Battlefield 1 is a realistic combat video game based in World War One, but its depiction of Gallipoli is laughable.
As a fan of first-person shooter video games and a rabid World War One nerd, I feel it is my duty to report on the myriad of the game's historical inaccuracies.
For those unfamiliar with the Battlefield series, it's one of the highest-selling combat franchises in gaming history. The latest release Battlefield 1 dropped only a week ago, and is already on track to become one of the biggest selling games ever.
Battlefield 1's main selling point is its fantastic multi-player mode, where you can join 64 other players around the world online and battle across a raft of maps, from the Suez Canal and the Sinai Desert, to the Italian mountain ranges and the muddy trenches of the Western Front in northern France.
The single player mode is also a polished and realistic combat simulator, and includes perhaps the most famous military campaign in New Zealand history.
Imagine the squeals of delight from gamers across New Zealand and Australia as they first clicked on the Gallipoli game mode for the first time.
As far as I'm aware, the seminal campaign has never appeared in a video game before, so I was bloody excited to taste the Battlefield 1 Gallipoli experience.
Now I'm not sure who wrote or designed Battlefield 1's Gallipoli content, but they need a few basic lessons in what actually happened on the Turkish peninsula in 1915.
Anzacs storm the wrong beach at Gallipoli and in the wrong uniforms. (In game footage)
The game designers decided to stage the April 25 action not at Anzac Cove, but in the British sector of Cape Helles. That's fine by me, but you would expect to play the part of a British soldier in that scenario.
Battlefield 1 unfortunately has the gamer playing as an Australian sniper storming the British beachhead along with other Anzac troops. This irked me - why not then set the action at Anzac Cove?
Apart from the setting the action on the wrong beach, Battlefield 1 also portrays the British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers in the wrong uniforms. They show the soldiers wearing the classic tin helmet which the British army used from the middle of 1916 onwards. The trouble is, the landings at Gallipoli took place in April 1915, over a year before that particular tin helmet was introduced.
How could the game's developers DICE get this so wrong? Did they not look at a few photographs taken at Gallipoli?
The soldiers should have been wearing the classic British soft cap that was commonly used by its soldiers - and those from Australia, New Zealand and Canada - throughout 1915.
Astoundingly, Battlefield 1 does portray soldiers wearing this particular soft cap in other game modes - so why not do so in the Gallipoli portion of the game?
Some of the Ottoman Empire troops (Turks) you fight against are also wearing the wrong uniforms.
Turkish soldiers actually wear German helmets. (In game footage)
Many of them wear the classic German 'coal scuttle' helmet, but these weren’t used at all by Ottoman troops at any time during the war. There were some German officers within the Turkish ranks at Gallipoli, but they wouldn't have been wearing the 'coal scuttle' helmet, because like the British tin helmet, the 'coal scuttle' wasn’t introduced until 1916.
At least Battlefield 1 doesn't portray any tanks at Gallipoli (although I've not finished that particular game mode yet). They can be driven in abundance during the rest of the game, but they travel much faster than they actually did in reality.
The British Mark-1 series of tanks (the first mass-produced tanks ever built in history) clanked along at a maximum speed of five km/h.
In Battlefield 1, they literally jaunt along at about 20 km/h.
Tanks travel at over four times the speed they actually did in reality. (Screen grab)
One thing the game does get right is the use of British tanks by the German forces. Because the Germans didn't build their own tanks until 1918, captured British ones were repainted and used against their makers in late 1917.
However, Battlefield 1 portrays all sides having access to all tanks at all times, regardless of army.
Historical accuracy is ignored here.
I've really enjoyed my time with Battlefield 1 so far (especially the multiplayer mode), but I can't excuse DICE for some basic design flaws, especially in its portrayal of the Gallipoli campaign.
It is just a video game after all, but it could have been so much more.
Newshub.
