Kind of a misleading thread since the tweet specified multiplayer and they already have plans to include the French.

It probably has more to do more with the locations they place the multiplayer maps in.

At the end of the day its just going to be a flag on a sleeve and all the weapons will be split between axis and allies anyway, so it won't make much of a difference either way.

@hassun: It really isn't, the fact that Battlefield 1942 is a different game is the point. It's a different game that did the same thing but now it's not ok? The other point is like I said before DICE have said they're looking to focus on more minor/lesser known aspects of WWI so you're whole complaint about "who the major players were" is just ignoring the direction DICE wishes to take their product.

@ivdamke: The difference is that since France was conquered so earlyin the war it makes sense not to include them and the Italians were not as important as Germany and the Japanese. When they are talking about wanting to focus on lesse known aspects of the war they are probably talking about the eastern and southern fronts which are not as well documentet as the western ones. Americas involvment is not lesser known it was just short and not nearly as important as other countries.

Not to be picky, but "Axis" is WW2 grouping of Germany, Italy, Japan and some other supporting states . The non-allied group were called the Central Powers in WW1.

They probably got confused. It was WW2 France didn't fight in :-D

What? It's not like they were important to the war or anything like that. It's not like their nations encompassed the two fronts that personified the war or something.

They should have been in here from the start, this is imo a slap in the face of historical accuracy.

@mmarsu: Good thing they aren't making a historical non-fiction book or a documentary.

They are areas in France that are completely closed off to the public and they digging shells off of the ground to this day. I think last time I read about this the article said that it would take somewhere between 300-700 years to completely clear all the unexploded shells, grenades, and unused ammunition off the soil.

Just give me a second to answer...

Okay, well are they DLC? Is there a later Eastern Campaign with the Russians that might occur with later content. Probably not, but this game has always been bit on the loosey-goosey side of telling the story or having anything remotely factual in their rough-outline of history.

Having played about 10 hrs so far, I can safely say that these complaints - including my own earlier reservations - are functionally kinda moot

Considering that they're already covering a massive amount of territory & combatants (quite well, I might add), and that it's a Battlefield game, what they have chosen to do is pretty well justified

My take is to enjoy BF1 for what it is, not what it's isn't (yet); unless you just really enjoy being outraged at things, in which case I guess here's more fodder for that pointless fire

Guess for the sake of arsenal, the game does not take place in 1914...

They are both coming to the game eventually. Everybody just calm down. Video games are supposed to be fun right? Fun!

America is a metaphor for France.

Uuhhhh wtf??/