Why do they make "historical" video games that are

>>381072994
people are crying about call of duty ww2 still? the devs said the campaign has no women or black nazis. The multiplayer lets you create a class, it's not just random characters, people create their own character, skin color, badges, hair color blah blah etc

>>381072994
I am a pretty autistic history buff and it doesn't really bother me. As much as I like accuracy, I do have a soft spot for historical fiction.

Now for every "We wuz da saviors of the Sudetenlan" and Field Marshal Ayisha al-Mohammad, most decorated war hero at the Anzio Bridgehead, we get cool shit like Fatherland, Man in The High Tower, and to a lesser extent Crusader Kangz.

My only gripe is the smug sense of self-satisfaction the devs and publishers are taking and don't get me wrong, I understand people like be are not their sales-base, and they are profiting and shiting on the topic I love the most.

I don't remember where I was going with this one...

>>381072994

Media is entertainment, not history. Did you like the movie "Braveheart"? Did you know William Wallace had a beard, didn't wear a kilt, and didn't fuck the king's son's French wife?

If you want history, go to the library. It's where they keep all the books.

>>381073162
Cool. Now what about BF1?

>>381073634
There's nothing added to the game by depicting European armies from 100 years ago as black women. What is actually gained? I get historical fiction, but not this.

>>381073683
If it's fiction, then it should be labelled as such. But these games are literally tagged with the word "Historic".

And no one who is semi-serious about History thinks Braveheart is accurate. We also know that Kilts didn't even exist at this time, and that blue face paint belongs to the ancient picts who precede those scots by 1,000 years.

>>381073683
>Media is entertainment, not history

then why are women made ugly? thats not entertaining and realism cant be an argument because as you said its not history ;^)