester 1895 was bought en masses by the Russians they did see some widespread use in the winter war
Im saying it wasnt a standard issue, not that it wasnt used
i have never heard anyone say battlefield 1 was accurate and when it was releasing everyone who knew better was also saying the same things you were now.
People creamed over BF1 being 'historically accurate' while simultaneously saying its not that deep, or even worse, doubled down when someone questioned that.
This video is a breathe of fresh air.
exactly
great video dude, keep it up!!!!!!!!!!