‘Battlefield 1’ breakdown reveals a close attention to history
Video games play fast and loose with realism by definition, but authenticity still matters to some degree After all, it’s hard to enjoy a history-focused game if there are obvious factual errors. So how does Battlefield 1 stack up, then? So far so good, if you ask the World War I history buffs at The Great War. They’ve conducted a shot-by-shot breakdown of the cinematic trailer and revealed that EA DICE is largely faithful to the technology of the conflict — including in ways you wouldn’t expect. That shovel-wielding German soldier you see above makes sense, for example, as the infantry learned that bayonets got stuck in victims. Early tanks behave as they should, and things like gas masks or pickaxes (for Italian soldiers scaling mountains) are true to form.
There are some obvious concessions to gameplay (a medic probably wouldn’t be carrying crutches around), but even some of these make sense. That British soldier carrying a German anti-armor rifle? There are many examples of one side using the other’s weapons in a pinch. In fact, the trailer is more realistic than The Great War suggests. That seemingly implausible metal body armor you see at one point is the “Sappenpanzer Gesichtsmaske,” an uncommon form of protection given to machine gunners and snipers who didn’t expect to move.
This doesn’t make Battlefield 1 a simulator by any means, and it’s not certain that everything you see in the trailer will make it to full-fledged gameplay. However, it’s apparent that the developers went out of their way to include gear you could have seen both in the trenches and beyond. Whatever you think of the title’s premise, it’s not just paying lip service to its setting.
Source: The Great War (YouTube)
Disney cancels ‘Infinity’ as it quits video games
So much for Disney remaining a big player in the video game world. As part of its second quarter earnings release, the media giant has revealed that it’s getting out of the self-published video game business… and canceling its Infinity game series in the process. Disney hasn’t said much about why it’s jumping ship, but it notes that “lower results” (read: poor sales) for Infinity prompted the move. It’s a fairly costly move: Disney is taking on a $147 million charge to axe the division.
This isn’t the first time Disney has bailed on in-house games. In 2013, it both closed Epic Mickey developer Junction Point and the legendary LucasArts studio. The interactive group has regularly struggled since then, too, leading to Disney cutting 700 jobs in 2014. In the second quarter, the segment’s operating income sank 8 percent year-over-year — an outlier for a corporation that’s riding high on the successes of Star Wars: The Force Awakens and endless Marvel superhero movies. The writing may have been on the wall when Disney dropped the Apple TV version of Infinity just weeks ago.
Disney will still have a toehold in gaming through licenses, but it’s evident that the era of direct involvement is over. That’s unfortunate if you’re a fan of its small but generally well-regarded output. With that said, at least some of the developers working on licensed games (such as EA and Respawn) are very capable. What’s left of Disney’s gaming strategy is likely in good hands.
Source: Disney (PDF)
AIVAnet 