i guess they will be googling the names from now on ^^ !

Venix:

i guess they will be googling the names from now on

You'd think with all that stuff they have and such a sensitive topic, they would double-check names or at the very least have somebody google them right.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

You'd think with all that stuff they have and such a sensitive topic, they would double-check names or at the very least have somebody google them right.

Well in that case, how are they supposed to get the free advertising? o_O:D

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

You'd think with all that stuff they have and such a sensitive topic, they would double-check names or at the very least have somebody google them right.

A multi Billion dollar company like EA can not spare the money for something like that they have to reasearch lootbox technology and algorithms to get around the regulations !

I've been happily avoiding EA-published games since 2013. Always glad to add yet another reason to my ever growing list.

They are extremely sorry. They have trouble sleeping at night.

I wish they would put the same degree of attention to all the ahistorical racist sjw nonsense and stupidity in their game as they put to naming. Pathetic and disgusting.

Does anyone actually care? Its not like it was intentional and there are so many people with same names that there even might have been a person with the same name on nazi side.

People are too sensitive. It is just name. There is decent chance that they'll find half dozen of actual German soldiers with same name as those in resistance. My ancestors fought and died on both sides of this conflict. Considering that prior WW1/2 natural migration in Europe was quite high, quite a few people would be surprised what their bloodline did. There was murderer with my name who escaped, I did laugh when colleague told me 😀 There was guy with my name who overdosed. My reaction was rather cynical in terms: "One less idiot with same name as mine." Same goes for Darwin Awards winner of same name who crossed finishing line with 5 per-mil of alcohol.

deusex:

I dont see a big deal. Why everybody keeps apologizing let and right for stupid nonsense.

one cant answer that without going into social and political issues thus steering an off topic debate.

They picked a random German name. It turns out to be the same as a historical subject. No reason to blame EA for choosing it or for changing it when they found out the significance. Stuff happens.

I might dislike EA, but this was obviously an accident. If his backstory were the same, ok, maybe then people would have more of a reason to get upset. However... A lot of games have disclaimers when you first start them up saying something along the lines of "the people and events that occur within this game are meant to be fictitious. Any resemblance to real people and events is unintentional and purely coincidental". Did EA not have such a disclaimer? One other thing to point out: if it was plainly obvious this character was not based on the real person, why care about the name? I'd bet any amount of money there were real cases of pairs of resistance heroes who had the same name. The probability of every single soldier (regardless of where they're from) having a unique name is pretty slim.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

You'd think with all that stuff they have and such a sensitive topic, they would double-check names or at the very least have somebody google them right.

Came here to say the same thing almost verbatim.

Fox2232:

People are too sensitive. It is just name. There is decent chance that they'll find half dozen of actual German soldiers with same name as those in resistance. My ancestors fought and died on both sides of this conflict. Considering that prior WW1/2 natural migration in Europe was quite high, quite a few people would be surprised what their bloodline did. There was murderer with my name who escaped, I did laugh when colleague told me 😀 There was guy with my name who overdosed. My reaction was rather cynical in terms: "One less idiot with same name as mine." Same goes for Darwin Awards winner of same name who crossed finishing line with 5 per-mil of alcohol.

Agreed, I don't much like EA but this is a non-issue. It's not as if they used the man's full name (presuming Germans had middle names at the time?) and likeness. Even if they went that far BFV is miles away from being historically accurate.

Margalus:

What is pathetic and disgusting is the people who see racist sjw nonsense when none exists.

Please don't drag the thread down by attacking other users, there's no need for that.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

You'd think with all that stuff they have and such a sensitive topic, they would double-check names or at the very least have somebody google them right.

Their vision was clouded by dollar signs, it happens.

We are slowly but surely being driven back to the so-called "verbal delict era". That is very much obvious even in games. For example: in War Thunder, World of tanks etc., people using a term "nazi" are threatened with banning. Yeah, I bet some people have reasons for to feel embarrassed by being addressed that way, but this (prohibition) goes against the TRUTH, the FACTS. Fact (hard fact) is that the term was MASSIVELY used during the WW2 by virtually by any and all ally soldiers. So, using the aforementioned term is but a part of the battles' atmosphere which is being "recreated" within the game - arbitrary decision that bans the use of it goes directly against the logic and is (secretly and indirectly) the way of falsifying the history... Same goes for many other things - it is forbidden to question (or/and to deny) the holocaust, for example. Why? Don't we all know that the historical science, just like any other science, is full of "subject to change" topics - there wasn't and isn't ANY topic, from the ice age to nowdays unanimously and is highly dependable on the "human element" who is, alas!, so prone to making mistakes and blunders. What today looks self-understanding tomorrow might look differently. Don't get me wrong: I am 100% certain that millions of Jews, Russians, Poles... died in those conc. camps (one of my cousins ended up there too) - it's just that it is SILLY to impose arbitrary decisions of this kind. Let people freely think, ask, research, try to deny this, try to prove that... Recently, I took a part in some discussion on some forum on the topic of sex. The next thing - some people got HORRIBLY upset because I used the term "homosexuality". "Why?", I asked. Well, because the term is "offensive", the "politically acceptable" term is "gay". "No, it is NOT offensive", I argued, and your "gay" is a bull**it - "gay" means "joyous", "cheerful" etc. It is EUPHEMISM, not a term with an EXACT meaning. Simply, there are people who are sexually attracted to other people of the same gender and there are people who are attracted to people of the opposite gender. Nothing wrong with any of the two, but also nothing wrong with the term...

I want an apology from EA just for existing, 'kay?

DLD:

We are slowly but surely being driven back to the so-called "verbal delict era". That is very much obvious even in games. For example: in War Thunder, World of tanks etc., people using a term "nazi" are threatened with banning. Yeah, I bet some people have reasons for to feel embarrassed by being addressed that way, but this (prohibition) goes against the TRUTH, the FACTS. Fact (hard fact) is that the term was MASSIVELY used during the WW2 by virtually by any and all ally soldiers. So, using the aforementioned term is but a part of the battles' atmosphere which is being "recreated" within the game - arbitrary decision that bans the use of it goes directly against the logic and is (secretly and indirectly) the way of falsifying the history... Same goes for many other things - it is forbidden to question (or/and to deny) the holocaust, for example. Why? Don't we all know that the historical science, just like any other science, is full of "subject to change" topics - there wasn't and isn't ANY topic, from the ice age to nowdays unanimously and is highly dependable on the "human element" who is, alas!, so prone to making mistakes and blunders. What today looks self-understanding tomorrow might look differently. Don't get me wrong: I am 100% certain that millions of Jews, Russians, Poles... died in those conc. camps (one of my cousins ended up there too) - it's just that it is SILLY to impose arbitrary decisions of this kind. Let people freely think, ask, research, try to deny this, try to prove that... Recently, I took a part in some discussion on some forum on the topic of sex. The next thing - some people got HORRIBLY upset because I used the term "homosexuality". "Why?", I asked. Well, because the term is "offensive", the "politically acceptable" term is "gay". "No, it is NOT offensive", I argued, and your "gay" is a bull**it - "gay" means "joyous", "cheerful" etc. It is EUPHEMISM, not a term with an EXACT meaning. Simply, there are people who are sexually attracted to other people of the same gender and there are people who are attracted to people of the opposite gender. Nothing wrong with any of the two, but also nothing wrong with the term...

Can protest on internet, can't protest irl, cause introvert and scared.

DLD:

Same goes for many other things - it is forbidden to question (or/and to deny) the holocaust, for example. Why? Don't we all know that the historical science, just like any other science, is full of "subject to change" topics - there wasn't and isn't ANY topic, from the ice age to nowdays unanimously and is highly dependable on the "human element" who is, alas!, so prone to making mistakes and blunders. What today looks self-understanding tomorrow might look differently. Don't get me wrong: I am 100% certain that millions of Jews, Russians, Poles... died in those conc. camps (one of my cousins ended up there too) - it's just that it is SILLY to impose arbitrary decisions of this kind. Let people freely think, ask, research, try to deny this, try to prove that...

I would argue it's sillier to let people take indisputable evidence and push their own subjective perspective upon others, especially when it's a sensitive subject. The only time it's ok to question/challenge something is when there's room for error. And even then, you shouldn't dispute/dismiss something unless you have enough proof to make such claims. We live in a dangerous world, where people feel so entitled to their opinions that they treat them like fact. So, in the case of genocides, it isn't a matter of opinion; no amount of evidence will change already proven facts to a point where you can call it something different. To make things less political, the same can be said about calling the Earth flat. Greeks from thousands of years ago managed to not only prove it was round, but also knew the circumference within roughly 10% accuracy using imprecise tools, experimental math, and doing their measurements nearly at sea level. So - what does humanity gain when we waste our time and resources debating this? People who deny facts are only hurting human progress. The world needs more inquisitive free thinkers, but, only when something doesn't have enough proof, or is incomplete.

SlamDunk:

@Hilbert Hagedoorn I'd appreciate it if you'd keep politics out of the news feed. Thank you.

There was little or nothing political in the article IMHO. That is until people who are too sensitive about others being too sensitive showed up and got triggered all the way to freethinking the Holocaust.

Venix:

i guess they will be googling the names from now on ^^ !

Google and Wikipedia are tools of mass desinformation...