@@elmosanchez Tbf. There were black soldiers on the battlefield here and there...soviet women too...BUT NOT ALWAYS AND ESPECIALLY NOT PROMINANTLY!!! THE DISGRACE OF IT ALL IS THAT THE WOKE AHOLES TRY TO PUT WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE AS IF THEY WERE THOSE WHO DID MOST OF THE WORK WHEN IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SO MANY BLUE BLOODED AMERICAN MEN,JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ALLIES WERE THE ONES WHO SACREFICED THEMSELVES...AND HAVING THE WOKE TRY TO REWRITE EBERYTHING,JUST TO FIT THEIR IDEOLOGY,MAKING THEM LOOK AS IF THEY "WERE" THERE IS NOT JUST DISGRACEFUL BUT DISRESPECRFUL TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE,SO THEY CAN BE UNGRATEFUL AHOLES!!!
They could’ve done the Black and Female characters so much more accurately, and so much better, they still changed a lot from what actually happened and who they actually were
My main issue with the Russian part of the story is how it makes it seem like this one lady was somehow the most important person in Stalingrad, when her real life counterpart was never even there during the battle on top of that.
Similar complaint for the British part of the story. The main issue is this game makes these characters seem like ridiculously compitent super soldier types rather than focusing on the, "we're all in this together angle," like other WW2 CODs. TLDR I like the idea of tgese characters' inclusion, but the story needed serious work.
@@nateghast6456 The super soldier angle the game tries to nudge towards is tied to perhaps the main problem that plagues all of COD Vanguard: On their own, the historical war stories are actually somewhat ok... but each character is given only 2(!) short missions to tell their whole backstory - totaling to only half of the full game. They are unable to improve their stories because they were given no time or budget to further flesh them out into full campaigns like in the classic CODs. Instead, the whole other half of the game is dedicated to *an hour-long movie* (not even missions - a _literal f*cking movie!_ ) where all the characters are awkwardly forced into a single overarching Avengers-style story. Why was this done? Because Bobby Kotick didn't want them to make a WW2 game, but rather a *Hero Shooter* set in WW2 in a bid to cash in on Overwatch's formula, while ALSO being a _PREQUEL to the entire Call of Duty franchise!_ ...Which is another bad trend where newer CODs are trying to make everything a Cinematic Universe, and turning COD into an MCU. And yeah... it was very evident with all this going on that Vanguard's production was a total nightmare behind the scenes.
I hate vanguard because of the way they portray the western front. The involvement of colored soldiers is somewhat realistic, but the way the guns in the campaign are is monstrously unrealistic.
I never noticed the STG-44S at Stalingrad but I did remember thinking a Soviet anti-tank rifle an odd choice for a sniper rifle, and I also remember seeing a destroyed Tiger II and was disappointed. Honestly, the WW2 COD games would have been much more entertaining if they were accurate. Like having early war campaigns against Germany showing captured allied tanks, as well as Panzer models I-IV speeding around the place. Place an emphasis on how Bewegungskrieg had worked earlier on, then as time goes on introduce the Tiger, Panther and Tiger II in a tank combat section. You'd have escalation in power for enemy units, but also noting how the enemy armor was easier to hit in another tank combat section but harder to down unless you hit the sides of a Tiger-II and began using YOUR speed as an advantage. Have German squad mobs show up where instead of everyone being a mix of Kar-98ks and MP-40s with some STGs, have squads roll up with mostly Kar-98ks, a submachinegunner, and an MG crew. Grenade spamming made it difficult but how much more interesting would it have been to have more genuine German units that got beefed up as time went on and their MG-34s were upgraded to the 42s? Or noticing how the Germans went from speedy offense to being much more defensive while using heavy hardware to try for breakthroughs? It would almost be like fighting a different kind of army because of the tactics reflecting their changes in hardware as campaigns went on! Maybe even have the Pacific campaign featuring the original Japanese heavy MG that used stripped clips and needed 2 men to carry it, making it impossible for you to use but the trade off being "In multiplayer 2 people can move it around" and "fast reload times if there's a second person standing next to the MG to feed it stripper clips." Hell, introducing that as a feat would be genuinely really cool and would have encouraged teamwork between players as you'd have guys supporting MGs thinking "ok, do I use a semi-auto rifle, an SMG until I can unlock the STG-44 or M2 carbine?" Hell, it would have been neat to have some units using lend-lease weapons on the Eastern front, having STEN guns and M1 Garands or the Carbines before running out of ammo and having to switch? Reflect how "yeah, American lend-lease hardware helped in saving Soviet ammo and even gave us a chance to compare/contrast Western and Soviet weapons, but would be rendered impractical after long firefights because they'd need to import the ammunition from America to the Soviets." Maybe demonstrate the STEN guns quality as being able to use German mags and ammo. I think if they didn't go for what was simply iconic weapons and went with a more realistic approach to hardware and AI tactics, friendly and enemy alike, we'd appreciate the games as art instead of seeing enemy at the gates the game or he first part of saving private Ryan for the hundredth time. We deserve a Smolensk counter-offensive mission from 1941 and the battle of Kursk in 1943. We would have had a blast with Operation Bagration while the Americans/Brits could have done the Pacific, African, Italian and more French campaigns before finishing with the Bulge and even some of the West German cities. Not everything has to the D-Day or Stalingrad.
I enjoy historical games that involve minorities if they make sense in their setting, the issue many have is needless diversity just for the sake of it. Battlefield 5 did this with their norwegian campaign by just inserting a random woman while replacing the actual combatants and british soldiers who did it
@@Traxlar if you see the ending, the commandoes were the ones who stopped the Heavy Water production, not Solveig and her mother. Even though it's fictional, it never replaces them.
The reason that most people hate the way the Stalingrad campaign works is because the narrater says she “brought hope back to the Russian people” as if they hadn’t been fighting before she came.
It's always the black/women in woke politics. When it comes to other ethnicities, Indians also did work in ww2, they kicked Germans out of egypt. English not my language.
Quick correction: When you were talking about the British army you kept refering to them as the "English army". England isn't the only country in the UK: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also constituent countries of the UK with soldiers from each country filling the ranks of the British army
Like less than 1% of WWII soldiers were female. Mostly in the Soviet army but they were sent to the rear guard once they were no longer needed-starting with Ludmyla Pablichenko-The first black Ranger depicted in the game has his own badass story, but the ignorant woke crowd at Activision stole the story of a white officer instead. They wanted to make exception appear as the rule, and that's what enraged most people.
Ok where is your sources? Or did you just make that up, where did you get that they mostly served rear guard? Because based on historical facts, many Soviet women fought until the last moment like the Battle of Berlin. Figures are hard to get due to records being lost, but it is estimated up to 900,000 women served in the Red Army with up to 30% of them dying in combat. Btw you don't care about "wokeness" or whatever the fuck that even means
Even if any of what you said is true, it still doesn't mean that they didn't do their duty to their country when it was at it's darkest times. Pavlichenko and another female tank mechanic/operator named Mariya Oktyabrskaya both got awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union for their efforts during the war. 300 confirmed kills as a sniper is no joke. The way I see it, the game was just trying to honour these people for their efforts, even if it didn't go the way they intended
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 I didn't try to diminish Pavlichenko's exploits. But Pavlichenko was hit by a mortar round in the first siege of Sevastopol and sent to the rear by Stalin himself to train snipers. She was also sent on to a tour to the United States where she met the Roosevelts in 1942. In total, she spent a year in combat. That makes her tally even more impressive, but she was sent to the rear as soon as It was possible for propaganda reasons. On the other hand, Vassily Zaitsev was never sent to the rear guard for publicity stunts and even had to join regular units and participate in frontal assaults armed with a regular Mosin or PPSH. Quite the special treatment there. Out of 34 million people who served in the Soviet Army during WW2, only 800,000 were women. The Soviets had the highest number of women serving in the military. Most of them in rear echelon roles. Only 4,000 managed to serve as snipers, 3,500 died. Another 29,000 served as tankers and some 50,000 in the infantry, aviation and artillert. Again, out of 34 million people. Mind you, I don't mean the Soviet Army was 34 million strong. The Soviet military peaked at 15 million. I count all the replacements for the more than 10 million KIA and another 15 million WIA the Red Army suffered. Rounding the total number of women serving to 100,000, that is one woman serving per 340 men. That's 0.34%. The exception, not the rule. The number of women serving in the US(350,000 out of 16 million) and the UK(640,000 women, out of 23 million) round the total number to less than 1%. In present day, men make 96% of military war casualties and 89% of combat troops worldwide. Regarding black Army Rangers, they could have chosen the story of Milton "Davey" Lockett, a hero in and out of the military. They decided to race swap a white Ranger and call it "history". Not that they couldn't choose between thousands of brave black men who served with distinction, six of them Medal of Honor recipients. They had to change history to suit their narrative. That's what most people complain about. Not to mention poor gaming execution,lousy multiplayer, nonexistent optimization and many other issues the people behind the game tried to hide as "racism" and "male chauvinism". A sign of the time.
I don't know if you happened to play the console exclusive Call of Duty Finest Hour back in 2004. You played as several characters during the campaign, including a female soviet sniper and an african american tanker from the 761 (coloured) tank battalion. In 2004! No stupid controversies and bigotry masked as muh historical accuracy back then (well, not about that particular game). Vanguard was a disappointment exactly because it had such an interesting premise. I was excited to see how the game would have shown the 93rd or the battle of Stalingrad; I can't understand how could they botch it. The potential and some ideas were there...
Sadly, Vanguard's great campaign concept was ruined by Activision's overarching directive to make the game a Hero Shooter instead of a true WW2 game, which explains why the multiplayer is so infamous and why the characters are given outsized influence compared to real life. Vanguard does do a lot wrong, but it really does _not_ deserve the hate over it's diversity characters. It's not like BFV where they blatantly made up falsehoods. (The Tirailures' story is tragic because their pension disputes did lead to an actual uprising and massacre - _and BFV never mentions it,_ instead obfuscating the truth behind ridiculous shit like "erasing blacks from photos.") The characters' backstories were simply never given enough allotted game time to flesh things out.
The console edition of CoD1 - Finest Hour - features a segment whereby you play as a female sniper. Tanya Pavlovna, if my memory serves me well (it's been 16 years)
Most of the British Empire Fought in WWII, though most of the Colonials fought campaigns in South Asia and Africa, however I do believe there were some Regiments that were involved in the liberation of Italy, largely of Indian makeup. India Deserves its credit, despite their political turmoil at the time in fight for independence, when it mattered they stepped up to the plate and fought fascism side by side with the British.
But the soviets, Americans or any other Allie’s forces aren’t in vanguard, it’s just “My team” and the nazis aren’t in vanguard either their the “ Enemy team”
Totally agree. I actually kinda wish we could get a game about these real life figures and their deeds. Rather than a poor man's version of Inglorious Bastards
During the italian campaign, as part of the lend lease when brazil joined in order to help the americans, americans got "surprised" when they found out that brazilian squads we're mixed between whites and blacks they fought side by side shared garrissons and generaly had a good relationship with eachother.
@@brandonlu9280 The US only integrated as a direct response to the Battle of the Bulge. Which is why a black soldier joins your group during that period in COD WW2 - though Sledgehammer forgot to explain it, which led to that game getting unfairly slandered too.
@@scaryhobbit211 Unfairly? Besides personally finding the game to be bad, you LITERALLY just gave a wonderful example of WHY they got criticized. That's not slander. That's accurate. And they didn't integrate units during the war. They attached them to other units and had them work together as an organizational workaround.
@@brandonlu9280 Jim Crow-era rules and laws. However, the German offensive in the Ardennes caused the US to suffer severe manpower shortages. Which is why they made the decision to end Segregation in the armed forces - it gave them a way to quickly fill those shortages.
Just to throw this in but it would be quite cool to see a pacific war from other perspective other than American, and the European side from other perspective than Soviet, American or British. I am not talking about axis, as that has already been done, but I frankly think it would be neat to play as Polish or Chinese soldiers. Or Czechoslovak in that matter. I can actually very well imagine a sort of "undercover" mission taking place in Czechoslovak city, hiding until the last second before killing a German officer. Would be a different pace from the constant front line or stealth night mission combat. Just hiding during the day in plain sight, acting like a civilian and seeing the terrors that Germans brought to people of colonized countries.
They already did Poland as part of Call of Duty 3. Also, they have in fact tried something similar to what you suggested for a change of pace in other COD titles. It SUCKS. To actually make it interesting requires a completely different gameplay style and control setup to do more than walk from point A to point B and make it interesting.
@@willm5032 tbf battlefield 5 did Norway resistance but it was just one mission and.. Well it's battlefield but regardless it was one of the cooler missions in that game. That and the mission where you play as Germans lol. Tbh I think people are tired always playing WW2 from the perspective of Americans
Since it was never portrayed on a game I would like if they showed the battles in Italy from the FEB(Brazilian Expeditionary Force) perspective. They had brazilians who were descendents from people from various parts of the world all together in one army.
We know women and black people fought in WW2 but we hate vanguard because either they make the real persons character either too important, get facts wrong about them, or don’t even share their actual story. Like there’s no way the soviets would let their best sniper fight with an American pilot, a random British troop, and some other random. It’s not the game being woke it’s it getting the facts wrong making them look bad making the people making the game look woke.
The "Special Forces" crock has less to do with trying to be "woke", and more to do with Activision chickening out from the model of the classic CODs and instead trying to force the campaign into being a prequel for the entire COD franchise. Activision wants COD to be more like the MCU, and it just doesn't work at all.
I think most people are guarded by any changes in video games like this because in the last decade or so, it has been popular to actively erase “unsavory history”. Most new WWII video games don’t have the bravery to even have the flag of a certain faction depicted in their game revolving around the fighting of said faction. Which is ludicrous. And then you have the Battlefield V debacle where they openly advertised you playing as a female British soldier with a prosthetic arm. (Who could cycle a bolt action rifle flawlessly with said prosthetic arm) Minor historical inaccuracies are understandable, but brazenly obvious ones are just insulting. So I’d say that even when video game companies attempt to base their work off actual historical figures, if it flows with a fairly ubiquitous modern trend that has tried to sell us outright falsehoods in the past, I’m not surprised when people respond this way.
BFV may very well have broken the entire WW2 genre. It's because of EA and DICE that everyone now hyperventilates over historical accuracy - to the point where games like Vanguard that take a more modest approach to telling the stories of women and other races in WW2 get torn to shreds over _everything,_ from the presence of said groups all the way down to minor weapons details. Society just can't handle World War 2 media anymore.
Brilliant video and very well done explained. It's always interesting to know about these forgotten soldiers who suffered the war. Vanguard's multiplayer may not be the best historical experience at all, but it's cool to see real people depicted in game's stories You're great, mate 👍
I think a majority of people didn’t hate on the fact that there were black soldiers and female soldiers in vanguard and other games like BF1 and BF5 but how they were portrayed historically inaccurate in Vanguard and other games. When making a WW2 game a great majority of people care that the games are somewhat historically accurate as to be respectful to those who lost their lives fighting for freedom. Now in terms of a multiplayer if the game is striving for realism I’m obviously not going to expect tons of woman and black soldiers fighting in Northern Africa during WW2. But if it’s a multiplayer arcade shooter like cod I could care less. It’s just unfortunate that game devs in more recent years have represented diversity in WW2 games more historically inaccurate. Whilst in the past games like Finest hour represented multiple races and genders in a historically accurate matter. I think this comes down to devs being lazy whilst trying to pander to the small group that will most likely not play the game that freaks out when there isn’t enough diversity in a game.
One of my earliest fond memories of Call of Duty was playing Finest Hour as an 11 year old and going "what, a nearly all black tank battalion? that's neat!" and learning more about the 761st (The interviews of veterans of that unit that game showed was also a great touch.) I hope one day someone will make games that show the Burma front from the perspective of a Indian or West African soldier as that is one of the largest fronts of the war and to my knowledge the only time it's been in a FPS game was in Medal of Honor Rising Sun which was garbage. I don't like Vanguard's depiction of women and American/British minorities (at least minorities in the British islands.) because it turned them into larger than life spec ops, which is a problem I have had with CoD for years and years and years. The franchise started mostly as down to earth depictions of soldiers but over time it turned to sloppily written quasi marvel garbage.
It wasn't a world war then. It only became part of the wider war in 1941 when Tojo leveraged on European preoccupation with itself to strike south and secure resources that would have sustained both Japan itself and Tojo's war effort in China. So in a sense the war still began in Europe on 1 September 1939
I'd honestly love a CoD or Battlefield game that takes place from the perspective of under-represented Eastern nations. Like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc.
@@elmosanchez And I believe does outcry exist because the king city is overexaggerate, overrepresent or get the timeline wrong. One thing is telling their story , the other is trying to make a Michael Bay extravaganza about their actions in the war.
@@elmosanchezthere's a bootleg medal of honor/ cod clone called land of war that takes place during the invasion of poland where you play as a soldier in the polish army, too bad it sucks tho.
_Finally!_ An actual nuanced analysis of COD Vanguard. I highly dispise the diversity-washing that has been going on in media for the last several years, but at the same time I've felt like I've been on an island in saying that COD Vanguard's focus on female soldiers and other races is _not as bad as people make it out to be._ A lot of the haters over this game are even going as far as lying about real-life units themselves, which I find extremely disturbing. It's every bit as bad as those who abuse diversity to trash whites. Meanwhile, most of the other inaccuracies are your typical COD/Medal of Honor stuff of taking creative liberties in order to hype up gameplay. You know... that kind of Reddit-tier garbage. I've played games that people absolutely worship that are way worse in this regard. Though, it's made worse in Vanguard because of Activision skimping on the classic COD historical focus, and trying to turn the game into this Frankenstein's Monster-esque Hero Shooter prequel to both Modern Warfare _and_ Black Ops.
1:19 I don’t understand this argument. Just because some people care about the accuracy of the multiplayer it doesn’t mean that they have to argue about the accuracy of certain weapons for certain maps. Yea it will bother some to see an STG 44 in Stalingrad or whatever example you were making but that is not the main thing they take offence to. The main thing they take offence to are the developers intentionally avoiding keeping an accurate aesthetic for a WW2 setting in favor of making totally inaccurate cosmetic choices just to sell skins on their digital storefront. And the reason why this is what they take the most offence to instead of the other is because they know that extensive player uniform customisation is totally unnecessary for a FPS game especially one of a historical setting like WW2, whereas giving players numerous choices to customise their weapon loadout is fundamental to a Call Of Duty game and the FPS genre as a whole. I know COD Vanguard isn’t a great example for this since sledgehammer never made any intention to make it even remotely accurate what with the hero shooter specialists and the cursed weapon workbench, but my point still stands when applying it to other games in similar situations like COD WW2 and Battlefield V.
The multiplayer is the root cause of why Vanguard turned out the way it did. Everyone is missing the point - They didn't design these characters to be _woke,_ they designed these characters to _sell microtransactions._ It's why characters like the female Russian get more credit for the events in Stalingrad than she deserves: it's because the game is desperately trying to sell her multiplayer character to you. It didn't work. Even the production itself was a complete mess.
Exactly of course there are gonna be some outliers who are either straight up racist or sexist or just don’t know history. But a majority of people felt the way you described it. I even wrote the same thing before finding this comment.
Yeah, Stalin let women join the fight, not out of any progressiveism but instead for more cannon fodder. No one’s mad because of female soldiers. It’s because the character you play as being yet another “strong female character”, who instead of being medical personnel, she wants to kill because medical personnel aren’t too important in war(hard sarcasm). She’s gotta break the glass ceiling. It’s supposed to be accurate representation of WW2 right? So why is your character the sole reason behind Soviet morale? Not because of Stalin’s speech as the Germans approached Moscow, not his “Not one step backward” policy, No it’s Strong female Character 212! In the Pacific campaign, one of the black characters references Jesse Owens and of fucking course, the white guy has to say, “WhO’s JeSsE oWeNs?” Which is utter bullshit because even the fucking Germans knew who fucking Jesse Owens was. That’s like someone not knowing who Usain Bolt is today. These writers obviously had an agenda to push, and you all shouldn’t fall for it. They did the same kind of shit in Battlefield 5’s campaign where the French colonial African forces were just shit on by the French, but in reality, France was always very proud of their colonial forces. Historically, black people went to France because they were treated better there than in the rest of Europe at the time. These games have an obvious agenda to push, don’t fall for it!
Polina's character is supposed to pay homage to the Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a real life soviet sniper who was credited with 300 confirmed kills. While it is plausible that women would've meant them as cannon fodder, a female russian sniper would've definitely been a propaganda machine for the USSR. This was also during the time when snipers were being employed more and more by russians on the eastern front. Soldiers like Vasily Zaitsev and even Pavlichenko had the ability to cause chaos among the ranks, killing off top officers and medics ( another reason why German medics never wore their red cross on the field in the eastern front). Maybe the game was poor in the way it implemented characters, but to say such snipers weren't considered valuable both in war and propaganda is a reach.
Polina's character is supposed to pay homage to the Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a real life soviet sniper who was credited with 300 confirmed kills. While it is plausible that women would've meant them as cannon fodder, a female russian sniper would've definitely been a propaganda machine for the USSR. This was also during the time when snipers were being employed more and more by russians on the eastern front. Soldiers like Vasily Zaitsev and even Pavlichenko had the ability to cause chaos among the ranks, killing off top officers and medics ( another reason why German medics never wore their red cross on the field in the eastern front). Maybe the game was poor in the way it implemented characters, but to say such snipers weren't considered valuable both in war and propaganda is a reach.
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 I didn't mean to say snipers weren't important in war, i should've been more clear in what I meant. I mean that she's gruff, domineering, and other "toxic masculine" traits that modern writers like to give female characters nowadays. Also her in campaign ending, she just devolves into Rambo basically, sprinting holding an MG42 with one hand lol. And the way the game presented the story, it implies that Polina is the sole cause for Soviet morale. And when I say "cannon fodder", I mean more like "Meat for the grinder" or "Kindling for the pyre" like most soldiers were.
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 So the character is supposed to pay homage to the actual sniper while running around doing ridiculously impossible things (her first level would be ridiculous even as a cartoon), being surprisingly non-sniperish much of the time, and supposedly turning the tide of the war single-handedly? Frankly, that comes across as an insult to the actual sniper herself.
@@John-fk2ky I said it was an homage to her, never said that they accurately portrayed Pavlichenko's story. Also, are you really trying to pull the "Realism" card for a cod game? No shit the game is unrealistic. Besides, I don't think the game was trying to imply that she alone changed the war. I feel like they were trying to say how much of a morale boost it was to fight alongside a Russian sniper. Historically, they were known for how much of a menace they were in the eastern front, killing medics and top Wehrmacht officers, and sowing mayhem in the ranks. Additionally, snipers like Lyudmila and even Zaitsev became sources for the USSR wartime propaganda machine. Maybe they were genuinely trying to say this all, but it got lost in translation somewhere.
This is a nice video I did not know about the Black paratrooper was a real guy, thanks for mentioning him at least to a smaller level Activision got it he existed right, I can understand why they do not go full historical because it is COD and they do not go crazy with accuracy, but a little bit would of been better than just using them for the fact that they can say they had a minority in the game. It would not be very hard for them to stick to a more realistic story theme based off of what they did instead of making stuff up and butchering legacies of heroes and actually theme the story off of what they did. It would also be nice if for once they did not stick o the thick nazi bash they usually do and mention many who ought along the Germans, the Italians had there own colonial units and themselves where a crucial part of the war, It is known that the Germans made a Indian SS unit from POW's that had fought in the war. The Japanese also having there own Koreans serve in there army. It would be nice if they referenced these people in history as well to show the full to controversialness of the war and the other things going on in it causing it, such as with axis Indians fighting for a free India. I doubt it will ever go this way as sadly the only reason they mention some of these people I even believe is because of the simple fact that they can say they where a minority and only run with that fact with little regard to history or what these people did on both sides.
The emphasis on the participation of minorities within the major forces highlights the true global scale of the conflict. It's essential to recognize that the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) also embraced diversity within its ranks, a detail often overlooked. The FEB's inclusive approach serves as a powerful reminder that the war effort wasn't limited to any one ethnicity or nationality.
The valiant fight put up by the Indian Army were the only reason why Nazi Germany couldn't invade Great Britain. But the those Brits never acknowledged our crucial role for their country's sovereignty & integrity.
@@InformalPiano3InformalPiano3they're all keys to winning the war to be honest It's not just a 1 nation thing It's teamwork and honestly I find people arguing who did most work are annoying Just like Russia. They think they did everything and yet the only reason they won WW2 was because US can deliver Lend Lease supplies through Alaska
Finally a video that stands in the middle of the whole thing (tbh, the people who are "woke" and those that are against it are both insufferable) Like everyone, the biggest problem had to the execution, plus like Wolfenstein it should have included a "codex" to show these units and people fighting providing it did happen Plus, i wish we could have gotten more POVs like KMT Chinese, Polish and French resistance, Arab Legion, etc.
Didn't happen though and the devs only wanted that BlackRock money. If they cared about minority's or less well known theatres of war they would have done that instead of replacing the real people that fought
@@scaryhobbit211 Instead of using the ACTUAL veterans, they make up people and notably give them roles and situations that frankly aren't accurate to reality. The paratrooper sequence has the player character leading the attack when another officer actually did (so replacing a white officer with a black NCO) and portraying the white leadership among the paratroopers as almost cowardly, needing the black guy to push them into doing their jobs. The Stalingrad sequence treats the female sniper (who's doing stuff that's physically laughable if you're going for even minor realism, especially in the first level) like she single-handedly turned things around, drastically overshadowing a (completely unmentioned) male sniper that trained the real person the character is based off of. The sequence with the 93rd was put a year too early for that division to be in that location (so functionally replacing a white division with a black one). In the Australian sequence the Australians are treated poorly when in real life they (especially the unit depicted in the game) were highly respected and praised by the Brits. Short version: this game makes a mockery of history even though simply letting us play AS or even beside those real life veterans would have been AWESOME, but they had to screw it up in a way that I wouldn't have believed possible if I didn't actually play it.
@@John-fk2ky very good argument Only need to add one thing. The Soviet sniper girl was pure soviet propaganda a huge amount of her k1lls where faked by the soviets.
@@0815Catgus i mean they did the same in cold War , adding the option of being non binnary when at that point of history this 'gender' wasn't invented, worst part being that if you disagree with that option you're an 'bigoted snowflake' since not liking this braindead 'diversity' makes you a snowflake so yeah cod devs only cares about ESG score and BlackRock money
I liked the video. Your video reminds me of a video by Potential History, in which he addressed those who complained about the inaccuracies it the B@ttlefield games. He pointed out that complaining about inaccuracies in video games is foolish since multi-player gameplay necessitates liberties, it cannot reflect the horrific nature of fighting in c0mbat, and it is unrealistic to go back to life 10 seconds after being sh0t at point-blank range. The whole discourse, beyond pointing out the actual history, gets pointless. I wonder if you agree that the whole discourse surrounding the controversial Extra Credits RU-vid video about whether playing N@zi soldiers is problematic (honestly, imo, they only deserve that level of back-lash for their plagiarism of books they do not bother citing) is quite the cherry on that toxic sundae. I was just about to comment about other non-white c0mbat troops, such as Indians, non-white Latinos, Japanese Americans in Italy, but nice you at least referenced them. However, I would like to point out the Maori as a part of the New Zealanders, the Moroccan and Algerians for the Free French (most notably and infamously in Monte Cassino, but Potential History went in depth about them in his vids on Monte Casino), and the Brazilians in Italy being one of the few non-s3gregated militaries. Nice videos and I will check on the video on Iraq since it is rarely discussed.
@@elmosanchez Oh, you are very welcome. I would say that History with Hilbert did some good in-depth videos about the neutral countries Sweden, Spain, Ireland and the minor eventual co-belligerents of Thailand, Iceland (occupied), and Argentina (eventual symbolic ally), so it maybe hard to find other countries.
My problem with Vanguard is not that they show the female sniper and the African soldiers it's how. The game makes it seem like the female sniper won the Battle of Stalingrad singlehandedly and inspired the Red Army to take back the city which is just fucking stupid. The Sidney character only gets one mission dedicated to him and its a terrible portrayal of the Melville Battery action. As for the 93rd I like they are in the game though I wish we could've played as them but Activision and Sledgehammer are idiots at making games since every miss8on in the game are spec ops missions instead of big battles. Plus the dialogue between the 93rd soldiers and the pilot was also fucking stupid and forced. Finest Hour did a better job at showing female Soviet snipers and black soldiers and was way way more subtle than Vanguard and COD WW2.
@@elmosanchezSo long as it doesn’t delve into the “oooh not all Germans were bad! the wehrmacht was clean!” myth. it would be interesting to see how the narrative builds a character that I don’t hate, without absolving them of the guilt of being in he German war machine.
Well while in the multiplayer it is true you are just fighting each other, the backstory they give each operator could have made sense at least, like for example theres a Lesbian German soldier. That said multiplayer should have ditched operators and gone for full customization to avoid doing that whole my team and enemy team thing
The Nazis did hate gay people, and even executed them whenever they saw them. My best guess is that she was there to portray that side of the Nazis. It also makes sense because her cutscene shows signs of her lover having been killed.
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 it's still stupid she'd have joined the wehrmacht in the first place, either for the sexuality she chose or the fact she's a woman
@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 that makes even less sense as the Wehrmacht didn't accept women in roles like that except in very few well connected fanatical and volunteering exceptions. They became slightly more lax when preparing the defense of Berlin but it was mostly the youths that again, were fanatical. And say she somehow got in the army, of all people the one she fell in love with was a Polish resistance member, a movement that was very catholic and conservative and was rooted in a very strong hatred for the two occupiers, in a national and ethnic sense
The vid has nothing to do with the game at all, everyone who is a bit into history knows about the colonial troops or the SS Moslems and Hindus etc. Doesn't change the fact that the game is the most unrealistic woke bs ever. They didn't aim for realism or realistic scenarios they just wanted to pump out another ww2 title with woke extra points, if they really cared they would have shed light one lesser none battles of the war with real "minorities" instead of shoving them everywhere where they don't belong and their for spitting in the face of real people that died in these battles. 40s America was white especially the army As well as Germany Brittan etc. Changing the demographics of history just for bad representation isnt worth it its like making Cleopatra black Oh wait Its like making the romans black Oh wait Its like making European Mythology black Uhmmm-
It’s not the fact that they included women and black men in Vanguard, but how they did it. They changed certain parts to fit the “alternate history story”, which idk if they even stated this. I’m perfectly ok with ww2 being portrayed with women and black people, but actually make it accurate and interesting.
@@niranjanvinayakrishnan5828 Cod has been pretty accurate in the past with obviously changing certain aspects for gameplay purposes but in more recent times they have seemed to care less and less about historical accuracy.
@@Trackman71 even those games praised for its accuracy still get stuff wrong, like regiment names and uniforms that wouldn't see service until years later. Vanguard just seems like a MW2019 plot set in WW2. So it wouldn't be entirely accurate. Also, video games cannot cover expansive history topics as much as documentaries or even movies.
@@Trackman71 I've played most of the big WW2 shooters, and I'll tell you right now: They never really cared that much. They'll use history as a basic framework, but if they need to change some history to build up the gameplay (or in Vanguard's case, to hype up the heroes so that multiplayer can sell microtransactions) they will change it every time. You won't _believe_ how stupid Medal of Honor Airborne gets.
@@scaryhobbit211 Your comment is verbatim. Like said in my comment they changed certain aspects of historical battles for gameplay purposes. I’m also sure Devs back then especially with the older cods did care about the historical stories showed. As war games especially in the 2000s were looked at as “how do we make a game that’s fun but also pays homage to those who fought in these wars” after Cod4 they kinda threw that out the window and stopped caring. Iv also played alot of WW2 games and as a kid loved Medal of Honor Airborne as a kid with limited intelligence on how accurate the games missions were I found it extremely immersive and felt like these battles depicted in the game were realistic. At the end of the day you can’t be completely historical accurate because the game would be really damn boring. But you can try by building the world and making relatable characters. Of course your gonna have super history nerds who need to have everything down to the exact buttons on the German Warmacht uniform down to perfection but sometimes you just gotta say “Fuck off” 🤣
2:39 CoD Finest Hour has you play as a female Soviet sniper... Sadly not many people remember that because it was console only, but still, Finest Hour was the real one that did it first
True but maybe there getting a little two much attention they are brave we all know that but it was such a small percentage of woman fighters that they made no impact on the war. On the front lines that is
Clearly massively overrepresented with the intent to distort history for the sake of political amenity and laziness. This is why less visible demographics aren't portrayed much if at all and this to me sums up the difference between Vanguard's depiction and previous games like CoD 2. CoD 2 portrayal was intentionally more subtle, as to not distract from the overarching setting. Whereas, Vanguard is all about pushing the message in front of audiences; it just so happens to be forced into a wannabe WW2 game.
CoD 2 was the first mainline title to feature female soviet soldiers, but the first time they were in CoD was even earlier, with CoD Finest Hour, which is often overlooked
No, COD vanguard completely misrepresented diversity. Nobody says there was no diversity, but the point of Vanguard to downplay the role of certain groups in WW2 for political reasons. And it’s disgusting. And it’s disgusting to defend that.
I don’t like Vanguard, but to say that the point of Vanguard was to downplay certain groups seems like an exaggeration. It’s a game with a fictional “what if” scenario of some allied bootleg Rainbow 6. Far from fact or even close enough to be mistaken as fact. If it’s not to your liking, just like me, that’s cool. Calling it “disgusting” just seems like a stretch.
@@benkersten1705 no, it doesn't. A good 'what if' game is Wolfenstein. Example: the Stalingrad missions. More then 2 million men died during the battle. Yes, female soldiers and certainly female snipers also made great sacrifices. However, Vanguard attemps to make the victory of Stalingrad a victory solely by a single female sniper. In reality, more then a million Red Army men died during the brutal fighting. It would have been better to make the levels just like the old COD's, and if you REALLY want to have female character as a protaganist you can have her in supporting as a sniper. For example, where Red Army soldiers storm german positions and she snipes AT- and MG-42 crews. Games have certain liberties, yes. However, turning facts to your own political agenda is not respecting history (Ironicly, this is what Nazi-Germany and the Soviet-Union did themselves). Another example where this was not OK was in COD 2019 'the highway of death' controversy. Good COD, but doing such a thing is unacceptable and insulting to all parties involved.
@@robbedoes8619 I get your point and agree with it to an extent. I guess I don’t have as strong of feelings about it. You make a very good point about Stalingrad though. How they credit the achievements and sacrifices of millions to one person. That’s shitty. I just don’t see how it can replace truth.
@@benkersten1705 If you play the older COD Stalingrad missions (1,2 and WaW) you never feel like you're winning the fight alone. those levels emphasize the hugeness of the battle. In Vanguard, they literally narrate how the Nightingale (or whatever her stupid name is) turned the tide. Bruh, it took lives, tactics, strategy and much, much more to decide the winner in Stalingrad. Not only is it historically inaccurate, it is clearly serving some political purpose the devs wanted to push (which become even more obvious if you look up who these devs were). The one thing I kinda like about the Stalingrad level in Vanguard is that it shows Stalingrad BEFORE the war. That is something I think has never been done in any form of media.
1:13 Isn’t she from the Hungarian Uprising in the 50s though? Not saying this to go against your point, I just thought she was from a different conflict.
Vanguard wasnt the only one that had a female soldier as a playable character. True CODheads will remember Tanya the russian Sniper from Call of Duty Finest Hour i think she was the first playable female character in the series.
I think your missing the crux of peoples issue with Vanguard. And that is that the decision to add these groups were solely political. COD has never been about or cared about historical accuracy. Especially with the newer titles being purposely dishonest, such as saying that the Iraq highway of death was actually done by the Russians. Also why don't we see these diverse groups for the germans aswell? Such as german african soldiers or the Arab soldiers. Also I would be extremely skeptical of the soviet sourced female regiment storys.
Thank you sir for mentioning us Indians mostly we're forgotten but our contributions to both world wars was huge heck Churchill was so racist during and after ww2 there was bengal famine which led to Mother Teresa being famous although she's pretty much controversial figure
They covered all the bases and had a flying mission with a woman pilot from the Soviet Union and then had black soldiers from the 8th armored which would be infantry and tanks
Still not as bad as BF5 where you had a Japanese woman with a prosthetic limb fighting on the Western front for the Allies.. Like I get wanting character creation, but Jesus..
That's what I've been trying to tell people. COD Vanguard is nowhere near as bad as BFV - most of the inaccuracies in the campaign were the typical COD changes made to hype up gameplay. (Except for multiplayer, but that's always been a cancer.)
About female snipers? They werent turned fown by the soviet gov. Many passed a special sniper school pre-war and went on to the red ay when the war started.
For the record there WAS women soldiers in the Red Army & U S infantry had Afro-American drivers taking supplies to the troops in the front line....do I seem to be the only person that's heard of the 8 ball express..??? Do your history mate.
(Assuming this was directed at me) Did you even watch the video? I literally talked about all that and more. The video was about what you're talking about
