Reality bites. (As does love.) Which is why video gun games are so cool. You can shoot real guns in a fake war environment and not die — even when you do. How great is that? While the gunnoscenti may argue about video game verisimilitude, I’m down with young master Hickock’s assertion that game play is more important than historical or mechanical accuracy when it comes to guns. Boredom is the real enemy. True?

Recommended For You

9 Responses to Gewehr 98 Infantry from Battlefield 1 vs The Real Gun: Just Though I’d Leave This Here

  1. Getting shot at sucks, also makes one prone to soiling themselves. So it stinks too.

    Shooting at pretend enemies with no risk of return fire-priceless(plus cost of ammo).

    • You are mistaken. In my experience, getting shot at is absolutely fantastic. It is one of the better experiences in life. I highly recommend it. Getting shot, that sucks. Avoid that.
      “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” – Winston Churchill

  2. Even though Battlefield 1 is not 100% accurate in its historical authenticity and firearm authenticity, it is still good enough to introduce thousands of players to a war that happened 100 years ago. Maybe Battlefield will be a driving force to introduce young people to firearms. Games like Medal of Honor helped spark my interest in history and firearms when I was young, now look at me! Guns! Guns! Guns!

  3. I detest BF1 because of its misrepresentation of the available firearms of the time. im pretty much forced to play it since everytime something new comes out, no matter how crapy, everyone flocks to it. BF1 needs a shit load of work to even be an OK game. but thats not how EA does it.

    • What, you mean every one in The Great War *didn’t* have automatics? Especially sub-guns? I. Am. Outraged.

      P.S. Your name is extremely fitting for your rant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *